Atlanta Georgian
August 18^th, 1913

By JAMES B. NEVIN.

It is rather an extraordinary thing that on this Monday, the beginning of the fourth week of the most remarkable murder trial ever held in Georgia, the interest should be in nowiseabated or lessened, and that the opening of court to-day saw the biggest, hungriest and most insistent crowd of curious spectators yet on hand at the opening of court.

Far from letting go the Phagan mystery, the public to-day seems to be gripping it even more eagerly than ever before.

Opinion still is widely divided as to the guilt or innocence of Leo Frank, and there have been many switches of conclusion and reversals of theory, pro and con, within the past week, and no doubt there is much more of the same sort of thing to come.

People to-day believe Frank guilty who started out believing him innocent, and the rule is working right around the other way, moreover!

Despite the many things that have been said and the countless things that have been written of the Frank trial and all that led up to it, it remains, on the threshold of its fourth week, the most absorbing melodrama ever enacted in Atlanta—the most bitterly fought and the most uncompromisingly contested trial known to the criminal history of the State of Georgia.

The principal parties to the case are, of course, Mary Phagan, the dead girl; Leo Frank, the defendant at bar, and Jim Conley, the grimly accusing negro.

Four months ago no one of these people was known to many Georgians.

Mary Phagan, a sweet little working girl, had a circle of perhaps a hundred friends—not 1 per cent of the population of Atlanta ever had heard of her.

Frank Little Known.

Leo Frank, the superintendent of the National Pencil Factory, was hardly known by very many more people—he had a business and college acquaintance, and a limited circle of social intimates. Not more than 2 or 3 per cent of Atlanta’s population ever had heard of him.

Jim Conley, the negro, more than well known in police circles, along the way of the “Butt In” bar in Peters street, and a familiar figure enough along Darkest Decatur, numbered among his respectable acquaintances not more than 50 people—if nearly so many—perhaps.

Now—less than four months after the terrible deed enacted in the pencil factory on Saturday, April 26—there is not a hamlet, a crossroads store or a country or city home in all Georgia that has not heard of every party to the sordid story, and that has not discussed everyone of them, together and singular, from every point of view imaginable!

It is more than morbid curiosity upon the part of people that prompts this great and never-flagging interest in the Phagan case—it is more than the mere fascination of crime that links the heart and mind of the people to it.

In the case of Leo Frank there is that indescribable element we call “human interest,” that vague and elusive thing that tugs at the heart-strings and nags at the conscience—there is the knowledge upon the part of the public that a monstrous crime has been committed, and that responsibility for it must be fixed, no matter the cost and no matter the effort!

The public does not clamor for Leo Frank’s life so much, nor for Jim Conley’s—it demands that responsibility for Mary Phagan’s brutal murder be fixed, and it will not be satisfied until that responsibility IS fixed.

At the same time, I believe—and I have believed all along—that the public wants to see justice done and fair play indulged in.

If Frank is not guilty he has been punished already beyond reason or reparation. He should be turned loose, with every amend decency and mistaken zeal may summon to their embarrassed effort at righting a frightful wrong.

If, however, he is guilty, and that is shown, then the inconvenience and discomfort accorded him thus far will matter little, if anything.

It is a tremendously big game the lawyers are playing in the stuffy little courtroom in the old City Hall Building.

One one side is the majesty of the law of the land, that must be maintained at any and all cost—that majesty of the law that may be invoked in behalf of the humblest no less than the highest. On the other hand is the defendant—an abstract thing in the sight of the law.

On one side is the great State of Georgia, calling for a “tooth for a tooth and an eye for an eye”—on the other side are those guaranteed rights of citizens, embodied in Frank, that must not be challenged lightly or without complete and compelling reason.

It is a Big Game.

It is a big game—it involves that most precious of all gifts of God, a human life, and a human reputation, a home and the happiness thereof. It is a game, nevertheless, that involves on the contrary a sinister charge of utter unworthiness upon the part of the man who still protests his rights to these precious gifts, jealously given of a Divine Power, and as jealously guarded by His laws, no less than by the laws of human beings.

One can not get away from the conclusion, cited many times, that, after all is said and done, Frank’s character will determine the verdict in the case now on trial.

His character will be found to be his greatest asset and his most sure dependence, in this his hour of pressing peril—as his lack of it, if shown, must prove to be his final and everlasting damnation.

Frank, by injecting his character in issue, has challenged the worst upon the part of the State.

He has cited scores of witnesses to uphold it—he has made a brave and maybe an abundant, showing.

The State, however, says it will break down that character—that it will show Frank’s unspeakable depravity, even as charged glibly and smugly by the negro, Conley, as yet uncorroborated by any person the most abandoned would care to believe.

If the State can do this thing—

Can it be possible that Frank, through all these years, has been leading a double life?

Can it be true that he has, while professing to be an honorable and upright man, a faithful husband, a dutiful and worthy son, a deserving and decent friend among his neighbors and his kind, nevertheless been, really, a moral degenerate, an ignoble and deceitful creature—and can it be that these things, so long and so cleverly concealed, at last led him to murder?

The State’s Contention.

The State holds that his family circle, his intimate social acquaintances, and his business associates, would, as a matter of fact, be the last people in the world to know the truth of Frank’s double life—for, say they, Frank would employ every artifice and summon to his aid every possible device to keep those very people from discovering the truth concerning him.

This, so the State contends, is precisely what Frank did do—and in that way they justify his alleged intimacy with Conley and his quick calling upon Conley for help, when eventually he found himself with the blood of a human being on his guilty hands.

The State is asking a good deal when it asks the public to believe this of Frank, in the light of the evidence of his good character tendered last week, and it hardly is possible that the public WILL believe it, unless the State makes its charges crystal clear.

Men will ask themselves—and will ask themselves wisely—whose reputation is safe, if it may be brushed away and broken down by the uncorroborated word of such a creature as Conley?

But, Conley uncorroborated in one thing—while Conley corroborated is quite and altogether another!

The State is yet to be heard in rebuttal of Frank’s character witnesses—and so judgement must be suspended pending their revelations.

The only point is—and it has been an evident point so long that to reemphasize it seems trite—the State must make good on its sinister charge of perversion and degeneracy upon the part of Frank, or its case will be greatly weakened, perhaps beyond repair.

I have an idea that Frank’s statement on the stand may weigh heavily in the minds of the jury.

Frank the Star.

Indeed, it is not improbable that the very best jury speech and jury argument put forth in defense of Frank, with all due appreciation and respect of and for Mr. Rosser and Mr. Arnold, will be made by Leo Frank himself!

His statement, although not sworn to, will carry an appeal that hardly can be framed of other lips—either that, or it will fall flat and stale and of no consequence whatever.

The trial long ago resolved itself into a matter of Frank vs. Conley.

It is the defendant’s word against the negro’s.

Both have self interest in the verdict—the life of one or the other must pay the forfeit of Mary Phagan’s murder.

The forthcoming statement of Frank, and the rebuttal of the character witnesses, constitute the two events ahead that may, within themselves, make or mar this case, as one may come to view it eventually.

And it is this situation, no doubt, that holds up the interest to-day, as the fourth week begins—for, despite all that has gone before, the case is not yet nearly ended, and there still remains many things undetermined.

* * *

Atlanta Georgian, August 18th 1913, “Leo Frank’s Own Story to Add Final Touch to State’s Greatest 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 Georgian
August 18th, 1913

That his married life has been very happy; that his office safe door was open and he could not see Mary Phagan as she spoke to him on leaving after drawing her pay; that he was in his office from 12 until just before going home to lunch.

PROFOUND IMPRESSION MADE BY PRISONER’S REMARKABLE STORY

FRANK LOOKS STRAIGHT AT JURY AND TELLS STORY DELIBERATELY

During his statement, Frank looked straight into the faces of the jurymen and talked very distinctly and deliberately. His voice was not very strong and the deputies had to rap frequently to keep down the noise.

From the lips of the man accused of the murder of Mary Phagan, came a remarkable story Monday afternoon, August 18, 1913.

The spectators in a densely packed courtroom listened with strained interest as Leo Frank told in graphic words of the events of the day which brought the charge of a terrible crime against him.

It is doubtful if a tale so clearly told, so thorough in its detail, so logically presented ever has been related in a Georgia court of justice by a man over whom has hung the accusation of a horrible murder.

His wife smiled affectionately at him when he told of his marriage to her and said with feeling: “My married life has been exceptionally happy; in fact, the happiest period of my life.”

His words, dispassionate at first, grew in force as he proceeded, but he seldom departed from his moderate tons of voice. The only exceptions were when he was referring to some particularly vital point.

At one point he adverted to one of the Solicitor’s charges that he had not done all the work on Saturday that his lawyers claimed for him. Frank displayed a sheaf of requisitions to the jurors, and said with a trace of heat:

“Notwithstanding any insinuations that may have been made, I wrote these requisitions!”

He brought out the closing words with a startling force he had not displayed before, emphasizing each word with a blow of his hand on the railing front of the jury box.

At another time he held up a long sample case of vari-colored pencils to the view of the jury.

Solicitor Dorsey objected to the display of the pencils on the ground that they had not been introduced as evidence.

Frank smiled and said to the jurors:

“I guess you have seen enough of the pencils to perceive there are a great many kinds.”

The spectators smiled with him as they saw he had accomplished all he desired.

Here is Frank’s story as it was told with its various interruptions:

Mr. Arnold: “Now Mr. Frank, such papers as you want to use you can come down here at any time or from time to time and get them on this table right here.

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

The defendant said: “Gentlemen of the jury, in 1884, the 17th day of April, I was born in Cuero, Texas. At the age of three months my parents took me to Brooklyn, New York, which became my home until I came South, to Atlanta, to make my home here. I attended the public schools of Brooklyn and prepared for college in Pratt Institute of Brooklyn, New York.”

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

Came to Atlanta In October, 1907.

“I remained with these parties until about the middle of October, 1907, when at the invitation of some citizens of Atlanta, I came South to confer with them with reference to the starting and operation of a pencil factory to be located in Atlanta. After remaining here for about two weeks I returned once more to New York, where I engaged passage and went to Europe. I remained in Europe nine months. During my sojourn abroad, I studied the pencil business and looked after the erection and testing of machinery which had been previously traded for.”

“In the first part of August, 1908, I returned once more to America, and immediately came South, to Atlanta, which has remained my home ever since. I married in Atlanta an Atlanta girl, Miss Lucille Selig. The major portion of my married life has been spent in the home of my parents-in-law, Mr. and Mrs. Emil Selig, at number 68 East Georgia avenue, Atlanta. My married life has been exceptionally happy. Indeed it has been the happiest days of my life.”

“My duties as superintendent of the National Pencil Company were in general as follows: I took charge of the technical and mechanical end of the factory, looking after the processes and seeing that the product was turned out in quality equal to the standard which was set by our competitors. I looked after the installation of new machinery, and the purchasing of any machinery, and in addition I had charge of the office work at the Forsyth street plant, and the lead plant on Bell street.”

Looked After the Purchase of Materials.

“I looked after the purchasing of the raw material. I saw after the manufacture of pencils and kept up with the market of these materials, and when the prices fluctuated so that the purchases could be made to the best possible advantage.

“On Friday, April 25, 1913, I arrived at the pencil factory on Forsyth street at about 7 o’clock, my usual time. I immediately started in on my regular routine work, looking over the papers I had laid out the evening before, and attending to any work that needed my special attention that morning.”

“At about 9:30 o’clock I went over to the office of the general manager and treasurer, Mr. Sigmund Montag, whose office is at Montag Brothers on Nelson street. I stayed over there a short time, and got what papers had arrived in the mail all the mail of the pencil factory comes over to their office. I got that mail and brought it back to the Forsyth street office. I then separated the mail and continued in my usual routine duties in the office on Forsyth street.

“At about 11 o’clock Mr. Herbert Schiff handed me the payroll book, covering the plants at Forsyth street and Bell street, for me to check over and see if the amounts and extensions were correct. Of course, this work has to be very carefully done, so that the proper amount of money is drawn from the bank. This checking took me until about 12:20 p.m.”

Went to Bank To Get Pay Money.

“I then went over to Montag Brothers, took the checks drawn and had them signed by Mr. Sig Montag, after which I returned ot Forsyth street and got the leather bag in which I usually carried the money and coin from the bank, and got the payroll slip, on which the various denominations which I desired to have on the payroll were made out, and went, accompanied by Mr. Herbert Schiff, my assistant, to the Atlanta National Bank, where I had the checks cashed.”

“Returning to the factory in company with Mr. Schiff, I placed this bag containing the money for the payroll, in the safe and locked it. At this time my wife called for me and in her company and that of Mr. Schiff I went over to the car, and went with my wife home to lunch. After lunch I returned to the factory and took a tour for about an hour through the factory, after which I then assisted Mr. Schiff in checking over the amounts on the pay envelopes, checking the money
against the duplicate slips that we had got from the bank to see that the correct amount had been given us, and helped Mr. Schiff in checking over the money and in filling the envelopes.”

“This took us approximately until a quarter to six to fill the envelope and sent them, and place them in a box we have there with two hundred pigeon holes in it, that we call our payoff box.”

Paid One Man Check in Cash.

“While I was so occupied with Mr. Schiff in filling the envelopes, a young man named Wright, who had helped us out in the office as clerk during the past week came in and I paid him in cash, as Mr. Schiff had neglected to put his name on the payroll. I just made out a ticket and put it in the payroll box, not the cash box, and continued in the office with Mr. Schiff, taking all the envelopes that were due the help that had worked from Friday, April 18 to Thursday, April 24, inclusive, to pay them through the window in one side of the office. There is a little window built in the hall. I had stayed in my office, checking over the amount of money which had been left there.”

“This amount should have been equal to the amount loaned out in advance to the help. I took a ticket out when we were filling the envelopes in checking this amount there. As near as I recollect it, it was about $15.”

“I noticed a shortage of about $1.20, or something over a dollar, at any rate, and I kept checking to see if I could find the shortage shortage in the various deductions which had been made. I could not locate it that evening, after the help had been paid off, during which time I stayed in my office. No one came into my office and asked me for the envelope or for an envelope of any other party.”

“After the paying off of the help had taken place, Mr. Schiff returned and handed me the envelopes which were left over, bound with an elastic band, and I put them in the cash compartment, which is different from the cash box, the key to which is kept in my cash box, and placed them in the safe, and Mr. Schiff placed the amounts in the box, and placed the box in the safe and left them.”

Tells of Putting Slips in Time Clock.

“I placed in the time clock slips which were to be used the next day. I took the two time slips dated April 25, which had been used by the help on Friday, April 25 these are the two that I put in the slot,” exhibiting the same to the jury.”

Mr. Dorsey thereupon vigorously protested that Mr. Frank shouldn’t be allowed to exhibit these slips to the jury, because they had not been offered in evidence on the grounds that they were immaterial and irrelevant, and on the second ground that he could not put them in evidence on his own statement.

Counsel for the defendant insisted, however, that they should be allowed to offer these slips in evidence as they had been testified to by Mr. Darley and others. The testimony, however, was not produced, and Judge Roan ruled that Mr. Frank might make any statement concerning the same, but that he would withhold his ruling until further investigation. Mr. Frank thereupon proceeded to explain to the jury.

“Gentlemen, as I was saying, these two slips that have April 26, 1913, written at the bottom are the two slips I put in the clock on the evening of Friday, April 25, to be used on the day following, which, of course, was April 26.”

“I neglected to mention also, in going over my duties at the factory, that Mr. Darley was superintendent of labor and manufacture, and it fell to his duty to engage the help and distribute the help throughout the plant, and to discharge the help in case it was necessary. It was also due to him whether the wages were raised or not. In other words, he was the man that came directly in contact with the help. Moreover, he saw that the goods processed through the plant without stopping, speedily and economically for their manufacture.”

“On Friday evening (April 25th) I got home about 6:30 o’clock, had my supper, washed up, and with my wife played a game of suction bridge at a friend’s home in the evening. My wife and I returned home and retired about 11 o’clock.”

“On Saturday, April 26, I rose between 7 and 7:30 o’clock and leisurely washed and dressed and ate my breakfast, and caught a Washington Street or Georgia Avenue car. I don’t really remember which, at the corner of Washington and Georgia avenue, and arrived at the factory, the Forsyth street plant, at about 8:20 o’clock.”

“Upon my arrival at the factory I found Mr. Holloway, the day watchman, at the usual place, and I greeted him in my usual way, and found Alonzo Mann, the office boy, in the office.”

“I took off my coat and hat and opened my desk and opened the safe, and removed the various books and files and wire trays containing the various important papers which were placed there the evening before and distributing them in their proper places about the office. I then went out to the shipping room and conversed a few minutes with Mr. Irby, who was at that time shipping clerk, about the work he was going to do that morning.”

“According to my recollection, we did no shipping that day, owing to the fact that the freight offices were not receiving any shipments, due to the fact that it was a holiday.”

“I returned to my office and looked through the papers and sorted out those which I was going to take over on my usual trip to the general manager’s office that morning.”

“I then turned to the invoice covering shipments which were made by the pencil factory on Thursday, April 24, and which were typewritten on Friday, April 25, by Miss Eubanks, who was the stenographer who stayed at my office. She had hurried through with the office work on the day previous, so that she could go home and spend the holiday in the country where she lived. But I didn’t get to check over the invoices on the shipments on Friday, due to the fact that Mr. Schiff and myself were completely occupied the entire day. So we left the factory with the payroll. So that naturally, these invoices covering shipments which were made on April 24, ought to have been sent to the customers, and I got right to work checking them.”

Shows Invoices to Jury First Time.

“Now I have these invoices here, (Frank taking up the papers and exhibiting them to the jury). These papers have not been exhibited to you before, but I will explain them. You have seen some similar to these.”

“Of all the mathematical work in the office of a pencil factory, this very operation, this very piece of work that I have now before me is the most important. It is the invoices covering shipments and is sent to the customer, and it is very important that the prices are correct, that the amount of goods shipped agrees with the amount which is on the invoices, that the terms are correct, and that the price is correct. Also, in some cases, there were freight deductions, all of which has to be very carefully checked over and looked into, because I know of nothing else that exasperates a customer than to receive invoices which are incorrect.”

“Now, with reference to the work I did on these orders that is not such an easy job as you might be led to believe. Here are initials. They represent the salesman who took the order. Sometimes, I have to go to through a world of papers to find out to whom to credit these orders.”

“I notice that one of the orders to R. B. Kindele calls for a specialty. That has to be carefully noted and recorded. One column represents the shipping point, another the date, etc.”

“The next step is to fill in the orders on this sheet. On this sheet I must separate the orders into price groups. Evidently no work has been done on this sheet since he went away. The reason this is done in the pencil business as in all manufacturing business it is advantageous to sell as much of the high priced goods as possible.”

“This sheet is the only means of telling how much of the various goods we are selling. It is the barometer of our business and requires most careful work.”

Declares He Wrote Financial Sheet.

“After I have finished that work I have had to do this, and not withstanding any insinuations that have been made, I wrote these requisitions.”

Frank read the name on each requisition, which were the same as the names on the orders.

“Now that is all my handwriting, except what as written at a subsequent date to April 26.”

“Well, moreover, this operation this morning took me longer than it usually takes the ordinary person to check invoices because usually one calls out and the other checks, but I had this work all myself that morning. As I did this work this morning I saw that Miss Eubanks had evidently sacrificed accuracy to speed, and everyone of them was wrong. I went over the invoices to make the corrections, figure them out, correct them, and made deductions, if any were to be made, and then get the total shipments, because isnce these shipments were made on April 24, which was Thursday and the last day of our fiscal week, and it was on this week which the financial report which I make out every Saturday afternoon, which has been my custom, so that the total shipments could be figured out, and therefore I could not let it go out at that, so I had figure every invoice in its entirety, so I could get a figure I would be able to use.

“The first order here is to Hilton, Hart & Kern Co., Detroit, Mich. Here is the original order, which exists in our files in our office. Here is the original transaction which was made March 18, but it was not to be shipped until April 24. This is a small order, 100 gross of Number 2; and here is an order of the Packard Motor Car Company for 125 gross of No. 3, and 150 gross of No. 4. Those figures represent the grade of hardness of the lead in the pencil.”

Explains How Orders are Filled.

Frank thereupon explained how such orders were usually filled, whether in part or in whole, and how the shipments were made, and continuing said:

“In investigating shipments made by the pencil company our method is as follows: We make them in triplicate. Our first original is a white sheet that goes to the customer; the second is a pink sheet that goes over to the general manager’s office and is filed serially, that is chronologically, that is, one date after the other, and from that the charges are made on the ledger, and the last sheet, the third sheet, or yellow sheet, which is here (exhibiting it) and those are place in the files in my office, and are filed alphabetically. These yellow sheets that I have here are not the yellow sheets I had that day, because they have since been corrected, and I am just taking the corrected sheets I made the corrections and Miss Eubanks corrected them on Monday by the corrections I had on the white sheet from the corrections I made and I presume at that time made that correct.”

Mr. Frank exhibited to the jury various orders similarly written, to H. W. Williams and Company, of Forth Worth, Tex.; The Fort Smith Paper Company, of Fort Smith, Ark.; S. O. Barnum & Sons, of Buffalo, N. Y.; F. L. Schmidt and Company, of Chicago, and H. S. Kress and Company, of New York.

“Now, there is an order that takes a great deal of study (referring to other Kress order) because in common with these five and ten cent syndicates, there is a great deal of red tape. These are invoices that were typed on April 25, Friday, and were shipped on April 24. It was the date on which the shipment was made irrespective of the date there, (referring to the date on the letter) and these were typewritten. In other words, shipments took place April 24, and that date was at the top, typewritten and stamped by the office at the bottom, April 24. Among other things that the S. H. Kress Company demand on their orders, we must state whether or not it is complete, must give the case number, and must tell by which railroad the shipment goes.

Checking Made Hard By Much Red Tape.

“Here is one for F. W. Woolworth and Company, Fort Wayne, Ind., which shows 35 pounds, less 86 cents per 100 pounds credit. In other words, we had to find out what was the weight of that was on a basis of 86 cents for every 100 pounds shipped. Then here is another of our large distributors in New York. They have a freight allowance of 86 cents a 100 pounds also, and their shipments amounted to 618 pounds on Thursday, April 24.

“I started on this work. As I said, I have gone in it in some detail, to show you the carefulness with which the work must be carried out, and I was at work on this until about 9 o’clock, as near as I remember.

“Mr. Darley and Wade Campbell, the inspector of hte factory, came into the outer office and I stopped what work I was doing, which was this work, and went to the outer office and chatted with Mr. Campbell for ten or fifteen minutes, conversed with them, joked with them and while I was talking with them, I think about 9:15, or a quarter after 9, Miss Mattie Smith came in and asked me for her pay envelope, and the envelope of her sister-in-law. I went to the safe and got out the package of envelopes that Mr. Schiff had given me the evening before, and placed the two remaining envelopes in my cash box, as I considered they might come in and I wanted to have them near at hand so that I could pay them off when they came in. I keep my cash box on the lower side of my desk. After Miss Smith had gone away with the envelopes, in a few minutes Mr. Darley came back with one of the envelopes, and pointed out an error in one of them, the one of the sister-in-law of Miss Mattie Smith, who had gotten too much money.

“When I took the amount which was too much, that amount balanced the error in the payroll that I had noticed the night before, and left about five or ten cents. Those things generally right themselves, anyhow. I continued to work on these invoices when I was interrupted by Mr. Lyon, the superintendent of Montag Brothers, and he brought me a pencil display box. He seemed to be in a hurry, and I told him if he would wait a minute I would go over with him, but he passed out of the office, and then I found a stopping place in the work I was working on, and I put on my coat and when I got to the outer office I found that Mr. Lyon had already left.

“Mr. Darley and I left about 9:35 or 9:40, and we got out of the factory and stopped at the corner of Hunter and Forsyth streets, where we each had a drink at Cruickshank’s soda fountain, and I bought a package of my favorite cigarettes.

“After that conversation there I left him and went alone to Montag Brothers, where I arrived about 10 o’clock or maybe a little after. I entered Montag Brothers and spoke to Mr. Sig Montag, general manager, on business, and he brought the papers which I collect and laid them on his desk, and I then took the papers out, thrust them in the folder and took the other papers which I had in my folder, and […]

LEO FRANK’S OWN STORY ADDS FINAL TOUCHES TO STATE’S GREATEST TRIAL

[…] then distributed them at the proper places in the Montag plant. I don’t know just which ones they were.

Conversation With Miss Hall Recalled.

“In chatting with Mr. Montag I spoke to Mr. Montag and Mr. Korse, after that I spoke to Miss Hattie Hall, the pencil company’s stenographer, who stays at Montag Brothers, and asked her to come over and help me that morning, as I have already told you, that these invoices were wrong, and I wanted her to help me on that work, and could not take it up to-morrow. In fact, I told her I had enough work to keep her busy that whole afternoon if she would stay. She said she didn’t want to do that; she wanted to have at least a half holiday.

“I then spoke to members of the Montag Brothers force, on business matters, and then other matters. Also I then spoke to Mr. Guttenheim, who was sales manager of the Montag Brothers and of the pencil factory, and then spoke to him about several of his orders that were in the factory. There were two of his orders that he paid special stress on that were desired to be shipped right away. I said, ‘I don’t know how una [sic] far along in the process of manufacture the orders have proceeded, but if you can come back I can look it up and tell you when they can be shipped.’ He said he could not come then, but he would come a little later. I told him I would be glad if he would come up a little later on in the afternoon; that I would be there until about 1 o’clock in the morning, and then about half past three. I then took the folder and returned.

Arrived at Factory At About 11 o’Clock.

“Upon arrival at the pencil factory I went up to the second or office floor, and then I noticed that the clock was perhaps five minutes after 11 o’clock, and I saw Mr. Holloway there, and I told him he could go as soon as he got ready. He told me he had some work to do for Harry Denham and Arthur White, who wanted to do some repairing on the top floor, and that he would do the work first.

“I then went to the office, and found Miss Hattie Hall, who had preceded me from Montag Brothers, and another young lady, who introduced herself to me as Mrs. Arthur White. Mrs. White wanted to see her husband. I went into the inner office, and took off my hat and coat and removed teh papers which I had brought back from Montag Brothers and put the folder away.

Week’s Sheet Left In Incomplete Form.

“It was about this time that I first heard the elevator motor start up, and the circular saw in the carpenter shop which was near to it, and I heard it sawing through some boards and thought it was evidently the work that Mr. Holloway had referred to.

“I separated the orders from the letters which required answers, and took from them the letters that did not need immediate attention and laid them in the various places, and it was about this time I had an idea I would like to see how far along the report sheets were which I used in getting up the financial report every Saturday afternoon. To my surprise I found that the sheet contains the records of the pencils packed for the week had been entered for Thursday. The last day of the fiscal week was omitted, and Mr. Schiff, evidently in the stress of figuring out and filling the envelopes for the payroll for Friday instead of Saturday, had evidently not had enough time. I told Alonzo Mann, the office boy, to call up Mr. Schiff and find out when he was coming down; and Alonzo said that the answer came back over the telephone that Mr. Schiff would be right down, so I didn’t pay any more attention to that part of the work, because I expected Mr. Schiff to comem down any minute.

Mrs. Freeman and Corinthia Hall Came In.

“It was about this time that Mrs. Emma Clark Freeman and Miss Corinthia Hall, two of the girls that worked on the fourth floor, came upstairs and asked to go upstairs and get Mrs. Freeman’s coat, which permission I gave them. I told them at the same time to tell Arthur White that his wife was downstairs. A few minutes after they left my office two gentlemen came in, one of them Mr. Graham, and another gentleman; fathers of two boys who had gotten into some trouble during the noon recess and were taken down to police headquarters, and, of course, could not get their pay envelopes the night before. I gave the required envelopes to the two fathers, and chatted with them at some length in reference to the trouble that their boys had gotten into on the day previous.

“Just before they left the office Mrs. Emma Clark Freeman and Mrs. Corinthia Hall came into my office and asked my permission to use the telephone, and started using the telephone during the time these two gentlemen left my office. Previous to the time these two gentlemen came in I had called Miss Mattie Hall in and dictated what mail I had to give her, and she went out and was typewriting the mail.”

Frank went back to the stand. He was handed a glass of water as he resumed his seat but declined it.

“Miss Hall left my office” he continued, “on her way home at this time. There were then in the building Arthur White, Harry Denham and Mrs. White. It must have been from ten to fifteen minutes after that this little girl whom I afterwards found to be Mary Phagan came in. She asked for her pay. I got my cash box referred to the number and gave her the envelope.”

“As she went out she stopped near my outer office doer and said:”

“‘Has the metal come?'”

Sound of Voice Made Little Impression.

“The safe door was open and I could not see her, but I answered No.’ The last I heard was the sound of her footsteps going down the hall. But a few moments after she asked me, I had the impression of a voice saying something but it made no impression on me.”

“The little girl had hardly left the office when Lemmie Quinn came in. He said something to me about working on a holiday and went out. A few minutes before 1 o’clock, I called up my wife and told her I was coming to lunch at 1:15 o’clock. I then went upstairs to (the fourth floor) where Denham and White were working and found […]

Frank Details His Own Story to Jury

[…] they had a bit of the floor taken up and were sawing.”

“I explained to them that I was going to lunch and would lock the door when I left. Mrs. White left at this time. Some lady said that at 12:35 o’clock she found me in front of the safe. It is barely possible that she did. I don’t recall her being there. Her memory probably is fresher than mine on this point.”

“When I went up stairs, I asked Mr. White if his wife was going to stay there with him. She said no, that she would go. She left and then I got my hat and coat and left, locking the outer door.”

“Now, gentleman, to the best of my recollection from the time the whistle blew until I went upstairs to see Mr. White, I did not stir out my office. I went on home.”

(Narrators note: The Atlanta Georgian, omitted part of Leo Frank’s statement, where he spoke about the possibility of unconsciously going to the metal room to use the men’s toilet there, to explain why Monteen Stover found his second floor business office empty between 12:05 p.m. and 12:10 p.m. This evidence was crucial because in State exhibit B, Leo Frank had made an unsworn statement that Mary Phagan was alone with him in his office during this exact time. End of narrator commentary. Leo Frank continues…)

“I called up my brother-in-law, Mr. Ursenbach, to tell him I was unable to keep the engagement to go to the ball game. The cook answered the phone.”

“My wife and mother-in-law were going to the opera. My father-in-law and I ate lunch. He went into the backyard while I lit a cigarette and lay down for a moment.”

“I left and while passing the home of Mrs. Wolfsheimer, saw Mrs. Michael on the porch. I went in to see her and saw Mrs. Wolfsheimer, Mr. Loeb and others.”

Watched Parade When Street Cars Stopped.

“To catch the next car I ran down to Glenn street. On the car I met my wife’s cousin, Mr. Loeb. The car was blocked at the corner of Washington and Hunter streets. I walked up to Whitehall street and stood there possibly for fifteen minutes watching the Memorial Day parade.”

“As I walked down Whitehall street I met Miss Rebecca Carson. This was probably 3:10 or 3:15 o’clock. I greeted her and walked on. I stopped at Jacobs’ Pharmacy and walked on. I went from there to the factory.”

“When I reached there I went upstairs and let the boys know I had returned. A minute later, I returned to my office and started to work on the financial sheet.”

“In a few minutes the clock bell rang and Arthur White came into the office to borrow two dollars. It was while I was at work on the sheet at probably 4 o’clock that I went to the toilet.”

“As I returned toward the office, I noticed Newt Lee coming toward me from the head of the stairs. I told him he could go on off but to be sure and be back at 6 o’clock. I told him I was very sorry I could not let him know about the half holiday but that he was at liberty to enjoy himself as he saw fit, but that he must not fail to return at 6 o’clock.”

“The first night that Newt Lee went to work at the factory, I took him over the building, and stressed the fact that he must go into the basement, especially the dust bin every half hour.”

“I told him it would be part of his duties to watch the back door. He was to make a complete tour every half hour and punch the clock.”

“Now, I will return to the work of the financial sheet. This sheet contains the cost of all the pencils made that week. There are no names but this sample case will show you.”

Evidence Excluded But Jury Sees It.

Frank unfolded a sample case.

Dorsey: “We object to this being used as evidence.”

Judge Roan: “I sustain you.”

Frank placed the sample case to one side.

“Well,” he said, ” you got a sufficient glance at those pencils to see there was a great many.”

“In making up this sheet it was necessary to go through the list of all that were packed. Specials of course, have to be figured separately.”

“For instance, there is a special 60-60-x pencil known as Crackerjack.’ Now I notice that the two expert accountants reported two errors. While they were unimportant, I wish to explain that these errors were not mine. They were made by Mr. Schiff. I never checked his figures. I checked over mine, but not his.”

“Now the next is jobs.’ The accountant found the only error in my financial sheet there in the item jobs.’ It was not an error, as I will show you. He did not know my method of figuring.

“Two items here are totals. The total gross amount is 791 gross, the total value amount $396.75. In figuring the average I obtained $50.01. In that average he discovered an error. It was not an error. I simply did not go as far into the decimals as he did. One-tenth of a cent was close enough for my purpose.”

“Now some of the items in here are taken from the reports of the foremen of the different departments.”

Frank then exhibited a report from the foreman or forewoman of each department and explained it.

“Then there is the report of Mr. Schiff, showing the gross of pencils shipped each day of that week that week was an exceptionally heavy one.”

“Now there is a little report here that constitutes one of the most difficult calculations. It is from the packing room. We have a trick of the trade to put the pencils that do not sell very fast into fancy packages to make them go.”

“Now, very often these pencils are taken from the shelf, where they have laid for more than a year, and repacked in the fancy cases. I made all the calculations on this that afternoon, despite everything that has been said here to the contrary.

“Now here is a little sheet that deals with the grades of the pencils. It shows the totals for each class of pencils shipped that week. This data sheet—we have had very few clerks at the Forsyth street office capable of keeping it, because it requires rather advanced mathematics to reach the totals.”

“Now I will have to get all my thoughts on this sheet. It isn’t a hard job but it is a very tedious one and requires much care and accuracy. Here is rubber—cheap rubber and good rubber. Now it has been intimated that some of these items—this one in particular, if I am not mistaken—that I could take two that were already figured and subtract them from the total and get the cost of the third.

“That is not so. Some of the pencils haven’t any rubber in them at all. I have to go through the same tedious operation on each item. There are various sorts of packing boxes used. Then there are the skeletons in the boxes. Some pencils don’t have skeletons at all.

“All these items must be gone through accurately to get correct results of this sheet. Then there is no section on this data sheet showing the cost of tips. You can’t use rubbers without tips, so, after figuring them, I just added them to the rubbers.

“Some pencils take wrappers and some don’t. The very cheap pencils are tied with a cord, so we have the same tedious figuring again.

“The slat item is not worked out because I could not find the data. I just put it off until Monday.

“Here are the jobs—the payroll at Forsyth street and the payroll at Bell street.

“Now the shipments were figured for the week. I did part of that work in the morning and I explained to you about the invoices being wrong. Well, here are the items on this financial sheet. Then, as to the orders received. Entering the orders received that day involved no more work than transferring.

Has Own Method of Figuring Cost Data.

“Here they are in comparison the amount shipped.

“One of the most intricate things in making out this financial sheet is figuring the cost data. This sheet I may say is a child of my own brain. The first one gotten out was gotten out by myself.

“This item here gives us the net value and the net amount of money the pencil factory received for its pencils. The burden that a business has to carry is its fixed charges—rent, insurance, certain salaries, etc.—the charges that are the same whether great or few pencils are made.

“The machine shop is variable. We did make many machines at first, but later the machine shop was used solely for upkeep. The stats are figured at 22 a gross. That cost was simple multiplication.

“The figuring of that price is not done in making out the financial sheet Saturday afternoon. Mr. Montag and myself figure that in advance, making allowance for profit, breakage, etc.

“I have here on the report of April 26 ‘Slats, not complete;’ that was because Schiff had not made out the slat report, and I planned to complete it Monday morning before taking it to Montag.

“Now, beside the making this large sheet here and the financial sheet, there are three other sheets that I made out. Now, I want to call your attention to this. I did not typewrite it. I merely filled in the blanks. I have several of them typewritten and keep them in my desk.

“In addition to that I make out two condensed financial sheets, showing the principal figures. They are sufficient for a director or stockholder to see what the factory is doing.

Mailed Statements To Stockholders.

“One of these statemetns I mailed to my uncle, Mr. M. Frank, who is president of the company, and the other to Oscar Papenheimer, who was a director.

“I put one in an envelope and addressed it to Mr. Oscar Papenheimer; the other I sent to my uncle along with a price list, and I wrote him this letter.

“This price list is too long for an ordinary envelope, hence the large envelope.

“After finishing the financial sheet, I folded the large sheet and addressed it to Mr. Selig Montag. I then took up the checking up of hte cash and balancing of the cash book. I did that work as near as I remember, between 5:30 and 5 minutes to 6 o’clock. It did not take me an hour and a half. I did it in about 25 minutes. There was $30.54. There couldn’t have been any more. It was mostly in small change. There was one loan to Mr. White, making the total amount of cash $28.50.

“Beginning that week, we had $39.25 as a balance. We drew two checks of $15 each—I mean by that that we went to Mr. Montag’s office and had him draw the checks. The total amount of money we had to account for was 69.25. What it was spent for, of course, is shown on the debit side.”

Frank explained each of those items, including drayage, parcel post, etc.

“I found at the end a shortage of $4.34 coming about in payrolls within the last three months.”

Drinks Water After Talking Two Hours.

At this point Frank paused to take a drink of water having been talking for 2 hours and 30 minutes.

“I finished this work I have just outlined,” he continued, “at 5 minutes to 6 o’clock. I took those slips—I won’t show them to you—stamped April 28. They were put into the clock because no one was coming into the office until Monday.

“Newt Lee’s punches on Monday night would appear on the strip placed on the clock Monday night. Just before I left I put new tape in the clock and made Newt Lee punch it. Then he went on down stairs to wait and let me out.

“As I started out of the factory, I saw Newt Lee talking to a man named Gantt, who had been released about two weeks before, I gave them permission to go into the factory and get Gantt’s shoes which he said were left there and I told Newt Lee to go with him.

“I reached home at about 6:25 o’clock and at 6:30, thinking Newt Lee woudl be near the clock, I called him over, the phone to see if everything was all right. I could not get him. I called again at 7 o’clock and again at 7:30. At that time I got him and he told me everything was all right.

“That night my parents-in-law had company at the home. Those present were Mr. and Mrs. Marcus, Mrs. Goldstein, Mrs. M. Marx, Mrs. A. B. Marx, Mr. Ike Strauss—who came in at about 10 o’clock. I read a magazine until about 10:30 and then retired.”

Told Officer He Did Not Know Girl.

At this juncture the jury retired for five minutes.

Frank conferred with his attorneys while the jury was out. Upon its return he resumed:

“I believe I have taken in every move Saturday night. I retired Saturday night. Sunday morning about 7 o’clock I was awakend by the telephone ringing and a man’s voice which I afterwards found out to be Detective Starnes, said: ‘I want you to come down to the factory.’ ‘What is the trouble?’ I asked. ‘Has there been a fire?’ ‘No,’ he said. ‘A tragedy has occurred.’ I said, ‘All right,’ and he said he would send an auto.

“They came before I finished dressing. At this point I differ with the detectives, Black and Starnes, about where the conversation took place. They say it was after we were in the machine, I say it was before we left the house, before my wife. At any rate, here is what was said:

“They asked me if I knew Mary Phagan. I answered that I did not. They asked me if I did not pay off a little girl with long hair down her back the afternoon before. I said I did. They said they wanted me to go the undertaking establishment to see if I could identify the body. They made the trip to the undertaking establishment very quickly. I went in and stood in the doorway. The attendant removed the sheet from the little girl’s face and turned the head toward me. His finger was right by the cut on the head. I noticed her nostrils were filled with dirt and cinders and there were several discolorations. I noticed a piece of cord around her neck, the kind we used in the pencil factory. I said it looked like a little girl that came to the factory the day before. They had already told me it was Mary Phagan. We went to the factory and by examining the payroll I found that Mary Phagan had drawn her pay the day before and that the amount was $1.20.

“As we went into the factory I noticed Mr. Darley going in. We went to the office and I found Newt Lee in the custody of the officers. They told me they wanted to go down into the basement. I got the elevator key, but when I tried to start the elevator machinery I found I could not and I told Mr. Darley to see if he could start it.

Admits Nervousness And Defends Himself.

“He started the car, and when we got further down I found that one of the chains had slipped. They showed me where the body was found, where the shoe was found and pointed out everything that was at that time known. After looking about the basement we got some nails and a hammer, and Mr. Darley nailed up the back door. Back upstaris Mr. Darley, Chief Lanford and myself went on a tour of inspection of the three upper floors. We went through the metal room, the same metal room that has figured so prominently in this trial, and neither Mr. Darley nor myself noticed anything particular on that floor. Nor did Sergeant Lanford, chief of the Atlanta detective force.

“We went to the time clock. I took out the slip and a casual note of this ship would indicate nothing was on it. There was something on it. It had been partially rubbed out. It could not be rubbed out altogether without rubbing out the printed lines. I did write with a pencil across the face of it, ‘8:26 a. m.’ We noticed a slip but overlooked any skips. I folded the time slip as it is now and handed it to Chief Lanford. Now, gentlemen, I have heard a great deal during this trial about nervousness.

“I was nervous. I was completely unstrung. Imagine yourself called from sound slumber in the early hours of the morning, whisked through the chill morning air without breakfast, to go into that undertaking establishment and have the light suddenly flashed on a scene like that. To see that little girl on the dawn of womanhood so cruelly murdered—it was a scene that would have melted stone. Is it any wonder I was nervous?”

Notes Found by Dead Girl’s Body Described.

“I got in an automobile and sat on Mr. Darley’s knee. I was trembling, perhaps. Later Sunday morning, I went to the home of Mr. Sig Montag and told him what had occurred. I got home about 11 o’clock. My wife and I went over to my sister-in-law’s, Mrs. Ursenbach’s, and with a number of friends we discussed the tragedy.

“We went back home to dinner and mentioned there the terrible crime. After dinner I read a short time and about 10 minutes to 3 o’clock caught a car downtown.

“The conversation on the car was about the little girl that had been found dead in the factory. At 3:10 o’clock I went back to the undertaking establishment and found Joe Stelka there.

“On Monday I went to the police station with Darley and he said he would like to talk to Newt Lee alone. We were shown the two notes found by the side of the slain girl.”

Frank then described the notes.

“Now, on one of the notes there was an erasure, but the tracing was still discernible. It was January 11, 1912. The order number was very indistinct, but it was evidently an old serial number.

“Returning to my home at 4:15 I met Mr. Haas and he asked me about the murder. Several people on the street also asked me.

“I remained at home until 5 o’clock, then I went to Mr. Montag’s home and made a report of the tragedy to him. From there I went to the home of Mr. Marcus where I had received a telephone message from my wife, and I went by there to get her.

“At supper that night the conversation was again about the murder. After supper I read the paper. I called up Mr. Marcus and asked him if he would come down. He said he could not.

“Mr. and Mrs. Selig had a party that night. About 10 o’clock, my wife and I went up to bed. Next morning before I had finished dressing, the door bell rang. It was Detectives Black and Hazlett. They said they wanted me to go to the police station with them.

Kept in Ignorance of Charge Against Him.

“I went and on the way I asked them what was the trouble. They said Chief Lanford would tell me.

“I arrived at the police station and sat in an outer office for probably an hour without seeing Chief Lanford. Near 9 o’clock, Mr. Sig Montag and Mr. Herbert Haas came down. Near 10 o’clock I saw Mr. Rosser. He came in and said, ‘Hello boys, what’s the trouble.’

“Mr. Haas took him off to one side. Chief Lanford came out and said to me: ‘Come in here.’

“I went into his office. He handed me the time slips and if I am not mistaken this same time slip had the figures still unerased: ‘8:26 a. m.’

“I took the slip and examined it closely, discovering the slips. There seemed to be some altercation about Mr. Rosser getting into the room with me. I heard him say: ‘I am going into that room. That man is my client.’ Chief Beavers asked me if I would give him a statement.

“I heard Mr. Rosser say: ‘Why, it’s preposterous. The man who did that would have signs on his […]

ACCUSED DID NOT PEER INTO GIRLS’ DRESSING ROOM, WORKER SAYS

[…] body.” I jumped up and, opening my clothes, let the detectives see for themselves.

“I then gave them a statement, willingly and freely and without any reluctance. Then one of them said something about examining my linen at my home. I knew that none of it had gone to the laundry at that time and invited the detectives to make a search, which they did. Mr. Herbert Schiff went with them. They were very well satisfied with the search, or rather, they found nothing.

Employed Pinkertons To Aid the Police.

That afternoon I telephone Mr. Schiff to get Mr. Montag’s permission to employ the Pinkertons to aid the police. I told him I would be down about 3 o’clock.

“I went around to Mr. Wolfsheimers, got into his automobile and went downtown. I saw Mr. Schiff, Mr. Darley and a number of others, including Mr. Quinn.

“Mr. Quinn said he wanted to take me back to the metal room where it was claimed blood spots had been discovered and wheere the hair on the lathe was discovered by Mr. Barrett.

“I examined them closely, particularly the spots. I did not examine them standing up. I got down on my knees and examined them with a strong electric flashlight and I arrived at certain conclusions.

“That floor is grease, soap and dirt covered to a thickness varying from a quarter to half an inch.

“To return to that spot. I don’t claim it was not blood. The space where these spots were adjoins the ladies’ dressing room. There have been accidents which may not have been brought out in this trial. We do not report every time one of the employees cuts his finger.

“There are all sorts of paints around the factory. I have seen girls drop bottles in the hall, not exactly at that point, but near there. But the point about those spots is that when I examined them there was over them an accumulation of dirt not of days or weeks, but of at least three months.

Phoned to Prevent Alarm of Family.

“The white stuff was not fresh. It was dry. And another thing: If that compound had been put on the blood fresh, it would have been pink and not the white that it was.

“Now, when the Atlanta papers containing the statement that I was detained were published, I telegraphed Mr. A. R. Montag to communicate with my uncle that I was no longer; that I had been released. I did this because I knew they would be alarmed if they saw the sensational stories in the papers.

“Harry Scott of the Pinkertons came in and spoke to me in the presence of Mr. Darley. He said he had not read the newspapers. I told him all that had been published and in addition the statement that Mrs. White had seen a negro about 1 o’clock on the first floor.

“After I had told him all I knew, I took him over the factory. On the second floor I noticed was a piece of cord such as I learned had been found around Mary Phagan’s neck. I asked him as to the rates of the Pinkertons. He told me and I informed Mr. Montag, who approved them.

“Mr. Scott said that at it was the usual custom of the Pinkertons, he would work hand in hand with the police. I went home and found my family there and sat up until about 10 o’clock, when I went to bed.

Gave Officers All Information Wanted.

“Tuesday a. m. I arose between 7 and 7:30 and caught the 8:10 car. I remember I got to the factory at 8:30. I went right into my routine work and at 9:30 o’clock went on my regular trip to Montag’s. I then went back to the factory and to work again.

“After a while Detectives Black and Scott came and told me they wanted me to go to the station house. I went and I have been incarcerated since then.

“I went down in an automobile. They took me to Chief Lanford’s office. I answered all the questions they asked. In a few minutes, Detective Scott and Black came in with a bundle.

“They showed me a piece of material and asked me if I had a shirt like that. I told them I never had. They showed it to Newt Lee and they said he admitted having a shirt like that but declared he had never worn it.

“They then unfolded a bloody shirt.

“About 10 o’clock Mr. Rosser came down and said Chief Beavers thought it best for me to remain at the station, and they thought I might employ a supernumerary to avoid being locked up. I assented, because, of course, I could not do anything else.

“They wanted a sample of my handwriting. I told them I was willing. They dictated it word for word, spelling the unusual words. Detective Starnes took me down to the desk sergeant and searched me.

“I was locked up in a cell while my father-in-law was providing a supernumerary.

“The detectives came to me and said: ‘Mr. Frank, we would like to talk to you a little bit.’ We went into a little room and they stressed the possibility of a couple being let in the pencil factory at night. Then they said: ‘You talk to Lee. You are his boss. He will talk to you.’

“The detectives told me to go after him strong and tell him we would both go to hell. Detective Black said that.

“I went in and talked to Lee. I tried to get him to talk. I said: ‘Newt, you had better tell everything you know or you will get us both into trouble.’ He stuck to his statement that he had told the whole truth.

“Then the detectives came in and I was initiated to the Atlanta police department third degree for the first time. Detective Black went after that poor negro. He called him every vile name he could think of. He fairly streamed with profanity.

“I want to touch upon a few accusations that have been leveled against me, besides this crime. The first is that I would not talk to the detectives. Let us look into that and see if there is any truth in that. I went there Sunday, Monday and Tuesday and discussed the matter freely and openly. I gave them a written statement. I talked to them at midnight. I talked to Newt Lee at their instance. What did they do? They grilled him. They twisted my words. They put words into his mouth he never heard. After that, I said I washed my hands of them. They came to me again—Scott and Black. Black said: ‘We are suspicious of that man Darley. Now, open up and tell us all you know about him.’

Could Not Trust Even His Own Detectives.

“I said: ‘He is the soul of honor.’

“Come on, Scott; nothing doing,’ said Black.

“Then I knew I couldn’t trust even our own Pinkerton detectives. After that I treated them with silence. That is why I would not see Conley surrounded by a bevy of city detectives. They would distort; they would falsify. That is the reason I kept my silence.

“Now this second charge that I knew Conley could write. The same day that Conley was arrested I was taken to the Tower. There was nothing in the papers that said he could not write. The first thing I knew about it Harry Gottheimer came to see me on May 12 and told me the Pinkertons had turned suspicion toward Conley, but that he stood them down he could not write.

“I told him that I had received too many notes from Conley not to know that he could write. I told Harry that if they would look into the drawer of the safe in my office they would find a card with a jeweler’s name on it, and that if they would go to him he could probably show a contract that Conley had signed.

“Gentlemen, the first man that pointed out the way to prove Conley could write is sitting before you now.

“That other insinuation that is so dastardly that it is beyond the comprehension of a human being—that my wife didn’t come to see me—she was down stairs at the police station. Rabbi Marx was with me. I advised with him whether I should let her come up or not. We had to restrain her.

Brands Conley Tale As a Tissue of Lies.

“I know nothing of the murder of Mary Phagan. I never saw Jim Conley on that day.

“This man Dalton I never saw before this trial. He was never around the factory with Daisy Hopkins that I know of.

“Irene Jackson is mistaken. I have no recollection of ever looking in on the girls in the ladies dressing room when the girls were undressed.

“That room on the fourth floor has no bath. It is simply a place in which young ladies can change their outer clothing. I might have looked in to see that they were not loafing. I heard complaints about them flirting and I wanted to stop it.

“The statement of Jim Conley is a tissue of lies. He never saw me with any women.

“Conley’s statement about seeing me in improper positions with women is so vile that I have no words fit to denounce it.

“My father is notable to work. I have no relative of any means except my uncle in Atlanta.

“There is no fund raised to pay these attorneys. The fees are paid, but they were paid by sacrificing a portion of my family’s small estate.

“Gentlemen, some newspaper men have called me the silent man in the Tower. I was silent, but it was advisedly. The time to talk is now. The place is here, and I have told you the whole truth.”

Frank bowed slightly to the twelve men to whom he had addressed this remarkable statement and then stepped down from the stand. Court adjourned until 9 o’clock Tuesday morning.

Hapeville Episode Hinted by State.

That Frank rode on a street car to Hapeville with a girl the Saturday previous to the murder of Mary Phagan and repeatedly sought to persuade her to leave the car with him was the sensational testimony Solicitor Dorsey endeavored to get from Mrs. J. G. Wardlow Monday.

Anticipating the nature of the questions the Solicitor was about to ask Mrs. Rae Frank, mother of the defendant, stopped her ears with her fingers and then rushed from the room. Attorneys for Frank at first objected to the questions and the jury was excused
. It was at this moment that Mrs. Frank made her dramatic exit. She was evidently fearful of repeating her outburst of a few days ago.

Mrs. Wardlaw denied that she ever knew of such a circumstance. She denied as well that she had been told of it by Harmes Stanton or H. G. Backer, street car men.

Another sensation was created when the defense called to the stand Miss Emmeline Mayfield, the young woman whom the State maintains was in the dressing room when Frank looked in at one time. Miss Mayfield denied this was true.

Paving the way for the eagerly awaited statement of Frank, the lawyers for the defendant devoted Monday morning to the gathering up of the story ends of their case, most of the time being occupied with the testimony of character witnesses.

More than a score of women and girls employed in the National Pencil Company were called to tell what they knew of Frank’s character and what they had observed of this conduct about the factory. All asserted that they never had known personally of any misconduct on the part of the superintendent and never had heard of any.

Explains Looking Into Dressing Room.

Mrs. Mattie Thompson proved one of the most important of the character witnesses. After testifying to Frank’s good character, Mrs. Thompson declared that the girls on the fourth floor were in the habit at one time of flirting from the windows of the dressing room. She said that the practice became a matter of comment among the elder women on the fourth floor and that she finally took it upon herself to report it. Whereupon orders were issued against it.

The testimony of Mrs. Thompson was produced to provide a basis for the contention of the defense that Frank had opened the dressing room door on several occasions solely for the purpose of determining if his orders were being carried out.

Miss M. E. Fleming, a stenographer said that she worked in Frank’s office from April to December, 1912, and that she never had observed any misconduct on the superintendent’s part nor had seen women visiting his office.

Godfrey Winecoff superintendent of the lead plant of the National Pencil Company, testified that it was his custom to visit the pencil factory office every other Saturday afternoon about 3 o’clock. He said he always found Frank or Schiff, Frank’s assistant frequently both working in the office. He asserted he never saw any women there.

A large crowd was attracted to the courtroom by the probability that the prisoner would tell his story Monday, and the keenest expectancy prevailed. It was problematical whether there would be any cross-examination. Ordinarily, of course, the accused in a murder case merely makes his statement and the jury can believe it or discard it entirely as it chooses. It is said, however, that Frank has earnestly urged his lawyers to allow the Solicitor to cross-examine him.

When court reopened Monday Solicitor Dorsey took up the cross-examination of Harlee Branch, a reporter for the Atlanta Journal.

Took Conley 15 Minutes To Tell Crime Details.

Branch was asked.

“Can you give any estimate of the time taken in conversation in Conley’s re-enactment of the crime?” He replied that it took about fifteen minutes.

Q. You never said it was about half the total time, did you? A. I don’t recall.

Attorney Arnold took the witness.

Q. You said it took about fifteen minutes to cover the time lost in conversation? A. Yes.

Q. He began at 12:18 and you left at 1:08? That would be about 50 minutes that you were there? A. Yes.

Q. How long was he writing the notes? A. Two minutes at the most. He did not write fast or slow?

Q. How long did he stay in the wardrobe? A. About one minute.

Q. Did you see Conley in the newspapermen’s room here in this courthouse reading a newspaper since this trial began? A. I saw him looking at one as though he was reading it.

Mr. Branch was excused and Lou Castro, former ball player and at present fight promoter, was called as a witness by the defense to testify to time it took to walk certain distances.

Q. Did you walk from Marietta and Forsyth streets to the second floor of the pencil factory? A. Yes.

Q. How long did it take you? A. Four and one-half minutes.

Q. Did you walk from the National Pencil Company to the corner of Whitehall and Alabama streets? A. I did.

Q. How long did it take you? A. Three minutes and twenty seconds.

Q. Did you walk from Broad and Hunter streets to the Pencil Factory?

Employees of Factory Character Witnesses.

Miss M. E. Fleming was the next witness called. She is one of Frank’s former stenographers. She testified on direct examination that Frank’s character was good. Dorsey cross-questioned her.

Q. Were you ever there on Saturday? A. Yes

Q. How long did it take you? A. One and one-half minutes.

Q. On the day of the murder were you there Saturday afternoon? A. No, I was off then.

Q. Did you ever see Mr. Frank work on the financial sheet Saturday mornings? A. Yes, I saw him work on it a little.

Miss Fleming was excused and Godfrey Winecoff, superintendent of the lead plant of the pencil factory, took the stand.

Q. Did you visit the National Pencil factory on Saturdays between July 1, 1912 and May 1, 1913? A. Yes.

Q. What time? A. Three to 5 o’clock.

Q. How often? A. Almost every Saturday.

Q. Did you ever see women there in Frank’s office? A. No.

Q. Who was there? A. Frank, Holloway, Schiff and the office boy.

Dorsey took the witness on cross-examination.

Q. Are you sure Holloway was there at 3 o’clock? A. Yes.

The witness was excused, and Mrs. Mattie Thompson, an employee of the factory working on the fourth floor took the stand testified as to Frank’s good character. Arnold questioned her.

Q. Do you know anything about that dressing room on the fourth floor and the conduct of the girls there? A. I made a complaint about the girls flirting out of the window.

Dorsey took the witness on cross-examination.

Q. Who has talked to you in the last few days about what you were to swear on the stand here? A. Mr. Haas talked to me.

* * *

Atlanta Georgian, August 18th 1913, “Leo Frank Testifies,” 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 18th, 1913

The eyes of Leo Frank’s wife and his mother-in-law, Mrs. Emil Selig, were constantly upon him as he sat in the witness chair talking conversationally with the jurors. His mother seldom looked at him, maintaining her usual attitude, looking slightly downward and toward the judge’s bench.

Frank had been talking only 10 minutes when they unexpectedly was interrupted by a heated argument between the opposing attorneys over Frank’s explaining the time slips, including the one which the defense claims was taken from the time clock Sunday morning following the finding of Mary Phagan’s body.

Frank had mentioned the time slips and was undertaking to make an explanation of the manner they are used when Attorney Rosser called for the slips for Frank to explain before the jury.

Solicitor Dorsey made an instant objection, arguing that the slips had not yet been placed in evidence. All four of the principal attorneys interested in the case were on their feet at once, two and sometimes three of them, were talking at the same time.

Papers Withheld.

Judge Roan was compelled to caution them to proceed parliamentarily. His r
uling was that Frank might refer to them as much as he pleased, but that he must not go before the jury with them until they had been properly identified and offered for evidence. The same situation developed when Frank sought to explain the details of his work by means of papers and records of his office. He was allowed to sit in his chair and refer to them but not to exhibit them to the jurors.

Fearless and Direct.

Frank talked to the jurors directly and fearlessly. There was no trace of uncertainty in his voice or in his manner. He appeared exacty as though he were in an informal conference with some persons interested in the factory and was outlining his duties and leading up to some particular incident that had engaged their attention and interest.

He was entirely at ease. He assumed an easy pose in his chair, gestured frequently as he proceeded with his narrative, and occasionally changed his position. His hands most of the time were clasped in front of him, except when he illustrated a point with an unconscious gesture. He found it necessary often to adjust his glasses which seemed not to fit him perfectly.

Tells Complete Story.

He touched only briefly on his early history, telling merely of his place of birth, his career in school and college, his short business experience after his graduation and finally his coming to Atlanta in 1908 to take charge of the National Pencil Factory.

He began with Friday, August 25, the day before the crime and recounted his movements almost minute by minute. Coming to the fatal Saturday, he told of leaving his home, reaching his office, talking with his employees and taking up the work of the day.

He was given orders, records, acknowledgement of orders, record sheets, financial sheets and all the other minute details that are involved in the work of the office. Those that had been submitted in evidence he took before the jury and explained at length and in detail the amount of work required in getting these out.

His Own Best Witness

Notebook in hand, Solicitor Dorsey took a seat almost directly in front of Frank, but this appeared to disturb the prisoner not in the least.

Through the major share of the remarkable address, with its clear-cut statements and explanations, there was little or no attempt at oratory, but the speech was unquestionably a most eloquent argument. As had been prophesied, Frank was his own best witness.

* * *

Atlanta Georgian, August 18th 1913, “Frank Makes His Own Best Witness Telling Direct Detailed Story,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

Atlanta Journal
August 17th, 1913

Defense Has Attacked the State’s Case at Every Point, Considering No Detail Too Small to Raise a Reasonable Doubt Against It.

When the third long week of the trial of Leo M. Frank ended Saturday afternoon 203 witnesses had taken the oath and told the jury what they knew of the circumstances surrounding Atlanta’s greatest tragedy, the murder of Mary Phagan in the National Pencil factory on Memorial day, April 26. Of these witnesses thirty-four had testified for the state and 169 for the defense and among them all only one directly connects the factory superintendent with the crime. Jim Conley, the negro factory sweeper, is Frank’s accuser. He not only accuses the superintendent of murder, but adds the charge of perversion and it is through this charge that the state hopes to show a motive for the crime.

Center of Attack

Much of the most determined work done by the defense during the third week, just finished, has been concentrated upon the testimony given by H. F. Harris, secretary of the state board of health, and upon the testimony of C. B. Dalton, both of whom were introduced by the prosecution.

In attacking Dr. Harris’ testimony, the defense introduced several physicians who characterized Dr. Harris’ conclusion as guesses and said that they attached no importance to them and believed them to be without scientific foundation. It will be remembered that Dr. Harris’ testimony fixed the time of Mary Phagan’s death, in the opinino of the witness, at not more than 45 minutes after she ate her last meal of cabbage and bread at home and started for town to meet her death. This was based upon the stage of digestion attained by the contents of her stomach and arrested by death.

Dr. Harris testified further regarding other details which had convinced him that violence of some nature was inflicted upon the girl, and that she was rendered unconscious from the blow upon the back of her head, being choked to death later by cord around her neck. The defense assailed each of the conclusions, combating most vigorously the one that Mary Phagan was killed within a specified number of minutes after her last meal.

Witnesses from Walton county were introduced one after another to swear that they know C. B. Dalton and that they would not believe him on oath. Dalton’s own experiences with the criminal law were revealed, the defense lawyers securing his admissions of them. Dalton’s testimony was menacing to the defense because it purported to corroborate in incidental particulars the general story told by Jim Conley—whose evidence is the center of the whole attack by the defense.

Points at Issue

The state has sought to prove that Mary Phagan met her death in the metal room on the second floor of the pencil factory before 1 o’clock on April 26.

The defense has sought to refute this with testimony that it is impossible to determine the hour in which the girl died, and that there are chances that she met her death in another part of the building.

The state clings to the theory that the girl was struck on the head, rendered unconscious by falling against a piece of machinery, then was strangled to death by a cord.

The defense has put its witnesses up to testify that the wound on the back of the dead girl’s head may not have caused unconsciousness and that the manner in which she met death is a question which possibly no physician can answer correctly.

The state has sought to prove that Frank was the last person to see the girl alive. So far nothing has developed in the trial to show that the girl was seen after she drew her pay from the factory superintendent.

By the testimony of Monteen Stover, who swore that she found Frank’s office vacant at 12:05 o’clock on the afternoon of the tragedy, and waited five minutes, and left then without having seen or heard anyone, the state got before the jury the allegation that just after Mary Phagan was supposed to have entered the factory neither she nor the factory superintendent was seen around the office by the witness. On this too the defense directed a heavy attack, introducing witnesses who swear they saw Mary Phagan get off a trolley car as late as 12:10—thus tending to make immaterial Frank’s absence from his office while Monteen Stover was there.

The state has produced a witness (Conley) who says he heard a girl scream after Mary Phagan entered the factory, but this same witness says that Mary entered ahead of Monteen Stover, and the latter swears she entered at 12:05, and then too according to the defense’s witness Mary Phagan was seen outside of the factory after that time.

The state has sought to prove that violence was done the girl before her death. The defense has put its experts on the stand to swear that testimony that violence was done is only guess work; and many well known Atlantians witnesses have testified to the good character of Frank.

The state has sought to prove that when Frank went about to get lunch on the day of the tragedy he left immediately without eating, but the defense produces witnesses who swear that Frank remained in his home at least forty minutes at that time.

The state has sought to prove that the accused was very nervous on the day, following the tragedy, and that has admitted by the defense; like defense has put up witnesses who swear that Frank was not nervous on the night of the tragedy and did not become so until he was informed by the detectives that a girl had been murdered in his place of business.

Attack Is General

In every detail, no matter how minute, the defense had attacked the state’s case against Leo M. Frank. No particular been considered too small to the efforts of Attorneys Arnold and Rosser to a responsible doubt against it if they could and no particular had been too small for Solicitor Dorsey and his assistant Attorney Hooper to permit an attack upon it to go unchallenged and unresisted. From one angle then another, the defense aligned its bombardment, and at one angle then another, state’s attorneys have striven to fend off any damage in their case, impugning a witness when they could, striving to ridicule him or her, endeavoring to show interest, excessive for Frank, or other controlling motive have been on guard at every argument against the determined onslaughts of the attorneys for the accused.

Week’s Developments

Whether the defenses continued its attack on the testimony given by Dr. H. F. Harris that Mary Phagan died within a half or three quarters of an hour after calling for midday lunch and that there were evidences of violence immediately preceding death. Dr. Leroy Childs began the attack on the evidence of the secretary of the state board of health on Saturday week, and on Monday Drs. George Bachman, Willis Westmoreland, T. H. Hancock and J. C. Olmstead testified and were followed and substantiated on Wednesday by Dr. W. S. Kendrick.

In nearly every instance where a physician testified for the defense the testimony, or parts of it, as given by Dr. Harris was refuted. When the evidence give by the physicians for the defense is boiled down to an essence, it is up to the effect that in their opinion the statements by Dr. Harris that the girl died within the time limit set by him is but a mere guess, and that his testimony that violence preceded death is a second guess.

The jury heard medical testimony that it could be impossible for any physician to examine cabbage from the stomach of any patient and state the correct length of time the food had remained in the stomach. To substantiate this, several jars of partially digested cabbage taken from the stomach of several patients were exhibited to the jury with the statements of a physician that no one could tell exactly how long any of the exhibits had remained in the stomach.

Was Violence Committed?

Some of the evidence given by these physicians termed Dr. Harris’ statements that violence had been committed on the girls shortly before as a mere guess. It was testified that the distended condition of the blood vessels might have resulted from numerous causes.

It will be recalled that Dr. Harris testified that he examined parts of the body after nine days after death, and that Dr. J. W. Hurt, the coroner’s physician, testified he had made an examination prior to that by Dr. Harris. The jury was told that the first examination might have caused the conditions noted under microscope by the state board of health’s secretary. As to the distended condition of the blood vessels, it was testified that the injection of the examining fluid and several other causes might have produced the same conditions.

That Frank’s work on the financial sheet, which it has been testified required expert work running into decimals, could not have been done by any one committing such a crime as is charged to the factory superintendent immediately following the commitment, and the is to quote by the testimony of expert who were put on the stand. Joel Hunter, the last witness to inquiry Monday, gave his opinion that the work does on the made out on April 26 was the work of Leo M. Frank, and in substance was correct.

Dalton’s Story Eliminated

Twenty-two witnesses took the stand on Tuesday and six of them gave testimony impeaching C. B. Dalton, one of the witnesses put up by the State to corroborate Jim Conley in his testimony that he frequently acted as lookout for Frank on Saturdays and holidays when women visited the superintendent at the factory. Dalton was pictured by the witnesses as anything but a truthful witness. His past was exposed in the news and when he himself was recalled to the stand admitted portions of the testimony derogatory to his character.

These witnesses against Dalton were brought to Atlanta by the defense from places where Dalton had formerly lived. They told of his indictment by a grandy jury of a for a certain crime and stated that they would not believe him under oath. Dalton, it will be remembered, was expected to prove a strong witness for the state in its corroboration of the negro’s story. He admitted visiting the factory after work hours with certain women employees of the place and stated in the jury that Frank frequently had women visitors at the time he made his visits. His impeachment by witnesses from his further homes, eliminates, to a certain extent, his testimony as material.

The defense scored again on Tuesday when Miss Magnolia Kennedy was on the stand. Her testimony refuted that given by Helen Ferguson that she asked for Mary Phagan’s pay on the Friday before the murder and it was refused. Miss Kennedy works in the pencil factory and declares that she knew both Mary Phagan and Helen Ferguson. She told the jury that she followed the Ferguson girl to the pay window and that nothing was said about Mary Phagan’s pay. She also declared that she went out of the factory immediately behind Helen Ferguson and both walked on down the street in the same direction.

Cook Denies Affidavit

Minola McKnight, the negro cook in the Selig home where Mr. and Mrs. Frank live was also on the stand Tuesday and denied the truthfulness of her affidavit made to the police concerning the notions of the aroused immediately following the tragedy. The negroes declared that she had been forced to sign the paper and that most of the allegations were false.

Mr. and Mrs. Emil Selig, the father and mother-in-law of the secured, took the stand in defense of the factory superintendent on Tuesday and corroborated the statement made by Frank to the coroner concerning his moves on the day of the tragedy before and after the hour in which the girl met her death. They denied any knowledge of certain matters mentioned in the Minola McKnight affidavit, reflecting on the behavior of the accused on the Saturday of the tragedy and Sunday following.

Charles W. Bernhardt and Henry Wood were called to the stand to tell the results of their examinations of the Selig home and explain the blue prints of the home to the jury. Albert McKnight, husband of the Selig cook, had stated that he was sitting in the kitchen and saw Frank enter the dining room on the afternoon of the tragedy, go to the sideboard and leave without eating. According to export testimony it would be impossible for any one sitting in the kitchen at the point where the McKnight negro claims he was sitting to see the parts of the dining room as testified by him.

Character Evidence

On Wednesday the defense put the character of the accused to issue and no sooner had the character evidence started well when the real evidence started well when the real sensation of the week occurred in the court room. It was Frank’s mother, Mrs. Rae Frank, of Brooklyn, N. Y. who startled judge, jury, counsel, and spectators by shouting her denunciation of Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey when he asked a question of a character witness reflecting strongly on the character of the defendant.

John Ashley Jones, an insurance man, had been put up by the defense and had just told the court that after investigation, his company had found the character of the accused man to be good. When the solicitor began his cross-examination he asked several questions concerning the investigation made by the insurance company and then began a series of questions, all of which the witnesses answered to the negative, but caused the jury to lean forward and caused the mother of the accused man to give the so indignation by of denial, of a certain question the witness on the stand could answer in the negative.

The solicitor asked the witness if he never heard of Frank’s familiarity with little girls around the factory. To this Mrs. Rae Frank shouted: No, and you haven’t either!” Following new outrage, she left the room.

The solicitor used the names of several with whom he intimated the factory superintendent had been familiar. He is expected to call them in rebuttal to the witnesses who have testified for the state.

Can Dorsey Supply Link?

What evidence the solicitor has to use in rebuttal is indicated only by his questions to the witness Jones and by the sudden appearance in Atlanta of the former inmate of the Home of the Good Shepherd, in Cincinnati, in company with the police matron. The only evidence derogatory to the accused’s character was given by the negro Jim Conley who charged perversion to the factory superintendent. While the state was having its innings no evidence was given to corroborate this charge because the character of the defendant had not then been put in by the defense. Now that the defense put up witnesses to prove the accused’s good character, the state can put up testimony to prove the contrary.

It is understood that the solicitor will call the girl, who has just returned from Cincinnati, and other witnesses, who will be ready to blast the character of the defendant if they are asked the questions by the defendant’s own counsel.

Judge Roan permitted the solicitor to ask defense witnesses questions reflecting on Frank’s character Wednesday, and on Thursday refused a request of the accused’s counsel to have the questions stricken from the secured. The trial judge held that the prosecutor had a right to question character witnesses as to whether they had heard certain things derogatory to the defendant’s character.

Frank’s Story Corroborated

On Thursday the defense put up witnesses which by their testimony, accounted for the presence of Frank at almost every hour during the day of the tragedy. The story of his movements as he told it to the corner immediately after the murder was fully corroborated. He was trailed from his home in the morning to the factory, from his office over to Montag’s offices and back to the factory; from his office to where he took a car, and from the time he stepped from the car in front of his home until he left again to less than an hour. He was also seen on Whitehall street after getting off the car on his return to the office for his afternoon’s work.

The members of the card club whose party was being given at the Selig home on the night of the tragedy took the stand and accounted for his presence that night. The state has proven, and to a certain extent it is admitted by the defense, that Frank was nervous on Sunday after being informed of the murder. The state contends that this was the nervousness of a guilty man, while the defense contends that under the same circumstances most anyone would have been very much agitated.

Those who attended the card party on the night of April 26 declare that Frank was his natural self; that his actions indicated anything but nervousness, and that he sat in the hall and read for at least two hours during there visit to the Selig home. By this testimony the defense hopes to show that Frank had no knowledge of the crime until informed by the detectives and consequently not nervous until after he learned that a little girl had been slain in the factory of which he was superintendent.

Court Records Broken

When Thursday’s morning session of the trial exposed all court records for Georgia had been broken. The testimony from Wednesday night amounted to 600,000 words, enough matter to fill 500 columns of newspaper print.

One feature of the developments which stands out significantly in the loyalty of the defendant’s classmates from Cornell. Several of the young men who attended college with him came from their homes in the east to testify to his good character. With them came two professors at the university.

Friday was taken up with testimony by Atlantians hearing on the good character of Frank and by evidence given by factory employee against the character of Jim Conley, the negro who accuses Frank of the crime and who admits having disposed of the body after the girl’s death.

Members of Conley’s own race declared that they would not believe the negro on oath, that he could not be trusted and that from what they knew little dependence could be put in what he said. White women who knew both the negro and Frank told the jury that the negro was unreliable and that from what they knew Frank’s character was good.

Forty-one witnesses, many of them prominent Atlantians, bore testimony to Frank’s good character on Friday and were followed on the stand by the accused’s own mother. Mrs. Rae Frank, of Brooklyn, occupied the chair Friday afternoon and resumed it Saturday. Nothing of great interest was developed and resumed it Saturday. Nothing of great interest was developed by her testimony except that portion referring in the letter which her son wrote up the day of the tragedy and mailed to his uncle in New York. This letter was introduced as evidence. Its contents referred to Memorial day and to grand opera, in Atlanta.

Saturday’s Testimony

Fifteen girls who work or have worked in the pencil factory were on the witness stand Saturday and of the number, only one cast a slur on the character of the factory superintendent. Miss Irene Jackson, the daughter of Policeman A. W. Jackson, who has quit the employ of the factory since the murder, while under cross-examination declared that Frank had looked into the dressing room of the factory while some of the girls were in only half attire.

Solicitor Dorsey made an attack on the Pinkerton detectives Saturday while W. D. McWorth, one of the agency’s men was testifying concerning a bloody bludgeon found in the factory. The solicitor charged that the Pinkertons had not worked in harmony with the city police and held withheld evidence from them. Harlee Branch, a Journal reporter, was the last witness on the stand and court adjourned while he was under the solicitor’s examination. He told of Jim Conley’s re-enactment of the tragedy in the presence of detectives and newspaper men.

[Below is a transcription of this article’s inset]

A MILLION WORDS OF TESTIMONY

The trial of Leo M. Frank, charged with the murder of Mary Phagan, is believed to have broken at least three records in criminal prosecution in the south.

More witnesses have been called than in any other case on record, more actual time has been taken up in hearing testimony, and the transcript of evidence is the most voluminous, so far as known, ever taken in a criminal court south of the Mason and Dixon line.

When court adjourned Saturday afternoon thirty-four witnesses had been called by the state and 169 by the defense, a total of 203; for three weeks the jury had listened to testimony, having spent approximately 115 1-2 hours in court; and the evidence transcribed by the stenographers exceeded 875,000 words.

It is considered likely that before the end of the trial nearly 300 witnesses will have been called and the transcript will total considerably more than a million words.

One of the most remarkable features of the trial is the way in which the court stenographers have taken down the testimony. The defense, anticipating the need of having a copy of the official record in their possession as quickly as possible after a witness’ testimony has been taken down, engaged two extra stenographers to work with the two regular court reporters of the county. The four work in relays. One will “take” for an hour. He will then be relieved, and while another is writing down the questions of the attorneys and the answers of the witnesses he is either typing from his notes or reading from them into a dictophone. In the latter event an assistant takes the testimony as it is dictated by this device.

In this way the defense is able at any time to refer immediately to any part of the testimony which has already been given in the trial.

* * *

Atlanta Journal, August 17th 1913, “Summary of Frank Evidence at End of Week,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Atlanta Journal
August 17th, 1913

While Defense Has About Forty Character Witnesses, It’s Not Believed That Their Testimony Will Take More Than One Day, and Frank Himself Will Probably Tell His Self to the Jury Some Time Tuesday.

REBUTTAL EVIDENCE WILL TAKE TWO DAYS AND THE ARGUMENTS OF ATTORNEYS TWO MORE

This Will Put the Case In the Hands of the Jury at the End of the Week – All Interest is Now Centered in the Witnesses That the Solicitor Will Put on the Stand In an Effort to Break Down Fine Character Showing Made by Frank.

The present week will see the end of the trial of Leo M. Frank charged with the murder of Mary Phagan, all attorneys connected with the case believe.

Counsel expect to conclude the young factory defense certainly before the end of Tuesday morning’s and probably during the day Monday.

Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey says that he expects to be longer than two days is introducing testimony is rebuttal. With two days for the arguments this will mean that the fate of Frank will be in the hands of twelve jurors by Saturday. The length of the Frank trial, which has passed through its third week, long ago broke all records for criminal cases in Georgia. While many, civil cases run over a much longer period of time, few if any equal the Frank trial, which has passed through its third week, long ago broke all records for criminal cases in Georgia. While many, civil cases run over a much longer period of time, few if any equal the Frank trial in the matter of straight testimony delivered on the stand. The official court reporter, Judge H. L. Parry, states that his record showed 375,000 words. Judge Parry is working court reporters in relay and typing the evidence as rapidly as possible. The record now shows over 3,000 typewritten legalese pages.

Interest in the trial centers largely in the rebuttal testimony, which will be offered by the state. Approximately fifty witnesses have been summoned by the solicitor general to give rebuttal testimony at the trial, and according to rumors some of the testimony will be sensational. The solicitor has indicated by questions to witnesses that he has under subpoena a girl, who will testify that two weeks prior to the tragedy Frank made advances to Mary Phagan, and that she was forced to beg him, to leave her alone. Much mystery surrounds the probable testimony of Dewey Howell, who was brought here from the Home of the Good Shepard to Cincinnati to be a witness.

The greater number of the rebuttal witnesses have been called as character witnesses and they can only say that they consider Frank’s general character good or bad, unique, then are asked about defense.

The statement of Leo M. Frank will be one of the big features at the trial next week. Despite the fact that there is little that can be added to the detailed statement of his movements on the day of the tragedy made at the coroner’s inquest, there is much interest manifested in the account which the young superintendent will give of his life.

NO WRITTEN STATEMENT.

While he will have a number of notes to which he will, it is said that Frank will probably not have a written statement, but will tell his story largely from memory.

Little said to be left in the defense’s case except Frank’s statement. According to well established reports W. H. Mincey, who claims that Conley made a confession to him, will not be put upon the stand.

While the defense will probably place about forty more witnesses on the stand practically all of them, it is said, will be factory employees who will testify to the good character of the defendant, and go to the character of his chief accuser, the negro Conley.

The putting of Frank’s character in issue, which has greatly increased the length of the trial, is the result of Frank’s own request, according to a well authenticated rumor.

Frank knew that his character could only be put in issue by his own lawyers, and they, it is said, put the matter up to him, and he requested that they let down the bars, declaring that the state could prove nothing against him.

DEFENSE NOT DISTURBED.

Despite the statement of Solicitor General Dorsey that he had several “high-class ladies” who attack Frank’s character, it is said that attorneys for the defendant are satisfied that no credible testimony will be offered against Frank’s character.

Frank has stood the three weeks of the trial well, and is ready and anxious, it is said, for a chance to tell his own story.

* * *

Atlanta Journal, August 17th, 1913, “Frank Should Know Fate Before the Week Passes is Opinion of Attorneys,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

The Murder of Little Mary Phagan

Phagan-Kean, Mary

Buy Now

by Claire Randall

WITH OVER 500 pages, more than twice the length of the first (1987) edition, the newly-revised and expanded second edition of The Murder of Little Mary Phagan is now available for purchase via the link on www.LittleMaryPhagan.com

The author, Mary Phagan-Kean, states: “This book is the great work of my lifetime, a compelling personal journey, a tale of the shocking sex murder and abuse of my great-aunt, 13-year-old Mary Phagan — and it’s the story that the ADL and other shadowy forces don’t want you to read.”

This is the monograph that finally, and definitively brings the truth about the murder of Mary Phagan by her killer, sweatshop boss and B’nai B’rith official Leo Frank, to light. It’s available now! Click the link or scan the QR code to get your copy at a discount price today.

by Alexander Sullivan

In a rare and deeply personal interview, Mary Phagan-Kean, the grand-niece and namesake of Mary Phagan, shared her family’s perspective, her personal journey, and why she remains firmly convinced of Leo Frank’s guilt.

Mary Phagan’s murder at the National Pencil Company in Atlanta set off a chain of events that would culminate in Leo Frank’s conviction, a contentious commutation of his sentence, and ultimately, a lynching by a group of vigilantes. Over a century later, her descendant Mary Phagan-Kean is determined to make sure her family’s voice is heard in a narrative that she says has been distorted by powerful forces.

A Silence Broken at Thirteen

Mary Phagan-Kean first learned of her infamous namesake at the age of 13 in a Charleston, South Carolina classroom. When her science teacher asked whether she was related to the murdered girl from Atlanta, it was the first time she’d ever heard of the story. Traumatized and confused, she took the question home to her father, who turned pale with shock. The family had kept a vow of silence—so strict that even Mary’s mother, who had been married to her father for 14 years, was unaware of the case.

“He told me Leo Frank was a sexual pervert who murdered little Mary Phagan,” she recalled. “That’s all he told me at the time.”

It wasn’t until she moved back to Atlanta at 15 that the full weight of her legacy hit her. On the first day of school at Shamrock High in DeKalb County, every single one of her teachers asked if she was related to Mary Phagan. “It was shocking. I thought I’d never be asked that question again—but all my life, I’ve been asked that question.”

A Lifelong Investigation

Her father eventually encouraged her to investigate the case on her own terms. “He told me to go read everything, form my own opinion, and that the family would help me along the way.”

Thus began a decades-long journey of personal research and collecting. Mary dove into archives, books, court documents, and original newspaper reports. Over the years, she amassed a collection spanning 57 years, which she recently donated to the Georgia State Library. Her goal: to ensure that the “other side” of the story was not lost.

“I was stunned when I learned that a rabbi was donating a collection supporting Leo Frank’s innocence,” she said. “I knew then that I needed to make sure our side was preserved too. There are always two sides to a story.”

Questioning the Narrative

Phagan-Kean expressed concern about how the Leo Frank case has been portrayed over the years, particularly by powerful institutions such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). “They rewrote history,” she asserted. “They turned Leo Frank into a victim and ignored what happened to my family.”

She referred to her careful reading of period sources, including trial summaries, newspaper articles that included question and answers from the trial and the “brief of evidence” that survives in place of a now-missing transcript. She emphasized that the early books on the case presented both sides fairly, particularly citing Guilty or Not Guilty by Francis X. Busch. In contrast, she found later works such as A Little Girl is Dead and A Night Fell on Georgia to be misleading and agenda driven.

When Alonzo Mann, a former office boy, came forward in 1982 with claims that he had seen janitor Jim Conley moving Mary’s body—claims used by some to suggest Frank’s innocence—Phagan-Kean was skeptical. She argued that this “new evidence” was not convincing and had too many discrepancies when weighed against the detailed court reports and media coverage of the time.

Family Opposition to the Pardon

Mary Phagan-Kean took an active stance in opposing efforts to posthumously pardon Leo Frank. She reached out to the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles when she learned that a group, including members of the ADL, was applying for the pardon without the family’s knowledge. One board member, Michael Wing, was unaware that close relatives of Mary Phagan were still living.

Eventually, in 1983, the Board denied the pardon, stating they could not determine guilt or innocence. However, in 1986, a surprise announcement was made: Frank was granted a posthumous pardon—without addressing his guilt or innocence.

Phagan-Kean viewed this as a betrayal. “It was all done in secret. We were kept in the dark again,” she said. “It was all orchestrated by backroom deals, including by people like Governor Roy Barnes and Rabbi Lebow. I’m calling them out in my new book.”

Continuing the Fight for the Truth

Despite the passage of time and repeated portrayals of Frank as a victim of antisemitism, Phagan-Kean remains resolute. She acknowledged that antisemitism is a serious issue but rejects the idea that it was the motive behind Frank’s conviction.

“To me, the racism in this case was more directed at Jim Conley, an African-American man who was treated horrifically by both sides. But the real issue is that Leo Frank had a fair trial, and there was strong evidence against him.”

Her upcoming book, a revised edition with 16 new chapters, is set to address what she calls “hoaxes and misinformation,” including media portrayals such as the NBC miniseries that aired in 1987. She claimed the dramatization was riddled with falsehoods, including fabricated scenes that never occurred.

The Legacy of Mary Phagan

The Phagan family has remained protective of their ancestor’s legacy. When the city of Marietta, where Mary is buried, sought to mark her grave with signage for historical tourism, her father refused. “She already has a beautiful marble grave,” Phagan-Kean said. “We don’t need a marker. We don’t want this to be a sideshow.”

Now, at 70 years old, Phagan-Kean says she speaks out only when asked and doesn’t lead with her connection. “You have to ask me about it. I don’t go around introducing myself as the grand-niece of Mary Phagan.”

Yet, when asked, she speaks with a clarity forged over decades of painful discovery, independent research, and unwavering commitment to what she sees as the truth.

“My only goal is for the truth to win again,” she said. “This isn’t about hate. It’s about facts. And those facts have been buried long enough.”

by Dale Bennett

ON THIS, the 112th anniversary of the rape and strangulation murder of 13-year-old Mary Phagan by her sweatshop boss — and Atlanta B’nai B’rith president — Leo Max Frank, let us remember her young life and reflect on the massive Jewish propaganda machine that has been attempting to whitewash her killer’s reputation for more than a century.

Besides the victim, Mary Phagan, there were five people in the National Pencil Company building when she was killed on 26 April 1913. We know that four of them didn’t do it. That leaves Leo Frank.

110 years later, the ADL is still trying to frame the janitor, Jim Conley, for Mary Phagan’s murder: How likely is it that Conley, a Black man—in 1913 Georgia—would rape and kill a White girl just a few feet from the unlocked glass-paneled front entrance door of the National Pencil Company, where people were coming and going all day, right at the foot of an open staircase at the top of which was Leo Frank’s open office door? Preposterous.

Leo Frank was elected the Atlanta B’nai B’rith president of the Gate City Lodge #144 in 1912 and his Summer of 1913 conviction for the rape and strangulation-murder of 13-year-old Mary Phagan had galvanized B’nai B’rith HQ to found the ADL less than two months after the fact.

Even though Leo Frank was convicted in late August 1913, in September 1913 his 500-member Independent Order of B’nai B’rith fraternal organization in Georgia voted unanimously (see Atlanta Constitution, September 24, 1913 at leofrank.info) to re-elect him their president. So while Leo Frank was incarcerated in the city jail as his appeals were wending their way through the appellate courts, he was running the affairs of this powerful Atlanta Jewish group like a powerful mafia boss behind bars until the Autumn of 1914. He was not re-elected once the affidavits, testimony, and evidence of the Leo Frank Georgia Supreme Court records were revealed to the public (available at the Internet Archive and leofrank.info).

A must-read on the topic is “100 Reasons Leo Frank Is Guilty” from the American Mercury, and another important source every student of the case must read are the contemporary works of Tom Watson.

I encourage everyone to please listen to the works of investigative journalist Tom Watson in the audio books by Vanessa Neubauer, from the pages of Watson’s Jeffersonian Magazine, January, March, August, September and October of 1915.

I promise you won’t be disappointed.

1. Tom Watson: The Leo Frank Case

2. Tom Watson: A Full Review of the Leo Frank Case

3. Tom Watson: The Celebrated Case of The State of Georgia vs. Leo Frank

4. Tom Watson: The Official Record in the Case of Leo Frank, a Jew Pervert

5. Tom Watson: The Rich Jews Indict a State!

Tom Watson articulated the evidence, testimony and exhibits of the Leo Frank trial with such force and power it is impossible to believe Leo Frank is innocent. Listen and find out why!

Introduction to Mary Phagan-Kean’s Insights into the Murder of Her Great Aunt

HERE ARE SOME of the key points offered by Mary Phagan-Kean in her latest interview with social media activist Ryan Dawson. (video above)

Mary Phagan-Kean’s journey into the dark and complex narrative surrounding the murder of her great aunt, Mary Phagan, began unexpectedly. Her father first shared the story after her name was recognized by a teacher, sparking a lifelong quest for truth and justice. The tale, as recounted by her father, painted a grim picture of Leo Frank, the man convicted of Mary Phagan’s murder. According to testimony, Frank was a sexual pervert who molested numerous young girls and even boys, earning him the moniker “the B’nai B’rith pedophile” — a reference to the fact that he was president of the Atlanta chapter of the Jewish fraternal order B’nai B’rith, the organization which gave birth to the powerful ADL, or “Anti-Defamation League.” Frank was even re-elected president of the group after his conviction for murdering little Mary.

The Vigilance Committee, which consisted of leading community leaders and which sought “Southern justice” after a corrupt governor (who was a partner in the law firm that defended Frank) commuted Frank’s death sentence, played a pivotal role in the case by executing him themselves after, as they saw it, outside influencers had illegally prevented his lawful hanging. (The New York Times-invented “Knights of Mary Phagan” never existed. That moniker was likely invented to link the Vigilance Committee to similar-sounding “Knights” factions of the Ku Klux Klan, in order to smear the Committee.)

The lynching of Frank was the first done by automobile, quite a feat considering the limited ownership of automobiles in Marietta, Georgia, in 1915 — further proving that prominent citizens, who were outraged by Governor Slaton’s involvement in the law firm that defended Frank, and his commutation of his sentence, were involved, and not a “mob.”

The Anti-Defamation League, an organization with a vested interest in the outcome, has been relentless in its efforts to secure a full pardon for Frank for decades. Their tactics, however, have been marred by deception and misinformation, leading to numerous hoaxes, including false claims about a pardon (the existing “pardon” does not address his guilt at all).

Mary Phagan-Kean’s father never mentioned Frank’s Jewishness but emphasized his perverse behavior. Her grandfather, Mary Phagan’s brother, was deeply emotionally affected by the case, becoming distraught when asked about it, particularly noting the resemblance between Mary Phagan-Kean and little Mary.

The narrative surrounding the case is fraught with controversy. Jews have even attempted to portray Mary Phagan as a seducer, a claim that Mary Phagan-Kean vehemently rejects.

There has been documented collusion between Jewish groups and officials to alter the wording on Mary’s commemorative plaque, with the altered plaque suggesting that Frank was exonerated for the murder — which he was not. This alteration occurred under the cover of night and was set up during secret meetings from which the Phagan family — and the public — were excluded, further obscuring the truth.

Rabbi Steven Lebow, a prominent figure in the area Jewish community, demanded that Mary’s marker be changed because it “offended” the Jewish community to tell the truth about the non-pardon. This defense of a convicted child rapist and murderer is a strange hill for Jewish groups to die on.

During the 1960s, when Jewish authors Leonard Dinnerstein and Harry Golden were writing their books on the case, the trial transcript mysteriously disappeared, making it unavailable for public scrutiny.

The best outcome of the efforts of both sides in this case, Mrs. Phagan-Kean says, has been the creation of a team to digitize and make all relevant documents on the case available and searchable online. And the best way to study the case, she avers, is to examine these newspaper articles in conjunction with the Brief of Evidence (all now available on leofrank.info and leofrank.org). Contrary to popular belief, the newspapers were pro-Frank and had Jewish editors, contradicting the notion of an anti-Frank, anti-Jewish atmosphere. Nevertheless, the firsthand reports of the trial at that time were mostly honest and paint a very different picture from that of the “Leo Frank is an innocent victim of anti-Semitism” narrative being pushed today. (One can learn, for example, that the grand jury that indicted Frank included four Jews out of 21 members, and that all voted to charge Frank with the murder.)

The Jewish community’s claims that Frank did not know Mary Phagan are untenable. Frank walked past her daily for a year, handled her pay packets weekly, and even directed police to investigate James Gannt, claiming he was “close to” Mary. These actions suggest a familiarity that contradicts his claim of ignorance.

The Anti-Defamation League’s never-ending defense of Frank has inadvertently contributed to the cause they claim to oppose: anti-Semitism.

Mary Phagan was brutally raped, as evidenced by the autopsy report, which, though difficult to read, showed no markings on her body except those of strangulation. There was blood in her panties, and family proof confirmed she was not on her menstrual cycle. ADL-linked author Steven Oney referred to Mary as a “voluptuous woman,” a claim that Parade magazine attempted to exploit this by implying she was “flirting” before her death, a particularly odious insinuation.

A 1980s miniseries, inspired by Harry Golden’s book and dubious material from Alonzo Mann, was produced without consultation with Mary Phagan’s family. This miniseries further muddied the waters of the case.

In a more recent development, the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles, under pressure from Rabbi Lebow and the Jewish power structure, established a “Conviction Integrity Unit” in Atlanta. This unit, ostensibly to exonerate falsely convicted individuals, including Blacks, was really created explicitly to push for the exoneration of Frank. They have even floated the idea of a new trial for Frank, despite the extreme improbability of a proper prosecution more than a century later.

Contrary to ADL claims, the “mass exodus” of Jews from the area after the Frank case never occurred. This is one of the many hoaxes that will be debunked in the forthcoming new edition of Mrs. Phagan-Kean’s book, The Murder of Little Mary Phagan.

Mary Phagan-Kean’s father’s enduring belief was that “the truth will always win,” a sentiment that continues to guide her quest for justice.

Be it remembered that at the July Term, 1913, of Fulton Superior Court, – His Honor, L. S. Roan, one of the judges of the Superior Court of the State of Georgia presiding – there came on to be tried the case of the State of Georgia vs. Leo M. Frank, – same being an indictment for murder. On the trial of said case, the jury found the defendant guilty without any recommendation to life imprisonment and the court imposed the death sentence upon the defendant.

At the same term at which said verdict was rendered, and in due and legal time, defendant made a motion for new trial upon the grounds therein stated, and said motion came on to be …. regularly passed, on the 31^st day of October, 1913.

Upon the hearing of said motion for new trial, said […], Leo M. Frank, presented a proper brief of the evidence in […] which was approved by the court as true and correct, and which is here and now stated to be true and correct in this […] exceptions.

[…vent] at the hearing of said case, else presented on […] motion for new trial, and the court certified that the recital of fact contained in both the original and the amended motions for new trial were true and approved the grounds of both the original and the amended motions for new trial, and here and now states that the recitals contained in the grounds of both said original and amended motions for new trial are true.

In considering the said motion for new trial and in deciding upon the same, the court treated as part of the record […] considered the following affidavits and depositions […] by the […], to-wit:

R. L. Cremer makes the following affidavit, deposing and saying as follows: That he is a resident of Albany, Georgia; that he is acquainted with Mack Farkas, who works for Mr. Sam Farkas, who operates a livery stable and sale barn in Albany; that between the time of the murder of Mary Phagan, and the trial of Leo M. Frank, exact date this deponent cannot state, deponent was standing in front of Mr. Sam Farkas’ place of business on Broad Street, in the presence of Mack Farkas and others, including a party by the name of A. H. Henslee; said Henslee is the same part whose picture appears on page 2 of the “Atlanta Georgian” issue of August 26^th, and on page of the “Georgian” of the same paper of August 23^rd as a juror in the Frank case; at said time and place, deponent heard said Henslee express his conviction that Frank was guilty of the murder of Mary Phagan; his exact language was “There can be no doubt that Frank is guilty, I know he is guilty”, referring to the murder of Mary Phagan; deponent stated to said Henslee, “It is queer that a man of Frank’s standing could be guilty of such a crime”. Henslee said “without a doubt he is guilty”; deponent said, “What do you mean by ‘without a doubt’? Henslee answered “positively, without a doubt to my mind or to anyone else’s.

Mack Farkas, makes the following affidavit, deposing and saying as follows: that he is a resident of Albany, Georgia, and is connected with Sam Farkas, who runs a livery stable and sale barn in Albany; that between the time of the murder of Mary Phagan and the trial of Leo Frank, he heard a party discussing the case in front of the place of business of said Sam Farkas, in Albany, Georgia, in the presence of this deponent and others, including one R. L. Cremens, a resident of Albany, Ga., said party whom this deponent recollected as being named Henslee, and whose picture appears on page 2 of the Atlanta Georgian of August 23, and on page 2 of the Atlanta Georgian of August 26^th, as being one of the Frank jury, expressed himself as being convinced of Leo M. Frank’s guilt of the murder of Mary Phagan; the exact language used by said party deponent does not recollect but his recollection is that he used the words “I believe Frank is guilty”, referring to the murder of Mary Phagan.

Julian A. Lehman, makes the following affidavit, deposing and saying as follows: that he is personal acquainted with A. H. Henslee, one of the jurors in the above case; that on June 2, 1913, between Atlanta, Ga., and Experiment, Ga., the said Henslee expressed his opinion that Frank was guilty of the murder of Mary Phagan, and that this was in deponent’s presence and hearing; and in the hearing of other persons on the train at the time; the words used to the best of deponent’s knowledge and recollection were “Frank is as guilty as a damned dog, and ought to have his God damned neck broke”; this was in reference to Leo M. Frank, and before the trial; that again, on June 20, 1913, the said Henslee made practically the same statement of and concerning the connection of Leo M. Frank with the murder of Mary Phagan in deponent’s hearing; that on both occasions the said Henslee showed great feeling, he expressed the aforesaid conviction firmly and positively and vehemently.

Samuel Aron makes the following affidavit, deposing and saying as follows: that after the indictment of Leo M. Frank for murder, as near as he can recall about two days after the indictment, this deponent was at the Elks Club on Ellis Street, Atlanta, Georgia; that at that time he saw one A. H. Henslee, not then known to this deponent by name, but now known and recognized by this deponent as one of the jurors who tried the Frank case and returned a verdict of guilty; said A. H. Henslee was at said Elks Club at the time mentioned, and made the statement in this deponent’s hearing: “I am glad that they indicted the God damn Jew. They ought to take him out and lynch him, and if I get on that jury, I’ll hang that Jew sure.” This statement was made in connection with the indictment of Leo M. Frank for the murder of Mary Phagan, and made in this deponent’s hearing by the said A. H. Henslee, who afterwards served on said jury and brought in a verdict of guilty; that at this time this deponent left the Club, not caring to get into the argument, which was becoming heated and which was very condemnatory of Leo M. Frank, by the said A. H. Henslee.

L. Z. Rosser, Morris Brandon, R. R. Arnold, and H. J. Haas make the following [several words unable to be read] they are the sole counsel of defendant in the above case and they make this affidavit to be used as evidence on the motion for new trial in said case; that since the trial of said case and the verdict and sentence therein, it has come to their knowledge that two of the jurors who sat on said case, to-wit: M. Johenning and A. H. Henslee, were prejudiced, partial and biased against Leo M. Frank, the defendant as evidenced by affidavits attached to motion and hereinafter referred to; that said prejudice, partiality and bias were present on their part, when said Johenning and Henslee qualified as jurors in said case as shown by said affidavits, but that the facts were unknown to these deponents at the time of the trial of said case, and at the time said jurors qualified on the voir dire of said case; and these deponents had no means of knowing said facts until after said trial; that not until after the trial of said case did they know or have any means of knowing that said Johenning and Henslee, or either of them, had made any statement of any kind to, or in the presence of, any of the following persons, to-wit; H. C. Levenhart, Mrs. J. G. Levenhart, Miss Mariam Lovenhart, S. Aron, Mack Farkas, R. L. Gremer, Jno. M. Holmes, Shi Gray, S. M. Johnson, J. J. Nunnally, W. L. Ricker, J. A. Lehman, C. P. Stough, or any other person, of and concerning said Leo Frank in connection with the murder of Mary Phagan, or in connection with said trial, or the possible outcome of said trial; that they have been guilty of no laches in this matter, but that they have used every means of obtaining the facts in connection with statements made by said persons, and all of them, and all of said statements have come to their knowledge since the rendition of the verdict and sentence in said case, as is shown by the dated mentioned in the jurats to each affidavit and deponents have brought same to the attention of the Court at the earliest possible moment at which the Court could take cognizance of said affidavits after the trial, which is the date on which the rule nisi is on return; that is, October 4, 1913, same being on the day presented to the Court as part of the motion for new trial; they say that had they known at the trial of any of the facts or statements of the jurors, which would disqualify, or tend to disqualify, said jurors, or either of them, when said jurors were put upon the voir dire in said case, these deponents would have [several words can’t be read] motion of the Court at said time.

Mrs. Jennie G. Lovenhart, makes the following affidavit, deposing and saying as follows: that she is personally acquainted with M. Johenning, one of the jurors who served in the trial of Leo M. Frank for murder of Mary Phagan; that during May, 1913, said M. Johenning met deponent and deponent’s daughter on Forsyth street, Atlanta, Georgia, and then and there the said M. Johenning expressed to the deponent and deponent’s daughter his firm belief that Leo M. Frank was guilty of the murder of Mary Phagan. This statement was made by M. Johenning forseably [sic] and positively and as his profound conviction.

H. Q. Loevenhart makes the following affidavit, deposing and saying as follows: that for some eighteen months prior to July, 1913, he was connected with the Hodges Broom works in the City of Atlanta; that he is personally acquainted with M. Johenning, one of the jurors in the above case, and that during the month of May, 1913, said M. Johenning had a conversation with this deponent, in which he discussed the death of little Mary Phagan; that in said conversation the said juror, M. Johenning, expressed his opinion to deponent that Frank was guilty of the murder of Mary Phagan, and that it was his profound conviction.

Miss Miriam Loevenhart makes the following affidavit, deposing and saying as follows: that she is personally acquainted with M. Johenning, a juror, who served in the above stated case; she says that prior to the trial of Leo M. Frank, said juror, M. Johenning, had a conversation with this deponent and deponent’s mother, and in their presence expressed his profound conviction that Leo M. Frank was certainly guilty of the murder of Mary Phagan; that said M. Johenning made this statement, positively, almost vehemently, and that his exact language, which was in response to a remark from this deponent in reference to the case was, as near as deponent recalls, “I know that he is guilty”, referring to Leo Frank; that said Johenning made this statement more than once to this deponent before the commencement of the trial of Leo M. Frank for murder.

Leo M. Frank makes the following affidavit, deposing and saying as follows: that he is the defendant in the above stated case, and that his sole counsel in said case were L. Z. Rosser, Morris Brandon, R. R. Arnold and H. J. Haas; that at and before said trial was entered on, and during the whole of said trial that affiant had no knowledge whatsoever as to M. Johenning and A. H. Henslee, two of the jurors, being prejudiced, partial and biased in said case, as evidenced by the affidavits of H. B. Lovenhart, Mrs. J. C. Lovenhart, Miss Marian Lovenhart, S. Aron, Max Farkas, R. L. Grener, John W. Holmes, Shi Gray, S. M. Johnson, J. J. Nunnally, W. L. Ricker, J. A. Lehman and C. P. Stough. Affiant did not know either of said jurors and had never seen or heard of them before; the the did not know until after the trial and did not have any means of knowing until after said trial, that said Johenning and said Henslee, or either of them, had made any statement of any kind to or in the presence of any of the persons hereinbefore named; that before said trial, at the time of entering upon said trial, and during said trial, he had no knowledge or means of knowing that said persons were prejudiced, partial or biased, as is shown by the affidavits or depositions of the persons named, and the facts stated in said affidavits and depositions were unknown to this affiant until after the verdict and sentence in said case; that he has been guilty of no laches in this matter, and has, together with his counsel, used all the means at hand to obtain the facts and circumstances in connection with the statements made by said parties and all of them; that said facts were discovered after the verdict and sentence of the court in the case above stated, and the affidavits of said witnesses were taken out on the dates shown in the jurat to each affidavit, and the same are brought to the attention of the court by being presented on the day for the return of the rule nisi, which is October 4, 1913, and which is the earliest time at which such affidavits could be brought to the attention of the court; he further says that had he known at the trial of any facts or statements which would disqualify, or tend to disqualify, said jurors, or either of them, when said jurors were upon their voir dire in said case, that this affiant would have had his counsel bring the same to the attention of the Court promptly at that time.

W. P. Neill makes the following affidavit, deposing and saying as follows: that he was present in the courtroom during the trial of Leo M. Frank, for the murder of Mary Phagan, for two full days during the trial, and from time to time on other days; that at the time of the facts hereinafter stated, deponent was sitting just where the jury passed by going from the jury box to the rear end of the court no knowledge whatsoever as to M. Johenning and A. H. Henslee, two of the jurors, being prejudiced, partial and biased in said case, as evidenced by the affidavits of H. B. Lovenhart, Mrs. J. C. Lovenhart, Miss Marian Lovenhart, S. Aron, Max Farkas, R. L. Grener, John W. Holmes, Shi Gray, S. M. Johnson, J. J. Nennelly, W. L. Ricker, J. A. Lehman and C. P. Stough. Affiant did not know either of said jurors and had never seen or heard of them before; that he did not know until after the trial and did not have any means of knowing until after said trial, that said Johenning and said Henslee, or either of them, had made any statement of any kind to or in the presence of any of the persons hereinbefore named; that before said trial, at the time of entering upon said trial, and during said trial, he had knowledge or means of knowing that said persons were prejudiced, partial or biased, as is shown by the affidavits or depositions of the persons named, and the facts stated in said affidavits and depositions were unkonw to this affiant until after the verdict and sentence in said case; that he has been guilty of no laches in this matter, and has, together with his counsel, used all the means at hand to obtain the facts and circumstances in connection with the statements made by said parties and all of them; that said facts were discovered after the verdict and sentence of the court in the case above stated, and the affidavits of said witnesses were taken on the dates shown in the jurat to each affidavit, and the same are brought to the attention of the court by being presented on the day for the return of the rule nisi which is October 4, 1913, and which is the earliest time at which such affidavits could be brought to the attention of the court; he further says that he had known at the trial of any facts or statements which would disqualify, or tend to disqualify, said jurors, or either of them, when said jurors were upon their voir dire in said case, that this affiant would have had his counsel bring the same to the attention of the Court promptly at that time.

W. P. Neill makes the following affidavit, deposing and saying as follows: that he was present in the courtroom during the trial of Leo M. Frank, for the murder of Mary Phagan, for two full days during the trial, and from time to time on other days that at the time of the facts hereinafter stated, deponent was sitting just where the jury passed by going from the jury box to the rear end of the court room, he was sitting on the front row of the spectators benches; that during the course of the trial deponent saw the jury pass to the jury box from the rear of the court room, the jury passed immediately by this deponent and also by a man, whose name is unknown to this deponent, but who was a spectator in the court room, who was sitting about three feet from this deponent, just across an aisle, no one being between this man and deponent; as the jury passed this man, at the time specified, this man took hold of one of the jurors, he took the juror by the hand with one hand and grasped his arm with the other hand and made a statement to him, said something to the juror which this deponent did not understand sufficiently to be able to quote, but this deponent says that he made some statement to the juror while he had him thus by the hand and arm; he says that this act was witnessed by Plennie Minor, so this deponent believes, for the reason that as soon as this happened, the said Plennie Minor immediately came back to this man and threatened to put him out of the court. Plennie Minor told this man that he, Plennie Minor, saw him, the man, take the juror by the hand and say something to him; the man remonstrated with Plennie Minor, and this deponent heard Plennie Minor repeat to him that he, Plennie Minor, saw him, the man, speak to the juror; Deponent further says that on two occasions, while he was sitting in the court room at the trial, at one time while he was about six to ten feet from the jury, this deponent heard shouts and cheering on the outside of the house from the crowds collected outside; one of said times was during Dorsey’s speech. While this deponent does not say whether or not the jury heard this cheering, he does say that he, the deponent, heard it, plainly and distinctly and was within a few feet from the jury at the time he heard it. He further says that on one occasion he heard cheering in the court room; the Judge said that unless the cheering stopped he would have to clear the court room, and to this, Deputy Sheriff Minor replied that that would be the only way he could stop the cheering in the court room.

B. M. Kay makes the following affidavit, deposing and saying as follows: that he is a resident of the City of Atlanta, living at #264-S, Pryor Street; that on Saturday evening, August 23, 1913, about 8 or 8:30 o’clock P. M. he was driving his father’s automobile down South Pryor Street, going South, there being in the automobile with him, his mother, Mrs. Rose Kay, and his brother, Sampson Kay; that as the automobile approached the corner of South Pryor and East Hunter Streets, he observed the jurymen in the Frank case turn into South Pryor from the east, out of East Fain Street, and deponent stopped his automobile to look at the jury, and upon doing so noticed that walking alongside the jury were some six or seven other men. Deponent was on the west side of South Pryor Street while the jury in the above entitled case was walking north along the east side of South Pryor Street. Deponent’s brother, Sampson Kay, got out of the automobile stating to deponent that he was going to follow the jury.

Miss Martha Kay makes the following affidavit, deposing and saying as follows: that on the last day of the trial of Leo M. Frank in the above stated case, August 25^th, 1913, she was present in the court room and when the audience applauded Judge Roan stated to the sheriff that he cheering and demonstrations would have to stop or the court room would have to be cleared, to which sheriff replied, “Your Honor, that is the only way it can be stopped.”

Mrs. A. Shurman, makes the following affidavit, deposing and saying as follows: that on the last day of the trial of Leo M. Frank, in above stated case, August 25, 1913, she was present in the court room and when the audience applauded Judge Roan stated to the sheriff that the cheering and demonstrations would have to stop or the court room would have to be cleared, to which the sheriff replied, “Your Honor, that is the only way it can be stopped.”

Mrs. A. Shurman makes the following affidavit, deposing and saying as follows: that she is a resident of the City of Atlanta, living at #240 Central Avenue; that on Monday morning, August 25, 1913, the last day of the trial of the said Leo M. Frank in the above stated case, she was present in the court room in company with Miss Martha Kay of #264 S. Pryor Street, before time for court to open; that she saw the jury in said case enter said court room and take their places, and in a few moments, Mr. Hugh M. Dorsey, the Solicitor General of said court entered the room; just before he entered the room there was loud cheering in the street immediately outside the court room for “Dorsey”, all of which was loud and long continued and plainly audible to any one in the court room; as Mr. Dorsey entered the court room there was also cheering in said court room. There was also applauding in the course of Mr. Dorsey’s speech a couple of times on said date.

Miss Martha Kay makes the following affidavit, deposing and saying as follows: that she is a resident of the City of Atlanta, living at #264 South Pryor Street, that on Monday morning, August 25, 1913, the last day of the trial of the said Leo M. Frank, in the above stated case, she was present in the court room in company with Mrs. A. Shurman of #240 Central Avenue, before time for court to open; that she saw the jury in said case enter said court room and take their places, and in a few moments Mr. Huge M. Dorsey, the Solicitor General of said court, entered the room, just before he entered the room there was loud cheering in the street immediately outside the court house for “Dorsey”, all of which was loud and long continued and plainly audible to any one in the court room; as Mr. Dorsey entered the court room there was also cheering in said court room. There was also applauding in the course of Mr. Dorsey’s speech a couple of times on said date.

Sampson Kay makes the following affidavit, deposing and saying as follows: That he is a resident of the City of Atlanta, living at #264 South Pryor Street; that on Saturday evening, August 23^rd, 1913, about 8 or 8:30 o’clock P. M. he saw the jury in the above entitled case walking along South Pryor Street with a deputy Sheriff in front and another walking in the rear of said jury; said jury turning into South Pryor Street from East Fair Street, and thence up South Pryor Street to the Kimball House. Deponent followed the jury some 15 or 20 feet in the rear thereof, from E. Fair Street up South Pryor St. to near the corner of E. Mitchell and S. Pryor, when he passed ahead and waited on the corner of said streets until the jury had passed, and then continued to follow them up to the Kimball House. This deponent says that there were some six or seven men walking alongside the jurymen talking to them all the way from the corner of E. Fair and South Pryor Streets, up to the Union Station, just north of corner of East Alabama and S. Pryor Street, when the men left them, and the jury went on and entered the Kimball House through the Wall Street entrance.

Samuel A. Boorstin makes the following affidavit, deposing and saying as follows: that on Friday evening, on the 22^nd day of August, 1913, at about 5 or 5:30 P. M., he was present at the court room of Fulton Superior Court, Judge L. S. Roan presiding, during the trial of the State vs. Leo M. Frank; and after adjournment, and when the jury had been taken from the court room, and shortly thereafter, the Solicitor General, Huge M. Dorsey, had passed out of the court room, there was a large crowed waiting outside, through which the jury passed, comprising, perhaps, no less than two or three thousand people; that this crowed did tumultously and noisily applaud and cheer the Solicitor General, and did congregate around the court room on the outside, standing in great numbers, both on the street and on the sidewalks; that deponent, upon adjournment of court, was walking up Pryor Street from said court room in a northerly direction, and when he reached Pryor and Alabama Streets, he saw two persons peering out of the third floor corner window in the Kimball House, looking in a southward direction at the large crowd congregated between the Kiser Building and the court house; that, as deponent continued walking northward and reached the restaurant in the Union Car Shed, corner Pryor and Wall Streets, he still observed one of the figures in the jury room peering southward, with both hands upon the window-sill, whom he recognized as being Juror Smith, one of the jurors in the case of the State vs. Leo M. Frank, and then being on trial. The other person, who had his head through the window peering southward, had by this time stuck his head back into the room, and deponent could not tell who he was.

W. B. Cate makes the following affidavit, deposing and saying as follows: that on September 1, 1913, in the afternoon, I was standing at the corner of Alabama street and S. Pryor Street, and had intended to go down S. Pryor Street to the court house where the Frank trial was being conducted, but was unable to get any closer to the court house on account of the crowd that had gathered in the street, I was in about one block of the court house. While I was standing at this place, I heard a great deal of cheering and shouting, the street being full of men most of whom were making noise and cheering. I saw some one come out of the court house, who I understood was Hugh Dorsey, the solicitor, and he was picked up by some of the crowd and carried across the street on the shoulders of the men who had him. I could not see the man that was carried on the shoulders of the men very well, but was told that it was Dorsey. There was a this time fully three thousand men gathered around the court house, filling the streets on all sides of the court house. I only know Col. Dorsey by sight.

J. H. G. Cochran makes the following affidavit, deposing and saying as follows: that he is a resident of Atlanta, Georgia; he remembers the close of the trial of Leo M. Frank, and was present in front of the court house in Atlanta, Georgia, on the day that the case closed and on the day that the jury returned the verdict of guilty in said case; that on the day aforesaid, to-wit; that the jury returned the verdict, Mr. Cochran was standing in front of the court house at the time the jury came out of the court house to go to dinner; at just about the same time or near that time, and while the jury were in the vicinity of the court house, Silicitor [sic] General Hugh M. Forsey [sic] came out of the court house and went across the street to the Kiser Building.

Deponent says that at the appearance of Solicitor Dorsey on the street coming from the court house the crowd in the street, numbering between 500 and 1,000 people, to the best of this deponent’s estimate, broke into loud and tumultuous cheering of the Solicitor, the jury being at the time near the court house and proceeding up Pryor Street, and being within sight of this deponent at the time the cheering commenced, and that said cheering lasted the whole time that the Solicitor General was crossing the street and until he had entered the Kiser Building.

This deponent knows that this cheering which took place in the presence of the jury, or in their hearing, and while they were on Pryor Street a short distance from the court house, was cheering for the Solicitor, and he remembers the Solicitor’s stopping at the entrance of the Kiser Building and taking off his hat and bowing to the crowds cheering him; not only were the crowds cheering him, but people in the windows of the Kiser Building were also cheering and waving their hands and handkerchiefs at the Solicotor [sic]; all of which was practically in the presence of the jury, at least within their hearing, before they proceeded up Pryor St. He says that on said day the jury took dinner at the German Cafe, on South Pryor St., a distance of approximately 150 feet to 200 feet from the Kiser Building, and that both outside of the Cafe and in the Cafe, the cheering of the Solicitor General could be heard by any person.

H. G. Williams, makes the following affidavit, deposing and saying as follows: that on the day the Frank trial closed, and verdict of guilty was found by the jury against Leo M. Frank, accused of the murder of Mary Phagan, this deponent was on South Pryor Street, in front of the court house;

This deponent saw Solicitor General Dorsey came from the Court House and cross the street to the Kiser Building in the presence of exceeding 500 people, who cheered his appearance at the entrance of the court house with loud and continued cheering, which cheering continued until he had entered the Kiser Building across the street, and which cheering was acknowledged by Solicitor Dorsey at the entrance of the Kiser Building, where he turned and raised his hat to the people who were cheering him;

Just preceding Solicitor Dorsey, the jury had come out of the Court House and had gone a short way up the street to the German Cafe for lunch; at the time of this cheering, which could be heard for a great distance on all sides of the court house, the jury were in easy hearing distance of the noise during the whole time when the crowd was cheering Solicitor Dorsey.

Said demonstration over the Solicitor General occupied not less than three minutes, and perhaps not exceeding five minutes, and took place on the last day of the trial, immediately after the jury had come from the court house on their way to dinner. Further deposing this deponent says that practically the same demonstration took place on Saturday preceding the time hereinbefore specified, at the time when Solicitor Dorsey came from the court house to go to his office and when the jury were proceeding from the court house; said demonstration on Saturday being in the presence of the Solicitor and in the hearing of the jury, and being a demonstration over the Solicitor General.

E. G. Pursley, makes the following affidavit, deposing and saying as follows: that he is a resident of the City of Atlanta, residing at #50 Ponders Ave., with office at #700 Temple Court; that on Friday noon, before the above stated case went to the jury on Monday, he was present in the court room where the trial of Leo M. Frank was being held; that when court adjourned and the jury had left and gone to lunch he came out of the court house and there was loud cheering for “Dorsey”, which lasted for several minutes. Deponent walked from the court house to his office on seventh floor of Temple Court Building, and when he reached his office some one asked deponent what all the racket or fuss was about down on the street.

Marana Benbenisty makes the following affidavit, deposing and saying as follows: that he was standing outside of the court house on Friday afternoon, August 22^nd, at about 12:20, and I saw the jury come out of the court room. Soon after the jury came out of the court room, Mr. Dorsey came out, and the crowd set up cheering and helling [sic] “Hurrah for Dorsey”. At the time of the yelling and cheering the jury was just crossing the street towards the Barbers’ Supply Company, which is next to the Kiser Building. That in the opinion of deponent there was about a thousand people crowding about the court room.

Isaac Hazan makes the following affidavit, deposing and saying as follows: that he was standing outside of the court house on Friday afternoon, Aug. 22^Nd, at about 12:20, and I saw the jury come out of the court room. Soon after the jury came out of the court room, Mr. Dorsey came out, and the crowd set up cheering and yelling “Hurrah, hurrah”. At the time of the yelling and cheering, the jury was just crossing the street towards the Barbers’ Supply Company, which is next to the Kiser Building; that in the opinion of deponent there was about a thousand people crowding about the court room.

Deponent further states that as the jury reached the other side of Pryor Street in front of the Barbers’ Supply Company, deponent heard ten or fifteen men in front of the court house yelling toward the jury that unless they brought in a verdict of guilty, that they would kill the whole damn bunch; that in the opinion of deponent, the jury must have heard them, because one of the jurors turned his face toward the yelling just when that occurred.

John H. Shipp makes the following affidavit, deposing and saying as follows: that on Friday, August 22, he was in room 301 of the Kiser Building, corner Hunter and So. Pryor Streets; that he saw the jury come out of the court house about six P. M.; that a few minutes after the jury came out of the court house, Mr. Dorsey appeared in the entrance, whereupon a great cheer arose from the people crowding in the streets and around the court house entrance; that at that time deponent saw the jury about fifty feet from the entrance of the court house, the jury at that time crossing the street diagonally toward the German Cafe; that in the opinion of deponent the yells and cheers could have been heard several blocks away; that the crowd yelled “Hurrah for Dorsey” and that the words were plainly audible.

Deponent further states that he was in room 301 of the Kiser Building, on Saturday, August 23; that he saw the jury emerge from the court house entrance at about one o’clock; that a few minutes after the jury came out, Mr. Dorsey came out and immediately a great crowd around the court house door set up a yell and cheer, saying “Hurrah for Dorsey”, taking off their hats and throwing them in the air and otherwise exhibiting their enthusiasm; that at the time of the yelling the jury was not in sight of the deponent, but deponent is of the opinion that they were within easy hearing of the yelling and must have heard all that transpired.

Deponent further states that while he has been around the court house, during the progress of the trial, he has heard numerous threats of violence to the accused in case of an acquittal; that deponent knows that one of the persons making threats was armed; that he exhibited his weapon at time of making threat.

B. S. Lipshits makes the following affidavit, deposing and saying as follows: That he was out in front of the court house mingling with the crowd, at about one P. M. on Saturday, August 23, immediately after court adjourned; that deponent saw the jury come out and about one or two minutes thereafter, Mr. Dorsey came out, whereupon there was great cheering and yelling by the crowd; that at the time the yelling and cheering took place, the jury could not have been more than one minute’s walk away from the court house, and in the opinion of deponent, they could have heard the cheering and yelling;

Depone further states that he was also present at the court house on Friday evening, August 22^nd, when Mr. Dorsey left the court house, and heard the cheering and heard the crowd yelling “Hurrah”.

Charles J. Moore makes the following affidavit, deposing and saying as follows: that he is an attorney at law, occupying room 301 on the 3^rd floor of the Kiser Building, at the corner of Hunter and So. Pryor Streets; that on Friday, August 22^nd, deponent was in his office and saw the jury come out of the court house entrance at about 6 P. M. that soon after Mr. Dorsey appeared in the court house entrance and a great cheering and yelling occurred by the crowd immediately opposite the entrance, and afterwards the crowd yelled “Hurrah for Dorsey”, and the volume of the yells were so great that they could have been heard many blocks away; that they threw up their hats and gave other demonstrations; that at the time of the yelling, the jury was just crossing the street toward the German Cafe, not fifty feet away from the entrance, and in the opinion of deponent must have heard the cheering and the words “Hurrah for Dorsey”, because they could be plainly heard; that he was in his office on Saturday, Aug. 23, when the jury came out of the court house at about one o’clock, and he heard yelling and cheering when Mr. Dorsey appeared a few minutes afterwards. Deponent did not see the jury at the time of the yelling, but it occurred so soon after the jury came out of the court house that in the opinion of deponent the jury must have heard the cheering and the words that were yelled; that since the trial has been in progress, he has heard several parties making threats of personal violence against the accused in the event of an acquittal; that these parties were loitering in and around the court house entrance and making threats that if the jury did not hang Frank, that they would pay the jury the compliment of sitting on the case, and if the jury did not do its duty, they would; that deponent recalls the names of R. W. Miller, Richard Dutton; that Miller loitered continuously around the court house entrance and circulated among the crowd.

D. Rozinsky makes the following affidavit deposing and saying as follows: That on Friday, Aug. 22^Nd, and Saturday, Aug. 23, he was standing near the corner of Hunter and So. Pryor Streets, in the City of Atlanta, Ga., and that when the Solicitor General H. M. Dorsey, came out of the Old City Hall Building, now used as a court house, there was loud and vociferous cheering by the assembled crowd; that members of the crowd took the Solicitor in their arms and carried him across the street to the Kiser Building.

Mack Farkas, B. W. Simon, Sam Farkas, make the following affidavit that the order set out below was taken by A. H. Henslee, in person, a traveling salesman for Franklin Buggy Co.; that said order was taken on July 8, 1913; the name A. H. Henslee on said order is the handwriting and signature of A. H. Henslee. The order referred to above was as follows: “July 8, 1913. Franklin Buggy Company, Inc. “Improved Barnesville Buggy”. At once Ship to Sam Farkas, Albany, Ga., certain buggies (described in detail), Salesman; (Signed) A. H. Henslee. (Signed) Sam Farkas, by B. W. Simon.”

J. J. Ricker and W. L. Nunnally, of Monroe, Georgia, make the following affidavit, deposing and saying as follows: that they have seen in the public prints that one of the jurors, A. H. Henslee, in the Frank case, admits having made certain statements as to Frank’s guilt of the murder of Mary Phagan, but says these statements were made after the trial of Leo M. Frank, and not before; they say that so far as they know, the said Henslee has not been in Monroe, Georgia, since the trial of Leo M. Frank, and they reiterate the statement that all statements made in their hearing by said Henslee, and testified about by these deponents on September 27, 1913, were made before the commencement of the trial of Leo M. Frank for the murder of Mary Phagan on July 28^th, 1913; to the best of these deponents’ recollection, these statements were made in June, 1913, although as to the exact month, these deponents say not.

Julian A. Lehman makes the following affidavit, deposing and saying as follows: that he makes this affidavit for use in motion for new trial in above stated case; that he reiterates his statement heretofore made under oath that between the time of the murder of Mary Phagan, as reported by the newspapers, and the commencement of the trial of Leo M. Frank, on July 28, 1913, he, on two occasions, heard A. H. Henslee, a juror in said case, express himself firmly and positively as to the guilt of Leo M. Frank of the murder of Mary Phagan, in the language set forth in the affidavit heretofore made by this deponent and attached to the original motion for new trial in said case; one of said times was on or about June 20, 1913, – another time was early in the month of June, to the best of this deponent’s recollection near June 2^nd, but as to the exact date this deponent cannot state.

Leon Harrison makes the following affidavit, deposing and saying as follows: that he is not acquainted with Leo M. Frank, is not related to him, and has never see him to know him; he says on oath that he is not personally acquainted with A. H. Henslee, but he knows that said Henslee is the party about whom he makes this affidavit; that during the month of May, 1913, deponent was walking from Soherrer’s lunch place on Peachtree Street, toward Five Points, when he was attracted by a conversation between two men, one of whom was said A. H. Henslee; the same Henslee that served on the Frank jury and whose picture appeared in the Atlanta Georgian of August 26^th, 1913, page 2, a clipping of which papers is hereto attached; that at the time, which was shortly after the Mary Phagan murder, almost everyone was discussing the murder, and this deponent was very much interested in the matter, as was everyone else; this deponent heard the man with Henslee say to Henslee “I don’t believe Frank committed that murder; if he did, he is one Jew in a million, not one Jew in a million would committ [sic] such a crime”; and to this statement said Henslee replied in deponent’s hearing: “I believe he did kill the girl, and if by any chance I get on the jury that tries him, I’ll try my best to have him convicted.” The above statement of Henslee was in reference to Frank’s guilt of the murder of Mary Phagan.

The following persons make the following affidavit: R. C. Knight, Ex-Ordinary, H. G. Howell, Sol. City Court, O. Roberts, Atty, J. B. Shelnutt, Clerk Walton Superior Court, Alonzo C. Stone, Judge City Court of Monroe, deposing and saying as follows: that they are personally acquainted with J. J. Nunnally and W. L. Ricker, and that said Nunnally and Ricker are each men of the highest personal and moral character and reputation, and that they are each entirely trustworthy, and worthy of belief, as to any statement made by them, or each of them.

The following persons make the following affidavit: W. H. Burwell, Henry H. Little, Ordinary, Frank L. Little, Chmn. Board of Education, Sparta, T. M. Hunt, H. D. Chapman, Tax Collector, H. Co., Thos. F. Fleming, H. L. Middlebrooks, Cashier 1^st Natl. Bank, G. W. Brier, Mayor of Sparta, R. E. Wheeler, Cashier Sparta Savings Bank, D. E. Wiley, Clerk Superior Court, A. H. Birdsong, Treas. H. Co., E. A. Rosier, Sr., Pres. Bank of Sparta, J. D. Bennett, Cashier Bank of Sparta, T. B. Hightower, Sheriff H. Co., deposing and saying as follows that they are personally acquainted with Jno. M. Holmes, Shi Gray, and S. M. Johnson, and that said Holmes, Gray and Johnson are each men of the highest personal and moral character, and reputation, and that they are each entirely trustworthy and worthy of belief, as to any statement made by them or each of them.

The following persons make the following affidavit, deposing and saying as follows: W. P. Upshaw, S. E. Berman and Henry M. Kennedy, that they are personally acquainted with Julian A. Lehman; and that said Lehman is a man of the highest personal and moral character, and reputation, and that he is entirely trustworthy, and worthy of belief, as to any statement made by him.

G. W. Mizell and R. P. Spencer, Jr. make the following affidavit, deposing and saying as follows: that they are personally acquainted with Julian A. Lehman, and that said Lehman is a man of the highest personal and moral character, and reputation, and that he is entirely trustworthy and worthy of belieft, as to any statement made by him.

A. L. Guthman, L. P. Stephens, A. H. Van Dyke make the following affidavit, deposing and saying as follows: that they are personally acquainted with C. P. Stough, of Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia, and that they know him to be a man of high personal character entirely trustworthy and absolutely worthy of belief, as to any statement made by him, whether on oath or otherwise.

W. W. Little makes the following affidavit, deposing and saying as follows: that he was head clerk at the New Albany Hotel (Albany Hotel Company Proprietors), located at Albany, in said State and County, all during the months of June, July and August, 1913, and for several years prior to that time; and that attached hereto, marked exhibit “A”, is the register of guests at said hotel from the 20^th day of June, 1913, to the 31^st day of August, 1913; and that there was no other register of guests used at said hotel during the period above stated;

Deponent further says that on the third page of said register of guests, under date of July 8, 1913 (contd 7/8/13), on the second line from the top, is the signature of A. H. Henslee, address “Atlanta, U.S.A., assigned to room 79 in said hote[l]; and deponent says further that he was the clerk on duty at said hotel at the time the said Henslee registered his said name on said register, and was a guest at said hotel during that day; and deponent says further that he is personally acquainted with the said Henslee.

Deponent says further that he is aware and has knowledge that this affidavit is to be used as evidence in the hearing of the motion for a new trial in the case of the State of Georgia vs. Leo M. Frank, which is now pending in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia.

Leo M. Frank makes the following affidavit, deposing and saying as follows; that he is the defendant above named; that he did not know, nor has he ever heard until the end of his trial in the above stated case, that A. H. Henslee and Marcellus Joehenning had any prejudice or bias against deponent, nor that they, or either of them, has ever said or done anything indicating that they believed in deponent’s guilt, or had any prejudice or bias against deponent.

Shi Gray deposes and states by interrogation issued under Section 5918 and 5919 of the Code of 1910, as follows: I have exemined clipping from the Atlanta Georgia of August 26, 1913, showing a picture of the jury in the above stated case, and showing a likeness of Juror A. H. Henslee. I am personally acquainted with A. H. Henslee. I heard A. H. Henslee discussing the question of whether or not Leo M. Frank was guilty of the murder of Mary Phagan, between the death of said Mary Phagan and the commencement of the trial of Leo M. Frank charged with the murder of Mary Phagan. In a conversation in Walker & Holmes Insurance office, some one asked Henslee whether he, Henslee thought Frank was guilty of the murder of Mary Phagan. Henslee answered in the affirmative. The answer given by Henslee was stated positively and firmly. The conversation lasted from about 20 minutes to half an hour. All of us were talking. Henslee asked Mr. Holmes and Mr. Johnson and others. The whole conversation at the time with Henslee was on the proposition as to whether or not Leo M. Frank was guilty of the murder of Mary Phagan. This conversation took place before the trial of Frank, and it was in the insurance office of Walker & Holmes. I did hear A. H. Henslee state, in Sparta, Ga., between the time of the death of Mary Phagan and the commencement of the trial of Leo M. Frank, for the murder of Mary Phagan, that Leo M. Frank was guilty of the murder of Mary Phagan. I heard him say he was summoned as a juror in the case conversation already testified about. I am a dealer in live stock.

S. M. Johnson deposes and states by interrogatories issued under sections 5918 and 5919 of the Code of 1910, as follows: I have examined clipping from the Atlanta Georgian of August 25, 1913, showing a picture of the jury in the above stated case, and showing a likeness of Juror A. H. Henslee. I know A. H. Henslee by sight. I have heard A. H. Henslee discussing the question of whether or not Leo M. Frank was guilty of the murder of Mary Phagan, between the death of said Mary Phagan and the commencement of the trial of Leo M. Frank charged with the murder of Mary Phagan. Several parties were talking. Some said they thought Leo M. Frank was guilty of the murder of Mary Phagan, others said they did not. Henslee stated his conviction that Frank was guilty of the murder of Mary Phagan. He did this firmly and positively. This took place in Walker & Holmes’ office about the last of June, 1913. I heard A. H. Henslee state, in Sparta, Ga., between the time of the death of Mary Phagan and the commencement of the trial of Leo M. Frank for the murder of Mary Phagan, that Leo M. Frank was guilty of the murder of Mary Phagan. A. H. Henslee said he had been drawn as a juror and might have to serve. I work for Walker & Holmes.

John M. Holmes deposes and states by interrogatories issued under sections 5918 and 5919 of the Code of 1910, as follows: I have examined the clipping from the Atlanta Georgia of August, 26, 1913, showing a picture of the jury in the above stated case and showing a likeness of Juror A. H. Henslee. I am personally acquainted with A. H. Henslee. I heard A. H. Henslee discussing the question of whether or not Leo M. Frank was guilty of the murder of Mary Phagan, between the death of said Mary Phagan and the commencement of the trial of Leo M. Frank charged with the murder of Mary Phagan. Several men were in my office. Mr. Henslee was asked th[e] question whether or not he believed Leo M. Frank was guilty of the murder of Mary Phagan. He stated that he did. He stated this positively and firmly. This took place in Walker & Holmes’ Insurance office on the morning of June 27^th, 1913. I heard A. H. Henslee state in Sparta, Ga., between the time of the death of Mary Phagan and the commencement of the trial of Leo M. Frank for the murder of Mary Phagan, that Leo M. Frank was guilty of the murder of Mary Phagan. Henslee stated that he had been summoned as a juror. I am a member of the firm of Walker & Holmes, real estate and insurance.

C. P. Stough deposes and states by interrogatories issued under sections 5916 and 5919 of the Code of 1910, as follows:

I know A. H. Henslee, who served on the jury in the above stated case at the trial commencing July 28, 1913. I have known him about six or seven years. About the time that Conley was reported to have made a statement, I was coming into the city on a street car from the home of my daughter. Henslee was also on the car. I heard him say this, in reference to Leo M. Frank’s guilt of the murder of Mary Phagan: “I think he is guilty and I would like to be in a position where I could help break his damned neck.” This statement was most positive. He was as positive as I was, and I was as positive as I could be in what I said in the conversation. This statement was made on a College Park Street car, coming into the city. I am inspector for the Mason’s Annuity.

W. L. Ricker deposes and states by interrogatories issued under sections 5918 and 5919 of the Code of 1910, as follows: I have examined the clipping from the Atlanta Georgian of August 23, 1913, and particularly the likeness in said clipping of A. H. Henslee. I know A. H. Henslee. Henslee was in Monroe, Georgia, between the time of the murder of Mary Phagan, as reported in the papers, and the time of the commencement of the trial of Leo M. Frank, for the murder of Mary Phagan, to-wit: July 28^th, 1913. I heard A. H. Henslee make statements in connection with the guilt of Leo M. Frank of the murder of Mary Phagan. He talked for some time in the store of Nunnally & Harris, and stated that Leo M. Frank was guilty of the murder of Mary Phagan. He denounced Frank bitterly and vehemently, and made this statement about Frank in my hearing: He said, “They are going to break that Jew’s neck.” This was stated most bitterly and positively. Yes, he said that Frank was guilty. Yes, A. H. Henslee, in Monroe, Georgia, between said dates, in my presence, and hearing, said he thought Leo M. Frank was guilty of the murder of Mary Phagan; and he was bitter. I was only present about 20 minutes. He was talking all the time I was there and stating that Frank was guilty of the murder of Mary Phagan. J. J. Nunnally and some others whose names I do not now recall, were also present. I am a dentist practicing about seven years. I am a graduate of Atlanta Dental College.

J. J. Nunnally deposes and states by interrogatories issued under sections 5916 and 5919 of the Code of 1910, as follows: I have examined the attached clipping from the Atlanta Georgian of August 23, 1913, and particularly the likeness of A. H. Henslee. I know A. H. Henslee. A. H. Henslee was in Monroe, Georgia, between the time of the murder of Mary Phagan, as reported in the papers, and the time of the commencement of the trial of Leo M. Frank for the murder of Mary Phagan, to-wit, July 28, 1913. What impressed me was that Henslee was the most vehement in his expression as to the guilt of Leo M. Frank of the murder of Mary Phagan, of any person I had heard talk about it. The Phagan murder was, at the time, the particular topic of conversation generally, a great many people were discussing it, and many were denouncing Frank as guilty, particularly travelling men. Henslee was the most bitter of any. For about two and a half hours, in my place of business, Henslee argued Frank’s guilt in the murder case; in talking about the outcome of the case, he made the statement, which, to the best of my recollection was, that if the jury should turn Frank out, he (Frank) would not get out of Atlanta alive. Yes, he believed Frank guilty. Henslee was very vehement as stated: there was no doubt from what he said that it was his conviction that Frank was guilty. Henslee was very vehement as stated: there was no doubt from what he said that it was his conviction that Frank was guilty. I only recall that, to the best of my recollection, he said that if the jury did turn Frank loose, Frank would never get away alive. Henslee discussed the guilt of Leo M. Frank in Monroe, Georgia, about two and one half hours, according to my recollection. He made the statement repeatedly, it might have been only two hours. Dr. W. L. Ricker, and at times during the period, there were others, but the names I don’t recall, were also present. My partner, Mr. Harris, was out of the city. I am a member of the firm of Nunnally & Harris, composed of J. J. Nunnally and Virgil Harris, dealers in buggies, wagons and live stock. Also Vice-President of W. H. Nunnally & Company, general supplies and merchandise.

The court also considered the following affidavits as a counter showing presented by the State, to-wit:

F. E. WINBURN, makes affidavit deposing and saying as follows:

That I was a juror on the Frank case; I did not know personally either A. H. Henslee or M. Joehenning, who were also jurors trying this case, until after we were sworn in on said jury; I had occasion to and do know the conduct of these two men on the jury; at no time did either of them express themselves in a way to indicate that they were in the least bit prejudiced or biased, against the defendant, Leo M. Frank, but each of these men, as did each and every other member of the jury, deport themselves as honest, upright, prudent, and impartial jurors; if either the said A. H. Henslee or the said M. Joehenning believed that Frank was guilty until after the entire case has been heard and concluded and submitted to the jury, they at least did not so express themselves, or give vent to any other expressions within my hearing or knowledge, indicating any bias or prejudice against the said Frank. I did not know how A. H. Henslee stood on the issue until after the first ballot had been taken; then said Henslee made a talk and stated that he had cast a doubtful ballot; there was one ballot marked “doubtful”; he explained to the jury why he cast this doubtful ballot, and submitted some suggestions with reference to the evidence. Up to that time, so far as I know, and Henslee had not intimated or expressed any opinion whatsoever with reference to any feature of the case. As to M. Joehenning during the entire twenty-nine days that we were together as jurors, he did not, so far as I know, say or in any way intimate how he stood on the issue; so far as I was able to judge from his conduct and deportment; said Joehenning was an upright, honest, fair, prudent, impartial and conscientious juror, imbued with only one purpose, viz. the ascertainment of the truth; what is said above as to the impartiality, fairness and conscientiousness of Joehenning is ture [sic] of Henslee and likewise of each and every man on the jury. I did not at any time, while a juror, hear any applause except such as occurred in open court, and which was heard by the judge, jury and attorneys in the case; I did not know that there had been any cheering of anybody connected with the case, at any time, or that there had been any cheering in any way growing out of or connected with the Frank case, until after the verdict was rendered, and I was told about said incidents; the jury left the courtroom every time before the judge, lawyers, and audience were permitted to leavem and there was never any applause or cheering either inside the court or outside of the court, within my knowledge, while the case was being considered; the jury, in leaving were always attended by the deputy sheriffs or bailiffs, one always going in front and one always in the rear; we were usually taken direct from the courthouse to the German Cafe, located midway of the block on Pryor Street, opposite from the courthouse, and it took only a very short time to go there, – I should estimate about three minutes at the outside; upon reaching the German Cafe, we were taken directly to a private dining room in the rear of the building and the door immediately closed; after being shut up in this room, we never heard any sounds that in the slightest resembled cheering or applause; the only cheering that we heard at any time while the case was being considered was the cheering that arose shortly after the verdict of guilty was read, when there was cheering both on Hunter and Pryor Streets, and said cheering was loud and long. With the exception of this cheering, I never heard anything that had the slightest resemblance to cheering, and I never heard any applause except that heard by the judge and only heard about the cheering after having been discharged from the case. THAT the cheering which occurred just after the reading of the verdict in said case occurred during the time the jurors were being polled by the court. THAT at the time the cheering was heard no objection whatever was made by any one representing Leo M. Frank, or by the said Leo M. Frank himself, now was any motion made at the time by any of the attorneys of the said Frank or by the said Frank himself, but the polling of the jury which was going on at the time the cheering began and during the cheering and after the cessation of the cheering, was continued.

THAT this cheering did not in anywise influence or affect the verdict which had already been made, nor did it have any influence whatsoever. THAT deponent remained absolutely unaffected and uninfluenced by the cheering or the surroundings and in answering on the poll, deponent truthfully answered after he had heard the cheering that it was his verdict and in so answering sustaining the verdict, he discharged his duty and now subscribes to the correctness of the verdict as rendered. THAT neither on Saturday, August 23, 1913, nor on any other day or date, did any man or men other than the bailiffs in charge of the jury ever walk with or by the side of the jury, and neither did anybody, within my knowledge, ever speak to any juror at any time or place outside of the presence of the court. THAT if at any time any man ever grabbed any juror by the hand or held any conversation with any juror, the same was not in my presence; no man ever grabbed me by the hand at the place referred to by W. P. Neill in his affidavit, nor did I see or hear or know anything about any man grabbing any member of the jury by the hand or saying anything to any juror, or attempting to say anything to any juror, and within my knowledge there was no communication at any time or place or in any shape, manner or form, with any juror, with any party on the outside. All communications had by the jury with outsiders, so far as I know, were through the bailiffs, and said communications were authorized by the court and known to counsel on both sides of the case. THAT so far as I am personally concerned, and so far as I know as to each and every juror on the case, they were influenced solely and alone by the evidence and the charge as given by the court, and were not influenced in anywise, in any way, manner, shape or form, by anything from the outside, but the verdict as rendered so far as I am concerned, and as to the other jurors, so far as their deportment shows, I believe was rendered from an honest opinion, based on the law and evidence of the case.

D. TOWNSEND makes affidavit, deposing and saying as follows:

THAT he was one of the jurors who served on the above stated case and heard the cheering which followed soon after the reading on the verdict of guilty in open court and which said cheering was by parties outside of the court, and which cheering occurred during the time the jury were being polled in court:

THAT at the time the cheering was heard, no objection whatsoever was made by anyone representing Leo M. Frank or by Leo M. Frank himself nor was any motion made at the time by any of the attorneys of said Frank or by said Frank, but the polling of the jury which was going on at the time the cheering began during the cheering and after the cessation of the cheering, was continued: THAT this cheering did not in anywise influence or affect the verdict which had already been made, nor did it have any influence whatsoever: THAT I remained absolutely unaffected and uninfluenced by the cheering or the surroundings and in answering on the poll, I truthfully answered after I had heard the cheering, that it was my verdict and in answering sustaining the verdict, I discharged my duty as a conscientious juror and now subscribe to the correctness of the verdict as rendered.

M. L. WOODWARD, makes affidavit, deposing and saying as follows:

THAT I was a juror on the Frank case; I did not know personally either A. H. Henslee or M. Joehenning, who were also jurors trying this case, until after we were sworn in on said jury; I had occasion to and do know the conduct of these two men on the jury, at no time did either of them express themselves in a way to indicate that they were in the least bit prejudiced or biased against the defendant, Leo M. Frank, but each of these men as did each and every other member of the jury, deported themselves as honest, upright, prudent and impartial jurors; if either the said A. H. Henslee or the said M. Joehenning believed that Frank was guilty until after the entire case had been heard and concluded and submitted to the jury, they at least did not so express themselves, or give vent to any other expression within my hearing or knowledge; indicating any bias or prejudice against the said Frank; I did not know how A. H. Henslee stood on the issue until after the first ballot had been taken; then said Henslee made a talk and stated that he had cast a doubtful balllt [sic]; there was one ballot marked “doubtful”; he explained to the jury why he cast this doubtful ballot, and submitted some suggestions with reference to the evidence; up to that time, so far as I know, said Henslee had not intimated or expressed any opinion whatsoever with reference to any feature of the case: THAT as to M. Joehenning; during the entire twenty-nine days that we were together as jurors, he did not so far as I know, say or in any way intimate how he stood on the issue; so far as I was able to judge from his conduct and deportment, said Joehenning was an upright, honest, fair, prudent, impartial and conscientious juror, imbued with only one purpose, viz., the ascertainment of the truth; what is said above as to the impartiality, fairness and conscientiousness of Joehenning is true of Henslee and likewise of each and every man on the jury: THAT I did not at any time, while a juror, hear any applause except such as occurred in open court, and which was heard by the judge, jury and attorneys in the case; I did not know that there had been any cheering of anybody connected with the case at any time or that there had been any cheering growing out of our connected with the Frank case, until after the verdict was rendered, and I was told about said incidents; the jury left the courtroom every time before the judge, lawyers, and audience were permitted to leave, and there was never any applause or cheering wither inside of the courtroom or outside of the court, within my knowledge, while the case was being considered; the jury, in leaving, were always attended by the deputy sheriffs or bailiffs, one always going in front and one always in the rear:

THAT we were usually taken direct from the courthouse to the German Cafe, located midway of the block on Pryor Street, opposite from the courthouse, and it took only a very short time to go there – I should estimate about three minutes at the outside. Upon reaching the German Cafe, we were taken directly to a private dining room in the rear of the building and the door immediately closed; after being shut up in this room, we never heard any sounds that in the slightest resembled cheering or applause; the only cheering that was heard at any time while the case was being considered was the cheering that arose shortly after the verdict of guilty was read, when there was cheering both on Hunter and Pryor Streets, and said cheering was loud and long; with the exception of this cheering, I never heard anything that had the slightest resemblance to cheering, and I never heard any applause except that heard by the judge and only heard about the cheering after having been discharged from the case. THAT that cheering which occurred just after the reading of the verdict in said case occurred just after the reading of the verdict in said case occurred during the time the jurors were being polled by the court. THAT at the time the cheering was heard no objection whatsoever qas [sic] made by any one representing Leo M. Frank or by the said Leo M. Frank himself, nor was any motion made at the time by any of the attorneys of the said Frank or by the said Frank himself, but the polling of the jury which was going on at the time the cheering began and during the cheering and after the cessation of the cheering, was continued. THAT this cheering did not in any wise influence or affect the verdict which had already been made, nor did it have any influence whatsoever; THAT deponent remained absolutely unaffected and uninfluenced by the cheering or the surroundings and in answering on the poll, deponent truthfully answered after he had heard the cheering that it was his verdict and in somanswering sustaing the verdict, he discharged his duty and now subscribed to the correctness of the verdict as rendered. THAT neither on Saturday, August 23, 1913, nor on any other day or date, did any man or men, other than the bailiffs in charge of the jury ever walk with or by the side of the jury, and neither did anybody within my knowledge, ever speak to any juror at any time or place outside of the presence of the court. THAT if at any time or place outside of the presence of the court. THAT if at any time any man ever grabbed any juror by the hand or held any conversation with any juror, the same was not in my presence; no man ever grabbed me by the hand at the place referred to by W. P. Neill in his affidavit nor did I see or hear or know anything about any man grabbing any member of the jury by the hand or saying anything to any juror, or attempting to say anything to any juror, and within my knowledge there was no communication at any time or place or in any shape, manner, or form, with any juror with any party on the outside; all communications had by the jury with outsiders, so far as I know, were through the bailiffs, and said communications were authorized by the court and known to counsel on both sides of the case. THAT so far as I am personally concerned, and so far as I know as to each and every juror on the case, they were influenced solely and alone by the evidence and the charge as given by the court, and were not influenced in anywise, in any way, manner, shape, or form, by anything from the outside, but the verdict was rendered, so far as I am concerned, and as to the other jurors, so far as their deportment shows, I believe was rendered from an honest opinion based on the law and evidence of the case.

D. TOWNSEND makes affidavit, deposing and saying as follows: THAT I was a juror on the Frank case; I did not know personally either A. H. Henslee or M. Joehenning who were also jurors trying this case, until after we were sworn in on said jury; I had occasion to and do know the conduct of these two men on the jury; at no time did either of them express themselves in a way to indicate that they were in the least bit prejudiced or biased, but each of these men, as did each and every other member of the jury, deported themselves as honest, upright, prudent and impartial jurors; nor did either the said A. H. Henslee or the said M. J. Joehenning believed that Frank was guilty until after the entire case had been heard and concluded and submitted to the jury, they at least did not so express themselves, or give vent to any other expression within my hearing or knowledge, indicating any bias or prejudice against the said Frank; I did not know how A. H. Henslee stood on the issue until after the first ballot had been taken; then said Henslee made a talk and stated that he had cast a doubtful ballot; there was one ballot marked “doubtful”; he explained to the jury why he cast this doubtful ballot and submitted some suggestions with reference to the evidence; up to that time, so far as I know, said Henslee had not intimated or expressed any opinion whatsoever with reference to any feature of the case: THAT as to M. J. Joehenning; during the entire twenty-nine days that were together as jurors, he did not, so far as I know, say or in any way intimate how he stood on the issue; so far as I was able to judge from his conduct and deportment, said Joehenning was an upright, honest, fair, prudent, impartial and conscientious juror, imbued with only one purpose, viz., the ascertainment of the truth; what is said above as to the impartiality, fairness and conscientiousness of Joehenning is true of Henslee and likewise of each and every man on the jury; THAT I did not at any time, while a juror, hear any applause except such as occurred in open court, and which was heard by the judge, jury and attorneys in the case; I did not know that there had been any cheering of anybody connected with the case at any time or that there had been any cheering in any way growing out of or connected with the Frank case, until after the verdict was rendered, and I was told about said incidents; the jury left the courtroom every time before the judge, lawyers and audience were permitted to leave, and there was never any applause or cheering either inside of the court or outside of the court, within my knowledge, while the case was being considered; the jury in leaving, were always attended, by the deputy sheriffs or bailiffs, one always going before and one always in the rear; we were usually taken direct from the courthouse to the German Cafe, located midway of the block on Pryor Street opposite from the courthouse, and it took only a very short time to go there – I should estimate about three minutes at the outside. Upon reaching the German Cafe, we were taken directly to a private dining room in the rear of the building and the door immediately closed after being shut up in this room, we never heard any sounds that in the slightest resembled cheering or applause; the only cheering that was heard at any time while the case was being considered was the cheering that arose shortly after the verdict of guilty was read, when there was cheering both on Hunter and Pryor Streets, and said cheering was liud and long; with the exception of this cheering, I never heard anything that had the slightest resemblance to cheering and I never heard any applause except that heard by the judge and only heard about the cheering after having been discharged from the case: THAT neither on Saturday, August 23, 1913, nor on any other day or date, did any man or men other than the bailiffs in charge of the jury, ever walk with or by the side of the jury, neither did anybody, within my knowledge, ever speak to any juror at any time or place outside of the presence of the court: THAT if at any time any man ever grabbed any juror by the hand or held any conversation with any juror, the same was not in my presence; no man ever grabbed me by the hand at the place referred to by W. P. Neill in his affidavit, nor did I see or hear or know anything about any man grabbing any member of the jury by the hand or saying anything to any juror, or attempting to say anything to any juror, and within my knowledge, there was no communication at any time or place or in any shape, manner or form, with any juror, with any party outside; all communications had by the jury with outsiders, so far as I know, were through the bailiffs, and said communications were authorized by the court and known to counsel on both sides of the case; THAT so far as I am personally concerned, and so far as I know as to each and every juror on the case, they were influenced solely and alone by the evidence and the charge as given by the court, were not infouenced in any wise, in any way, manner, shape, or form, by anything from the outside, but the verdict as rendered was, so far as I am concerned, and as to the other jurors, so far as their department shows, I believe was rendered from an honest opinion, based on the law and evidence of the case.

A. L. WISBEY makes affidavit, deposing and saying as follows:

THAT I was a juror on the Frank case; I did not know personally either A. H. Henslee or M. Joehenning, who were also jurors trying this case, until after we were sworn in on said jury; I had occasion to and do know the conduct of these two men on the jury; at no time did either of them express themselves in a way to indicate that they were in the least bit prejudiced or biased, but each of these men, as did each and every other member of the jury, deported themselves as honest, upright, prudent and impartial jurors; if either the said A. H. Henslee or the said H. Joehenning believed that Frank was guilty until after the entire case had been heard and concluded and submitted to the jury, they at least did not so express themselves, or give vent to any other expression within my hearing or knowledge, indicating any bias or prejudice against the said Frank; I did not know how A. H. Henslee stood on the issue until after the first ballot had been taken; then said Henslee made a talk and stated that he had case a doubtful ballot; there was one ballot marked “doubtful”; he explained to the jury why he cast this doubtful ballot, and submitted some suggestions with reference to the evidence. Up to that time, so far as I know, said Henselee had not intimated or expressed any opinion whatsoever with reference to any feature of the case: THAT as to M. Joehenning; during the entire twenty-nine days that we were together as jurors, he did not, so far as I know say or in any way intimate how he stood on the issue; so far as I was able to judge from his conduct and deportment, said Joehenning was an upright, honest, fair, prudent, impartial and conscientious juror, imbued with only one purpose, viz., the ascertaining of the truth; what is said above as to the impartiality, fairness and conscientiousness of Joehenning is true of Henslee and likewise of each and every man on the jury: THAT I did not at any time, while a juror, hear any applause except such as occurred in open court, and which was heard by the judge, jury and attorneys in the case; I did not know that there had been any cheering or anybody connected with the case at any time or that there had been any cheering in any way growing out of, or connected with the Frank case, until after the verdict was rendered, and I was told about said incidents. THAT on one occasions – I have forgotten the exact date – when the jury was opposite the old Union Depot Station, which is about two blocks from the courthouse, I heard faintly and indefinitely what I thought might be cheering; it was not distinct; what I heard considered at the time was in the vicinity of the courthouse; I did not know, as above stated, what was the occasion of the cheering, either at that time or at any other time, until after I was discharged as a juror; THAT the jury left the courtroom every time before the judge, lawyers and audience wer[e] permitted to leave, and there was never any applause or cheering either inside of the court or outside of the court, within my knowledge, while the case was being considered; the jury in leaving, were always attended by the deputy sheriffs or bailiffs one always going in front and one always in the rear; we were usually taken direct from the courthouse to the German Cafe, located midway of the block on Pryor Street, opposite from the courthouse, and it took only a very short time to go there – I should estimate about three minutes at the outside; upon reaching the German Cafe we were taken directly to a private dining room in the rear of the building and the door immediately closed; after being shut up in this room, we never heard any sounds that in the slightest resembled applause or cheering; the only cheering that was heard at any time while the case was being considered was the cheering that arose shortly after the verdict of guilty was read; when there was cheering both on Hunter and Pryor Streets, and said cheering was loud and long. With the exception of this cheering, I never heard anything that had the slightest resemblance to cheering, and I never heard any applause except that heard by the judge and only heard about the cheering after having been discharged from the case; THAT neither on Saturday, August 23, 1913, nor on any other day or date, did any man or men other than the bailiffs in charge of the jury ever walk with or by the side of the jury, and neither did anybody within my knowledge, ever speak to any juror at any time or place outside of the presence of the court; THAT if at any time any man ever grabbed any juror by the hand or held any conversation with any juror, the same was not in my presence; no man ever grabbed me by the hand at the place referred to by W. P. Neill in his affidavit, nor did I see or hear or know anything about any man grabbing any member of the jury by the hand or saying anything to any juror or attempting to say anything to any juror, and within my knowledge, there was no communication at any time or place in any shape, manner or form, with any juror, with any party on the outside; all communications had by the jury with outsiders, so far as I know, were through the bailiffs, and said communications were authorized by the court and known to counsel on both sides of the case; THAT so far as I am personally concerned, and so far as I know, as to each and every juror on the case, they were influenced solely and alone by the evidence and the charge as given by the court, and were not influenced in anywise, in any way, manner, shape, or form, by anything from the outside, but the verdict as rendered, so far as I am concerned, and as to the other jurors, so far as their deportment shows, I believe was rendered from an honest opinion, based on the law and evidence of the case.

W. M. JEFFRIES makes affidavit deposing and saying as follows:

THAT I was a juror on the Frank case; I did not know personally either A. H. Henslee or M. Joehenning, who were also jurors, trying this case, until after we were sworn in on said jury; I had occasion to and do know the conduct of these two men on the jury, at no time did either of them express themselves in a way to indicate that they were the least bit prejudiced or biased, but each of these men, did each and every other member of the jury, deported themselves as honest, upright, prudent and impartial jurors; if either the said A. H. Henslee or the said M. Joehenning believed that Frank was guilty until after the entire case and had been heard and concluded and submitted to the jury, they at least did not so express themselves, or give vent to any other expression within my hearing or knowledge, indicating any bias or prejudice against the said Frank; I did not know how A. H. Henslee stood on the issue until after the first ballot had been taken; then said Henslee made a talk and stated that he had cast a doubtful ballot; there was one ballot marked “doubtful”; he explained to the jury why he cast this doubtful ballot; and submitted some suggestions with reference to the evidence; up to that time, so far as I know, said Henslee had not intimated or expressed any opinion whatsoever with reference to any feature of the case: THAT as to M. Joehenning; during the entire twenty-nine days that we were together as jurors, he did not, so far as I know, say or in any way intimate how he stood on the issue; so far as I was able to judge from his conduct and deportment, said Joehenning was an upright, honest, fair, prudent, impartial and conscientious juror, imbued with only one purpose, vix., the ascertaining of the truth; what is said above as to the impartiality, fairness and conscientiousness of Joehenning is true of Henslee and likewise of each and every man on the jury. THAT I did not at any time, while a juror, hear any applause except such as occurred in open court, and which was heard by the judge, jury and attorneys in the case; I did not know that there had been any cheering of anybody connected with the case at any time or that there had been any cheering in any way growing out of or connected with the Frank case, until after the verdict was rendered, and I was told about said incidents; the jury left the courtroom before the judge, lawyers, and audience were permitted to leave, and there was never any applause or cheering either inside of the court or outside of the court within my knowledge, while the case was being considered; the jury, inleaving, were always attended by the deputy sheriffs or bailiffs, one always going in front and one always in the rear; we were usually taken direct from the courthouse to the German Cafe, located midway of the block on Pryor Street, opposite from the courthouse, and it took only a very short time to go there – I should estimate about three minutes – at the outside; upon reaching the German Cafe we were taken directly to a private dining room in the rear of the building and the door immediately closed; after being shut up in this room we never heard any sounds that in the slightest resembled applause or cheering; the only cheering that was heard at any time while the case was being considered was the cheering that arose shortly after the verdict of guilty was read, when there was cheering both on Hunter and Pryor Streets and said cheering was loud and long; with the exception of this cheering, I never heard anything that had the slightest resemblance to cheering, and I never heard any applause except that heard by the judge and only heard about the cheering after having been discharged from the case; THAT neither on Saturday, August 23, 1913 nor on any other day or date, did any man or men other than the bailiffs in charge of the jury ever walk with or by the side of the jury, and neither did anybody, withing my knowledge, ever speak to any juror at any time or place outside of the presence of the court; THAT if at any time any man ever grabbed any juror by the hand or held any conversation with any juror, the same was not in my presence. No man ever grabbed me by the hand at the place referred to by W. P. Neill in his affidavit, nor did I see or hear of know anything about any man grabbing any member of the jury by the hand or saying anything to any juror, or attempting to say anything to any juror, and within my knowledge, there was no communication at any time or place or in any shape, manner or form with any juror, with any party on the outside; all communications had by the jury with outsiders, so far as I know, were through the bailiffs and said communications were authorized by the court and known to counsel on both sides of the case; THAT so far as I am personally concerned, and so far as I know as to each and every juror on the case, they were influenced solely and alone by the evidence and the charge as given by the court and were not influenced in any wise in any way manner shape or form, by anything from the outside, but the verdict as rendered, so far as I am concerned, and as to the other jurors, so far as their deportment shows, I believe was rendered from and honest opinion, based on the law and evidence of the case.

M. JOHENNING makes affidavit, deposing and saying as follows:

THAT I was a juror on the Frank case; I did not know personally A. H. Henslee, who was also a juror trying this case until after we were sworn in on said jury; I had occasion to know and do know his conduct on the jury; at no time did he express himself in a way to indicate that he was the least bit prejudiced or biased, but Henslee, as did each and every other member of the jury, deported himself as an honest, upright, prudent, and impartial juror; if A. H. Henslee believed that Frank was guilty until after the entire case had been heard and concluded and submitted to the jury, he at least did not so express himself or give vent to any other expression within my hearing or knowledge, indicating any bias or prejudice against the said Frank; I did not know how A. H. Henslee stood on the issue until after the first ballot had been taken; then said Henslee made a talk and stated that he had cast a doubtful ballot; there was on ballot marked “doubtful”; he explained to the jury why he case this doubtful ballot, and submitted some suggestions with reference to the evidence; up to that time, so far as I know, said Henslee had not intimated or expressed any opinion whatsoever with reference to any feature of the case; THAT I did not at any time while a juror, hear any applause except such as occurred in open court, and which was heard by the judge, jury and attorneys in the case; I did not know that there had been any cheering of anybody connected with the case at any time or that there had been any cheering in any way growing out of or connected with the Frank case, until, after the verdict was rendered and I was told about said incidents: THAT on the Monday the verdict was rendered, while we were in the jury room in the rear of the courthouse, waiting to be called into the courtroom at about nine o’ clock, I heard a disturbance on the street which I thought was occasioned by some fight; I did not know that they were cheering anybody connected with the case; this is the only noise outside of the courtroom that in any way resembled cheering; THAT the jury left the courtroom every time before the judge, lawyers and audience were permitted to leave, and there was never any applause or cheering either inside of the court or outside of the court, within my knowledge, while the case was being considered; the jury in leaving were always attended by the deputy sheriffs, one always going in front and one always in the rear; we were usually taken direct from the courthouse to the German Cafe, located midway of the block on Pryor Street, opposite from the courthouse, and it took only a very short time to go there – I should estimate about three minutes at the outside; upon reaching the German Cafe, we were taken directly to a private dining room in the rear of the building and the door immediately closes; after being shut up in this room we never heard any sounds that in the slightest resembled cheering or applause; the only cheering that was heard at any time while the case was being considered was the cheering that arose shortly after the verdict of guilty was read, when there was cheering both on Hunter and Pryor Streets, and said cheering was loud and long; with the exception of this cheering, I never heard anything that had the slightest resemblance to cheering, and I never heard any applause except that heard by the judge and only heard about the cheering after having been discharged from the case; THAT neither on Saturday, August 23, 1913, nor on any other day or date, did any man or men other than the bailiffs in charge of the jury, ever walk with or by the side of the jury, and neither did anybody, within my knowledge, ever speak to any juror at any time or place outside of the presence of the court; THAT if at any time any man ever grabbed any juror by the hand or held any conversation with any juror, the same was not in my presence; no man ever grabbed me by the hand at the place referred to by W. P. Neill in his affidavit, nor did I see or hear or know anything about any man grabbing any member of the jury by the hand or saying anything to any juror or attempting to say anything to any juror, and within my knowledge there was no communication at any time or place, or in any shape, manner or form, with any juror, with any party on the outside; all communications had by the jurors with outsiders, so far as I know, were through the bailiffs and said communications were authorized by the court and known to counsel on both sides of the case; THAT so far as I am personally concerned, and so far as I know as to each and every juror on the case, they were influenced solely and alone by the evidence and the charge as given by the court, and were not influenced in anywise, in any way, manner, shape, or form, by anything from the outside, but the verdict as rendered, was, so far as I am personally concerned, and as to the other jurors, so far as their deportment shows, I believe was rendered from an honest opinion, based on the law and evidence of the case; THAT I have read the affidavit of H. C. Lovenhart, sworn to on the 2^nd day of September, 1913, before C. W. Burk; I deny positively and emphatically that I ever had any such conversation with said H. C. Lovenhart at any time or place; THAT I have read likewise the affidavit made by Mrs. Jennie G. Lovenhart and Miss Miriam Lovenhart, both made before the same Burk aforesaid and on the day aforesaid: THAT the facts are these with reference to this: THAT I deny ever having expressed to the said Lovenhart or any one else any opinion with reference to the guilt or innocence of said Frank, except as hereinafter set out: THAT some time about two weeks before the Frank case was first set for trial – which, if my memory serves me right, was about the latter part of June, 1913 – I had a casual conversation with Mrs. Jennie G. and he daughter Miriam Lovenhart; the conversation was substantially as follows: THAT Mrs. Lovenhart said to me “What do you think of the Frank case?”, and I answered her, “By the papers they have found him guilty already”. Then she said “I cannot look at it that way, I think he is innocent”. Then the daughter spoke up and said “What do you think about it Mr. Joehenning”?, and I told the daughter that I thought he would have a hard time getting loose, that things did not look very bright for him. I said “I have only read the papers, and that is all I know about it”. Then Mrs. Lovenhart said she was afraid that he would not get a fair trial. Then I said to her that it was little less than two weeks till the trial, then we would all know whether he was innocent or guilty. That was all that was said: THAT the said Lovenharts are of the same race and religion as Leo M. Frank: THAT I did not at that time entertain any fixed opinion as to the guilt of Leo M. Frank, and what I said was merely a casual remark made in a casual conversation and as stated in the conversation, was prediated entirely upon newspaper reports: I never arrived at, entertained, or expressed, either to the Lovenharts or to any other person, either at the time and place referred to by them, or elsewhere, any settled or permanent opinion, and I distinctly stated that what I said was based simply upon newspaper reports, and was open-minded, to be governed, as I was, entirely by the evidence adduced.

J. T. OZBURN makes affiravit, deposing as follows:

THAT I was a juror on the Frank case; I did not know personally either A. H. Henslee or M. Joehenning, who were also jurors trying this case, until after we were sworn in on said jury; I had occasion to and do know the conduct of these two men on the jury; at no time did either of them express themselves in a way to indicate that they were in the least bit prejudiced or biased, but each of these men, as did each and every other member of the jury, deported themselves as honest, upright, prudent and impartial jurors; if either the said A. H. Henslee or the said M. Joehenning believed that Frank was guilty until after the entire case had been heard and concluded and submitted to the jury, they at least did not so express themselves, or give vent to any other expression within my hearing or knowledge, indicating any bias or prejudice against the said Frank; I did not know how A. H. Henslee stood on the issue until after the first ballot had been taken; then said Henslee made a talk and stated that he cast a doubtful ballot; there was one ballot marked “Dountful”; he explained to the jury why he cast this doubtful ballot and submitted some suggestions with reference to the evidence; up to that time, so far as I know, said Henslee had not intimated or expressed any opinion whatsoever with reference to any feature of the case; THAT as to M. Joehenning; during the entire twenty-nine days we were together as jurors, he did not, so far as I know, say or in any intimate how he stood on the issue; so far as I was able to judge from his conduct and deportment, said Joehenning was an upright, honest, fair, prudent, impartial and conscientious juror, imbued with only one purpose, viz., the ascertainment of the truth; what is said above as to the impartiality, fairness and conscientiousness of Joehenning, is true of Henslee and likewise of each and every man on the jury. THAT I did not at any time, while a juror, hear any applause except such as occurred in open court, and which was heard by the judge, jury and attorneys in the case; I did not know that there had been any cheering of anybody connected with the case at any time, or that there had been any cheering growing out of or connected with the Frank case, until after the verdict was rendered, and I was told about said incidents; the jury left the courtroom every time before the judge, lawyers, and audience were permitted to leave, and there was never any applause or cheering either inside of the court or outside of the court, within my knowledge, while the case was being considered; the jury, in leaving, were always attended by the deputy sheriffs or bailiffs, one always going in front and one always in the rear; we were usually taken direct from the court house to the German Cafe located midway of the block on Pryor Street, opposite from the court house, and it took only a very short time to go there – I should estimate about three minutes at the outside—upon reaching the German Cafe, we were taken directly to a private dining room in the rear of the building and the door immediately closed; after being shut up in this room, we never heard any sounds that in the slightest resembled applause or cheering; [several words illegible] heard at any time while the case was being considered was the cheering that arose shortly after the verdict of guilty was read, when there was cheering both on Henslee and Pryor Streets, and said cheering was loud and long; with the exception of this cheering, I never heard anything that had the slightest resemblance to cheering, and I never heard any applause except that heard by the judge and only heard about the cheering after having been discharged from the case: THAT neither on Saturday, August 23, 1913, nor on any other day or date, did any man or men other than the bailiffs in charge of the jury ever walk with or by the side of the jury, and neither did anybody, within my knowledge, ever speak to any juror at any time or place outside of the presence of the court: THAT if at any time any man ever grabbed any juror by the hand or held any conversation with any juror, the same was not in my presence; no man ever grabbed me by the hand at the place referred to by W. P. Neill in his affidavit, nor did I see or hear or know anything about any man grabbing any member of the jury by the hand or saying anything to any juror, or attempting to say anything to any juror and within my knowledge there was no communication at any time or place in any shape, manner or form, with any juror, with any party on the outside; all communications had by the jury with outsiders, so far as I know, were through the bailiffs, and said communications were authorized by the court and known to counsel on both sides of the case: THAT so far as I am personally concerned, and so far as I know as to each and every juror on the case, they were influenced solely and alone by the evidence and the charge as given by the court, and were not influenced in any wise, in any way, manner, shape or form, by anything from the outside, but the verdict as rendered, was, so far as I am concerned, and as to the other jurors, so far as their deportments show, I believe was rendered from an honest opinion based on the law and evidence of the case.

F. V. L. SMITH makes affidavit, deposing and saying as follows:

THAT I was a juror on the Frank case; I did not know personally either A. H. Henslee or M. Joehenning, who were also jurors trying this case, until after we were sworn in on said jury; I had occasion to and do know the conduct of these two men on the jury; at no time did either of them express themselves in a way to indicate that they were in the least bit prejudiced or biased, but each of these men, as did each and every other member of the jury, deport themselves as honest, prudent, and impartial jurors; if either the said A. H. Henslee or the said M. Joehenning believed that Frank was guilty until after the case had been heard, they at least did not so express themselves, or give vent to any other expression within my hearing or knowledge, indicating any bias or prejudice against the said Frank; beyond his sharing the universal opinion in the earlier stages of the trial, that the evidence had to be stronger to convict, I did not know how A. H. Henslee stood on the issue until after the first ballot had been taken; then said Henslee made a talk and stated that he cast a doubtful ballot; there was one ballot marked “doubtful”; he explained to the jury why he cast this doubtful ballot, and submitted some suggestions with reference to the evidence; up to that time, so far as I know, said Henslee had not intimated or expressed any opinion whatsoever with reference to any feature of the case, except [a]s above: THAT as to M. Joehenning; so far as I was able to judge from his conduct and deportment, said Joehenning was an upright, honest, fair, prudent, impartial and conscientious juror, imbued with only one purpose, viz., the ascertainment of the truth; what is said above as to the impartiality, fairness and conscientiousness of Joehenning is true of Henslee and likewise of each and every man on the jury; THAT I did not at any time, while a juror, hear any applause except such as occurred in open court, and which was heard by the judge, jury and attorneys in the case; the jury left the courtroom every time before the judge, lawyers and audience were permitted to leave, and there was never any applause either inside of the court or outside of the court, within my knowledge, while the case was being considered, except as above; the jury, in leaving were always attended by the deputy sheriffs or bailiffs, one always going in front and one always in the rear; we were usually taken for lunch direct from the courthouse to the German Cafe located midway of the block on Pryor Street, opposite from the courthouse, and it took only a very short time to go there – I should estimate about three minutes at the utmost; upon reaching the German Cafe we were taken directly to a private dining room in the rear of the building and the door immediately closed; after being shut up in this room we never heard any sounds that in the slightest resembled applause or cheering; the only cheering that I heard at any time while the case was being considered was the cheering that I attributed to some eloquent speech by one of the attorneys and shortly after the verdict of guilty was read, when there was cheering both on Hunter and Pryor Streets, and said cheering was loud and long; with the exception of this cheering, I never heard anything that had the slightest resemblance to cheering, and I have never heard any applause except that heard by the judge and only heard about other cheering after having been discharged from the case. THAT the cheering which occurred just after the reading of the verdict in said case occurred during the time the jury were being polled by the Court: THAT at the time the cheering was heard no objection whatsoever was made by anyone representing Leo M. Frank, or by the said Leo M. Frank himself, nor was any motion made at the time by any of the attorneys of the said Frank or by the said Frank himself, to the best of my knowledge, but the polling of the jury, which was going on at the time the cheering began and during the cheering and after the cessation of the cheering, was continued: THAT this cheering did not in any wise influence or affect the verdict which had already been made, nor did it have any influence whatsoever: THAT deponent remained absolutely unaffected and uninfluenced by the cheering or the surroundings and in answering on the poll, deponent truthfully answered after he had heard the cheering that it was his verdict and in so answering sustaining the verdict, he discharged his duty and now subscribes to the correctness of the verdict as rendered: THAT neither on Saturday, August 23, 1913, nor or any other day or date, did any man or men other than the bailiffs in charge of the jury ever walk with or by the side of the jury, and neither did anybody, within my knowledge, ever speak to any juror at any time or place outside of the presence of the court, except Hello from a distance: THAT if at any time any man ever grabbed any juror by the hand or held conversation with any juror, the same was not in my presence; to my recollection, no man ever grabbed me by the hand at the place referred to by W. P. Neill in his affidavit, even thought I am not familiar with same, nor did I see or hear or know anything about any man grabbing any member of the jury by the hand, or saying anything to any other juror, or attempting to say anything to any juror, except as above and within my knowledge there was no unauthorized communication at any time or place or in any shape, manner or form, with any juror, with any party on the outside; all communications had by the jury with outsiders, so far as I know, were through the bailiffs, and said communications were authorized by the court, and known to counsel on both sides of the case; THAT so far as I am personally concerned, and so far as I know, as to each and every juror on the case, they were influenced solely and alone by the evidence and the charge as given by the court, and were not influenced in any wise, in any way, manner, shape or form, by anything from the outside, but the verdict as rendered, so far as I am concerned, and as to the other jurors, so far as their deportment shows, I believe was rendered from an honest opinion, based on the law and evidence of the case.

A. H. HENSLEE makes affidavit, deposing and saying as follows:

THAT I was served with the atta[c]hed subpoena, marked Exhibit “A”, as a juror in the Superior Court of Fulton County: THAT the subpoena I found at my residence, No. 74 Oak Street, West End, City of Atlanta, Fulton County Georgia, on July 25^th., 1913, at approximately five o’clock in the afternoon; this was the first knowledge or information that I would be a juror; I remained in the city of Atlanta Saturday July 26^th., 1913, and Sunday July 27^th., 1913, and reported to the court on Monday, July 28^th., 1913, when I was qualified and was sworn in as a juror in the case stated above; I was asked at the time the court convened, before I was sworn as a juror, if I had formed and expressed any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of Leo M. Frank, and I truthfully answered that I had neither formed nor expressed any opinion whatsoever; I furthermore then and there stated under oath that I did not have any prejudice or bias, either for or against the said Leo M. Frank, and that was absolutely true; furthermore I stated that my mind was perfectly impartial between the State of Georgia and Leo M. Frank, accused of Murder; that answer given under oath, was absolutely true; my attitude toward the case was that of an impartial, unprejudiced man, seeking only to do my duty as a citizen and as a juror, with a due appreciation of the fact that a man’s life or liberty must not be taken except the State produce evidence to overcome the presumption of innocence which I know the law gave to Frank, and which I – as a juror – gave to Frank at the time I qualified, and until the State, by an abundance of evidence, carried the burden; THAT at no time or place previous to the trial of Leo M. Frank did I ever express any opinion that the said Frank was guilty; nor did I every say, at any time or place, that it was my opinion that the said Frank would be lynched should the jury acquit him of the murder of Mary Phagan; I did casually, and on several occasions when the crime was with different people the heinousness of the crime, and I did assert on several occasions, positivey [sic], emphatically, firmly and possibly vehemently, that the man whoever he might be, who murdered that little girl, ought to be hung; I have said since serving as a juror in the case against Leo M. Frank for twenty-nine days, without prejudice or bias and seeking to get at the truth, that in my opinion Leo M. Frank is the murderer of Mary Phagan, just as the jury said in rendering the verdict of guilty; I read the newspaper accounts of the charge against Mellineaux, Gannt, Newt Lee, Leo M. Frank and Jim Connally for the first week or ten days after the murder, and after that there was so much of it that I discontinued reading the newspapers articles fully, and limited myself to reading the headlines; at no time did I ever have or express an opinion as to who the guilty party was; I had no fixed opinion when I qualified and was sworn on the jury, and I do not recall that I ever had or entertained any unfixed or floating opinion founded on rumor, hearsay or newspaper reports, except as above stated; I did not assert that Whoever committed the crime ought to be hung, whether Frank or any other person; the conduct of the entire jury after they were empannelled and sworn, was that of honest, upright, and impartial jurors; no member of the jury, including myself, within my knowledge, ever expressed an opinion of the guilt or innocence of Leo M. Frank during the trial, until after all the evidence was in, speeches in and the court had charged us to render a verdict; as illustrating the attitude which I occupied in this case, I will say that when it came to a vote, I cast a doubtful ballot; I did this on the first ballot because of the unanimity of opinion that Frank was guilty, as expressed by those jurors who discussed it after the Court’s charge and prior to the ballot, and for the purpose of forcing a full and free discussion of the case before rendering a verdict, as we understood it might consign Frank to his death; when on the second and last ballot a unanimous verdict of “Guilty” was rendered, I – in common with each and every other man on the jury – wept; and I know that I appreciated the gravity of the duty devolved upon us; and so far as I was able to judge, every man of the twelve had a due appreciation of the solemnity and importance of the duty that devolved upon us in hearing the case and rendering the verdict; THAT I have read the affidavit of one R. L. Gremer, a person unknown to me, who in said affidavit purports to quote statements made by me in Albany, Georgia, at the place of business of Sam Farkas and in the presence of the son of the said Sam Farkas, namely, Mack Farcas; I do not, as above stated, know this said R. L. Gremer, but I have heard from a reliable source that said Gremer is a person of bad character and that he is unworthy of belief. As to Mack Farcas and the affidavit which I have just read, I emphatically state that I have never at any time mentioned the Leo M. Frank case to him or expressed any opinion of said Frank; I am a travelling salesman for the Franklin Buggy Company, at Barnesville, Ga., and Sam Farkas is and has been for a number of years, one of my customers; and I know that the said Sam Farkas and the defendant were of the same race and religion; in the affidavit of the said Gremer and Farkas, they do not give any date when I was supposed to have made the remarks attributed to me; but I was not in Albany from June 2^nd., and 3^rd., 1913 at which time I was there, until September 18^th., 1913; if at any time between April 26^th., 1913, and July 28^th., 1913, I ever saw Mack Farkas in Albany or elsewhere and had a conversation with him, I have absolutely forgotten it; I do know that I did not see this man Mack Farkas on my trip to Albany June 2^nd., and June 3 1913; I did see Sam Farkas at his place of business and sold him a bill of buggies; I did see Mack Farkas on my visit to Albany on Sept. 18^th., 1913, but knowing that the said Mack Farkas and said Leo M. Frank were of the same race and religion, and not wishing to hurt his feelings, I did not mention the Frank case, or the fact that I had been a juror in the case; THAT I have kept an expense book showing fully, places visited and amounts expended; attached hereto is a book ending June 6^th., 1913, same being marked “Exhibit B”; this book was written up from day to day; the entries in said books were made by me and are correct; and after having refreshed my memory from said entries, I swear positively as to my whereabouts on the dates set out therein; THAT I have read the affidavit purporting to have been signed by Julian A. Lehman; said Lehman states that I had a conversation with him on June 2^nd., 1913, between Atlanta, Gz. and Experiment, Ga; in the first place on June 2^nd., 1913, I was approximately two hundred and twenty miles from either Aylantan, Ga. or Experiment, Ga; and in the second place, I never at any time or place, in anybody’s presence, made use of any such language as attributed to me as having been used in the presence of said Lehman on June 2^nd., 1913; On June 1^st., which was Sunday, I was at Eufaula, Ala, as is shown by entries which I made in the book attached, marked “Exhibit B”, and which entries I know to be true; I was at Eufaula, Ala., on the morning of June 1^st. from which place I went to Cuthbert, Ga., then to Edison, Ga., spending the night at the hotel at the last named place; On June 2^nd., I went from Edison, Ga., to Blakelym Ga., by way of Arlington, Ga, thence to Albany, Ga., spending the night of June 2^nd., at the New Albany Hotel in Albany, Ga. THAT said Lehman does not state where it was that the said statement was made by me on June 20^th., 1913, or on any other date, made any such statement to Lehman or to anyone else; On June 19^th., 1913 I was at Opelika, Ala, and Columbus, Ga., and on the 20^th., I was at Columbus, Chipley and Cataula, Ga., and drove from Cataula to Waverly Hall by private conveyance and from Waverly Hall I went to Atlanta, arriving in Atlanta at 10:20 P.M. via Southern Railway; I have no recollection of having seen the said Lehman on the said date, and I positively deny that I ever gave expression in his presence or elsewhere to the sentiment or language attributed to me in his affidavit, given by him on September 19^th., 1913, before Robert Patterson, Notary Public, Fulton County, Georgia. I remember, independently of the entries made on the book hereto attached and marked “Exhibit C”, my whereabouts on June 20^th., 1913, after having refreshed my memory from said entries which were made by me and which I know to be correct: THAT I have read the depositions purporting to have been made by one C.P. Stough, before Sig Tittlebaum, Commissioner; the said Stough does not give in his depositions any definite time or place, except he say he heard me make certain statements about the time that Connally was reported to have made a statement, and on some street car; I have a slight acquaintance with the said Stough, having known him casually for about six years; I am not intimate with him and do not recall having had any conversation with him on the College Park Street Car; I never made in the presence of the said Stough, at the place given or at any other place and time, the statements attributed to me; On October 4^th., 1913, in the forenoon, after the newspapers of the City of Atlanta had carried a report of the deposition as given by the said Stough, in the presence of H.L. Bennett, that the said Stough in his depositions had lied, and the said Stough did not resent the statement: THAT I have read the affidavit of Samuel Aaron, purporting to have been made on the 3^rd day of October, 1913, in which the said Aaron states that about two days after the indictment of the said Leo M. Frank, said Aaron heard me at the Elk’s Club in the City of Atlanta say “I am glad they indicted the God damn Jew”, they ought to take him out and lynch him, and if I get on that jury I will hang that Jew sure.” I emphatically deny that I used any such expression at any time or place; I am a member of the Elk’s Club; said Club has among its members a large number of Jewish people, many of whom are my friends. I never entertained any prejudice or animus against the Jewish people, or against any one of them, and I did not make use of any such expression before said Aaron or any one else; I was at the Elk’s Club on Sunday, May 25^th, 1913, in the morning; THAT I have read the positions of W.L. Ricker, in which he undertakes to quote me; I do not know the said Ricker – I may have been introduced to him; I did not make the statement at any time or place as sworn to by said Ricker; Ricker said that the conversation that he heard was in the store of Nunnally and Harris at Monroe, Georgia; I have read also the depositions of J. J. Nunnally with reference to the conversation about which Ricker testified; I remember that the Frank case was discussed in the store of Nunnally and Harris; this discussion occurred on June 22^nd., 1913; it was participated in by a number of people; I discussed it casually and incidentally as did all of the other parties present; I was not in the store more than sixty minutes at the outside; during a part of this time, I was engaged in an effort to sell Nunnally and Harris some buggies, and the Frank case was not discussed all of this time; or if it was, certain it is I did not participate in the discussion; I positively deny that I used the expression “They are going to break that Jew’s neck” as stated by Ricker in his depositions, and I likewise deny making any such statements in manner, form or substance, as set out in the depositions of said Ricker; I did not in the manner, form, or substance, in the presence of the said Ricker or Nunnally, or in the store of said Nunnally and Harris, or anywhere else, at any time say if the jury turned Frank loose, he could never get out of Atlanta alive; I did state in the discussion of the Frank case that it was my opinion that the men guilty of the murder of Mary Phagan ought to be hung; I had not been reading at this time, anything more than the headlines of the newspapers and I had not formed any opinion based on newspaper reports or casual rumor as to whether or not Frank was the men guilty of the crime, and I did not express myself in the language attributed to me by the said Ricker or any other language; nor did I know that the public sentiment was so strong against Frank that he would not be able, if acquitted, to get out of the City of Atlanta alive, and I positively and emphatically deny that I ever made use of any such expression; I was constantly on the road traveling from April 26^th., 1913, until July 28^th, 1913, during every week, and did not spend a sufficient length of time in Atlanta to know what the public sentiment there was with reference to the guilt or innocence of the trial Leo M. Frank; THAT I have read the depositions of H. Shi Gray, S. M. Johnson, and John M. Holmes; I had a conversation on Sept. 2^Nd, 1913, with the said H. Shi Gray, S. M. Johnson, and John M. Holmes; this was after the verdict in the Frank case had been rendered on August 25^th., 1913; I never saw Gray, Johnson or Holmes together or separately after I was served with a subpoena as a juror which was Friday July 25^th., 1913, until after I was discharged from the jury on the Frank case; THAT on July 24^th, 1913, I was at Athens, Ga., on July 25^th, 1913, I was at Statham, Winder and Atlanta, Ga.; I remained in Atlanta on the 26^th and 27^th and went on the jury on July 28^th; I never saw either of these men, either in Sparta or elsewhere, after I knew I was a juror on the Frank case, until Sept 2^nd., 1913, at which time, I did discuss with each and all of them the Frank case, fully and freely in Walker and Holmes Insurance Office; I then stated that in my opinion there was not a shadow of a doubt but that Frank was guilty; I did not hear several parties, as stated by S. M. Johnson in his depositions, say that they thought Frank was not guilty; but on the contrary every man who discussed the case in my presence in the office aforesaid, expressed the opinion that the said Leo M. Frank was guilty; and I was congratulated by everyone who came into that office among them H. Shi Gray, S.M. Johnson, and John M. Holmes on rendering the verdict of “Guilty”; I was introduced by Mr. Holmes to their many friends and acquaintances as having been one of the jurors on the Frank case; I furthermore stated on the occasion which I refer to, namely, September 2^nd., 1913, that said Frank was a moral degenerate and a pervert; I based this statement on the evidence adduced upon the trial; before that I did not have any knowledge or information whatsoever which would have warranted me in surmising that Frank was a degenerate and a pervert; attached marked “Exhibit D” is a letter from H. Shi Gray, John M. Holmes and S.M. Johnson, in which they state that I said in the conversation I had with them, that said Frank, in my opinion was a pervert; I base this assertion upon the evidence adduced upon the trial of the case; up until this time I did not believe that Frank was a pervert, but after hearing the evidence I could not avoid such a conclusion; I then believed that Frank was a degenerate and a pervert, and I so stated to the three men at Sparta; not however on the date they say and not prior to the trial of Leo M. Frank, but after his conviction towit, Sept. 2^nd., 1913 I deny that I ever made any other statements attributed to me by the said Johnson, Gray and Holmes, prior to the trial of Leo M. Frank, but all of the statements made were made subsequent to the trial, and after I had full knowledge of the evidence in behalf of the State and defence. I was in Sparta on June 27^th., 1913; I did not know that I had been drawn as a juror until 5 o’clock on the afternoon of Friday, July 28^th., 1913; I do not know of my own personal knowledge when I was drawn; I am informed and believe the jury was not drawn until Thursday July 24^th., 1913; I am informed and believe that my name was not drawn out of the jury box for the Frank trial until Thursday, July 24^th., 1913, and I am certain if it was I did not know of it until the next day, Friday, July 25^th.; I swear positively, after having refreshed my memory by entries made by me at the time in the book hereto attached, marked “Exhibit E”, that I was in Sparta on June 27^th., 1913, and I am equally positive in saying that I never did go back to Sparta after June 27^th., 1913, as shown by my book, and as I stated in my recollection, until September 2^nd, 1913; that if I have ever expressed any opinion, anywhere, at any time prior to this trial, that Leo M. Frank was guilty, I do not remember; I never had any prejudice against the said Leo M. Frank, and I never had any fixed opinion, or entertained any kind of opinion of the merits of the case until I heard the evidence; and I qualified as a juror with an unbiased mind, and with a disposition to readily yield and conform to the evidence, and to be controlled absolutely by the law and the evidence; that I did not know M. Johenning, one of the jurors in the case of the State vs. Leo M. Frank, until we were empannelled and sworn in the case; I do not recall that I ever saw him before; I did not observe the conduct and the deportment of the said Johenning during the entire twenty nine days that we were together as jurors; he did not say or do anything during that entire time that enabled me to know how he stood on the issue; he did not give vent, so far as I saw or know, to any expression indicating any bias, or prejudice for or against the defendant, Leo M. Frank; so far as I was able to judge from his conduct and deportment, said M. Johenning was an upright, honest, fair, prudent, impartial and conscientious juror; imbued with only one idea and purpose, namely the ascertainment of the truth, under the evidence, and under the law given in charge by the court; the same is true of each and every other juror on the panel; that I did not at any time while a juror hear any cheering, and no applause, excepting open court, which was publicly taken notice of and reproved by the court. I did not know that there had been any cheering of anybody connected with the case, or that there had been any cheering in any way growing out of the Frank case; I did not hear anybody say that there had been any cheering until after the verdict was rendered, and I did not hear any myself at any time, until after the verdict was rendered, when I did heard about two or three minutes after the verdict had been read, and while the jury was being polled, cheering on the outside of the courthouse; I did not hear any applause in the courtroom that I now recall, except as above stated; I do not recall what occasioned any laughter, except that occasioned by the cross examination of Jim Connally by Mr. Rosser, counsel for Frank; I laughed myself, as did the audience and all of the jury, when Connally told Mr. Rosser how he spelled certain brands of pencils and other words; I laughed and the audience laughed when B. Dalton told Mr. Rosser when and where he was born, stating that he was there but could not remember; also in conjunction with other members of the jury and the audience when the said Dalton said that Mrs. Daisy Hopkins was a peach and pretty as a pink; also the jury and the audience laughed when Newt Lee stated that he “Lit a rag” instead of “ran”, referring to his exit from the basement where the body of little Mary Phagan was found; on no other occasion did I observe any applause, or if I did – I do not remember it now; I do not remember any occasion when there was any demonstration or applause otherwise than on the part of the audience and spectators: THAT I have read the affidavit of Sampson Kay with reference to certain alleged occurrences on Saturday evening, August 23^rd., 1913 about 8 or 8:30 o’clock; I remember distinctly the walk which the jury took at that time on Pryor Street; there was a deputy sheriff in front of the jury and one in the rear; it is not true that six or seven men, or any man not connected with the Frank jury either as a juror or a bailiff walked among by the sied of the jurors and talked to or with them, either at the time and place referred to by the said Kay or at any other time and place: THAT I have read the affidavit of one W.P. Neill; I was not the juror referred to in said affidavit, or the affidavit does not speak the truth; no man grabbed me by the hand and arm or by the hand or arm, at the place stated by Neill in his affidavit, or talk to mel I did not see or hear or know anything of any such thing as detailed in the affidavit happening to any other of the jurors, as is set out in the affidavit made by said Neill; I did not see or know anything about it if anything like that took place and I did not hear the sheriff speak to anyone about it; there was not communication at any time or place in any shape, manner or form with me from the outside after the jury was empaneled and so far as I know, there was no communication with any juror except letters which came through the sheriff or bailiff and which were by the court permitted; and I never read any letter or communication of any character that had not been opened before it came to me through the sheriff; and no man ever said anything to me by look, sign or symbol nor ever undertook to convey any message or give any indication or intimation of anything from the outside; so far as I know or believe, this statement is applicable to every other juror on the case.

H. Shi Gray John M. Holmes and S.M. Johnson write A. H. Henslee as follows (the same being a part of said Henslee’s affidavit).

“We notice in several Atlanta papers your emphatic denial of ever having talked with us or made a statement to us of the guilt or innocence of one Leo M. Frank; you are further quoted as saying that if we state that you ever said that you believed Frank guilty that we are liars. Also that the whole deposition is a lie out of the whole cloth; we cannot believe you are correctly quoted as it is impossible to conceive how you can deny the statements you made here and the intense feeling you manifested when discussing the matter; you muse recall, in Mr. Holmes’ office, on the day stated in the presence of the undersigned, we all discussed the Frank case and practically tried him, as it were, and that in the discussion you not only stated that ‘Frank was as guilty as H—l’; but you had much to say about Frank being a moral degenerate (your exact language we cannot use here), and you further stated that you had been drawn as a juror. We have no deposition to injure you or to make public your statements, as the writers, Gary and Holmes, have known you and your family for a number of years, and we do not know how the attorneys were acquainted with the fact of this conversation; but your remarks were common talk in the town and there a number of our people who could have given the information to the attorney. We declined to make a voluntary affidavit in the matter and said nothing until forced to do so by the courts, but let us assure you that this reluctance to testify in no way changes the facts, and you shall not be permitted to make statements to the public press denouncing us as liars in order to protect yourself from the criticism you justly deserve. We await your answer.”

C. F. Huber and A. F. Pennington, who after being duly sworn depose and say that they are deputies to the Sheriff of Fulton County, Georgia, and were in charge of the jury in the above stated case consistently during the trial of said case; that on Friday afternoon when the jury left the court house they went direct along Pryor street to the Kimball house; deponent Huber was in the rear of the jury, who proceeded northward along Pryor Street walking two abreast, said jury following immediately behind deponent Pennington: THAT Deponents have read the various affidavits which deal with alleged cheering of the Solicitor General as he left the court house on said Friday afternoon, August 22, 1913; deponents state under oath that they did not hear any cheering or demonstration of any kind on said afternoon, nor did they hear any applause for the Solicitor General or for any one else; THAT when court adjourned on Saturday, August 23, 1913, soon after the noon hour, deponents took the jury from the courthouse northward along Pryor street; they did not, on this occasion, hear any applause or cheering demonstration of any kind whatever for the Solicitor General or for any one else; THAT on Monday, August 25^th., 1913, around the noon hour, just after the Court had adjourned, the judge having charged the jury before said adjournment, deponent C. F. Huber says that he, together with R. B. Deavors and W. M. Hunter, was in charge of the jurors, and took them to the German Cafe, where they occupied a private didning [sic] room in the rear of the building; in this dining room, with closed doors, the jurors were served with their lunch, and at no time between the time they left the jury box and the time they got into this private dining room, nor while occupying said dining room, nor on their return to the jury room at the court house for the purpose of considering and making a verdict in said above stated case, did deponent hear any applause, or cheering or demonstration of any kind whatever, nor could the jury while in the dining room hear any demonstration which may have taken place in front of said German Cafe, but said dining room was perfectly quiet: THAT deponents on Saturday evening, August 23, 1913, took the jurors out for a walk and returned to the Kimball House northward along Pryor Street; THAT deponents have read the affidavit of Samson Kay and emphatically deny that at any time on said Saturday evening, August 23, 1913, did six or seven men, or any other number of men, of persons, follow along by the side of the jury, in the Frank case, or behind them, or in front of them, talking to them from the corner of East Fair Street and South Pryor Street up to the Union Station, nor did said six or seven men or any other number of men talk to the jurors or any of them, on South Pryor Street, or in the German Cafe, or at their rooms at the Kimball House, or elsewhere, at any time, between the time the jury was impannelled and the time when it was discharged after having finally rendered its verdict in the said case, so far as deponents know or believe; at no time and in no place did deponents see any member of the jury in this case communicate with, or attempt to communicate, with any one excepting the officers of the law, at such times and in such manner as was allowed by law; deponents at no time heard any cheering by the spectators in or out of the court, which was heard by the jury, excepting the incident which occurred when the jury was being polled after the verdict; deponents know of no other demonstration within the sight or hearing of the jury, except the instances of applause in the court room in the presence of the judge, and which was noticed officially in open court by said judge; that deponents know of no influence, or attempted influence exerted upon the jury or any member thereof by spectators in or out of the court room or elsewhere.

A. H. Henslee makes the following affidavit, deposing and saying as follows: That he has read the affidavit of M. Johenning, made on the 18^th of October, 1913, with reference to the influence of the cheering which occurred while the jury was being polled, and says that the statements contained in said affidavit are true and correct, and deponent adopts same as his affidavit.

J. C. Lewis, makes the following affidavit, deposing that he is in the employ of the Clerk of the Superior Court of above State and County; that during the trial of the Frank case, he occupied an anteroom to the court room in which said case was tried directly across the hallway from the jury room; that in leaving the jury box, and retiring to the jury room, it is necessary to pass through three doors; that deponent knows of the occasion of the applause in the court room when the Judge declined to rule out and exclude the evidence of Jim Conley as to two certain acts of degeneracy and perversion on the part of Leo M. Frank, the defendant; deponent was present in the court house at this time and knows that at the time this occurred, the jurors were in their room and two doors between said jurors and the courtroom where this applause took place were closed; and in deponent’s opinion said applause could not have been heard by the jury.

H. L. Bennett makes affidavit deposing and saying as follows: I am personally acquainted with one C. P. Stough, having had a casual acquaintance with him for about five years; I also know his general character and reputation, and I consider his general character and reputation bad; I am also acquainted with A. H. Henslee, and know his character and reputation to be good.

M. W. Mecalf makes affidavit as follows: I was one of the jurors in the Frank case, and heard the cheering which followed the reading of the verdict of guilty in open court, and which said cheering was by parties outside of the court; said cheering occurred during the time the jury was being polled. No objection whatsoever was made by anyone representing Leo M. Frank, or Frank himself, at the time of the cheering, nor was any notion made at the time by any of his attorneys, but the polling of the jury was continued; this cheering did not influence or affect the verdict which had already been made, nor did it have any influence; I remained absolutely unaffected and uninfluenced by the cheering or the surroundings and in answering on the poll, I truthfully answered, after I head heard the cheering, that it was my verdict and in answering as aforesaid I discharged my duty as a conscientious juror and now subscribe to the correctness of the verdict as rendered.

M. Joehenning makes the following affidavit, deposing and saying as follows: That he was one of the jurors who served on the above stated case and heard the cheering which followed soon after the reading of the verdict of guilty in open court and which said cheering was by parties outside of the court, and which said cheering occurred during the time the jury was being polled by the court.

At the time the cheering was heard no objection whatsoever was made by anyone representing Leo M. Frank or by Leo M. Frank himself, nor was any motion made at the time by any of the attorneys of said Leo M. Frank, or by said Frank, but the polling of the jury which was going on at the time the cheering began and during the cheering and after the cessation of the cheering was continued.

This cheering did not in anywise influence or affect the verdict which had already been made, nor did it have any influence whatsoever.

I remained absolutely unaffected and uninfluenced by the cheering or the surroundings and in answering on the poll, I truthfully answered after I had heard the cheering, that it was my verdict and in answering sustaining the verdict, I discharged my duty as a conscientious juror and now subscribe to the correctness of the verdict as rendered.

F. L. Hunter makes the following affidavit and deposes and states as follows: that he was a deputy sheriff on duty at the trial of Leo M. Frank in the above stated case; that he was in the court house almost constantly during said trial and went to and from lunch on various occasions with the jury during the trial in said case; that at no time in the court room did deponent hear any applause, cheering or other demonstration in said case, which could have been heard by the jury, excepting the applause, cheering or other demonstration in said cuase, which could have been heard by the jury in open court and in the presence of the judge, and excepting the cheering and hurrahs in the street after the reading of the verdict, while the jury was being polled. Deponent says that at no time did he see any one speal to or attempt to speak to any member of the jury, except officers of court in the discharge of their duty. Deponent further states that he never at any time witnessed or knew of any misconduct on the part of any member of the jury, but states, under oath, that at all times, when in his presence each member of the jury deported himself as an upright, honorable and conscientious juror, seeking to faithfully discharge his duty. Deponent say no armed spectators in or about the courthouse where the trial was being conducted, nor did he hear any threats of violence expressed in or about said courthouse toward the defendant Leo M. Frank.

Deponent states that he witnessed the efforts of spectators to carry the Solicitor General on their shoulders, referred to in an affidavit in the possession of the defense, and says that the same occurred after the verdict of the jury had been read and the jury polled, and while the Solicitor General was on his way to his office. No demonstration by spectators on the outside of the courthouse on either of the last three days of the trial, to-wit, August 22^nd, 23^rd, 25^th, was within the presence or the hearing of the jury, so far as this deponent knows or believes.

R. B. Deavors makes the following affidavit, deposing and saying as follows: that he is a deputy sheriff in and for Fulton County, Georgia, and was on duty during the trial of Leo M. Frank; that he was present in the courtroom every day during said trial, and that, with the exception of the applause which took place a few times in open court and within the hearing of the presiding judge, he knows of no applause, cheering or demonstrations that were heard by the jury. On Monday, August 25, 1913, deponent with C. F. Huber and W. M. Hunter, went with the jury to the German Cafe for lunch; deponent says that on said occasion, as the jury were entering the cars, deponent heard some noise as of people hollowing, back in the direction of the courthouse, but could not distinguish any words which were used by the people, did not know who it was creating the noise, what was said, or what prompted the same. The jury passed through the cafe and into the dining room in the rear of the building, where they lunched with closed doors. No cheering or applause or other demonstration could be heard after entering the building. Deponent states further, that so far as he was able to judge, the jury at all times, when he was present, deported themselves as honest, honorable, conscientious, unbiased and unprejudiced jurors, at at no time were any of said jurors guilty of any misconduct, within his presence of knowledge.

Drew Liddell makes the following affidavit, deposing and saying as follows: that he is a deputy sheriff of Fulton County, Georgia and was on duty constantly during the trial of the above stated case. On Friday, August 22^nd, and Saturday, August 23, 1913, deponent, with other deputies, accompanied the jury to and from the German Cafe and was with them at the time of the alleged demonstration at the corner of Hunter and South Pryor Streets. Deponent says that at the lunch hour on both occasions the jury were beyond the hearing of the crowd when the alleged demonstrations took place, if in fact any demonstrations did take place. Deponent says that when the jury had entered the private dining room in the rear of the German Cafe on Saturday August 23, that he was outside of the dining room, in the act of entering the same; that he heard a slight commotion in the front of the building, but the jury had passed into the dining room, and he is sure did not hear and could not have heard said demonstration, which was scarcely audible in the rear of the building where said dining room was located. Deponent, with other deputies, was in charge of said jury on various occasions during the trial, and at no time, s o far as this deponent knows or believes,- certainly not when deponent was with them, – was any effort made to communicate with the jury by any persons other than a court officer in the discharge of his duty. At no time during said trial was any cheering, applause or other demonstration made within the hearing of the jury excepting that which occurred in open court in the presence of the presiding judge, and also excepting the demonstration made in the streets immediately after the announcement of the verdict, while the jury was being polled. Deponent neither witnessed nor heard of any misconduct on the part of any member of said jury at any time during the trial of the above stated case, nor did deponent see anyone in or about the courthouse armed other than the officers of the law during this trial, or hear or know of any threats in or about said courthouse or in its vicinity or elsewhere against the life of the said Leo M. Frank, who was on trial.

C. J. Bosshardt makes affidavit as follows: I have read the affidavit of J. T. Ozburn, executed on Oct. 16, 1913; and hereby adopt said affidavit of said Ozburn, and that the said allegations contained in said affidavit are true and correct. C. J. Bosshard makes affidavit as follows: I am one of the jurors who served on the above stated case, and heard the cheering which followed soon after the reading of the verdict of guilty in open court, and which said cheering was by parties outside of the court, and which cheering occurred during the time the jury was being polled; No objection whatsoever was made by any attorney representing Frank or Frank himself at the time of this cheering, nor was any motion made by any of the attorneys of said Frank, or by Frank, but the polling of the jury which was going on at the time the cheering began was continued; this cheering did not in any wise influence or affect the verdict which had already been made, nor did it have any influence whatsoever; I remained unaffected and uninfluenced by the cheering or surroundings, and in answering on the poll, I truthfully answered after I had heard the cheering that it was my verdict, and in answering sustaining the verdict I discharged my duty as a conscientious juror and now subscribe to the correctness of the same.

J. T. Ozburn, W. M. Jeffries, A. L. Wisbey make the same affidavits as O. J. Bosshardt, set out above.

Lou Castro makes affidavit as follows: I have known Samuel Aron for over a year and am acquainted with his general character and reputation; his character and reputation is bad, and from my knowledge of that character and reputation I would not believe the said Aron on oath; I am acquainted with the general character and reputation of C. P. Stough; his character and reputation is bad; I would from my knowledge of that character and reputation believe the said Stough on oath.

Joe Murray makes affidavit as follows: I am a Clerk of the New Albany Hotel in Albany, Ga; one A. H. Henslee a patron of said hotel registered for lodging on June 2, 1913, and was a guest of the hotel on the night of June 2, 1913; that said A. H. Henslee registered at said hotel on Sept. 18, 1913, before the noon meal.

W. N. Weaver, O. H. Puckett, T. W. McGarrity and W. C. Robinson each make affidavit that they are personally acquainted with M. Johenning; that they know his general character and reputation; that his general character and reputation is good and that deponents regard him as an honest, conscientious, upright and thoroughly trustworthy man.

M. G. Staten and T. S. Hawes state that each of deponents are acquainted with R. L. Greemer; that the general character of the said Gremer is and was bad and that deponents would not believe that said Gremer on oath.

W. E. Mote, R. H. McKenzie and W. H. Clayton make affidavit deposing and saying that they are acquainted with W. P. Neill; that his general character and reputation in the community were Neill has lived is bad and that they would not believe him on oath.

W. M. Howard, J. C. Collier, T. W. Cochran, P. L. Cordy, J. E. Howard, J. D. Lockridge and C. O. Summers each make affidavit that they know A. H. Henslee, one of the jurors who served in the case of the State of Georgis, va. Leo M. Frank; that each of the witnesses is acquainted with the general character of the said A. H. Henslee, and that the general character and reputation of the said Henslee is good, and from his general character and reputation, each of deponents would believe the said A. H. Henslee on oath.

H. R. Pitts, W. L. Lyle, T. W. Webb, and John R. Flournoy, each make affidavit that they know Samuel Aron; that they know the general character and reputation of the said Aron; that the said general character and reputation of the said Aron is bad and that deponents would not believe him on oath.

W. M. Hunter makes affidavit, deposing and saying as follows: I, with Mr. J. F. Huber and R. B. Deavors, had charge of the jury in the above stated case, at the lunch hour on Monday, August 25^th, 1913; that at no time between the time the jury left the box to go to lunch on said date, and the time they returned to the jury room, to consider and make their verdict, either while on the street in going to the cafe, while in the cafe, or in returning to the court house, did I hear any applause or cheers, or other demonstration on behalf of the Solicitor General, or anyone else. At no time during the trial of said case did I see or know of anyone, excepting the officers of the court, communicating with, or attempting to communicate with any member of said jury; I witnessed no misconduct of any kind on the part of any member of the jury in the above stated case.

Z. A. Mann, makes affidavit, deposing and saying as follows:

I was present in the court room during the trial of the case of the State vs. Leo M. Frank, charging with murder; I was aiding the Sheriff, and as a deputy was stationed immediately in the rear of the jury box; He was in position to hear all that the jury could hear in the court room, and at no time did I hear any applause, excepting what occurred in open court, in the immediate presence of the Judge presiding and which was officially noticed by him; No cheering from the outside was heard, excepting during the polling of the jury, after their verdict had been read; I observed no misconduct on the part of any juror, and no communication or attempt to communicate with any member of the jury, except by the officers of Court in the discharge of their official duties.

Plennie Miner, makes affidavit, deposing and saying as follows:

I have seen the affidavit of W. P. Neill made for use in the above stated case and I am the Plennie Miner referred to by Neill in his affidavit; that the incident referred to by the said Neill evidently did not happen in the way and manner described by W. P. Neill but the following are the facts: On one occasion when the jury were retiring from the box to their room in the east end of the courthouse, I saw a spectator sitting who I thought spoke to a member of the jury. He did not rise from his seat nor did he take the juror by his arm nor by his hand nor did he otherwise touch the juror but appeared to speak to some one and at the time I thought said spectator addressed a member of the jury; I immediately went to him for the purpose of taking him before the Judge but he denied that he addressed the remark, which I did not hear, to the Juror and the gentleman sitting next to him assured me that this spectator was not addressing a member of the jury and the two having assured me that I was mistaken and having been thoroughly convinced that I was mistaken, I warned them that an action on the part of a spectator in addressing the jury would be a violation of the law and let the incident drop because of the fact that I was fully convinced that the mistake was mine. This described the incident as it really occurred; At not time any where in my presence did any one other than the officers of the law, acting within the discharge of their duty, address any member of the jury individually or the jury collectively from the time the jury was impannelled until they had rendered their verdict and had been discharged. I am the Deputy Sheriff regularly assigned to the Criminal Division of Fulton County Superior Court and was on duty and in charge of the courtroom during the entire time Leo M. Frank was on trial; I have read the affidavit of Mrs. A. Shurman and others with reference to the cheering on the outside of said courtroom during Friday and Saturday and Monday, the last three days of the trial. I was not with the jury as they left the courthouse to go to lunch on either of the three said days but was in the courtroom at the time the cheering took place on the outside. I know that on Monday morning just before court convened when there was cheering in the street the jury were in their room in the rear of the courtroom; they were also in the rear of the courtroom when the Solicitor General entered and the spectators started to applaude; I tapped on the wall or some other object and raised my hand in warning and the spectators immediately desisted: The applause was very slight and very low and was stopped promptly when I rapped and I am sure that the jury in their closed room did not and could not have heard the same. This was on the last day of the trial, to-wit, August 25^th, 1913; I was not with the jury at any time when any applause except that in open court and in the immediate presence of the Judge could have been heard by the jury; I was not in charge of or with the jury at any time when any other demonstration or cheering for the Solicitor General or for anyone could have been heard by said jury; At no time when I was in charge of or with the jury was any member of the jury guilty of communicating with or attempting to communicate with any person on the outside in any way nor during said trial from the time the jury was impannelled until their discharge after verdict rendered was any member of the jury guilty of any misconduct of any nature whatever; At no time did I hear any threat against the life of Leo M. Frank among the spectators at the courthouse or elsewhere nor at any time did he see or know of any spectator or person at or around the said courthouse, during the trial of Leo M. Frank other than the officers of the law, to have in their possession or on their person any pistol or arms of any kind or character.

W. F. Medcalf, makes affidavit, deposing and saying as follows:

I was a juror on the Frank case. I did not know personally either A. H. Henslee or M. Joehenning, who were also jurors, trying this case, until after we were sworn on said jury, I had occasion to and do know the conduct of these two men on the jury. At no time did either of them express themselves in a way to indicate that they were in the least big prejudiced or biased, but each of these men, as did each and every other member of the jury, deported themselves as honest, upright, prudent and impartial jurors. If either the said A. H. Henslee or the said M. Johenning believed that Frank was guilty until after the entire case had been heard and concluded and submitted to the jury, they at least did not so express themselves, or give vent to any other expression within my hearing or knowledge, indicating any bias or prejudice against the said Frank. I did not know how A. H. Henslee stood on the issue until the first ballot had been taken. Then said Henslee made a talk and stated that he had case [sic] a doubtful ballot. There was one ballot marked “doubtful”; He explained to the jury, why he case this doubtful ballot, and submitted some suggestions with reference to the evidence. Up to that time, so far as I know, said Henslee had not intimated or expressed any opinion whatsoever with reference to any feature of the case; As to M. Johenning: During the entire twenty-nine days that we were together as jurors, he did not, so far as I know, say or in any way intimate how he stood on the issue; So far as I was able to judge from his conduct and department, said Johenning was an upright, honest, fair, prudent, impartial and conscientious juror, imbued with only one purpose, viz, the ascertainment of the truth; What is said above as to the impartiality, fairness and conscientiousness of Johenning is true of Henslee and likewise of each and every man on the jury; I did not at any time, while a juror, hear any applause except such as occurred in open court, and which was heard by the judge, jury and attorneys in the case; I did not know that there had been any cheering of anybody connected with the case at any time or that there had been any cheering in any way growing out of or connected with the Frank case, until after the verdict was rendered, and I was told about said incidents; The jury left the courtroom every time before the judge, lawyers and audience were permitted to leave, and there was never any applause or cheering either inside of the court or outside of the court, within my knowledge, while the case was being considered; The jury, in leaving, were always attended by the deputy sheriffs or bailiffs, one always going in front and one always in the rear; [1 word illegible] were usually taken direct from the courthouse to the German Cafe, located midway of the block on Pryor Street, opposite from the courthouse, and it took only a very short time to go there, – I should estimate about three minutes at the outside; Upon reaching the German Cafe, we were taken directly to a private dining room in the rear of the building and the door immediately closed; After being shut up in this room, we never heard any sounds that in the slightest resembled applause or cheering; The only cheering that I hear from the time I was sworn to the time I was discharged was the cheering that arose outside of the courthouse after the verdict had been read and while the jury was being polled; With the exception of this cheering, I never heard anything that had the slightest resemblance to cheering, and I never heard any applause except that heard by the judge and only heard about the cheering after having been discharged from the case; Neither on Saturday, August 23, 1913, nor on any other day or date, did any man other than the bailiffs in charge of the jury ever walk with or by the side of the jury, and neither did anybody within my knowledge, every speak to any juror at any time or place outside of the presence of the Court; If at any time any man ever grabbed any juror by the hand or held any conversation with any juror, the same was not in my presence. No man ever grabbed my by the hand at the place referred to by W. P. Neill in his affidavit, nor did I see or hear or know anything about any man grabbing any member of the jury by the hand or saying anything to any juror, or attempting to say anything to any juror, and within my knowledge there was no communication at any time or place or in any shape, manner, or form, with any juror, with any party on the outside. All communication had by the jury with outsiders, so far as U know, were through the bailiffs, and said communications were authorized by the court and known to counsel on both sides of the case; so far as I am personally concerned, and so far as I know as to each and every juror on the case, they were influenced solely and alone by the evidence and the charge as given by the court, and were not influenced in anywise, in any way, manner, shape or form, by anything from the outside, but the verdict as rendered was, so far as I am concerned, and as to the other jurors, so far as their deportment shows; I believe was rendered from an honest opinion based on the law and evidence in the case.

Upon considering said motion for new trial, the court rendered a judgment denying the same and in rendering said judgment, stated that the jury had found the defendant guilty; that he, the judge, had thought about this case more than any other he had ever tried; that he was not certain of the defendant’s guilt; that with all the thought he had put on this case, he was not thoroughly convinced that Frank was guilty or innocent, but that he did not have to be convinced; that the jury was convinced; that there was no room to doubt that; that he felt it to be his duty to order that the motion for a new trial be overruled.

To this judgment and decision of the court denying the movant, Leo M. Frank, a new trial, said Leo M. Frank then and there excepted, and here and now excepts and assigns and specifies as error the failure and refusal of the court to grant a new trial upon each and every ground both of the original motion for new trial and the amendment to the motion for new trial, both said original motion for new trial and said amendment to the motion for new trial being parts of the record in said case, and reference being hereby had to the same; and movant further specifies as to the error complained of that the court failed and refused to grant a new trial upon each and every ground contained in said motion for new trial and the amendment thereto, reference being hereby had to same as if fully embodied herein, the same being of record.

Defendant further excepts to said judgment overruling the motion for new trial and alleges error therein in not granting a new trial upon each and all of the grounds of the original and amended motion on the grounds and reasons in said amended and original motions fully set out—reference hereby being had to the same, as if fully embodied herein, the same being part of the record in said case.

And now, within twenty days from the judgment refusing said motion for new trial, and in due and legal time, the said Leo M. Frank presents this, his Bill of Exceptions, and prays that the same be signed and certified, and specifies as the portions of the record in said case, material to a clear understanding of the errors complained of, the following, to-wit:

1^st. The indictment in said case.

2^nd. The plea of not guilty.

3^rd. The verdict of the jury and sentence of the court.

4^th. The original motion for new trial, together with all entries and rules nisi thereon.

5^th. The amended motion for new trial, together with the approval and certificates of the judge thereto and to the original motion and all entries thereon, and together with all exhibits thereto.

6^th. The certificate of the judge approving the grounds of the original motion for new trial and the amended motion for new trial.

7^th. The brief of evidence in said case and the approval thereof by the court and all entires thereon.

8^th. The charge of the court with approval of the judge thereon.

9^th. The judgment of the judge refusing a new trial in said case.

This 1 day of Nov., 1913.

Signatures of Reuben R. Arnold, […..], Herbert Haas

Attorneys for Leo M. Frank, Plaintiff in Error. Address, Atlanta, Ga.

I do certify that the foregoing Bill of Exceptions is true and contains and specifies all of the evidnece and specifies all of the record material to a clear understanding of the errors complained of; and the Clerk of Fulton Superior Court is hereby ordered to make out a complete copy of such parts of the record in said case as are in this bill of Exceptions specified, and certify the same as such and cause the same to be transmitted to the present term of the Supreme Court of Georgia, that the errors alleged to have been committed may be considered and corrected.

This 1^st day of November, 1913,

Signature of L. S. Roan

Judge S. C. [….] Presiding

…….

GEORGIA, FULTON COUNTY

I Hereby Certify, That the foregoing Bill of Exceptions, hereunto attached, is the true original Bill of Exceptions in the case stated, to-wit:

Leo M. Frank, Plaintiff in Error.

vs.

The State of Georgia, Defendant in Error.

and that a copy hereof has been made and filed in this office.

Witness my signature and the seal of Court affixed this the 15^th day of November 1913

[Signature of Arnold Broyles] Clerk Superior Court Fulton County, Georgia, Ex-Officio Clerk City Court of Atlanta.

Leo M. Frank

versus

The State of Georgian

Bill of Exceptions

Filed in office November 1913

Arnold Broyles Clerk.

File

No. 18 10852
Criminal Docket

October Term, 1913

SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA.

Frank

versus

THE STATE

BILL OF EXCEPTIONS

Filed in office NOV 15 1913

M. Esaliy, D. C.S.C. G.

Leo M. Frank

versus

The State of Georiga

Transcript of Record

V. 10852 Frank v. State

(INDEX.)

Bill of Indictment…………………1

Plea……………………………….3

Verdict…………………………….3

Sentence…………………………..4

Motion for New Trial……………..5

Amended Motion for New Trial…..7

Certificate of Court………………..237

Order Overruling Motion for New Trial…..238

Charge of the Court…………………239

Approval of the Court……………….244

Brief of the Evidence…………………245.

(BILL OF INDICTMENT.)

The State, (). No. 9410.

Vs. (). Fulton Superior Court.

Leo M. Frank. (). May Term 1913.

True Bill.

L. H. Beck, Foreman

24^th day of May 1913.

Hugh M. Dorsey, Sol. Gen’l

J. W. Starnes, Prosecutor.

STATE OF GEORGIA,

FULTON COUNTY.

The Grand Jurors, selected, chosen and sworn for the County of Fulton, to-wit:

1. J. H. Beck, Foreman. 13. A. L. Guthman,

2. A. D. Adair, Sr., 14. Chas. Heinz,

3. F. P. H. Akers, 15. H. G. Hubbard,

4. B. F. Bell, 16. R. R. Nash,

5. J. G. Bell, 17. W. L. Peroy,

6. Sol. Benjaman, 18. R. A. Redding,

7. Wm. E. Besser, 19. R. F. Sams,

8. C. M. Brown, 20. John D. Wing,

9. C. A. Cowles, 21. Albert Boylston,

10. Walker Dunson,

11. Geo A. Gershon,

12. S. C. Glass,

In the name and behalf of the citizens of Georgia, charge and accuse Leo M. Frank, of the County and State aforesaid, with the offense of Murder, for that the said Leo M. Frank in the County aforesaid on the 26^th day of April in the year of our Lord Nineteen Hundred and thirteen, with force and arms did unlawfully and with malice aforethought kill and murder one Mary Phagan by then and there choking her, the said Mary Phagan, with a cord placed around her neck, contrary to the laws of said State, the good order, peace and dignity thereof.

Hugh M. Dorsey, Sol. Gen’l.

J. N. Starnes, Prosecutor.

Fulton Superior Court 1913.

WITNESSES FOR THE STATE.

J. W. Hurt, Dr.

L. S. Dobbs (Police)

J. N. Starnes “

R. P. Barrett,

W. W. Rogers,

Harry Scott,

B. B. Haslett,

Grace Hicks,

E. F. Holloway,

N. V. Darley,

H. L. Parry,

J. W. Gantt,

William A. Gheesling.

Copy Bill of indictment and list of witnesses before Grand Jury, waived before arraignment. Full panel Waived.

Rosser and Brandon,

R. R. Arnold,

Herbert Haas, Deft’s Attys.

(P LE A.)

July Term 1913.

The defendant Leo M. Frank, waives being formally arraigned, and pleads not guilty.

F. A. Hooper,

E. A. Stephens and

Hugh M. Dorsey,

Sol. Gen’l.

Rosser and Brandon,

R. R. Arnold,

Herbert Haas.

Deft’s Attys.

(V E R D I C T.)

We, the jury, find the defendant guilty.

Date August 25^th, 1913.

F. E. Winburn, Foreman.

(S E N T E N C E.)

The State, (). No. 9410.

Vs. (). Indictment for Murder. Fulton Superior

Leo M. Frank. (). Court, May Term, 1913, Verdict of

(). Guilty, July Term, 1913.

Aug. 25, 1913.

Whereupon, it is considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the defendant, Leo M. Frank, be taken from the bar of this court to the common jail of the county of Fulton, and that he be safely there kept until his final execution in the manner fixed by law.

It is further ordered and adjudged by the Court that on the 10^th day of October, 1913, the defendant, Leo M. Frank, shall be executed by the Sheriff of Fulton County in private, witnessed only by the executing officer, a sufficient guard, the relatives of such defendant and such clergymen and friends as he may desire, such execution to take place in the common jail of Fulton County and that said defendant, on that day, between the hours of 10 o’clock A. M., and 2 o’clock P. M., be by the Sheriff of Fulton County hanged by the neck until he shall be dead, and may God have mercy on his soul.

In Open Court, this 26^th day of August, 1913.

L. S. Roan,

J. S. C. St. Mt. Ct. Presiding.

Hugh M. Dorsey,

Sol. Gen’l.

(M O T I O N F O R N E W T R I A L.)

State of Georgia, (). Conviction of Murder.

Vs. (). In Fulton Superior Court.

Leo M. Frank. (). Motion for New Trial.

And now comes the defendant in the above stated case and moves the court for a new trial upon the grounds following, to-wit:

1. The verdict is contrary to the evidence.

2. The verdict is contrary to the law.

3. The verdict is against the weight of the evidence.

4. The court, over the objection of the defendant, heard evidence of other transactions and tending to establish other crimes and offenses, wholly separate and distinct from the charge in the Bill of Indictment, to the inquiry and prejudice of the defendant.

Wherefore, for these and other good grounds to be urged upon the hearing, the defendant, Leo M. Frank, moves that said verdict be set aside and a new trial granted.

Reuben R. Arnold,

L. Z. Rosser,

Herbert J. Haas.

Attys. for Leo M. Frank, Movant.

Read and considered. Let the foregoing motion for new trial be filed and let a copy thereof be served upon the Solicitor General.

It is ordered that the State show cause before me on the 4^th day of October 1913, at my Chambers Thrower Building Atlanta, Ga. why the verdict should not be set aside and a new trial granted. In the meantime, and until after this motion may be heard; it ordered that the movant have the right [several words illegible] approved and filed a proper brief of evidence in said case; and that should said motion be postponed, that such right to prepare and have approved and file such brief of the evidence shall exist and remain in the movant until such time as the motion may be finally heard.

In the meantime let the execution of the court’s sentence be suspended. It is further ordered that until such time as this motion may be heard and decided, that the movant have full leave to amend this motion for new trial.

This 26^th day of August, 1913.

L. S. Roan,

Judge S. C. St. Mt. Ct. Presiding

Filed in office this the 26^th day of August, 1913.

F. M. Myers, D. Clk.

GEORGIA, FULTON COUNTY.

Service acknowledged, copy received all other and further service waived. This Aug. 27^Th, 1913.

F. A. Hooper,

Hugh M. Dorsey,

E. A. Stephens

Solicitor General Fulton County, Georgia.

We further agree to the order within giving time to prepare and file a legal brief of the evidence.

Aug. 27^th, 1913.

Hugh M. Dorsey,

Sol. Gen’l.

( A M E N D E D M O T I O N. )

GEORGIA, FULTON COUNTY.

State of Georgia, No.

Vs. Fulton Superior Court.

Leo M. Frank. July Term, 1913.

And now comes the defendant in the above stated cause, Leo M. Frank, and amends his motion for a new trial heretofore filed in this case, and says:

That the verdict in the above stated case should be set aside and a new trial granted for the following reasons, to-wit:

1. Because the Court erred in permitting the solicitor to prove by the Witness, Lee, that the detective Black talked to him, the witness, longer and asked him more questions at the police station than did Mr. Frank the day when he talked to the witness Lee at twelve (12) o’clock at night on April 29^th.

At the request of Black and Scott, the detectives, Frank was induced to have an interview with Lee, the witness, for the purpose of eliciting information from him. The solicitor contended that Frank made no effect to find out anything from Lee, and to that end, sought to show and was permitted to prove by Lee that Black talked longer to him than did Frank at the time stated.

The defendant, then and there at the trial, objected to such evidence upon the ground that it was irrelevant, immaterial, and was a mere conclusion of the witness. The Court admitted the evidence, over such objections, and in doing so erred, because said evidence was unwarranted, immaterial and a mere conclusion of the witness and injurious to the defendant.

2. Because the Court erred in permitting, over objections the witness Lee to testify that Frank, on April 29^th, when alone with him at the station house, talked to him a shorter time than did Mr. Arnold, one of Frank’s attorneys, when he interviewed the witness just before the trial.

The detectives had induced Frank to talk to Lee alone on April 29^th at the station house for the purpose of inducing Lee to talk. Mr. Arnold, in the presence of Lee’s attorney, and the jailer, had interviewed Lee just before the present trial.

The solicitor, over the objections of Frank’s atty’s that the evidence offered was immaterial, irrelevant, and the expression of an opinion, was permitted by introducing said evidence to draw a comparison of the time occupied by Frank and Arnold to their respective interviews, and, in doing so, the Court erred because the evidence offered was immaterial, irrelevant and the expression of an opinion.

3. Because the Court permitted the solicitor, over the objection of defendant made at the time the evidence was offered that the same was irrelevant and immaterial, to show by the witness J. N. Starnes that the witness Lee, the morning the body was found, while in the office of the pencil factory and when under arrest was composed. Said evidence was objected to as illegal, unwarranted and hurtful to the defendant and movant now says that its admission was error for the same reasons.

This evidence was hurtful, because used by the solicitor in his address to the jury in contrasting the deportment of Frank who was claimed to be nervous and excited.

4. Because the Court erred in permitting the witness Starnes, over objection of the defendant, made when the evidence was offered, because it was a conclusion, to say that his conversation with Frank over the telephone the morning of the finding of the body, was guarded—that he was guarded as to what he said.

This evidence was objected to as unwarranted and conclusion, and movant here assigns its admission as error for the same reasons.

Movant contends this was hurtful to the defendant, and there was a dispute as to what Starnes said to Frank in that conversation, and the solicitor contended that Frank’s words and conduct in connection with that conversation was evidence of his guilt. Starne’s statement that he was guarded in that conversation as to what he said, tended to impress the jury, that he was accurate in his memory as to the words of the conversation.

Because the Court admitted who [several words illegible] of the second or office floor, the street floor and basement of the factory. On this picture was traced red dotted lines extending from the back of the office floor, down the elevator to the basement, and down the basement near the back of the building. There were, also, Greek crosses on the picture. It was conceded by the State that these dotted lines and crosses were no part of nor represented any part of the building but were put in the picture for the purpose of illustrating the theory of the State, as showing where the body was found and where it was carried.

The admission of the picture in evidence, with the lines and crosses thereon, was, when offered, objected to because, as movant contends, it was argumentative, representing and illustrating the State’s view of the case by means of red lines and crosses, which was no part of, nor illustrated any part of the building.

The admission of said diagram and drawing was error for the same reasons as set out in the above objections, the objection being that the same was illegal and prejudicial, and movant assigns error in their admission for the same reason.

6. Because the Court, over objection made when the evidence was offered, that the same was a conclusion, permitted the witness Black to testify that in a conversation had with Frank months before the tragedy that he didn’t remember anything that caused him to believe that Frank was nervous, the hurtful purpose being to compare his then conduct with that after the tragedy.

This evidence here objected to was illegal, a conclusion, and prejudicial and movant says its admission was error for said reasons.

7. Because the Court, over objection made when the evidence was offered that the same was irrelevant, permitted the witness Black to testify that Frank had counsel, Messrs, Rosser and Haas about eight or eight thirty o’clock Monday morning while Frank was in the station house, brought there by detectives Black and Haslett.

Movant contends the employment of counsel, under the circumstances was no evidence of guilt; but the Court’s conduct in submitting the facts to the jury was greatly hurtful to the defendant.

said evidence was illegal, irrelevant and prejudicial and its admission over objection is here assigned as error for said reasons.

8. Because the Court refused to permit the witness Black to testify on cross examination that when he found a bloody shirt in the bottom of a barrel in Newt Lee’s house, that he carried the shirt to the station house showed it to Lee, and, when Lee was asked by the witness if the shirt was his, the solicitor objected that the witness should not be allowed to answer the question; “Did he (Lee) say that the shirt was his?”

The Court would not permit the witness to give Lee’s answer that the shirt was his.

This answer of Lee’s was, as movant contends, part of the res gestae of the shirt transaction, and Lee’s answer ought to have been heard.

The Court erred, as movant contends, in ruling out the answer of Lee and not allowing it to come out as a part of the entire transaction.

9. Because the Court, over objection made by the defendant at the time the same was offered, that it was immaterial and irrelevant, permitted the witness Darley to testify that on the morning the body was found Newt Lee was composed.

Defendant objected to this evidence as illegal, irrelevant and prejudicial to defendant which objection was overruled and movant assigns its admission as error for said same reasons.

This evidence was not only irrelevant and immaterial as movant contends but hurtful, because this evidence was heard upon the theory of comparison between the conduct of Lee and Frank.

10. Because the Court erred in failing, refusing and declining upon motion of the defendant made while the witness Conley was on the stand, to rule out, withdraw and exclude from the jury each and all of the following questions and answers of the witness Conley:

Q. “What did he mean?”
A. “Well, what I taken it to be, the reason he said he wasn’t built like other men. I had seen him in a position I hadn’t seen any other man in that was got children.”

Q. “What position?”
A. “I have seen Mr. Frank in the office there were about two or three times before Thanksgiving and a lady was in the office, and she was sitting down in a chair and she had her clothes up to here (up to her waist) and Mr. Frank was down on his knees, and she had her hands on Mr. Frank and I found them in that position.”

Q. “When you came into the office before Thanksgiving day, now, when the lady was sitting in the chair?”

A. Yes, sir; he saw me when he came out of the office, he saw me.”

Q. What was said when they saw you?”

A. “When Mr. Frank came out of the office Mr. Frank was hollering ‘Yes, that is right, that is right’ and he said, ‘That is all right, it will be easy to fix it that way.’”

Q. “Well, did you ever see him on any other occasion?”
A. “Yes, sir; I have seen him on other times there.”

Q. “What other occasions?”
A. I have seen Mr. Frank in the packing room there one time with a young lady lying on the table.”

Q. How far was the woman on the table?”
A. “Well, she was on the edge of the table when I saw her.”

The motion was made while the witness Conley, was on the stand, and before any cross examination had been had upon either of the circumstances referred to in said questions and answers, but after cross examination upon other subjects had progressed a day and a half. The motion to rule out, withdraw and exclude was made because, as stated to the Court when the motion was made, said questions and answers were immaterial, irrelevant, illegal, prejudicial, and dealing with other matters and things and crimes irrelevant and disconnected with the issue in the case then on trial.

Movant contends this evidence was highly prejudicial, and the failure of the Court, upon proper motion, to rule it out was a great injury to the defendant. And the failure of the Court to rule out said prejudicial and irrelevant and immaterial evidence is here assigned as error and a new trial should be granted.

[Several words illegible]

cial and involved other transactions not legitimately under investigation, and the same amounted to accusing the defendant of other and independent crimes.

11. Because the witness Conley, at the instance of the solicitor, was permitted to testify that he had seen Frank in a position with women that he had not seen any other man in that has children; that he had seen Frank in the office of the Pencil Co., about two or three times before Thanksgiving, and a lady was in the office and she was sitting down in a chair and she had her clothes up about her privates, and Frank was down on his knees, and she had her hands on Frank; that Frank saw Conley when he came out of the office, that when Frank came out of the office he was hollering “Yes, sir, that is right, that is right” and he said “That is all right, it will be easy to fix it that way;” that at another time he saw Frank in the packing room of the factory with a young lady lying on a table—she was on the edge of the table when he saw her.

While Conley was on the stand, and before he was crossed about seeing the circumstances testified about, and after cross examination upon other subjects had been had for a day and a half, counsel for the defendant moved the Court that the next above stated testimony of the witness Conley be ruled out, withdrawn and excluded from the jury, stating at the time that such motion ought to be granted, because the testimony was irrelevant, immaterial, illegal, prejudicial, and dealing with other matters and things, and crimes, irrelevant and disconnected with the issues in this case.

The Court declined to rule out, withdraw, or exclude this testimony from the jury, but permitted the same to remain before the jury.

The action of the Court was erroneous and highly prejudicial to the defendant, and demands a new trial.

Such action of the Court was error because said evidence was illegal, irrelevant and hurtful to the defendant and involved other transactions not legitimately under investigation, and the same amounted to accusing the defendant of other and independent crimes.

Because the [word illegible] Conley [several words illegible] testified that he watched for Frank, at the Pencil factory, four times on Saturdays, not on the day of the murder, and once on Thanksgiving day 1912, while Frank was with women in his office, detailing certain signals by which the witness Conley was to lock and open the door. When the first question was asked by the solicitor seeking to elicit whether witness had ever seen Frank up there in his office doing anything with young ladies before April 26, 1913, the defendant objected on the ground that the evidence sought was irrelevant and immaterial. The Court ruled that the evidence would be immaterial, but further questions were asked by the solicitor and elicited the evidence here complained of.

While Conley was still on the stand, and after cross examination a day and a half on other subjects, defendant’s counsel moved to rule out, exclude and withdraw from the jury all the testimony, both direct and on cross, detailing Frank’s association with women and Conley’s watching at other times than the Saturday of the murder, to-wit: April 26, 1913. Said motion was made upon the grounds stated and argued at the time the motion was made, that such testimony was immaterial, irrelevant, illegal, prejudicial, and dealt with other matters and things and crimes irrelevant to and disconnected with, the issues on trial on this case.

The Court declined the motion made at the time upon the grounds, as stated, and in doing so erred, because the evidence sought to have been ruled out for the reason stated, and the same amounted to accusing the defendant of other and independent crimes.

13. Because the Court, upon motion made when the witness Conley was still on the stand, declined to rule out, exclude and withdraw from the jury each and all the below questions propounded to witness Conley, and his answers thereto:

Q. Now, tell what kind of work you had done for him the other Saturdays. A. I always stayed on the first floor, like I stayed on the 26^th of April, and watched for Mr. Frank, while he and a young lady would be on the second floor chatting.

Q. You say chatting. Do you know what they were doing? A. No, sir. I don’t know what they were doing. He only told me that he wanted to chat.

Q. Did you ever see him up there doing anything with young ladies?

A. Well, I have—

Q. Well, what would you do before when young ladies come there?

A. I would sit down on the first floor and watch the door for him.

Q. And watch the doors for him? A. Yes, sir.

Q. How many times did you watch the door previous to Saturday, the 26^th of April, 1913?

A. Well, I couldn’t exactly tell you; it has been several times I watched for him.

Q. Who was there when you were watching the door? A. Well, I don’t know, Sir, who would be there when I watched the door, but there would be another young man and another young lady there during the time I was at the door; a lady for him and one for Mr. Frank.

Q. Now, was Frank ever there alone? A. Mr. Frank was there alone once, and that was Thanksgiving day, that I watched for him.

Q. Well, do you know or not the lady—did any woman come there that day? A. Thanksgiving day?

Q. Yes. A. Yes, sir.

Q. What kind of a looking woman? A. She was a tall, heavy built lady.

Q. What did you do on that occasion? A. I stayed down there and watched the door, just as he had told me to do this last time.

Q. When what was done? A. Well, after the lady came and he stamped for me, I went and unlocked the door as he said. He told me when he got through with the lady he would whistle, and when he whistled for me to go and unlock the door.

Q. That was on Thanksgiving day of what year? A. Of last year, 1912………..

Q. He says: “What I want you to do, I want you to do, I want you to watch for me today as you have on other Saturdays”.

A. And I says: “All right.”……

[several words illegible]

did before.”

Q. What did he mean? A. I have seen Mr. Frank in the office there about two or three times before Thanksgiving, and a lady was in the office, and she was sitting down in a chair, and she had her clothes up to here (indicating), and Mr. Frank was down on his knees, and she had her hands on Mr. Frank, and I found them in that position.

Q. Well did you ever see him on any other occasion? A. Yes, I have seen him another time there.

Q. What other occasion? A. I have seen Mr. Frank in the packing room one time with a young lady laying on the table.

Q. How far was the woman on the table? A. Well, she was on the edge of the table when I saw her,——-

Q. Do you know the name of the woman that was up there with Mr. Frank? A. Thanksgiving day?

Q. Yes. A. No, sir, I don’t know her name.

Q. Do you know the name of the other woman? A. No, sir. I know the young man’s name that was with one of the ladies, but I don’t know the other lady’s name. I know where she lives at.

Q. What is the name of the man? A. That man’s name is Mr. Dalton.

Q. Now, what kind of looking woman was it that you saw there Thanksgiving day in Mr. Frank’s office. A. Well, she was a tall built lady, heavy weight, she was nice looking, she had on a blue looking dress with white dots in it, and she had on a greyish looking coat with kind of tails to it. The coat was open like that (indicating), and she had on white slippers and stockings.

Q. Did Mr. Frank see you that time? A. Thanksgiving day?

Q. Yes. A. Yes, sir, he told me to come to the office—to come to the factory.

Q. When you come up into the office before Thanksgiving day now, when the lady was sitting in the chair? A. Yes, sir. He saw me when he come out of the office, he saw me.

Q. What was said when they you? A. When Mr. Frank come out of the office he was hollering: “Yes, that is right, that is right”, and he said: “That is all right, it will be easy to fix it that way.”

CROSS EXAMINATION.

Q. Now, you said you watched for Mr. Frank? A. Yes, sir.

Q. When was the first time you ever watched for Mr. Frank? A. The first time I ever watched for Mr. Frank alone and knowed he was in the office—–

Q. When was the first time you ever watched for Mr. Frank alone or with somebody else? Don’t make any difference. A. I couldn’t exactly give you the—-

Q. Tell us the best you can? A. Some time during last summer, when I was watching for him.

Q. That was the first time, now? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Whereabouts in the summer; what part of the summer did you do that watching that time? A. Somewhere about in July.

Q. That’s the first time; there was somebody with him that time? A. Yes, sir. Somebody was with him all the time, off and on.

Q. Let’s take the first time, now; what did Mr. Frank say to you that time; what did he say—what did he say to get you to watch for him? A. I would be there sweeping, and Mr. Frank come out and call me in the office.

Q. What? A. I would be there sweeping and Mr. Frank come out and call me in the office.

Q. When was the first time he ever did that? A. That was on Saturday he done that.

Q. He never had called you in there before when you were sweeping except on Saturday? A. He called me in there but never talked to me about that matter.

Q. Did he talk to you about anything? A. Yes, sir.

Q. About what? A. Something about the work, something like that.

Q. You mean during the week? A. No, sir; he talked to me them Saturdays about it.

Q. When was the first time he called you in there to talk about the work or anything else? A. How do you mean?

Q. On Saturday, when was the first time he called you in there to talk to you about the work or anything else [several words illegible] A. I don’t know about that.

Q. Tell us about that? A. That was right after I started work there when he called me and talked to me about the work.

Q. And that was on Saturday? A. Yes, sir, that was on a Saturday.

Q. About what time, now? A. I don’t know somewhere about three o’clock, though.

Q. Sometime about three o’clock? A. Yes, sir.

Q. What was your Saturday hours, Jim? A. I always generally have to work from the time I get back there until half past four that evening.

Q. What time would you usually get back there? A. I would leave away from there about half pass twelve, ring out the clock, and come back about half past one or two o’clock.

Q. Would you ring in again? A. Yes, sir; sometimes I would and sometimes I wouldn’t—-

Q. The first time you say you ever watched, you say you watched for Frank and somebody else last July? A. Yes, sir.

Q. You don’t know who the man was? A. Yes, sir, I know who the man was.

Q. Who was he? A. A man named Mr. Dalton.

Q. Where is he? A. I don’t know where he is now.

Q. How do you spell that? A. I don’t know how you spell it.

Q. What did he do? A. A young lady that worked at the factory—I don’t know what her name was—she would go off and get him and bring him in there.

Q. You don’t know where he lived? A. No, sir; I don’t know where he lived, but I know where she lived.

Q. How come him to tell you who she was? A. She was the one told me his name.

Q. Where is the young lady? A. I don’t know, sir, if she’s anywhere in the room and if she’ll stand up I can tell you if it is her.

Q. Give us her name? A. I don’t know, sir, what her name is; the detectives know the name, I don’t.

[several words illegible] detectives tell you [several words illegible] sir; they didn’t tell me who she was, I described to them where she lives at.

Q. Where does she live? A. She lives on West Hunter Street.

Q. Where? A. Between Hunter and Haynes Street, around about Magnolia Street, down there.

Q. How come you to know she lived there? A. Because I passed her house every morning.

Q. And the man was named Dalton? A. Yes, sir;

Q. Who was with Mr. Frank? A. The lady that was with Mr. Frank was Miss Daisy Hopkins.

Q. Where did she live? A. I don’t know, sir, where Miss Daisy Hopkins lived.

Q. Where did she work? A. She worked up on the fourth floor.

Q. Do you know where she is now? A. No sir.

Q. Now, what time of day was that? A. It would always be somewhere about three or three thirty.

Q. Where did Mr. Frank tell you to watch, that time? A. I would be up there sweeping, and Mr. Frank———

Q. That time—that particular time, I mean? A. Well, I would be sweeping.

Q. I’m talking about that time—-that particular time? A. When he told me to watch?

Q. Yes, what did he say to you when he told you? A. I’m going to explain to you now——-

Q. That particular time, now? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Give it to me, now? A. I would be there sweeping—-

Q. Oh, don’t give me what you would be doing. I want to know about that particular time? A. I was at the factory.

Q. Where? A. Sweeping on the second floor.

Q. Now, what time was that? A. Somewhere about three o’clock or three thirty.

Q. Somewhere about three or three thirty? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Then what happened? A. Well, there would be one lady in the office.

Q. I am talking about that particular time. Jim, the first time he ever talked to you there, you were in the pencil factory? A. Yes, sir.

Q. When Mr. Frank called you? A. Yes, sir.

Q. You were on the second floor? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Then Mr. Frank called you and then you went to Mr. Frank’s office? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Was there a woman in there with him? A. Yes, sir, a lady was in there with him.

Q. Called you in the presence of the lady? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Talked to you in the presence of the lady? A. Yes, sir. He talked to me in the lady’s presence.

Q. And that was Miss Daisy Hopkins? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And that was about three o’clock? A. Or half past three.

Q. In July last? A. Yes, sir.

Q. What did Mr. Frank say to you in that lady’s presence? That’s the time (first) time he ever talked to you about that matter, what did he say to you? A. Yes, sir; he says: “Did you see that lady go out there?”—-

Q. Why, I thought you said the lady was present? A. Yes, sir, this lady was present. He would say: “Did you see that lady go out there”? I say: “Yes, sir”, and he says: “You go down there and see nobody don’t come up here, and you’ll have a chance to make yourself some money.

Q. And the lady was present? A. Yes, sir;

Q. Where was the other lady? A. The other lady gone on out and to get that young man.

Q. She went with the man? A. No, sir, she went out by herself, to get the man and come back with the man.

Q. How long was she gone? A. I don’t know, sir, how long was she gone.

Q. And that was about half past three? A. Yes, sir.

Q. The beginning of that transaction was about half past three? A. Yes, sir.

Q. How long was she gone? A. I don’t know, sir, how long she was gone.

Q. You don’t know how long she was gone? A. No, sir; I don’t know how long she was gone.

Q. Was she back after awhile? A. Yes, sir.

Q. She came back after awhile and brought a man with her, and that [several words illegible] A. Yes, sir.

Q. And Dalton’s name you don’t know? A. Yes, sir; his name was Mr. Dalton.

Q. I know, but you don’t know where he lives—nothing of that kind? A. No, sir.

Q. When this young lady went off and came back and brought Dalton back, where did you see her again? A. I saw her and Mr. Dalton when the come in at the door.

Q. You were watching then? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Then where did they go? A. Upstairs to Mr. Frank’s office.

Q. Did you see them go to Mr. Frank’s office? A. I heard them walking in Mr. Frank’s office.

Q. Then how long did they stay in Mr. Frank’s office? A. They didn’t stay in there long, ten or fifteen minutes I reckon.

Q. Then where did they go? A. They came back down, and she say: “All right, James.”

Q. Then his name was James Dalton? A. No, sir; that was talking to me—said all right to me.

Q. You saw them go in the factory and heard them go to Mr. Frank’s office, and how long did they stay there? A. About fifteen minutes, I reckon.

Q. Then all of them came down together? A. No, sir. They didn’t all come down together—just this lady and Mr. Dalton.

Q. Then how long before Mr. Frank came down? A. He was the last one that came down.

Q. How long? A. About an hour after that.

Q. You never heard any of them come out of Mr. Frank’s office after they went in? A. Yes, sir; this lady and this man come back down.

Q. They came back and went down? A. No, sir, they didn’t go out. She came down and say: “All right, James”, and I would say: “All right”, and a place on the first floor that leads into another department, and after you get into this other department, there’s a trap door and stairway that leads down in the basement, and they pull out that trap door and go down in the basement.

Q. And that time, she came down and says: “All right, James”? A. Yes, sir.

Q. She knew you? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Because she worked in the office? A. No, sir, she didn’t work in the office, she worked on the fourth floor.

Q. Then you went through that door—a door right behind the elevator? A. No, sir, there isn’t a door back of the elevator; there’s a big wooden door, just a step there.

Q. I know, but it goes back in the back there? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Then you opened that door? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Then came back and opened that trap door? A. I came and pulled up the trap door.

Q. And then they went down there? A. Yes, sir.

Q. She said “All right, James”? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Then you went and opened that door? A. Yes, sir.

Q. She didn’t tell you to open it? A. Yes, sir; she said, “All right, James”– something like that.

Q. She said All right, and then you opened the door? A. Yes, sir.

Q. What made you open the door? A. Because she said she was ready. I knowed where she was going; Mr. Frank told me to watch.

Q. Mr. Frank told you to watch? A. Yes, sir.

Q. But he didn’t tell you where they were going? A. Yes, sir, he told me where they were going.

Q. How came him to tell you that? A. I don’t know, sir.

Q. When did he tell you that? A. That day.

Q. That they were going to the basement? A. Yes, sir.

Q. That he was going to stay in his office? A. He didn’t say where he was going to stay.

Q. Well, he stayed there? A. As long as I stayed there I didn’t see him go out.

Q. She said all right, and went through that door? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Opened it and they went down? A. Yes, sir.

Q. You shut the trap door? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And that was in July? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And the first time that ever happened? A. Yes, sir.

Q. First time anybody ever asked you or talked to you about it? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, they went down the basement? A. Yes, sir.

Q. How long did they stay there? A. I don’t know, sir how long they stayed there.

Q. What became of them? A. Well, they came back up.

Q. About what time? A. I couldn’t give no time, because I don’t know what time it was when they went down there.

Q. Well, about what time? A. I don’t know, sir; I couldn’t give you what time they came back up.

Q. It was after 3:30 when this whole thing started? A. Yes, sir it was after 3:30 when this whole thing started.

Q. He told you to go down; they came up after a while? A. Yes, sir, they came up after a while.

Q. Came up the same way they went down? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Up through the same door? A. Yes, sir.

Q. You kept that door locked all the time? A. No, sir, I didn’t keep it locked, I just kept it shut and stayed there by it.

Q. Stayed there the whole time? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And never left? A. No, sir.

Q. Well, what did they do after they came up through the door? A. After they came up through the door me and Mr. Dalton stood and talked at the steps. Mr. Dalton gave me a quarter and he went out laughing, and she went up the steps.

Q. Where did she go? A. She went and stood at the top of the steps a little while first, before she ever went to the office.

Q. Did she go to the office? A. Yes, sir; she went to the office.

Q. How do you know she did, you couldn’t see her go there, could you? A. No, sir, I couldn’t see her go in the office, but I could hear her go there. I heard her walking in there.

Q. How long did they stay before they came down? A. Didn’t stay very long before they came down.

Q. What next happened? A. They came down and left, and then Mr. Frank come down after they left away.

Q. What time did Mr. Frank leave? A. I don’t know, Sir, what time Mr. Frank left.

Q. Give us the best you can? A. Frank left some time about half past four, I believe.

Q. Then they stayed there an hour. A. I don’t know, sir; I guess so.

Q. Then Mr. Frank left, and you locked the door and you left? A. No, sir, I left before he did. He came down and gave me a quarter out of his pocket. He says: “Is that all right?”, and I say: “That’s all right”. and then left.

Q. Then he came out behind you and left? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, that’s the first time? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, when was the next Saturday? A. The next Saturday was mighty near the same thing.

Q. Well, what was the next Saturday; I didn’t ask you whether it was the same thing or not? A. That was about two weeks after that.

Q. Was that in August or in July? A. Well, it was about the last of July or the first of August.

Q. Well, do you remember the date? A. No, sir, I don’t remember the date at all.

Q. Where did you get your money that time; did you draw it? A. Yes, sir, I drawed my money that time.

Q. Go up and draw it yourself? A. I disremember whether I drawed it myself or not.

Q. Can’t remember anything about that? A. No, sir.

Q. The first time it happened, did you draw it yourself? A. I can’t remember whether I did or not.

Q. You can’t remember that? A. No, sir.

Q. Tell us the next Saturday- You think it was about two weeks after that? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, when did Mr. Frank first mention it to you that Saturday? When did he first mention it, that Saturday, to you? A. Mr. Frank mentioned it to me the same Saturday I was there.

Q. About three o’clock? A. I don’t know, sir, what time it was.

Q. About half past two, was it? A. About half past two. I guess, that Saturday.

Q. About half past two, you think, that Saturday? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Where were you then? A. At the factory.

[several words illegible] fourth floor

Q. Mr. Frank came and got you? A. No, sir, he told me that morning before ever they paid off.

Q. What time was that he told you? A. I don’t know, sir, it was near twelve o’clock when he did tell me.

Q. Where did he tell you that? A. In the box room.

Q. Anybody else present? A. No, sir, not as I knows of.

Q. What were you doing in there? A. What was I doing in there, I was looking after the boxes.

Q. What did he tell you then? A. He told me, “Now you know what you done for last Saturday”-

Q. He told you: “You know what you done for me last Saturday”? A. The other Saturday, I says: “Yes, sir, I remember”. He says: “I want to put you wise to this Saturday”. I says: “All right, sir, what time”. He says: “Oh, about half past”. I says: “All right, sir.”

Q. You remember that distinctly? A. Yes, sir.

Q. What time did he go to dinner that day? A. I don’t know, sir, what time he went to dinner that day; I wasn’t there when he went to dinner.

Q. What time did he get back that day? A. That was somewhere about quarter past two. I saw him going up the steps with his clothes and his hat on. I don’t know where he had been.

Q. What was the next that happened? A. He went in his office next that happened.

Q. Then what was the next that happened? A. Mr. Holloway, he came on out.

Q. Mr. Holloway was there? A. Yes, sir.

Q. That was half past two o’clock? A. No, sir, it wasn’t half past two.

Q. I thought you said he always left about half past two? A. No, sir, I didn’t say he always done it.

Q. Now, when was that; give us the best estimate about it? A. It’s pretty hard to give the best estimate about the time, because I wasn’t looking at the clock at all.

Q. What was the next? A. After Mr. Holloway left away, Miss Daisy Hopkins come on in there.

Q. What happened next? A. She came into his office.

Q. You [several words illegible] come into [several words illegible] that time.

Q. Did she see you? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Then what happened? A. Well, Mr. Frank come out and popped his finger and bowed his head like that and went back in the office.

Q. Where were you at? A. I was standing there by the clock.

Q. He popped his hand? A. No, sir, he popped his finger.

Q. He popped his finger and bowed to you? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Then you went down? A. Yes, sir, then I went down.

Q. And stood by the door? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Didn’t lock it? A. No sir, I didn’t lock it; I shut it.

Q. Then what next happened? A. I don’t know, sir, what next happened.

Q. Did you hear Mr. Frank come out of his office at all? A. No, sir, I didn’t hear Mr. Frank come out of his office at all.

Q. You could have heard him if he went out? A. No, sir, I couldn’t have heard him if he went out. I couldn’t have heard him if he went out.

Q. Well, how comes it you could hear him go in there and not hear him come out? A. Because I was up there on the floor when she went in there, in the office.

Q. When you went down, she was in Mr. Frank’s office? A. No, sir, I was standing at the clock and saw her go into Mr. Frank’s office.

Q. Then you went down and watched? A. Yes, sir, I went down and watched.

Q. Did you hear her come out of his office? A. No, sir.

Q. Didn’t you say a while ago that, while you were at the door you heard these other people coming out of his office? A. No sir, I said this—this was what I said: after I got to the top of the steps, I could hear them going into his office. Q. I know but you said this lady went and got a fellow; you stood by the door and heard them going into his office. A. No, sir, I said her and this man’s foot steps, I heard them go into Mr. Frank’s office. I said I stood down at the door and watched.

Q. You were watching when they came in, didn’t’ you say? A. Yes, sir; I said I was watching when they came in.

Q. You could see them when they came in there? A. Yes, sir, I could see them when they came in there, and I said I went up and heard the foot steps going in Mr. Frank’s office.

Q. Didn’t you sit there and watch all the time? A. I didn’t sit there at the door until he notified me to do that.

Q. I’m talking about the time she went and got that man and came back? A. I was standing by the door, yes, sir.

Q. Stood there from that on? A. No, sir, I didn’t stand there from that on.

Q. What did you do? A. I stood there about the trash barrel then.

Q. On the first floor? A. Right there by the side.

Q. And then you heard them going back? A. I heard them go to Mr. Frank’s office, yes, sir.

Q. When you were standing at the door, you couldn’t see them go into Mr. Frank’s office? A. No, Sir, I couldn’t see them go into Mr. Frank’s office.

Q. Wasn’t you at Mr. Frank’s office at that time? A. No, at the door, no, sir, when you are at the door you ain’t there at Mr. Frank’s office.

Q. When do you hit his office? A. When you hit the trash barrel.

Q. Now, did anybody else come that day? A. This second time?

Q. Yes. A. No, sir, nobody else didn’t come.

Q. How long did Mr. Frank stay there that time? A. I don’t know sir how long he stayed there that time.

Q. About how long? A. Stayed there that time about a half a hour, I reckon, something like that.

Q. Then the girl went out? A. Yes, sir; then the girl went out.

Q. Mr. Frank came and went out? A. No, sir, he called me up there then asked me was I there; I told him yes sir, I was about through now.

Q. Did he know whether you were through or not? A. I don’t know, sir, whether he did or not.

Q. He gave you some money? A. He gave me half a dollar.

Q. And the other time they didn’t give you but a quarter.

Q. Then you left? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Give the next time? A. Pretty hard for me to remember.

Q. It was Thanksgiving day, the next time, wasn’t it? A. No, sir, it wasn’t Thanksgiving day, the next time; I had watched for him and Mr. Dalton, too, before that Thanksgiving day.

Q. Give us the best you can, of the next time? A. That was somewhere along in the winter time; I don’t know, sir, the exact time.

Q. Well, Thanksgiving is winter time, ain’t it Jim? A. Yes, sir, but this is before Thanksgiving.

Q. How many times before Thanksgiving? A. I watched for him there three times before Thanksgiving Day.

Q. Well, you’ve given me two of these times? A. Yes, sir.

Q. When was the next one—about when? A. I don’t know, sir; I couldn’t exactly tell. Somewhere about the middle of August. I guess, or the last part of August.

Q. You said it was winter, didn’t you? A. Well, that’s somewhere near the winter, ain’t it?

Q. Might cold about the middle of August, ain’t it? A. I said it was somewhere——-

Q. Beginning to be mighty cold about the middle of August, ain’t it? A. No sir, not so cold.

Q. Pretty cold, though, ain’t it? A. No sir, not so cold.

Q. But its obliged to be cold though, ain’t it? A. No sir, not so cold.

Q. Pretty cool though? A. No sir, not so cold. Some days is cool.

Q. What made you say it was near winter though, Jim? A. It’s near winter.

Q. All right, how did that happen. Just give it to me like it happened. What time did that happen? A. I don’t know, sir, what time it was that it happened.

Q. About what time? Sometime after Mr. Frank come back from dinner; I don’t know what time it was.

Q. About what time? A. I don’t know, sir.

Q. What did he tell you-he wanted you to watch that time? A. He told me that time on the fourth floor.

Q. What time was that? A. This was somewhere—I don’t know, sir, what time; I couldn’t exactly tell.

Q. It was morning or evening? A. It was in the evening.

Q. About what time? A. I don’t know, sir. I couldn’t tell you exactly.

Q. Where was you when he told you? A. Right at the elevator.

Q. Was it before twelve o’clock? A. I don’t know, sir, whether it was twelve o’clock or not.

Q. After twelve? A. I don’t know whether it was after twelve or not.

Q. You don’t know anything about that; you can’t remember that? A. No sir.

Q. Anybody standing around there then? A. There was Gordon Bailey standing there.

Q. That’s Snowball? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Anybody else there? A. Not to my knowing, it wasn’t.

Q. Wasn’t the office force there at that time? A. They were not standing at the elevator; they were back at work.

Q. It must have been before twelve o’clock then, if they were back at work? A. I guess so; I don’t know whether it was twelve or not.

Q. What did he tell you then? A. He told me: “I want to put you wise again for today”.

Q. “I want to put you wise again for today”? A. Yes sir.

Q. That is the same words he used every time? A. He didn’t use that every time, but he used that more often than anything else.

Q. What else did he say. He hadn’t seen you but three times; hadn’t watched for him but three times—two times before that? A. Yes, sir.

Q. You say that’s the word he usually used? A. I don’t know about the usual, but he used that the other two times.

Q. Up to that time he used the same words every time, that: “I want to put you wise,” Is that correct? A. Yes, sir, but he said sometimes in a funny way.

Q. Well, sometimes. But you said you hadn’t watched but three times and every time he said them, “I want to put you wise”. He done that, didn’t he, Jim? A. And he would say that and say it in another way, too.

Q. But the three times, he said: “I want to put you wise.” A. Yes sir, the three time he said: “I want to put you wise”.

Q. And that was the three times—say it the three times up to that time? A. Well, yes sir, to my rememberance it was.

Q. You don’t know that then? A. No sir, I don’t know that.

Q. Well, you said that though? A. Yes, sir, I said it.

Q. Did he say anything else to you but “I want to put you wise” at that time and place? A. Yes sir, “I want to put you wise like I been doing the other Saturdays down there”. I said: “All right, sir”.

Q. All right, now, what time did that happen? A. Well, just happen in the evening.

Q. About what time? A. I don’t know, sir, what time it happen.

Q. Give us the best estimate you have got? A. Well, some time half past, I reckon.

Q. Sometime half past, half past what-half past two or half past three? A. It was half past two, I reckon.

Q. He came back you say. What made him come; did he come back and hunt you? A. No, sir, he didn’t hunt me.

Q. Where were you? A. I was standing by the office when he got there.

Q. Then he came in there with you? A. Yes, sir.

Q. What did he say to you? A. He told me, he says: “She be here in a minute.”

Q. Then where did you go? A. I stayed there at the office.

Q. Did you see her come in there? A. Yes, sir. I seed her come in there.

Q. Who was she? A. She was a lady what worked on the fourth floor, but I don’t know her name.

Q. The same woman? A. No, sir, she’s not the same woman.

Q. Miss Daisy had been there twice, and this was a new woman? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Does she work there now? A. I don’t know, sir; whether she is or not. I’m not working there, and I don’t know who all’s working there now.

Q. What kind of looking lady was she? A. Nice looking lady, kinder slim.

Q. What kind of eyes did she have? A. I don’t know, sir, I never paid no attention to her eyes.

Q. What kind of hair? A. I don’t know, sir, exactly- had hair like Mr. Hooper there got.

Q. How do you know Mr. Hooper so well; you seem to know him pretty well, don’t you Jim? A. No, sir, I don’t know, sir, I have seen Mr. Hooper before.

Q. He had a good deal to do with you down there? A. No, sir, I seen him once when he come down to the cell to see me.

Q. Was she grey-haired, like Hooper- you say she had hair like Hooper’s? A. Yes sir, she had hair like Mr. Hooper’s.

Q. Ain’t that a gray-headed fellow, sorter measly and broken down with age? A. Don’t look like he’s gray to me.

Q. You have been right close to him, too, haven’t you? A. I’ve been right close to him, but not to pay no attention to his hair.

Q. Well, she had hair like Hooper? A. Yes sir.

Q. If he’s grey-haired, she had too? A. Well, she had hair like Mr. Hooper’s.

Q. Was she blonde or brunette? A. I don’t know, sir, what you mean by that?

Q. You don’t know what a blonde is? A. No sir.

Q. You don’t know what a brunette is? A. No sir.

Q. Did she have light hair? A. She had hair like Mr. Hooper’s.

Q. What sort of clothes did she have on? A. She had a green suit of clothes.

Q. Green all over? A. As far as I could see.

Q. What kind of shoes and stockings did she have on? A. I didn’t play no attention to her shoes and stockings.

Q. But Miss Daisy Hopkins, what sort of clothes did she have on the first time that she came there? A. The first time that she came there she had on a black skirt and a white waist.

Q. What kind of shoes and stockings? A. I didn’t pay no attention to what kind of shoes and stockings she had on.

Q. Didn’t you tell Mr. Dorsey, what kind of shoes and stockings she had on? A. No sir, I told him the lady that was there Thanksgiving Day had on white shoes and stockings.