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

August 11^th, 1913
Atlanta Georgian

By TARLETON COLLIER.

That black-clad woman in the corner of the courtroom—nobody has noticed her much. Things have happened so swiftly in the Frank trial that all eyes are on the rush of events, waiting for a quiver on the face of Leo Frank, watching with morbid gaze the brave faces of Frank’s wife and his mother, studying the passing show that the numerous witnesses present.

And the woman is so unobtrusive, so plainly out of it all. The tears, whose traces are evident on her face, were not shed as a result of this trial. The lines under her eyes are older than two weeks. Her sorrow—and it is plain that she has undergone sorrow—came some time ago. Now, the first poignant pain of it has passed and only a dull ache remains.

All that is plain as she sits in the courtroom in an attitude which bespeaks much of listlessness and resignation. The thoughts that pass in her mind are revealed in that attitude and in her placid face. And the sum of them is this:

No matter what happens, the dull ache will always be there at her heart.

Mary Phagan’s Mother.

Because, you see, it is her little girl that all this is about. The black-clad woman is Mrs. W. J. Coleman, Mary Phagan’s mother, and Mary Phagan is dead.

Mrs. Coleman has not been in the courtroom during all the trial. Much of the time she has been in the room upstairs, kept there because she was a witness. And witnesses must not see nor hear what is going on in the courtroom before they are called, even if the names of their own little girls are handled back and forth.

But now Mrs. Coleman has testified. She has looked upon the bloodstained, pitiful clothing of her daughter, the clothing that was publicly shown, the intimate garments that were upheld before hundreds of eyes. She has announced for purposes of court record that they are Mary’s.

She has explained how she last saw her daughter alive. She has told how Mary Phagan ate her last hurried meal of cabbage and bread and then went out to a horrible death. Now, she may come out of the witness room and listen to all that other persons have to say about Mary, alive and dead.

Now she may sit in a corner of the courtroom and hear that her daughter was beaten and choked and killed.

She may listen, perhaps with a pang of jealousy, to other persons tell that they saw Mary Phagan alive, happy and serene, long after she kissed the little girl good-by for the last time.

It is her Mary that they are talking about, the little girl whom she held in her arms as a baby, whom she watched grown up to be a capable worker, with a spirit unspoiled, with a laugh as free as in the baby days, with a hundred dreams and hopes there on the edge of young womanhood.

Testimony Bewilders.

Mrs. Coleman wears a look of bewilderment at times, as she tries hard to follow the intricacies of the testimony. Sometimes they are not talking about Mary Phagan at all, but about expense accounts and balance sheets and clocks. What has all that to do with her little girl?

It is when the witnesses are talking about these incidental bits in the chain of circumstantial evidence that the black-clad mother is most the listless and passive figure of resignation. It is then that she looks around, with her wide-open stare, as if in wonder that her little girl could be the cause of it all.

But even when the name of Mary Phagan is mentioned, the mother is not noticeably attentive. Her eyes cease their wandering, but her body changes nothing of its posture of listlessness, loses none of its air of being detached from the courtroom and its incidents.

She is there plainly without resentment toward any one in particular. There is no vengefulness in her soul—you can read that in her face. It is almost as if she, having suffered so much, is unwilling that any others suffer. She sits there and looks, curiously, wonderingly, a little dully.

And sometimes they mention Mary Phagan’s last meal of cabbage. It is remarkable that a dish of homely cabbage should become a great thing. There is something grimly ludicrous in the situation. And there are some, the irreverent and the unfeeling, who have made it a subject of jest.

Glorified in Love.

But to Mrs. Coleman there must be something appealingly intimate in the subject. She cooked the cabbage. She chopped it and prepared it as her little daughter liked. The simple meal was glorified by the love that must have gone into its making—housewife love for those in her care, mother-love for the whims and desires of her children. The cabbage subject must be of tremendous interest to Mrs. Coleman.

Whatever her interest, though, it is never keenly shown. Apathy seems to be the chief characteristic of her in the courtroom—no, not apathy, but just a dull wonder.

You read plainly from her worn face and her figure that she is not seeking vengeance. Sometimes you might wonder why she is there in the courtroom. You establish curiosity as the motive, curiosity and natural, jealous, mother-desire to hear directly from the mouths of others something about her little girl as she last was seen.

It must be almost like awaiting a message that she is there, pursing her dull grief.

* * *

Atlanta Georgian, August 11th 1913, “Grief-Stricken Mother Shows No Vengefulness,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

Atlanta Georgian
August 10^th, 1913

A spectator at the trial of Leo M. Frank for the murder of little Mary Phagan remarked:

“I wonder what the mother of the little girl who was so brutally killed thinks of all this?”
Mrs. J. W. Coleman, the mother, was the first witness called at the beginnig [sic] of the case, now two weeks gone. She was dressed in deep black with a heavy veil about her face. As she pulled back the veil to speak to the jury the expression was calm without a sign of bitterness. And she answered in even tones.

When the Solicitor opened a little suit case and placed before her the clothes of her little girl.

There was a stifled cry. Those who looked saw a face covered with a handkerchief. That was enough. Solicitor Dorsey put no more questions.

For ten days the grind of the court went on. The mother was forgotten for more immediate things.

Friday she was recalled in the midst of expert testimony on the effect of digestion on cabbage. She came and indifferently told how she had cooked the cabbage that made the last meal of little Mary Phagan. Then she said:

“Mr. Dorsey, will you need me any more? I’m so tired. I want to go.”

He told her she could go. And it is very probable she will not appear at this trial again.

* * *

Atlanta Georgian, August 10th 1913, “Mary Phagan’s Mother to be Spared at Trial,” 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 7^th, 1913

Mrs. J. W. Coleman, mother of Mary Phagan, followed Dr. Harris to the stand. She told of cooking an amount of cabbage at the chemists request for his experiments with the four men.

She stated that it had been ground finely as she had prepared it on the day of Mary’s last meal and had boiled it for an hour. She remained on the stand but for a few minutes and was asked but a few questions by either the state or defense.

She was asked to describe Mary’s pocketbook answering that she had already given a description when she first went upon the stand at the opening of the trial.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 7th 1913, “Mrs. Coleman Tells of Cooking Cabbage for Dr. H. F. Harris,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Atlanta Journal
August 7^th, 1913

Defense Asks Mistrial When Crowd in the Court Applauds Announcement of the Decision

Judge Roan, However, Refuses to Stop Trial—Dr. Harris on Stand During Afternoon and Again Asserts that Mary Phagan Suffered Violence Just Before Death—Dalton Called to Corroborate Conley But Court Adjourns Before He Testifies

Dr. H. F. Harris, secretary of the state board of health, was the first witness called for the Wednesday afternoon session after the jury was called into the room. The direct examination under Solicitor Dorsey was resumed.

Dr. Harris again asserted very positively that Mary Phagan had suffered violence of some kind immediately preceding her death, and explained in detail his reasons for reaching this conclusion.

The secretary of the state board of health was excused from the witness stand at 5 o’clock before his cross-examination had been finished. He was very weak, he said in response to the court’s inquiry, and was permitted to stop his testimony, which was resumed Thursday. Mrs. J. W. Coleman, mother of Mary Phagan, was the last witness examined before adjournment.

C. B. Dalton, mentioned by Conley, as having visited the factory in company with two women, was called just before court adjourned but did not testify.

Great excitement prevailed in the court room Wednesday afternoon when Judge L. S. Roan announced his decision to reverse himself on his ruling of Tuesday, striking out parts of Conley’s testimony. From the spectators gallery the crowd cheered the decision, but quieted down after Attorney Arnold, for the defense, made a motion to clear the room. Judge Roan refused to clear the court of spectators but warned the spectators not to repeat the demonstration. Attorney Arnold then moved for a mistrial, in this he was also overruled by the judge.

Judge Roan, in his ruling, held that all of Conley’s testimony would remain in the record of the case and that Solicitor Dorsey would be allowed to introduce witnesses to corroborate the negro’s charges against Frank’s conduct in his presence. As to allowing the Epps boy to testify as to what Mary Phagan told him regarding her fears of Frank, the judge held that inadmissible and the newsie will not be recalled.

When court reconvened at 2 o’clock, Solicitor Dorsey resumed his argument. The solicitor renewed his contention, citing authorities to back it up, that as a general rule failure to make objection to incompetent evidence at the time of introduction is a waiver of that right.

In this instance, said he, the court should hold that the defense had waived the right to object. In case of doubt as to the relevancy of evidence, said he, it should be left to the jury for that body to determined its weight.

The solicitor said that he cited several Georgia cases, among them some very old decisions. The solicitor stated that no fixed rule can be observed regarding the introduction of evidence of acts similar to the crime charged. The law says simply, says he, there must be some logical connection which proves or tends to prove the other. It must be one of a system of mutually dependent crimes, said he.

“I intend to show,” said he, “that this crime was one of a system of mutually dependent crimes.”

The solicitor contended that he had the right to introduce evidence of transactions which serve to illustrate the state of mind of the defendant or his intention or purpose.

“The fact,” he said, “that they are simply crimes, does not make them inadmissible.”

DORSEY QUOTES AUTHORITIES.

The solicitor asked if he should proceed with argument on his second proposition—involving his right to enter testimony corroborative of Conley’s. Judge Roan told him to proceed with that argument.

While the solicitor argued Attorney Rosser sat in the witness’ chair, lolling back, with his legs crossed, rubbing his head.

Solicitor Dorsey emphasized the fact that he was quoting the laws and decisions of Georgia courts.

“We object, your honor, to the ruling out of this evidence which is already in and permeates the whole record, due to the direct and cross-examinations, and we want to introduce other evidence along the same line,” said the solicitor.

Judge Roan asked what he expected to show by Dalton’s testimony.

“I expect to show that what Conley has said about these things is true,” said the solicitor.

“What do you expect to show by George Epps?” asked the judge.

“I expect to show by him that when little Mary Phagan left him at Marietta and Forsyth streets to go to her death at the factory, she told this boy she feared Frank because he had tried to flirt with her, and that she expressed apprehension concerning his attitude toward her.

SHAKES FINGER AT FRANK.

“This man,” said the solicitor, shaking his finger in Frank’s face across the table, “this man here was her superintendent. He paid her off, and she had expressed a fear of him. This is relevant and material evidence and we want to get it before the jury.”

Solicitor Dorsey read a number of decisions, announcing after each one, “That’s a Georgia decision,” and they were all in murder cases, and tended to sustain him in his contention that she evidence was admissible, and that after it had gotten into the records and been sealed there by cross-examination it could not be withdrawn.

He argued by these decisions that facts having a bearing on the case apparently might be disassociated from the crime itself, but still could be material to the charge.

Attorney Hooper took the floor.

“Your honor, I am going to obey your admonition and be brief in this argument. It is simply a question of law—the law of Georgia, and that’s what controls this court; not the dictations of the supreme courts of California and Minnesota.

“With all of the authorities which we have here at hand, there is no necessity for argument. I want to call your honor’s attention to the rule and the law which govern this issue, and it is laid down here in the 88^th Georgia, page 76, in plain Anglo-Saxon words.” Mr. Hooper read it. It was of the effect that objections must be reglatered at the time testimony is offered.

Mr. Hooper made the further point that even if evidence was inadmissible at the time it was offered, the state has examined the witness on his testimony, and the defense had cross-examined him on it, and if it is ruled out now it only carries with it just what the negro related as to these incidents and not what was developed from him under direct and cross-examinations, which runs clear through the records.

Mr. Hooper called the court’s attention to the fact that the testimony was necessary in order to explain what could not be explained without it—Conley’s signals and answers at the factory that day. Mr. Hooper read from a number of law books. As he lifted each from the table he reiterated “This is a Georgia authority.”

Continuing, Attorney Hooper declared that the testimony already introduced would explain the signals, and show what was meant by the stamping and the whistling.

Attorney Arnold concluded for the defense, citing authorities. He argued against the admissibility of the statement that Mary Phagan is said to have made to the Epps boy relative to going to the factory. After citing two authorities, he asked the judge if the court wanted to hear more. Judge Roan said no.

Judge Roan then asked Attorney Arnold what he had to say about the state’s right to put Dalton on the witness stand. “Well, I don’t know what they expect to prove by him,” said Attorney Arnold.

Solicitor Dorsey stated, “I tell you I expect to corroborate Conley’s story.”

Attorney Arnold cited an authority against the introduction of evidence.

At the conclusion of this argument, Judge Roan announced he was ready to rule.

“I have thought about this thoroughly,” he said, “and my mind is now made up. I doubt its admissibility as an original proposition, but it has been examined and cross-examined. It is impossible to withdraw it from the minds of the jurors. I could erase it from the records, but I am going to let it remain.”

GREAT APPLAUSE.

A demonstration of applause broke out in court among the spectators. The deputy sheriffs immediately rapped for order and Attorney Arnold arose.

“I am going to make a motion to clear the court room,” said he.

Judge Roan said: “If there is another demonstration of this kind I will order it cleared.”

The excitement subsided, and the court room became normal again.

“Your honor, I ask for a mistrial,” declared Mr. Arnold.

“Why, the jury wasn’t in here,” said the judge.

“They might have heard it anyway,” continued Mr. Arnold.

“Well, I’m not going to stop this case,” said Judge Roan. This was construed by the attorneys as a definite overruling of the motion.

Mr. Arnold stated privately a few moments later that he had made his motion for a mistrial under the misapprehension that the jury was in court. He had withdrawn the motion, he said.

RULES OUT EPPS BOY.

“I am going to do what I think is right in this case,” said Judge Roan, “no matter whom it pleases or displeases. I hold that the additional testimony of the Epps boy is wholly indadmissible.”

Attorney Rosser arose.

“I want your honor to say whether or not you admitted that Conley testimony because it was admissible,” said he, “for I am going to show line by line how it can be taken from the record. I will show you that it can be ruled out without affecting the record.”

“Well, you can do that, Mr. Rosser, but I am not going to stop this trial now in order to let you do it,” said Judge Roan. “You can do that at some other time. I am not going to let any of this excitement get to the jury.”

“Well, then your honor,” said Mr. Rosser, “I just want to know if you are going to let the Conley testimony remain in the record.”

“Yes, I am,” said the judge.

“Now, your honor,” said Mr. Rosser, “we object to the testimony of Dalton upon any subjects or about any time except things that occurred on that particular day, April 26.”

RULING ON DALTON.

“I will hold,” said Judge Roan, “that the state shall have the right to corroborate Conley. I don’t know what Dalton will testify, but it will be time enough then to discuss his testimony when he goes on the stand.”

“Then there’s no use for us to object. You are going to admit it,” said Mr. Rosser.

“Yes, I purpose to let the state corroborate Conley’s story. However, I cannot rule as to Dalton’s testimony until he gets on the stand and I see what it is going to be.”

DR. HARRIS RECALLED.

Judge Roan directed that the jury be brought in. The state recalled Dr. H. F. Harris, secretary of the state board of health, to the stand. On account of Dr. Harris’ illness, and evidently because it was anticipated that he would be kept on the stand some time, the deputy sheriff brought in a big leather upholstered swivel chair, to make it comfortable for him.

Mr. Dorsey resumed his direct examination of Dr. Harris.

“What are your specialties in medicine,” asked the solicitor.

“Pathology, diagnosis and chemical analysis.”

DIED OF STRANGULATION.

“What indicated to your mind that this girl, Mary Phagan, died from strangulation?”
Dr. Harris treated the question as frivolous. “Why, it was out of the question for that blow on the head to have caused it. There was but a drop of blood on the inside of the skull, and scarcely any pressure against the brain. Nothing else but the cord could have caused her death. The blueness of her hands and finger nails, and many other things, made it certain that she died from strangulation. The cord around her neck could not have caused these things had it been placed after death.”

“Doctor, did you examine the windpipe and the larynx?”

“Yes, I didn’t completely remove them, but I didn’t want to mutilate the little girl. But I saw the whole windpipe, and there was no injury to it. In strangulation cases, injuries to the windpipe are rare.”

“From the condition of her body, could you tell from what angle the cord was pulled?”

“No, sir,” said the doctor.

“What about the lungs?”

“I didn’t examine them very carefully, because you could tell but little about them on account of the nature of the embalming fluid used.”

Dr. Harris testified that he embalming fluid’s effect is only on the internal organs. It doesn’t get into the skin, he said.

ASKS FOR BLOODY STICK.

The solicitor asked the defense to produce the bloody stick reputed to have been found by its agents in the factory.

“Could the wound on Mary Phagan’s head have been caused by a blow from that stick?”
“I don’t think it could,” said Dr. Harris. “The blow must have been struck with an instrument with a sharper corner.” The stick was perfectly round.

“Did you make a microscopic examination?”

“Yes, sir.”

SAYS THERE WAS VIOLENCE.

“What is the value of a microscopic examination compared with an ocular or digital examination?”
“Why,” said Dr. Harris, “they can’t be compared. You can tell everything by microscopic examination, and practically nothing by an ocular examination.”

Dr. Harris asserted very positively that Mary Phagan had suffered some some [sic] sort of external violence and gave his reasons for his conclusion.

“About this cabbage—“

“Yes, the other day when I was on the stand I was so ill that I really could not tell a great many things about the cabbage, that I wanted to tell.”

“Go ahead,” said the solicitor.

Dr. Harris related some experiments that he made 15 years ago with the digestibility of cabbage. He was interrupted by Mr. Rosser, who said that as he understood it the rule is that a physician must tell what the scientific tact is and then explain the experiments from which the rule is deduced.

“I know of nobody else having made these experiments,” said Dr. Harris.

Judge Roan ruled that he could give reasons why he reached his conclusions. He would rule, said he, that Dr. Harris could give the science and results of his own individuals researches in connection with those of others in the scientific world.

Dr. Harris continued, saying that most ideas about the digestion of cabbage are wrong. “In my experiments I discovered that cabbage that was free from grease, freed itself from the stomach about as quickly as nearly any other article of food. Therefore I concluded this girl could have eaten this cabbage but a very short time before death—probably half or three-quarters of an hour.

Attorney Rosser interposed another objection. “I don’t doubt results of scientific experiments,” said he. “I know, though that if I ate cabbage today it would be on my stomach tomorrow. This witness should confine himself to stating the results of scientific experiment, and not of his personal experiments.”

CITES APPELBAUM CASE.

The several attorneys argued this objection. Attorney Hooper cited an authority opposing it. Solicitor Dorsey called Judge Roan’s attention to a ruling he made in the Appelbaum case. In that case, according to the solicitor, the judge permitted the introduction of evidence regarding experiments made with pistol shots directed against cloths at police headquarters to determine at what nearness the fire from a revolver would burn an object in front of it. “Isn’t that instance paralled to this one?” inquired the solicitor.

Judge Roan ruled, “You can give the science of the subject not the results of individual cases.”

Attorney Hooper, who had been going through some law books, arose. “Your ruling is exactly contrary to this authority.”

“You should have produced that authority before I made this ruling,” said Judge Roan.

Mr. Hooper explained that he got it as quickly as he could, and Judge Roan asked to hear it.

After the decision was read, Attorney Arnold spoke up. “Mr. Hooper’s contention would be well taken if any two stomachs were alike,” said he. “If Dr. Harris will say the stomach he experimented on was exactly the same as that of Mary Phagan, we will allow the evidence to go in.”

Dr. Harris addressed Judge Roan to explain that he had once made an experiment on a girl of the same age as Mary Phagan. Attorney Arnold interrupted. “I thought I was arguing against the other attorneys,” said he.

JUDGE SUSTAINS STATE.

Judge Roan ruled that Dr. Harris could continue his testimony, and the defense reserved an exception.

Dr. Harris had proceeded but a very short way in his story when Attorney Rosser interrupted him with the assertion that he was arguing and not merely stating the results of research. Judge Roan admonished Dr. Harris to proceed and leave out argument.

Dr. Harris proce[e]ded, but was interrupted immediately again by an objection from Mr. Rosser. Dr. Harris attempted to tell of an experiment he made about 30 years ago. Attorney Rosser contended that he had no right to go back that far. There was some argument, Solicitor Dorsey answering Mr. Rosser. Judge Roan ruled with the state.

EXPERIMENTED ON OTHERS.

Dr. Harris took from his grip three bottles, which he referred to as specimens. He stated that the latest experiments which he had related were upon four persons. Two of these were experimented upon twice.

“In every instance the effect on the cabbage was practically the same,” said the witness, “notwithstanding I had them swallow pieces of cabbage as large as that found in the stomach of Mary Phagan; notwithstanding that I made them eat the cabbage hurriedly or gulp it down.” Dr. Harris was holding the bottles as he talked.

“We object to these exhibits,” interrupted Mr. Rosser, referring to the bottles.

Judge Roan ruled that the exhibits were not in evidence yet. Before he could finish his ruling, Solicitor Dorsey interrupted him. “We know that, your honor. When we tender them, that will be another proposition. But if we can show by Dr. Harris, this expert, that he has experimented on other persons; that Mary Phagan’s stomach was normal and that the stomachs of these other persons were normal; that the intact condition of the cabbage was not due to indigestion; that the cabbage was cooked by Mrs. Coleman, Mary Phagan’s mother; that it was swallowed by these subjects in large pieces—is your honor going to rule—“

“I don’t know, yet, what I’m going to rule,” interrupted the judge.

“Is it possible, I was going to say, your honor, that after all this, this expert cannot tell the jury of his experiments and show them the results?”

Judge Roan inquired if the condition of the stomachs of the subjects upon whom he experimented was the same as the condition of Mary Phagan’s stomach. Dr. Harris replied that the conditions were as nearly the same as it would be possible to find in different people. Dr. Harris proceeded.

“I examined Mary Phagan’s stomach very carefully. It was normal in size and normal in every other particular. I examined it under the microscope, and I know that all the other subjects had normal stomachs. I could tell that by the secretions and by the other signs that physicians observe in determining the condition of a stomach.”

“Your honor,” Mr. Rosser interrupted, “the witness is attempting to argue one rule and testify all at the same time. He already has told enough to show that the same conditions didn’t prevail in these stomachs.

“He said something about looking at one stomach with a microscope. That may mean something. I don’t know. I think that these doctors are all guessers. He didn’t bring out the stomachs of these other subjects and examine them with a microscope. Therefore the conditions couldn’t have been the same.”

Judge Roan allowed the witness to proceed.

Dr. Harris asked the solicitor to pass the specimens over to the jury, holding them out in his hand.

“Wait a minute, doctor,” shouted Mr. Rosser. “You are not undertaking to direct this case, are you?”

RESULTS OF EXPERIMENTS.

The solicitor told Dr. Harris that that couldn’t be done inasmuch as the specimens had not been introduced in evidence. Dr. Harris referred to memoranda concerning his experiments to which he made particular reference showed the following results: In a normal healthy boy of 14 years, digestion of the cabbage began in 33 minutes. The time of beginning of digestion in the other subjects ranged on up to 70 minutes in a full grown man with a normal, healthy stomach, said he.

“I examined with the microscope even the tiniest particles of cabbage in Mary Phagan’s stomach—those which she had masticated thoroughly—and they had undergone practically no digestion. Within three-quarters of an hour after the subject eats cabbage you can detect with the microscope signs of digestion. This fact indicated beyond question that digestion had not gone on previous to the time the girl died or until the time when she became unconscious at least. I examined the contents of Mary Phagan’s stomach chemically as well, and found that digestion had proceeded but a very short time. This is perhaps of greater importance than the microscopic examination.”

“STUMP SPEECH NO USE.”

“There ain’t no use for the witness to make a stump speech,” interrupted Mr. Rosser. “Let him give the facts.”

Judge Roan directed the witness to proceed.

“As I was saying, I found 162 centimeters of food in the stomach. Practically none of the food had gone down into the small intestine. This showed clearly that the contents of the stomach had not been pushed on into the smaller intestine and this pushing usually begins about thirty minutes after eating, and within an hour the food is usually well on toward digestion.”

Mr. Rosser interrupted. “Let the witness state facts. He’s making a stump speech.”

The witness continued. He stated that the amount of gastric juice secreted was considerably less than would occur in the average individual within an hour after eating.

“DEATH IN FORTY MINUTES.”

Dr. Harris went fully into details of his examination of different acids in the stomach, and declared that they, together with the cabbage and the starch, made it possible for him to say with absolute certainty that Mary Phagan’s death occurred within thirty to forty minutes after she ate her last meal at home. He declared that her digestion and her stomach were normal in every way.

As a result of questions by Solicitor Dorsey, Dr. Harris said he used a glass with which he could magnify particles taken from the stomach up to 2,000 diameters.

ARNOLD CROSS EXAMINES.

Attorney Arnold cross examined the witness.

“When did Mr. Dorsey first talk to you about this case?”
“I don’t remember.”

“When did you make the first examination?”
“On May 5, I think.”

“Did Mr. Dorsey request you not to tell anybody about this examination?”
“He did.”

“Did you comply with his request?”
“I did.”

“Did he make that request as a solicitor general or as an individual?”
“He didn’t say.”

Dr. Harris continued: “I did not want to make any examination at all, but after talking to Mr. Dorsey he declared that I could be of great service to him, and because I liked him I consented to make the examination.”

“What special examination did he tell you to make?”
“He told me to make a complete examination and to tell him all I could about it. Oh yes; there was some suggestion at the time of poisoning, and I did make an examination for poison and found no trace.”

“Wouldn’t the same marks be left on the body if the cord had been placed around her neck while some other influence was at work producing death?”
“Yes, as long as the heart was beating.”

NO STATISTICS POSSIBLE.

Dr. Harris declared in answer to questions, that there was no actual statistics as to the length of time it takes strangulation to produce death. He said there could be no statistics without degrees of strangulation and a knowledge of the exact time it started and the exact time death came. When strangulation was slow enough, it might take days or weeks. Drowning, he declared, does not produce the same results on the body as ordinary strangulation.

He said it was not entirely the cutting off of the oxygen that caused death from strangulation, but that other elements, such as the retention of carbonic-dioxygen poison, entered into the matter. A man’s heart may beat after he is dead, said the witness. He once saw a man drown, and he was brought out while his heart was still beating, but that he could not be resuscitated. Dr. Harris said that he could not say that the man was alive when he was brought out.

“If the air is cut off from the lungs completely, how long would it be before death?”
“Nobody can say,” replied Dr. Harris.

“What kind of poison did you look for, doctor?”
“I looked for alkaloids, vegetable poisons.”

“Why didn’t you look for mineral poisons, too?”
“There was some in the embalming fluid.”

“Well, I went to the undertaker and he told me.”

GAVE HIM FORMULA.

“What!” exclaimed Attorney Arnold. “Did that man give you his formula?”
“Yes.”

“Why, he wouldn’t even swear to it here.”

“He must have thought better of me, then.”

“What is prusic acid?”

“Organic poison—vegetable poison. There was none present, however. Its odor is intense.”

“Well, you didn’t test especially for it, did you?”
“No, if it had been present the odor would have been enough.”

“Did you test for naconic acid poison?”

“Yes, I made the usual test and found none.”

“Were the contents that you took to make this poison test, in liquid or solid form?”

“Both.”

“Did you make this poison test before or after the other test?”
“I made them all at the same time.”

“What was the first test you made?”
“One for quantity.”

“Well, how many tests did you make altogether?”

EIGHT OR TEN TESTS.

“I made six or eight, or possibly ten.”

Attorney Arnold asked the witness to describe the several tests which he made. Dr. Harris explained them in scientific terms. Attorney Arnold interrupted with a score of questions to bring out details.

Attorney Arnold stopped him for a moment.

“Dr. Harris, you are talking so fast I don’t know whether the stenographer is getting down what you are saying. It is very important.”

The stenographer nodded his head, to show that he was getting it all right. Mr. Arnold told the witness to proceed.”

ASKED ABOUT GASTRIC JUICES.

Dr. Harris stated that he found about two drops of hydrochloride acid in solution in the stomach. This is a very powerful property in digestion, and in a healthy, normal man, there are only about four drops. Mr. Arnold asked Dr. Harris a great many questions about the gastric juices, and the component parts of the gastric juices, and how they are secreted in the stomach.

The witness stated that next to hydrochloride acid, pepsin is a most important part of the gastric juices. Mr. Arnold wanted to know how much pepsin should have been in the stomach to correspond properly with the two drops of hydrochloride acid. That would depend upon circumstances, said the witness. There was no way to test the amount of pepsin. It was possible merely to tell the presence of pepsin. Pepsin, said he, is an animal product, and it comes from the stomachs of cows and hogs and sheep. Mr. Arnold questioned the witness as to the next most important element in the gastric juices.

“There are no more of particular importance,” replied the witness, explaining that the gastric juices consist principally of hydrochloric acid, pepsin and water.

“It is possible for an artificial gastric juice to be made, for a man to swallow with his food,” said the witness; adding that the natural gastric juices cannot be separated from the stomach except by chemical action. Mr. Arnold again asked what other elements were in the gastric juices. Dr. Harris said there were several others of minor importance, one of which is rennet.

NO EXPERIMENTS ON DEAD.

Answering a question by Mr. Arnold, Dr. Harris stated that so far as he knew, no experiments upon the stomach of corpses, to determine the gastric juice action on food eaten just prior to death had been recorded. It would be difficult, said he, to get subjects who had died just after eating. The juices of the body “go out,” very shortly after death, said he.

Dr. Harris stated that the analysis of cabbage varies greatly, that all cabbage is not the same. He declared that it is just as nourishing as any other vegetable except possibly peas, potatoes and carrots.

At 5 o’clock, after the cross examination had been on for nearly an hour, Dr. Harris showed that he was weakening under strain. Judge Roan asked him if he would prefer to continue at another time. Dr. Harris said he would like to get a little rest. He had been out of bed but a short time, he said, and was weak. The court excused him upon his promise to return at a later time.

Dr. Harris admitted under questioning by Mr. Arnold that he had saved of the contents of the stomach except the pieces of cabbage which he exhibited in the bottle. He searched carefully to see if there were traces of any in the stomach and found none.

MRS. COLEMAN CALLED UPON.

Mrs. J. W. Coleman, mother of Mary Phagan, was recalled to the stand.

There was some delay in getting Mrs. Coleman into court, and Solicitor Dorsey called J. N. Starnes, city detective, the nominal prosecutor, to the stand.

“Did you take some cabbage that Mrs. Coleman cooked, to Dr. Harris?”
“Yes, I bought some cabbage and took it to her, and she cooked it, and then I took it to Dr. Harris.”

Starnes was excused without further questioning.

Mrs. Coleman took the stand.

“State the comparison between the cabbage you cooked for Detective Starnes and that which you cooked and which Mary ate on April 26.”

“They were alike as nearly as I could cook them,” said Mrs. Coleman. “I all but fry my cabbage. I tear it up well and cook it about an hour.”

“What kind of pocketbook did Mary have on the day she left home, Mrs. Coleman?”

Attorney Rosser objected, “He’s already asked her about that,” said he.

Solicitor Dorsey said, “Oh, all right then; I forgot it if I did.”

Mrs. Coleman left the stand.

DALTON TO TESTIFY.

C. B. Dalton was called for the state but just after he entered the room Judge Roan adjourned the court, at 5:10 o’clock, until 9 o’clock, Thursday, and Dalton was dismissed until that time.

* * *

Atlanta Journal, August 7th 1913, “Judge Roan Decides Conley’s Testimony Must Stand,” 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 3^rd, 1913

By Britt Craig.

When Mrs. J. W. Coleman, mother of Mary Phagan, related a simple story on the witness stand the first day of the Frank trial of the slain child’s frugal meal of cabbage and biscuit which she ate upon leaving home that fateful day, she paved the way for the most thrilling development thus far in the entire case.

Her story was as devoid of thrills as any yet told. It was an ordinary recitation of a common meal and told in the mother’s plain, simple manner. Had she not broke into tears her connection would have been completely devoid of interest, except for the fact that she was Mary Phagan’s mother.

But her statement of the meal the murdered child had eaten, prepared an opening for the startling testimony of Dr. Roy F. Harris, the state chemist, who testified that the cabbage found in the stomach, and which Mrs. Coleman stated the child had eaten at the noon meal, indicated that she had met her death within 45 minutes after eating.

And another extraordinary incident for which the trial has been peculiarly noted. The biggest thrill of the case was created by two ordinary vials that looked as though they had once contained substance no more interesting than household vaseline which were produced by Dr. Harris—the vials containing the 160 cubic centimeters of cabbage removed from the girl’s body.

Morbid Curiosity of Audience.

There was a straining of necks. Many arose from their seats. Women and girls looked on eagerly, expectantly, intent upon missing none of the details. A silence prevailed that could almost be felt and only the buzzing of the fans and ozonators could be heard.

Dr. Harris’ testimony was grewsome—harrowingly so. An air of tragedy pervaded the room as he spoke in the terse, crisp words of the medical expert. As he spoke of exhuming the body at dawn in the little Marietta grave yard and of cutting into the child’s skull to examine the brain, there were visible shudders throughout the crowded room. Many women left their seats walking hurriedly to the exit, hiding their features with newspapers.

When Mrs. Coleman told of Mary’s last meal many wondered why the solicitor introduced such apparently trivial evidence. It irritated them to listen to such unimportant statements while there were more thrilling ones to follow. Inwardly, they no doubt rebuked the prosecutor for dallying with such a story.

But a lasting lesson was learned upon the introduction of Dr. Harris—a lesson of how big sometimes are the infinitesimally small and seemingly inconsequential things of life and mystery.

The trend of modern science is graphically shown in this particular phase of the Frank trial. It forces one to believe that sooner or later, the secret will be learned from the Sphinx, and the world will know the moon’s inhabitants. Dr. Harris’ testimony indicates that Mary Phagan’s last meal—her cabbage and biscuits—will reveal almost the exact minute of her end.

When the Dead Do Tell Tales.

This is, undoubtedly, the most effective adaptation of science to any trial in the history of Georgia Chemistry has played important roles in modern trials, and so has medicine, but not once in the records of Georgia justice has it been employed in an effort to prove the exact time of murder.

They say the dead tell no tales. That was said a long time ago, some early philosopher probably, who lived in a period when science was in swaddling clothes. It is true enough, but should be changed. Dead men speak no tales, would be better, for it is about to be proved that the corpse of Mary Phagan is disclosing the hour of her death.

Probably the discovery of Dr. Harris’ was a result of infinite thought and patience. Probably it was an accident. Anyway, he exhumed the body of the murdered child, examined her stomach and found the undigested cabbage. His medical knowledge told him of the length the digestive organs require to act upon this certain vegetable, and this same knowledge told him of how long it had been within the stomach before death.

He informed the solicitor and the solicitor learned from Mrs. Coleman the exact hour at which Mary ate diner. From this summing up of conditions and circumstances and science, Dr. Harris gathered that the girl had been slain not more than forty-five minutes after she had quit the meal.

It is very simple, but a product of science. Mrs. Coleman’s simple tale of Mary’s dinner of cabbage and biscuit, was the genesis of the most scientific move made in a courtroom in Georgia’s history. It was the first link, and without it, the other links could not have been attached to the chain.

But, as is characteristic of the typical courtroom audience, it fretted at such obviously unnecessary testimony relating to what a child ate for dinner.

* * *

The Atlanta Constitution, August 3rd 1913, “Fixing Hour of Girl’s Death Through Aid of Modern Science The Prosecution’s Greatest Aid,” 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 3^rd, 1913

Place and Time of the Murder Only Big Facts Brought Out in the Mass of Evidence.

One week of the battle Leo M. Frank, accused of the murder of Mary Phagan in the factory of the National Pencil company, for his life has elapsed, and his fate is yet a question for future developments to decide.

The first week of the trial has been markedly free from sensations.

The two big facts that the week’s evidence would seem to show are that Mary Phagan was murdered in the second floor of the pencil factory, and that she was murdered within one hour after she ate her breakfast at home shortly after 11 o’clock.

The principal features of the week’s evidence are as follows:

Mary’s Mother Testifies.

The examination of witnesses began with the most pathetic scene in the whole week, when Mrs. J. W. Coleman, mother of the murdered girl, took the stand.

With appealing simplicity the mother told of how her little daughter had arisen on the fatal Saturday morning about 11 o’clock bright and joyous in her childish excitement over going to see the Memorial day parade; of the frugal breakfast of bread and cabbage she had eaten, and of how the little girl had happily busied herself helping her mother by doing this or the other small turn in the housework. At about 12 o’clock little Mary had finished with her chores, and dressed in a light summer frock, as fresh and sweet as a wild rose, sallied forth to meet her fate.

The mother went gently as she was compelled to recall her little girl’s fourteenth birthday, which would have been June 1, and to which she and Mary had looked forward to celebrating with so much pleasure, and as Mrs. Coleman told of the child’s beauty, she dwelt tenderly on each feature as if her very heart were breaking once more to caress them.

Identifies Daughter’s Dress.

Bearing up wonderfully under the ordeal of beholding once more the frock which she had helped little Mary to adjust before she left home for the last time, Mrs. Coleman identified the dress and the hat with the pale blue ribbon and the tiny bunch of flowers.

Mrs. Coleman was followed on the stand by George Epps, a little “newsy” and a companion of Mary, who had been with her on the street car as she came into the city, and had talked with her about the fun they would have that afternoon when they had promised each other to watch the big parade together.

With his head shaven as smooth and slick as a billiard-ball, George mounted the stand and told his story, boy-wise, in minute detail even to the point of explaining how he could squint one eye at the sun and tell the time of day.

Were Going to Parade.

He testified that Mary Phagan got on the English avenue incoming trolley car with him about 10 minutes before 12 o’clock and that they had ridden together to Forsyth and Marietta streets when Mary had left him to go to the pencil factory to get her wages and that they had agreed to meet again at 2 o’clock at Elkin’s drug store to see the parade. George said that he waited until 4 o’clock that afternoon to meet Mary, and when she did not meet him as she had promised, he had grown tired of waiting and went to the ball game.

George Epps left the stand and Newt Lee, the nightwatchman at the National Pencil company’s factory, who discovered the body of Mary Phagan in the basement and reported his grewsome find to the police, followed him. Stolid and stubborn, all negro, and without any refined sensibilities to be hurt, Newt Lee stood the punishment of Attorney Rosser’s gruelling cross-examination without a shadow of a qualm, never once departing in any particular from the story he had repeated innumerable times since that gray Sunday dawn when he found the body.

Sent Away From Factory.

Lee testified that, in view of the fact that Saturday, April 26, was a holiday, he had been ordered to report for duty at the pencil factory at 4 o’clock, instead of 5 o’clock which was the time when he was accustomed to report on Saturdays, and accordingly had arrived at the factory a few minutes before 4 o’clock. He found the front door unlocked as usual, but found the door on the stairway leading to the second floor locked.

Lee testified that when he arrived at Mr. Frank’s office, Frank met him at the door rubbing his hands saying that he was sorry that he (Lee) had come so early. Frank insisted that Lee go up town and “have a good time,” and Lee says that he told Frank that he needed sleep. Frank, according to Lee, continued to insist that he leave the factory, and said that Lee needed a good time. Lee said he could have slept in the packing room of the factory.

When Frank insisted, however, Lee says he left the factory and did not return until 5 o’clock, at which time he found the doors just as he had left them.

Gantt Scared Frank.

Lee said that Frank told him then not to punch the clock as there were some workmen in the building. Immediately afterwards Frank put a punch slip in the clock.

Lee was questioned about the relations between Frank and Gantt on that afternoon, and said that he saw Gantt downstairs about 6 o’clock, when he claimed to be looking for a pair of shoes he had left there when discharged from the factory. About that time Frank came downstairs unexpectedly and when he saw Gantt jumped back a little frightened. Gantt explained to Frank that he came for his shoes. Frank intimated that the shoes had been swept out, but at length allowed Gantt to enter the factory with Lee, at which time Gantt got two pairs of shoes and left. By this time Frank had also left.

About 7 o’clock, Lee said, Frank telephone to him to know if “everything was all right,” which action on the part of Frank had not been done before during Lee’s service.

Lee then explained how he had gone to the basement to the toilet about 3 o’clock, and while there saw an unusual object lying on the ground, which he investigated with a smoky lantern and found to be the dead body, which was later identified as that of Mary Phagan. Lee says he then notified the police and tried to notify Frank.

Frank Dropped His Head.

When the police arrived Lee was taken to police headquarters and did not see Frank until he was carried back to the factory about 7 or 8 o’clock.

Lee said when he saw Frank then it was in the factory office and that Frank looked at him and then at the door and dropped his head without saying anything. He testified that N. V. Darley, an official at the factory, examined the time clock and stated that it was correctly punched.

Lee and Frank were then carried to the police station and Lee said that he did not see Frank any more until a night soon after then, when Lee was handcuffed to a chair in a room at the police station and Frank was shut in the room alone with him.

On this occasion, said Lee, Frank looked at him and dropped his head. Lee testified that he (Lee) said:

“Mr. Frank, it’s mighty hard for me to be handcuffed to this chair for something I didn’t do.”
To this Lee said Frank replied:

“We’ll Both Go to Hell.”

“What’s the difference, they’ve got a man guarding me.” Frank then told Lee that he didn’t believe that Lee killed the girl, but knew something about it. Lee told Frank that he only discovered the body, whereupon Frank, according to Lee, replied:

“Yes, and if you keep that up, we’ll both go to hell.” The detectives came in at that time.

Upon cross-examination by the defense, Lee testified that if he had inspected the basement of the building with the regularity required by his instructions, he would have found the body earlier.

Thus, without sensation or the disclosure of a single fact that had not been public property for many weeks, ended the first day of the most famous murder trial in the history of Atlanta.

At the opening of Tuesday’s session Newt Lee was again placed on the stand and Attorney Rosser continued his cross-questioning without bringing out further material facts from the watchman.

Girl’s Body Found.

Sergeant L. S. Dobbs, the officer who headed the squad which responded to Newt Lee’s alarm, went on the stand and stated that when he arrived at the factory Lee was apparently not laboring under excitement, but that he took him in charge and had him direct the officers to the body in the basement. He stated that he found the girl’s body lying there face down with blood on the back of her head and with a cord tied so tightly around her neck that it cut into the flesh. There was also, he stated, a piece of underclothing tied loosely around the neck.

The finding of the murder notes was next related as well as of the discovery of the missing shoe and hat and traces of where a body had apparently been dragged along the ground in the basement from the elevator shaft to where the body was lying.

Tuesday afternoon Detective J. N. Starnes was placed upon the stand and testified corroboratory to Sergeant Dobbs’ story of finding the body.

Says Frank Was Nervous.

Detective Starnes brought upon his head the gruelling fire of the defense when he stated in regard to telephoning Frank that the superintendent was nervous. A sharp lilt between Solicitor Dorsey and Attorney Rosser ensued, in which the former accused the defense of trying to impeach the testimony of the witness.

This closed Tuesday’s hearing of the trial with no material advantage one way or the other since the beginning of the trial.

Affairs took a turn on Wednesday morning, however, which aroused great hopes of acquittal among the friends of the defense when the memory of John Black, who was the first witness of the morning, proved treacherous and his testimony did not pan out as the state had evidently expected.

Black Gets “Mixed Up.”

Black admitted that he was “mixed up” and could not recall to mind what he had testified a few moments before. He failed particularly in recalling dates and details in regard to the finding of the bloody shirt at Newt Lee’s house.

The solicitor had hoped to prove by Black that he went to Lee’s home and found the shirt after Frank had informed him that there were irregular punches on the slip in the time clock, showing that Newt Lee would have had time to go home; that after Frank’s house had been searched for incriminating evidence at the suggestion of Herbert Haas, that Frank sought to have Lee’s house also searched and that the bloody shirt was a “plant.”
Black’s answers, however, failed to bear these points out.

Black also failed in recalling the exact time within a few hours when he and Detective Haslett took Frank to the police station on Monday morning following the discovery of the murder.

“Frank Didn’t See Body.”

W. W. (Boots) Rogers, who went with the officers to the factory at the time the body was discovered and who was subsequently active in the investigation of the case, testified that to the best of his knowledge Frand [sic] did not look at the body of Mary Phagan when he was taken to the undertaking establishment where the body was lying, and that he could not, therefore, have known who the dead girl was. Frank had previously testified at the coroner’s inquest that he saw the body.

Attorney Rosser resorted to the grilling tactics which had played havoc with the faculties of Detective Black, but was unable to confuse Rogers.

Grace Hicks Identifies Body.

Grace Hicks, who worked at the pencil factory, testified that she had identified the body as that of Mary Phagan on the morning of its discovery. She stated that during the five years she had been employed at the pencil factory she had spoken to Leo Frank but three times. She did not know whether Frank was personally acquainted with Mary Phagan or not.

J. M. Gantt, a former employee at the factory, stated that he had known Mary Phagan for years, his and her family having been neighbors in Cobb county. He recalled that Frank had once asked him:

“You know Mary pretty well, don’t you?”
Gantt said that Frank appeared nervous when he went to the factory on Memorial day to get his shoes which he had left there when discharged for alleged shortage in the pay roll.

The feature of Thursday’s proceedings was the failure of other witnesses to testify as the prosecution had expected, and introduction of the first new testimony since the trial began.

Mary’s Pay Envelope Found.

R. B. Barrett, a machinist at the pencil factory, disclosed the fact that he had found the supposed pay envelope of Mary Phagan near her machine on the second floor. Until Barrett’s testimony the question of the pay envelope had been a mystery. Barrett also stated that he had discovered blood stains on the floor near the girl’s machine and had found strands of hair on the machine. The blood stains, he said, had been smeared over with some sort of a white preparation. Barrett’s testimony, as did the testimony of other witnesses, seemed to bear out the contention of the solicitor that the murder was committed on the second floor.

A surprise was in store for the prosecution when Harry Scott, a Pinkerton detective who had been employed by the defense was placed upon the stand. Solicitor Dorsey sought to prove by Scott that Frank was nervous the first time he saw him, but contrary to the solicitor’s expectations Scott testified that such was not the case. Solicitor Dorsey became somewhat excited at this turn in the detective’s testimony and intimated that he had been “trapped.” Scott did, however, testify that Frank was nervous at police station. He also stated that either Frank or Darley had told him that Gantt had been very familiar with Mary Phagan.

Defense Wanted Evidence First.

Scott declared that Herbert Haas, one of Frank’s attorneys, had suggested to him that the Pinkertons turn over to him all evidence found before turning it over to the police department. Scott said he declined to do this, declaring that he would give up the case first.

Monteen Stover, a former employee at the pencil factory, declared that she was in Frank’s office on the Saturday of the murder from 12:05 until 12:10, but that she did not see Frank. Frank has claimed that he was in his office at that time.

Dr. Claude Smith testified that he had examined the bloodstains of the shirt found at Newt Lee’s home and the blood found on the pencil factory floor, but was unable to decide whether or not it was human blood.

Elevator Power Box Unlocked.

When E. L. Holloway, an employee of the pencil factory, and the last witness of the day, was placed upon the stand, his testimony also turned out to be not all that was expected of him.

Holloway had previously made an affidavit to the effect that the power box to the elevator at the factory was locked on the day of the murder. But when he testified on the stand he stated that he was mistaken, and that, after all, the power box was not locked at all, but was unlocked.

With the attorneys for both sides greatly ruffled on account of the failure of the witnesses to testify as they had been led to believe they would, Thursday’s hearing was closed. If there was an advantage either way in the day’s testimony it was not so favorable to the defense.

The most startling fact brought out on Friday, and probably the most startling fact in the whole testimony given in the trial so far, was that within three-quarters of an hour after Mary Phagan had eaten her frugal breakfast of bread and cabbage she was dead, as shown by the testimony of Dr. Roy Harris, secretary of the state board of health, who made an examination of the dead girl’s stomach.

Murdered Hour After Breakfast.

The evidence throws considerable light on the much mooted question of the exact time of the murder.

Dr. Harris exhibited on the stand a small bottle in which were particles of undigested cabbage, which he declared he had removed from the girl’s stomach. He declared that the cabbage could not have remained in that state of preservation longer than one hour at the outside while the girl was alive.

Dr. Harris stated that the nature of the wound on the back of Mary Phagan’s head seemed to indicate that she had been struck an upward blow. The blow on the eye, he said, looked as if it had been inflicted by a person’s fist.

Dr. Harris was unable to testify positively as to whether Mary Phagan had been outraged or not, although he said there were indications that such was the case.

Dr. Harris’ testimony had to be discontinued within a few minutes after he took the stand, when he was attacked by a fainting spell as the result of recent illness. His testimony will be resumed as soon as his physical condition will permit.

Says Frank Didn’t Eat.

The testimony of N. V. Darley, assistant superintendent of the pencil factory, who followed on the stand, was to the effect that Frank was very nervous on the morning following the murder, but on cross-examination Darley also testified that he had on two other occasions seen Frank equally as nervous.

Albert McKnight, husband of Frank’s cook, stated that he had seen Frank in the dining room of his home when he came home for lunch on the day of the murder, but that he did not see him eat anything.

There were several other witnesses who testified to minor details.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 3rd 1913, “Resume of Week’s Evidence Shows Little Progress Made,” 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
July 31^st, 1913

Mrs. J. W. Coleman was recalled to the stand for only a moment’s interrogation regarding the mesh handbag which she carried with her upon leaving home on the day of the tragedy.

Attorney Rosser asked,

“What kind of bag did Mary carry with her that day?”

“A mesh bag.”

The solicitor asked that she describe its size and shape. Her description was that of an ordinary mesh bag, unornamented and manufactured of silver.

She also identified the handkerchief and parasol as having belonged to the slain child.

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

Atlanta Journal
July 31^st, 1913

Detective John Black “Goes to Pieces” Under Rapid-Fire Cross-Questioning of Frank’s Attorney at Afternoon Session

Action characterized the Wednesday afternoon session of the Frank trial, and it was the first time the tedious proceedings had taken on life enough to attract more than passing interest.

This action came in the fierce and merciless cross-examination of Detective John Black by Attorney Rosser, leading counsel for the defense. Black has taken a prominent part in the investigation of the Phagan murder, and it was expected that he would prove one of the state’s principal witnesses, but before Mr. Rosser had finished with him he went all to pieces and admitted that he was hopelessly confused.

There were only two witnesses at the afternoon session—Detective Black and J. M. Gantt, the former shipping clerk at the pencil factory. Gantt was on the stand but about twenty minutes and the only two important points in his testimony were assertions that Frank knew Mary Phagan and that Frank seemed to be frightened and very nervous when the witness saw him at the pencil factory door on the evening of the murder.

DORSEY’S CHARGE.

There was a considerable colloquy between Solicitor Dorsey and Attorney Rosser as to the propriety of the questions framed by the solicitor. During this colloquy Mr. Dorsey addressing the judge, declared, “I propose to show, your honor, that this bloody shirt was a plant, and that it was through suggestions made by the defendant that the detectives were induced to search Newt Lee’s house.”

The question was finally put and the witness rather hesitatingly replied that it was on Tuesday that the shirt had been found and that it was on Monday morning that Frank had suggested that the officers search his own house, and that it was also on Monday that the defendant had announced that there were skips in the time clock slips.

Court re-convened at 2 o’clock.

SECOND VISIT TO FRANK’S.

Detective Black also told of going to Frank’s home again Monday morning at 7 o’clock with Detective Haslett to ask him to come down to the police station to talk the murder over. Black said that he and Haslett had to wait on the porch while Frank ate breakfast, and when Frank finished his meal they accompanied him to headquarters. They arrived about 8 o’clock or 8:30.

Shortly after they got there he noticed Attorney Rosser and Herbert Haas. At 11:30 o’clock Monday morning Haas insisted to Chief Lanford that a search he made of Frank’s house by officers, Frank accompanying them.

Solicitor Dorsey asked the witness just what Haas said to Lanford. Black replied that Haas stated he was Frank’s lawyer and that in that capacity he would insist that nothing should be left undone to clear up the matter so far as Frank was concerned.

Solicitor Dorsey then asked the witness if on that morning Frank had consulted with Rosser and Arnold. He said he didn’t know about Mr. Arnold, but that Frank had consulted with Rosser and Haas at police headquarters.

The witness was asked what conversation he had had with Newt Lee. He and Pinkerton Detective Scott suggested to Frank, replied the witness, that he take Newt Lee into a room and see if he could get anything out of him that would throw light on the murder.

The witness said that Frank had spoken very highly of the negro night watchman. The two were left in a room alone together for five or ten minutes, said the witness. Black was not able to overhear very well what was said in the room. Detective Scott and Black went into the room and Frank told them Newt Lee stuck to his first story of not knowing anything about the murder.

Black said that Frank told them he insisted to Lee that he, the negro, must know something about the murder as no one else was in the factory on that Saturday night. Black said that he talked with Frank about getting suggestions from him, and that Frank seemed to suspect Gantt and to believe that Lee might know something about it, inasmuch as Lee was the nightwatchman and as such it was his duty to go through the factory every thirty minutes.

“He told me,” said the witness, “that Gantt came to the factory about 6 o’clock Saturday afternoon and that he left him there, that he had had some previous trouble with Gantt and at first had refused to let him go in and and look for his shoes, but that he later told Lee to let him in and watch him while he was in the factory, that he had given this direction because Gantt knew the surroundings of the office.”

Subsequent to this conversation, Gantt was arrested, said Black. Frank did not talk with Gantt. Frank did not refuse to talk with Lee.

The first mention was made of Jim Conley’s name.

Solicitor Dorsey asked the witness if there had not been other suspects. Black said yes.

“Who were they?”

“Jim Conley was one,” replied Black.

“Did Gantt talk to Conley?”

“No.”

“Did you talk to Frank on several occasions after he was arrested?”

“Yes. He seemed to be nervous, as any man under arrest would be, and was willing to answer questions.”

Solicitor Dorsey asked that the statement be stricken, saying it was not an answer to his question. Judge Roan refused to rule it out.

Solicitor Dorsey asked this question:

“Was Newt Lee nervous after he was arrested?”

Attorney Rosser objected.

“Well,” said Solicitor Dorsey, “if you let him give this gratuitous opinion about Frank, isn’t it fair to let me compart it with the demeanor of another man accused of the same crime?”

Attorney Rosser still objected. Judge Roan agreed to sustain Rosser, but told the solicitor that he would rule out Black’s opinion if the solicitor would withdraw his question. This was done.

The solicitor then put his question in another form.

The solicitor then put his question in another form.

“After Frank was arrested, did you observe his deportment, conduct and appearance?”

“Yes, he was excited and sullen and didn’t have much to say. Previously he had talked willingly.”

Solicitor Dorsey announced he was through with the witness and Attorney Rosser took up the cross-examination.

“You said Frank was ‘released’ Monday evening,” began Attorney Rosser. “You mean then that he had been detained there against his will?”

Detective Black said that he had used the word ‘released’ inadvertently, and that Frank had not been under arrest that day.

Attorney Rosser attacked the statement that Frank had retained counsel Monday (?) about 8 or 8:30 o’clock.

“As a matter of fact, don’t you know that it was 10 o’clock in the morning when I came to police station?”

Black answered, “No, I don’t know it.”

“What? You don’t know it was 10 o’clock when I came?”

Black answered, “No, sir. I still think you were there at 8:30 o’clock.”

“Were you in the room when I got there?”

“I was in the hall.”

“Didn’t you hear me go up and introduce myself to Mr. Frank? Didn’t you know that I never had seen him before? Didn’t you hear me ask him what they wanted with him? Didn’t you hear him say that they wanted a statement from him? And didn’t you hear me tell him to give it voluntarily?”

ROSSER RAPS LANFORD.

Detective Black answered in the negative. “I wasn’t in the doom,” said he.

“Didn’t you hear Chief Lanford call Frank into his private office with a snarl, like he was talking to a negro, and say, ‘Come in here.’”

“No, Chief Lanford doesn’t talk that way.”

“You and Chief Lanford didn’t want me in there, did you, Mr. Black? You didn’t want me to hear what you had to say to him?”

“No, sir.”

In answer to other questions, Black testified that Frank during his detention at the station house and in his examination by the coroner’s pury [sic], answered all questions readily.

Attorney [R]osser reverted to the previous conversation which Black testified he had with Frank regarding another matter, before the murder of Mary Phagan occurred.

“Can you remember who was with you on that occasion?” he asked the witness.

“No—Bullard.”

“What refreshed your memory so suddenly? As a matter of fact, aren’t you figuring that your partner should have been there?”

“No, it just occurred to me.”

Where were you when this conversation took place?”

“In the pencil factory.”

“What part of the pencil factory?”

“Around the office.”

“As a matter of fact, you can’t swear truthfully that you spoke to him at all, can you?”

“Not positively.”

THE PHONE CONVERSATION.

Regarding the telephone conversation when Detective Starnes called Frank on the morning after the murder, Attorney Rosser asked Black if he could remember what Starnes said.

“No, sir,” replied Black.

“Did you have Newt Lee in your custody at that time?”

“I don’t remember.”

“What time did you get to the undertaking establishment?”

“About 6:30 o’clock, to the best of my recollection.”

“As a matter of fact, wasn’t the sun high and hot when you got back?”

“No.”

“Why didn’t you tell Frank, until after you got in the automobile, that a girl had been killed at the factory?”

“I wanted to see the effect of the news on Frank.”

“When you really want to remember anything, you write it down, don’t you, Mr. Black?”

“Well—yes.”

“Didn’t Frank go upstairs and put his collar and tie on?”

“No, sir.”

“You don’t see things like other men, do you, Mr. Black?”

“I suppose I do.”

“How long did it take Frank to put on his collar and tie?”

“I don’t remember.”

“Did he tie his tie, or was it a hang-me-on?”

“It was a cravat.”

ROSSER GRIL[L]S BLACK.

“How long did you stay out there?”

“Maybe not ten minutes.”

“And Frank talked freely to you in the automobile, didn’t he?”

“Yes.”

“You took him to the undertaking establishment?”
“Yes.”

“How did you say you went into the undertaking place—in what order; the undertaker first, Rogers, Frank and then yourself?”

“Yes.”

“Frank was between you and the body?”

“Yes.”

“You saw the girl’s face?”

“Yes.”

“Well, then, Frank had an opportunity to see her face. He was closer to her than you?”

“Yes.”

“Now about that curtain. It opened into a sleeping apartment, didn’t it?”

“I don’t know.”

“As a matter of fact, you and Frank stood just inside the door, didn’t you?”

“Yes.”

“You on the left and Frank on the right?”

“I think so.”

CURTAIN AT UNDERTAKER’S.

“Mr. Black, that curtain was about 10 feet from the little opening, wasn’t it?”

“I don’t know, sir.”

“To have gone behind that curtain, Frank would have had to walk several feet out of his way from the opening where he stood?”

“I don’t know, sir.”

“You wont’ swear, Mr. Black, will you, that Frank went behind that curtain?”

“I think he did.”

“You were standing in the same relation to the curtain as Frank, were you not?”

“No.”

“This slepeing [sic] room was about six feet off, was it not?”

“No.”

“Frank didn’t go behind the curtain, did he?”

Black didn’t reply.

“You know what ain’t so, don’t you?”

“I don’t know.”

“You went upstairs into the factory with Frank?”

“Yes.”

“He unlocked the safe without trouble at the first effort?”

Black nodded.

“And he took the book out at the first reach?”

“Yes.”

“And he carried it and put it on the table?”

“Yes.”

“And he opened it at the right place?”

“Yes.”

“He ran his finger down the column of figures until he reached Mary Phagan’s name?”

“Yes.”

“And immediately he informed you that he had paid Mary Phagan $1.20.?”

“Yes.”

“You went through the factory with Frank?”

“Yes.”

“Who else went?”

“I don’t know—several people.”

“A whole horde of ’em, wasn’t it?”

“I don’t know. There were several.”

“And none of you saw the splotch said to be blood?”

“No, sir.”

“None of you saw the spots in the hallway, close to the dres[s]er?”

“No.”

“How many of you went over the building?”

“I don’t know exactly.”

“Perhaps thirty people?”

“I don’t know.”

“This large horde, made up of officers and curiosity seekers, went over the factory and nobody saw these alleged blood spots?”

“No, sir.”

“How long was the factory open on Sunday morning—till about 12 o’clock was it not?”

“I don’t know.”

“How many times did you go to the factory that morning?”

“Twice.”

“You were there quite a while the first time, were you not?”

“Yes.”

“Detective Starnes went over the factory with you, did he not?”

“Yes.”

“Campbell and Beavers, too?”

“I don’t know about Beavers, but Chief Lanford did.”

“And no blood spots were discovered that day?”

“Not so far as I know.”

“You saw Frank at the clock?”

“Yes.”

“He opened the clock and took out a slip?”

“Yes.”

“Darley was there?”

“I don’t know. I don’t remember being there.”

“Who held down the lever?”

“I don’t know. He didn’t have to hold the lever down.”

“Boots Rogers held it down, didn’t he?”

“I don’t recollect.”

Black then stated that he believed Rogers held the lever while Frank put a new slip in. He didn’t think anyone held it down when Frank took the old slip out.

“A moment ago, you didn’t have any recollection, did you? You’ve got it now, though, haven’t you?”

Black smiled feebly.

“How long did you keep Frank at the station house that morning? From about 8:30 until 11:30, didn’t you?”

“He stayed there,” answered the witness.

“Well, that’s what you meant. You meant you kept him there, didn’t you?”

“I could say, we kep you there, but we didn’t,” responded the witness.

FRANK’S SURRENDER OF SLIP.

“When did Frank turn over this slip that he took out of the clock?”

“I don’t know.”

“Sunday morning?”

“I don’t remember.”

“Didn’t you tell Mr. Dorsey a few minutes ago that he turned over the slip on Monday morning?”

“I don’t remember.”

“Look here, Black. Is your memory so bad you can’t remember what you told Dorsey twenty or thirty minutes ago? And yet you attempt here to state the words of conversations that occurred more than three months ago?”

Witness did not answer.

“You heard Frank say he was mistaken about the way the time slips were punched—that at first he examined them only in a casual way?”

“I don’t recollect.”

Mr. Rosser referred to conversations which Black had had with J. M. Gantt, and brought forth the statement that Frank had charged a shortage against Gantt before Gantt was discharged, and that he had given orders that Gantt not be admitted to the factory.

“I wiesh [sic] to examine this witness no further now, your honor, but I want to call your honor’s attention to the rule that if we want to use him to impeach another witness who follows him, we may call him back to the stand.”

The statement of Attorney Rosser was taken to indicate that there is a possibility that the defense may use no witnesses.

NEWT LEE’S SHIRT.

Mr. Rosser asked Black if he had searched Newt Lee’s house. Black answered that he had, and that he found a bloody shirt. The shirt, which had been in the possession of the solicitor general, was exhibited to the witness by Mr. Rosser and was identified by him. He found the shirt at the bottom of a barrel at Lee’s residence, said the detective. He brought the shirt to police headquarters and showed it to Lee. Solicitor Dorsey objected, and Judge Roan held that Newt Lee’s admission that the shirt belonged to him could not be introduced in evidence.

Solicitor Dorsey took up the redirect examination.

The solicitor made the statement that he would try to show that the shirt found at Newt Lee’s house was a plant of the defense. This statement came during an argument between the lawyers, and was precipitated by this question of the solicitor: “What did Frank say about Lee telling or not telling all that he knew about the crime?”

Attorney Rosser objected to Black answering that question.

The solicitor explaining his motive in asking it said, “I want to show that Frank was trying to point suspicion at Newt Lee. I want to show that he wanted his own house searched so that when the officers had gone through it and nothing had been found there, he could tell them to go and search Newt Lee’s house. Our contention is that this shirt was a plant and Frank’s request was a ruse to get the police to search his house and then Newt Lee’s house and thus throw suspicion on the negro. The shirt was part of the scheme.”

THE QUESTION ALLOWED.

Judge Roan allowed the question.

Detective Black, answering it, said that Frank declared Lee hadn’t told all he knew.

Solicitor Dorsey asked: “Did Frank at any time tell you that Lee had time to go home and get back to the factory during the night?”

Black replied that after Frank was supposed to have looked at the tape the second time, he (Frank) had made that remark to him (the witness.)

“Did you search Newt Lee’s home?”

“Yes.”

“Was it before or after Frank called your attention to these discrepancies in the time slip?”

“Afterward.”

Solicitor Dorsey took the shirt and handed it to the detective.

“Which side of the shirt is the blood on?”

“On both sides.”

“Does it look like it had been put on one side and then had soaked through?”

“I can’t tell,” answered the detective.

“Now, Mr. Black, I want to get this one point clear. You told me that you had one conversation with Mr. Frank on the Monday morning after the murder, and I understood you to tell Mr. Rosser that you didn’t have any. What about that?”

“To the best of my recollection I had one conversation with Frank on that day.”

ROSSER GROWS ANGRY.

Jumping to his feet and advancing towards the witness in a threatening manner, Attorney Rosser shook his finger at him and demanded:

“Didn’t you say that personally you had no conversation with Frank about these slips?”

“No, sir.”

“Well, what time Monday did you have this conversation with Frank?”

After hesitating for a moment or two, the witness replied that he could not remember.

Glowering at the witness, Mr. Rosser demanded:

“Black, didn’t you say time and time again that you couldn’t say whether it was before or after you talked about the slips that you went to Lee’s house?”

“I said it was after I talked about the slips.”

“Look here, Black, isn’t it in the record—right here in the record—that several times over you admitted that you couldn’t tell whether you went to Newt Lee’s house after the conversation about the slips or before?”

“I wont’ say.”

“Isn’t it true that you never did discuss these slips with Frank?”

“I remember on one occasion Frank said the slips were mispunched, and that was what caused me to go to Lee’s house.”

Before the witness had finished his answer, Mr. Rosser was shaking his finger at him and putting his question:

“What I want is for you to tell me if you haven’t sworn already that you couldn’t say whether this talk about the slips occurred on Monday.”

“I said I didn’t remember, but I had gone out after Frank suggested there were mispunches.”

Mr. Rosser started to fire another question at the witness, when the latter interrupted him to say:

BLACK ADMITS HE’S CONFUSED.

“Look here, Mr. Rosser, I don’t like to admit that I’m balled up, but you’ve got me cros[s]ed up and I don’t know where I’m at. I want to tell the truth—“

“Come down, Black,” said Mr. Rosser. But before the witness could leave the stand, Solicitor Dorsey proposed this question:

“When was it, Mr. Black, that you first heard Mr. Frank discuss these punch slips?”

“Sunday morning.”

“When was it Frank told you that what he had said on Sunday about the slips was wrong and that there had been skips?”

Attorney Rosser objected, insisting that this ground had been gone over with the witness. Judge Roan sustained the objection.

Solicitor Dorsey asked:

“What day was it you knew that Frank changed his statement?”

Attorney Rosser objected to this declaring it was immaterial.

“Well, what day did Frank tell you these slips were not correct?” amended the solicitor.

“To the best of my knowledge, it was on Monday.”

“Come down, Mr. Black.”

“Yes, come down, Mr. Black,” echoed Mr. Rosser, with a sneer.

As the witness was leaving the stand, it was announced that Mrs. J. W. Coleman, the mother of Mary Phagan, would be recalled. Some of the bailiffs misunderstood and thought that Mr. Rosser desired that Black resume the witness chair. To this mistake, Mr. Rosser shouted, “Not on your life.”

MRS. COLEMAN RECALLED.

Mrs. Coleman was recalled by Attorney Rosser.

“Did Mary, on the day she left home the last time, carry a little mesh bag?”

“Yes.”

“That’s all,” said Mr. Rosser.

“Describe that bag,” asked Solicitor Dorsey.

“It was just a plain silver mesh bag,” said Mrs. Coleman.

Mr. Dorsey produced the bloody handkerchief and the parasol. The latter was identified positively by Mrs. Coleman as having belonged to Mary. She said she was almost certain that the handkerchief belonged to Mary.

Mrs. Coleman left the witness stand and was given a seat in the court room beside her husband, J. W. Coleman, who has watched every step of the trial.

J. M. Gantt was called to the stand.

“Were you ever employed at the National Pencil factory?” asked Solicitor Dorsey.

“Yes, from January 1 to about April 7, when I was discharged by Mr. Frank.”

“Why were you discharged?”

“For an alleged shortage.”

“Did you know Mary Phagan?”

“Yes, I knew her when she was a little girl. She was born on a farm near where I lived. But I hadn’t seen her for years until I met her in the pencil factory.”

“Did Leo M. Frank know Mary Phagan?”

“Yes.”

“How do you know that he did?”

“One day she had been in the office talking to me about a mistake in her time. When she left, Mr. Frank turned to me and said, ‘You seem to know Mary pretty well.’”

“When was that occurrence?”

“How intimate were you and Mary?”

“I knew her very well when she was a child. And I saw her frequently at the factory.”

On questions from Solicitor Dorsey, Gantt said that he worked in the office on the second floor and in the shipping department there. Mary Phagan worked in the rear of the second floor.

Frank worked in the office near him, said Gantt.

RETURNED TO FACTORY.

“From April 7, when you were discharged, to April 26, had you been back to the factory?”

“Yes, twice.”

“Did you see Frank?”

“Yes, both times.”

“Did he offer any objection to your presence?”

“No.”

“What do you know about one girl getting her pay for another girl with Frank’s knowledge and consent?”

Attorney Rosser objected to this question as irrelevant, but Solicitor Dorsey declared he later would show its relevancy, and was allowed to proceed.

“Mr. Frank had no objection to one girl getting the pay envelope for another if I knew the parties.”

“Were you in the habit of helping Mary?”

“No.”

“Explain everything in connection with the alleged shortage.”

“One Saturday after we had gotten the money for the payroll and it had been checked up and found to be correct, and after it had been put in the envelopes and distributed, one of the men came back and said he was more than $2 short. I didn’t know anything about it, and told him to see Frank. After he had talked with Frank, Frank came out and asked me if I knew anything about it. I said I didn’t. Then Frank said he was not going to make it good. I said that neither was I. A little bit later he called me in and discharged me.”

TIME CLOCK AGAIN.

“Do you know anything about the time clock?”

“Yes.”

“How long would it take a man to make punches for twelve hours?”

“About five minutes.”

Solicitor Dorsey asked Gantt if he had known of Newt Lee failing to make a complete register of the time clock. Attorney Rosser objected, and Judge Roan sustained the objection.

The solicitor asked Gantt who took his place in the pencil factory. Gantt replied that he didn’t know. Solicitor Dorsey asked if previous to Gantt’s discharge, Frank had said anything about Gantt’s work.

“He said he had the best office force that he ever had.”

“Was it possible for Frank to sit at his desk and see the register clock?”

It was possible, said Gantt, if the safe door was closed.

Solicitor Dorsey asked if Frank frequently fixed the tape in the clock.

“Not while I was there,” said Gantt.

He was questioned about the evening of April 26, when he met Frank came down the stairs. He first saw Frank just after he left the stairway and was walking toward the front door. Frank, he said, looked up and saw him through the door glass and then recoiled and hesitated, as if in doubt, and then came on out. As he came up the little depression in the sidewalk toward the street level, he jumped back a step. Frank was nervous and pale, said Gantt. He hung his head, hesitated and stuttered, said the witness.

ON CROSS-EXAMINATION.

On cross-examination, Attorney Rosser questioned Gantt upon his testimony before the coroner’s jury, reading a portion of it in which was included this question, supposed to haove [sic] been asked of him by the coroner: “Did Frank know Mary Phagan?” And the reply to it on the transcript was, “I suppose so. She was right there in the factory all the time.”

Mr. Rosser asked him about that.

Gantt admitted that the record was correct as far as it went.

Both sides told Gantt to step down.

Attorney Rosser arose. “Your honor,” said he, “we have an insurance policy here for one of the jurors to sign.” The lawyers for both sides examined it and turned it over to Deputy Sheriff Minor for the juror, Monroe S.n Woodward, to sign. It was a life insurance policy.

Court adjourned at 4:40 o’clock.

Frank was taken out ahead of the jury and whisked back to the county jail in an automobile. The jury followed.

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

Atlanta Constitution
July 30^th, 1913

Solicitor Dorsey stood before Detective Starnes at the witness box yesterday afternoon and held to view a lavender frock with a bit of pink ribbon at each shoulder. In the hand that was lowered at his side he held a wee slipper.

“Do you recognize this dress?” he put to the witness.

“I do.”

“To whom did it belong?”

“To Mary Phagan, the girl who was killed in the National Pencil factory.”

Mother and Daughter Sob.

A moist-eyed woman, gray beginning to fleck her hair and betray her fifty years looked sadly upon the articles in the solicitor’s hands. Her daughter beside her strove bravely to check her tears, but bowed her head in a sobbing fit she could not restrain.

They were Mrs. J. W. Coleman, Mary Phagan’s mother, and Mary’s sister, Ollie. Ollie could not remain in the courtroom and her mother lowered her head in tears as the lawyer displayed, piece by piece, every article of the slain child’s garments.

The solicitod [sic] held each bit of the girl’s apparel in view of the entire courtroom for identification from the witness. As Starnes would signify that he recognized the articles before him the solicitor would say:

“This is such and such an article identified as having been worn by Mary Phagan on the day of her death. Is it admissible as evidence.”

Counsel for the defense would group their hands together at their table, nod consent, and Judge Roan, upon the bench, would say:

“Admitted as evidence.”

It was a cruel proceeding, no doubt thought the mother and sister, but one made necessary by law. Many of the pieces they recognized, recalling with a tear the days they worked with thread and needle to fit Mary in the best their talents and home could afford.

Proud of Her Work.

And Mary, herself, had been a competent seamstress. She had always been making something and, whether it was doll clothing or her own dresses, she was always proud of it.

There the lawyer held in his hand the pink frock which had gladdened the little girl’s heard and which she had intended wearing to Marietta the next Monday. He had one of her shoes—the pair she, herself, had selected and contributed a dollar of her wages toward the purchase—and was waiting to display when the dress was admitted.

Mrs. Coleman was crying softly—what mother, who had lost a loving daughter could have held back her tears! It was the first time she had ever been in a courtroom—she had always striven to avoid them.

People stared at them all the while. The mother and daughter sat conspicuously, as the only seats they could find were two selected for them on the rostrula. Everywhere they looked eyes would be focussed upon them.

But, even the gaze of the morbid—the sensation-seeking court auditor whom you will find at every tragedy—melted into a warming look of sympathy as his eyes met those of the sorrowing mother and sister.

Garbed in Black.

They were garbed in black—black from head to foot with no relief. Heavy, dark veil’s fell over their faces, and they lifted them only to dab a handkerchief to filling eyes. Mrs. Coleman has said to reporters—and so has Ollie—that they would not be at the trial were they not subpoenaed as witnesses. It is as hard for them to bear as the tragedy itself, for every phase of the proceedings brings memory of that bleak and unforgettable day when the little girl next door ran over at daybreak and said to the home-folks of Mary’s:

“Oh, Mrs. Coleman—Mary’s been killed at the pencil factory!”

Monday morning Mrs. Coleman was the first witness called to the stand. She walked weakly and had to be assisted into the box. She whispered replies and choked back the catches in her throat. When the solicitor held the clothing of Mary before her eyes, asked her if they had been worn by the child, she tried to answer.

Breaks Down in Tears.

A sob was in her throat and a tear welled into her eye. She drew the handkerchief to her face and broke into weeping. The solicitor, as though his task were fully as distasteful as it looked, dropped the [g]arments to his table and began new questions.

Even Attorney Rosser, whose cross-questioning is feared by the strongest witnesses, put his questions to the sobbing mother in a tone in which his sympathy was most evident. He asked barely a half dozen questions, then said:

“You may come down, Mrs. Coleman,” without giving the state a chance for examination in rebuttal, knowing that even such a relentless thing as the state would not wish to further persecute the bereaved parent.

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

Atlanta Constitution
July 29^th, 1913

WATCHMAN TELLS OF FINDING BODY OF MARY PHAGAN

Trial Adjourns for the Day While Lee Is on the Stand, and His Cross-Questioning Will Be Resumed Today.

MOTHER AND THE WIFE OF PRISONER CHEER HIM BY PRESENCE AT TRIAL

Jury Is Quickly Secured and Mrs. Coleman, Mother of the Murdered Girl, Is First Witness to Take Stand.

With a swiftness which was gratifying to counsel for the defense, the solicitor general and a large crowd of interested spectators, the trial of Leo M. Frank, charged with the murder of Mary Phagan on April 26, in the building of the National Pencil factory, was gotten under way Monday.

When the hour of adjournment for the day had arrived, the jury had been selected and three witnesses had been examined. Newt Lee, the nightwatchman who discovered the dead body of Mary Phagan in the basement of the National Pencil factory, and who gave the first news of the crime to the police, was still on the stand, undergoing rigid cross-examination by Luther Z. Rosser, attorney for Frank.

Lee Sticks to First Story.

When the trial is resumed this morning, Newt Lee will again be placed on the stand. It is not expected that anything new will be adduced from his testimony. Throughout the gruelling cross-examination of Mr. Rosser Monday afternoon Lee stuck to his original story in minutest detail.

Questions that would have confused or befuddled a man of education failed to budge him from the statement he originally made to the police, and has repeated from time to time to reporters and court officials.

The first day’s proceedings of the Frank trial proved singularly free of the dramatic element or the unexpected in testimony.

There were touches of the pathetic, as, for example, when Mrs. J. W. Coleman, mother of the dead child, broke down and cried bitterly when she viewed the clothing of her little daughter; and there were touches of humor when the little Epps boy, who had ridden to town with Mary Phagan on the day of her murder, explained to Luther Rosser his method of telling the time of day by the sun, and of Newt Lee, who amused the courtroom by his quaint allusions and his negro descriptions of a tiny light in the basement of the pencil factory, which he likened to the gleam of a lightning bug, and of his quick retort when Mr. Rosser purposely spoke of this insect as a June bug.

“I didn’t say June bug—I said lightning bug,” contradicted Newt.

Careful Attention to Detail.

This brief excerpt is given as significant of the careful attention to detail that Lee gave to his story.

When the hour of 9 o’clock arrived, Pryor street in front of the temporary courthouse building was cluttered with the usual mob of the morbidly curious. They hugged the hot walls of the buildings like lethargic leeches, vainly trying to gain admission to the building, or buzzed about like bees, gossiping idly of the case.

Perfect order was maintained, however, and few not directly interested in the trial were allowed to enter the courtroom. All day long the crowd remained on the sidewalks gazing intently at the windows to the courtroom, spewing tobacco juice on the street, eagerly questioning every person who left the building.

Interest naturally centered on the appearance in the court of Leo M. Frank, the accused. If Frank has chafed under his confinement, his physical appearance belies the fact. He looked as fit physically as he did the day he was first arrested. He was dressed with scrupulous neatness in a gray suit of pronounced pattern, which was all the more conspicuous on account of his diminutive form. As he entered the courtroom he smiled cordially at several friends. The first person to whom he spoke was a woman employee of the pencil factory.

Next in interest was Mrs. Leo M. Frank, wife of the accused, who, up to this time, has been seen little in public. Mrs. Frank is an extremely attractive-looking young woman. During progress of the trial she kept her eyes constantly fixed on Solicitor Dorsey. Her gaze was one of calm estimate. She seemed to be attempting to fathom his thoughts and to divine his purposes.

Mrs. Coleman Takes Stand.

Efforts to show Mary Phagan’s attitude toward Leo M. Frank by the state and efforts by the defense to show the dead girl’s attitude toward little George Epps, the 14-year-old newsie who testified to riding down town with her on the morning before she was found dead, were the first important things attempted yesterday when the trial of the state v. Leo M. Frank, charged with the Phagan girl’s murder on April 26, was formally opened.

Both efforts were promptly blocked for the present time by opposing counsel, and the testimony was started in regular form by the introduction of Mrs. J. W. Coleman, mother of Mary Phagan, as the first witness for the state.

During the preliminaries Attorneys Reuben R. Arnold and Luther Z. Rosser, for Frank, tried to conceal the names of their witnesses, but on Solicitor Hugh M. Dorsey’s objections, they were overruled by Trial Judge L. S. Roan, and they called and swore their witnesses as the state had done but a few moments previously.

In a come-back for this the defense asked the court to honor their duces tecum which they previously served upon the solicitor, requiring him to bring into court all statements and affidavits made by James Conley, the negro sweeper, who made an affidavit incriminating himself and declaring he had aided Frank in disposing of the girl’s body.

Solicitor Dorsey, after a conference with Frank A. Hooper, a brilliant criminal lawyer aiding him, dictated a statement to the court stenographer in which he agreed to produce these affidavits and statements at the proper time, should they be held material.

Defense Announces Ready.

The case started promptly at 9 o’clock with the courtroom thronged with veniremen and spectators, witnesses and lawyers and friends of the principal. Contrary to the persistent rumor that the defense would ask postponement and to their frequent objections to the trial in the heated term, the defense proved ready and willing to go to trial.

Frank had been brought from the Tower at 6 o’clock in the morning, and at 7 o’clock had his breakfast brought to him by friends. He ate this in an ante-room, where he remained until the time came for picking the jury, when he came into the courtroom.

When Judge Roan called the court to order all seats were taken.

Frank Enters Courtroom.

It was a few minutes after 10 o’clock, and when the veniremen had been divided into nine panels and a number of them excused on various legal grounds, that Frank was led into the courtroom by a deputy who had stayed with him in the ante-room.

Frank looked quickly about him as he came into the crowded room. He appeared, as a person frequently is, unable to take in all at once the scene in the crowded hall. There was a general stir about the room as he entered, and as he made out the straining faces and searching eyes, it seemed to dawn upon him that he was the man for whom the crowd had gathered and at whom all eyes were turned.

A quizzical smile came over his face. His eyes were partly hidden by the thick and slightly darkened glasses he wore, but his expression seemed to indicate that he was telling himself, “It’s my appearance that has brought this stir and what can those people be thinking about me.”

It was the first time Frank had seen a crowd since he entered the jail on May 8, and it was the first time he had been given an opportunity to look on any but faces of his close friends. The order of the courtroom was perfect except for the slight stir.

Greeted by Wife and Mother.

Frank went to a seat in front of the judge’s stand and near his lawyers. Several of his close friends who had been admitted within the rail crowded round and warmly grasped his hand. A moment later his wife and mother, Mrs. Ray Frank, followed him from the ante-room and took seats on either side.

Mrs. Frank is a beautiful woman, just past the bloom of girlhood, and whose attractive face would cause a second look from any man.

Neither Mrs. Frank, the wife, nor Mrs. Frank, the mother, showed by their looks the strain that the accusation upon their loved one must have caused them.

Jury Quickly Chosen.

The entire morning session was taken up in choosing a jury and general surprise was expressed that the twelve men in whose hands Frank’s life now lies, were selected from the 144 veniremen and within the time mentioned.

At 1:30 the jury had been selected and sworn in and Judge Roan, upon agreement from both sides, adjourned until 3 o’clock. Frank was then taken to an ante-room where his dinner was brought to him from his home, and where, with his wife and mother, he calmly partook of his meal.

Girl’s Mother Breaks Down.

It was at the afternoon session that Mrs. J. W. Coleman, mother of the murdered girl, was put on the stand by the state as the first witness. She was asked a number of questions and finally on being shown the dead girl’s clothes, broke completely down and sank back in her chair sobbing with her face hidden by a large palm leaf fan.

Deputy Miner, quickly brought her a glass of water and she slightly recovered, only to break down again when the defense began to cross-examine her. During her mental suffering Frank carefully kept his eyes away from her, although he sat facing her and the jury. He seemed either unable or unwilling to view the mother’s grief.

George Epps, the little newsboy, who claims to have ridden to town on the street car with the Phagan girl, and who is said to have declared that she told him of certain things she did not like about Frank, was next put up. He was followed by Newt Lee, the negro night watchman, whose telephone call to police station, brought the officers to the scene of the crime at 3 o’clock on Sunday morning, April 27.

When Mrs. Coleman was put on as the first witness she was then apparently holding herself perfectly composed. She was dressed in a black mourning dress and wore a black hat and heavy veil which she threw back from her face.

The mother talked in a quiet, refined voice, that was at times inaudible to lawyers and jurors. By her looks the Phagan family is above the station in life from which come children who toil in factories.

Mrs. Coleman’s Testimony.

After answering the usual questions in regard to her relationship and place of residence, she began her testimony.

“When did you last see Mary Phagan alive?” asked the solicitor.

Answer: “On the morning of April 26, at my home.”

Question: “What did she do that morning?”

Answer: “She helped me with the general housework.”

Question: “When did she get up and when did she have breakfast?”

Answer: “She got up about 11 o’clock and had breakfast right afterwards.”

Question: “What did she eat?”

Answer: “She ate some cabbage and some bread.”

Question: “Was that all?”

Answer: “Yes, I think it was; I know it was.”

Question: “What time did she leave home?”

Answer: “About a quarter to 12.”

Question: “How old was Mary Phagan?”

Answer: “She was nearly 14 years old. She would have been 14 on June 1.”

At the mention of her daughter’s fourteenth birthday, the mother broke down for the first time. It was not evident what had happened as she hid her face with her large fan and no one knew that she was gently sobbing until a minute later.

Tells of Girl’s Beauty.

Here followed questions and answers in which the mother told that Mary Phagan was large and well developed girl for her size and what she was fair complected and decidedly pretty.

“Was she pretty or ugly?” the solicitor asked directly and yet in the kindest tone.

“She was pretty, mighty pretty,” the mother replied.

“Did not she have dimples in her cheeks?” pressed the solicitor.

“Yes, a dimple in either cheek,” replied the mother.

Mrs. Coleman was then asked to describe the dress her child had worn on the morning when she bade her goodby and told her she was going to the pencil factory to draw her pay.

A moment later an attachee of the solicitor’s office had spread out on the floor before the mother and the jury the clothes which the girl wore when her dead body was found.

“How long had it been since the girl had worked at the factory?” the solicitor asked while his employee was unwrapping the bundle of clothing.

“She had not worked there since the previous Monday,” Mrs. Coleman replied.

The woman had been shading her eyes from the sun’s rays during the examination, and suddenly she removed it and spied the clothes. She had previously sobbed when telling of her daughter’s age, and of the little personal traits about her; but when she perceived the garments the child had worn when she last kissed her goodby, little thinking it was forever on earth, a great shudder passed over her frame.

A burst of sobbing seemed to give her relief, and when the deputy brought her a glass of water she recovered sufficiently to drink it and to thank him so quietly that her voice was again audible only a fe feet away.

The mother’s agony at the sight of her dead child’s clothing was enough proof that she had identified them in the mind of the solicitor, and he declared that he had no more questions to ask.

Cross-Examination by Rosser.

Luther Z. Rosser, for the defense, took up the unpleasant task of cross-examination.

“Is that Miss Mary’s hat?” he asked in as kindly a way as his great voice and rugged bearing would permit.

“Yes,” sobbed the mother.

“She wore a pale blue ribbon and a small bunch of flowers on her hat when she left home, didn’t she?” the lawyer asked.

“Yes,” came the faint reply.

“Those are her clothes, then?” queried the attorney.

“Yes, I recognize them as hers,” said Mrs. Coleman.

Attorney Rosser turned from the matter of clothes, apparently satisfied, and started a new line of questioning.

“How far do you live from a car line?” he asked suddenly.

“About two blocks.”

“Is there a store near where you live, and who keeps it?”

“Mrs. Smith keeps a store near my home.”

“What time did Miss Mary leave home that Saturday morning?”

“About a quarter to 12,” the mother replied.

“Do you know whether she started out to walk or to catch a car to town?”

“I think she caught a car; she always did.”

“Do you know a boy named Epps?’ asked Mr. Rosser, referring to the little newsie later put on the stand.

“Yes.”

“Was he a friend of Miss Mary’s?”

“Yes, to a certain extent he was,” she answered.

“Did you not talk to a certain gentleman on May 13?” began Mr. Rosser.

Objections by Solicitor.

“Your honor,” interrupted the solicitor, “I object to that as improper. He must give the name of the person and the place where she talked to him.”

“I’m trying to find out the relations between Mary Phagan and George Epps,” replied Mr. Rosser.

“Well, what this lady said to a certain gentleman is immaterial to this case, unless the defense wishes to impeach this witness and then they must give in detail the time and place of the conversation, as well as the person with whom she talked.”

“I’m not trying to impeach the witness, your honor,” replied Mr. Rosser.

“Isn’t it true Miss Mary told you she detested the Epps boy?” he continued, quickly addressing the witness.

“Immaterial,” objected Mr. Dorsey, “What someone said to her about someone else won’t tell us who killed Mary Phagan,” said Mr. Dorsey.

The attorney, Mr. Rosser, did something that he rarely ever does; he withdrew his question without a fight on it and put it in another way to the mother.

“Didn’t you tell L. P. Whitfield on May 3, that Mary Phagan detested the Epps boy,” said the attorney, apparently trying to show that Mary Phagan’s dislike was so strong for the child that she would never have gone to town with him and promised to meet him at the Elkin drug store to see the parade, as the lad had declared previously and as he later told on the stand.

Solicitor Dorsey again objected and Mr. Rosser agreed to withdraw the question with the provision that he could bring Mrs. Coleman back to the stand later should be think it necessary to prove this.

Solicitor Dorsey then had the mother state to the jury that the clothes exhibited were those of Mary Phagan. Mrs. Coleman then was allowed to have the stand, and she left the [c]ourt room, as she was “under the rule” and required to remain out of court while other witnesses were testifying.

Epps Boy on the Stand.

George Epps was brought in. The lad was barefooted and in two senses of the word bareheaded. He crumpled a ragged cap in his hand and not a hair showed upon his head. The little boy’s head was as cleanly shaven as though a barber had passed a razor across it that very day.

The lad, who looked nervous and how had previously told a reporter that this was his first time in a courtroom, went to the stand in a series of rapid strides and quick jumps.

“I’d be away from here now,” he had previously told the reporter, “if there weren’t so many p’licemen round here.”

The determined way in which he answered all questions and the sureness of his bearing and quickness of his replies caused laughter in the courtroom.

He was asked the usual questions about his age and residence and knowledge of Mary Phagan.

“When did you last see the girl alive?” asked the solicitor.

“When she left me at Forsyth and Marietta streets about seven minutes after 12,” he replied.

“She got on the English avenue car I was on at ten minutes before 12,” he told, “and she said she was going to the factory to get her money. She promised to meet me at Elkin’s drug store to see the Memorial day parade with me, and I was there and stayed there until 4 o’clock and then went to the ball game when she failed to show up.”

Question Withdrawn by State.

“What did she say to you while on the car in reference to L. M. Frank?” asked the solicitor.

Here came a prompt objection from the defense. Attorney Rosser leaping to his feet and declaring the question improper.

“Well, I withdraw it, then,” agreed the solicitor, who, without another question, turned the lad over to the defense.

It was while being cross-examined by the defense that the lad showed the quick wit he possesses.

“How did you know [w]hat time it was when Mary Phagan joined you going downtown that morning?” asked Mr. Rosser.

“I looked at a clock just before I took the car,” he replied.

“You didn’t say anything about a clock when you testified before the coroner’s jury,” objected Mr. Rosser.

“Nope, but I looked at one that time just the same,” flashed back the young witness.

“How did you know what time it was when Miss Mary left you?” asked Mr. Rosser.

“I estimated it from the time she got on the car, and I told it by the sun,” answered the lad. “I can tell time by the sun,” he continued, as though proud of that achievement.

“You can tell the time to within seven minutes by the sun, then?” said the lawyer, apparently trying to confuse the young witness.

“Yes, sir, I can,” came back in a childish treble, but in a manner that showed complete self-confidence.

Lad Positive in Statements.

The lawyer then left out further remarks in regard to the lad’s gift in regard to telling time without any of the modern mechanical means, and took up another phase.

“Did Mary get off the car with you?” he asked.

“Yes, sir.”

“Certain of that, are you?”

“Yes, sir,” the lad replied.

“You are sure she got off the car with you at Forsyth and Marietta?”

“Yes, sir; she and me got off there, and she went across the bridge toward the pencil factory and I went under the bridge to get some papers to sell.”

“You went to sell your papers then?”

“Yes, sir; I thought I could sell them by 2 o’clock and meet her as she had agreed with me to do.”

“Had you sold out by 4 o’clock?”

“No, sir, I finished sellin’ out at the ball grounds.”

“What time was it when you finished selling your papers?”

“I don’t know, sir.”

“Couldn’t you tell by the sun?” came the tantalizing question.

“No, sir, the sun had went down by that time,” the boy replied.

The positive way in which little Epps replied, and the stress upon the “had went” caused a general ripple of laughter.

The lad was then allowed to leave the stand.

Newt Lee Calm on Stand.

Newt Lee followed the Epps boy. He had been waiting in the prisoners’ room throughout the day. There was a characteristic calmness about him and he answered all questions readily.

Attorney Rosser subjected him to a rigorous grilling, under which the negro stood up bravely. At times, his quaint dialect and gestures sent a wave of titters over the court room. He told a graphic story of discovering the body, and was kept on the stand for fully two hours. The adjourned while he was testifying. His testimony will be resumed this morning.

Lee was questioned first by Solicitor Dorsey.

“Newt, how long have you been night watchman at the National Pencil factory on Forsyth street?”

“Three weeks.”

“Ever watch before at the other plant?”

“Yes, sir.”

“What instructions did Mr. Frank give you when you began work on Forsyth street?”

“He carried me around the building and told me to report for work at 5 o’clock on Saturdays and at 6 o’clock on other days.”

Tells of Talk With Frank.

“Did you talk with Frank on Friday, April 25?”

“Yes. He told me to come at 4 o’clock on the next day, which was a holiday; so he could get off earlier than usual.”

“What time did you arrive at the factory on the 26^th of April?”

“A few minutes until 4 o’clock.”

“What was the condition of the Forsyth street door?”

“It seemed locked, and I got my keys out of my pocket. When I pushed on […]

WATCHMAN TELLS OF FINDING BODY

[…] it a second time though it came open.”

“Did this door on previous Saturdays seem locked or unlocked?”

“Unlocked.”

“Was the door on the stairway leading to the second floor locked or unlocked?”

“Locked.”

“When you appeared at the factory to report on afternoons what did you generally do upon going up to the second floor where Mr. Frank’s office is situated?”

“Say ‘Howdy, Mr. Frank.’ He usually called, ‘Hello, Newt,’ and if he wants anything he calls me into his office.”

Told to Leave Factory.

“What did he do when you went to the second floor on Saturday the 26^th?”

“He came to the door rubbing his hands and saying he was sorry I had come so early. I told him I needed sleep and was sorry too. He said go out in town and have a good time because I needed it. I told him again that I needed sleep and he said I needed a good time.”

“Could you have slept in the factory?”

“Yes, sir. In the packing room.”

“When did Frank say come back to work?”

“He said for me not to be gone more than an hour and a half.”

“What did you then do?”

“Offered him some bananas I had and went on out.”

“How long did you stay away?”

“Until four minutes until 6 when I went back to the factory.”

“How were the doors when you returned?”

“Just like I had left them.”

Told Not to Punch.

“What did Frank say when you came back?”

“I went to the door, told him I was back and he asked me what time was it. I told him it was 6 o’clock and, he said, ‘Don’t punch the clock yet, that there were some workmen upstairs.”

“What did he then do?”

“Put in a slip for the time clock.”

“Did Frank ever mention Gantt to you?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Did you see Gantt that afternoon?”

“Yes, sir. I saw him downstairs a little after 6 o’clock. He came across the street from a saloon, and told me he had left a pair of shoes in the factory and that he wanted to get them. I told him Mr. Frank was upstairs, and if he’d go ask Mr. Frank he could get in the building. He said, ‘No, he didn’t want to do that.’ About that time Mr. Frank came downstairs unexpectedly. When he saw Gantt he jumped back a little frightened.”

“What conversation ensued?”

Found Two Pairs of Shoes.

“Gantt said, ‘Howdy do, Mr. Frank,’ and Frank said, ‘Howdy do, Mr. Gantt.’ Mr. Gantt said he had left a pair of shoes in the place, and Mr. Frank said he had seen the boy sweep out a pair of shoes a short time back. He said they were tan shoes. Mr. Gantt said he had left a pair of black ones, too. Mr. Frank dropped his head a minute and said for me to go in with Mr. Gantt to get his shoes. We went into the shipping room and found both a pair of black shoes and a pair of tans.”

“Were they Gantt’s?”

“I reckon so; he took ’em.”

“Had they been swept out?”

“Didn’t look like it.”

“Did you see Mr. Frank any more that night?”

“No, sir.”

“Did he telephone you?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Had he ever done it before?”

“No, sir.”

“What time did he phone?”

Phones Hour After Leaving.

“About 7 o’clock, about an hour after he had left.”

“What did he say?”

“He said: ‘Is that you, Newt?’ I told him yes, and he said: ‘This is Mr. Frank. How is everything?’ I told him everything was all right so far as I know.”

“Were there any lights on the first floor?”

“Yes, sir. One light as you come into the building.”

(At this juncture a diagram was shown of the pencil factory building. Newt explained the position of the light to which he referred, which was near the Forsyth street entrance.)

“Mr. Frank said, ‘Keep this light burning,’” the negro stated, “’because it won’t cost but a few cents.’”

“Did you always light this light?”

“Somebody else lighted it during week days, and I lighted it on Saturdays.”

“Was there a light in the basement?”

“Yes, sir. Mr. Frank said keep that light burning all the time.”

“Was it burning Saturday morning when you left the pencil factory?’

“Yes, sir.”

“Was it burning Saturday afternoon?”

“Did you ever see a lightning bug? It looked just linke one Saturday evening, just a tiny little light. That morning I had left it burning bright.”

“What are Frank’s instructions as to your rounds?”

Two Rounds an Hour.

“To make them every hour and every half hour—on the hour and on the half.”

“Did you make your clock punches regularly on the night of April 26?”

“Yes, sir.”

“In all your time with the factory, did you ever fail to make punches accurately?”

“Never.”

“Up to 3 a. m., did anything happen out of the ordinary?”

“At 3 o’clock I went to the basement to the closet and discovered the body. When I went to the toilet, I looked around toward the back door, and picked up my lantern, and saw something in the corner. I thought that, as it was a holiday, some devilish boys were trying to play a joke on me. When I saw what it was, though, I got out of there.”

Negro Got Out Quick.

“How did you get up the ladder?”

“I don’t know, sir, but I got up there.”

“What happened then?”

“I called police station and tried to get Mr. Frank, but couldn’t.”

“This body was a girl, wasn’t it?”

“I don’t know, sir.”

“When did you see Frank?”

“When they took me back to the pencil factory from the station house.”

“What time was it then?”

“I don’t know—about 7 or 8 o’clock, though.”

“Where was he when you saw him?”

“Coming in the office where they had me.”

“How did he look at you?”

“He looked at me and at the door, dropped his head and didn’t say anything. Mr. Darley, who was in the office, said: ‘Too bad, Newt. I don’t believe you did it, but I think you know something about it.’”

“Was any examination made of the time [c]lock?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Who made it?”

“Mr. Darley, I think.”

“Were you and Frank in jail at the same time?”

“Yes.”

“Did anybody say anything about the clock being punched?”

“Mr. Frank opened it and said the punches were all right.”

“What did he mean by ‘all right?’”

(An objection was made to this question by Mr. Rosser, but was overruled.)

“Meant it was correct,” Lee went on, “accurate—punched every half hour, beginning at 6 p. m. and ending at 3 a. m.”

“After Frank left you in the office that morning, when did you again see him?”

“He went back to the station house with me in the automobile.”

“Did he say anything?”

“No, sir.”

“Did you see him any more?”

Lee and Frank Meet.

“Yes, sir. Some night soon after I was arrested they came to my cell and said they were going to let me and Mr. Frank have it out. I didn’t know whether they wanted us to fight, or what. They put me in a room by myself, handcuffed to a chair, and brought Mr. Frank in. He looked at me and dropped his head. We were alone. When he looked up, I said: ‘Mr. Frank, it’s mighty hard for me to be handcuffed to this chair for something I didn’t do.’ He said: ‘What’s the difference. They’ve got a man guarding me.’ He also said he didn’t believe I killed the girl, but said he thought I knew something about it. I told him I only discovered the body. He said: ‘Yes, and if you keep that up we’ll both go to hell.’ The detectives came in at that time.”

“When Mr. Frank asked you on Friday, the 25^th, to come at 4 o’clock the next Saturday, did you object?”

“Yes, sir; but I agreed to come.”

Defense Takes Witness.

At this point the state yielded the witness to the defense. Attorney Rosser became the questioner.

“You testified before the coroner’s inquest, did you not?”

“I testified before something down at the station house.”

“How many times have you made this statement of yours before Mr. Dorsey?”

“Once.”

“How many times have you made it before Mr. Black?”

“I don’t know Mr. Black, to remember him.”

“How many times before any detectives?”

“I don’t know, sir; there were so many blim-blamming at me so much I couldn’t keep account.”

“Is your mind as fresh now as it was months ago?”

“Well, when anybody remembers a thing, they remember it, don’t they?”

Sticks to Statement.

“Did you tell about Frank’s head being lowered when you came for work that Saturday while you were testifying at the inquest?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Are you sure?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Honest?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Positive?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Do you remember the first Saturday you started to work at the pencil factory?”

“Yes, sir.”

“What time did you report?”

“Five o’clock.”

“Then why did you grumble at having to come back early on the afternoon of the 26^th?”

“I didn’t grumble.”

“Your ordinary Saturday’s sleep ends at 12 o’clock, doesn’t it?”

“Yes, sir.”

“But, on this particular Saturday, you didn’t have to get to the factory until 4 o’clock?”

“No, sir.”

Tells Frank “I’m Here.”

“When you arrived at the office, what were your very words?”

“All right, Mr. Frank, I’m here.”

“What did he do?”

“Came on out of the office—I was standing at the head of the steps.”

“About how far apart were you?”

(Lee pointed at Attorney Frank Hooper, associated with Solicitor Dorsey in the prosecution, saying:)

“About as far from me to that man.”

“What, this handsome man here?”

(Mr. Rosser pointed to Mr. Hooper. The latter took the sally with a good-natured smile.)

“Were you any further than 16 feet?”

“No, sir.”

“Was his head drooping?”

“I didn’t notice.”

“Isn’t it true that before the coroner’s inquest you failed to tell about his head drooping?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Well, let’s see?”

Rosser referred to stenographer notes of Lee’s testimony at the inquest. He read to the court: “Frank came out rubbing his hands and met me at the office door, and said Newt, you can go have you some fun.”

“Isn’t that your statement?” he queried.

“Some of it is, and some ain’t.”

“What isn’t?”

Have a Good Time.

“That part about ‘some fun.’ I said he told me to go have a ‘good time.’”

“Did you say anything at the inquest about a place to sleep at the plant?”

“No, sir.”

“If the front doors to the factory were unlocked, anybody could get into the basement, couldn’t they?”

“Yes, sir.”

“If the stair door was locked, it would prevent no one from reaching the first floor of basement, would it?”

“It would not.”

Doors Were Unlocked.

“When you got back after having gone out and had your ‘good time’ that afternoon the doors were unlocked and anybody could have gone to any part of the building, eh?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Anybody could have gone where they pleased with Mr. Frank in the rear of his office?”

“If he didn’t hear them.”

“Could he see you Saturday afternoon from where he sat?”

“I couldn’t see him.”

“On the first Saturday of your duty in the pencil factory, didn’t you go all over the building without his knowledge, although he sat in his office?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Well, couldn’t anybody do the same?”

“I suppose so.”

“He didn’t know you were there because he was in the inner office, and couldn’t hear you?”

“Yes, sir.”

Uneasy About Him.

“When Gantt came over you watched him to let him in didn’t you? Wasn’t Mr. Frank uneasy about him?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Mr. Frank and Mr. Gantt had had a difficulty, had they not?”

“I think so.”

(Solicitor Dorsey objected to the question because of hearsay evidence. Lee continued).

“Mr. Frank says to me: ‘Lee, I discharged Mr. Gantt, and I don’t want him around.’”

“That’s why he was startled when he came downstairs, isn’t it?”

“That’s what first popped into my mind.”

“What did you upon letting Mr. Gantt out to the street?”

“I watched him go across the street into the saloon, then went up and punched the clock.”

“Do you know where the body is said to have been found?”

“Yes, sir—in the machine room.”

“Did you go into the machine room that night?”

“Every half hour.”

All Except Basement.

“You went into every floor of the building every half hour, didn’t you?”

“All except the basement.”

“Didn’t you say at the inquest that you went into the cellar every half hour?”

“No, sir.”

“When did you go into it?”

“Every hour.”

“Didn’t Mr. Frank tell you to go over the entire building every half hour?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Mr. Frank, then, thought you went into the basement every half hour?”

No answer came from the witness to this question. He was urged to answer by Solicitor Dorsey. Mr. Rosser retorted that he did not care whether or not the question received a reply.

(Mr. Dorsey insisted upon an answer on the grounds that he did not want questions admitted by silence. Mr. Rosser accused the solicitor of instructing the witness. The examination proceeded.)

“You were given no additional instructions that Saturday night?”

“No, sir.”

“You were not told to go into the metal room?”

“No, sir.”

“Not told to go into the basement?”

“No, sir.”

Objection is Sustained.

“If, however, you had followed original instructions and inspected the basement as you were supposed to inspect it, you would have discovered the body earlier, would you not?”

“Yes, sir.”

(Mr. Dorsey’s objection to this question on grounds of it being a hypothetical nature, was sustained.)

“When you went into the basement, was the back door open or closed?”

“Closed.”

“Isn’t it true that when the police got there it was open?”

“They said it was.”

“How long were the police in coming?”

“Eight or ten minutes.”

“How close did you get to the door?”

“No closer than the place where the body lay.”

“The body was 60 feet distant, wasn’t it?”

“About that.”

“How did you know the door was closed?”

“I could see outside.”

“Do you mean to say you could see through it into the darkness in case it had been open?”

“There is a light that burns in the alley just outside the door.”

Went In at 7 O’Clock.

“What time did you first go into the cellar?”

“Seven o’clock.”

“How far did you go?”

“Just to the bottom of the ladder.”

“Could you see the entire cellar from that point?”

“I could see a fire if there had been one.”

“I’m not talking about a fire.”

“That was what I was looking for when I went to the bottom of the ladder.”

“You didn’t go any further at that time than your Junebug light at the scuttle hole?”

“I didn’t say Junebug, I said lightning bug.”

“Tell me what made you go on through the basement at 3 o’clock?”

“I went to the closet.”

“There are closets on the first, second and third floors, aren’t there?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Why did you prefer the one in the basement?”

“Because it was the one Mr. Frank ordered me to use.”

“As you went to the closet, did you notice the girl’s hat, or shoe, or parasol?”

“No, sir.”

“Your lantern was dim and sooty, wasn’t it?”

“Yes, sir—kinder.”

(Here Judge Roan called an end to the afternoon session.)

Sidebars

JURY SELECTED TO TRY FRANK

C. J. Basshart, age 26, single; pressman, resides 216 Bryan street.

A. H. Henslee, age 36, married, head salesman Franklin Buggy company of Barnesville; resides 74 Oak street.

J. F. Higdon, age 42, married, building contractor, resides 108 Ormewood avenue.

W. M. Jeffries, age 33, married, real estate, resides Bolton, Ga.

M. Johenning, age 46, married, shipping clerk, resides 161 Jones street.

W. F. Medcalf, age 30, married, mailer, resides 136 Kirkwood avenue.

J. T. Ozburn, age 36, married, optician, resides 30 Ashby street.

Frederick Van L. Smith, age 37, married, electrical manufacturing agent, resides 481 Cherokee avenue.

D. Townsend, age 23, married, paying teller, resides 17 East Linden street.

F. E. Winburn, age 39, married, claim agent Atlanta and West Point railroad, resides 213 Lucile avenue.

A. L. Wisbey, age 43, married, cashier, resides 31 Hood street.

M. S. Woodward, age 34, married, cashier King Hardware company, resides 182 Park avenue.

Married, 11; single, 1; youngest, 23; oldest, 46; average age, 35 years and 5 months; quartered at Kimball house, in charge of Bailiffs Charles F. Huber and F. A. Pennington.

DORSEY SATISFIED.

This was Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey’s statement made last night.

“Results obtained during Monday exceeded even the state’s hopeful expectations. Progress was highly satisfactory, and the results achieved predict continued success throughout the case. We have always felt confident of victory, but now feel absolutely assured.”

DEFENSE IS PLEASED.

This statement was made last night to a Constitution reporter by Attorney Reuben R. Arnold, associate counsel for the defense:

“I am decidedly pleased with the first day’s progress. The defense feels that great headway has been made toward victory. We feel assured that the success we experienced Monday will continue throughout the trial.”