Dr. Harris Collapses on Stand as He Gives Sensational Evidence

Another in our series of new transcriptions of contemporary articles on the Leo Frank case.

Atlanta Journal
August 2nd, 1913

Physician Testifies at Frank Trial That Mary Phagan Met Death Half Hour After Lunch—Describes Wounds

Secretary of State Board of Health Compelled to Leave the Witness Stand on Account of Illness

In the midst of sensational testimony, Dr. H. F. Harris, secretary of the state board of health, collapsed Friday afternoon on the witness stand and was excused until Saturday. Dr. Harris and just testified that his examination of the contents of the stomach of little Mary Phagan showed that the dinner which she had eaten before leaving home was still undigested, and he therefore concluded that he little girl was killed within thirty minutes or three-quarters of an hour after she had eaten. Part of the undigested food taken from the stomach was exhibited in the court room. It had been preserved in alcohol.

Dr. Harris testified that there was no evidence of an assault but there were indications of some kind of violence having been committed. He thought this violence had preceded her death five or ten minutes.

Before he finished his testimony Dr. Harris became suddenly ill, his voice became faint and he begged to be excused. He promised to return Saturday, if possible. He said he had gotten up from a sick bed to come to court. He was assisted from the court room.

Also featuring the opening of the Phagan, was the testimony given by N. afternoon session of the trial of Leo M. Frank charged with the murder of Mary V. Darley under cross-examination of Attorney Reuben R. Arnold, for the defense.

Darley, according to this testimony, during his lunch hour Friday visited the factory, measured some distances and noted on his return to court many discrepancies and inaccuracies in the diagram of the factory which Solicitor Dorsey had prepared for the guidance of the jury in following the testimony of the witnesses.

One of the most important inaccuracies in the chart, according to Darley, was that the drawing showed the safe in Frank’s outer office to be a great deal smaller than the door, when, according to the witness. It is about the same size and cuts off a view into Frank’s inner office when the door of the safe is open.

It is expected that the defense will use this one fact to refute one of the important points brought out by one of its principal witnesses that she, a girl employed in the factory, visited there Saturday afternoon at 12:10 o’clock to get her pay and upon entering the outer office saw no one in either of the offices. She testified that the safe door was open. This is the hour that Mary Phagan is supposed to have entered the factory and prosecution claims immediately thereafter Frank was missing from his office.

Another important development in the afternoon session was the indication from the prosecution, by holding two time slips, that it would claim the accused gave the officers a slip which was not the original taken from the clock Sunday morning.

When Attorney Reuben Arnold, attorney for the defense, was examining N. V. Darley, a state’s witness, concerning the diagram of the factory which Solicitor Dorsey had made for the guidance of the jurors, Mr. Arnold asked:

“Isn’t the toilet in the basement closer to the wall than this picture shows and closer to the boiler?”

“It sets against the wall, and it seems to me that it is closer to the boiler, too.”

“Isn’t the elevator shaft closer to the first floor wall than this picture shows?”

“My impression is that the side of the elevator shaft is a part of the wall.”

“This partition here on the first floor, and the door in it which opens into the woodenware company—the partition is closer to the elevator than is shown on the diagram, is it not?”

“Yes, sir, I think so.”

“There are double doors at the top of the stairs on the second floor, instead of a single door as shown on the diagram, aren’t there?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Well, is there anything at all right about this diagram, except that it is a gen[e]ral picture of the factory?”

“That’s the way it appears to me.”

“It shows no wardrobe in Frank’s office?”

“No, sir.”

“But there is a wardrobe in there?”

“Yes, sir.”

“It shows Frank’s office larger than the outer office, does it not?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Which office is the larger?”

“The outer office is several feet larger.”

“This picture doesn’t show a bookcase in the outer office, does it?”

“No, sir.”

“But there is a bookcase in the outer office, isn’t there?”

“Yes, sir.”

“And it half shuts off the view from Frank’s office into the outer hall, does it not?”

“Yes, sir.”

“The truth is, Mr. Darley, isn’t it, that this picture is drawn so adroitly as to open up a clear view from Frank’s office through the outer office into the factory?”

Before the witness could answer, Attorney Hooper announced that he objected to Mr. Arnold using the phrase “adroitly drawn.” The court sustained the objection.

“All right,” said Mr. Arnold, smiling. “It’s a fact, but I’ll withdraw it.”

“I object to that statement, too, your honor,” said Mr. Hooper.

“Well, I’ll withdraw it,” said Mr. Arnold. He addressed the witness again. “There’s no such wide space leading from Frank’s office to the outer office, is there?”

“No, sir; there’s a single small door.”

“Did you notice this safe over here, looking like a little B-B cap? As a matter of fact, this safe is wider than the door, is it not?”

“It’s about the same size.”

“Well, it doesn’t show up half as large as the door, does it, in the picture?”

“No, sir.”

“When the safe door is open, it shuts off the view from Frank’s office, does it not?”

“Yes, sir.”

“There are two cabinets in the outer office which are not shown in this picture, are there not?”

“Yes, sir.”

“To be exact, this is not a very accurate picture of the factory, is it?”

“No, sir.”

“It opens up Frank’s office a whole lot better than it is really opened up, doesn’t it?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Could you see the time clock from Frank’s desk?”

“Yes, sir, I could see just the outer edge of the dial.”

“Could you see the head of the stairs from his desk?”

“No, sir.”

In the redirect examination of Darley. Solicitor Dorsey found the witness refractory. Darley returned short answers to a number of the solicitor’s questions.

“Who were some of the people who were nervous, besides Frank?”

The witness at first said he didn’t know. Then he declared that Detective Starnes was nervous.

“How did Starnes show his nervousness?” asked the solicitor.

“The best way that I can describe it is that he looked worried.”

“Why do you recall Frank’s nervousness and not the nervousness of anybody else except possibly Starnes?”

“Because Mr. Frank was so much more nervous than the others.”

“Did you notice anybody else around there, nervous on Monday?”

“Holloway and Schiff were nervous. Their hands seemed to tremble.”

“Was Frank nervous Tuesday?”

“He became very nervous when he read an extra saying that he was going to be arrested. He was arrested about fifteen minutes later.”

“Don’t you know that Schiff furnishes to Frank all the data for the financial sheet?”

“I know very little about it.”

The solicitor showed two time clock slips to the witness. On one of them was written in typewriter print the ate “April 28.”

“Could this be the slip that you all took out Sunday morning?”

After some hesitation, the witness answered that the date on that slip should have been April 26. The other slip had a date written with a pen, and the solicitor asked the witness if that was Frank’s handwriting. The witness said he couldn’t identify either slip as the one taken out of the clock Sunday morning.

“Could there have been a duplicate made of the slip Newt Lee punched?”

The witness said he didn’t know.

“Isn’t there a bar across the door leading from the metal room to the third floor?”

The witness didn’t know. Despite a rigid examination by the solicitor, the witness maintained that what he told at the morning session, under cross-examination, about the tablets and order blanks being scattered throughout the building was true.

Darley said that he had known Frank since April, 1911.

“How often in that time have you seen him as nervous as he was on Sunday morning, April 27?”

“Twice—once after he saw the street car run over a little child, and again after his fuss with Mr. Montag.”

Attorley [sic] Arnold cross-examined the witness again.

“You say that Schiff and Holloway were nervous, Monday? Was anybody else?”

“Yes, the whole factory was ‘up in the air.’ Really, we did no work that week. Miss Eula Mae Flowers, one of the foreladies, became hysterical on Tuesday.”

“Since the tragedy, have you gotten any work at all out of Christopher Columbus Barrett?”

“A little,” answered Darley.


The witness left the stand, and Officer W. F. Anderson, police call man, was summoned.

Officer Anderson told of Newt Lee calling police headquarters on the telephone, on Sunday morning, April 27, and telling the police that a white girl’s body had been found in the basement. After he went to the pencil factory, about 3:30 or before 4 o’clock, while he had Newt Lee in custody, he tried to call Frank over the telephone. In answer to questions by Solicitor Dorsey, he said he heard the connection made, and heard the phone ringing at the other end for above five minutes. After waiting five minutes, he said, he gave up the attempt, and called police headquarters and Herbert Haas and Sig Montag, officials of the pencil company.

“How long did it take you to get them?” asked the solicitor.

“Just a few minutes.”

“Did you make any other effort to get Frank over the telephone, and if so, when?”

“I tried again after I got Montag and Haas, about 4 or 4:10 o’clock.”

“What success did you have this time?”

“Just the same as before.”

Attorney Rosser cross-examined the witness.

“You didn’t get Sig Montag when you called his house, did you?”

“I got a Montag—I don’t remember his initials.”
“Did you try to get Mr. Darley?”

“He didn’t have a telephone.”


“You saw these notes found by Mary Phagan’s body, didn’t you?”

“I saw Sergeant Dobbs pick one up.”

“When you went to the factory, you shook the front door and old man Lee came down. He wasn’t standing at the door, was he?”

“He came down the stairs.”

“And Lee told you over the telephone that it was a white girl’s body?”

“Yes, sir.”

“What sort of a lamp did that negro have?”

“He had a lantern.”

“Smoky, wasn’t it?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Did you stand at the same place Lee says he stood, and look, and see Mary Phagan’s body?”

“Not that day.”

“When Lee says he saw the body, he says the lantern was on the ground, doesn’t he?”

“That’s what he told me.”

“The little girl’s clothing was such a color that it wouldn’t show up in the dark?”

“I think it was lavender.”

“When the coroner’s jury was down there, you took the lantern and set it where Lee says he set it that night, didn’t you?”

“No, sir; not then.”

“Well, didn’t you testify before the coroner’s jury that you stood with the lantern on the ground and testify I should not think it would be possible to see a body?”

“I said you might see the bulk of it, but you couldn’t tell what it was.”

“Then this is wrong, is it?”

“I said you might not be able to tell what is [sic] was.”

“You say the body was lying east and west with its head against the partition?”


“You said something about there being some tracks. Where were they?”


“On the left hand side of the body, leading from the body to the shavings room.”

“That’s not what you said before the coroner’s jury, is it? Didn’t you say there were tracks all around the left side of the body?”

“I said the tracks led into the shavings room. I went into the shavings room to see if I could any lady’s tracks there.”

“You called up Frank first?”


“When did you call Mr. Haas and the others?”

“About 4 o’clock.”

“Do you remember their telephone numbers?”

“No, sir, I don’t keep telephone numbers in my mind. I get ’em out of the book.”

“Your testimony at the coroner’s inquest was taken down by the stenographer, wasn’t it?”

“I guess it was.”

“What side of the body did the police come up on?”

“The right side.”

“The tracks were on the left side?”


“Which side did you come up on?”

“The right side.”

“You found a pencil down there, didn’t you?”

“Yes, sir.”

“How far was it away from the body?”

“About eight or ten feet.”

“There were a great many pencils in the basement, were there not?”


“The basement is ragged and dirty, with cinders and all sorts of trash down there?”

“Yes, the basement’s dirty. There were some cinders and trash by the boiler.”


Solicitor Dorsey took the witness again.

“Did you make any tests down in the basement on your own account?” inquired the solicitor.

“Yes. About 10 o’clock one night shortly after the murder we went down there with a lantern. We fixed up a box and threw some sacks over it in the place where the girl’s body was lying. Then we took the lantern and set it down where the negro said his lantern was sitting when he saw the body.”

“Could you see anything?”

“Yes, we could make out the bulk.”

Attorney Rosser questioned the witness.

“You made an investigation for the coroner, did you not?”

“Yes, but I didn’t have a lantern.”

“Well, what did you have?”

“This.” The witness produced one of the electric searchlights carried by policemen, and flashed it across the court room.

“You didn’t use the lantern?”

“No, there was a lantern along, but I didn’t use it. I knew I could see that far with a searchlight.”

“Did you see the place where they said the body was dragged?”



Anderson was excused, and Solicitor Dorsey requested H. L. Parry, the court stenographer, to take the stand. The solicitor inquired if he had reported the evidence at the inquest held by the coroner.

“Part of it,” replied the witness.

“Did you report the evidence given by Frank?”

“Some of it. I don’t know whether I reported all of it or not.”

“Well, examine the records here and tell us whether you did or not.”

The witness examined the record.

“Yes, I reported Frank’s testimony,” said Parry.

“Is it correctly reported?”

“To the best of my ability,” responded Parry.

“You are an expert stenographer?”

“I am considered such.”

“What has been your experience?”

“Between twenty-five and thirty years.”

“You are reporting this case?”

“Yes, sir.”

Attorney Rosser arose.

“I’ll get you to say whether or not you took the testimony of Officer Anderson, Mr. Parry?” asked Mr. Rosser.

The witness examined the record and replied that he did not.

“Did you take the negro Lee’s testimony?”

The witness examined the record again and answered, “Yes, sir.”

“Did you take it correctly?”

“To the best of my ability.”

“Well, it was correctly taken, was it not?”

“I can’t say that I’m infallible.”

“Then you are not prepared to say that any record you take is accurate?”

“I said I took them as nearly accurately as possible.”

“Well, are you prepared to say that this record you took of Newt Lee’s testimony is a correct one?”

“In the common acceptation of the term, yes.”

“I want to know, now, if you took Frank and Lee’s statements correctly.”

“I took down and wrote Lee’s and Frank’s words as I heard them. I may have misunderstood some few things, although I was in a good position to hear.”

“And you took down correctly what you did hear?”



Witness, who had been examining closely into the record which he held, looked up at this point and said: “It appears that Lee had been on the stand once before and that the testimony I took was on his recall. Frank’s testimony indicates that he had just been sworn. It begins with the question, ‘What’s your name?’ That of Lee’s which I took begins: ‘Now, Newt, state to the jury,’ indicating that he had been on the stand before.”

Mr. Rosser, referring to his own copy of the testimony given at the coroner’s inquest, walked over to where the witness sat and requested him to turn to that place in his record where certain questions were asked of Lee. Lee’s questions he read from his record, and asked the stenographer to compare them with the record which he held.

“This portion of Lee’s testimony concerned the length of time it required Frank to put a new slip in the time clock. It also quoted Lee as to the length of time it had taken Frank on a previous occasion to put in a slip. With but one or two minor discrepancies, the records, taken by different stenographers, corresponded.

After considerable discussion, Solicitor Dorsey stated that he would defer for a time any effort to put in evidence a portion of Frank’s statement before the coroner’s jury. He would take the matter up later, he said.

Mr. Dorsey started the discussion by offering in evidence all of Frank’s testimony before the coroner. The defense objected immediately. At first Attorney Arnold seemed to take the position that none of Frank’s statement before the coroner’s jury was admissible. Later, however, he said that if the solicitor wanted to put in evidence the whole of Frank’s testimony before the coroner’s jury, representing some four hours of examination, he would offer no objection. It would be manifestly unfair to put in evidence a part of anybody’s testimony.

The argument followed over whether Frank’s evidence was given with the consent of his counsel, the defense contending that the state had never proven that at that time Frank had any counsel employed, although Mr. Rossed [sic] admitted having sat in the room during the inquest.

Dr. H. F. Harris was called to the stand. He is secretary of the Georgia state board of health. He has been a practicing physician since 1889. He graduate then from the Jefferson medical college. He was a professor of chemistry in the Southern Medical college and also in the Atlanta College of Physicians and Surgeons later. He mentioned other positions which he had filled. He resigned three years ago from the Atlanta College of Physicians and Surgeons. He had been connected with the state board of health since 1903.

Solicitor Dorsey’s first question was: “Did you make an examination of the body of Mary Phagan?”

“Yes, I made an examination. I think it was on May 5.”

“What wounds or marks did you find on her body?”


“There were several abrasions. One or two were on her face, one on her forehead, one on her left arm, one on her left leg, one on her right leg at the ankle, and her right eye was discolored. On the back of her head, somewhat toward the left side, there was a wound one and half inches long. This looked as if it had been made by an upward blow. There was no actual break in the skull, but there was a small hemorrhage inside the skull and directly beneath the wound, showing that the blow that were marks of a cord on her neck which caused it must have been severe enough to make her unconscious for some time.”

“Could this have caused her death?”

“I think not. In fact I am sure not.”

“What did cause her death?”

“When I examined her body, there were marks of a cord an [sic] her neck which had cut into the flesh. I think beyond the question of a doubt that this cord around her neck caused her death.”


“Were the injuries to her eye and scalp made before her death?”


“Did you make an examination of her stomach, doctor?”


“What did you find in it?”

“Cabbage and biscuit—that is, I guess it was biscuit. It was wheaten bread, anyway.”

“How far had it progressed toward digestion?”

“Very slightly.”

At this time Dr. Harris took a bottle from the suitcase that he carried to the witness stand with him, and said, “I have a sample of the cabbage here, if I am permitted to show it.”

“Yes, you can show it to the jury,” said the solicitor.

“Was this the condition of the cabbage when it came from Mary Phagan’s stomach?”


“How long would you say the cabbage had been in her stomach?”


“It is impossible to say exactly. I am confident, however, that it could not have been there more than half an hour.”

Dr. Harris brought two more bottles from his suitcase. “I have two samples of cabbage taken from the stomach of normal persons after one hour.” He showed the bottles to the court and the jury. Their contents were pesty—in contrast with the other sample from Mary Phagan’s stomach, which could be recognized immediately as cabbage and was almost intact.

“Dr. Harris, did you ever examine the vital organs of her body?”

Dr. Harris testified that there was no evidence of an assault, but there were indications that violence of some sort had been done. He said that some of the blood vessels were dilated.

“What did the dilation of these blood vessels indicate?”
“It indicated that violence of some sort had been done a little time before death.”

“How long before death was this violence done?”

Possibly five or ten minutes, replied the witness. The blood vessels were dilated, and it takes an appreciable time for inflammation to begin. Judging from the character of the inflammation, said the witness, he did not think the interval between violence and death was more than five or ten minutes.

“Doctor, how long after death does rigor mortis begin?”

“It varies so much, that it is impossible to say. I don’t think that would be of importance, in determining the time of death, because as I say it varies in different cases.”

“Is there any standard with reference to strangulation cases?”

“No, sir. I have seen rigor mortis begin within a very few minutes after death.”

“Does it ever begin before death?”

“No, sir. It may be delayed for many hours. I have seen persons dead for hours in whom rigor mortis had not set in. It begins with the eyelids and goes down, and goes off in the same way.”

“Can you state how long Mary Phagan was dying?”

“No, I could not exactly.”

“How long after she had eaten the cabbage and bread was it before death occurred?”

“To the very best of my opinion, she must have lived between one-half and three-quarters of an hour after eating.”

At this point the witness stopped, and appeared to be very faint. In a weak voice: “I’ll have to ask you to excuse me. I cannot go on further. I am very weak.”

“Just one more question, doctor,” asked the solicitor.

“How much blood did Mary Phagan lose before she died?”

“I couldn’t tell that.”

“When can you come back, doctor?”

“I’ll try to come back tomorrow. I’ve been in bed three days and I got up to come down here. I am utterly exhausted.”

Dr. Harris was very pale and appeared quite. He was assisted from the stand and out of the court room by one of the deputy sheriffs. Early during his testimony he had paused and asked for a glass of water, and with it had taken a dose of some medicine.


G. C. Febuary, stenographer to Chief of Detectives Lanford, was called to the stand and identified a report of a conversation between Frank and Lanford on Monday, April 28, in Lanford’s office. The defense let it go in without objection, after some discussion. That report later on was read to the jury in its entirety, by Assistant Solicitor Stephens. It was a short statement of Frank’s movements from about 11 o’clock, April 26, till the next morning.

The part which it was assumed the state was most anxious to get in was Frank’s statement that Mary Phagan arrived at the factory between 12:05 o’clock and 12:10, perhaps about 12:07. The rest of the statement detailed in Frank’s language his movements during the rest of the day. The statement quoted Frank as saying that he took a bath Saturday night and was wearing then different under clothes than the ones he wore on the day of the tragedy. Attorney Rosser examined Febuary and convulsed the court by his opening question:

“Have you got a dictograph on you?”

Attorney Rosser questioned Febuary specificically [sic] about Frank allowing Lanford to examine his clothing. He has been chief of police for a number of years, hasn’t he?”

The witness answered, “I don’t know that he ever has been chief of police.”

“Well,” said Ros[s]er, “chief of detectives, then—that’s worse.”

Before the witness could answer, Mr. Rosser turned to Chief Lanford, sitting in court and pointed out “this handsome man here” as the one he meant.


Albert McKnight, negro, husband of Minola McKnight (the woman being the cook at the Selig residence), was called to the stan[d].

“How long has your wife been employed by Mrs. Selig?”

“A year or two years—something like that.”

“Where were you between 1 and 2 o’clock on Saturday, April 26?”

“At Mr. Frank’s house.”

“Did you see Mr. Frank?”

“Yes, about 1:30 o’clock.”

“What did he do?”

“He went into the dining room and went to the sideboard.”

“How long did he stay in there?”

“About five or ten minutes.”

The solicitor turned the witness over to the defense.

“Who was there, besides you?” asked Mr. Rosser.

“Mr. and Mrs. Selig and Mr. Frank’s wife. I was sitting in the kitchen.”

“How do you know that Mr. Frank didn’t stop to eat? You can’t see through from the kitchen to the dining room, can you?”

“Yes, sir, you can see through.”

“Don’t you know it is impossible to see through the swinging doors?”

“The swinging door was open and you can look into a mirror in the corner of the dining room and see the room.”

“And Mr. Frank went to the sideboard? You don’t know what he did there.”

“No, sir.”

“Oh, you couldn’t see the sideboard from the mirror?”

“No, sir.”

“How big is the kitchen?”

“I don’t know.”

“Well, about how big?”

The negro couldn’t answer definitely, and the question was waived.

“How big is the dining room?”

The negro couldn’t describe that, either.

“Have you ever been in the dining room?”

“No, sir.”

“What kind of furniture is in there?”

“I don’t know.”

“What kind is in the kitchen?”

“Well, there’s a safe and a stove and a table.”

“Where did you sit in the kitchen?”

“At the side of the back door.”

“Were you sitting right in front of the little hall betwe[e]n the dining room and the kitchen?”

“No, sir, not exactly.”

“Wait a minute till I look at a diagram of the house I’ve got here,” said Mr. Rosser. Then he put this question:

Well, don’t you know it’s impossible to sit in the kitchen and look through this little hall into the dining room?”

“No, sir.”

Mr. Rosser called the negro from the stand to explain to the jury, on the diagram of the Selig-Frank home, how he could sit in the kitchen and see all over the dining room. The negro insisted merely that he could sit in the kitchen and see into the dining room, and that in a mirror there he could see a reflection of almost all parts of the dining room.

“You haven’t got a curve to your eyesight, have you?” asked Mr. Rosser.

“No, sir,” said the witness.

“You can’t look a curve, can you?”

“No, sir.”

“Where was Minola?”

“She was in the kitchen.”

“Didn’t she go into the dining room?”

“Yes, sir, she went in once.”

“How long did she stay?”

“About two minutes.”

“Do you know whether Mrs. Frank and Mrs. Selig ate anything?”

“No, sir; I didn’t see them eating.”


“You never saw Mr. Selig at all?”

“No, sir.”

“Where did you go from to the Selig residence?”

“I went from home.”

“What time did you get there?”

“Some time after 1 o’clock.”

“You saw Mr. Frank come in and go to the sideboard?”


“He walked up to the sideboard, walked out, and went to town?”

“He went back into the sitting room, where Mr. Selig was.”

“I thought you said you didn’t see Mr. Selig?”

“I didn’t, but I heard him talking back there.”

Mr. Rosser held up the diagram in front of the negro again. He asked the negro how it was he could sit back in the kitchen and hear them talking in the sitting room or the hall. The negro reiterated that he heard them.

“And you never moved away from the door until you left to go home?”

“No, sir.”

“Did Minola go with you?”

“No, sir.”

“When did you first tell this tale after the 26th of April?”

“After I came back from Birmingham.”

“To whom did you first tell it?”

“Mr. Craven, the boss of the plow department at the Beck & Gregg Hardware Co.”

“Was that before or after they got Minola?”

“Two or three days before.”

“You never told any others?”

“Yes, sir, later I told Detective Starnes, Detective Campbell, Mr. Martin and Mr. Dorsey.”

“That’s the time Mr. Dorsey had Minola sent to jail, was it not?”

“I don’t know whether he did or not.”

“He said, ‘Take her on down,’ didn’t he?”

“I don’t know, sir. I guess so.”

Solicitor Dorsey entered an objection. “I did nothing of the kind,” said he.


“They brought Minola out of Mr. Dorsey’s office while you were there didn’t they?”

“No, sir.”

“You didn’t go to the jail with Minola?”

“No, sir.”

“Didn’t you go to see her when she was locked up down at police barracks?”

“I didn’t know she was locked up till I got home from work that night.”

“You say it was about 1:30 o’clock when Mr. Frank came home to lunch?”

“Yes, sir, it was about that time, but I can’t say for certain.”

“And you didn’t see Mr. and Mrs. Selig or Mrs. Frank?”

“No, sir.”
“What car did Mr. Frank catch to come back to town?”

“He caught the Georgia avenue car at Pulliam street.”

“How do you know? You were still sitting in the kitchen, weren’t you?”

“No, sir, I was on my way home and came up Georgia avenue behind him.”

Solicitor Dorsey took up the redirect examination of the witness. The solicitor caused the negro to repeat emphatically that from the point where he sat in the kitchen he could see Mr. Frank and did see him.


Judge Roan had the jury sent to its room, and stated that the jurors had expressed a request that some magazines be sent to them, that they be allowed to write notes to their wives, and that they be permitted to get fresh linen. Solicitor Dorsey said he had no objection if the magazines were censored properly by the sheriff and any notes received or sent by the jurors were censored also. The defense had no objection.

Judge Roan adjourned court at 5:02 until 9 o’clock Saturday morning.