Restaurant Used Lynching Photo As Table Decor

A restaurant used photo of a lynching as table decor.

“According to the Minneapolis NAACP, Tyrone Williams and Chauntyll Allen were preparing to dine at Joe’s Crab Shack in Roseville on Wednesday night when they noticed a photo embedded inside the table.

It appeared to show a large group of white people watching a public execution of at least one black person. On the bottom of the picture, it reads: “Hanging at Groesbeck, Texas, on April 12th, 1895.” At the top, the caption reads, “All I said was that I didn’t like the gumbo.”” [READ MORE]

For more news like this follow on Twitter or Facebook

Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Clinton T-Shirts
Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Clinton T-Shirts

  • Max Blancke


    Appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree and his punishment fixed at death, from which he appeals.

    The court did not err in overruling the motion for a continuance. There
    is not the slightest diligence shown by appellant in procuring the
    attendance of the absent witnesses. The homicide occurred May 2, 1894,
    and on the same day appellant was arrested and placed in jail in a
    neighboring county. On August 9th an indictment was found, and upon the
    20th of August he was brought back to Limestone County for trial, and
    counsel was appointed by the court. The case was called
    for trial on September 3rd; no subpœna or other process was demanded or
    issued. Appellant claims in his application that he won the money found
    on his person at the time of his arrest, at gaming, from two other
    negroes who passed by while he was at work. That he had never seen them
    before nor since; nor did he know their names or hear them name each
    other; nor did he know where they lived. The money so found corresponded
    with that seen in possession of deceased immediately before the
    homicide. We think the application presents neither diligence nor
    sufficient grounds for a continuance. But apart from the improbability
    of the statement, appellant admits on trial, that when he was first
    arrested he denied having any money in his possession, and when the
    money was found he claimed to have gotten it from his employer, and when
    this was shown to be false, claimed he got from his wife, and not until
    the trial does he claim to have won the money from two strangers. We do
    not think the court erred in overruling the motion for a continuance.

    The testimony is circumstantial, but is sufficient to sustain the
    verdict. It shows that deceased was in possession of money, and
    defendant was present and saw the money when deceased paid for some
    purchases. Deceased started out southeast from town and was followed by
    defendant, who lived west from town, and the parties were seen three
    miles from town, the defendant still following deceased, who was driving
    a wagon, and defendant on foot with a rock in his hand. Deceased was
    murdered and robbed. Shortly after, and on the same day, defendant was
    arrested, and money corresponding with that seen in possession of
    deceased shortly before was found on defendant, who denied he had any
    money, and then gave conflicting accounts; and upon clothes found at his
    house were fresh blood-spots. The record presents a cold, bloody
    murder, for the purpose of robbery.

    The judgment is affirmed.


    DAVIDSON, Judge, absent.