Leake County School Board v. Hudson Record

    IN THE

UNITED STATES

COURT of APPEALS
FOR THE

F I F T H  C I R C U I T  

No. 21878

LEAKE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL,

APPELLANTS

VERSUS

DIAN HUDSON, ET AL,
APPELLEES

Appeals from the United States District Court 
for the Southern District of Mississippi, 

Jackson Division

MIMEOGRAPHED RECORD



I N D E X Page
No.

Caption Page 
Complaint
Motion For Preliminary Injunction 
Defendants' Motion To Dismiss Complaint 
Motion To Dismiss Suit, or in Alternative To Remove 

Name of Gweennell McBeth, A Minor by Ruthie 
Nell McBeth, Her Mother and Next Friend 

Order Sustaining Motion To Dismiss 
Order Sustaining Motion To Dismiss As To B. W. Rives 

and I. A. Ferrell 
Order For Citation
Motion For Authority To Take Deposition
Order Authorizing Deposition of Ruthie Nell McBeth
Affidavit of D. C. Ware
Return To The Order of Citation
Amended Order For Citation
Hearing On Plaintiffs Motion For Temporary Injmotion 
Letter Opinion of Judge S. C. Mize 
Order Sustaining Motion To Dismiss 
Notice of Appeal
Order of Court of Appeals Denying Injunctions 

Pending Appeal
Designation of Contents of Record on Appeal 
Judgment
Petition For Stay Of Setting Cause For Hearing On 

Motion For Preliminary Injunction 
Order Enlaring Time To Plead 
Order Staying Hearing 
Preliminary Injmotion Order
Motion For Further Enlargement Of Time To Plead 
Order Further Enlarging Time To Plead 
Order Of Court Of Appeals Denying Petitions For 

Recall Of Mandate
Motion To Supplement Record On Appeal 
Order Directing The Clerk To Remove Transcripts and 

Forward Same To Court Of Appeals 
Answer
Interrogatories
Plaintiffs' Response To Defendants' Objections 

To Interrogatories 
Answer To Interrogatories 
Stipulation 
Opinion 
Judgment
Desegregation Plan
Resolution Of The Leake County School Board 
Plaintiffs' Objections To Desegregation Plans Filed

By Defendant Boards and Motion For Revised Plans 
Transcript Of Testimony 
Notice Of Appeal 
Appeal Bond
Order Tentatively Overruling Objections To 

Desegregation Plan
Designation Of Contents Of Record On Appeal 
Certificate of Service

12
12
15
17

19
20

50
52
55
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
6268
74

90
90
91 
95 
95
97

103
103
105
106
107



MEMORANDUM FOR CLERK, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI, JACKSON DIVISION

LEAKE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL, 

VERSUS
APPELLANTS

DIAN HUDSON, ET AL,
APPELLEES

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS:
Honorable J. E. Smith, P. 0. Box 387 

Carthage, Mississippi
Honorable Joe T. Patterson, Attorney General

New Capitol Building, Jackson, Mississippi 
Honorable Will S. Wells, Assistant Attorney General 

New Capitol Building, Jackson, Mississippi 
Honorable L. Arnold Pyle, Special Counsel for the Court 

13^7 Deposit Guaranty Bank Building 
Jackson, Mississippi

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES:
Honorable Derrick A. Bell, Suite 1790

10 Columbus Circle, New York 19, New York 
Honorable R. Jess Brown, 125f N. Farish Street 

Jackson, Mississippi



(R-l)
IN THE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI 
JACKSON DIVISION

2

DIAN HUDSON, JOAN HUDSON, MARY HUDSON, 
minors, by DOVIE HUDSON, their mother 
and next friend,

and
HERBERT DODSON and PHILLIP DODSON, 
minors, by JIM DODSON, their father 
and next friend,

and
JIMMIE GREER, a minor, by ALICE GREER, 
his mother and next friend,

and
HARRY GREER and McARTHUR GREER and 
GARY KEITH GREER, minors, by HENRINE 
GREER, their mother and next friend,

and
MADISON GRIFFIN, BILLIE GRIFFIN and 
ROBERT J. GRIFFIN, minors, by LESPER 
GRIFFIN, their grandfather and next 
friend,

and
PEGGIE JEAN HUDSON, a minor, by 
JOHNNIE HUDSON, her father and next 
friend,

e x h i b i t . ....
WITNESS
Put W e .  ̂ VllMcBeth___

MAY 11 196$
United States District 
Court
Southern District of 
Mississippi 
WILLIAM A. DAVIS,

Reporter

CIVIL ACTION 
NO. 3382

and
LUCY LEE LEWIS, LILLIE B. LEWIS and 
WILLIE LEE LEWIS, minors, by WILLIE 
EARL LEWIS, their father and next 
friend,

and
GWEENNELL McBETH, a minor, by RUTHEE 
NELL McBETH, her mother and next 
friend,

and
NADINE McKEE, PERCY McKEE and NORMA 
McKEE, minors, by 0. W. McKEE, their 
father and next friend,



3and :
XVIE JAMES OVERSTREET, KENNETH RAY 
OVERSTREET, TIEDA GRACE OVERSTREET : 
and CAROLYN OVERSTREET, minors, by 
JAMES OVERSTREET, their father and : 
next friend,
(R-2) and
ROBERT DODD, a minor, by ESSIE LEE : 
TOWNSEND, his grandmother and next 
friend, :

and
MARGIE SANDERS and DANNY SANDERS, 
minors, by DOCK SANDERS, their 
father and next friend,

and
SHIRLEY GATES and PATRICIA ANN HUGHES 
minors, by MALODIA VXVRETTE, their 
mother and next friend,

Plaintiffs,
vs.

LEAKE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,
D. C. WARE, Chairman, GUY P, PIGG,
N. W. WARD, J. C. TAYLOR,
V. W. REIVES, I. A. FERRELL,
LYSTER MYRICK and J. T. BOSTON LOGAN, 
Superintendent,

Defendants.

C 0 M P L A I N T  
(Filed Mar. 7, 1963)

I
The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to the 

provisions of Title 28, United States Code, Section 1343(3), 
this being a suit in equity, authorized by law, Title 42,
United States Code, Section 1983, to be commenced by any 
citizen of the United States or other person within the 
jurisdiction thereof to redress the deprivation, under color 
of statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of a State, 
of rights, privileges and iramunties secured by the Constitution 
of laws of the United States. The rights, privileges and 
immunities sought to be secured by this action are rights,



privileges and immunities secured by the due process and equal 
protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitu­
tion of the United States, as hereinafter more fully appears.
(R-3) 2.

This is a proceeding for a preliminary and permanent 
injunction enjoining the Leake County Board of Education, its 
members and its Superintendent of Schools, J. T. Boston Logan, 
from continuing their policy, practice, custom and usage of 
operating a dual school system in Leake County, Mississippi 
based wholly on the race and color of the children attending 
schools in said county.

3.
The plaintiffs in this case are Dian Hudson, Joan Hudson, 

Mary Hudson, minors, by Do vie Hudson, their mother and next 
friendj Herbert Dodson and Phillip Dodson, minors, by Jim 
Dodson, their father and next friendj Jimmie Greer, a minor by 
Alice Greer, his mother and next friendj Harry Greer, McArthur 
Greer and Gary K. Greer, minors, by Henrine Greer, their mother 
and next friendj Madison Griffin, Billie Griffin and Robert J. 
Griffin, minors by Lesper Griffin, their grandfather and next 
friendj Peggie Jean Hudson, a minor, by Johnnie Hudson, her 
father and next friendj Lucy Lee Lewis, Lillie B. Lewis and 
Willie Lee Lewis, minors, by Willie Earl Lewis, their father 
and next friendj Gweennell McBeth, minor by Ruthie Nell McBeth, 
her mother and next friendj Nadine McKee, Percy McKee and Norma 
McKee, minors, by 0. W. McKee, their father and next friendj 
Ivie James Overstreet, Kenneth Ray Overstreet, Tilda Grace 
Overstreet, Carolyn Overstreet, minors, by James Overstreet, 
their father and next friendj Robert Dodd, a minor, by Essie



Lee Townsend, his grandmother and next friend; Margie Sanders 
and Danny Sanders, minors, by Dock Sanders, their father and 
next friend and Shirley Gates and Patricia Ann Hughes, minors, 
by Malodia Vivrette, their mother and next friend. Plaintiffs 
are all members of the Negro race and bring this action on their 
own behalf and on behalf of all other Negro children and their 
parents in Leake County who are similarly situated and affected 
by the policy, practice, custom and usage complained of herein. 
Plaintiffs are all citizens of the United States and the State 
of Mississippi, Leake County, Mississippi. The minor plaintiffs 
(R-4) and other minor Negro children similarly situated are 
eligible to attend the public schools of Leake County which are 
under the jurisdiction, management and control of the defendant 
Board, but from which the plaintiffs and all other Negro 
children similarly situated have been segregated because of 
their race pursuant to the policy, practice, custom and usage of 
the defendant Board. The members of the class on behalf of 
whom plaintiffs sue are so numerous as to make it impracticable 
to bring them all individually before this Court, but there are 
common questions of law and fact involved, common grievances 
arising out of common wrongs and common relief is sought for 
each plaintiff and for each member of the class. The plaintiffs 
fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class.

The defendants in this case are the Leake County Board of 
Education, The members of said Board are Guy P. Pigg, N. W.
Hard, J. C. Taylor, V. W. Reives, I. A. Ferrell, Lyster Myrick 
Qnd D. C. Ware. J. T. Boston Logan is the Superintendent of the 
Leake County Schools. The defendant Board maintains and

5



generally supervises the public schools in Leake County, Miss­
issippi, acting pursuant to the direction and authority contain' 
ed in the State’s constitutional provisions and statutes, and 
as such are officers and agents of the State of Mississippi 
enforcing and exercising state laws and policies.

5.
Plaintiffs allege that the defendants, acting under color 

of the authority vested in them by the laws of the State of 
Mississippi, have pursued and are presently following pursuant 
to and under color of state law, a policy, custom, practice and 
usage of operating the public school system of Leake County, 
Mississippi, on a basis that discriminates against plaintiffs 
and other Negroes similarly situated because of race or color, 
to wit:

(a) The defendant Board maintains and operates the 
public schools in Leake County, Mississippi, all of which 
schools are (R-5 ) operated on a completely segregated basis.
No Negro children residing within the County, and eligible to 
attend the public schools have ever been assigned by the Board 
to attend white schools, and in accordance with this policy, 
practice and custom, the plaintiffs are assigned to Negro 
schools located further from their homes than schools limited 
to whites. Teachers, principals and other professional 
personnel are assigned by the defendant Board on the basis of 
race so that Negro teaching personnel are assigned to Negro 
schools and white teaching personnel are assigned to white 
schools. Bus transportation is provided on a racially segregat­
ed basis,and all curricula and extra-curricula activities and 
school programs are conducted on a racially segregated basis.



7
segregated basis. All budgets and other funds appropriated 
and expended by defendants are appropriated and expended by 
defendants are appropriated and expended by defendants 
separately for Negro and white schools.

(b) On February 23, 1962, the adult plaintiffs, 
along with other local Negro citizens, all of whom had waited 
in vain for the defendant Board to operate the public schools 
as required by the United States Supreme Court in Brown v. 
Board, of Education, in 195^, submitted a petition to the Board 
requesting that the minor plaintiffs and all other Negro 
children similarly situated be assigned to the public schools 
without regard to race.

(c) Plaintiffs received no answer from the Board in 
response to their petition, but during the month of March 29, 
1962, Mr. 0. E. Jordens, Principal of the Negro High School of 
Carthage, Mississippi, personally wrote each parent who had 
signed the petition, spoke of the advantages of the segregated 
schools and urged them not to take further action to change 
the system because the white community would react adversely 
to such efforts.

(d) In August 1962, Negro parents including adult
plaintiffs again petitioned the defendant Board to desegregate 
the public schools of Leake County "by terminating the 
practice and policy of assigning students to schools on the 
basis of race___ "
(R-6) (e) To date, plaintiffs have received no reply to
their petition from the defendant Board, but during the nights 
of October 4th and 5th, 1962, the homes of plaintiffs Mr.
James Overstreet and Mrs. Ruthie Nell McBeth and other Negroes



8
were shot Into by parties whose identity local law enforcement 
authorities have failed to ascertain.

6.
The defendants’ policies, practices, customs and usages 

of racial segregation herein detailed show the determined 
policy of the State of Mississippi to maintain racial 
segregation in the public schools, which policy is amply 
reflected in the Constitution and Statutes of the State of 
Mississippi requiring segregation or aiding in the maintenance 
of segregation: Art. 8, §207, Miss. Const., requires 
maintenance of separate schools for white and colored children; 
§3841.3 Miss. Code Annot., authorizes the attorney general to 
represent school officials in suits challenging validity of 
school operation; §4065.3, Miss. Code Annot., entire executive 
branch to prohibit by all lawful means the racial integration 
of public schools and other public facilities; §6220.5 Miss. 
Code Annot., forbids attendance of whites with Negroes in any 
public school of high school level or lower on penalty of fine, 
jail or both; §6334-11 —  forbids enrollment of child in any 
school except that to which assigned or transferred according 
to state statute.

7.
Plaintiffs allege that the policy, custom, practice and 

usage of the defendant Board in requiring the minor plaintiffs 
and other Negro children similarly situated to attend racially 
segregated schools in Leake County violates rights secured to 
plaintiffs and others similarly situated by the equal 
protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment 
to the Constitution of the United States and Title 42, United



9
States Code, Section 1983.

(R-7) Plaintiffs have made every effort, as set forth above, to 
communicate their dissatisfaction with segregated schools to 
the defendant Board but without effecting any change. The 
only result of their efforts has been threats and violence 
from the community. Plaintiffs have not sought to utilize the 
provisions of the state Pupil Assignment Act as adopted in 
1954, Miss. Code Annot., 116334-01 to 6334-07, and submit that 
the exhaustion of remedies provided by this Act would prove 
futile and inadequate, in view of the state policy and the 
policy of the defendants, to provide the relief which 
plaintiffs seek here.

9.
Plaintiffs and each of them and those similarly situated 

have suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable injury 
and harm caused by the acts of the defendant Board herein 
complained of. They have no plain, adequate or complete 
remedy to redress these wrongs other than this suit for 
injunctive relief. Any other remedy would be attended by such 
uncertainties and delays as to deny substantial relief, would 
involve a multiplicity of suits, cause further irreparable 
injury and occasion damage, vexation and inconvenience to the 
plaintiffs and those similarly situated.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Court 
grant the following relief:

1. Advance this cause on the docket and order a speedy 
hearing of plaintiffs1 motion for preliminary injunction which 
is filed simultaneously with the filing of this complaint and

8.



10
grant the relief prayed for therein.

2. Order a speedy trial of the merits of this case.
3. Upon the conclusion of the trial, issue a permanent 

injunction forever restraining and enjoining the defendants, 
the Leake County School Board, its members, employees and 
successors, and the Superintendent of Schools of Leake County, 
his agents, employees and (R-8) successors, and all persons in 
active concert and participation with the defendants from:

(a) continuing to Operate a dual school system in 
Leake County, Mississippi based wholly upon the race and color 
of the children attending school in Leake County;

(b) continuing to assign children to school in Leake 
County on the basis of race and color;

(c) continuing to assign teachers, principals, 
supervisors and other professional school personnel to the 
schools of Leake County on the basis of race and color of the 
personnel to be assigned and the race and color of the children 
attending tha particular school to which the assignment is made

(d) continuing to designate certain schools as Negro 
schools and white schools;

(e) continuing to appropriate funds, approve 
curricula and extra-curricular activities and other school 
programs which are limited on the basis of race or discriminatcay- 
on the basis of race;

(f) continuing to construct schools which are to be 
limited to attendance by one or the other racial group;

(g) making any other distinctions based wholly upon 
race and color in the operation of the public school system 
of Leake County.

**•



11
In the alternative, plaintiffs pray that this Court direct 

defendants to submit a complete plan, within a period of time 
to be determined by this Court, for the reorganization of the 
entire school system of Leake County, Mississippi into a 
unitary non-racial system which shall include a plan for the 
reassignment of all children presently attending the public 
schools of Leake County on a non-racial basis and which will 
provide for the future assignment of children to school on a 
non-racial basis, the assignment of teachers, principals, 
supervisors and other professional school personnel on a 
non-racial basis, the elimination of racial designations as to 
schools, the elimination of all racial designations in the 
budgets, (R-9) appropriations for school expenditures, and 
all plans for the construction of schools, and the elimination 
of racial restrictions on certain curricula and extra­
curricular school activities, and the elimination of any other 
racial distinction in the operation of the school system in 
Leake County which is based wholly upon race and color.

4. Plaintiffs pray that this Court retain jurisdiction 
of this case pending the transition to a unitary non-racial 
system.

5. Plaintiffs pray that this Court will grant them their 
costs herein and grant them such other, further, additional or 
alternative relief as may appear to a court of equity to be 
equitable and just.

/s/ R. JESS BROWN___________
R. Jess Brown 
125? N. Parish Street 
Jackson, Mississippi



12
Jack Greenberg 
Constance Baker Motley 
Derrick A. Bell, Jr.
Suite 1790 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York 19, New York

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

(R-10) MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
(Title Omitted - Filed March 7, 1963)

Plaintiffs, upon the annexed complaint, move this Court 
for a preliminary injunction, pending the final disposition of 
this cause, and as grounds therefor rely upon the allegations 
of their complaint and show the following:

1. Plaintiffs continue to be assigned and forced to 
attend racially segregated schools operated by the defendants 
pursuant to state statutes, policy, practice, custom, and 
usage as set forth in the complaint.

2. Plaintiffs1 constitutional rights are violated by 
such assignment and attendance at racially segregated schools.

3. Plaintiffs have petitioned the defendants in vain to 
initiate desegregation of the public schools in compliance 
with the United States Supreme Court school desegregation 
decision of 1954.

4. Plaintiffs are irreparably harmed by the defendant 
Board's continued failure either to desegregate the public 
schools (R-ll) under its jurisdiction or submit a plan for the 
reorganization of said school system on a unitary nonracial 
basis.



13
VJHHEEFORE, plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Court 

advance this cause on the docket and order a speedy hearing 
of this action according to law and after such hearing:

1. Enter a decree enjoining defendants* their 
agents, employees, successors and all persons in active 
concert and participation with them from operating a 
compulsory biracial school system in Leake County, Mississippi

2. Enter a decree enjoining defendants, their 
agents, employees, successors and all persons in active 
concert and participation with them from continuing to 
maintain a dual scheme or pattern of school zone lines or 
attendance area lines based on race and color;

3. Enter a decree enjoining defendants, their 
agents, employees, successors and all persons in active 
concert and participation with them from assigning pupils 
to schools in Leake County, Mississippi on the basis of the 
race and color of the pupils;

Enter a decree enjoining defendants, their 
agents, employees, successors and all persons in active 
concert and participation with them from assigning teachers, 
principals and other professional school personnel to the 
schools of Leake County, Mississippi on the basis of the race 
and color of the person to be assigned and the race and 
color of the children attending the school to which such 
personnel is to be assigned;

5. Enter a decree enjoining defendants, their 
agents, employees, successors and all persons in active 
concert and participation with them from approving budjets, 
making available funds, approving employment and construction



contracts, and (R-3 2) approving policies, curricula and 
programs which are designed to perpetuate or maintain or 
support compulsory racially segregated schools.

In the alternative, plaintiffs pray that this Court 
enter a decree directing defendants to present a complete 
plan, within a period of time to be determined by this Court, 
for the reorganization of the entire school system of the 
Leake County School Board into a unitary nonracial system 
which shall include a plan for the assignment of children on 
a nonracial basis; the assignment of teachers, principals and 
other professional school personnel on a nonracial basis; the 
drawing of school zone or attendance area lines on a nonracial 
basis; and the elimination of any other discrimination in the 
operation of the school system or in the school curricula 
which is based solely upon race and color. Plaintiffs pray 
that if this Court directs defendants to produce a 
desegregation plan that this Court will retain jurisdiction 
of this case pending court approval and full and complete 
implementation of defendants* plan.

Plaintiffs pray that this Court will allow them their 
costs herein and grant such further, other additional or 
alternative relief as may appear to the Court to be equitable 
and just.

/s/ R. JESS B R O W __________________ ^  ss -QTQX,m

125i N. Parish Street 
Jackson, Mississippi
Jack Greenberg 
Constance Baker Motley 
Derrick A. Bell, Jr.
10 Columbus Circle 
New York 19, New York

14

Attorneys for plaintiffs



15
* * * * * * * * * * *

(R-13 —  NOTICE OP MOTION WHICH IS NOT COPIED HERE. ) 
* * * * * * * * * * *

(R-l4 —  SUMMONS AND MARSHAL' S RETURN WHICH ARE 
NOT COPIED HERE. )
* * * * * * * * * * *

(R-15)
DEFENDANTS* MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT 
(Title' emitted - Plied MarcK"30, 1903)

NOW COME Leake County School Board, also known as the 
Leake County Board of Education, D. C. Ware, Chairman, Guy P. 
Pigg, N. W. Ward, J. C. Taylor and Lester Myrlck, members of 
the said Board, and J. T. Boston Logan, Superintendent of 
Education of Leake County, Mississippi, and also come B. W. 
Rives and I. A. Ferrell, the defendants in the above styled 
and numbered action, by their attorneys, and respectfully 
move the Court to dismiss this action and the complaint filed 
herein, and as grounds therefor assign the following:

(1) The complaint fails to state a claim upon which 
relief can be granted.

(2) None of the plaintiffs has exhausted any of the 
administrative remedies available under Chapter 260 of the 
Mississippi Laws of 1954, Sections 6354-01 to 6334-07, 
inclusive.

(3) None of the plaintiffs has been denied any personal 
rights sought and cannot assert any claim on behalf of others.



(4) The Plaintiffs lack standing to maintain this action 
since they do not allege that they have legally sought and 
^ d e n i e d  any right to which they are entitled.

(5) The plaintiffs cannot represent a class of which 
they are not a part.

(6) The plaintiffs lack standing to seek injunctive 
relief.

(7) This Court is without jurisdiction over the parties 
hereto or the subject matter hereof.

(8) The defendant, B. ¥. Rives, whose name is erroneously 
stated in the complain as V. ¥. Reives", and the defendant,
I. A. Ferrell, were improperly joined as defendants in this 
cause, as neither of them are members of the Leake County Board 
of Education, and were not members of said Board when this 
complaint was filed, and had not been members thereof for a 
considerable length of time prior to the filing of said 
complaint, and neither of them occupy any position which would 
cause them, or either of them, to be necessary or proper 
parties in this cause.

JOE T. PATTERSON, ATTORNEY GENERAL 
N H L  S. WELLS, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL. 
J. E. SMITH, SPECIAL COUNSEL 
H. W. DAVIDSON, SPECIAL COUNSEL,ATTORNEYS 
FOR DEFENDANTS.
BY: /s/ H. ¥. Davidson

OF COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS-----------

(This instrument carries proper notice which is not copied here.)

(r -17 —  Certificate of Service, which is not copied here.)

16

* * * * * * * * * *



17
(r -i8)m o t i o k t o d i s m i s s s u i t, or i n a l t e r n a t i v e to

REMOVE NAME OP GWEENNELL McBETH, A minor by
RUTH3E NELL MCBETH, PIER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND.
(Title Omitted - Piled April 5, 1963)

Comes now Ruthie Nell McBeth, an adult resident of Leake 
County, Mississippi, individually, and as mother, natural 
guardian and next friend of Gweennell McBeth, a minor, and 
moves the Court to dismiss the above styled and numbered cause 
insofar as this plaintiff and her minor child are concerned, or, 
in the alternative, to withdraw her name and the name of her 
minor child as a plaintiff in said suit, and for cause of such 
action would respectfully show unto the Court the following 
matters and facts, to-wit:

1.
The undersigned, while admitting that she signed a 

petition seeking to desegregate the schools of Leake County, 
Mississippi, on or about February 29, 1962, and on or about
^ e ___day of August, 1962, would show that she was advised
that such petition was, in effect, a threat in an attempt to 
have the Harmony Attendance Center re-established in said 
county; that it was not her understanding at that time and is 
not now her understanding or desire to (R-39 ) be a party to 
any suit of the type she has been listed as a plaintiff; that 
at no time in the past has she authorized any group, attorney, 
or organization to the use of her name or that of her minor 
child as a plaintiff in this suit or any of like substance or 
import; the allegation contained in paragraph 5(e) that her 
home was shot into by parties whose identity local law 
enforcement authorities have failed to ascertain is wholly and



18
utterly falser that she lias never been molested in her home 
in any way.

2.

Your petitioner would show that she has no complaint with 

the system of schools being operated by defendants and does not 

know whether same is segregated or unsegregated; her only 

complaint has been that the Harmony Attendance Center should 

have been allowed to remain as an Attendance Center for the 

attendance by students residing in its general area.

Wherefore, your petitioner respectfully prays that the 

Court will enter an order dismissing said suit insofar as it 

concerns the said Ruthie Hell McBeth and/or her minor child, 

Gweennell McBeth, or in the alternative, that the Court order 

their names striken from said suit as parties thereto.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ RUTHIE HELL McBETH
RUTHIE HELL MCBETH,' individually 
and as mother and next friend of 
GWEELIHELL McBETH, a minor child.

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 

LEAKE COUHTY

Personally appeared before me the undersigned authority, 
a Hotary Public in and for said county and state, the within 

named Ruthie Nell McBeth, who being by me first duly sworn, on 

her oath states that she is an adult resident of Leake County, 
Mississippi, that she is the mother and next friend of 

Gweennell McBeth, a minor child, that the matters and statements 
contained in the foregoing motion are true and correct as 

therein stated; that this motion has been made by her freely 

and voluntarily and without any undue influence and that the



19
first she knew that she was a party (R-20) to said suit was 

when she read her name In the paper; that no one has solicited 

her action in filing this motion, but same is done at her 

instance and request; and that all matters contained above 

are true and correct and she is prepared to so testify in 

Court in need be.

/s/ RUTHIE M L  McBETH_________ ___
RUTI-5e TE<ILL McBETH, individually 
and as mother and next friend of 
G W E M E L L  McBETH, a minor child.

Sworn to and subscribed before me this the 23rd day of 
March, A.D., 1963.

/s/ VERNA STRONG_______ (SEAL)______
Notary Public
My Commission expires; 5-10-65 

* * * * * * * * * *

(R-21) ORDER SUSTAINING MOTION TO DISMISS
\Title Omitted - Filed April 5, 1963)

On motion of Ruthie Nell McBeth, as mother and next 

friend of Gweennell McBeth, a minor, that the complaint in 

the above styled cause be dismissed as to her and said minor 

or in the alternative that the names be stricken from the suit 

as parties plaintiff therein and for good cause shorn and 
counsel for plaintiffs having stated in open court that he 

did not desire to op-pose the motion,
It is ordered that the complaint in the above styled and 

numbered cause as to Ruthie Nell McBeth and Gweennell McBeth, 

a minor, be and the same is hereby dismissed and their names 

are ordered stricken from the complaint as plaintiffs therein.



20
ORDERED this the 5th day of April, 1963.

O.B. 1965, P. 265

/s/ S. C. MIZE
"DISTRICT JUDGE

* * * * * * * * *

(R-22) ORDER SUSTAINING MOTION TO DISMISS 
AS TO B. M, RIVES AND I. A. FERRELL.

(T i t i r m t t i d ~ - “ m i d T A p H T  5 , 1 9 oT . T

This day this cause having come on to be heard on 
the motion of the defendants to dismiss the complaint and 
all parties being represented in Court by their respective 
counsel and it appearing from statements made to the Court, 
in open court, by counsel for both plaintiffs and defendants 
that this motion should be taken under advisement by the 
Court and both plaintiffs and defendants permitted to file 
memorandum briefs both in support and in opposition to said 
motion and that, likewise, defendants should be permitted to 
file affidavits in support of their motion and the Court 
being of the opinion that the rights of all parties can best 
be preserved by acceding to such requests so made by all 
parties and that the same would be in aid to the Court,

It is ordered that the defendants are granted 
leave to file with this Court within two weeks from this 
date or until and including April 19, 1963, memorandum 
briefs (R-23) and pertinent affidavit or affidavits 
in support of their motion to dismiss and that the plain­
tiffs shall have two weeks thereafter or until



21
and including May 3* 1963, to file reply briefs thereto, and 
the decision or ruling on defendants motion to dismiss is taken 
under advisement for decision after such briefs and affidavit 
or affidavits have been filed within the time prescribed, with 
the exception, however, that as to Paragraph 8 of defendants 
motion seeking to dismiss as to B. ¥. Rives, erroneously 
stated in the complain as "V. ¥. Reives" and the defendant
I. A. Ferrell.

The motion of defendants to dismiss as to 
B. ¥. Rives and I. A. Ferrell is sustained and the complaint 
as to them is hereby dismissed, it having been stated to the 
Court by counsel for plaintiffs that there was no opposition 
to the motion as to them.

ORDERED this the 5th day of April, 1963.
/s/ S. C. MIZE 

' DISTRICT JESSE

O.B. 1963, Pages 264 & 265

* * * * * * * * * *

(R-24) ORDER FOR CITATION
(Title Omitted - Filed April 6, 1963)

It appearing to the Court that there are probable 
irregularities on the part of counsel in the institution of 
this suit, including serious charges made therein against an 
entire community in this state; the Court of its own motion, 
deems it necessary and proper for the protection of its own 
dignity and integrity and in proper supervision of attorneys



22
as officers of this Court, to inquire into the proprieties of 
counsel involved in such respectsj and is of the opinion that 
a citation should promptly issue, directed to local counsel 
(R. Jess Brown of Jackson, Mississippi) affording him an 
opportunity to show the Court all of the facts and circum­
stances surrounding his employment as counsel by each of the 
Plaintiffs, including (particularly) his employment by 
"Gweennell McBeth, a minor, by Ruthie Nell McBeth, her mother 
and next friend"; and to show the Court the factual foundation 
of paragraph 5(e) of the Complaint, to the effect that "during 
the nights of October 4th and 5th, 1962, the homes of Plain­
tiffs Mr. James Overstreet and Mrs. Ruthie Nell McBeth and 
other negroes (R-25) were show into by parties whose identity 
local law enforcement authorities have failed to ascertain" 
and as to the intended relevancy and pertinency and purpose 
of said charge in this suit.

It is, therefore, so ordered and adjudged by the Court 
that a citation may issue under the hand and seal of the Clerk 
of this Court, directed to said local counsel (R. Jess Brown), 
returnable at Jackson, Mississippi, before this Court on April 
20, 1963, at 9:00 A, I'i. directing him then and there to fully 
disclose and reveal to this Court all of the facts and cir­
cumstances in this case showing his proper employment by each 
of the Plaintiffs in this case, and showing some substantial 
factual basis for the charge contained in paragraph 5(e) 
of the Complaint; or to show cause why he should not be 
adjudged in contempt of this Court for any impropriety or 
impermissable irregularity in such connections, and why he 
should not bepproperly punished therefor as to the Court may



then seem mete and proper; and for such other and further 
orders as may then be deemed proper and necessary In such 
connection.

A  certified copy of this Order may be served on said 
attorney by the United States Marshal or his deputy of this 
District as adequate service of a citation and in lieu of the 
issuance and service of such process therefor.

SO ORDERED this April 6, A. D., 1963.

23

O.B. 1963, P. 271-272
/s/ HAROLD COX

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

* * * * * * * * * *

(R-26 U. S. Marshal1s Return on Order for Citation, which 
is not copied here.)

* * * * * * * * * *

(R-27)
MOTION FOR AUTHORITY TO 

TAKE DEPOSITION
(Title Omitted - Filed April 18, 1963.)

Comes L. Arnold Pyle, Special Counsel for the United 
States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi 
in the matter of the Order for Citation issued to R. Jess 
Brown, local counsel for the petitioners in the above 
entitled Civil Action, and moves the Court for authority to 
take the deposition of Ruthie Nell McBeth, a material witness 
to the proceedings pursuant to said Order for Citation, and 
for grounds of said motion says:



24
That twenty days have not elapsed since the filing of the 

Order for Citation against the said R. Jess Brown on April 6, 
1963j but that in the opinion of the movant, it is necessary 
and proper that the deposition of the said Ruthie Nell McBeth 
be taken in order that her testimony as a material witness in 
this proceeding may be preserved.

This day this cause came on to be heard on motion of L. 
Arnold Pyle, Special Counsel for the Court in the matter of 
the proceedings of an Order for Citation issued by this Court 
to R. Jess Brown, for authority to take the deposition of 
Ruthie Nell McBeth, a material witness, and

It appearing to the Court that said motion is well taken 
and should be sustained,

IT IS, THEREFORE, SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the said L. 
Arnold Pyle, Special Counsel for the Court, be and he is hereby 
authorized to take the deposition of Ruthie Nell McBeth after 
first giving reasonable notice to the said R. Jess Brora of 
the time and place for the taking of the deposition of the 
said Ruthie Nell McBeth pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure.

FOR THE COURT

* * * * * * * * * *

(R-28)
ORDER AUTHORIZING DEPOSITION 

OF RUTHIE K m  McBETH
(Title Omitted - Filed April 18, 1963.)



25
SO ORDERED this, the 18__day of April, A. D., 1963.

/s/ HAROLD COX ___________
“u n i t e d s t a t e s d i s t r i c t jum^T

O.B. 1963. Page 283

* * * * * * * * * *
(R-29 - Notice of Taking Deposition, which is not copied 

here.)

* * * * * * * * * *
(R-30 - Certificate of Service, which is not copied here.) 

* * * * * * * * * *

(R-31) AFFIDAVIT OF D. C. WARE.
(Title Omitted - Piled April 19# 1963.)

THE STATE OP MISSISSIPPI 
COUNTY OP LEAKE

Personally appeared before me, the undersigned authority 
in and for said County and State, D. C. Ware, who, after 
having been duly sworn, makes affidavit as follows:

That affiant is the Chairman of the Board of Education of 
Leake County, Mississippi, and has been a member of said Board 
since July, i960; that all of the public schools of Leake 
County, Mississippi, come under the jurisdiction of said Board 
of Education; that pupils applying for admission to the public 
schools of Leake County are and have continously been, since 
the beginning of the 1954-1955 School session, assigned to 
schools (Attendance Centers), in accordance with the provisions 
of Chapter 260 of the Laws of 1954 as enacted by the Legislature 
of the State of Mississippi.



26
Further, that provison has been made by the Board of 

Education for the transfer, on request, of any student assigned 
to one Attendance Center who desires to transfer to another 
School or Attendance Center.

Affiant further states that all of the minor children
appearing as Plaintiffs in the suit of Dian Hudson, et al Vs.
Leake County School Board, et al, in Civil Action No. 3382,
in the United States District Court of the Southern District
of Mississippi, Jackson Division, with the exception of Peggie are
Jean Hudson,/presently attending the 0. E. Jordan Attendance 
Center, at their own request, or the request of their parents 
or grandparents, as named in said complaint;

That the said Peggie Jean Hudson is presently attending 
the Murphy Attendance Center, at the request of her parent or 
parents;

That none of the plaintiffs have ever requested a trans­
fer (R-32) from the school or attendance center they are 
presently attending to another school or attendance center in 
Leake County, Mississippi.

Affiant further states that none of the Plaintiffs in the 
above styled and numbered cause, have exhausted any of the 
administrative remedies provided for in Chapter 260 of the Laws 
oi 1954 of the State of Mississippi, nor has any one or more 
of them attempted to utilize any of said administrative 
remedies therein provided.

/s/_D. C, WARE
D. CTTiARE

Sworn to and subscribed before me
this 17th day of April, 1963.
(SEAL) /s/ E. A. JORDAN

tUENCEKT CLERK------- -—



27
BY: ___________________ DEPUTY CLERK
%  Commission expires "the 1st Monday 
in January, 19&L

• K - * - * # * # * * *
(R-32A)

APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER FROM ONE ATTENDANCE CENTER TO
ANOTHER OF THE LEAKE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT.

DATE:__________________________
TO: Leake County Schools

_____________________ Attendance Center
_____________ _______ ^Mississippi
As parent or guardian o f __________________________ , a child

who is n o w _____years of age, I hereby request permission for
said child to transfer from the ________________________________
School, where he or she attended school last year, to the
______________________________ Attendance Center of Leake County,
Mississippi for the 196___,196___ , term. Said child will be in
t h e __________ __grade during the coming school term. A
release from the Principal of the school attended last year has 
been obtained and is shown hereon.

My address and the child's address Is:__________ ___________
and my phone number is _____________________ .

SIGNED
PARENT OR GUARDIAN 

RELEASE FROM FORMER SCHOOL
I hereby approve the transfer of the above named student, 

who attended school as above stated during the last term, and 
recommend his or her application for transfer.

__________________________ SCHOOL
DATE_______________________ BY:_____________________ PRINCIPAL

APPROVAL BY SCHOOL TRANSFERRING TO
I hereby approve the transfer of the above named student 

to this Attendance Center.____________________ATTENDANCE CENTER
DATE BY: PRINCIPAL"



28
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing 
Affidavit of D. C. Ware has been this day mailed, postage pre­
paid, to R. Jess Brown, one of the attorneys of record for 
plaintiffs, at 125 1/2 North Parish Street, Jackson,Mississippi.

THIS THE l8th day of April, 1965.
/a/ WILL S. 1-JELLS _______________________

Tol l  s r m i i s ,  a ss i s t a n t1 a t t o r n e y
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, 
ONE OF THE ATTORNEYS OF RECORD FOR 
DEFENDANTS.

* * * * * * * *
(R-34)

RETURN TO THE ORDER OF CITATION 
(Title Omitted - Filed’ April 21571963.)

Now comes R. JESS BROWN, one of counsel for the 
plaintiffs herein, and for return to the citation directed to 
him by this Court on April 6, 1963, says:

1. Respondent is a duly licensed and practicing 
member of the Mississippi Bar and has been for nearly ten years 
and he is a member of the Bar of this Court. During 1961 a 
number of Negro residents of Leake County, Mississippi, consult­
ed Respondent and other counsel for the plaintiffs herein with 
respect to the denial of public educational opportunities to 
Negro children in that county, Counsel advised those persons as 
to the views of counsel with respect to the legal rights of the 
Negro residents (R-35) of Leake County to public education and 
the legal remedies available to secure those rights if the 
wrongful withholding of them continued.

2. In December 1961 a number of Negro residents of 
Leake County, Mississippi, including all of the named plaintiffs 
herein, duly retained Respondent to represent them and their

(K33)



29
children in an effort to desegretate the public school system 
of Leake County, Mississippi. These residents expressly 
authorized Respondent to take any and all steps he deemed 
available to this end, including presentation of petitions to 
the school board or other administrative agencies, and expressly, 
authorized Respondent to proceed in the necessary courts, trial 
and appellate, to obtain desegregation in the public schools of 
Leake County. In addition, these residents of Leake County, 
including all of the named plaintiffs in this proceeding, 
explicitly authorized Respondent to associate any and all other 
attorneys with him that he might deem necessary to represent 
these Leake County citizens in this matter.

3. Thereafter Respondent proceeded in this matter 
wholly and solely on the basis of that authority and in 
accordance with it. Prior to April 5# 1963, none of these 
persons, and no other person, has questioned the authorization 
or authority of Respondent so to proceed.

4. A motion of Mrs. Ruthie Well McBeth, one of the 
named plaintiffs herein, to dismiss this suit in so far as it 
concerns her and her minor child Gweennell or, in the alterna­
tive (R-36) to remove her name as a party plaintiff, was pre­
sented to this Court on April 5, 1963, by counsel for the 
defendants herein. The first notice to Respondent of the 
allegations of the said Mrs. McBeth contained in that motion 
came on that day when the said motion was presented. Neither 
Mrs. McBeth nor any person purporting to represent her appeared 
before this Court at that time but Respondent suggested to the 
Court that the names of Ruthie Nell McBeth and her Minor child 
Gweennell be stricken from the complaint if they so desired



30
without regard to the truth of the allegations on which that 
motion was based. It is Respondents understanding that this 
was accomplished by order of the Court entered on that day. 
Respondent submits that this disposed of the McBeth motion.

5* Neither Respondent nor any of counsel for the 
plaintiffs herein has engaged in any irregularities in the 
Institution of this suit and no competent evidence has been 
introduced in this Court upon which to base a conclusion that 
there are probable irregularities on the part of Respondent or 
any other counsel for the plaintiffs in the institution of this 
suit. Save to the extent that this citation may constitute 
such a charge, there Is not pending before this Court in this 
proceeding, or otherwise, any charge of any irregularity on the 
part of Respondent or any counsel for the plaintiffs in the 
institution of this suit.

6. With respect to the allegations of paragraph 5(e) 
of the complaint Respondent states that no issue of fact with 
(R-37) respect to these allegations has been raised by the 
defendants. To the contrary, the motion of the defendants to 
dismiss the complain in this case admits those allegations.
Under these circumstances Respondent respectfully urges that 
any inquiry by this Court as to this matter is premature but 
there are numerous witnesses to the fact that some person or 
persons did on or about October 4 and 5* 1962, shoot into 
buildings and structures used and occupied by the plaintiffs 
named in paragraph 5(e) of the complaint and other Negro citizens 
of Leake County. So far as Respondent was informed at the time 
of the filing of the complaint, local law enforcement authori­
ties had not ascertained the identity of the persons responsible



for these attacks on Negro residents of Leake County. These 
allegations are deemed by Respondent and other counsel for 
plaintiffs to be relevant to the issue of necessity for prior 
exhaustion of administrative remedies by plaintiffs raised by 
defendants. But defendants have raised no issue as to the 
relevancy of these allegations so that Respondent respectfully 
urges that any inquiry by this Court at this time as to their 
relevancy is premature.

7. Respondent assures the Court that as an officer 
of this Court he shares the Court’s concern for protection of 
its dignity and integrity and for supervision of the members of 
its bar. In this connection Respondent respectfully urges the 
Court to inquire into the relationship, if any, between counsel 
for the defendants and the said Mrs. McBeth, and the communica- 
tions, if (R-38) any, between said counsel and Mrs. McBeth with 
respect to matters concerning the relationship of Respondent as 
a lawyer with the Bald Mrs. McBeth as a client without any 
notice or information to Respondent from either counsel for the 
defendants or Mrs. McBeth.

Wherefore, Respondent respectfully prays the Court to 
discharge the citation heretofore entered by the Court on April 
6, 1963# or in the alternative that Respondent be provided an 
opportunity, In accordance with the Constitution and laws of 
the United States, to due and timely notice of any charges of 
improper conduct on the part of Respondent in the institution 
of this suit, or otherwise, and that, also in accordance with 
the Constitution and laws of the United States, Respondent be 
provided with an opportunity to confront any witnesses who may 
be adduced to support any such charges and to cross-examine any

31



52
such witness on witnesses and for such other and further 
opportunity to defend against any such charge as may be made 
as may be consistent with, and required by, due process of law 
in accordance with the requirements of the Fifth Amendment to 
the Constitution of the United States and the Rules and 
decisions of this Court.

Respectfully submitted,
WILLIAM R. MING, JR.
GEORGE N. LEIGHTON 
123 West Madison Street 
Chicago 2, Illinois
JACK H, YOUNG 
CARSIE A. HALL 
115-| North Parish Street 
Jackson, Mississippi

(R_39 ) BY /s/ JACK H. YOUNG

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 
COUNTY OF HINDS

R. JESS BROWN, says that he is the Respondent to the 
order of citation entered by this Court on April 6, 1963, and 
that he has read the above and foregoing Return to the said 
order and that the allegations and matters contained in said 
Return are true, except that as to those matters alleged to be 
on information and belief Respondent states that said matters 
are stated according to the best information available to him 
and he believes them to be true.

(SEAL)
SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to 
before me this 20th day 
of April A.D., 1963.
/s/ JACK H. YOUNG______

Notary Public
My Commission Expires Sept. 25, 1968

/s/R. JESS BROWN
R. JESS BROWN

* * * * * * * *



(R*40) 33
, AMENDED ORDER FOR CITATION
(TitlFWrfced'~"med April 20, 1963.)

Pursuant to conferences with the respondent and after 
a preliminary hearing this morning, it is the view of the Court 
that the former order herein dated April 6, 1963, be now 
amended to read as follows:

It appearing to the Court that there are probable 
irregularities on the part of counsel in the institution of 
this suit, including serious averments made therein against an 
entire community in this state; the Court of its own motion, 
deems it necessary and proper for the protection of its own 
dignity and integrity and in proper supervision of attorneys 
as officers of this Court, to inquire into the proprieties of 
counsel involved in such respects; and is of the opinion that 
R. Jess Brown of Jackson, Mississippi, should be afforded an 
opportunity to show the Court all of the facts and circum­
stances surrounding his employment as counsel by each of the 
Plaintiffs, including (particularly) his employment by 
"Gweennell McBeth, a minor, by Ruthie Nell McBeth, her mother 
and next friend;l! and to show the Court the factual foundation 
of paragraph 5(e) of the Complaint, to the effect that "during 
the nights of October j}-th and 5th, 19o2, the homes of plain­
tiffs, Mr. James Overstreet (R-^l) and Mrs. Ruthie Nell McBeth 
and other negroes, were shot into by parties whose identity 
local law enforcement authorities have failed to ascertain" 
and as to the intended relevancy and pertinency and purpose 
of said averment in this suit, and that this order and said 
order herein of April 6, 1965 should be treated and considered 
as a charge containing interrogatories to be answered by the 
respondent.



It appearing to the Court that the former order of 
this Court was duly served on the respondent and that no need 
or necessity exists for further process on the respondent, but 
that a certified copy of this amended order shall be mailed by 
the Clerk of this Court to R. Jess Brown, Attorney-at-law, 
125-1/2 North Parish Street, Jackson, Mississippi, as sufficient 
due process herein, and said R. Jess Brown is ordered to appear 
before this Court In the court room at Jackson, Mississippi, at 
9:00 A.M., May 11, 1963, then and there to fully disclose and 
reveal to this Court all of the facts and circumstances in this 
case showing his proper employment by each of the plaintiffs 
(and particularly by Ruthie Nell McBeth and daughter) in this 
case, and showing some substantial factual basis for the 
averment contained in paragraph 5(e) of the complaint; or to 
show cause why he should not be disciplined by this Court for 
any impropriety or impermissible irregularity in such connec­
tions, and why he should not be properly punished therefor as to 
the Court may then seem mete and proper; for such other and 
further orders as may then be deemed proper and necessary in 
such connection.

SO ORDERED, this April 20, A. D., 1965.
/a/ HAROLD COX

O.B. 19 6 3, Pages 293 *  294. UluTKU SMEES D ISlfilM  MSxS
* * * * * * * *

(R-42 - Notice to take Deposition, which is not copied here.)
* * * * * * * *

(R-̂ l-5 - Certificate of Service, which is not copied here.)
* * * * * * * *

(R-^4 - Notice to take Deposition, which is not copied here.)
* * * * * * * *



(H-45 - Certificate of Service, which is not copied here.)
* * * * * * * *

(R-46 - Deposition Subpoena, which is not copied here.)
* * * * * * * *

(r-47) hearing or plaintiffs motion
, FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION 
(Title Omitted^ Piled May 2, 1963. )

APPEARANCES: R. Jess Brown, Jackson, Mississippi;
For the Plaintiffs;

Will S. Wells, Assistant Attorney General,
State of Mississippi, Jackson, Mississippi;

For the Defendants.

BE IT REMEMBERED that on, to-wit, Friday, April 12, 1963, the 
above styled and numbered cause came on for hearing before the 
Honorable William Harold Cox, United States District Judge, 
Southern District of Mississippi, at Jackson, Mississippi, in 
the Jackson Division, on the above motion, when the following 
proceedings were had and entered of record:
BY THE COURT:

This case is Dian Hudson, et al, plaintiffs, v.Leake 
County School Board, et al, defendants, Civil Action Number 
3382, and the appearances you can give them for the (R-48) 
plaintiff, Jess.
BY MR. BROWN:

The appearances for the Plaintiff is, you mean 
including all the counsel?
BY THE COURT:

You might just show yourself at this hearing because 
that's all we are concerned about.
BY MR. BROWN:

35



36
R. Jess Brown appearing for the plaintiff.

He appears here on motion.
BY MR. WELLS:

Will S. Wells, Assistant Attorney General of 
Mississippi, who appears here on behalf of the defendants.
BY THE COURT:

All right, gentlemen, this matter is called up on a 
motion of the plaintiff which was noticed for hearing today on 
an application for a temporary injunction. What says the 
plaintiff?
BY MR. BROWN:

How is that, Your Honor.
BY THE COURT:

What says the plaintiff to this motion, your motion. 
BY MR. BROWN:
(R-Ug) 0n the temporary injunction?
BY THE COURT:

Yes. I am just trying to make a record of what we 
are doing here so anything you have got to state in the record 
you may do it.
BY MR. BROWN:

Could you hold the record off just a minute. For 
the record let me say this I want to be sure, I am not quite 
clear, Judge, to be frank with you, what we were after was 
setting a date, firm date.
BY THE COURT:

In other words you are not here in response to your 
setting of this application this morning for a trial or a

BY THE COURT:



hearing this morning, is that right?
BY MR. BROWN:

That's right, I don't want to tell the Court that I 
am here to try it this morning because I couldn11.
EY THE COURT:

Because you are not ready. You told me that. All 
right, then you are here only seeking to get some firm setting 
for the case for a later date?
BY MR. BROWN:

We are not ready. For a later date.
BY THE COURT:
, . All right, fir. Wells, what do you say to that?
(R-50)
BY MR. WELLS:

If the Court please, in view of the fact that on 
Friday of last week there was presented and argued before Judge 
Sidney Mize, District Judge of this Division, a motion to 
dismiss this suit primarily on the basis that these plaintiffs 
had not exhausted their administrative remedies and in view of 
the fact that an order was entered last Friday by Judge Mize 
without any objection of any parties but more or less by agree­
ment in Open Court that briefs would be filed in support of 
that motion on behalf of the defendants or movants within two 
weeks from last Friday and that the plaintiffs would then have 
two weeks thereafter to file reply briefs and in view further 
that Judge Mize announced from the bench that as soon as he had 
received the briefs from both parties he would give an 
immediate decision on that motion and taking into consideration 
that if the motion is sustained the suit would be dismissed and 
no temporary injunction could lie; further that if there was a

37



38
hearing on this matter and any temporary injunction issued and 
that was followed by an order of Judge Mize sustaining the 
motion to dismiss and dismissing it the temporary injunction 
would then become functus officio. It is my suggestion that 
this matter not be set for hearing until Judge Mize has 
rendered his decision on those motions with the understandings 
of course,that if there was any unusual or unreasonable delay 
in ruling on those motions that the plaintiffs might again 
(R-51) come to this Court and ask for a setting based on that 
unusual delay.
BY THE COURT:

Jess, I haven’t read your complaint very carefully, 
is there any emergent situation set forth in your complaint 
for immediate injunctive relief?
BY MR. BROWN:

Your Honor, I don’t have a copy of the complaint here 
with me at this time.
BY THE COURT:

Is it something apparent on the fact of your complaint 
where you would lose any right or forfeit any sort of position 
or advantage that you may have if you wasn’t given just 
immediate relief something going to happen to you that shouldn't 
happen that the status quo should be maintained about or some­
thing of that kind.
BY MR. BROWN:

I don’t recall the complaint as saying that.
BY THE COURT:

In other words as I understand you are really talking 
about school children, I just suppose this not having read



39
your compalint, they want to attend the next session of school 
beginning in September term, isn’t that what you are concerned 
with?
BY MR. BROWN:

That would be possibly what we would be concerned 
with unless they have summer school and I don’t know about that. 
BY MR. WELLS:

I think I can answer that. This complaint simply 
asks that the entire school system of Leake County be changed 
to provide for integrated schools or in the alternative that 
the Court require the Board of Trustees to submit some plan for 
the integration of the schools. It asks no specific relief 
for any of these plaintiffs about starting school at any 
particular time but is strictly generally asking that injunction 
issue out of this Court requiring them to completely redistrict 
the entire Gounty to integrate all the schools in the county 
and there is nothing in the complaint showing the need of any 
immediate relief or charging any emergency except the general 
conclusion of the pleader that an emergency exists.
BY THE COURT:

Would you disagree with that, Jess?
BY MR. BROWN:

I don't disagree with that.
BY THE COURT:

Well, I won’t entere an order on it, I don’t see the 
necessity for any order being entered on it, I hear your 
respective contentions, I know what you are saying and what you 
want both sides and I don’t think proprieties and efficiency 
(R-53) in the operation of the Court and the proper respect for



the Court would unmistakably dictate that this matter be 
deferred until Judge Mize rendered his decision. If that same 
motion was pending before me to dismiss the suit I don't 
believe anybody would have the audacity to stand and ask me to 
hear an injunction in a case I had under advisement a motion to 
dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and I can't very well under­
stand the same kind of audacity in asking me to do the same 
thing when Judge Mize has got it so as far as I am concerned 
anything Judge Mize has got is just as sacrosanct with me as 
if I had it.
BY MR. BROW:

Yes sir.
BY THE COURT:

-And I certinly wouldn't give the first consideration 
to hearing the matter under any such circumstances unless it 
Involved something that was just so overwhelming and so impell­
ing that propriety would dictate my going into it to keep some 
right from being lost and there is no such thing as that 
involved here and I will pass this matter and I will take it up 
at the earliest opportunity on some Friday which would be one 
of ray motion days next after Judge Mize has rendered his 
decision and of course I have no idea what his decision will be 
but I do expect you as counsel for the plaintiff to keep up 
with that and if he should overrule the motion and I (R-54)
Have jurisdiction I would want to take it up and you to notify 
these parties it would be presented by you on the Friday next 
after he renders his decision. That's about as good as I can do. 
BY fa. BROW:

I might add that as I fore said I didn't come here in 
the nature of insisting on any----

40



4l

I understand you.
BY MR. BROUN:

And ray attitude also was this that it was ray thinking 
that possibly if we heard the motion on the temporary injunc­
tion even though that the motion to dismiss was pending that 
in the event that the motion to dismiss was denied and it was 
deemed by Judge Mize that we were in Court that if simultan­
eously there had been a decision understand so far favorable 
decision to the plaintiff on motion for temporary injunction 
that it might would expedite time. That was the reason why I 
brought it purely for the Court’s consideration; not from the 
standpoint of insisting anyting else other than that.
EY THE COURT:

I understand your position. While I am on record I 
want the record to show that I do think that that citation 
which I issued against you and X am stating this again for the 
record is a citation for criminal contempt and that you have a 
(R-55) right to a jury and I am now offering you a jury and I 
am requesting you to advise me before noon tomorrow, April the 
13th, 1963, as to whether you do or do not want a jury and I 
will give you a jury if you want it. I will order a jury 
picked immediately now if you should be able to tell me that 
you do want one but I will not draw a jury until you advise me 
about whether you do or not want a jury but I want that much 
time because it will take me some time to get a jury picked and 
I like to give them some advance notice because its kind of 
hard to pick up a fellow up particularly on Saturday, I don't 
know what kind of plans he might have you see---

BY THE COURT:



42

Yes sir.
BY THE COURl:

But you notify me before Saturday and I just want the
record to show that I do regard this as a criminal contempt
case and I do think very firmly and steady that a defendant in
a criminal contempt case is entitled to a jury as a matter of
right and the Court has no discretionary power to deny him such
a vested right.
BY MR. BROWN:

Yes sir.
BY THE COURT:
, All right.
(R-56)
BY MR. BROWN:

I presume that that's all.
BY THE COURT:

All right, I won't sign an order but that is ray 
order which is in the record and will give you the same 
protection.
BY MR. BROWN:

Thank you, sir.
BY THE COURT:

All right.
(This concluded this hearing.) * * * * * * * * * * * *

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OP MISSISSIPPI 

JACKSON DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER 3382

DIAN HUDSON, ET AL
V.

BY MR. BROWN:

PLAINTIFFS



43
LEAKE COUMY SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL

COURT REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 
I, william A. Davis, Official Court Reporter in and for 

the United States District Court for the Southern District of 
Mississippi, do hereby certify that the foregoing 10 pages 
contain a true and correct transcript of the proceedings in 
the above styled and numbered cause, on April 12, 1965, before 
the Court, At Jackson, Mississippi, to the best of my skill 
and ability.

Witness my signature this the 1st day of May, 1963.
/s/ WILLIAM A. DAVIS 
Official Court Reporter

(Reporter's Transcript of Hearing held on April 20, 1963 (Page
57 et seq. of record) removed from this file for use in Jess
Brown Matter on appeal, as per memo from Clerk’s office,)'
(R-57) LETTER OPINION OF JUDGE S. C. MIZE 

.’(Filed June 25, 19o3T“

Mrs. Constance Baker Motley 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York 19, New York
Honorable Derrick A. Bell, Jr. 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York 19, New York
Honorable R. Jess Brown 
1252 North Farish Street 
Jackson, Mississippi
Honorable Will S. Wells 
Assistant Attorney General 
Jackson, Mississippi
Honorable Thomas H. Watkins 
P.0. Box 650 
Jackson, Mississippi
Honorable Jack I-I. Young 
115y North Farisli Street 
Jackson, Mississippi

June 24, 1963



Honorable J. E. Smith 
Attorney At Law 
Carthage, Mississippi

Re: Dian Hudson, et al
v. No.3382— Jackson Division

_____Leake County School Board, et al-
Gentlemen:

I had hoped to write a formal opinion in the above 
styled matter, but due to pressure of other litigation and the 
necessity of getting to this particular case as early as 
possible, I was unable to do so, and herewith give you this 
letter opinion on the matter, I have considered the record and 
your briefs carefully and have reached the conclusion that the 
complaint should be dismissed.

According to the affidavit of D, C. Ware, which is 
not denied, he is Chairman of the Board of Education of Leake 
County and that all of the public schools of Leake County come 
under the jurisdiction of the Board; that pupils applying for 
admission to the public schools of Leake County are and have 
been continuously (R-58) since the 1954-1955 school session 
assigned to schools or attendance centers in accordance with 
the provisions of Chapter 260 of the Laws of 1954, and that 
provision has been made by the Board for the transfer of any 
student assigned to one attendance center who desires to trans­
fer to another attendance center, and that none of the plain­
tiffs in this case have ever requested a transfer from the 
school or attendance center to which they are presently 
assigned and where they are attending to any other center; and 
that none of the plaintiffs in the present case have exhausted 
any of the administrative remedies provided for in Chapter 260 
of the Laws of 1954, or in any way attempted to use any of the



45
administrative remedies provided by law.

Chapter 260 of the Laws of 1954 authorizes the Trus­
tees to assign pupils, which is designated as Section 6534-01; 
the sections following designate the consideration in making 
the assignments; the following one provides application for 
review of assignments and hearing thereon, and permits the 
parent, guardian or any other person having custody of the 
child to request a review of any assignment so made. Then 
Section 6334-05 provides appeals to the Circuit Court and for 
jury trial. Section 6334-07 further designates procedure with 
reference to appeals.

The provisions of this law do not compel integration, 
but gives full authority for a child or a parent to request 
assignment to a school of his choice and provides a full and 
adequate remedy to redress any wrong if any occurs. Statutes 
of this type have been upheld repeatedly by the courts. Among 
the first courts to pass on such an Act was the Fourth Circuit 
in Carson v. Board of Education, 227 Fed. (2) 789. They held 
that a suit could not be maintained until the administrative 
remedies had been exhausted, relying upon many authorities 
cited in the opinion and which are referred to herein. In the 
Carson case the Court said:

"The federal courts manifestly cannot operate the 
schools. #***#■* Where the state law provides adequate adminis­
trative procedure for the protection of such rights, the 
federal courts manifestly should not interfere with the opera­
tion of the schools until such administrative procedure has 
been exhausted and the intervention of the federal courts is 
shown to be necessary."



46
See also Covington v. Edwards, 264 Fed. (2) 780.
The filing of a general petition for desegregation of 

the school system cannot take the place of the requirement that 
the Individual plaintiff must exhaust his administrative 
remedies. See Robinson v. Board of Education, District Court 
of Maryland, l4j? Fed. Sup. 48l. See also Parham v. Dove,
Eighth Circuit, 271 Fed. (2) 132; Baron v. O'Sullivan, Third 
Circuit, 258 Fed. (2) 338; Cook v. Davis, Fifth Circuit, 178 
Fed. (2) 595> and the (R-59) authorities therein cited. 
Moreover, in Bush v. Orleans Parish School Board, 242 Fed. (2 ) 
156, the Court pointed out that when the Bush case was decided 
that there was no pupil assignment statute on the books. In the 
Shuttleworth case, 162 Fed. Sup. 372, the Court pointed out 
that the plaintiffs had exhausted their administrative remedies. 
For this reason the complaint in this case should be dismissed 
as prematurely brought, but there are other reasons for which 
it should be and must be dismissed.

From the record in this case it is shown that none of 
the plaintiffs have been denied entrance to any of the Leake 
County schools. Neither of the plaintiffs have sought and been 
denied the right to transfer from one school to another. Before 
one can claim a remedy he must show that he has been denied a 
legal right. The complaint apparently in one complaint attempts 
to desegregate the entire Leake County School System without 
showing that any particular one has been deprived of or denied 
any right and, particularly, no one of the plaintiffs in the 
present case attempt to show that he has been denied a constitu­
tional right. The Fifth Circuit has pointed out definitely 
that before the injunctive process will be given it must appear



47
that the plaintiff himself has been denied a right. See Brown 
v. Board of Trustees, Fifth Circuit, 187 Fed. (2) 20, wherein 
the plaintiff sought to bring a class action without showing 
that plaintiff had been denied individually any constitutional 
right. See also McCabe v. Atchison, T. 00 S. F. Ry. Co., 235 U.
S. 151j Bailey v. Potters, 368 U. S. 346 and 369 U. S. 31.
There are authorities where the constitutional question is 
properly brought into issue by individual pupils or their 
parents making proper efforts to gain attendance at a particu­
lar school, but none that I have been able to find where some­
one who brought the action before he had been denied any con­
stitutional right.

For these reasons I am of the opinion that the com­
plaint must be dismissed. Mr. Wells may draw an order to that 
effect and forward it to me, serving counsel on opposing side 
with copies for any objection as to form. I will wait a 
reasonable time to hear from opposing counsel as to whether or 
not they have any objection as to form of the order submitted.

I am filing a copy of this letter as ray opinion in 
the case, but if I get the time I may write a more formal 
opinion within the next three weeks and make it a part of the 
record.

With best wishes to all of you, I am
Sincerely yours,
/s/ S. C. MIZE____________

S. C. MIZE
U. S. District Judge

* * * * * * * * *



(R-SO)
ORDER SUSTAINING MOTION TO DISMISS 
(Title (Saitted -"'Piled July 5, 1 963. )

48

This action came on for hearing on the motion of 
Defendants to dismiss and the matter having been submitted 
to the Court on Affidavits and Briefs and the Court having 
considered same,is of the opinion that the said motion to 
dismiss should be and the same is hereby sustained.

It is, therefore, ordered and adjudged that this 
action be and the same is hereby dismissed.

ORDERED and ADJUDGED this the 5th day of July, 1963.

/s/ S. C. MIZE
m a  s tates D istrict jCd g e

O.B. 1963, P. 469
* * * * * * * * *

(R-61)
NOTICE OF APPEAL

(Title Omitted - Filed July 15, 1963. )

Notice is hereby given that Dian Hudson, Joan Hudson, 
Mary Hudson, minors, by Dovie Hudson, their mother and next 
friend; Herbert Dodson and Philip Dodson, minors, by Jim 
Dodson, their father and next friend; Jimmie Greer, a minor, 
by Alice Greer, his mother and next friend; Harry Greer, 
McArther Greer, Gary Keith Greer, minors, by Henrine Greer, 
their mother and next friend; Madison Griffin, Billie Griffin, 
Robert J. Griffin, minors, by Smith Griffin, their grandfather 
and next friend; Peggie Jean Hudson, a minor, by Johnnie 
Hudson, her father and next friend; Lucy Lee Lewis, Lillie B. 
Lewis, Willie Lee Lewis, minors, by Willie Earl Lewis, their



49
father and next friend; Nadine McKee, Percy McKee, Norma McKee, 
minors, by 0, W. McKee, their father and next friend; Ivie 
James Overstreet, Kenneth Ray Overstreet, Tilda Grace Over- 
street, Carolyn Overstreet, minors, by James Overstreet, their 
father and next friend; (R-62) Robert Dodd, a minor, by Essie 
Lee Townsend, his grandmother and next friend; Margie Sanders 
and Danny Sanders, minors, by Dock Sanders, their father and 
next friend and Shirley Gates and Patricia Ann Hughes, minors, 
by Malodia Vivrette, their mother and next friend, appeal to 
the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit from this Court's 
order of July 5> 1963 granting defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

/s/ DERRICK A. BELL Jr.__________
R. Jess Brown
1252 N. Farish Street
Jackson, Mississippi
Jack Greenberg 
Constance Baker Motley 
Derrick A. Bell, Jr.
10 Columbus Circle, Suite 1790 
New York 19, New York

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
(This instrument carries proper certificate of service, which 
is not copied here.)

* * * * * * * * *
(Reporter's Transcript of Hearing held on May 11, 1963 (Page 
91 et seq of Record) removed from this file for use in Jess 
Brown Matter on Appeal, as per memo from Clerk’s office.)

* * * * * * * * *
(R-63)

ORDER OF COURT OF APPEALS DENYING 
INJUNCTIONS PENDING APPEAL. 

"(Filed July 23, 1963TT
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR TliE FIFTH CIRCUIT U.S.Court of Appeals----- ----------------- FILED
JUL 22 1963

EDWARD W.WADSWORTH, Clerk



50
NO.

DARRELL KENYATTA EVERS ET AL,
Appellants

VS. Jackson Division
Civil Action No. 5579 

JACKSON MUNICIPAL SEPARATE SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL,
Appellees

DIAN HUDSON, ET AL.
Appellants

VS. Jackson Division
Civil Action No. 5582 

LEAKE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD ET AL,
Appellees

Gilbert R. Mason, Jr. et al,
Appellants

VS. Southern Division
Civil Action 2696 

BILOXI MUNICIPAL SEPARATE SCHOOL 
DISTRICT OP BILOXI, MISSISSIPPI,

Appellees

On Appellants1 motions for injunction pending 
appeal, or, alternatively for expedited hearings

r  July 22 19W)
Before HUTCHESON, CAMERON and BROWN, Circuit Judges.
By the Court:

It is ORDERED that the motions of the appellants for 
injunction pending appeal or, alternatively for expedited 
hearings be, and they are hereby DENIED.

A true copy
Test: EDWARD W. WADSWORTH 

Clerk, U.S.Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit (SEAL)

By G. F. GANBCHEAU________• Deputy
„ , New Orleans,Louisiana JUL 22 196;?O.B. 1965,Page 556 * * * * * * *

(R-64)
DESIGNATION OF CONTENTS OF RECORD ON APPEAL 

(Title Omitted, filed July 26, 1965.)
Appellants, pursuant to Rule 75 of the Federal Rules of



Civil Procedure, designate the following pleadings, orders, 
etc. in the subject case to be contained in the record on 
appeal, which record appellants are preparing in accordance 
with Rule 23(10) of the Fifth Circuit Rules, to include:

1. Complaint
2. Motion for Preliminary Injunction
3. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Complaint
4. Affidavit of D. C. Ware
5. Order of April 5, 1963
6. Letter Opinion of June 24, 1963
7. Order of July 5, 1963
8. Notice of Appeal
9. This Designation* * * * * * *

(R-65) STATEMENT OF POINT TO BE RELIED UPON ON APPEAL
Whether the district court erred in dismissing an action 

seeking to enjoin a policy of racial segregation in public 
schools where administrative remedies under a state pupil 
assignment law were not exhausted by Plaintiffs, but the school 
board was placed on notice by petition that plaintiffs desire 
desegregated educations for themselves and for the class they 
represent.

51

/s/ DERRICK A. BELL, Jr.________
R. Jess Brown
125i N. Farish Street
Jackson, Mississippi
Jack Greenberg 
Constance Baker Motley 
Derrick A. Bell, Jr.
Suite 2030 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York 19, N.Y.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

(This instrument carries proper Certificate of Service, which 
is not copied here.)



(r-66) judgment
(Filed Fed. 14, 1964)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
For the Fifth Circuit

52

October Term., 1965

No. 20825

D. C. Docket No. 5582 Civil 
DIAN HUDSON, ET AL 

versus
Appellants,

LEAKE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL
Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 
Southern District of Mississippi',

Before HUTCHESON and BELL, Circuit Judges and BREWSTER, 
District Judge.

J UDGME N T

This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the 
record from the United States District Court for the Southern 
District of Mississippi, and was argued by counsel;

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, It is now here ordered and 
adjudged by this Court that the judgment of the said District 
Court in this cause be, and the same is hereby, reversed; and 
that this cause be, and it is hereby remanded to the said 
District Court for further proceedings net inconsistent with 
the opinion of this Court.

It Is further ordered and adjudged that the Appellees, 
Leake County School Board, and others, be condemned, in solido, 
to pay the costs of this cause in this Court for which 
execution may be issued out of the said District Court.
Issued as Mandate: FEB 15 1964 February 15, 1964



Court Costs:
Docketing cause, etc....$25.00

53

A true copy
Test: EDWARD W. WADSWORTH 

Clerk, U.S.Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit 
By G. F. GANECHEAU 

Deputy
New Orleans, Louisiana FEB 13 1964
O.B.,1964, Page 89 * * * * * * * *

(SEAL)

(R-67 - 68 - 69 & 70 - OPINION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, which 
is not copied here.) * * * * * * * *
(R-71 - 72 & 73 - Notice of Motion, which is not copied here.)

* * * * * * * *
(R-74) PETITION FOR STAY OF SETTING CAUSE FOR 

HEARING ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY1
____________  INJUNCTION__________
(Title Omitted - Filed "Feb. 2l, 1964)'"
Come the Defendants, and each of them, in the above 

styled cause and petition this Court to stay any setting of 
this cause for hearing on Plaintiffs1 Motion for Preliminary 
Injunction until the United States Court of Appeals for the 
Fifth Circuit has acted on Defendants’ Petition for Recall of 
Mandate of this Court and would respectfully show unto the 
Court the following:

That on February 13, 1964, the United States Court of 
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rendered Its opinion reversing 
the order of this Court dismissing this suit and ordering the 
clerk of said Court of Appeals to issue the mandate of the 
Court "forthwith". That pursuant to the order of said Court 
the mandate of the Court of Appeals was issued to this Court on 
February 13, 1964.
(R-75) Petitioner would further show unto the Court that 
they have filed with the Circuit Court of Appeals a petition 
for recall of Its mandate so as to permit these Defendants to



54
file a petition for rehearing with the Court of Appeals under 
Rule 29 of the Rules of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
That the said Circuit Court of Appeals has not yet acted on 
Defendants petition to recall Its mandate.

Defendants would further show unto the Court that 
should the Court of Appeals sustain their petition to recall 
Its mandate, this Court would have no jurisdiction to try any 
phase of this suit and that, therefore, in order that this 
Court would not do a vain thing, It should proceed no further 
in this cause until the Court of Appeals has acted on 
Defendants’ petition to recall the mandate of said Court.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
JOE T. PATTERSON
ATTORNEY GENERAL
JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI
WILL S. WELLS
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI
J. E. SMITH, SPECIAL COUNSEL
CARTHAGE, MISSISSIPPI
H. W. DAVIDSON, SPECIAL

COUNSEL
CARTHAGE, MISSISSIPPI
BY: /s/ WILL S. WELLS________

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
(R-76 - Certificate of Service, which is not copied here.)

* * * * * *
(R-77) ORDER ENLARGING TIME TO PLEAD

(Title Omitted - Filed' Feb. 2b,' 1964)
On request of the Defendants and for good cause 

shown, it is ordered that the Defendants be, and they are 
hereby granted twenty (20) days additional time, or until and 
including March 16, 1964, within which to plead to or answer 
the complaint in this cause, it appearing that such enlargement



55
of time will not unduly delay a hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion
for Preliminary Injunction.

ORDERED this the 21st day of February, 1964.
/ s / S, C. M I Z E ___________

RETTED STASES DISTRICT JUDGE
O.B.,1964, Page 109

* * * * * * * *
(R-78) order st a y i n g h e a r i n g „ %

(Title Omitted - Filed Feb. 27, 1964)
This day this cause came on to be heard on the 

petition of defendants to stay a setting of this cause on 
motion for preliminary injunction pending action by the Circuit 
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on defendants' petition 
for recall of mandate, and the Court having considered same and 
having been fully advised in the premises, and counsel for 
plaintiffs having stated in open court that plaintiffs have no 
objection to a stay of such hearing for a reasonable time, but 
at some fixed date, and the Court being of the opinion that a 
stay of a hearing of this cause on plaintiffs' motion for 
preliminary injunction until March 4, 1964, is equitable and 
proper and having been advised by plaintiffs' counsel that 
such action was not objectionable,
(R-79) IT IS ORDERED that a hearing on this cause on 
plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction is stayed until 
March 4, 1964, to consider at that time what action this Court 
shall take on said motion for preliminary injunction.

ORDERED this the 27th day of February, 1964.

O.B. 1964, Pages 122 & 125
/s/ S. C. MIZE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
* * * * * *

(R-80 - Civil Subpoena, which is not copied here. )* * * * * *



56
(R-8l - Civil Subpoena, which is not copied here.)* * * * * * *
(R-82) PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Or de r'
(Title Omitted', Piled March 4, 1964)

THIS ACTION came on for hearing on the plaintiffs1 motion 
for a preliminary injunction, and the court having considered 
same is of the opinion that said motion should be sustained.

It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed that, 
until further ordered by this Court, the defendant, Leake 
County School District, and the other individual defendants 
and their agents, servants, employees, successors in office 
and those in concert with them who shall receive notice of 
this order, be and they are hereby temporarily restrained and 
enjoined from requiring segregation of the races in any school 
under their supervision, from and after such time as may be 
necessary to make arrangements for admission of children to 
such schools on a racially non-discriminatory basis with all 
deliberate speed, as required by the Supreme Court in Brown v. 
Board of Education of Topeka,
(R-83) 549 U.S. 294, 75 S.Ct. 753, 99 L.Ed. 1085.

It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that said 
persons be and they are hereby required to submit to this 
Court not later than July 15, 1964, a plan under which the 
said defendants propose to make an immediate start in the 
desegregation of the schools of said school district, which 
plan shall include a statement that the maintenance of 
separate schools for the Negro and white children of said 
school district shall be completely ended with respect to at 
least one grade during the school year commencing September, 
1964, and with respect to at least one additional grade each



57
school year thereafter.

ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED at Jackson, Mississippi, 
this ^th day of March, 1964.

/s/ S. C. MIZE _________
United States'District Judge * * * * * *

(R-84) MOTION FOR FURTHER ENLARGEMENT OF
__________ TIME TO PT.EAD______
(Title Omitted - Filed March 4, 1964)

Come the Defendants, and each of them, in the above 
styled action in this their motion for additional time within 
which to plead to or answer the complaint in this cause, and 
would respectfully show unto the Court the following:

That on February 22, 1964, an order was granted by 
this Court granting twenty (20) days additional time, or until 
and including March 16, 1964, within which to plead to or 
answer the complaint in this cause. That this case has been 
assigned to the undersigned attorney for research and prepara­
tion in preparing a proper responsive pleading] that said 
attorney has been for the past two weeks, and will be for the 
next ten days, engaged in research, preparation, briefing, and 
actually trying several other cases now pending in various 
Federal Courts.

Defendants would show unto the Court that in order 
to properly research and prepare adequate pleadings for an 
adequate defense in this cause, additional time is essential.

Defendants would further show unto the Court that a 
preliminary injunction has been issued in this cause requiring 
the submission to this Court of a plan for the desegregation 
of the public schools of Leake County, not later than July 15, 
1964. Further, that this case has been set for trial on its



merits immediately following the trial of the case of Evers,
Et AL v. Jackson Municipal Separate School District, Et AL, 
which latter case has been set for a trial on its merits for 
May 18, 1964. That, therefore, a reasonable extension of time 
within which to file a responsive pleading in this cause will 
not delay the hearing of this matter, nor will it jeopardize 
any rights of Plaintiffs.

THEREFORE, Defendants request that fifteen (15) days 
additional time, or until and including March 31, 1964, be 
granted within which to plead to or answer the complaint filed 
herein.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this the 4th day of March,
1964.

/s/ WILL S. WELLS 
WILL S. V®IL,~OlE TiP 'THE' COUNSEL 
OF RECORD FOR DEFENDANTS.

(R-86 - Certificate of Service, which is not copied here.)
* * * * * * *

(R-87) ORDER FURTHER ENLARGING TIME TO PLEAD 
(Title’”' Omitted - Filed March 4, 1964.)
On motion of the Defendants and for good cause

shown, it is ordered that the Defendants be, and they are
hereby granted fifteen (15 ) days additional time or until and
including March 31, 1964, within which to plead to or answer
the complaint in this cause, it appearing that such enlargement
of time will not delay a hearing of this cause on its merits.

ORDERED this the 4th day of March, 1964.

58

O.B., 1964, Page 140
/s/ S. C. MIZE

u n i t e d St a t e s d i s tr i ct judge



59
ORDER OF COURT OF APPEALS DENYING PETITIONS FOR 
RECALL OF MANDATE (Filed March 6, 1964)

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

(R-88)

NO. 20824

DARRELL KENYATTA EVERS, El AL.,
Appellants, Jackson 

versus Division
Civil Action

JACKSON MUNICIPAL SEPARATE SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET
No.5379Appellees.

NO. 20825

DIAN HUDSON, ET AL,
Jackson

Appellants,Division
versus Civil Action

No. 5582
LEAKE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL,

Appellees.

No. 20826

GILBERT R. MASON, JR., ET AL.,
Southern

Appellants,Division
versus Civil Action

No. 3696
THE BILOXI MUNICIPAL SEPARATE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF 

BILOXI, MISSISSIPPI, ET AL,
Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the 
Southern District of Mississippi.

Before HUTCHESON and BELL, Circuit Judges, and BREWSTER, 
District Judge

BY THE COURT
IT IS ORDERED that the Petitions of appellees in the



60
above entitled and numbered causes for a recall of the mandate 
be, and the same are hereby DENIED.

(ORIGINAL PILED MARCH 5, 1964)
A true copy

Test: EDWARD W. WADSWORTH 
Clerk, U. S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

By Clara R. James__________________
Deputy

New Orleans, Louisiana MAR 5 1964
A TRUE COPY, I HEREBY CERTIFY. 

LORYCE E. WHARTON, Clerk 
BY: /s/ C. THOMAS

O.B. 1964, Page 148 Deputy Clerk (SEAL)* * * * * * * * *
(R-89 - Civil Subpoena, which is not copied here.)

* * * * * * * * *
(R-90) MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT RECORD ON APPEAL

(Title CSniftia - PiT'bd''Ma^“r jr ^ 6 T * )
Attorneys for R. Jess Brown, the respondent in this

case, move the Court for an order to the Clerk of Court to
forward as a supplement to the record on appeal in the matter
of R. Jess Brown, No. 21224, the transcripts of the hearings
held on April 20, 1963 (pp. 57-84) and May 11, 1963 (pp. 91-
260), and in support of said motion state:

1. On October 28, 1963, the respondent, R. Jess 
Brown, appealed the order of this Court entered October 25, 
1963, and subsequently designated the "Transcript of Hearing 
on Citation for Contempt of R. Jess Brown with all exhibits."

2. At that time, however, transcripts for the first 
two days of said hearing had been sent to the Court of Appeals 
as part of the record in the appeal of the main case seeking 
the desegregation of the Leake County public schools.

3. These transcripts have been returned to this 
Court with the record in the main case, and respondent’s



attorneys desire to have such transcripts reforwarded to the 
Court of Appeals with directions to make them a part of the 
record on appeal in the matter of R. Jess Brown, No. 21224. 
(R-91)

4. Counsel for the Court, the Hon. L. Arnold Pyle, 
has been advised of this motion and offers no objections to the 
granting of same.

WHERETORE: for the foregoing reasons, attorneys for
respondent request that this motion be granted and that the
Clerk of Court be directed to forward to the Fifth Circuit the
transcripts in Case No. 3382 of hearings on April 20, 1963,
(pp. 57-84), and May 11, 1963 (pp. 91-260), with directions
that they be made a supplement to the Record on Appeal in the
Matter of R. Jess Brown, No. 21224.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ JACK H. YOUNG 

Jack H. Young 
Carsie A. Hall 
115f North Farish Street 
Jackson, Mississippi
Jack Greenberg 
Derrick A. Bell, Jr.
10 Columbus Circle 
New York 19, New York

William R. Ming, Jr.
George N. Leighton 
123 West Madison Street 
Chicago 2, Illinois

Attorneys for Respondent
(R-92 - Certificate of Service, which is not copied here.)

* * * * * * * *
(R-93) ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK TO REMOVE TRANSCRIPTS

AND FORWARD SAME TO COURT OF APPEALS_______
 ̂ Omitted - Filed "March 13, 1964)

On respondent1s motion, the Clerk of this Court is

61



62
directed to remove the transcripts of hearing in Civil Action 
No. 5382, dated April 20, 1965 (pp. 57-84, and May 11, 1963 
(pp. 91-260), and forward same to the United States Court of 
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit with directions that said trans­
cripts be made a supplement to the Record on Appeal in the 
Matter of R. Jess Brown, No. 21224.

/a/ HAROLD COX
 ̂ United States district JudgeMarch 13, 1964_______

15ate
(O.B.,1964, Page 160)* * * * * * * *

A N S W E R
Come now the Defendants in the above styled and 

numbered action, by their attorneys, and for answer to the 
Complaint exhibited against them in the above styled and 
numbered action, would show unto the Court the following:

1. The allegations of paragraph 1 of the Complain 
are denied.

2. The Defendants admit that this is a proceeding 
for a preliminary and permanent injunction against the 
Defendants; however, the Defendants deny the conclusions set 
forth in said paragraph to the effect theat the Defendants are 
operating a compulsory biracial school system in Leake County, 
Mississippi, pursuant to their policy, practice, custom, and 
usage.

3. It is admitted that the Plaintiffs are all 
members of the negro race, but Defendants deny that Plaintiffs 
have the right to bring said action on behalf of all other 
negro (R-95) children and their parents in Leake County, Miss­
issippi, and deny that there are other negro children or 
parents in Leake County, Mississippi, for whom or on whose



behalf Plaintiffs are entitled to bring said suit. Defendants 
admit, on information and belief, that Plaintiffs are all 
citizens of the United States and the State of Mississippi, 
residing in Leake County, Mississippi. Defendants admit, on 
information and belief, that all of said minor Plaintiffs are 
eligible to attend the public schools of Leake County, Miss­
issippi. Defendants deny that said minor Plaintiffs have been 
segregated by Defendants pursuant to any policy, practice, 
custom and usage of Defendants of operating a compulsory 
biracial school system, and deny specifically that Defendants 
are operating a compulsory biracial school system. Except 
as herein specifically admitted, the allegations and averments 
of paragraph 3 of the Complaint are denied.

4. The Defendants admit that Guy P. Pigg, N. ¥. Ward, 
J. C. Taylor, Lyster Myrick and D. C. Ware are members of the 
Leake County Board of Education, but deny that V. W. Reives
and I. A. Ferrell are members of said Board or were members of 
said Board when this suit was filed,* that said Board of 
Education maintains and generally supervises the public schools 
in Leake County, Mississippi. Except as herein specifically 
admitted, all allegations and averments of paragraph 4 of the 
Complaint are denied.

5. Defendants deny that they, acting under color of 
the authority vested in them by the Laws of the State of 
Mississippi, have pursued or are presently following pursuant 
to and under color of the State Laws, a policy, (R-96) custom, 
practice and usage of operating the public school system of 
Leake County, Mississippi, on a basis that discriminates 
against the Plaintiffs and other negroes similarly situated



64
because of race or color.

(a) Defendants admit that the Board maintains and 
operates the public school of Leake County, Mississippi, but 
deny that said schools are operated on a compulsory segregated 
basis. They admit that no negro children residing in said 
County and eligible to attend the public school have ever been 
assigned by the Board to attend white schools, but deny that 
such is in accordance with any discriminatory policy, practice 
or custom. They deny that Plaintiffs are arbitrarily assigned 
to negro schools located further from their homes than schools 
limited to whites and would show unto the Court that all of 
the minor Plaintiffs are attending schools at this time not by 
arbitrary assigneent, but upon their own request or the request 
of their parents or guardians. They admit that negro teachers 
and principals are assigned to schools attended exclusively by 
negroes, and that white teachers and principals are assigned 
to schools attended exclusively by white students. They admit 
that bus transportation is provided for all negro pupils 
attending negro schools and likewise are provided for all 
white pupils attending white schools.

(b) Defendants admit that during the month of 
February, 1962 there was received what was purported to be a 
Petition addressed to the Leake County School Board, but 
Defendants deny that said purported Petition was submitted in 
accordance with the established procedure (R-97) applicable to 
all students in the County, and alleged that said purported 
Petition has no legal status whatsoever, and that the action of 
the Defendants in not replying thereto as is alleged in 
paragraph 5 subsection (c), was proper in all respects.



65

(c) Defendants admit on information, that 0. E. 
J°rdens, Principal of a high school at Carthage, Mississippi, 
personally wrote the Plaintiffs' parents who had signed the 
Petition urging them to take no further action to change the 
school system of Leake County, hut they deny that a personal 
letter written by the said 0. E. Jordens was done so under 
their direction, with their consent or that they have any 
responsibility in that regard,

(d) Defendants admit that during the month of August, 
1962 they received what purported to be a Petition addressed 
to the County School Board, but Defendants deny that said 
purported Petition was submitted in accordance with the 
established procedure applicable to all students in the County, 
allege that said purported Petition has no legal status what­
soever and that the action of Defendants in not replying thereto 
was proper in all respects. Except as herein specifically 
admitted, each and every allegation and averment of paragraph
5 of the Complaint is denied.

6. Defendants admit the existence of the Constitu­
tional Provisions and Statutes referred to in paragraph 6, but 
deny that any of them are relevant or germane to the subject 
matter herein. Except as herein specifically admitted, each 
and every allegation and averment of paragrpah 6 of the 
Complaint is denied.

7. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 7 

of the Complaint.
(R-98) 8. Defendants admit that Plaintiffs have not sought
to utilize the provisions of the State Pupil Assignment Act 
as adopted in 1964, Sections 6334-01 to 6334-07 of the



Mississippi Code of 19^2, Recompiled. Defendants deny all 
other allegations and averments of paragraph 8 of the Complaint.

9. Defendants deny all allegations and averments 
set forth in paragraph 9 of the Complaint.

10. Defendants further allege that there are such 
differences and disparities between the ethnic group allegedly 
represented by Plaintiffs and the Caucasian children in the 
County as to form a rational basis for separating such ethnic 
groups in the schools of Leake County, Mississippi.

11. Defendants allege that the establishment and the 
maintenance of separate specially adapted schools granting 
equal opportunity for development of the differing capacities 
and abilities of the children of the two groups is most ad­
vantageous to all.

12. Defendants allege that racial differences are 
factual differences, that neither they nor those represented 
by them in Leake County, Mississippi have ever been a party 
or parties to or represented by counsel in any cause wherein 
an integration decree was entered, and hence they are not 
bound by any decrees heretofore rendered between other parties.

13. If the relief prayed for by the Plaintiffs in 
this case should be granted, the members of both the white 
and negro races will be injured by the operation of a compul­
sory integrated school system in Leake County, Mississippi.
The operation of a compulsory integrated school system in such 
County will run counter to the desires of the great majority 
(R-99) of the people of the aforesaid County and will be 
contrary to the welfare and best interests of members of both

66

races.



67
1^. For this their further answer to the Complaint 

exhibited against them, Defendants would show unto the Court 
that in their operation of the public schools within the 
bounds of Leake County, Mississippi, the Defendants have, to 
the best of their abilities, conducted said schools for the 
best interest of all pupils of the County; that there are no 
attendance areas, as such, within the bounds of the County; and 
that each and every person desiring to attend a public school 
within the County makes application for an assignment to a 
specific school within the County; that full and complete 
opportunity is given to all applicants to request a transfer 
from one school to another and such application receives 
immediate and prompt attention; that none of the minor Plain­
tiffs or their parents have ever objected to any assignment to 
any school in the County, and the Defendants allege that the 
assignments that have been made were and are to the best 
interest of the children and to the operation of the pubic 
schools of the County.

15. Defendants affirmatively allege that the manner 
and method and procedure followed in connection with the 
assignment of applicants to attend the public schools within 
the bounds of Leake County, Mississippi is fair, proper and 
reasonable and is within the power and authority of the 
Defendants in their duty and responsibility for the operation 
of said schools; that necessarily, in the operation of said 
schools, the Defendants are vested with the exercise of 
Judgment and discretion, and that the procedures followed and 
the assignments made are within and ore a legitimate exercise 
(R-100) of such Judgment and discretion.



WHEREFORE, said Defendants respectfully move the 
Court to dissolve the preliminary injunction heretofore 
issued herein and to dismiss this action and the Complaint 
filed herein.

50

J. E. SMITH 
ATTORNEY- AT LAW 
CARTHAGE, MISSISSIPPI
HAROLD W. DAVIDSON 
ATTORNEY- AT LAW 
CARTHAGE, MISSISSIPPI
JOE T. PATTERSON 
ATTORNEY- GENERAL OF THE 

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 
JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI
WILL S. WELLS
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY: GENERAL OF THE 

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 
JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI
3Y: /a/ WILL S. WELLS

(R-101 - Certificate of Service, which is not copied here.}

(R-102)
* * * * * * * *

INTERROGATORIES
(Title Omitted - Filed April 14, 1964)

EXHIBIT. Frl........... ........
WITNESS......................

MAT 21 1964
United States District Court 
Southern District of Mississippi 
DENTON B. JORDAN, Reporter

TO: J. E. Smith, Esq.
Carthage, Mississippi
Harold W. Davison, Esq.
Carthage, Mississippi
Hon. Joe T. Patterson 
Attorney General of the 

State of Mississippi 
Jackson, Mississippi
Will S. Wells, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General of the 
State of Mississippi 
Jackson, Mississippi

Attorneys for Defendants.



69
Plaintiffs request that the defendants Guy Pigg, N. ¥. 

Ward, J. C. Taylor, Lyster Myrick and D, C. Ware answer under 
oath in accordance with Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure, the following interrogatories:

1. List for each public school in the Leake County 
School District;

a. Grades served bj each school;
b. Number of Negro pupils in attendance as of the 

(R-103) beginning of the 1963-64 school year at each
school;

c. Number of white pupils in attendance as of the 
beginning of the 1963-64 school year at each 
school;

d. Number of Negro pupils in attendance as of the 
most recent date for which figures are available 
for each school;

e. Number of white pupils in attendance as of the 
most recent date for which figures are available 
for each school;

f. Number of Negro teachers and other administrative 
or professional personnel employed as of the 
beginning of the 1963-64 school year at each 
school;

g. Number of white teachers and other administrative 
or professional personnel employed as of the 
beginning of the 1963-64 school year at each 
school;

h. The planned pupil capacity of each school;
i. The number of regular classrooms available at



70
each school]

3. The number of teaching stations in use at each 
school, i.t., lunchrooms, libraries, auditoriums, 
corridors, etc. presently being utilized as class­
rooms although intended for other purposes]

k. Number of school buses serving each school, total 
seating capacity of such buses (as to each school) 
and average age of such buses (as to each school).

2. In his affidavit, filed in April 19S3, Superintendent 
D, C. Ware, reported that since 1957* pupils applying for ad­
mission to the public schools of Leake County have been assigned 
to schools (Attendance Centers) in accordance with the provi­
sions (R-104-) of Chapter 260 of the Laws of 195̂ - as enacted by 
the Legislature of the State of Mississippi. In making such 
assignments, what standards are employed to determine the 
assignment of children to a particular public school:

a. When a child enters the school system at the first 
grade level]

b. When a child enters the school system at an upper 
grade level]

c. When a child is promoted from elementary school to 
junior high school]

d. When a child is promoted from junior high school 
to high school]

e. When a child is promoted from elementary school 
to high school]

f. When a child changes residence from one place
within the school district served by defendants
to another place within the district served by 
defendants.



3. "What opportunity do plaintiffs and other students 
have to select the public schools to which they are assigned.

4. If, as indicated (Answer, par. 14), no attendance 
areas are now used to make school assignments, state whether 
school zones, attendance lines or some geographic definition of 
assignment to the public schools have ever been employed by 
defendants and, if so, state when use was discontinued, 
specifically referring to minutes of Board meetings or other 
public records where this can be verified.

5. How, and to what extent, do present assignments differ,
in result, to those previously made in accordance with school
zones or attendance areas?
(R-105)

6. List the differences and disparities between Negro 
and white children in the District which provide the basis for
separating Negro and white groups into separate schools (Answer, 
p. 10).

7. State how the separate schools for Negro and white 
children are specially adapted for the development of the 
differing capacities and abilities of the children. (Answer,
Par. n).

8. State to what extent the present operation of the 
defendants' school system is based on the Board's belief that 
the "operation of a compulsory integrated school system in such 
County will run counter to the desires of the great majority of 
the people of the aforesaid County and will be contrary to the 
welfare and best interest of members of both races." (Answer,
Par. 13).

9. To what extent are school assignments affected by the 
following:

71



72
a. The discipline problem in the schools as well as 

to and from the schools;
b. The relative abilities of pupils;
c. The compatibility of teachers and other members 

of the professional staff to their respective 
assignments;

d. The availability of teachers and other members of 
the professional staff;

e. The welfare of the community as well as the 
welfare of the pupils;

f. The safety of the pupils;
g. All other matters and facts of similar nature 

that should be considered.
10. Attach or state any official announcements or resolu­

tions made or adopted by defendants pertaining to desegregation 
of the (R-106) public schools since the 1954 Supreme Court 
decision.

11. State what, if anything, has been done by the de­
fendants and by each of them in the way of compliance with the 
order of the United States District Court of March 4, 1964, 
including efforts to prepare students, teachers, parents and 
the community for the possible effectuation of such order in 
September 1964.

12. What obstacles, if any, are there which will prevent 
the complete desegregation of the school system under the jur­
isdiction of defendants at the beginning of the 1964-65 school 
year.

13. State with respect to each of the minor plaintiffs 
darned in this suit and presently enrolled in the Leake County



73

schools, the following Information:
a. School and grade to which now assigned;
b. Nearest all-Negro school to residence serving 

plaintiff's grade level;
c. Nearest all-white school to residence serving 

plaintiff's grade level.
14. State any courses, programs or facilities, if any, 

which are available at schools attended by whites only which 
are not available at schools attended by Negroes only.

15. Using latest available figures, state the differen­
tial in the per capita expenditures for Negro and white 
students above the state minimum program.

16. Using latest available figures, state the differen­
tial in scholastic achievement levels between Negro and white 
students in the defendants schools, indicating what tests were 
given to determine achievement, when were suoh tests administ­
ered, and in which schools.

17. List the names of all present members of the Leake
County Board of Education. (R-107)

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that a copy of such answers must be 
served upon the undersigned within fifteen (15 ) days after 
service.
^ted: April 11, 1964 /s/ DERRICK A. BELL. Jr._________

R. Jess'Brown
125! N. Parish Street
Jackson, Mississippi
Jack Greenberg 
Constance Baker Motley 
Derrick A. Bell, Jr.
10 Columbus Circle 
New York 19, New York 
Attorneys for Plaintiffs



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
74

The undersigned, one of counsel for plaintiffs, hereby 
certifies that a copy of the foregoing Interrogatories were
served on the Honorable Joe T. Patterson, Attorney General, 
and Will S. Wells, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, State 
Capitol Building, Jackson, Mississippi, and on J. E. Smith, 
Esq., and Harold W. Davidson, Esq., Carthage, Mississippi, by 
mailing same to the above addresses on April 11, 1964, by 
United States air mail, postage prepaid.

DERRICK A. BELL Jr. 
ounseY for Plaintiffs

# -& ■?<- * * *
(R-108)

PLAINTIFFS* RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS*
OBJECTIONS TO INTERROGATORIES 

(Title Omitted - Filed April 27, 1964)
1. Plaintiffs are in receipt of objections to interroga­

tories No. 10 and No. 11 filed in the Evers case, Civil Action 
N°* 3379 on April 11, 1964, and with respect to said objections 
state to the Court that said interrogatories No. 10 and No. 11 
(R-109) are withdrawn by plaintiffs.

2. Plaintiffs are in receipt of objections to interroga­
tories Nos. 1 1, 12 and 13 filed on April 11, 1964 in the Mason 
case, Civil Action No. 2696, and with respect to said objections 
state to the Court that said interrogatories, Nos. 11, 12 and
13 are withdrawn by plaintiffs.

3. While plaintiffs* counsel have not received similar 
Ejections to the interrogatories filed in the Hudson case,
°tvil Action No. 3382, plaintiffs* withdraw interrogatories 
hs- 10, 11 and 12.

Respectfully submitted,



75

/s/ DERRICK A, BELL, Jr.
RV Jess' Brown
1252 N. Parish Street
Jackson, Mississippi
Jack Young
115|- N. Parish Street 
Jackson, Mississippi
Jack Greenberg 
Constance Baker Motley 
Derrick A. Bell, Jr.,
10 Columbus Circle 
New York 19, New York
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

(This instrument carries proper Certificate of Service which 
is not copied here,) (R-110 Continuation of Certificate of
Service.)

•Sf *  #  *  *  #  #

(R-lll) EXHIBIT,,,. Pr2.......
WITNESS...............

MAY 21 1964
United States District Court 

Southern District of Mississippi 
DENTON B. JORDAN, Reporter

, ANSWER TO INTERROGATORIES 
(Title"l)raitte& ~~PTTed~H5y 9, 1964)

TO: R. Jess Brown
125'! N. Parish Street 
Jackson, Mississippi
Jack Greenberg 
Constance Baker Motley 
Derrick A. Bell, Jr.
10 Columbus Circle 
New York 19, New York

Attorneys for Plaintiffs



76

The defendants herein hereby answer the intettogatorles 
propounded to them as follows:

I. Defendants would show
number I. the followingy facts:

a. Grades served by each
1 . Barnes 12

2 . Carthage 12

3. Edinburg 12

4. Lena 12

5. Madden 12

6. Thomastown 12

(R -112J
Walnut Grove 12

8. Greer 12

9. Jordan 12

10 . Murphy 12

b. Number of Negro Pupils in attendance as of beginning of 
1965-64 school year, at each school:
1. Greer 655
2. Jordan 982
3. Murphy 863

c« Number of White Pupils in attendance as of the beginning 
of 1963-64 school year, at each school:
1. Barnes 170
2. Carthage 1009
3. Edinburg 436
4. Lena 223



77
5. Madden 237
6. Thomastown 123
7. Walnut Grove 189

d, Number of Negro Pupils in attendance as of the most recent 
date for which figures are available for each school:
1. Greer 545
2. Jordan 850
3. Murphy 719

e. Number of White Pupils in attendance as of the most recent
date for which figures are available for each school
1. Barnes 162 5. Madden 234
2. Carthage 979 6. Thomastown 119
3. Edinburg 433 7. Walnut Grove 182
4. Lena 220

f. Number of Negro teachers and other administrative or
professional personnel employed as of beginning of 1963-64 
school term at each school:

/ 1 * (R-II3 )
Greer 22

2. Jordan 33
3. Murphy 26

S* Number of white teachers and other administrative or
professional personnel employed as of beginning of 1963-64 
school term at each school:
1. Barnes 9 2. Carthage 38
3. Edinburg 16 4. Lena 10
£ -** • Madden 13 6. Thomastown 7
7. Walnut Grove 10
Planned pupil capacity at each school:
1. Greer 700



78
2. Jordan 1000
3. Murphy 900
4. Barnes 250
5. Carthage 1025
6. Edinburg 450
7. Lena 250
8. Madden 300

9- Thomastown 200
10. Walnut Grove 400

i. Number of regular classrooms available at each school:
1. Barnes 11 5. Madden 16 9. Jordan 29
2. Carthage 49 6. Thomastown 9 10. Murphy 22
3. Edinburg 21 7. Walnut Grove 18
4. Lena 12 8. Greer 14

j. Number of teaching stations in use at each school, i.e., 
lunchrooms, libraries, auditoriums, corridors, etc., 
presently being utilized as classrooms, although intended 
for other purposes:
1. Jordan - (a) Gym; (b) office; (c) Lunchroom;

(R-U4) Cd) Mteary
k. Number of school buses serving each school, total seating 

capacity of each bus, average age of each bus:
1. Barnes - 4 buses - Total Capacity - 762
2. Carthage-1^ buses - Total Capacity - 762
3. Edinburg- 8 buses - Total Capacity - 378
4. Lena - 3 buses - Total Capacity - 150
5. Madden - 6 buses - Total Capacity - 276
6. Thomastown-3 buses- Total Capacity - 93
7. Walnut Grove-4 buses -Total Capacity-204

1957 1.
1958 2.
1958 3.
1958 4.
1959 5.
1956 6.
1959 7.



1957 8. Greer - 11 buses - Total Capacity - 552
1957 9* Jordan - 12 buses - Total Capacity - 552
1956 10. Murphy - 12 buses - Total Capacity - 600

2. In answer to interrogatory number 2, defendants state as
follows:
(a) When a child enters the school system of defendants 
at the first grade level, his parent or guardian makes 
a written application to the Attendance Center of his 
choice, which is subject to the approval of the Principal 
of the center and is also approved by the County School 
Board. Forms with appropriate blanks for selection of 
the Attendance Center, etc., are furnished by the School 
District. So far as defendants know, every request at 
first grade level by parents or guardian for attendance 
at a specific attendance center has been granted and 
approved by the principal and the County School Board.
(b) When a child enters the school system of defendants 
at an upper grade level, he or his parent or guardian are 
requested to furnish an approval of the transfer from the 
last school he attended, from its Prinicpal, and an 
application to enter the Attendance Center of his choice 
in defendants* school system, which is subject to the (R-115) 
approval of the Principal of said center and the County 
School Board.
(c. d, e.) In answer to c, d, and e, sub-paragraph in 
Interrogatory number 2, all of the schools in Leake County 
District operate grades one through twelve, and there are 
no separate Junior High - Elementary or High schools. After 
the Initial assignment of the pupil has been made, as is

79



outlined in answer to interrogatories number 2 a and 2 b, 
each pupil continues to attend the attendance center of his 
initial choice, unless an application for transfer is 
properly completed, filed, and approved.
(f) When a child changes residence from one place in the 
Leake County School District to another place in said 
District and desires to change his attendance center, he 
is requested to obtain an approval from the principal of 
the center he last attended and to execute an application 
to the new attendance center of his choice, on forms 
furnished to him by the School District, which is subject 
to the approval of the Principal of the center he wishes 
to transfer to and the County School Board.

3. In answer to interrogatory number the defendants 
have assigned the plaintiffs and other students in the 
Leake County School District to the public school which 
they applied to attend originally. This interrogatory 
is answered more completely and more specifically in the 
answer previously made in interrogatory number 2, wherein 
the standards of assignments of pupils within the district 
is set forth in detail.
The former school districts in Leake County, Mississippi, 
were combined or consolidated into a County Unit System 
known as the Leake County School District by an order 
(R-116) entered in by the County School Board in November, 
1956, effective with the school term of 1957-1958. This 
order is of record in Minute Book A, Page 59* of the 
records of said Board in the office of the Superintendent 
of Education of Leake County, Mississippi. The present

80



CA
81

members of the County School Board, defendants herein, did 
not hold such offices when said order was entered, or any 
time prior thereto. They are informed that, prior to the 

LLr/iinazition of the County into the one unit system, 
pupils usually attended school is_ the particular district 
in which they happened to reside. Since said re-organiza­
tion, assignments of pupils have been made as has been set 
forth hereinabove, and as in paragraph 14 of the Answer of 
the defendants in this cause.

5* Defendants are unable to answer this interrogatory,
as to the "difference in result" of present assignments to 
any previously made, because this is not within their 
knowledge and would call for an opinion on their part.

Differences and disparities between Negro and white 
children have not provided the "basis" for separating the 
groups into separate school in the Leake County School Dis­
trict. Instead, all pupils making application to attend 
school within the School District, have been assigned to 
the specific Attendance Centers requested by them, where 
at all reasonable, from their applications, and questions 
of race have had no part in any application received by this 
Board from any pupil for attendance at any specific Atten­
dance Center in this School District.

The defendants, In answer to this Interrogatory, 
allege that the establishment and maintenance of separate 
schools, granting equal opportunities for development of 
different capacities and abilities of the children of the 
two groups, is most advantageous to all because it results 
(K-117) in each pupil, white and non-white, being afforded



82
the maximum opportunity for scholastic, social and moral 
achievements.

8. The present operation of the defendant’s school 
system is not based on the Board's belief that the "opera­
tion of a compulsory integrated school system in such County 
will run counter to the desires of the great majority of the 
people of the County and will be contrary to the welfare and 
best interest of members of both races."

The present operation of the defendant's school 
system has not changed since the defendants became the 
governing body of the Leake County School District, since 
which time all pupils requesting assignments have been 
assigned to the specific attendance center of their choice, 
in all instances which were reasonable. Questions of race 
have not been involved in any assignments made by this Board, 
nor have the beliefs of the members of the Board affected 
the operation of the schools of Leake County.

9. In answer to Interrogatory No. 9* defendants state 
that in connection with making such assignments as they have 
been requested to make, they have considered the safety of 
the pupils, their welfare and best interests, and the welfare 
of the community, and other matters and facts, such as the 
availability of space and facilities at the attendance 
centers, and of teachers. Up until this time, no matter of 
assignment which have been before this Board have been 
affected by a discipline problem, or the relative abilities 
of pupils, compatibility of teachers or other members of the 
professional staff in their respective assignments.

As has been previously stated, this Board has



•82

assigned all pupils who have requested an assignment to the 
specific attendance center designated In the application of 
the pupil, or his or her parents or guardian in all instances 
in which same was reasonable and economically feasible.
None of the plaintiffs in this cause have made requests or 
applications to this Board (R-118) to be assigned to a 
specific attendance center within the District, other than 
that which they now attend.

10. 1 1. and 12.
Plaintiffs have withdrawn Interrogatories 10, 11 and 12, 
and therefore, defendants make no answer thereto.

1̂ .Answering Interrogatory No. 13, defendants would show the 
following, to-wits
It appears unto the defendants that two of the minor plain­
tiffs, Billie Griffin and Robert J. Griffin, are not now 
attending school in the Leake County School District and 
information received is that they have moved away from the 
State of Mississippi.
Each of the other minor plaintiffs named in this suit are 
presently assigned to Jordan Attendance Center in Carthage, 
Mississippi, and the grades to which they are now assigned, 
the nearest all-Negro school to the residence serving their 
grade level, and the nearest all-white school to the resi­
dence serving their grade level is shown as follows

jIAME OF PTIPTT.

K. Greer
gillie Lee Lewis 
ieSgy Jean Hudson
Norma McKee

NEAREST ALL NEAREST ALL 
PRESENT GRADE NEGRO SCHOOL WHITE SCHOOL

First Jordan Carthage
Second
Second

Murphy
Jordan

Madden
Carthage

Third Jordan Carthage



84
Kenneth Hay Overstreet Fourth Murphy MaddenLillie B. Lewis Fourth Murphy Madden
Lucy Lee Lewis Sixth Murphy MaddenTilda Grace Overstreet Sixth Murphy Madden
Margie Sanders Seventh Jordan CarthageMary Hudson Seventh Jordan Carthage
M e  James Overstreet Eighth Murphy Madden
McArthur Greer Ninth Jordan CarthageCarolyn Overstreet Ninth Murphy MaddenJoan Hudson Ninth Jordan Carthage
(R-119)Phillip Dotson Tenth Jordan CarthageHarry Greer Tenth Jordan CarthageMadison Griffin Tenth Murphy Madden
Dian Hudson Eleventh Jordan CarthagePatricia Ann Hughes Eleventh Murphy Madden
Herbert Dotson Twelfth Jordan CarthageShirley Gates Twelfth Jordan CarthageJimmie Greer Twelfth Jordan CarthageRobert Dodd Twelfth Murphy Madden
Nadine McKee Seventh Jordan CarthagePercy McKee Seventh Jordan CarthageDanny Sanders Sixth Jordan Carthage
W. In answer to interrogatory No. 14: Defendants know of no

courses, programs or facilities which are available 
at attendance centers attended by whites only which are 
not available at schools attended by negroes only, in the 
Leake County School District.

15. In answer to interrogatory No. 15: Exclusive of teachersf
salaries, the amount spent per capita above minimum 
program funds is $12.80 per white student and $11.60 per 
non-white student, according to the latest figures avail­
able to defendants.

16* In answer to interrogatory No. 16: The last scholastic
achievement tests in the Leake County School District 
were given during the school term of 1960-1961, by a



guidance counsellor who is no longer employed by the 
District. The District does not now have such a councellor 
and the defendants have not fully and completely analyzed 
the tests made in 1960-1961.
If required, defendants will analyze and furnish the 
pertinent information from these tests, within a 
reasonable time.

85

17. In answer to interrogatory No. 17: Hie names of all
present members of the Leake County Board of Education 
are: (R-120)

Guy P. Pigg
J. C. Taylor 
Lester K. Myrick 
W. 0. (Billie) Sessums 
D. C. Ware
This the 7th day of May, 1964.

J. E. Smith 
Carthage, Mississippi
Harold ¥. Davidson 
Carthage, Mississippi
Joe T. Patterson 
Attorney General of the 
State of Mississippi 
Jackson, Mississippi
Will S. Wells
Assistant Attorney General of the 
State of Mississippi 
Jackson, Mississippi
Attorneys for Defendants

By: /s/ HAROLD ¥. DAVIDSON
o f w b s e l 1 for' De fe nd a nt s

state OP MISSISSIPPI 
COUNTY op l e a k s

Personally appeared before me the undersigned authority



86
in and. for said County and State, Harold W. Davidson, of 
counsel for the defendants, Leake County School Board, et al, 
in the above styled and numbered cause, who after first being 
duly sworn on oath states that he is the person who signed the 
foregoing Answer to Interrogatories and that the answers there­
to and the matters and facts stated in said answers are true 
and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief.
Sworn to and subscribed /s/ HAROLD ¥. DAVIDSON
before me this 7th day of May, ~HAROTA> ¥.' DAVIDSON
1964.
(SEAL) /s/ PEGGY PIERCE My Commission expires:

~  NOTARY PUBLIC My Commission Itcpires April 24,1968
(R-121 - Certificate of Service, which is not copied here.)

* * * * * *  *
(R-122 - Civil Subpoena, which is not copied here.)

* * * * * * *
(R-125 - Civil Subpoena, which is not copied here.)

* * * * * * *
(R-124 - Civil Subpoena, which is not copied here.)

* * * * * * *
(R-125) S T I P U L A T I O N

(Title Omitted - Piled "May 21, 1964)
IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between

Plaintiffs and Defendants through their attorneys of record
as follows:

1.
That the Interrogatories filed by Plaintiffs may be 

admitted into evidence as Plaintiffs' exhibit 1, and the 
Answers of the Defendants to those Interrogatories may be
admitted into evidence as Plaintiffs' exhibit 2.

2.

That the Plaintiffs in this case are negro residents



of Leake County, Mississippi, and that the minor (R-126) 
Plaintiffs as set forth in paragraph 13 of the Defendants* 
Answer to Interrogatories, are eligible to attend and are 
attending the public schools of Leake County, Mississippi.

3.
That each of the minor Plaintiffs, together with all 

other negro school children in Leake County, are assigned to 
and attend all-negro schools. The faculty of such schools are 
all negroes and no white pupils or white teachers are assigned 
to such schools. Budgets, curricula and other administrative 
procedures in negro schools are based on race; except that 
there is no differential in payment of salaries to classroom 
teachers, based on race.

4.

All-white school children in Leake County are 
assigned to and attend all-white schools. The faculty of such 
schools is all-white and no negro pupils or negro teachers are 
assigned to such schools. Budgets, curricula and other admin­
istrative procedures in white schools are based on race; except 
that there is no differential in the payment of salaries to 
classroom teachers based on race.

5.
That if Plaintiffs testified they would testify that 

they are dissatisfied, with such school assignments, and that 
they, along with other negro parents have, on two occasions, 
attempted to communicate this dissatisfaction to the School 
Board of Leake County;

(a) On February 23, 19o2, a Petition was sub­
mitted to the Leake County School Board (H-127)

87



requesting that the Petitioners' children and all 
other negro children similarly situated be assigned 
to the public schools without regard to race as 
required by the United States Supreme Court in 
Brown v. Board of Education, in 1954. A copy of 
this Petition is admitted as Plaintiffs' exhibit 3.

(b) In August 1962, negro parents, including 
the adult Plaintiffs, again petitioned the Board 
of Education of Leake County to desegregate the 
public schools of Leake County, by eliminating the 
practice and policy of assigning students to schools 
on the basis of race. A copy of this Petition is 
admitted as Plaintiffs' exhibit 4.

6.
That Plaintiffs received no response from the Leake 

County School Board to either of their Petitions.
7-

That in March 1962, 0. E. Jordan who was then Prin­
cipal of the negro Jordan High School, personally wrote a 
letter to each parent who signed the first Petition referred 
to in 5 (a) of this Stipulation, spoke of the advantages of 
the segregated schools and urged them not to take further action 
to change' the system. A copy of one of these letters is 
offered by Plaintiffs as exhibit 5. The Defendants object 
(R-128) to the admission of such letter as being competent or 
Relevant to the issue in this case for the reasons that such 
letters were written by the said Jordan on a personal basis, 
n°t in his official capacity as Principal of the Jordan High 
School, without the knowledge, consent or direction of the

88



89
Leake County School Board or any of the Defendants In this case 
and not as any part of the official policy of the Defendants; 
that 0. E, Jordan is no longer connected with the Leake County 
School System.

8.
That if Plaintiffs testified they would testify that 

each of them brings this action for himself and all other negro 
children in Leake County similarly situated; that they seek 
desegregation of the public schools of Leake County in accord 
with the Supreme Court's decision of 195^ and subsequent 
relevant decisions of the Supreme Court and the Court of 
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

9.
That if the Defendants testified, their testimony 

would be a reiteration of those things contained in paragraphs 
9 through 15* both inclusive, of their Answer filed In this 
action.

1 0.
That the evidence offered on behalf of the Interve­

nes in the case of Darrell Kenyatta Evers, et al v. Jackson 
Municipal Separate School District, Kirby P. Walker, Superin­
tendent, et al and being Civil Action No. 5979 on the Docket of 
this Court may be considered by the Court as evidence (R-129) 
in this case, subject to the objections of Plaintiffs in that 
case to the admissibility or competency of that evidence.

11.
That the evidence offered on behalf of the Defendants 

in the case of Evers, et al v. Jackson Municipal Separate 
School District, et al, and being Cause No. Civil Action 5379



on the Docket of this Court may be considered by the Court in 
this case so far as the same pertains to Leake County, Miss­
issippi.

90

STIPULATED AND AGREED TO this the 21st day of May,
1964.

/s/ DERRICK A. BELL, Jr,AfTCRhDl ̂ CR PLAINTIFFS
/s/ WILL S. NELLS____________
/s/ HAROLD W. DAVIDSON_______
/s/ J. E. SMITH______________

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS
* * * * * * * * *

(R-130) (The Testimony on the Trial is not included in this 
record, but will be found in the Appeal Record in 
the Case of Jackson Municipal School District et al 
vs. Evers.)* * * * * * * *  *

O P I N I O N
(Title Omitted' - Filed July 7, 1964)

This case is controlled by the opinion this day rendered 
by this Court in Evers, et al vs, Jackson Municipal Separate 
School District, et al, Civil Action No. 3379- The Court makes 
the same findings of fact and conclusions of law in this case 
that were made in the Evers vs. Jackson Municipal Separate 
School District case, and an order shall be entered herein 
accordingly.

RENDERED, this the 6th day of July, 1964.
/s/ S. C. MIZE

unitjid St at es dis tr i ct jud ge 
. * * * * * * *

(R-131)
J U D G M E N T

(Title Omitted - Filed July 7, 1964)
Pursuant to and In accordance with the opinion this day

entered in this cause, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed as



91
follows:

1. The temporary injunction heretofore entered herein is 
hereby made permanent.

2. No costs are awarded to any party as against the 
other.

3. The Court reserves jurisdiction in this cause for the 
purpose of approving, disapproving, altering, amending or 
changing any plan submitted to this Court pursuant to and in 
accordance with the temporary injunction heretofore issued and 
hereby made permanent, such jurisdiction being reserved as long 
as this injunction remains in effect.

ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED, this the 6th day of 
July# 1964.

/s/ S. C. MIZE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT'TjDGEO.B., 1964, Page 423

* * * * * * * *
(R-132)

, DESEGREGATION FLAW
(Title Omitted Piled' 'July 15# 1964)

NOW COME the defendants in the above styled and number­
ed action, by their attorneys, and submit the following plan 
under which said defendants propose to make an immediate start 
i*1 the desegregation of the public schools of Leake County, 
Mississippi in accordance with that certain preliminary 
injunction order entered by this Court under date of March 4, 
J964, and subsequently made permanent by order of this Court, 
as follows, to-wit:

1. That the maintenance of separate schools for the 
ê§ro and white children of said School District shall be com­
pletely ended with respect to the first grade during the school



year commencing August, 1964, and with respect to at least one 
additional grade each school year thereafter.

2. That for the school year beginning In August, 1964, 
all pupils entereng the first grade shall be admitted to 
(R-133) the various elementary schools without regard to race, 
giving primary consideration to the choice of the pupil oi his 
parent or legal guardian.

p. That among those pupils in a desegregated grade 
applying for admission to a particular school, where adequate 
facilities are not available for all applying pupils, priority 
of admission shall be based, on the proximity of the residence 
of the pupil to the school; provided, however, that for justi­
fiable administrative reasons, other factors, not related to 
race, may be considered.

4. That where a pupil in a desegregated grade, or his 
parent, or legal guardian, has indicated his choice of schools, 
as herein provided, and has been notified of his admission to 
such school, transfer to another school will be permitted only 
in a hardship case or for valid reasons unrelated to race.

5. That not later than July 30, 1964, the defendant 
Board will publish this plan in a newspaper having general 
circulation throughout the county so as to give all pupils and 
their parents or legal guardians notice of the rights that are 
to be accorded them.

Attached hereto marked Exhibit "A" is a certified copy
°f a Resolution of the Leake County School Board authorizing
the adoption of said plan.

J. E. SMITH, ATTORHET AT LAW,
CARTHAGE, MISSISSIPPI

92



93
HAROLD ¥. DAVIDSON, ATTORNEY AT LAW, 
CARTHAGE, MISSISSIPPI
JOE T. PATTERSON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OP 
THE STATE OP MISSISSIPPI, JACKSON, 
MISSISSIPPI
WILL S. WELLS, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 
OP THE STATE OP MISSISSIPPI, JACKSON, 
MISSISSIPPI
BY.• /aAmi, S. WELLS ____________

ATTORNEYS FOR DEPENDANTS
■3f -X- #  #  •»  *  *

(R-134) Exhibit A
RESOLUTION OP THE LEAKE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD 

ADOPTED JULY 9, 1964
WHEREAS, in the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson Division, In the case 
of Dian Hudson, Et A1 v, Leake County School Board, Et Al,
Civil Action No. 3382, the Court, under date of March 4, 1964, 
entered Its preliminary injunction order requiring the Leake 
County School Board of Leake County, Mississippi to submit to 
said Court, not later than July 15, 1964, a plan under which 
said school board would make an immediate start in the desegre­
gation of the Public Schools of Leake County; and

WHEREAS, said preliminary injunction order of said 
District Court also required said plan to include a statement 
that the maintenance of separate schools for the Negro and 
white children of said Leake County shall be completely ended 
with respect to at least one grade during the school year 
commencing in August, 1964, and with respect to at least one 
additional grade each year thereafter; and

WHEREAS, said preliminary Injunction order lias now 
been made permanent by said U. S. District Court.



NOW THERHPQKBy BE IT RESOLVED that the following plan 
be filed, with the said U. S. District Court as compliance with 
its said injunction order:

"1. That the maintenance of separate schools 
for the Negro and white children of said School 
District shall be completely ended with respect to 
(R-1J5) the first grade during the school year commenc­
ing August, 1964, and with respect to at lease one 
additional grade each school year thereafter.

n2. That for the school year beginning in 
August, 1964, all pupils entering the first grade 
shall be admitted to the various elementary schools 
without regard to race, giving primary consideration 
to the choice of the pupil or his parent or legal 
guardian.

"3. That among those pupils in a desegregated 
grade applying for admission to a particular school, 
where adequate facilities are not available for all 
applying pupils, priority of admission shall be based 
on the proximity of the residence of the pupil to the 
school; provided, however, that for justifiable 
administrative reasons, other factors, not related to 
race, may be considered.

11 j+. That where a pupil in a desegregated grade, 
or his parent, or legal guardian, has indicated his 
choice of schools, as herein provided, and has been 
notified of his admission to such school, transfer to 
another school will be permitted only in a hardship 
case or for valid reasons unrelated to race.

9 4



95
!i5. That not later than July 50, 1964, the 

defendant Board will publish this plan in a newspaper 
having general circulation throughout the County so as 
to give all pupils and their parents or legal guardians 
notice of the rights that are to be accorded them."
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified cony of this 

Resolution be furnished to the attorneys for transmission to 
(R~lp6) the U, S. District Court for the Southern District of 
Mississippi in accordance with its direction.

THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 
COUNTY- OF LEAKE

I, J. T. Logan, Jr., Superintendent of Education of 
Leake County, Mississippi, and Clerk of the Leake County School 
Board of Leake County, Mississippi, hereby certify that the 
foregoing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution adopted by 
said Board on the 9th day of July, 1964, in a regular meeting,
as shown of record in Minute Book _1___ , Pages 294-295-296
of the official minutes of said Board.

This the 13th day of July, 1964.
/s/ J. T. LOGAN Jr._____________

SUPMUtMCDEILT L F jM jCATI'ON of
LEAKE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI AND CLERK 
OF THE LEAKE COUNTY- SCHOOL BOARD.

(R-137) (Certificate of Service, which is not copied here.)
( R - 1 3 8 )  *  *  *  *  *  *

PLAITHBES' OBJECTIONS TO DESEGREGATION PLANS FILED BY
deeeMdant boards "MTMCt iC FfoR"revYsedIplans 

Trifle Omitted - Filed July 15', 1964J
Plaintiffs in the above cases having reviewed the 

defendant Boards plans of desegregation filed on July 15, 1964,



as required by the orders of this Court, have concluded that 
such plans fail to meet the minimum standards for initial 
desegregation plans as set by the United States Supreme Court 
and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 
and therefore move the Court to require defendant Boards to 
prepare and file revised plans correcting the failures set 
forth below:
(R-139) 1. The plans filed by defendant Boards have failed
to show why no more than one grade can be entirely desegregated 
in September, 1964, nor do the plans clearly Indicate that more 
than one grade will be desegregated in subsequent years.

2. The plans filed by defendant Boards fail to speci­
fically and clearly provide for the elimination of all dual 
school districts based on race through the assignment of all 
children within the grade(s) to be desegregated according to a 
single set of zone lines, which failure places the burden of 
seeking desegregated assignments on Negro parents and children.

3. The plans filed by defendant Boards are too vague 
in providing that desegregated assignments may be denied 
where adequate facilities are not available for all applying
pupils," and "for justifiable administrative reasons (and) 
other factors not related to race . . . "

4. The plans filed by defendant Boards fail to include 
Provision for all students entering the systems for the first 
time to be assigned on a non-racial basis, and further fails
to provide a procedure by which students presently attending 
the school systems, but not eligible for attendance at a grade 
being entirely desegregated, may apply for desegregated 
transfers and have such transfers applications reviewed and

96



97
determined according to standards not based on race and no 
different than are applied to children admitted to the schools 
where transfers are sought.

Plaintiffs' omission of other aspects of the relief 
requested In their complaints, including desegregation of 
faculties is not intended by plaintiffs' to constitute a 
waiver of such relief.

Plaintiffs pray that a hearing can be promptly had on 
their objections and motions so that defendants can prepare, 
file and place in operation a revised plan that accords with 
the provisions set forth above.

R. JESS BROWN
1252 North Farish Street 
Jackson, Mississippi 59201

(R"li!-°) JACK H, YOUNG
1152 North Farish Street 
Jackson, Mississippi 39201

JACK GREENBERG 
CONSTANCE BAKER MOTLEY1 
DERRICK A. BELL, JR.

10 Columbus Circle
New York, New York 10019

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
By /s/ DERRICK A. BEIL Jr.______

instrument carries proper Notice of Motion and Certificate 
01 Service, which is not copied here.)

(R-Wl)
# ■* * # * *

APPEARANCES:

. TRANSCRIPT OF TESTIMONY 
(Title Omitted - Filed July 27, 1964.)

Honorable Derrick A. Bell, Jr., Attorney,
10 Columbus Circle, New York, 19, New York; 

honorable Jack Young, Attorney, 115i N. Farish 
street, Jackson, Mississippi;

For Plaintiffs.



Honorable Will S. Wells, Assistant Attorney General 
of the State of Mississippi, Jackson, Mississippi: 

Honorable J. E. Smith, Attorney, Carthage, Mississippi: 
Honorable Harold W. Davidson, Attorney, Carthage, Mississippi;

For Defendants.

98

BE IT REMEMBERED that on Thursday, the 21st day of May, 1964, 
at three o'clock P, M,, the above-entitled cause came on for 
hearing before Honorable S. C. Mize, United States Judge for 
the Southern District of Mississippi, at Jackson, Mississippi, 
and the following proceedings were had and entered of record. 
(R-142) (At 3:00 P.M. on the 21st day of May, 1964)

THE COURT: Very well, Gentlemen, are you ready to
proceed?

MR. WELLS: We have entered into a stipulation which will
take care of the entire matter, and it is not a long stipula­
tion, and has been executed by us, but I would like to read it 
into the record.

THE COURT: All right.
MR. WELLS: This is in the case of Dian Hudson, et al,

Plaintiffs, versus Leake County School Board, et al, Defendants, 
Civil Action Humber 3382.

(Reading:)
It is stipulated and agreed by and between plaintiffs and 

defendants through their attorneys of record, as follows:
1. That the interrogatories filed by Plaintiffs may be 

admitted into evidence as Plaintiff's Exhibit 1, and the 
Answers of the defendants to those Interrogatories may be 
admitted into evidence as Plaintiff's Exhibit 2.

2. That the plaintiffs in this case are Negro residents 
0f Leake County, Mississippi, and that the minor plaintiffs as



set forth in Paragraph 13 of the defendants' answers to 
interrogatories are eligible to attend and are attending the 
public schools of Leake County, Mississippi.

3. That each of the minor plaintiffs, together with 
(R-143) all other Negro school children in Leake County, are 
assigned to and attend all-Negro schools. The faculty of such 
schools are all Negroes and no white pupils or white teachers 
are assigned to such schools. Budgets, curricula, and other 
administrative procedures in Negro schools are based on race, 
except that there is no differential in payment of salaries to 
classroom teachers based on race,

4. All white school children in Leake County are assigned 
to and attend all-white schools. The faculty of such schools
is all white and No Negro pupils or Negro teachers are assigned 
to such schools. Budgets, curricula, and other administrtive 
procedures in white schools are based on race, except there is 
no differential in payment of salaries to classroom teachers
based on race.

if
5. That/the plaintiffs testified, they would testify that 

kney are dissatisfied with such school assignments, and that 
they, along with other Negro parents, have on two occasions 
attempted to communicate this dissatisfaction to the School 
Board of Leake County:

(a) On February 23* 1962, a petition was submitted to 
the Leake County School Board requesting that the 
petitioners' children and all other Negro children simi­
larly situated be assigned to the public schools without 
regard to race as required by the United (R-144) States 
Supreme Court in Brown versus Board of Education in 195^.

99



1 0 0

A copy of this petition is admitted as Plaintiff*s Exhibit
3.

(b) In August, 1962, Negro parents, including the 
adult plaintiffs, again petitioned the Board of Education 
of Leake County to desegregate the public schools of 
Leake County by eliminating the practice and policy of 
assigning students to school on basis of race. Copy of 
this petition is admitted as Plaintiff's Exhibit 4.
6. The plaintiffs received no response from the Leake 

County School Board to either of their petitions.
7. In March, 1962, 0. E. Jordan, who was then the princi­

pal of the Negro Jordan High School, personally wrote a letter 
to each parent who signed the first petition referred to in
5 (a) of this stipulation, spoke of the advantages of the segre­
gated schools, and urged them not to take further action to 
change the system. A copy of one of these letters is offered 
by plaintiffs as Exhibit 5. The defendants object to the 
admisison of such letter as being competent or relevant to the 
issue in this case, for reason that such letters were written 
^7 the said Jordan on a personal basis, not in his official 
capacity as principal of the Jordan High School, without the 
knowledge, consent or direction of the Leake County School 
Board or any of the defendants in this case, and not as any 
part of the official (R-145) policy of the defendants, and that 
°. Jordan is no longer connected with the Leake County 
school system.

8. That If plaintiffs testified, they would testify that 
each of them brings this action for himself and all other Negro 
children in Leake County similarly situated, that they seek 
^segregation of the public schools of Leake County in accord



with the Supreme Court decision of 195^, and subsequent rele­
vant decisions of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals for 
the Fifth Circuit.

9. Th&t if the defendants testified, their testimony 
would be a reiteration of those things contained in Paragraphs
9 through 15, both inclusive, of their answer filed in this 
action.

10. That the evidence offered on behalf of the Inter­
veners -in the case of Darrell K. Evers, et al, versus Jackson 
Municipal Separate School District, Kirby P. Walker, Super­
intendent, et al, and being Civil Action Humber 3379 on the 
docket of this Court, may be considered by the Court as 
evidence in this case, subject to the objections of plaintiffs
in that case to the admissibility or competency of that 
evidence.

11. That the evidence offered on behalf of the defendants 
in the case of Evers, et al, versus Jackson Municipal Separate 
School District, et al, and being Cause Civil Action No. 3379
°n the docket of this Court, may be considered by (R-146) the
Court in this case so far as the same pertains to Leake County, 
Mississippi.

MR. WELLS continues:
Cdiat is the stipulation which has been executed by 

attorneys for both sides.
THE COURT: Very well. Let it be filed with the clerk
Iso the exhibits that are referred to in there be numbered 

93 numbered in the stipulation.
MR. WELLS: On the petitions which were filed, we neglected

r‘Dke copies of them, and I have agreed with counsel that I

101



102

will take responsibility of making Zerox copies of those 
petitions and get them to the reporter tomorrow.

THE COURT: Very well. File them with the clerk.
(Same received and marked as Plaintiff's Exhibits No. 1 
through No. 5-)

THE COURT: Very well. As I understand it, that now
constitutes the record in the Leake County case?

MR. WELLS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: We will now call the Biloxi case.* * * * * *

(R-147)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT 

OF MISSISSIPPI, JACKSON DIVISION 
DIAN HUDSON, et al,

Plaintiffs,
Vs. (Civil No. 3582)
LEAKE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,
D. C. WARE, Chairman;
GUY P. PIGG, N. W. WARD,
J. C. TAYLOR, V. W. REIVES,
I. A. FERRELL, LYSTER MYRICK,
and J. T. BOSTON LOGAN, Superintendent,

Defendants,
COURT REPORTER'S 

CERTIFICATE
I. D. B. JORDAN, Official Court Reporter for the Southern 

District of Mississippi, do hereby certify that the foregoing 
pages constitute a true and correct transcript of the proceed­
ings had upon the trial of the above-entitled cause before 
Honorable S. C. Mize, United States Judge for the Southern 
District of Mississippi, at Jackson, Mississippi, on the 21st 
3-ay of May, 1964.

WITNESS my signature, this the 3rd day of July, 1964.
/a/ D. B. JORDAN______________

D. B. JORDAN* * * * * *



103
(R-148 - Civil Subpoena which is not copied here.)
(R-149) , NOTICE OF APPEAL

(Title Omitted - Filed August 3, 1964.)
Notice is hereby given that Leake County School Board, 

D, C. Ware, Guy P. Pigg, N. W. Ward, J. C. Taylor and Lester 
Myrick, members of said Board, and J. T. Boston Logan, Super­
intendent of Education of Leake County, Mississippi, Defendants 
in the above styled and numbered action, hereby appeal to the 
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit from the 
final judgment entered in this action on the 6th day of July, 
1964, which made permanent the temporary injunction order 
entered in this action on the 4th day of March, 1964.

JOE T. PATTERSON, ATTORNEY GENERAL,
JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI
WILL S. WELLS, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY
GENERAL, JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI
J. E. SMITH, SPECIAL COUNSEL,
CARTHAGE, MISSISSIPPI
H. W. DAVIDSON, SPECIAL COUNSEL
CARTHAGE, MISSISSIPPI
BY: /s/ WILL S. WELLS

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
* * * * * * *

(H-!50) APPEAL BOND
(Title Omitted - Filed Aug. 3,1964)

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that we, Leake County 
School Board, D. C. Ware, Guy P. Pigg, N. W. Ward, J. C. Taylor 
and Lester Myrick, members of said Board, and J. T. Boston 
Logan, Superintendent of Education of Leake County, Mississippi, 
as Principals, and United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, as 
Surety, are held and firmly bound unto the plaintiffs in the 
above styled and numbered action in the penal sum of TWO 
HUNDRED AND FIFTY ($250.00) DOLLARS for the payment of which we



well and truly bind ourselves, our successors, and assigns;
HOWEVER, THIS OBLIGATION IS UPON THE FOLLOWING 

CONDITION:
WHEREAS, on the 6th day of July, 1964, the District 

Court of the United States for the Southern District of Miss­
issippi, Jackson Division, entered a Judgment making permanent 
a temporary injunction order theretofore entered in this action, 
and said defendants, feeling aggrieved at said judgment, have 
perfected an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for 
the Fifth Circuit from said Judgment of July 6, 1964.

NOW, THEREFORE, if said Principals shall prosecute said 
appeal with effect and shall make payment of costs if said 
appeal is dismissed or the judgment affirmed, or make payment 
of such costs as the Appellate Court may award if the judgment 
is modified, then this obligation shall be null and void and 
of no force and effect; otherwise, to remain in full force and 
effect.

WITNESS OUR SIGNATURES, this day of August, 1964.
LEAKE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, D. C. WARE, GUY P.
PIGG, N. W. WARD, J..C. TAYLOR, LESTER MYRICK,
J. T. BOSTON LOGAN, PRINCIPALS
BY: J. E. SMITH

H. W. DAVIDSON 
WILL S. WELLS

BY: /s/ WILL S. WELLS
ATTORNEYS FOR PRINCIPALS

UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY, SURETY
BY: /s/ DAN BOTTRELL

5AN~BOTTrELL, ATTORNEY-IN-FACT fSEAL)

104

■ S f r * * * * * * *



105
(R-151) ORDER TEMCATIVELY OVERRULING OBJECTIONS

"TO DESEGREGATION PLAN 
(Title OmiiitecfPlied Aug 5> 1964.)

THIS ACTION came on for hearing on the plaintiffs' 
objections to the desegregation Plan filed by the defendant 
Board and on plaintiffs' motion for a revised Plan, and the 
Court having heard evidence, both oral and documentary, and 
having considered same, is of the opinion that said objections 
and motion should be tentatively overruled and denied and said 
Plan should be tentatively approved, with this hearing recessed 
for further hearing on a day during the month of February, 1965 
for such action as this Court may then deem appropriate.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that 
plaintiffs' objections to the desegregation Plan filed herein 
by the defendant Board and the plaintiffs* motion for a revised 
Plan be and the same are hereby tentatively overruled and 
denied, and that the desegregation Plan filed herein by the 
defendant Board be and the same is hereby tentatively approved 
subject to the further orders of this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that this 
Court retains jurisdiction over this action, and that this 
(R-152) hearing be and the same is hereby recessed to a day to 
be subsequently fixed by order of this Court during the month of 
February, 1965, for approval of said Plan or for consideration 
of any revisions of, or amendments or additions to, or dele­
tions from said Plan which this Court may then deem appropriate 
in the light of developments.

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED this 29th day of July,
1964.

/s/ S. C. M I Z E _________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

O.B. 1964, Pages 489 and 490* * * * * * * *



(R-152) d e s i g n a t i o n o p c o n t e n t s o p r e c o r d
ON APPEAL

"(Title Omitted - Piled’ Sept. 2 ,""1964.)
Come Leake County School Board, D. C. Ware, Guy P. 

Piggj N. W. Ward, J. C. Taylor and Lyster Myrick, Members 
of said Board, and J. T. Boston Logan, Superintendent of 
Education of Leake County, Mississippi, Defendants and

106

Appellants, by their attorneys, and hereby designate for 
inclusion in the Record on Appeal the complete record and 
all the proceedings, stipulations and evidence in the action, 
pursuant to Rule 75(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

JOE T. PATTERSON, ATTORNEY" GENERAL
JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI
WILL S. WELLS, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY"
GENERAL, JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI
J. E. SMITH, SPECIAL COUNSEL,
CARTBGGE, MISSISSIPPI
H. W. DAVIDSON, SPECIAL COUNSEL,
CARTHAGE, MISSISSIPPI
BY: /s/ WILT, s. WELLS _______

.A1TORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS AND
APPELLANTS

(R-153) Certificate of Service which is not copied hera)
* * * * *  *



107

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Theresa Herbert, hereby certify that, having made 
up the appeal record In the case of LEAKE COUMY SCHOOL BOARD, 
ET AL, Appellants, versus DIAN HUDSON, 32T AL, Appellees, No. 
21878 on the docket of the United States Court of Appeals for 
the Fifth Circuit, I have, acting for Honorable J. E. Smith, 
of counsel for Appellants, served upon Honorable Derrick A. 
Bell and Honorable R. Jess Brown, of counsel for Appellees, 
three copies of the record, In accordance with the Rules of 
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, by 
sending same to them via United States Mail, addressed to 
their respective addresses as shown by the court file.

Dated this the 3rd day of October, 1964.

THERESA HERBERT