Wednesday, 1st October 1913: Rosser Ready Roan Will Hear Frank Argument, The Atlanta Georgian

Reading Time: 48 minutes [8029 words]

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!