Central Amusement Company v. District of Columbia, 1753.
| Decision Date | 03 April 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 1753.,1753. |
| Citation | 121 A.2d 865 |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
| Parties | CENTRAL AMUSEMENT COMPANY, Inc., a Corporation, Appellant, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Appellee. |
H. Clifford Allder, Washington, D. C., with whom Charles E. Ford, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.
Hubert B. Pair, Asst. Corp. Counsel, with whom Vernon E. West, Corp. Counsel, Chester H. Gray, Principal Asst. Corp. Counsel, and Milton D. Korman, Asst. Corp. Counsel, were on the brief, for appellee.
Phineas Indritz, Washington, D. C., filed a brief on behalf of American Veterans Committee, as amicus curiae, urging affirmance.
Before CAYTON, Chief Judge, and HOOD and QUINN, Associate Judges.
Appellant, who conducts a public bowling alley business, was convicted of denying admission for the use of the alleys to certain persons of the Negro race. The prosecution was brought under an Act of the Corporation of the City of Washington, approved June 10, 1869, as amended by an Act of said City approved March 7, 1870, which provided:
"Be it enacted by the Board of Aldermen and Board of Common Council of the City of Washington, That from and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful for any person or persons who shall have obtained a license from this Corporation for the purpose of giving a lecture, concert, exhibition, circus performance, theatrical entertainment, or for conducting a place of public amusement of any kind, to make any distinction on account of race or color, as regards the admission of persons to any part of the hall or audience-room where such lecture, concert, exhibition, or other entertainment may be given: Provided, That any person applying shall pay the regular price charged for admission to such part of the house as he or she may wish to occupy, and shall conduct himself or herself in an orderly and peaceable manner, while on the premises; and any person or persons offending herein shall forfeit and pay to this Corporation for each offense a fine of not less than ten nor more than twenty dollars, to be collected and applied as are other fines." (The amendment of 1870 provided that the penalty be not less than fifty dollars.)
Appellant does not question the authority of the Corporation to enact the regulation,1 or the validity thereof when enacted, or that it remains in force and effect. However appellant urges three reasons why its conviction should not stand.
First, it is contended that the regulation by its express words applies only to "any person or persons," and that appellant is a corporation and not a person. Statutory use of the word persons to include corporations is so general that to hold corporations are not included requires clear proof of legislative intent to exclude them.2 In view of the nature of the regulation it seems clear that it was intended to and does apply to corporations as well as natural persons.
The second contention is that appellant does not have a license for a place of amusement. The argument is that appellant has a license to conduct a bowling alley and that bowling is a recreation and not an amusement. Again bearing in mind the purpose of the regulation, we think "a place of public amusement of any kind" is broad enough to include bowling alleys.3
The third contention is that the regulation is discriminatory. The argument is that the body enacting the regulation had legislative authority only over the old City of Washington which now constitutes but a part of the District of Columbia; that although the laws and regulations of the City of Washington were extended to cover that territory formerly composing the City of Georgetown,4 such laws and regulations were never extended to the territory formerly composing the County of Washington; and that as a result the regulation is discriminatory in that it applies to appellant and others conducting places of amusement in a part of the District of Columbia, but does not apply to those conducting like businesses in another part of the Districts.5
The Fourteenth Amendment, with its guaranty of "equal protection of the laws", does not apply to the District of Columbia,6 but the Fifth Amendment as applied to the District implies, at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jackson v. Dist. Of D.C. Bd. Of Elections And Ethics, No. 10-CV-20.
...of real estate broker who violated fair housing regulations found in Article 45 of the Police Regulations); Central Amusement Co. v. District of Columbia, 121 A.2d 865 (D.C.1956) (prosecution for violating 1869 police regulation, then still in effect, which prohibited racial discrimination ......
-
Tynes v. Gogos, 2131.
...that of 1872 * * *."6 Two years later this court affirmed a conviction under the 1869 Act as amended. Central Amusement Company v. District of Columbia, D.C.Mun.App. 1956, 121 A.2d 865. The applicability, however, of these Acts to the facts as pleaded in this case raises some doubts. The Ac......
-
Glover v. District of Columbia
...1480 (1953); Filippo v. Real Estate Commission of District of Columbia, D.C.App., 223 A.2d 268 (1966); Central Amusement Co. v. District of Columbia, D.C.Mun.App., 121 A.2d 865 (1956). A fortiori, it should be so recognized in the case of a sudden catastrophe threatening the very existence ......
-
Filippo v. Real Estate Com'n of District of Columbia
...of race in places of public amusement is a regulatory measure in the nature of a police regulation. Central Amusement Co. v. District of Columbia, D.C.Mun.App., 121 A.2d 865 n. 1 (1956). The Supreme Court of Missouri, also relying upon Thompson, has held that a Kansas City ordinance prohibi......