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

Atlanta Constitution
August 20th, 1913

Albert McKnight, husband of Minola McKnight, the negro cook for the family of Emil Selig, with whom Leo Frank and his wife made their home, was introduced to the stand following E. H. Pickett.

Mr. Hooper drew from the negro the statement that since the day he stood in the kitchen door and saw Leo Frank’s reflection in the dining room sideboard glass that the sideboard had been moved.

The negro was made to go over a blue print diagram of the Selig home and show what he claimed was the location of the sideboard on the day of the murder and at the time he claims he saw that Frank ate po dinner and remained only a few minutes at the dinner table.

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 21st, 1913

The evidence brought out on Tuesday that Frank had frequently been seen talking to Mary Phagan and that while so doing had placed his hands upon her person, was corroborated by several witnesses on Wednesday.

The first of these corroborative statements came when Miss Ruth Robinson was called to the stand by Dorsey.

She testified that she had worked at the National Pencil factory and knew both Frank and Mary Phagan.

“Have you ever seen Frank talking to Mary Phagan?” asked Dorsey.

“Yes.”

“What did he talk to her about?”

“About her work.”

“When did he talk to her?”

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 21st, 1913

J. M. Gantt, who has been an important figure in the state’s case, was called during the afternoon to testify to the length of time in which he has seen Frank make out the financial sheet and to the inaccuracy of the ‘punch-clock on the second floor.

“Did you ever see Frank make out the financial sheet?” Mr. Dorsey put.

“Yes.”

“How long did it take him to make it?”

“With the data at hand, I have seen him make it out in an hour and a half.”

“About this punch-clock-—was it accurate?”

“No.”

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 21st, 1913

Following the introduction of the telegram Solicitor Hugh Dorsey began another attack on the character of Leo Frank and after a bitter wrangle secured the right to ask factory girls in regard to Frank’s character in his relations to women.

This was argued with the jury excused from the room and was the subject of a bitter fight, the state saying that when Frank on the stand had claimed himself to have always lived a virtuous life, he had opened up the way for the state to prove he was not of a virtuous character.

Judge Roan had already ruled that the state could not introduce witnesses said by the solicitor to be prepared to swear that Frank had made improper proposals to them and that this was about the same thing. Solicitor Dorsey argued that it was not and finally got the ruling in his favor. The defense entered a formal protest and had it go on record.

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 21st, 1913

Solicitor Dorsey makes a persistent effort Wednesday morning to show that the character of Leo Frank is anything but good. Ha laid particular stress upon his character as to his relations with women and girls, and introduced a large number of women who testified that in this respect his character was in their judgment bad.

Among those who testified merely that his character was bad without going into details were:

Mrs. Marion Dunnigan, who stated that she worked at the pencil factory two or three weeks about two years ago. She testified that Frank’s character was bad, but she did not know about the lascivious part of it.

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 19th, 1913

The climax of the Frank trial came at the afternoon session Monday, when Leo M. Frank took the stand to tell of his actions on the day of the murder.

The accused man’s statement was clear, concise and straightforward. He talked in smooth, even tones, punctuating his statement with emphatic gestures of the arms and fingers. He had more the appearance of an at attorney making a fury speech instead of an accused man making a plea for life and liberty.

It was a dramatic story, marked by the straightforward delivery of the prisoner. A hush settled over the room throughout his recital and he was able to talk in an ordinary voice and make himself heard all over the place.

The following is the first verbatim report of his statement to be published: “Now, Mr. Frank,” said Mr. Arnold, “such papers as you want to use you can come down here at any time or from time to time and get them on this table right here.”

“Before you commence your statement,” prompted the judge, “I want to read the law. In criminal procedure, the prisoner will have the right to make to the court and jury such statement in this case as he may deem proper in his defense. It shall not be under oath and shall have such force as the jury shall think right to give it. They may believe it in preference to the sworn testimony in the case. The prisoner shall not be compelled to answer any questions on cross-examination. He should feel free to decline to answer them. Now you can make such statement ns you see fit.”

“Gentlemen of the jury,” the accused man began, “in 1884, the 17th day of April, I was born in Terrell, Texas. At the age of 3 mouths my parents took me to Brooklyn, N. Y. which became my home until I came south, to Atlanta, to make my home here. I attended the public schools of Brooklyn and prepared for college In Pratt institute, Brooklyn, N. Y.”

“In the fall of 1902, I entered Cornell university, where I took the course of mechanical engineering, graduating after four years, in June, 1906. I then accepted a position as draughtsman with the B. F. Sturdevant company, of Hyde Park, Mass. After remaining with this firm for about six months I returned once more to my home In Brooklyn, where I accepted a position as testing engineer and draughtsman with the National Meter company, of Brooklyn, N. Y.

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 16^th, 1913

Annie Hicks, a maid in the home of Charles Ersenbach, testified to having received a telephone call from Frank to Ersenbach, breaking a ball game engagement for the afternoon of April 26.

“Do you recall Memorial day?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Did you get a telephone message from Mr. Frank?”
“Yes, he called at 1 o’clock and said tell Charles Ersenbach that he couldn’t go to the ball game that afternoon. He stopped for a minute and said, to somebody beside him, ‘Hush, honey,’ and I supposed he was talking to his wife.”

Dorsey on cross-examination.

“How long have you been working at the Ersenbach home?”
“For two years.”

“Frank and his wife came over to the Ersenbach residence the Sunday morning after the murder?”
“Yes, sir—he came into the dining room where I was and asked me if I could get him a drink of cool water.”

“Did you hear him talk any?”
“Yes, they all talked and laughed.”

“Was he nervous?”

“No, I’ve been knowing him for a long time and I never have seen him nervous.”

“Weren’t they laughing about the little girl being murdered?”

“I don’t know.”

“You and Minola McKnight are great friends?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Has Minola ever talked to you about this affair?”
“No, I just asked her why they locked her up and she said she didn’t know.”

“When was the last time you saw Minola?”
“This morning at Mrs. Selig’s where I had dinner.”

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 16th 1913, “Says Frank Broke Baseball Date Shortly After Girl Was Killed,” 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

B. J. Nix, of Marietta, an office boy for Leo Frank from April to October, 1912 was the first witness, outside of those testifying to character, who was put on the stand Friday. The lad who gave his age as 19 swore that he had never seen Frank having women in his office. He stated that he left the office at 1 o’clock every other Saturday during the summer months.

“Were you ever an office boy for the National Pencil company?” was Mr. Arnold’s first question.

“Yes, sir.”

“When?”
“From April to October of last year.”

“Did you have any agreement about getting off on Saturdays?” Mr. Arnold continued.

“Yes, sir, on every other Saturday I got off at 1 o’clock and on the Saturdays between I stayed to 4 o’clock and sometimes as late as 6 o’clock.

“Were you sent out of the office much?”
“No.”

“Did you ever see Mr. Frank have women in his office?”

“No, sir.”

“Ever see him have beer in his office?”
“Yes, sir.”

Mr. Dorsey took up the cross-examination.

“Most of the Saturdays on which you did not get off at 1 o’clock you got off at 4 o’clock, didn’t you?”
“Yes, sir, most of the time.”

“You don’t undertake to say do you that that on the days you were off that Frank did not have women and beer in his office?”
“No, I can’t say that.”

“That’s all,” said the solicitor.

The witness was then excused.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 16th 1913, “Still Another Office Boy Swears He Never Saw Women With Frank,” 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

Harry Gottheimer, a traveling salesman for the Montag firm and the pencil factory, took the stand to tell of an engagement he had made with Frank on the afternoon of the murder.

“Do you remember seeing Frank on April 26?” he was asked by Arnold.

“Yes, I saw him at Montag’s about 10 o’clock that morning.”

“Did you talk with him?”
“Yes, I was at the desk in the office and he came over to speak to me. I asked him of two important orders which had been forwarded and he said that if I would come at 2 o’clock that afternoon he would see about them.”

Mr. Hooper arose to voice an objection on the grounds that the statement was self-serving and that a similar statement made relative to words of Mary Phagan had been ruled out previously by the judge.

After an argument by Mr. Rosser and his colleague, however, Judge Roan ruled that the evidence was admissible and overruled the state.

“Did you go to see Frank?”
“Not that afternoon.”

Dorsey on cross-examination:

“When was it you recalled this talk with Frank?”
“Immediately upon hearing of the tragedy.”

“Did you tell him you would come over that afternoon?”

“No.”

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 16th 1913, “Traveling Salesman for Montag’s Tells of Conversation With Frank,” 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

The greater part of the time Friday was taken up by the defense in producing witnesses to swear to the good character of Frank. One witness placed on the stand, F. F. Gilbert, an employee of Montag Mros. [sic], swore that he did not know Frank well enough to testify to his character.

The witnesses who were used solely to attest his good character were: Dr. and Mrs. J. E. Sommerfield, of 300 Washington street; F. Schiff, of 18 West Fair street; Joseph Gershon, of 390 Washington street; P. D. McCarley, of 24 Hemphill avenue, in charge of the oil business of M. Frank, Leo Frank’s uncle; Mrs. M. W. Myers, of Washington street; Mrs. David Marx, wife of Rabbit Marx, of 354 Washington street; Mrs. R. I. Harris; Al Guinman, of 479 Washington street; M. S. Rice, who formerly boarded at the same place with Frank; Mrs. B. Giogowski, with whom Frank once boarded; Mr. and Mrs. L. H. Moss, Mrs. Joseph D. Brown; E. E. Fitzpatrick, of 105 Sinclair avenue, foreman of the shipping and receiving department of Montag Bros.; Emil Dittler, William Bauer, Miss Helen Loeb, J. C. Mathews, of 86 Sinclair avenue, employee of Montag Bros.; Al Fox, Mrs. Adolph Montag, who said Frank had been discussed by Mrs. Myers, his landlady, who had said how attentive to her wants he was to her when her husband was out of town, and F. F. Gilbert, an employee of Montag Bros., who swore he did not know Frank well enough to tell of his character.

Mrs. Martin May on Stand.

Mrs. Martin May, a petite and stylishly dressed brunette, followed. As she took the stand she bowed and smiled to Mr. and Mrs. Frank. She testified that the defendant’s character was good and was not cross-examined.