Tag Archives: Atlanta Journal

Facts Do Not Indicate Indictment of Conley

Posted on by

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

The Atlanta Journal

Tuesday, July 1, 1913

Rumor About Negro in Phagan Case Not Confirmed—Grand Jury Is Through

The publication to the effect that the negro sweeper, Jim Conley, probably would be indicted by the Fulton county grand jury for the murder of Mary Phagan, is apparently without any justification.

The grand jury, according to its foreman, Lewis H. Beck, will make its presentments to the court Wednesday morning and in all probability will be discharged then.

It is not likely, therefore, that the jury will consider any further bills. Mr. Beck declined to comment on the publication and referred the reporter to the solicitor.

As Solicitor Dorsey is known to be opposed to an indictment of Conley at this time, there seems to be no basis for the report that the case will be taken up.

Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey vigorously asserted Tuesday afternoon that no attempt had been made by the grand jury toin dict [sic] the negro Conely [sic] for the murder of Mary Phagan nor had any suggestion been made by the jurymen in this direction.

He said positively that he had heard of no intention on the part of jurors to go over his head in the Conley matter.

* * *

The Atlanta Journal, July 1st 1913, “Facts Do Not Indicate Indictment of Conley,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

“No” Bill Is Returned Against A. S. Colyar

Posted on by

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

The Atlanta Georgian

Tuesday, July 1, 1913

Grand Jury Declines to Indict Colyar for Reply to Attack of Colonel Felder

[…]charging A. S. Colyar, of Nashville, with libel, the Fulton county grand jury at its session on Tuesda ymorning [sic] refused to indict the Tennessean, returning a “no bill” in the case. Mr. Colyar has been in the limelight recently as a principal in the sensational dictograph episode, and has been engaged in a heated controversy with Colonel Thomas B. Felder.

The Tennessean was charged specifically with libelling Mr. Felder in a card published over his signature in The Journal of June 8, in which he excoriated the Atlanta lawyer.

The grand jury had the bill drawn of its own initiative, it is said, and considered it Tuesday morning. The only witness called before the grand jury was John Paschall, city editor of The Atlanta Journal.

In answer to questions of the grand jurors, Mr. Paschall stated that the card was furnished for publication by Mr. Colyar. Colyar has been given an opportunity to reply to an attack on his character, which Mr. Felder had embodied in a card, addressed to the editor of The Journal and which was published on the same day, the newspaper man told the jury in answer to further questions.

Attached to the bill, which was drawn against Mr. Colyar, was a copy of his card.

The grand jury was in session more than an hour considering the bill, before its decision not to return an indictment was reached.

* * *

The Atlanta Georgian, July 1st 1913, “”No” Bill Is Returned Against A. S. Colyar,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Hooper and Goldstein Join Little & Powell

Posted on by

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

The Atlanta Journal

Saturday, June 28, 1913

Former Solicitor of Southwestern Circuit and Popular Atlantlan [sic] Join Firm

Frank A. Hooper, who is to assist the solicitor general in the prosecution in the Phagan case, and M.F. Goldstein, a well known young attorney, will join the law firm of Little & Powell on July 1.

The senior members of the firm are John D. Little and Judge Arthur Powell. After July 1 the firm will be styled Little, Powell, Hooper & Goldstein.

Mr. Hooper served in the southwestern circuit for twelve years as solicitor general, but removed from Americus to Atlanta a few years ago to become general counsel for the Empire Life Insurance company.

In connection with the formation of the new firm, Mr. Hooper states that his new association will in no way affect his connection with the Phagan case, and he will continue to personally assist the solicitor general in the prosecution, while his firm will have no connection with the case.

Mr. Goldstein, the junior member of the new firm, is a graduate of the University of Georgia and of Yale. In four years’ practice here he has established an enviable record at the local bar.

* * *

The Atlanta Journal, June 28th 1913, “Hooper and Goldstein Join Little & Powell,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Hooper Sees Conley for the First Time

Posted on by

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

The Atlanta Journal

Friday, June 27, 1913

Attorney Who Will Aid Solicitor Hears Negro Sweeper Recite His Story

Frank A. Hooper, the attorney who will assist Solicitor Hugh M. Dorsey in the prosecution of the case against Leo M. Frank, indicted for the murder of little Mary Phagan, interviewed James Conley, the negro sweeper, for the first time on Friday morning.

The attorney talked with the negro in the office of the police board for nearly an hour. Detective Starnes, who has been working under the direction of the solicitor, was the only officer with him.

Mr. Hooper simply made the trip to hear from Conley’s own lips his story of the crime, and the interview is said not to have been occasioned by any new developments in the case.

Mr. Hooper said that he had the negro tell him the “whole story.”

“The negro talks in a clear, straight-forward manner,” the attorney declared, “and his statement had the earmarks of the truth on it.” Mr. Hooper characterized the negro as a “good witness.”

While Solicitor Dorsey has interviewed Conley a number of times, he has never made any statement relative to the value of the negro’s story in a court room nor has he said anything relative to the manner in which the negro tells his story. Continue Reading →

Col. Felder and Chief Lanford Indicted

Posted on by

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

The Atlanta Journal

Friday, June 27, 1913

GRAND JURY RETURNS BILLS AGAINST EACH; THE CHARGE IS LIBEL

Cards Written by Chief of Detectives and Attorney and Published in the Atlanta Newspapers Form the Basis

TWO BILLS FOUND AGAINST FELDER, ONE ON LANFORD

Both Men Who Have Criticised Each Through Atlanta Press Must Face Jury on Criminal Libel Charge

The Fulton county grand jury on Friday returned two true bills against Colonel Thomas B. Felder, lawyer, and one bill against Chief Newport A. Lanford, of the city detective department, all bills charging libel.

The action of the grand jury insures the airing of Colonel Felder’s charges against Chief Lanford and of Chief Lanford’s charges against Colonel Felder in open court, and in effect it puts it up to each man to prove his charges against the other or to stand convicted of criminal libel.

The two famous cards of Colonel Felder, printed in the Atlanta newspapers of May 26 and June 8, in which the attorney flayed the detective, form the basis for the indictments against the lawyer.

The bills charge that each man “unlawfully, wantonly, maliciously and with malice aforethought caused to be published the articles in question, with the intent to falsely villify and blacken the character of the other and to prejudice before the public the honesty, the integrity, the virtue and the reputation of the other.”

The indictments charge that the statements made by each man against the other were disgraceful, false and malicious.

The grand jury consider the three bills for less than an hour, and returned the true bills on the testimony of three newspaper men who testified simply that the articles in question were signed and given out for publication by the two men against whom the indictments were returned. The three witnesses were M. D. Colfine, Sidney Ormond and W. P. Flythe.

WHAT FELDER SAID.

In his open letter to Chief Lanford, bearing date of June 7 and published in the Sunday morning papers of June 8. Colonel Felder begins by saying: “I shall now proceed to redeem the pledge heretofore made to lay bear through the columns of the papers your infamous career in the maladministration of the affairs of the official position which you disgrace and dishonor.” Continue Reading →

Seeking For a Phagan Suspect in Macon?

Posted on by

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

The Atlanta Journal

Friday, June 27, 1913

(Special Dispatch to The Journal.)

MACON, Ga., June 27.—Two members of the Atlanta detective department left Macon last night after searching all the week her for a negro who is thought to be connected with the Phaga [sic] murder in Atlanta last April. A white woman was arrested here and put through an examination, but she could give no evidence against parties now under arrest for the crime.

When acquainted with the contents of the above dispatch Detective Chief N. A. Lanford stated that none of his men had been to Macon and that he had no knowledge whatever of any investigation being made there relative to the Phagan murder.

* * *

The Atlanta Journal, June 27th 1913, “Seeking For a Phagan Suspect in Macon?,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Call of Cool Sea Breezes and Promise of Judge to His Wife, Secrets of Frank Trial Delay

Posted on by

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

The Atlanta Journal

Thursday, June 26, 1913

There Are Many Little Reasons, of Course, but the Biggest of These Is the Simplest—Judge Roan Just Had to Keep Promise to His Charming Wife—And Nobody’s Kicking, Either

The trial of Leo M. Frank, which is expected to be the most brilliant legal battle in the history of the state, has been postponed for a month.

There are many little reasons why the trial could not come up on June 30.

And, then, there is one great big reason.

The biggest reason, when analyzed, is also the simplest, as are most big things.

The big reason is the simple fact that Mrs. Judge L. S. Roan wants to go to the seashore early in July.

Of course Mrs. Roan might go to the seashore by herself with any of her many friends, but she wants her husband to make the trip with her, and long before the Phagan case developed Mrs. Roan had secured Judge Roan’s promise to take the trip with her.

When the judge called Solicitor Hugh Dorsey, Luther Z. Rosser and Reuben R. Arnold before him Tuesday afternoon and told them that it would be best to agree upon a definite date for the trial of Mr. Frank, they looked a little puzzled for the moment.

Solicitor Dorsey appeared not to want a postponement, and flatly said so. In fact, he argued every time he got a chance, trying to get an early date, and finally asked the court if he wouldn’t set the case for the week of July 7.

EVERYBODY WAS PLEASED.

Then the court explained, and after he had explained a quick smile of complete understanding passed over the court room. Mr. Rosser smiled first, then Mr. Arnold, and finally Solicitor Dorsey.

Said the court with the usual dignity:

“Well, gentlemen, another reason is that some months ago I promised my wife that I would take her to the seashore on the week of July 4 and spend some days there with her.

“Of course, if there is any good reason why this trial should be taken up early in the month, if it will be impossible for you to reach it later, I can send Mrs. Roan with friends and remain here.”

The judge’s statement was made in the nature of a question, but it brought forth no answer. Continue Reading →

To Hold Frank Trial in the Old City Hall

Posted on by

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

The Atlanta Journal

Thursday, June 26, 1913

Case Will Be Heard in Courtroom Now Used by Judge Pendleton

The trial of Leo M. Frank on July 28 will be held on the first floor in the old city hall building, at the corner of South Pryor and East Hunter streets. Solicitor Dorsey, Judge L. S. Roan and court attaches formally decided upon this room as the proper place to conduct the trial.

The court room designated is at present occupied by Judge John T. Pendleton, of the motion division of superior court. Judge Pendleton will adjurn [sic] his court for the summer on July 12, and the place will be unoccupied when the Frank trial is called.

This court room is the one which was occupied by Superior Court Judge Thomas when he was here conducting criminal court for several weeks last fall.

* * *

The Atlanta Journal, June 26th 1913, “To Hold Frank Trial in the Old City Hall,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Both Sides Are Ready for Trial of Frank

Posted on by

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

The Atlanta Journal

Wednesday, June 25, 1913

Few Developments Expected Between Now and July 28, Conley Is Grilled

The statements made by Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey and by Reuben R. Arnold and Luther Z. Rosser, the counsel for the defense before the postponement of the trial of Leo M. Frank from June 30, the date set by the solicitor, to July 28, indicate very strongly that neither side expects further developments of importance in the investigation.

Mr. Dorsey told the court that his case was complete and that he was ready for trial. All of the statements by Attorneys Arnold and Rosser indicate that they also have completed the preparation of the defense and are ready for the court fight.

One of the most interesting of the statements made by counsel was that of Mr. Arnold, who said that it would take two weeks to try the case, showing that the defense will have many witnesses, and will come to court prepared to fight every inch in the case.

The action of the defense in demanding through subpoenas duces tecum practically all of the affidavits of importance which have been made the detectives during the Phagan investigation seems to bear out the theory published in The Journal that the defense will consist of the corroboration of Frank’s story as told at the inquest by a number of witnesses, and of an effort to establish, largely by the detectives themselves, the thory [sic] that the negro James Conley is guilty of the crime with which Frank is charged.

It is certain that Conley’s story will be attacked through his many varying affidavits, and much evidence to assist Frank will be brought out through the city detectives, who charge him with the crime.

The substance of all of the affidavits demanded by the defense is known. Conley’s varying affidavits have long formed one of the sensations of the case. Miss Grace Hix, it will be remembered, identified Mary Phagan’s body, while Miss Monteen Stover declares that she came to the pencial [sic] factory of the date of the tragedy at 12:05 o’clock and found no one in the office, not even Frank, who had testified that he was there at that hour. Continue Reading →

July 28 Is Date Agreed Upon for Trial of Frank

Posted on by

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

The Atlanta Journal

Tuesday, June 24, 1913

Judge Names Date After Statement From Reuben R. Arnold, In Which He Said Trial Would Last Two Weeks

DEFENSE TAKES STEPS TO GET STATE’S EVIDENCE

Subpenas Duces Tecum Issued, Demanding Production of Affidavits and Popers [sic] in Possession of Solicitor

Leo M. Frank, accused of the slaying of Mary Phagan, will not be tried before superior court Judge L. S. Roan next Monday. The judge in a conference with attorneys at 2 o’clock Tuesday afternoon formally set the trial for Monday, July 28, and no attempt to reopen the questions of arraignment will be made. Both the prosecution and the defense agreed to this date.

Any attempt made to put Frank on trial on next Monday was silenced when Reuben R. Arnold, speaking for the defense, said flatly that the trial would take at least two weeks. The assurance that the trial would last some time and the fact that it likely would be held in the stuffy little court room in the Thrower building, if scheduled Monday, practically caused the postponement.

Solicitor Dorsey, for the state, and Luther Z. Rosser and Reuben R. Arnold, for the prosecution, were summoned to the court house by Judge Roan at 3 o’clock and a discussion of the matter was opened.

SOLICITOR ANNOUNCED READY.

Solicitor Dorsey announced that he was ready and made the declaration that his witnesses would not take more than two days at the outside. He said if the defense had any he didn’t think they would take any longer.

This remark brought a grunt from Luther Z. Rosser and the Arnold statement that the trial would take two weeks.

“We have the witnesses,” both of the lawyers for the defense asserted.

Both Attorneys Rosser and Arnold told the court that in the event of a postponement of the case for Monday that they desired it to go over until after the week of July 14, when both would be engaged in the trial of Mattie Flanders in Swainsboro. Mr. Rosser represents the defense of Mrs. Flanders and Mr. Arnold the prosecution.

This came when Solicitor Dorsey suggested that the case be tried on July 7.

Judge Roan, in fixing July 28 as a date suitable to all concerned, said that there would be no break in the week, as there would with July 4, that a good court room for the trial could be obtained about July 13, that the jail could be cleared of routine cases by that time and previously made engamenest [sic] would not be interrupted.

All lawyers concerned were in court and the judge asserted that lack of preparation could not be offered as an excuse when the case was called on July 28.

The attorneys for Leo M. Frank Tuesday afternoon secured subpoenas duces tecum to be served on Chief James L. Beavers, Chief N. A. Lanford, Solicitor Hugh M. Dorsey, Assistant Solicitor E. A. Stevens, Hary [sic] Scott, of the Pinkertons; City Detectives John Black, Pat Campbell and J. N. tSarnes [sic], and Secretary of Chief Lanford, G. C. Febuary, calling upon them to produce in court Monday June 30, or any other day that the Frank case might be on trial, all affidavits or statements secured from Jim Conley, the negro sweeper; Monteen Stover and Grace Hix. Continue Reading →

Solicitor Will Fix Frank Trial for June 30, He Says

Posted on by

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

The Atlanta Journal

Monday, June 23, 1913

Unless “Showing” Is Made in Open Court Why the Case Should Be Deferred, Trial Will Proceed

MONTEEN STOVER AGAIN FIGURES IN THE CASE

Detectives Question Her With View to Attacking Theory That Girl Was Slain on the First Floor

Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey, it was definitely learned Monday, will set the case of the State against Leo M. Frank, charged with the murder of Mary Phagan, for June 30, and the solicitor will insist that a legal “showing” be made by the defense before a postponement is allowed.

During the day Monday or early on Tuesday morning the court calendar for the week of June 30 will be made up and then a small army of bailiffs and deputies will commence to summon talesmen. Owing to the unusual interest in the case it is probable that more than 150 talesmen will be summoned to the court in order that twelve jurors to try Frank may be picked from them.

COURT WON’T INTERFERE.

It is understood that the court of its own volition will not interfere in the matter, and if a postponement of the case is secured it will be on a “legal showing” made in open court next Monday by the attorneys, who represent the accused man.

The illness of one of counsel or the absence from the city of a material witness or the engagement of counsel in another court, or any one of several other perfectly good excuses constitute legal grounds for the postponement of case, so the uncompromising attitude of the state by no means makes the trial of the case on June 30 a certanity [sic].

Luther Z. Rosser and Reuben R. Arnold, the able attorneys, who represent Frank, will give no intimation of their attitude towards entering into the case next Monday.

The published rumor that John W. Moore, another noted Atlanta lawyer, would assist Attorneys Arnold and Rosser and Herbert Haas in the case is without foundation, according to Mr. Moore and the other attorneys connected with the case.

WITNESS QUESTIONED.

What is believed by the prosecution of Leo M. Frank to be a refutation of the defense’s theory that Mary Phagan was slain at the foot of the stairs on the first floor of the pencil factory, occurred at police headquarters Sunday afternoon, when Jim Conley, the negro, identified Monteen Stover, aged 14, 17 South Forsyth street, as the girl in the raincoat and “easy walkers” who went to the office on the second floor at 12:05 o’clock and came down the stairs five or ten minutes later and left the building.

The little Stover girl was taken before Conley in the detectives’ room Sunday and positively identified by the negro, according to the detectives who were present, Chief Lanford and Detectives Campbell and Starnes.

Conley declared that she was the girl he watched while he was hid at the foot of the tsairs [sic]. The Stover girl entered the building, went up the stairs to the office, stayed there some five or ten minutes, and then came down and went out.

J. C. Hines, who went to headquarters with Walter Sudderth and Mr. Edmundson, pointed out Monteen Stover as the girl whom he saw enter the building. Continue Reading →

Rosser & Brandon Join With Slaton & Phillips

Posted on by

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

The Atlanta Journal

Sunday, June 22, 1913

Two Big Atlanta Law Firms Go Into Partnership Beginning July 1

The law firm of Rosser & Brandon and Slaton & Phillips have formed a partnership beginning July 1, and will be known by the firm name of Rosser, Brandon, Slaton & Phillips, with offices on the seventh floor of the Grant building, the Slaton & Phillips suite being enlarged to accommodate the new firm.

There will be in the new firm the following: Luther Z. Rosser, Morris Brandon, John M. Slaton, Ben Z. Phillips, J. H. Porter, Stiles Hopkins, Luther Z. Rosser, Jr., Verlyn B. Moore and James J. Regan.

During his term of office as governor of Georgia, Mr. Slaton will have no working connection with the firm and will not participate in the firm’s earnings.

Mr. Slaton has been in the practice of law for twenty-six years, and for nineteen years he and Mr. Phillips have been law partners. During that time with his partner he has built up a clientele which he desires preserved, and it goes without saying that the new firm will be more than able to accomplish this purpose.

The consolidation of the two firms has been contemplated two or three months, and has been more or less generally known among Atlanta lawyers for several days. Announcement of the consolidation was reserved until today by the Journal at the request of both firms.

The new firm will be one of the largest and strongest in the state. Messrs. Rosser, Brandon, Slaton, and Phillips stand at the very top in the Atlanta bar, while the younger men of the firm are all of proven ability.

The firm’s suite is on the Forsyth street side of the Grant building and takes up nearly half of the seventh floor. The library made by the consolidation of the firm’s collections will consist of several thousand volumes and will probably be the largest in the city.

* * *

The Atlanta Journal, June 22, 1913, “Rosser & Brandon Join With Slaton & Phillips,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Arnold Declares Frank Innocent and Enters Case

Posted on by
He Will Aid Frank Defense

REUBEN R. ARNOLD,
Able attorney, who declares he would not have entered case were he not firmly convinced of Leo M. Frank’s innocence.

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

The Atlanta Journal

Sunday, June 22, 1913

Famous Lawyer Says He Wouldn’t Defend Man Accused of Such Crime Unless Sure of His Innocence

SCORES CITY DETECTIVES FOR HOLDING TO THEORY

Mr. Arnold Says Detectives Have Tried to Prejudice the Case by Unfair Means—Has Studied Evidence

Reuben R. Arnold, famous Georgia lawyer, has officially entered the Phagan case in the defense of Leo M. Frank, as exclusively forecasted by The Journal last Thursday.

Mr. Arnold comes into the case with a ringing statement declaring his firm belief in the innocence of his client, and asserting that he would never defend a person charged with such an atrocious crime if he were not fully convinced of his innocence. Mr. Arnold says that he has reached the conclusion that there is no room to believe Frank guilty, after carefully studying the evidence in the case.

Mr. Arnold declares that it is surprising that the detectives should continue to put the crime on Frank with the incriminating statements of Conley before them. He scores the detectives because of the publication of the Formby affidavit, declaring that by this and other means they have done Frank a great injustice.

With Mr. Arnold and Luther Z. Rosser working in his behalf a great legal battle is made a certainty when Frank faces a jury in the criminal division of the superior court. Solicitor Hugh M. Dorsey and Frank A. Hooper, who is associated with him, will have charge of the state’s case. Lawyers and court attaches predict the most brilliant legal battle ever known in a criminal case in this state.

The date of the trial is still a matter of interesting conjectures, although it may be settled Monday after the return of Solicitor Dorsey to the city.

Mr. Dorsey still expects to set the trial of the case on the court calendar for June 30, but any number of things may interfere. An attorney associated with the defense stated Saturday afternoon that he knew of no reason why there should be a postponement, but would make no more definite statement.

While they know nothing definite it is the opinion of court attaches that the trial of the case will not be reached before July 14 or July 28, and their guess is generally expected to prove correct.

In a statement which he gave the public Mr. Arnold, who has been long regarded as one of the ablest criminal lawyers in the south, intimated that he is thoroughly familiar with all phases of the case, and as a result it is not considered probable that a postponement will be asked on his account.

“It is true that I have accepted employment to assist in the defense of Mr. Leo M. Frank, but I wish to state that before I agreed to take the case, I made it a condition that I should have time to study critically all the evidence delivered at the coroner’s inquest and all the affidavits that have reached the public through the newspapers, so I could form an opinion for myself as to Frank’s innocence or guilt. I would not defend any man if guilty of such a murder as the one in this case.

“After studying the evidence as critically as I can, I am satisfied that I hazard not a thing in saying that there is no room to believe Mr. Frank guilty of this horrible murder. I do not believe that any white man committed the crime.

“Indeed, it is surprising to me that the detectives should continue to try to put this crime on Frank with the positively incriminating affidavits of Conley before them. People of common sense, unless under great excitement, ought not to give a moment’s credence to either the Formby or Conley statements in so far as they attempt to incriminate Mr. Frank.

“I see the detectives are gradually giving it out that Mrs. Formby will not be called as a witness, although her affidavit has been paraded before the public before the unqualified endorsement of the detective department as being perfectly reliable and true. Worse than this, as intimation was published in the newspapers that Frank’s friends had persuaded her to leave town. In this and in many other ways our client has been done a very great injustice. The effort seems to have been not to find the criminal but to try by all means to put the crime on Frank.

“However, I think we will be able to clarify the situation in due time.”

* * *

The Atlanta Journal, June 22nd 1913, “Arnold Declares Frank Innocent and Enters Case,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Date of Frank Trial Still In Much Doubt

Posted on by

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

The Atlanta Journal

Saturday, June 21, 1913

Belief Grows That Case Will Not Come Up Before July 14 or 28

Interest in the Phagan case still centers on the time of the trial of Leo M. Frank. Indications still are that the case will not be tried the week of June 30.

Solicitor Dorsey has never finally committed himself on the matter but Colonel Frank A. Hooper, who is associated [with] him, still expects the case to be set for that date.

Mr. Hooper expects the trial to last a week. The jail will not have been cleared by June 30, according to court attaches, and it is the general policy of the court to clear the jail of as many cases as possible before entering into a lengthy trial. In addition the Fourth of July, a holiday, comes in the week of June 30 and this might mean that the jury would be locked up during a day that the court was not in session. Still further there is the possibility that the defense will ask for a postponement.

Judge L. S. Roan will not have to hold court in the Stone Mountain circuit on either the week of July 14, or the week of July 28, and as a result it is now considered extremely probable that Frank will face a jury on one of those dates.

Apparently the Phagan case is at a standstill. Saturday both Luther Z. Rosser and Reuben R. Arnold, who will be associated with the defense in all probability, were out of the city, on business said not to be connected with the case.

Mr. Hooper, who is in charge of the state’s case during the absence in New York of Solicitor Dorsey, states that there have been no developments of importance, and that the state is ready for the trial, whenever Mr. Dorsey returns and sets it on the court calendar.

Mr. Hooper was not interested in the return of Mrs. Mima [sic] Formby, maker of a sensational affidavit, to the city. The state made no effort to find her when she left the city, and apparently there is no chance of her being used as a witness unless the defense puts Frank’s character in issue.

During the absence of Solicitor Dorsey, Detectives Starnes and Campbell have been working under his instructions, smoothing over rough places in the state’s case, but nothing of importance has been developed.

* * *

The Atlanta Journal, June 21st 1913, “Date of Frank Trial Still In Much Doubt,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Frank Case May Not Be Tried June 30

Posted on by

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

The Atlanta Journal

Friday, June 20, 1913

Dorsey Expects to Be Ready, He Says, but Postponement Seems Probable

That Leo M. Frank will go on trial for the murder of Mary Phagan on June 30th is not a certainty, although it is generally conceded that Solicitor Hugh M. Dorsey will set the case on the court’s calendar for that date when he returns to the city from New York.

Solicitor Dorsey will return to Atlanta on Sunday. In reply to a telegram from The Journal relative to the time of the trial he makes the following statement: “Cannot say definitely that state will be ready on June 30, but expect now to be.”

As to whether or not the trial actually will be commenced on that date depends largely upon the defense, although there is a bare possibility that the court may wish to hold up the trial of the long case until after the jail is cleared. It is the general policy of the criminal division of the superior court to clear the jail for the summer at this time of the year, and it is known that thirty or forty routine cases could be disposed of in the time that it will take to hear the Frank case. The court will grind on routine business for the week of June 23rd, but in that time, it is said, it will be imposible [sic] to clear the jail.

However, it will remain largely with the defense as to whether or not the case comes to trial.

ROSSER LEAVES CITY.

Luther Z. Rosser, counsel for Frank, is expected to leave the city on Friday on business which is said to have no connection with the Frank case. He refuses to discuss the defense’s attitude toward an early trial.

Reuben R. Arnold, who probably will be associated with Mr. Rosser in the defense, is spending the week end at Atlantic Beach.

Mr. Arnold has been busy on a number of court cases, and while he is said to be quite familiar with the evidence in the Frank case, if he does become associated with the defense, it is probable that he will want additional time to study the case before he enters into the trial of such an important matter.

Mary Phagan was killed on April 26th, little more than two months from the date the case will probably be set on the court’s calendar.

It is not often that a person is brought to trial for a criminal offense in Fulton county two months after the commission of the crime with which he is charged.

Another element which, while it may not figure in the court record, is an important factor behind the scenes, is the intense heat at this time of the year. Continue Reading →

Hooper Returns and Takes Up Phagan Case

Posted on by

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

The Atlanta Journal

Thursday, June 19, 1913

Declares Trip to Cincinnati Had Nothing to oD [sic] With Murder Mystery

Frank A. Hooper, the experienced prosecutor, who has been engaged to assist Solicitor Hugh M. Dorsey in the trial of the case against Leo M. Frank, returned Thursday from a three days’ trip to Cincinnati, and set at rest the rumors that he went to the Ohio city on a matter connected with the investigation of the Phagan murder mystery.

Mr. Hooper declared that his private business called him to Cincinnati, and that his trip was in no way connected with the Phagan case.

While away Mr. Hooper states that he did not see Solicitor Dorsey nor did he see Attorney Thomas B. Felder, who went to the same city on a matter, which he said before leaving, was not connected with the Phagan case nor with the famous dictograph episode.

Mr. Hooper declares that so far as he knows there are no new developments in the Phagan mystery.

“The state’s case is regarded as complete,” Mr. Hooper said, “and we are simply waiting for the hour of the trial to come.”

Mr. Hooper would not discuss the testimony of Mrs. Mima [sic] Formby, who returned to the city Tuesday after an absence of several weeks.

Mrs. Formsby [sic] made an affidavit for the detectives in which she alleged that Leo M. Frank phoned her residence at 400 Piedmont avenue, a number of times between the hours of 6:30 p. m. and 10 p. m. on the evening of the tragedy, and each time begged her to let him bring a girl to her house.

WON’T BE CALLED.

It is considered improbable, however, that Mrs. Formsby will be called as a state’s witness when the case against Frank is tried, for it has been known from the first that her story did not fit in with the theory of the state as to Frank’s actions on the night of the tragedy.

The fact that Mrs. Formsby had returned to the city first became known to the detective department, when she phoned headquarters that practically all of the furniture left in her apartment had mysteriously disappeared. Continue Reading →

Will Reuben R. Arnold Aid Frank’s Defense?

Posted on by

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

The Atlanta Journal

Wednesday, June 18, 1913

Mr. Arnold and Luther Z. Rosser Both Decline to Discuss Report Circulated

The rumor that Reuben R. Arnold, famous Georgia lawyer, will be associated with the defense of Leo M. Frank, indicted for the Mary Phagan murder, is persistent.

Luther Z. Rosser, who has been retained in the case since Frank was first arrested, refused to deny or affirm the rumor. It is intimated, however, that negotiations are not complete as yet.

Mr. Arnold himself, when questioned about the rumor, refused to discuss it in any way, and his silence has added weight to the report that he will be in the case.

With Luther Rosser and Reuben Arnold leading the defense of Frank one of the greatest legal battles in a criminal case in the history of the south is promised. Mr. Arnold and Mr. Rosser have been pitted against each other in the famous McNaughton-Flanders case and in other well known trials, and each time they met there was a legal battle royal. With the two famous lawyers together, a hard and brilliant fight is certain to be given Hugh M. Dorsey, and Frank A. Hooper, the experienced prosecutor who has been engaged to assist the state in the case.

Despite the entry of Mr. Arnold there is said to be little chance that Solicitor Dorsey will have assistance other than that of Mr. Hooper.

DATE OF TRIAL.

Mr. Arnold during the past several weeks has been engaged in the trial before an auditor of the famous Crawford will case. He is said to have closely followed the many developments in the Phagan murder investigation, however, and if he enters the trial, it will not mean necessarily that a postmentment [sic] will be asked by the defense, although it will make a postponement of the trial more probable.

The calendar for the criminal division of the superior court for the week commencing June 23 has been made up and published by E. A. Stephens, the assistant solicitor general.

The calendar for the week commencing June 30 will not be made up until the return next Sunday of Solicitor General Dorsey from Atlantic City, according to Mr. Stephens, who states that as yet he is not certain that the[…]

(Continued on Page Six, Col. 5.)

WILL REUBEN R. ARNOLD AID FRANK’S DEFENSE?

(Continued From Page 1.)

[…]superior court will be in session on that date.

It is said that there is sufficient business of a routine nature pending before the court to occupy it not only during the week of June 23, but through the week of June 30 as well. It is known, however, although there has been no definite announcement, that it is the intention of Solicitor General Dorsey to bring the case against Leo M. Frank to trial on June 30, if possible. Attorney Frank A. Hooper, who will assist Mr. Dorsey in the case, has declared that the state is ready to go to trial at once, and he intimates that efforts to push the trial will be made.

WILL DEFENSE BE READY?

As a result of the attitude of the state’s officials, speculation over the case turns to the defense. Will Attorney Luther Z. Rosser announce ready, if the case is called Monday week?

Mr. Rosser will not discuss the matter. It is known that he has been engaged in the courts in trial of various civil cases practically since the time of Frank’s indictment, and for that reason it is said that he probably would want a postponement of the case.

However, it is known also that regardless of the amount of work he has on hand, Mr. Rosser seldom asks for the postponement of a trial. In fact, he is more often found announcing “ready” than are the majority of other attorneys in Atlanta.

POSTPONEMENT TILL FALL.

If an effort is made to postpone the case at all, it is said that it will be to postpone it until early fall.

The courts generally take a vacation during the months of July and August, and the trial of Mrs. Daisy Grace last July demonstrated the general unpleasantness of a big criminal trial during the summer.

Last year during the Grace trial it was so stifling and hot in the poorly ventilated criminal court room on the fourth floor of the Thrower building, that it was generally considered dangerous to the health of those engaged in the case and of the spectators who thronged there, to hold the trial in the room.

As a result it is probable that the scene of activity will probably be transferred to the old city hall, if the Frank case does come to trial in June. All of the civil courts will not be in session in the first week in July, and one of those rooms probably will be utilized.

* * *

The Atlanta Journal, June 18th 1913, “Will Reuben R. Arnold Aid Frank’s Defense?,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Guessers See a Mystery in Dorsey-Hooper Trips

Posted on by

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

The Atlanta Journal

Tuesday, June 17, 1913

Speculation About Departure of Phagan Case Figures Not Credited, However

What is believed to be but a coincidence in the unheralded out-of-town trips of Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey, Attorney Frank A. Hooper, who is to assist the solicitor in the prosecution of Leo M. Frank, and Attorney Thomas B. Felder, has given rise to a rumor that these lawyers really have gone on a secret mission of importance and one connected with the Phagan case.

Solicitor Dorsey left Atlanta Saturday afternoon, saying he was going to Atlantic City and New York for a week’s rest; Mr. Felder went away on Sunday, announcing that he was headed for Cincinnati, where he had business that was not of interest to the public; and Mr. Hooper left Monday afternoon, it being stated by his family that he had gone to Indianapolis on business and would return to Atlanta either Thursday or Friday.

Those who profess to scent a mystery in the departure of the three attorneys are allowing their speculations free range. One of the rumors set in motion is to the effect that Messrs. Dorsey, Hooper and Felder have arranged to meet in some eastern city to discuss some important feature of the Phagan case.

Detective Chief N. A. Lanford, Pinkerton Detective Harry Scott, and others who are posted as to the progress of the Phagan case, do not believe that the trips of the three lawyers have any relation whatever.

Chief Lanford and Detective Scott continue to accept as true the statement of the negro sweeper, James Conley, who swore that the only part he played in the Phagan murder was to assist Superintendent Frank to dispose of the body and to write the notes, which he says he did at the dictation of Frank.

It is claimed that Solicitor Dorsey and his investigators have in their possession evidence which strongly corroborates Conley’s story and that they are guarding this evidence very jealously in an effort to keep any inkling of it away from the defense. It was this evidence, it is said, which satisfied the solicitor general that the case against Frank was complete and that he could afford to take a much-needed vacation before the trial.

On the other hand the defense continues to ridicule the efforts made by the prosecution to substantiate Conley’s confession. The defense, it is said, has a few cards up its sleeve which it promises to play at the trial and which may result in some surprises.

* * *

The Atlanta Journal, June 17th 1913, “Guessers See a Mystery in Dorsey-Hooper Trips,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Felder Leaves Atlanta on Trip to Cincinnati

Posted on by

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

The Atlanta Journal

Monday, June 16, 1913

Thomas B. Felder, the attorney, left Atlanta for Cincinnati Sunday afternoon to be away from the city on a business trip for several days.

The absence of Mr. Felder from the city is taken as indication that the grand jury will not take up an investigation of the famous dictograph episode this week, if it makes such a probe at all.

Mr. Felder declared that his trip has nothing to do with the dictograph case. He stated that he expected to return within a week.

The foreman of the grand jury, L. H. Beck, has intimated that the jury may take up the dictograph matter if it is able to dispose of its routine business before its term of service expires, June 30.

* * *

The Atlanta Journal, June 16th 1913, “Felder Leaves Atlanta on Trip to Cincinnati,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Hooper Wants a Rest For Public From Case

Posted on by

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

The Atlanta Journal

Monday, June 16, 1913

Attorney Associated With Prosecution, Says State Is Ready for Frank Trial

With Solicitor General Dorsey away on a short vacation, the state’s case against Leo M. Frank, who is charged with the murder of Mary Phagan, is now in charge of Frank A. Hooper, the well known attorney, who is associated with the solicitor.

“The state’s case is complete,” Mr. Hooper said Monday morning, “and we are waiting quietly for the trial on the 30th of the month to come.”

“If the defense will stop writing cards,” continued Mr. Hooper, “and stop having their friends write them, the public can be given a needed rest from the case until the trial.”

Mr. Hooper’s statement that the prosecution is quietly waiting for the trial on June 30 is the most authoritative announcement of the date of the trial yet made.

Solicitor General Dorsey has steadfastly refrained from any definite announcement about the time of the trial, but it has been generally understood for some time that the solicitor set the case on the court’s calendar for June 30, and it will then remain with the defense as to whether there is a postponement.

While Mr. Hooper’s name was not publicly connected with the case until Sunday, it is understood that the solicitor general has been consulting with him for several weeks, and it is said that Mr. Hooper is familiar with every phase of the investigation.

With the state’s case regarded as complete, it is said that the attorneys and detectives identified with the prosecution are now devoting their energies to preparing for any surprises the defense may spring when the case goes before the court.

It was rumored Monday that the grand jury on Tuesday would take up the case of James Conley, the negro who is a self-confessed accessory after the fact in the killing, but this rumor was without foundation. It was occasioned by an error in the issuance of subpenas. The grand jury, according to its foreman, will devote the entire session Tuesday to routine cases, which have piled up during the vice investigation.

The grand jury foreman, L. H. Beck, also denied the rumor that it had taken up any investigations of third degree work by the detectives in the Phagan or in any other case. “No such investigation is even likely,” he said.

* * *

The Atlanta Journal, June 16th 1913, “Hooper Wants a Rest For Public From Case,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)