Tag Archives: Atlanta Constitution

Wife and Mother of Frank Are Permitted to Remain in Court

Posted on by

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 15th, 1913

At the opening of the morning session yesterday Solicitor Dorsey motioned for the court to exclude the wife and mother of Leo M. Frank, Mrs. Lucille Frank and Mrs. Rae Frank, on account of the sensational outburst of the mother Wednesday afternoon, when she denounced the solicitor for attacking the character of her son.

In reply to the solicitor’s move to have the mother and wife of the defendant excluded from the court room, Attorney Arnold made a strong speech in their behalf, saying:

“It is a new doctrine to me where a wife and mother of the defendant cannot sit in court with him in the hour of his trial. I promise there will be no more outbreaks in court. Mrs. Frank, his wife, has sat through the trial, quietly and orderly. My friend’s conduct, I would think (meaning Dorsey) was a little more culpable than that of the mother’s. A man, even though he represent the prosecution, is not entitled to just do anything he pleases. It appears to me as though he were injecting these vile, filthy questions and innuendoes, merely for the purpose of inflaming the jury.”

The solicitor said:

“The defense has put the defendant’s character into evidence. I did not ask a witness a single question which I cannot uphold by plenty of evidence and testimony, including the statements of worthy girls and women. I submit that it is in absolute good faith that I am asking these questions. It is a mistaken idea that I am overly zealous in this case. I am only doing my duty as prosecuting attorney. It is unfair to exclude all over women and then to admit the defendant’s wife and mother and when I am doing my duty, to have them rail out at me.”

Judge Roan ruled that the two women could remain in the court room, but stated that any more such outbreaks would mean their prompt exclusion.

Wanted Questions Ruled Out.

Following this argument, Attorney Rosser made a motion to rule out certain questions and answers which Dorsey had put on cross-examination to witnesses for the defense, which questions pertained to the unsavory reports over which there have been many legal battles during the trial. He was overruled.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 15th 1913, “Wife and Mother of Frank are Permitted to Remain in Court,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Sig Montag Tells of Employment Of Detectives and Two Lawyers

Posted on by

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 15th, 1913

Sig Montag, president of the National Pencil company and associate in Montag Brothers, was put on the stand at the close of the morning session. He testified that during part of the time named by Jim Conley in the dates at which he swears he watched for Frank on the first floor the Clark Woodenware offices occupied that portion of the factory building.

He was examined by Mr. Rosser.

“What was your connection with the pencil factory from May last?”
“First secretary and treasurer, then president.”

“How often did Frank come to your office?”
“Once a day except on Sundays.”

“Did you see him on April 26?”
“Yes.”

“What time did he come to your office?”
“About 10 o’clock that morning.”

“Who occupied the first floor up to a year ago?”
“The offices of the Clark Woodenware company.”

“Where were their offices?”
“Right up front.”

Continue Reading →

Factory Mechanic Tells of Blood on Floor From Man’s Wounded Hand

Posted on by

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 15th, 1913

Charley Lee, a mechanic in the pencil factory, who admitted on cross-examination that he had received a raise in salary within the past two weeks, was called to testify to a number of accidents on the second floor from which blood had been spilled in vicinity of the dressing rooms where blood spots were found after the tragedy.

“Do you remember an accident in the metal room on October 4, 1912?”
“Yes, a man named Duffy was cut on the finger and bled freely.”

“Was his finger cut to the bone?”
“Yes.”

“Did he go to the ladies’ dressing room while his finger was bleeding?”
“Yes.”

Solicitor Dorsey on cross-examination.

Continue Reading →

Women Tell of Seeing Frank On Way to and From Factory On Day That Girl Was Murdered

Posted on by

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 15th, 1913

The first of a chain of witnesses who were produced to prove Frank’s movements during the time he left the pencil factory for dinner was Miss Helen K. Curran, a pretty stenographer, who stated that she met him at Jacobs’ pharmacy on Whitehall street and Alabama.

She was questioned by Mr. Arnold.

“Where were you on April 26?”
“A little after 1 o’clock I was standing at Jacobs’ drug store at Whitehall and Alabama streets. It was about 2:05 o’clock.”

“Did you see Frank?”

“I had been standing for five minutes on the corner when I turned around and saw him standing against the wall.”

“What time was it?”

“About 10 minutes after one.”

Father Works for Montag.

Hooper began cross-examination.

“Your father works for Montag?”
“Yes.”

“There was a big crowd on the streets on the 26th, wasn’t there?”
“Yes.”

Continue Reading →

Cars Often Ahead of Schedule Declares a Street Car Man

Posted on by

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 15th, 1913

Following Denham, J. R. Leach, a division superintendent for the Georgia Railway and Power company, took the stand. He was asked a number of questions by the defense about street car schedules, and on cross-examination proved a good witness for the prosecution by declaring that street cars frequently arrived in town some minutes ahead of their schedule and that the motorman and conductors were often punished for this. W. M. Mathews and W. T. Hollis who swore to bringing Mary Phagan to town on the day of the murder had declared that cars never reached town ahead of their schedules.

“Do you know the schedules of the street cars?” Mr. Arnold asked after the usual questions to show the jury who the witness was.

“Yes.”

“Do you know the schedules of the Georgia avenue and the Washington street lines?”
“Yes.”

Time to Cross Bridge.

He then told that both the lines cross the Broad street bridge and also pass the corner of Whitehall and Alabama streets.

“How long does it take a car to go from Broad and Marietta to Whitehall and Alabama?”
“It takes about three minutes if the streets are congested and about two minutes if there is no congestion.”

“If a man boards either car at Whitehall and Alabama streets, how long does it take to get to Washington street and Georgia avenue?”
“About ten minutes.”

“How long does it take the Washington street car to come from Glenn street to Whitehall and Alabama?”
“I should say ten minutes.”

Continue Reading →

Character of Frank Good, So Many Witnesses Declare

Posted on by

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 15th, 1913

R. A. Sohn, superintendent of the Jewish Orphans home, was called to testify on Frank’s behalf.

The witness said that his residence was at No. 408 Washington street. He said that he has known Frank a good many years and that his character was good.

He was excused without undergoing cross-examination by Solicitor Dorsey.

Alex Dittler, secretary of the Jewish Alliance and an officer of the Federation of Jewish societies, also testified to Frank’s good character.

The witness said that he has been a resident of Atlanta more than thirty-eight years. He was deputy city marshal under Marshal Humphrey and occupied the position of acting recorder of deeds in the clerk’s office of the superior court many years ago.

I have known Frank since he came to Atlanta and know his character to be good.

Arthur Heyman, a member of the law firm of Dorsey, Brewster, Howell & Heyman, took the stand.

“How long have you known Frank?” asked Attorney Arnold.

“About three years.”

Continue Reading →

Miss Eva May Flowers Did Not See Any Blood on Factory Floor

Posted on by

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 15th, 1913

Miss Eula May Flowers, an employee of the National Pencil factory, was put on the stand following the two Cornell professors.

“Were you at the factory on April 26?” asked Mr. Arnold.

“Yes.”

“What department are you in?”
“The packing department.”

“Who got the data and when from you for the financial sheet made up on April 26?”
“Mr. Schiff got it from me about 6 o’clock Friday afternoon.”

“You say you always turned in your report on Friday afternoons?” asked Attorney Hooper, who took up the cross-examination.

“Yes,” the witness replied, “either on Friday afternoons or early Saturday mornings.”

“Were you there Saturday at all?’
“No.”

“What did you say was your particular department?”
“The packing department.”

“Did you see any blood on the floor following the day of the murder?”
“No.”

Miss Flowers was excused.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 15th 1913, “Miss Eva May Flowers Did Not See Any Blood on Factory Floor,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Frank Not Nervous on Night Of Murder Says Mrs. Ursenbach

Posted on by

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 15th, 1913

Mrs. Charles F. Ursenbach followed her husband on the stand. During the cross-examination by Attorney Hooper she was asked scores of detailer questions about the words and manner of Leo Frank on the Sunday that the body was found.

“What is your relation to Mrs. Leo Frank?” asked Mr. Arnold.

“I am her sister.”

“Did you hear about the message from Mr. Frank saying he could not go to the ball game with your husband that Saturday?”
“Yes, I got it from the servant.”

“At what time?”

“At about 12:30.”

“Did you see Frank on Sunday?”

“Yes.”

Continue Reading →

Pittsburg Witness Tells of Frank’s Standing in School

Posted on by

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 15th, 1913

John W. Todd, of Pittsburg, PA., purchasing agent for the Crucible Steel company, who was with Frank at Cornell university, followed Mrs. Emil Selig to the stand.

He was asked if he knew the general character of Frank while at college and replied that he did and that it was good. He was let off with no cross-examination and went over and shook hands with the defendant and his wife and mother. He then passed by the press table and shook hands with a newspaper man who formerly worked in Pittsburg. After staying a while and listening to the testimony of other witnesses and making queries about Jim Conley, Mr. Todd left the court room.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 15th 1913, “Pittsburg Witness Tells of Frank’s Standing in School,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Factory Forewoman Swears Conley Said He Was Drunk on April 26

Posted on by

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 15th, 1913

Miss Rebecca Carson, a forewoman in the pencil factory, who made the startling statement that Jim Conley had admitted to her that he was drunk on the Saturday of the murder was put on the stand.

“Did you see Leo Frank at any time on April 26?”

“Yes, I saw him on Whitehall street near Hunter between 2:20 o’clock and 2:25.”

“Did you speak to him?”
“Yes.”

“Did you come to the factory Monday morning following the murder?”
“Yes.”

“Did you see Frank?”
“Yes.”

“Jim Conley?”
“Yes.”

Continue Reading →

Sister of Mrs. Leo M. Frank Tells Jury About Card Game

Posted on by

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 15th, 1913

Mrs. A. Marcus, a sister of Mrs. Leo Frank, followed Mrs. C. F. Ursenbach, another sister. She was among those who played cards at the Selig home on April 26.

“Did Frank and his wife play cards with the rest?” Mr. Arnold asked.

“No.”

“Where were they?”
“Mr. Frank sat in the hall reading and his wife was in and out of the room.”

“What time did they go to bed?”
“Something after 10 o’clock.”

“Was Frank nervous?”
“No.”

“Anything unusual about him?”
“No.”

“You say Frank sat in the hall reading, did you?” asked Attorney Hooper on cross-examination.

“Yes,” the witness replied.

“He broke up the poker game, didn’t he?”
“No.”

Mrs. Marcus was then excused.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 15th 1913, “Sister of Mrs. Leo M. Frank Tells Jury About Card Game,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Mother-in-Law of Frank Denies Charges in Cook’s Affidavit

Posted on by

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 15th, 1913

Following the testimony of those who claimed to have played poker at the Emil Selig home on the night of April 26, Mrs. Selig, Leo Frank’s mother-in-law was placed on the stand and asked a number of questions about the happenings at her house on Sunday, April 27. To most of the questions from the state on cross-examination she replied that she had forgotten.

When the witness took the stand, Attorney Arnold called on the state for the affidavit which Minola McKnight, the Selig’s cook, signed at police station and later repudiated.

“Mrs. Selig,” said Mr. Arnold, “I wanted to ask you some questions about statements in this affidavit and find out if they are true.

“Is it true that there was talk in your home about the time of the murder? Leo Frank being caught with a girl at the factory and that the negro cook asked if it was a Jew girl or a Gentile and you or Mrs. Frank said it was a Gentile?”

“It is not true, there was no such conversation that I know of.”

Mrs. Selig was almost crying at this juncture of her testimony.

Continue Reading →

Many Men Swear to Good Character of Superintendent of Pencil Factory

Posted on by

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 15th, 1913

Classmates and Instructors at Cornell Come to Atlanta to Testify to His Clean Life While at College and to Show Their Loyalty to Old College Friend.

DORSEY ASKS REMOVAL OF LEO FRANK’S MOTHER AND WIFE FROM COURT

Judge Warns Them That Another Scene Like That of Wednesday, When Mrs. Rae Frank Denounced Solicitor, Will Result in Barring Them—Leach Proves Good Witness for the State Although Called to Testify by Defense

More witnesses were examined Thursday than on any day since the trial of Leo M. Frank began.

However, there was little adduced from the testimony that was of striking interest or that savored of the dramatic.

For the most part the day was taken up with character witnesses—men who have known Frank for years and who have volunteered to swear to his good character.

The only incident of the day that was in any way dramatic came at the morning session, when Solicitor Dorsey asked that Mrs. Rae Frank and Mrs. Leo Frank, mother and wife of the defendant, be removed from the court room. This was the result of the passionate outburst of Mrs. Rae Frank the day previous. Judge Roan gave warning that there must be no more such demonstrations.

Continue Reading →

Bitter Fight at Morning Session Over Testimony of Dr. Wm. Owen

Posted on by

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 14th, 1913

Dr. William Owen, physician and real estate man, followed Dr. W. S. Kendrick on the stand. By him the defense desired to show that to carry out the movements told of by Jim Conley from the time he alleges Leo Frank called upon him to help move the girl’s body until he left the factory would take much longer than Conley declared he took.

After establishing his identity, Mr. Arnold began the examination of Dr. Owen, which resulted in the argument.

“Dr. Owen, at our request you went to the factory of the National Pencil Company with others and you timed their movements as they enacted the movements as told by Conley, didn’t you?”
“Yes.”

“I object to this, your honor,” interrupted Solicitor Dorsey, “the jury [1 word illegible] how long it took by the evidence introduced and not by this man’s opinion.”

“Mr. Dorsey has not heard the facts which we desire to introduce and when he does he will see that we are not trying to introduce any man’s opinion but the actual results of his timing the moments made by men who took the parts of Mr. Frank and Conley, as Conley described in his testimony before the court,” said Mr. Arnold.

Continue Reading →

Mrs. Rae Frank, Mother of Prisoner, Denounces Solicitor Hugh Dorsey

Posted on by

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 14th, 1913

Mrs. Rae Frank, the mother of the prisoner, startled the courtroom shortly before 4 o’clock, when she denounced Solicitor Dorsey, when he made an attack on the character of her son.

J. Ashley Jones, a local insurance agent, was in the witness chair testifying to the moral character of the accused when the incident occurred. He was asked by Solicitor Dorsey if he had over heard of Frank taking little girls out to Druid Hills, sitting them on his lap and fondling them.

Mrs. Frank glanced furiously at the prosecutor, and rising from her chair, she shrieked.

“No, nor you either—you dog!”

Mrs. Frank Leaves Courtroom.

Deputies rushed over to where Mrs. Frank stood staring at the solicitor Herbert Haas, a relative, passed in between Attorney Rosser and the stenographer and escorted Mrs. Frank from the courtroom to a cab in which she was driven home.

Continue Reading →

More Witnesses Are Called to Blacken Dalton’s Character

Posted on by

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 14th, 1913

Following the putting off of the decision in regard to Dr. William Owen’s testimony, seven Gwinett county citizens were introduced to add to the thick coat of lampblack already smeared over the character of C. Burgess Dalton, the man who accuses Frank of immoral conduct in the office of the National Pencil factory.

All of the men swore that they would not believe the man on oath and only one or two of them were cross-examined by the state.

The men introduced were O. A. Nix, attorney and former member of the legislature; Samuel Craig; Robert Patterson; Robert Craig; Ed Craig; T. L. Ambrose and J. P. Byrd, well-to-do land owners.

By Samuel Craig the solicitor tried to bring out that as far as he knew Dalton’s character had been good since he last knew him, some 12 or 16 years ago, but Mr. Arnold came back at that by a final question.

“Mr. Craig,” said Mr. Arnold, “if Dalton states that he has been in the habit of taking women to a factory basement, would you consider his character good, if he were telling the truth or if he were lying?”
“I would consider it bad in either case,” the witness replied.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 14th 1913, “More Witnesses are Called to Blacken Dalton’s Character,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Lemmie Quinn is Severely Grilled by Solicitor Dorsey

Posted on by

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 14th, 1913

Bending his efforts to break down the testimony of Lemmie Quinn, foreman of the metal room, Solicitor Dorsey subjected the witness to a severe grilling when court reconvened at 2 o’clock yesterday afternoon.

When Quinn resumed the stand he was still under direct examination by the defense. In answer to Attorney Arnold he declared that he was still an employee of the National Pencil factory.

Solicitor Dorsey began cross-examination.

“When was it these men bled on the floor of the metal room?”

“About a year ago,” Quinn replied.

“What were their names?”

“I remember that C. P. Gilbert, who lives on Jones street, was one. I don’t remember the name of the other.”

“You noticed the spots on the floor of the dressing room on Monday after the murder?”
“Yes, it looked like blood.”

“What is the difference between those spots and the spots made by Gilbert’s bleeding?”
“The spots by the dressing room were darker.”

“Could gasoline have caused that.”

“I don’t know.”

“Where were you at noon on April 26?”
“At the factory.”

Continue Reading →

Financial Sheets Introduced At Frank Trial in Afternoon

Posted on by

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 14th, 1913

The financial sheets which experts declared required from three to three and a half hours to compile were introduced in evidence after Oscar Pappenheimer, a stockholder in the National Pencil factory was examined.

Mr. Pappenheimer testified that he had been a stockholder in the company since 1910.

“Have you been getting comparative sheets from Frank since 1910?” Attorney Arnold asked.

“Yes, sir.”

“Where have you been in the habit of receiving them?”
“Before deliveries of mail stopped on Sunday I invariably found the report in my mail box on Sunday morning. After that I received it every Monday with the first mail.”

“Did you get a sheet for the week ending April 24 the following Monday morning?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Have you received any reports since April 24?”

“No, sir.”

The defense offered the sheets from January 1912 to April 1912 inclusive and they were admitted over the objection of Solicitor Dorsey.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 14th 1913, “Financial Sheets Introduced at Frank Trial in Afternoon,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Former Office Boy Saw No Women With Frank on Thanksgiving Day

Posted on by

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 14th, 1913

Frank Paine, formerly an office boy for the National Pencil company and who claims to have been working there on Thanksgiving day of last year, was placed on the stand following the introduction of the three character witnesses.

The lad stated that he and Herbert G. Schiff were at the factory on the morning of Thanksgiving day, and that Schiff sent him to the top floor to help Jim Conley straighten out some boxes, which were cluttered around there. He declared that Conley left about 10:20 and then he left at 11 o’clock or thereabouts.

That he did not see Conley in the hallway when he left was another statement made by the lad who further declared that he had never known Frank to have women in his office or to have liquor there.

“Did you spend your time in the office?” Attorney Frank Hooper asked on cross-examination.

“Yes.”

“Was Schiff in the office all the time?”
“Did you ever see any beer bottles in there?”
“No.”

“Was Frank in there on Thanksgiving day?”
“Yes.”

“Did you see Jim Conley there?”

“Yes.”

“When did you first notice Jim?”
“When he was sweeping.”
“When you left at 11 o’clock, you didn’t come back, did you?”
“No.”

“You don’t know whether Jim was in the basement?”
“No.”

The lad was then excused.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 14th 1913, “Former Office Boy Saw No Women With Frank on Thanksgiving Day,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Quinn Intimates That Spots May Have Been on Floor for Months

Posted on by

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 14th, 1913

Lemmie Quinn, foreman of the metal department of the National Pencil factory, was put on the stand by the defense following the ex-office boy.

“Aren’t you foreman of the department Mary Phagan worked in?”
“Yes.”

“Do you recall the time R. P. Barrett found the spots on the floor?”
“Yes.”

“Did Barrett ever state to you about his hope of getting a reward?”
“Yes, he asked my opinion.”

“What statement has he made about getting a reward if Frank should be convicted?”

“He asked me if I didn’t think he was entitled to something.”

“Did anybody ever see that blood or the strands of hair before he pointed them out, did they?”
“Not that I know.”

“Did you ever notice any spots on the floor?”
“Yes, quite often.”

Continue Reading →