The Atlanta Georgian,
Wednesday, 1st October 1913,
PAGE 1, COLUMNS 1, 5, & 6.
PAGE 1, COLUMN 5
SOLICITOR EXPECTED TO SEEK DELAY
Defense to File Plea for New Trial Wednesday " State Faces Difficult Task
Fight for the life of Leo M. Frank, sentenced to be hanged
October 10 for the murder of Mary Phagan, will assume activity
Wednesday, when the papers in the motion for a new trial will be
filed by the attorneys for the defense.
Solicitor Hugh Dorsey will begin an examination of the
papers immediately in an effort to complete his answer by
Saturday, the date set for the hearing of the motion for a new
trial.
Regardless of the success or failure of Mr. Dorsey to prepare
his answer by Saturday, Judge L. S. Roan will hear the motion and
dispose of the case before he retires from the Superior bench,
according to authoritative information Tuesday.
Wants to Finish Case.
This final decision is in deference to the expressed desire of
Judge Roan, who was quoted exclusively in The Georgian last
week to the effect that he felt his duty to finish up the Frank case
before retiring in accordance with the wishes of all other officials
concerned. Solicitor Dorsey is anxious for Judge Roan to hear the
motion in view of the fact that Judge Roan is familiar with every
phase of the famous case.
Judge Roan, as trial judge, generally has been regarded as
the logical man to dispose of the case. The Superior court judges
are said to be a unit in that opinion.
The announcement that the paper sin the motion for a new
trial would be filed Wednesday was made Tuesday by Attorney
Luther Rosser.
Dorsey May Ask Delay.
We have been hard at work on our evidence for weeks,
said Mr. Rosser, and have now just about completed it. It is
practically certain that we will file the papers Wednesday.
Should the contentions set forth by the defense involve
questions requiring the summoning of witnesses from various
parts of the State, or other new evidence, it will be almost
impossible for Solicitor Dorsey to make reply by next Saturday.
As such evidence is said to be more or less certain, it is more
than likely that the Solicitor still request a postponement of the
hearing for the motion. In any event, however, the motion will be
heard before Judge Roan.
PAGE 1, COLUMN 6
FRANK TRIAL
JURIST
WILL HEAR NEW
PLEA
Judge L. S.
Roan, who
sentenced
convinced
slayer of
Mary Phagan.
PAGE 2, COLUMNS 1 &
3
PAGE 2, COLUMN 1
Dorsey Prepares Vigorous Fight on
Frank Motion
PAGE 2, COLUMN 3
DELAY
MOVE
BY STATE
CERTAIN
Solicitor Hugh Dorsey Wednesday prepared to make a
vigorous assault on the arguments set forth in the motion for a
new trial for Leo M. Frank, sentenced to hang on October 10 for
the murder of Mary Phagan. The papers will be filed by attorneys
for the defense probably early Wednesday afternoon.
Postponement of the hearing Saturday appeared certain
Wednesday morning prior to the filing of the papers.
Mr. Dorsey declared he would go into an investigation of the
papers immediately in an effort to make his reply at the earliest
possible moment.
It is hardly likely, however, that Mr. Dorsey will be able to
prepare his answer by Saturday, the date set for the hearing of
the motion, as the papers are said to be quite lengthy and filled
with evidence which probably will require the summoning of
witnesses from various parts of the State.
It is likely, therefore, that the Solicitor will request a
postponement of the hearing until he can complete his side of the
case.
In this event the motion probably will be heard within the
next week or ten days before Judge Roan, who, according to
every reliable indication, will dispose of the Frank case before he
retires from the bench.
PAGE 3, COLUMN 6
HOT ATTACK
PLANNED
ON FRANK'S
MOTION
Solicitor Hugh Dorsey Wednesday prepared to make a
vigorous assault on the arguments set forth in the motion for a
new trial for Leo M. Frank, sentenced to hang on October 10 for
the murder of Mary Phagan. The papers will be filed by attorneys
for the defense probably early Wednesday afternoon.
Postponement of the hearing Saturday appeared certain
Wednesday morning prior to the filing of the papers.
Mr. Dorsey declared he would go into an investigation of the
papers immediately in an effort to make his reply at the earliest
possible moment.
It is hardly likely, however, that Mr. Dorsey will be able to
prepare his answer by Saturday, the date set for the hearing of
the motion, as the papers are said to be quite lengthy and filled
with evidence which probably will require the summoning of
witnesses from various parts of the State.
It is likely, therefore, that the Solicitor will request a
postponement of the hearing until he can complete his side of the
case.
In this event the motion probably will be heard within the
next week or ten days before Judge Roan, who, according to
every reliable indication, will dispose of the Frank case before he
retires from the bench.
PAGE 4, COLUMNS 1,
2, & 7
PAGE 4, COLUMN 1
ASK NEW FRANK TRIAL ON
115 COUNTS
PAGE 4, COLUMN 2
Dorsey Tells
Why
Jail Is
Crowded
That the overcrowded condition of the county jail, which has
been made the subject of a letter from the Board of County
Commissioners, can not be alleviated at the present time was the
statement of Solicitor Dorsey Wednesday.
Mr. Dorsey declared the conditions grew out of the Frank
trial and the consequent absence of one judge from the criminal
bench.
PAGE 4, COLUMN 2
Mother of a
Frank
Juror Held
Insane
An echo of the Frank trial was heard in the Fulton County
Ordinary Court Wednesday when a jury declared Mrs. Eliza
Bosshardt, 60 years of age, mother of Charles Bosshardt, one of
the jurors in the case, a fit subject for the State sanitarium at
Milledgeville.
Relatives testified Mrs. Bosshardt suffered from delusions
during the Frank trial. She expressed fear that her son would be
drowned.
PAGE 4, COLUMN 7
MANY ERRORS
LAID TO
COURT; CHARGE
MADE
OF JURY
INTIMIDATION
Citing 115 counts wherein the count is declared to have
erred in the trial of Leo M. Frank, Luther Z. Rosser Wednesday
fled with the criminal court a motion for a new trial for the pencil
factory superintendent, sentenced to hang October 10 for the
murder of Mary Phagan.
The motion, contained in nearly two hundred typewritten
sheets, includes an exhaustive research of the trial and each
count, as it is brought out, is dissected.
The motion will be placed in the hands of Solicitor Dorsey for
his inspection and reply and the first hearing will be given on
October 4.
Principal among the objections offered in the motion is the
conduct of the crowds which attended the trial. Frank's attorneys
openly declare the jury was intimidated, and despite their
objections no effort was made to stop the applause which time
and again rang out in the courtroom.
Threats to clear the room were made by the trial judge,
the motion states, but they were absolutely disregarded and the
threats were not enforced, despite the objections of counsel for
the defense.
Hits at Conley Testimony.
The motion struck also at the admission of the lascivious
testimony of Jim Conley, the negro sweeper. The testimony
referred to included that wherein the negro declared on the
witness stand that Frank had entertained women in the factory on
holidays while he stood watch at the front door.
Lasciviousness is not one of the character traits involved in
a plea of murder and can not be held in a murder trial, even when
the defendant has put his character in issue, the motion stated.
The testimony of Dr. H. F. Harris, Country Physician, also was
objected to. The motion declared that the physician's testimony
was argumentative and not a statement of fact, scientifically or
otherwise. Dr. Harris had gone extensively into an analysis of the
cabbage taken from the stomach of Mary Phagan, which she had
eaten on the morning of her tragic death.
Objection was also made to the testimony of Newt Lee, the
negro night watchman, who first found the Phagan girl's body,
wherein he testified as to Frank's nervousness and his method of
conversation when the two were brought together at the police
station following the murder.
The testimony of Detective Black that Frank was excited,
while Lee was composed, at this time also was made the point of
an objection. Black's statements of a conversation which he had
had with Frank before the murder, when on a private
investigation, were objected to when the detective compared
them to the conversation which he held with the pencil factory
superintendent after the girl was murdered.
Charge Errors to Court.
The petition charges that the court erred in allowing the
testimony of Miss Mary Pirk, who charged immoral conditions at
the pencil factory, and in admitting other testimony hinting at the
same thing over the protests of the defense.
Error is charged in the admission of Miss Irene Jackson's
evidence concerning a conversation with Detective Starnes about
dressing-room conditions, and an incident in which Frank looked
into the room when Miss Emily Mayfield was not dressed.
Another count is based on the admission of Scott's testimony
concerning a conversation he had with Mrs. Arthur White
regarding her seeing a negro on the first floor of the factory. The
State claimed this negro was Jim Conley.
Solicitor's Conduct Attacked.
The court is charged with error in allowing the Solicitor to
declare that he was prepared to prove the charges
PAGE 10, COLUMN 1
PLEA FOR NEW
TRIAL FOR
FRANK, DOOMED
SLAYER
IS BASED ON 115
COUNTS
Continued From Page 1.
of immorality against Frank. The petition charges specific error to
the Solicitor's declaration. I am not fourflushing, made in the
presence of the jury. It is declared that this declaration had undue
influence on the jurors' minds, leading them to unfair inference.
Another error is laid to the court in allowing over the
defense's objection to Solicitor's questions tending to show that
Montag Brothers had attempted to influence the Pinkertons and
had tried to make the detective agency shield the prisoner. The
petition declares that none of the evidence concerning the
employment of the Pinkertons was admissible.
The overruling of any evidence from Street Car Inspector
Leach concerning the dismissal or punishment of employees for
being ahead of schedule time is another count.
Error is charged in the questioning of J. N. Minar, a reporter
for The Georgian. The defense claims that the questions
concerning whether he went to interview the Epps family merely
as a reporter should never have been allowed. The questions
were asked, the petition says, to influence the jury and no
attempt to prove the intimations ever was made.
In refusing to allow Miss Hall to testify to a telephone
conversation in rank told her about work to be done that tragic
day another error is charged and another in the admission of
Philip Chambers' reference to Gantt, tending to show that Frank
had tried to throw suspicion on Gantt and shield himself.
PAGE 5, COLUMN 1
FRANK CHARGES JURY
INTIMIDATION
PAGE 5, COLUMN 7
ERRORS LAID TO
COURT
IN RETRIAL
ARGUMENT
Citing 115 counts wherein the count is declared to have
erred in the trial of Leo M. Frank, Luther Z. Rosser Wednesday
fled with the criminal court a motion for a new trial for the pencil
factory superintendent, sentenced to hang October 10 for the
murder of Mary Phagan.
The motion, contained in nearly two hundred typewritten
sheets, includes an exhaustive research of the trial and each
count, as it is brought out, is dissected.
The motion will be placed in the hands of Solicitor Dorsey for
his inspection and reply and the first hearing will be given on
October 4.
Principal among the objections offered in the motion is the
conduct of the crowds which attended the trial. Frank's attorneys
openly declare the jury was intimidated, and despite their
objections no effort was made to stop the applause which time
and again rang out in the courtroom.
Threats to clear the room were made by the trial judge,
the motion states, but they were absolutely disregarded and the
threats were not enforced, despite the objections of counsel for
the defense.
Hits at Conley Testimony.
The motion struck also at the admission of the lascivious
testimony of Jim Conley, the negro sweeper. The testimony
referred to included that wherein the negro declared on the
witness stand that Frank had entertained women in the factory on
holidays while he stood watch at the front door.
Lasciviousness is not one of the character traits involved in
a plea of murder and can not be held in a murder trial, even when
the defendant has put his character in issue, the motion stated.
The testimony of Dr. H. F. Harris, Country Physician, also was
objected to. The motion declared that the physician's testimony
was argumentative and not a statement of fact, scientifically or
otherwise. Dr. Harris had gone extensively into an analysis of the
cabbage taken from the stomach of Mary Phagan, which she had
eaten on the morning of her tragic death.
Objection was also made to the testimony of Newt Lee, the
negro night watchman, who first found the Phagan girl's body,
wherein he testified as to Frank's nervousness and his method of
conversation when the two were brought together at the police
station following the murder.
The testimony of Detective Black that Frank was excited,
while Lee was composed, at this time also was made the point of
an objection. Black's statements of a conversation which he had
had with Frank before the murder, when on a private
investigation, were objected to when the detective compared
them to the conversation which he held with the pencil factory
superintendent after the girl was murdered.
Charge Errors to Court.
The petition charges that the court erred in allowing the
testimony of Miss Mary Pirk, who charged immoral conditions at
the pencil factory, and in admitting other testimony hinting at the
same thing over the protests of the defense.
Error is charged in the admission of Miss Irene Jackson's
evidence concerning a conversation with Detective Starnes about
dressing-room conditions, and an incident in which Frank looked
into the room when Miss Emily Mayfield was not dressed.
Another count is based on the ad-
PAGE 11, COLUMN 1
PLEA FOR NEW
TRIAL FOR
FRANK, DOOMED
SLAYER
IS BASED ON 115
COUNTS
Continued From Page 1.
mission of Scott's testimony concerning a conversation he had
with Mrs. Arthur White regarding her seeing a negro on the first
floor of the factory. The State claimed this negro was Jim Conley.
Solicitor's Conduct Attacked.
The court is charged with error in allowing the Solicitor to
declare that he was prepared to prove the charges of immorality
against Frank. The petition charges specific error to the Solicitor's
declaration. I am not four-flushing, made in the presence of the
jury. It is declared that this declaration had undue influence on
the jurors' minds, leading them to unfair inference.
Another error is laid to the court in allowing over the
defense's objection to Solicitor's questions tending to show that
Montag Brothers had attempted to influence the Pinkertons and
had tried to make the detective agency shield the prisoner. The
petition declares that none of the evidence concerning the
employment of the Pinkertons was admissible.
The overruling of any evidence from Street Car Inspector
Leach concerning the dismissal or punishment of employees for
being ahead of schedule time is another count.
Error is charged in the questioning of J. N. Minar, a reporter
for The Georgian. The defense claims that the questions
concerning whether he went to interview the Epps family merely
as a reporter should never have been allowed. The questions
were asked, the petition says, to influence the jury and no
attempt to prove the intimations ever was made.
In refusing to allow Miss Hall to testify to a telephone
conversation in rank told her about work to be done that tragic
day another error is charged and another in the admission of
Philip Chambers' reference to Gantt, tending to show that Frank
had tried to throw suspicion on Gantt and shield himself.
B'nai Brith Question Recalled.
The court also errored. It is held, in declining to allow Dr.
David Marx to give testimony as to the character of the Jewish
organization known as the B'nai Brith.
Defendant's counsel, it is said, stated at the time that Dr.
Mary would testify that, while the B'nai Brith was an international
Jewish charity organization, its charity did not extend to giving aid
to persons charged with misdemeanors of criminal law.
The State objected to this, it is further stated, and the court
sustained the objection and so the court errored in this respect,
for the reason that the Solicitor General, in his insinuations to the
jury and in his speech, strongly intimated that Frank was
receiving moral and financial support by reason of his
membership in B'nai Brith.
The court also errored, it is held, in permitting Mr. J. J.
Wardlaw to be asked certain questions in regard to Frank's
alleged conduct on a Hapeville car with Mary Phagan. She
answered, it is said, No to all questions. The defendant objected
to the questions because while the witness denied any knowledge
by hearsay or otherwise of the wrong asked about, the mere
asking of such questions, the answer to which must have been
irrelevant! And prejudicial, was harmful to the defendant, and the
court erred in permitting questions to be asked no matter what
the answers might have been.
Character Ruling Attacked.
The court further erred because, although the defendant had
put his character in issue, admitting such testimony, the State
could not reply by proof of improper or immoral conduct with
women.
A reputation for lasciviousness is not involved in that general
character that is material where the charge is murder, according
to the defense.
The court erred, it is said, in permitting the witness, W. E.
Turner, over the objection of the defendant, to tell of a
conversation he overheard between Frank and Mary Phagan, in
which Frank told her he was superintendent of the factory, and of
Mary Phagan backing away from him, and of Frank walking
toward her. This was prejudicial because it was a distinct
transaction apart from the issues in the case intended to
prejudice the jury.
The court erred in permitting W. P. Merck, over objection, to
tell of an engagement he had with Daisy Hopkins, and to tell of
her remarks that she had just been to the pencil factory.
The court erred in admitting the minutes of the State Board
of Health showing the controversy of Dr. Harris and Dr.
Westmoreland. This was prejudicial to the defendant, centering
the minds of the jury men on something different from the issues
in the case. It erred in permitting E. H. Pickett to testify, over
objections, about Menola McKnight's statements.
Hit Car Evidence.
The court erred in permitting J. C. McEwen, street car man,
to testify as to the arrival of the Euclid avenue car"stating that it
would have to be ahead of the White City car to cut it off.
Objecting also was cited to the testimony of Henry Hoffman,
another street car man who testified about cars coming in ahead
of time.
Objections were cited to the testimony of J. M. Gantt, that
the clocks of the pencil factory were not accurate, on the ground
that the evidence was misleading.
Other objections were: Against the testimony of Harry Scott,
admitted over objection, that Frank did not inform him that
Conley could write.
Against L. T. Kendrick's testimony about the condition of the
clocks while he was in the factory.
Attack Character Evidence.
That the court erred in allowing witnesses to testify that
Frank's character for lasciviousness was bad.
To permit this evidence, states the petition, was highly
prejudicial to the defendant. It attacked his moral character, and
while such an attack would not tend to convict him of murder nor
show him a person of such character as would likely convict him
of murder nor show him a person of such character as would
likely commit murder its introduction prejudiced the jury against
him.
It charges that the court erred in permitting Dewey Hewitt,
who was brought to Atlanta from the Home of the Good Shepard,
in Cincinnati, to testify as to Frank's character, that the court
erred also in admitting the following evidence.
The testimony of Miss Cato that she saw Frank go into a
private dressing room with Miss Rebecca Carson.
That the court erred in refusing to give certain pertinent
legal charges in the language requested by the defendant's
counsel.
The petition states the judge was requested to make this
charge:
If the jury believed from the evidence that the theory or
hypothesis that James Conley may have committed this crime is
just as reasonable as the theory that the defendant may have
committed this crime then under the law, it would be your duty to
acquit the defendant.
Applause in Court Cited.
It charges that the court erred in declining to grant a motion
for a mistrial on account of the applause.
That the court erred in refusing to clear the courtroom. Says
the petition:
The passion and prejudice of those in the crowded
courtroom was so much aroused against the defendant that he
could not obtain a fair and impartial trial. The very presence of
that crowd was a menace to the jury.
It further charges that the court erred in permitting Attorney
Hooper to argue to the jury that the failure of the defense to
cross-examine the State's female character witnesses was
because a cross-examination would have brought out specific
instance of immorality.
A similar objection is made to Dorsey's argument.
One objection to Dorsey's speech was his reasons for Mrs.
Frank's failure to visit her husband.
It charges that the court erred in permitting Dorsey to
intimate that the defense called some of the expert witnesses
because they were physicians of some of the jurors.
The petition charges that J. A. Hensley and Mr. Johannon
were prejudiced against the defendant when they were selected
as jurors, and were not fair and impartial jurors.
PAGE 6, COLUMNS 1,
3, 4 & 7
PAGE 6, COLUMN 1
FRANK RETRIAL ARGUMENT
ATTACKS JURORS
PAGE 6, COLUMN 3
Dorsey Tells
Why
Jail Is
Crowded
That the overcrowded condition of the county jail, which has
been made the subject of a letter from the Board of County
Commissioners, can not be alleviated at the present time was the
statement of Solicitor Dorsey Wednesday.
Mr. Dorsey declared the conditions grew out of the Frank
trial and the consequent absence of one judge from the criminal
bench.
PAGE 6, COLUMN 4
Mother of a
Frank
Juror Held
Insane
An echo of the Frank trial was heard in the Fulton County Ordinary
Court Wednesday when a jury declared Mrs. Eliza Bosshardt, 60
years of age, mother of Charles Bosshardt, one of the jurors in the
case, a fit subject for the State sanitarium at Milledgeville.
Relatives testified Mrs. Bosshardt suffered from delusions
during the Frank trial. She expressed fear that her son would be
drowned.
PAGE 6, COLUMN 7
MANY ERRORS
LAID TO
COURT; CHARGE
MADE
OF JURY
INTIMIDATION
In an exhaustive research, requiring nearly 200 typewritten
pages, citing counts and attacking two of the jurors, an amended
motion for a new trial for M. Frank, sentenced to hang October 10
for the murder of Mary Phagan, was filed Wednesday.
Each count, wherein the court declared to have erred in the
trial of the pencil factory superintendent, is directed, its effect
asserted and the whole combined in a masterly manner to form
the chain of the defense's claims.
The two jurors named are Marcus Johenning and J. A.
Henslee, both of whom, it is claimed in the motion, were
prejudiced against Frank before they were selected. Affidavits will
be introduced to support this contention.
The motion was placed in the hands of Solicitor Dorsey for
his inspection and reply and the first hearing will be given on
October 4.
Principal among the objections offered in the motion is the
conduct of the crowds which attended the trial. Frank's attorneys
openly declare the jury was intimidated, and despite their
objections no effort was made to stop the applause which time
and again rang out in the courtroom.
Threats to clear the room were made by the trial judge,
the motion states, but they were absolutely disregarded and the
threats were not enforced, despite the objections of counsel for
the defense.
Hits at Conley Testimony.
The motion struck also at the admission of the lascivious
testimony of Jim Conley, the negro sweeper. The testimony
referred to included that wherein the negro declared on the
witness stand that Frank had entertained women in the factory on
holidays while he stood watch at the front door.
Lasciviousness is not one of the character traits involved in
a plea of murder and can not be held in a murder trial, even when
the defendant has put his character in issue, the motion stated.
The testimony of Dr. H. F. Harris, Country Physician, also was
objected to. The motion declared that the physician's testimony
was argumentative and not a statement of fact, scientifically or
otherwise. Dr. Harris had gone extensively into an analysis of the
cabbage taken from the stomach of Mary Phagan, which she had
eaten on the morning of her tragic death.
Objection was also made to the testimony of Newt Lee, the
negro night watchman, who first found the Phagan girl's body,
wherein he testified as to Frank's nervousness and his method of
conversation when the two were brought together at the police
station following the murder.
The testimony of Detective Black that Frank was excited,
while Lee was composed, at this time also was made the point of
an objection. Black's statements of a conversation which he had
had with Frank before the murder, when on a private
investigation, were objected to when the detective compared
them to the conversation which he held with the pencil factory
superintendent after the girl was murdered.
Charge Errors to Court.
The petition charges that the court erred in allowing the
testimony of Miss Mary Pirk, who charged immoral conditions at
the pencil factory, and in admitting other testimony hinting at the
same thing over the protests of the defense.
Error is charged in the admission of Miss Irene Jackson's
evidence concerning a conversation with Detective Starnes about
dressing-room conditions, and an incident in which Frank looked
into the room when Miss Emily Mayfield was not dressed.
Another count is based on the admission of Scott's testimony
concerning a conversation he had with Mrs. Arthur White
regarding her seeing a negro on the first floor of the factory.
PAGE 12, COLUMN 1
PLEA FOR NEW
TRIAL FOR
FRANK, DOOMED
SLAYER
IS BASED ON 115
COUNTS
Continued From Page 1.
The State claimed this negro was Jim Conley.
Solicitor's Conduct Attacked.
The court is charged with error in allowing the Solicitor to
declare that he was prepared to prove the charges of immorality
against Frank. The petition charges specific error to the Solicitor's
declaration. I am not four-flushing, made in the presence of the
jury. It is declared that this declaration had undue influence on
the jurors' minds, leading them to unfair inference.
Another error is laid to the court in allowing over the
defense's objection to Solicitor's questions tending to show that
Montag Brothers had attempted to influence the Pinkertons and
had tried to make the detective agency shield the prisoner. The
petition declares that none of the evidence concerning the
employment of the Pinkertons was admissible.
The overruling of any evidence from Street Car Inspector
Leach concerning the dismissal or punishment of employees for
being ahead of schedule time is another count.
Error is charged in the questioning of J. N. Minar, a reporter
for The Georgian. The defense claims that the questions
concerning whether he went to interview the Epps family merely
as a reporter should never have been allowed. The questions
were asked, the petition says, to influence the jury and no
attempt to prove the intimations ever was made.
In refusing to allow Miss Hall to testify to a telephone
conversation in rank told her about work to be done that tragic
day another error is charged and another in the admission of
Philip Chambers' reference to Gantt, tending to show that Frank
had tried to throw suspicion on Gantt and shield himself.
B'nai Brith Question Recalled.
The court also errored. It is held, in declining to allow Dr.
David Marx to give testimony as to the character of the Jewish
organization known as the B'nai Brith.
Defendant's counsel, it is said, stated at the time that Dr.
Mary would testify that, while the B'nai Brith was an international
Jewish charity organization, its charity did not extend to giving aid
to persons charged with misdemeanors of criminal law.
The State objected to this, it is further stated, and the court
sustained the objection and so the court errored in this respect,
for the reason that the Solicitor General, in his insinuations to the
jury and in his speech, strongly intimated that Frank was
receiving moral and financial support by reason of his
membership in B'nai Brith.
The court also errored, it is held, in permitting Mr. J. J.
Wardlaw to be asked certain questions in regard to Frank's
alleged conduct on a Hapeville car with Mary Phagan. She
answered, it is said, No to all questions. The defendant objected
to the questions because while the witness denied any knowledge
by hearsay or otherwise of the wrong asked about, the mere
asking of such questions, the answer to which must have been
irrelevant! And prejudicial, was harmful to the defendant, and the
court erred in permitting questions to be asked no matter what
the answers might have been.
Character Ruling Attacked.
The court further erred because, although the defendant had
put his character in issue, admitting such testimony, the State
could not reply by proof of improper or immoral conduct with
women.
A reputation for lasciviousness is not involved in that general
character that is material where the charge is murder, according
to the defense.
The court erred, it is said, in permitting the witness, W. E.
Turner, over the objection of the defendant, to tell of a
conversation he overheard between Frank and Mary Phagan, in
which Frank told her he was superintendent of the factory, and of
Mary Phagan backing away from him, and of Frank walking
toward her. This was prejudicial because it was a distinct
transaction apart from the issues in the case intended to
prejudice the jury.
The court erred in permitting W. P. Merck, over objection, to
tell of an engagement he had with Daisy Hopkins, and to tell of
her remarks that she had just been to the pencil factory.
The court erred in admitting the minutes of the State Board
of Health showing the controversy of Dr. Harris and Dr.
Westmoreland. This was prejudicial to the defendant, centering
the minds of the jury men on something different from the issues
in the case. It erred in permitting E. H. Pickett to testify, over
objections, about Menola McKnight's statements.
Hit Car Evidence.
The court erred in permitting J. C. McEwen, street car man,
to testify as to the arrival of the Euclid avenue car"stating that it
would have to be ahead of the White City car to cut it off.
Objecting also was cited to the testimony of Henry Hoffman,
another street car man who testified about cars coming in ahead
of time.
Objections were cited to the testimony of J. M. Gantt, that
the clocks of the pencil factory were not accurate, on the ground
that the evidence was misleading.
Other objections were: Against the testimony of Harry Scott,
admitted over objection, that Frank did not inform him that
Conley could write.
Against L. T. Kendrick's testimony about the condition of the
clocks while he was in the factory.
Attack Character Evidence.
That the court erred in allowing witnesses to testify that
Frank's character for lasciviousness was bad.
To permit this evidence, states the petition, was highly
prejudicial to the defendant. It attacked his moral character, and
while such an attack would not tend to convict him of murder nor
show him a person of such character as would likely convict him
of murder nor show him a person of such character as would
likely commit murder its introduction prejudiced the jury against
him.
It charges that the court erred in permitting Dewey Hewitt,
who was brought to Atlanta from the Home of the Good Shepard,
in Cincinnati, to testify as to Frank's character, that the court
erred also in admitting the following evidence.
The testimony of Miss Cato that she saw Frank go into a
private dressing room with Miss Rebecca Carson.
That the court erred in refusing to give certain pertinent
legal charges in the language requested by the defendant's
counsel.
The petition states the judge was requested to make this
charge:
If the jury believed from the evidence that the theory or
hypothesis that James Conley may have committed this crime is
just as reasonable as the theory that the defendant may have
committed this crime then under the law, it would be your duty to
acquit the defendant.
Applause in Court Cited.
It charges that the court erred in declining to grant a motion
for a mistrial on account of the applause.
That the court erred in refusing to clear the courtroom. Says
the petition:
The passion and prejudice of those in the crowded
courtroom was so much aroused against the defendant that he
could not obtain a fair and impartial trial. The very presence of
that crowd was a menace to the jury.
It further charges that the court erred in permitting Attorney
Hooper to argue to the jury that the failure of the defense to
cross-examine the State's female character witnesses was
because a cross-examination would have brought out specific
instance of immorality.
A similar objection is made to Dorsey's argument.
One objection to Dorsey's speech was his reasons for Mrs.
Frank's failure to visit her husband.
It charges that the court erred in permitting Dorsey to
intimate that the defense called some of the expert witnesses
because they were physicians of some of the jurors.
The petition charges that J. A. Hensley and Mr. Johannon
were prejudiced against the defendant when they were selected
as jurors, and were not fair and impartial jurors.
Other Points in Motion.
Other interesting extracts from the petition are.
Public sentiment was greatly aroused against the defendant.
The courtroom was quite a small room and during the argument
of the case every seat was taken. The jury, in going to and fro
was dependent on the small passage ways made by the officers
of the court. The jurymen could hear the whispers of the crowd.
During the argument of the Solicitor, Mr. Arnold made an
objection and the crowd and laughingly jeered at him so that Mr.
Arnold appealed to the court.
On Saturday, prior to the rendition of the verdict, excitement
in and about the courtroom was so apparent as to cause
apprehension in the mind of the court as to whether he could
safely continue the trial Saturday afternoon.
Tells of Court Conference.
In making up his mind his honor conferred with, while on the
stand and in the presence of the jury, the chief of police of Atlanta
and the colonel of the Fifth Georgia Regiment. The public press,
apprehending trouble also, united in a request to the court that
he not continue the court on Saturday.
So court was adjourned until Monday morning.
But public excitement had not subsided Monday morning.
When the Solicitor entered the courtroom he was vociferously
cheered by the large crowd"ladies and gentlemen"present, by
stamping their feet and clapping hands while the jury was not 20
feet away in their rooms.
While Mr. Arnold was making a motion for a mistrial and
while taking testimony to support it the crowd applauded.
Cheers for Dorsey Recalled.
When the jury was finally charged by the court and retired to
consider their verdict, and when Mr. Dorsey left the courtroom, a
large crowd on the outside of the courthouse and in the street
cheered by yelling and clapping hands and yelling Hurray for
Dorsey.
When it was announced that the jury had agreed upon a
verdict the court felt constrained to clear the courtroom, but when
the verdict was rendered a crowd of more than 1,000 people
outside raised a mighty shout of approval.
The court erred in not leaving it to the jury to say whether or
not, under the facts, the witness Conley was an accomplice.
Allege Technical Errors.
The court further erred in not charging the jury that if, under
the instructions given them, they found Conley was an accomplice
of Frank, they could not convict Frank under the testimony of
Conley alone, but that to do so there must be a witness other
than Conley alone, but that to do so there must be a witness
other than Conley in circumstances corroborating the evidence of
Conley.
The court erred, over the objection of the defendant, in
allowing the witness, Lewis Ingram, to testify as to the street car
coming in ahead of time. The court erred for the same reason in
permitting the witness, W. D. Owens, to testify as to the time.
The court erred in charging the jury as follows:
Is Leo Frank guilty? Are you satisfied of that beyond a
reasonable doubt from the evidence in this case or is his plea of
not guilty the truth?
Reason for Objection.
The court erred in putting the proposition of the
defendant's guilt or innocence to the jury in this manner, because
the effect of the same was to put the burden upon the defendant
of establishing his plea of not guilty and the further effect was to
impress upon the jury, that, unless they believed that the
defendant's plea of not guilty was the truth that they could not
acquit him, and even though they did not believe his plea of not
guilty to be true, it left out entirely the consideration that if they
still had a reasonable doubt in their minds of his guilt they should
acquit him.
Twenty-five pages of the petition are devoted to objections
to Solicitor Dorsey's speech. The various objections to his
arguments that were made in court are recited and urged as
grounds for a new trial. The court is charged with having erred in
performance putting certain comparisons between the Durrant,
Richeson and Wilde cases and the Frank case.
Mentions Vain Request.
The petition says that a new trial should be granted because
of the following grounds:
The Solicitor General having, in his concluding argument,
made the various statements of fact about the Durant case, as
shown in the preceding grounds of this motion, the defendant
requested the court, in writing, before the judge began his
charge, to charge the jury as follows, which request the judge
refused to grant and thereupon committed error:
The jury was instructed that the facts in other cases read or
stated in your hearing are to have no influence upon you in
making your verdict. You are to try this case upon its own facts
and upon the opinion you entertain of the evidence here
introduced.
PAGE 7, COLUMN 2
PASTOR PROBES
LIVES
OF GIRLS'
EMPLOYERS
The Rev.
Hugh
S. Wallace,
who has
started a
crusade to
better
working
conditions
of women
toilers.
PAGE 7, COLUMN 3
The Rev. Hugh Wallace Seeks
Slave-Driving
Evidence to Give Labor
Unions.
The Rev. Hugh S. Wallace, pastor of the Jones Avenue
Baptist Church, whose stinging denunciation of labor conditions in
Atlanta aroused wide interest, Tuesday morning declared to The
Georgian that his fight in behalf of the city's host of working
women, girls and children has just begun and that he intends to
lay bare a shocking state of affairs.
The minister said it is his purpose to probe thoroughly into
the personal life of the owners of factories, workshops and other
places in which large numbers of girls are employed, to ascertain
whether these men are moral, whether they are making any effort
to safeguard the morals of the working girls and whether they are
oppressing these girls by forcing them to slave long hours for a
starvation wage. This feature of his investigation already is under
way, said the Rev. Mr. Wallace.
Unions to Get Facts.
The life histories will be turned over to the local Federation
of Trades, he said, to be used in its fight for the betterment of
labor conditions for women, girls and children.
He outlined his plan in this way:
I am now gathering a list of the factory, shop and store
owners of the city to find out just what concerns employ the bulk
of woman, girl and child labor. Then I am going to investigate the
heads of these concerns. I want to ascertain how much wealth
they have, how much money they have put into country palaces
and handsome city homes, how many automobiles they have and
how often they make a tour of Europe.
Then I want to know if this is blood money"if they have
accumulated their wealth by grinding and crushing out the lives of
the hundreds of poor women and girls who toil for them.
Many times committees of women and girls wait on the
heads of factories and other like places to plead for a living wage,
and are met by the answer. We are making no money ourselves.'
If these women and girls had in their possession facts and figures
as to the fabulous sums of money being squandered by their
bosses,' they would be prepared to combat such an answer and
make a more effective appeal.
There's one thing certain"if these drivers of girls,' whoa re
spending money so lavishly, are not making it, they are stealing
it. And if they are making it, they certainly can afford to better the
shocking conditions of their army of dependents.
This doesn't mean any reflection whatever on the working
girls for they are noble class, and the great majority of them are
irreproachable, said the minister. But some of our young girls
are weak, and we must protect them.
PAGE 9, COLUMN 1
HAWTHORNE
SCOFFS AT
LOMBROSO'S
THEORY OF
CRIMINAL TYPE
OF MAN'
THE WALL
The long, high wall that shuts out life,
The death-in-life holds in its coil"
It's height and length can not prevent
The sky nor check the immortal strife
We wage with sullen Fate, nor spoil
Our desperate hope, nor circumvent
Dreams that deny our aimless toil.
What fear and ignorance have built
Shall pass with ignorance and fear
Before the breath of Love; and men,
Casting aside the mask of guilt
That baffled, cursed and mocked them here,
Shall know each other once again!
"And must we die, release so near.
Denying the theory of Lombroso, the world-famous
criminologist of Italy. Julian Hawthorne, son of Nathaniel
Hawthorne, has written a keenly contrasting study of criminals as
he has seen them in the Federal Prison, the gist of which is that
there is no such thing as the criminal type which the great
Italian claimed.
The article appears in the October number of the prisoner's
monthly paper, Good Words, and is probably the last which
Hawthorne, will write for this publication, as his release will come
this month. Hawthorne's treatment of the Lombroso theory tinges
with sarcasm. It is gleaned from his association with prisoners
inside the walls.
Pens Verses on Subject.
In the same issue Hawthorne has published under his
registered number, 4435, a fourteen-line verse upon this
subject. In these lines Hawthorne expresses the hope of the
greatest thinkers of all time"that the punitive methods of dealing
with crime, conceived in fear and born of ignorance, will give way
to the boundless influence of Love.
Good Words for October contains a number of other
contributions from Hawthorne's pen, in most of which he merely
elaborates ideas on which he has already expressed himself. In
the one, however, he strikes a new note. The Goring of
Lombroso is in many respects one of the most remarkable of the
many remarkable articles Hawthorne has written since he was
imprisoned.
Scoffs at Criminal Type.
The article is a dental of the assertions of Professor
Lombroso"made a generation ago and still coloring and
hampering the work of humanity"that there is a distinct criminal
type; that man's evil purposes and practices were so plainly
written on his physical anatomy that the verist suckling detective
might read them.
And, Hawthorne writes sarcastically, when Professor
Lombroso's diagrams and specifications came along, no doubt the
criminal fraternity studied them in fear and trembling. They
were swallowed entirely by the doctors and physiological
specialists and speculators; the idea fitted in so comfortably with
certain pet notions of their own.
Scores Triumph of Science.
It was good to know that there was a criminal type; it was
delightful to be assured that the goats could be picked out from
the sheep at the most cursory glance. Hereafter there could be no
more whited sepulchers, or wolves in sheep's clothing.
That stunted figure, that furtive bearing, that domed
cranium, that receding brow, that jaw, deficient or prognathous,
those deep-set eyes, that tell-tale pallor, those fingers and toes,
that nose, those ears, those lips"these and many other details
were unmistakable. It was a triumph of science.
Hawthorne declares that this triumph has been in progress
for 25 years, and has colored every phase of human activity. And
all the while crime, he writes, has increased by leaps and
bounds, until at length we are arresting almost everybody.
All Conform to Type.
In his article Hawthorne cites a book just issued by Dr.
Goring, of England, the fruit of twelve years' study of actual
people"not theoretical ones"which demonstrates that if there
be a criminal type, it is so extensive and comprehensive that not
only are criminals included in it"but everybody else, too"the
university men, the theologians, the pillars of finance, the bench
and bar, the monks in their cloisters and the rulers on their
thrones"nay, why not Professor Lombroso himself?
Hawthorne declares that no one can pick out a criminal by
external indices, without immediate risk of action for trespass
from a bishop or professional philanthropist. If you attire the
members of Congress in striped suits no one would entertain any
misgivings that the dark cell was the only proper place for them.
In conclusion Hawthorne writes:
Morton Writes on Parole.
Men are terribly alike"the best and worst of them. Heredity
and circumstances seem more than a watch for the individual;
they can save him or destroy him, apparently at their own whim.
Yet, when crime is committed, it is the individual and not the
heredity and circumstance that we punish. Now, punishment has
for its object the improvement of the person punished, and
thereby the protection of society. But if heredity and
circumstance are guilty, how can the punishment of the individual
benefit anybody or anything?
The current number of Good Words contains also a poem by
Dr. William J. Morton, who was arrested with Hawthorne and will
be released at the same time, on Parole. The poem is a protest
against present methods of dealing with criminals, developing the
idea that it is the family of the imprisoned men who pay the
price of sin, and a plea for increased flexibility of the parole laws.
He writes:
******* Our prisoner knew
That earned parole to him was due.
But months and years sped down the stream
Of time, lost"gone"a hideous dream
The years drawn out in long delay,
Like cankering specters haunted him.
His heart stood still, his eyes were dim;
Still no parole was given.
Then came a thunderbolt from Heaven,
His wife and children died,
And his last hope died in him"
Even
To lay him by their side.
Gazing on space, his weary eyes,
Dumb index of the inward pain,
Sought what he ne'er would find again,
Lost in an infinite surmise,
Or asking in a mute surprise
How man so cruel could be!
PAGE 15, COLUMN 1
HAWTHORNE
SCOFFS AT
LOMBROSO'S
THEORY OF
CRIMINAL TYPE
OF MAN'
THE WALL
The long, high wall that shuts out life,
The death-in-life holds in its coil"
It's height and length can not prevent
The sky nor check the immortal strife
We wage with sullen Fate, nor spoil
Our desperate hope, nor circumvent
Dreams that deny our aimless toil.
What fear and ignorance have built
Shall pass with ignorance and fear
Before the breath of Love; and men,
Casting aside the mask of guilt
That baffled, cursed and mocked them here,
Shall know each other once again!
"And must we die, release so near.
Denying the theory of Lombroso, the world-famous
criminologist of Italy. Julian Hawthorne, son of Nathaniel
Hawthorne, has written a keenly contrasting study of criminals as
he has seen them in the Federal Prison, the gist of which is that
there is no such thing as the criminal type which the great
Italian claimed.
The article appears in the October number of the prisoner's
monthly paper, Good Words, and is probably the last which
Hawthorne, will write for this publication, as his release will come
this month. Hawthorne's treatment of the Lombroso theory tinges
with sarcasm. It is gleaned from his association with prisoners
inside the walls.
Pens Verses on Subject.
In the same issue Hawthorne has published under his
registered number, 4435, a fourteen-line verse upon this
subject. In these lines Hawthorne expresses the hope of the
greatest thinkers of all time"that the punitive methods of dealing
with crime, conceived in fear and born of ignorance, will give way
to the boundless influence of Love.
Good Words for October contains a number of other
contributions from Hawthorne's pen, in most of which he merely
elaborates ideas on which he has already expressed himself. In
the one, however, he strikes a new note. The Goring of
Lombroso is in many respects one of the most remarkable of the
many remarkable articles Hawthorne has written since he was
imprisoned.
Scoffs at Criminal Type.
The article is a dental of the assertions of Professor
Lombroso"made a generation ago and still coloring and
hampering the work of humanity"that there is a distinct criminal
type; that man's evil purposes and practices were so plainly
written on his physical anatomy that the verist suckling detective
might read them.
And, Hawthorne writes sarcastically, when Professor
Lombroso's diagrams and specifications came along, no doubt the
criminal fraternity studied them in fear and trembling. They
were swallowed entirely by the doctors and physiological
specialists and speculators; the idea fitted in so comfortably with
certain pet notions of their own.
Scores Triumph of Science.
It was good to know that there was a criminal type; it was
delightful to be assured that the goats could be picked out from
the sheep at the most cursory glance. Hereafter there could be no
more whited sepulchers, or wolves in sheep's clothing.
That stunted figure, that furtive bearing, that domed
cranium, that receding brow, that jaw, deficient or prognathous,
those deep-set eyes, that tell-tale pallor, those fingers and toes,
that nose, those ears, those lips"these and many other details
were unmistakable. It was a triumph of science.
Hawthorne declares that this triumph has been in progress
for 25 years, and has colored every phase of human activity. And
all the while crime, he writes, has increased by leaps and
bounds, until at length we are arresting almost everybody.
All Conform to Type.
In his article Hawthorne cites a book just issued by Dr.
Goring, of England, the fruit of twelve years' study of actual
people"not theoretical ones"which demonstrates that if there
be a criminal type, it is so extensive and comprehensive that not
only are criminals included in it"but everybody else, too"the
university men, the theologians, the pillars of finance, the bench
and bar, the monks in their cloisters and the rulers on their
thrones"nay, why not Professor Lombroso himself?
Hawthorne declares that no one can pick out a criminal by
external indices, without immediate risk of action for trespass
from a bishop or professional philanthropist. If you attire the
members of Congress in striped suits no one would entertain any
misgivings that the dark cell was the only proper place for them.
In conclusion Hawthorne writes:
Morton Writes on Parole.
Men are terribly alike"the best and worst of them. Heredity
and circumstances seem more than a watch for the individual;
they can save him or destroy him, apparently at their own whim.
Yet, when crime is committed, it is the individual and not the
heredity and circumstance that we punish. Now, punishment has
for its object the improvement of the person punished, and
thereby the protection of society. But if heredity and
circumstance are guilty, how can the punishment of the individual
benefit anybody or anything?
The current number of Good Words contains also a poem by
Dr. William J. Morton, who was arrested with Hawthorne and will
be released at the same time, on Parole. The poem is a protest
against present methods of dealing with criminals, developing the
idea that it is the family of the imprisoned men who pay the
price of sin, and a plea for increased flexibility of the parole laws.
He writes:
******* Our prisoner knew
That earned parole to him was due.
But months and years sped down the stream
Of time, lost"gone"a hideous dream
The years drawn out in long delay,
Like cankering specters haunted him.
His heart stood still, his eyes were dim;
Still no parole was given.
Then came a thunderbolt from Heaven,
His wife and children died,
And his last hope died in him"
Even
To lay him by their side.
Gazing on space, his weary eyes,
Dumb index of the inward pain,
Sought what he ne'er would find again,
Lost in an infinite surmise,
Or asking in a mute surprise
How man so cruel could be!