Bell v. Maryland Transcript of Record

    TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD

Supreme Court of the United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1963

No. 12

ROBERT MACK BELL, ET AL., PETITIONERS,

vs.

MARYLAND.

ON WRIT OP CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS 

OP THE STATE OP MARYLAND

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FILED JUNE 8, 1962 

CERTIORARI GRANTED JUNE 10, 1963



SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OCTOBER TERM, 1963

No. 12

ROBERT MACK BELL, ET AL., PETITIONERS,
vs.

MARYLAND.

O N  W R IT  O F CERTIO RA RI TO T H E  COU RT OE A PPEA LS 

OF T H E  STA TE OF M A RYLAND

I N D E X

Proceedings in the Court of Appeals of the State 
of Maryland

Appendix to appellants’ brief consisting of portions 
of record from the Criminal Court of Baltimore,
Maryland, Part III _______________________
Docket entries and judgment ______________
Indictment ______________________________
Defendants’ motion for directed verdict ---------
Memorandum opinion, Byrnes, J. -------------- -—
Transcript of sentencing proceedings, March 24,

Opinion, Henderson, J. _____________________
Mandate _________________________________
Clerk’s certificate _______________________ _—~
Additional record from the Criminal Court of Bal­

timore, Maryland, Part III ________________
Indictment ______________________________
Transcript of proceedings, November 10, 1960 ...

Appearances __________________________
Witnesses on behalf of State ---------------------

O rig in a l P r in t

1 1
3 2
4 3
4 4
6 6

10 9
12 10
17 12
18 13

19 14
19 14
21 20
21 20
24 22

Record P ress, P rinters, New York, N. Y., J uly 3, 1963



11 INDEX

Original P rin t
Additional record from the Criminal Court of Bal­

timore, Maryland, Part III—Continued 
Testimony of Ella Mae Dunlap—

direct _____________ 24 22
cross _____________  31 25

Albert R. Warfel—
direct _____________ 33 27
cross _____________  38 29

G. Carrol Hooper—
direct _____________ 40 30
cross --------------------- 49 35

John Sauer—
direct -------------------  54 38
cross _____________  59 41

State rests ____________________________  60 41
Defendants’ motion for a directed verdict __  60 41
Witnesses on behalf of the defendants _____  61 42

Testimony of John R. Quarles, Sr.—
direct -------------------  61 42
cross _____________  65 44
redirect ___________ 74 49

Robert Johnson—■
direct _____________ 78 51
cross _____________  79 51
redirect ___________ 80 52

Richard McKoy—-
direct ____________  81 52
cross --------------------- 82 53
redirect ___________ 87 56

Phillip H. Savage—
direct -------------------  87 56
cross --------------------- 91 58
redirect ___________ 94 59

Renewal of defendants’ motion for a directed
verdict ---------------------------------------------  95 60

Appeal --------------------------------------------------- 96 61
Clerk’s certificate (omitted in printing) ______  97 61

Order extending time to file petition for writ of
certiorari _______________________________  98 62

Order allowing certiorari ____________________ 99 62



1
[fol. 1]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND
September Term, 1961

No. 91

R obert M ack  B e l l , L ovellen  P. B r o w n , A e im e n t h a  D. 
B o llo c k , R osetta  G a in ey , A n n e t t e  G r e e n , R obert M. 
J o h n s o n , R ichard  M cK oy, A l ic e t e e n  E. M a n g u m , 
J o h n  R . Q u a rles , Sr., M u r ie l  B. Q uarles, L aw rence  
M. P a rk er , and B arbara F. W h it t a k e r , Appellants,v.

S tate of M aryland , Appellee.

Appeals from the Criminal Court of Baltimore 
(Joseph R. Byrnes, Judge)

Appendix of Appellants’ Brief—Filed September 25, 1961

[fol. 2]
Index to Appendix

Side Folios

Docket Entries and Judgment......................................- 3
Indictment.......................................................................  4
Motion for Directed Verdict ..... ............   4
Memorandum Opinion ...................................................  6
Proceedings .....................    10



2

[fol. 3]
Isr t h e  Cr im in a l  C ourt of B a ltim o re , M aryland 

P art III

D ocket  E n t r ie s  and J u d g m en t

Docket 1960.
May Term.
Number 2523.

Charge: Trespassing, etc.
Prosecuting Witness—Gilbert C. Hooper, Sr.
Appearance of R. B. Watts, T. R. Bearing and J. J. 

Mitchell, Attorneys, as to each, filed.

June 20, 1960—Recognizance as to each filed.
June 24, 1960—Presentment as to each filed — e.d. •— 

Capias Issued—Cepi, Bail as to each.
June 27, 1960—Recognizance taken as to each: Released 

on own Recognizance—$100.00.
July 12,1960—Indictment filed.
November 10, 1960—Copy of Indictment Served—Re­

ceipt filed.
November 10, 1960—Arraigned and pleads as to each, 

Not Guilty.
November 10, 1960—Submits under plea as to each, Not 

Guilty and Issue before Byrnes, Judge.
November 10, 1960—Not concluded and resumed on 24 

March, 1961.
March 24, 1961—Verdict: As to each, Guilty 1st Count, 

Not Guilty 2nd Count.
March 24,1961—Judgment: As to each, Fined $10.00 and 

Costs. Fine suspended and to pay Court Costs.
March 24, 1961—As to Bell, et al., Costs $89.00 paid 

Sheriff.



3

[fol. 4] March 24, 1961—Memorandum Opinion filed. 
Byrnes, Judge.

April 12, 1961—As to each: An Appeal to the Court of 
Appeals of Maryland, filed.

April 28, 1961—Order of Court that the time for filing 
the Transcript of Testimony be extended to and including 
26 May, 1961, filed. Byrnes, Judge.

May 18,1961—Transcript of Testimony filed. Transcript 
No. 1800.

May 22, 1961—Appearance of Robert B. Watts, Esq., 
stricken out.

I n  t h e  Cr im in a l  C ourt of B a ltim o re , M aryland 

P art III

I n d ic t m e n t—Filed July 12, 1960 
State of Maryland, City of Baltimore, to wit:

The Jurors of the State of Maryland, for the body of the 
City of Baltimore do on their oath present that Robert 
Mack Bell, Lovellen P. Brown, Arimenth A. D. Bullock, Ro­
setta Gainey, Annette Green, Robert M. Johnson, Richard 
McKoy, Aliceteen E. Mangum, John R. Quarles, the elder. 
Muriel B. Quarles, Lawrence M. Parker, and Barbara F. 
Whittaker, that on the seventeenth day of June, in the 
year of our Lord nineteen hundred and sixty, at the City
aforesaid, unlawfully did.enter upon and cross over the
land, premises and private property of a certain corpora­
tion in this State, to wit, Hooper Food Co., Inc., a corpora­
tion, after having been duly notified by Albert Warfel, who 
was then and there the servant and agent for Hooper Food 
Co.. Tnc.. a corporation, not to do so; contrary to the form 
of the Act of Assembly in such case made and provided, 
and against the peace, government and dignity of the State. 

* # # # # # #



4

I n t h e  C r im in a l  C ourt or B altim ore , M aryland 

P art III

D e fe n d a n t s’ M otion  for  D irected  V erdict

Now come Defendants, by their Attorneys, Brown, Allen 
and Watts, Dearing and Toadvine, and Juanita Jackson 
Mitchell, and move the Court for a directed verdict in their 
favor and assign therefor the following reasons:
[fol. 5] 1. The restaurants which are the complaining wit­
nesses in above styled cases are privately-owned places of 
public accommodation;

2. Defendants were business invitees, peacefully upon 
the premises of these public accommodations, and are not 
guilty of trespass;

3. Application of Article 27, Section 577 of the An- 
y notated Code of Maryland 1957 Edition to these Defendants

abridges the rights of the Defendants to freedom of speech 
and of association in violation of the State of Maryland 
and the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the 
United States;

4. Application of Article 27, Section 577 of the An­
notated Code of Maryland 1957 Edition to these Defendants 
abridges the rights of the Defendants to freedom,of as­
sembly in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment to 
the Constitution of the United States;

5. Defendants were upon the properties in question under 
a claim of right and their arrest and conviction would be in 
violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth 
Amendment of the Constitution of the United States;

6. Conviction of the Defendants under the facts and 
circumstances of this case would deny to them due process 
contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution 
of the United States, in that the trespass statute as here 
applied authorizes their ejection, arrest, prosecution and 
conviction for being in a public place, solely on account of 
their race and color in violation of the liberty guaranteed by 
the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the 
United States;



5

7, Application of the statute of these Defendants violates 
their rights to equal protection of the law clause of the 
Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United 
States by singling them out for ejectment and arrest solely 
because of their race and color;
[fob 6] 8. The statute as applied to these Defendants
denied to these Defendants due process of law because it 
enforced a private rule or regulation of the restaurant 
owners requiring racial segregation and discrimination in 
the restaurants in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment 
of the Constitution of the United States;

9. The Trespass Statute, as applied to these Defendants, 
denied to them due process and the equal protection of the 
laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States, in that it authorizes or 
requires the convictions of Defendants of a crime for failing 
or refusing to obey an order of a private person based solely 
upon the race or color of the Defendants;

10. Defendants were denied equal protection of the laws 
guaranteed to them by the Fourteenth Amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States when, after having been 
invited into the facilities in question, as members of the 
general public, they were ordered out and discriminated 
against by the restaurant owners on account of their race 
and color, and when the State of Maryland enforced such 
discrimination by the arrest and prosecution of these De­
fendants ;

11. Application of the Trespass Statute under the facts 
and circumstances of this case violates the common law 
and statutory rights of these Defendants not to be excluded 
from the common market.

Wherefore, your Defendants pray that the Court direct 
a verdict in their favor.

Brown, Allen and Watts 
Dealing and Toadvine 
Juanita Jackson Mitchell



6

I n  t h e  Cr im in a l  C ourt oe B a ltim o re , M aryland 

P art III

M em orandum  O p in io n —Filed March 24, 1961 
B y r n es , J .

On July 12, 1960 the above named defendants, students 
attending local schools, were indicted by the Baltimore 
[fol. 7] City Grand Jury for trespassing on the premises 
of Hooper’s Restaurant at the southwest corner of Fayette 
and Charles Streets in Baltimore City. The first count 
of the indictment charges that the defendants

“ on the seventeenth day of June, in the year of 
our Lord nineteen hundred and sixty, at the City afore­
said, unlawfully did enter upon and cross over the 
land, premises and private property of a certain corpo­
ration in this State, to wit, Hooper Food Co., Inc., a 
corporation, after having been duly notified by Albert 
Warfel, who was then and there the servant and agent 
for Hooper [sic] Food Co., Inc., a corporation, not to 
do so; contrary to the form of the Act of Assembly in 
such case made and provided, and against the peace, 
government and dignity of the State.”

The second count charges that the defendants
“ . . . unlawfully did enter and trespass on certain 

property of Hooper Food Co., Inc., a corporation which 
said property was then and there posted against tres­
passers. Isle] in a conspicuous manner; contrary to the 
form of the Act of Assembly in such case made and 
provided, and against the peace, government and 
dignity of the State.”

Testimony at the trial disclosed that on June 17, 1960, 
the defendants entered the restaurant while it was open 
for business and requested the hostess, Ella Mae Dunlap, 
to assign them seats at tables for the purpose of being 
served. She informed them that it was not the policy of 
the restaurant to serve Negroes, and that she was sorry 
but she could not seat or serve any of the defendants. She



7

explained to them that she was following the instructions 
of the owner of the restaurant.

Despite this refusal, defendants persisted in their de­
mands and, brushing by the hostess, took seats at various 
tables on the main floor and at the counter in the basement. 
Not being served, which they apparently anticipated, some 
of the defendants began to read their school books.
[fob 8] The trespass statute, Article 27, section 577 of the 
Maryland Code, 1957 Ed. was read to the defendants and 
they were told by the manager, Albert R. Warfel, that they 
were trespassers, and they were then requested to leave. 
Upon their refusal to do so, police were summoned. Warfel 
was advised by the police that in order to have defendants 
ejected by the Baltimore City Police Department it would 
be necessary for him to obtain warrants for their arrest 
for trespassing. Warrants were obtained and the arrests 
followed. Defendants waived a hearing before the Magis­
trate at the Central Police Station and the case was re­
ferred to the Grand Jury.

Defendants contend that their ejection from the restau­
rant, and subsequent arrest were violative of the Equal 
Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth 
Amendment to the Constitution of tlfe United States. The 
position of the State and the Restaurant Association of 
Maryland, appearing as Amicus Curiae, is that these clauses 
of the Fourteenth Amendment do not prohibit discrimina­
tory action by private individuals, such as the proprietor 
of the restaurant here, nor do they inhibit state action in 
the form of arrest and conviction for trespass of persons 
who defy the proprietor’s request to leave his property re­
gardless of his reason for doing so. No cases supporting
defendants’ contention were cited to or..found by this
Court; on the other hand the State’s position is firmly 
rooted in authority.

At the trial of this ease, defendants’ counsel repeated 
arguments made before the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the highly-publicized case of Boynton v. Virginia, 
364 U.S. 454 (I960) and requested this Court to withhold 
its decision pending the outcome of that case. Since then 
the Boynton case has been decided, but nothing in the



8

Court’s opinion gives solace to defendants. While it is 
true that Supreme Court reversed the Virginia Court’s 
conviction of Boynton, an alleged trespasser in a privately 
owned restaurant, the Court avoided the Constitutional 
questions there presented (the same ones advanced here) 
and held that the restaurant at an interstate bus terminal, 
[fol. 9] although privately owned, was an “integral part of 
the bus carriers transportation service for interstate pas­
sengers” and any racial discrimination in the restaurant 
violated provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act barring 
discriminations of all kinds.

It is significant, this Court believes, that in Boynton, 
supra, the Court was careful to point out that “We are not 
holding that every time a bus stops at a wholly independent 
roadside restaurant the Interstate Commerce Act requires 
that restaurant service be supplied in harmony with the 
provisions of that Act.”

Two recent decisions clearly in point are determinative 
of the principle that in the absence of appropriate legis­
lation forbidding racial discrimination the operators of 
privately owned restaurants, even though generally open 
to the public, may discriminate against persons of another 
color or race, however»unfair or unjust such policy may be 
deemed to be.

In a per curiam opinion the United States Court of Ap­
peals for the Fourth Circuit, Slack v. White Tower, 284 F. 
2d 746 (1960), affirmed Judge Roszel Thomsen’s decision 
holding, after an excellent summation of the applicable 
law, that a restaurant owner in refusing service to a Negro, 
violated no law nor did such refusal deprive the Petitioner 
of any constitutional guarantees, Slack v. White Tower, 181 
F. Supp. 124 (1960).

In the most recent case dealing with efforts of Negroes to 
force the owners of business premises to open their estab­
lishments to all comers through so-called “sit-in” tactics,
our Court of Appeals in Drews v. State,-----Md. •——-, 167
A. 2d 341 (1961) affirmed Judge W. Albert Menchine’s con­
viction of four persons charged with disorderly conduct 
for refusing to leave Gwynn Oak Amusement Park in Balti­
more County after being ordered to do so. Speaking for



9

the Court, Judge Hammond pointed out that the duty 
imposed by the early common law to serve the public with­
out discrimination was later confirmed to exceptional call­
ings where an urgent public need required its continuance, 
[fob 10] such as innkeepers and common carriers. Contin­
uing Judge Hammond stated that

“ * * * Operators of most enterprises including places 
of amusement, did not and do not have any such com­
mon law obligation, and in the absence of a statute for­
bidding discrimination, can pick and choose their 
patrons for any reason they decide upon, including 
the color of their skin.”

For the reasons stated this Court must find each defen­
dant guilty on the first count of.the indictment, and not
guilty on tile second count.

Each defendant is fined $10.00 and cost, the fine is sus­
pended, the costs must be paid.

I n  t h e  C r im in a l  C ourt of B altim o re , M aryland

P art I I I

T ra n script  of S e n t e n c in g —March 24,1961
(The Court) I appreciate the assistance counsel have 

given me. This was an extremely well-tried and interest­
ing case.

I have written a short opinion based upon the law as I 
understand it to be, so I see nothing to be served by read­
ing my opinion. I will have copies for all parties.

The verdict is guilty on the first count as to each defen­
dant ; not guilty on the second count as to each defendant.

(Statement by Mr. Watts in behalf of the defendants.)
(The Court) I appreciate that comment, Mr. Watts. 

I agree with you these people are not law-breaking people; 
that their action was one of principle rather than any in­
tentional attempt to violate the law. Under the law as it 
stands they did violate this particular statutory section of 
our Code.



10

[fol. 11] As to the disposition: A fine of Ten Dollars as to 
each defendant, and because of what you just said and the 
fact they did not intend to deliberately violate the law but 
were seeking to establish a principle, the court will suspend 
the fine, but the court directs that the costs be paid by the 
defendants.

[fol. 12]
I n  t h e  C ourt of A ppea ls  of t h e  S tate of M aryland

No. 91
September Term, 1961

R obert M ack  B e l l , e t  a l.,

v .

S tate  of M aryland .

Brune, C.J., Henderson, Prescott, Horney, Marbury, JJ.

O p in io n  by H en d erso n , J.—Filed January 9, 1962
[fol. 13] These appeals are from $10.00 fines imposed, but 
suspended, after convictions in the Criminal Court of Balti­
more for trespassing on the privately owned premises of 
Hooper’s Restaurant. The appellants entered the premises 
in protest against the restaurant owner’s policy of not 
serving negroes and refused to leave when asked to do so.. 
In fact, they occupied seats at various tables and refused 
to relinquish them unless and until they were served. The 
manager thereupon summoned the police and swore out 
warrants for the arrest of the “sit-in” demonstrators. They 
elected not to be tried by the magistrate and were subse­
quently indicted and tried.

The appellants contend that the State may not use its 
judicial process to enforce the racially discriminatory prac­
tices of a private owner, once that owner has opened his 
property to the general public, and that the Maryland 
Criminal Trespass Statute, although constitutional on its



11

face, has been unconstitutionally applied. Apparently the 
appellants would concede that the owner could have physi­
cally and forcibly ejected them, but deny that he could 
constitutionally invoke the orderly process of the law to 
accomplish that end.

We find it unnecessary to dwell on these contentions 
at length, because the same arguments were fully considered 
and rejected by this Court in two recent cases, Drews v. 
[fol. 14] State, 224 Md. 186, and Griffin & Greene v. State, 
225 Md. 422. [We expressly held in the Griffin case, con­
trary to the arguments now advanced, that demonstrators 
are not within the exception in the Maryland Trespass Stat­
ute, Code (1957), Art. 27, sec. 577, relating to “a bona fide 
claim of right or ownership”, and that the statutory refers 
encea to “entry upon or crossing over”, cover the case of 
remaining upon land after notice to leave. >

We have carefully considered the latest Supreme Court
case on the subject, Garner v. Louisiana,-----  U.S. ----- ,
30 L.W. 4070, decided December 11, 1961. There, convic­
tions of “sit-in” demonstrators for disturbing the peace 
were reversed on the ground that the convictions were de­
void of evidentiary support. Chief Justice Warren, for a 
majority of the court, found it unnecessary to consider 
contentions based on broader constitutional grounds. In 
the absence of further light upon the subject, we adhere to 
the views expressed in the Griffin case.

The appellants further contend, however, that the Mary­
land Statute, as applied, denies to them the freedom of 
speech guaranteed under the First and Fourteenth Amend­
ments to the United States Constitution. They argue that 
their action in remaining on the premises amounted, in 
effect, to a verbal or symbolic protest against the discrim­
inatory practice of the proprietor. They rely heavily upon 
Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501. In that case a distributor 
of religious literature on the sidewalk of a “company town” 
[fol. 15] was prosecuted and convicted of trespass when he 
declined to leave or desist. The conviction was reversed 
on First Amendment grounds, despite the finding of the 
State court that the sidewalk had never been dedicated to 
public use. Cf. Tucker v. Texas, 326 U.S. 517, involving a 
village owned by the United States. But it would appear



12

that the rule of the Marsh case had not been extended to 
[fol. 16] the interiors of privately owned buildings, even 
those of a quasi-public character. See Watchtower Bible &
T. Soc. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 79 N.E. 2d 433 (N. Y.) ; 
cert. den. 335 U. S. 886; rehearing den. 335 U.S. 912; Hall v. 
Commonwealth, 49 S.E. 2d 369 (Va.); appeal dism. 335
U. S. 875; and Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U. S. 622. On" / 
principle, we think the right to speak freely and to make 
public protest does not import a right to invade or remain 
upon the p roperti^f "private citizens, so long as private r  
citizens retain the right'to choose their guests or customers. \  
We construe the Mahsh case, supra, as going no further than
to say that the public has the same rights of discussion on 
the sidewalks of company towns as it has on the sidewalks 
of municipalities. That is a far cry from the alleged right 
to engage in a “sit-in” demonstration.

Judgments Affirmed, With Costs.

[fol. 17]
I n  t h e  C ourt oe A ppea ls  oe t h e  S tate oe M aryland 

No. 91—September Term, 1961 
Appeal from the Criminal Court of Baltimore.

Filed: May26, 1961.
January 9, 1961: Judgments affirmed, with costs. Op. 

Henderson, J.

R obert M ack  B e l l , e t al.

v.

S tate  oe M aryland

M andate

Statement of Costs:
In Circuit Court:

Record
Stenographer’s Costs $79.00



13

In Court of Appeals:
Filing Record on Appeal ................. . $ 20.00
Printing Brief for Appellant.................  164.80
Reply Brief ............................................
Portion of Record Extract—Appellant ....
Appearance Fee—Appellant...................  10.00
Printing Brief for Appellee ...................  91.50
Portion of Record Extract—Appellee .... 
Appearance Fee—Appellee ..................... 10.00

State of Maryland, Set:
I do hereby certify that the foregoing is truly taken from 

the record and proceedings of the said Court of Appeals.
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand 

as Clerk and affixed the seal of the Court of Ap­
peals, this eighth day of February A. D. 1962.

J. Lloyd Young, Clerk of the Court of Appeals of 
Maryland.

Costs shown on this Mandate are to be settled between 
counsel and N ot T h r o u g h  T h is  O f f ic e

[fol. 18]
I n t h e  C ourt of A ppea ls  of t h e  S tate of M aryland

Cl e r k ’s Certific a te  

State of Maryland: Set:—
I, J. Lloyd Young, Clerk of the Court of Appeals of Mary­

land, the highest Court of said State with final jurisdic­
tion on appeals from the trial courts therein, do hereby 
certify that the foregoing are full and true copies of the 
documents, originals of which are on file in the office of said 
Clerk, in the appeal of Robert Mack Bell et al. v. State of 
Maryland, No. 91—September Term, 1962:



14

1. Appellants’ Appendix, filed in this office on September 
25, 1961.

2. Opinion of the Court of Appeals, filed on January 
9, 1962.

3. Docket Entries therein of the Court of Appeals, dated 
February 8, 1962.

In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand as 
Clerk and affixed the seal of the Court of Appeals of Mary­
land this fifth day of June, 1962.

(Seal)
J. Lloyd Young, Clerk, Court of Appeals of Mary­

land.

[fol. 19]
I n t h e  C r im in a l  C ourt op B a ltim o r e , M aryland 

P art III

I n d ic t m e n t— Filed July 12, 1960
State of Maryland,
City of Baltimore, to wit:

The Jurors of the State of Maryland, for the body of the 
City of Baltimore do on their oath present that Robert 
Mack Bell, Lovellen P. Brown, Arimentha D. Bullock, 
Rosetta Gainey, Annette Green, Robert M. Johnson, 
Richard McKoy, Aliceteen E. Mangum, John R. Quarles, 
the elder, Muriel B. Quarles, Lawrence M. Parker and 
Barbara F. Whittaker, that on the seventeenth day of June, 
in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and sixty, at 
the City aforesaid, unlawfully did enter upon and cross 
over the land, premises and private property of a certain 
corporation in this State, to wit, Hooper Food Co., Inc., a 
corporation, after having been duly notified by Albert 
Warfel, who was then and there the servant and agent 
for Hooper Food Co., Inc., a corporation, not to do so; 
contrary to the form of the Act of Assembly in such case 
made and provided, and against the peace, government and 
dignity of the State.



15

Second Count.
And the Jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do 

further present that the said Robert Mack Bell, Lovellen 
P. Brown, Armentha D. Bullock, Rosette Gainey, Annette 
Green, Robert M. Johnson, Richard McKoy, Aliceteen E. 
Mangum, John R. Quarles, the elder, Muriel B. Quarles, 
Lawrence M. Parker, and Barbara F. Whittaker, on the 
said day, in the said year, at the City aforesaid, unlawfully 
did enter and trespass on certain property of Hooper Food 
Co., Inc., a corporation, which said property was then and 
there posted against trespassers in a conspicuous manner; 
contrary to the form of the Act of Assembly in such case 
made and provided, and against the peace, government and 
dignity of the State.

Saul A. Harris, The State’s Attorney for the City 
of Baltimore.

[fol. 20]
S

2523Y

S tate of M aryland

vs.
R obebt M ack  B ell  (c) 17 B , L ovellen  P. B ro w n  (c) B 17, 

A r im e n t h a  D . B xjllock ( c ) B  17, R osetta  Ga in ey  B  
(c) 19, A n n e t t e  G b.e e n  B  ( c) 18, R obebt M . J o h n so n , 
B  (c) 18, R ichard  M cK oy B  (c) 17, A l ic e t e e n  E. 
M a n g u m  B  (c) 22, J o h n  R. Q u a rles , Sb. B (c) 20, 
M u b ie l  B . Q uarles B (c) 21, L a w ren ce  M. P arker  B 
(c) 20 and B arbara F- W h it t a k e r  B  ( c ) 18,

Indictment

( T ru e  B il l ) 

(R. B. Watts
As to each (T. R. Hearing 

(J. J. Mitchell



16

Nov 10 1960—Not Concluded

Filed Jul 12 1960
(Signature illegible), Foreman.

B y r n es , J.

W it n e sse s  :

Gilbert C. Hooper, Sr. 
Lt. Bedding CD
Sgt. Sauer 
Sgt. Grempler
Albert Warfel

T respa ssin g , etc.

Drawn trespassing 
0. K. JAM 
0. K.

Copy of Indictment Served 
Receipt Filed Nov 10 1960

Bell

A Nov 10 1960 P NG
Fined 10.00 &

T C

V G1 NG2 

Mar 24 1961

S Fine Suspended 
To Pay Costs

Brown

A Nov 10 1960 P NG
Fined 10.00 &

T C

V G1 NG2 s Fine Suspended 
To Pay Costs

Mar 24 1961



17

A Nov 10 1960

V G1 NG2 

Mar 24 1961

A Nov 10 1960

V G1 NG2 

Mar 24 1961

A Nov 10 1960

V G1 NG2 

Mar 24 1961

A Nov 10 1960

V G1 NG2

Bullock
P NG T C

Blned 10.00 &
S Fine Suspended 

To Pay Costs

Gainey
NG T C
Fined 10.00 &
Fine Suspended 
To Pay Costs

Green
P NG T C

lined 10.00 &
S Fine Suspended 

To Pay Costs

Johnson
P NG T C

Blned 10.00 &
S Fine Suspended 

To Pay Costs

P

S

Mar 24 1961



18

McKoy

A Nov 10 1960 P

V G1 NG2 S

Mar 24 1961

A Nov 10 1960 P

V G1 NG2 S

Mar 24 1961

NG T C
Fined 10.00 &
Fine Suspended 
To Pay Costs

Mangum
NG T C
Fined 10.00 &
Fine Suspended 
To Pay Costs

A Nov 10 1960 P

V G1 NG2 S

Mar 24 1961

Jolin Quarles
NG T C
Fined 10.00 &
Fine Suspended 
To Pay Costs

A Nov 10 1960 

V G1 NG2

Muriel Quarles
P NG T C

Fined 10.00 &
S Fine Suspended 

To Pay Costs
Mar 24 1961



19

Parker
A Nov 10 1960 P NG r c

Fined 10.00 &
V  G1 NG2 S Fine Suspended 

To Pay Costs
Mar 24 1961

Whittaker
A Nov 10 1960 P NG

Fined 10.00 &
V G1 NG2 S Fine Suspended 

To Pay Costs
Mar 24 1961

P osted to C osts R ecobd 

Date 3/28/61 By E. R. W in so n

Page Number 158
F in e s  & C osts

Fine ..............................................  ■—•
States Attorney ........................ . 5.00
Clerk ..............................................  8.75
Sheriff .........................  75.25
Attorney........ ...................................  —•

Total .......................................... . 89.00



20

[fol. 21] [File endorsement omitted]

I n  t h e  Cr im in a l  C ourt of B a ltim o r e , M aryland 

P art III

S tate of M aryland

YS.

R obert M. B e l l , L ovellen  P. B r o w n , A r im e n t h a  D. 
B u l l o c k , R osetta  Ga in e y , A n n e t t e  G r e e n , R obert M. 
J o h n s o n , R ichard  M cK ay, A l ic e t e e n  E. M a n g u m , 
J o h n  R . Q u a rles , J r., M u r ie l  B . Q u a rles , L a w ren ce  
M. P a rk er , B arbara F. W h it t a k e r

Indictment #2523

Transcript of Proceedings—November 10, 1960

Baltimore, Maryland 
November 10, 1960

Before Honorable Joseph R. Byrnes, J.

A ppe a r a n c e s :

James W. Murphy, Esq., on behalf of the State.
Robert B. Watts, Esq.
Tucker R. Dearing, Esq.
Juanita J. Mitchell,

On behalf of the Defendants.

[fol. 22] The Clerk: Indictment #2523. Robert M. Bell, 
Lovellen P. Brown, Arimentha D. Bullock, Rosetta Gainey, 
Annette Green, Robert M. Johnson, Richard McKay, Alice­
teen E. Mangum, John R. Quarles, Jr., Muriel B. Quarles, 
Lawrence M. Parker and Barbara F. Whittaker. As I un­
derstand all three counsel, Mr. Watts, Mr. Dearing and 
Miss Mitchell are representing all defendants, is that cor­
rect?



21

Mr. W atts: That’s right. All are here with one exception, 
Aliceteen Mangum.

The Clerk: All are charged with trespassing in Indict­
ment 2523. Now as to all defendants, have copies been 
received?

Mr. Watts: Yes, we have received copies.
The Clerk: Robert Bell, what is your age?
Mr. Bell: 17. -
The Clerk: Your address?
Mr. Bell: 2026 E. Hoffman St.
The Clerk: Lovellen Brown, your age?
Miss Brown: 17.
The Clerk: Your address?
Miss Brown: 2019 N. Wolfe St.

[fol. 23] The Clerk: Bullock, what is your age?
Miss Bullock: 17.
The Clerk: Your address?
Miss Bullock: 1211 N. Caroline.
The Clerk: Miss Gainey?
Miss Gainey: 19. 1518 N. Broadway.
The Clerk: Annette Green?
Miss Green: 18. 1019 N. Wolfe St.
The Clerk: Robert M. Johnson?
Mr. Johnson: 18. 1711 N. Castle.
The Clerk: Richard McKoy?
Mr. McKoy: 17. -2519 N. Colvin.
The Clerk: John R. Quarles?
Mr. Quarles: 28. 2409 West Lafayette.
The Clerk: Muriel Quarles?
Miss Quarles: 21. 1530 N. Caroline St.
The Clerk: Lawrence Parker?
Mr. Parker: 20. 2608 Burrell Ave.
The Clerk: And Barbara Whittaker?
Miss Whittaker: 18. 1110 Wilmot Court,
The Clerk: Aliceteen Mangum here now?

[fol. 24] Miss Mangum: Yes, sir.
The Clerk: Your age?
Miss Mangum: 22.
The Clerk: Your address?
Miss Mangum: 1404 Argyle Avenue.



22

The Clerk: All right. Now, the pleas as to each, Mr. 
Watts?

Mr. Watts: The pleas are not guilty as to each defen­
dant.

The Clerk: Court or jury trial?
Mr. Watts: Court trial.
Mr. Murphy: I ’d like to call Miss Dunlap, please.

E lla  M ae D u n l a p , produced on behalf of the State, hav­
ing first been duly sworn according to law, was examined 
and testified as follows:

By the Bailiff:
Q. Your name and address?
A. Ella Mae Dunlap. 902 Exeter Hall.

[fol. 25] The Court: How do you spell your name?
The Witness: D u n l a p .

Direct examination.

By Mr. Murphy:
Q. Miss Dunlap, where are you employed?
A. Hooper’s Restaurant, Charles and Fayette.
Q. Were you so employed on June 17th of this year?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. In what capacity are you employed at Hooper’s Res­

taurant ?
A. Hostess.
Q. In connection with your employment, what are your 

duties as hostess, what do you do?
A. Well, I ’m at the front. As the guests come in to the 

lobby I greet the guests. All guests are greeted by me or 
another hostess who might be at the front at that particular 
day.

Q. Well, what do you do when you greet the guests?
A. I ask how many is in their party.
Q. I see. Do you seat them?
A. Yes, I do seat them.



23

[fol. 26] Q. Is anyone seated without you or the other 
hostess seating them?

A. No, sir.
Q. No one is allowed to seat themselves in other words, 

is that correct?
A. As a rule, no.
Q. All right. Now on this particular day of June 17th, 

this was a rid ay was it not?
A. Right.
Q. Did something happen at the restaurant there, some­

thing unusual?
A. Tes, sir.
Q. About what time was it?
A. Roughly, say about 4 :15 or 4 :20.
Q. P. M.?
A. P. M.
Q. Now you describe to his Honor, please, just exactly 

what happened at that time?
A. At that particular day, 4 :15 or 4 :20, a group of people 

came in, 15 or 18 at a time. I said “May I help you?” A 
person said “Yes, I ’d like to be seated”. I said, “I ’m sorry, ,/ 
[fol. 27] but we haven’t integrated as yet”.

Q. These people were negroes, is that correct?
A. That’s right.
Q. And you refused to seat them at that time?
A. I said “We haven’t integrated as yet”.
Q. Where did this conversation take place? Where were 

you at that time when the conversation took place?
A. Right at the entrance of the top step in the restaurant.
Q. Where were these people, these people that had come 

in the group?
A. The group was in the lobby.
Q. All right. To get to the lobby, to where the dining 

area is, are there any steps?
A. Yes, sir. I t’s an elevation of about four steps.
Q. Is there a handrail there or two handrails?
A. Yes, sir. There are two handrails, one on each side.
Q. What is the distance between the handrails, approxi­

mately?
A. Roughly between four and five feet.

[fol. 28] Q. This is up the steps between the handrails



24

where the people have to come from the lobby to the dining 
area, is that right?

A. That’s right.
Q. At that time you told them you were not going to seat - 

them, is that correct?
A. I said “We haven’t integrated as yet”.
Q. You were at the top of the steps?
A. That’s right.
Q. They were at the bottom, is that correct?
A. That’s correct.
Q. What happened then?
A. They said “Well, you mean you’re not going to seat 

us?” I said, “Well, that’s right”. They said “Well, aren’t 
you ashamed of yourselves?” I said “Well, no, I ’m not.
It just so happens I work here. That’s Mr. Hooper’s 
orders. I t’s the preference of the customers”. They said, 
“Well, you mean you’re not going to seat us?” I said “Well, 
that’s right, I work here and that’s my orders at this par­
ticular time”.

Q. What happened then?
[fol. 29] A. In the meantime the manager was on his way 
to the front of the dining room or where I was standing.

Q. What is his name?
A. Mr. A1 Worfel. .
Q. Go ahead.
A. While I was talking to these people, Mr. Worfel came. 

He started to talk to them as well. In the meantime while 
he was talking, we were blocking the front of approximately 
four feet, four to five feet.

Q. Between the handrails?
A. We were standing there talking to the group. At that 

particular time the group broke. They broke through the. ] 
line or through Mr. Worfel and myself a distance of four 
to five feet and also went to the downstairs as well. We [ 
have a Grill which is downstairs.

Q. How did they get past you and Mr. Worfel?
A. Well, we were standing sort of sideways at the time 

and we were glancing back and answering questions and 
at the second we just turned, they broke through the line 
and seated themselves.



25

Q. Were you pushed?
A. They pushed me.

[fol. 30] Mr. Watts: That’s leading. I object to that ques­
tion.

The Court: Yes. I sustain it.

By Mr. Murphy:
Q. Well you tell us what happened, how did they get past 

you and Mr. Warfel?
A. Well, as I said we were standing sideways talking 

with various people which were asking us questions and I 
was pushed against the rail which is to the left of it.

Q. What happened then?
A. The line broke and I was pushed against the rail and 

also pushed back. I would roughly say eight to ten feet. 
That is, not literally pushed, but more or less edging back. 

Q. All right.
A. I couldn’t hold them back.
Q. What did the people do?
A. They seated themselves in various parts of the dining 

room between our guests that were dining.
Q. And what happened?
A. At that time they scattered from place to place and 

then Mr. Warfel called the police.
[fol. 31] Q. All right. Did the police eventually come?

A. Yes, the police did come.
Q. Your witness.

Cross examination.

By Mr. Watts:
Q. Now Miss Dunlap, as a matter of fact, after these stu­

dents were refused admission, didn’t you go over and talk 
to the manager and ask is that still the policy of the res­
taurant?

A. The manager was right there.
Q. He was not in front, in this four to five feet area, was 

he?
A. Yes, sir.



26

Q. He was blocking the area?
A. We both were standing there when the line broke.
Q. I see. When the group broke through, twelve of them 

got in and you put your hands up and stopped the rest of 
them? Isn’t that what happened?

A. I did try to stop them but the group wasn’t interested 
in being stopped.

Q. The ones who got in just walked in and sat down? 
[fol. 32] A. That’s right.

Q. And they didn’t strike you or actually shove you, did 
they?

A. Yes, I was shoved.
Q. You were shoved?
A. Yes, I was standing at the front rail and I was shoved.
Q. You described it as saying not literally shoved but 

you, as going to take their seats they passed by you, is that 
right ?

A. Well, actually, I was standing by the rail. The dis­
tance between four to five feet. At the top of this rail 
which I ’m talking about the entrance way, there’s a knob 
on this rail. I was pushed against that. Then I tried to 
stop them, the group from continuing on and as I said I 
actually was not pushed from there on but I was pushed 
when the line started to break. Then it was about four to 
five feet or maybe eight feet, I don’t know.

Q. I see. Now, you refused them admission to this res­
taurant solely on the basis of their color, is that correct? 
[fol. 33] A. Yes, sir.

Q. And that you didn’t refuse them admission because 
they were in any way disorderly?

A. Well, I wouldn’t say they were mannerly.
Q. Answer my question? Did you refuse them admission 

because they were disorderly?
A. No.
Q. Did you refuse them admission because they weren’t 

properly dressed?
A. No.
Q. Had They been white people^they would have been 

seated, is that correct ?__
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That’s all.
Mr. Murphy: I ’d like to call Mr. Warfel, please.



27

A lbert  E. W areel , produced on behalf of the State, hav­
ing first been duly sworn according to law, was examined 
and testified as follows:

By the Bailiff:
[fol. 34] Q. Your name and address!

A. Albert E. Warfel. 830 Argonne Drive.

Direct examination.

By Mr. Murphy:
Q. Where are you employed!
A. I ’m no longer associated with Hooper’s.
Q. Were you employed by Mr. Hooper on June 17th of 

this year!
A. Yes, I was.
Q. Where were you employed!
A. Charles and Fayette St.
Q. What capacity!
A. Manager.
Q. I want to direct your attention to that particular date, 

did something unusual happen there at the restaurant!
A. That particular afternoon, approximately 4:15 in 

the afternoon, I was called by the hostess in front of the 
restaurant where a group of people were standing. It 
happened to be this group plus a few others that are not 
here now.XIt has been stated, it had been , stated to me, 
company policy, we’re not, we have not integrated the 
[fol. 35] restaurant. I so notified— First I asked.the leader 
of the group, which I wanted to get it centralized. |[ spoke 

To him. I told him the company policy. As I was discussing 
this—

Q. What was this person’s name!
A. I believe it was John Quarles. ~
Q. Do you know which one he is!
A. The gentleman here in the uniform.
Q. Your name is Quarles! He indicated the defendant 

Quarles. Go ahead!
A. Well, while in the process of translating the company 

policy, the group broke. They brushed by us and sat at



various tables in the restaurant. After they were seated 
they proceeded to hedgehop.

Q. What do you mean by that, sir!
A. Well, what they do, originally they all go in, it might 

be four of them sit at one table. After they are all seated, 
they’ll look around for empty tables and break and spread 
out to all the tables in the restaurant.

Q. So that all the empty tables, were, occupiedj 
’Y'CTYo] they weren’t.

[fol. 36] Q. As best as possible?
A. They were spread out as evenly as they could. At 

which time then, I noticed Mr. Hooper. Upon his request 
I  notified the police.

Q. All right. Did you go out and get the police?
A. I stepped outside the restaurant looking for police.

I also had the cashier call the radio car.
Q. Did the police come?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. In the presence of the, police , did you read the tres- > 

passing statute to the defendants?
"'A. Yes, I did.

The Court: I ’d like to know specifically what was read?
The Witness: 577.
The Court: I ’m asking you.

By Mr. Murphy:
Q. I’d like to show you Section 577 of Article 27 of the 

Maryland Code of Public General Laws and ask you if this 
is the section you read to them, sir?

A. I read the whole thing, including this.
Q. But you did read this specific section?

[fol. 37] A. Yes, sir, I did.
Q. This is the section reading “Any person or persons 

who shall enter upon any, cross over any land” et cetera— 
is that correct?

A. Yes, sir.
The Court: For the record, Mr. Murphy, I ’d like to get 

again the section and the article.
Mr. Murphy: And that is Article 27, Section 577, is that 

correct?



A. That’s correct.
Q. What happened after you read this section of the 

Maryland Code to the defendants?
A. Several of the group, they were all notified they 

would be arrested for trespassing, several of the group 
left, while others in the group here stayed, at which time 
we went over and got warrants and had them arrested.

Q. Warrants were obtained at the station house by Mr. 
Hooper, is that correct?

A. That’s correct. Central.
The Court: At that time Mr. Warfel did you inform the 

group that unless they left they would be arrested?
[fol. 38] The Witness: That’s correct.

By Mr. Murphy:
Q. Some of them did actually leave?
A. Yes, they did.
Q. But these people remained?
A. That’s correct.
Q. All right. After Mr. Hooper obtained the warrants, 

did he come back to the restaurant?
A. Well we all come back to the restaurant.
Q. The police were there?
A. That’s right.
Q. What happened then ?
A. We had the people arrested.
Q. The police took all of their names, et cetera?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Your witness.

Cross examination.

By Mr. Watts:
Q. Mr. Warfel, is it?
A. Yes.
Q. Your instructions to your hostess, your help there 

was that they were not to serve negroes, is that correct? 
[fol. 39] A. It was company policyJdiat we were not in- ,, 
tegrated.



Q. So that these people were refused service solely on 
the basis of their color, is that correct!

A. That’s correct.
' Q. For no other reason!

A. No, sir.
Q. That’s ail.
The Court: Mr. Warfel, were any of the group taken 

to the station house or were they just released by the 
officer!

A. I believe they were all taken over but then they were 
released from Central.

The Court: Were they taken to the station house, Cen­
tral!

A. Yes, sir. I don’t remember.
The Court: Do you have other witnesses!
Mr. Murphy: Yes I have the police here too, your Honor.

[fol. 40] GL Carrol H ooper, produced on behalf of the 
State, having first been duly sworn according to law, was 
examined and testified as follows:

By the Bailiff:
Q. Your name and address!
A. G. Carroll Hooper. 3501 St. Paul Street.

Direct examination.

By Mr. Murphy:
Q. Mr. Hooper, you are the owner of various restaurants 

around town, is that correct!
A. That’s right.
Q. Do you have a restaurant located Charles and Fayette 

Streets!
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And that actually is owned by a corporation, is that 

correct!
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Hooper Food Company Inc.!



31

A. That’s right.
Q. Are you the president!

[fol. 41] A. President.
Q. Are you the lessee of that premises there!
A. That’s right.
Q. And you operate your restaurant there, is that cor­

rect!
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Or one of your restaurants!
A. That’s right.
Q. Did you so operate the restaurant on June 17th of 

this year at that premises!
A. I did.
Q. I want to direct your attention particularly to that 

date sir, did something happen at your restaurant!
A. Yes, it did.
Q. About what time was it!
A. About 4:15, 4:30.
Q. In the afternoon!
A. Afternoon.
Q. Well, you describe to his Honor what you observed 

at that time, sir!
A. I was in the rear of the restaurant where we have 

[fol. 42] a bar and lounge which is a distance of about a 
hundred feet from the front lobby. My attention was at­
tracted by the commotion up front. When I went up there 
all this had happened. This group of people here, entered 
the dining room and Kad~seated^lAemselyes,__had pushed- 
flieir way through the hostess, by the hostess, and had_, 

'"scattered about Th different" tables and there were seveial
minors in the group. __

— ..Q. Practically all of them were minors!
A. I mean juveniles, under 15, that we didn’t prosecute. 

They were released that day at the police station.
Q. Under 16 years of age!
A. Under 16. We did not prosecute them.

' Q. What were they doing when you saw them, sir !
A. Well, they scattered about, one at a table. They 

spread out like a fan in all sections of the dining room. 
These young girls that were juveniles and most of the



32

others had. a hook in their hand. They took a hook out 
and were reading it at the table. This was about the fourth " 
occasion that we had been visited by these people. On prior 
[fol. 43] occasions, particularly one that I remember, they 
came in. I think we were the first people in town that 
they tried to get in. When I came in they were all scattered. 
They refused to leave. It was about 4 in the afternoon.
I ordered the place closed. We turned off the air con­
ditioning and locked the door and I went around to the 
tables and told them we were closed and asked them to 
leave. They would not. There is a gentleman sitting back 
there named Tony Adano—

Mr. Watts: I object to this. This is another case he is 
referring to, if your Honor please.

The Witness: Well, I think it’s pertinent to the purpose 
of these people visiting us at this time. What I ’m going 
to say I believe will be pertinent to the case to show the 
intent and motive that these people were not coming here 
to eat.

The Court: Was this spoken by the man you have in 
mind in the presence of these defendants?

The Witness: This man back here; I set at the table 
with bim and two other people and reasoned and talked 
to him why my policy was not yet one of integration and 
[fol. 44] told him that I had two hundred employees and 
half of them were colored. I thought as much of them as 
I did the white employees. I invited them back in my 
kitchen if they’d like to go back and talk to them. I wanted 
to prove to them it wasn’t my policy, my personal preju^ 
dice, we were not," thaT l had valuable coldred'TmpTdyFes]

..arid T' thought "Just .-is' niiicli Of them, I tried to reason
""with "these leaders, told them that as long as my customers 

were the deciding who they want to eat with, I ’m at the 
mercy of my customers. I ’m trying to do what they want. 
If they fail to come in, these people are not paying my 
expenses, and my bills. They didn’t want to go back and 
talk to my colored employees because every one of them 
are in sympathy with me and that is we’re in sympathy. 
with what their objectives are, with what they are tryingy



33

to abolish, but we disapprove of tbeir methods of force 
amf pTiKhed tfaerr~way in.^
' hi owpthe'leadef^ I have talked to Mr. Quarles, who is 
on this case. I have talked to him on that same line.

By Mr. Murphy:
Q. He indicated the defendant Quarles.
A. Mr. Tony Adano, another one back there. All this 

and three or four cases before this particular case came up. 
[fol. 45] They knew how I felt and I say that these people 
coming in and putting books down, under 15 years of age, 
are not coming to be served. They are trying to legislate 
by terror, going to force me to either serve or close.

Mr. Bearing: I object.
The Witness: So on this particular occasion—

By Mr. Murphy:
Q. Tell us about that.
A. When I got there, they had spread out to all the 

tables. They wanted to be seated in the rear, the side, 
the front, the middle and everywhere, and why. Four 
people at one table, all left except one and go to another 
table. Very evident that the purpose was to let my cus­
tomers know that they are there and why do they want 
them to let them know they’re there? That I would like 
to know, when they know and have been told my policy, 
they are not going to be served.

Q. What happened, sir?
A. I ordered Mr. Warfel to call the police. He called 

the police. We read the ordinance in the presence of the 
police. They were asked to leave.

Q. You’re referring to Article 27, Section 577?
[fol. 46] A. The one you just read to Mr. Warfel. The 
Lusby ordinance. Then the police called the wagon and took 
them down to Central. Of course we had to go.

Q. You went down and got warrants ?
A. We got warrants.
Q. And you brought the warrants back?



34

A. We were even in Judge Kolodney’s office. Before we 
ever issued the warrants we called up. I was reluctant to 
even have these people arrested and give them one more 
chance to leave the restaurant.

Q. They refused to leave?
A. Yes, sir. Judge Kolodney called to Mr. Watts in 

our presence. I didn’t want to have them arrested but they 
refused to leave.
cQ. Were they taken down to the station house?

''A . They were. They were released on bond.
Q. Well, their names were taken by the police at your 

place of business, is that correct?
A. That’s right.
Q. And then they were told to be at the station house 

the following morning?
[fol. 47] A. That’s right.

Q. At that time they placed the bond at that time?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. But they weren’t actually taken in physical custody 

by the police on this Friday, were they sir?
A. Well, I can’t remember. They have been in about 

six or seven times. In fact one time they came in—
Mr. W atts: I object.
The Witness: And I think this is important too.
The Court: Yes?
Mr. W atts: I object to this, if your Honor please.
The Court: The same defendant, do you know?
The Witness: Yes, the same group.
The Court: The same defendants?
The Witness: Same defendants.
The Court: Overrule the objection. Go ahead.
The Witness: At the Shriner’s Convention, at 12:30, 

with a hundred people waiting for seats and the bar and 
lounge, it’s three deep and three of them come in the rear 
entrance, minors under 21, into a bar and lounge and we 
got to call the police to get them out there, blocking the 
[fol. 48] way, people can’t get out. They couldn’t have been 
served a drink because everyone here has testified they’re 
under 21.

Mr. Watts: I ’ll object to this unless he can specifically



35

identify who it was. Someone who came in on another occa­
sion shouldn’t have any effect.

The Court: That’s why I asked him if any of the same 
defendants here were in the other episode?

The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: Can you point out the ones f
The Witness: This man right here and that one next to 

him.
Mr. Murphy: He is indicating—•
The Witness: That’s two of them right there.
Mr. Murphy: Robert Johnson and Richard McKoy.
The Witness: They came in the bar during the Shriner’s 

convention and we had a hundred people waiting for seats 
and blocked the aisle. We had to call the police to get them 
out. Into a bar and lounge under 21.

Mr. Murphy: Witness with you.
The Court: Mr. Murphy, I have one of two names, 

[fol. 49] I don’t have the second.
Mr. Murphy: Richard McKoy. Robert M. Johnson.
The Court: Is it McKoy or McKay?
Mr. Murphy: K - o-y .

Cross examination.

By Mr. Watts:
Q. Mr. Hooper, you made a lot to do about the age of 

these people. Do you serve anyone under 16 in your restau­
rant?

A. What do you mean I made a lot to do about the age.
Q. Answer my question? Do you serve anybody—?
A. Before I can answer I must know what you’re re­

ferring to.
Q. You made a lot to do about the fact these people 

were under 16?
A. I ’m merely just stating I heard what they said.
Q. You do serve white people under 16?
A. Not in the bar. We serve food in the dining room.
Q. All right. You mean if a white person enters your 

bar— You serve meals in the bar, do you?
A. Only to people over 21.



[fol. 50] Q. You don’t serve meals to a family in the bar?
A. No.
Q. When they came into your bar they were on their way 

to the restaurant, were they not?
A. Well, I don’t know. They got as far as the door. I 

don’t know where they were going to stop.
Q. They have to go through your bar to get in the restau­

rant. You stopped them at the bar?
A. The front door is a distance of fifteen feet to the 

dining room door. They were stopped at the dining room 
door.

Q- In the bar nobody asked you to serve them a drink 
of whiskey, isn’t that correct?

A. They were not given the chance. They couldn’t even 
get to the bar. They were three deep.

Q. Their presence in the bar have nothing to do with—
A. We have a neon sign on the entrance to the bar. That’s 

where they came in.
Q. But you stopped them there, is that correct?
A. That’s right.
Q. Now, what I ’m trying to get at Mr. Hooper, you 

[fol. 51] gave the Court the impression these minors were 
in there to buy whiskey. That’s not true?

A. I did not give them that impression. I ’m stating the 
facts. I didn’t get that impression.

Q. Now, when Mr. Quarles and you sat down and you 
told him that you would not serve him and why doesn’t he 
leave—

A. Tony Adano and Quarles too.
Q. —didn’t they then tell you they wanted to stay to 

demonstrate the immorality and the unfairness of your 
racial discrimination, isn’t that correct ?

A. Mr. Watts,—
Q. Answer my question?
A. I ’m going to answer it.
Q. Did they tell you that?
A. Can I answer it ?
Q. I don’t want to get in any argument?

_ A. I t’s not an argument. I want to answer your ques­
tion. I go on record as I favor what you people are trying 
to do“and 1 told Quarles that.



37

Q. I say didn’t they “I
[fol. 52] A. But I don’t approve of your method in trying 
to reach it.

Q. Didn’t they say even though you won’t serve them 
they were going to stay because they were demonstrating 
and assembling against your racial policies so that the 
sympathy of the public might come on their side? Did they 
explain that to you ?

A. Well now, you’re putting words there. I couldn’t 
say that he said that. We had a long conversation about 
this thing. I told Mr. Quarles that I felt personally that 
it was an insult to human dignity. I 'sympathize with f t  
and also told them that m y  c U s t o m e n T g o v i - n i  m v  policy.

Q. Didn’t they say they'wanted to show your customers 
that people can sit peaceably and be served?

A. In other words then you’re trying to tell me that 
Mr. Quarles has a better opinion about how I conduct my 
business than I do.

Q. I ’m not arguing with you ?
A. That’s what you’re saying.
Q. I ’m trying to get evidence—
The Court: Just a minute. Mr. Hooper, I think it 

[fol. 53] would be more helpful if you didn’t get too emo­
tional. Mr. Watts wants to know what Quarles said to 
you was the reason these people were in your jfiace? Did 
Mr. Quarles or anyone give any reason ?

The Witness: Well, Mr. Quarles said in the course of our 
conversation— Your Honor, it’s very difficult for me to say 
verbatim, but—

The Court: What was the substance?
The Witness: The gist of it was this: That they had 

gained a lot through these peaceful sitins demonstrations, 
particularly in the South and they felt that, I told them 
that, Mr. Quarles, that they had come a long way. Five 
years ago such a thing would be unheard of and I thought 
if time would take care of what they were trying to do— 
He said “we’re not waiting for time. We’re going to force 
this thing and we’re going to accomplish it and it definitely 
has been proven we have gotten results by forging ahead 
and trying to exert our rights whether we violate the law 
or not.”



38

By Mr. Watts:
Q. Didn’t Mr. Quarles tell you that this was a peaceful 

non-violent demonstration?
[fol. 54] A. He didn’t have to tell me. I t was evident, 
other than the time he shoved the hostess aside.

Q. It was evident they were peaceful!
A. After they got seated they were peaceful. They read 

books. They did not want to be served food.
Q. Now, Mr. Hooper—stand up. You remember seeing 

this gentleman before?
A. Maybe I have. I can’t remember.
Q. Mr. Mitchell, stand up?
A. Yes, sir. That’s the leader. I  have talked to him too. 
Q. That’s all we’d like to ask.

S gt. J o h n  S a u er , produced on behalf of the State, hav­
ing first been duly sworn according to law, was examined 
and testified as follows:

By the Bailiff:
Q. Your name and assignment?
A. Sgt. John Sauer. Central.

[fol. 55] Direct examination.

By Mr. Murphy:
Q. Sgt. Sauer, I want to direct your attention to June 

17th of this year, did you receive a call or did someone 
ask you to come over to Hooper’s Restaurant, Fayette and 
Charles Street here in Baltimore City?

A. Lt. Redding and I were standing on the corner, as 
a result of the crowd that was there on the corner when 
Mr. Warfel come out of the restaurant and requested 
we come in while he read the trespassing ordinance to 
these people in the restaurant.

Q. Now, did you and Lt. Redding go over to the res­
taurant then?

A. We did. We went inside.



39

Q. About what time was that, sergeant?
A. It was about 4:30.
Q. P.M.?
A. 'Yes, sir.
Q. And you describe to his Honor what occurred, what 

you observed when you went in the restaurant and what 
occurred thereafter!

A. When we got into the restaurant there were several 
[fob 56] people sitting around at different tables. I think 
it was about one to a table.

Q. Were these white or colored people?
A. They were colored people.
Q. Did they appear to be older people or younger people?
A. Most of them appeared to be younger.
Q. Go ahead?
A. The general group were young. Mr. Warfel requested 

we stand there while he read the ordinance to them relative 
to the trespassing* act.

Q. Article 27, Section 577 of the Maryland Code?
A. That’s right, sir.
Q. And you were present when Mr. Warfel read that 

to the defendants ?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. Go ahead?
A. After reading it to the people in the upper part of 

the restaurant, he requested then that they leave. They 
refused. So he asked his clerks and the waitresses to go 
about the group and get their names and addresses and 
[fob 57] have them identify themselves. All of those there 
who did identify themselves stayed. Some refused to iden­
tify themselves at that time. After reading the ordinance 
upstairs we went down to the basement restaurant which 
is more or less of a cafeteria arrangement,, and the same 
thing followed down'thereT-"He read the ordinance down 
there and of the parties left. Some of them stayed 
and identified themselves. After this was all through the 
group were requested to leave again and refused, f We 
advised then Mr. Hooper he would have to get warrants 
if he wished to have the people arrested. He said that 
he would, and he left to go the Central District: I went



40

down to pick up the warrants. When I got down there 
it seemed that .Magistrate Kolodney had had some con- 'j 
versation with Mr. Quarles or one of the group on the ; 
telephone at the restaurant and arrangements were made 
whereby they could come down on Monday to a trial volun­
tarily.

Q. All right. Well, you then secured the warrants from 
the magistrate!

A. The warrants were secured but they weren’t served 
at that time.
[fol. 58] Q. And they were not placed in custody at that 
time!

A. No, sir.
Q. Did you go back to the restaurant!
A. Yes, I went back. The time I went back the people 

had left.
Q. They had left at that time!
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right. Now what were the names of the people 

that identified themselves at that time! The ones that 
were so requested to do so by the employees of Mr. Hooper!

Well, all right. Counsel, your Honor, has stipulated be­
tween the State and the traversers, Robert M. Bell, Lovellen 
P. Brown, Arimentha D. Bullock, Rosetta Gainey, Annette 
Green, Robert M. Johnson, Richard McKoy, Aliceteen E. 
Mangum, John R. Quarles, Muriel B. Quarles, Lawrence 
M. Parker and Barbara F. Whittaker, that they are the 
same individuals that were in Hooper’s Restaurant on 
June 17th of this year. The same persons that refused 
to leave at that time after being refused service because . 

■"of‘QieiYYace and that they are the people that gave their 
nameiTTo the efnployees of Hooper’s Restaurant at that - 
[fol. 5J]~time and that they are the same defendants on trial 
hcre today. Ts that so stipulated counsel!

Mr. Watts: That is so stipulated.
Mr. Murphy: No question about the identification of the 

various individuals!
Mr. Watts: None whatever.
Mr. Murphy: Your witness.



41

Cross examination.

By Mr. Watts:
Q. Sergeant, there was no disorder while yon were there?
A. No. Everybody was peaceful.
Q. Sergeant, you are a member of the City Police De­

partment?
A. That’s correct.
Q. And who pays you, the State of Maryland or the City 

of Baltimore?
A. That’s a difficult question.
Q. But you are, you were acting as a police officer?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Paid by either the city or the State, is that correct? 

[fol. 60] A. Yes, sir.
Q. That’s all.
The Court: Sergeant, do you know the overall time the 

group might have been in Hooper’s, from the time they 
went in until the time they left?

The Witness: I ’d say approximately an hour to an hour 
and a half, your Honor.

The Court: Thank you.

State Bests

Mr. Murphy: Thank you sergeant. The State will rest 
if your Honor please.

Defendants’ Motion foe a Dieected Verdict

Mr. Watts: If your Honor please, at this time at the 
end of the State’s case, under the rules, we’d like to sub­
mit for your Honor’s consideration a motion for a directed 
verdict. If your Honor will read it hurriedly? Most 
the parts follow the same pattern.

The Court: I guess I should reserve a ruling on the 
motion at this time.

Mr. W atts: I ’d like a ruling on the technical procedural 
matters, if your Honor please? Are you going to with­
hold your ruling on a directed verdict? Can we put on 
[fol. 61] some evidence and you rule on it later?

The Court: Yes.



42

J ohn R. Quarles, Sr., produced on Ms own behalf, hav­
ing first been duly sworn according to law, was examined 
and testified as follows:

By the Bailiff:
Q. Your name and address?
A. John R. Quarles, Sr. 409 W. Lafayette Avenue.

Direct examination.

By Mr. Watts:
Q. Mr. Quarles, are you one of the defendants?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you are a student at Morgan College, is that 

correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What year are you in now?
A. My second year at Morgan.
Q. Are you a member of a civic interest group that 

[fol. 62] staged this; how do you classify this, demonstra­
tion, is that right?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now tell his Honor, I think Mr. Hooper referred to 

the fact that he talked to you when you first wmnt in the 
restaurant, is that correct?

A. Well first, after entering the restaurant I was greeted 
first by the hostess and she asked me, as she said, “Can I 
help you please?” I asked her, I said “Well, we would like 
a table for all of us”._ She said “I ’m sorry but we haven’t 
integratedias’yet’”

Q. At that time were you prepared to pay for meals if 
all of you had been served?

A. Well, we have a treasury. At that time I had some 
fifty-five or sixty dollars in my pocket.

Q. Go ahead?
A. And after she stated she would not serve us because 

she was an employee there and she could not go over the 
orders of Mr. Hooper I asked her, well, why was it that 
Mr. Hooper had a segregated restaurant, didn’t he think 
that we were of a caliber, of the caliber of human beings



43

[fol. 63] to be served as humans. She stated she had 
nothing to do with this, she was only a person who was 
employed there. .Later, about two or three mimitna,talar 
the manager walked up,to me and he proceeded to.explaiji 
to"~m~e Mr. Hooper’s policy of segregation,. At the time 
that he was explaining this to me, we all had our backs 
turned to the group of students who were seeking service 
at the restaurant, and they were in a line waiting to be 
seated and at the time we were talking and had our backs 
to them, some of the students proceeded to come up the 
flight of steps, two or three steps and seat themselves at 
tables. Well, after the manager and the hostess became 
aware of this they ran over, wdiieh was only about two 
or three steps and throwed up their arms to block the 
students that were coming in. The students wdio wrere 
blocked, they had...been, .instructed, prior to entering the 
restaurant if anything came about where they were blocked 

"or obstrudtM by any of the employees of the restaurant 
they were to stop, stand still and not force their way 
into the restaurant or force their way to be seated,.,. This 
procedure they carried out. The students who were not 
able to be seated in the upper part of the restaurant went 
[fol. 64] downstairs to the grill and after the students 
were seated upstairs, about_10 or 12 students were seated 
upstairs and about the" sain£jiunjfc^
Hooper Tame in and he proceeded to talk to me about 
this. He was telling me how he had negro employees in 
his restaurant and he had negroes in his business, for 
the duration of his business ever since he had been in 
business. I was asking him, well, why wasn’t it these 
negroes he thought so much of weren’t capable of sitting 
at his tables to eat? He said, well, it’s because my cus­
tomers don’t want to eat with negroes. I then asked him 
why was it or how was it that he knew that his customers 
did not want to eat with negroes? He couldn’t answer 
that question and he asked me why we were sitting there. 
I explained to him we were there to be served and also 
to let his customers become aware of the problem of seg­
regation in Baltimore City and then he proceeded to say, 
give me his views on how he felt about it. He didn’t believe 
this was the way to do it and so forth and so on. I ex-



44

plained to him then when he said this, we were not there 
to interrupt his business and we were not there to distort 
[fol. 65] or destroy his business. We were simply there 
seeking service as humans and also as citizens of the United 
States of America.

Q. Now you describe this as a demonstration. Were you 
there as pickets in the process of assembling in protest 
against these policies as such?

A. Yes, we were there and there were also some pickets 
who were outside picketing with placards, stating Mr. 
Hooper’s policy so that the persons passing by or cus­
tomers coming in would realize that Mr. Hooper had a 
segregated policy in his restaurant?

Q. Those who went in were part of those who were out­
side?

A. That’s right.
Q. No further questions.

Cross examination.

By Mr. Murphy:
Q. Well your actual purpose then was to demonstrate 

rather than to eat, isn’t that correct?
A. The actual purpose first of all was to eat. After being 

refused service, that was when the demonstration came 
about.
[fol. 66] Q. Well is it normal for you when you go out 
to eat some place to get together a group of fifty persons? 
Is that the number that you have at a dinner party when 
you go out usually?

A. Well I have known this group to eat at dinner parties 
as many as 33 students.

Q. Well I mean actually, you went over there and the 
group went over there to demonstrate, isn’t that correct?

A. No. First of all we went there to eat.
Q. When asked by your counsel you said that it was 

a demonstration at this restaurant, isn’t that correct?
A. Yes, that’s what it turned out to be, a demonstration.
Q. You characterized it as a demonstration, right? Is 

that correct?



45

A. I don’t quite get your question.
Q. You characterized it to your counsel as a demonstra­

tion, that you were demonstrating at the restaurant, isn’t 
that right!

A. We were demonstrating after being refused.
[fol. 67] Q. You went there as pickets!

A. We went there with students waiting, seeking service.
Q. Did they have picket signs?
A. The picket signs were not brought out until after we 

were refused service. They were sent for.
Q. Well, you had already had these signs prepared did 

you not to use to picket?
A. Those signs were prepared for the Hecht Company 

Rooftop Restaurant.
Q. Now, where did your group meet before you went 

over there!
A. Where did the group meet?
Q. Yes?
A. The group met at Dunbar High School, around 3:30

p . m .
Q. And did you organize the group at that time?
A. No, I did not.
Q. And tell them where you were going to go?
A. I didn’t organize the group. Mr. Bell stated there 

were some students, his Student Council, he was President 
[fol. 68] of the Student Council at Dunbar High School, 
and I stated to him that some of the students from Morgan 
were going downtown to seek service from a restaurant. 
I did not give him a specific restaurant. He said he had 
students in his student council, members of his student 
council who wanted to go along.

Q. To swell your numbers down at the restaurant, isn’t 
that correct?

A. I don’t quite follow your question.
Q. I t’s very simple. You were getting additional people 

from the high school so that you would have more people 
in your group when you went downtown?

A. No. This all came about at a conference where Mr. 
Bell was present. He said he’d like his students to attend.

Q. In order to add to your number when you went down­
town?



46

A. It did make the number larger.
Q. That’s what I mean. Isn’t that why you wanted them 

to go?
A. I wanted them to go to seek service.
Q. Do you know if any of the young girls had money 

[fol. 69] to pay for the meals in the restaurant?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. They all—
A. They all had their own individual money. I asked 

them prior to leaving from the high school.
Q. You only know what someone told you, right? You 

don’t know if they had any money or not of your own 
knowledge ?

A. That’s true. I only go along with what they said. 
I don’t think they’d have a reason to tell an untruth.

Q. When you went there, did you expect to get a sepa­
rate table for each person that went in the restaurant? 
Did you?

A. Well I went there and I seated myself at a table. 
Mr. Parker joined me at my table and it was up to each 
student whom they decided they want to sit at a table with.

Q. I see. They were going from table to table, were they 
not?

A. No, they were not. Once they seated themselves they 
remained at the table they were seated in.

Q. Well, didn’t they try to occupy as many tables as 
[fol. 70] they could?

A. No.
Q. Weren’t there plenty of tables where only one person 

was sitting?
A. There were plenty of tables. If I ’m not mistaken 

there were 12 to 14 empty tables in the restaurant.
Q. You say this was not calculated to interrupt Mr. 

Hooper’s business?
A. No, it was not.
Q. By taking seats at separate tables it was not calcu­

lated to interrupt his business?
A. No it was not calculated to interrupt his business.
Q. Why did some of the students go downstairs? Didn’t 

you say they went downstairs because they couldn’t be 
seated upstairs?



47

A. After they were blocked forcibly by the manager and 
hostess, they proceeded downstairs to seek service.

Q. Well, wasn’t it the purpose in going there was to 
occupy as many tables as you could! Isn’t that correct!

A. No. If that were the purpose, if you, if that was the 
purpose in mind and having an idea that he had some 30 
[fol. 71] to 35 tables, it wouldn’t make any sense at all 
with that in mind to go in with 12 to 24 students.

Q. Well you did occupy as many tables as you all could, 
didn’t you!

A. No. As I said each student seated him or herself 
with the persons they decided to go to eat with. As I said 
I was joined by Mr. Parker.

Q. And after you were seated did you give your order 
to anybody and tell anybody what you wanted to eat!

A. After I  was seated there was no more discussion 
until Mr. Hooper came up and seated himself beside me. 
Then his son came after he did, about five minutes after 
he sat down at the table with me and we had a discussion 
on the same thing.

Q. Well, did you ask for a menu when you got seated!
A. I asked for a menu when I walked in.
Q. You say you asked to be seated, right! But after 

you were seated did you ask for a menu or a waitress to 
come to you?

A. The waitress came over and informed me she could 
not serve me.
[fol. 72] Q. Do you know if any of these other people in 
your group asked for a menu?

A. No, I don’t know if any of the other group—
Q. Really you didn’t go in there to get served at all?
Mr. Watts: I ’ll object to this, if your Honor please. The 

reason, if your Honor please, the State’s case indicates 
Mr. Hooper advised these students he was not going to 
serve, which makes it a useless gesture to order. That is 
his case he’s trying to make a lot out of. Mr. Hooper said 
he wasn’t going to serve him.

The Court: I think the last question is in order, although 
I think it’s been answered before.



48

By Mr. Murphy:
Q. AH right. Let me ask you this. You were asked to 

leave, were you not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All of you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And Mr. Warfel, the manager, read the statute to you 

on trespassing?
A. He did.

[fol. 73] Q. And as a matter of fact some of your group 
did leave?

A. Yes, they did.
Q. But you and these other young people that were with 

you refused to leave, is that correct?
A. We remained still seeking service.  ̂ We wsx£L..ia..kQE£s 

that Mr. Hooper would change his policy and serve ujh_
Q. You refusecl" to leave when you were asked to leave, 

is that right?
A. Yes, sir. I stated why I refused to leave.
Q. Mr. Hooper told you or one of the employees told 

you if you did not leave that they would try to have the 
police place you under arrest?

A. That’s right, they did.
Q. And you and these others still refused to leave, right?
A. Still sat there seeking service.
Q. You also have referred to this, these happenings at 

Mr. Hooper’s restaurant as an assembly, is that correct?
A. No, I don’t recall.
Q. An assembly of students? I  believe your counsel 

[fol. 74] asked you if you had pickets there, whether you 
were assembling there and your answer was yes. You were 
trying to assert your right to assemble under the consti­
tution, is that right, your free right to assemble?

A. That’s right.
Q. Well, you were trying to use Mr. Hooper’s restaurant 

to assemble on private property to assemble your group, 
is that it?

A. Well isn’t it true they also have—
Q. I ’m not here to answer the questions. You’re here 

to answer the questions. My question to you is this; you



49

were using Mr. Hooper’s restaurant to assert your right 
to free assembly? Is that what you’re telling the Court?

A. That’s right.
Q. On private property?
A. That I don’t know about.
Q. All right. I have no further questions.

Redirect examination.

By Mr. Watts:
Q. Now Mr. Quarles, you remained even though you 

knew you were going to be arrested?
[fol. 75] A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is that part of your technique in these demonstra­
tions ?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Why would you be willing to be arrested?
A. Because I think arrest is a small price to pay for your 

freedom as a human being.
Mr. Murphy: Well, I ’ll have to move that that be stricken 

out, your Honor?
The Court: No, I ’ll permit it.

By Mr. Watts:
Q. Now you have been in other restaurants before is that 

correct?
A. That’s right.
Q. And you sat there like you did in Mr. Hooper’s res­

taurant ?
A. That’s right.
Q. Did the business continue as usual?
Mr. Murphy: Now, I ’m going to object to that.
Mr. Watts: Well, he raised a question about interrupt­

ing Mr. Hooper’s business. He said he went there not 
to interrupt. I want to show he’s been demonstrating and 
[fol. 76] hasn’t interrupted—

The Court: That would go to the policy.
Mr. Watts: He made a lot to do, stating the fact this 

was intended to interrupt Mr. Hooper’s business. I ’m try-



50

ing to show this has been done on many occasions when 
business was not interrupted so that by following through 
it indicates this was not the intention of these people.

Mr. Murphy: I still object to it.
The Court: I’m not sure it’s admissible, Mr. Watts, but 

I ’ll let him answer it.

By Mr. Watts:
Q. Have you been on other demonstrations and sat like 

this and business continued?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. People sat and ate and were served, is that correct? 

You have also been in restaurants as you did on this par­
ticular occasion and been served?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. You were informed then that the policy had been 

changed?
A. That’s right, sir.
Q. Did you have this in mind when you went to Mr. 

[fol. 77] Hooper’s?
A. Yes, sir. A number of places we went to seeking ser­

vice, even maybe prior to entering, the restaurant was 
segregated but after entering the manager has changed his 
policy and served us right then and there.

Q. Are you a member of the R.O.T.C. at Morgan State 
College?

A. Yes, I am.
Q. After you graduate, what are your plans?
Mr. Murphy: Well, I ’ll have to object.
The Court: Yes. I sustain that.
Mr. Watts: That’s all.
Q. Mr. Quarles, you knew you were under arrest, is that 

right, by the police department?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you appeared on Monday voluntarily, in the 

station house?
A. Voluntarily.
Q. To submit to an arrest by the State, is that correct?
A. That’s right.

[fol. 78] Q. All right, that’s all.



51

R obebt J o h n so n , produced on Ms own behalf, having first 
been duly sworn according to law, was examined and testi­
fied as follows:

By the Bailiff :
Q. Your full name and address?
A. Robert Johnson. 1711 N. Castle St.

Direct examination.

By Mr. W atts:
Q. Are you a student ?
A. I ’m a student at Morgan State College.
Q. What year are you in?
A. Freshman.
Q. You admit that you were there on the date alleged 

in the indictment ?
A. I was there.
Q. Have you ever been in any Hooper’s any other occa­

sion ?
A. No, I haven’t.

[fol. 79] Cross examination.

By Mr. Murphy:
Q. When you went to Mr. Hooper’s restaurant on this 

day, how much money did you have in your pocket?
A. I had nineteen dollars in my pocket.
Q. When had you eaten lunch that day?
A. I hadn’t eaten lunch.
Q. You didn’t eat lunch? You didn’t go over to Mr. 

Hooper’s to eat, did you?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. You went over as part of this demonstration actually? 
A. I went there seeking service as Mr. Quarles stated. 
Q. Your primary purpose was to demonstrate?
A. No. Only if I had been refused service was I to 

demonstrate.
Q. You anticipated you were going to be refused service



52

because the pickets signs had already been prepared, hadn’t 
they?

A. No. I hadn’t anticipated any such thing.
Q. I see. At the table you sat at, who sat with you or 

[fol. 80] did you sit by yourself?
A. I sat downstairs in the Grill and there were several 

others at the counter which I was seated.
Q. All right. No further questions.

Redirect examination.

By Mr. W atts:
Q. In other words, you never went through that little 

opening there where the hostess was standing?
A. No.
Q. How many of you who are defendants in this case went 

downstairs and did not go through that place?
A. About 12 of us.
Q. Who are defendants here of this group?
A. All of them.
Q. Were downstairs with you?
A. No, not all of them.
Q. Approximately how many?
A. About six.
Q. That’s all.

[fol. 81] R ichard McK oy, produced on his own behalf, 
having first been duly sworn according to law, was ex­
amined and testified as follows:

By the Bailiff:
Q. Your full name and address?
A. Richard McKoy. 159 N. Colvin St.

Direct examination.

By Mr. W atts:
Q. Mr. McKoy, just one question I ’d like to ask you too. 

Mr. Hooper pointed out you as having been to his restaurant



on an occasion other than alleged in the indictment. Have 
yon been to Mr. Hooper’s restaurant on any other occa­
sion f

A. No, I haven’t.
Q. Are you a student ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where are you a student!
A. Dunbar High School.
Q. What year are you in!
A. I ’m a senior.

[fob 82] Cross examination.

By Mr. Murphy:
Q. When did you first become associated with these 

demonstrations in restaurants! When did you first get 
interested in that!

A. Well, the first time I had heard about dining at 
Hooper’s was, at least dining at a restaurant was when 
Robert Bell said that we were, we would, he would, well, 
said that there were some students went into Hooper’s to 
seek service. Well, I agreed that I ’d like to go because, 
well, I hadn’t eaten lunch for a while. Since we were going 
to eat I said I ’d go too.

Q. So you thought you’d go down and get a little lunch 
down at Hooper’s!

A. That’s right, a little lunch.
Q. But you thought you would go down with this big 

group, is that right!
A. Since they were all friends of mine.
Q. I see.
A. Yes, sir, they—
Q. When did you first know,— My question merely was 

this. Maybe I didn’t make it quite clear to you. Have you 
[fol. 83] ever previously demonstrated in any other restau­
rants !

A. No, I hadn’t.
Q. As a matter of fact wasn’t there or isn’t there some 

sort of instruction that they give you before you go down 
to the restaurant as to how to conduct yourself!



54

A. Instructions? I don’t understand.
Q. Well, don’t Mr. Quarles or doesn’t Mr. Quarles or 

whoever is in charge of the group tell you to act peacefully 
when you go in a restaurant?

A. Well, I think the only thing stated is that he wants 
to make sure that each person is dressed properly. While, 
you know—

Q. I see. Before you ever go down to lunch at Hooper’s, 
Mr. Quarles or whoever is in charge of the group asked you 
to he dressed properly, right?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. To conduct yourself peacefully in the place, is that 

right ?
A. He didn’t say anything about conducting myself.
Q. Not you in particular. I mean the group in general 

when he is addressing the group, doesn’t he say that?
[fol. 84] A. Well, as I remember, well, it was quite a while 
ago. He said that on entering, on entering the restaurant 
we weren’t to force our way through anyone.

Q. I see. Well, I mean he does give you, like a foot­
ball coach would do before the game, he gives you instruc­
tion on how to operate when you go down there, right?

A. Not exactly operate. He gives us—
Q. How to conduct yourself ?
A. The rules of etiquette.
Q. The rules of etiquette? I see. Does he give you money 

to pay for the meals?
A. No, he doesn’t.
Q. Did you have any yourself?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. I ’m not going to ask you how much. Well then, before 

you ever do go down to the restaurant they tell you, they 
give you the guide posts or the rules on what to do when 
you get there?

A. What is this, a sheet or something?
Q. I don’t mean a sheet. They do instruct you, Mr. 

Quarles or whoever is in charge of the group, get the group 
[fol. 85] together and gives them a pep talk and tells them 
what to do?

A. I previously stated.



55

Q. Are you not instructed to sit at many tables or—
A. No.
Q. You occupied a table by yourself?
A. Yes, I did. Anyone was invited to come and sit with 

me if they like.
Q. If you were going to lunch and you wanted to go 

with this big group of 25 or more people, why did you sit 
at a table by yourself? Had somebody done something to 
offend you that you had to leave the group ?

A. No. No one had done anything to offend me. I just 
sat at the first table empty that I saw.

Q. Y7ou sat at a table by yourself?
A. Yes, six'.
Q. Nobody else sat with you even though—
A. Unconsciously I sat at a table.
Q. Even though you had all been assembled to go, before 

you went down, you didn’t sit with anybody, is that correct? 
[fol.86] A. No, I didn’t.

Q. And did you attempt to place an order?
A. Well, I had thought that when you sit in a restaurant 

or at least when you enter a restaurant and have a seat, 
someone would come to the table and ask you if—give you 
a menu and ask you what you would like.

Q. Did you ask for a menu? Did you ask for service? 
Did you place a specific order for any food?

A. Well, thinking as I did, I didn’t think it was neces­
sary for me to call anyone’s attention to the fact that I 
wanted to be served.

Q. Well, now, Mr., I think it was Mr. Warfel did read 
this Maryland Statute on trespassing, is that correct?

A. Yes, he did.
Q. And didn’t he tell you and the other people in the 

restaurant that if you did not leave peacefully, after he 
had read the statute, that you were going to be placed under 
arrest?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you still refused to leave at that time, is that cor­

rect?
[fol. 87] A. Yes, sir. I refused because, well, I think my 
reason is the same as Mr. Quarles.



56

Q. Well in any event you refused!
A. Yes, I refused.

Redirect examination.

By Mr. W atts:
Q. While you were there did they serve any white people! 
A. Yes, sir. There was one man sitting in the restau­

rant.
Q. Were any ladies in the downstairs where you were!
A. I was upstairs.
Q. Well, he was served is that correct!
A. Yes, he was.
Q. All right.

P h il l ip  H. S avage, p ro d u c e d  on  b e h a lf  o f th e  d e fe n d a n ts ,  
h a v in g  f i r s t  b e e n  d u ly  sw o rn  a c c o rd in g  to  law , w a s  ex ­
a m in e d  a n d  te s t if ie d  a s  f o l lo w s :

[fol. 88] By the Bailiff:
Q. Your full name and address!
A. Phillip H. Savage. 3226 Carlisle Avenue.

Direct examination.

By Mr. W atts:
Q. Mr. Savage, are you still a member of a civic inter­

est group!
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And Mr. Hooper who previously testified in this case 

made mention of the fact at the time that the Shriners 
were there, a large group of teenagers or subteen-agers, 
people under 16, entered his restaurant. Now first of all, 
were you there on that occasion!

A. Yes, sir.
Q. When the Shriners were there!
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Tell his Honor what happened on that occasion!



57

A. We had just come from the Honorable Mayor Grady’s 
office seeking additional mobile registration units at Cherry 
Hill and Lafayette market. After leaving Mayor Grady’s 
office, we went to Mr. D’Alesandro’s office to discuss this 
[fol. 89] matter with him further. When we left Mr. 
D’Alesandro’s office I think there were 12 of us altogether.

Q. Just a moment. For the record, Mr. D’Alesandro 
you’re referring to—

A. Supervisor of Elections. We proceeded up Fayette 
Street and we decided we would go in Hooper’s and eat. 
Since there were a great number of us, we divided. One 
group went in the side door, the other group went in the 
front door.

Q. How many of you were there?
A. I think there were 12 altogether. I think, I ’m not 

sure of the exact number. When we entered through the 
revolving doors, three or four of us were able to actually 
get into the premises of the restaurant at that time, because 
the gentleman, I don’t recall who he was, proceeded to hold 
the door, blocking a number of us from entering. In fact 
he tried to push the door back causing one girl’s arm to 
be caught in to the door but after realizing this he did 
release it. The three or four who were in, were being 
pushed around and trying to be removed from the restau­
rant, and the gentleman who was standing at the door was 
[fol. 90] telling the young lady to try and get a police 
officer. Well, finally he went out the revolving door, enabling 
the rest of the group to enter while they went for the police 
officer who was at the corner there directing the traffic. This 
officer proceeded to push his way through the door and we 
were then entered or seated on a couch that—there were 
three of us seated and three standing. This officer then told 
us with an abusive manner-—

Mr. Murphy: I ’ll object to the characterization. He can 
tell us what it is ?

The Witness: The officer then said to us that we had to 
leave.



By Mr. Watts:
Q. What I ’m trying to get at, what was the age group of 

the people!
A. Well, most of us were over 21.
Q. Was there anybody under 16!
A. Oh no, definitely not.
Q. Do you remember who the youngest one was!
A. I really don’t know who is the youngest because I 

don’t know their ages.
Q. There wasn’t anybody under 16!

[fol. 91] A. I don’t think there were anybody under 16 
as I know of.

Q. Who all left at that time?
A. What happened was that this officer finally asked the 

lady to read the ordinance. After reading the ordinance 
we did leave. The first group. I ’d like to say this Mr. 
Watts, because I think it’s important. When we got on the 
outside, we were out and then the police officers came, 
seemingly because there was a riot or something. When the 
other group was read out we left.

Q. All right.

Cross examination.

By Mr. Murphy:
Q. Well then, the altercation was such inside of the 

restaurant that a number of police came, as you have said, 
as if there were a riot in the place, is that correct?

A. It seemed that way because of a number of officers.
Q. Don’t you think your conduct and the conduct of your 

associates at the time amounted to a breach of the peace? 
[fol. 92] A. It did not.

Q. Well, you were forcing your way physically into_ this 
restaurant after the owners had told you that they didn’t 
want you in there?

A. We never forced our way in there. There were three 
of us who got in. The others were forcibly prevented 
from coming in.

Q. Well, you were all trying to push your way in, weren’t 
you?



A. No, we were not. At no time. When the door was 
held, we stopped.

Q. Well, yon were describing somebody being caught in 
the door and everything else, weren’t you!

A. Yes, but this was only that they were trying to enter 
the restaurant at the time.

Q. And the owners or their agents were trying through 
physical force to keep you from entering, right!

A. Only that— What I mean by physical force that he 
held the door preventing it from revolving.

Q. The people that were with you, although you had 
been told you could not enter, and it was obvious to you 
[fol. 93] that physical force was going to be used by the 
owner and his agents to keep you from entering, you still 
attempted to enter and did as a matter of fact enter, isn’t 
that correct!

A. We only entered after the door was moved by the 
police officer allowing us to get in.

Q. And you don’t feel that this contributed, your conduct 
contributed to a breach of the peace, sir!

A. In no way.
Q. I have no further questions.
Mr. Watts: Of course we’d like to impose an objection 

to this manner of cross examination on the ground that 
Mr. Savage isn’t on trial and this was on another occa­
sion and not on the 17th. Let the record indicate that.

The Court: Very well.
Mr. W atts: That’s extraneous cross-examination.
Mr. Murphy: I didn’t put him on. Counsel put him on. 

I just cross-examined him exactly about the same things 
that he asked him about in direct examination.

[fol. 94] Redirect examination.

By Mr. W atts:
Q. You had no reason— You didn’t call the police!
A. No, we didn’t,
Q. And actually any conflict that was, was a breach of the 

peace is when the police came—



60

Mr. Murphy: I object to that.
The Court: I didn’t hear—
Mr. Watts: I said the only breach of the peace if any, 

was when the police eame ?
A. When the police came.
Q. At that time—
A. This caused more excitement than our presence.
Q. You had left?
A. Yes, we had left.
Q. All right. That’s our case, your Honor.
The Court: I think a reference was made by this wit­

ness and others to the reading of the ordinance! I t’s agreed 
the ordinance was really a statute?

Mr. Murphy: Yes, sir.
Mr. W atts: That’s our case.
Mr. Murphy: The State has no rebuttal.

[fol. 95]
R e n e w a l  of D e fe n d a n t s’ M otion  for  a D irected  V erdict

Mr. W atts: Of course we move again for our motion for 
a directed verdict.

The Court: I ’ll reserve my ruling. I think you would like 
to have an opportunity to present a brief?

Mr. W atts: I ’d like to be heard briefly now. It might be 
we could submit our brief at a later date and argue it at a 
later date.

The Court: I think it might be better.
(Conclusion of the Testimony)



61

[fol. 96] [File endorsement omitted]

I s  the Criminal Court of Baltimore, Maryland 
P art I I I  

Ind. No. 2523Y

State oe Maryland

vs.
R obert Mack Bell, Lovellen P. Brown, Arimentha D. 

Bullock, R osetta Gainey, Annette Green, R obert M. 
J ohnson and R ichard McK oy, Aliceteen E. Mangum, 
J ohn R. Quarles, Sr., Muriel B. Quarles, Lawrence M. 
P arker and Barbara F. W hittaker

Appeal—Filed April 12,1961

Mr. Clerk:
Please enter an appeal of the conviction of the Defen­

dants, in the above-entitled case to" the Court of Appeals of 
Maryland.

Robert B. Watts, 1520 E. Monument Street, Balti­
more 5, Maryland;

Juanita J. Mitchell, 1239 Druid Hill Avenue, Balti­
more 17, Maryland;

Tucker R. Bearing, 627 N. Aisquith Street, Balti­
more 2, Maryland, Attorneys for Defendants.

[fol. 97] Clerk’s Certificate to foregoing transcript 
(omitted in printing).



62

[fol. 98]
S u p r e m e  C ourt oe t h e  U n it e d  S tates 

[Title omitted]

Order E xtending T ime to F ile P etition for 
W rit of Certiorari—April 5,1962

Upon Consideration of the application of counsel for peti­
tioner (s),

It Is Ordered that the time for filing petition for writ of 
certiorari in the above-entitled cause be, and the same 
is hereby, extended to and including June 8, 1962.

Hugo L. Black, Associate Justice of the Supreme 
Court of the United States.

Dated this 5th day of April, 1962.

[fol. 99]
S u p r e m e  C ourt of t h e  U n it e d  S tates 

No. 167—October Term, 1962

R obert M ack  B e l l , et al., Petitioners, 
vs.

M aryland .

Order A l l o w in g  C ertiorari— June 10,1963
The petition herein for a writ of certiorari to the Court 

of Appeals of the State of Maryland is granted, and the 
case is placed on the summary calendar.

And it is further ordered that the duly certified copy 
of the transcript of the proceedings below which accom­
panied the petition shall be treated as though filed in re­
sponse to such writ.



C l .

vv s i - * '

l H
a

0 9 ,

,¥