Davis v. Alabama Printed Record

    In the

llxnUh BXuUb (Cmtrt nf Appnils
F or th e  F ifth  C ircuit

No. 24265

J ohn  D avis and F ronzie H azzard, et al .,

Appellants,
versus

S tate o f  A labam a ,
Appellee.

APPEALS FROM  T H E  U N ITED  STATES D ISTRICT COURT 

FOR T H E  SO U TH E R N  DISTRICT OF ALABAM A

PRINTED RECORD

O scar W. A dams, J r .
1630 Fourth Avenue N. 
Birmingham, Alabama 35203

V ernon Z. Crawford 
578 Davis Avenue 
Mobile, Alabama 36603

J ack  Greenberg 
Charles S tephen  R alston 
Charles H. J ones, J r .
N orman C. A m aker  

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

Attorneys for Appellants



I N D E X

VOLUME I

Notice of RemovaL^epteniber l)5, 1965
?
( Petition for Removal—Augus^/16, 1965

Order Dated August 9, 1966 Extending Time, etc. .

Order of Remand Dated October 4, 1966 ..................

Notice of Appeal ..............-....... -...................................

Motion for Stay of Remand Order Pending Appeal 

Order of October 31, 1966 ......................... ................

PAGE

1

2

. 7 

. 8 

. 9 

.  10 

. 13

VOLUME II

Notice of Removal—March 21, 1966 .................. ......... -  15

Petition for Removal—March 21, 1966 ......................... 16

Notice of Appeal .....—................. —................................... 20

Motion to Strike One of Defendants ......................... — 21



Preface
/

This recor^com prises two volumes corresponding to two 
separate^fnups^p^ removal cases remanded hy a single 
order of the district court and consolidated here. The two 
removal petitions have been printed in full. The order of 
remand, the motion for stay, and the order denying the
motion for stay, for both cases, since identical, have been 
printed in full in Volume I (John Davis v. Alabama) but 
omitted in Volume II.



VOLUME I

Notice of Removal

Isr the

INFERIOR COURT OF CLARKE COUNTY 

Grove H ill , A labama 

Crim in al  A ction No. 14,858

S tate oe A labama,

Plaintiff -Respondent, 
v.

J ohn  D avis,
Defendant-Petitioner.

T o :

Attorney Lee B. Williams 
County Solicitor of Clarke County 
Clarke County Courthouse 
Grove Hill, Alabama

Sir :

P lease take notice that a verified petition for removal of 
the above-entitled action from the Inferior Court of Clarke 
County, Alabama, to the United States District Court for 
the Southern District of Alabama, Southern Division, a 
copy of which is attached hereto, was deposited in the 
United States Mail, air mail, this day addressed to the 
Clerk of said District Court at Mobile, Alabama.

Dated this the 16th day of September, 1965.



2

P ,  U9 Sgr/t, iv

I n  the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

F oe th e  S outhern  D istrict of A labama

S outhern  D ivision 

Crim in al  A ction N o. 14,858

Petition for Removal

S tate of A labam a,

Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.

J ohn  D avis,
Defendant-Petitioner.

To the Honorable Judge of the United States District Court 
for the Southern District of Alabama:

Tlie petition of the above-named defendant, by Oscar W. 
Adams, Jr., Norman C. Amaker and Jack Greenberg, three 
of his attorneys, respectfully shows:

I

Jurisdiction of this court is invoked under Title 28 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1443, Title 42 U.S.C. Sections 1971, 1983 and the First, 
Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution 
of the United States.



3

Petition for Removal

II

1. The petitioner is a Negro citizen of the State of New 
Jersey and of the United States. He is a volunteer worker 
in a project called SCOPE. This organization is affiliated 
with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and 
the purpose of the project was to seek by peaceful means to 
eliminate discrimination with reference to registration and 
voting in the 67 Counties of the State of Alabama.

9,. The petitioner at the time of his arrest was in the 
Clarke County Courthouse assisting other persons in their 
efforts"to-Become registered to vote. A large number of 
Negro'CttSMs'EiBr’timned out to attempt to become eligible 
to vote by making applications through the local Board of 
Registrars in Clarke County. The day of the petitioner’s 
arrest was the same day that the Federal Voter Bill was 
passed by the Congress of the United States. The petitioner 
had been informed by the Sheriff of Clarke County that 
extra time would be given because of the large numbers of 
persons turning out to register to vote. However, although 
numerous Negroes were lined up to try to become eligible 
voters in the State of Alabama, a sheriff’s deputy informed
the persons, including the petitioner that the voting period, 
or the period allocated to try to become registered to vote 
had expired. £he petitioner sought clarification of  this 
order a n 4 ^ fi< 2 a M O iE W S E 3 ™ s a H ^ o lJ M s r d H jto  
was charged under state.Ja\y with-Disarderly.Cxmduct-.and-
Falling to Obey the Command of a Law Enforcement Qffi- 
cer7 lie is presently out on bond and awaits trial in the 

Clarke County on September 20, 1965.

7



4

Petition for Removal 

III

1. The acts for which the petitioner is being held to 
answer for offenses, as described in paragraph II above, 
are, insofar as the offenses charged have any basis in fact, 
acts in the constitutionally protected exercise of petitioner’s 
rights of freedom of speech, assembly and petition guaran­
teed by the U.S. Constitution Amendments I and XIV  and 
42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1958), which acts are also in the exer­
cise of petitioner’s privileges and immunities as a citizen 
of the United States and his right to equal protection of 
the laws guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution Amendments 
XIV, X V  and 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1985 (1958), and petitioner’s 
rights under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1971 (1958) to disseminate in­
formation concerning the means of registration for voting 
in all elections without abridgment by reason of race and to 
urge Negroes having the qualifications of voters to register 
for voting in all such elections. Insofar as the offenses 
charged against petitioner are based on allegations of con­
duct not protected by the federal constitution and laws 
cited, these allegations are groundless in fact. Prosecution 
of the petitioner on the charges against him has and will 
punish him for the exercise of rights, privileges and im­
munities secured to him by the federal constitution and 
laws and has and will deter him and others similarly situ­
ated from the future exercise of these rights, privileges and 
immunities, for, if the Alabama statutes under which he is 
prosecuted makes his conduct criminal, this statute is un­
constitutional on its face or as applied, whereas if the 
statute is construed so as to save its constitutionality under 
the federal constitution, there is no evidence upon which 
the petitioner may be convicted consonant with the due 
process of law required by the Fourteenth Amendment to 
the United States Constitution.



Petition for Removal

2. The arrest and prosecution of this petitioner has been 
and is being carried on with the sole purpose and effect of 
harassing the petitioner and of punishing him and others 
for, and deterring him and others from, exercising their 
constitutionally protected rights of free speech and assem­
bly to protest the conditions of racial discrimination which 
the State of Alabama, and particularly Clarke County 
thereof, now maintains by statute, ordinance, regulation, 
custom, usage and practice, and to urge Negroes, the vic­
tims of this discrimination, to register for voting in federal 
and state elections, free of racial discrimination.

IV

By reason of the foregoing, the petitioner is being prose­
cuted for acts done under color of authority derived from 
the federal constitution and laws providing for equal rights, 
that is, U.S. Constitution Amendments I, XIV, X V ; 42 
U.S.C. Sections 1971, 1983, 1985, and for refusing to do acts 
on the grounds that they would be inconsistent with the 
Constitution and laws cited. Also, the petitioner is being- 
denied and cannot enforce in the courts of Clarke County, 
rights under the cited federal constitutional and statutory 
sections providing for the equal rights of citizens of the 
United States, because these courts are hostile to petitioner 
by reason of race and by reason of the commitment of these 
courts to enforce Alabama’s policy of racial discrimination.

W herefore, petition er p ra y s :

1. That these prosecutions be removed from the Inferior 
Court of Clarke County, State of Alabama to this court pur­
suant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1443 and 1446 ;

2. That the Judge of the Inferior Court of Clarke County 
and Lee B. Williams, County Solicitor of Clarke County,



6

Alabama, and all persons acting under or in concert or 
participation with them he forthwith temporarily and per­
manently enjoined from taking any proceedings further to 
prosecute the petitioner in this matter in the Inferior Court 
of Clarke County, or any other court of the State of Ala­
bama, and from taking or attempting to take the petitioner 
into custody in connection with any such prosecution; and

3. That the court grant petitioner such other relief from 
time to time as to it may appear just and reasonable for 
the protection of the petitioner’s rights herein.

Petition for Removal

Respectfully submitted, 

(Verified August 16, 1965.)



7

I n th e

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

F oe th e  S outhern  D istrict oe A labama 

Crim in al  No. 14,858

Order Dated August 9, 1966 Extending Time, etc.

S tate oe A labam a,
Plaintiff,

v.

J ohn  D avis,
Defendant.

# # *
C rim in al  N o. 14,929 

S tate of A labama,
Plaintiff,

v.

F ronzie H azzard, et a l .,
Defendant.

Defendants-Petitioners for removal in the above styled 
eases are hereby given to and including September 12, 1966, 
in which to file briefs in order that cause may be shown, if 
any there be, why said cases should not be remanded to the 
appropriate forum in the State of Alabama judicial system 
pursuant to the recent rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in 
Georgia v. Rachel and Peacock v. City of Greenwood, de­
cided June 20, 1966.

D ated at Mobile, Alabama, this the 9 day of August, 1966.
Daniel H. T homas

United States District Judge



8

I n the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

F oe the  S outhern  D istrict of A labama 

Crim in al  No. 14,858

Order of Remand Dated October 4 , 1966

S tate of A labama,
Plaintiff,

v.

J ohn  D avis,
Defendant.

# # #
Crim in al  N o. 14,929 

S tate of A labam a ,
Plaintiff,

v.

F ronzie H azzard, et a t ,.,

Defendant.

On the court’s own motion these cases are remanded to 
the appropriate forum in the judicial system of the State 
of Alabama pursuant to the rulings in Georgia v. Rachel, 
384 U.S. 780 (1966) and Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 
808 (1966).

Dated at Mobile, Alabama, this the 4th day of October, 
1966.

Daniel H. T homas
United States District Judge



9

Notice of Appeal

I n  t h e

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F oe the  S outhern  D istrict oe A labama 

N orthern  D ivision 

Cr . N o. 14,858

S tate oe A labam a ,

v.
Plaintiff,

J ohn  D avis,
Defendant.

Defendant John Davis hereby appeals to the United 
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit from the 
Order of this Court entered on October 4, 1966, remanding 
the charges against him of disorderly conduct and failure 
to obey the command of a law enforcement officer, respec­
tively, to the Alabama court for trial.



10

I n the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

P oe the  S outhern  D istrict of A labama 

S outhern  D ivision 

Cr. N o. 14,858

Motion for Stay of Remand
Order Pending Appeal

S tate of A labam a,

v.
Plaintiff,

J ohn  D avis,

# *
Cr . N o. 14,929

S tate of A labam a,

v.

Defendant.

Plaintiff,

F ronzie H azzard, et al .,
Defendants.

Pursuant to Rule 62(g), F.R.C.P., defendants in the above 
cases respectfully move this Court for a stay of its order 
of October 4, 1966, remanding for trial by authorities of the 
State of Alabama, criminal charges brought against them, 
respectively, of disorderly conduct and failure to obey the 
command of a law enforcement officer, and perjury. Defend­
ants have this day appealed the above mentioned order and



11

respectfully request this Court to issue its stay for the 
following reasons:

1. Defendants cases present the issue whether the Fed­
eral civil rights removal statute (28 U.S.C. §1443(1)) em­
braces state criminal prosecutions allegedly brought to 
deter Negroes from registering to vote.

Defendant Davis alleged that he was a volunteer worker 
in a voter registration project being conducted by the 
Southern Christian Leadership Conference. The purpose 
of the project was to attempt to eliminate discrimination in 
voting throughout Alabama by peaceful means. Defendant 
alleged that he was arrested in the Clarke County Court­
house while assisting other persons in their effort to be­
come registered voters. Defendant sought information from 
a Deputy Sheriff as to certain procedures connected with 
the county registration, and at the time he did so, was ar­
rested.

Defendant Hazzard, and the other defendants described 
in his petition for removal, alleged that on February 23, 
1966, they were notified by the Sheriff of Clarke County to 
appear in the Circuit Court to answer perjury indictments 
issued by the grand jury. The indictments were apparently 
predicated on earlier successful registration efforts, and 
arise from alleged misstatements of fact on voter registra­
tion forms. Defendants alleged that the perjury indictments 
were brought for the sole reason of punishing them for an 
exercise of rights secured by the Constitution and laws of 
the United States.

2. This Court remanded the state prosecutions, relying 
upon City of Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U. S. 808 (1966), 
and Rachel v. Georgia, 384 U.S. 780 (1966). Defendants con-

Motion for Stay of Remand
Order Pending Appeal



12

tend that their cases are controlled by principles announced 
in Georgia v. Rachel, supra, and that while City of Green­
wood v. Peacock, supra, indicates disallowance of similar 
claims, the protection accorded removal petitioners claim­
ing voting rights protection was not clearly or authorita­
tively presented in Peacock and warrant reconsideration. 
Otherwise, the anomalous result would obtain that voting 
rights, declared to be basic civil rights, (cf., Reynolds v. 
Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 561-62 (1964)), would be relegated to a 
status inferior to the right to gain service in a place of 
public accommodation. It seems certain that Congress did 
not intend such result and that the Supreme Court will 
ultimately clarify the issue. Indeed, the United States 
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recognized this in 
State of North Carolina v. Hawkins, No. 10,062 (Order of 
September 1, 1966) by staying the issuance of its mandate 
affirming a lower court remand order, to allow appellant 
there to present this precise issue to the Supreme Court by 
Writ of Certiorari. Therefore, defendants are entitled to 
have the Court of Appeals pass on their claims contained 
in their verified removal petitions, and in order to prevent 
irreparable harm through trial and conviction before their 
appeals can be heard and determined, the defendants re­
quest that this Court stay its remand order.

W herefore, defendants pray that this Court stay its re­
mand order of October 4, 1966, pending the disposition of 
their claims on appeal to the United States Court of Ap­
peals for the Fifth Circuit.

Motion for Stay of Remand
Order Pending Appeal

Respectfully submitted,



13

I n  the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

F oe th e  S outhebn  D istrict of A labama 

Crim in al  N o. 14,858

Order of October 31, 1966

S tate of A labam a,
Plaintiff,

v.

J ohn  D avis,
Defendant.

Crim in al  N o. 14,929 

S tate of A labam a,
Plaintiff,

v.

F ronzie H azzard, et al .,
Defendants.

By order entered herein on October 4, 1966, being Minute 
Entry No. 21,020, this court ordered that the cases be re­
manded to the appropriate judicial forum in the State of 
Alabama. On October 5,1966, the entire files were returned 
to the appropriate state forum. On October 13, 1966, the 
defendants filed Notice of Appeal. Also, on October 13, 
1966, the defendants filed Motion for Stay of remand order 
pending appeal, and cited, as authority therefor, Rule 62(g), 
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. At the outset, it should 
be noted that Rule 62(g) deals only with the authority of



14

an appellate court to enter an order of stay. Regardless 
of the scope of Rule 62(g), it is not applicable to these 
criminal actions and, further, the court does not find au­
thority for the entry of such a stay in the applicable Federal 
Rules of Criminal Procedure. Such relief, if appropriate, 
must be sought in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the Fifth Circuit as this court takes the position that the 
filing of the Notice of Appeal divested it of jurisdiction to 
enter such an order.

It is O rdered, A djudged and D ecreed that the m otion  fo r  
stay o f  rem and ord er pend ing appeal is D enied .

D one at Mobile, Alabama this the 31st day  of October, 
1966.

Order of October 31, 1966

D aniel  H. T hom as 
Chief Judge



15

VOLUME II

Notice of Removal

I n  the

CIRCUIT COURT 

Of Clarke C o u nty , A labama 

Crim in al  A ction N o. 14,929

S tate of A labam a,

v.

F ronzie H azzard, et al .,

Plaintiff,

Defendants.

To:
Attorney J. Massey Edgar 
County Solicitor-District Attorney 
Clarke County, Alabama

Sis:
P lease take notice that a verified petition for removal of 

the above-entitled action from the Circuit Court of Clarke 
County, Alabama, to the United States District Court for 
the Southern District of Alabama, Southern Division, a 
copy of which is attached hereto, was filed with the Clerk 
of said District Court at Mobile, Alabama.

Dated this the 21st day of March, 1966.



16

I n the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

F ob th e  S outhern  D istrict of A labama 

S outhern  D ivision 

Cr im in al  N o. 14929

Petition for Removal

S tate of A labam a,

Plaintiff -R espondent, 
v.

F ronzie H azzard, Ollie Cu sh o n , Olivia W elc h , J ake  K idd, 
S am  D. T aite , F loretta C h a pm a n , D amon  K iel , J ames 
A . M cC oy, J r ., R ossie L ew is , L ige E zell , R ebecca M. 
F ox, R ebecca B . F ox, A ustin  Cleveland , J o h n n ie  T odd, 
J ulia  N obles, M in n ie  L ee Cater (C oates) , M ary L ee 
E ngland , N esby E ngland , M. J. Ch a pm a n , N athan  
S m it h , A mos B u m per , J. C. P u g h , W illie  D . L affitte , 
E dd J ackson , J r,, and H aywood M u r p h y ,

Defendants-Petitioners.

To the Honorable Judge of the United States District Court 
for the Southern District of Alabama:

Tlie petition of the above-named defendants, by Vernon 
Z. Crawford, Jack Greenberg, and Charles Stephen Ralston, 
their attorneys, respectfully shows:



17

I

Jurisdiction of this court is invoked under Title 28 U.S.C. 
§1443, Title 42 U.S.C. §§1971,1983, the Voting Rights Act of 
1965 and the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution of 
the United States.

II

Prior to the passage of the Federal Voting Rights Act 
of 1965, officials o^Clarke County, Alabama, had in various 
ways denied to Negiro~cit±znTI^of that County their rights 
to register to vote and to vote. Subsequent to the passage 
of that Act, and pursuant to its authority, large numbers 
of Negro citizens have registered to vote in Clarke County, 
Alabama. Most of the named petitioners herein have so 
registered to vote and hope to exercise their right to vote 
in upcoming state and county elections.

III

On February 23, 1966, with no prior warning, the peti­
tioners were ifoTified Bythe sheriff of the above county that 
they were to appear in the Circuit Court of Clarke County 
on February 25, 1966, to answer to indictments for per­
jury handed down by the grand jury of said county. This 
notification by the sheriff was the first time the petitioners 
had heard of said indictments; at no time had they been 
informed that the grand jury was considering any such 
charges. The petitioners notified the attorneys appearing 
herein, and Mr. Vernon Z. Crawford appeared at the ar­
raignment hearing on the morning of February 25th and 
obtained a continuance of said cases.

Petition for Removal



Petition for Removal

IV

/y

The obstensible basis for the indictments for perjury was 
that the petitioners had made misstatements of fact under 
oath on the voter registration forms that they filled out in 
the exercise of the rights granted them under the Voting 
Rights Act of 1965. Petitioners allege that there is no basis 
in fact for said charges of perjury, but that said charges 
were brought against them for the purpose of harassing and 
intimidating them in the_ exercise of rights and privileges 
granted by the Constitution and laws of the XJhrtecl States, 
all with the intent of impeding and discouraging t h e m s e l v e s , A  
and other Negro citizens from exercising said rights. sj

y

The acts for which petitioners are being held to answer ^ 
for offenses, as described in paragraphs II, III and IV" 
above, are, insofar as the offenses charged have any basis 
in fact, acts in the constitutionally protected exercise of 
petitioners’ rights, privileges and immunities to register 
to vote and vote guaranteed by the U.S. Const., Amend. XV 
and 42 U.S.C. §§1983 and 1971 and the Voting Rights Act 
of 1965. Insofar as the offenses charged against petitioners 
are based on allegations of conduct not protected by the 
federal Constitution and laws cited, those allegations are 
groundless in fact. Prosecution of petitioners on the 
charges against them has punished and will punish them 
for the exercise of rights, privileges and immunities, guar­
anteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States, 
for, if the Alabama statutes under which they are prose­
cuted make petitioners’ conduct criminal, those statutes 
are unconstitutional as applied, whereas if the statutes are 
construed so as to save their constitutionality under the 
federal Constitution, there is no evidence upon which peti-

f  tfl} (JC jLj

I 9 /



19

tioners may be convicted consistent with the due process of 
law required by the Fourteenth Amendment.

VI

By reason of the foregoing, the petitioners are being- 
prosecuted for acts done under color of authority derived 
from the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution and 42 
U.S.C. §§1971 and 1983, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 
Therefore, this is a criminal prosecution removable under 
28 U.S.C. §§1443(1) and (2).

Also, the prosecutions result in the denial of the peti­
tioners’ equal right to register to vote, and to vote, and to 
be free from interference in seeking to register to vote, all 
protected by the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution, 
42 U.S.C. §1971, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. There­
fore, the prosecution is removable under 28 U.S.C. §1443(1).

W hebefobe, petitioners pray that:

1. These criminal proceedings be removed from the Cir­
cuit Court of Clarke County, Alabama, to this Court pur­
suant to 28 U.S.C. §1443;

2. That this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1446 and 
1651, issue its writ of injunction against the continuance of 
these prosecutions in the Circuit Court of Clarke County;

3. That after a hearing on the allegations of this petition 
this Court dismiss the prosecutions against them; and

4. That this Court grant any further or additional relief 
as may appear to the Court necessary and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

(Verified, March 21, 1966.)

Petition for Removal



20

Notice of Appeal

I n the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
F ob th e  S outhern  D istrict of A labama 

S outhern  D ivision 

Cr. N o. 14,929

S tate of A labam a,
Plaintiff,

v.

F ronzie H azzard, Ollie C u sh o n , Olivia W elc h , J ake K idd,, 
S am  D . T aite , F loretta C h a pm a n , D amon  K iel , J ames 
A . M cC oy, J r ., R ossie L ew is , L ige E zell , R ebecca M. 
F ox, R ebecca B. F ox, A u stin  Cleveland , J o h n n ie  T odd, 
J u lia  N obles, M in n ie  L ee Cater (C oates), M ary L ee 
E ngland, N esby E ngland, M . J. Ch a pm a n , N ath an  
S m it h , A mos B u m per , J. C. P u g h , W illie  D . L affitte , 
E dd J ackson , J r ., and H aywood M u r p h y ,

Defendants.

Defendants Fronzie Hazzard, Ollie Cushon, Olivia Welch, 
Jake Kidd, Sam D. Taite, Floretta Chapman, Damon Kiel, 
James A. McCoy, Jr., Rossie Lewis, Lige Ezell, Rebecca M. 
Fox, Rebecca B. Fox, Austin Cleveland, Johnnie Todd, 
Julia Nobles, Minnie Lee Cater (Coates), Mary Lee 
England, Nesby England, M. J. Chapman, Nathan Smith, 
Amos Bumper, J. C. Pugh, Willie D. Laffitte, Edd Jackson, 
Jr., and Haywood Murphy, hereby appeal to the United 
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit from the 
Order of this Court entered on October 4, 1966 remanding 
perjury indictments filed against them for alleged misstate­
ments of fact on voter registration forms to the Circuit 
Court of Clarke County, Alabama, for trial.



21

Motion to Strike One of Defendants

I n  th e

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

F oe th e  S outhern  D istrict o f  A labama 

S outhern  D ivision 

Ce . N o. 14,929

S tate of A labam a,

vs.
Plaintiff,

F ronzie H azzaed, Ollie C u sh o n , Olivia  W elc h , J ake K idd, 
S am  D . T aite , F lobetta C h a pm a n , D am on  K iel , J ames 
A . M cC oy, J r ., R ossie L ew is , L ige E zell , R ebecca M. 
F ox , R ebecca B . F ox, A u stin  Cleveland , J o h n n ie  T odd, 
J ulia N obles, M in n ie  L ee Cater (C oates), M ary L ee 
E ngland, N esby E ngland, M . J . C h a pm a n , N athan  
S m it h , A mos B u m per , J. C. P u g h , W illie D . L apeitte , 
E dd J ackson , J r ., and H aywood M u r p h y ,

Defendants.

Comes now, Vernon Z. Crawford and moves to strike the 
Defendant, Haywood Murphy on the ground to-wit:

1. That Defendant, Haywood Murphy’s name was inad­
vertently included within the names of the Defendants we 
are representing and the inclusion of Defendant, Haywood 
Murphy’s name was in error.



MEILEN PRESS INC. —  N. Y. 219