McKinnie v. Tennessee Transcript of Record

    TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD

Supreme Court of the United States
OCTOBER TERM, 1964

No. 148

LESTER G. McKINNIE, ET AL., PETITIONERS,

vs.

TENNESSEE.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE 
STATE OF TENNESSEE, MIDDLE DIVISION

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FILED JUNE 3, 1964 

CERTIORARI GRANTED OCTOBER 12, 1964



SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OCTOBER TERM, 1964

No. 148

LESTER Gf. McKINNIE, ET AL., PETITIONERS,
vs.

TENNESSEE,

ON WRIT ON CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE 
STATE OF TENNESSEE, MIDDLE DIVISION

I N D E X
Original Print

Record from the Criminal Court of Davidson 
County, Tennessee, Division Two
Minute entry of Grand Jury R eport__________  8 1
Presentment __________________________________ 9 1
Motion of defendants to quash presentment____ 23 6
Motion under advisement ______________________ 25 7
Order overruling motion to quash presentment „  27 8
Motion of defendants to quash presentment, etc. 28 9
Order overruling motion to quash presentment . 29 10
Minute entry of arraignment— plea ____________ 30 11
Minute entry— 5 jurors selected, special venire

ordered; respited, March 5, 1963 ____________ 31 11
Minute entry— 3 jurors selected, special venire

ordered; respited, March 6, 1963 ____________ 33 12
Minute entry—jury complete, March 7, 1963 ___ 35 13
Minute entry— portion of proof, respited ______  37 14
Verdict _______________________________________  38 15
Judgment_____________________________________  39 16
Motion for a new trial ________________________ 41 17
Order overruling motion ______________________ 53 27
Bill of exceptions filed ________________________ 63 28

Record Press, Printers, New Y ork, N. Y., November 6, 1964



INDEXn

Original Print
Record from the Criminal Court of Davidson 

County, Tennessee, Division Two— Continued
Clerk’s certificate (omitted in printing) ________  64 28
Defendants’ Bill of Exceptions _________________  1 29

Appearances _______________________________  1 29
Colloquy ------------------------------------------------------ 2 30
Examination of prospective juror, A. L. Dick­

erson ---------------------------    3 30
Examination of prospective juror, James L.

E therly-----------------------------------------------------  27 39
Examination of prospective juror, Thomas

B row n-------------------------------------------------------  199 40
Examination of prospective juror, Rosa Lee

Copeland _________________________________ 384 46
Examination of prospective juror, Floyd G.

Davis -------------------------------------------------------  388 49
Examination of prospective juror, Herbert

Amie ---------------------------------------------------------  446 53
Examination of prospective juror, Granville

Williams _________    510 70
Examination of prospective juror, W. T. Moon 659 74
Examination of prospective juror, Wendall H.

Cooper -----------------------------------------------------  751 81
Swearing in of jury, reading of presentment to

jury, and defendants’ plea of not guilty____  763 86
Evidence on behalf of the State: _____________ 764 88

Testimony of Woodrow Wilson Carrier—
direct _______________  764 88
cross ________________  775 94

Charles E. Edwards—
direct _______________  776 95
cross ------------------------- 784 100
redirect _____________ 795 106
recross ---------------------  795 106

Mrs. Ann M. Edwards—-
direct _______________  796 107
cross ------------------------- 804 111

Mrs. Lottie Martin—
direct -----------------------  808 114
cross ------------------------- 814 117



INDEX 111

Record from the Criminal Court of Davidson 
County, Tennessee, Division Two— Continued 
Defendants’ Bill of Exceptions— Continued 

Evidence on behalf of the State— Continued 
Testimony of Woodrow Wilson Carrier—

(recalled) —

Original

cross ________________  822
redirect _____________ 825

Thomas R. Beehan—
direct _________ i._____  826
cross ________________  837

Owen Smith—
direct _______________  849

Offers in evidence ______________________ 858
Testimony of Owen Smith—

cross ______________ _ 872
Mickey Lee Martin—

direct _______________  887
cross ________________  892

Mrs. Katherine
(Vaulx) Crockett—

direct _______________  896
cross ________________  902
redirect _____________ 929

Vaulx Crockett—
direct _______________  930
cross ________________  940

Mrs. George W. Forehand—
direct _______________  967
cross ________________  974
redirect _____________ 991

Golden Cornelius Alley—
direct _______________  992
cross ________________  1000
redirect _____________ 1015

Johnny Claiborn—
direct _______________  1017
cross ________________  1022

Print

123
124

125 
131

138
143

153

161
164

166
169
185

185
192

208
212
222

223
228
236

238
241



IV INDEX

Record from the Criminal Court of Davidson 
County, Tennessee, Division Two— Continued 
Defendants’ Bill of Exceptions— Continued 

Evidence on behalf of the State— Continued 
Testimony of M. L. Pyburn—

direct _______________  1023 241
cross ________________  1027 244

Sanford S. Moran—•
direct _______________  1033 248
cross ________________  1036 250

Mrs. Alma R id le y -
direct __    1042 253
cross ________________  1057 262
redirect _____________ 1058 263

Otis Williams—
direct _______________  1059 264

Interrogation of Mr. Collins________________ 1061 265
Testimony of Otis Williams—

direct _______________  1065 268
cross ________________  1077 276

State closes its case___________________________  1102 291
Reporter’s certificate (omitted in printing) ------  1103 291
Charge of the Court___________________________  1104 292
Defendants’ Special Requests No. 1, No. 2, No. 3

and No. 4 and denial thereof________________  1123 307
Defendants’ Special Request No. 1, as revised by

the C ourt___________________________________  1127 311
Verdict _______________________________________  1128 311
Judge’s certificate to bill of exceptions_________  1133 314

Proceedings in the Supreme Court of the State of
Tennessee, Middle Division, Nashville --------------- 1134 315

Opinion, Burnett, Ch. J. --------------------------------------  1134 315
Judgment _______________________________________  1151 326
Stay order, January 8, 1964 ____________________  1152 327
Opinion on petition to rehear, Burnett, Ch. J. ____ 1153 328
Order denying petition to rehear ________________  1155 329
Stay order, March 5, 1964 ----------------------------------- 1156 330
Clerk’s certificate (omitted in printing) --------------- 1157 330
Order allowing certiorari ------------------------------------  1159 331

Original Print



1

[fol. 8]
IN THE

CRIMINAL COURT OF DAVIDSON COUNTY, 
TENNESSEE, DIVISION TWO

No. 15866

State of Tennessee,

v.
L ester G. M cK innie, J ohn R. Lewis, F rederick L eonard, 

John J ackson, Jr., Nathal W inters, F rederick Har­
graves, H arrison Dean, and A llen Cason, J r.

Minute E ntry op Grand Jury R eport—
December 12,1962

Thereupon the Grand Jury for Davidson County, Ten­
nessee, came into open court and after being regularly 
called presented the following bills of indictments and pre­
sentments which are in the following words and figures, to 
wit:

Copy of indictment follows:
Ordered that court stand adjourned until tomorrow morning 
at nine o’clock.

John L. Draper, Judge

[fol. 9]
I n the Criminal Court op Davidson County, Tennessee

D ivision T wo

P resentment—December 12,1962
The Grand Jurors for the State of Tennessee, duly 

elected, impaneled sworn, and charged to inquire for the 
body of the County of Davidson and State aforesaid, upon 
their oath aforesaid, present:



2

That Lester G. McKimrie, John R. Lewis, Frederick 
Leonard, John Jackson, Jr., Nathal Winter, Frederick Har­
graves, Harrison Dean, and Allen Cason, Jr., heretofore, 
to wit, on the 21st day of October, 1962, and prior to the 
finding of this presentment, with force and arms, in the 
County aforesaid, unlawfully, wilfully, knowingly, delib­
erately, and intentionally did unite, combine, conspire, agree 
and confederate, between and among themselves, to violate 
Code Section 39-1101-(7) and Code Section 62-711, and 
unlawfully to commit acts injurious to the restaurant busi­
ness, trade and commerce of Burrus and Webber Cafeteria, 
Inc., a corporation, located at 226 6th Avenue North, Nash­
ville, Davidson County, Tennessee, in the following manner 
and by the following means, to w it:

On the day and date aforesaid, and for many months 
and years prior thereto, the said Burrus and Webber Cafe­
teria, Inc., had built up and established a restaurant and 
cafeteria, elaborately furnished and equipped, known as the 
B & W. Cafeteria, located at said address in the heart of 
the business, commercial and uptown district of Nashville, 
Tennessee, in a building fronting on the east side of 6th 
Avenue North, and extending back to the westerly margin 
of an alley in the rear, which dining room and cafeteria 
had two long cafeteria lines, dining tables and chairs on 
the ground level and additional dining tables and chairs on 
the mezzanine level, with a large seating capacity for cus­
tomers, patrons and clientele of said B & W. Cafeteria, 
which had established itself by reputation as serving fine 
foods, and which said cafeteria daily served hundreds of 
white patrons, customers and clientele.
[fol. 10] The entrance from said 6th Avenue North into 
said cafeteria is effected by a double door at the northwest 
corner of said cafeteria, which leads into a vestibule, small 
in area, with a second set of double doors on the east side 
of said vestibule; all customers of said cafeteria enter and 
leave through said vestibule.

The owners of said cafeteria and restaurant, which was 
privately owned, had established a rule that they would re­
ceive, admit and serve only such persons as customers, 
patrons and clientele as said corporation elected to admit,



3

receive and serve in said cafeteria; and said Burras and 
Webber Cafeteria, Inc., had reserved the right to control 
the access and admission or exclusion of persons to said 
cafeteria as the owners deemed proper, in their discretion 
as the owners of private property; and under the provisions 
of Section 62-710 of the Code of Tennessee, the owners of 
said cafeteria reserved the right not to admit and to exclude 
from said cafeteria any person the owners, for any reason 
whatsoever, chose not to admit or serve in said cafeteria.

Among the rules established by the owners of said B & W 
Cafeteria was one that they would serve food only to per­
sons of Caucasian descent, or white persons, and not to 
serve food to persons of African descent, or colored per­
sons ; and said B & W Cafeteria was known to the general 
public as a cafeteria and dining place, privately owned, 
serving food only to white persons.

In the said City of Nashville at said time there were 
numerous other dining rooms, restaurant, cafeterias and 
places serving food, some of which served food only to 
colored persons, and some serving food to both white and 
colored persons, known as “integrated” restaurants, dining 
rooms, cafeterias and food places, many of which were in 
the immediate vicinity or within a few blocks of said B. & W. 
Cafeteria, all of which was then and there well known to the 
[fol. 11] defendants, hereinbefore named; and on said Oc­
tober 21, 1962, food was available to said defendants at 
numerous eating places in Nashville in the general vicinity 
of said B & W Cafeteria.

The said defendants, Lester G. MeKinnie, John R. Lewis, 
Frederick Leonard, John Jackson, Jr., Nathal Winter, Fred­
erick Hargraves, Harrison Dean and Allen Cason, Jr., are 
persons of African descent or colored persons; and said 
defendants unlawfully, wilfully, deliberately, and intention­
ally did unite, combine, conspire, agree and confederate, 
between and among themselves, to conduct what is known 
as “ sit-in” affairs, by going to divers restaurants, dining 
rooms and cafeterias in Nashville, Davidson County, Ten­
nessee, serving only white persons food, to enter said din­
ing rooms, restaurants and cafeterias well knowing that 
only white persons were being or would be served, and fur­
ther well knowing that colored persons would not be served



4

food therein; and after being denied entrance thereto and 
after being denied food service, and after being requested 
to leave such dining rooms, restaurants and cafeterias, the 
said defendants did conspire to block the entrance or vesti­
bule of said B & W Cafeteria to prevent customers, patrons 
or clientele from entering, and to block or prevent those 
already therein and who had been served food and had 
finished their meals from leaving said cafeteria by means of 
the only regular entrance or exit thereto, being the above 
described vestibule, all being contemplated to be done, well 
knowing that their presence as “ sit-ins” was likely to pro­
mote disorders, breaches of the peace, fights or riots by 
patrons, customers and clientele of such segregated cafe­
teria ;

And the said defendants, on said October 21, 1962, well 
knew that prior or similar acts of “ sit-in” in Nashville had 
resulted in fights, breaches of the peace, disorders, brawls 
and riots previously, requiring the calling of police and 
peace officers to quell conditions resulting therefrom, as at 
least one of the defendants herein named had previously 
participated in several of such “ sit-ins” conducted at other 
dining rooms and restaurants in Nashville prior to October 
21,1962.
[fol. 12] The said defendants are college students and are 
strong advocates of an integration movement now being 
conducted in Davidson County, Tennessee, and are engaged 
in a movement to coerce, compel, and to intimidate owners 
of restaurants, dining rooms and cafeterias serving only 
white persons to “ integrate”, or to admit and serve food 
to persons of African descent or colored persons against 
the wishes, rule and established policy of the owners of such 
segregated restaurants, dining rooms and cafeterias.

As an overt act in the furtherance of said unlawful con­
spiracy, on Sunday, October 21, 1962, shortly after noon, 
when the said B & W Cafeteria was engaged in serving 
food to numerous customers, patrons, and clientele, and 
while many persons were coming in and out of said cafe­
teria, the said defendants did assemble at a point near said 
cafeteria, and then as a group did go to the 6th Avenue 
door of said cafeteria, and did enter into said vestibule, 
with intent to get through the second doors of said vestibule,



5

and to enter one of the serving lines within said cafeteria 
in an effort to obtain food and service therein;

At said door the owners of the B. & W. Cafeteria had 
placed a guard to prevent such “ sit-in” movement; said 
guard was compelled to block the further entrance at the 
second door; whereupon said defendants did form a block 
within said vestibule, preventing customers and patrons 
from either entering from the street or from coming out of 
said cafeteria after finishing their meals; and said con­
spirators did further attempt to force their way inside the 
main cafeteria sections, did push around and shove white 
patrons therein, which conduct continued for a period of 
more than thirty minutes during one of the busiest hours 
of business at said cafeteria; and as a further overt act in 
the furtherance of said conspiracy, said defendants did re­
fuse to leave said vestibule and cafeteria when requested 
and demanded by proper officers and employees of said 
cafeteria.
[fol. 13] During said period of time so spent by said de­
fendants in said vestibule, said defendants knowingly, de­
liberately and intentionally did place said B & W. Cafeteria 
and the persons lawfully therein in excitement, turmoil and 
confusion; the orderly conduct of the business of said cafe­
teria was greatly upset, disrupted and obstructed; nu­
merous persons gathered within and without said cafeteria 
by reason of said acts and conduct of the defendants, which 
said defendants then and there well knew were calculated 
to produce disorder, breaches of the peace, confusion, brawls 
and turbulent and riotous conduct, and which was done by 
said defendants with a view to commit acts injurious to 
the business of the B & W Cafeteria, its trade and com­
merce, which was injured therefrom;

Contrary to the form of the statutes in such cases made 
and provided, in violation of Section 39-1101 of the Code of 
Tennessee, and against the peace and dignity of the State 
of Tennessee.



6

[fol. 23]
I n the Criminal Court oe Davidson County, T ennessee

D ivision T wo 
No. 15866

[Title omitted]

M otion oe Defendants to Quash P resentment—
Piled January 10,1963

Come the defendants and move the Court for an order 
quashing the presentment and dismissing this cause, for 
the following reasons:

1. Because the State of Tennessee, through its judicial 
officers in their official capacities are trying to enforce a 
policy of racial discrimination, same being in violation of 
rights protected under the Fourteenth Amendment of the 
United States Constitution.

2. Because the acts relied on by the State arising under 
Section 62-711 of the Code of Tennessee, do not refer to 
the exclusion of persons of designated race or color since 
such designation would not be in harmony with the pro­
vision of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States 
Constitution and if so interpreted, could not be enforced by 
the State or any of its officials acting in their official 
capacities.

3. Because the acts charged in the third and fourth para­
graphs or any paragraph or parts of the presentment do 
not constitute a criminal act.
[fol. 24] 4. Because the presentment does not allege or
show that the defendant conspired to do an unlawful act 
or that they conspired to do an unlawful act in an unlawful 
manner.

5. That the rights relied upon by the defendants are 
individual and personal rights created by the Due Process 
and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amend­
ment and a denial thereof cannot be enforced by the State



7

or any person acting in an official capacity as representa­
tive of the State.

Wherefore, defendants move the Court for an order 
quashing the presentment and dismissing this cause.

Looby & Williams, By Z. Alexander Looby, Attorneys 
for Defendants.

[File endorsement omitted]

[fol. 25]
In the Cbiminal Coubt of Davidson County, T ennessee

D ivision Two 
No. 15866

[Title omitted]

Motion U ndeb A dvisement— January 10,1963
Came the Attorney General who prosecutes for the State 
and the defendants in person.
Thereupon this cause was heard by the court upon defen­
dants’ motion to quash or dismiss the presentment in this 
cause, upon the evidence introduced and after argument of 
counsel for the State and the defendants, said motion was 
by the court taken under advisement.
It is therefore considered by the court that this cause be 
set upon the docket on January 14, 1963 for final disposition. 
Mr. Z. Alexander Looby, Attorney for the defendants.
Mr. Harry G. Nichol, District Attorney General.
Ordered that court stand adjourned until tomorrow morning 
at nine o’clock.

John L. Draper, Judge.



8

[fol. 27]
I n the Criminal Court op Davidson County, T ennessee

D ivision T wo 

N o. 15866

[Title omitted]

Order Overruling M otion to Quash P resentment—  
January 15, 1963

Came the Attorney General who prosecutes for the State 
and the defendants in person.
Thereupon this cause was heard by the court upon defen­
dants’ motion to quash or dismiss the presentment entered 
against them, which motion was by the court taken under 
advisement on January 10,1963.
It is therefore considered by the court that said motion 
be overruled and that this cause be put upon the docket for 
arraignment at a later date, to which action of the court 
the defendants by their attorney made an exception.
Mr. Z. A. Looby, Attorney for the defendants.
Mr. Harry G. Nichol, District Attorney General.
Ordered that court stand adjourned until tomorrow morning 
nine o’clock.

John L. Draper, Judge.



9

[fol. 28] [File endorsement omitted]

Isr the Criminal Court of Davidson County, Tennessee

D ivision T wo

[Title omitted]

Motion of D efendants to Quash P resentment, etc.—  
Filed January 30, 1963

Come the defendants and move the Court to quash the 
presentation heretofore returned against them or, in the 
alternative, to require this State to make an election because 
the presentment purports to charge the defendants with 
violating Code Section 39-1101-(7) and Code Section 62-711, 
all under and in the same count, same being bad for du­
plicity.

Therefore, the defendants move the Court to quash their 
indictment or in the alternative to require the State to 
elect whether it will prosecute the defendants under Code 
Section 39-1101-(7) or whether it will prosecute them under 
Code Section 62-711.

Looby & Williams, By Z. Alexander Looby, Attorneys 
for Defendants.

Certificate of Service (omitted in printing).

Ordered that court stand adjourned until tomorrow morning 
at nine o’clock.

John L. Draper, Judge.



10

[fol. 29] [File endorsement omitted]

I n the Criminal Court of Davidson County, T ennessee

No. 15866

[Title omitted]

Order Overruling M otion to Quash P resentment—  
February 1, 1963

This cause came on to be heard upon the motion of the 
defendants, heretofore filed in this cause, to quash the 
presentment returned against them for the reason that the 
presentment was duplicitous in that it charged the defen­
dants with a conspiracy to violate two sections of the Code 
in the same count of the presentment.

After hearing the matter and argument of counsel, both 
for the State and for the defendant, and the presentation 
of the law applicable, the Court is pleased to over-rule the 
motion of the defendants by authority of Section 40-1818 
of T.C.A. and the holding of our Supreme Court in the case 
of State vs. Smith in Vol. 194 at Page 608.

To this action of the Court in over-ruling their motion to 
quash the presentment, the defendants excepted.

This the 1st day of February, 1963.
John L. Draper, Judge.



11

[fol. 30]
I n the Criminal Court op Davidson County, T ennessee

D ivision T wo

No. 15866

[Title omitted]

Minute E ntry of A rraignment— P lea— February 1, 1963

Came the Attorney General who prosecutes for the State 
and the defendants in person, who being arraigned upon 
said indictment plead not guilty to the same; thereupon 
this cause was continued until a later date of the present 
term of this court.
Mr. Z. Alexander Looby and Mr. Avon Williams, Attorneys 
for the defendants.
Mr. Harry G. Nichol, District Attorney General for the 
State.
Ordered that court stand adjourned until tomorrow morning 
at nine o’clock.

John L. Draper, Judge.

[fol. 31]
I n the Criminal Court of Davidson County, T ennessee

D ivision T wo

No. 15866

[Title omitted]

Minute E ntry—5 J urors Selected, Special V enire 
Ordered; R espited— March 5, 1963

Came the Attorney General who prosecutes for the State 
and the defendants in person, who being arraigned upon 
said indictment plead not guilty to the same and for their 
trial put themselves upon the country and the Attorney 
General doth the like.



12

Thereupon, the court proceeded to the impaneling of the 
jury, when the following were duly and regularly elected 
and impaneled, to wit: Howard C. Lewis, C. P. Holland, 
Joe W. Slate, Harley C. Dean and William Eawls.
And it appearing to the court that the jury was incomplete 
and the panel exhausted, it is ordered by the court that the 
jury box be brought into open court as provided by law, 
and that 100 names be drawn therefrom, as provided by 
law, and that venire facias issue to the Sheriff of Davidson 
County, Tennessee to summon said venire to appear before 
the Judge of this court tomorrow morning at 9:00 o’clock 
which has been done.
[fol. 32] Thereupon the 5 jurors heretofore impaneled and 
elected were placed in charge of Mr. Dewey Norman, a 
regular officer of this court, who was duly sworn as the 
law directs to take charge of and wait upon said jury until 
finally discharged by the court.
Mr. Z. Alexander Looby and Mr. Avon Williams, Attorneys 
for the defendants.
Mr. Harry G. Nichol and Mr. Gale Robinson, Attorneys 
Generals for the State.
Ordered that court stand adjourned until tomorrow morning 
at nine o’clock.

John L. Draper, Judge.

[fol. 33]
I n the Criminal Court of Davidson County, T ennessee

D ivision T wo 
No. 15866

[Title omitted]

M inute E ntry— 3 J urors Selected, Special V enire 
Ordered, R espited— March 6, 1963

Came the Attorney General who prosecutes for the State 
and the defendants in person, also the 5 jurors heretofore 
impaneled in this cause who were on yesterday respited 
from the further consideration of the cause on trial until



13

the meeting of court today, came here into open court in 
charge of their sworn officer in whose charge they were 
placed on yesterday.
Thereupon the court proceeded in the further impaneling 
of the jury when the following were duly and regularly 
elected and impaneled, to wit: 0. H. Glasgow, Herbert 
Amic and Willie D. Swindle.
And it appearing to the court that the jury was incomplete 
and the panel exhausted, it is ordered by the court that the 
jury box be brought into open court as provided by law, 
and that 100 names be drawn therefrom, as provided by law, 
and that venire facias issue to the Sheriff of Davidson 
County, Tennessee to summon said venire to appear before 
the Judge of this court tomorrow morning at 9:00 o’clock, 
which has been done.
[fol. 34] Thereupon the 8 jurors heretofore impaneled and 
elected were placed in charge of Mr. Charles R. Hill, a 
regular officer of this court, who was duly sworn as the law 
directs to take charge of and wait upon said jury until 
finally discharged by the court.
Ordered that court stand adjourned until tomorrow morning 
at nine o’clock.

John L. Draper, Judge.

[fol. 35]
l x  the Criminal Court of Davidson County, T ennessee

D ivision T wo 
No. 15866

[Title omitted]

Minute E ntry— Jury Complete, P ortion of P roof; 
E espited— March 7, 1963

Came the Attorney General who prosecutes for the State 
and the defendants in person, also the 8 jurors heretofore 
impaneled in this cause, who were on yesterday respited 
from the further consideration of the cause on trial until 
the meeting of court today, came here into open court in 
charge of their sworn officer, in whose charge they were



14

placed on yesterday. And the court proceeded to complete 
the impaneling of the jury when the following were duly 
and regularly elected and impaneled, to wit: William T. 
Moon, Charles H. Williams, H. J. Farnsworth and Wendell 
H. Cooper.
It then appearing to the court that the jury was complete, 
the jury was duly sworn to well and truly try the issues 
joined, and true deliverance make according to the law and 
evidence and after hearing a portion of the proof and there 
not being time on today to conclude the trial the jury was 
[fol. 36] respited from the further consideration of the 
cause on trial until the meeting of court tomorrow morning 
at 9:00 o’clock, and the jury was placed in charge of Mr. 
Paul Startup, a regular officer of this court, who was duly 
sworn as the law directs to take charge of and wait upon 
said jury until finally discharged by the court.
Ordered that court stand adjourned until tomorrow morning 
at nine o’clock.

John L. Draper, Judge.

[fol. 37]
In the Criminal Cottkt op Davidson County, T ennessee

D ivision Two 
No. 15866

[Title omitted]

M inute E ntry— P oetion op P roof, R espited—  
March 8, 1963

Came the Attorney General who prosecutes for the State 
and the defendants in person, also the jury heretofore 
impaneled in this cause who were on yesterday respited 
from the further consideration of the cause on trial until 
the meeting of court today, came here into open court in 
charge of their sworn officer in whose charge they were 
placed on yesterday, and renewed their consideration of 
the cause on trial and they having heard the further por­
tion of the proof and there not being time on today to 
conclude the trial the jury was again respited from the 
further consideration of the cause on trial until tomorrow



15

morning at 9 :00 o’clock and the jury was placed in charge 
of Mr. John Ed Polk, a regular officer of this court who 
was duly sworn as required by law, to take charge of and 
wait upon said jury until finally discharged by the court. 
Ordered that court stand adjourned until tomorrow morning 
at nine o’clock.

John L. Draper, Judge.

[fol. 38]
I n the Criminal Court op Davidson County, Tennessee

D ivision T wo 

No. 15866

[Title omitted]

V erdict—March 9, 1963
Came the Attorney General who prosecutes for the State 
and the defendants in person, also the jury heretofore 
impaneled in this cause who were on yesterday respited 
from the further consideration of the cause on trial until 
the meeting of court today, came here into open court and 
renewed the consideration of the cause on trial, and they 
having heard the remainder of the proof, argument of coun­
sel and charge of the court, aforesaid, upon their oath afore­
said, do say: That they find the defendants guilty of 
unlawful conspiracy.
Thereupon the jury was discharged.
It is therefore considered by the court that the judgment of 
the court be reserved until a later date.
Mr. Z. Alexander Looby and Mr. Avon Williams, Attorneys 
for the defendants.
Mr. Harry G. Nichol and Mr. Gale Robinson, District At­
torney Generals for the State.
Ordered that court stand adjourned until Monday morning 
at nine o’clock.

John L. Draper, Judge.



16

[fol. 39]
I n the Criminal Court oe Davidson County, T ennessee

D ivision T wo 
No. 15866

[Title omitted]

J udgment—March 19, 1963
Came the Attorney General who prosecutes for the State 
and the defendants in person.
Heretofore, the defendants Lester G. McKinnie, John R. 
Lewis, Frederick Leonard, John Jackson, Jr., Nathal Win­
ter, Frederick Hargraves, Harrison Dean and Allen Cason, 
Jr., were found guilty of conspiracy to violate Section 
39-1101-(7) of the Code in this cause by a jury on Saturday, 
March 9, 1963, and the judgment of the court was reserved 
until this date, at which time the verdict of the jury was 
made the judgment of the court.
It is, therefore, considered by the court that the defendants, 
Lester G. McKinnie, John R. Lewis, Frederick Leonard, 
John Jackson, Jr., Nathal Winter, Frederick Hargraves, 
Harrison Dean and Allen Cason, Jr., for their offenses of 
a conspiracy to violate Code Section 39-1101-(7) shall pay a 
fine of $50.00 each together with the costs of this prosecution 
[fol. 40] and each defendant shall be confined in the County 
workhouse for a period of 90 days commencing on the date 
of their delivery to the keeper thereof, subject to the rules 
and regulations of said Institution.
That they pay the costs of this prosecution or that they, by 
their labor, pay the same at the rates of labor allowed by 
law, subject to the rules and regulations of said Institution.
Thereupon the defendants by their attorney gave notice 
to the court of a motion for a new trial and said attorney 
is allowed 30 days within which time to prepare and file said 
motion.
Mr. Avon Williams and Mr. Z. Alexander Looby, Attorneys 
for the defendants.
Mr. Harry G. Nichol and Mr. Gale Robinson, Attorneys 
General for the State.



17

(Charge of the Court Copied in Bill of Exceptions)
Ordered that court stand adjourned until tomorrow morning 
at nine o’clock.

John L. Draper, Judge.

[fol. 41]
I n  the Criminal Court of Davidson County, T ennessee

D ivision T wo

N o. 15866

[Title omitted]

Motion for New T rial—Filed April 18, 1963
Come the defendants, Lester G. McKinnie, John R. Lewis, 

Frederick Leonard, John Jackson, Jr,, Nathal Winter, Fred­
erick Hargraves, Harrison Dean, and Allen Cason, Jr., and 
move the Court thereon in the above entitled cause, and 
to grant them a new trial upon the following grounds:

1. The Court erred in overruling the individual motions 
filed by each of said defendants on 17 December 1962 for 
an order remanding the cause to the Court of General Ses­
sions to be acted upon by a Judge of said Court.

2. The Court erred in overruling defendants’ motion filed 
on 18 January 1962 for an order quashing the presentment 
and dismissing the cause on the grounds stated therein.

3. The Court erred in overruling defendants’ motion field 
on 30 January 1962 to quash the presentment or, in the al­
ternative, to require the State to make an election as to 
which of the State statutes alleged in the indictment it 
would prosecute the defendants under.

4. The satutes under which defendants were arrested, 
charged in the presentment, tried and convicted, are un­
constitutional on their face by purporting to make it a 
crime to conspire “ to commit any act injurious to public 
health, public morals, trade, or commerce” (T. C. A. Section 
39-1107(7)), or to be guilty of “ turbulent or riotous con- 
[fol. 42] duct within or about any hotel, inn, theater, or



18

public house, common carrier, or restaurant” (T.C.A. Sec­
tion 62-711), in that said statutes do not define the type of 
conduct therein prohibited with sufficient particularity to 
apprise defendants or give them warning of the offense al­
leged, nor do said statutes contain sufficient standards of 
guilt or definition of the offenses created thereby upon which 
judicial determination of guilt could be made, all of which 
renders said statutes so vague, indefinite and uncertain as 
applied to defendants and the evidence offered against them 
in this case as to violate their rights under the due process 
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States 
Constitution.

5. That one of the statutes charged in the presentment 
and upon which defendants were convicted (T.C.A. Section 
62-710), is not and does not purport on its face to be a 
criminal statute, and the criminal conviction of the defen­
dants for an alleged violation of this statute violates their 
rights secured by the due process clause of the Fourteenth 
Amendment to the United States Constitution.

6. The Court erred in charging the jury as follows:
“ Section 62-710 of the Code of Tennessee provides as 
follows: The rule of the common law giving the right 
of action to any person excluded from any hotel or 
public means of transportation or place of amusement 
is abrogated, and no keeper of any hotel or public 
house or carrier of passengers for hire except railway, 
street, interurban and commercial, or conductors, 
drivers or employees of such carrier, or keeper, shall 
be bound or under any obligation to entertain, carry, 
or admit any person whom he shall, for any reason 
whatever, choose not to entertain, carry or admit to 
his house, hotel, vehicle, or means of transportation 
or place of amusement, nor shall any right exist in favor 
of any such person so refused admission. The right of 
such keepers of hotels and public houses, carriers of 
passengers and keepers of places of amusement and 
their employees to control the access and admission or 
exclusion of persons to or from their public houses, 
means of transportation, and places of amusement, to



19

be as complete as that of any private person, private 
house, vehicle, or private theater, or places of amuse­
ment for his family . . .
[fol. 43]

*  *  m # # # *

You will note from the language of the presentment 
that the defendants are charged with the offense of 
unlawful conspiracy to violate Code Section 39-1101- 
(7), Code Section 62-710 and Section 62-711, in that 
they did unlawfully commit acts injurious to the res­
taurant business, trade and commerce of Burrus and 
Webber, Cafeteria, Inc., a corporation located at 223 
—uh, 226 Sixth Avenue, North, Nashville, Davidson 
County, Tennessee . . .

* # * # # # #

. . .  if you find and believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, 
that the said defendants unlawfully, willfully, know­
ingly, deliberately and intentionally did unite, combine, 
conspire, agree and confederate between and among 
themselves to violate Tennessee Code Sction 39-1101- 
(7) and Code Sections 62-710 and 62-711, and unlaw­
fully to commit acts injurious to the restaurant busi­
ness, trade and commerce of the Burrus and Webber 
Cafeteria, Inc., a corporation located at 226 Sixth Ave­
nue, Nashville, Davidson County, as charged in this 
presentment, then it will be your duty to convict the 
defendants, provided that they, or one of them, did in 
pursuance of said agreement, or conspiracy, do some 
overt act to effect the object of the agreement, that is, 
if you find that said agreements and acts in the further­
ance of said objective was done in Davidson County, 
Tennessee . . . ”

This was error because said Code Section 62-710 was not 
included in the presentment does not create or purport to 
create any criminal offense and the criminal charge, trial 
and conviction of defendants thereunder upon said charge 
of the Court violates their rights secured by the due 
process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United 
States Constitution.



20

7. T. C. A. Sections 39-1101(7), 62-710 and 62-711, are 
nnconstitntional and void on their face as applied to the 
defendants on the presentment and evidence in this case 
in that said statutes are being applied as state law author­
izing and enforcing a rule, custom and practice of racial 
segregation or discrimination in facilities licensed by the 
State, open to the public, and invested with a public interest, 
thereby violating rights of the defendants secured by the 
due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth 
Amendment to the United States Constitution.

8. The arrest, trial and conviction of the defendants 
upon the presentment, evidence and the charge of the Court 
[fol. 44] in this case was expressly predicated upon, and 
for the sole purpose of, enforcing a private rule, practice 
or custom of racial segregation for the benefit of the Burrus 
and Webber Cafeteria, Inc., which actions of state execu­
tive and judicial officers and agencies and the resulting 
convictions of defendants are unconstitutional and void as 
violating rights of defendants secured by the due process 
and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment 
to the United States Constitution.

9. The Court erred in denying that portion of Defen­
dants’ Special Request No. 1 for Instructions to the Jury, 
which was as follows:

“Evidence that the defendants agreed to seek entry, 
or that they went to the premises and sought entry, to 
the B&W Cafeteria for the purpose of being served 
food, could not constitute such an unlawful agreement 
or overt act in pursuance thereof even though the de­
fendants were Negroes and the B&W Cafeteria had a 
policy of refusing to serve food to Negroes, for . . . ”

10. The Court erred in denying Defendants’ Special Re­
quest No. 2 for Instructions to the Jury, which was, in 
words and figures, as follows:

“ Defendants’ Special R equest No. 2 
eoe Instructions to the J ury

If you should find from the evidence that the defen­
dants went to the B&W Cafeteria, a place of business



21

offering meals to the general public, and sought to enter 
there for the purpose of purchasing and being served 
meals, and that said Cafeteria or its agents blocked 
their entry in pursuance of an for the purpose of en­
forcing, a rule of the Cafeteria to serve only white 
persons and not to serve Negroes, and that the defen­
dants remained standing in a peaceable manner where 
they were when the Cafeteria blocked their entrance, 
either for the purpose of still seeking admission to 
the Cafeteria, or for the purpose of peaceably protest­
ing the Cafeteria’s policy of racial exclusion or segre­
gation, then you could not find the defendants guilty 
of committing any unlawful act, nor could you find 
defendants guilty of a conspiracy or agreement to com­
mit any unlawful act under this evidence, and this is 
true even though you also find from the evidence that 
it was necessary for some white patrons to pass through 
or around the defendants in order to gain ingress or 
[fol. 45] egress to or from the Cafeteria or that some 
prospective white patrons may have been reluctant or 
may have refused, to enter, stay in, or come out of 
the restaurant because of the defendants’ presence 
there.”

11. The Court erred in denying Defendants’ Special Re­
quest No. 3 for Instructions to the Jury, which was, in 
words and figures, as follows:

“ Defendants’ Special R equest No. 3
FOB INSTBUCTIONS TO THE JUBY

You will not consider or bring in any verdict as to 
that portion of the presentment which charges a con­
spiracy by defendants to violate Code Section 62-711, 
for the reason that the State has abandoned this por­
tion of the charge, and has offered no evidence in sup­
port thereof.”

12. The Court erred in denying Defendants’ Special Re­
quest No. 4 for Instructions to the Jury, which was, in 
words and figures, as follows:



22

“ Dependants’ Special R equest N o. 4 
Poe I nstructions to the J ury

Notwithstanding T. C. A. Code Section 62-710, or 
any statute or other law of the State of Tennessee, 
the B&W Cafeteria, or its proprietors, have no legal 
right to exclude persons from said business, offering 
food service and meals to the general public, solely on 
account of the race or color of the persons so excluded, 
or to enforce or have enforced, any private rule or 
policy of racial segregation or exclusion through crim­
inal action in a Court of the State of Tennessee; for 
any State law which attempts or attempted to estab­
lish such a legal right, and any action of State agencies, 
including the Courts thereof, in enforcing, directly or 
indirectly such a private rule or policy, would be and 
is unconstitutional and void as depriving the defen­
dants in this case of the equal protection of the laws 
and of due process of law as secured by the Fourteenth 
Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.”

13. The evidence offered against defendants, all Negroes, 
in support of the presentment charging them with con­
spiracy to violate Code Section 39-1101-(7) and Code Sec­
tion 62-711, establishes that they and each of them were 
at the time of arrest and at all times covered by the 
[fol. 46] charge or presentment, in peaceful exercise of con­
stitutional rights to assemble with others for the purpose 
of speaking and protesting against the practice, custom, 
usage and rule of racial discrimination in Burrus and 
Webber Cafeteria, 226 Sixth Avenue, North, Nashville, 
Tennessee, an establishment performing an economic func­
tion invested with the public interest; that defendants peace­
fully were attempting to obtain service in the facilities of 
said Cafeteria in the manner of white persons similarly 
situated, and at no time were defendants or any of them 
defiant, in breach of the peace, or guilty of any turbulent 
or riotous conduct or acts injurious to trade or commerce, 
and were at all times upon an area essentially public, where­
fore defendants, by their arrest, trial and conviction under 
said State statutes and through action of state officers and



23

the state court have been denied rights secured by the due 
process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth 
Amendment to the United States Constitution.

14. The evidence establishes that prosecution of defen­
dants was procured for the purpose of preventing them 
from engaging in peaceful assembly with others for the 
purpose of speaking and otherwise peacefully protesting 
in public places the refusal of the preponderant number of 
restaurants, facilities and accommodations open to the 
public in Nashville, Tennessee, to permit the defendants, 
all Negroes, and other members of defendants’ race from 
enjoying the access to such restaurants, facilities and ac­
commodations afforded members of other races; and that 
by this prosecution and conviction of defendants, the prose­
cuting witnesses, arresting officers and State District At­
torney General have employed the aid of state officials and 
of the Court to enforce a racially discriminatory policy 
contrary to the due process and equal protection clauses of 
the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the 
[fol. 47] United States.

15. The defendants, all Negroes, were tried and con­
victed by a jury composed entirely of white persons in 
the City of Nashville, Davidson County, Tennessee, an area 
in which racial segregation has been imposed by state law 
in virtually all aspects of public life for many years, and 
which is still the public and private custom and practice 
of nearly all white people in said area. The express and 
sole purpose of the presentment and trial of defendants in 
this case was to enforce through state action a private rule 
and practice of racial discrimination against defendants and 
all other Negroes, maintained by Burrus and Webber Cafe­
teria, a restaurant open to the general public in Nashville, 
Tennessee. The State’s Attorney deliberately and sys­
tematically challenged and excused all Negro veniremen 
who were called as prospective jurors. All white veniremen 
who were called and accepted by the State admitted their 
personal practice, custom, philosophy and belief in com­
plete racial segregation in virtually all aspects of their 
social existence. It was therefore impossible for defendants 
to secure a fair and impartial jury of their peers on the



24

presentment in this case, and they were thereby deprived 
of their rights secured by Article 1, Section 9 of the Con­
stitution of Tennessee and by the due process and equal 
protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the 
United States Constitution.

16. The Court erred in holding that jurors Wm. T. Moon 
and Wendell H. Cooper were competent, and in requiring 
defendants to accept said jurors over protest, the defen­
dants having exhausted all of their challenges, because 
all of these jurors admitted their personal practice, cus­
tom, philosophy, indoctrination and belief in complete racial 
segregation and discrimination against Negroes, as being 
a group inferior to white persons, in virtually all aspects 
[fol. 48] of their social existence. The sole and express 
purpose of the presentment and trial of defendants in this 
case was to enforce through state executive and judicial 
action just such a private rule and practice of racial dis­
crimination against defendants and all other Negroes, main­
tained by Burrus and Webber Cafeteria, a restaurant open 
to the general public in Nashville, Tennessee, as to which 
all of said jurors, being white persons, admitted their said 
personal indoctrination, custom, prejudice and belief. The 
State’s Attorney deliberately and systematically challenged 
and excused all Negro veniremen who were called as pro­
spective jurors. Defendants were thereby deprived of their 
rights to a fair and impartial jury of their peers, in vio­
lation of Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution of Ten­
nessee and in violation of the due process and equal pro­
tection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United 
States Constitution. The Court overruled defendants’ mo­
tions that said jurors be disqualified for cause upon the 
foregoing grounds, to which action defendants excepted.

17. The Court erred in holding that the juror, Herbert 
Amic, was competent, and in requiring defendants to accept 
said juror and seating said juror over protest, because he 
admitted that he would start out in the case with a preju­
diced attitude toward the defendants where the presentment 
alleged or the proof showed that they went to the Burrus 
and Webber Cafeteria and sought to be served knowing 
that the cafeteria had a rule discriminating against Negro



25

patrons, and he admitted his personal belief, opinion and 
prejudice in favor of such a rule. The Court overruled 
defendants motion that said juror be disqualified for cause 
upon the foregoing ground, to which action defendants ex­
cepted. Defendants were thereby deprived of their rights 
to a fair and impartial jury of their peers, in violation of 
Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution of Tennessee and 
in violation of the due process and equal protection clauses 
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the 
[fol. 49] United States.

18. There was no evidence upon which the jury could 
find the defendants guilty of the offense charged in the 
presentment.

19. All of the evidence preponderated in favor of the 
innocence and against the guilt of defendants of the offense 
charged in the presentment.

20. The judgment of the Court fixing the punishment of 
defendants in words and figures as follows:

“ O R D E R
“ Came the Attorney General who prosecutes for the 

State and the defendants in person.
Heretofore, the defendants, Lester G. McKinnie, 

John R. Lewis, Frederick Leonard, John Jackson, Jr., 
Nathal Winter, Frederick Hargraves, Harrison Dean, 
and Allen Cason, Jr., were found guilty of conspiracy 
to violate Section 39-1101-(7) of the Code in this cause 
by a jury on Saturday, March 9, 1963, and the judg­
ment of the Court was reserved until this date, at which 
time, the verdict of the jury was made the judgment of 
the Court.

It is, therefore, considered by the Court that the 
defendants, Lester G. McKinnie, John R. Lewis, Fred­
erick Leonard, John Jackson, Jr., Nathal Winter, 
Frederick Hargraves, Harrison Dean, and Allen Cason, 
Jr., for their offenses of a conspiracy to violate Code 
Section 39-1101-(7) shall pay a fine of $50.00 each 
together with the costs of this prosecution and each 
defendant shall be confined in the County Workhouse



26

for a period of 90 days commencing on the date of their 
delivery to the keeper thereof, subject to the rules and 
regulations of said institution.

That they pay the costs of this prosecution or that 
they, by their labor, pay the same at the rates of labor 
allowed by law subject to the rules and regulations 
of said institution. Thereupon, the defendants, by their 
attorney, gave notice to the Court of a motion for a 
new trial and said attorney is allowed 30 days within 
which time to prepare and file said motion.

This the 19th day of March, 1962.
/ s /  John L. Draper

John L. Draper, Judge”

is contrary to the verdict of the jury, which was in words 
and figures as follows:

The Court: The Jury is all present. Gentlemen of the 
jury have you agreed upon a verdict?

Foreman: We have.
The Court: What is it?
Foreman: We agreed your Honor, on a fine less than 

$50, so we find the defendants guilty.”
[fol. 50] Said judgment of the Court therefore deprives 
defendants of rights secured by the due process clause 
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the 
United States.

Wherefore, the defendants move the Court to set aside 
and vacate the verdict of the jury and the judgment thereon 
and grant them a new trial.

Looby & Williams, By Z. Alexander Looby, Solicitors 
for Defendants.

Proof of service (omitted in printing).
[File endorsement omitted]

Ordered that court stand adjourned until tomorrow morning 
at nine o’clock.

John L. Draper, Judge.



27

[fol. 53]
I n the Criminal Court op Davidson County, Tennessee

D ivision T wo 

No. 15866

[Title omitted]

Unlawful Conspiracy

Order Overruling Motion— May 10,1963
Came the Attorney General who prosecutes for the State 
and the defendants in person.
Thereupon this cause was heard by the court on May 3, 
1963, upon defendants’ motion to be granted a new trial, 
which was by the court taken under advisement until this 
date, on which date said motion was by the court overruled. 
It is therefore considered by the court that the defendants 
Lester G. McKinnie, John K. Lewis, Frederick Leonard, 
John Jackson, Jr., Nathal Winter, Frederick Hargraves, 
Harrison Dean and Allen Cason, Jr., for their offenses of a 
conspiracy to violate Code Section 39-1101-(7) shall pay a 
fine of $50.00 each together with the costs of this prosecu­
tion and each defendant shall be confined in the County 
Workhouse for a period of 90 days commencing on the date 
[fol. 54] of their delivery to the keeper thereof, subject to 
the rules and regulations of said Institution.
That they pay the costs of this prosecution or that they by 
their labor pay the same at the rates of labor allowed by 
law, subject to the rules and regulations of said Institu­
tion. To the judgment and ruling of the court in overruling 
defendants’ motion for a new trial, the defendants except 
and pray an appeal in the nature of a writ of error to the 
next term of the Supreme Court sitting at Nashville, which 
is by the court granted and the defendants are allowed 30 
days from this date within which time to prepare and file 
their Bill of Exceptions.
Mr. Z. A. Looby and Mr. Avon Williams, Attorneys for the 
defendants.



28

Mr. John K. Maddin, Special Prosecutor for the State. 
Mr. Harry G. Nichol, District Attorney General for the 
State.
Mr. Gale Robinson, Assistant Attorney General for the 
State.
Ordered that court stand adjourned until tomorrow morn­
ing at nine o’clock.

John L. Draper, Judge.
# # # # # # #

[fol. 63]
In the Criminal Court of Davidson County, Tennessee

D ivision Two 
No. 15866

[Title omitted]

B ill of E xceptions F iled—May 31,1963
Came the Attorney General who prosecutes for the State 
and the defendants in person, who by their attorneys tender 
this their bill of exceptions to the judgment of the court in 
overruling defendants’ motion for a new trial, which was 
by the court signed, sealed and ordered made a part of the 
record.
Ordered that court stand adjourned until tomorrow morn­
ing at nine o’clock.

John L. Draper, Judge.
[fol. 64] Clerk’s Certificate to foregoing transcript 
(omitted in printing).



29

[fol. 1] [File endorsement omitted]

I n' the Criminal Court of Davidson County, T ennessee

D ivision T wo 

No. 15866

In tlie Matter of:
State of T ennessee, 

v.
Lester Gr. McK innie, J ohn E. Lewis, F rederick L eonard, 

John J ackson, J r,, Nathal W inters, F rederick H ar­
graves, H arrison D ean, and A llen Cason, J r,

D efendants  B il l  of E xceptions  

including 
Voir dire

Before: Hon. John L. Draper, Judge and A Jury.

A p p e a r a n c e s :

For the State:
Harry Nichol, Dale Robinson, Howard F. Butler.

For the B&W Cafeteria:
Jack Maddin.

For the Defendants:
Z. Alexander Looby, Avon Williams, Jr.

[fol. 2]
* # # # # # #

The above-styled cause came on for trial before Hon. 
John L. Draper, Judge, and a Jury on March 5, 1963, 
in the Criminal Court of Davidson County, Tennessee, Part 
II, when the following proceedings were had, to-wit: 

* = * # # # # #



30

Colloquy

The Court: All right, gentlemen, we are ready to begin 
picking a jury.

Mr. Looby: If your Honor please, the Defendants re­
spectfully request the privilege of waiving the jury and 
want to be tried by the Court, without a jury.

Mr. Nichol: If your Honor please, the State will insist 
upon a jury. If the state waives the jury, any fine to be 
assessed by the Court alone is limited to $50. The statute 
says in cases of this kind for a jury to assess as high as 
$1,000.

Mr. Looby: If your Honor please, I object to the At­
torney General making a speech now. This is no time to 
make a speech about waiving the jurors. This is no time 
to make a speech.

Mr. Nichol: I am saying we do not want to waive a jury.
Mr. Looby: I am addressing the Court.
The Court: General, does the State—
Mr. Nichol: We decline to waive the jury.
The Court: All right. Then the case will be tried before 

the jury. This will settle it.
[fol. 3] Mr. Looby: If the Court please, we respectfully 
except to the Court’s ruling.

The Court: All right. Call in a prospective juror.
Mr. Looby: If the Court please, we want to call them 

as individuals, and then have individual examination.
The Court: I said a prospective juror.

(A. L. D ickerson is brought in to be examined) (sworn 
by clerk).

Criminal Court Clerk: Have you formed or expressed 
an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the Defendants, 
Lester G. McKinnie, John R. Lewis, Frederick Leonard, 
John Jackson, Jr., Nathal Winters, Frederick Hargraves, 
Harrison Dean and Allen Cason, Jr., who are charged with 
violating Code §39-1101, unlawful conspiracy?

A. No.
The Court: He is competent.
Mr. Nichol: Mr. Dickerson, do you know any of these 

Defendants here?



31

A. No, sir.
Q. The charge here is that they violated Code Section 

§39-1101-7. It charges that they unlawfully conspired to 
obstruct trade and commerce of the business of the B&W 
Cafeteria. Do you know any of the facts of that case?

A. No, sir.
Q. I will ask you if you go into that jury box, is there 

any reason why you cannot apply to the facts the law of 
Tennessee as given you by the Court in this case ? Is there 
[fol. 4] any reason or conscientious scruples against the 
present laws of Tennessee on this subject?

A. (Hesitates.)
The Court: Do you understand his question?
A. No, sir. I did not.
Mr. Nichol: In other words, what has been your business 

over the years, Mr. Dickerson?
A. Pardon?
Q. What’s been your business over the years?
A. Bowling alley business.
Q. What?
A. Bowling alley business.
Q. Do you own a bowling alley, or where is it located?
A. 8th and Church.
Q. 8th and Church? Is there any reason in the world 

why you can’t—that you know, that you can’t hear the 
evidence in the courtroom and apply to that the law of Ten­
nessee, as given to you by the Court, and give both the 
State and the Defendants a fair and impartial trial?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. We accept Mr. Dickerson.
Mr. Looby: Mr. Dickerson, you say you operated a bowl­

ing alley at 8th and Church?
A. Yes, sir.

[fol. 5] Q. And it was open to the public, was it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Open to anybody regardless of their race?
A. No.
Q. You were segregated?
A. You could say so.
Q. Well, did it exclude Negroes?



32

A. Pardon?
Q. Did you exclude Negroes?
A. Yes, sir.
Q, That is the case that is involved here. This is a case 

involving the exclusion of Negroes. Could you give these 
men in this case a full and fair and impartial trial?

A. I think so.
Q. If you have a place open to the public and they 

should come there and attempt to come in, would you con­
sider it an obstruction of your trade and commerce?

A. The place is not there any more.
Q. Sir?
A. The place is not there any more, it has been sold and 

moved out.
Q. But if they came there, would you consider it an 

obstruction of trade and commerce?
A. Yes.
Q. And, feeling the way you do, do you think you could 

give these men a fair and impartial trial, based on your 
[fol. 6] opposition?

A. I think so.
Q. I think this juror shows prejudice and bias, and we 

should pass him because of the very questions he’s de­
cided.

The Court: Well, he answered to the contrary, Gentle­
men, and the Court can’t search a juror apart.

Mr. Looby: But he says, if your Honor please, he is 
not operating any business, but he objected to that in a 
business. And that’s all this case is about.

Juror: I would have to object, or close up.
Mr. Looby: Sir?
Juror: I would have to object, or close up.
Q. And you would object?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You would have to object?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you would have to close if you didn’t?
A. I would be forced to close if I let him come in at that 

time.



33

Q. And this case is about—this case is about the B & W  
Cafeteria, and they went to the B & W Cafeteria, and 
went in for service, and were arrested because of that, 
solely because of their race. Don’t you think you would be 
somewhat prejudiced against them?

A. Do I think what?
[fob 7] Q. Don’t you think you would be prejudiced 
against them?

A. I don’t know.
The Court: You just say you don’t know. I think he is 

entitled to an answer on that.
A. I don’t know what the circumstances are in this case.
Mr. Looby: They have the policy, they say, of serving 

only white people, and of not serving Negroes, and they 
are supposed to serve only white people. Do you feel 
that—if they have the policy of serving only whites, that 
if Negroes went in there to be served, that that would con­
stitute an offense and you would convict them?

A. I don’t know. I can’t answer that.
Mr. Looby: May it please your Honor, I think that with 

the attitude he has toward these things that he couldn’t 
give a fair and impartial verdict in this case.

The Court: You told the counsel for the Defendants that 
you could give them a full, fair and impartial trial a while 
ago?

A. I think so.

By the Court:
Q. Can you stand by that, sir?
A. I think so.

By the Court:
Q. Well, do you know so?
A. No, I don’t know so. I think I can, I can be fair.

[fob 8] The Court: That’s all that’s required for you to 
be fair to the state and to the defendants. And if you are 
going to do that, sir, I think you are a competent juror. If 
you are not, then you are not competent.



34

A. Well, I think I could be fair. That’s all I can say.
The Court: Gentlemen, that makes him competent.
Mr. Looby: Mr. Dickerson, do you understand the nature 

of this case?
A. Slightly.
Q. Well, then, I will try to explain it and if I don’t, 

the Judge will stop me. The B & W operates a restaurant 
here, and they have a policy not to serve Negroes. Any 
white man can go in there and get served, no matter who he 
is, or what he looks like. But if he is a member of the 
Negro race, he is not allowed.

These boys are all Negroes, and they went there seeking 
service. And that is the only offense that is named— 
they are charged here with attempting to obstruct trade.

Now, with these facts, and readily realizing that you 
operated a bowling place here where you said you had a 
policy not to allow Negroes, and abiding by that policy, do 
you think you could give them a fair and impartial trial? 
Honestly?

A. I think so.
Q. You really do? Is that your honest conviction?

[fol. 9] A. I think I could.
Q. What do you understand a fair and impartial trial 

to mean ?
A. Pardon?
Q. What do you understand a fair and impartial trial 

to mean ?
A. What did he say?
The Court: (Bepeats what Mr. Looby has just asked.) 

He said what do you understand a fair and impartial trial to 
mean?

A. Just the facts in the case.
Mr. Looby: And you think that if they had a policy not 

to serve Negroes, you think—you wouldn’t think they were 
wrong, would you?

A. I couldn’t say I do. I don’t know.
Mr. Nichol: Your Honor, they are asking him to pass on 

the facts before they are heard. He is examining the wit­
ness—



35

Mr. Looby: I ’m not examining the witness—
The Court: Yeah, Mr. Dickerson, did yon understand 

him?
A. No, sir.
The Court: Repeat the question.
Mr. Looby: Do you really consider that this place, hav­

ing a known policy to serve only white people, and not to 
serve Negroes,—that was their policy—and the fact that 
the Negroes went in there and demanded service—that they 
were wrong to do that ?

Mr. Nichol: I make an objection to that, if your Honor 
[fol. 10] please.

The Court: Yes. I sustain your objection, General.
Mr. Nichol: That would be voir dire—to place the—
The Court: No, no, no, you made an objection. I sustain 

it. I think that will be part of his lawsuit.
Mr. Williams: Respectfully except, if your Honor please.
Mr. Looby: Do you think operating a business—do you 

think a group of Negroes coming in and demanding service 
•—do you think that would affect your judgment here? That 
it would be obstructing trade?

Mr. Nichol: I object to that.
The Court: I sustain that, General. That calls for him to 

decide the lawsuit.
Mr. Looby: Mr. Dickerson, do you think or believe that 

in a public place since you are in Nashville, and in the 
United States of America, that citizens of the United States, 
regardless of their race, have a right to equal treament?

Mr. Nichol: If your Honor please, we object to that. It 
is a matter of law.

Mr. Looby: If your Honor please, it is not just a matter 
of law in this case. It is a matter of the law and the facts.

The Court: Well, I ’ll let him answer that, General, I 
believe.

A. I can’t understand the gentleman. Will you repeat 
the last question?
[fol. 11] Mr. Looby: Will your Honor tell him what I said.

The Court: I think he asked you—I am not sure that 
I can state it exactly right—I think he asked you whether



36

or not you thought, under the law, Negroes and whites had 
equal rights in Nashville, and United States of America.

A. That depends.
Mr. Looby: On what does that depend, Mr. Dickerson?
Mr. Nichol: I just want to state an exception. You are 

asking the witness questions based on identical cases or 
maybe of slightly varying degrees. You are now asking 
him to pass on other cases. You said public places. That 
is not involved in this here. It’s private.

Mr. Looby: I asked him no such question. You said that 
depends, Mr. Dickerson—it depends on what?

A. Depends on what the case dwindles down to. I am 
not sure. I haven’t heard the case—and I’m not sure what 
it’s all about. I ’ve an idea.

Q. The question is whether or not in a place of public 
accommodation, whether any American citizen is entitled 
to equal rights regardless of race.

Mr. Nichol: Your Honor, he is asking him to pass on 
the law—not fact.

The Court: Gentlemen, I believe I will have to sustain 
the state’s objection on that.

Mr. Looby: But I understood you to say that in operat- 
[fol. 12] ing a bowling alley, in Nashville, for the public, 
you maintained a policy of excluding Negroes and that you 
didn’t believe that they had an equal right to be served 
there ? Is that what you said?

A. Yes.
Q. Did you say that? Now, I want you to talk so the 

Court can hear you. Don’t shake your head. Say yes, or no.
A. (To reporter.) What did he say?
(Reporter repeats what Mr. Looby said.)
A. I can’t understand him.
(Reporter repeats again.)
A. I can’t understand him.
The Court: Well, repeat the question.



37

Mr. Looby: I understood you to say that in operating 
a bowling alley for public accommodation you maintained 
a policy to exclude Negroes and that is your policy?

A. Yes.
Q. It is?
A. That’s right.
Q. And that is your policy, and that is still your feeling 

about it?
A. Yes.
Q. It is?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you think in spite of your feeling, Mr. Dicker- 

son, about that situation, you think a question involving 
[fol. 13] the same principle,—you think you could pass 
on a fair and impartial verdict for the Defendants, these 
Negroes?

A. I don’t know.
Q. As a matter of fact, you just couldn’t?
A. I can’t say yes or no right now.
Q. You have a doubt in your mind?
A. It depends on the circumstances.
Q. You have a doubt in your mind about it, don’t you?
A. Why, yes, naturally. I don’t understand the case.
Q. Yes, sir.
The Court: Are you saying, sir, that after you heard 

all the proof, after you heard all the charge of the Court, 
you still could not give these Defendants a fair and im­
partial trial because of your former policy? Your former 
technique? Your former opinion?

A. Well—
The Court: Is that what you are telling Counsel?
A. Well, it’s the policy that I had.
The Court: And the feeling that you had?
A. (Hesitates.) I can’t—I can’t say.
The Court: You can’t say now that you could give them 

a fair and impartial trial ?
A. I think I can give them a fair and impartial—



38

The Court: Trial!
[fol. 14] A. Yes, sir.

The Court: That’s all we ask you, sir, if you think 
you can give the Defendants, in spite of the questions 
that have been asked, and in spite of your former policy and 
business?

A. I think so.

By the Court:
Q. You still thing you can give the Defendants a fair 

and impartial trial ?
A. I think I can.
The Court: Gentlemen, that makes—again, I repeat, 

that makes him competent, it appears to me.
Mr. Williams: May it please the Court, we respectfully 

except. This witness has unequivocably in response to a 
question as to whether or not in the light of his feeling 
he can give these Defendants a fair and impartial trial, 
he has said, “ I don’t know. I have doubts.” Now, we re­
spectfully except to the Court denying our challenge for 
cause, on the basis of the Court’s then asking him over 
again, whether he can give them a fair and impartial 
trial. I think that what he means is that he can sit up there 
and listen. And that he just considers a fair and impartial 
trial in words. But it’s going to be doubtful the substance 
of it. His answer was that he didn’t know, that he had 
serious doubts, and we feel that, under those circumstances, 
that we are entitled to a challenge for cause, and we re­
spectfully except, if your Honor please. We respectfully 
except to the action of the Court.

The Court: All right. I overrule your application for 
challenge for cause.
[fol. 15] Mr. Williams: May it please the Court, as I 
understand the statute, each Defendant is entitled to three 
pre-emptory challenges, is that right?

The Court: That’s right.
Mr. Williams: Is that correct, sir, so—
The Court: That’s the way I understand it.



39

Mr. Williams: That would be a total of 24 challenges ?
The Court: Eight.
Mr. Looby: We want the record to show, your Honor, 

that with most—with the utmost reluctance, we challenge 
pre-emptorily and we are now using, the record will show, 
one of our pre-emptory challenges in this instance when we 
are entitled to a challenge for cause, so if it becomes neces­
sary to use all of our pre-emptory challenges, let it be 
considered an error.

The Court: All right. Let the—you do exercise pre- 
emptory challenge?

Mr. Looby: Yes, sir.
The Court: You will be excused, Mr. Dickerson. Now, 

Gentlemen, for the Defendants, in order to keep abreast of 
what we are doing, you ought to exercise it for some par­
ticular Defendant, and tell the Clerk.

Mr. Nichol: Which Defendant?
Mr. Williams: Lester G. McKinnie is charged.
The Court: All right.

[fol. 27] (J ames L. E therly is called to the witness stand 
as a prospective juror.)

(He is sworn and examined by the Clerk of the Criminal 
Court.)

The Court: Competent.
Mr. Nichol: You say you know none of the Defendants?
A. James L. Etherly.

[fol. 28] Q. We excuse him.
Mr. Williams: We would like for the record to show that 

this prospective juror was challenged and excused—the first 
Negro that has been called, and he was excused pre- 
emptorily by the State, without even an examination.

Mr. Nichol: Pre-emptory challenge.
#



40

[fol. 199] (T homas Bbown is called as a prospective juror, 
sworn by the clerk and examined by the clerk.)

[fol. 200] The Court: You have not formed or expressed 
an opinion?

A. No.
Mr. Nichol: I believe you say you work for what com­

pany?
A. Greyhound Bus Company at 6th and Commerce.
Q. What is your job?
A. Ticket agent.
Q. What are your duties ? Do you sell tickets ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. In other words, when people come to the window, you 

sell the ticket?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Take the money?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And they get on the bus ?
A. That’s right.
Q. And of course you come in contact with hundreds of 

people?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Everyday?
A. That is true.
Q. Both white and colored?
A. White and colored.
Q. You treat them alike? You do that?
A. Yes, sir, we do.
Q. And I believe the Greyhound Bus is a public service? 

[fol. 201] A. Yes, sir.
Q. Using the highways?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Interstate?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, you know none of these defendants? Do you?
A. No, sir. I may have waited on them if they have ever 

rode the bus, but to actually know them, I don’t think so.
Q. You don’t try to remember the faces of all that come 

up to that window?



41

A. I am afraid, sir, I couldn’t do that.
Q. Now, in this case, the indictment charges that these 

defendants went to the B & W Cafeteria which is a privately 
owned concern. Not a public service. Not a public owned 
concern, in any way. And it is charged here that they con­
spired to obstruct the business of that—trade and com­
merce of that concern. Have you any opinion either way of 
the facts in the case?

A. Not until I could hear them, I don’t think so.
Q. In other words, you say you could go into the jury 

box, and listen attentively to the evidence of the witnesses, 
and then listen to the charge of the Court, and then render 
a fair and impartial verdict on that and that alone?

A. Sir, I really don’t know. As you know, we work—I 
[fob 202] don’t know—this doesn’t have any bearing on this 
case, but I have worked at the bus company for 21 years. 
And we have had sit-ins in our station, as at the restaurant. 
Not for the ticket counter, or anything like that, but at the 
restaurant. However, none have occurred while I was on 
duty.

Q. But you know nothing about the facts of this case?
A. No, sir.
Q. Could you go in that jury box and decide this case 

solely on the evidence in this case, and the charge of the 
Court'—not what somebody may have told you about other 
eases?

A. I don’t know.
Mr. Williams: We request that this witness be excused.
The Court: Wait a minute. He has not finished with him, 

(to Mr. Nichol) have you?
The Court: Have you?
Mr. Nichol: You know nothing about the facts of the ease, 

do you ?
A. No, sir.
Q. Is there any reason why you can’t go into the jury 

box and decide this on the law and evidence alone? Will you 
do that, if you go into the jury box?

A. I will try to be as fair as I know how to, to the best of 
my ability.



42

The Court: Do you accept him?
A. Yes, sir.

[fol. 203] The Court: Do you know—you don’t know of 
any—or do you know of any reason why you couldn’t take 
a seat and give both sides a fair and impartial verdict?

A. No, sir, not after hearing the facts.
The Court: And render such verdict as you think truth 

and justice dictate?
A. (Nods.)
The Court: All right.

Mr. Looby’s examination:
Q. Mr. Brown?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You work for Greyhound Company?
A. Yes, sir, at the ticket office. On Commerce.
Q. And you have had some sit-ins at the lunch counter?
A. Yes, we have.
Q. And because of those sit-ins, you have formed some 

opinions as to the legality of the sit-ins, haven’t you?
A. Sir?
Q. You have formed an opinion because of what you have 

experienced with them?
A. Not of this case, no, sir.
Q. I didn’t ask aborrt this case. Having had some experi­

ence with these sit-in demonstrations, you have formed an 
opinion as to the legality of it? Haven’t you?
[fol. 204] A. Sir?

Q. Having had some experience with these sit-ins, you 
have formed an opinion as to the legality of them, haven’t 
you?

A. Sir, I wasn’t present on duty at any time they have 
occurred.

Q. Didn’t I understand you to say you had some ex­
perience down there with these sit-ins?

A. Yes, sir, they have had. They did have.
Q. You know they had sit-ins ?
A. Yes, sir, yes, sir.



43

Q, And that affected your opinion about these sit-ins, 
didn’t it?

A. (Hesitates.)
Q, You have formed some opinions about these sit-ins, 

haven’t you ?
A. Might possibly, yes, sir.
Mr. Nichol: We except to the question, if the Court 

please, about his not asking about this particular case. If a 
man sees a murder last month—

The Court: Sustained. I have ruled on that.
Mr. Nichol: Yes, sir.
The Court: You may ask him about the sit-in at the 

B&W .
Mr. Looby: Based upon your experience and the opinion 

that you have formed of the sit-in demonstrations, if you 
were to be selected to the jury to try a case where a sit-in 
[fol. 205] was involved, that would affect your opinion, 
wouldn’t it?

A. I would try not to lean either way.
Q. But it would, nevertheless? Wouldn’t it?
A. I can’t hardly answer that.
Q. You can’t answer that? But you know based upon your 

answer depends whether or not you are selected, don’t you?
A. (Hesitates.)
Q. Can you go into this jury box, Mr. Brown, and try this 

case, just as if you had never heard of or never seen a sit-in 
before?

A. If I go in, I would try to take the facts of this case, 
yes, sir.

Q. Wouldn’t your former experience influence your opin­
ion?

A. (Hesitates.)
Mr. Nichol: Well, your Honor, experience might affect— 

influence everything from a kid right at home.
The Court: I think the question is this, Mr. Juror. Even 

if you have any preconceived opinions—already formed 
opinions, about the sit-ins, even if you have such, could 
you take a seat in that jury box, if you were selected as a 
juror here, lay aside those preconceived ideas, if any such 
you do have, and listen to the proof, and listen to the charge,



44

and give both the state and the defendants a fair and im­
partial trial?
[fol. 206] A. I would do my best.

By the Court:
Q. That’s all anybody can do.
Mr. Looby: Mr. Brown, I want to go a little farther than 

that. If you were selected as a juror, to try a case in which a 
sit-in demonstration was involved, does the fact of your pre­
vious knowledge of sit-ins involve or influence your decision 
in arriving at it 1

A. In arriving at the verdict ?
Q. Yes.
A. I would try to be impartial.
Q. I don’t care what you’d try and what you wouldn’t.
A. To the best of my ability, sir.
Q. Now, you are telling this court now, that regardless of 

the opinion which you have formed, based upon the experi­
ence of where you work and the sit-in demonstrations 
there,—•

Mr. Nichol: May it please your Honor, we object to that. 
He said he wasn’t there. He said he wasn’t there.

Mr. Looby: I think the Attorney General should let me 
finish my question and let the Court tell him.

The Court: Well, let him finish the question.
Mr. Looby: I am trying to insist that this court is con­

trolled by the Court and not by the Attorney General, your 
Honor please.

The Court: I do that, sir.
Mr. Looby: Deep down in your conscience, do you feel 

that if you were selected to try a ease where a sit-in demon- 
[fol. 207] stration was involved, and you could arrive at a 
decision separate and apart from the incident down at the 
Greyhound Bus Lines ?

A. As I say, I would try as honestly as I could.
Q. It might have some effect, even though you tried!
A. It might possibly.
Q, Your Honor, I want to excuse this witness—to chal­

lenge this prospective juror for cause.



45

The Court: I overrule you on that. I think this juror has 
said that he would do the best he could to give you a fair 
trial.

Mr. Looby: But even though he said he would try to give 
a fair trial, and he makes the effort, it would be superim­
posed upon the background of his experience with sit-in 
demonstrations,—I don’t think, your Honor, that he is a 
competent juror to try this case.

The Court: I am sorry I can’t agree with you on this— 
that this particular juror is contaminated.

Mr. Looby: Mr. Brown, were you employed by Grey­
hound Bus Lines about the time that about 60 students were 
arrested because of a sit-in demonstration down there?

A. I was employed at the time, yes. Uh-huh.
Q. And you were fully cognizant it was down there?
A. Sir?
Q. And you were fully cognizant it was there?
A. I wasn’t there at the time.
Q. But you knew about it ?

[fob 208] A. Oh, yes, I knew about it.
Q. And you were employed at the bus terminal? How 

many times have a large group of students been arrested 
for sit-in demonstrations by your company?

A. How many?
Q. How many times have a large group of students been 

arrested for a sit-in demonstration by your company?
A. I am sorry, sir, I can’t answer that.
Q. But it was done ?
A. I think so, yes.
Q. You are still working for the companv?
A. Yes.
Q. And you have the interest of the company at heart?
A. Sir?
Q. You still have the interest of the company at heart, 

don’t you ?
A. I try to do the best for them that I can, yes, sir.
Q. And yet you still say that you want to be selected as a 

juror to try these students or some students on a similar 
circumstance and a similar charge ?

A. As I said,-—•
Q. Do you want to sit on the jury, Mr. Brown?



46

A. As I said before, I would give it as fair a trial or opin- 
[fol. 209] ion, or do the best that I can.

Q. Your Honor, please, in the face of this evidence given 
by this prospective juror, we think that we are entitled to 
have a challenge for cause, and we so challenge him, if your 
Honor please.

The Court: I think I will have to overrule that, gentle­
men.

Mr. Looby: We respectfully except, if your Honor please, 
and we reluctantly use one of our pre-emptory challenges, 
for John R. Lewis.

The Court: You are excused.
Mr. Williams: If your Honor please, we would like to call 

the Court’s attention to the fact that the state is permitted 
to challenge a Negro venireman simply on the statement 
that he was an employee of the prosecutor, and we are hav­
ing to use a pre-emptory challenge. We feel that this was 
an analogous situation, and we should not have been re­
quired to use this in this case.

Mr. Robinson: Your Honor, it went further than that. 
He said he knew about the facts in this case, and that he 
has been present when this happened as well as other in­
stances, at the B & W  Restaurant.

Mr. Williams: He didn’t say he was present when this 
happened.

Mr. Robinson: He certainly did.
Mr. Looby: The record will show exactly what he said.
The Court: Yeah. All right.

#  # #  *  #  #  *

[fol. 384] The Court: All right, gentlemen. Bring in 
another prospective juror.

(# 5 9 , R osa L ee Copeland is presented as a prospective 
juror and sworn and examined by the Clerk.)

The Court: He asked you if you had formed or expressed 
with reference to the guilt or innocence of either one of 
[fol. 385] those 8 defendants?

A. Yes, I will.
Q. You have formed or expressed an opinion?
A. No. I didn’t understand it. I can’t hear too well.



47

The Court: I say—you can’t hear too well?
A. I can’t hear too well. I didn’t know what he said.
The Court: Well, he asked you if you had formed or 

expressed any opinion as to their guilt or innocence.
A. Oh, no.
Q. Can you hear all right?
A. Yes.
The Court: Competent.

Examination.
By Mr. Nichol:

Q. What is your address?
A. 1016 16th Avenue, North.
Q. That is between-—near Hart or Jefferson ?
A. Between Meharry and Phillip.
Q. Between Meharry and Phillip? I believe, then, you 

live about 2 blocks from Fisk University. Is that correct?
A. That’s correct.

[fol. 386] Q. Did you attend Fisk University?
A. I went to Williamson County School in Nolensville, 

Tennessee.
Q. What is your—are you working anywhere? What is 

your occupation ?
A. I am the dispatcher for McCall Cab Company.
Q. McCall Cab Company? I notice some of these defen­

dants live on 18th Avenue, North. Do you know where any 
of them live ?

A. I don’t know any of them, much less where they live.
Mr. Williams: No defendants live on 18th Avenue North, 

if the Court please. Some live on 28th.
Mr. Nichol: 28th? Do you know any of these defendants 

over here? Which one do you know?
A. I don’t know any of ’em.
Q. You don’t know them by sight?
A. No, I don’t know any of ’em by sight, or name either.
Q. Have you, at any time, ever attended any meetings 

at the church on 8th Avenue, North? to see—
Mr. Looby: I object to that, if the Court please. If this 

prospective juror wants to attend meetings they have in



48

church, what has that got to do with it? That don’t mean 
[fol. 387] much. They have all kinds of meetings. If its 
some special kind of meeting, now I won’t object to that. 
It could he prayer meeting, or church services,—she has a 
right to go to church.

The Court: Ask her about the meeting, then.
Mr. Nichol: Have you ever attended any meetings— 

have you ever been to the church to hear Rev. Kelly Smith?
A. No, I haven’t.
Q. Have you ever attended any meetings about sit-ins?
A. No, I haven’t.
Q. Where sit-ins were discussed?
A. No, I haven’t.
Q. Ho you belong to the NAACP?
A. No, I haven’t.
Mr. Williams: We object to that, if your Honor please.
Mr. Looby: I object to that. I belong to the NAACP, 

and I am proud of it. It doesn’t matter if she belongs.
The Court: I find no fault with Mm asking that.
Mr. Nichol: Has anybody discussed these cases with you?
A. No, sir.

[fol. 388] Q. Have you read about them in the newspaper?
A. No, I haven’t.
Q. Would it embarrass you to sit on this case when you 

live right there near Fisk University?
A. Would it embarrass me?
Q. Yes?
A. No.
Q. Have you discussed this case with friends?
A. No, I haven’t.
Q. You want to sit on the case?
Mr. Williams: Well, I object to that, if the Court please.
The Court: I sustain it.
Q. Would you like to sit on the case?
A. We object to that, if your Honor please.
Mr. Nichol: We’ll excuse you. We’ll excuse you. You 

may go now.



49

Mr. Williams: May it please the Court, let the record 
show that this witness was a Negro.

Mr. Nichol: Also Earl Price. I don’t think you put that 
in the record.

(#45, F loyd G. D avis is called as a prospective juror, is 
[fol. 389] sworn and examined by the Clerk.)

The Court: He is competent.

Examination.
By Mr. Robinson:

Q. Mr. Floyd G. Davis?
A. Yes, sir.
Q, Answer so the Court Reporter can hear you. Talk 

out. Where do you live?
A. 823 12th Ave., S.
Q. Do you have a family?
A. Wife.
Q. Do you have any children?
A. No.-'
Q. How long have you been a resident of Davidson 

County, Tennessee?
A. About all my life.
Q. You born here?
A. Yes.
Q. What is your occupation ?
A. Painter.
Q. Who do you work for?
A. Fisk University.
Q. Beg pardon.
A. Fisk University.
Q. Fisk University? Now, there are certain students 

here who go to Fisk University, who are defendants. Do 
[fol. 390] you feel like you could give them a fair trial, as 
well as the state because you work for Fisk University and 
they go to school there at Fisk University?

A. I think so.
Q. Do you know any of these students by sight?
A. No.'



50

Q. Or name?
A. No.
Q. You know none of them?
A. No.
Q. How long have you been at—employed at Fisk?
A. About—a little better than a year.
Q. A little better than a year?
A. Yes.
Q. Hid you—- Where did you go to school?
A. I went to school here.
Q. Where?
A. I went to school here at Pearl High.
Q. Pearl High School? Are you familiar with the facts 

involved in the—wherein these students went to the B & W 
Restaurant on 6th Avenue? Are you familiar with that? 
[fol. 391] A. No. Well, I have heard of it.

Q. Heard of it? Who did you hear about that from?
A. By reading.
Q. You didn’t hear it from some of the other students out 

at school?
A. No, just by reading the newspaper.
Q. Oh, I see. Well, other than the newspaper, have you 

heard about it from anybody?
A. No.
Q. Are you familiar with the facts involved?
A. Not at all.
Q. You have no special knowledge of the facts involved?
A. Not at all.
Q. Not at all? Any of your kin folks go to Fisk Uni­

versity?
A. No.
Q. Are you a member of any group or association that 

advocates either integration or segregation?
A. No.
Q. Have yon ever attended any meetings of that sort 

where that was discussed?
[fol. 392] A. Well, I guess I have.

Q. Where did you attend those meetings?
A. At Fisk University.
Q. At Fisk University. Were—are you familiar with a 

committee called the Non-Violence Committee?
A. No, I do not.



51

• Q. Were any of these defendants that are present today, 
at those meetings ? That you went to ?

A. Not that I know of.
Q. Not that you know off Are you a member of the 

Christian Leadership Council f
A. No.
Q. Are you familiar with that organization f
A. Yes. I am.
Q. Is that a Fisk organization?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Huh?
A. I told you I don’t know.
Q. You don’t know? Have you ever witnessed a non­

violence demonstration?
A. No. Never have.
Q. Never have in your life?
A. No.
Q. Do you know what they are?

[fol. 393] A. I have read about them.
Q. That is all you know about them? You have read 

about them?
A. Yes.
Q. Where were you employed before going to work at 

Fisk University?
A. Sir?
Q. Where did you work before ?
A. I was self-employed.
Q. Doing wrhat?
A. Painting.
Q. Painter? What sort of paint job do you do—homes, 

or interior decorating?
A. Well, any kind.
Q. Any kind,—of a painting job? Have you ever been 

convicted of a felony?
Mr. Williams: We object to that, if the Court please.
The Court: Wouldn’t you—
Mr. Williams: He can ask him if he knows of any reason 

why he could not qualify and serve as a juror.
Mr. Robinson: Oh, no. I can ask him if he has been con­

victed. That would be a proper question to see if he is



52

fit to sit on this jury. I can ask him if he has ever been 
convicted of a felony. That goes for anybody that takes 
[fol. 394] that chair, that’s a prospective juror.

The Court: I rather think that is a competent question.
Mr. Eobinson: Have you ever been convicted?
A. No, I haven’t.
Q. Never been convicted of a felony?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever work for A & I University?
A. No, I haven’t.
Q. Does your wife work?
A. Yes.
Q. Where?
A. Peabody Demonstration School.
Q. Peabody Demonstration School? Have you ever been 

represented by Mr. Looby? Or Mr. Williams.
A. I know Mr. Looby.
Q. You know them, don’t you? Now, what’s the connec­

tion?
A. I see him.
Q. Where did you get acquainted with Mr. Looby? Just 

see him on the street? Have you ever talked to him? Did 
you speak to him today?

A. No. I haven’t—not today.
Q. Have you ever been contacted about this matter since 

[fol. 395] you have been under subpoena? Under subpoena 
to be here today?

A. No, sir.
Q. Have you told anybody about it other than your wife 

and family?
A. No.
Q. That’s all. We will excuse him.
Mr. Williams: Let the record show that this, likewise, 

is a Negro.
Mr. Eobinson: Let the record also show that he works at 

Fisk University.
Mr. Looby: Let the record show the effort on the part of 

the state to exclude all Negro peers of these defendants.
The Court: Gentlemen, it doesn’t make any difference; 

so long as the state and the defendants have challenges



53

they may exercise them. They don’t have to give any rea­
son one way or another.

Mr. Looby: No, sir, but we want this record to show 
this effort on the part of the state to exclude all Negro 
peers of the defendants. We want the record to show that 
definitely.

The Court: You may, if you want to, state for the rec­
ord that that was a Negro. I have no objection.

Mr. Looby: I only ask, your Honor, that the record show 
[fol. 396] that it was a Negro.

The Court: All right. There’s no use for us to waste our 
time explaining why they are excused. If they are pre- 
emptorily challenged, that ends it.

Mr. Looby: I only want the record to show they were 
Negroes.

The Court: All right.
# # # # # # #

[fol. 446] (# 7 3 , H erbebt A mic, called as a prospective
juror, is sworn by the clerk and examined.)

The Court: Have you formed or expressed an opinion 
as to their guilt or innocence!

A. Not on this particular case.
The Court: In this particular case where the defendants 

are charged with obstructing trade and commerce at the 
B & W Cafeteria!
[fol. 447] A. I have not.

The Court: All right.

Examination.
By Mr. Robinson:

Q. Mr. Amic, have you ever been on a jury before!
A. No.
Q. Never tried a criminal case in your life!
A. No, I was called in, but didn’t serve, on the jury. 

I have been called.
Q. I see. What is your business!
A. Finance. Finance company.
Q. Finance company! Are you related to Glenn Amic!



54

A. No.
Q. What finance company are yon with!
A. Phelan—421 Union Street.
Q. Do you discriminate in your business between the 

races?
A. Well, not to any great extent.
Q. Can I borrow money? Can I borrow money at your 

place ?
A. Any person can borrow money at my place.
Q. Any one of these—

[fol. 448] The Court: I don’t think it is fair to ask him 
if you can borrow money, now. (laughs)

Mr. Robinson: Well, if your Honor please, I might need 
some, or any one of these defendants, including Mr. Looby.

The Court: Well, I know, but don’t ask him that on the 
witness stand. It is embarrassing.

Mr. Robinson: All right. Irrespective of the color, they 
can get money if they qualify?

A. With the same qualifications, anybody can borrow 
money from me.

Mr. Looby: You can see me if you want any.
Mr. Robinson: What’s that?
Mr. Looby: I said you can see me if you want some.
Mr. Robinson: O.K. I appreciate that. I might need 

some.
(To prospective juror) Where did you live before you 

moved to Oak Street?
A. I have been on Oak Street for about 9 years. Prior 

to that time, I lived on Riverwood Drive.
Q. Now, Oak Street, I believe, is in Madison?
A. No. It’s in Inglewood.
Q. Inglewood?
A. Yes. There is an Oak St. in Madison.

[fol. 449] Q. I see. This happens to be the Oak Street 
in Inglewood?

A. Right.
Q. Where did you live before you moved to Nashville?
A. I was born and raised here.



55

Q. Born and raised here?
A. That’s right.
Q. Do you have children in school out there?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where do they go to school?
A. Jere Baxter.
Q. Jere Baxter? I believe that’s an integrated school, 

isn’t it?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you have any special knowledge about the law on 

criminal conspiracy in interfering with trade and commerce 
of a business house?

A. Not to any extent.
Q. Would you depend on the Court to tell you the law? 

And the Court alone to tell the law in this state?
A. Yes.
Q. You don’t have any preconceived ideas about what 

[fol. 450] the law is, do you? In this matter?
A. Well, I ’ve got my own opinion.
Q. You have got certain opinions?
A. That’s right.
Q. But legally speaking, you don’t know what the law 

is in Tennessee on a conspiracy that interfered with trade 
and commerce?

A. No, not specifically.
Q. Then you would depend on the Court for that?
A. Right.
Q. You wmuld depend on the Court for that?
A. Yes, I would do that.
Q. Now, if you are selected to sit as a juror, in the jury 

box, would you take into consideration anything other than 
what you hear on the witness stand?

A. That would be hard to say. I mean I have my own 
opinion of the thing in general. It’s the way I feel already 
about it.

Q. How do you feel?
A. Well, I don’t like anything that forces a person to 

run his business other than the way he wants to run it.
Q. Well, now, can you conscientiously—now, to be per- 

[fol. 451] fectly honest with me—could you lay aside that



56

opinion, and listen to the evidence from the witness stand1?
A. Yes.
Q. And the law according to the Judge’s charge? And 

the evidence? And then be fair both to the state and these 
defendants ?

A. Yes.
Q. Irrespective of whatever your opinion is at the pres­

ent time?
A. Right.
Mr. Nichol: We accept him.

Examination.
By Mr. Williams:

Q. Mr. Amic, you have the opinion that any person should 
be allowed to run any business any way he wants to?

A. Right.
Q. And you have that opinion, notwithstanding the fact 

that we regulate public utilities every day?
A. Pardon?
Q. You have that opinion, notwithstanding the fact that 

we regulate public utilities every day—what they can charge 
people, do we not?

A. I hadn’t thought about that.
Q. And we regulate the business you are in, don’t we— 

don’t we have a small loan statute?
[fol. 452] A. I am sure there is.

Q. That covers you in your business?
A. I am sure that they would have, yes.
Q. That covers you on your job. But what you mean 

is that you should be allowed to discriminate against 
Negroes if you want to? In a business? That’s what you 
mean, isn’t it?

A. Yes.
Q. Yes? So that your opinion is not limited to business 

in general, but it is related to—specifically to the segrega­
tion of Negroes?

A. I think it is up to the individual. I, myself, don’t say 
that I wouldn’t allow them to come into my place.

Q. But you think that a business open to the public 
should be allowed to exclude Negroes?

A. If they so desire, yes.



57

Q. A restaurant business, then specifically,—in particu­
lar? And having that opinion wherein the indictment in 
this case charges that the B & W  Cafeteria had had such 
a rule, and that these defendants went there and sought 
service, knowing that the B & W had such a rule, and then 
you would start out with a prejudiced attitude toward these 
defendants ?

A. Well, I would—
Q. By reason of your belief?
A. —I would believe the B & W would be right in this 

[fol. 453] case in their position.
Q. And you would start—what I am saying, though, is 

you would start out in this case with a prejudiced attitude 
toward the defendants, wouldn’t you?

A. In this particular case, I imagine I would.
Q. Yes, sir. And, it would take evidence on the part of 

the defendants to prove that they had a right to be there 
to overcome that prejudice?

Mr. Amic: (starts to answer)
Mr. Nichol: If your Honor please, I want to renew my 

objection here. Let the juryman step out.
The Court: All right.
Mr. Looby: If your Honor please, is it time for a recess ?
The Court: Well, let’s settle this matter first,— (the 

prospective juror steps out.) —before we do.
Mr. Nichol: May it please the Court, we have set forth 

in this presentment in plain words that it is the theory of 
the state and our belief as to the law, not as to public ser­
vice things but private business,—we say the law is that 
any owner of a private concern has a right to select his 
customers on any ground that he sees proper, which in­
cludes the right to exclude a person by reason of color.

Now, the Court has permitted these attorneys witness 
[fol. 454] after witness to challenge the jury on the ground 
that they believe and that the state contends, too that the 
law is proper.

In other words, every venireman, that has come up here 
yet, that said that the owner has the right to exclude a 
person from his private business, his private premises, that 
is sufficient to disqualify the juryman.



58

Now, we say this. We want law-abiding citizens on this 
jury. And people that believe in the law and advocates the 
law, and not people who—to limit the state to people who 
go utterly against the grain of the law, and who put the 
desire and greed to other designs of those rights, and qual­
ify the jurymen on that.

Now, if a juryman comes up here and says that regard­
less of the law in this case, that they go in defiance of the 
owner, they are competent jurors. Now, if your Honor 
please, we—the question first is as to the guilt or innocence 
of these defendants on the facts.

We have got a belief here of every kind—a belief of some 
kind or another. We say that is not competent, for a venire­
man to be examined on that on every subject. And I say, 
when one of them comes up here and expresses a belief of 
the law— Now, as I understand it to be, now I don’t know 
what the Court is going to charge, then that—because he 
believes in the law as it actually is, he is a prejudiced man. 
[fol. 455] The Court: No.

Mr. Nichol: On that subject.
The Court: I don’t think so. I have tried to keep away 

from that, General, and I hope that we have. That is, I 
have tried to ask him, in spite of what he thinks,—we are 
not concerned about what he thinks. If he will just be fair 
and sit there and listen to the evidence and the charge of 
the Court, that is all I think it takes to qualify him to be 
a juror. What if he has got some ideas of his own, they 
may be right, and they may be wrong!

Mr. Nichol: But the thing was—the disqualification to 
me is not some opinion on some collateral matter, but as 
to the guilt or innocence of these parties here. And they— 
if they’ve got the view all set up, that doesn’t make them—

The Court: And if the prospective juror will stay away 
from saying he’s prejudiced against it—against them, I 
think you are exactly right. I agree with you. If I could 
keep these jurors’ mind on whether or not they—their mind 
is open. That’s all.

Mr. Nichol: On the facts of the case.
The Court: On the facts and the law.



59

Mr. Nichol: And not the rule—we are trying on the rule 
of the cafeteria, and not on the facts of the case, instead 
of the facts of the case.

The Court: They could he right and they could he wrong, 
about their opinion, and I am not interested in that.
[fol. 456] Mr. Looby: If your Honor please, all of this 
misunderstanding and all of this noise is caused by one 
source. It all came from this one source. This illiterate, 
unwise and unnecessary and prolific and dangerous—all 
these statements here, that they have called in the indict­
ment—these are the ones that are giving us trouble here. 
That is the cause of the trouble. As a matter of fact, if we 
had an indictment such as is generally drawn up, we would 
have been through with this long ago, but what we have 
here is the District Attorney’s triumph, and he said he 
wrote it. It’s not very—I don’t think it is anything to 
claim credit for. But he says he wrote it, and since he 
wTrote it, with all this hodge-podge, that’s what it is, but 
if they did charge a conspiracy then that would revolve 
around that, but all of this has gotten around to the jury, 
and we have a right to charge the jury as to what he is 
going to hear in this hodge-podge.

Now, if they didn’t want us to go into it, then they ought 
not to have brought it up. But they brought it out and 
it is certainly pertinent for us to go into it, in selecting 
the jury.

Now, if a juryman volunteers a statement, volunteers 
that he is of the opinion that a man ought to run his busi­
ness as he pleases, and since it is centered around that, 
and since it is a policy of the restaurant on which this is 
predicated, we have a right to go into that. Now, are you 
going to carry that into the jury box with you? And then 
[fol. 457] how far are you going to carry that? And if 
predicated upon what is said here, and while you are 
sitting in, based on your opinion you have now, will you 
take it into the jury box with you—we want to have a 
right to know,—what—if they would be competent. Or 
even if they are accidentally volunteered,—usually it is 
brought up by the state,—do you have an opinion, and of 
course that’s what the state wants to hear—that’s what



60

they’re looking for—people with definite opinions as to the 
manner they are operating this restaurant.

So I agree with the Court in this respect. This Court 
is not here to enforce the policy of the B & W  or the XYZ 
or any other monstrosity. That is not the policy of the 
state. The only policy of this state and this court is to 
determine whether a criminal offense has been committed, 
and the enforcement of the matters of this policy is not 
a criminal offense.

I think I said before here in the other court trial—in 
the federal court— We had a steward and a waiter and 
a chef being prosecuted for embezzling—the railroad. They 
had a scheme in there—one take the order, and one made 
out the bill, and between them the railroad got little. They 
would deduct here and deduct there and between them the 
railroad got little of the money. And the government at­
tempted to show the rule of the railroad, how it ought to 
be operated, and the government got up and said, wait a 
minute, we are not here to enforce the laws of the rail­
road, we are here to enforce the laws of the government, 
[fol. 458] And that’s how that same thing applies here. The 
Court is not here to enforce the policy of the B & W Cafe­
teria,̂ —it is only whether it is a conspiracy. But when all 
these facts are brought in, and when the policy of the 
B & W Cafeteria is outlined, in detail, in this indictment, 
certainly then we have to go into it. Because this indict­
ment is part of the record, and not only part of the record, 
but will be presented to the jury and they have this and 
consider it and what is in here, and certainly we ought 
to question them on the v o i r  d ir e  as to what is in here, 
and especially when the v o i r  d ir e  provisions—as to how a 
man should operate his business.

The Court: Only as to the question, sir, as to whether 
or not they are prejudiced against people as such. That’s 
what I tried to say, and that’s the test, gentlemen. And 
that is the only test that’s really applicable. And that is 
the only thing for which it can serve. Only as prejudice 
is there. It doesn’t make any difference about what their 
idea was, as I indicated.

Well, let’s call that witness now—that prospective juror 
back.



61

Mr. Looby: Are we going to take a recess, may it please 
yonr Honor?

The Court: Yes, we’ll take a recess now. Bring that 
prospective juror in here now that I have had in my office.

(A recess was then had from 2:45 to 3:12 P.M.)
[fol. 459] The Court: Let’s continue, gentlemen.

Mr. Williams: In view of this last response, if your 
Honor please, of the witness, we ask that he be excused for 
cause. He has stated that he would start out with prejudice 
and that it would require proof on their part to—

Juror: May I clear it up?
The Court: Let me ask this witness a question: Do you 

have any prejudice against Negroes as such?
A. That’s what I wanted to clear up. Now, no prejudice 

against Negroes at all.
The Court: All right.
A. It would be the same situation if the B & W said that 

they wouldn’t serve people after 6 o’clock without a dinner 
coat, or something. I think they would have that right to 
refuse to serve.

The Court: Well, I am not interested in what you think 
about that. That’s got nothing to do with this matter now— 
You might be thinking all wrong, or you might be think­
ing all right. What I am interested in is whether or not 
you have got a fair and open mind.

A. I have no prejudice against them. I have dealt with 
them all my life practically. I have some very close friends 
who are colored. There is no prejudice so far as that is 
concerned.

The Court: Irrespective of any preconceived ideas you 
[fol. 460] might have, about rights of people to serve or 
not to serve, could you still step in that jury box over there, 
if you are selected, lay aside any ideas you have of your 
own, listen to the evidence from this witness stand, the 
charge of the Court, and after the case is concluded, on 
your oath as a juror, render a verdict that you think is 
fair and impartial to the state and to 8 defendants?



62

A. I certainly conld.
Q. Yon sure could. That sure makes you a competent 

juror.
Mr. Williams: Well, now, Mr. Amic, haven’t you stated 

that by reason of your opinion, regarding the right of 
the B & W Cafeteria to exclude Negroes, if it wanted to—

The Juror: Well, now—•
Q. Wait just a minute—please, sir. That if evidence 

was shown in this case—that if the indictment charges 
that the defendants went there, knowing of this rule and 
the defendants, being Negroes, sought service, that it would 
prejudice you against them?

A. Well, it would have to be shown to me that it was— 
that they did violate some regulation like that.

Q. Yes,—
A. To begin with.
Q. But, if they had a rule that they excluded Negroes, 

and these defendants went there and violated that rule, it 
[fob 461] would prejudice you against these defendants, 
wouldn’t it

A. If—if it was a proven fact that that was their rule, 
and that they were there against the cafeteria’s rule, why 
I think they have a right to enfore that rule.

Q. And you would start out with that prejudice against 
the defendants, wouldn’t you?

A. Not necessarily, not until it is proven exactly they did 
violate the rule and violate some law.

Q. We are not talking about law now. We are talking 
about the rule of the B & W Cafeteria.

Mr. Robinson: If your Honor please, we are not trying 
any rules of the B & W Restaurant.

The Court: No, that’s exactly right, and we are only 
talking about the law.

Mr. Nichol: An averment or indictment is not proof. 
They are trying to get a juryman before he is sworn, be- 
for he hears any proof, to try to find out what the reaction 
of the jury would be to subsequent proof. The basis right 
now, if he is accepted on that jury, is if he is prejudiced 
or biased. You cannot take, or state, parts of proof, and



63

regardless, as I have said, an averment is not proof at 
all. To see how a jury is going to react to the proof later 
on,—the elements of proof later on. It is not competent at 
all.

Mr. Looby: May it please your Honor, from the basis 
of your Honor’s statement, I want to move that it be 
stricken,—from the face of this indictment be stricken all 
[fob 462] statements with reference to the policy of the B 
& W Cafeteria, about who they are to serve to. The only 
thing germane to the indictment is whether—for the pur­
poses your Honor ruled—if we cannot examine the pro­
spective juror on that particular phase, I don’t think it 
should remain in the indictment until it should be read. I 
move it should be stricken.

The Court: I overrule your motion on that. Gentlemen, 
I don’t know what allegations they have in there that may 
or may not be proved, and that is a thing we will have to 
determine when we reach it, in the proof of this case. All 
I am interested in is a man that is fair-minded when he 
starts.

Mr. Looby: I want to respectfully except to your Honor’s 
ruling^—•

The Court: All right.
Mr. Looby: —on my motion to strike.
The Court: All right.
Mr. Williams: Now, may it please your Honor, I would 

like—the District Attorney has been jumping up during the 
course of my examination. Now, I would like to say, with 
regard to this, if the Court please, that there is no way in 
the world for the defendants to know what we are con­
fronted with in a case other than what is charged in the 
indictment. And there is no way in the world that they can 
qualify a juror to try it other than on that charge, in the 
indictment.

The Court: I understand, gentlemen, and the answers 
[fol. 463] of the juror, the prospective juror, to the ques­
tion qualified him. That’s all. He says he is a fair-minded 
man, that he has no prejudices, and that he will give the 
state and the defendant a fair and impartial trial. Regard­
less of what the proof is, he will listen to it. Didn’t I under­
stand you to say that, sir!



64

A. Absolutely.
Mr. Williams: May it please the Court, I respectfully 

submit that I cannot be limited on my v o i r  d ir e  examina­
tion of what a witness thinks that he is a fair-minded man. 
I think—the most vicious criminal—

The Court: Ask him then what—
Mr. Williams: —in the world can say that.
The Court: Well—
Mr. Williams: I want to be able to inquire about some 

of these witnesses’s attitudes so that I can find out if I 
think he is a fair-minded man, your Honor.

The Court: Gentlemen, I am not going to let you in­
quire into special parts of this presentment, or in asking 
him questions in hypothetical cases. Now, you may ask 
about how he feels about the matter, with reference to 
whether or not he’s got bias or prejudice. And that’s the 
question.

Mr. Williams: We respectfully submit, may it please the 
Court, that he has already indicated that, but we would 
[fol. 464] like to question him further.

Or you, or have you ever been a member of any organi­
zation which advocates segregation of the races!

A. No.
Q. Have you ever attended any meetings of any such 

organization ?
A. No.
Q. What church are you a member of?
A. Church of Christ.
Q. Your church advocates segregation? Doesn’t it?
A. I suppose it does. I never thought of it along this 

line.
Q. Your church is a lily-white church, isn’t it?
Mr. Maddin: What is a lily-white church?
Mr. Williams: Well, exclusively white, isn’t it? The 

church you attend is attended exclusively by white people, 
isn’t it?

A. That’s the first time I ’d ever thought about never 
seeing colored people in that church.



65

Q. Well, you haven’t gone ont and looked for any Negro 
churches to attend, have you ?

A, In my particular area, I don’t believe there is any.
Q. You live in an exclusively white 

[fol. 465] don’t you?
A. That’s right.
Q. You didn’t go look for a Negro area to live in?
A. No.
Q. You said you had some Negro friends—do you have 

any Negro friends who visit you in your home and have 
dinner with you?

A. No.
Q. Do you have any Negro friends with whom you have 

dinner, or go out socially occasionally?
A. I have never been invited.
Q. And you have never invited any either, have you?
A. No.
Q. So, as a matter of fact you don’t have any Negro 

friends on a basis of social equalization or on a basis of 
equality, do you?

A. No, I have during the time in the service. I have eaten 
with them, slept next to them, etc. Partied with them.

Q. And how long were you in the service?
A. 2 years.

[fol. 466] Q. And the service—was that the Korean War?
A. Yes.
Q. In the service you were thrown with Negroes as a 

result of military compulsion, were you not?
A. Yes.
Q. Yes? And any equality, that you had, existed be­

cause—as a result of the equality of military rank?
A. Yes.
Q. I will ask you if you grew up in exclusively white 

schools, didn’t you? Went to white schools?
A. Yes.
Q. Exclusively white schools?
A. They were the only ones to go to at that time.
Q. Sir?
A. I believe they were the only ones available at that 

time.
Q. Well, there were some Negro schools? Weren’t they? 

In Davidson County?



66

A. Yes.
Q. As a matter of fact, your whole contact, your whole 

association with Negroes, has been to loan them money on 
small loans? And such services?

A. No. I have played basketball with them, I played with 
them when I was younger.
[fol. 467] Q. This was in the Army?

A. No. That was back in my high school days, and even 
before that.

Q. You mean you played basketball? Your school played 
basketball with—

A. No, we played in our backyards together.
Q. Backyards?
A. Yes.
Q. But you feel like the exclusion of Negroes from a res­

taurant is just the same as closing the doors at 6 o’clock. 
If a man operates a restaurant for the public, he would be 
allowed to exclude Negroes—to exclude me, just because I 
happen to be a shade darker than you are. I don’t know 
whether I am or not. Maybe I am. Just because I have 
some African in my background, then I am not admitted. 
Do you feel like that?

Mr. Maddin: I object to that. That hasn’t got anything 
to do with the case.

The Court: Sustain the objection. What was his answer?
A. I didn’t follow—
Mr. Williams: Well let me ask you. Do you feel like a 

restaurant’s exclusion of a human being arbitrarily be­
cause his grandfather may have been African is the same 
thing as closing his store at 6 o’clock to all people in the 
[fol. 468] community? Do you feel like that is morally and 
legally correct?

Mr. Nichol: That is immaterial, if the Court please.
The Court: Sustained, gentlemen.
A. Uh—
The Court: You don’t have to answer. Sustained.
Mr. Williams: Have you ever—Mr. Amic, I don’t want 

you to feel bad or anything, but the state has been asking 
this. Have you ever been convicted of a felony?



67

A. No.
Q. Have you talked with any of these gentlemen over 

here about this?
A. No.
Q. Have you—did you know them before you came up 

here today? Before this case came up?
A. No.
Q. Have you talked with other prospective jurors out 

there about this case?
A. No. I just found out just a few minutes ago what 

it was about. About 5 minutes before I came in here.
Q. You haven’t discussed it with anybody?
A. No. There was two of us in the room, and the other 

fellow was a colored fellow,—
[fol. 469] And you are telling this court and you are tell­
ing me that these eight Negro defendants, whose life and 
liberty are at stake here, that, notwithstanding the fact 
of your completely white background, notwithstanding he 
fact that you have never had any desire to associate with 
Negroes,—or accord them any recognition whatsoever, that 
in that situation, and in view of the state regarding the 
exclusionary policy of the B & W, that you think you can 
give them a fair trial on an indictment which charges them 
with obstructing trade because they went there and tried 
to get in the restaurant?

Mr. Nichol: If your Honor please, that’s a limited ques­
tion. It is only a piecemeal and partial of the case, and it 
is designed to get—

The Court: If you will ask him if he will give them a fair 
trial on the presentment in this case, you may ask him,—in 
spite of all those things.

Mr. Williams: May it please the Court, I would like to 
read the indictment to him.

The Court: Well, you may ask him about that. You may 
ask him, in spite of all those things, if he thinks he can give 
the defendants a fair and impartial trial, on this case.

A. I would answer it the same way. I am sure that I 
would be honest in my opinion.

Mr. Williams: Sure you would do what?



68

A. I am sure I could give an honest opinion as to the 
[fol. 470] guilty or not guilty regardless of who they were.

Q. Well, sir, I would like to read the indictment to you.
Mr. Nichol: We object, if your Honor please.
Mr. Williams: They object to my reading it to you.
Mr. Nichol: We except to that, if your Honor please.
The Court: Gentlemen, let’s not waste any time. The 

Court declares this witness competent. Now, the Court de­
clares this witness competent. Do you take him, or do you 
not?

Mr. Williams: May it please your Honor, we respect­
fully request that this witness be excused for cause on the 
grounds that this witness has admitted that he has asso­
ciated only with white people, on the basis of equality, had 
nothing to do with Negroes, except when he was a child 
and they would play in the backyard,—play basketball in 
the backyard with them, and therefore, it would be a denial 
of the constitutional right of these Defendants, under the 
state and the federal constitutions, to a jury of their peers, 
to require them to accept this juror.

The Court: The Court overrules your motion.
Mr. Williams: We respectfully except, and, moreover, 

if the Court please, we respectfully except to your Honor’s 
action in limiting us in the examination of this witness, 
and refusing to allow us to read the indictment after di­
recting us that we can not examine him on parts of the 
[fol. 471] indictment, and refusing to allow us to read the 
whole indictment.

The Court: All right, sir. Now,—
Mr. Williams: And now, if your Honor please,—
The Court: Do you accept, or do you pre-emptorily chal­

lenge the juror?
Mr. Williams: May it please the Court, we do not accept 

this witness but we do not prefer to use one of our pre- 
emptory challenges,—

The Court: You will have to do one of the two, gentle­
men.

Mr. Williams: Well, if your Honor please, we respect­
fully submit that we—

The Court: If you don’t use a pre-emptory challenge, 
then the Court will seat him.



69

Mr. Williams: Well, Sir, we decline to challenge him 
pre-emptorily.

Mr. Nichol: Now, if yonr Honor please, we say it is the 
duty of the Court for this practicing attorney to require 
and demand of him that he challenge one—that he name 
which one of his several defendants used for the challenge.

Mr. Looby: If your Honor please,—
Mr. Nichol: It is the duty of the Court—it is his duty to 

see that he does it.
Mr. Looby: It is not up to us to determine something 

[fol. 472] as it is demanded of us.
The Court: That is true. That is just a suggestion of 

his. I will finally determine that. What are you going to 
do with this juror?

Mr. Looby: We take this position, your Honor. We are 
limited on pre-emptory challenges. Now, with the Court 
action—the Court prerogative which says that if we don’t 
use one of our pre-emptory challenges, he will seat him as 
a juror. That’s the Courts,—probably the Court has that 
right. And we don’t challenge that. We can’t. So the Court 
will seat him.

The Court: Now, if you don’t exercise the challenge when 
you have it, you can’t complain if the Court seats him.

Mr. Looby: We are not going to complain—, if your 
Honor please.

Mr. Maddin: Let the record show that clearly.
The Court: You don’t complain at the Court picking the 

juror?

By Mr. Looby:
A. May it please your Honor, we are limited in our pre- 

emptory challenges. We may need them later. We don’t 
have too many.

Mr. Nichol: You have 5 left.
Mr. Looby: We would prefer to reserve those 5, if your 

Honor please. We don’t want to use up all those challenges 
now.

Mr. Nichol: That makes him a juryman, if the state un­
derstands the law. Now that he declines the pre-emptory 
[fol. 473] challenge—now he is a juror.



70

Mr. Looby: The defendants challenged him for cause, 
and it was overruled by the Court.

The Court: The Court now seats him.
Mr. Looby: If your Honor please, there is no question 

about that, that he is properly seated.
The Court: All right.
Mr. Nichol: Did the Court hold that he did not exercise 

the challenge? He declined the pre-emptory challenge.
The Court: That is what they said. And I want the rec­

ord to show that there were 5 pre-emptory challenges avail­
able to the defendant. All right. Call a name. Wait a min­
ute, I think, gentlemen, now is the time to bring that box 
in here and get some more jurors. We have to have some 
more jurors, and draw some more jurors.

(The jury box is brought in and the Reporter is told to 
draw, blindfolded by the hands of the Court Officer, names 
for another jury panel for the next day. Names are drawn, 
counted, and given to the secretary of the Court to make 
lists for court officers to get busy on, so that a second special 
panel may be available.)

-y, ji. m. m.-A " v ,*  * 7 ?  "V r  w  w  w

[fol. 510] (# 8 7 , Granville W illiaims, called as a pros­
pective juror, is sworn and examined by the Clerk.)

The Court: He is competent.

Examination.
By Mr. Robinson:

Q. Mr. Williams, you live on North 6th Street?
A. Right.
Q. Where did you live before that?
A. 103118th Avenue, North.
Q. How long have you lived in Davidson County?
A. All my life. Born here.
Q. What is your occupation, Mr. Williams?
A. Foreman at National Baptist Publishing Board.
Q. Sir?
A. Foreman at the National Baptist Publishing Board.
Q. What religious faith are you?
A. Methodist.
Q. Where do you go to church?



71

[fol. 511] A. On Knowles Street. 1815 Knowles Street. 
Community Church.

Q. Were you educated here in Davidson Co. !
A. Yes.
Q. Where !
A. Cameron and Pearl High.
Q. Cameron and Pearl High!
A. Yes.
Q. You have children!
A. No.
Q. Are you a married man!
A. Yes.
Q. But have no children!
A. No.
Q. Did you ever attend college at A & I, Meharry or 

Fisk!
A. No.
Q. Never did!
A. No, sir.
Q. Do you belong to any organizations that advocate 

integration or segregation!
A. No.
Q. Have you attended such meetings! That advocate 

integration or segregation!
A. No.

[fol. 512] Q. Have you ever attended any meetings of 
that sort!

A. No. I don’t think so.
Q. Do you know any of these defendants!
A. Not personally.
Q. Look at them good.
A. I don’t know them.
Q. Not personally! Have you seen them!
A. I might have seen them. I Avon’t say that I haven’t 

seen them.
Q. Well, now, which one have you seen! You intimated 

that you have seen one of them. Have you ever seen John 
Lewis!

A. I don’t know anyone by name, I mean.
Q. Well, pick me one out by faces that you have seen 

before.



72

A. Well, I am not for sure. A lot of faces look familiar 
to me, but just to say I know them—I couldn’t say that I 
know them personally.

Q. Well, have you seen any of them before1?
A. Not knowing that I have seen them. I might have 

seen them but not knowing them. That is what I am speak­
ing about. In other words, I could have seen them, but just 
knowing them off-hand, I couldn’t just say I have seen any 
one in particular.
[fol. 513] Q. Uh-huh. You used to live on 18th Avenue, 
North?

A. That’s right.
Q. How far from Fisk University?
A. Across the street.
Q. Right across the street?
A. Yes.
Q. When was that?
A. 11 years ago. I have been living in East Nashville 

about 10 years now.
Q. Have you ever been represented by either one of the 

attorneys for the defendants?
A. No.
Q. Ho you know Mr. Looby and Mr. Williams?
A. I know Mr. Looby.
Mr. Williams: May your Honor please, I am not as well 

known as he thinks I am.
Mr. Robinson: Do you know Mr. Williams? Avon Wil­

liams ?
A. No, I don’t know him.
Q. You don’t know him?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever had any business dealings with Mr. 

Looby?
A. No.
Q. You have not?
A. No.

[fol. 514] Q. You know Mr. Looby as the councilman?
A. Yes.
Q. That is as far as you—-where did you say you work? 
A. 523 Second Avenue, North, about two blocks down 

the street.



73

Q. Is that right across the street from the H. G. Hill 
Company!

A. Right.
Q. You have a cafeteria down there?
A. No.
Q. Have you discussed down there, or with the people 

that work with you, any matters relative to the case in­
volving the B & W cafeteria and these defendants?

A. It has been talked about. I wouldn’t say I didn’t 
talk about it.

Q. What has been discussed?
A. I couldn’t say specifically about any conversation.
Q. What, generally, has been discussed? Relative to 

the ease ?
Mr. Williams: If the Court please, we object to that.
Mr. Robinson: That can be asked.
Q. If there are not any facts.

[fob 515] Mr. Robinson: I am asking him, if your Honor 
please, to determine if he has any personal working knowl­
edge about this case.

The Court: About the facts.
Mr. Robinson: Yes, about the facts. That’s exactly what 

I asked him.
The Court: Well, about the facts.
Mr. Robinson: Have you discussed the facts down at the 

Baptist Publishing place?
A. As I say, I have talked about the incident.
Q. Well, what has been discussed. I ’m not asking you to 

tell me any details—every word. Just generally what has 
been discussed? Just generally.

A. Well, wasn’t anything in particular, that we talked 
about even.

Q. From your talks about it, have you developed an 
opinion about it?

A. Well—
Q. As to the guilt or innocence of these defendants?
A. No, I didn’t develop any decision over the thing, 

at all. I mean, it was just a matter that we talked about.
Q. You don’t know what you talked about?



74

[fol. 516] A. We knew what was happening,—it was just 
a matter that was happening.

Q. Have you discussed with anybody else today about 
this case at the B & W '! that we have under consideration?

A. No, I haven’t discussed it today, no.
Q. Do you have an ojunion as to the guilt or innocence 

of these defendants in the matter at the B & W?
Mr. Williams: I object to that if the Court please. He 

has already answered that.
The Court: I think he did. I really think he did. But 

you can say yes or no.
Juror: What type of opinion would you like to know? 

I don’t know the details. As to the guilt or innocence?
The Court: That’s all they can ask you about.
A. Well, I don’t know the full details of it and I couldn’t 

say whether they was guilty or not.
Mr. Robinson: We will excuse him.
Mr. Looby: Let the record show this man is a Negro.

# % # # # #

[fol. 659]
{ # 7 1 ,  W. T. M oon, a prospective juror, is sworn and ex­

amined by the Clerk.)
The Court: He is competent.

Examination.

By Mr. Robinson :
Q. Mr. Moon, where is Maplehurst Lane?

[fol. 660] A. Between Q-ranny White and Lealand Lane. 
In front of David Lipscomb, but I don’t live there.

Q. Where do you live ?
A. 831 Redwood Drive.
Q. Is that off Franklin Road?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is your business? Mr. Moon?



75

A, Banking.
Q. Where?
A. Commerce Union, Broadway Office.
Q. Broadway office? Mr. Moon, do yon subscribe to the 

basic principle that in order to convict a defendant, that 
he must be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt!

A. Yes.
Q. You believe in that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. On the other hand, is it your belief that the defendants 

•—the defendant in a criminal case does not have to take 
the witness stand at all on his behalf, and that he has a 
witness—the presumption of law that he is innocent that 
stands for him irrespective of whether or not he takes the 
stand?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you believe in that principle?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I f selected as a juror, can you sit in that jury box 

[fol. 661] and listen to the evidence as the witnesses testify, 
and hear the Court’s charge as to the lawT in Tennessee, 
and after you have heard the facts and the law, as stated in 
open court, can you then decide this matter on a fair and 
impartial basis for both sides—the state and the defen­
dants ?

A. Yes, I believe I could, sir.
Q. Do you have any special knowledge of the facts in 

this case where these defendants allegedly went to the 
B & W restaurant on 6th Avenue, and as a result of the 
activity there, were allegedly charged with conspiracy? Do 
you have any special knowledge of the facts?

A. No, sir, I don’t.
Q. Do you have any knowledge at all of the law in­

volved, at the present time.
A. No, I don’t.
Q. Would you accept what his Honor says is the law in 

this state, as being the law in this state—would you accept 
what the Judge says about that?

A. Yes, sir, I would.
Q. Do you have children?
A. Yes, sir. I do.



76

Q. Are they in school?
A. An 8-year-old daughter.
Q. 8-year-old daughter? Just one child?
A. Yes.

[fol. 662] Q. Do you have—what is your religious belief? 
What denomination?

A. Denomination? Presbyterian.
Q. Is there anything in your religious belief or anything 

else in the world that would keep you from rendering a 
fair decision in this case, paying attention only to what 
you hear from the witness stand, from the proof, and apply­
ing that testimony, or those facts, to the Court’s charge, 
and decide this on a fair basis, both for the state and for 
these defendants ?

A. No, sir, there is not.
Q. Nothing at all?
A. No, sir.
Q. He is satisfactory to the state.

Examination.

By Mr. Looby:
Q. Mr. Moon, do you know Mr. Maddin or Mr. Robin­

son?
A. No, I don’t.
Q. They haven’t done any business with the bank where 

you are connected?
A. No, sir. Not to my knowledge.
Q, What bank are you connected with?
A. Broadway office of Commerce Union.
Q. Do they have Negro customers there?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is your position?

[fol. 663] A. Assistant Vice-President.
Q. And manager of that branch?
A. Installment Loan. Manager of the Installment Loan 

Dept.
Q. Are you familiar with sit-in demonstrations?
A. I have read something in the paper about sit-in 

demonstrations. That is all the knowledge I have.
Q. Have you formed any opinion?



77

Mr. Maddin: We object, your Honor, to the general 
question.

The Court: As to the general question, yes, sir. Ask him 
about the B & W incident.

Mr. Looby: You have heard about the sit-in demonstra­
tion at the B & W Cafeteria?

A. I just noticed it in the headlines. I didn’t read the 
article as such.

Q. But you didn’t form any opinion of it?
A. No.
Q. As to right or wrong?
A. No, sir, I did not form an opinion.
Q. Mr. Moon, do you know Mr. Moon of the Moon-Mc­

Grath Drug Store?
A. Repeat that, sir.
Q. Do you know Mr. Moon of the Moon-McGrath Drug 

Store uptown? On Union Street?
A. Moon Drug Company? No, sir, I don’t know him. 

’[fol. 664] Q. I think they own a drug company on Union 
Street—Moon-McGrath.

A. Well, I have never met this gentleman, sir.
Q. Have you ever observed any sit-in demonstrations?
A. Repeat it, sir.
Q. Have you ever observed any sit-in demonstrations?
A. No, sir, I haven’t.
Q. You know nothing about them?
A. No, sir.
Q. Without reference to the legal interpretation—of 

course you understand what is meant by the word “ obstruc­
tion” ?

A. Yes.
Q. You know what is meant by that? Are you a graduate 

of Vanderbilt University?
A. Repeat that, sir.
Q. You are a graduate of Vanderbilt University?
A. No, sir, I am not.
Q. What institution are you a graduate of?
A. I graduated from a business college, in Business Ad­

ministration.
[fol. 665] Q. What college was that?



78

A. It is discontinued now.
Q. Can you understand me ?
A. This air-conditioner, or something, bothers me.
The Court: I think they have been opening the door 

there on you too much.
A. I can hear you all right, sir.
Mr. Looby: You can understand me?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. A whole lot of people have a lot of difficulty under­

standing me.
A. (Smile s pie asantly.)
Q. Sometimes I have difficulty understanding myself. 

But if you can understand me, we will get on.
A. Yes, sir, I can understand you.
Q. You say you have no prejudice?
A. No, sir.
Q. Mr. Clerk, how many more challenges do we have?

By the Clerk:
A. None.
Q. How did I get out of them? Mr. Moon, are you a 

native Nashvillian?
A. No, sir. I have lived here about 22 years.

[fol. 666] Q. Where did you come from?
A. Huntsville, Alabama.
Q. About how old a man are you?
A. 43.
Q. And you say you are a member of the Presbyterian 

Church?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What Presbyterian Church?
A. Glen Leven Presbyterian Church.
Q. And that is a white church?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. By white church I mean that its membership is re­

stricted only to white people?
A. And we have have white members.
Q. Sir?



79

A. Just white members.
Q. Just white members? And the school from which you 

graduated was a completely white school f 
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you belong to any organizations that advocate 

segregation?
A. No, sir, I do not.
Q. Have you ever belonged to any such organization?
A. No, sir, I haven’t.

[fol. 667] Q. Have you ever attended any of the meetings, 
or any meeting, of any such organization which advocates 
segregation?

A. No, I haven’t.
Q. Where do you live ?
A. 831 Redwood Drive.
Q. And that is an exclusively white neighborhood?
A. Yes. About % mile this side of Brentwood, Tennessee. 
Q. And that section is an exclusively white neighbor­

hood, isn’t it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you have any Negro friends ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. They visit you?
A. No, sir.
Q. You visit them?
A. No, sir.
Q. Well, what is your friendship?
A. Just a business relationship.
Q. At your bank?
A. Yes.
Q. Nothing closer than bank relations?
A. Repeat that, please.

[fol. 668] Q. Nothing closer than business relations?
A. Mostly business needs, yes, sir.
Q. Do they deposit at your bank?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Mostly business nature?
A. Mostly business nature, yes, sir.
Q. What other relation beside business?



80

A. Well, there’s some church groups that I know, that I 
talk to a lot.

Q. In your church group?
A. Well, in the Presbyterian churches.
Q. Negro Presbyterian groups?
A. Yes, I have talked to some of them.
Q. Well, my associate, Mr. Williams, who happens to 

be out today, would like that announcement. He is an 
elder in the Presbyterian Church. You don’t know him, 
do you?

A. No, sir.
Q. He belongs to the St. Andrews Presbyterian Church. 

That’s a Negro Presbyterian Church.
But all of your associations, Mr. Moon, have been— 

religious, social, education—have been all with exclusively 
whites?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. If your Honor please, the state of Tennessee is prose­

cuting this case, has insisted on a trial by jury. The De- 
[fol. 669] fendants then demurred and asked for a trial 
without a jury. But the Court, following the dictates of the 
Tennessee Code, ruled that it must be a trial by jury.

Now, since the trial is by jury, I respectfully insist that 
the trial, under the constitutional rights of the defendants, 
should be—that the trial jury should be of peers, and by 
no stretch of the imagination could Mr. Moon be considered 
to be the Defendants’ peer. These 8 Negroes, charged with 
an offense that involved directly a crossing of the racial 
bar, require, and demand, and insist that they be tried 
by a jury of their peers. We, therefore, challenge this 
venireman for cause.

The Court: Bespectfully overrule your challenge.
Mr. Looby: We respectfully except, and if your Honor 

please, we are obligated—the Clerk informed us that we 
have exhausted our number of pre-emptory challenges to 
which we are entitled, and therefore under those circum­
stances we are obligated—we have no further pre-emptory 
challenges, so we are forced to accept this juror.

The Court: Take him upstairs to be seated as a juror.
* # # # * * *



81

[fol. 751] (# 9 6 , W endall H. Cooper is called as a pros­
pective juror, is sworn and examined by the clerk.)

The Court: He is competent.

Examination.
By Mr. Butler:

Q. Mr. Cooper, you have just told the clerk that you have 
not formed or expressed any opinion as to the guilt or inno­
cence of these defendants, under this charge.

A. I take it you didn’t even know what this case is about?
A. That’s right.
Q. So knowing nothing about it, you could listen to the 

evidence, if you were selected to be a juror, and try to learn 
what the case was about, and upon the Judge’s charge, and 
upon those two things, and those two things alone, render 
a verdict, would you not, that would be a fair and impartial 
verdict ?

A. I could.
Q. A verdict that would be fair to the state and the de­

fendants—the 8 defendants ?
A. I could.
Q. Mr. Cooper, do you know anything at all that would 

[fol. 752] prohibit or prevent you from doing that?
A. No, sir.
Q. Do you know anything at all about this—do you know 

what is involved ?
A. I have just heard that it involves sit-ins, that’s all 

I know.
Q. You know none of the people involved?
A. No.
Q. You have no personal interest in it, or the outcome of 

it, other than to do justice ?
A. No, sir.
Q. Satisfactory to the state.

Examination.
By Mr. Looby:

Q. Mr. Cooper, you heard that this case involves sit-ins?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. At the B & W Cafeteria?



82

A. I don’t know where.
Q. But you heard this case being called involved sit-ins?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you formed an opinion about it?
A. No.
Q. As to whether it right or wrong?

[fol.753] A. No.
Q. You have no special knowledge about it?
A. No.
Q. Do you have any special desire to serve on this jury?
A. None except that it involves my duty as a citizen.
Q. Sir—
A. Except it involves my duty as a citizen to serve as a 

juryman.
Q. Have you ever served as a juror before?
A. No, sir.
Q. You never served before?
A. No, sir.
Q. Do you know that—if you are selected as a juror to 

try this case, and these 8 defendants—and the state puts 
on its proof, and they don’t say a word—just sit there, say 
nothing, do nothing,—

A. I didn’t understand the question.
Q. I haven’t asked the question yet. If the state puts on 

its proof, and you are selected to try this case, and the 
defendants sit there quietly, and say nothing, do nothing, 
hear nothing, and never say a word, in their own defense, 
[fol. 754] would you hold that against them?

A. No.
Q. You wouldn’t?
A. No.
Q. Why?
A. It is a man’s right not to testify if he chooses not to.
Q. And you wouldn’t hold that against them?
A. No.
Q. You understand that the state is under the obligation 

to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, their guilt?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You know nothing about the law?
A. No.
Q. You have been instructed as to what is required of 

the state and the defendants in a criminal prosecution?
A. No.



83

Q. Do you know what is meant by conspiracy?
A, Vaguely, sir. Not specifically.
Q. Do you know what is meant by obstruction?
A. Yes.

[fob 755] Q. And what is meant by preventing?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know what this case is about?
A. Except that it involves sit-ins is all I know.
Q. And you have no opinion about sit-ins as to whether 

they are right or wrong ?
A. No.
Q. Where did you say you are employed?
A. I didn’t understand the question.
Q. Where are you employed?
A. TVA—Federal Government.
Q. How long have you been with the TVA?
A. Since 1951.
Q. You have been stationed here in this country since 

1951?
A. Yes.
Q. How long have you lived in Davidson County?
A. Since 1951,1 got out of service at that time.
Q. What did you do before that?
A. I was in service.
Q. Where before that time?

[fob 756] A. Cannon County. Auburntown, Tennessee.
Q. And that is your home town?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you ever served on a criminal jury before?
A. No, sir.
Q. Have you ever been a member of or belonged to any 

organization that advocates segregation ?
A. No, sir.
Q. Have you ever—are you a member of any organiza­

tion now?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever attended any meetings for which segre­

gation was advocated?
A. No.
Q. What church are you a member of ?
A. Church of Christ.



84

Q. What church!
A. Jackson Park Church of Christ, Gallatin Road.
Q. That’s an all white church!
A. Yes.
Q. Where did you go to school!
A. Auburntown, Tennessee.
Q. Is that a white school!

[fol. 757] A. Yes.
Q. Have you any Negro friends!
A. No.
Q. Do you work with them!
A. No, we have none where I work.
Q. You live in an exclusively white neighborhood!
A. Yes.
Q. So all of your associations have been on a segregated 

basis!
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know any of these lawyers at the table there! 
(Points to counsel for the state and the B & W Cafeteria.) 
A. No.
Q. Do you know Gen. Nichol!
A. Except what I have read of him in the paper.
Q. The one that pops in and pops out every now and 

then!
A. Sir!
Q. You know him!
A. Except what I have read of him in the paper. I don’t 

know if I would know him if I saw him or not.
Mr. Robinson: Speaking of popping in and out, where 

[fol. 758] is Mr. Williams!
Mr. Looby: Where do you live!
A. 1010 Calvert Street, Nashville.
Q. You have a family!
A. No children. A  wife. I am married.
Q. What has your educational background been!
A. I have a high school education—12 years in high 

school, and after that went to the Navy and went to tech­
nical school, storekeeper school in the Navy.

Q. Did you go to all white schools!



85

A. Except in the Navy. Two years.
Q. And your association there was compulsory? You 

had no voluntary association with Negroes?
A. With some I did. At home we had Negroes—in Can­

non County—and I had no inhibitions to being friends with 
them. If that is what you mean, sir.

Q. What associations with them?
A. Oh, casual friends just like a child will strike up with 

anyone in a small town.
Q. Did you ever visit in their homes?
A. I don’t recall so.
Q. Did they visit you?
A. No.
Q. Your social and economic background and every phase 

[fol. 759] has been on a segregated basis, has it not?
A. Except that period of time when I was in the service, 

and it was not.
Q. But all of your associations—whatever kind they have 

been, other than that, have been on a segregated basis?
A. Yes, that’s right.
Q. You say you just know Mr. Nichol when you see him?
A. I don’t know if I know him when I see him,—I have 

seen his picture in the paper.
Q. Now, let’s go back and see if I understand, Mr. Cooper. 

I think I understood it before, but I want to be sure to get 
it in the record. Is it true that all of your life from the 
time of birth up to the present, with the exception of the 
U. S. Navy, which was compulsory,—all your associations 
have been on a segregated basis?

A. Yes, that is right.
Q. If your Honor please, on the basis of this gentleman’s 

admission that he has lived a completely segregated life, 
he has no association on a basis of equality with Negroes, 
that he doesn’t speak the language that the Negroes speak, 
and doesn’t think what the Negroes think—

Mr. Maddin: Now, if your Honor please, that is certainly 
not in the record, here.
[fol. 760] The Court: Just let him speak. He is talking 
for the record now.

Mr. Maddin: All right. I will withdraw my objection.



8 6

The Court: Go ahead. He’s putting it in there.
Mr. Looby: On the basis of all his admissions of a com­

pletely segregated life, we insist, if your Honor please, 
that he is not one of the peers of these defendants. ^

The state insisted, and still insists on a trial by jury. 
We were willing to waive, and did waive a trial by jury, 
but we insist that if we are to have a trial by jury, our 
constitutional rights must be protected, and they should 
be tried by a jury of their peers; that by no stretch of 
the imagination could one classify this man as one of the 
peers of the defendants. We, therefore, challenge him for 
cause.

The Court: The Court will respectfully overrule your 
challenge, sir.

Mr. Looby: We respectfully except, your Honor.
The Court: The Court will seat the juror. Take him 

upstairs and I think that makes 12.
Clerk: Yes, sir.
The Court: All right. Gentlemen, let me inquire of Coun­

sel now. Do either of you, either for the state or defense, 
see the need of a 13th juror? Frankly, the Court does not, 
but—

(After each prospective juror was accepted, both by coun­
sel for the State and counsel for the defendants, and was 
told to take a seat in the jury box, in every case, without 
exception, the juror was taken from the courtroom, upstairs 
to the regular jury room and to the quarters furnished for 
the Jury.)

# # # # * * *

[fol. 763] The Court: All right. Swear the jury. The jury 
is here.

(Clerk swears the jury.)
The Court: All right, Gentlemen for the State, you will 

read the presentment to the jury.
(Mr. Eobinson reads the presentment to the jury.)
The Court: The pleas of the defendants.
Mr. Looby: Does your Honor have a copy of the indict­

ment?



87

The Court: I do, now.
Mr. Looby: I call your Honor’s attention to the second 

paragraph of the indictment beginning about the 7th line 
“ to violate Code Section 39-1101-(7) and Code Section 
62-711.”

Now if your Honor please, there are charges in this in­
dictment, and I move the Court that the state be required 
to elect which of these separate sections they have chosen 
to prosecute.

The Court: That motion will have to be overruled.
Mr. Looby: To which we respectfully except, if your 

Honor please.
Now, come the defendants, and to the presentment, and 

to each and every count thereof, the defendants plead not 
guilty.
[fol. 764] The Court: All right. Get the witnesses who 
are going to testify in the case, please.

Mr. Norman: All the witnesses who are going to tes­
tify in this case, come around.

The Court: You who are going to testify hold up your 
hands and let the clerk administer the solemn oath.

(Clerk administers the oath to the witnesses.)
The Court: Will the rule be called for?
Mr. Looby: Yes, sir.
The Court: All right. Now, let me admonish the wit­

nesses, please. You witnesses will be under the rule. You 
will not discuss the case among yourselves, with any wit­
ness who has already testified, with any witness who will 
testify, only discuss the matter with counsel, either for the 
state or for the defendants.

(The witnesses pass from the room and the officer goes 
after Mr. Carrier.)

The Court: The state will offer its first witness.



8 8

E vidence on B eh alf  of th e  S t a t e :

W oodbow W ilson  Gabbier, ca lled  as a w itn ess on b eh a lf 
o f  the state, be in g  first du ly  sw orn , testified  as fo l lo w s :

Direct examination.

[ fo l . 765] By Mr. Maddin:
Q. State your name, please.
A. My name is Woodrow Wilson Carrier.
Q. Where are you employed, Mr. Carrier?
A. I am employed by the B & W Cafeteria Company as 

Manager of 6th Avenue, store.
Q. How long have you so been employed?
A. 15 years at this store.
Q. Immediately prior to and for months preceding that— 

prior to October 21, 1962, what was the policy of B & W 
Cafeteria, with regard to its patrons?

Mr. Looby: I am going to object to that. This Court 
isn’t here to enforce policies, and what’s included in those 
policies.

The Court: Well, there are certain allegations in this 
presentment, gentlemen, with reference to what they did 
or did not do.

Mr. Looby: But your Honor, whatever the policy of the 
company may have been, that is not germane. A policy is 
not law. The Court does not enforce policies on individuals, 
whether they are corporations or natural persons.

The Court: I shall have to overrule your objection.
Mr. Looby: We respectfully except.
Mr. Maddin: Go ahead.

[fol. 766] A. The policy of the B & W Cafeteria had been 
to operate a cafeteria, serving only white people.

Q. What is the approximate seating capacity of the B 
&W?

A. About 450 seats.
Q. Now, on this date, Sunday, October 21, 1962, did any­

thing unusual occur at your place as respects your patrons?
A. Well, at about 12:20, one customer came to the 

kitchen, or serving counter where I was, and said there 
was—-



Mr. Looby: I object, if your Honor please, to what was 
said, unless it was in the presence of these defendants.

The Court: Sustained.
Mr. Maddin: Someone came and spoke to you!
A. Yes.
Q. As a consequence of that, what did you do—go some­

where !
A. I went to the front door where I discovered a large 

gathering of people on the inside—-on the outside, and 8 
young Negroes were in the vestibule, in between the two 
doors.

Q. All right, sir. Now, before describing what occurred 
there, let me give the Court and jury the benefit of the 
[fol. 767] description of the vestibule, of the store which 
is located on 6th Avenue, Nashville, Tennessee. Is that 
right ?

A. Yes.
Q. What stores are next to it?
A. Well, the Sam Small Jewelry on one side, and the 

Chayburke’s Furrier on the other side, and across the 
street, the Eastern Airlines Office, the Cross Keys restau­
rant, the Hermitage Hotel.

Q. Now, then, would you describe the vestibule area. 
How you go from the side walk into the entrance where 
they were ?

A. Well, there is an entrance. There are 2 swinging 
doors from the sidewalk into this cubicle, which I would 
imagine is about 4 ft. x 4 ft., and then two other doors 
entering the dining room proper from that cubicle.

Q. Now, those doors—do they swing both ways?
A. Yes.
Q. For the sake of the record, there are 2—
A. Two double doors.
Q. Two double doors?
A. Yes.
Q. One at the outside of the street, and one into the in­

terior?
A. Yes, sir.

[fol. 768] Q. That goes into the cafeteria?
A. Yes, sir.



90

Q. Now, what is the distance between them?
A. I would say approximately 4 feet.
Q. Now, in this area, you said you saw what in this cubi­

cle area, set off by swinging doors ?
A. Well, there were—there were 8 young Negro boys in 

that area at that time.
Q. Where the patrons—where else were persons seeking 

to get out of the cafeteria?
A. Well, there were people on the 6th Avenue entrance, 

attempting to—who had come to be served and there were 
some people in the dining room proper who had already 
had their lunch and were leaving.

Q. Can you estimate the number of people on the out­
side?

A. No, I can’t.
Q. On the inside?
A. On the inside there must have been—there could have 

been a hundred or a hundred and fifty people on the inside.
Q. Now, at the time you arrived at the door, how many 

of them were there waiting to get out?
A. Well,—
Q. So far as you could determine ?
A. I recall 3 or 4 at least. And, of course it was a 

[fol. 769] continuing thing, with others coming up all the 
while.

Q. Did you have a doorman?
A. Yes, sir, we did have.
Q. Where was he?
A. He was—
Q. —with respect to the inside swinging doors?
A. Well, he was at the inside swinging doors, with the 

doors closed against the entry of these people in the vesti­
bule.

Q. Did you overhear any conversations between him and 
the 8 defendants ?

A. Well, he had just told them that we were—he was in 
the process of telling them that we didn’t serve—

Mr. Looby: I object to him being in the process of telling 
them—

The Court: If you heard what he said to them.



91

A. I—

The Court: You may relate that.
A. I did, sir. He said that we didn’t serve Negroes, and 

that he wished that they would go ahead and not make any 
trouble for us.

Q. Did you all hear any response?
[fol. 770] A. At that point, I don’t think I did.

Q. Did you have a conversation with them?
A. Not at that point.
Q. All right. Tell me whether any customers, or per­

sons,—white persons, seeking entrance into the cafe, were 
able to do so?

A. Well, there were a few people who managed to 
squeeze through the crowd in the vestibule, and likewise 
there were some few people who managed to get through 
the vestibule going out.

Q. What occurred to those persons when they attempted 
to gain access into the cafeteria, or leave?

A. Well, it was a little crowded, right through there, and 
there seemed to be some feelings—strong feelings devel­
oping on the part of one or two who were trying to get 
through.

Mr. Looby: He can’t tell only just what he said or did, 
if your Honor please.

The Court: Yes, you may relate what was said or done 
there by the defendants and others, but he objects to your 
stating that it seemed like strong feelings has arisen.

Q. Did you—would you tell to the Court and Jury was 
there ease, or lack of ease, for them to pass through there?

A. It was most difficult, because of the formation of the 
[fol. 771] individuals. The vestibule area, as I say, was 
well crowded,—

Q. What, if any, physical activity other than the effort 
to walk through, did you observe?

A. I don’t recall any.
Q. Now, you indicated that at the time of the conversa­

tion which you first described, a moment ago, you did not 
have any conversation, will you tell us what occurred to 
lead up to the time when you did have such conversation.



92

A. In the meantime I had decided that I would call the 
police which I did, and asked if they could give ns some 
help. Shortly thereafter, the officers came and I believe that 
I went through the vestibule and went out on the street to 
meet them as I saw the car arrive, and I stated that it 
looked like I needed some help, that my business was being 
pretty well blocked, and the patrolman said that he would 
have to call the—

Q. No need to go into the conversation with the patrol­
man, but as a result, of the conversation, what happened? 
So far as the law enforcement agency being there?

A. They arrived.
Q. Additional law enforcement agency?
A. No, the two. There were two officers who arrived 

about that time.
Q. Were there more than two police officers ultimately?
A. The—when I stated my situation to these officers, 

[fol. 772] one of them replied that he would have to get 
the Sergeant, or the Sgt. was on his way over there. And 
it wasn’t but a few minutes till the Sgt. arrived, and I 
expressed to him what I felt, and he said—well, they had 
a conference, and in a few minutes, the officers were escort­
ing these young men into the—out to the sidewalk and into 
the patrol wagon.

Q. Now, Mr. Carrier, from the first time that you became 
aware of the blocking of the vestibule until these 8 young 
Negro boys were removed by the police department, ap­
proximately what time elapsed?

A. Approximately 20 to 25 minutes, I would say.
Q. Now, this commenced at what time?
A. 12:20 or 25.
Q. And how did that relate to your volume of business 

on Sundays?
A. Of course on Sundays, it is the after-church business 

that is predominant, and the people we were attracting, we 
would have gotten in that period normally.

Q. As you attempted to pass through the vestibule, what, 
if anything, occurred?

A. Well, actually, nothing, sir. The—the young men 
were standing in position, and it was just a matter of my 
easing through the crowd.



93

Q. Did you have any conversation with them yourself? 
[fol. 773] A, At that particular time?

Q. Any conversation other than the one you described a 
moment ago.

A. I believe that I asked the boys to step back and let a 
lady who had asked me—she indicated—she said she had 
heart trouble, and would I please help her get out, and 
I just said, Gentlemen, will you let this lady out? And I 
believe that I maybe asked the second time, and the lady 
did work her way out onto 6th Avenue.

Q. Was she given ready access to 6th Avenue, or not?
A. I would say reluctantly.
Q. After you had asked?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, what, if other conversation, did you over-hear 

between your doorman and these 8 Negroes?—
Mr. Looby: If your Honor please, I object to these de­

fendants being referred to as Negroes. If they will say 
defendants, it will be all right, but I am objecting to them 
referring to them as Negroes.

The Court: Confine it to the conversation you had with 
the defendants.

Mr. Maddin: That is all I am asking—my question to 
you, sir, is what conversation did you over-hear between 
[fol. 774] the doorman and these defendants?

A. Other than the continuous urging of Mr. Williams 
to these people to move on, I can’t recall that I heard any­
thing.

Q. But you did hear continual urging by him to these 
defendants to move on?

A. Yes.
Q. Did they, in any way, respond to him either by action, 

or words?
A. No, sir. No, sir. There wasn’t any.
Q. What would you estimate to be the time lapse between 

the time you first heard him urging them to move on, and 
the time of having them moved?

A. I would say 20 to 25 minutes.
Q. Mr. Carrier, have there been any prior occurrences 

similar to this at your place of business?



94

Mr. Looby: I object, if your Honor please. His Honor 
has restricted me to this case and this case alone.

The Court: Yes, stick to this ease.
Mr. Maddin: Yes, sir. Mr. Carrier, are you acquainted 

with any of the restaurants in the downtown area that do 
serves Negroes, on Sunday noon?

A. Sunday noon? Honestly, I haven’t been in another 
restaurant downtown on Sunday noon in many years and 
for that reason, I could not say if there was one, or not. 
[fol. 775] Q. Insofar as the downtown area is concerned?

A. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
Q. Now these occurrences, that you have mentioned, took 

place at the B & W Cafeteria on 6th Avenue?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. In Nashville, Davidson County, Tenn.?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You may cross examine.

Cross examination.

By Mr. Looby:
Q. I believe you are Mr. Carrier?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Mr. Carrier, you gave the Attorney General some 

information from which he brought this indictment?
A. I beg your pardon, sir.
Q. Did you give the attorney general some information 

on which he based or drew up this indictment?
A. I did not discuss this matter with anyone other than 

Counsel for B & W until I was—well—
Q. I see. Did these young men inform you they were 

seeking service?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you were open to the public to serve at that time, 

weren’t you?
[fol. 776] A. Yes, sir.

Q. And that’s all they asked for was service, wasn’t it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, you had the facilities to serve them? Didn’t 

you?



95

A. I beg your pardon ?
Q. You have the facilities to serve them?
A. We do have.
Q. Was your place of business crowded at the time?
A. It was beginning to be crowded, sir.
Q. Now, the only reason that you didn’t serve them was 

because they were Negroes and not white, wasn’t it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the same boys seeking service would have been 

all right if they were white ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I think that is all I want to ask him.

C hables E. E dwards, ca lled  as a w itn ess on b eh a lf o f  the 
state, be in g  first du ly  sw orn , testified  as f o l lo w s :

[fol. 777] Direct examination.

By Mr. Aladdin:
Q. You are Mr. Charles E. Edwards?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where are you employed?
A. I am semi-retired now.
Q. And prior to retirement, what did you do ?
A. I was with the federal government for about 16 years.
Q. On October 21, 1962, did you have occasion to seek 

admittance to a restaurant in the downtown area of Nash­
ville ?

A. Well, now, on that day, my wife and I attended serv­
ices at the Downtown Presbyterian Church. When services 
were over, I walked on up to the cafeteria, and my wife 
waited at the church for a friend. And I had gotten on the 
inside prior to this.

Q. The services at the Downtown Presbyterian Church 
concluded at noon, I presume?

A. That’s right.
Q. At approximately what hour did you reach the restau­

rant?
A. Oh, I imagine it was about 12:20—it would be about 

that time.



96

Q. When you went in?
[fol. 778] A. That’s right.

Q. And when yon went in, what unusual occurrence did 
you observe?

A. Well, the only unusual occurrence I observed was— 
Oh, I guess in about 15 minutes from that time—I noticed 
a couple or the group of Negroes that had entered the 
vestibule.

Q. Do you recall the number?
A. No, I—really, I didn’t count them, but there must 

have been 6 or 8 of them.
Q. To what extent did they fill the vestibule area?
A. Well, they filled it to the extent that people couldn’t 

get in—couldn’t get by them.
Q. Where were you standing with relation to the inside 

doors there?
A. Well, I was sitting there on the front. They have a 

little row of chairs for people who wait to sit, and I was 
sitting in one of those chairs when the incident first started.

Q. Now, is the vestibule closed off in such a way that 
you can not see into it? Or, if so, how is it that you could 
see them?

A. Oh, you can see. It is glass.
Q. Did you then, Mr. Edwards, go—would you then go 

forward and relate the occurrences you observed?
[fol. 779] A. Well, the colored group entered the outside 
doors into the vestibule, and then they tried to go through 
the next group of doors—the next two doors. The doorman 
was standing there, and he refused to let them in.

Q. Did you overhear any statements made by him to 
the defendants?

A. Yes, I overheard him tell them, We don’t feed colored 
people here. I can’t let you in.

Q. Did you hear that on more than one occasion?
A. Yes, I heard it probably 5 or 6 different times.
Q. Within what period of time?
A. Oh, I guess within 15 or 20 minutes. He asked them to 

go away.
Q. And what response by their answers did he get? 

When they requested to go away?
A. They remained.



97

Q. What, if anything, did they do in this vestibule area— 
how did this affect the persons seeking admittance, or seek­
ing to leave?

A. Well, they had the vestibule blocked so that people 
couldn’t get in or out.

Q. What arrangement was there to control the opening 
and closing of the doors, interior or anterior, by the per­
sons in the vestibule?

A. None other than I saw—the man who was what you 
[fol. 780] would say was a doorman—had charge of the 
doors.

Q. Did you make any observation with reference to the 
exterior doors?

A. Pardon?
Q. Did you observe anything with reference to the out­

side doors?
A. Well, only a group of people who were trying to get 

in to eat—they were at the outside door and out on the 
sidewalk—they couldn’t get in.

Q. In relation to these disturbances which you have been 
describing, Mr. Edwards, how long after they commenced 
was it till your wife arrived?

A. Oh, I guess 5 to 10 minutes.
Q. And by that time, approximately how many people 

had congregated on the outside on the side walk?
A. Oh, roughly an estimate—I would say approximately 

75 to 100 people.
Q. Did your wife gain admission prior to the time the 

police officers removed the defendants?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you observe the occurrences while she was at­

tempting to do so?
A. Well, she had difficulty.
Q. Would you describe the nature of that difficulty?

[fol. 781] A. Well, one of them had his arm on the—what 
you’d say the door-facing, blocking it.

Q. Which door, sir?
A. The inside door.
Q. Go ahead, sir.
A. And she told them—said my husband is in there, and 

my two grandsons.



98

Mr. Looby: I object, if your Honor please, to telling 
what his wife told him.

Mr. Maddin: I will lay the background.
The Court: All right.
Mr. Maddin: Where were you standing? while this was 

going on?
A. I was standing to the left—I was standing to the right 

entering the door.
Q. Inside the restaurant itself ?
A. Inside the restaurant.
Q. Did you overhear some remarks ?
A. No.
Q. All right, sir. I won’t ask you what she said.
Q. Did you observe that she was talking?
A. Yes, I observed that she was saying something.
Q. All right. And what was the nature of the obstruc­

tion preventing her from entering?
[fol. 782] A. One of them had their hand on what you call 
the door facing.

Q. And was he spreading himself across the doorway, or 
what?

A. More or less.
Q. And after you observed her talking, what happened?
A. You mean with reference to her—
Q. Efforts to get in?
A. Getting in? Well, she just pushed by.
Q. What, if anything, did this person who had his hand 

across the doorway do, in an effort—to get in at that time ?
A. Well, he made several efforts to push himself in. And 

as he had the chance, any occasion that he thought maybe 
he could get in, why he tried to go through the door.

Q. Was that one person carrying on that type of con­
duct, or—

A. No, there was two or three of them. All of them 
couldn’t get in the door at the same time.

Q. When your wife tried to enter the restaurant, was 
that before or after the statements that you have already 
described by the doorman telling them that they did not 
serve Negroes? And to please leave?



99

A. You mean was Ms statement before or after she got 
[fol.783] inf

Q. Yes, sir?
A. Well, he told—he made that statement before she got 

in, and afterwards.
Q. I see. Made it on several occasions. Now, what did 

you see that ultimately relieved the situation?
A. Well, after I guess approximately 30 minutes from 

the time they arrived, the police arrived, and of course they 
cleared the way for people to enter the cafeteria.

Q. Did you go ahead and seat yourself after your wife 
had gotten inside f And did you remember and observe 
what occurred ?

A. No. We went on after my wife and Fred got in. We 
went on and seated ourselves and had our meal.

Q. Were you sitting where you could observe the occur­
rences there in the vestibule?

A. Yes, we were sitting up front, because it was only 
available at the time. We had gone around and gotten 
our meal.

Q. Now, prior to the police officers removing the defend­
ants from the vestibule, approximately how many people 
had gathered outside of the restaurant on the sidewalk?

A. Oh, I ’d say 75 or 100 waiting to get in.
Q. Now, Mr. Edwards, while you were seated there at 

[fol. 784] your table for dinner—having dinner, did you 
observe the police officers, and what they did with these 8 
defendants?

A. Well, when they first arrived, they had them to open 
—to step back so the people could get in, then they were 
lined up against the wall.

Q. The wall? Where? in the vestibule?
A. In the vestibule, yes. Then in a few minutes the patrol 

wagon came and they took them out.
Q. Stopped in front of the place ?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you see the patrol officers move them out and 

take them to the patrol wagon?
A. Yes.
Q. And the same ones that were in the vestibule were 

taken to the patrol wagon?



100

A. Yes.
Q. You may cross examine.

Cross examination.

By Mr. Looby:
Q. Mr. Edwards, here—was the juryman—the venireman 

related to you?
A. The juryman?
Q. Yes.
A. No.

[fol. 785] Q. The juryman here yesterday?
A. No. He was no relation of mine.
Q. Now, you say the doorman, while these defendants 

were there,—that the doorman blocked it and wouldn’t let 
them in ?

A. He held the door so they couldn’t get in.
Q. He held the door?
A. They tried to get in.
Q. I see. He held the door so that nobody could come in 

or go out, because of the doorman, then?
A. They couldn’t go in.
Q. Because the doorman was blocking the door.
A. Yes, he had the door so they couldn’t enter.
Q. Yes? So that had he not been there, they would have 

come in, and nobody else would have blocked them?
A. State your question again.
Q. If the doorman hadn’t blocked the door, they would 

have come in the place, and so the ingress and egress would 
have been free? Wouldn’t it?

A. I suppose, if he had wanted Negroes in, too.
Q. Yes, sir. The doorman was blocking them so that they 

couldn’t come in ?
[fol. 786] A. The doorman wTas holding the door, and the 
Negroes were blocking the vestibule so that people couldn’t 
get in there.

Q. The doorman was holding the door, so people couldn’t 
come in, after all, could they?

A. No, because the Negroes had it blocked.
Q. Well, the doorman had the Negroes blocked, didn’t he?



101

A. He was keeping them from going in.
Q. So that the doorman was really the one who was 

keeping these people out, wasn’t he ?
Mr. Maddin: We object to that question. It is not projjer.
The Court: Well, the jury, of course, will determine that.
A. State your question again.
Q. Sir?
A. State your question again.
Mr. Looby: The doorman was the one who was blocking 

the door and keeping people out?
A. He was holding the Negroes out, and as a result, 

they had the vestibule blocked, and the other people could 
not get by.

Q. If he had let the Negroes in, or let the Negroes by, 
the other people would get by?

A. Had he let them in?
[fol. 787] Q. Yes?

A. I suppose so.
Q. You say 75 to 100 people were outside?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know what they wanted?
A. They were waiting outside.
Q. And because they—you say there were 75 to 100 

people outside when this occurred?
A. I am talking about outside the vestibule.
Q. Do you know what they wanted?
A. They were waiting—I suppose they were waiting to 

get in.
Q. Because the door was blocked?
A. I suppose they were, yes.
Q. In other words, because there was a crowd blocking 

the door, that attracted other people, didn’t it, all right 
around there?

A. Well, a great many of them after they opened the 
doors—the vestibule.

Q. And it was time for church to be letting out? People 
were just out of church?

A. Pardon?



102

Q. It was just about time for church to be letting out, 
and people were just out of church?

A. Oh about 30 minutes after church was out, I suppose, 
[fol. 788] Q. People were coming from all directions?

A. I didn’t observe the directions because I was on the 
inside.

Q. But you went there knowing they—you were on the 
inside, and knowing who they were and what they wanted?

A. I made an estimate of how many might be on the 
outside.

Q. Are you telling us then, that you knew what they 
wanted? Whether they were coming in to buy, or not? Is 
that an estimate of yours?

A. I couldn’t—they didn’t tell me what they wanted. I 
don’t—

Q. You really don’t know whether with those people it 
was just a matter of curiosity, or whether they just wanted 
to come in?

A. Well, I know that there was a great many of them that 
went into the cafeteria after the police had them to open 
the vestibule.

Q. How many—did any of them leave?
A. Which ones are you referring to?
Q. The people that were supposed to be outside.
A. I don’t know whether they left, or not. I was on the 

inside.
Q. So, Mr. Edwards, how did you know those people 

[fol. 789] on the outside wanted in?
A. No. I didn’t talk with them.
Q. Well, you know that it is a matter of common knowl­

edge that a crowd will gather when something of interest 
is going on?

You know that happens, don’t you?
A. Oh, sure, that happens.
Q. You say that people were coming there in crowds? 

Did you see Mr. Carrier did when he went down?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you see him when he went down?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You couldn’t see him when he went down, could you?



103

A. Pardon?
Q. He went down, didn’t he? He went down to go out, 

didn’t he?
A. He came down from his office to the door.
Q, He went through the door, didn’t he?
A. I don’t know whether he went through the door, or 

not. I saw him on the inside at the door.
Q. Hid you see the police when they drove up?
A. I didn’t see the police when they drove up.

[fol. 790] Q. Mr. Carrier went out the door, didn’t he? 
And he is no small man?

A. He came down from his office.
Q. He went out the door, didn’t he?
A. I didn’t see him go out the door.
Q. Do you know who went to call the police?
A. Do I know who went?
Q. Do you know when Mr. Carrier went to call the 

police?
A. I don’t think Mr. Carrier called the police.
Q. Did you see him there at all that day?
A. See who?
Q. Mr. Carrier?
A. I imag—I suppose I did. I talked to him.
Q. Oh, you did talk to him?
A. Yes.
Q. Was that before or after the police came?
A. That was before.
Q. Was it afterward—after he went outside and passed 

through that same door?
A. I said I didn’t see him go outside.

[fol. 791] Q. Well, now, you say you heard this doorman 
talk to these patrons of color that came to the door? You 
heard him talking to them?

A. Did he talk to who?
Q. Did you hear him talk to the defendants?
A. Yes.
Q. And did they say they were seeking service?
A. I didn’t hear them say that.
Q. Did you know what they were there for?
A. No.
Q. What were you there for?
A. I was there to get a meal.



104

Q. Meals were being served there at the time?
A. Pardon?
Q. Meals were being served there at the time?
A. Yes, to white people.
Q. Served only to white people. Do yon know they were 

there seeking meals?
• A. The assumption was that they were, or they wouldn’t 
have been there.

Q. Now, did you hear the doorman talking to them?
A. I heard him ask them to go away.

[fol. 792] Q. Did you hear any response?
A. No.
Q. You were on the inside?
A. Yes, I was on the inside.
Q. I see. Well—the doorman was on the inside, too?
A. Yes, but he had a little opening where he could talk 

to them.
Q. You say your wife had difficulty in getting inside?
A. Pardon?
Q. You say your wife had difficulty in getting inside?
A. She had some difficulty, yes.
Q. Did she get in before or after the policemen came?
A. Before.
Q. And you didn’t have to do anything to help her get 

into the place, did you?
A. Pardon?
Q. And you didn’t make any effort to help her get into 

the place?
A. Did I make any effort to get her in?
The Court: To help her get in.
A. No.
Q. She got in without any help from you?

[fol. 793] A. The doorman let her in.
Q. The doorman let her in? Did the doorman let any­

body else in?
A. I don’t know. As soon as she got in we went on down 

to the line to get our meals.
Q. Well, before your wife—before he let your wife in, 

did he let anybody else in?
A. I don’t recall whether anybody else got in, or not.
Q. Well, you were right where you could see, weren’t 

you?



105

A. Yes, I was looking to see when my wife arrived.
Q. Was your wife alone?
A. No. She had a friend with her.
Q. Did both of them get inf
A. They got in together, yes, sir.
Q. Both of them got in together?
A. Pardon?
Q. Both of them got in together?
A. They got in.
Q. But do you know of anyone else who couldn’t get in?
A. Do I know of anyone else?
Q. Do you know of anyone else who tried to get in and 

[fol. 794] couldn’t?
A. I saw several people try.
Q. Did you know any of the people?
A. I only knew two who got in—my wife and her friend. 

I don’t know all the people.
Q. But do you know anybody else who couldn’t get in?
A. My not knowing them wasn’t the cause of them 

not getting in.
Q. When the police came, what were the defendants 

doing? or rather where were they?
A. They were crowded up in the vestibule.
Q. Crowded up in the vestibule trying to get served?
A. I don’t know whether they were trying to get served, 

or not. They were trying to get in.
Q. Did you hear them talk to the police?
A. Hear them talk to the police?
Q. Yes?
A. No. When the police came, we were already on the 

inside.
Q. And did you hear them talk to the police?
A. No, they were out in the vestibule and we were on 

the inside.
[fol. 795] Q. Now, then, you came here, and you say you 
saw this group of colored men come to the door into the 
vestibule. Now, you don’t know how many there were, 
do you?

A. Oh, there’s 6 or 8 of them. I didn’t count them.
Q. You never saw them before that, did you?
A. No, sir.



106

Q. Ton don’t know them?
A. I don’t know them.
Q. All right. That’s all.
The Court: Come down.

Redirect examination.

By Mr. Maddin:
Q. All of the ones that you observed were there were 

taken away by the police?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That’s all.
A. Thanks, Judge.
Mr. Looby: Wait a minute.
The Court: Wait a minute. Have a seat.

Recross examination.

By Mr. Looby:
Q. Well, now, Mr. Edwards, I understood you to say 

that when your wife got in, you went back to eat?
[fol. 796] A. I also said that when we got in we came 
back to the front to a table, and the police took them to 
the patrol car.

Q. How long were you there before your wife got there?
A. Before my wife got there?
Q. Yes?
A. Oh, I guess 10 or 15 minutes.
Q. And how long were you there before you found this 

table ?
A. Oh, I guess 8 or 10 minutes.
Q. So that the police came at least 25 minutes after you 

got there?
A. Well, I had been there a few minutes before they 

came.
Q. That’s all.
Mr. Maddin: That’s all, Mr. Edwards, come down.



107

M rs. A n n  M . E dwards, ca lled  as a w itness fo r  tlie state, 
be in g  first d u ly  sw orn , testified  as fo l lo w s :

[fol. 797] Direct examination.

By Mr. Maddin:
Q. Mrs. Edwards, will you state your full name, please.
A. Mrs. Ann M. Edwards. That’s the way I sign my 

maiden name.
Q. Did he come back through here! (This refers to 

Mr. Edwards who has just testified.)
The Court: He went to get his coat, and I take it—
Mr. Maddin: I just didn’t want Councilman Looby to 

get excited about his whereabouts.
Court Officer: The witness is in the courtroom.
The Court: And I have admonished them, gentlemen, 

about their behavior.
Mr. Maddin: Mrs. Edwards, on Sunday, October 21, 

1962, did you have occasion to go to the B & W Cafeteria 
for lunch"?

A. Yes, I was there.
Q. Following what other activity did you go there?
A. You mean that—
Q. Prior to that, where had you been?
A. We went there from church. We had been to Sunday 

School and Church.
Q. Were you in the company of anyone else?

[fol. 798] A. I was with two friends who were going, whom 
we had invited to have dinner with us.

Q. And who were these friends ?
A. Mrs. Watkins—she lives in the city. And the other 

one from Paducah, Mrs. Washam. She doesn’t live here.
Q. Now, as I understand it, you came—did you go to the 

restaurant in company with these two ladies ?
A. Yes.
Q. Where was your husband?
A. At the B & W already inside with my grandsons.
Q. And—



108

A. He was already inside and I waited for one of these 
ladies to meet me at the chnrch. He and the grandsons went 
on ahead of me.

Q. Now, when yon arrived at the restaurant, wThat did yon 
observe? Out of the ordinary?

A, Well, before we got half way up the block, we saw all 
these people milling around outside, white people, and one 
of my friends said to me, Well, what goes on? And I said, I 
don’t know, but we’ll find out.

Mr. Williams: We object to what she said.
The Court: That’s right. And the answer is not respon­

sive to the question.
Mrs. Edwards, I think you will do well to listen to the 

[fol. 799] questions and don’t volunteer too much informa­
tion because those conversations are not competent.

A. No. Well, do you mean what went on after he got 
to the cafeteria?

Mr. Maddin: What did you observe at the doorway?
A. When we got to the door,—
Q. What did you observe at the doorway?
A. There were these young Negroes—men, all inside— 

standing inside.
Q. Inside what?
A. Between the two doors,—the double doors.
Q. What happened as you sought to pass through this 

crowd ?
A. They seemed to sort of crowd in, from one side to the 

other.
Q. What do you mean by “crowd around” Mrs. Edwards?
A. They were in front of us, to the side and around so 

they were definitely obstructing our entering the cafeteria.
Q. I see. What did you have to do to by-pass by that 

obstruction?
A. I just sort of elbowed my way through.
Q. I see. Was there any effort to keep you from coming 

through?
A. No, they didn’t say anything disrespectful or ugly 

[fol. 800] to me,—
Q. Did they try—



109

A. —but they were just there.
Q. When you sought to pass them, did it require any 

effort to go by?
A. Well, I just went right on in.
Q. I see.
A. I didn’t wait to see whether anyone was going to 

try to keep me out or not. I just—one of my friends said, 
You can’t go in. I said, I can go in.

Q. Don’t tell the conversation. Did you before seeing— 
finally elbow your way through—to use elbows and what 
have you to wiggle your way through the crowd!

A. Yes, I just wiggled my way in.
Q. Did you make a request to them for you to do that?
A. No. I did not say a word to anyone. I did not say 

a word. I just sort of wiggled my way in the crowd.
Q. Did the other ladies follow you!
A. Yes, they did.
Q. Now, having made your way into the restaurant 

proper, what did these defendants do with respect to gain­
ing admittance?

Mr. Looby: I am objecting to this question, if your 
Honor please. She has not identified these defendants. She 
[fol. 801] said she saw some colored men there. That’s all 
she said.

A. Well, they were all in the entrance.
Mr. Looby: Well, I am objecting to Counsel referring 

to these as defendants.
Mr. Williams: We object to his leading also.
The Court: I think he has done a pretty good job of not 

leading the witness, but he does object to you referring 
to these as defendants when she hasn’t identified them as 
such.

Mr. Maddin: All right. Eliminate the word defendants 
in my question, Mrs. Edwards. And supply the Negro men 
who were in the entrance way there. What, if anything, 
did they do toward seeking admittance after you entered?

A. Well, they came—they just closed right in behind us 
in front of the second door, like they were going to block 
other people out. That’s what I took it to be.



110

Mr. Williams: If your Honor please, we object to what 
she took it to be. She said that’s what she took it to be.

The Court: Yes. I understand that. But I think the 
jury will understand. Those are just expressions. You 
mustn’t give conclusions. Just what you saw happen, there.

A. Well, I saw that.
The Court: Well, go ahead Mr. Maddin.
Mr. Maddin: Hid any of them pass through the door?
A. Into the cafeteria?
Q. Or any portion of it?

[fol. 802] A. No. Not that I saw.
Q. And I presume that you went ahead into the restau­

rant and got your meal?
A. That’s right.
Q. Did you find a table?
A. Yes, we did.
Q. Where?
A. Up at the front—the very front where we could see 

everything that went on.
Q. And did you see anything going on at the time you 

were seating yourself at the table?
A. Yes. Yes.
Q. When did, in relation—well, let me ask you this—did 

the police officers arrive?
A. Yes, they did.
Q. When did they arrive in relation to the time you 

seated yourself at the table?
A. Oh, I ’d say about 15 minutes, maybe 20 minutes.
Q. And having arrived, what did they do?
A. Well, I presume they arrested these men. They took 

them out.
Q. They took them out?
A. Yes, sir. They first talked—I ’ll say that. They first 

talked around, just a few minutes, and then they took them 
[fol. 803] out.

Q. Do you know if they took all the persons, all the 
Negro persons wdio were in that vestibule out and away?

A. Yes, in fact, there was no more disturbance. Other 
people came in there.



Ill

Q. And there were none left when the police left?
A. So far as I could see.
Q. None left before the police arrived?
A. No.
Q. Before they got there?
A. Not that I heard.
Q. Did you notice them taking away—where the police 

took them?
A. No. I just knew they came in the patrol wagon,— 

the police wagon.
Q. Was it right where you could see it there?
A. Oh, yes, because they seated us at the front. There 

was quite a big crowd.
Q. I bet. Did you see them go into the patrol wagon?
A. Yes, I saw them.
Q. All of them in the vestibule?

[fol. 804] Mr. Williams: If your Honor please, we ob­
ject to the leading.

A. In fact I know they were all there—there looked to 
be about 7 or 8.

Q. Yes, ma’am.
A. I didn’t count them.
Q. You may cross examine.

Cross examination.

By Mr. Looby:
Q. Mrs. Edwards, I believe you said there were two 

ladies who left the church with you?
A. That’s right.
Q. All three of you went in?
A. I beg your pardon?
Q, All three of you went in ?
A. Yes.
Q. In the cafeteria?
A. Yes.
Q. And all three of you were served?
A. Yes.
Q. Did the doorman open the door to let you in?
A. Yes, the doorman was there,—



112

Q. And he opened the door and let yon in ?
A. And he let ns in when—after I had gotten through 

[fol. 805] the crowd, he let ns in the door.
Q. And all three of yon got in?
A. I beg yonr pardon ?
Q. And all three of you got in?
A. Yes.
Q. And all three of yon were served?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, the number of white people—there were a num­

ber of white people at the door, weren’t there?
A. Yes, there were a number of white people even on 

the outside. Do you mean the outside?
Q. You had to elbow your way through there, didn’t you?
A. Sir?
Q. You had to elbow your way through there, didn’t you?
A. Yes, I did. I certainly did. I had to sort of just push 

my way through.
Q. That was through the crowd of the white people?
A. No. Not the white people. Through these colored peo­

ple who were inside. You see the white people were outside 
on the sidewalk.

Q. Well, now—
A. These colored boys all in the entrance. They were 

[fol. 806] right in the entrance. And we went in the first 
doors. You see there are double doors there. We got 
through the first doors,—

Q. Well, just before you got to that first door, did you 
have any difficulty getting through the white people ?

A. No, I didn’t have any difficulty getting through the 
white people.

Q. In other words, the sidewalk was clear up to that first 
door?

A. Well, there were some people walking around out 
there, but they were not bothering me. They were not ob­
structing my getting in.

Q. Just walking up and down the street—Sunday after­
noon?

A. Well, no, I don’t think they were just walking up and 
down the street. They were waiting to get in to the 
cafeteria.



113

Q. And you were not bothered to pass them?
A. We passed right by them and went on in. I don’t pay 

attention to what other people are doing. I just mind my 
own business.

Q. And that was all you doing?
A. I was just wanting to go in to be served,

[fol. 807] Q. You were minding your own business, and 
you went right on in?

A. Yes, I walked right on in, and I didn’t say anything 
to anybody.

Q. And everybody that was minding their own business 
was able to get in and be served, just like you?

A. Well, I don’t know about that, but I was served.
Q. And all three of you went back there?
A. Yes.
Q. And were served?
A. Yes.
Q. How many white people were standing outside?
A. I don’t estimate crowds. I couldn’t tell you that to 

save my life. There were a good many people even walk­
ing down the street—just walking up and down. And one 
lady said to me, We are waiting to get into the cafeteria.

Q. Well, we don’t want to know what anybody said to 
you.

A. No. You don’t want conversation. I know that.
The Court: He didn’t ask you what you said. He just 

asked you how many people were on the outside.
A. I can’t estimate a crowd. I couldn’t tell you. There 

[fol. 808] might have been—well, there looked like there 
might have been at least 25 or 30, outside to get in.

By Mr. Looby:
Q. None of these people were arrested, were they?
A. The white people?
Q. Yes, ma’am?
A. No,—arrested?
Q. The police didn’t bother any of them?
A. No. The police couldn’t bother any of the white 

people. He certainly did not.
Q. I see. That’s all, Mrs. Edwards.



114

M rs. L ottie M a r t in , ca lled  on b eh a lf o f  the state, be in g  
first du ly  sw orn , testified  as fo llo w s :

Direct examination.

By Mr. Maddin:
Q. Mrs. Martin, what is your full name, please.
A. Lottie Martin.
Q. Mrs. Martin, you’ll have to speak up so everybody 

can hear you back here.
A. Lottie Martin.

[fol. 809] Q. Mrs. Martin, where are—are you employed? 
A. No, sir.
Q. You are a housewife?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Mrs. Martin, on October 21, 1962, did you seek to 

obtain lunch at a downtown restaurant?
A. Yes.
Q. What restaurant was that?
A. B & W on 6th Avenue.
Q. With whom did you go to that restaurant?
A. My son and his wife and children and my husband. 
Q. And at approximately what hour did you arrive?
A. Well, I presume it was nearly 12:30.
Q. Where had you been?
A. We had been to church.
Q. And when you approached—from what direction did 

you approach?
A. Well, we were going toward Church Street.
Q. And, in approaching the restaurant, did anything un­

usual take place?
A. Yes.

[fol. 810] Q. What was that?
A. An extra  crow d  o f  p eop le  out— m ore  than usual.
Q. And when you got to the B & W Restaurant there, 

did you observe anything taking place in the vestibule?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you observe?
A. There was a group of colored boys in the vestibule.



115

Q. And did yon seek to—how long did you wait before 
seeking to go through this group!

A. Well, we didn’t wait long. We walked up, and my 
son is acquainted with the doorman, and he said, Come on 
in, Mickey,—called my son by his first name, so my son— 
he’s a big man, and he just pushed his way on up there, 
and got in the door and held the door open, and the rest 
of us just walked on it.

Q. What, if anything, occurred to you!
A. Well, I—
Q. When you were walking through these Negroes !
A. Well, when I came along, I was about the last one 

of us, I think, in, of the group. And they was sort of 
closed in, you know, and they said to my son, What do 
you care whether we—

Mr. Williams: We object, there’s—there’s—
The Court: If it was some of the defendants talking, of 

course that’s competent.
[fol. 811] Mr. Williams: There’s no proof here regarding 
that.

The Court: Well, if it was one of the defendants it is 
competent.

Mr. Williams: She hasn’t—she said, if your Honor 
please, they said something, and that don’t add one scintilla 
to tie it in with any defendant here in regard to that.

Mr. Maddin: Do you know which one of these defendants 
said it!

A. I couldn’t pick one certain boy out.
Q. Can you say it was one of them, though!
A. Yes, one of those. One of the boys that were up there 

that day.
Mr. Williams: Well, we object. That’s exactly why we 

object.
The Court: Well, I ’ll overrule your objection, gentlemen.
Mr. Williams: Respectfully except.
A. So that him what he cared—why he cared whether 

those other people got in there, or not, and he said, Well, 
these people are with me, and I want ’em in here. And so— 
then I got up there closer—



116

Mr. Williams: I didn’t hear what she said, if your Honor 
please. Repeat that, please.

A. My son said these people are with me, and I want 
[fol. 812] them in here, so he said to them that—they sort of 
closed in—and when I got up there, he said, You all stand 
aside. This is my mother. And I went on in.

Mr. Maddin: And you had gotten through this crowd!
A. Yes.
Q. He wanted to have you along!
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where did you seat yourselves, in relation to this 

disturbance!
A. Upstairs.
Q. You were not in a position upstairs to observe the 

conduct or action in the vestibule!
A. We couldn’t see the vestibule.
Q. Do you know what occurred there in relation to the 

persons that were blocking the passageway in the vestibule 
after you left!

A. We could see the sidewalk outside.
Q. What did you see on the sidewalk outside!
A. Well, we saw some policemen. I suppose they escorted 

the boys off.
The Court: Now, you can’t suppose.
Mr. Maddin: Don’t say if you don’t know.
A. Well, we just saw the policemen come up.
Q. And when you came out, after a period of time, what 

[fol. 813] happened so far as the passageway was con­
cerned!

A. Well, when we came out, there was no—no one there.
Q. Mrs. Martin, do I correctly understand that you saw 

your son in an effort to get through into the restaurant!
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You were standing where you could observe what he 

was doing!
A. Well, he just sort of elbowed his way in. (She moves 

arms from side to side.)
Q. Was some extent of force necessary! Or are you 

just moving your arms like so, back and forth sideways in



117

the witness chair? Were any elements of effort observed 
by you in trying to gain access ?

A. Well, I would say—that’s what I would say—that he 
just used his elbows to sort of push his way in.

Q. Was his effort resisted, or not?
A. I wouldn’t say they were.
Q. No one stepped out of his way to block his path?
A. No.
Q. Did you have to use any force?
A. No.

[fol. 814] Q. That was after your son made a passageway 
for you?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. That’s all.

Cross examination.

By Mr. Williams:
Q. Mrs. Martin, you don’t know any of the defendants 

sitting on this trial today?
A. N o -
Mr. Martin: I can’t hear, your Honor.
Mr. Williams: You don’t know any of the defendants 

sitting on this trial today?
A. No—I wouldn’t—I didn’t recognize them.
Q. Mrs. Martin, how large is this vestibule, that you were 

talking about ?
A. Well, I presume it was about the size of this area here.

(Points to area around the witness stand and around the 
corner of the courtroom.)

Q. Now, Mrs. Martin, in what formation—do you know 
how many of these colored boys there were?

A. Well, at that time, I didn’t count them.
Q. And is your son here today to testify?
A. Not today.

[fol. 815] Q. Is your son any larger than Mr. Carrier? 
A. He may be taller.
Q. But not as large in terms of stoutness ?



118

A. Not, well, not quite as stout.
Q. Your son is then tall and slender? Is that it?
A. No, he is a little on the husky side.
Q. Was he a football player?
A. No, sir.
Q. Now, Mrs. Martin, you recall just how these colored 

hoys were standing in the vestibule, what formation?
A. Well, they were just in a bunch.
Q. Were they standing in a line, sort of—waiting to get 

in the door?
A. No, I wouldn’t say it was a line.
Q. Well, is it, or is it not true that the doorman had the 

door blocked there, preventing them from entering the door 
of the restaurant proper?

A. Well, the doorman was inside and he—■
Q. The doorman was inside, was he not?
A. Yes.
Q. And he had the door blocked, and he let you all in, 

that’s true, isn’t it?
[fol. 816] A. Well—I don’t know whether he opened the 
door.

Q. Well, you were observing everything very closely, 
now, Mrs. Martin, weren’t you?

A. (Laughs aloud.) Well, I don’t know that I was ob­
serving everything.

Q. Well, then, if you were not, then, you do not know 
exactly how these boys were standing in the vestibule, do 
you?

A. I know they were standing in a group.
Q. Yes?
A. They were all there together.
Q. They were all there together? Well, now, were they 

together like they are seated here now, or—
A. No.
Q. Or—
A. They were—it looked to me like they were trying 

to block the door.
Q. Well, I didn’t—I don’t want you to say what it looked 

to you like, ma’am,—if you will tell—if you will tell me 
exactly where they were standing, how many of them there 
were, and where they were standing with reference to the



119

door. Please, ma’am, if yon remember, I want yon to tell 
what yon know, not what yon want to testify.

Mr. Maddin: Well, we object to that if the Court please.
Mr. Williams: Well, if you please ma’am, just tell ex- 

[fol. 817] actly what you saw, that’s what I want you to do. 
Where did you see them standing? And how many were 
there ?

A. Well, I don’t know how many there were,—
Q. You don’t know how many—
A. There was a group of them.
Q. Ma’am?
A. There was a group of them.
Q. You don’t have any idea how many there were?
A. Well, yes, I have an idea—
Q. Well—
A. —because there’s 8 of them here today.
Q. I see. So you would say now, because you see 8 here 

today, that there were 8 in that group ?
A. Yes.
Q. And for that same reason, you would also like to say 

that the 8 were blocking the door ?
A. Not that many—
Mr. Maddin: If your Honor please, we object to counsel 

trying to suggest to this witness that is going to come up 
here and say something and on the contrary you had better 
be silent.

The Court: No. He’s examining here.
. Mr. Williams: You don’t threaten me! It would have no 

[fol. 818] effect if you did!
The Court: All right now. Let’s—let’s—let’s proceed 

orderly.
Mr. Williams: Now, Mrs. Martin, in what way were they 

blocking the door?
A. Well, they were standing so close to the door that 

unless you pushed through them, you couldn’t get in.
Q. What—do you know of anybody who tried to get in 

there, and couldn’t?
A. Well, there’s several people were walking away from 

there when we came up.



120

Q. I am asking yon, Mrs. Martin, if—yon were coming 
from church that day?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, I asked you if you saw anybody who tried to 

get in that door, and couldn’t, other than those colored 
boys that you saw there?

A. No.
Q. That’s all.
The Court: Gentlemen, I think we are close to the ad­

journing time for today. That will be all the witnesses we 
will hear today. Members of the jury, let me admonish you, 
do not discuss this case at all among yourselves, and at any 
time until the final charge of the court has been delivered 
and you have been permitted to deliberate. Do not discuss 
[fol. 819] the case. Now, what officers have the jury—have 
been sworn to the jury?

(Suggestion is made to the Court to admonish the wit­
nesses to be present the next day.)

The Court: Yes, I will do that, in a few minutes.
(Officers who have been sworn to the jury step forward.)
The Court: You will take the jury upstairs. They will 

eat at 6 :00 o’clock if that suits them. I am sure there are 
some jurors who have been accepted today who shall possi­
bly want to make some calls to their homes. And keep the 
jury together, if there are any calls to be made.

All right.
(Thereupon the trial was adjourned for the day at 

4:30 p.m.)
4 th Day 

March 8,1963
The Court: (when court assembles) Gentlemen, as I an­

nounced a little bit earlier, all matters set for today will be 
continued one week.

Mr. Looby: While we are sitting here and before we 
begin, I want to call to your attention the fact that part of 
this is missing—the 8 warrants, which have been heretofore 
made a part of the record and don’t see them now.



121

Mr. Nichol: We have them. They will be introduced as 
part of the proof in a few minutes. We got them out to 
present our proof.

Mr. Looby: Now, if your Honor please,—is your Honor 
[fol. 820] ready to proceed, now?

The Court: We were short a defendant. We are ready 
now that all the defendants are here.

Mr. Looby: I would like to recall Mr. Carrier for further 
Cross Examination.

The Court: All right, gentlemen, bring down the jury. 
Do you have any reply? (this to Mr. Maddin)

Mr. Maddin: Yes, we do. We object to Mr. Carrier be­
ing recalled, to the witness stand, for further Cross Exami­
nation unless Counsel will state the reason that he didn’t 
cross examine him fully while he was on the witness stand. 
We object to it.

The Court: No. I will permit his recall. Overrule your 
objection, sir.

Now, are we ready, gentlemen?
Mr. Looby: We are ready, if your Honor please.
The Court: Is the state ready?
Mr. Looby: Subject to recall.
The Court: Well, they say they are going to offer him, 

and if you want him, you can call him.
We are ready for the jury to be brought down. Bring 

down the jury.
Mr. Maddin: May it please your Honor, I know the 

court has the right to exercise its discretion, but I believe 
that the provision is that on good cause shown that the 
witness may be allowed to be recalled, and no cause has 
been related to your Honor.
[fol. 821] The Court: Well, I find no fault in letting him 
cross examine him further.

Mr. Maddin: There is no fault,—an opportunity to hear 
other witnesses testify, and what have you, we are here 
to put our witnesses on in certain order of appearance. 
Counsel chooses to withhold facts of the examination, it 
also weights the testimony of other witnesses,—now, if the 
Court please, I would appreciate it if the Court exercises 
his discretion if he asks it there, and I know at the same 
time that the Court tries to be fair to everybody, and in



122

view of the fact that a cause is what usually requests the 
Court’s exercising that discretion, we ask the Court to call 
upon Counsel to state a reason.

The Court: Tell us why, then,—
Mr. Looby: One good reason that parts of the record 

on which I am going to examine him were not available 
then. The state had those records. I am going to cross 
examine him on them. We couldn’t find those records. We 
were looking for the records and the clerk didn’t know 
where they were.

Mr. Maddin: The records are right here. Mr. Carrier 
hasn’t got them.

The Court: Well, let him have those records then, and 
examine him on them.

Mr. Maddin: Which ones does he want?
The Court: He wants those warrants, he said.
Mr. Nichol: (Unfastens some of the records from where 

[fol. 822] they were attached to other records.) If your 
Honor please, we had them to go with other papers.

(The jury comes in at 9:12 o’clock A.M.)
(Mr. Nichol hands the warrants to Mr. Norman, Court 

Officer, who gives them to Mr. Looby.)
(Mr. Looby examined them.)
The Court: While he is looking at them, poll the jury.
(The clerk’s polling of the jury is done.)
Clerk: All present, your Honor.
The Court: Gentlemen, are you ready to proceed?
Mr. Looby: As soon as I can examine these warrants, 

if your Honor please. (He looks over the warrants.) I am 
ready, your Honor.

The Court: All right. Then you want to proceed ?
Mr. Looby: I want to recall Mr. Carrier.
Mr. Maddin: Objection, if the Court please, on failure 

to state any cause and show the Court grounds to exercise 
its discretion.

The Court: I will permit the defense to recall Mr. Car­
rier for further cross examination.

Mr. Looby: Let the record show that the objection was 
made by Mr. Maddin representing the B & W Cafeteria.



123

W oodrow W ilson  C arbiek, reca lled  fo r  fu rth er  cross  ex- 
[ fo l . 823] anim ation , testifies as fo l lo w s :

Cross examination.

By Mr. Looby:
Q. Mr. Carrier, I believe you testified yesterday, didn’t 

you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, what did you say—I don’t know whether I heard 

it or not or fail to remember—what did you say your po­
sition is with the B & W Cafeteria?

A. Manager.
Q. Manager?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you swear out these warrants?
A. I beg your pardon.
Q. Did you swear out these warrants against these de­

fendants ?
A. No, sir.
Q. You did not swear them out?
A. No, sir.
Q. Do you know how your name appears on the war­

rants as prosecutor ? Do you know how your name happens 
to be listed on the warrants as the prosecutor?

A. No. I do not.
Q. Now, I believe you say you called the police?

[fol. 824] A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the police came and arrested them?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So that there were no warrants at the time the police 

arrested them?
A. No, sir.
Q. And these typewritten warrants were made subse­

quent to their arrest?
A. I presume, so, sir.
Q. Now, one more question, Mr. Carrier. I believe that 

the B & W Cafeteria fronts on what side of the street?
A. Sir?
(Beporter repeats the question for him.)



124

Mr. Maddin: I didn’t understand the question.
The Court: On which side of the street does the B & W 

Cafeteria front?
A. Well, let’s see, it fronts on the east side of the street, 

I imagine.
Mr. Looby: On the east side of the street?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. On the east side of 6th Avenue?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, what’s on the west side of the cafeteria?

[fol. 825] A. Across the street, sir?
Q. The west side of the cafeteria?
A. The Sam Small Jewelry Store, I guess.
Q. There is a back door to the cafeteria, isn’t it?
A. On Harvey’s Alley, yes.
Q. And people do come in there, then?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So there is not only a front entrance, there is also a 

back entrance to the cafeteria?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The defendants to whom you refer, or the parties to 

whom you refer, they didn’t come to the back entrance, 
did they?

A. No, sir.
Q. All right. That’s all.

Bedirect examination.

By Mr. Maddin:
Q. Mr. Carrier, can you estimate the percentage of your 

traffic that uses the back entrance to your cafeteria?
A. It would be only a guess, sir, and I would say a small 

percentage relatively to the total patronage.
Q. Is it general knowledge of the back entrance to your 

patrons ?
Mr. Looby: I object to whether it is general knowledge, 

[fol. 826] or not, if your Honor please.



125

The Court: If he thinks he knows the answer to that. 
I think it would be—

Do you think you know, generally, whether your patrons 
know about the back entrance, or not f

A. A great lot of patrons do know of the entrance on the 
alleyway, and use it.

Mr. Maddin: More of them have become acquainted with 
it, since these sit-ins started, haven’t they?

Mr. Looby: Now, if your Honor please, I object to him 
leading.

The Court: I sustain the objection.
Mr. Maddin: That’s all. Come down.
The Court: Come down, Mr. Carrier.
The Court: The state will call its next witness.

Sot. T homas R. B e e h a n , called as a witness for the state, 
being first duly sworn, testified as follows:

Direct examination.

By Mr. Robinson:
Q. Now, state your full name, please, sir.
A. Thomas R. Beehan.
Q. What is your occupation?

[fol. 827] A. Sgt. in the Police Department.
Q. What division in the police department!
A. Patrol division.
Q. Nashville City Police Department?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right, sir. Were you about your duties as a police 

sergeant in the patrol division on October 21,1962?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right, sir. State whether or not you had an occa­

sion to go to the B & W Restaurant?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where-—where is that located?
A. 6th Avenue, between Union and Church.
Q. In Davidson County, Tennessee?
A. Yes, sir.



126

Q. All right. What time of the day or night did you get 
a call to go to the B & W Cafeteria?

A. Around 12:20 p.m.
Q. Yes, sir. You remember what day of the week this 

was on ?
A. Sunday.
Q. Sunday? All right, sir. Now, how did you come to 

know to go to the B & W Cafeteria? What—where did you 
receive your information?

[fol. 828] A. Over the radio, Car 1, call for Superior 
Officer.

Q. I see. And you responded to this call, being the su­
perior officer on duty?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, when you got to the B & W  Restaurant on 6th 

Avenue, who did you see there?
A. Well, I left Officer Moran out front.
Q. All right, sir. Now, was he assigned to Car 1 on that 

particular day?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right. And was there an officer along with Mr. 

Moran, or not?
A. He was inside the building.
Q. The other officer was inside the B & W Restaurant?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right. Now, did you have the occasion to see what 

was going on there?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was it?
A. A lot of people out front—I would say 75 to 100 

people out front.
Q. All right, sir.
A. Officer Moran came up and said,—■

[fol. 829] Q. Now, you can’t tell what Officer Moran said. 
Did Officer Moran direct your attention to the incident of 
the B & W ?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right. Did you go over there?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What did you see? What was the situation that pre­

vailed there, at the accident ?



127

A. A bunch of colored people inside the vestibule.
Q. Were they within the confines of the vestibule?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, approximately how many were in the group in 

the vestibule ?
A. 8.
Q. 8? All right. Now, did you discuss—have any con­

versation with the group of 8 that was in the vestibule?
A. Not at the time I arrived, no, sir.
Q. Sir?
A. Not at the time, no, sir.
Q. While you were there, did you have any conversation 

with them ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Well, what did you say to them?

[fol. 830] A. Well, after I talked to the manager of the 
B & W—

Q. Sir?
A. After I talked to the manager of the B & W—
Q. Well, did you talk to the manager in the presence of 

these defendants?
A. No, sir. The door was in between us.
Q. The door was between you? All right.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What conversation did you have with the defendants 

—the 8 that were in the vestibule?
A. After I talked to the manager, I came to talk to them, 

and told them that—
Mr. Looby: If your Honor please, I object to that. He 

hasn’t identified these defendants.
The Court: Sir?
Mr. Looby: He hasn’t identified these defendants.
The Court: Well, I’m going to—-
Mr. Robinson: I believe, if your Honor please, that is 

competent. He has identified the group of 8. And he was 
the man who went there to see what was happening, and 
had a conversation with them.

The Court: The only thing I want him to do, Gen. Robin­
son, is to identify the people here as defendants.



128

[fol. 831] Mr. Robinson: You did see these people in the 
vestibule, did you not?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are these the defendants that you saw?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, what conversation did you have with these 8 

defendants ?
A. After I talked to the manager, I came out in this vesti­

bule, and or entrance, whatever you want to call it, and I 
kept—I give them the opportunity—I told them that the 
manager wanted them arrested if they did not leave. And 
I asked if they wanted to leave. They did not answer when 
I asked them. I asked them if they wanted to leave. And 
the one over there with his hand on his face—

Q. The man with his hand on his face—what did he have 
to say about it?

A. I asked him if he wanted to leave, and he shook Ms 
head.

Q. Sir?
A. He shook his head.
Q. Indicating what ?
A. That he did not want to leave.
Q. Meaning “no” that he did not want to leave?
A. Yes, sir.

[fol. 832] Mr. Looby: If your Honor please, I don’t mind 
Mr. Robinson testifying, but not under the guise of an offi­
cer. That is self-service declaration.

The Court: Well—
Mr. Robinson: Now, if your Honor please, let me just 

restate it again.
The Court: Don’t lead him.
Mr. Robinson: Indicate from the witness stand what this 

defendant’s answer was then you asked him did he want 
to leave.

A. He shook his head “no.”
Q. Well, now, show" us just exactly what he did?
A. Shook his head. (Indicates what was done.)
Q. All right. What did you do when the indication was 

that they were not going to leave the vestibule?



129

A. I told them, when they wasn’t going to leave, that 
they were under arrest.

Q. Sir?
A. I told them, when they wasn’t going to leave, that they 

were under arrest.
Q. Did you place them under arrest ?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, what means did you use to get these people down 

[fol. 833] to the police station—these people in the vesti­
bule?

A. Called the wagon.
Q. All right. Did the wagon appear?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right, sir. What did you do? Where were the 

defendants when the wagon appeared?
A. Still in the vestibule, at the B & W Cafeteria.
Q. All right. Now, after it got there, what did you do?
A. Told the officer to take them out to the wagon, and of 

course the man on the wagon come and helped, too.
Q. All right. Now, did you take all of the 8 people that 

were in that vestibule to the wagon?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. No mistake about that?
A. No, sir.
Q. All right. Did you assist in taking them to the wagon?
A. Well, I took—it is my job to see that they do it.
Q. And did they do it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What happened when they got in the wagon?

[fol. 834] A. Well, when they got out there, took them on 
down to the police station.

Q. All right. To the Nashville City Police Station?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. May it please the Court, the fact that this witness has 

identified this defendant with his hand on his face, if your 
Honor please, I would like to know his name for the benefit 
of the record. To know what his name is. He has been 
pointed out as having a conversation with this officer, on 
the 21st day of October, at the B & W, and I think it would 
be fair, now, to know his name. We don’t know his name 
at all.



130

The Court: Call on them, and see if they want to give you 
his name, or not.

Mr. Robinson: What is your name? (To the colored boy.)
Mr. Looby: Wait a minute. You are not examining the 

defendants.
Mr. Robinson: Well—
Mr. Looby: The only thing the witness pointed to a man 

with his hand on his face.
Mr. Robinson: May it please your Honor, I want to make 

it a part of the record.
Mr. Looby: The only thing that needs to go in the record 

is that he pointed to someone with his hand on his face, 
[fol. 835] The Court: Yeah, but he pointed to that third 
man, now, gentlemen, and—

Mr. Looby: That’s all that the record shows.
The Court: Now, you are refusing to identify him?
Mr. Looby: Yes, sir.
The Court: Let the record show, Mrs. Cummins, that 

the defendant who had his hand to his face was the 3rd, 
beginning on the right—to my right—1, 2, 3—the third man 
at the table beginning at my right, and we will refer to him 
as defendant # 3 .

Mr. Robinson: Sgt. Beehan, state whether or not you 
took a list of names while you were up there, or do you have 
a list of names of these defendants ?

A. Yes, sir, I have a list.
Q. Will you read that list of names ?
A. Leslie G. McKinnie, the address—you want me to give 

the address ?
Q. Yes, sir, that you took down.
A. 920 28th Avenue, North. 22 years old, John Jack- 

son—
Mr. Looby: Just a minute. I would like for the record 

to show that he took a paper from his pocket and is reading 
from that paper.

The Court: That’s right.
[fol. 836] Mr. Robinson: You made that paper out?

A. Sir?
Q. You made that paper out, didn’t you?
A. I did, yes, sir.



131

Q. No one else, sir? If you did, go ahead and read it.
A. (Reads.) John Jackson, 104 29th Ave., North. 18. 

Allen Cason, 2003 Albion Street. Age 20. Frederick 
Leonard, 920 28th Ave., North, Age 20. John R. Lewis, P. O. 
320 Fisk University, age 20. Frederick Hargraves, 920 28th 
Ave. North, age 20. Harrison Dean, 920 28th Ave., North, 
age 19. Nathal Winter, 721 29th Ave., North, age 24. That’s 
all of the defendants.

Q. All right. Now, Mr. Beehan, with reference to #3, is 
he one of the defendants whose names you just read?

A. I don’t know his name.
Q. Is he one of the defendants you have just read?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right. Did you have occasion to come to the 

police station along with that patrol wagon?
A. Yes, sir. I came in my ear.
Q. Were you actually at the police station when this 

patrol wagon arrived?
[fol. 837] A. Sir?

Q. Were you actually at the police station when the 
patrol wagon arrived from the B & W, with these defen­
dants in it?

A. It came in another way to the police station.
Q. I see. But you go over there and unload them and 

come up on the elevator ?
A. I was present when they booked them.
Q. All right. Who—who was—who came into the book­

ing room?
A. These defendants.
Q. The same 8?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That you saw at B & W  ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right.

Cross examination.

By Mr. Looby:
Q. Sgt., I didn’t get your name. What’s your name ?
The Court: The witness’ name?
Reporter: Beehan.
The Court: Sgt. Beehan. B-e-e-h-a-n, I think.



132

[fol. 838] Mr. Looby:
Q. What are the initials ?
The Court: He wanted to know your initials.
A. T.E.
Mr. Looby: Now, Sgt., if these defendants went back 

there in the back (he points then to the back of the court­
room where several colored people are listening to the 
trial), could you pick them out?

A. Your Honor, get him to repeat the question.
The Court: He didn’t understand you.
A. You’ll have to repeat it. I didn’t understand.
Q. If these defendants were to get back here (points to 

rear of room) and mix up with all these colored folks back 
there, would you be able to pick these out?

A. Well, I would doubt it. I don’t know.
Q. You couldn’t pick them out?
A. I don’t know about that.
Q. And the only reason that you can identify them today 

is because they are sitting here at the table ?
A. All of the faces are familiar from what I saw.
Q. So they could get out in the hall, and mix up with 

these colored people, and you wouldn’t—you couldn’t pick 
them out, could you ?

A. I wouldn’t say.
[fol. 839] Q. Sir?

A. I wouldn’t say I could.
Q. And so the only means of identifying them is because 

they are sitting here at this table ?
A. I would say that I have seen them up at the B & W, 

not because they are sitting there.
Q. And are you sure you would know that bunch? And 

you say you saw them at the B & W.
The Court: He said he would say he saw them at the 

B&W .
Mr. Looby: And if they got out in the hall, and mixed 

up with the colored people, could you pick them out?
A. I could pick out the majority of them. I wouldn’t say 

I could pick out the 8.



133

Q. You never saw them before that day?
A. I don’t believe I have.
Q. And you haven’t seen them since that time ?
A. I saw them coming in the courtroom.
Q. But if you didn’t see them coming in the courtroom, 

and didn’t see them coming to this table, then you couldn’t 
pick them out f

A. Repeat, please.
Q. If you didn’t see them come in the courtroom and 

didn’t see them come to this table, you could not have 
[fol. 840] picked them out? Could you?

A. I don’t know if I ’d say that I couldn’t, no, sir. I 
wouldn’t say I couldn’t.

Q. You don’t say you could, and you don’t say you 
couldn’t?

A. No, sir.
Q. Now, you say they called you, and you went to the

B&Wf
A. Yes, sir.
Q. About how many white people would you say you 

found there in front?
A. Sir?
Q. About how many white people did you find there in 

front of the place?
A. Inside or outside?
Q. Outside?
A. 75 at least, outside.
Q. And, of course, you didn’t arrest any of them?
A. No, sir.
Q. Now, you didn’t tell any of them to leave, did you?
A. Any of the white people ?
Q. Yes?
A. No, sir.
Q. Why did you tell the colored people to leave?

[fol. 841] A. Because they was blocking the entrance , to 
the vestibule. The white people couldn’t get in.

Q. Did you see any white people that couldn’t get in ?
A. Well, I might answer it this way.
Q. I didn’t ask you that. Did you see any white people 

that tried to get in and couldn’t get in ?
A. They wasn’t pushing their way in, no.



134

Q. Sir?
A. They wasn’t pushing their way in, no.
Q. Nobody was pushing. No white people tried to get in? 
A. They weren’t pushing their way in, no, sir.
Q. Well, did you see any white people trying to get in 

and couldn’t get in?
A. I don’t know whether they was tryin’ to get in, or not. 
Q. You didn’t have a warrant when you arrested them? 

Those colored men?
A. No, sir, not at the time, no.
The Court: A little bit louder, Sgt.—a little bit—
A. No, sir, I didn’t have a warrant.

[fol. 842] Mr. Looby: When you got there, you say the 
manager spoke to you?

A. Eepeat it, please, sir.
Q. Did you say that the manager spoke to you after you 

got there?
A. I went to see the manager after I got there, yes, sir.
Q. And it was after you saw the manager and it was 

under the manager’s instruction that you arrested them?
A. I would say that he told me that if they did not leave, 

that he wanted them arrested.
Q. Yes, sir? And you followed his instructions?
A. Sir?
Q. And you followed his instructions ?
A. Not followed his instructions. I asked them if they 

wanted to leave.
Q. Well, that’s what the manager told you to do ?
A. He didn’t tell me—
Q. Well, he told you—
A. He wanted them arrested, he didn’t tell me—■
Q. He told you that if they didn’t leave, he wanted them 

arrested?
A. Yes, sir.

[fol. 843] Q. The manager said that?
A. I give ’em an opportunity to leave.
Q. And in doing so, you simply followed the instructions 

given you by the manager ?
A. I didn’t take instructions from him. He said he would 

prosecute if they didn’t leave.



135

Q. If the manager didn’t ask you, you would not have 
arrested them ?

A. No, sir.
Q. So that you were following instructions of the man­

ager ?
A. I don’t think so.
Q. You didn’t arrest any of the white people ?
A. No, sir.
Q. Do you know those colored men you saw there were 

seeking service at the cafeteria?
A. No, sir.
Q. You didn’t know that ?
A. No, sir.
Q. But, if you knew they were seeking service at the 

restaurant, would you have arrested them?
A. I would not have arrested them if I didn’t have a 

prosecutor.
Q. Sir?

[fol. 844] A. I would not have arrested them if I didn’t 
have a prosecutor.

Q. And you arrested them because you had a prosecutor? 
A. Yes.
Q. And the prosecutor was the manager?
A. Sir?
Q. And the prosecutor was the manager?
A. He told me he was, yes, sir.
Q. At the time that you arrested them, why was it, Sgt.f 
A. Because they was violating the law.
Q. What law?
A. I can’t read it offhand.
Q. Sir?
A. I can’t read it off.
Q. You can’t read it off?
A. No, sir. I don’t have it in my mind, no, sir.
Q. Did you have it in your mind that Sunday?
A. Sir?
Q. Did you have it in your mind that Sunday when you ar­

rested them?
A. When I arrested them?

[fol. 845] Q. Yes, sir?
A. I brought them to the station.



136

Q. I didn’t ask you what you did. I asked you—you say 
you don’t have the law in mind now. I asked you if you had 
the law in your mind when you arrested them on Sunday, 
October 21,1962?

A. I had in mind what I was going to charge them with 
when I arrested them.

Q. Eepeat that, please.
A. I said I had in mind, that if I was going to have to 

arrest them, what I would charge them with.
Q. Did you go in the restaurant?
A. Sir?
Q. Where did you talk to the manager of the restaurant?
A. When I arrived there.
Q. Where?
A. Sir?
The Court: Where? Where?
A. At the B & W Cafe.
Mr. Looby: On the outside, or the inside ?
A. Inside.
Q. So you had no trouble getting in ?
A. Well, I kinda pushed my way in. The door was 

blocked when I went in.
Q. Was it blocked when you went in and when you came 

[fol. 846] out?
A. Sir?
Q. Was it blocked when you went in and came out? 

There were people going in and coming out?
A. Not when I arrived there, no, sir.
Q. There were none going in or coming out?
A. Not when I arrived, no, sir.
Q. Did you ask them to let you in ?
A. Did I ask them? No, sir, I just walked in.
Q. You didn’t ask them if they would let you in. Just 

pushed on in ?
A. I didn’t push my way. I asked them to move out of 

the way while I was getting through.
Q. What did you ask them?
A. After I kind of brushed them aside—I didn’t push 

them, I just—



Q. Well, now, Sgt. do yon understand what I am asking?
A. I hope I do.
Q. Did you ask them to let you in?
A. No, sir.
Q. You went on and pushed yourself right in?
A. No, sir, I didn’t push myself. I just excused myself, 

[fol. 847] Q. What do you mean when you excused your­
self and didn’t ask them to let you in ?

A. Sir?
Q. What do you mean when you say you excused yourself 

and didn’t ask them to let you in?
A. Well, if you was in my way of an entrance, I would 

kind of say “ excuse me.” :
Q. And that is what you said to them, was it ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And they let you be excused?
Q. Yes.
Q. Even I don’t know why you tell us you had to push 

your way in. And you say you asked them to excuse you.
A. Repeat that. I can’t understand.
Q„ Well, anyhow, did they excuse you?
A. (Hesitates.)
Q. Did they excuse you? And you did get inside and you 

went and talked to the manager and he asked you to arrest 
them if they didn’t leave?

A. Yes.
Q. And you asked them to leave, and they didn’t, and you 

arrested them?
A. Yes.

[fol. 848] Q. So you only made an arrest on the instruc­
tions of the manager ?

A. No, sir. I—they violated the law. I have to have a 
prosecutor before I could arrest them.

Q. What law did they violate, sir ?
A. Well, I couldn’t call the law.
Q. Well, if you say that they violated the law, can’t you 

tell them what law they violated?
A. No, sir.
Q. How long have you been on the police force?
A. I have been here 22 years. If I knew all the laws—
Q. 22years?



138

A. Yes.
Q. And yon have been promoted to the rank of Sgt., and 

yon say you don’t know about the law, and yon said here 
today you didn’t know what law they violated. That’s all, 
sir.

Mr. Eobinson: May it please your Honor, I want to ob­
ject to that.

The Court: Well-—
Mr. Eobinson: He is not charged with knowing what the 

law is at all.
The Court: That’s all.

[fol. 849] Mr. Eobinson: He couldn’t tell what they did. 
Mr. Looby: He should know what they are arrested for. 
The Court: That’s all. He can come down.

Ow e n  S m it h , b e in g  first d u ly  sw orn , and  so ca lled  as a 
w itness on b eh a lf o f  the state, testified  as f o l lo w s :

Direct examination.

By Mr. Butler:
Q. Please state your name.
A. Owen Smith.
Q. What are your duties?
A. Booking clerk.
Q. For what?
A. City Police Department.
Q. For how long?
A. 9 or 10 years.
Q. Mr. Smith, I show you here 8 warrants—
The Court: (Points to Mr. Looby.)
Mr. Looby: I would like to see those, please. Those 

secret documents ought to be inspected by us.
(Mr. Butler shows them to Mr. Looby.)
Mr. Looby: If your Honor please, these have been in- 

:[fol. 850] geniously put together, for reasons that will be 
obvious to the Court and part of the bonds made in the City 
Court, another part is the warrant issued by the City 
Court, and another is the combination of arrests, and I am



139

objecting to that being introduced—at least a part of it.
The Court: What is your objection!
Mr. Looby: If your Honor please, this is introducing 

something in the record that is not proper. After your 
Honor reads them, you will see why.

You will have to look at them to appreciate my objection.
(Officers hand them to the Court)
Mr. Looby: That third one is the one I am objecting to.
The Court: Sir!
Mr. Looby: That third one—third piece of paper on it. 

The—I think, the last one.
(The Court examined the records handed to him.)
The Court.: Well, there are 5.
Mr. Looby: Let me see that, please, sir. I can show you 

what I -want. (He examines them again.)
These two last ones.
The Court: (Takes the papers then returns the papers.) 

One is a copy of the other.
Mr. Niehol: A copy of the other. A duplicate record, 

[fol. 851] One for the record and one for the original file.
The Court: Well, I was going to say,—oh, yeah, they are 

the same thing. Now,—what objection do you find to that 
being offered!

Mr. Looby: There should be one in each of them.
The Court: What objection do you find for that being 

offered in the record! This is a copy of it.
Mr. Looby: (Looks at papers.)
If the Court please, there some funny numbers and some 

funny marks here, and I don’t know what they mean. I 
would like to have them explained in the absence of the 
jury, so that—the jury could be excused for a minute or 
two.

The Court: Let the jury be excused.
(The jury retires at 9 :52 a.m.)
Mr. Looby: What I want to know, in the absence of the 

jury, is that there are some funny marks on them that I 
would like to have explained. If they refer to any previous 
arrests, they are not to be allowed, and if they refer to 
these arrests, they are permissible.



140

The Court: Ask the witness if there is anything on there 
that refers to any former arrests ? I can’t—-

Mr. Looby: What are these marks! These pencil marks, 
etc.

A. Let’s see what you are talking about.
The Court: Not on this one. Give him one that is.

[fol. 852] A. These marks and numbers'?
Mr. Looby: Yes.
A. That’s the processing in the record room of a card 

that’s made on this red sheet.
Q. Then it has nothing to do with any previous arrests ?
A. No, sir.
The Court: You are not going to say anything about 

previous arrests? You can’t do that.
A. No, sir, I said none of these marks indicate that.
The Court: Don’t mention that. I am sure you gentle­

men are not going to ask that.
Mr. Butler: I think there is no intention of that.
The Court: All right. I think we can bring the jury 

back. Let’s see, gentlemen, if we have them straight. Have 
we separated any of them? I had better let you straighten 
them out, Gen.

Mr. Butler: That is one reason we took this time this 
morning to get all this together so we wouldn’t delay the 
Court, but I don’t know whether they are back together 
now, or not.

The Court: I don’t think we mixed up more than the first 
one, maybe.
[fol. 853] Mr. Butler: All right, sir.

The Court: Bring the jury back down.
(The jury returns to the courtroom at 9:54 o’clock a.m.)
The Court: All right, Gen. Butler.
Mr. Butler: Mr. Smith, as general clerk, or booking 

sergeant, what are specifically your duties in that capacity?
A. Typing up those arrest sheets that you have there.
Q. All right, now, sir, will you try for the benefit of the 

Court and the jury, to explain what the mechanics are when 
a person is arrested and brought to the police station?



141

A. Well, when they come in off the elevator they are 
brought one at a time to the booking counter. And those 
questions that are outlined there on that red sheet are filled 
in.

Mr. Butler: Let’s take them one at a time. I showed you 
8 a while ago. Are you familiar with these 8 records that I 
showed you?

The Court: Now, General, are you going to make those 
exhibits ?

Mr. Butler: Yes, sir.
The Court: If so, let’s get them in the record. Well, do 

you want to make them as collective exhibits? Have you 
got them together ?
[fob 854] Gen. Butler: I would like to make them a col­
lective exhibit.

The Court: Then let’s mark them as we go along—ex­
hibits I through—as we go along, make each one separate.

Gen. Butler: Very well, your Honor.
The Court: So we can keep the record straight on them.
Gen. Butler: All right. Now, Mr. Smith, first let me ask 

you what that particular document is ?
A. An arrest record.
Q. Speak up so everybody can hear you.
A. Arrest record.
Q. Of who ?
A. Of Lester G. McKinnie.
Q. Would you tell the Court and the Jury what informa­

tion is contained on that document on a person by the name 
of Lester G. McKinnie?

A. Well, his race, age, address, occupation, physical de­
scription, his nearest of kin, place of arrest, and the viola­
tion of the law.

Q. All right, sir, and what information is on that record 
that indicates that you had anything at all to do with it ?

A. My initials.
Q. And what is that ?

[fol. 855] A. 0. S.
Q. And what does that say by your initials ?
A. Booked by.
Q. All right. Now, let me see if I understand you. It



142

shows here the date Sunday, October 21, 1962. That is the 
date of the arrest, or the date yon booked them, or what?

A. The day they were brought in and I booked them.
Q. All right, sir.
Q. (continued) What time?
A. 1 o’clock P.M.
Q. And what does arrest #1150 mean?
A. That is City Court Docket.
Q. All right, sir. Now, you say the name McKinnie, 

Lester G., sex, male, colored, date of birth, 1/11/40? Prom 
whom did you get that information to put on this docket?

A. From that boy right there.
Q. From Lester G. McKinnie? From the person who 

identified himself as Lester G. McK innie?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right, sir. And the resident’s address of 920 28th 

Avenue, North. Is that his address?
[fol. 856] A. Yes, sir.

Q. That he gave you, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. O.K. And occupation is what?
A. Student.
Q. Where?
A. A & I University.
Q. All right, sir, and what is his height, according to 

him? And his weight according to him?
A. 5 ft. lO1#  in., 165 pounds.
Q. All right. And eyes brown?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And complexion?
A. Medium.
Q. Scars?
A. None.
Q. And the nearest relative and address?
A. Mamie McKinnie,—mother.
Q. And from whom did you get that information?
A. The same.
Q. And the place of arrest is where?
A. 226 6th Avenue, North.
Q. Do you know what the 226 6th Avenue north, is of 

your own knowledge ?



143

A. Of my own knowledge? No, sir.
[fol. 857] Q. From whom did you get that information?

A. Same feller that give me that.
Q. All right. And city violation, City Code, chapter 

what?
A. 2659.
Q. All right, now, section what?
A. 59.
Q. All right, sir. And who does it list as the prosecutor?
A. W. W. Carrier.
Q. And what’s his address?
A. 203 Cantrell Avenue.
Q. All right, sir, now, did this person, Lester Gr. Me- 

Kinnie, have any personal belongings on him at the time 
you booked him in ?

A. $6, umbrella, and a billfold.
Q. Who was the property received by?
A. B. C. is his initials. I don’t recall who it was.
Q. All right, sir. Now, there is a time—a court time. 

What does it show?
A. 10 A.M. on the 22nd. October 22nd.
Q. Would that have—that would have been the next day 

—Monday ?
A. Yes.

[fol. 858] Q. All right, sir. And you say you made this 
record?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right, sir.
The Court: I show you another record, Mr. Smith, and 

ask you what that record is, please sir.
The Court: We will make the McKinnie records all col­

lective exhibit # 1 ,  since there are a large number of ex­
hibits.

Offeks in  E vidence

(Papers referring to the record of Lester Gr. McKinnie, 
are marked col. ex. # 1 ,  Direct Exam., Owen Smith, and 
filed in evidence.)

Mr. Butler: Now, what is the difference between that 
record and this record that I have here, Mr. Smith?



144

A. This is from the record room file which has the proc­
essing machinery over there. I believe that is what it is.

The Court: You are not speaking loud enough for the 
jury to hear you now.

A. It is a duplicate of this, with the exception of the num­
bers where the information on him is processed on cards in 
the record room.

Q. All right. And what about the signature ?
A. His signature is made on property in getting out.

[fol. 859] Q. There is a signature, Lester G. McKinnie on 
there. Who put that on there?

A. Well, he would have to write that on.
Q. And why would he have to do that, Mr. Smith ?
A. To sign for personal property.
Q, In other words, they are duplicates with the excep­

tions of these numbers that are put for the processing!
Mr. Looby: If your Honor please. Just a minute. I think 

that Mr. Butler would be a better witness than the witness 
on the stand. I object to him testifying.

The Court: He—
Mr. Looby: As I understand him, he said who put the 

name on that—Lester G. McKinnie, he doesn’t ask if he 
saw the man put it on.

The Court: Well, he doesn’t say—he is just saying that 
that is the custom over there.

Mr. Looby: The custom?
The Court: That’s right.
Mr. Looby: Well, I would like for him to say that.
The Court: That is what you are saying, is it not, Mr. 

Smith, that it is customary that when the defendant gets his 
property back, for him to sign that record for it?
[fol. 860] A. That’s right, when he’s really going back 
to—

The Court: But you did not see the man sign the record?
A. No, sir, not that one. I did not see him sign his name 

for his property out.
Mr. Looby: That’s what I wanted to bring out.



145

The Court: That’s right.
Mr. Butler: Now, who was present, according to this rec­

ord, and returned Lester G. McKinnie’s property to him?
A. Well, the booking sergeant at the time, I don’t know 

how this—of course, this doesn’t show on the release, the 
bond, however he got out, see. It wouldn’t be on here. I 
don’t know who that was.

Gen. Butler: Now, according to this record, and accord­
ing to the procedures that your department uses, since 
property is taken from a prisoner when he is booked in, 
that property is returned when they sign for it? Is that 
correct?

A. That’s right.
Q. In other words, this acts as a receipt to the police de­

partment from persons arrested where their property is 
then returned to them? Is that correct? Mr. Smith?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, I show you here another document and ask you 

what that, document is ?
[fol. 861] A. That’s a city court warrant.

Q. And what is that warrant for, and what defendant’s 
name is on it?

A. It is made out to Lester G. McKinnie.
Q. And read the warrant, if you will, please, sir, to the 

Court and to the jury.
A. I hereby recommend you to arrest Lester G. McKin- 

nie—
Q. Recommend, or—
A. Commend. I am sorry. And bring him before me to 

answer at the City of Nashville on a charge of unlawful 
conspiracy to violate (1) Sec. 39-1101-(7), and Code Sec. 
62-711, for unlawfully conspiring to commit acts injurious 
to public trade or commerce, and obstructing the order of 
business at the B & W Cafeteria, 226 6th Avenue, North, 
by congregating in great number, and blocking service of 
food in said restaurant, preventing the orderly operation of 
business, said offense being committed on 10/21/62.

Q. All right. Read the balance of it, please, sir.
A. Given under my hand at .................. office, this 21st

day of October, 1962.



146

Andrew J. Doyle, City Judge.
Q. All right, sir. Now, is that a city warrant!
A. Yes, sir.

[fol. 862] Q. All right, sir. Is—let me ask you this: What 
authority did you have, Mr. Smith, after these people 
were booked for placing these people in jail?

A. You see our procedure is this: When they are booked, 
we make out a warrant, booking them, and they either make 
a cash or signed bond while they are booked.

Q. All right. Was this defendant, Lester G. McKinnie 
booked and put in jail, or did he make a cash bond at that 
time?

A. No, sir, he was locked up.
Q. All right, sir. Now, was he locked up on the authority 

of this warrant that you have just read to the jury, or by 
some other authority!

A. This warrant.
Q. By the authority of this warrant? Now, I notice on 

the back of this warrant—the same warrant that you have 
read to the jury that it is a warrant, City of Nashville vs. 
Lester G. McKinnie? Is that correct? Please sir?

A. Yes, that’s correct.
Q. And what is that stamped across the warrant?
A. Hold for Criminal Court.
Q. And when was that put on there ?
A. In City Court.
Q. When?

[fol. 863] A. The next day—the 22nd. This right here 
was put on there. In other words, this warrant right here— 
in the court office downstairs—city court.

Q. Yes, sir.
A. This was put on here to keep these warrants separate 

from the others processed the same day.
Q. Now, what day does it show there?
A. 22nd of October, 1962.
Q. All right, sir. Now, what does that mean: Hold for 

Criminal Court, Mr. Smith?
A. Hold it. Hold this warrant for to the end of—
Mr. Looby: I don’t see how you can interpret it.
Mr. Butler: That’s his job.



147

Mr. Looby: I think that a lot of times—
The Court: I don’t know whether he knows about that, 

but if he is familiar with the custom, he might testify about 
the custom. I am sure he doesn’t know about this indi­
vidual, but if he knows generally, if he thinks he knows 
generally what that means down there, generally, he can 
state that.

Mr. Looby: Now, if your Honor please, you remember 
we had a motion as to whether or not these cases really 
were for criminal court!

A. (By the Court): That’s right.
Mr. Looby: If your Honor couldn’t interpret it, I don’t 

[fol. 864] see how he is going to interpret it.
The Court: He does—I don’t know that he can interpret 

it, but he may relate the procedure that they use in City 
Court.

Mr. Looby: He wasn’t asked that.
The Court: Well, that is what he can relate.
Mr. Looby: That’s what they term monstrosity.
The Court: That is what I am saying.
Mr. Butler: All right. What is this 4th white document 

there, Mr. Smith, that I showed you?
A. It’s a bond to the city court.
Q. And when was that bond executed?
A. I will have to look at it, at the time.
Q. All right, if it shows on there. I don’t know that it 

shows on there. If it does, tell us.
A. No, sir, it doesn’t. But this was made before the man 

could be released from the city jail.
Q. All right.
A. Under the reelase, that is.
Q. All right. And what is this yellow document attached 

to it?
A. This is a state release, required by the City Court on 

a state charge that has to be made over here and brought 
over there to go with the city court file.

Q. All right. Now you say made over here? What do you 
mean by that, Mr. Smith ?
[fol. 865] A. Bond has to be made from the criminal court 
clerk’s office.



148

Q. And what is that piece of yellow paper there? What 
is it for?

A. In other words, this is a release to ns. This yellow 
slip comes from the criminal court’s clerk’s office to ns. 
This right here.

Q. All right. In other words, that is a release from crim­
inal court clerk to your department over there that who­
ever had made this release has made bond to the criminal 
court, and that is your authority, then, to release a prisoner 
who has been held in the city jail? Is that correct?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right. Now, will you make this document collective 

exhibit No. 1 to your testimony?
A. Yes, sir.
(This collective exhibit has already been marked at the 

direction of the Court, as #1 .)
The Court: Let the record show how many pieces there 

are there.
The Attorney Gen.: 5 pieces, your Honor.
The Court: There are 5 documents that constitute Ex­

hibit # 1 ,  to Mr. Morgan—
Mr. Looby: Is your Honor going to do the same with the 

rest of these?
[fol. 866] (It is noted in the record that Ex. # 1  has 5 
parts.

Gen. Butler: No, sir. I was just going to try to—-
Mr. Looby: I thought it would shorten this.
Mr. Butler: I am going to try my best to do so on the 

balance of them.
Q. Now, I show you here, Mr. Smith, a similar series of 

documents, with the name on this one of Allen Cason, Jr., 
and ask you whether or not it is correct?

A. That’s correct.
Q. I will ask you to make that collective exhibit # 2  to 

your testimony?
A. Yes, sir.
(Documents of Allen Cason, Jr. are marked as collective 

ex. #2 , to testimony of witness, Owen Smith, Direct Exam­
ination, and filed in evidence.)



149

Q. I will show you here a series of 5 documents bearing 
the name of Fred Hargraves and ask you whether you find 
these similar to the other documents?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you make that group collective exhibit # 3  to 

your testimony? Please, sir?
A. Yes, sir.
(5 documents of Frederick Hargraves are marked as col­

lective exhibits #3 , to testimony of Owen Smith, Direct 
Examination, and filed in evidence.)

Q. I show you here one similar series of documents with 
[fol. 867] the name, Nathal Winter, and ask you if you find 
these are similar to the other documents ?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you file this series as collective ex. # 4  to your 

testimony?
A. Yes, sir.
(Series of documents of Nathal Winter are marked as col­

lective exhibit #4 , to testimony of Owen Smith, Direct Ex­
amination, and filed in evidence.)

Q. I show you here a series of documents which bear the 
name of Harrison Dean and ask you if that is similar to the 
other documents that you have examined?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you make that collective exhibit # 5  to your testi­

mony?
A. Yes, sir.
(Series of documents of Harrison Dean are marked as 

collective exhibit #5 , to testimony of Owen Smith, Direct 
Examination, and filed in evidence.)

Q. I show you here a series of documents of John Jack- 
son, Jr., and ask you if that is similar to these other docu­
ments you have identified ?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you make that collective exhibit # 6  to your testi­

mony?
A. Yes, sir.



150

(Series of documents of John Jackson, Jr., are marked 
as collective exhibit # 6 ,  to testimony of Owen Smith, Direct 
Examination, and filed in evidence.)
[fol. 868] Q. I show here to you a series of documents 
marked to Frederick Leonard, and ask you to examine that, 
Mr. Smith, and see whether or not that is similar to the 
others, and if so, will you make that collective exhibit # 1  
to your testimony?

A. That’s correct.
(Series of documents of Frederick Leonard, marked as 

collective exhibit #7 , to testimony of Owen Smith, Direct
Examination, and filed in evidence.
Q. I show you one here John Robert Lewis, Jr., and ask 

you to examine that and see if it is similar to the others, 
and if so, will you mark that as collective exhibit # 8  to 
your testimony?

A. Yes, sir.
(Series of documents of John Robert Lewis, Jr., marked 

as collective exhibit #8 , to testimony of Owen Smith, Di­
rect Examination, and filed in evidence.)

(Reporter’s note: All exhibits are kept in the criminal 
court clerk’s office, and not with court reporter.)

Q. Now, Mr. Smith, you were on duty there that particu­
lar day, I believe, from those records, and I believe the 
time that you read to the jury on the first one was what 
time?

A. 1 o’clock, I believe.
Q. All right, sir. Now, do you recall this particular 

group of individuals that was brought in there on that par­
ticular Sunday afternoon?
[fol. 869] A. Yes, I remember them coming in.

Q. Who was with them, if you remember ?
A. Sgt. Beehan.
Q. All right. And of course you booked all of them?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How many were there in actual number, Mr. Smith?



151

A. 8.
Q. Do you recognize any of them now?
A. Uh—
Q. As the ones who were brought in by Sgt. Beehan, and 

the others with him!
A. I looked and I only recognize the one sitting next to 

the lawyer there. That one (points).
Q. With his hand in his mouth!
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The one we referred to as—he would be, according to 

the Judge’s count, number 4—defendant No. 4. (He counts 
down the line.) This would be number 4 here ?

A. Yes.
Q. He is the only one you recognize?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were they brought in as a group of 8 by Sgt. 

Beehan’s uniformed men?
[fob 870] A. Brought in by the wagon to the booking 
room.

Q. Oh, were they brought in in a group of 8?
A. Yes, sir, all together.
Q. They were all there together?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What happened to them after you booked them, Mr. 

Smith ?
A. Well, they were booked one at a time, and they were 

carried back and locked up if they didn’t make their bonds.
Q. The books would show if they made bond immediately, 

or not? The records?
A. Yes, sir.
Q- They were all 8 of them there, and you personally 

booked all 8 of them?
A. I think so, yes, sir.
Q. The records would show?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were there any other persons in the patrol wagon 

at that time? If you recall?
A. No, sir.
Q. Brought in from any other source?
A. I don’t recall.



152

[fol. 871] Q. Do you remember who the unit driver or 
patrol driver was, Mr. Smith? Would your records show 
that?

A. No, sir.
Q. All right, sir. Now, what time did you happen to go 

off duty on that particular day?
A. 7 o’clock.
Q. At night?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I f your Honor please, we want to pass these exhibits 

to the jury, at this time, before our next witness.
The Court: They probably ought to be stapled, unless 

we pull out part of them.
Gen. Butler: I have paper clips, but I don’t have a 

stapling machine, if I may borrow one from your secretary 
out there, I will staple them together right now, so they 
won’t get separated from one another.

Mr. Looby: Is it recess time now?
The Court: Beg your pardon?
Mr. Looby: I think Mrs. Cummins is kind of tired.
The Court: Well, you are hurrying me on the recess.
Mr. Looby: I am just looking out for my reporter.
The Court: I don’t blame you for that. Are you through 

with your direct examination? (to Gen. Butler.)
[fol. 872] Gen. Butler: Yes, sir, we will be through with 
this witness as soon as the jury looks at the exhibits.

Mr. Looby: I haven’t worked with him yet.
The Court: Sir?
Mr. Looby: I haven’t worked with him yet.
The Court: I know it. She will have an opportunity to 

rest just a little while they are looking at the exhibits. We 
are close to recess time.

(The jury looks at the series of exhibits.)
The Court: Well, I don’t want you to do all the looking 

out for this reporter. I want to do part of it myself.
(A short recess is had at 10:20) (10:42 the trial is re­

sumed.)



153

The Court: Gentlemen, we are working to a 12:00 o’clock 
luncheon today. And if we don’t conclude today, we will 
have to work tomorrow, Gentlemen.

All right, gentlemen, you may cross examine the witness.

Cross Examination.

By Mr. Looby:
Q. You are Sgt. Owen Smith?
A. No, sir, Sgt. is my father, I am Owen.
Q. Sgt. is your father?
A. Yes, sir.

[fol. 873] Q. Now, you identified these warrants as part 
of collective exhibit #1? You identified it?

A. I reckon it is #1 . I identified the warrants.
Q. Did you have the warrants at the time you booked the 

defendants or the 8 colored boys?
A. Did what?
Q. Did you have the warrants when you booked them?
A. The warrants were already made out. All I had to do 

was to fill in the address.
A. Did you have them filled out at the time of their 

arrest?
A. See this. The address and the date. That was the 

only thing that wasn’t filled out on it. Just this line. The 
front of it.

Q. I am talking about what part of it was filled out?
A. All of it except this right here. And that—this line 

right here. And the front and the court date on it.
Q. You mean the stating of the offense was not on it?
A. The offense was already on there.
Q. On the 21st, when you booked them?

[fol. 874] A. Already on the warrant?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. The offense was already on the warrant.
Q. Was it already on there when you booked them on 

the 21st?
A. Well, I booked them before I made the warrant out.
Q. You booked them before you made the warrant out?
A. That’s correct.



154

Q. So that at the time they were booked, the warrant had 
not been made out ?

A. The warrant wasn’t filled out, no, sir.
Q. And when was it signed by the Judge?
A. I don’t know. Probably that afternoon, I don’t recall 

whether it was that afternoon, or when it was.
Q. As a matter of fact, Judge Doyle doesn’t come to the 

police station on Sunday, does he ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was he there on the 21st?
A. I don’t know about that, now, I don’t know what time 

the Judge come in and signed the warrants, but he comes 
in there on Sunday and signs them.

Q. Isn’t it true that those warrants were not signed when 
[fol. 875] they were booked?

A. That’s right.
Q. They were not signed at the time they were booked?
A. That’s right.
Q. These warrants were not signed?
A. That’s right.
Q. So, you didn’t book them on this warrant, then? Did 

you?
A. Sir?
Q. You didn’t book them on this warrant?
A. I booked them, and then filled that warrant out.
Q. I want you to be sure, now. This is of major impor­

tance. At the time they were brought in, they were brought 
in on disorderly conduct, weren’t they?

A. No, sir, they was brought in and charged with that 
law, right there.

Q. Isn’t it a matter of fact that they wTere brought in and 
charged with disorderly conduct and that the following day 
—Monday—this warrant was made out and then the charge 
of disorderly conduct was dismissed?

A. Is that what’s on that? All I know is what is on that 
red slip right there, the charge.

Q. Were they charged with disorderly conduct?
[fol. 876] A. Is that on the red slip you have there?

Q. No, sir.
A. Well, that is what they were charged with, when they 

came to the booking room.
Q. Are you sure about that?
A. I am positive that I made that red slip out.



155

Q. And the clerk’s office showed that disorderly conduct 
was dismissed on the following day, Monday, and then the 
warrant was made out charging this the following day, 
wasn’t it?

A. It would if they were charged with disorderly con­
duct.

Q. And you say they were not charged with disorderly 
conduct?

A. Not on that red slip, no.
Q. I am not talking about the red slip. I am talking about 

what you see here, of your own knowledge.
A. I testified to what I charged them with on that red 

slip for what I booked them for.
Q. You have no independent memory of what occurred, 

do you ?
A. I don’t have a memory of them being charged with 

disorderly conduct if it is not on that record right there.
[fol. 877] Q. And you only have a memory of what you 
see on this record?

A. That’s right. That’s what I recall right there.
Q. And you don’t have any memory of booking them for 

disorderly conduct?
That is all you recall ?
A. Yes.
Q. And you don’t have a good memory?
A. Yeah, I ’ve got a good memory.
Q. I am talking about this particular incident?
A. Sure.
Q. And you booked them on this ?
A. Sure.
Q. And your records show that they were booked on this 

—so if Mr. DePerri’s record down there shows that they 
were charged with disorderly conduct, and that was dis­
missed before this warrant was made up, that would be a 
conflict, wouldn’t it?

A. It would be a conflict somewhere, yes.
Q. It would be? Well, now, that is what I am trying to 

get you from making any conflict.
A. Well, I don’t have the other record that they were dis­

missed, see.
Q. You are testifying to what you did on the 21st?
A. That’s right, on that right there.



156

[fol. 878] Q. Are you testifying on that Sunday—
A. On what?
Q. Are you testifying that on Sunday afternoon when 

8 college boys were brought in, on this charge ?
A. That’s right.
Q. And they were not brought in on a charge of dis­

orderly conduct?
A. No.
Q. If it please your Honor, we would like to have a sub­

poena for the clerk of the city court, to bring his record as 
of October 21,1962.

Clerk: The booking clerk?
Mr. Looby: No, not the booking clerk. We’ve got the 

booking clerk here now. Mr. William Gr. DePerri, clerk of 
the city court.

Clerk: William G.?
A. Yes.
Clerk: DePerri?
A. Yes. Let me give it to you. You can read better than 

you can understand me.
(He gives the sheet to the clerk.)
Mr. Looby: Now, when the paddy wagon drives up to 

the office, you don’t see who is in there?
A. Not unless I am looking out the window at something 

and happen to see it.
Q. Well, you weren’t looking out the window on October 

[fol. 879] 21st?
A. No.
Q. Do you know how many came in the paddy wagon?
A. Yeah. I know all of them that come through that door.
Q. I am talking about when the paddy wagon drove up 

that Sunday afternoon, you didn’t know how many were in 
there ?

A. No, sir.
Q. So since you don’t know, you don’t know how many 

more or less. Do you know how many you booked that Sun­
day afternoon? How many colored persons you booked 
that Sun.

A. 8.



157

Q. Yon didn’t book anybody else that Sunday afternoon?
A. I don’t know whether there was anybody in there 

when they drove up there.
Q. Well, please listen to me before you answer. I know 

you want to tell the truth about it. You don’t know how 
many colored persons you booked that Sunday afternoon 
on October 21, do you?

A. No.
Q. And you are certain that the charge on which they 

were booked—other than seeing the warrants'—
[fol. 880] A. Other than what?

Q. Other than the warrants you see here? You don’t 
know what charge they were booked on when they were 
brought in.

A. Nothing but looking at that record.
Q. I am talking about other than this warrant. Forget 

all about this warrant. You couldn’t tell this jury now what 
charge these fellows—the boys whom you booked on Octo­
ber 21,—what charges they were booked on, could you?

A. Other than going by the record.
Q. And you don’t have the record now, so you don’t 

know?
A. I have just had it.
Q. You just had these 8 warrants ?
A. That’s right.
Q. You can’t testify to anything? You can’t tell any­

thing except what you see here ?
A. I don’t understand what you mean ?
Q. If Gen. Butler, and he, I believe is a Gen. in the US 

Army also. If Gen. Butler—
A. I can’t understand you. Come over here.
Q. I ’ll stand here and let you understand me.
Q. All right.

[fol. 881] Q. If Gen. Butler hadn’t walked up here with 
these tell-tale warrants, in Ms hand, and showed them to 
you, you would not have known what you had booked them 
for, would you?

A. No, sir. I remember them coming in. But other than 
that,—•

Q. You remember—you don’t remember how many per­
sons were brought in the booking room October 21, 1962?



158

Q. As a matter of fact you don’t recall anything except 
what you are reminded here, do you?

A. Yes, I remember more than that, but so far as testify­
ing to the charges, and all, I would have to look at that and 
see that I booked them, and then I could tell you.

Q. But you don’t know how many persons you booked 
that Sunday?

A. I don’t have any idea.
Q. More than 20, you think?
Q. I don’t know that.
Q. More or less?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Well, assuming you booked more than 20, you couldn’t 

identify them, could you?
A. Possibly seeing them. Especially if they are regular 

drunks I would readily recall them.
Q. Really, between us, now, Sgt., if these 8 got out in the 

hall and mixed with these other colored people, you couldn’t 
pick them out, could you ?
[fol. 882] A. Yes, I could pick that one out.

Q. Is that the only one that you can pick out?
A. Yes, that’s the only one I can pick out.
Mr. Butler: If your Honor please, I would like for the 

record to show that the witness is referring to #4 , who 
has now changed to # 8 .

Mr. Looby: But you can identify only one out of 8 ?
A. I didn’t understand what you said.
Q. You can only identify one out of eight?
A. One of these, yes.
Q. And so far as you can tell the Court these others could 

have been in Honolulu on Oct. 21st, couldn’t they?
A. So far as me recognizing them.
Q. Yes, sir? Now, isn’t it true, as a matter of fact, Sgt. 

that the Judge of the city court is never there on Saturdays 
and Sundays but that he signs the warrants in blanks and 
just leaves them there ?

A. Not in his office. He comes in over the week ends and 
signs warrants, but he has no particular time.

Q. He signs the blank warrants and leaves them there ?



159

[fol. 883] A. He signs the warrants already filled out.
Q. But at the time they were there, you had no blank 

warrants signed at that time by the Judge?
A. No.
Q. And on what authority did you book them ?
A. Beg pardon.
Q. Upon what authority did you book them—did you 

book them, book these defendants?
A. Arresting officers’ arrest slip.
Q. Arresting officer? And they were arrested by Sgt.—
A. Beehan.
Q. Beehan? So that you booked them on the statement 

of Sgt. Beehan?
A. I booked them on what he said charge them with.
Q. And didn’t he tell you to book them on a disorderly 

charge ?
A. I don’t know about that. You see, they fill out an ar­

rest slip. When he comes in or sends them in, he either 
stands there and tells you what to charge them with, or 
sends them in.

Q. Well, now he told you to book them when he came in 
[fol. 884] on October 21, 1962? He didn’t type anything 
for you?

A. No.
Q. So these typewritten statements we made long after 

they had been booked?
A. That last sheet you have there was made right then 

when they came in.
Q. That last sheet here?
A. The arrest slip.
Q. Will you show me the arrest slip?
A. Right there. That last one.
Q. That was made after you booked them ?
A. That was the booking.
Q. Did you type this ?
A. That was the booking—right there.
Q. Did you type this ?
A. Let me see. I did.
Q. You typed it?
A. Yes.



160

Q. That was after Sgt. arrested them and brought them 
in and told you what to book them on and you made that?

A. That right there.
Q. And you booked them for violating the state law re­

garding set-ins ?
[fol. 885] A. Yes, sir. Violation of Chapter 26, See. 59 of 
the Code, state law regarding sit-ins.

Q. Did you think there was a state law regarding sit-ins 
at that time ?

Q. I don’t know the law that well.
Q. Well, but you booked them, for what you thought was 

the law ?
A. I booked them for what I was told to book them for.
Q. You were told to book them? You were told that by 

Sgt. Beehan?
A. Yes.
Q. For City Code, Chapter 26, Sec. 59, state law regard­

ing sit-ins? That is what he told you to book them for?
A. That’s right.
Q. And of course you relied on what the Sgt. told you?
A. That’s right.
Q. And that was that they violated the City Code, Chap­

ter 59, Sec. 36, regarding sit-ins?
A. 26-59, Sir.
Q. Yes, 26-59, regarding the sit-ins? Of course you be­

lieve and rely on what Sgt. Beehan told you? That there 
was a state law regarding sit-ins ?

A. I don’t know about that. I just charged him with 
[fol. 886] what he said charge him with.

Q. You just took what he told you?
A. In other words, I don’t know anything about the in­

cident at all. It’s just what he said charge them with is 
what I did.

Q. And that’s—now this warrant was typewritten long 
after you booked them?

A. When we finished booking them, the warrants were 
made out.

Q. By whom?
A. I don’t recall whether I made them, or the other clerk, 

or who made them.



161

Q. Well, I notice there is an erasure on here. Do you re­
member whether you typed anything and then erased it 
after you typed it?

A. Where is it erased?
Q. I am asking you if you remember typing anything 

and erasing it after you typed it?
A. No.
Q. You do not?
Mr. Maddin: He said he didn’t remember.
A. I don’t know whether I typed that one, or not, either.
Mr. Looby: I think he can answer for himself.
Mr. Maddin: If your Honor please, Counsel is trying to 

misinterpret for the benefit of the jury.
[fol. 887] Mr. Looby: If your Honor please, I think the 
Court will take care of it, without the assistance of the 
lawyers.

The Court: 0. K. All right. Yes, let him finish.
Mr. Looby: I believe that is all I want to ask him.
The Court: Now, that is all, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Butler: That’s all your Honor, for this witness.

M ickey  L ee M artin , called as a witness on behalf of the 
state, testified as follows:

Direct examination.

By Mr. Maddin:
Q. Mr. Martin, will you state your full name, please?
A. Mickey Lee Martin.
Q. What is your mother’s name ?
A. Lottie Martin.
Q. To your knowledge, was she here on yesterday?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. On October 21, 1962, did you have occasion to go to 

[fol. 888] a restaurant in this city for lunch?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What restaurant?
A. B & W Cafeteria.



162

Q. At approximately what hour did you arrive ?
A. Oh, 12:15, something like that.
The Court: A little louder, please.
A. 12:15.
Q. Did you go with somebody else?
A. Yes, sir, I went with my mother and father and my 

wife and two children.
Q. When you got there was anything unusual that you 

observed?
A. There was a crowd of white people outside and a 

group of colored people in the entrance foyer of the B & W.
Q. Would that be between the two sets of doors?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What, if anything, did you do when you got there?
A. I just walked on in.
Q. Did you have any conversation with any persons 

there ?
A. I just asked them to let me through.

[fol. 889] Q. I see. And having asked them to let you 
through, what happened ?

A. They let me through, and then when my mother and 
my children and my daddy tried to come through with my 
wife, they didn’t want to let them through, and they asked 
them—

Q. What did they do to restrain them from coming 
through ?

A. They just blocked the entrance again.
Q. And did you take any steps to relieve that situation?
A. I just got in between them and pushed them back and 

they come on through.
Q. You had to use force to accomplish that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. A request was insufficient?
A. That’s right.
Mr. Looby: If your Honor please, we object to leading.
The Court: Yes, don’t lead him.
Mr. Maddin: State whether or not a request was suf­

ficient ?
A. No, it wasn’t.



163

Q. Do you see any of those persons who were blocking 
that entrance way in the courtroom at this time?
[fol. 890] A. I see one. Yes. The third one from the end.

Q. With his hand on his chin?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Sitting in the third seat from where I am. standing?
A. That’s right.
Q. Let the record show, if the Court please, that this is 

the same man that has been identified as #3.
Mr. Looby: I object to that. He can point him out, and 

that is all.
The Court: For the record, though, I think it ought to be 

identified that that is the man who has been referred to as 
defendant #3.

Q. Do you know approximately how many were in the 
vestibule at the B & W?

A. Oh, 6, 7, or 8. Something like that. I am not sure.
Q. Were they—can you tell whether they were mixed 

men and women ?
A. No, sir.
Q. You can not?
A. No, sir.
Q. And having gained admittance, wms this disturbance 

still going on when you sought to leave?
[fol. 891] A. I don’t believe they were there when we left.

Q. How many persons did you observe or see gain ad­
mission to the restaurant without force?

Mr. Looby: If your Honor please, I here object to that 
question as leading.

The Court: Well, of course, what constituted force is a 
matter for the jury to determine, but you may ask him what 
he saw people coming and going doing?

Mr. Maddin: I will rephrase my question. Did you ob­
serve any persons trying to get in and out other than those 
you have already described?

A. Yes, sir. Other people were trying to get in.
Q. State if there was anything unusual occurred.
A. Well, most of them didn’t get in. They were all stand­

ing outside; when I got in, I didn’t pay any attention to 
the other people. I just went on in.



164

Q. I see. At the time that you made the request that you 
be admitted and that the others in your party did, was 
there any answer given you ?

A. No, sir. I don’t think nobody said a word—not at that 
time.

Q. You may cross examine.

[fob 892] Cross examination.

By Mr. Looby:
Q. Mr. Martin, you did get in, didn’t you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You had no trouble getting in?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you have to ask them to let you in?
A. Sir?
Q. Did you have to ask these colored people to let you in? 
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And did they let you in?
A. Yes, sir, they let me in.
Q. Well, were you there when the police came ?
A. No, sir. I may have been inside.
Q. But you did get in and your people did get in and 

were served?
A. That’s right.
Q. They were serving all customers at the time?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you see a doorman at the doorway holding the 

[fol. 893] door?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The inside door?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you see a doorman blocking the door?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And he let you in?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And after he let you in, he resumed his task of block­

ing the door?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And your mother did.come in afterwards ?
A. Yes, sir.



165

Q. And the whole family came in ?
A. That’s right.
Q. Did you come from the First Presbyterian Church 

downtown ?
A. No.
Q. What church did you come from?
A. We came from the First Assembly of God Church at 

11th and Boscobel.
Q. Did these colored people—do you know what they 

were doing?
A. Yes, sir. I knew what they was doing.

[fol. 894] Q. They were trying to get service, weren’t 
they?

A. They were trying to get in the restaurant, yes, sir.
Q. To get service?
A. Well, I don’t know that. I know they was trying to 

get in. I presume they were.
Q. Well, the restaurant was open, wasn’t it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you and some other white people got in?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. In other words, they had a doorman who was block­

ing the door, and keeping these Negroes from getting in?
A. That’s right.
Q. And the restaurant was open to the public selling 

food?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you go in there and get served and pay for your 

meals ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Well, that’s what those people were doing there, 

wasn’t it?
A. I don’t know that.

[fol. 895] Q. Other people were in there eating?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Wasn’t it largely presumed that they were paying for 

their meals ?
Mr. Maddin: If your Honor please, we are going to ob­

ject to counsel making a presumption.
The Court: I didn’t get the question. Let him ask it 

again. Don’t answer it. Go ahead.



166

Mr. Looby: Where conditions such as to lead you to 
logically assume that those people were buying meals and 
paying for them ?

Mr. Maddin: Objection.
The Court: Well, let him answer that.
Mr. Looby: Sir?
The Court: Let the witness answer that.
A. I think they were in there paying for the food, yes, 

sir. If that is what you asked.
Mr. Looby: Now, these people that were gathered in 

front there—these white people—they were there when you 
got there ?

A. Yes.
Q. And you went on in ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That’s all.
The Court: Come down, Mr. Witness. You are excused.

[fol. 896] Mrs. Katherine (Vaulx) Crockett, called as a 
witness on behalf of the state, testified as follows:

Direct examination.

By Mr. Maddin :
Q. Mrs. Crockett, would you state your name?
A. Katherine Crockett.
Q. Just a little bit louder.
A. I am Katherine Crockett—Mrs. Vaulx Crockett.
Q. Mrs. Crockett, you are a resident of Nashville?
A. Yes.
Q. On October 21, 1962, Sunday, did you seek to go to—- 

to have lunch at a downtown restaurant?
A. Yes.
Q. What restaurant was that?
A. B & W Cafeteria.
Q. How did you get there ?
A. My husband left me at the front door.
Q. After you had gotten to the front door, were you ac­

companied by him after you had gotten out of the auto­
mobile?



167

A. Yes, my family came later,
[fols. 897-898] Q. Were they with you when you entered?

A. No, I walked in alone.
Q. Yes, ma’am? Was there anything unusual in progress 

at the time ?
A. No.
Q. When you went in?
A. No.
Q. How long after you had gained admittance to the 

restaurant and had gone in, did something unusual occur?
A. About 5 or 10 minutes.
Q. And what was that, Mrs. Crockett?
A. 8 colored men came walking very rapidly and took 

their place in the vestibule.
Q. Now, does the vestibule have double doors?
A. Yes.
Q. Two double doors, is that correct? One on each—one 

toward the street, and one set toward the inside?
A. Yes.
Q. You saw 8 colored men come into that vestibule ?
A. Yes.
Q. What occurred?
A. Well, the doorman stood at the door.

[fob 899] Q. What happened?
A. The doorman was standing in the door.
Q. When you went in, what was said?
A. He was very polite.
Q. Did you overhear any conversations?
A. No, I didn’t hear except I heard the doorman say—1 

couldn’t quote what he said, but he was very polite, but 
firm.

Q. What did he say?
A. I am sorry.
Mr. Looby: If your Honor please, I object, she said she 

doesn’t know,—what he said.
The Court: If she doesn’t know what was said, I ’m 

afraid,—D you know what he said to the people?
A. I can’t quote his exact words.
The Court: Well, do you know in substance what he 

said?



168

A. I know in substance.
The Court: Well, then, state the substance of it.
A. I am very sorry. I can not admit you.

By Mr. Maddin:
Q. Did he offer any explanation that you overheard1?
A. Not that I heard.
Q. Now,—
The Court: What did she say?

[fol. 900] A. Not that I heard.
Mr. Maddin: Mrs. Crockett, did you remain there in the 

vicinity of the doorway?
A. I suppose I stayed there a very few minutes, and 

went upstairs.
Q. What occasion did you have for going upstairs ?
A. I wanted to let someone know that the man was stand­

ing there along. I didn’t want to be around any violence. 
I had just been quite ill, and—

Q. And who did you tell? Who was this?
A. The lady in the office. Mrs. Carrier.
Q. All right. You then did what, Mrs. Crockett?
A. Then I came downstairs and waited for my daughters 

to come.
Q. Did you see them arrive?
A. Yes. I did. And I was standing over in the window 

away from anything that was going on.
Q. What happened when the girls arrived?
A. Well, there was quite a bit of pushing and shoving.
Q. Where did that take place ?
A. That was in the vestibule.
Q. In the vestibule?

[fol. 901] A. People were standing on the street, and 
people on the inside waiting to get out.

Q. I see. Now other than the girls that you have men­
tioned that were coming to meet you, were there any other 
persons in that vestibule other than the colored boys ?

A. I believe not.



169

Q. And you observed pushing and shoving?
A. Yes.
Q. Did they get in through the vestibule?
A. No.
Q. Where did they go ?
A. I —
Q. When I say “they” I am referring to the girls.
A. 1 asked them to come around to the back door.
Q. I see. How did you tell them that?
A. By motioning—lip reading, should say.
Q. Did they get near the pushing and shoving?
A. Well, I watched for them. Didn’t get anywhere near. 

My husband did come through and my son.
Q. Were your husband and son with the girls?
A. No. We were in separate cars.

[fol. 902] Q. Did you observe their efforts to get in?
A. No. I was not downstairs at that time.
Q. By that time, you had gone ?
A. I had gone.
Q. Was that the last unusual thing that you observed?
A. Yes. We just went on about our business—the chil­

dren and I—getting served and finding a place to eat.
Q. That was all you observed ?
A. Yes, sir.

Cross examination.

By Mr. Williams:
Q. Mrs. Crockett, when you said there was quite a bit 

of pushing and shoving—what did you mean by that?
A. People were trying to come in and they could not get 

in because there was a tight—people were standing close 
together and they could not get through, unless they forced 
their way through.

Q. Do you refer to the people on the outside of the door?
A. Yes, sir.

[fol. 903] Q. They were—people were crowding around 
the outside of the outside door?

A. That’s right—trying to get in.
Q. Yes? And so the pushing and shoving was going on 

on the outside of the restaurant?



170

A. It was going on between the double doors.
Q. Well, I—
A. Between the inside doors and the outside doors in the 

vestibule.
Q. Well, now, there was—there is a vestibule to that 

restaurant ?
A. That’s right.
Q. How big is that vestibule I
A. Well, I expect it is the space of this area maybe. (She 

designated sort of an area from the witness stand over to 
the wall of the courtroom.)

I doubt if it is any bigger than the area of this desk and 
sitting space.

Q. Well, in terms of feet, do you have any idea how many 
feet wide, and how many feet long! Do you know how big 
this is ?

A. I would estimate 12 x 12.
Q. That is good enough. Now, there is a door into the 

vestibule from the outside and there is a door into the 
[fol. 904] restaurant from the vestibule?

A. Yes.
Q. And you say there were some 8 colored men—Negro 

men?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You counted them?
A. I did not.
Q. Why would you happen to know there were 8, then, 

Mrs. Crockett?
A. Well, I guess because I heard that there were 24 pre- 

emptory—I believe the paper said there were 24 pre- 
emptory—I believe the paper said there were 24.

Q. So that your testimony, in that respect, is based on 
what you read in the newspaper?

A. No, I would say there were 6 to 8.
Q. Yes, ma’am? But you testified positively that there 

were 8 colored men, and that testimony that you gave pre­
viously was partially based on what you read in the news­
paper, wasn’t it, Mrs. Crockett?

A. Partially on that and partially on what I observed.
Q. Yes, ma’am? Because you could not say positively, of



171

your own knowledge, that there were 8 colored men in that 
vestibule ? Could you ?

A. I would say 6 or 8.
[fol. 905] Q. But you could not, of your own knowledge, 
say positively that there were 8 colored men in that vesti­
bule? Could you ?

A. No. I couldn’t.
Q. So that your testimony that you gave previously was 

incorrect in that regard, was it not ?
A. Well, I would say 6 to 8.
Q. But it was—
Mr. Maddin: That is for the jury to decide, if it please 

your Honor.
Mr. Williams: Well, I just want to know—
The Court: Well, she has answered that.
Mr. Williams: You say, Mrs. Crockett, that you were 

standing by a window at the time the 6 to 8 colored men 
came inside that vestibule?

A. No, I was standing inside the door waiting for my 
family.

Q. Just immediately inside the door to the restaurant ?
A. I ’d say 6 feet from the door.
Q. 6 feet? What were you doing there?
A. Waiting. I was waiting for my family, and my hus­

band.
Q. What did the first Negro person who came into the 

restaurant—into the vestibule—do ?
[fol. 906] A. I don’t know.

Q. What did the next Negro person that came into the 
vestibule do ?

A. My recollection is that they all came in about the same 
time, and stood, and tried to open the door.

Q. Well, how wide was this door?
A. The door is closed always.
Q. How wide is the door leading from the sidewalk into 

the vestibule? Mrs. Crockett?
A. I believe there were two doors there, and they are 

normal, business-sized doors.
Q. What kind of doors?
A. Double doors.



172

Q. And you say those doors—
A. Swinging.
Q. Is each door 3 feet? In width?
A. I imagine.
Q. So that you had an aperture there of 6 feet in width?
A. If you open both doors.
Q. And you are saying that 6 to 8 Negroes passed 

through that aperture at exactly the same time?
A. No, I didn’t say that.
Q. Then I go back to my first question: what did the 

second person who came into that vestibule do? And you 
said you didn’t know what the first one did. And I said what 
[fol. 907] did the second one do. And you said you didn’t 
know what the first one did. What did the second one do? 
They didn’t all come in at once ?

A. I actually observed them walk in, take their places, 
and then I looked away. I didn’t look what each individ­
ual—I didn’t even look at them.

Q. Oh, I see, you weren’t watching them very closely?
A. I hoped not to.
Q. You didn’t want to see them then?
A. No.
Q. All right. Now, you said you saw them come in and 

take their places. What places did they take?
A. Well, they were just all crowded in there together. 

I don’t know whether they were at arm’s length. I don’t 
know whether their elbows touched. They were just in 
there.

Q. You only know there were some Negroes in the ves­
tibule there? Is that correct?

A. I know there were Negroes in the vestibule.
Q. Now, how did—I want to ask you—how did the door 

from the vestibule into the restaurant open? Did it open 
back towards the vestibule? Or did it open forward into 
the restaurant?

A, Both ways.
[fol. 908] Q. Both ways?

A. The doors are swinging doors.
Q. Did the door have a handle bar on it?
A. I believe not. I don’t—I believe not.
Q. Yes, ma’am? Now, when you came in, was the door­

man standing there?
A. Yes.



173

Q. Do you know what Ms purpose was?
A. I have never been told. Now, if you are going to trip 

me up, I am sure you are up to something. I have never 
been told—I couldn’t swear what he was up there for.

Q. Believe me, I am not trying to trip you up.
A. All right.
Q. Do you know what his purpose there was?
A. I suppose to seat his customers—no, I suppose to 

admit his customers.
Q. Well, you—don’t you know, as a matter of fact, that 

he was stationed there to keep Negroes out in regard—
A. I imagine he was.
Q. As have been the stewards of the restaurant? In view 

[fol. 909] of segregation?
A. I imagine he was there for that purpose.
Q. Now, when the first Negro came to the door,—well, 

before I get to that—is the door from the vestibule into 
the interior of the restaurant also a double door? Or is it 
a single door?

A. I believe double.
Q. Is it a double swinging door?
A. Now, I thought you were asking me about that door 

before. But I imagine the outside doors have handles. I 
don’t recall observing, but—

Q, But the doors from the vestibule into the interior of 
the restaurant are swinging?

A. Swinging doors, I believe.
Q. Is it also a double swinging door?
A. I believe. Now, I don’t know. But I believe the front 

doors are not swinging doors. I believe they only open 
outward.

Q. About how large in stature was the doorman?
A. He was tall, and very slender.
Q. Tall and very slender? How did he have himself 

posted there from the door—from the vestibule into the 
interior of the restaurant?

A. I expect he was standing 6 feet from the door.
[fol. 910] Q. Well, did the—do you mean he was standing 
there 6 feet from the door, and by his very presence was 
forbidding entrance of these Negroes?

A. He was standing there when he saw them approach­
ing, and then he went up to the door.



174

A. Now, is it your testimony that—where did he stand 
with regard to these swinging doors?

A. When do you want to know? When I came in?
Q. No, ma’am. When the Negroes—the colored men, 

came in.
A. Well, he came up to the doors—both doors—and stood 

just exactly on the inside of the restaurant.
Q. At the second—
A. No, the first door. He was in the restaurant right 

at the two doors,—swinging doors.
Q. Yes, ma’am, but what I am asking you is: did he 

stand in the second of the two swinging doors?
A. Yes.
Q. And, so, with just one man there, he was able to pro­

tect the entrance by forced entrance of 8 people—9 Negro 
men there in the vestibule?

A. No, as I say, I stood there only a moment and went 
upstairs. When I came back, my husband had arrived, and 
[fol. 911] had gone upstairs. And Mr. Carrier had come 
down. But I did not observe, or watch, what was going on.

Q. As a matter of fact, you never did, in effect, see these 
Negro men that you say you saw there attempt to forcibly 
gain entrance into that restaurant, did you?

A. I thought I saw a foot go in the door.
Q. You saw a foot go in the door?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you are positive of that?
A. Yes.
Q. You are positive you saw it?
A. Yes.
Q. You know you saw that?
A. Yes.
Q. You are positive you saw it, now?
A. Yes.
Q. Why didn’t you say you saw it before?
A. Well, I guess because I don’t ever testify in court. 

This is my first—
Q. I see.
A. Second experience.
Q. What else do you remember now that you didn’t re­

member before, Mrs. Crockett, regarding any effort on the



175

part of these Negro men trying to gain entrance into the 
restanrant ?
[fol. 912] A. I—I went upstairs and I wouldn’t say that I 
observed—•

Q. Now, you went upstairs and you didn’t see anything 
else?

A. (Hesitates.)
Q. You saw this before you went upstairs?
A. Yes.
Q. And when were you referring to the foot in the door?
A. I was afraid there might be some violence and antag­

onism, and I decided to leave.
Q. Now, when you thought you saw a foot in the door, in 

which door was it?
A. The right one.
Q. The right hand door facing you? When you were 

looking toward the door ? Or what ?
A. No. The door on my left.
Q. Now, how large was this—how much of the foot did 

you see ? What part of it?
A. Well, I suppose the first part of the foot—the toe.
Q. You—you saw the toe—
A. Yes.
Q. —of a shoe?
A. Yes.

[fol. 913] Q. In the doorway?
A. Yes.
Q. What did the doorman do, Mrs. Crockett?
A. He again said, I am very sorry.
Q. He said, I am very sorry? Did he slam the door back 

on the foot?
A. I don’t think he did. I think he .just closed it as firmly 

as he could.
Q. So the foot, then, was removed when he said, I am very 

sorry? We can’t admit you? Is that correct?
A.' Yes.
Q. And you did not see anyone attempt to push his way 

through that door into the restaurant?



176

A. Not after that. No, they just stood.
Q. So the only thing that you saw was just somebody 

beginning to enter with his foot in the door!
A. Yes.
Q. Now, when was it that you say you saw this pushing 

and shoving—approximately?
A. When I came back downstairs.
Q. When you came back down and you were waiting for 

your daughters ?
A. That’s right. I came back and I had to pass—at least 

[fol. 914] I did pass to go over to get to the window,— 
windows.

Q. Let me ask you something about the vestibule—is this 
vestibule completely enclosed by glass?

A. Well, I don’t—I suppose from where I was, it was, at 
all times. I think as you come in the door, on the left, it is 
perhaps solid.

Q. Solid where?
A. I haven’t observed it closely,—very closely.
Q. As a matter of fact, in order to see into the vestibule 

from the interior of the restaurant, you have got to see 
through these folding doors that are glass, is that correct?

A. That’s right.
Q. Now, when you went over and stood by the windows, 

which side of the restaurant were you on?
A. Well, from—
Q. To face—-
A. I was facing the street.
Q. You were facing the street?
A. On my left of the restaurant. As you face in the 

restaurant, it was right.
Q. And were you relatively close to the window? That 

is, I believe they have a big plate glass window?
[fol. 915] A. That’s right.

Q. In the back—in the front of the restaurant?
A. That’s right.
Q. You were relatively close to the window?
A. I would say within 2 or 3 feet of the front window.
Q. And just from that point you could not actually see 

into the restaurant, could you?



177

A. I don’t know. I didn’t look. I am sure I could have, 
if I had looked.

Q. Well, haven’t yon jnst testified that that side was 
solid?

A. No, I think that side—I think the other side is solid, 
that faces the next building which is a furrier, I think.

Q. Well, do you know—
A. But I believe the glass is on the restaurant side of the 

vestibule.
Q. Do you know? Are you positive of that?
A. I think so, yes, sir.
Q. What were you watching? Were you watching for—
A. I was watching for the girls.

[fol. 916] Q. You were watching for the girls? And this 
pushing and shoving that you said you saw—was actually 
out on the street among the white people ?

A. No. I didn’t really see it, going on out there, at all.
Q. Well, what pushing and shoving was going on in the 

vestibule, Mrs. Crockett?
A. People trying to get in to be served.
Q. And you saw white people pushing and shoving, trying 

to get through the Negroes, and were entering the vesti­
bule—

A. Trying to get through, yes.
Q. And that is what you saw? Did you see anybody at all 

who was not successful in not getting into the restaurant?
A. Well, I actually was not observing that any more other 

than that I saw people could not get in and people could 
not get out. And I didn’t just stand and watch.

Q. Mrs. Crockett, when you say that people could not 
get in and out, what you have referred to in your formal 
general testimony is that people were pushing and shoving 
to get through the vestibule? Is that correct?

A. Well, as I say—
Q. What you actually mean is that there were some per- 

[fol. 917] sons in the vestibule that you referred to as being 
6 to 8 colored men, and that, in order to pass from the door 
—from the front door of the restaurant through the vesti­
bule and into the door from the vestibule into the interior 
of the restaurant that people had to pass through, or around 
these Negro men? Is that correct?



178

A. Wait a minute, now. The only way they could get 
through, was to push through.

Q. Well, Mrs. Crockett, you say the only way they were 
able to get through the vestibule was to push. Did you go 
through the vestibule at any time while this was happening?

A. No.
Q. Did you measure any space in the vestibule while this 

was happening?
A. Of course not.
Q. You were not standing directly in front of the doors 

of the vestibule ?
A. I was within 5 or 6 feet of the doors.
Q. But you were not standing directly in front of them? 

Haven’t you said you were standing over next to the glass 
window near the sidewalk?

A. When they approach, I was standing near the hatrack, 
in order to be out of the way of the line of people being 
served, and in order to be out of the way of the people who 
were—coming in, and not wanting to get in that line until wrn 
[fol. 918] were all together.

Q. Yes, but Mrs. Crockett, what I am driving at—at the 
time you were watching—when you were standing by the 
window on the front of the restaurant—

A. Near the front.
Q. Didn’t you say you saw people pushing and shoving— 

some white people ?
A. I saw that as I walked down the entrance lane, and 

as I walked over to the window.
Q. Approximately how many did you see—how many 

white people did you see coming in while in that lane ?
A. I don’t know. I know the Edwards came through at 

that time, but, I ’d say 3 or 4. I think the Edwards came, 
with their grandson.

Q. You were in their party? Are you acquainted with the 
Edwards ? The people who testified here?

A. Yes, I know them.
Q. Are they friends of yours?
A. They are in my church.
Q. I see. What church is that ?
A. The Presbyterian Church.



179

Q. The Downtown Presbyterian Church?
A. That’s right.
Q. Oh, I see.
A. Their grandson was with them, and we were talking 

about his food, and certain other things.
[fol. 919] Q. I see we are members of the same denomina­
tion, if unfortunately we are not able to be members of the 
same church.

Mr. Maddin: We object, your Honor.
The Court: Sustain the objection. Members of the jury, 

don’t consider that remark.
Mr. Williams: Mrs. Crockett, then you did see several 

people come through there ?
A. Yes, right at the very beginning of it.
Q. How many people would you say were on the outside?
A. Well, when—by the time I got back downstairs—there 

were none when I went upstairs that I observed, I didn’t 
really observe, but as I came back down I ’spect there were 
15 or 20 trying to gain admittance.

Q. That’s—well, wait a minute, Mrs. Crockett,—they 
were trying to gain admittance? Now, at the time when you 
went upstairs—there were no people outside trying to gain 
admittance ?

A. At the time I went upstairs, there were none.
Q. And at the time you entered the restaurant there were 

no people trying to get admittance?
A. No, wait a minute, no. There was no one there at all 

in the vestibule. I just walked in.
Q. Yes? And then there were no other people entering 

[fol. 920] the restaurant?
A. Begjmrdon?
Q. There were no other people entering the restaurant 

at the time you entered, were there ?
A. Well, what few people you didn’t observe. They just 

walked in and got in line.
Q. Yes?
A. There probably were some who came in after I did.
Q. Well, you don’t know that, as a matter of fact?
A. Well, I wouldn’t swear to it.



180

Q. Now, Mrs. Crockett, how long did it take you to go 
upstairs and notify this person that these Negroes—Negro 
men—had come into the vestibule?

A. Well, I didn’t come straight down but I will answer 
that question by saying if I had gone up and come straight 
down, probably 3 minutes.

Q. Probably 3 minutes? Now you are saying that in 3 
minutes some 15 or 20 people-—all white people—had con­
gregated outside trying to gain admittance?

A. No, I didn’t say that.
Q. Well, that is, in effect, what you are saying, isn’t it?
A. No, I said I didn’t come straight back. If I had, it 

[fol. 921] would have taken about 3 minutes.
Q. Well, how long did you stay up there, Mrs. Crockett? 

How long did it take?
A. I lingered up there some 5 or 10 minutes.
Q. All right. And you are saying that within the 5 or 10 

minutes, that some 15 or 20 people had congregated?
A. They serve a great number of people on Sundays.
Q. Are you positive that there were not 75 white people?
A. It didn’t look like that.
Q. It didn’t look like that to you?
A. No, I wouldn’t say so. At the time I came back. I 

went on to be served, and I didn’t stay around there long.
Q. Now, when did you say that these people were trying 

to gain admittance? Will you explain to the jury how you 
know that all these people were trying to gain admittance 
to the restaurant—all these white people?

A. Well, I would say on Sunday there are very few—I 
won’t say that they were all—I said the ones I saw that 
were trying to get in were just waiting,—to get in—standing 
in line.

Q. And you know they were trying to gain admittance ? 
[fol. 922] A. The way I know is that there are very few 
people in town on Sundays. Businesses are not open. And 
having eaten in town for a number of years, on Sundays,—

Q. You are just surmising, are you not, that these people 
were trying to gain admittance? You do not know that any 
one of these 15 or 20 people were trying to get in the res­
taurant? You don’t know that, from your own knowledge, 
do you, Mrs. Crockett?



181

A. Well, I would guess so. I feel positive many persons 
were, I wouldn’t say every one in that group was, because 
they could have been some people passing that were window 
shopping.

Q. Mrs. Crockett, you understand -what I am asking? It 
is not what you feel, but what you know. Now, do you know 
that—of your own knowledge—that any one of those people 
were trying to gain admittance to the restaurant ?

A. Well, not knowing any of their names except the 
Edwards, and they did come in—

Q. Yes?
A. I would say—
Q. You don’t know, do you?
A. I don’t know that every last one of them were.
Q. Do you know that any one of them would, other than 

the Edwards ?
[fob 923] A. Well, I didn’t see anybody that I knew.

Q. So that the only people whom you know,—the Ed­
wards—of your own knowledge, who were actually patron­
izing the restaurant came in. Isn’t that true, Mrs. Crockett?

A. I know—I didn’t see anybody leave—but they prob­
ably—

Q. Those who actually meant to patronize the restaurant 
came in through these Negroes standing in the vestibule, 
while you were standing there watching?

A. Well, I won’t say. I ’ll just say I don’t know.
Q. Well, you don’t know that there was anyone out there 

that would want to patronize the restaurant, do you?
A. I know my family—4 of them.
Q. Now, Mrs. Crockett, you motioned them around to the 

rear, didn’t you?
A. The girls, I did.
Q. And, as a matter of fact, your husband, Mr. Vaulx 

Crockett, came on through the front door, didn’t he?
A. I guess he did. I was upstairs. I imagine he did. 

My boy said he did.
Q. Your husband, J. Vaulx Crockett, is a member of the 

[fol. 924] firm of Stocked, Kutherford and Crockett, isn’t
he?

A. He is, yes.



182

Q. Mrs. Crockett you are also a very good friend of Mr. 
Maddin, who represents the restaurant, are you not!

A. I know him when I see him.
Q. You all meet in social circles, do you not?
A. Not often.
Q. But you do, every now and then?
A. Not unless it is a church function. We are not—
Q. Is he a member—is he a fellow Presbyterian with 

us? (Laughs.)
A. Yes.
Q. Mrs. Crockett, you have discussed this case with your 

husband, haven’t you?
A. My husband and I didn’t see the same things. I was 

upstairs.
Q. You have discussed it with your husband?
A. Very briefly, yes.
Q. How many times have you discussed it with your 

husband ?
A. I don’t know.

[fol. 925] Q. Have you discussed it with Mr. Maddin— 
how many times have you discussed it with him?

A. Not at all.
Q. Not at all with him?
A. No.
Q. You haven’t discussed it at all with the Attorney 

General?
A. No.
Q. Then you haven’t even told them what you know?
A. No.
Q. They haven’t talked to you at all about it?
A. I spoke to Mr. Butler this morning when I was wait­

ing for an aspirin. That’s all.
Q. And you haven’t discussed it with the manager of 

the B & W?
A. No.
Q. How did they know you were willing to testify in 

this ease?
A. I expect my husband told them I would. Glad to do 

my civic duty.
Q. Now, I think you have already said that there were



183

several white people who did come in while you were watch­
ing there?

Mr. Butler: If your Honor please, that’s repetitious, 
[fol. 926] The Court: Yes. Sustained as repetitious.

Mr. Williams: Now,—•
The Court: You’ve already been over that.
Mr. Williams: Now, Mrs. Crockett, as these white people 

came in—through these Negro men—the doorman would 
open the door and let them in?

Mr. Maddin: We object to that as repetitious.
A. I was—
Mr. Williams: Well, I can ask that, if your Honor please.
A. I ’ll tell you what I know—
The Court: I think you have—but ask it again, at the 

expense—
A. I know so little—
The Court: —of being repetitious.
A. I know so little of what went on, and I ’ll tell what I 

know, and then let you ask somebody who was down there, 
and saw wThat was going on.

Mr. Williams: Well, what I was thinking—let me ask 
you who was down there—and this pushing and shoving 
that you saw was some white people coming through these 
Negroes in the vestibule at the—to get into the restaurant?

A. Yes, and my little boy was one of them.
Q. Yes? And you watched him come in?

[fol. 927] A. No. I won’t say I watched him. I don’t know 
whether I saw him come in, or not.

Q. Well, were you out there—
A. I was trying not to see anything that went on, so 

I went—
Q. Well, you actually didn’t see much of anything, Mrs. 

Crockett?
A. I saw the crowding. I saw people force their way 

in and I saw people trying to get out, and just standing 
waiting to see what they could do.



184

Q. Now, what you saw was people coming through the 
Negroes who were standing in the vestibule, and they were 
trying to be admitted to the restaurant by the doorman? 
Eight ?

Mr. Maddin: If your Honor please.
The Court: Let her answer that. I want to get that be­

hind me once and for all.
Mr. Williams: Isn’t that what you saw?
A. I probably saw one or two coming through after I 

had been upstairs and had come back down.
Q. And the doorman did open the door and let them in 

at that time ? Do you know ?
A. I don’t think there was any matter of opening the 

door. What I saw was the door that could just be pushed 
open from the outside—from the vestibule.

Q. Oh, then you mean the door was—
[fol. 928] A. Beg pardon?

Q. —partly open?
A. By the time I got back downstairs, my husband, I 

believe, was down there.
I won’t—won’t say much about that because I was stand­

ing over at the window when people were coming in, and 
I was not observing, while they were coming in and going 
out.

Q. Yes? Well, as a matter of fact, you don’t know much 
about what happened, do you? Now, of your own knowl­
edge?

A. I— I—
Q. You are giving impressions, here, impressions that 

you had, are you not? You didn’t go over there and watch 
anything closely enough to actually know what was going 
on, did you?

Mr. Maddin: If your Honor please, Counsel has asked 
this witness that very same question, in one form or an­
other, at least a dozen times.

The Court: Well, you might be high on the number of 
times. I think the witness has been—and I think the jury 
knows what is going on, what she is testifying to.

Mr. Williams: Well, may it please the Court, I hate to be 
limited in my cross examination of the witness.



185

The Court: Well, let’s—I don’t know— I don’t want to 
limit you, but at least, let’s not go over the same thing 
[fol. 929] more than 3 times.

Mr. Williams: When—
The Court: Because I assume this jury is listening. I am.
Mr. Williams: Well, if the Court please, when I ask hex- 

something specific, she always gets back, reverts back to, 
well, I wasn’t watching, I didn’t see much. So now, I ’m 
asking, and maybe I have asked it before,—

You don’t know very much about what happened at all, 
do you? You are just giving impressions? That is true, 
isn’t it?

A. Except that I saw the men.
Q. You saw the men there?
A. And I saw—
Q. And you saw some people elbowing through them?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. That’s all.

Redirect examination.

By Mr. Maddin:
Q. Mrs. Crockett, have you told us to the best of your 

ability what you saw?
A. Yes.

[fol. 930] Q. That’s all.
The Court: Come down, Mrs. Crockett.

V au lx  C rockett , called as a witness on behalf of the 
state, testified as follows; having been sworn by the Clerk:

Direct examination.

Br. Mr. Maddin:
Q. Will you state your name?
A. Vaulx Crockett.



186

Q. Tour occupation?
A. Lawyer.
Q. On Sunday, Oct. 21, 1962, did you have occasion to 

have lunch at a downtown restaurant?
A. Yes.
Q. What restaurant?
A. B & W.
Q. Did anyone accompany you to the restaurant?
A. My family. We were all going to eat there.
Q. And did any of you get there before others? Or did 

you arrive simultaneously?
A. Well, we—

[fol. 931] Mr. Looby: I would like to hear Mr. Crockett.
The Court: A little bit louder, Mr. Crockett.
A. Could I have a glass of water?
The Court: Yes, sir. You can.
A. My throat is dry.
The Court: (Has him furnished with a glass of water.)
All right.
A. As I recall, my son and I had put my—let my wife 

out of the car, and we had gone to park the car. My 
daughters, I think, were in another car. We were operat­
ing two cars.

Q. And so your wife got out first?
A. Yes.
Q. And you and your son were together?
A. Yes.
Q. Did anything unusual happen in front of the res­

taurant when you first let your wife out?
A. Not that I observed.
Q. When you returned to the restaurant, what did you 

observe? In front of the restaurant?
A. Well, there were people standing in front, and in the 

vestibule there were colored people that massed or as­
sembled and couldn’t get in.

Q. Did you take occasion to count the colored people?



187

[fol. 932] Do you know how many were in the vestibule?
A. No, sir, not exactly.
Q. Could you estimate the number?
Mr. Williams: If your Honor please, we object to an 

estimate.
The Court: No. That’s all right. Estimate it.
A. Well, it was 7 or 8 or 10.
Mr. Maddin: Between 7 and 10?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, Mr. Crockett, from the time you reached the 

front door of the restaurant, describe what occurred, and 
what you observed—in your effort to gain admission to 
the restaurant?

A. Well, we were rather perplexed as to what to do. 
My wife was inside. And nothing really much occurred 
in the way of events, except people just circulated around. 
People would come, some would stay, some leave.

Q. Specifically, Mr. Crockett, in seeking to pass through 
the vestibule area, what, if any force other than the force 
of walking did you find necessary to pass through that 
crowd ?

A. Well, we stood around for some little while, and then 
Mickey Martin,—he is bigger than I am—quite a bit—I 
believe his mother was inside or outside. I am not sure. 
But he started through. He pushed his way through and 
[fol. 933] he had some words, as I recall, and I believe his 
mother came through with him, I am not sure. I then tried 
to get through and did push my way through with my boy 
after we had been there a while.

Q. Did you have any conversation with the colored men 
who were in the vestibule area before you got through?

A. I don’t think I said a word to anyone.
Q. I see.
A. I did a little pushing. But I didn’t have anything to 

say.
Q. Now, having gained access to the interior of the res­

taurant, what did you do?



188

A. "Well, things were in confusion there. I forget exactly 
the sequence of events, but I believe Mr. Carrier—I believe 
asked me—

Mr. Looby: If your Honor please, don’t tell what he 
said.

The Court: Yes. That wouldn’t be competent. He asked 
you a question, Mr. Crockett. He asked you when you got 
in the restaurant, what did you do? I believe that was the 
question.

A. As I recall, I made a telephone call. That’s what I 
was getting at.

The Court: All right, you made a telephone call.

Mr. Maddin:
Q. Whom did you call?
A. As I recall, I called the police.

[fob 934] Q. That was in answer to my question?
A. Yes.
Q. Having called the police, you, of course, were not in 

a position to observe all that was going on right at that 
time?

A. That’s true.
Q. Did you return to the area of the front door?
A. Yes.
Q. And what did you observe going on there?
A. Well, it was still blocked and people inside couldn’t 

get out. And you could see the crowd outside—wasn’t 
coming in. And it just seemed like an awfully long time 
till the—under the circumstances—it wasn’t too long—while 
that state of confusion existed. And the police came and 
then they—it was a question of what to do then. I was 
talking to some of the policemen, and I was a lawyer, and 
they thought I knew everything and could solve the situa­
tion, and I must admit that I didn’t know what to do my­
self.

Q. All right. Mr. Crockett, at the time that you had re­
turned to the door, after having called the police, approxi­
mately how much time elapsed, while there was a crowd 
of people standing on the inside, and a crowd of people



189

standing on the outside, before anybody could pass freely 
through that passageway or vestibule?
[fob 935] Mr. Williams: We object to the question as 
being incompetent, if your Honor please.

The Court: Well,—-
Mr. Williams: It draws a conclusion. The witness

couldn’t testify as to what happened, is not entitled to 
conclusions.

The Court: Well, as best he can. The jury can take into 
account the weight to be given it.

Mr. Williams: Respectfully except.
The Court: All right.
Mr. Maddin: Go ahead.
A. Do you mean from the time I was first on the out­

side?
Q. No. Because I want to show the jury the time that 

you were there at the doorway, till the time they arrived, 
when there was no passage of customers en route.

A. Well, I would say somewhere between 15 and 30 min­
utes, but I am not sure. It was very unsettled at the time.

Q. Now, Mr. Crockett, once these officers were able to 
make passageway through this vestibule area, would you 
estimate the number of persons that came in off the street 
or went out of the restaurant ?

A. You mean—-
Q. Immediately.
A. •—before these colored fellows had been removed, or 

while they were still there?
Q. Well, my only interest is after the police force had 

[fob 936] gotten there, and had made passageway through 
the vestibule—approximately how many people moved into 
—or out—immediately, one way or the other?

A. I don’t believe I could estimate.
Q. Would you say there were people who did—few or 

many ?
Mr. Looby: I object to the question, if your Honor 

please.
The Court: He mighty near answered that question. He 

said he couldn’t estimate.



190

A. Well, it wasn’t cleared up at first. Once they started 
through freely, that was it.

Mr. Maddin: Approximately how long afterward from 
the time the police department representatives got there 
did it clear up? And there was free passageway through it?

A. (Hesitates.) Well, now, let’s see—we was talking to 
the police, I ’d say for 10 minutes, at least, before—

Q. After the passage was free—after that time?
A. As I recall, it was not free until after the people were 

removed and taken away,—
Q. All right.
A. —to people passing through.
The Court: That is what he is asking you—how much 

[fol. 937] time elapsed from the time the police came until 
people were gotten out of the vestibule. That’s all he asked, 
I thought.

A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Maddin: Once they had worked out—
The Court: Well—now—now, what was his answer to 

that ? Did he ever answer it ?
Mr. Maddin: 10 minutes. (Reporter’s note: He is evi­

dently referring to answer made on page 936, for no answer 
was recorded in shorthand, nor does one show on the Tand- 
berg tape recorder in answer to the Court’s question just 
above.)

The Court: Sir?
Mr. Maddin: Approximately 10 minutes.
The Court: Is that right?
A. 10 to 15 minutes.
The Court: All right. I didn’t get that.
Mr. Maddin: Approximately, I will ask you, what—how 

long after it was cleared until traffic was passing through 
that restaurant—in and out ?

A. Well, it was—I couldn’t say so many a minute that 
I saw, but it was the usual volume of trade, except—I 
mean there wasn’t as many people as you’d find on other 
days.

Q. The volume of people built up on either side?



191

Mr. Looby: He is leading him now, if your Honor please.
The Court: Well. Don’t lead him, now.

[fol. 938] Mr. Maddin: State how many crowds were in 
the immediate area of the restaurant.

Mr. Williams: He is still leading him if your Honor 
please. I know he has to lead him to try to make his case, 
but—•

Mr. Maddin: I object to that remark, if your Honor 
please.

The Court: No. That remark was not proper. I will 
try to keep Counsel in line so far as leading, and I am 
sure that—now, Mr. Crockett is a lawyer, and an intelligent 
witness, and a—now, ask your question again, and before 
he answers, let me rule as to whether it is proper.

Mr. Maddin: Mr. Crockett, did you see any unusual as­
sembly of people in the vicinity of the vestibule1?

A. Not after they were removed.
Q. Or at the time that they were still there?
A. No.
Q. I am talking about when you were there—in the vesti­

bule—did you see any unusual assembly of people?
A. Well, the colored boys remained in the vestibule.
Q. I am talking about when these 8 or 10 Negro men 

were in the vestibule, either exterior or interior, were there 
any assemblies of people.

(Mr. Maddin and the Court both talk at the same time.)
[fol. 939] The Court: While they were there did you see 
any unusual assembly of people?

A. Well, I don’t recall any assembly after the—
Mr. Maddin: I am talking about when these 8 or ten 

Negro men were in the vestibule. In the vicinity of the 
vestibule either interior or exterior, if you saw any as­
sembly of people?

A. Well, I still don’t know that I fully understand what 
period of time you have in mind. Of course they were still 
blocked on the inside, and there was a crowd inside and 
outside.

Q. All right. Now, then, when that had been unblocked,— 
What happened? Where did they go ?



192

A. Well, the crowd inside went out, and the crowd out­
side came in. The crowd outside which remained came on in.

Q. All right. Can you estimate the amount of people 
in each of those two groups?

A. No, sir, I couldn’t.
Q. Were there few or many?
Mr. Looby: If your Honor please, I object to that.
The Court: Let him answer the question.
A. It was a substantial number.

[fol. 940] The Court: A substantial number is pretty rela­
tive, Mr. Crockett.

Mr. Maddin: You may cross examine.
The Court: Gentlemen, I think it’s our noon hour, that’s 

arrived. Let’s defer cross examination until after lunch. 
Be careful, gentlemen of the jury, and do not discuss the 
case among yourselves. Come back at 1 o’clock.

(Thereupon the trial is adjourned at 12:00 o’clock noon.)

Afternoon Session 
1 :06 o’clock P.M.

The Court: Gentlemen, are we ready to bring down the 
jury?

Mr. Looby: Yes, your Honor, we are.
The Court: Bring them down.
(The jury is brought into the courtroom.)
The Court: All right, gentlemen, you may cross examine.

Cross examination.
By Mr. Looby:

Q. You are Mr. J. Vaulx Crockett?
A. Yes.
Q. You are a member of the firm of Stocked, Rutherford 

and Crockett?
A. Yes.
Q. You are a member of the Downtown Presbyterian 

[fol. 941] Church I presume?



193

A. I am.
Q. You have talked with Mr. Maddin about this case?
A. I have talked with him briefly, yes.
Q. When?
A. I don’t recall exactly—I think it was on the way out, 

though. He stopped as my wife and I were leaving and 
talked. We didn’t talk about the evidence in the case—not 
a thing.

Q. Was that on the 21st day of Oct., 1962?
A. What did you say?
Q. Was that the 21st of October, 1962?
A. Was what on the 21st?
Q. You said you talked to him briefly.
A. I don’t—I am sorry but I do not really understand 

the question.
The Court: He said that you—
Mr. Looby: You and I have had cases. Why can’t you 

understand me today?
A. I can’t explain that. I have had difficulty in arriving 

at the same conclusions in cases, and understanding your 
viewpoint on the case we have had. It may be we have 
something to do with that.
[fob 942] Q. But we have managed to understand each 
other?

A. I don’t know. I didn’t when you were on the other 
side, then it was rather strained.

Q. But we have always managed to understand each 
other ?

A. I don’t know that we have. I just couldn’t testify that 
we have always understood each other.

Q. Now, when did you talk to Mr. Maddin about this 
case which we are trying?

A. I talked to him when we were—I talked to him when 
the jury was being selected on several occasions about when 
to be here. I can’t give you the occasions. It would gen­
erally be before leaving the courtroom. I was really not in 
the courtroom, and I would try to leave word where I 
would be, and then he would call me after the case was 
started, after the evidence was started and he said that 
the case had started, and that probably he would need me 
at a certain time.



194

I believe that was 9 :30 this morning.
Q. Well, have you talked about the evidence in the case?
A. No, sir, I have tried to avoid it just to observe the—
Q. So he didn’t know what you were going to testify to 

today?
[fol. 943] A. Well, I would say he did know generally 
what I was going to testify to, yes, because I think I talked 
to him before the case was even under way—before he was 
in it, actually.

Q. I didn’t understand that last.
A. I said I think I talked to him before he was in the 

case, I think we had some discussions about it, yes, sir.
Q. Did you know at that time that he was the lawyer 

for the B & W Cafeteria?
A. Not when I first discussed it with him. I didn’t know 

that he was the lawyer in this case.
Q. How did you happen to be discussing it with him?
A. Well, Hugh Graeey was the lawyer and we were in 

City Court—I don’t know, I believe it was, and Hugh was 
there, and we had some discussion.

Q. And you were there ?
A. Yes, I was there. I was subpoenaed there.
Q. And you had some discussion?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you have been at the B & W Cafeteria a number 

of times, haven’t you?
A. I am sorry, I couldn’t hear you.

[fol. 944] Q. You have eaten at the B & W Cafeteria sev­
eral times?

A. Yes.
Q. To be served on numerous occasions?
A. I am sorry I didn’t hear you.
Q. (Repeats.)
A. Yes.
Q. And you know the place very well?
A. I know it very well, but I couldn’t give you the de­

tails because I am not good at it.
Q. Did you talk to Mr. Carrier on the 21st of October 

when these colored people were in the vestibule?
Mr. Maddin: I didn’t understand the question.
Mr. Crockett: I didn’t hear you.



195

Mr. Looby: Did I understand you to say you talked to 
Mr. Carrier on the 21st of October, when the colored boys 
were in the vestibule.

A. Yes.
Q. Did you advise him!
A. I talked to him. I don’t know whether I advised him. 

I was trying to be helpful.
Q. And you are the man who called the police!
A. I believe I called them once. They may have already 

been called.
Q. Do you know that seeking entrance—that they were 

[fol. 945] seeking entrance in the vestibule to patronize the 
place, don’t you!

A. Mr. Looby, I don’t know what they—I have no knowl­
edge of my own that I could testify to.

Q. Well, why did you call the police if you didn’t know 
what they were there for!

A. Well, I  called the police because the people outside 
that wanted to come in couldn’t get in, and the people inside 
that wanted to get out couldn’t get out.

Q. And they couldn’t get in because of the doorman! 
Isn’t that true!

A. Well, they wanted to get in and the doorman was hold­
ing the door. Now what they wanted—what they could have 
done, I don’t know. They had—

Q. But you know they wanted to come in and the door­
man was blocking the door!

A. I don’t knowT what they wanted, Mr. Looby. I am up 
here to testify to what happened to some extent, and do 
well to do that.

What they wanted—what their objective was, I do not 
know, other than the circumstances.

Q. Do you know why they wanted to get in! Is that what 
you are telling the jury!

A. I am not telling the Jury that I don’t know. I am 
not telling it in the sense that they didn’t want to get in. 
[fol. 946] I ’m just saying that I ’m not going to testify 
about their purpose, because that is a thing that I cannot 
testify about, cause I understand—

Q. Mr. Crockett, you were on the inside, and they were 
in the vestibule, and white people on the outside. How can



196

you testify to the jury that all the white people wanted 
to get in, when you don’t know whether these Negroes 
wanted to get in or not! Mr. Rutherford!

A. That what! My name is Crockett.
Q. I know it isn’t Rutherford.
A. I didn’t understand you.
Q. The question is this: You testified that the white 

people on the outside wanted to get in! Didn’t you!
A. Yes.
Q. And you were on the inside!
A. That’s right.
Q. And these people were in the vestibule between you 

and the white people!
A. Yes.
Q. And Mr. Rutherford—
Mr. Maddin: Just call him Rutherford.
Mr. Crockett: We need to get all the advertisement we 

can. Just go ahead.
Mr. Looby: How do you know what the white people 

wanted to do on the outside, and you didn’t know what the 
Negro boys in the vestibule wanted to do!
[fol. 947] A. Well, I would say I can answer that by giv­
ing two reasons: First is, as you brought out, I have gone 
there for many years and customarily, people who approach 
the door, look in, and do come on in,—most all of them 
would come on in. And the people who have eaten—they 
would usually come out. Then, they did come in, and they 
did go out. Some of them. Not all of them. In the course 
of that later on. I don’t know if it was the same people, 
but that’s something I have seen happen.

Q. So from your experience—
A. Now, another thing, as far as colored people are con­

cerned, I am not familiar with that situation. I don’t know 
what they had in mind, myself.

Q. But you—•
A. I would assume that they did. I don’t want to argue, 

but I just don’t know their—
Mr. Maddin: Now, if your Honor please, there is some­

thing we are objecting to. Counsel has argued that all the 
way through the direct examination.



197

The Court: Well, I guess there would no harm in let­
ting Mr. Crockett answer.

Mr. Maddin: The only harm is the bending of the rules 
that go on in the courtroom where they object to our argu­
ing something, and then they want to come in here and ask 
the Court to allow them some assumptions or conclusions, 
[fol. 948] Regardless of what it is, it isn’t admissible.

Mr. Looby: I didn’t ask for a conclusion.
The Court: I will have to conclude, I think, that Mr. 

Crockett’s assumptions would not benefit the jury. Now, 
what he saw there would be very helpful if he tells Counsel 
that. Just tell us what you saw there, and answer his ques­
tions. I think you can do it. I don’t believe, though, any­
thing would be gained by asking him Ms assumptions.

Mr. Looby: Now, Mr. Crockett, you have already made 
a statement that the white people wanted to come in—were 
you making an assumption?

A. Well, I don’t think so, because the white people would 
come in when the obstructions were removed, and they have 
come in customarily.

Q. Name some white person who was standing out there 
and couldn’t get in and who came on in.

A. (Hesitates.)
Q. A little louder, please.
A. Well, I was trying to think of names. And, well, I 

can’t think of any individuals at this time.
Q. I ’ll wait.
A. Of course Mickey Martin couldn’t get in at first, and 

his mother, and had to push their way in. I have already 
named him.

Q. Would you be surprised that Mr. Martin said when 
he asked them to excuse him, they did, and he came on in. 
[fol. 949] Did you know that?

A. Do I know what?
Q. Did you know that Mr. Martin testified before you 

did, and I think that the record will show that he asked 
them to excuse him, and they did, and he came on in. Did 
you know that happened?

A. I didn’t know that happened. I heard him say, My 
mother is going to get in, and I am, too. That’s what I 
heard him say.



198

Q. Where were yon when he said that?
A. I was right there—
Q. Sir?
A. I was right behind him, out on the street.
Q. You came on in, didn’t you?
A. Yeah, I did after that.
Q. You come in after Mr. Martin?
A. Yes, right after he did.
Q. Did you hear Mr. Martin ask them to excuse him?
A. I didn’t hear that. After he said what I have re­

counted, he went on through.
Q. About how far is the Downtown Presbyterian Church 

from the B & W?
A. It is one block west. The Downtown Church is at 5th 

and Church, on the southeastern corner. Co one block east 
[fol. 950] on Church and then approximately % or % block 
north on 6th, and that is the distance.

Q. On numerous occasions you have gone to that cafe­
teria through the back door, haven’t you?

A. On some occasions, yes.
Q. How did your children get in there that Sunday?
A. Well, as I recall,—of course, I didn’t see my daugh­

ters get in—it would be hearsay, but I will be glad to give 
it to you if you want it.

Q. I don’t want any hearsay. I want it on what you know. 
You don’t know how they got in?

A. Well, I don’t think my daughters went through the 
front door. I don’t know that they did.

Q. Well, Mr. Crockett, we don’t want to know what you 
think, but what you know.

A. Well, I am testifying to the best of my recollection. I 
think they went in another way.

Q. But you don’t know?
A. They did get in.
Q. How did your son get in?
A. With me.
Q. And after you got in, you were served, weren’t you?
After you had gotten in and given your advice, and had 

called the police, you were served?
[fol. 951] A. As I recall, it was a good while after that 
before I was served.



199

Q. A good while after what?
A. After I got in.
Q. Were the police in there?
A. I don’t think I was served until after the thing had 

cleared up.
Q. Was there anything to prevent you from being 

served ?
A. I don’t know. I don’t know whether there was. I was 

out there.
Q. You were so anxious to call the police you didn’t know 

when you were served and get the police over there?
A. I think—I wasn’t anxious to call the police, but I was 

anxious to get the situation relieved.
Q. And you thought the way to relieve the situation was 

by calling the police?
A. Well, I didn’t know what to do. Really; I tried that.
Q. Didn’t the police consult with you when they got 

there?
A. I talked to them.
Q. Well, the police consulted with you, didn’t they? Mr. 

Crockett ?
[fol. 952] A. So far as the word “ consulted” I don’t know 
what you mean by it. I talked to them.

Q. I mean to know what to do.
A. Well, they talked to me. Whether they knew more, 

or I knew more, whether they were listening to me, telling 
them what to do, I don’t know.

Q. Did you advise them to arrest them?
A. Well, I would say that I did, yes, sir. I wouldn’t say 

it was advising them. I was for it. I tell you that. That 
was the only thing I could think of, gentlemen. I tried to 
think of everything else.

Q. For what reason—because they came to a place where 
they served only white persons for a meal?

A. What was that?
Q. For what reason, or what purpose, or what charge 

did you advise their arrest?
A. I don’t think I suggested the charge.
Q. You just advised a blanket arrest?
A. I wouldn’t say I advised it. I advocated it. But I 

don’t know as I—in other words, I suggested it.



2 0 0

Q. And yon advocated it, or suggested it—whatever way 
you want to put it—the arrest on what charge ?

A. Uh—the officers, as I recall it, suggested disorderly 
[fol. 953] conduct,—wait a minute, now, I don’t think I 
advised anything. I said, Go ahead and do it, and let’s get 
this thing cleared up and get it open.

Q. And the officers consulted you because you are a 
lawyer ?

A. Yes, sir, but I am no criminal lawyer, and they didn’t 
do much by consulting me, I ’ll have to admit, because I 
didn’t know what to do.

Q. Nevertheless, you suggested the arrest, or advised 
the arrest, or agreed with the arrest, simply because they 
went to a white place seeking service which was being of­
fered to all white people?

A. Well, my interest was to help, if I could, to get it open 
and get the thing quieted down, and people going in and 
going out.

Q. What were you there for ?
A. What was I there for?
Q. Yes, sir?
A. I came to eat dinner—Sunday dinner.
Q. You came to eat dinner?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know that you came for the same purpose that 

the Negroes came there for?
Mr. Maddin: We object, if the Court please. Counsel 

is just being repetitious, like last time.
[fol. 954] The Court: He said he didn’t know what they 
were there for.

Mr. Looby: You say your interest was in getting them 
quieted down. Why didn’t you ask the man to let them in 
and serve them, if you wanted to get things quieted down?

A. Well, for two reasons. That was his business, and 
not my business; and, second, if it had been my business, 
I would think it would have been very unwise to have done 
it.

That’s my opinion about it, as far as the business is con­
cerned.

Q. It is his place of business ? Is that what you said ?



2 0 1

A. No, I said that decision, I think, is strictly up to the 
management of the business.

Q. Then why wasn’t that left to management instead of 
your advising them?

A. Well, I guess it was. I was just trying to—they 
seemed to think that I, being a lawyer,—I am not a criminal 
lawyer that I would know what to do, and I just kind of 
fumbled through the best I could. And that is the way I 
fumbled through.

Q. Now, you said “ they”—the management or the police?
A. The management and the police, and they advised 

with me. Nobody knew what to do, including me.
Q. When you conferred with the police was management 

[fol. 955] present?
Q. Well, he was partly, I mean, it—he was back and 

forth some. We were just standing around and trying to 
figure out what to do.

Q. Specifically, when was it suggested or when was it 
agreed upon or fixed on, when it was done—with the police 
and when these Negroes were arrested, was the manage­
ment there ?

A. I couldn’t identify the exact moment that the decision 
was reached. And I couldn’t say whether—I just can’t an­
swer that question—I don’t know when the decision was 
reached.

It was sort of a milling around situation, where there was 
great confusion. All these people milling around in front. 
People out front, and nobody knew what to do, and I don’t 
know how to answer that, that question.

Q. So the great question that perplexed you as to what 
to do, you knew what the answer was then, and you knew 
how to advise them?

A. Repeat that, please.
Q. Did you know, at that time, that when they were per­

plexed as to what to do—you knew what the answer was 
then, and you knew how to advise them?

A. I don’t know what the answer is now, Mr. Looby. I 
didn’t know then. I am not a criminal lawyer and I haven’t 
[fol. 956] had a case in criminal court in I don’t know when.

Mr. Looby: You have said that a dozen times.



2 0 2

Mr. Maddin: He lias asked the question that many times, 
if your Honor please.

The Court: No, don’t—don’t—
Mr. Looby: Now, Mr. Rutherford—Mr. Crockett, I be­

lieve you said that when you got up there, some people 
were in front of the restaurant?

A. Yes.
Q. White people?
A. Yes.
Q. How many?
A. Well, gosh, I ’d say probably 8 or 10, first, then more 

would come up, and some would leave. And you just can’t 
be sure about the exact number.

Q. Ho you know, Mr. Crockett, whether or not that most 
of them just came because of curiosity, because the Negroes 
were in the vestibule ?

A. So far as I know, none of them were there for that 
purpose. They all appeared to be, as far as I could tell, 
to eat lunch. Most of them, so far as I could tell. They 
looked like it, exchanging glances, and all that. That was 
the conclusion I drew. You asked me the question, and that 
is my conclusion, that I drew.

Q. How did you make your conclusion?
A. Just their appearances.
Q. In other words, you simply gave an opinion?

[fol. 957] A. Well, I told you—I don’t know. If you can 
determine from looking at the people, I think you can deter­
mine if they want to get in, or just looking. So I determined 
that they wanted to get in.

Q. You mean you can just—
A. I wouldn’t guarantee my conclusion. But I would bet 

money on it. I wouldn’t guarantee it.
Q. You would bet your money on it?
The Court: Now, let’s get along, gentlemen. All right. I 

am afraid we are killing time now.
Mr. Looby: Do you mean to say that none of them were 

milling around from curiosity?
A. I didn’t say none of them were.
Q. What proportion of them gathered around for killing 

time ?



203

Mr. Nichol: If your Honor please, these speculations are 
not worth the time.

Mr. Butler: He has already said he didn’t know.
The Court: Just to cut the thing short, how if you know 

the answer to it, tell him, Mr. Crockett, what percentage of 
them you think were onlookers, and what percentage you 
think were coming in.

A. I would say the larger proportion.
The Court: Well, what is larger? Give it in per cent.

[fol. 958] A. At first? I believed you asked me about at 
first. Well, I don’t recall anybody—I believe you asked me 
about at first—that was there at all, that appeared to be 
onlookers; till I got in, I don’t recall anybody.

Q. Well, when you got there, how many were there?
A. I thought about 8 or 10.
Q. And you went right on in ?
A. I didn’t go in right at first. I stayed out quite a bit 

before I went through.
Q. Why did you stay out?
A. I didn’t think I could make it until Mickey Martin, 

whom I knew, he is bigger than I am. And I thought if he 
could get in, I could.

Q. And how many when you got there ?
A. I don’t know. I wasn’t—
Q. About how many?
A. I don’t know. I was paying attention to getting in and 

I don’t know who else was there.
Q. About 10?
A. I said I didn’t know.
Q. Can you give an estimate ?
Mr. Maddin: We object, if the Court please.
The Court: He says he doesn’t know—can’t estimate, 

[fol. 959] Mr. Looby: Now, when you got in there, the 
doorman was holding the door, wasn’t he ?

A. The doorman was holding the door?
Q. I am asking you?
A. I think so.
Q. And he opened the door and let you in?



204

A. That’s right. He let me in. I got in.
Q. And that was after Mr. Martin got in?
A. Yeah.
Q. And then after he let you in, he closed the door?
A. Well, he was—I guess he did, yeah.
Q. Well, you know whether he did or not, don’t you?
A. I didn’t make any mental note of what happened as 

to whether he closed the door, or not. I ’m just sort of 
giving my best impression of it.

Q. But did you see—
A. He kept on holding the door. I would say that.
Q. And he let all the white people in that wanted to 

[fol. 960] come in?
A. I don’t recall anybody coming in up to that—there 

could have been somebody else who came on through but 
most of them didn’t come in.

Q. Do you recall any people who wanted to come in that 
the doorman kept out?

A. That the doorman kept out?
Q. Yes?
A. No. I don’t recall.
Q. And so all the white people that wanted to come in, 

got in and he kept the Negroes out? Isn’t that true?
A. The doorman—he was keeping the niggers out, but 

the niggers was keeping the white people out.
Mr. Williams: If the Court please, we object to Counsel 

using the word Negroes the way he is pronouncing it, as a 
matter of prejudice. We don’t care how he feels about it, 
his personal preference, but he has no right to bring de­
rogatory language into this courtroom.

The Court: Who are you talking about? I don’t know 
who you are talking about, gentlemen.

A. He said Counsel. You mean me?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir.
A. Did I use it.
Mr. Looby: Repeat the word you said.

[fol. 961] A. I said Negroes. Is that—improper?



205

Mr. Looby: That is very proper, if that is what you. 
say when they come to your office.

A. I thought I did. I really thought I did.
Q. What is this?
A. I thought I used it the right way. I didn’t realize I—
Mr. Maddin: If the Court please, this is getting ridicu­

lous.
The Court: Now, gentlemen, let’s get along. Let’s get 

along. If he—he can call people what he pleases. That’s 
his business.

A. Let me—
The Court: All right.
A. Let me say I don’t mean anything by—
The Court: Just answer the question. Mr. Witness, just 

answer the question, that Counsel asks you.
A. O.K.
The Court: Let’s move along. All right. Just answer 

the questions as nearly as you can without too much elabora­
tion and I think we will move along as we should be.

Mr. Looby: Now, I believe Mr. Martin went in first 
and then you went in right after him?

A. I believe so.
[fol. 962] Q. And his mother went in after him? Did 
you see his mother come in?

A. I think she went in with him. She may have gotten 
in before he did. I think she went in with him. I remember 
him saying, That’s my mother, or That’s my mother in there. 
I am not quite sure of her coming in.

Q. Was that in front of you or behind?
A. He was in front of me.
Q. And his mother was in front of you?
A. Whether she went through there, or whether she was 

inside, inside the door, I don’t recall.
Q. Do you recall Mr. Edwards going in?
A. I saw Mr. Edwards inside.
Q. He was in there before you got there?



206

A. I believe he was. I don’t have any recollection of 
when he came in.

Q. Did yon see Mrs. Edwards in there?
A. Later on, I saw them there.
Q. Did yon see two ladies, gnests with her?
A. Two lady guests with them?
Q. Yes?
A. I don’t remember. I may have, but I don’t remem­

ber it.
Q. Yon said there were some people on the inside waiting 

[fol. 963] to get out?
A. Yes, there were.
Q. How many?
A. I would say it ran from 8 up to 25 would be my 

best recollection.
Q. Or people waiting to get out and couldn’t get out?
A. They appeared to be.
Q. The back door was open? The back entrance?
A. I do not know.
Q. Your daughters came through the back entrance, 

didn’t they?
A. I understand they did, but I don’t know.
Mr. Butler: We object to that, if your Honor please. We 

have been through that three times at least. He said he 
didn’t know how the children got in there. He thought 
they didn’t come through the front entrance. It is repeti­
tious. He thought that it was some other entrance, but 
he didn’t know. Now, we have gone through that, I know, 
three times.

The Court: Well, I think he did say that, sir.
Mr. Looby: I would like to be heard on it if I have to 

go through it three more times.
Mr. Butler: We are objecting to it, if your Honor 

please, and on the grounds that it is repetitious.
The Court: I sustain the objection to it. I think it is 

repetitious, so now, let’s get on, to something new. Don’t 
[fol. 964] ask him about that. You may ask him about the 
back door.

Mr. Looby: Now, as to whether or not these people 
you said wanted to get out and couldn’t get out, the back 
door was available?



207

A. Back door what ?
Q. Was available?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Well, you know where the back door is, don’t yon?
A. I know where it is. You can’t see it from up front.
Q. How is that?
A. You can’t see it from the front, though.
Q. Do you remember any of the people you saw up there 

—one or two of them?
A. No, I can’t. Probably could think of them tonight, 

but I can’t do it—
Q. But you can do it tonight?
The Court: He says he cannot think of them.
Q. We would like to have them today. We don’t want 

them tonight. Was there anybody there that you knew?
A. Well, I knew the Edwards, of course.
Q. I mean who were trying to get out and couldn’t.

[fob 965] A. I don’t believe there was.
Q, Did they tell you they wanted to get out and couldn’t?
A. No, sir. Well, I don’t think they did.
Q. How do you know they wanted to get out and couldn’t?
A. Well, they stood out there where you can only get out.
Q. How long did they stand?
A. Well, some stood longer than others. I can’t tell you 

how long they—even one or a group—stood.
Q. How long were they standing there—from the time 

that you got there until the police came and got them out?
A. Well, I was laboring under considerable stress my­

self. I couldn’t give you an accurate statement of the 
exact time—anywhere near the exact time. Because I 
wasn’t conscious of that. I would say—I will undertake 
it under those qualifications—oh, 30 minutes, approxi­
mately, more or less.

Q. And those people standing there and waiting 30 
minutes to get out?

A. Which people stayed where? You mean—
Q. The people who wanted to get out?
A. Well, I don’t know. I ’m talking about up to the arrest, 

[fob 966] Q. And they got out after the arrest, didn’t 
they?

A. Yeah.



208

Q. And they had been waiting 30 minutes before they 
got out?

A. Well, of course, some less than others I suppose.
Q. I believe that is all we have to ask.
The Court: Anything further from this witness? Come 

down, Mr. Crockett.
The Court: Call the next one.

[fol. 967] Mrs. George W. F orehand , called as a witness 
on behalf of the state, being first duly sworn, testified as 
follows:

Direct examination.

By Mr. Maddin:
Q. What is your name?
A. Mrs. George W. Forehand.
Q. On Sunday, October 21, 1962, did you have occasion 

to have lunch at a downtown restaurant?
A. Yes, sir, I did.
Q. What restaurant was that, Mrs. Forehand?
A. B & W Cafeteria.
Q. From what direction did you approach the B & W?
A. The north.
Q. On 6th Avenue?
A. That’s right.
Q. As you approached it, did you see any persons also 

approaching the restaurant?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Will you describe them?
A. A group of colored people—men.
Q. They pass you? Or stay behind?
A. Yes. They passed me, advancing to the B & W Cafe- 

[fol. 968] teria.
Q. You were coming from the north?
A. That’s right.
Q. You mean you were coming from Union Street toward 

the restaurant?
A. That’s right.



209

Q. And as they passed you, well, first of all, where did 
they go? After they passed you?

A. They entered the vestibule of the B & W Cafeteria.
Q. How far were you from the entrance when they en­

tered?
A. Approximately 25 feet.
Q. Then where did you go ?
A. To the B & W.
Q. Were they there?
A. They were there inside the first door. There are two 

doors.
Q. Had they gained admission beyond that first door?
A. Yes, they did.
Q. Had they gotten past the second door?
A. No, they were blocked at the second door.
Q. Were there others in your company?

[fol. 969] A. Yes, there were. My mother and father.
Q. Now, did you overhear any conversations that may 

have passed between them?
A. Yes. I don’t know which one said it, but one said, 

When you get there—
Mr. Williams: We object, if your Honor please, to that 

as incompetent.
The Court: Well, yes, unless she can identify it as hav­

ing come from one of the defendants.
Mr. Maddin: Did it come from one of the defendants— 

Well, first of all, did the ones that passed you—are they 
the ones you are talking about?

A. That’s right.
Q. How many passed you?
A. Approximately 7, 8, or 10.
Q. Now, did you seek to identify the speaker at the time?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Was the speaker one of the ones that went into this 

vestibule?
A. That’s correct.
Q. One of the ones that went into the vestibule and were 

taken by the police away from there?
A. Yes.



2 1 0

Mr. Williams: We object to that, if your Honor please, 
[fol. 970] The Court: No. That is competent, gentlemen. 
That has been shown—there is proof of that in the record. 
She may admit that.

Mr. Williams: We object, if your Honor please, not only 
to the competency of it, but also on the ground that Counsel 
is leading the witness.

The Court: Well, now, don’t lead the witness.
Mr. Maddin: All right.
The Court: Don’t do that.
Mr. Maddin: Mrs. Forehand, you have testified that 

some 8 or 10 colored boys went into the vestibule1?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know what happened to them?
A. Do I know what happened? When?
Q. After they entered the vestibule?
A. They were gathered together in a group inside the 

vestibule.
Q. Did they remain there as long as you did, or do you 

know how they departed?
A. They departed by truck, or the wagon, I don’t know.
Q. By patrol wagon? Of the police department?
A. That’s right.
Q. Are you in a position to know whether or not they 

[fol. 971] all remained there until the patrol wagon took 
them away?

A. They remained where?
Q. In the vestibule.
A. Until the patrol wagon took them?
Q. Until the patrol wagon took them?
A. That’s right, I believe.
Q. Now, I ’ll ask you if—I asked you a moment ago if 

the one was one of the ones that went into that vestibule 
and was taken away by the police?

A. That’s correct.
Q. All right. Will you state what was said?
A. When we get there, just keep pushing. Do not stop. 

Just keep on pushing.
Q. Now, let me see if I understand you. Repeat the 

whole thing. I am not sure I understand it.



2 1 1

A. When we get there, just keep pushing. Don’t stop. 
Just keep pushing.

Q. And that was said by one of the colored boys who 
went into this vestibule?

Mr. Williams: We object to that, if your Honor please.
The Court: Overruled.
Mr. Williams: On what ground, if your Honor please, 

[fol. 972] The Court: I overruled your objection. I
thought he might be leading a little bit, leading the witness 
a little bit.

Mr. Williams: If your Honor please, we say he is lead­
ing and it is incompetent.

The Court: I think that is competent and I will have to 
allow the witness to answer it.

Mr. Maddin: What response to that did you hear?
A. Not any.
Q. And where were you in relation to the vestibule of 

the cafeteria when you heard that? When you heard that 
statement made?

A. Advancing to the B & W.
Q. Can you estimate your distance from the vestibule 

when you heard it—distance from the entrance way?
A. I don’t think so. Maybe 15 feet or 20 feet.
Q. I see, and were the persons in that group within your 

sight at all times until they got into the vestibule?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Now, then, did you, after reaching the doorway to 

the restaurant, ultimately gain admission to the restaurant?
A. That’s correct.
Q. What happened to you and the persons in your 

[fol. 973] party who were trying to gain entrance—to get 
through—

A. Ask that again, please.
Q. What occurred to you or the persons with you while 

you sought to get through into the restaurant?
A. Mother—■
Mr. Williams: We object to that, if your Honor please, 

as being leading and suggestive, and—



2 1 2

The Court: Well, he just asked her, did he not—just 
what you observed and saw there, ma’am? You can tell 
that.

A. When we entered the vestibule, or when we attempted 
to enter the vestibule, this group was grouped together. 
My mother feared for her life to go in there.

The Court: Well—of course, I don’t believe you would 
know about that.

Mr. Williams: We object, if your Honor please.
The Court: So you just tell what you observed and saw, 

ma’am.
A. Well, the group was grouped together. And I asked 

them to excuse me and I ’d get by. They were gathered 
near the door. I tried time and time again to get through 
the inner door, and after trying for maybe 5 or 10 minutes, 
we got through a very small crack in the door.

Q. What, if any, assistance did you have, or render any­
one else in getting through the door?

A. Uh—we did decide to go in, as I started to say a 
while ago, after mother said she was afraid—
[fol. 974] The Court: No—no—no—that’s—what mother 
said, you can’t say. He just asked you the question and 
I admonish you again—just watch—just what you saw 
there that happened, and observed.

Mr. Maddin: As you started in, now I want you to tell 
me what assistance you gave or received, in your effort 
to get through.

A. I took my mother, and put her in front of me. Held 
on to the bar with my left hand, put my right hand around 
her, so she could gain entrance. I did my father the same 
way, and I entered through a very small crack in the door.

Q. That’s all. You may cross examine.

Cross examination.

By Mr. AYilliams :
Q. Mrs. George AY. Forehand?
A. (hesitates)



213

Q. Ma’am?
A. (hesitates)
Q. Is that your name?
A. That is correct.
Q. Mrs. Forehand, I gather this morning that you went 

into the place before—well, let’s put it another way. You 
were at the place while some other people were in the 
[fol. 975] vestibule? Is that correct?

A. That’s correct.
Q. And you say these Negro men went into the vestibule?
A. That’s correct.
Q. And you say you brought your mother through, and 

then your father—you brought them through separately 
or did your father come behind yon? Or how?

A. I think my father came after mother and I, but they 
went in before I did.

Q. Well, you didn’t carry your father through any great 
dangerous situation as you have been telling the jury here?

A. I carried him through a group.
Q. You carried him through a group of people?
A. That’s right.
Q. And of course that group of people that you carried 

him through had done nothing to you?
A. That’s right, they had.
Q. Well, what had they done to yon?
A. They embarrassed me and humiliated me.
Q. All right.
A. That’s right.

[fol. 976] Q. They embarrassed you and humiliated you 
because they were Negroes? Is that correct?

A. No, because they called me a hypocrite.
Q. Because they called you a hypocrite?
A. That is correct.
Q. You didn’t feel that you were?
A. I certainly didn’t.
Q. Well, when was it that you were called a hypocrite?
A. In the vestibule when I attempted to go through.
Q. Who called you a hypocrite?
A. The gentleman sitting next to you.
Q. The gentleman sitting next to me called you a hypo­

crite ?



214

A. That is right. Not just me, but all the people in there.
Q. All the people in there! How many people were there 

in the vestibule! All the white people in the vestibule!
A. No, I am talking about in the restaurant.
Q. You are!
A. Yes.
Q. State what the gentleman said that called you a hypo- 

[fol.977] crite!
A. He said, Look at them—sitting in there, supposing to 

be Christians, just come from church, but they are just a 
bunch of hypocrites.

Q. Now, then, that is what you construed as being called 
a hypocrite!

A. That’s correct.
Q. You weren’t sitting in there at the time, were you, 

Mrs. Forehand!
A. No.
Q. So you were just trying to get in there to join the 

group that he was calling hypocrites! Is that correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. So that he did not actually call you a hypocrite,— 

he just called some other people hypocrites—and you 
wanted to join that group? Isn’t that correct?

A. No. That is not correct.
Q. So that is the only thing that happened to you going 

through the vestibule? Isn’t it?
A. No. Pushing and shoving.
Q. Well, you were—have you ever been to any public 

place where there was a crowd, Mrs. Forehand?
A. Of course.
Q. You have been to the city auditorium sometimes— 

[fob 978] don’t you at times have to push and elbow your 
way through a crowd?

A. I don’t think a gentleman would.
Q. You don’t think a gentleman would have to push his 

way—push and elbow his way through a crowd?
A. Not of ladies, no.
Q. You think that in any crowd that a gentleman ought 

to stand back and allow any ladies to pass through?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Well, as a matter of fact, that thing you were ob­



215

jecting to was having to pass through this group of Negroes 
to get into the restaurant? That is what you were voicing 
this objection to, wasn’t it!

A. No, I did not.
Q. You did not?
A. I objected to them—to being insulted and having to 

push my way or try to gain entrance through this.
Q. Well, what I am saying is—you don't object—when 

you go up in the B & W—to go up at the B & W Cafeteria 
and there is a crowd of white people in there—you don’t 
object to elbowing your way through the crowd, do you?

A. I certainly would object to it.
Q. You would?
A. Elbowing or pushing.

[fol. 979] Q. Well, you were the one doing the elbowing 
and pushing to get through the crowd, weren’t you?

A. No. I was begging them—their pardon to get my way 
through the crowd.

Q. You were begging their pardon?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, now, where were you standing in the vestibule, 

Mrs. Forehand?
A. Well, I started in at the first entrance, but—
Q. All right. You got inside of the vestibule?
A. That’s right.
Q. So that these Negroes were not just packed in there 

like sardines?
A. Just about.
Q. Ma’am?
A. Just about.
Q. Well, how did you get the door open then?
A. I just told you I went in through a very small crack.
Q. I ’m talking about the outside door?

[fol. 980] A. No. There’s no trouble getting in the outside 
door.

Q. There was room for the outside door to open then?
A. You see, approximately 7 or 10 people in this group—
Q. Yes?
A. And that wouldn’t jam this vestibule to the capacity 

where it wouldn’t, for instance, contain one more.



216

Q. So there was plenty of room for you to get into that 
vestibule ?

A. Not all the way through. Maybe just inside the first 
door.

Q. But when you got to the second door, why these gen­
tlemen—and let’s call them Negro gentlemen, do you 
mind ?—

Mr. Maddin: If your Honor please,—
Mr. Williams: —these gentlemen—
Mr. Maddin: I don’t think he has the privilege of in­

structing the witness, about what to call the defendants.
The Court: Go ahead and call them—
Mr. Williams: He was allowed to call my race whatever 

he wanted to call them, if your Honor please.
Mr. Robinson: Let’s back up right this minute, if your 

Honor please.
The Court: No, gentlemen, go ahead with your examina- 

[fol. 981] tion. Go ahead with your examination, now.
Mr. Williams: And these Negro gentlemen were stand­

ing at the door, trying to get in the restaurant?
A. Yes.
Q. And the doorman was blocking them out? There? 

Was he not?
A. I don’t think so. No, I got in. No, he wasn’t block­

ing them out.
Q. Do you mean the doors were open?
A. I got in.
Q. Yes, but the doors-—you said you went through a small 

crack, didn’t you?
A. Yes.
Q. These are swinging doors. Are they not, Mrs. Fore­

hand?
A. Yes, they are.
Q. So that there had to be somebody on the inside push­

ing on the door to keep it shut, otherwise these gentlemen 
could have—if these are the gentlemen—could have en­
tered? Without any difficulty? Couldn’t they?

A. I suppose so.
Q. Of course. As a matter of fact, the doorman was



217

there, keeping these Negroes—Negro persons out of the 
restaurant?

A. Well, they kept me out. I don’t know aboxit him. You 
[fol. 982] will have to question him about that.

Q. Well, now, Mrs. Forehand, the doorman was the one 
holding the door, wasn’t he?

A. Actually, I couldn’t see whether he was holding the 
door, or not, until I got there, and put my mother inside.

Q. Well, when you put your mother inside, you did see 
the doorman there holding the door, did you not?

A. The door was opened for her when she got there.
Q. Yes, but the doors opened—did they open wide?
A. I just don’t know how wide.
Q. I thought you said you got in through a little crack.
A. That’s exactly right, but I don’t know how wide it—
Q. He did not open it wide?
A. Yes, big enough for me to get in.
Q. Just a little crack. It wasn’t too much? That’s true, 

isn’t it, Mrs. Forehand?
A. It was a crack big enough for me to get in.
Q. Yes, ma’am? As a matter of fact, the doorman was 

[fol. 983] there holding them out, and you all were let in 
through a small aperture?

A. We gained entrance.
Q. By the doorway?
A. Yes.
Q. By the doorman?
A. We gained entrance through the door, I don’t know 

whether it was by the doorman, or not,
Q. Mrs. Forehand, are you saying that you never saw 

the doorman there?
A. Of course, I have seen him there.
Q. No, I mean on that afternoon?
A. Yes, I saw him.
Q. The doorman was there, was he not?
A. He is always there.
Q. Mrs. Forehand, on this particular occasion, the door­

man was there, wms he not?
A. Yes.
Q. And he was holding the door to keep these Negro 

persons out, was he not?



218

A. I said that I couldn’t see for this crowd there, but 
when I got there with my mother, the door was opened 
for ns.

Q. Yes, ma’am. And when yon got in, didn’t you see the 
doorman!

A. Yes. Uh-huh.
[fol. 984] Q. Didn’t yon see him holding the other door 
in order to let you and your mother in through a crack?

A. He was standing on the door.
Q. And he was holding the door, was he not, Mrs. Fore­

hand?
A. He always holds onto the door.
Q. You just—you don’t know whether he was holding 

the door, or not?
A. I didn’t see him force—but he always hold onto the 

door every day.
Q. You didn’t what—you didn’t look at him to see if he 

was holding the door?
A. No, I didn’t.
Q. Your father had got in ahead of you, hadn’t he?
A. He got in. But—no, mother and I went in first, then 

he came in, but I put both them inside before I came in.
Q. Do you know Mr. J. Vaulx Crockett, Mrs. Forehand?
A. Who?
Q. Mr. J. Vaulx Crockett?
A. No, I don’t.
Q. Mrs. Forehand, do you know of anybody there—of 

any white person who tried to get in to that restaurant, 
[fol. 985] and did not?

A. Yes. There are about 30 or 35 people from our church 
who eat there every Sunday. This particular Sunday, 
some of these people did not gain entrance.

Q. I am asking you, Mrs. Forehand, if you can give me 
the name of any person that tried to get in that restaurant, 
and was unable to?

A. Uh— Not off-hand.
Q. And, as a matter of fact, if you had known, you 

would have gotten their names for the attorney general 
so fast it wouldn’t have been funny.

A. I think you are testifying for me there.



219

Q. All right. Well, I will ask you another way. If you 
had known some person who was excluded—some white 
person—who tried to get in and couldn’t—you would have 
told the Attorney General about it, wouldn’t you?

A. I am sure I could find someone right now from my 
church that didn’t.

Q. But you haven’t tried?
A. No, I haven’t.
Q. You haven’t discussed that with the attorney gen­

eral?
A. No, I have not.
Q. How many times have you discussed that with the 

[fol. 986] attorney, John Maddin?
A. Oh, he called me last Monday or Tuesday morning, 

and—uh, maybe one other time.
Q. You have gone over the whole case with him?
A. Oh, no. No. The first time I talked with him was about 

my being sick and being doubtful about coming up here.
Q. Well, how did he know that you had been—that you 

were up there that time?
A. My father had talked with Mr. Carrier.
Q. Is your father up here today?
A. Yes, he is.
Q. Your mother up here today?
A. No, she isn’t.
Q. Now, Mrs. Forehand, you said you were coming from 

Union Street, going towards Church,—and you had been 
at this place, and these youngsters passed you?

And your mother and your father?
A. Correct.
Q. Were you noticing them particularly as they passed 

you?
A. No. Not particularly.
Q. Well, what made you notice these Negroes, Mrs. 

Forehand?
[fol. 987] A. Just like I would notice anybody that would 
make a remark about pushing or shoving. I wondered 
what was going to take place.

Q. Well, where you at the time you heard this remark 
made?



2 2 0

A. I said while ago, I think, it was about 25 feet from the 
entrance of the B & W  Cafeteria.

Q. They were abont 20 feet from the entrance?
A. Approximately.
Q. And where were you?
A. When I first saw them, about 25 ft.
Q. When you heard the remark, where were you?
A. About 20 to 25 feet from the entrance of the B & W 

Cafeteria.
Q. You mean you were right up close to them?
A. Passing. They were passing, passing me.
Q. They were passing you?
A. That is correct.
Q. Where were you walking? Were you walking between 

your father and mother? Or—
A. I don’t remember.
Q. You don’t remember?
A. No, I don’t.

[fol. 988] Q. Were there any other people on the street? 
Anywhere ?

A. Of course. Always.
Q. Ma’am?
A. There’s always people on the sidewalk on 6th Avenue, 

on Sunday.
Q. Well, you mean by that that there were on this occa­

sion people—
A. Other people—
Q. Other people on the sidewmlk—passing on the side­

walk, up and down?
A. That is right.
Q. And how did you know that that remark came from 

this group of young men?
A. Well, my hearing is perfectly good.
Q. Well, then—
A. My sense of direction is good.
Q. Do you remember these Negroes?
A. I certainly do.
Q. Do you remember their face?
A. I certainly remember two of ’em’s face.
Q. Two of ’em’s face.
A. I certainly do.



2 2 1

Q. Well, why can’t you remember which one the remark 
came from then?

A. The remark came, and I heard it, and when I heard 
[fol. 989] it, I turned around and saw this group—

Q. Eight?
A. And I did not look them in the eyes—
Q. Eight! Mrs. Forehand, you weren’t even looking at 

them when you heard the remark,—at the time you heard 
the remark, were you?

A. Well, I could close my eyes and hear you talk.
Q. Mrs. Forehand, answer my question. Your answer 

to that one question is directly unresponsive.
You weren’t even looking at them—at these Negroes— 

at the time you heard this remark, were you?
A. I still heard them.
Q. But it is true you were not looking at them?
A. That is correct. I am not looking at you, but I can 

hear you.
Q. You heard a remark, and you looked around and you 

saw the Negroes, and it was assumed that the remark came 
from that group? That’s true, isn’t it?

A. I did not—
Q. Isn’t it true, Mrs. Forehand?
A. I did not assume it.

[fol. 990] Q. Isn’t it true?
A. I did not assume it.
Mr. Maddin: I heard her answer.
Mr. Williams: Isn’t it true, Mrs. Forehand?
A. I did not assume it. I can hear you talking from 

that direction. I know it is you.
Q. Yes? And you assumed it came from this group 

because you—you—in your opinion, it came from that 
direction? Is that right?

A. (Hesitates.)
Q. Is that right, Mrs. Forehand?
A. It came from them.
Q. Mrs. Forehand, you are still insisting on testifying 

of your own knowledge that it came from them, aren’t you?
A. That’s correct. I know it did.



2 2 2

Q. And—yet—yon admit that yon weren’t even looking 
at them at the time that yon heard it ?

A. I know it came from there.
Q. Now, Mrs. Forehand, I will ask you if all of yonr 

testimony here has been given for the same kind of assump­
tion that you have made with regard to that testimony? 
Do yon habitually do that? —assume things?

Mr. Maddin: If the Court please, the question is too 
general to be answered, if you want to answer it.
[fol. 991] The Court: Gentlemen, that is for the jury 
to determine. They will weigh that. Members of the Jury, 
you try the facts. You will determine the weight and the 
credibility that will be given to every witness.

Mr. Williams: That’s all. Thank you.

Redirect examination.

By Mr. Maddin:
Q. Keep your seat, Mrs. Forehand. Mrs. Forehand, 

when you overheard the remark, was any person other 
than what you described as where you considered to be 
the source of the expression, was any other person between 
you and what you considered to be the source of the expres­
sion?

A. You mean did anybody else hear this remark?
Q. No. Was anybody passing in between you, or was any 

person in between you and this group of Negroes whom 
you have described?

A. No, there was not.
Q. Now, a moment ago you identified one that made a 

remark in the vestibule. I will ask you to identify him in 
regard to him and his lawyer. Where is he sitting?

A. Next to the lawyer.
Q. (Points to one.) Is that the one I am pointing at here ? 

[fol. 992] A. That’s correct.
Q. Let the court record reflect that he is the same one 

who has been previously identified as defendant #4.
The Court: I think that’s right.
Mr. Maddin: Who—I have not asked yet, but I ask 

the Court to call upon him to state his name.



223

Mr. Williams: We respectfully submit that be can not 
be required to state his name.

The Court: He don’t have to, but let the record show 
that it’s—that he will be referred to as defendant #4. 

Mr. Maddin: That’s all. Thank you, Mrs. Forehand. 
The Court: Call the next.

G olden C obnelitjs A lley , called as a witness on behalf 
of the state, being first duly sworn, testified as follows:

Direct examination.

By Mr. Maddin:
Q. Will you state your full name!
A. Golden Cornelius Alley.

[fol. 993] Q. Mr. Alley, on October 21, 1962, did you 
seek to have lunch, or dinner, at a downtown restaurant!

A. Yes, sir.
Q. What restaurant?
A. B & W Cafeteria.
Q. In whose company did you go to that restaurant?
A. My wife and daughter.
Q. From what direction did you approach the restaurant?
A. Well, from Union Street. We parked our car—I don’t 

know exactly whereabouts, but toward Union Street. We 
came from Union Street.

Q. I see. You walked from Union Street down 6th Ave­
nue to the restaurant?

A. Well, no. We didn’t park on Union. We was coming 
from the direction of Union. We parked our car about half 
a store length up above that.

Q. And you walked down 6th Avenue from Union Street 
to the restaurant?

A. Yes, sir. 6th Avenue.
Q. Now, then, as you approached the restaurant, did you 

observe any other persons, or groups of persons entering 
the restaurant ?

A. As we approached the restaurant, a group of colored 
[fol. 994] bo3̂ s passed my wife and I, and as they passed, 
they said, When we start in, keep a-pushin’.



224

Mr. Williams: Well, we object to that, if the Court 
please.

The Court: Well, don’t get to it too quickly.
Mr. Maddin: Where were they going?
The Court: The lawyer will ask you.
A. Sir?
Mr. Maddin: After they passed you, where did they go?
A. B & W Cafeteria.
Q. Approximately how many of them were there of 

them?
A. I would judge about 8 or 9.
Q. And they entered the restaurant, so far as you could 

see?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When you reached the entrance to the restaurant, 

where were they?
A. On the inside.
Q. Had they reached the restaurant proper, or only 

the vestibule?
A. Well, now, that’s what I said awhile ago. They passed 

us.
Q. Mr. Alley, this score on this line of questioning here, 

[fol. 995] we will come back to it, whatever it is. After they 
passed you and went through the first set of doors, you 
went through then on up to the doors yourself?

A. My wife and daughter did, and I followed.
Q. You followed?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When you got through the first set of swinging doors 

at the B & W, where were these boys ?
A. There on the inside.
Q. Were the men in the restaurant or the vestibule?
A. The vestibule.
Q. Now, then, are these the same ones that passed you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And made a remark?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know what ultimately happened to those boys 

in the vestibule? Where did they go?
A. Well, they just stayed in there and milled around.
Q. They just stayed in there and milled around—did 

you see them leave after a bit?



225

[fol. 996] A. I seen ’em, yes. The police got ’em.
Q. How did they go? How did they leave?
A. They carried them in the patrol.
Q. In the custody of the police?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The same ones that were in there?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The same ones that passed you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What did they say when they passed you?
A. That’s at the beginning of this, now?
Q. Yes.
A. Said, “When we start in, keep a-goin’ just push 

’em on.”
Q. All right, sir. Now, when you got to the restaurant 

yourself, and tried to pass through, into the restaurant 
proper, did you wait outside the restaurant for any period 
of time, or did you attempt to go in?

A. Well, now, I ’d say about 10 seconds, possibly. My 
wife and daughter went in, and I was there about—started 
in, and I was there about 10 seconds, I guess, behind them. 
Then I come on in.

Q. And what happened to you, while you were in this 
[fol. 997] restaurant? If anything unusual?

A. Well, they were still a-blocking the entrance to the—
Q. I asked you what happened to you. Did you walk 

freely through there?
A. Oh, no.
Q. Without any interruption, or did you not?
Mr. Williams: I object to him leading, if your Honor 

please.
The Court: Don’t lead him. (To the witness.) He asked 

you what happened to you while you were in the vestibule, 
if anything?

A. Well, it was blocked, and I couldn’t get through the 
door.

Mr. Maddin: All right, sir. How did you get through the 
door?



226

A. Well, Mr. Williams, that doorman, I think, assisted 
—helped us get through.

Q. Did anybody exert any unusual efforts? If so, tell 
what they were.

A. Well, they was pushing and shoving.
Q. Who was?
A. These boys here. There was no bad language used.
Q. Do you recognize any of them specifically?

[fol. 998] A. Yes, sir.
Q. Which one?
A. That fellow down there? (Points.)
Q. Begin counting from this position here, and tell me 

which one.
A. The one next to the lawyer there, and the next one 

to him.
Q. Count from him, Mr. Alley. Would this be #1?
A. Yes, sir, that’s # 1 .  The second one then would be— 

the third one then would be #2 ,—the third one, then, would 
be #3.

Q. Wait just a minute. Do you recognize this one sitting 
in the first chair ?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. How about this one? Was he there?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What about this one in the second chair?
A. I don’t recognize him.
Q. Well, now in the third chair?
Mr. Williams: I object, if your Honor please. It is 

against—violating the defendants’ constitutional rights.
Mr. Butler: The only way we can do it! We have tried 

[fol. 999] to get the names—
The Court: No. No. They—
Mr. Williams: They don’t have to name themselves, if 

your Honor please.
The Court: I understand. But the witness has a right 

to point them out. That’s what he’s trying to do.
Mr. Williams: May your Honor please, he’s not. Counsel 

is do wn here pointing at them.
The Court: Overrule your objection. Proceed.
Mr. Maddin: If your Honor please, I am not trying 

to point them out.



227

Mr. Williams: Let the record show that Counsel has 
been allowed to stand here and point to one of them and 
say, Is that one of them? Is that one of them? Is that 
one of them?

The Court: No, sir.
Mr. Williams: The customary way is to ask a man if 

he knows a man in this courtroom, and if he wants to iden­
tify him to come down here and point them out, and identify 
him.

The Court: All right, sir. He may point them out but 
we can not use anything except numbers to identify them, 
and let the record show that if you like, Mr. Witness, you 
may walk down there and point your finger at any man you 
identify.

Mr. Maddin: To start with—
The Court: No—no—no—just let him pick them out.
A. This one.

[fol. 1000] Mr. Maddin: All right, sir. And let the record 
show that he—

The Court: Now, wait a minute, wait a minute! Now, let 
the record show that the witness is pointing at what the 
Court denominates as defendant # 1 .

(The witness points again.)
The Court: Now, let the record show that the witness 

points at what the Court denominates as defendant #3.
The Court: Now, now, what did he do next?
Mr. Maddin: He pointed at the man sitting immediately 

to—
The Court: Let him do it again. The third man, if he 

did. Point again to the third man, if you did.
(The witness points.)
The Court: Now, let the record show that he points 

at the man sitting on the immediate right of Mr. Williams 
who has been, I think, identified as defendant #4 , at one 
time.

Mr. Madden: All right, Mr. Alley, now, are there any 
others?



228

A. No, sir.
Q. Return to the witness chair. You may cross examine.

Cross examination.

By Mr. Looby:
Q. Mr. Alley, I believe you said when you got to the 

[fol. 1001] entrance, it was blocked and there were some 
other people who were trying to get in?

A. How is that?
Q. When you got to the entrance of the restaurant, it 

was blocked. You tried to go in, didn’t you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What prevented you from going in ?
A. What did I do what ?
Q. What kept you from going in?
A. When we started in these boys were in the way.
Q. You daughter and your wife got in, didn’t they?
A. Well, they—no, they didn’t get inside the restaurant, 

they got inside the vestibule.
Q. Well, did they go in the restaurant?
A. They did—they finally got in.
Q. Well, they finally got in—how did they get in?
A. How did they get in ?
Q. Yes?
A. We’s assisted in.
Q. Who assisted them?
A. The doorman.
Q. What was the doorman doing when you got there?

[fol. 1002] A. He was holding the door, keeping them 
from getting inside.

Q. And what was keeping these colored men from getting 
inside? And had the colored men got inside, you would 
have gotten in freely, wouldn’t you?

A. How is that?
Q. Had the colored men got inside, you could have gone 

in freely, couldn’t you?
A. (To Court.) What did he say?
The Court: He said had the colored men gotten inside, 

you would have gone in there freely, wouldn’t you?
A. If they had a-gotten in there ?



229

The Court: That’s the way I understood his question.
A. Yeah, if there hadn’t been no blocking there, I could 

a-got in free.
Q. So it was the doorman that was doing the blocking, 

then, wasn’t it?
A. No, the doorman wasn’t doing the blocking. It was 

them inside that was doing the pushing and the blocking.
Q. Well, the doorman was blocking them, wasn’t he?
A. Yeah, he was blocking them when they started to get 

[fol. 1003] through, he would.
Q. The doorman was blocking them, keeping them from 

getting in, wasn’t he?
A. He was doing all he could do to keep them from it.
Q. Yes, sir? And they were in front of you?
A. Sir?
Q. They were in front of you?
A. They was in front of me ?
Q. Yes?
A. Who?

By the Court:
Q. The Negroes.
A. Well, they was all inside there. Yeah, they was in 

front and on the side, too.
Mr. Looby: And if the doorman had let them in, there 

would have been nothing to keep you from going in?
A. No, if the doorman had got in, why they wouldn’t 

a-been in the way, if they hadn’t been there.
Q. That’s right. So the doorman was blocking them, and 

wouldn’t let them in, and they were in front of you, and 
that was keeping you from getting in freely?

A. Well, I don’t know about that.
Q. How did you get in?
A. I went in with my wife and daughter.

[fol. 1004] Q. Well, your wife and daughter got in all 
right ?

A. I went in right behind ’em, about 4 or 5 or 10 seconds 
behind them.

Q. So they didn’t block you? Then?



230

A. Oh, yes, they was all there—
Q. Yon went in right after yonr wife and daughter?
A. My daughter—she put her hand on the side of the 

door, and told her mother to go in, and I followed her 
mother in.

Q. Didn’t the doorman open the door for yonr wife and 
daughter?

A. Yeah.
Q. You are talking with your head now.
The Court: He said, Yes.

Mr. Looby:
Q. Now, after your wife and daughter went in, you went 

in after them ?
A. How was that?
(Reporter repeats.)
A. Went right in behind them.
Q. Now, did your daughter put her hand on the door to 

keep the Negroes out?
A. She put her hand up against the door, like that. (Dem­

onstrates.)
Q. To keep the Negroes out?
A. No, she put her hand up on the door so I could get 

[fol. 1005] by.
Q. I see. And that was keeping the Negroes out too, 

wasn’t it?
A. Well, I don’t think it kept them out, the way they was 

pushing.
Q. Well, they didn’t get in, did they?
A. Well, I don’t know about that.
Q. You were there, weren’t you?
A. Sure, I was there.
Q. Well, you know whether they got in or not, don’t you?
A. I don’t think I—she ain’t no football player. No, I 

don’t think she could a-kept these men out.
Q. Now, these Negroes—were they allowed to go into the 

cafeteria?
A. She assisted us then, my daughter did.
Q. She assisted you?
A. She assisted us.



231

Q. But I am talking about where these Negroes allowed 
to get in the cafeteria?

A. Were they what?
Q. Were these Negroes allowed to get in the cafeteria?
A. No, sir.

[fol. 1006] Q. Well, who kept them from going?
A. Well, the manager of the place—and the man there 

at the door, I guess.
Q. Who was the manager?
A. Well, I believe they say his name is Mr. Carrier.
Q. And Mr. Carrier kept them from going in there ?
A. He assisted.
Q. With the assistance of the doorman?
A. Yes.
Q. And with the assistance of your daughter?
A. Of—my daughter ?
Q. Yes?
A. And how would that—I don’t think my daughter 

would apply to that much, because she is—
Q. When did you see any of those boys again?
A. When did I see ’em?
Q. Yes.
A. Since I have been up here.
Q. No. Since October 21st?
A. I never have seen ’em until we come to court.

[fol. 1007] Q. Have you seen them since they have been 
in court, since you have been here?

A. Yes.
Q. You have seen these fellows?
A. Yeah.
Q. Talked to some of them?
A. Out there in the hall. They walked up and commenced 

talking to me.
Q. And is that the way you identify them?
A. Oh, no.
Q. You identify only those that talked to you?
A. No. I really don’t know which ones talked to me.
Q. How many of them talked to you?
A. Well, 1 don’t think it was but a couple, 2 or 3, but 

there’s about 6 or 7 there, now. I don’t know which one’s 
doing it.



232

Q. But 2 or 3 talked to you?
A. Sir?
Q. But 2 or 3 talked to you of this ?
A. So he had talked to ?
Q. 2 or 3 talked to you?
A. Yeah, 2 or 3.

[fol. 1008] Q. Talked to you out in the hall?
A. That’s right.
Q. Are those 2 or 3 among those whom you are now iden­

tifying ?
A. Well, there was—there’s two or three there. I identi­

fied them three, yes.
Q. That talked to you out in the hall?
A. Yeah.
Q. If they had not talked to you, you would not have been 

able to identify them, would you ?
A. How is that?
Q. If they had not talked to you, outside here in the hall 

today, you would not have been able to have identified them, 
would you?

A. Oh, yes, sir. Yes, sir-r-ee.
Q. You would have?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. By what now, would you have been able to identify 

them?
A. By what ?
Q. By what would you have identified them?
A. Well, I know by their actions up there and the way 

that they were pushing around.
Q. Now, even if they were to mis up with other colored 

[fol. 1009] people back there, you could go back there and 
identify them ?

A. I didn’t understand the question.
The Court: He said if they mix up with those colored 

people back in the courtroom, could you go back there and 
identify them ?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. You could?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Mr. Alley, you don’t hear me very well? Or don’t you 

understand me?



233

A. Well, I don’t understand yon. Mostly, I just can’t 
understand you.

Q. Do you hear me ?
A. Pretty well.
Q. And when they—these boys—were going down the 

street, they were talking?
A. Yes.
Q. How close were you to them?
A. Eight up against them. Just passed right by up 

against me.
Q. Can you repeat now everything they said, after 4 

months ?
A. (The Court has to repeat.) I think I can because it 

wasn’t but a few words.
The Court: Am I doing a creditable job of—

[fol. 1010] Mr. Looby: Sir?
The Court: Am I doing a creditable job of repeating 

your questions?
Mr. Looby: You are doing a pretty good job, Judge. I 

suggested yesterday that I would use an interpreter.
The Court: All right. I know, but I didn’t take to that.
All right, now.
Mr. Looby: Mr. Alley, when you went in, you got served?
A. Sir?
Q. When you went in, you got served?
A. Yes, sir, I sure did.
Q. They served all the white people that came in there, 

didn’t they?
A. Sir?
Q. They served all the white people that came in there, 

didn’t they?
A. No. I don’t think so. Some of ’em left, I know they 

didn’t.
Q. Didn’t get served?
A. Didn’t get served. They left.
Q. Do you know how many did?
A. No, sir, I couldn’t tell you.
Q. Well, they were ready and willing to serve them, 

[fol. 1011] weren’t they?
A. Yes, but I think they just wanted to get out of there.



234

Q. Are you a member of the Downtown Presbyterian 
Church ?

A. Sir?
Q. Are you a member of the Downtown Presbyterian 

Church ?
A. No, sir, I am a member of the Nazarene Church, First 

Nazarene Church, 5th and Woodland.
Q. When you got to the restaurant, you got there about 

the same time? You and the colored boys did?
A. Yeah. About the same time. They beat us by a little 

bit.
Q. Was anybody standing on the outside then?
A. Yes, sir, looked like there might be a—well, I won’t 

say how many, but a few standing on the outside.
Q. Just give me a rough estimate?
A. 3 and 4.
Q. About 3 or 4? Where were they standing? Do you 

know?
A. Near the door.
Q. Why were they standing there ?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Well, there wasn’t anything to keep them from going 

[fol. 1012] in, was there?
A. (Hesitates.)
Q. Was there anything keeping them from going in?
A. Well, I don’t think there was. They may have been 

talking.
Q. They may have just been talking.
A. They may have been just talking.
Q. It was a warm, pleasant day?
A. Well, I don’t think it was too bad.
Q. It was pleasant enough to stand on the outside, 

talking?
A. I—
Q. The weather was—
A. I wasn’t cold.
Q. Was the weather good enough to stand outside 

talking ?
A. Sir?
The Court: (Repeats for the benefit of the witness.)



235

A. Well, I disremember that.
Q. Were you there when the police was called!
A. I was there when the policeman was called!

[fol. 1013] Q. Yes!
A. I was inside then.
Q. You were being served at the time!
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And everybody that came in to be served could have 

been served, or were being served!
A. Everybody that could be served!
Q. Yes, sir!
A. If they had all eaten, they could.
Q. And these 7 or 8 colored men that you saw come into 

the restaurant!
A. Yes, sir.
Q. If they had come in they could have been served, 

couldn’t they!
A. Yes. Plenty food there.
Q. Then their admission would have been an increase 

in trade, wouldn’t it!
Mr. Maddin: We object to that. It calls for a conclusion.
The Court: And argumentative.
Mr. Looby: Did your Honor rule on that!
The Court: I say, I rather think your question is argu­

mentative, and shouldn’t be asked.
Mr. Looby: Well, he was there, and they asked to be 

served.
The Court: Well, let the jury determine about that.

[fol. 1014] Mr. Looby: But if they had come in to be 
served!

The Court: We’ll let the jury determine that.
Mr. Looby: Will your Honor let him answer!
The Court: He may state that, but I think we will let 

the jury conclude about that.
Mr. Looby: Will your Honor permit him to answer!
The Court: Not whether there would have been increas­

ing trade, or not. You may ask him if they could have been 
served, or if they had been served, if you haven’t and I 
think you have.



236

Mr. Looby: But if they had abeen allowed to come in, 
they could have been served, couldn’t they?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. You say the manager let you and your daughter and 

your wife in?
A. Well, I don’t know whether it’s the manager or the 

doorkeeper—
Q. How many of them assisted your daughter and wife 

to get in—one or two?
A. I don’t know. I couldn’t say, really, there was so much 

pushing and crowding, I couldn’t tell you.
Q. You were right behind them, weren’t you?
A. Yes, sir. No, I wasn’t behind them. I was behind my 

wife.
[fol. 1015] Q. Well, now, didn’t the manager and the door­
man help your wife any?

A. Well, I—I think they cracked the door, for them to 
get in.

Q. And then they closed the door after they got in?
A. After I got in.
Q. And all they were doing, really, was keeping these 

Negroes out, wasn’t it? Was that what the doorman was 
trying to do?

A. He was keeping them out.
Q. Thank you.
The Court: You may come down, Mr. Alley.

Redirect examination.

By Mr. Maddin:
Q. Are you familiar with the location of the menu in 

the big glass case out in front of the restaurant?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Come down.
(Recess 2:40 o’clock P.M.) (Later adjournment an­

nounced.)



237

F ifth D ay 
March 9, 1963

Mr. Looby: If your Honor please, I presume I have one 
formal matter and I shall state what it is. When Owen 
Smith testified yesterday, there were certain warrants in­
troduced—with some attachments as Collective exhibit 
[fol. 1016] #1 , and Collective exhibit # 2, up to Collective 
exhibit #8 . Now, in Cross Examination, we brought out 
certain matters and the arrest slip was referred to. I think 
that was the last one, and Mr. Smith testified that he 
made out those particular exhibits at the time the defen­
dants were booked. Now, the arrest slip was mentioned 
as the fourth piece of paper, in the collection and we had 
him identify that.

Now, I should like to have that la, 2b, etc. so that they 
can be identified by anyone pursuing the record.

The Court: Well, I see no objection to that. I take it 
there are none? All right.

Just how do you suggest then that the Court Reporter 
mark them?

Mr. Looby: Exhibit # 1 —Collective Exhibit # 1 —it will 
be la, and the next one 2b, on—just to keep them separate. 
That is the booking slip.

The Court: Well, I take it there is no objection to it be­
ing marked so that they can be properly identified, so let 
it be done, since there is no objection.

Mr. Looby: That is all I wanted to say.
The Court: Bring down the jury.
(The jury is brought in and polled.)
The Court: The jurors are all present. You may call

the next witness for the state.



238

[fol. 1017] J ohnny Claibobn, called as a witness for the 
state, being duly sworn, testified as follow s:

Direct examination.

By Mr. Robinson:
Q. What is your full name?
A. Johnny Claiborn.
Q. Where do you work?
A. Nashville City Police Department.
Q. How long have you been in the department?
A. About 8 years.
Q. On October 21, 1962, were you about your business as 

an employee of the City Police Department of Nashville?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. What particular duties did you have on that occa­

sion?
A. I was working in the booking room as a booking clerk 

and had the detail work in the office.
Q. Now, Mr. Claiborn, I am going to give you these cer­

tain items here, and ask you first of all what is your pro­
cedure for releasing a man from the city jail—what is your 
procedure for releasing him, and giving his property back? 
[fol. 1018] A. First, we make an identification of the per­
son’s name on the arrest sheet.

Mr. Looby: If your Honor please, the defendants insist 
that this is incompetent as to procedure. You may testify 
as to what you did for certain defendants.

The Court: That’s right.
Mr. Looby: And not to what you did in general.
The Court: Ask what you did to certain specific defen­

dants.
Mr. Robinson: All right. I want you to look at these 

exhibits. I will start out with exhibit # 1  and ask you 
what this is here relative to the receipt for property. What 
is that? Is it signed?

A. This is the signature here of the person—the arrest 
slip of the person who had been arrested. And he signs 
to receive his property back, when he is making bond.



239

Q. Now, look at the signature on that, and tell me—
Mr. Looby: I am objecting to this witness—when Coun­

sel asked him about the signature, he simply said the 
“person”.

Mr. Robinson: Did you see the man sign that?
A. Yes, sir. I had to.
Q. Well, why does that happen?
A. Well, I had to, or he wouldn’t have gotten Ms prop- 

[fol. 1019] erty back.
Mr. Looby: Did he see him?
The Court: You saw him? That’s right!
Mr. Robinson: That’s what he said, if your Honor 

please. Did you see that man sign that slip?
A. Yes, sir. Yes, sir, I did.
Mr. Robinson: What name appears on that slip?
Mr. Williams: We object to that, if your Honor please, 

as being incompetent also. No identification has been made 
of the signature.

Mr. Robinson: We made it, if your Honor please.
The Court: Well, that’s competent, for him to say what 

signature appears on there.
Mr. Robinson: Whose signature appears on that par­

ticular slip?
A. Lester G-. McKinnie.
Q. All right, now, I am going ahead to do the other 

slips. I hand this one to you, and ask what name appears 
on that slip and if you saw that particular man sign it, 
the slip for property returned?

A. This is Allen Cason, Jr., and I saw him sign it.
Mr. Williams: Same objection, if your Honor please.
The Court: All right.

[fol. 1020] The Court: Same ruling.
Mr. Robinson: Look at #3. Would you look at that and 

tell me if you saw that man sign and, if so, what his name 
is?

A. This is the signature of Frederick Hargraves. And 
I saw it also signed.



240

Mr. Williams: Same objection.
The Court: To save time, we will treat this as your hav­

ing objected—■
Mr. Looby: He saw a man sign it, which he said was 

Frederick Hargraves. But he can’t testify that unless he 
knows Frederick Hargraves.

The Court: Oh, no. He is saying a person—
Mr. Looby: That’s all right, your Honor.
The Court: A person signed that that represented that 

name. He doesn’t identify any person there.
Mr. Williams: We object to that—even that, as being 

incompetent, if your Honor please, because it is entirely 
irrelevant to any issue in this case.

The Court: Overruled.
Mr. Robinson: Now, I hand you a 4th paper and ask you 

if you saw the individual who signed that? Or a man who 
purported to be this particular person that signed that, 
that slip, and received property back?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who is that?

[fol. 1021] A. This is Nathal Winter.
Q. All right. Now, here is a 5tli slip. I will hand you 

that and ask you the same question: did a man purporting 
to be that person indicated that slip, sign that and receive 
property back?

A. Yes, sir, this is Harrison Dean.
Q. All right. Now, on the 6th paper, I ask you that same 

question, if a man purported to be the person that signed 
that appended his signature thereto and received prop­
erty?

A. This is John Jackson. I also saw him.
Q. # 7 ,  Here is another piece of paper, and I ask you 

the same question if you saw the man sign that who is 
purported to be the person named on that paper?

A. Yes, sir, this is Frederick Leonard. I also saw him.
Q. And #8. I will ask you again if you saw a person 

who purported to be that particular individual sign that 
paper and receive property?

A. Yes, sir, this is John Lewis. I also saw him, when 
he signed it.



241

Q. Now, at what time did these defendants sign this— 
I don’t mean the particular hour, but did they sign these 
just prior to being released?

A. Just prior to receiving their property and at the 
[fol. 1022] same time the bond was signed.

Q. I see. At the same time the bonds was made for their 
release.

Is that the last thing that you do with the defendant 
before he is freed?

A. Usually sign the bond, and then at the same time, 
the—arrest slip—

Mr. Looby: Objection, your Honor please, unless it was 
in this particular case.

Mr. Robinson: What happened in these particular cases?
A. To the best of my memory, they signed their bonds 

and then the arrest slips.
Q. And then they left?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That’s all. You may ask him.

Cross examination.

By Mr. Williams:
Q. Mr. Claiborn, you cannot identify any particular in­

dividual today as being the persons who signed those docu­
ments ?

A. No, sir. I couldn’t identify them personally.
Q. That’s all.

[fol. 1023] The Court: Come down, please.

M. L. P ybu k n , ca lled  as a w itness on beha lf o f  the state, 
being first du ly  sw orn, testified  as fo l lo w s :

Direct examination.

By Mr. Robinson:
Q. State your name, please.
A. M. L. Pyburn.
Q. What is your occupation ?



242

A. Patrolman, City of Nashville Police Department.
Q. How lone; have you been a police officer for the City of 

Nashville?
A. 5 years, a little over.
Q. On October 21, 1962, were you about your duties as a 

police officer for this city?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you have any occasion to go to the B & W Cafe­

teria on 6th Avenue ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What car—what automobile were you in when you 

went to that particular place?
A. Car # 1 .
Q. C a r # lt  Is that an uptown car, is it?

[fol. 1024] A. Yes, sir.
Q. A zone car?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You are connected with the Patrol Division?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right. Now, how did you receive your call to go to 

the B & W ?
A. It come over the radio in the car.
Q. You received information to go there? And did you 

go there ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was the situation? What did you see when you 

got there, to the B & W Cafeteria?
A. Uh—there’s 8 colored boys standing in the vestibule.
Q. Did you walk up to the vestibule and look in?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right. Did you have any conversation with any 

of the men in the vestibule ?
A. At that time, no, sir.
Q. You had none? Who was with you?
A. Mr. Moran.

[fol. 1025] Q. How were they situated in the vestibule of 
the B & W ?

A. When we first got there, they was standing all over the 
vestibule.

Q. All right. Mr. Moran, you say, was with you?
A. Yes, sir.



243

Q. Did lie accompany you to the vestibule?
A. He accompanied me to the door, yes.
Q. All right. What did you do after you saw all these 

defendants in the vestibule? What did you do?
A. I told Mr. Moran to go back to the car and radio to 

Sgt. Beehan to meet me up there.
Q. All right. Did Sgt. come ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right. Did you have any conversation wtih any of 

these defendants prior to Sgt. Beehan arriving at the 
B&W ?

A. No, sir.
Q. You did not? What happened—after the Sgt. got 

there, what was then done with the 8 men in the vestibule ?
A. Well, at that time, nothing. He walked in and went 

back in there to see the man on the door, Mr. Williams, I 
believe, was his name.
[fol. 1026] Q. Yes, sir. And what was the ultimate out­
come, and what happened to these defendants when they 
came out of that vestibule ?

Mr. Looby: We object, if your Honor please, to him re­
ferring to these 8 men as these defendants.

Mr. Robinson: He knows that.
The Court: No. He is objecting to you referring to these 

defendants—to the 8 men—
Mr. Robinson: Well, let me rephrase it, if your Honor 

please, and I beg your pardon.
Now, what happened to the men in the vestibule?
A. At that time, nothing. He talked to Mr. Carrier and 

Mr. Williams. The Sgt. did. I didn’t. And Mr. Carrier said 
he would prosecute them, and he wanted them arrested, 
and we arrested them.

Q. All right. What happened?
A. Mr. Moran got his ticket book out and made out the 

tickets—wrote down each one of ‘em’s name and what he 
was charged with.

Q. All right.
A. We put them in the unit and brought them to police 

headquarters and booked them.
Q. You went to the police headquarters?



244

A. Yes, sir, but I went to the Lieutenant’s office, and not 
the booking office.

Q. Did the same group of men that came from the vesti- 
[fol. 1027] bule at the B & W end up at the police station?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. No doubt in your mind about that?
A. No.
Q. All right, sir, and what happened to them at the police 

station ?
A. So far as I know, Mr. Robinson, they was booked.
Q. Booked and lodged in jail there?
A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: I object to that statement about them 

being booked, unless he was there.
The Court: Well, he just said so far as he knows. He 

qualified it.
A. As far as I know.
Mr. Robinson: That’s all.

Cross examination.

By Mr. Looby:
Q. What is your name ?
A. Pyburn.
The Court: P-y-b-u-r-n.
Mr. Looby: Mr. Pyburn, you say you got a call and went 

over there, and the next thing you did was arrest the 8 
men you found there?

A. No, sir, I said the next thing I did was call the Sgt. 
[fol. 1028] Q. Sgt. Beehan? Wasn’t it?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. And then what did Sgt. Beehan do ?
A. Well, as I stated before, he went in and talked to Mr. 

Williams and Mr. Carrier.
Q. Who was Mr. Williams?
A. The doorman on the door.
Q. The doorman?
A. That’s right.



245

Q. And Mr. Carrier was the manager?
A. That’s right.
Q. And they told you—who was the one who arrested 

them?
A. The Sgt. told me.
Q. The Sgt. told you to arrest them? You had no war­

rants ?
A. No, sir.
Q. And what did you arrest them for?
A. Uh—at that particular time, I believe it was a state 

law about blocking a fire exit, I am not sure.
Q. About what?
A. Blocking a fire exit—state law.
Q. Blocking a fire exit? And that is what you arrested 

them for?
[fol. 1029] A. That’s what I was told. I don’t know.

Q. Who told you?
A. As I said, I wasn’t inside but just a little bit. I was 

outside the door.
Q. You went in when you arrested them, didn’t you?
A. Yes, sir, I went in and brought them out as they had 

their names wrote down.
Q. At the time you arrested them, you did so at the re­

quest of your superior officer? Now, what’s your rank, 
please, sir?

A. Patrolman.
Q. And Sgt. is your superior officer?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So that you arrested them at the request of your 

superior officer? For blocking a fire escape, is that it?
A. That’s right. Yes, sir.
Q. What was Mr. Williams doing?
A. He was standing in front of the second door as you go 

in through the vestibule.
Q. Blocking the door? Keeping them out?
A. That’s right.
Q. Isn’t it true, Mr. Pyburn, that when you went in, there 

were 4 of these men standing on one side of the door and 
[fol. 1030] 4 standing on the other side?

A. Not when we first went in.



246

Q. Well, were there ever, at any time, 4 standing on one 
side of the door, and 4 on the other?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. There was ample room for you to go in, wasn’t there?
A. Well, let’s put it this way. I ’m a little bit bigger than 

some people, Mr. Looby. I had a little bit more trouble.
Q. You have trouble getting in ?
A. I had to turn sideways. I couldn’t walk in straight.
Q. But you did get in ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. But a person medium size could get in?
A. Yes, sir. I would say so.
Q. But had it not been for the doorman blocking the 

door, that people couldn’t go in and out, and these men 
were standing there, silently, could one not have gone in 
except for Mr. Williams blocking the door?

A. If the door hadn’t been locked, anybody could have 
walked in.

Q. By “locked” the doors were shut, weren’t they? 
[fol.1031] A. Shut.

Q. Were they locked?
A. Well, I couldn’t say it was locked. I didn’t see no 

lock on it. But the door was shut, and Mr. W illiams was 
standing at the door.

Q. Mr. Williams was standing there at the door block­
ing it ?

A. That’s right. He was standing at the door.
Q. Don’t you know that the doorman had a key and locked 

it every time somebody went in and came out ?
A. I didn’t pay that much attention.
Q. But you did get in?
A. Sir.
Q. You got in?
A. Did I get in?
Q. Yes?
A. I got to the door.
Q. Which one—the first, or second door?
A. Well, I got through both doors.
Q. Both doors? And didn’t Mr. Williams unlock it for 

you to go in?



247

A. Forme?
Q. Yes, sir?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And Mr. Carrier was there, too ?

[fol. 1032] A. Mr. Carrier came down later. Just a few 
minutes later.

Q. Yes, sir? And Mr. Carrier himself went down 
through?

A. Sir?
Q. Mr. Carrier is as big a man as you, isn’t he?
A. Uh—he is almost as big as I am, I think, yes, sir, but 

he was upstairs. He come down from his office, Mr. Looby. 
He didn’t come through the door.

Q. Did Sgt. Beehan come in?
A. Into the vestibule?
Q. Yes?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. He had. no trouble getting in, did he?
A. Nothing except just pushing the door open.
Q. Who pushed the door open? Which door? The first 

door or the second door?
A. He did. The first door.
Q. And did he get in the second door?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. He had no trouble getting in the second door ?
A. No, sir, Mr. Williams pulled the door open for him. 

[fol. 1033] Q. He opened the door?
A. That’s right.
Q. Then he could let anybody in that he wanted to?
A. That’s right. That’s right.
Q. Did you talk to—do you know Mr. Crockett, the 

lawyer ?
A. No, sir, I do not.
Q. Who else did you talk to besides Mr. Williams and 

Mr. Carrier?
A. I didn’t talk to no one.
Q. That will be all, Mr. Pyburn.
The Court: Stand aside, sir.



248

S anford S . M oran, b e in g  called  as a w itness on beha lf 
o f  the state, and be in g  first du ly  sw orn, testified  as f o l ­
low s :

Direct examination.

By Mr. Robinson:
Q. Please state your full name.
A. Sanford S. Moran.
Q. What is your place of employment!
A. Nashville City Police Department.
Q. How long have you been with them!

[fol. 1034] A. 5 years.
Q. Were you a policeman for the City of Nashville, and 

about your business as such on the 21st day of October, 
1963! (Court Reporter’s note: Both shorthand and Tand- 
berg recorder show this man to have said “1963” therefore 
it is typed in this record.)

A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was the automobile number that you were rid­

ing in!
A. Riding in Car # 1.
Q. Who was with you!
A. Mr. Pyburn.
Q. Did you receive a call to go to the B & W Restaurant!
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What time of the day or night was it!
A. That was approximately between 12:30 and 1:00 

o’clock in the day.
Q. When you arrived at the B & W  Restaurant, what 

did you do!
A. We went over to the restaurant, and seen 4 boys 

standing on either side of the restaurant, and I turned 
around and went back to the car and called for our superior 
officer.

Q. How many boys—in all, how many Negro boys did you 
see in the vestibule!
[fol. 1035] A. There were 8.

Q. Did you take their names down!
A. Yes, sir, after the superior officer got there and



249

talked to Mr. Carrier. He asked them to move on, which 
they refused to do, and he said, we’ll have to take them 
to jail.

Q. All right. Hid you write down the names of those 
people in that vestibule ?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Ho you have that list with you?
A. I have it here on my book.
Q. Hid you make it in your own handwriting?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right, read what—read the names that you got in 

the vestibule.
Mr. Williams: We object to that as being incompetent 

and irrelevant, if your Honor please.
The Court: Overrule your objection.
Mr. Bobinson: Go ahead and read them.
A. (Eeads.) Lester G. McKinnie, John Jackson, Jr., 

Allen Cason, Jr., Frederick Leonard, John Eobert Lewis, 
Frederick Hargraves, Harrison Lean, Nathal Winter.

Q. All right, who told you those names?
[fol. 1036] A. As far as I can remember, now, as far as 
identification purposes, I couldn’t recognize these boys be­
cause we were trying to get this situation cleared up.

Q. All right. But did—did—you know who told you the 
names, don’t you? In other words, there’s someone told 
you the names?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who was it?
A. The 8 boys in the vestibule.
Q. The 8 boys in the vestibule? Now, what happened 

after you got their names ?
A. They were taken out and put in the paddy wagon, 

and taken to the city jail.
Q. Hid you go with them?
A. We followed the car down there, yes.
Q. And there is no doubt about their arriving at the jail?
A. Yes, sir, there’s no doubt about arriving at the jail.
Q. You may ask him.



250

Cross examination.

By Mr. Williams:
Q. Let me ask you if you were with them when they 

were booked, or anything of that nature?
[fol. 1037] A. I was in the booking room, but I was at 
a desk, and wasn’t paying any attention to the booking 
of them.

Q. You just turned them over to somebody else, then?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How many people were in the paddy wagon?
A. There were 8.
Q. 8? And Mr. Moran, are you sure that there wasn’t 9?
A. No, sir. There was 8.
Q. 8? You didn’t pick up anybody else?
A. No, sir.
Q. Mr. Moran, did you get out and go in at the B & W?
A. When we first arrived, I went up to the front door, 

and seen what the situation was, and I went back to the 
car and called for the superior officer.

Q. Were you driving? Or Mr. Pyburn?
A. Was I what?
Q. Were you driving? Or was Mr. Pyburn driving?
A. Mr. Pyburn was driving the police car.
Q. And which way did you all come—did you go east or 

[fol. 1038] north when you got the call?
A. When we arrived on 6th Avenue, we were going south.
Q. Going south?
A. Yes, we were going toward Broad Street, and when 

we arrived we were on the opposite side of the street.
Q. And there were 4 of them on one side and 4 on the 

other side ?
A. When we first arrived there, yes, sir.
Q. You and Mr. Pyburn?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And did you see Mr. Pyburn go in?
A. Yes, sir, he went inside the door.
Q. He went in behind those swinging doors that open 

in the center into the vestibule ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And he walked down between the lines ?



251

A. Well, now, I didn’t watch too closely to him. I went 
hack—when I seen what was going on—I went back across 
the street, and called the Sgt.

Q. Yon didn’t come back and go inside?
A. Yes, after the Sgt. got there, I did.

[fol. 1039] Q. And you went into the vestibule there? 
And you had plenty of room to go in?

A. Yes, sir, but it was kind of hard to do without hitting 
one of these boys with the door.

Q. You mean without touching them?
A. Without hitting them with the door—to what it opened 

ordinarily—it wasn’t an—a normal opening. If you swung 
it open ordinarily,—

Q. You mean when you would swing the door back, and 
when it would go back, it would go back against the people 
standing there, but there wasn’t any difficulty getting 
through there once you got in?

A. Well, like I say—it wasn’t a normal opening. If I 
had shoved the door open like I usually walk in the place, I 
probably would have hit one of them.

Q. Yes? What I mean is—you were able to go through 
it?

A. Oh, I could get through it, yes.
Q. And, when you got to the inner door, how did you get 

through that inner door?
A. I didn’t go through the inner door.
Q. Do you remember seeing the doorman standing there 

by you?
A. No, I don’t remember.
Q. You didn’t try the inner door at all?

[fol. 1040] A. No, I didn’t try the inner door.
Q. Did Sgt. Beehan come subsequently?
A. Yes.
Q. How long was it before he arrived ?
A. I don’t actually remember, Mr. Williams. Like I say, 

we were trying to keep our eye on the situation.
Q. Well, when he came, had you already come into the 

vestibule?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did he go into the vestibule before you? Or after?
A. Yes, sir, he went into the vestibule before I did.



252

Q. Did you see him go through?
A. Yes.
Q. He was admitted to the interior of the restaurant? 

Was he not?
A. Yes.
Q. And I believe that was done through that second door 

by the doorman?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I will ask you, were you the one that took these Negro 

persons out of the vestibule?
A. There was two of us took them out, walking out 

[fol. 1041] with them.
Q. You and who?
A. I believe Mr. Pyburn.
Q. You and Mr. Pyburn?
A. Yes.
Q. Where did the paddy wagon come from?
A. The paddy wagon came from toward Broad Street 

on 6th Avenue.
Q. Is 6th Avenue a one-way street?
A. Yes, sir, it is.
Q. One way coming north or south?
A. Going south.
Q. Then the paddy wagon was on the wrong side of the 

street? Is that right?
A. No, the paddy wagon was going toward Broad Street. 
Q. Going toward Broad Street? Oh!
A. Going towards Broad Street, yes, sir.
Q. And you took them across the street, then?
A. Now, to be specific, I can’t remember that much—
Q. You don’t have to. You say you stood in the vestibule 

there, and asked each person who was there his name?
A. And asked them their name.

[fol. 1042] Q. And then you wrote it down?
A. I wrote the names down on pads.
Q. And the persons voluntarily gave you their names? 
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I believe that is all.
Gen. Nichol: If your Honor please, we planned to have 

Mr. Shea next, and since he is sick and can’t be here, if



253

your Honor please, I would like a moment for Mrs. Ridley 
to look at these records, and refresh herself. If we can have 
a few moments and let the jury step out while we do this. 

The Court: All right.
(The jury retires at 9 :30 to 9 :42.)
The Court: All right, gentlemen.

M rs. A lm a  R idley, ca lled  as a w itness f o r  the state, being 
sw orn, testified  as fo l lo w s :

Direct examination.

By Mr. Robinson:
Q. Is this Mrs. Alma Ridley?
A. Yes, General.

[fol. 1043] Q. I believe you are chief deputy criminal 
court clerk, of Davidson County, Tennessee? Is that cor­
rect?

A. That’s correct.
Q. Now, Miss Alma, I want to hand you a book, and ask 

you to identify this book.
A. This is the Appearance Bond Book for the General 

Sessions Court of the County.
Q. And where is that kept?
A. In the criminal court clerk’s office.
Q. Is that a part of the official record of that office?
A. That is, yes.
Q. Now, please, ma’am, I will ask you if on the 21st day 

of October, 1962, if one Frederick Leonard according to 
your record, made bond in that book?

A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: I object to that, if your Honor please. 

He can ask her if some person was identified.
The Court: Well, that’s all he’s saying.
Mr. Williams: He was asking her if Frederick Leonard 

made bond.
The Court: Yes, that is what he is saying, Members of 

the Jury,—



254

Mr. Williams: And we—
The Court: He is just asking her if some one who identi- 

[fol. 1044] fied himself as Frederick Leonard and made a 
bond on that date.

Mr. Williams: We still object to that, if your Honor 
please, as being incompetent,—as the defense counsel.

The Court: Overruled.
Mr. Robinson: Now, Miss Alma, on the appearance bond 

of Frederick Leonard, would you read please, ma’am, and 
see if there is a warrant number on that bond?

A. Yes, sir. On page 325, state—
Mr. Looby: I wish, if your Honor please, that we might 

see that before going into it—
(Mr. Looby looks over the book, and Mr. Williams looks 

over the book.)
Mr. Williams: Mr. Robinson, might I see the warrants?
Mr. Robinson: Be glad to.
(Mr. Williams and Mr. Looby compare the warrants 

with the book.)
(Mr. Robinson gets the book back.)
Mr. Robinson: Now, Miss Alma,— If you will read on 

the bond made by Frederick Leonard, or the person pur­
porting to be Frederick Leonard, and tell me the number 
on that bond.

A. It shows City Warrant #1153.
Q. And I will hand you this exhibit that has been intro­

duced in evidence, and ask you if that isn’t a city warrant, 
and what number is on it?
[fol. 1045] A. Yes, it says City of Nashville vs. Frederick 
Leonard, #1153.

Q. All right, now, let me refer you please ma’am, to 
bond made by a person purporting to be John R. Lewis?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. And I will ask you, Miss Alma, if on your record as 

shown there if there is a city warrant number on that par­
ticular bond?

A. Yes, sir, State vs. John R. Lewis #1154.



255

Q. All right, ma’am, I am going to give you the city 
warrant, and ask you to please tell what the number is 
on that warrant.

A. It shows City of Nashville vs. John R. Lewis #1154.
Q. Does that number correspond with the bond made on 

your record?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right. Now, please, ma’am, I refer you to John 

Jackson, Jr.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I ask you, Miss Alma, if that bond indicates any war­

rant number?
A. City Warrant #1151.

[fol. 1046] Q. And I hand you another exhibit and ask 
you if that isn’t a city warrant, and if so, what number 
is on that one?

A. It is City of Nashville vs. John Jackson, Jr. #1151.
Q. Yes, ma’am. I hand you, Miss Alma, and refer you 

to the person who made bond purporting to be Harrison 
Dean, and ask you, please, ma’am, if it indicates a city 
warrant number?

A. City Warrant 1156.
Q. All right, I hand you this exhibit and ask you if that 

is the same defendant, and what the warrant number is ?
A. City of Nashville, vs. Harrison Dean, #1156.
Q. Now, I refer you, please, ma’am, to Nathal Winter— 

is it designated on that bond what city warrant number?
A. City #1157.
Q. And now, I give you this city warrant and ask you 

what number that is?
A. City of Nashville vs. Nathal Winter, #1157.
Q. Now, I refer you to Frederick Hargraves.
A. It shows Frederick Hargraves, City Warrant #1155. 

[fol. 1047] Q. All right. (Hands her a paper.)
A. City Warrant, City of Nashville vs. Frederick Har­

graves, #1155.
Q. Now, Miss Alma, I refer you please ma’am, to Allen 

Cason, Jr., and ask you is there—is a city warrant indi­
cated on that bond?

A. City vs. Allen Cason, Jr. 1152.



256

Q. And I hand you this warrant and ask you if those 
numbers correspond?

A. City of Nashville vs. Allen Cason, Jr., 1152.
Q. Now, Miss Alma, I refer you to Lester G. McKinnie. 

Do you have that bond there?
A. Tes, sir, I do have.
Q. All right. Is there a city warrant number on that 

bond?
A. It says City Warrant #1150.
Q. (Hands her a paper.) And what does that say?
A. It says City of Nashville, vs. Lester G. McKinnie, 

#1150.
Q. Now, Miss Alma, on making these state bonds, what 

then did the—was the procedure for releasing—
[fob 1048] Mr. Looby: I object to him referring to pro­
cedure.

Mr. Robinson: I am referring to these particular bonds, 
on these 8—that we have gone over, if your Honor please. 
I am not referring to anybody else in this book besides 
these 8. They have already been identified.

The Court: All right.
Mr. Robinson: Relative to these particular people,— 

these 8 in that book, what then did the clerk’s office do in 
order to release these named people from jail?

Mr. Looby: We object, if your Honor please, unless Miss 
Alma knows what was done. Not the procedure, unless she 
knows what was done.

Mr. Robinson: Well, I hand you here—I can get at it 
another way, if your Honor please. Miss Alma,, I hand 
you an exhibit that has already been introduced in evidence 
and ask you, please, what this yellow slip is?

A. This yellow slip is a release signed by Judge Walker. 
When a city warrant is brought over,—the warrants have 
to be brought over—

Mr. Looby: We object to that, if your Honor please. 
She is just telling the procedure. We are losing a lot of 
time doing nothing. But that is what the state is doing— 
doing nothing. That’s exactly what they’re doing.



257

Mr. Eobinson: Well— If your Honor please, I am let­
ting him run his half of the lawsuit, and I am just trying 
to do my part.
[fol. 1049] The Court: All right.

A. This is a release signed by Judge Walker showing the 
bond is made in G-eneral Sessions Court on this charge.

Mr. Robinson: Yes, ma’am.
Mr. Williams: Well, I object to it as being incompetent, 

and hearsay.
Mr. Looby: We must say, Miss Alma, that it appears 

to be that of Judge Walker. She can’t say whose it was.
The Court: That’s right. General, that is obvious.
Mi*. Eobinson: Have you ever seen Judge Walker write 

his name, Miss Alma?
A. Yes, I will say that this appears to be Judge Walker’s 

signature, where he signed on that.
Mr. Eobinson: Does that seem to be true on each of these 

exhibits, please, ma’am, just to save time?
A. Yes, each release bears the same signature.
Q. All right. Now, Miss Alma—
Mr. Williams: We object to that on each case.
The Court: Overruled.
Mr. Eobinson: Now, Miss Alma, referring to your bond 

book, and your official record, tell me if there is a signa­
ture on that bond in the name of Frederick Leonard?
[fol. 1050] A. Yes, sir, it is signed as a principal.

Q. As a principal on the bond?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And who is the surety on that bond?
A. Ixenia Ross? Is it?
Q. Ianthia Eoss.
A. It looks like I-a-n-t-h-i-a Ross.
Q. And I will ask you, Miss Alma, if the name, Frederick 

Leonard, is signed on that bond?
A. It is as the principal.
Q. Now, I refer you to John Jackson, Jr. Is his name 

signed on that bond ?



258

A. Yes, sir, John Jackson, Jr., is signed as principal.
Q. And who is the surety?
A. Same surety.
Q. Same surety? All right. Now, I refer you to Har­

rison Dean and ask you if his name is signed as the prin­
cipal?

A. It is. Same surety.
Q. I refer you to Nathal Winter, and ask you the same 

question, Miss Alma.
Is his name on that bond?
A. It is.

[fol. 1051] Q. All right. And is that true for Frederick 
Hargraves ?

A. Yes, sir, it is.
Q. Is that same hting true of Allen Cason, Jr.? Does 

his name appear on that bond as principal?
A. It does.
Q. All right. Miss Alma, I refer you now to Lester Cl. 

McKinnie. Does his name appear on that record?
A. It does.
Q. His name is signed in longhand?
A. Yes.
Q. I ask you now, please, ma’am, about John R. Lewis. 

Does his name appear in longhand on that bond?
A. Yes, signed John Lewis.
Q. Now, will you make this book a part of your testi­

mony, as an exhibit, please, ma’am?
A. I will.
Mr. Williams: We object, if your Honor please.
Mr. Robinson: Make a photostatic copy as an exhibit? 
The Court: Did you say you object?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, it is objected to because she 

was not present when it was made.
The Court: Overruled.
Mr. Williams: It is incompetent because it has no identi- 

[fol. 1052a] fication, as to how it was made.
Mr. Robinson: Miss Alma, I will hand you another book, 

and ask you to identify that book?
A. This is the Appearance Bonds for Criminal Court. 
Q. Is this book kept by the criminal court clerk?



259

A. It is.
Q. In Ms office?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And is that a part of the official record of his office?
A. Yes, sir, it is.
Q. All right. Now, Miss Alma, I refer you to one Fred­

erick Leonard.
A. Yes.
Q. Does it appear in that book?
A. Yes, sir, on this page is Frederick Leonard.
Q. What bond book is that? What page?
A. This is bond book #74, page 135.
Q. Now, does the defendant—does the man’s name ap­

pear there by the name of Frederick Leonard?
A. Yes, it does.
Q. All right. And does it—what does that indicate in 

your book? What is that?
[fol. 1052b] A. This is a bond book to criminal court.

Q. To criminal court?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Does it bear a longhand signature?
A. It does.
Q. What does it say as to who the principal is on that?
A. Frederick Leonard, signed as principal.
Q. All right. I refer you to John Jackson, Jr., and ask 

you does a—his name appear on page 135, signed in long- 
hand ?

A. l res, it is on page 135, signed by John Jackson, Jr.
Q. Yes? And Harrison Dean? Does his name appear 

in that book and is his name signed in longhand?
A. Yes, sir, on page 137, appearance bond.
Q. I refer you, please, ma’am, to Nathal Winter—does 

his name appear on that book, and is it signed in longhand 
as defendant?

A. On page 136, and he signed it.
Q. I refer you, please, ma’am, to Frederick Hargraves, 

[fol. 1053] is his name appearing on that book and did he 
sign it?

A. On page 136, and he signed it. On appearance bond.
Q. And I now refer you to Allen Cason, Jr. Is his name



260

on there, and is it written in longhand as principal on 
the bond?

A. Page 137, signed, Allen Cason, Jr.
Q. Now, I refer you, please, ma’am, to Lester G. 

McKinnie, if his name appears there, and if it does, is it 
in longhand where the bond book is marked principal?

A. On page 134, signed by Lester G. McKinnie, principal.
Q. Now, I refer you, please, ma’am, to John R. Lewis. 

Does his name appear on that bond book in longhand?
A. Yes, sir, on page 134, signed John R. Lewis, prin­

cipal.
Q. Now, Miss Alma, do you know the reason why these 

bonds were made both in general session and criminal 
court? In both bond books? Can you explain that?

A. No, sir, I cannot. I do not know.
Q. You don’t know that of your own knowledge?
A. No. I do not. It would be hearsay.

[fol. 1054] Q. All right. Now, would you make a photo­
static copy of this an exhibit—

Mr. Looby: Would you mind letting us see the exhibit?
Mr. Robinson: Oh, I ’m sorry. I beg your pardon.
(The Attorney General tells Reporter he will furnish 

photostatic copies to the clerk for filing in evidence.)
Q. Were the appearance bonds made to this particular 

court for this particular trial?
A. Yes.
Q. In each instance, in each of the 8 cases?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Now, may it please your Honor, I want to pass this 

bond book to the jury and let them view it, and at the same 
time view the signatures on each of these as has been 
introduced.

The Court: Well, now, let’s get the—let’s get those in. 
What number is the exhibit—is the certified—I mean the 
photostatic copy of the—what is that? The General Ses­
sions Court? Now, what is that number?

Mr. Robinson: Number—photostatic copy of appearance 
bonds will be—-

The Court: What number is that?



261

Won’t it be easier to let the General Sessions—a photo- 
static copy of the General Sessions Court bonds—let that 
[fob 1055] be made Exhibit # 1  to the Direct Examination 
-—Direct testimony of Mrs. Eidley.

(Photostatic copy of General Sessions Court appearance 
bonds is to be made of the portion testified about by Mrs. 
Alma Eidley, Chief Deputy, Criminal Court Clerk’s office, 
regarding Lester G. McKinnie, et al., and furnished to the 
clerk to be filed in evidence.) (Direct Examination of 
Mrs. Eidley.)

The Court: Now, a photostatic copy of Criminal Court 
Bond Book will be exhibit # 2  to the Direct testimony of 
Mrs. Eidley. So we can keep the record straight.

(Photostatic copy of Criminal Court Appearance Bond 
Book is to be made of the portion testified about by Mrs. 
Alma Eidley, Chief Deputy, Criminal Court Clerk’s office, 
regarding Lester G. McKinnie, et al., and furnished to 
the clerk to be filed in evidence.) (Direct examination of 
Mrs. Eidley.)

The Court: They already are in the record. Now—
Mr. Bobinson: Now, I want, if your Honor please, to 

pass exhibit # 1  to Miss Alma’s testimony, along with ex­
hibits 1 through 8 that have already been introduced into 
this record. This is for the purpose of the jury viewing 
both the bond book and on the bond—signatures as signed 
by these various 8 defendants.

Mr. Williams: May it please the Court, we would like 
to have an opportunity to Cross Examine.
[fol. 1056] The Court: Well, you may, but he wants to 
pass the exhibits to the jury.

Mr. Williams: We except to these exhibits being passed 
to the jury before we have an opportunity to cross examine.

The Court: Overruled. You may pass the exhibits.
Mr. Williams: We respectfully except, if your Honor 

please.
The Court: Let them use their own judgment.
Juror: Where is the number ?
Mr. Eobinson: Here is the number and here is the signa­

ture.



262

The Court: Have you found the number? Any other 
questions—address them to the Court.

Mr. Robinson: For the sake of time, if your Honor 
please, why don’t we just turn over at the same time the 
Criminal Court Book, exhibit # 2  to Miss Alma’s testimony, 
and let them see them.

The Court: Just hand it—let the officer hand it to them. 
I am going to let them use their own good judgment.

Mr. Robinson: All right, sir.
The Court: Now let the jury use their own good judg­

ment, and take their time.
(The jury examines all papers with the two books.)

[fol. 1057] (10:17 a.m.) (The jury has finished examining
books and papers.)

The Court: Proceed with your examination.

Cross examination.

By Mr. Williams:
Q. Mrs. Ridley, you were not present when all those sig­

natures were made on the bonds?
A. No, Mr. Williams, I was not in the office.
Q. What you have done here is just reading from a cold 

record from the clerk’s office ?
A. I am testifying from the records in the office.
Q. And you know absolutely nothing whatsoever about 

this case, or any of these defendants?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Mrs. Ridley—the amount of each of those bonds? 

What was the amount?
A. Mr. Williams, I didn’t notice it. I didn’t notice the 

amount.
(The book is brought back to Miss Alma.)
A. $250, the bonds.
Q. Each one of those defendants was required to make a 

$250 bond in General Sessions Court and in Criminal 
Court?



263

A. That’s correct here. This is criminal court I refer 
[fol. 1058] to. I will refer to General Sessions Court. (She 
looks.) I don’t remember the page numbers. (She looks 
further.) Yes, sir, they are $250.

Q. Now, Mrs. Ridley, do your records show that any dis­
position was made of those cases for which they were re­
quired to make a total of $2,000 in General Sessions Court?

A. Well, as I said, Mr. Williams, I am only testifying 
to the bonds. I know nothing of the disposition of these.

Q. But the record regarding the disposition and of the 
General Sessions cases are also likewise under your con­
trol?

A. That’s true. If there was any disposition of them, 
we should have them.

Q. But the state has not asked you to bring those records 
over?

A. No.
Q. So that’s a total of $2,000 bond that those 8 defend­

ants were required to make in General Sessions Court? 
And a total of $2,000 bond against the 8 of them in Criminal 
Court?

A. It shows that each defendant has a $250 bond in Gen­
eral Sessions and Criminal.

Q. Yes, ma’am. That’s all.

Redirect examination.

[fol. 1059] By Mr. Robinson:
Q. Can you tell by looking at these bonds whether they 

were cash or property bonds ?
A. The bond book doesn’t indicate that it was cash. It 

has realty listed here.
Q. It has realty listed?
A. Yes, sir, it does. It is not marked cash bonds, so I 

assume by the bond book that it is property.
Q. That is all.
The Court: You may stand aside. You may come back 

to the other side, Mrs. Ridley.



264

(Mrs. Ridley returns to the clerk’s desk on the other side 
of Judge Draper, since she is filling in for the clerk, Mr. 
Shea on this particular day.)

The Court: Call your next witness, General.

O tis W illiam s , called as a witness for the state, being 
duly sworn, testified as follows:

Direct examination.

(Mr. Robinson started to examine him when Mr. Looby 
asked if he had been under the rule, referring to Mr. Wil­
liams.)

The Court: Oh, sure.
Mr. Williams: I want to ask him something: Mr.—

[fol. 1060] Mr. Robinson: What did you say ?
Mr. Williams: (Witness.) Sir? How’s that?
Mr. Williams: (Attorney.) He has been walking through 

this crowd and I have observed him sitting back there 
every day, if your Honor please.

Mr. Maddin: Now, if your Honor please, he’s competent 
to testify.

The Court: Now, wait a minute, gentlemen! Don’t be 
in such a hurry. Let me examine the witness.

Have you been in here during any of the testimony that 
has been offered?

A. No, sir. I have been here before it started, but—the 
trial.

Q. Are you telling me that you haven’t heard a single 
witness testify?

A. Not a single word, no, sir.
Q. Not a word of testimony?
A. Not a word, no, sir. I haven’t been in here since they 

have been trying it, because they told me to stay out, and 
I did.

The Court: Sure did. That’s right. Now, gentlemen, 
anybody want to take issue with that. I don’t know.



265

Mr. Williams: It seems to me, but I can’t swear posi­
tively under oath, that I have seen him in the courtroom.

The Court: He swears positively to that and I can’t— 
[fol. 1061] I guess—

Mr. Williams: I don’t know whether there is anybody 
else in the courtroom or not that—

The Court: I—I—I—believe that he has abided by the 
rule. I have seen him in the hallway here where the Rule 
is in effect, quite a bit.

(A man in the room raises his hand.)
Mr. Williams: There is a man out here raising his hand, 

your Honor. That is Mr. Collins, who works here in the 
court house.

Mr. Maddin: Put him on the stand, if your Honor please.
Mr. Williams: We have no objection to putting Mr. Col­

lins on the stand.
The Court: All right. (Sends Mr. Williams, the witness 

out.) Ask Mr. Collins to come round.
(Mr. Collins is sworn by the clerk.)
The Court: All right. Now, when—when did you come 

in this morning?
A. I came in. This is my second trip in here. He was 

talking with someone right back there this morning. And 
got up and went out the door there.

The Court: Well, now, you didn’t answer my question. 
Let’s don’t—don’t you get there too quickly.

A. All right, sir.
[fol. 1062] Q. When did you come in? Were you here 
when court was opened ?

A. No, sir, I wasn’t here when court was opened, but I 
came in, I guess, shortly afterward. I imagine.

Q. Well, who was testifying when you came in?
A. Some man was on the stand.
Q. Describe him.
A. I can’t say what he looked like. But I do know that 

some gentleman was on the stand.
Q. Can’t you tell me what he looked like?



266

A. No, sir, but I do know that there was some gentleman 
on the stand.

The Court: Now, wait a minute. I want to know when 
you came in? Who was testifying?

A. I can’t say.
Q. Well, who was testifying when this gentleman here 

was in the courtroom?
A. Let me see. It was about the second man after I came 

in here.
Mr. Maddin: We can’t hear what he is saying, if the 

Court please.
A. I said about the second man after I came in here.
Q. Who—who was testifying when—Mr.—whatever the 

[fol. 1063] witness’ name is—
A. Williams.
The Court: Williams? Who was testifying when Mr. 

Williams came in the courtroom?
A. I don’t know. I think you had the second man on 

there, because I was sitting there back at the back.
Q. Who was the second man on? Now, you tell me.
A. I don’t know who it was. I didn’t hear the man’s name 

called. He was kind of a slender fellow. I will tell you who 
it was. It was one of the officers.

The Court: Is that right? I have had three officers on.
A. I know. You had one on when Mr. Williams was sort 

of asking about him coming up 6th Avenue with the paddy
wagon. And he asked him which way did he came? And__
then he finally told him which way he come. He asked him, 
Well, you came up on the wrong side of the street, then.

Q. You do not know which officer that was?
A. No, sir, I do not. But I know I can show him to you 

if he come back in here. I know that, I ’d know him.
Q. How long did Mr. Williams stay in here?
A. Mr. Williams?

[fol. 1064] Q. Yes?
A. Mr. Williams ain’t never been out.



Q. I am talking about the witness, Mr. Williams, not the 
lawyer, Mr. Williams.

A. I don’t know. You kept him on here for a good little 
while at this.

The Court: What?
A. He stayed in here—oh, you mean the man that just 

went out of here ?
Q. That’s right.
A. Oh, that man that just went in—he stayed back there 

sitting right where that man right yonder is sitting with 
the light jacket on,—on the end there.

Q. I want to ask you—
A. I imagine he set there around 15 or 20 minutes, or 

longer, your Honor, cause I was—
Q. You see, there—
A. —cause I was—
Q. Did you hear anybody else’s testimony?
A. I don’t remember, but I do recall him a-comin’ and 

a-askin’ somebody—
The Court: Anybody want to ask him anything?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Collins, is it your testimony that you 

were sitting back there at the time I was interrogating the 
witness—

A. Yes, sir.
[fol. 1065] Q. —About which way the paddy wagon was 
going on 6th Avenue ?

A. That’s right.
Q. And that man—this gentleman just preceding you on 

the witness stand—was sitting right here in the courtroom?
A. That’s right. To my knowing.
The Court: I am of the opinion that the witness is com­

petent. Bring him in. I don’t believe he violated any—
Mr. Williams: But we have testimony here by a man 

who saw—your Honor.
The Court: The Court is satisfied that the witness is 

competent. Bring Mm in.
Mr. Williams: Respectfully except, your Honor.
(Mr. Collins is stepped down.)



2 6 8

(Mr. Otis Williams returns to the witness stand.)
The Court: Examine him.
Mr. Maddin (Again starts the Direct Examination.) 

Would you state your name, please, sir.
A. Sir?
Q. State your name ?
A. Otis Williams.
Q. Where are you employed, Mr. Williams?
A. With the B & W Cafeteria.
Q. In what capacity?
A. Doorkeeper.

[fol. 1066] Q. How long?
A. Well, I have stayed from somewhere the last of Sep­

tember to October.
Q. When were you first employed?
A. Sir?
Q. When were you first employed?
A. Well, I can’t say just exactly the day, but it was some­

time right at the last days of September or the first of 
October.

Q. All right. Now, I ’ll ask you a question: on October 
21, 1962, were you so engaged in this employment?

A. How’s that?
The Court: Gentlemen, I want the record to show now, 

that even if the witness was in the back of the courtroom, 
I don’t believe he could have heard a word that was said. 
(Laughter in the courtroom.) He is having difficulty hear­
ing up here. Now, Mr. Williams, you do have a little dif­
ficulty with your hearing?

A. Yes, I do.
Q. And that is no fault of yours, of anyone.
A. That’s right. I can’t understand.
Q. That is exactly right, and that’s the reason I want 

him to talk slow, clearly and distinctly—
A. That’s right.
Q. —so that he can hear.
A. That’s right.



269

[fol. 1067] The Court: All of you counsel observe that 
rule with reference to this particular witness.

Mr. Williams: If your Honor please, for the record, 
for the purpose of the record, we object to the Court’s draw­
ing a conclusion as to the witness’ hearing,—

The Court: Well, I want—
Mr. Williams: —and his ability to hear at the back.
The Court: —the record to show that.
Mr. Williams: Well. (Starts to say something which 

is not undertandable because the Court drowns him out.)
The Court: I don’t think he was in here, and I am of the 

opinion that, if he had been, he couldn’t have heard any­
thing that was said at all.

Mr. Maddin: Now, Mr. Williams, if I am not heard by 
you clearly, please indicate it to me. (Comes toward front.)

The Court: Well, I think you ought to stand back there, 
so they can hear. If you are up here, he won’t talk so the 
jury can hear.

Mr. Maddin: (Moves back some.)
The Court: Now. If you can hear him, the jury can.
Mr. Maddin: On Sunday—
The Court: Thank you, sir.
Mr. Maddin: —October 21, 1962, were you engaged 

in your employment at the B & W Cafeteria as doorman?
A. I sure was.

'[fol. 1068] Q. On that day, shortly after 12 o’clock, did 
anything unusual occur ?

A. I should say so.
Q. What was that?
A. I had a bunch of white people coming in from church, 

and they was coming in—just a line of them, and then 
8 of these colored boys rushed right in with them, all at the 
same time, right in the doorway, and I caught the door go­
ing into the cafeteria, and stopped them there, and the 
white people, too, and the place was just jammed full.

Q. All right, now let me stop you to ask you: how many 
Negro boys came in there?

A. 8.
Q. 8?
A. That’s right.



270

Q. How are yon certain of that, Mr. Williams?
A. Huh?
Q. How do you know that?
A. I counted them, different times to see.
Q. Now, what did you do when they came into the vesti­

bule?
A. You mean when they came into the doorway?
Q. When they came through the first set of double doors, 

what did you do ?
[fol. 1069] A. Well, the white people was coming—all 
of them was, at the same time. I just grabbed holt of the 
doors like this (he demonstrates)—they was all unlocked.

Q. All right.
A. And helt the doors that-a-way. And they pushed right 

into my arms and tried to push me loose from the doors, 
but they couldn’t do it.

Q. All right. So the doors you are referring to are com­
ing out of the inside double doors?

A. That’s right—cornin’ into the eatin’ place.
Q. Those doors have bars across the face of them, do 

they not?
A. Both doors.
Q. Now, let me digress a moment, and ask you about the 

vestibule. Do you know its size? What are the dimensions 
of the vestibule ?

A. You mean what they said to me?
Q. No, Mr. Williams, have you taken occasion anytime 

to measure the inside of the vestibule?
A. I don’t think so. I don’t understand it, if I do.
Q. Do you know how deep and how wide the vestibule is ?
A. You mean in between the doors?
Q. Yes, sir?

[fol. 1070] A. I sure do. I ’ve got it right here.
Mr. Williams: We object to him reading it.
A. It is 6 feet in length.
Mr. Maddin: Wait a minute. Did you measure it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What changes have been made in the vestibule since 

the occurrences on October 21,1962?



271

A. None whatsoever.
Q. Did yon make a notation of the measurements?
A. Yes, sir. It is correct.
Q. Is that what yon are holding in your hand?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Read the dimensions.
A. Let’s see—
The Court: Read the dimensions.
A. It’s 6 feet in length, 6 feet and 4 inches wide. Just 

4 inches difference, it is 4 inches wider. I mean than the 
length coming in the door, makes the difference.

Q. It is 6 feet by 6 feet 4? Is that right?
A. That’s right.
Q. All right. Now, then, when you saw those boys 

inside the door and they were pushing, what did you then 
do?
[fol. 1071] A. Well, I told ’em, I said, Now, we don’t serve 
colored people in here. I want to be nice to you, but Ave 
don’t serve ’em,—colored people in here, and you can’t 
come in.

Mr. Williams: Objection, if your Honor please.
The Court: I can’t find any objection in that. Go ahead.
Mr. Maddin: You told them you didn’t serve colored 

people in here, and what else?
A. I said we didn’t serve colored people in here, and you 

can’t come in. Well, they said to me, said, We’re coinin’ 
in and goin’ to eat when we git in. I said, No, not as long 
as I am at this door. By that time, I got some help. That 
was Mr. Carrier, and—

Q. All right. What other steps did you take to prevent 
them from coming through that door?

A. Well, the only thing I could do was—the only thing 
I had a right to do was just to keep them out by main 
strength, and that’s all, and when I tried to let one of 
these white people that was caught in there with them in 
the cafeteria, or let one out, why they’d just ram into the 
door, and push them up against the wall, or against the 
doors, and I just had a time a-gettin’ what few was caught 
in there inside and gettin’ them out,.



272

Q. All right. Mr. Williams, from the time you first 
saw these 8 colored boys—

A. Yes, sir.
[fol. 1072] Q. —till the time they took them away, how 
much time there—passed?

A. Well, I couldn’t say. But about 40 minutes, or 45. 
Something like that.

Q. All right.
A. I ’m not sure about that.
Q. During that 40 to 45—
A. How was that?
Q. During that 40 to 45 minutes, did you leave the door­

way at any time ?
A. No, sir. I stayed with it. I couldn’t leave it. Had, 

they’d a-come on in.
Q. How did the 8 colored boys leave ?
A. Leave?
Q. Yes, sir?
A. They carried them.
Q. Who carried them?
A. Officers. I don’t know the officers’ names, but they 

carried ’em.
Q. Police officers?
A. Yeah.
Q. All right. Did any of them leave—any of the 8 that 

you saw, leave before they were taken away by police 
officers?

A. No, sir. I counted them when they went out with them, 
[fol. 1073] They took them all. I wanted to be sure they did 
have them all, so they wouldn’t be nairn left there to bother 
me when they got away with ’em.

Q. All right.
A. And they had ’em a-holdin’ them when they went out 

with ’em.
Q. Do you see any of those 8 in this courtroom?
A. Do I?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. I sure do.
Q. Identify the ones you recognize.
A. Well, my eyesight is sort of like my hearing.



273

Q. All right, sir. Just come down, or walk around, or 
whatever you see fit in order to identify them.

A. Well, they know me, too, some of ’em do.
(On looking them over, he points to one.) (He mutters to 

himself.)
The Court: Speak out. The Court Reporter cannot hear 

what is being said.
A. Sir?
The Court: The Court Reporter cannot hear what is 

being said, and I ’m afraid the jury can’t.
A. I remember these here specially, and to the best 

of my knowledge, they all look to be the same boys, I 
[fol. 1074] know specially this one here.

Mr. Maddin: Now, then, if the Court please, for the 
benefit of the record, he is pointing out what is known as 
the—

The Court: I think, if I am not in error, he points to de­
fendants # 3  and #4.

A. Those three right there. I am sure these three right 
here.

Mr. Maddin: Walk over here, so there will be no doubt, 
about the ones you identify.

A. Well, these three right here. I am sure about them. 
I am pretty well—

The Court: He identifies defendants #2 , and #4.
Mr. Maddin: All right. Now, then, I ’ll ask you to walk 

over in front of those four colored men sitting there, and 
see if you can recognize any of them.

Mr. Williams: May it please the Court, I object to this—
A. (Keeps on talking.) To the best of my knowledge, as 

I say.
Mr. Williams: —as being incompetent, and highly im­

proper for Counsel to point to certain people and point 
at them and say, Walk over there in front of them, and see 
if they aren’t some of the people.



274

The Court: No. I don’t—don’t do that. I don’t believe 
he asked it that way.
[fol. 1075] Mr. Williams: It is incompetent, if your Honor 
please.

The Court: If there are any of the other people seated 
at the table there that you can identify, you have a right 
to do that, sir.

A. Well, like I said, just to be positive about it, I—I— 
can’t be sure.

The Court: If you can’t identify any of them—
A. To the best of my knowledge, it is them three—
The Court: —come back and sit down.
A. But I believe all of them,—
The Court: Well, now, all right, you mustn’t believe—
A. No.
The Court: Now—now—now—let’s be—let’s keep the 

record right.
A. Yeah.
The Court: You can only identify three?
A. Well, specially, and to the best of my knowledge—
The Court: Well—well—you either identify—there is 

no special identification.
A. Well—
The Court: You either identify a person, or you don’t.

[fol. 1076] Mr. Maddin: Let me ask a question in this 
matter, if I may, if your Honor please. Mr. Williams, 
to the best of your knowledge, state which, if any of the 
8 persons who were in the vestibule on October 21, 1962, 
as you described, are in the courtroom now?



275

A. Well, to the best of my knowledge, they are, I ’ll 
say that.

Q. How many of them?
A. 8 of them.
Q. Where are they sitting?
A. Huh?
Q. Where are they sitting? Where are they?
A. I didn’t understand you.
Q. Where are they sitting?
A. Lined up over there. (Waves his hand toward the 

table where defendants are seated.)
Beporter: I can’t put that down. It doesn’t mean a thing.
The Court: He said lined up over there, and I take it— 

pointing to—
A. I mean those right there,— (He waves his hand in a 

big wave again.)
Mr. Maddin: Mr. Williams, I am going to ask you to 

come down and point specifically at the ones you are talk­
ing about now.

Mr. Williams: If your Honor please, that is objected 
as being highly irregular and incompetent.

The Court: Well, I don’t think it’s necessary to do that 
[fol. 1077] now,—he’s said—

Mr. Maddin: Well, I don’t want to confuse Counsel 
in this. As it is, if he is confused, I ’d want to know.

Mr. Williams: Counsel is not confused at all, if your 
Honor please.

The Court: All right. Have a seat, sir, he won’t need to 
do that. He’s already said.

Mr. Maddin: All right.
The Court: That won’t be necessary.
A. I don’t want to say anything that is wrong. I just 

want to say what I know.
The Court: Don’t—don’t—you answer the questions. 

You are sworn to say nothing but what’s right.



276

Cross examination.

By Mr. Williams:
Q. Mr. Williams, how much do you weigh?
Mr. Maddin: If your Honor please, it is quite obvious 

Counsel is not speaking loud enough, for the witness to 
hear.

A. Huh? I didn’t understand you.
Mr. Williams: How much do you weigh ?
A. Weigh?
Q. Weigh? How much do you weigh?
A. 140.
Q. And how tall are you?
A. 5'11".

[fol. 1078] Q. You are a very slender man, are you not?
A. Well, I don’t know quite how you put that. I ’m a 

pretty good man for my size.
Q. Yes, but you don’t have much weight on you, do you? 
A. Naturally, I ’ve got 140 pounds.
Q. And you are 5 feet 11? How old a man are you, Mr. 

Williams?
A. Soon be 65.
Q. And you were 64 years of age last October?
A. No. Not October.
Q. H o w  o ld  w ou ld  you  have been?
A. It was in June, the 19th was my birthday. That was 

October when I had trouble with this.
Q. Well, how old were you then, when what you have 

related happened?
A. I told you I was 64 in June.
Q. 64? All right.
Now, these Negroes who were in the vestibule there— 

were they old or young men?
A. They was young men.
Q. Young men?
A. Yeah, I reckon. Thar they are. You can judge that, 

[fol. 1079] Q. Would you say they all were under 25?
A. I wouldn’t say that. I would just say they were young 

men.



277

Q. Well, would you say that all of them were under 30?
A. Yes, sir. I think so. I believe so. I couldn’t say for 

sure, but I couldn’t tell about colored people. I can white 
people.

Q. Now, you have testified that, before I get to that, 
did you have a lock on those doors that you were holding?

A. I had it on there, but it wasn’t locked. We tried to 
lock one of them and we couldn’t. They would push it every 
time the pin would go up in there. Me and Mr. Carrier 
both couldn’t lock it.

Q. You had it locked?
A. Yeah, we locked it at different times, but not that 

time. We couldn’t.
Q. Now, Mr. Williams, how were these young men 

situated?
A. How what?
Q. In the vestibule? These young men?
A. How were they what ?
Q. How were they standing in the vestibule ?

[fol. 1080] A. I just don’t know what you mean, but they 
were trying to get in the door,—in the place, that’s all I 
know.

Q. Yes, sir. How were they standing? Were they stand­
ing one behind the other?

A. No. Well, they was all the way over the whole place 
there. The doorway at times, and at times they was just 
scattered amongst these people—just all—

Q. Sir?
A. But when they was trying to come in the door, when 

I would open it for somebody then the others would push 
in. They got one plumb inside one time, and me and Mr. 
Carrier overpowered him and put him back out.

Q. Well, you measured the place, didn’t you?
A. I sure did.
Q. It isn’t but 6 feet wide.
A. That’s all. 6 feet 4 wide.
Q. 6 feet—
A. 4 inches wide.
Q. It would have been impossible to be right there at the 

door—all of them—wouldn’t it ?



278

A. There was so many at the door and so many behind 
them—
[fol. 1081] Q. Yes?

A. That’s the way it was.
Q. As a matter of fact, they were lined up on each side 

of the vestibule, were they not?
A. They’s all over it. Never did line up till the officers 

lined them up. After we stayed there a good while and 
worried with them, like we did, the officers lined them up 
and over to the side where we could let these people in and 
out, and in the meantime, we lost a world of customers that 
just left. They just couldn’t get through there, and wasn’t 
going to plow through them like that.

Q. Were you standing there watching them all the time?
A. Standing right there. You bet I was watching them.
Q. All the time?
A. That’s right, every minute.
Q. And it is your testimony that they never did line up 

till the officers lined them up ?
A. Not over to the side where we could let the people in 

and out. They was all over the place there,—
Q. All right.
A. —pushing one another,—anything to get through the 

[fol. 1082] door.
Q. Now, is it your testimony that they were pushing 

against that door? And you had to keep them out by brute 
force?

A. Me and Mr. Carrier, both.
Q. Well, was Mr. Carrier there all the time?
A. He wasn’t at the first.
Q. Oh, how long were you there without Mr. Carrier?
A. I wouldn’t know. I didn’t count it. I tole them to go 

and git him, just as well—just as quick as they could, 
and he come right to me.

Q. Well, was it as much as say, 10 minutes ?
A. I don’t know. I wouldn’t say that. I didn’t count it.
Q. Well, you don’t—
A. I had my hands full keeping them out.
Q. You don’t have any estimate at all?
A. They didn’t never get my arm pushed loose from them 

doors because I was laying with them doors.



279

Q. Now—
A. And I never left that, because I was needed right 

there.
[fol. 1083] Q. You are telling the Court and jury that all 
8 of them were in that vestibule pushing against that door, 
and it was not locked, and you kept them out?

A. I didn’t say they’s all pushing the door at all. I said 
they was all in there, and that some of ’em was a-pushin’ 
these that was a-tryin’ to come in the door.

Q. Well, which ones of them were pushing trying to come 
in the door?

A. Well, there’s one of ’em right over there.
Q. Well, how—
A. There’s two of ’em, matter of fact.
Mr. Maddin: Mr. Williams, come down here and point to 

them where they can be identified.
A. —in the corner there. Them two that I identified.
Mr. Williams: May it please the Court, learned Counsel 

will have a chance to direct the witness on redirect examina­
tion. I respectfully object to him doing that, if the Court 
please.

The Court: Yes, sir, sustain the objection.
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir.
The Court: Let Counsel examine the witness, cross- 

examine the witness, now.
Mr. Williams: I repeat, how many were pushing against 

the door?
[fol. 1084] A. I don’t know how many was pushing. There 
was only the one—see, we was just operating one door to 
let people in and out.

Q. Mr. Williams, you haven’t answered my question. You 
can explain after you answer the question. You don’t know 
how many? Is that correct?

A. Yes, I know how many was there, but I don’t know 
how many was pushing, because they’s all back through 
there. The ones right up here in front was trying to get in, 
was the ones I was a-holdin’ back.

Q. Mr. Williams, I asked you—



280

A. (Has been continually talking while Mr. Williams (at­
torney) tries to question him.) The ones behind there were 
pushing as much as possible. I know they were pushing. 
They were pushing the white people, about as much as 
they was one another.

The Court: Let me say this. You are making it mighty 
hard on the court reporter—two of you talking at one time.

Mr. Williams: I tried to stop when the flow started, your 
Honor.

The Court: I am sure that she can’t hear, and I am having 
difficulty hearing both of you, so I just admonish you—• 
[fol. 1085] excuse me for interrupting, but—

Mr. Williams: Well, if your Honor please, it is sort of 
like Longfellow’s brook, you ask one question and it flows—

The Court: Go ahead. All right. I am sorry to inter­
rupt, gentlemen, but I thought that needed saying.

Mr. Williams: I will try to bear that in mind.
The Court: I thought Mrs. Cummins would like to hear 

me say it.
(Reporter nods thanks.)
Mr. Williams: Mr. Williams, as a matter of fact, you 

don’t know how many people were pushing the door and 
trying to get in, do you?

A. Certainly I know how many was pushing up at the 
door. But I don’t know how many was pushing back behind 
the door.

Q. You say there were white people in the vestibule?
A. Yes, but—there was white people in there, but they 

wasn’t pushing the door—they was just pushed in there 
with them, trying to push them back there against the wall.

Q. Well, the white people were behind them, weren’t they?
A. No, they was on this side over here, and right next to 

the outside door where they come in the door back there, 
and it was full from there on up to me.

Q. When you say on this side, what side are you talking 
about—the side of the vestibule?
[fol. 1086] A. As you come in the front door—

Q. Yes?
A. —it would be on the righthand side, and these white



281

people was, and these other boys come in on the left hand 
side coming in, and just rushed right in with these people 
all at the same time before I seen them. Well, all I could 
do was just grab the doors and keep out everybody— white 
people and all.

Q. Right? You closed the door to keep all of them out?
A. No, I didn’t do that to keep all of ’em out. I done that 

to keep all the colored people out.
Q. Yes?
A. I could have opened the door and let the white people 

come in, but they’d a-come in, too.
Q. And you had to keep the white people out to keep 

the Negroes out?
A. At that present time, yes.
Q. And the white people were there trying to get in, too?
A. They wasn’t a-tryin’ to get in at all. They was just 

standing there. They didn’t know what to do. Till got 
help there with Mr. Carrier and got him to help me man­
age it so we could open it and let them in one at a time, 
or let one out at a time, then they was pushed up against 
the wall and up against the doors, and a lot of them said 
they was going home, that was in there, and wasn’t coming 
back. And they went back out and left. Said they just 
[fol. 1087] wasn’t going to put up with nothin’ like that.

Q. Are you through, Mr. Williams ?
A. Go ahead.
Q. Now, there were many white people who got in there, 

weren’t there?
A. Several, yeah, there was several of them in there 

before they got there.
Q. Well, you let them in, didn’t you?
A. I shore did, and I ’ll let ’em in agin. That’s my job.
Q. Yes?
A. The white people.
Q. Yes, sir. You had orders from Mr. Carrier not to let 

any Negroes in there?
A. That’s right.
Q. As a matter of fact, that wTas the purpose of your iob, 

was it not?
A. That was my job, that’s what I told you. I didn’t— 

here’s what—let me say this, please. I don’t hold one thing



against colored people in their place. I like them as good 
as anybody,—it ain’t that at all, but my job was that I was 
to manage and not let them in there, and that’s exactly what 
I done.

Q. Just so long as they stay in the dog kennel that is all 
[fol. 1088] right?

A. Now, that is out of the question.
Q. He brought that up.
The Court: Mr. Witness—Yes, I am afraid that he is 

right this time. Mr. Williams, I will admonish you that if 
you will save all of us time and do us a fine favor if you 
will just answer counsel’s questions and just tell him the 
answers to the questions. All this volunteer information 
is probably sometimes not what is pertinent and relevant.

Mr. Williams: That is what you were hired for to keep 
all these Negro patrons out? Is that right, or not?

A. That’s right.
Q. Now, as you let these white people in, did you lock 

the doors each time?
A. What was that, now?
Q. As you would let a white person in, through these 

Negroes, would you lock the door every time you let the 
white person in?

A. Not when these was in there, I didn’t—but I have 
had set-ups that I ’d have to do that—lock the door and then 
unlock it and let the people in and then lock it back—when 
they was outside on the sidewalk.

The Court: That’s what I am talking about. Any time 
[fol. 1089] except Sunday, October 21, 1962, please.

Q. Were your orders when people came there to lock 
the doors and let only white people in?

A. No, my orders was to lock the door if they come and 
if I could, but I didn’t have no chance to lock it. They got 
in before I had a chance to lock it.

Q. Well, they were just pushing the door just like any 
white person would at a restaurant, and when you pushed 
the door back, there were so many people there that you 
couldn’t get the door all the way back, is that it?

A. No. That wasn’t it.



Q. Well, they just—•
A. I just held the doors together so they couldn’t come in. 

They tried to push me in. And they had the doors swayed 
back in my arm, and I still had holt of the door till I got 
help.

Q. Well, even after Mr. Carrier came, you still held the 
door then, didn’t you?

A. He hope me.
Q. Sir?
A. He hope me hold it. He helped me push them back, 

too. He pushed them back several different times.
Q. Mr. Williams, did you know that these Negroes—per­

sons who were there in the vestibule—had you heard them 
[fol. 1090] discuss anything about non-violence?

A. You mean heerd the colored people?
Q. Yes?
A. Discuss how nice?
Q. Had you heard them discuss anything about non­

violence ?
A. I haven’t—I haven’t talked with them.
Q. You haven’t talked with them at all?
A. Not since that, except just to speak to them. They 

come to me out there, and told me they knowed me.
Q. Do you know anything about the non-violence move­

ment among Negro college students?
A. If I did, I don’t know too—anyway.
Mr. Maddin: I object to that. Whether he does or 

doesn’t, does not matter any way.
A. I don’t know too much about them any way.
The Court: He says he does not. He says he doesn’t 

know.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Williams, you testified on direct ex­

amination that you told them that they couldn’t come into 
the restaurant—is that correct?

A. I told them, Oh—they said they’s a-comin’ in and 
they’s going to eat, and I said, No, you ain’t going to do 
either one while I ’m here at the door.

Q. Well, there were some white people standing there, 
[fol. 1091] too?



284

A. That’s right.
Q. Who were you talking to ?
A. I was talking to the colored people, of course.
Q. Well, how would anybody have known who you were 

talking to there?
A. They knowed the rules. Them white people. They 

had eat there before. They knowed what I was talking 
about.

Q. They knew the rules ?
A. That’s right.
Q. You just assumed the Negroes knew the rules?
A. Yeah, that we just served white people. That’s all.
Q. And these Negroes said, we are coming in to eat.
A. That’s what they said.
Q. And that was what they did?
A. Well, that was all that was necessary.
Q. And you think they knew the rules and restrictions?
A. Yes.
Q. You were also serving the public that day?
A. Yes, except the colored people.

[fol. 1092] Q. Anybody could come in and buy a meal 
there and you could be glad to have them unless accidentally 
they were Negroes—this racial restriction—unless you 
could identify them as Negroes ?

A. If they were drinking, or out of order, they wmuld be 
turned away, same as that.

Q. That would be done anyway?
A. Yes.
Q. Anybody who came in and behaved himself properly, 

and looked and acted like a gentleman, would be admitted 
unless you could determine he was a Negro? An American 
Negro?

A. I don’t know nothing about an American—I don’t 
know anything about an American—

Q. Well, do you have any instructions about any foreign 
Negroes?

A. I don’t know where they’re from.
Q. You don’t have any instructions?
A. I just know they’re Negroes. Of course that’s all I 

know about them.



285

Q. Did you have any special instructions about Japanese 
or Chinese?

A. How’s that?
Q. Did you have any special instructions about either 

Japanese or Chinese people, that color of people.
A. That’s what they said they were anyway.
Q. You would accept them anyway? It would be all right 

for them to come?
[fol. 1093] A. It’s the boss’ instructions—not mine.

Q. Well, did you have any so-called instructions about 
Japanese, or Chinese, or Africa,—didn’t have any special 
instructions about that, did you?

Did you have any special instructions about Japanese 
or Chinese? Any special instructions about alien Japanese, 
or Chinese, or colored people?

A. They’s been Chinese, at least that’s what they said,— 
I don’t know.

Q. Sir?
A. That’s what they said they was.
Q. Is it all right for them to come?
A. We accepted them anyway.
Q. Under the boss’ rule?
A. I am working for them. Negroes is the only thing 

they don’t serve.
Q. And it is all right for a native Japanese, or native 

Chinese—they could be admitted,—
A. I don’t know about that—about them, but
Q. Well, the boss didn’t give you any instructions to 

ascertain whether a Japanese person showed up? Or an 
alien Japanese ? Or—

A. They are not considered Negroes.
Q. Sir:
A. They are not considered Negroes. They are consid­

ered Japanese.
Q. I asked you—

[fol. 1094] A. I ’m talking about Negroes.
Q. If an Indian showed up there, an East Indian, or 

someone, why you weren’t required to turn them back either, 
were you?

A. I don’t know about that. Wasn’t nothing said about 
that.



286

Q. You don’t have any instructions about that?
A. The only thing that I am required to do is to not let 

colored people in—Negroes.
Q. How was that?
A. Wasn’t anything said about any other race at all.
Q. Just the American Negro.
A. I don’t know nothing about the American Negro
Q. What about an African Negro? If the African had on 

a turban, would you have admitted him ?
Mr. Maddin: I object to that, if your Honor please.
The Court: I think you have got enough of that in the 

record now. You’ve got it. Let’s get on to some other—- 
something else.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Williams, I will ask you this: in 
order—you say that in order for the white people to get 
in there, they had to push through these Negroes standing 
there?

A. What few I let in while they had them in there, did, 
yes. They had to just crowd their way by them.
[fol. 1095] Q. Well, how do you know—I thought you said 
that those white people didn’t do any pushing in there.

A. They didn’t do any pushing to get in, to get in the 
door. Just to get by them. I opened the door for them.

Q. Well, these people weren’t standing all over the floor 
then ?

A. Practically all over the place. Some of them were 
trying to come over my arm and under my arm while I was 
holding the door till I could get a chance to let a lady in, or 
a man.

Q. But they weren’t standing entirely all over the place 
because the white persons had a chance to push through 
there, didn’t they? If they had been, a white person would 
have had—

A. There didn’t nobody do that. It was when—
Q. —to push them, wouldn’t they?
A. —when we could get a chance to move them to get 

one by.
Q. Then they weren’t—well, you were already on the 

inside?
A. I was. How was that?



287

Q. Weren’t yon on the inside, Mr. Williams ?
A. I was, facing everybody.
Q. Yon never did go into the vestibule, did you?
A. No, but there’s people in there that’s movin’ from one 

[fol. 1096] door to the other. Trying to get in.
Q. They did move from side to side? Now, you are saying, 

as a matter of fact, that they did move from side to side?
A. They was moving. They wasn’t all standing still in 

there. They was trying to get in any way in the world they 
could get in. That’s what they’re doing.

Q. Was there ever a time when the aperture of that door 
that you were holding was not completely covered by a line 
of Negroes across there?

A. These white people—now, get this straight—these 
white people—just take this lady here, and all them men 
there, she’s cornin’ in—well, they parted the way theirself 
because they was ambitious to try to get in, and they would 
pursue them to try to get through the door, when we’d let 
them,—why they’d grab right over them, and try to get 
in too and push her up agin the door—this way, or that 
way, or just any way in the world.

Q. Well—
A. And the only thing—that was the only thing they 

wasn’t nice about.
Q. Well they had to push? They had to stand back to 

let the white people in, didn’t they?
A. They had to be pushed by the white people and the 

door—pushed back.
Q. You are saying that the white people would come from 

[fol. 1097] the back and push them back to the side?
A. I didn’t say they pushed them to the side at all. I just 

said they pushed them aside to get to the door. What few 
people did get in—till they got them away. There was very 
few that got in while they were there. Or out, either. 
There was a lot of people inside missed the bus, on account 
of it.

Q. As a matter of fact, they did move back as the white 
people came in, didn’t they?

A. No, they didn’t move back, at all. They were pushed 
back.



288

Q. They were pushed back.
A. They—
Q. Pushed back?
A. They was crowded through—just what few white 

people there that got in just had to push their way through 
them to get through the door.

Q. You mean they just came—the white people just came 
through ?

A. No,—
Q. They pushed them aside with brute force, and came 

on in?
A. They did sometimes just give ’em enough room to 

crowd between them, that was all.
Q. Well,—
A. They didn’t like to do that. That wasn’t decent for a 

lady to do.
Q. Mr. Williams, will you explain to the Court, how you 

[fol. 1098] were able to—how y o u  were able to keep 8 
Negroes out of the restaurant through an open folding, 
French-type doors, when as you say they were trying to 
get in and they just pushed on it all the time and you let 
the white people in.

A. Well, we’ll put it this way. I had both doors. Well, 
if they—they knowed how much they was supposed to do. 
If they had put their full force to it, and got ambitious 
about it, why somebody else would have had to, too. They 
knowed that I had them doors, and they wTas trying to come 
in, but still they weren’t fighting their way in. That would 
have been different if they had.

Q. As a matter of fact, now—
A. They was wanting in, but not wanting to fight to get 

in.
Q. They were peaceable and trying to come into your 

restaurant, weren’t they, Mr. Williams?
A. They were trying their best to come in.
Q. They were peaceable, weren’t they?
A. I guess they could have fought their way in, and come 

in.
Q. But they were doing it in a peaceable manner
Mr. Maddin: Well, that all calls for a conclusion, if your 

Honor please.



289

Mr. Williams: No, it doesn’t, yonr Honor.
The Court: If he can answer it, I ’ll let him do it.

[fol. 1099] The Court: If you can answer that, you may.
A. I don’t know what he means by it. I don’t know how 

to answer.

Mr. Williams:
Q. Well, you knew how to say they were shoving?
A. Shoving?
Q. You said they had to be shoved aside, didn’t you?
A. They crowded—
Q. They had to be shoved aside? Not one of them 

punched anybody in the nose, did he?
A. No, or there would have been more punching.
Q. If they had punched anybody in the nose, did you 

have a weapon on you?
A. No.
Q. A knife?
A. No, sir. I didn’t need one. I didn’t—I ain’t out for 

that. I am out to treat everybody with courtesy.
Q. Yes, sir, and they were there peaceable and trying to 

enter that restaurant in a peaceable manner? Were they 
not?

A. Well, I don’t know whether you would call it that, or 
not, but I thought they were a little brutish myself.

Q. Sir?
A. I thought they was a little brutish about that pushing 

and shoving these women around and knocking them up 
against the doors. I don’t think that was decent of anybody, 
[fol. 1100] Me, or you, or anybody else.

Q. Well, now, who pushed whom?
A. I don’t know who. I don’t know the names of who 

pushed who. But the ones at the door and the ones behind 
and these here three was mostly the ones that was a 
crowdin’ for the door, and one of them got inside,—

Q. You say—
A. And me and Mr. Carrier overpowered him, and put 

him back.
Q. Now, you said brutish. Did anybody get bruises on 

them there, Mr. Williams ?



290

A. I don’t know what, yon call it, but that is the way I 
look at it. Knocking these women about like that. Of 
course,—

Q. You say one of these people did get in and you 
pushed him back?

A. Me and Mr. Carrier. He got inside the door, and we 
overpowered him and pushed him back.

Q. You didn’t do that gently did you?
A. Yeah, we done it as nice as we knowed how.
Q. But you did it gently in an effort to get him back?
A. We just tuk holt of him and put him back, and we 

told him, You don’t belong in here. We don’t serve you 
in here, and you’re not cornin’ in.
[fol. 1101] Q. As a matter of fact, the only thing that was 
done up there that was brutish there that afternoon—well, 
let me finish my question—Mr. Williams—

(Mr. Williams is shaking his head.)
■—before you start shaking your head. Let the record show 
that he is shaking his head before I finish my question, even 
ask the question.

The Court: Let him finish his question, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: As a matter of fact, Mr. Williams, the 

only thing that was done brutish that afternoon was taking 
hold of them and manhandling them by you, and Mr. Car­
rier was the man who told you not to let them in the 
restaurant ?

A. We didn’t manhandle them. We just took hold of 
them and pushed them back. That’s right.

Q. It took both of you together to push them?
A. Yes. Yes. They’s pushing that way and we’s pushing 

them. We was pushing him back.
Q. One more thing. Haven’t you got a back door to that 

restaurant, Mr. Williams ?
A. Yes.
Q. And that back door is for use of the patrons is it not? 

It’s for use of people coming to the restaurant?
A. Yeah, more for the salesladies and people like that.
Q. It is frequently used by the people who come from 

[fol. 1102] church, isn’t it? That’s right, isn’t it?



A. The church people—the majority of them come to the 
front door. It isn’t usually open on Sunday. And if it is, 
it is for some occasion. It’s for—

Q. It was open that day, wasn’t it?
A. Not that I know of.
Q. You don’t know that people came in the back door 

that day?
A. I don’t know cause I wasn’t back there.
The Court: Now, if you don’t know, just say so.
A. I don’t. I don’t know.
The Court: That’s right. When you don’t know, just 

tell us so.
Mr. Robinson: That concludes the state’s case in chief, 

your Honor.
The State Closes Its Case.
(Recess is had from 11:08 to 11:33, after which the Coun­

sel for the Defendants announce that they too close their 
case.)

The Defense Rests.
This Was All the Evidence Adduced Upon the Trial of 

This Case

Summations:
Special Counsel for the State: John K. Maddin, Jr.
For the defendants: Avon Williams, Jr., Z. Alexander 

Looby
For the State: Gale Robinson

[fol. 1103] Reporter’s Certificate to foregoing transcript 
(omitted in printing).



292

[fol. 1104]
I n the Criminal Court op Davidson County, T ennessee

D ivision T wo

Charge op the Court

By the Court:
Gentlemen:

This is the case of the State of Tennessee vs. Lester G. 
McKinnie, John R. Lewis, Frederick Leonard, John Jack- 
son, Jr., Nathal Winter, Frederick Hargraves, Harrison 
Dean, and Allen Cason, Jr.

This is the charge of the Court:

Members of the Jury:
The presentment in this case charges the defendants 

with the offense of unlawful conspiracy in violation of 
Code Section 39-1101, and is in words and figures as 
follows:

State op T ennessee, Davidson County 

September T erm op the Criminal Court, 1962.
The Grand Jurors for the State of Tennessee, duly 

elected, impaneled, sworn, and charged to inquire for the 
body of the County of Davidson and State aforesaid, upon 
their oath aforesaid, present:

That Lester G. McKinnie, John R. Lewis, Frederick 
Leonard, John Jackson, Jr., Nathal Winter, Frederick 
Hargraves, Harrison Dean, and Allen Cason, Jr., hereto­
fore, to wit, on the 21st day of October, 1962, and prior 
to the finding of this presentment, with force and arms, 
in the County aforesaid, unlawfully, wilfully, knowingly, 
deliberately, and intentionally did unite, combine, conspire, 
agree and confederate, between and among themselves, to 
violate Code Section 39-1101-(7) and Code Section 62-711, 
and unlawfully to commit acts injurious to the restaurant



293

business, trade and commerce of Burrus and Webber Cafe- 
[fol. 1105] teria, Inc., a corporation, located at 226 6th 
Avenue North, Nashville, Davidson County, Tennessee, in 
the following manner and by the following means, to wit:

On the day and date aforesaid, and for many months and 
years prior thereto, the said Burrus and Webber Cafe­
teria, Inc., had built up and established a restaurant and 
cafeteria, elaborately furnished and equipped, known as 
the B & W. Cafeteria, located at said address in the heart 
of the business, commercial and uptown district of Nash­
ville, Tennessee, in a building fronting on the east side 
of 6th Avenue North, and extending back to the westerly 
margin of an alley in the rear, which dining room and 
cafeteria had two long cafeteria lines, dining tables and 
chairs on the mezzanine level, with a large seating ca­
pacity for customers, patrons and clientele of said B & W. 
Cafeteria, which had established itself by reputation as 
serving fine foods, and which said cafeteria daily served 
hundreds of white patrons, customers and clientele.

The entrance from said 6th Avenue North into said cafe­
teria is effected by a double door at the northwest corner 
of said cafeteria, which leads into a vestibule, small in area, 
with a second set of double doors on the east side of said 
vestibule; all customers of said cafeteria enter and leave 
through said vestibule.

The owners of said cafeteria and restaurant, which was 
privately owned, had established a rule that would receive, 
admit and serve only such persons as customers, patrons 
and clientele as said corporation elected to admit, receive 
and serve in said cafeteria; and said Burrus and Webber 
Cafeteria, Inc., had reserved the right to control the ac­
cess and admission or exclusion of persons to said cafe­
teria as the owners deemed proper, in their discretion as 
the owners of private property; and under the provisions 
of Section 62-710 of the Code of Tennessee, the owners of 
said cafeteria reserved the right not to admit and to ex­
clude from said cafeteria any person the owners, for any 
reason whatsoever, chose not to admit or serve in said 
cafeteria.



294

Among the rules established by the owners of said 
B & W Cafeteria was one that they would serve food only 
to persons of Caucasian descent, or white persons, and not 
to serve food to persons of African descent, or colored 
persons; and said B & W Cafeteria was known to the 
general public as a cafeteria and dining place, privately 
owned, serving food only to white persons.

In the said City of Nashville at said time there were 
numerous other dining rooms, restaurant, cafeterias and 
[fol. 1106] places serving food, some of which served food 
only to colored persons, and some serving food to both 
white and colored persons, known as “ integrated” restau­
rants, dining rooms, cafeterias and food places, many of 
which were in the immediate vicinity or within a few blocks 
of said B. & W. Cafeteria, all of which was then and there 
well known to the defendants, hereinbefore named; and 
on said October 21, 1962, food was available to said de­
fendants at numerous eating places in Nashville in the 
general vicinity of said B & W Cafeteria.

The said defendants, Lester G. McKinnie, John R. Lewis, 
Frederick Leonard, John Jackson, Jr., Nathal Winter, 
Frederick Hargraves, Harrison Dean and Allen Cason, 
Jr., are persons of African descent or colored persons; 
and said defendants unlawfully, wilfully, deliberately, and 
intentionally did unite, combine, conspire, agree and con­
federate, between and among themselves, to conduct what 
is known as “ sit-in” affairs, by going to divers restaurants, 
dining rooms and cafeterias well knowing that only white 
persons were being or would be served, and further well 
knowing that colored persons would not be served food 
therein; and after being denied entrance thereto and after 
being denied food service, and after being requested to 
leave such dining rooms, restaurants and cafeterias, the 
said defendants did conspire to block the entrance or vesti­
bule of said B & W Cafeteria to prevent customers, pa­
trons or clientele from entering, and to block or prevent 
those already therein and who had been served food and 
had finished their meals from leaving said cafeteria by 
means of the only regular entrance or exit thereto, being 
the above described vestibule, all being contemplated to



295

be done, well knowing that their presence as “ sit-ins” was 
likely to promote disorders, breaches of the peace, fights 
or riots by patrons, customers and clientele of such seg­
regated cafeteria;

And the said defendants, on said October 21, 1962, well 
knew that prior or similar acts of “ sit-in” in Nashville had 
resulted in fights, breaches of the peace, disorders, brawls 
and riots previously, requiring the calling of police and 
peace officers to quell conditions resulting therefrom, as 
at least one of the defendants herein named had previously 
participated in several of such “ sit-ins” conducted at other 
dining rooms and restaurants in Nashville prior to Oc­
tober 21, 1962.

The said defendants are college students and are strong 
advocates of an integration movement now being conducted 
in Davidson County, Tennessee, and are engaged in a move­
ment to coerce, compel, and to intimidate owners of res­
taurants, dining rooms and cafeterias serving only white 
persons to “ integrate”, or to admit and serve food to 
persons of African descent or colored persons against 
[fol. 1107] the wishes, rule and established policy of the 
owners of such segregated restaurants, dining rooms and 
cafeterias.

As an overt act in the furtherance of said unlawful con­
spiracy, on Sunday, October 21, 1962, shortly after noon, 
when the said B & W Cafeteria was engaged in serving 
food to numerous customers, patrons, and clientele, and 
while many persons were coming in and out of said cafe­
teria, the said defendants did assemble at a point near 
said cafeteria, and then as a group did go to the 6th Avenue 
door of said Cafeteria, and did enter into said vestibule, 
with intent to go through the second doors of said vestibule, 
and to enter one of the serving lines within said cafeteria 
in an effort to obtain food and service therein;

At said door the owners of the B. & W. Cafeteria had 
placed a guard to prevent such “ sit-in” movement; said 
guard was compelled to block the further entrance at the 
second door; whereupon said defendants did form a block 
within said vestibule, preventing customers and patrons



296

from either entering from the street or from coming out 
of said cafeteria after finishing their meals; and said con­
spirators did further attempt to force their way inside 
the main cafeteria sections, did push around and shove 
white patrons therein, which conduct continued for a pe­
riod of more than thirty minutes during one of the busiest 
hours of business at said cafeteria; and as a further overt 
act in the furtherance of said conspiracy, said defendants 
did refuse to leave said vestibule and cafeteria when re­
quested and demanded by proper officers and employees 
of said cafeteria.

During said period of time so spent by said defendants 
in said vestibule, said defendants knowingly, deliberately 
and intentionally did place said B & W. Cafeteria and 
the persons lawfully therein in excitement, turmoil and 
confusion; the orderly conduct of the business of said 
cafeteria was greatly upset, disrupted and obstructed; 
numerous persons gathered within and without said cafe­
teria by reason of said acts and conduct of the defendants, 
which said defendants then and there well knew were cal­
culated to produce disorder, breaches of the peace, con­
fusion, brawls and turbulent and riotous conduct, and 
which was done by said defendants with a view to commit 
acts injurious to the business of the B. & W. Cafeteria, its 
trade and commerce, which was injured therefrom;

Contrary to the form of the statutes in such cases made 
and provided, in violation of Section 39-1101 of the Code 
of Tennessee, and against the peace and dignity of the 
State of Tennessee.”
[fob 1108] To this presentment, each defendant has en­
tered a plea of not guilty.

In the trial of all criminal cases the law distinctly defines 
the duties incumbent upon the Court and upon the Jury. 
It is the duty of the Court to give in charge to the Jury, 
clearly and distinctly, the law applicable to the case on trial.

In criminal prosecutions you are the judges of the law 
and the facts, and it is your duty to take the law as it is 
laid down to you by the Court and apply the law and the 
facts to each other. You are the sole and exclusive judges 
of the facts, of the credibility of witnesses and the weight



297

to be given their testimony. You will try the ease on the 
evidence which has been admitted for your consideration 
by the Court, and if any juror has heard anĵ  facts in re­
gard to the case before he was taken on the Jury, or in 
any other way than under the direction of the Court, it 
would be highly improper for him to impart such fact to 
his fellow jurors or consider it in making up his verdict.

The dut}̂  of the Jury is equally well defined. It is the 
duty of the Jury to carefully consider all the facts and 
circumstances related to them by the proof with an eye 
single to truth and justice; and, after carefully considering 
all the evidence, make and report to the Court such verdict 
as they think truth and justice dictate. In the discharge of 
[fol. 1109] their duty the Jury should never have any sym­
pathy or prejudice, but should always act with absolute 
impartiality and, under the law as given to them by the 
Court, render their verdict. The rules which should govern 
the Jury in arriving at their verdict will be more fully 
given in the subsequent part of this charge.

Without reference to the facts in this particular case, 
I shall proceed to explain to you what in law it takes to 
constitute the offense as set out in the presentment which 
charges the defendants with the offense of unlawful con­
spiracy to violate Tennessee Code Section 39-1101 (7) and 
Code Section 62-711 and unlawfully to commit acts injuri­
ous to the restaurant business, trade and commerce of 
Burrus and Webber Cafeteria, Inc., a corporation, located 
at 226 6th Avenue North, Nashville, Davidson County, Ten­
nessee.

Section 39-1101 of the Code:—Conspiracy defined.
“The crime of conspiracy may be committed by any 
two (2) or more persons conspiring: . . .  (7) to com­
mit any act injurious to public health, public morals, 
trade, or commerce, or for the perversion or obstruc­
tion of justice, or the due administration of the law.”

Section 39-1102 of the Code provides as follows:
“No agreement shall be deemed a conspiracy unless 
some act be done to effect the object thereof, except



298

an agreement to commit a felony on the person of 
another, or to commit the crimes of arson or burglary.”

Section 39-1103 of the Code is as follows:
“Persons guilty of any conspiracy described in Sections 
39-1101, 39-1102 or of any conspiracy at common law, 
[fob 1110] are guilty of a misdemeanor.”

Section 62-710 of the Code of Tennessee provides as 
follows :

“ The rule of the common law giving a right of action 
to any person excluded from any hotel, or public means 
of transportation, or place of amusement, is abrogated; 
and no keeper of any hotel, or public house, or carrier 
of passengers for hire (except railways, street, inter- 
urban, and commercial) or conductors, drivers, or em­
ployees of such carrier or keeper, shall be bound, or 
under any obligation to entertain, carry, or admit any 
person whom he shall, for any reason whatever, choose 
not to entertain, carry, or admit to his house, hotel, 
vehicle, or means of transportation, or place of amuse­
ment; nor shall any right exist in favor of any such 
person so refused admission; the right of such keepers 
of hotels and public houses, carriers of passengers, 
and keepers of places of amusement and their em­
ployees to control the access and admission or exclu­
sion of persons to or from their public houses, means 
of transportation, and places of amusement, to be as 
complete as that of any private person over Ms private 
house, vehicle, or private theater, or places of amuse­
ment for his family.”

Section 62-711 provides as follows:
“A right of action is given to any keeper of any hotel, 
inn, theater, or public house, common carrier, or res­
taurant against any person guilty of turbulent or riot­
ous conduct within or about the same, and any person 
found guilty of so doing may be indicted and fined not 
less than one hundred dollars ($100), and the offenders



299

shall be liable to a forfeiture of not more than five 
hundred ($500) dollars, and the owner or persons so 
offended against may sue in his own name for the 
same.”

You will note from the language of the presentment that 
the defendants are charged with the offense of unlawful 
conspiracy to violate Code Section 39-1101-(7), Code Sec­
tions 62-710 and 62-711, in that they did unlawfully com- 
[fol. 1111] mit acts injurious to the restaurant business, 
trade and commerce of Burrus & Webber Cafeteria, Inc., 
a corporation, located at 226 6th Avenue North, Nashville, 
Davidson County, Tennessee.

The offense of conspiracy as charged in the presentment 
is a misdemeanor.

Our Supreme Court in defining a conspiracy says:
A conspiracy is, in general terms, a combination of two 

or more persons, by some concerted action, to accomplish 
some criminal or unlawful purpose.

A conspiracy is an agreement between two or more per­
sons to do an unlawful act. If the act to be done is not 
unlawful, then the agreement or combination is not a con­
spiracy.

When the conspiracy is established, the act or declara­
tion of one conspirator in the prosecution of the common 
enterprise, is considered the act or declaration of all, and 
is evidence against all.

And every one entering into a conspiracy is a party to 
every act which has before been done by the others, and 
to every act by the others afterward, in furtherance of the 
common design.

A conspiracy to commit a crime is a different offense 
from the crime that is the object of the conspiracy.
[fob 1112] The mere knowledge, acquiescence, or approval 
of the act, without cooperation or agreement to cooperate, 
is not enough to constitute one a party to a conspiracy. 
There must be intentional participation in the transaction 
with a view to the furtherance of the common design and 
purpose.



300

No formal agreement between the parties to do the act 
charged is necessary. It is sufficient that the minds of the 
parties meet understanding^ so as to bring about an intelli­
gent and deliberate agreement to do the acts and to commit 
the offense charged, although such agreement is not mani­
fested by any formal words, or by a written instrument. 
A mutual implied understanding is sufficient, so far as the 
combination or confederacy is concerned, to constitute the 
offense. If two persons pursue by their acts the same 
object often by the same means, one performing one part 
of the act and the other another part of the act, so as to 
complete it with a view to the attaining of the object which 
they are pursuing, this will be sufficient to constitute a con­
spiracy. Previous acquaintance is unnecessary, and it is not 
essential that each conspirator shall take part in every act, 
or that he shall know the exact part to be performed by the 
other conspirators in execution of the conspiracy. Con­
spiracy implies concert of design and not participation in 
every detail of execution.

In order that you may understand what a conspiracy 
to commit an offense is, you must first know what the 
[fol. 1113] offense itself is, therefore, I give you the defi­
nition of acts injurious to restaurant business, trade and 
commerce.

The word “ injurious” generally means in law, invasion 
or violation of legally protected interest or property right 
of another.

The words “trade” and “commerce” when used in juxtapo­
sition, impart to each other enlarged signification, so as to 
include practically every business occupation carried on for 
subsistence or profit and into which the elements of bargain 
and sale, barter, exchange, or traffic, enter.

Members of the Jury, from the definition of a conspiracy 
heretofore given you in this charge, you will observe that 
a conspiracy is a combination of two or more persons, and 
that the very nature of the offense of conspiracy is such 
that it cannot be committed by one person, but that it takes 
two or more persons to commit the offense of conspiracy.

Members of the Jury, as hereinbefore stated to you, the 
declarations and acts of conspirators made in pursuance



301

of their common design are admissible against each other, 
bat bear in mind, Members of the Jury, that only those 
declarations or acts made and done in pursuance of the 
common design by one or more conspirators are admissible 
against all, and those acts or declarations before the form­
ing of the conspiracy and after the completion of the object 
of such conspiracy, are not admissible as the acts or deelara- 
[fol. 1114] tions of any other than the person or persons 
actually committing said acts or making such statements.

Conspiracies need not be established by direct evidence 
of the acts charged, but may and generally must be proved 
by a number of indefinite acts, conditions and circumstances 
which vary according to the purposes to be accomplished. 
The very exstence of a conspiracy is generally a matter of 
inference deduced from certain acts of the persons accused, 
done in pursuance of an apparently criminal or unlawful 
purpose in common between them. The existence of the 
agreement or joint assent of the minds need not be proved 
directly. It may be inferred by the Jury from the other facts 
proved. It is not necessary to prove that the defendants 
came together and actually agreed in terms to have the 
unlawful purpose and to pursue it by common means. If 
it be proved that the defendants pursued by their acts the 
same object often by the same means, one performing one 
part and another, another part of the same, so as to com­
plete it with a view to the attainment of the same object, 
the Jury will be justified in the conclusion that they were 
in a conspiracy to effect the object.

I charge you further, Members of the Jury, that under our 
statute where it is necessary that some act be done to effect 
the object of the conspiracy before any agreement shall be 
deemed a conspiracy, such overt act must be a subsequent 
independent act following the agreement or confederation 
and must be committed to effect the object thereof and 
cannot succeed the completion of the contemplated crime, 
[fol. 1115] and where a presentment charges several overt 
acts, it is not necessary that all be shown. It will be suffi­
cient to show that one or more of these acts were committed 
in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Nor is it necessary that all of the conspirators should have 
joined in the overt act. While to authorize a conviction of



302

several persons charged in one presentment with con­
spiracy, each must be proved to have come into the con­
spiracy prior to the consummation of the act to be done in 
pursuance thereof, but it is not essential to the conviction 
of a person or persons charged with a conspiracy, that he 
or they should have originated the conspiracy. All who ac­
cede to a conspiracy after its formation, and while it is in 
execution, and who with a knowledge of the facts concur 
in the plans originally formed and aid in executing them, 
are fellow conspirators.

The crime of criminal conspiracy is separate from the 
criminal act which the parties may agree to commit. It is 
not necessary to the completion of the crime of criminal 
conspiracy that the criminal act which they agreed to per­
form actually be performed, but merely that some act shall 
have been done by one of the members of the conspiracy in 
furtherance of its objects or purposes.

An overt act must be something more than evidence of the 
conspiracy. It must be an act done by one of the parties 
to carry out the intent, and it must be such as would nat- 
[fol. 1116] urally effect that result; at least, it must be a 
step towards the execution of the conspiracy.

An overt act is some act done to effect the object of the 
conspiracy. The gist of conspiracy is an agreement to effect 
an unlawful end, but, before the offense is completed, a 
party to the conspiracy must do some overt act.

Members of the Jury, as just stated, it requires at least 
two persons to commit the offense of conspiracy, and so, in 
this case where the defendants, Lester G. McKinnie, John 
R. Lewis, Frederick Leonard, John Jackson, Jr., Nathal 
Winter, Frederick Hargraves, Harrison Dean and Allen 
Cason, Jr. are charged with conspiracy, if you find ana 
believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the said defendants 
unlawfully, wilfully, knowingly, deliberately, and intention­
ally did unite, combine, conspire, agree and confederate 
between and among themselves, to violate Tennessee Code 
Section 39-1101-(7) and Code Sections 62-710 and 62-711, 
and unlawfully to commit acts injurious to the restaurant 
business, trade and commerce of Burrus and Webber Cafe­
teria, Inc., a corporation, located at 226 6th Avenue North,



303

Nashville, Davidson County, Tennessee, as charged in the 
presentment, then it would be your duty to convict the de­
fendants; provided, that they, or one of them, did, in pur­
suance of said agreement, or conspiracy, do some overt act 
to effect the object of the agreement ; that is, if you find that 
said agreements and acts in the furtherance of said objec- 
[fol. 1117] tive were done in Davidson County, Tennessee. 
Should you find and believe beyond a reasonable doubt that 
any two of the defendants did conspire and agree and 
confederate among themselves to commit the offenses set 
out in the presentment, and that either of them did some 
act in furtherance thereof, and that said agreements and 
acts to effect the objects of said agreement occurred in 
Davidson County, Tennessee, then it would be your duty 
to convict such defendants as entered into such conspiracy. 
If you should find beyond a reasonable doubt that one of the 
defendants did conspire and confederate with the others, 
as set out in the presentment, to commit the offenses therein 
set out, then it would be your duty to convict such defendant 
as did enter into such agreement; provided, that they, or 
one of them, did, in pursuance of said agreement, do some 
act to effect the object of said agreement and that it oc­
curred in Davidson County, Tennessee.

If you have a reasonable doubt as to the guilt or inno­
cence of either of the defendants, you should give to him, 
or them, the benefit of such doubt, and as to him, or them, 
your verdict should be not guilty.

Should you convict the defendants, or either of them, of 
the offenses as charged in the presentment; that is, a con­
spiracy to commit the offenses hereinbefore defined, it 
would be your duty to fix the punishment as set out in 
Section 39-105 of the Code of Tennessee which is as follows:

[fol. 1118] “Every person who is convicted of a misde­
meanor, the punishment for which is not otherwise 
prescribed by a statute of this state, shall be punished 
by imprisonment in the county jail or workhouse not 
more than one (1) year, or by fine not exceeding one 
thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both, in the discretion 
of the court.”



304

So, should you convict the defendants, or either of them, 
of conspiracy to commit the offense as set out in the pre­
sentment, and should you believe that such defendant or 
defendants deserve a fine of over fifty dollars ($50), you 
will fix such fine in your verdict, which fine in no event 
can exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000). If you convict 
the defendants, or either of them, of unlawful conspiracy, 
and believe a fine of fifty dollars ($50) or less would be 
sufficient punishment, then all you need to say in your ver­
dict is that you find the defendant or defendants guilty, 
and the Court will fix the punishment. You have nothing to 
do with the punishment by way of confinement in the Jail 
or Workhouse, if any, for that is within the discretion of 
the Court.

I further charge you that where two or more persons are 
jointly tried and convicted, and the punishment is within the 
discretion of the Jury, the Jury may, if they are of the 
opinion that justice demands it, fix the punishment of all 
convicted defendants at the same amount, and another or 
other at different amounts.

Where two or more persons are jointly indicted and 
tried together, it is your duty to carefully consider all the 
[fol. 1119] evidence as it applies to the guilt or innocence 
of each defendant as to the particular charge against him. 
Be careful in doing this that you do not let evidence which 
sheds light upon the guilt or innocence upon one defendant 
affect your verdict as to the guilt or innocence of another 
upon which this particular testimony sheds no light. As I 
have heretofore charged you, each defendant is to be tried 
upon the evidence that has been admitted for your con­
sideration, and each defendant is to be tried as to his guilt 
or innocence upon the testimony which relates to that par­
ticular defendant. So, therefore, you could find all the de­
fendants guilty of the offense charged, if you think the 
evidence justifies such verdict, or you could acquit all of the 
defendants if you are not satisfied that their guilt is estab­
lished beyond a reasonable doubt, or you may convict such 
defendant or defendants if you are satisfied they have been 
proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and acquit such 
defendant or defendants whose guilt has not been estab­
lished beyond a reasonable doubt.



Before any defendant can be convicted of unlawful con­
spiracy, yon must be satisfied of his guilt beyond a reason­
able doubt, and if you have a reasonable doubt as to the 
guilt or innocence of any defendant or defendants, it would 
be your duty to give such defendant or defendants the 
benefit of such doubt and not guilty as to such defendant or 
defendants should be your verdict.

You enter upon this investigation with the presumption 
[fol. 1120] that the defendants are not guilty of any crime, 
and this presumption stands as a witness for them until 
it is rebutted and overturned by competent and credible 
proof, sufficiently strong to satisfy you beyond a reasonable 
doubt that the defendants are guilty of the offense hereto­
fore defined and explained to you.

By reasonable doubt is not meant that which of possibility 
may arise, but is that doubt engendered by an investigation 
of the whole proof, and an inability, after such an investiga­
tion, to let the mind rest easily upon the certainty of guilt. 
Absolute certainty is not demanded by the law to convict 
of any criminal charge, but moral certainty is required, 
and this certainty is required as to every proposition of 
proof requisite to constitute the offense as charged in'the 
presentment.

It must, therefore, appear to your satisfaction by com­
petent and credible proof beyond a reasonable doubt before 
the defendants can be convicted; first, that the defendants, 
Lester G. McKinnie, John R. Lewis, Frederick Leonard, 
John Jackson, Jr., Nathal Winter, Frederick Hargraves, 
Harrison Dean and Allen Cason, Jr., unlawfully, wilfully, 
knowingly, deliberately, and intentionally did unite, com­
bine, conspire, agree and confederate, between and among 
themselves to violate Tennessee Code Section 39-1101-(7) 
and Code Section 62-710 and 62-711 and unlawfully to com­
mit acts injurious to the restaurant business, trade and 
[fol. 1121] commerce of Burrus and Webber Cafeteria, Inc., 
a corporation located at 226 6th Avenue North, Nashville, 
Davidson County, Tennessee. Second, that the offense oc­
curred in Davidson County before the finding of the pre­
sentment. Third, that it was done in such manner and 
under such circumstances as to make the defendants guilty 
of the offense heretofore defined and explained to you.

305



306

You must not imagine that the Court has any opinion in 
regard to the facts, for it is your duty to find them, and I 
have attempted to read this charge so as to define to you 
the law without indicating any opinion about the facts 
whatever.

There are several means of impeaching a witness, one 
being to show by the proof that the witness has at different 
times made conflicting statements as to the material facts 
of the case as to which he testified. Still another mode is, 
by rigid and closs examination, to involve him in contradic­
tions and discrepancies as to the material facts stated by 
him. Immaterial discrepancies or differences in the state­
ments of witnesses do not necessarily affect their credibility 
unless there is something to show that they originate in wil­
ful falsity, and you, Members of the Jury, are to determine 
how far the testimony of any impeached witness has been 
impaired by any contradicting process.

You will take all the evidence adduced by the State and 
[fob 1122] by the defendants and give it a full, fair, and 
impartial consideration. If there are conflicts in the state­
ments of different witnesses, it is your duty to reconcile 
them if you can, for the law presumes that every witness 
has sworn the truth, but if you cannot, the law makes you 
the sole and exclusive judges of the credibility of the wit­
nesses and the weight to be given their testimony.

In forming your opinion as to the credibility of witnesses, 
you may look to the proof, if any, of his general character, 
the manner and demeanor of the witness, the consistency or 
inconsistency of his statements, their probability or im­
probability, his ability or willingness to speak the truth, 
his intelligence and means of knowledge, and his motive to 
speak the truth or swear a falsehood.

In any case where a person is indicted and tried, he has 
the right to take the witness stand in his own behalf or not, 
as he may elect. If a defendant elects not to testify in his



307

own behalf, then the Jury is not warranted in and must 
not draw any conclusion unfavorable to the defendant 
merely by reason that he elects not to testify.

Anything further from the state?
Mr. Nichol: Nothing from the state.
The Court: Well. There are some requests—

[fol. 1123]
I n the Criminal Court oe Davidson County, 

T ennessee, D ivision T wo

Defendants’ Special R equest No. 1 
F or I nstructions to the Jury

Before you can find any of the defendants guilty under 
this indictment, you must find from the evidence that two 
or more of the defendants named in the indictment together 
combined and agreed to do an act violative of the law, and 
that some overt act was done by the defendants in pursu­
ance of such an illegal agreement. [Evidence that the de­
fendants agreed to seek entry, or that they went to the 
premises and sought entry, to the B&W Cafeteria for the 
purpose of being served food, could not constitute such an 
unlawful agreement or overt act in pursuance thereof even 
though the defendants were Negroes and the B&W Cafe­
teria had a policy of refusing to serve food to Negroes, for] 
It is not a criminal offense in the State of Tennessee for 
Negro and white persons to be served food together, nor 
is it a criminal offense for Negroes to peaceably seek to be 
served food in a place which offers its services and facil­
ities to the general public.

Looby & Williams, By [Signature Illegible], Attor­
neys for Defendants.



308

[Handwritten notation—Denied: Mar 9 1963—John 
Draper Judge]

State of Tenn.

L.

vs.
Lester G. McKinnie, et als

Identified as defendants’ special request # 1  which was 
revised and as revised charged.

John L. Draper, Judge.

[fol. 1124]
Defendants’ Special B equest No. 2 

F or Instructions to the J ury

If you should find from the evidence that the defendants 
went to the B&W Cafeteria, a place of business offering 
meals to the general public, and sought to enter there for 
the purpose of purchasing and being served meals, and 
that said Cafeteria or its agents blocked their entry in 
pursuance of and for the purpose of enforcing, a rule of 
the Cafeteria to serve only white persons and not to serve 
Negroes, and that the defendants remained standing in a 
peaceable manner where they were when the Cafeteria 
blocked their entrance, either for the purpose of still seek­
ing admission to the Cafeteria, or for the purpose of peace­
ably protesting the Cafeteria’s policy of racial exclusion 
or segregation, then you could not find the defendants 
guilty of committing any unlawful act, nor could you find 
defendants guilty of a conspiracy or agreement to commit 
any unlawful act under this evidence, and this is true even 
though you also find from the evidence that it was neces­
sary for some white patrons to pass through or around the 
defendants in order to gain ingress or egress to or from 
the Cafeteria or that some prospective white patrons may 
have been reluctant or may have refused, to enter, stay in, 
or come out of the restaurant because of the defendants’ 
presence there.

Looby & Williams, By [Signature Illegible], Attor­
neys for Defendants.



309

[Handwritten notation—Denied: March 9 1963—John 
L. Draper Judge]

(Identified on back.)
[fol. 1124a]

State of Tenn.
vs.

Lester G. McKinnie, et als

Identified as defendants’ special request # 2  which was 
denied.

John L. Draper, Judge.

[fol. 1125]
Defendants’ Special R equest No. 3 

P oe I nsteuctions to the Juey

You will not consider or bring in any verdict as to that 
portion of the presentment which charges a conspiracy by 
defendants to violate Code Section 62-711, for the reason 
that the State has abandoned this portion of the charge, 
and has offered no evidence in support thereof.

Looby & Williams, By [Signature Illegible], Attor­
neys for Defendants.

[Handwritten notation—Denied—Mar 9 1963—John L. 
Draper Judge]

State of Tenn. 
vs.

Lester G. McKinnie, et als

Identified as defendants’ special request # 3  which was 
denied.

John L. Draper, Judge.



310

[fol. 1126]
Defendants’ Special R equest No. 4 

F or I nstructions to the J ury

Notwithstanding Tenn. Code Section 62-710, or any stat­
ute or other law of the State of Tennessee, the B&W Cafe­
teria, or its proprietors, have no legal right to exclude per­
sons from said business offering food service and meals to 
the general public, solely on account of the race or color 
of the persons so excluded, or to enforce or have enforced 
any private rule or policy of racial segregation or exclusion 
through criminal action in a Court of the State of Tennes­
see; for any state law which attempts or attempted to 
establish such a legal right, and any action of State agen­
cies, including the Courts thereof, in enforcing, directly 
or indirectly, such a private rule or policy would be and 
is unconstitutional and void as depriving the defendants 
in this case of the equal protection of the laws and of due 
process of law as secured by the Fourteenth Amendment 
of the Constitution of the United States.

Looby & Williams, By [Signature Illegible],

[Handwritten notation—Denied—Mar 9 1963—John L. 
Draper—Judge]

State of Tenn.
vs.

Lester G. McKinnie, et als

Identified as defendants’ special request # 4  which was 
denied.

John L. Draper, Judge.



311

[fol. 1127]
I n the Criminal Court op D avidson County, T ennessee

D ivision T wo

D ependants’ Special R equest No. 1 as 
R evised by the Court

Gentlemen of the Jury, here is Defendants’ special re­
quest # 1 :

Before you can find any of the defendants guilty under 
this indictment, you must find from the evidence that two 
or more of the defendants named in the indictment together 
combined and agreed to do an act violative of the law, and 
that some overt act was done by the defendants in pursuance 
of such an illegal agreement. It is not a criminal offense in 
the State of Tennessee for Negro and white persons to be 
served food together, nor is it a criminal offense for Negroes 
to peaceably seek to be served food in a place which offers 
its services and facilities to the general public.

(Mr. Williams calling something to the Court’s atten­
tion talks quietly to him.)

The Court: This is, Gentlemen of the Jury, (he special 
request # 1 ,  of the defendants, as revised by the Court.

Members of the Jury, I hand you herewith the present­
ment in this case, the charge of the Court, together with 
special request # 1 ,  as revised by the Court,—it will be 
your duty when you retire,—to the jury room—to name 
one of your number as foreman of the jury, retire, consider 
[fol. 1128] of your verdict in this case, and when you have 
reached a verdict, report that verdict back to the Court. The 
jury will retire.

(The jury leaves the courtroom.)

V erdict

The Court: I understand from a report that the jury is 
ready to report. I don’t know whether they have arrived 
at a verdict or not. I want this understood. Irrespective 
of what the verdict may be, if there is one, I don’t want any



312

demonstration in the Courtroom of any kind, either—irre­
spective of what it should be, and the officers will keep 
good order and let’s be orderly.

Now, are you ready to bring the jury down!
(Answers affirmatively from both counsel.)
The Court: You may bring down the jury.
(The jury comes in.)
Does the state waive the polling of the jury!
Mr. Nichol: We waive the polling of the jury.
The Court: Does the Defendants!
Mr. Looby: The Defendants do not.
The Court: Do not. Call the roll and see if each juror 

[fol. 1129] is here.
Clerk: Howard C. Lewis.
Mr. Lewis: Here.
Clerk: C. P. Holland.
Mr. Holland: Here.
Clerk: Joe W. Slate.
Mr. Slate: Here.
Clerk: Harley C. Dean.
Mr. Dean: Here.
Clerk: Wm. Eawls.
Mr. Eawls: Here.
Clerk: 0. H. Glasgow.
Mr. Glasgow: Here.
Clerk: Herbert Amick.
Mr. Amick: Here.
Clerk: Willie D. Swindle.
Mr. Swindle: Here.
Clerk: Wm. T. Moon.
Mr. Moon: Here.
Clerk: Chas. H. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Here.
Clerk: H. J. Farnsworth.
Mr. Farnsworth: Here.
Clerk: WendallH. Cooper.
Mr. Cooper: Here.

[fol. 1130] Clerk: They are all here.
The Court: The Jury is all present.



313

Gentlemen of the jury have you agreed upon a verdict? 
Foreman: We have.
The Court: What is it?
Foreman: We agreed, your Honor, on a fine less than 

$50, so we find the defendants guilty.
The Court: Call the roll and each juror will report his 

verdict.
Call the roll and poll them.
Clerk: Howard C. Lewis.
Mr. Lewis: Guilty.
Clerk: C. P. Holland.
Mr. Holland: Guilty.
Clerk: Joe W. Slate.
Mr. Slate: Guilty.
Clerk: Harley C. Dean.
Mr. Dean: Guilty.
Clerk: Wm. Rawls.
Mr. Rawls: Guilty.
Clerk: 0. H. Glasgow.
Mr. Glasgow: Guilty.
Clerk: Herbert Amick.
Mr. Amick: Guilty.

[fol. 1131] Clerk: Willie D. Swindle.
Mr. Swindle: Guilty.
Clerk: Wm. T. Moon.
Mr. Moon: Guilty.
Clerk: Chas. H. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Guilty.
Clerk: H. J. Farnsworth.
Mr. Farnsworth: Guilty.
Clerk: Wendall H. Cooper.
Mr. Cooper: Guilty.
Mr. Looby: The Defendants want to serve notice for 

a motion for a new trial.
# * * * # # #



314

[fol. 1133]
J udge ’s Certificate to B ill  of E xceptions

On March 19, 1963, the Court pronounced and entered 
judgment upon the aforesaid verdict of the jury making 
said verdict the judgment of the Court and sentencing 
the defendants, Lester G. McKinnie, John R. Lewis, Fred­
erick Leonard, John Jackson, Jr., Nathal Winter, Frederick 
Hargraves, Harrison Dean, and Allen Cason, Jr., to pay a 
fine of $50.00 each, together with the costs of the prosecu­
tion and, in addition, each defendant to be confined in the 
County Workhouse for a period of 90 days.

Said defendants, after giving notice, seasonably filed 
their motion for new trial, which duly appears of record; 
and on May 10, 1963, after previous hearing upon said 
motion for new trial, the Court entered a judgment in all 
things overruling and disallowing said motion for new trial, 
to which action of the Court the defendants excepted and 
prayed, and were granted, an appeal to the Supreme Court 
of Tennessee, sitting at Nashville.

The defendants, Lester G. McKinnie, John R. Lewis, 
Frederick Leonard, John Jackson, Jr., Nathal Winter, 
Frederick Hargraves, Harrison Dean, and Allen Cason, Jr., 
and each of them, tender this, their Bill of Exceptions, con­
sisting of Books I to VII inclusive, to the judgment of the 
Court overruling and disallowing their motion for new 
trial and sentencing accordingly, which is signed and 
sealed and ordered to be, and is, made a part of the 
record in this case.

This the 31st day of May, 1963.
John L. Draper, Judge.

Harry G. Nichol, Gale Robinson, Attorneys for the State. 
Looby & Williams, By Avon N. Williams, Jr., Attorneys 
for the Defendants.



315

[fol. 1134] {File endorsement omitted]

I n the Supreme Court op the State op T ennessee 

Middle D ivision 
Davidson Criminal 

Hon. John L. Draper, Judge.

L ester G. M cK innie, Nathal W inters, J ohn E. L ewis, 
Harrison Dean, F rederick L eonard, A llen Cason, Jr., 
J ohn J ackson, J r., and F rederick Hargraves,

v.
State op Tennessee.

For Plaintiffs in Error: Looby & Williams, Nashville, 
Tennessee.

For the State: Thomas E. Fox, Assistant Attorney Gen­
eral.

Opinion—Filed January 8, 1964
The plaintiffs in error were convicted of conspiring to 

injure the business of the B & W Cafeteria by blocking 
the entrance thereto in the event they were denied entrance 
to and service in said cafeteria. The jury recommended a 
tine of less than $50.00. The trial judge sentenced each of 
these defendants to ninety days in the Davidson County 
workhouse and lined each of them $50.00. An appeal was 
seasonably perfected, able briefs filed, and oral arguments 
were heard, and, after a thorough study of the record and 
applicable authorities, we now have the matter for disposi­
tion.
[fol. 1135] The indictment alleges a violation of two sec­
tions of the Tennessee Code, §39-1101 (7), T.C.A., and 
§62-711, T.C.A. The pertinent part of §39-1101, T.C.A., is 
as follows:

“The crime of conspiracy may be committed by any 
two (2) or more persons conspiring: . . .  (7) to com-



316

mit any act injurious to public health, public morals, 
trade, or commerce . . . ”

Section 62-711, T.C.A., provides, in part, that “ any per­
son guilty of turbulent or riotous conduct within or about” 
any hotel, inn, restaurant, etc., is subject to indictment 
and a fine of not less than $100.00. Section 62-710, T.C.A., 
was also mentioned in the indictment and the trial court’s 
charge, but the defendants, were not charged with violat­
ing this Section of the Code; nor could they have been so 
charged since this Section does not purport to define an 
indictable offense. It was mentioned merely to indicate 
that the B & W Cafeteria was permitted, by statute, to 
refuse admittance to any person whom it did not desire 
to serve.

There are thirteen assignments of error. They will not 
be taken up seriatim, but all of them will be treated and 
answered in the course of this opinion.

At about 12:20, P.M., Sunday, October 21, 1962, just 
after many church services had ended, and at a time when 
[fob 1136] the patrons of the B & W Cafeteria were ar­
riving for lunch, the defendants appeared at the entrance 
of the cafeteria which is located on Sixth Avenue, in the 
heart of Nashville, Tennessee. When they arrived, they 
were informed by the doorman that the cafeteria did not 
serve colored people and that they could not enter. De­
spite this, the defendants remained at the entrance to the 
cafeteria and insisted that, “ We are coming in and are 
going to eat when we git in.”

The defendants were asked in a polite way to move along 
and to refrain from making any trouble. At this time, 
they had entered a vestibule to the cafeteria, the size of 
which is estimated as being from four feet by four feet 
to six feet by six feet and four inches. The defendants were 
in the vestibule, but were not permitted to enter the main 
part of the restaurant. After the defendants refused to 
remove themselves from the vestibule and after the acts 
hereinafter set forth had been committed, the police were 
called and they escorted the defendants away.

In considering the evidence hereinafter briefly summa­
rized, we must remember that, in this State, fact determina­



317

tions and reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom are 
for the trier of facts, in this case the jury. On a review of 
a judgment of conviction, if there is material evidence to 
[fob 1137] support the judgment, the defendants are pre­
sumed to be guilty and this Court will not reconsider the 
question of whether or not the evidence shows that they 
are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; but will consider 
only the question of whether the evidence preponderates 
against their guilt and in favor of their innocence. S m ith  
a n d  R e y n o l d s  v. S t a t e , 205 Tenn., 502, 327 S.W. 2d, 308 
(1959), certiorari denied by the Supreme Court of the 
United States, 361 U.S., 930, 80 S. Ct., 372, 4 L. Ed. 2d, 
354 (1960).

The record clearly shows that these defendants physically 
blocked the entrance to the B & W Cafeteria by placing 
themselves in this small vestibule so as to prevent people 
from entering or leaving; and that entrance to and exit 
from the restaurant was not possible without squeezing 
and worming through the wall of flesh created by the 
defendants’ presence and position. The evidence likewise 
shows that in blocking this entrance, the defendants were 
pushing and shoving to some extent in an effort to enter 
this restaurant, but were prevented from doing so because 
the doorman kept the inner door closed to them. For ex­
ample, one of the State’s witnesses testified about the situ­
ation as follows:

“Well, it was still blocked and people inside couldn’t 
get out. And you could see the crowd outside—wasn’t 
coming in. And it just seemed like an awfully long 
time till the—under the circumstances—it wasn’t too 
long—while that state of confusion existed. . . . ”

[fol. 1138] A number of other witnesses testified to this 
state of facts and as to things they heard while they were 
trying to get in or out of the restaurant. Probably under 
the record, one or two white people did squeeze their way 
either in or out while all of this was going on, but never­
theless these defendants refused to vacate the vestibule 
until they were peacefully escorted away by the police. The 
record clearly shows that after the vestibule was cleared,



318

the people inside the restaurant were able to go out and the 
people outside the restaurant were able to enter. There is 
also proof that there were as many as seventy-five people 
on the outside attempting or wanting to get in while these 
defendants were in the vestibule.

Section 39-1101, T.C.A., makes it a misdemeanor for two 
or more persons to conspire to do an unlawful act. In order 
for the offense to be indictable, it must be committed m a n u  
f o r t i —in a manner which amounts to a breach of the peace 
or in a manner which would necessarily lead to a breach 
of the peace. The charge here, as it is clearly set forth in 
the indictment, is that the defendants crowded into this 
small vestibule and through their actions, as detailed above, 
committed an act injurious to trade and commerce. When 
two or more persons conspire to commit an act such as this, 
§39-1101, T.C.A., provides that they shall be guilty of a 
conspiracy. Section 62-711, T.C.A., in part provides that 
[fol. 1139] when a person is guilty of turbulent or riotous 
conduct within or about restaurants, hotels, etc., he may be 
indicted and fined not less than $100.00. One of the ques­
tions raised by the defendants is whether the indictment in 
this case sufficiently describes the offense to meet the re­
quirements of §40-1802, T.C.A., which provides that the 
indictment must state the facts in ordinary and concise 
language so as to enable a person of common understand­
ing to know what was intended, etc. Clearly, the indictment 
in this case, which consists of over a legal page in 10 point 
type, informs each of the defendants of the conduct for 
which he has been indicted, and the statutes which the 
State contends that such conduct has violated.

The defendants through various motions and throughout 
the trial attempted to say that this prosecution was brought 
for the purpose of enforcing a rule of segregation or racial 
exclusion in facilities licensed by the State, open to the 
public, and vested with public interest; and that such a 
prosecution is contrary to the due process and equal pro­
tection clauses of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution 
of the United States. From a very careful examination and 
reading of the record, the indictment, and the charge of the 
court, we certainly feel that such questions are not deter­
minative of this prosecution. We can assume for the sake



319

of argument that discrimination based on race by a facility 
[fol. 1140] such as this cafeteria does violate the due process 
and equal protection clauses, but these questions are not 
presented here. A careful reading of this record shows that 
the only question is whether or not these defendants were 
attempting, in an illegal manner, to correct what they 
deemed to be an unconstitutional practice on the part of 
this cafeteria; and, if the method which these defendants 
adopted was illegal, whether it constitutes a misdemeanor 
under the Sections of the Code under which they were in­
dicted.

This Court long ago in S t a t e  v. L a s a t e r , 68 Tenn., 584 
(1877), held that an indictment under §62-711, T.C.A., was 
good and that the act was constitutional. In that case, a 
judgment quashing the indictment wrns reversed where the 
indictment alleged that the defendant had been guilty of 
turbulent and riotous conduct within and about a hotel by 
quarreling, committing assaults and batteries, breaches of 
the peace, loud noises, and trespass upon a hotel. It seems 
to us that there is sufficient proof in the instant case, which 
the jury apparently believed, to warrant the conviction 
under this Section. The word “ riotous” is defined by Web­
ster’s New World Dictionary as “having the nature of a 
riot or disturbance of the peace.” The conduct of the de­
fendants certainly meets this definition. Nowhere in this 
record is it insisted that there was not a prior agreement 
to engage in such conduct if entrance to this restaurant 
was denied. In S m it h  a n d  R e y n o l d s  v. S t a t e , supra, this 
[fol. 1141] Court had occasion to define a criminal con­
spiracy. This definition seems to meet the situation here. 
We likewise held in the Smith and Reynolds case that a 
conspiracy may be inferred from the nature of the acts 
done, the relation of the parties, the interest of the alleged 
conspirators, and other circumstances; and that such a con­
spiracy consists of a combination between two or more 
persons for the purpose of accomplishing a criminal or un­
lawful act, or an object, which although not criminal or 
unlawful in itself, is pursued by unlawful means, or the 
combination of two or more persons to do something un­
lawful, either as a means or as an ultimate end. While 
the request for admittance by the defendants was not erimi-



320

nal in the first instance, and while for the sake of argument, 
we may even assume that they had a right to go on the 
premises of the restaurant, the method they employed to 
effect their admittance was clearly unlawful.

It is very earnestly and ably argued by counsel for the 
defendants that to prevent the defendants from acting as 
alleged in the indictment would constitute a denial of free­
dom of speech in contravention of the 1st Amendment to 
the Federal Constitution as made applicable to the States 
through the 14th Amendment. Of course, in this country, 
a person has a right to speak freely and a denial of this 
right offends our heritage of freedom. The individual must 
[fol. 1142] feel free to speak his mind; the press must be 
free to publish its opinion; and the movies must be free to 
express their views. There are literally hundreds of dif­
ferent agencies to whom freedom of expression is guaran­
teed. But around such freedoms there must be certain safe­
guards for the protection of society and when these safe­
guards are violated, the violator is subject to civil or 
criminal sanctions or both. Thus one cannot be allowed to 
recklessly shout “ fire” in a crowded theatre. In crowding 
into this narrow vestibule and effectively blocking the en­
trance to this restaurant, the defendants interfered with 
the right of other individuals to come and go in the further­
ance of trade and commerce and in so doing they violated 
the Sections of the Code hereinbefore set forth. See F e i n e r  
v. N e w  Y o r k ,  340 U.S., 315, 71 S. Ct., 303, 95 L. Ed., 295 
(1951).

Had this been a labor dispute, the actions of the defend­
ants, would clearly be beyond that of peaceful picketing, 
which does not include in its definition any form of physical 
obstruction or interference with business. It is well estab­
lished that labor has the right to peacefully picket and 
thereby express its views on the subjects involved in a 
labor dispute. But the picketing must be peaceful. When 
it goes beyond the peaceful stage and involves force, vio­
lence, threats, terror, intimidation, coercion and other 
things of like kind, it cannot be tolerated and those persons 
[fol. 1143] guilty of such acts are subject to state and fed­
eral laws. By analogy, if the conduct of the defendants here 
transcended the bounds of peaceful picketing, they would,



321

under the evidence in this record, be guilty of acts injurious 
to trade. We think that their conduct clearly goes beyond 
the- bounds of peaceful demonstration and picketing.

It is very forcefully insisted that the two Sections of the 
Code under which this indictment was laid should have 
been declared unconstitutional because they do not clearly 
and sufficiently define the offense charged against the de­
fendants. In all the years that these Code Sections have 
been the law in this State, this question has not been raised 
as far as we can determine. As far as we know, there is 
no criminal statute which describes every specific kind of 
violation that might be indictable under it; but so long as 
the statute generally states, as these statutes do, what is 
prohibited, their constitutionality cannot be challenged for 
indefiniteness. We think that the statutes now under con­
sideration clearly set forth the offense intended and that 
the indictment framed thereunder clearly sets forth the 
way in which these defendants allegedly violated their pro­
visions.

In his charge to the jury, the trial judge (page 1109 of 
the transcript) told the jury that the presentment charged 
[fol. 1144] the defendants with the offense of an unlawful 
conspiracy to commit acts injurious to the B & W ’s busi­
ness in violation of Code Sections 39-1101 (7), T.C.A., and 
62-711, T.C.A. Following this, he read these various sec­
tions of the code to the jury, including §62-710, T.C.A., and 
then on the following page of his charge, he set forth the 
provisions of §62-710 once again. It is argued in behalf 
of these defendants that the charging and reading of 
§62-710, T.C.A., which does not purport to define a crimi­
nal offense, but is instead a civil statute, was error. A care­
ful reading of the indictment and the whole charge shows 
that the only purpose in referring to this statute was to 
indicate that this restaurant was being operated for white 
people only by authority of this section. There were no 
questions raised following the charge about the propriety 
of reading it and we do not see how reference to a civil 
statute such as this, although error, could affect the jury’s 
verdict, since there was ample evidence to convict the 
defendants of the offense defined in the other sections of 
the code charged.



322

It would not have been an unlawful conspiracy for the 
defendants to agree to seek entry into this cafeteria for the 
purpose of being served food coupled with an overt act in 
furtherance of this agreement; but any agreement to ob­
struct the entrance of a place of business and thus injure 
their business does constitute an unlawful conspiracy.
[fol. 1145] Among other requested special instructions was 
one to the effect that the State had abandoned the portion 
of the indictment charging a conspiracy to violate §62-711, 
T.C.A. "We think that this special instruction was properly 
refused by the trial court because the whole case is built 
upon the theory that the defendants’ actions in obstructing 
this passageway was the overt act committed in furtherance 
of this conspiracy.

Another requested instruction was to the effect that the 
cafeteria had no legal right to refuse to serve a person 
because of his race or color. As we have heretofore said, 
this question is not the issue in this case, and was not the 
basis of the indictment and conviction. Even if we assume 
that the owner of the cafeteria had no right to exclude 
these defendants, this does not excuse their conduct in block­
ing this narrow passageway. As citizens, we are not per­
mitted to take the law in our own hands and correct what 
we consider to be wrongs, except in the abatement of a 
private nuisance and then we can act only when we can 
do so without committing a breach of the peace. When we 
thus commit a breach of the peace by attempting to assert 
our rights, we are liable under the law for this breach of 
peace. “ Two wrongs do not make a right.”

The cross-examination of the witnesses for the State by 
counsel for the defendants pitches their case on the proposi- 
[fol. 1146] tion that if the restaurant people hadn’t pre­
vented their entrance they would not have blocked the door. 
This, of course, is an excellent argument to the jury; but 
at the same time even assuming that the restaurant people 
had no right to exclude these people from their premises, 
this does not permit these defendants to block this passage­
way.

It is argued and several volumes of this large record are 
taken up with the proposition that the jury was composed 
only of white persons whose “personal practice, custom,



323

philosophy, and belief in complete racial segregation in 
virtually all aspects of their social existence” thus disquali­
fied them to act as jurors in this case. The jurors on v o i r  
d ir e  were questioned and cross-examined by counsel for 
both sides and by the court. See S m it h  a n d  R e y n o l d s  v. 
S t a t e , supra. Those who were accepted stated that even 
though they might have the social belief set forth in the 
above quotation from defendants’ counsel, they could ex­
clude this for the purpose of trying these defendants and 
could decide the case on the basis of the evidence and the 
law charged to them by the court. As we have said a number 
of times herein, this is not a case of racial segregation but 
is rather a prosecution for a conspiracy to obstruct trade. 
There were a number of Negro jurors examined but all of 
them were excused for one reason or another and no Negro 
was on the jury; but there is no constitutional requirement 
[fol. 1147] that a trial be by a mixed racial jury. If there 
has been no illegal exclusion of these people from a jury, 
regardless of their color, then there is no constitutional 
violation of the rights of the parties. As we said in K e n n e d y  
v. S t a t e , 186 Tenn., 310, 210 S.W. 2d, 132 (1947):

“It should be borne in mind that members of the 
Negro race have no constitutional right to trial by a 
mixed racial jury. All that they have is a right that 
their race shall not be discriminated against in the 
selection and drawing of grand juries.”

No such discrimination is shown in this case.
Finally it is insisted that the judgment of the court was 

inconsistent with the verdict of the jury. The jury found 
each of the defendants guilty and agreed upon a fine of less 
than $50.00, but did not fix any amount. The trial judge 
charged the jury that if they did find the defendants guilty 
under §39-1101, T.C.A., they could impose punishment of 
imprisonment in the county jail or workhouse for not more 
than one (1) year and a fine not exceeding $1,000.00 or both, 
as provided by the statute. He then went on to charge the 
jury, after reading the statute, that if they convicted these 
defendants “and believe that a fine of $50.00 or less would 
be sufficient punishment, then all you need to say in your



324

verdict is that you find the defendant, or defendants, guilty, 
and the court will fix the punishment.” All the jury was 
trying to do in its verdict was to state that they found the 
[fol. 1148] defendants guilty and fixed a fine at less than 
$50.00 according to the charge of the court. By Article 6, 
Section 14 of the Tennessee Constitution, no fine in excess 
of $50.00 may he fixed except by a jury. Section 40-2525, 
T.C.A., contains the same provision. Thus all the trial judge 
was doing was trying to comply with this constitutional and 
statutory provision. The trial judge had the right and dis­
cretion to levy a fine, if the jury found them guilty, up to 
$50.00 and to attach a workhouse sentence, if, in his discre­
tion, he thought the facts merited such punishment. Clearly, 
he has not abused this discretion in doing what he did here. 
If the defendants had wanted the jury to fix the fine and 
imprisonment, if the jury found them guilty, all they had to 
do at the beginning of the trial was to make the proper re­
quest, as provided by §40-2704, T.C.A., that this be done, and 
if such had been done then the trial judge would have had 
no authority to fix this fine and imprisonment as he did. 
Under the situation here, the fine and imprisonment which 
he levied were clearly in accordance with his right and duty.

Counsel for the defendants in his able brief argues that 
P e t e r s o n  v. C i t y  o f  G r e e n v i l l e , 83 S. Ct., 1119 (1963) and 
L o m b a r d  v. S t a t e  o f  L o u i s ia n a , 83 S. Ct., 1122 (1963) are 
applicable. These two eases are distinguishable from the 
[fob 1149] instant case. The trespass complained of in 
the Peterson and Lombard cases was the act of sitting on 
a stool at a lunch counter. This is basically an innocent 
and unoffensive act. It was only unlawful, in the eyes 
of the city and state concerned, because of a city ordinance 
in the Peterson case and an executive directive in the 
Lombard case, both of which required segregation of the 
races in public facilities. But absent the governmental 
mandate and the color of the defendants’ skin in those two 
cases, and the act is basically unoffensive and innocent. 
This is not so in the instant case. S t r i p p e d  o f  a n y  q u e s t i o n  
o f  r a c e  a n d  d is c r im in a t io n ,  th e  a c t  c o m p la i n e d  o f  i s  s t i l l  
u n la w fu l . In the instant case, if these eight defendants 
had been white boys, their acts would still have been un­



325

lawful. We cannot escape from the fact that these eight 
defendants were blocking the entrance to the doorway of 
the B & W Cafeteria. Regardless of who they were and 
why they were blocking the doorway, their conduct is still 
basically unlawful.

In the instant case, we are presented with the timely 
question of how far a person can go to secure his con­
stitutional rights. Now it seems clear that a person cannot 
commit an assault on another to gain these rights. It 
seems equally clear that one cannot damage the property 
of another with impunity because the other has committed 
[fol. 1150] an act of racial discrimination against him. We 
think that it is also clear that these eight defendants can­
not interfere with the B & W ’s trade by blocking the 
latter’s doorway in order to redress the wrong that they 
feel the cafeteria has visited upon them. The securing of 
constitutional rights must be done in a lawful manner.

As a result of what we have said herein, the convictions 
must be affirmed.

Hamilton S. Burnett, Chief Justice.

Clerk’s Certificate to foregoing paper (omitted in 
printing).



326

[fol. 1151]
I n  t h e  S uprem e  C ourt oe t h e  S tate oe T ennessee  

M iddle D ivision  

Davidson Criminal 
Affirmed,

L ester G. M cK in n ie , N ath al  W in ters , J o h n  R. L ew is , 
H arrison D ean , F rederick  L eonard , A lle n  Cason , J r ., 
J o h n  J ackson , J r ., and F rederick  H argraves,

vs.
S tate op T en n essee .

J udgm en t— January 8, 1964
Came the plaintiffs in error by counsel, and also came 

the Attorney General on behalf of the State, and this cause 
was heard on the transcript of the record from the Crim­
inal Court of Davidson County; and upon consideration 
thereof, this Court is of opinion that there is no reversible 
error on the record, and that the judgment of the Court 
below should be affirmed, and it is accordingly so ordered 
and adjudged by the Court.

It is therefore ordered and adjudged by the Court that 
the State of Tennessee recover of Lester G. McKinnie, 
Nathal Winters, John R. Lewis, Harrison Dean, Frederick 
Leonard, Allen Cason, Jr., John Jackson, Jr., and Fred­
erick Hargraves, the plaintiffs in error, for the use of the 
County of Davidson the sum of $50.00, each, the fine as­
sessed against each of them in the Court below, together 
with the costs of the cause accrued in this Court and in the 
Court below, and execution may issue from this Court for 
the cost of the appeal.

It is further ordered by the Court that each of the plain­
tiffs in error be confined in the County Jail or Workhouse 
o f  Davidson County, subject to the lawful rules and regu­



327

lations thereof, for a term of ninety days; and that after 
expiration of the aforesaid term of imprisonment, they 
remain in the custody of the Sheriff of Davidson County 
until said fines and costs are paid, secured or worked out 
as required by law, and this cause is remanded to the 
Criminal Court of Davidson County, for the execution of 
this judgment.

The Clerk of this Court will issue duly certified copies 
of this judgment to the Sheriff and the Workhouse Com­
missioner of Davidson County to the end that this judg­
ment may be executed. 1/8/64.

[fol. 1151a] Clerk’s Certificate to foregoing paper 
(omitted in printing).

[fol. 1152]
I n t h e  S uprem e  C ourt op t h e  S tate  op T ennessee  

M iddle D ivisio n , N ashville

Davidson Criminal 
Stay Order

[Title omitted]

S tay  O rder— January 8, 1964
On application of plaintiffs in error, it is ordered that 

the judgment entered herein on January 8, 1964, be stayed 
for a period of twenty (20) days and until a petition for 
rehearing, if filed within above time in the Supreme Court 
of Tennessee, is disposed of and during said time the plain­
tiffs in error will remain released on the bonds for appeal 
heretofore filed herein. 1/8/64.

[fol. 1152a] Clerk’s Certificate to foregoing paper 
(omitted in printing).



328

[fol. 1153]
I n  th e  S u prem e  C ourt of th e  S tate of T ennessee 

M iddle D ivision  

Davidson Criminal

L ester G. M cK in n ie , et ah,

v.
S tate of T en n essee .

Op in io n  on P etitio n  to R eheab

The plaintiffs in error through able counsel have filed 
herein a courteous and dignified petition to rehear. After 
very carefully considering this petition and the brief in 
support thereof, we must conclude that it is nothing more 
than a reargument of the questions presented at the time 
this case was originally heard.

One additional authority is cited, S t a t e  o f  D e l a w a r e  v. 
B r o w n , 195 A. 2d, 379. This Delaware case is in no wise 
in point herein. The same reasons that we assigned as to 
why P e t e r s o n  v. C i t y  o f  G r e e n v i l l e  and L o m b a r d  v. S t a t e  
o f  L o u i s ia n a  were not in point are applicable to the Brown 
case. In the Brown case, Brown, a Negro, entered the 
premises of a restaurant and requested service of food, 
[fol. 1154] The proprietor denied him service solely be­
cause of his race, and, upon his refusal to leave, obtained 
a warrant for his arrest for violation of the criminal tres­
pass statute of Delaware. That is not the question here.

Basically and essentially the whole argument made orig­
inally, and now made, is based upon the philosophy and 
legal reasoning which summed up may be stated thus: in 
so long as our motives are right we can pursue any means 
(even though illegal and unlawful) we may choose to ac­
complish those movties. The authorities cited by the plain­
tiffs in error all go to the proposition that the motives 
of these plaintiffs in error were lawful. There is no au­
thority, nor so far as we know can any be found, whereby



3 2 9

one may resort to unlawful and illegal means to accom­
plish lawful motives.

After thoroughly considering this petition to rehear and 
the matter again, we are convinced that the means em­
ployed by these plaintiffs in error to accomplish their 
motives were illegal and unlawful, and it is for this alone 
that they are convicted. Under the factual situation of this 
case by their using these illegal and unlawful means they 
have thus violated fundamental law and are guilty. The 
verdict against them for reasons set forth in our original 
opinion must be sustained. The petition to rehear is ac­
cordingly overruled.

Hamilton S. Burnett, Chief Justice.

[fol. 1154a] Clerk’s Certificate to foregoing paper 
(omitted in printing).

[fol. 1155]
Isr th e . S uprem e  C ourt of t h e  S tate of T ennessee 

M iddle D ivisio n , N ashville  

Davidson Criminal

[Title omitted]

Order D enying P etition to Rehear—March 5,1964

This cause coming on further to be heard on a petition 
to rehear and reply thereto, upon consideration of all of 
which and the Court finding no merit in the petition, it is 
denied at the cost of the petitioner. 3/5/64.

Clerk’s Certificate to foregoing paper (omitted in 
printing).



330

[fol. 1156]
I n  t h e  S uprem e  C ourt of t h e  S tate of T en n essee  

M iddle D ivision  

Davidson Criminal

[Title omitted]

S tay  O rder— March 5, 1964
Upon application of plaintiff s-in-error, Lester G. Mc- 

Kinnie, Nathal Winters, John R. Lewis, Harrison Dean, 
Frederick Leonard, Allen Cason, Jr., John Jackson, Jr., 
and Frederick Hargraves, and for good cause shown, 
they are hereby granted a stay of execution of judgment 
of this Court for a period of ninety days from March 5, 
1964, pending the disposition of a petition for certiorari 
to the Supreme Court of the United States and during said 
time the plaintiffs-in-error will remain released on the 
bonds for appeal heretofore filed herein, and it is so ordered.

The Clerk of this Court will issue a certified copy of 
this order to the Criminal Court of Davidson County and 
to the Sheriff of Davidson County. 3/5/64.

Sheldon B. White, Justice.

Clerk’s Certificate to foregoing paper (omitted in 
printing).

[fol. 1157] Clerk’s Certificate to foregoing transcript 
(omitted in printing).



331

[fol. 1159]
S u prem e  C ourt op th e  U n ited  S tates 

No. 148—October Term, 1964

L ester Gr. M cK in n ie , et al., Petitioners, 
vs.

T en n essee .

O rder A llo w in g  Certiorari—October 12,1964
The petition herein for a writ of certiorari to the Su­

preme Court of the State of Tennessee, Middle Division, 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.