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

Atlanta Constitution
August 16^th, 1913

A. D. Greenfield, one of the owners of the building occupied by the National Pencil company, of which Frank is superintendent, followed the former office boy to the stand. He was questioned about the occupancy of the building by the Clark Woodenware company, and also about Frank’s character.

“How long have you been one of the owners of the building occupied by the National Pencil company?” Mr. Arnold asked.

“Since 1900.”

“Has any new flooring ever been put in on the second floor since you became part owner of the building?”
“No.”

“Do you know Leo Frank?”
“Yes.”

“How long have you known him?”
“For four or five years.”

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 16^th, 1913

Truman McCrary, an aged negro drayman, who once was an employee of the pencil factory, was put on the stand during the afternoon session.

“Where do you work at present?” Mr. Arnold asked.

“I run a street dray.”

“Where did you work up to May?”

“At the pencil factory.”

“Did you work there on Saturdays?”
“Every Saturday for a year or more.”

“How late in the afternoons?”
“Sometimes until 3 o’clock and sometimes as late as 5.”

“On any Saturday afternoon did you ever see the front door locked?”
“No, sir.”

“Ever see Conley around the front door?”
“No, sir.”

“What would Frank and Schiff be doing upstairs?”
“Working on their books.”

“Did you see Jim Conley around on April 26?”

“No, sir.”

“Then you didn’t advise him to go into the basement that afternoon?”
“No, sir.”

He was only asked a few words in cross-examination.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 16th 1913, “Aged Negro Drayman Called as a Witness Against Conley,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 16^th, 1913

Ike Haas, well-known manufacturer, was put on the stand during Friday afternoon.

“How long have you been in Atlanta?”
“Four years.”

“What is your business?”

“I am a manufacturer.”

“Do you know Leo M. Frank and his general character?”

“Yes.”

“Is it good or bad?”

“Very good.”

“Did you hear your telephone bell ring on the morning of April 27?”

“No, but I heard my wife answering it.”

Hooper on cross-examination:

“Your wife woke you up?”
“Yes.”

“There is some little difference between a wife and a telephone, isn’t there, Mr. Haas?”
“Yes; but both are expensive and necessary.”

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 16th 1913, “Both Wife and Phone, He Says, are Expensive and Necessary,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 16^th, 1913

M. O. Nix, credit man for Montag Bros., of whom Sig Montag is general manager of the National Pencil company, followed A. D. Greenfield to the stand.

He identified Leo Frank’s handwriting on a number of the financial sheets and on the one that he claims to have made up on April 26. When shown a sample of writing Frank did for the police when they desired to compare his writing with that on the murder notes, Nix said it looked like Frank’s, but he refused to swear to it.

“Previous to April 26 did you often see Leo Frank’s handwriting?” Mr. Arnold asked.

“Yes.”

“By what means?”
“By seeing the payroll slips and various notes he would write to the office.”

“Ever see one of the financial sheets he made out?”
“No.”

“How long have you been seeing his handwriting?”
“About four or five years.”

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 15^th, 1913

Following Mrs. E. A. Marcus, eight character witnesses were placed on the stand. They were V. H. Kriegshaber, Max Goldstein, Sidney Levy, Rabbi David Marx, D. I. McIntyre, and insurance man and member of the firm of Haas & McIntyre, Dr. B. Wildauer, a dentist, and John Findley, superintendent for Dittler Brothers and formerly master mechanic for the National Pencil company.

“Do you know Frank?” asked Mr. Arnold of Mr. Kriegshaber, who was first called to the stand.

“Yes.”

“Is his character good or bad?”
“It is good.”

“How often have you come into contact with Frank?” asked Mr. Dorsey on cross-examination.

“Not frequently,” replied the witness.

“He is a young man, isn’t he?”
“Yes.”

“And you a rather old man?”
“Yes, I suppose you’d call me old.”

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 15^th, 1913

Charles F. Ursenbach, husband of Mrs. Leo Frank’s sister was put on the stand following Miss Dula May Flowers. He was used by the defense to show what Leo Frank had broken the baseball engagement early on Saturday morning. He also testified to Frank’s demeanor after the crime and was asked a number of questions about lending Frank his raincoat Sunday afternoon. What the importance of the raincoat was, neither side would say, but each asked a large number of questions about it.

“Did you see Frank on Sunday?” asked Mr. Arnold.

“I did.”

“Did you telephone Frank Friday afternoon about going to the Saturday ball game?”
“I did.”

“What did he say?”
“He said he would let me know later.”

“Did he?”
“Yes, when I got home at lunch Saturday I found a message from him saying he could not go.”

“Did you see any scratches on his face Sunday?”
“No, none at all.”

“What was his manner?”
“He appeared a little disturbed.”

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 15^th, 1913

Milton Klein, a wholesale lumber dealer, a frequent visitor of Frank’s while he was in the tower, was the last witness of the day. He was cross-examined at length by Solicitor Dorsey, whose object apparently was to show that it was Klein who prevented the detectives confronting Frank with Jim Conley.

The direct examination of Klein by Attorney Arnold was as follows:

“How long have you known Frank?”
“Ever since he came here.”

“Was his character good or bad?”
“It was good.”

“When was the last time you saw Frank?” asked Solicitor Dorsey on cross-examination. “Did you see him last Thanksgiving day?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Where did you see him?”
“At a dance at the orphan’s home. I also saw him in the afternoon about 6 o’clock of that day.”

“What was the dance for?”
“It was for the benefit of the B’nai B’rith. Frank had charge of the arrangements, and I assisted him.”

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 15^th, 1913

Mrs. M. Marcus, a relative by marriage of Mrs. Leo M. Frank, was the first witness called at the afternoon session. She was one of the friends of the Franks and Seligs who played cards at their home, 68 East Georgia avenue, on the night of April 26.

She swore Frank acted naturally during all the time that she saw him and that he even got to laughing at a baseball story he was reading in a magazine and tried to break up their poker game by reading it to them.

“Did you see Mr. Frank on April 26, and when?” asked Mr. Arnold.

“I saw him when I went to Mr. Emil Selig’s home to play cards that night. Mr. Frank opened the door.”

“What time did he go to bed?”
“About 10:30 o’clock.”

“Anything unnatural about him?”
“No.”

“Were you in the habit of playing cards there?” asked Attorney Frank A. Hooper, on cross-examination.

“Well, I often went there for a social game.”

“Did you see Frank often?”
“Yes; saw him most every time I went there at night.”

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 15^th, 1913

Another character witness was introduced by the defense in Harry E. Lewis, of Brooklyn, N. Y., former neighbor of Frank, and a former assistant to the district attorney.

“Did you ever know Frank?” he was asked by Mr. Arnold.

“Yes, for about twelve years.”

“How?”
“He was my neighbor.”

“Did you know him until he came south? What was his character?”
“Good.”

Cross-examination by Mr. Hooper.

“Have you known him since he came south?”
“No.”

“You may come off.”
The second character witness of the Thursday session was Herbert Lasher, of Fleischman, N. Y., a former college mate of the suspected superintendent.

“Did you know Frank?”
“Yes, I was at Cornell with him.”

“You lived in the same house with him?”
“Yes, and ate at the same table.”

“What was his character?”
“Good.”

Cross-examination.

“Have you known him since he left Cornell?”
“Yes, I corresponded with him for two years.”

“What would not show in his character, would it?”
“No.”

“You may come down.”

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 15th 1913, “Two More Character Witnesses Are Introduced by the Defense,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)