Saturday, 2nd August 1913 Defense Claims Members of Jury Saw Newspaper Headline

Reading Time: 74 minutes, [12549 words]

Dr. J. W. Hurt, Coroner's Physician, Gives Expert Testimony

WHEN JUDGE ROAN UNWITTINGLY HELD RED HEADLINE IN FRONT OF JURY, DEFENSE MADE POINT

Jury Is Sent Out of Room While Attorneys for the Defense Tell the Court That the Jurymen Were Seen Reading Red Headline, "State Adds Links to Chain" Judge Then Calls Jury Back and Cautions Them

FOLLOWING JUDGE'S SPEECH TO THE JURY, TESTIMONY IS RESUMED, NO FURTHER MOTION MADE BY DEFENSE

In His Address to the Jury, Judge Roan Declared That They Must Not Be Influenced by Anything They Had Read in the Newspaper, but Must Form Their Opinion Solely on the Evidence That Was Developed in Court

A red headline in a newspaper, held in the hands of the presiding judge, came near causing a mistrial Saturday about noon in the case against Leo M. Frank.

While the defense did not ask the court to declare a mistrial in the case, it seriously considered in a conference of attorneys, asking that the case be stopped, and while apparently satisfied with an admonition to the jury to disregard anything they might have seen in a paper, it is probable that the incident will be a part of the basis for an appeal, in event the verdict goes against the defendant.

During the course of the discussion of the incident Solicitor Dorsey contended that the jurors had not seen the headline.

During the progress of the trial Judge L. S. Roan picked up an extra edition of an afternoon Atlanta newspaper bearing an eight column red headline touching on the case before the jury. The headline read: "State Adding Links To Chain."

Attorney Rosser for the defense noticed the line and also noticed that the members of the jury were craning their necks to read more of the matter on the front page. Immediately he and his associates went into conference and the jury was excused from the room.

After Mr. Arnold and Mr. Rosser returned to the court, following their conference, Mr. Arnold held a brief conversation with the judge. Mr. Rosser requested that the jury be sent out. That was done.

Addressing the court, Mr. Rosser said: "May it please your honor, a few moments ago your honor thought was reading a newspaper. One side of this newspaper was turned up ... toward the jury. At the top of the page, in red box-car letters, ... headline which stated that the state is adding link upon link against this man. Every member of the jury read this headline. I saw them leaning forward, reading it. We don't want to make a motion for a new trial, but we do want your honor to call the jury back and explain to it that it must not be influenced by anything it saw in this or any other newspaper. These red box car letters don't always convey the real facts. These boys over at the press table do their best to get accurate facts. They write their articles and send them to their offices, and someone else writes the headlines."

Attorney Arnold walked to Judge Roan's stand and requested the judge to hand to him the newspaper lying on the desk in front of him. Taking the paper in his hand and unfolding it as he walked back to his table, Attorney Arnold said: "Everybody knows and loves your honor, and everybody knows that you would not wittingly do anything to influence this case one way or another. But, your honor, in reading this paper, you held it up this way."

Attorney Arnold opened the paper, holding the front page with the red headline toward the jury box. "The members of the jury read it. This headline reads, 'State Adds Links to Chain.' We say these are very weasely links. Nevertheless, the jury read this red headline."

Judge Roan interrupted to remark: "I don't suppose that anyone would think that after a week's hard work with this trial, I would do anything to jeopardize it. I will ask this jury if they see anything to influence them"

Attorney Rosser objected, saying: "We want your honor to put in writing an admonition to the jury that it is to disregard this headline and anything else that it may see in the newspapers."

SAYS THEY DIDN'T SEE IT.

Solicitor Dorsey spoke. "We insist, your honor, that the jury did not see this headline. There have been papers in the court room all the time. The defense at the opening of this trial brought in a great pile of the newspapers, which they lay before the jury. The boys on the street constantly are crying these papers, and the jurors cannot help but hear them. I do hope that your honor first will inquire of this jury whether it saw anything in this or any other newspaper to influence it. The newspapers have had more damaging headlines than this. I submit that they have treated the state's case with contempt. They should be put in contempt for the manner in which they have treated the state's case."

Judge Roan told Mr. Dorsey that he thought he know what to say, and called in the jury.

The jury was seated.

ROAN'S STATEMENT.

In his statement to the jury Judge Roan neither wholly acquiesced in the contention of the solicitor nor in that of the state. "Gentlemen of the jury, as you know, this is an important case. We have to be extremely careful and cautious that nothing gets to the jury except the evidence introduced here. It has been said by some that since the trial of this case commenced you have been able to see some writings or headlines in the newspapers that might influence you. You, gentlemen of the jury, are trying this case, and by the evidence introduced here. I want to warn you again, and do warn you, that nothing you might see in a newspaper or that you might hear on the streets, or even in the court room, should have a particle of weight, except the evidence put before you legally. If you have seen anything in the newspapers, or heard anything, I beg of you now to free your mind of it, regardless of whether it be helpful to the state or to the defense."

PAGE 1, COLUMN 2

"Smile," Says Gheesling, "When Facing Bear-Cat Like Luther Rosser"

"Keep smiling on the witness stand." That is the motto of Will Gheesling, of the P. J. Bloomfield undertaking establishment, who testified at the Frank trial Thursday. "When you get a bear cat like Luther Rosser after you," he declares, "the only thing you can do is to laugh at him."

Gheesling was one of the few witnesses who came through the ordeal of Attorney Rosser's cross-examination with flying colors.

His face wreathed in beatific grins, and he calmly fanned himself with a tremendous palm leaf fan from the moment he took the stand until he left it several hours later. Not once did Attorney Rosser's cross-fire feaze him, not once did the battery of questions from the guns of the defense ruffle his demeanor.

While other witnesses left the stand with dripping brows and a vast respect for Mr. Rosser's quizzing powers, Gheesling only grinned. "It was the fan did it, you see," he stated. "It gave me good luck. Keep fanning and keep smiling. How could I get rattled with this palm leaf?"

PAGE 1, COLUMN 3

HARRIS TESTIMONY MAY BE STRICKEN BY COURT

Question Will Be Solved by Physician's Recovery and Return to Stand

If Dr. H. F. Harris, secretary of the state board of health, is not physically able to be present in the court room before the state closes its case, will his testimony be stricken from the record?

This question came up for informal discussion at the court house Saturday.

Dr. Harris was suddenly attacked with illness while in the middle of his direct examination and had to be assisted from the witness stand. The defense attorneys, therefore, had no opportunity to cross-question him.

Solicitor Dorsey, when asked if the testimony would be withdrawn said that he did not know. "It would be a question for debate," he said.

Another prominent local attorney not connected with the case gave as his offhand opinion that the testimony could not be erased from the records. He also pointed out that, with the permission of the court, Solicitor Dorsey could recall Dr. Harris to the stand to complete his direct examination and for the cross-examination of the defense any time before the final arguments to the jury begin.

At the residence of Dr. Harris, 52 Ponce de Leon avenue, it was said Saturday afternoon that the doctor was improved today and expected to be ready to go on the stand again Monday morning. He was confined to his bed during the morning and early afternoon, but shortly after 1 o'clock arose with the remark that he was feeling better.

In the event that Dr. Harris' health will permit him to come to court Monday morning he probably will precede James Conley, negro sweeper, on the stand.

PAGE 1, COLUMN 6

DR. HURT'S TESTIMONY NOT CONFIRMATORY OF EVIDENCE GIVEN BY DR. H. F. HARRIS

On Cross-Examination, Dr. Hurt Admits That Cabbage Is Considered Very Difficult to Digest and That Under Some Conditions as Much as Three Hours and a Half Might Be Required Before the Process of Digestion Was Completed.

PHYSICIAN ON STAND GREATER PART OF MORNING AND UNDERWENT RIGID CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DEFENSE

He Found No Evidence of Violence, He Declared Detective Waggoner, Chief Beavers, Detective Bass Rosser, Patrolman Lassiter and Miss Ferguson Testify Court Adjourns Until Monday Morning at 9 o'Clock

Dr. J. W. Hurt, coroner's physician, who examined the body of little Mary Phagan, was the principal witness introduced by the state at the Saturday morning session of the Frank trial. Dr. Hurt's expert testimony was the subject of fierce contention between the lawyers for the defense and the state. Attorney Reuben R. Arnold succeeded in drawing from the physician testimony to offset that given on Friday by Dr. H. F. Harris. While Dr. Harris testified that he found evidence of violence of some sort having been committed, Dr. Hurt declared he did not find any evidence that would show a criminal attack of nay kind.

Dr. Hurt further admitted, in answer to Mr. Arnold's questions, that cabbage was a difficult article of food to digest and that under some circumstances it might require three and one-half hours before the process of digestion was complete. This testimony was brought out by Mr. Arnold for the evident purpose of disputing Dr. Harris' conclusion that the state of digestion the cabbage was found in showed that Mary Phagan must have been killed within a half hour or forty-five minutes after eating.

When court convened Miss Helen Ferguson was called to the stand and testified that Frank refused to let her have Mary Phagan's pay on Friday afternoon, the day prior to the murder, and that she was told by some one in Frank's office that Mary would have to come to the factory Saturday and draw her own pay. Attorney Rosser drew from the witness on cross-examination the admission that she had never before drawn the Phagan girl's pay and that she didn't know whether Frank knew her name or not.

R. L. Waggoner, one of the city detectives, was next called and told of how Frank twisted his hands on Tuesday, April 29, at the National Pencil factory. The witness said that the accused appeared at the window of his office twelve times in a half hour and each time twisted his hands and looked down as if he was in a very nervous state. Detective Waggoner said that he had been sent there to watch Frank and the factory prior to the accused's arrest.

Patrolman Lassiter, on whose beat is the National pencil factory, told the court of finding Mary Phagan's parasol in the bottom of the elevator shaft on the Sunday morning after the tragedy. The witness also testified that the floor of the basement showed that something had been dragged from the elevator shaft.

Chief of Police J. L. Beavers was another witness and he testified simply that he had seen the blood spots on the second floor of the factory.

Had Judge Roan not adjourned court about 12:20 o'clock, Conley would have been placed on the stand during the day. Newt Garner, special deputy for the solicitor, and Detective Campbell, had an automobile at police headquarters during the morning, ready to rush the negro to the court, when notified by the solicitor.

There will be no afternoon session, court having adjourned until Monday morning at 9 o'clock.

MORNING SESSION BEGINS.

All women who had arrived at the court house by 8:30 o'clock were admitted and were allowed to select their own seats before the rush began. About fifty availed themselves of this concession to their sex. Leo M. Frank, the accused, entered court at 8:40 o'clock. The jury entered at 8:55. Judge Roan mounted the bench and convened court at 9 o'clock.

Helen Ferguson, a co-worker with Mary Phagan in the metal room of the National Pencil factory, was called to the stand as the first witness.

Miss Ferguson stated that she works now for the Marcus Loeb company, but that for two years she worked for the National Pencil factory and was employed there on Friday, April 25. About 7 o'clock on the evening of Friday she went to Mr. Frank's office, she testified, and asked him for Mary Phagan's pay. He refused to let her have it, and she left. On former occasions some months before she had gotten Mary Phagan's pay for her.

Attorney Rosser took up the cross-examination. Miss Ferguson admitted that she had never gotten Mary Phagan's pay from Frank. It was about 7 o'clock in the evening when she asked for the money, and that several men whom she thought to be members of the office force were in the office with Frank.

She did not think Frank knew her name, she said. She asked him for Mary's number and her pay, saying she had forgotten Mary's number. She thought Frank knew her face, she testified. Some member of the office force told her there would be somebody in the factory Saturday and that Mary could get her pay then. She testified that she had worked in the metal room for two years and never had seen Frank speak to Mary.

City Detective R. L. Waggoner was called to the stand. "You've been in the court room before, haven't you?" demanded Attorney Rosser, when Waggoner had been sworn. "Yes, I was in here about twenty minutes Wednesday afternoon," answered the witness.

Solicitor Dorsey explained to the court that on Wednesday afternoon witness had not been subpoenaed. "How did you happen to be here?" asked Attorney Rosser. "I was near and came in," said the detective. He left of his own accord, then, he said, and later when he was subpoenaed as a witness he remained out of the court room.

He proceeded then to testify. He has been a member of the police force about four years, he said. "On Tuesday, April 29, where were you?" asked the solicitor. "A little after 11 o'clock in the morning I was in front of the National Pencil factory."

FRANK WAS NERVOUS.

"Did you see Frank, the defendant?" "Yes." "What did you see him doing?" "I could see Mr. Frank through the window in his office. I was standing across the street. He would come to the window, look down, and twist his hands. He did this about twelve times in thirty minutes." "Was Frank nervous or composed on that morning?" "Well, when Detective Black came up to the factory in an automobile, to take Frank to the police station, I got in between Frank and Black and his knee was shaking all the way to the station."

Attorney Rosser took the witness. "How much do you weigh?" "About 220 pounds." "How much does Black weigh?" "About 200 pounds, I guess." "And Frank weighs about 120 pounds and you had him between you, didn't you?" "No, sir." "Oh, I thought you said you had him between you." "No, sir; I said I sat between Frank and Black." "Now when you were standing in the street, Mr. Waggoner, how far were you from the window of the pencil factory?" "About fifty feet."

SENT TO WATCH FRANK.

"You don't know whether Frank was talking to anybody, do you?" "He wasn't talking to anybody when (Continued on Page 4, Col. 1.)"

PAGE 4, COLUMN 1

DR. J. W. HURT, CORONER'S PHYSICIAN, GIVES EXPERT TESTIMONY

(Continued from Page 1.) he was looking out of the window." "What were you doing there?" "I was sent there to watch Frank and the factory?" "You knew he was going to be arrested, then, didn't you?" "No, sir, I didn't." "Do you mean to tell me that you didn't know he was going to be arrested?" "Well, I thought he was." "You knew he was detained at the station house the day before for three or four hours, didn't you?" "No, sir, I didn't know he was detained there."

DR. HURT TESTIFIES.

Dr. J. W. Hurt, the coroner's physician, was called to the stand. "What is your profession?" interrogated the solicitor. "I am a physician." "How long have you been a physician?" "Since 1884." "Have you any connection with the county?" "Yes, I am a county official." "What kind of a county official?" "County physician." "How long have you held this position?" "This time since the first of January." "Have you ever held it before?" "Yes." "How long." "About four years." "How long since your previous time as county physician?" "About three years." "As county physician, what are your duties?" "I am required to attend all inquests." "What college did you graduate from?" "I graduated at the old Atlanta school of regular medicine. I took my post graduate course at the Polyclinic in New York." "Did you ever see the body of Mary Phagan? If so, when?" "Yes, at the undertaker's shop on Sunday morning, April 27." "Now, tell the jury the condition in which you found this body."

DESCRIBES WOUNDS.

"I was called to Bloomfield's undertaking establishment on South Pryor street by phone about 9 o'clock Sunday morning, April 27. The coroner called me, I saw Mary Phagan's body there. There was a scalp wound on the rear left side of the head about two and a half inches long. It was about four inches back from the top of the left ear. The wound penetrated through the scalp to the skull. The right eye was black and contused. There were minor scratches on the face and cheek and contusions on the forehead though the skin was not broken. The skin on the other cheek was broken. There was a wound two and a half inches long on the left leg about three inches below the knee. There were scratches on both the left and right elbows. There was a cord drawn around the neck tightly into the skin."

The solicitor handed to Dr. Hurt one of the cords from his table. The witness examined it. He declared it looked like the cord he found around the girl's neck. "What caused Mary Phagan's death?" asked the solicitor.

DIED OF STRANGULATION.

"In my opinion she died from strangulation produced by the cord. There was another piece of cloth laying loose over her chest and around her hair, but the cord was next to the skin and under the hair." "Was the cord imbedded in the skin?" "Yes, it had made a considerable indentation in the neck." "How deep?" "Very marked." "You saw the knot in the cord?" "Yes." "Was it imbedded in the skin, too?" "Yes, on the side of the neck." "Was there any swelling in the neck?" "Yes." "What did that indicate?" "It indicated great contusion and strangulation." "Was the cord applied before or after death?" "Before death." "What was the character of the wound on the back of the head?"

BLUNT WEAPON USED.

"It was about two and a half inches long, and seemed to have been made by a blunt edged instrument. The blow evidently had been delivered upward, for the upper edge of the scalp was loose." "Was this wound made before or after death?" "Before death." "What was the effect of this wound?" "It undoubtedly produced unconsciousness." "Did you find any blood about the body or on the wounds?" "Not much." "Tell the jury about the wound over the right eye." "The right eye was black and blue, and contused, though the skin was not broken." "Was this wound made before or after death?" "Before death." "What sort of an instrument produced this wound?" "It was evidently a substance that was somewhat soft, because the skin was not broken." "Could it have been produced with a fist?" "Yes."

OTHER WOUNDS.

"Tell the jury about the wound on the left leg." "There was a superficial wound below the knee, half an inch wide and about three and a half inches long." "You say there were bruises and scratches on the face?" "Yes; a good many, on both cheeks and forehead." "Were these wounds produced before or after death?" "After death." "Why do you say they were produced after death?" "Because I examined them closely and found no blood."

Dr. Hurt testified that he found blood on the child's underclothing. He found no evidence of violence. In reply to questions he stated that he made no examination of the blood vessels, on the condition of which Dr. Harris had based his conclusions in reference to violence of some kind having been committed.

ARNOLD TAKES WINESS.

Attorney Arnold conducted the cross-examination. "What part did you examine first?" "Her face and the exposed injuries." "Had the face the appearance of having been dragged?" "It had. It seemed to me that the body had been dragged face forward." "You said that the wound in the back of the head near the ear was two and one-half inches long. Dr. Harris testified that it was one and one-half inches long. Now, which is correct?"

Dr. Hurt looked at his notes and said: "We both were wrong. I measured the wound and it was two and one-quarter inches long." "What sort of an instrument did you say produced that wound?" "A sharp edged instrument. I don't mean a knife." "Could the corner of an elevator shaft or the corner of a floor have caused it?" "A right angled board or instrument, any instrument with a right angled edge could have caused it." "Doctor, all you are doing about this is guessing, isn't it?" "No." "Well, all there is to expert testimony is guessing, isn't it? And the best guesser is the best witness, isn't he?" "I wouldn't say that."

INSIDE THE SKULL.

"Doctor, was there any damage on the inside of the skull?" "There was a very slight damage there." "Could you see it with the naked eye?" "Yes." "Well, were the brain tissues injured?" "No. There was a slight contusion on the inside of the skull. The skull was not fractured." "You mean there was an impression on the inner table of the skull?" "Yes." "Was there any blood there?" "There was a slight hemorrhage." "Now, doctor, isn't it too much of a strain on you or any other doctor to ask you to testify that this wound produced unconsciousness?" "I don't think so. It is my opinion that it did." "Oh, well," said Mr. Arnold, "we are just getting back to opinions."

HYPOTHETICAL QUESTIONS.

Mr. Arnold asked a number of hypothetical questions relative to fractures and contusions, and brought out the statement that some men remain conscious even after the skull is fractured, and that some men die of concussions when the skull is not even fractured. He brought from the witness, apparently, that the witness would not say positively that the blow on Mary Phagan's head produced unconsciousness, but that it was merely his opinion. "Can't you produce every conceivable effect on the faculties, short of death, by injuries to the brain?" "Almost," answered Dr. Hurt."

What faculty in the chart of the brain is just by this abrasion?"

Dr. Hurt studied a moment and said that he did not remember. "Can't a thousand different effects be produced?" "I wouldn't say a thousand, but a good many." "What makes you say that one little hemorrhage that you and Harris looked for so long and so carefully produced a given effect?" "I am only giving an opinion." "There was no pressure on the brain, was there?" "No." "Well, doctor, after all, all you mean is that the blow might have caused unconsciousness?" "Yes." "Could the blow have killed her?" "Not in my opinion." "Well, couldn't she have been killed by the nervous shock of that blow? People often are, aren't they?" "People have been killed so, but she was not, in my opinion."

DIDN'T EXAMINE LUNGS.

"Opinions again!" snorted Mr. Arnold. "In a post mortem examination, isn't the only way that you can really tell from a scientific medical standpoint that death was produced by strangulation, an examination of the condition of the lungs?" Dr. Hurt admitted that he had not examined the lungs. He based his opinion that death was caused by strangulation upon the fact that the cord was imbedded in her neck, her tongue protruded and her features were distorted.

Dr. Hurt admitted, in answer to Mr. Arnold's questions, that he009 found no sign of a criminal assault. He also admitted that he probably would have been evidence of such an assault had one been committed.

Dr. Hurt Admitted that various causes could have produced inflammation. External violence was not absolutely necessary to cause inflammation of the blood vessel said he.

He again declared he would not say a criminal attack had been made. "Were you present when Dr. Harris made a post mortem examination of Mary Phagan's body?" "Yes." "Did he examine the lungs?" "Yes." "At the time you examined the body was it swollen?" "Decomposition had not started."

ATTACKS HARRIS TESTIMONY.

"Doctor, cabbage is one of the hardest things to digest that goes into the stomach, isn't it?" "It depends on the individual to a certain extent. Cabbage is considered a hard food to digest." "Well, now, doctor, isn't every person's stomach to a certain extent a law unto itself?" "To a certain extent, yes." "Well, now, doesn't it usually take about three and one-half hours for cabbage to be digested?" "It depends a great deal on the mastication. I should say that it would take about that time for complete digestion."

In answer to other questions, Dr. Hurt testified that he believed wheat bread would be much easier to digest than cabbage. "Couldn't you chew bread until it went down to the stomach in almost a liquid condition?" "Oh, yes." "Suppose a child, eating a meal hurriedly, say to catch a street car, didn't chew the cabbage thoroughly. It would take a much longer time, then, to dissolve than if well chewed." "Yes." "Don't you think a doctor is making a wild guess, then, if he is taking a piece of cabbage"

Solicitor Dorsey objected to the question. This question, said he, was aimed at the testimony of Dr. Harris. "Let the jury decide on which doctor is speculating," said the solicitor.

NO DIGESTION WHILE UNCONSCIOUS.

"If a person becomes unconscious, does digestion go on?" "Yes." "A snake swallows a rabbit, and goes right to sleep, doesn't it, and the digestion goes on?" "I don't know." "If the digestion goes on when a person is asleep, and not when a person is abnormally unconscious, what is the difference between the two states of unconsciousness?" "One is natural and the other is unnatural." "Some digestion goes on during unconsciousness, doesn't it?" "I don't think so." "The circulation of blood and the secretion of gastric juices are the qualities that make up digestion, are they not?" "Yes." "Well, the gastric juices don't change their natural qualities during unnatural unconsciousness, do they?" "Oh, I don't mean to say that." "I believe you said it was a wild guess a while ago, to say that the girl was unconscious before death?"

Solicitor Dorsey objected, contending that the doctor had made no such statement. Attorney Arnold withdrew the question. "You did not make a chemical or a microscopical examination?" "I did not." "Have the medical men experimented as to the time consumed by normal persons in digesting food?" "Yes." "Solicitor Dorsey exhibited the glass bottles containing the stomach contents, which had been produced by Dr. Harris Friday. He put hypothetical questions to the witness, and got the answer from Dr. Hurt that the cabbage taken from Mary Phagan's stomach must have been there only a short time."

HIS TESTIMONY VITAL FOR STATE DR. N. F. HARRIS

Secretary of the Georgia state board of health, who testified that Mary Phagan was dead within less than an hour after she ate her last dinner at home. "How long do you think it was there?"

Mr. Arnold objected. For ten minutes he strove to break down Dr. Harris' theory. "Your honor, it is manifestly unfair," said he to the court, "to allow this witness to answer that question when he doesn't know all the facts. It is evident from the appearance of this cabbage that it was swallowed practically whole. He does not know how long the men who ate the cabbage exhibited in these other glasses chewed it, nor does he know the comparative state of their digestive organs, nor anything about the condition of the cabbage when they ate it. Simply by mastication, cabbage may be reduced practically to a liquid before it enters the stomach. I think the question is unfair."

Solicitor Dorsey contended that they could never learn all of the facts, and that the question as a legal and commonsense proposition was fair. He pointed out that they could not know how many teeth the girl had nor how many teeth the men had. They could never tell how long the cabbage that she ate had been cooked nor how long the cabbage that the men ate had been cooked, nor whether the cabbage was tender or whether it was tough.

It was at this juncture that the trial was stopped for a few moments because of the newspaper headline.

HEADLINE INTERRUPTS.

Mr. Dorsey resumed his redirect examination of Dr. Hurt, following the interruption caused by the newspaper headline.

Solicitor Dorsey picked up the bottle containing the sample of cabbage from Mary Phagan's stomach, and the two other samples taken from the stomachs of other persons, and held them up so that Dr. Hurt could see them. "Assuming, Dr. Hurt, that this substance in these two bottles had been in the stomach of a normal person for an hour, how long would you say this cabbage had been in the stomach?"

He indicated the cabbage taken from Mary Phagan's stomach. "A much shorter time. I should judge from the appearance that the one was in the stomach I should say about one-half the time of that of the others." "Have there or not been blows upon people's skulls which crushed in the skull without producing death?" "Yes."

Attorney Arnold took up the witness again for cross-examination. "Looking like a liquid depends on how much this cabbage was chewed, doesn't it?" he asked. "Yes."

Attorney Arnold held up the sample of cabbage taken from Mary Phagan's stomach. "A much shorter time. I should judge from the appearance that the one was in the stomach I should say about one-half the time of that of the others." "Have there or not been blows upon people's skulls which crushed in the skull without producing death?" "Yes."

Attorney Arnold took up the witness again for cross-examination. "Looking like a liquid depends on how much this cabbage was chewed, doesn't it?" he asked. "Yes."

Attorney Arnold held up the sample of cabbage taken from Mary Phagan's stomach. "That looked like it had been bolted, doesn't it? Like a child will bolt meals?" "It wasn't well chewed." "Isn't it a wild inquiry, doctor, to ask from the contents of a stomach how long they had been in the stomach?" "I won't commit myself."

CHIEF BEAVERS CALLED.

"Isn't it possible for a blow on the head to blacken one or both eyes? Doesn't such a blow sometimes have this effect?" "It sometimes does."

This concluded Dr. Hurt's testimony. Chief of Police James L. Beavers was called to the stand.

Before the solicitor could begin the examination of the witness, Attorney Rosser inquired if Chief Beavers had not been in the court room before. "Not today," replied the chief. "But you have been in the court room during this trial?" "Yes, I've been here twice."

Solicitor Dorsey interrupted with the statement that he didn't know until Friday afternoon that he would summon the witness.

Proceeding with the examination, the solicitor inquired as to the identity of the witness. The witness said that he is chief of police in the city of Atlanta, and has been chief for two years. Prior to that he was a captain for two years. He went to the pencil factory on Tuesday, April 29, he thought it was. "Did you see the area around the girls' dressing room and the water cooler on the second floor?"

ROSSER OBJECTS TO WITNESS.

Attorney Rosser remarked to the court: "I don't think, your honor, it is enough for the state to say they didn't know they were going to call this witness until this morning. The solicitor knew what information this witness possessed, and what information others possessed." "Your honor," said Solicitor Dorsey. "If the witness had been sworn and stayed in the court room it would not have made any particular difference upon the testimony that I will ask him to give. However, I did not know until yesterday afternoon that I might call him, and I didn't determine until this morning that I would use the witness. The same thing was true of Mrs. Jefferson. I did not know I would call her until just a short time before she was put upon the stand." "Proceed with the examination of the witness, Mr. Dorsey," directed the court.

The solicitor repeated his question. "If so, tell what you found there," he added. "Yes, I examined the area and found blood spots on the floor near the dressing room. The blood appeared to have been spattered." "Did you see anything else on the floor except this blood?" "Nothing special." "Describe the color of the blood." "It looked like blood."

Attorney Rosser cross-examined the witness. "You saw that Tuesday, captain?" "I think so."

TRIES TO TRAP BEAVERS.

"Why, captain, wasn't this blood chipped up early Monday morning?" "I'm not sure about that. I was there when it was chipped up. It may have been Monday." "You didn't analyze this stain to determine whether it was blood?" "No, sir." "You are not a chemist?" "No, sir, but it looked like blood to me." "You saw them chip up the blood?" "Yes." "How many chips did they take?" "Two, I think." "Now, captain, didn't they take four or five chips?" "No, sir, I didn't see them take but two." "You don't know whether they took up any more chips afterwards?" "No, sir." "Who was present when the chips were taken?" "Detectives Starnes and Campbell." "All the chips taken up had this substance on them?" "Yes."

Mr. Rosser sat down. The solicitor handed to the witness some chips and asked him to identify them, but before the witness could make any statement Mr. Rosser put another question. "Do you know Barrett?" "I believe they said that was the man's name." "The man who was chipping it up, eh?" "Yes."

The witness then stated that the chips handed to him by the solicitor looked like those taken from the pencil factory floor. "These chips haven't been in your possession, have they?" "No, sir."

Chief Beavers was excused from the stand.

The solicitor called for City Detective Rosser, who did not answer; for Sergeant Dobbs, who did not answer, and for Policeman Robert Lassiter, who responded and took the stand.

Policeman Lassiter testified that he found the parasol of Mary Phagan, with a ball of wrapping twine beside it, at the bottom of the elevator shaft. He was cross-examined by Attorney Rosser, who asked him if he did not find a trace of a body being dragged in the basement. He did, he said. He found that trace first at a point between the foot of the ladder and the rear of the building. "Didn't you follow it back to the foot of the ladder?" asked Attorney Rosser.

ADJOURNS TO MONDAY.

"No; to the elevator shaft," answered the witness. "When you were testifying at the inquest, didn't you at one time say you traced it to the elevator and another time say you traced it to the foot of the ladder?"

The witness said he did not think so; that he knew that he traced it to the elevator shaft. The witness admitted that the pencil factory was on his beat. He passed it in the rear about 1 o'clock Sunday morning and found it closed. He didn't try the door, he said. He found the parasol between 6 and 7 o'clock Sunday morning, he said. The witness said that he did not know whether the elevator stops flat on the ground floor at the bottom of the shaft. The witness concluded there.

Judge Roan asked Mr. Dorsey if he had another brief witness to put up. The solicitor answered in the negative, and at 12:25 o'clock Judge Roan adjourned court until 9 o'clock Monday morning.

PAGE 1, COLUMN 7

Newt Lee Gets Hat; Now He's Considering What He Wants Next

And Newt Lee gets the hat.

The darky who has been the staunchest witness yet examined at the Frank trial has but little more to wish for.

First, it was watermelon Newt wanted. With his very life in danger as he droned away the long hot days in the Fulton county Tower, Newt lifted up his voice and prayed for "dat juicy watermillion." And they gave him one.

Then it was a "chaw of 'bacca," his first request as he came down from the witness stand. Somebody gave him a plug and immediately there were a score who pressed forward with all varieties of cut and twist. Newt had enough 'bacca to keep his teeth in a state of perpetual motion. "Now ef I only had'r hat," declared Newt. "Dis nigger'ud be happy."

When they took Newt back to the Tower he got the hat. A lady who would not give her name called up the jailer Friday and asked about Lee. Could she send him a hat? she asked. It was all right with the jailer.

The hat came, a monstrous felt creation that delighted Newt to the soul. He put it on his woolly head and his white teeth flashed. Then the smile faded. There was a far-away look in Newt's eyes.

He was thinking of what he wanted next.

PAGE 4, COLUMN 5

MISS SMITH DECLARES DARLEY WAS INCORRECT

Miss Mattie Smith has given The Journal a statement in which she says that a part of the testimony of N. V. Darley at the Frank trial in reference to her was not true. Mr. Darley stated that on April 26 Miss Smith told him that her father was dying and asked him to help bear the funeral expenses. Miss Smith says that she merely told Darley that her father was very low and that she said nothing about helping with the funeral expenses.

PAGE 5, COLUMN 1

Dr. Harris Collapses on Stand as He Gives Sensational Evidence

Physician testifies at Frank Trial That Mary Phagan Met Death Half Hour After Lunch-Describes Wounds

In the midst of sensational testimony, Dr. H. F. Harris, secretary of the state board of health, collapsed Friday afternoon on the witness stand and was excused until Saturday. Dr. Harris had just testified that his examination of the contents of the stomach of little Mary Phagan showed that the dinner which she had eaten before leaving home was still undigested, and he therefore concluded that the little girl was killed within thirty minutes or three-quarters of an hour after she had eaten. Part of the undigested food taken from the stomach was exhibited in the court room. It had been preserved in alcohol.

Dr. Harris testified that there was no evidence of an assault but there were indications of some kind of violence having been committed. He thought this violence had preceded her death five or ten minutes.

Before he finished his testimony Dr. Harris became suddenly ill, his voice became faint and he begged to be excused. He promised to return Saturday, if possible. He said he had gotten up from a sick bed to come to court. He was assisted from the court room.

Also featuring the opening of the afternoon session of the trial of Leo M. Frank charged with the murder of Mary Phagan, was the testimony given by N. V. Darley under cross-examination of Attorney Reuben R. Arnold, for the defense.

Darley, according to his testimony, during his lunch hour Friday visited the factory, measured some distances and noted on his return to court many discrepancies and inaccuracies in the diagram of the factory which Solicitor Dorsey had prepared for the guidance of the jury in following the testimony of the witnesses.

One of the most important inaccuracies in the chart, according to Darley, was that the drawing showed the safe in Frank's outer office to be a great deal smaller than the door, when, according to the witness, it is about the same size and cuts off a view into Frank's inner office when the door of the safe is open.

It is expected that the defense will use this one fact to refute one of the important points brought out by one of its principal witnesses that she, a girl employed in the factory, visited there Saturday afternoon at 12:10 o'clock to get her pay and upon entering the outer office saw no one in either of the offices. She testified that the safe door was open. This is the hour that Mary Phagan is supposed to have entered the factory and the prosecution claims immediately thereafter Frank was missing from his office.

Another important development in the afternoon session was the indication from the prosecution, by holding two time slips, that it would claim the accused gave the officers a slip which was not the original taken from the clock Sunday morning.

When Attorney Reuben Arnold, attorney for the defense, was examining N. V. Darley, a state's witness, concerning the diagram of the factory which Solicitor Dorsey had made for the guidance of the jurors, Mr. Arnold asked: "Isn't the toilet in the basement closer to the wall than this picture shows and closer to the boiler?" "It sets against the wall, and it seems to me that it is closer to the boiler, too." "Isn't the elevator shaft closer to the first floor wall than this picture shows?" "My impression is that the side of the elevator shaft is a part of the wall." "This partition here on the first floor, and the door in it which opens into the woodenware company the partition is closer to the elevator than is shown on the diagram, is it not?" "Yes, sir, I think so." "There are double doors at the top of the stairs on the second floor, instead of a single door as shown on the diagram, aren't there?" "Yes, sir." "Well, is there anything at all right about this diagram, except that it is a general picture of the factory?" "That's the way it appears to me." "It shows no wardrobe in Frank's office?" "No, sir." "But there is a wardrobe in there?" "Yes, sir." "It shows Frank's office larger than the outer office, does it not?" "Yes, sir." "Which office is the larger?" "The outer office is several feet larger." "This picture doesn't show a bookcase in the outer office, does it?" "No, sir." "But there is a bookcase in the outer office, isn't there?" "Yes, sir." "And it half shuts off the view from Frank's office into the outer hall, does it not?" "Yes, sir." "The truth is, Mr. Darley, isn't it, that this picture is drawn so adroitly as to open up a clear view from Frank's office through the outer office into the factory?"

Before the witness could answer, Attorney Hooper announced that he objected to Mr. Arnold using the phrase "adroitly drawn." The court sustained the objection." All right," said Mr. Arnold, smiling. "It's a fact, but I'll withdraw it." "I object to that statement, too, your honor," said Mr. Hooper. "Well, I'll withdraw it," said Mr. Arnold. He addressed the witness again. "There's no such wide space leading from Frank's office to the outer is there?" "No, sir; there's a single small door." "Did you notice this safe over here, looking like a little B-B cap? As a matter of fact, this safe is wider than the door, is it not?" "It's about the same size." "Well, it doesn't show up half as large as the door, does it, in the picture?" "No, sir." "When the safe door is open, it shuts off the view from Frank's office, does it not?" "Yes, sir." "There are two cabinets in the outer office which are not shown in this picture, are there not?" "Yes, sir." "To be exact, this is not a very accurate picture of the factory, is it?" "No, sir." "It opens up Frank's office a whole lot better than it is really opened up, doesn't it?" "Yes, sir." "Could you see the time clock from Frank's desk?" "Yes, sir, I could see just the outer edge of the dial." "Could you see the head of the stairs from his desk?" "No, sir."

In the redirect examination of Darley, Solicitor Dorsey found the witness refractory. Darley returned short answers to a number of the solicitor's questions. "Who were some of the people who were nervous, besides Frank?"

The witness at first said he didn't know. Then he declared that Detective Starnes was nervous. "How did Starnes show his nervousness?" asked the solicitor. "The best way that I can describe it is that he looked worried." "Why do you recall Frank's nervousness and not the nervousness of anybody else except possibly Starnes?" "Because Mr. Frank was so much more nervous than the others." "Did you notice anybody else around there, nervous on Monday?" "Holloway and Schiff were nervous. Their hands seemed to tremble." "Was Frank nervous Tuesday?" "He became very nervous when he read an extra saying that he was going to be arrested. He was arrested about fifteen minutes later." "Don't you know that Schiff furnishes to Frank all the data for the financial sheet?" "I know very little about it."

The solicitor showed two time clock slips to the witness. On one of them was written in typewriter print the date "April 28." "Could this be the slip that you all took out Sunday morning?"

After some hesitation, the witness answered that the date on that slip should have been April 26. The other slip had a date written with a pen, and the solicitor asked the witness if that was Frank's handwriting. The witness said he couldn't identify either slip as the one taken out of the clock Sunday morning. "Could there have been a duplicate made of the slip Newt Lee punched?"

The witness said he didn't know. "Isn't there a bar across the door leading from the metal room to the third floor?"

The witness didn't know. Despite a rigid examination by the solicitor, the witness maintained that what he told at the morning session, under cross-examination, about the tablets and order blanks being scattered throughout the building was true.

Darley said that he had known Frank since April, 1911. "How often in that time have you seen him as nervous as he was on Sunday morning, April 27?" "Twice once after he saw the street car run over a little child, and again after his fuss with Mr. Montag."

Attorney Arnold cross-examined the witness again. "You say that Schiff and Holloway were nervous, Monday? Was anybody else?" "Yes, the whole factory was 'up in the air.' Really, we did no work that week. Miss Eula Mae Flowers, one of the foreladies, became hysterical on Tuesday." "Since the tragedy, have you gotten any work at all out of Christopher Columbus Barrett?" "A little," answered Darley.

W. F. ANDERSON CALLED.

The witness left the stand, and Officer W. F. Anderson, police call man, was summoned.

Officer Anderson told of Newt Lee calling police headquarters on the telephone, on Sunday morning, April 27, and telling the police that a white girl's body had been found in the basement. After he went to the pencil factory, about 3:30 or before 4 o'clock, while he had Newt Lee in custody, he tried to call Frank over the telephone. In answer to questions by Solicitor Dorsey, he said he heard the connection made, and heard the phone ringing at the other end for above five minutes. After waiting five minutes, he said, he gave up the attempt, and called police headquarters and Herbert Haas and Sig Montag, officials of the pencil company. "How long did it take you to get them?" asked the solicitor. "Just a few minutes." "Did you make any other effort to get Frank over the telephone, and if so, when?" "I tried again after I got Montag and Haas, about 4 or 4:10 o'clock." "What success did you have this time?" "Just the same as before."

Attorney Rosser cross-examined the witness. "You didn't get Sig Montag when you called his house, did you?" "I got a Montag I don't remember his initials." "Did you try to get Mr. Darley?" "He didn't have a telephone."

SAW NOTES BY BODY

"You saw these notes found by Mary Phagan's body, didn't you." "I saw Sergeant Dobbs pick one up." "When you went to the factory, you shook the front door and old man Lee came down. He wasn't standing at the door, was he?" "He came down the stairs." "And Lee told you over the telephone that it was a white girl's body?" "Yes, sir." "What sort of a lamp did that negro have?" "He had a lantern." "Smoky, wasn't it?" "Yes, sir." "Did you stand at the same place Lee says he stood, and look, and see Mary Phagan's body?" "Not that day." "When Lee says he saw the body, he says the lantern was on the ground, doesn't he?" "That's what he told me." "The little girl's clothing was such a color that it wouldn't show up in the dark?" "I think it was lavender." "When the coroner's jury was down there, you took the lantern and set it where Lee says he set it that night, didn't you?" "No, sir; not then." "Well, didn't you testify before the coroner's jury that you stood with the lantern on the ground and testify 'I should not think it would be possible to see a body'?" "I said you might see the bulk of it, but you couldn't tell what it was." "Then this is wrong, is it?" "I said you might not be able to tell what is was." "You say the body was lying east and west with its head against the partition?" "Yes." "You said something about there being some tracks. Where were they?"

TRACKS AROUND BODY.

"On the left hand side of the body, leading from the body to the shavings room." "That's not what you said before the coroner's jury, is it? Didn't you say there were tracks all around the left side of the body?" "I said the tracks led into the shavings room. I went into the shavings room to see if I could find any lady's tracks there." "You called up Frank first?" "Yes." "When did you call Mr. Haas and the others?" "About 4 o'clock." "Do you remember their telephone numbers?" "No, sir, I don't keep telephone numbers in my mind. I get 'em out of the book." "Your testimony at the coroner's inquest was taken down by the stenographer, wasn't it?" "I guess it was." "What side of the body did the police come up on?" "The right side." "The tracks were on the left side?" "Yes." "Which side did you come up on?" "The right side." "You found a pencil down there, didn't you?" "Yes, sir." "How far was it away from the body?" "About eight or ten feet." "There were a great many pencils in the basement, were there not?" "Yes." "The basement is ragged and dirty, with cinders and all sorts of trash down there?" "Yes, the basement's dirty. There were some cinders and trash by the boiler."

POLICE TEST.

Solicitor Dorsey took the witness again. "Did you make any tests down in the basement on your own account?" inquired the solicitor. "Yes. About 10 o'clock one night shortly after the murder we went down there with a lantern. We fixed up a box and threw some sacks over it in the place where the girl's body was lying. Then we took the lantern and set it down where the negro said his lantern was sitting when he saw the body." "Could you see anything?" "Yes, we could make out the bulk."

Attorney Rosser questioned the witness. "You made an investigation for the coroner, did you not?" "Yes, but I didn't have a lantern." "Well, what did you have?" "This." The witness produced one of the electric searchlights carried by policemen, and flashed it across the court room. "You didn't use the lantern?" "No, there was a lantern along, but I didn't use it. I knew I could see that far with a searchlight." "Did you see the place where they said the body was dragged?" "No."

STENOGRAPHER CALLED.

Anderson was excused, and Solicitor Dorsey requested H. L. Parry, the court stenographer, to take the stand. The solicitor inquired if he had reported the evidence at the inquest held by the coroner. "Part of it," replied the witness. "Did you report the evidence given by Frank?" "Some of it. I don't know whether I reported all of it or not." "Well, examine the records here and tell us whether you did or not."

The witness examined the record. "Yes, I reported Frank's testimony," said Parry. "Is it correctly reported?" "To the best of my ability," responded Parry. "You are an expert stenographer?" "I am considered such." "What has been your experience?" "Between twenty-five and thirty years." "You are reporting this case?" "Yes, sir."

Attorney Rosser arose. "I'll get you to say whether or not you took the testimony of Officer Anderson, Mr. Parry?" asked Mr. Rosser.

The witness examined the record and replied that he did not. "Did you take the negro Lee's testimony?"

The witness examined the record again and answered, "Yes, sir." "Did you take it correctly?" "To the best of my ability." "Well, it was correctly taken, was it not?" "I can't say that I'm infallible." "Then you are not prepared to say that any record you take is accurate?" "I said I took them as nearly accurately as possible." "Well, are you prepared to say that this record you took of Newt Lee's testimony is a correct one?" "In the common acceptation of the term, yes." "I want to know, now, if you took Frank and Lee's statements correctly." "I took down and wrote Lee's and Frank's words as I heard them. I may have misunderstood some few things, although I was in a good position to hear." "And you took down correctly what you did hear?" "Yes."

RECORD COMPARED.

Witness, who had been examining closely into the record which he held, looked up at this point and said: "It appears that Lee had been on the stand once before and that the testimony I took was on his recall. Frank's testimony indicates that he had just been sworn. It begins with the question, 'What's your name?' That of Lee's, which I took begins: 'Now, Newt, state to the jury,' indicating that he had been on the stand before."

Mr. Rosser, referring to his own copy of the testimony given at the coroner's inquest, walked over to where the witness sat and requested him to turn to that place in his record where certain questions were asked of Lee. Lee's questions he read from his record, and asked the stenographer to compare them with the record which he held. "This portion of Lee's testimony concerned the length of time it required Frank to put a new slip in the time clock. It also quoted Lee as to the length of time it had taken Frank on a previous occasion to put in a slip. With but one or two minor discrepancies, the records, taken by different stenographers, corresponded."

After considerable discussion, Solicitor Dorsey stated that he would defer for a time any effort to put in evidence a portion of Frank's statement before the coroner's jury. He would take the matter up later, he said.

Mr. Dorsey started the discussion by offering in evidence all of Frank's testimony before the coroner. The defense objected immediately. At first Attorney Arnold seemed to take the position that none of Frank's statement before the coroner's jury was admissible. Later, however, he said that if the solicitor wanted to put in evidence the whole of Frank's testimony before the coroner's jury, representing some four hours of examination, he would offer no objection. It would be manifestly unfair to put in evidence a part of anybody's testimony.

The argument followed over whether Frank's evidence was given with the consent of his counsel, the defense contending that the state had never proven that at that time Frank had any counsel employed, although Mr. Rosser admitted having sat in the room during the inquest.

Dr. H. F. Harris was called to the stand. He is secretary of the Georgia state board of health. He has been a practicing physician since 1889. He graduated then from the Jefferson medical college. He was a professor of chemistry in the Southern Medical college and also in the Atlanta College of Physicians and Surgeons later. He mentioned other positions which he had filled. He resigned three years ago from the Atlanta College of Physicians and Surgeons. He had been connected with the state board of health since 1903.

Solicitor Dorsey's first question was: "Did you make an examination of the body of Mary Phagan?" "Yes, I made an examination. I think it was on May 5." "What wounds or marks did you find on her body?"

DESCRIBES WOUNDS.

"There were several abrasions. One or two were on her face, one on her forehead, one on her left arm, one on her left leg, one on her right leg at the ankle, and her right eye was discolored. On the back of her head, somewhat toward the left side, there was a wound one and half inches long. This looked as if it had been made by an upward blow. There was no actual break in the skull, but there was a small hemorrhage inside the skull and directly beneath the wound, showing that the blow that were marks of a cord on her neck which caused it must have been severe enough to make her unconscious for some time." "Could this have caused her death?" "I think not. In fact I am sure not." "What did cause her death?" "When I examined her body, there were marks of a cord an her neck which had cut into the flesh. I think beyond the question of a doubt that this cord around her neck caused her death."

KILLED EARLY AFTER LUNCH.

"Were the injuries to her eye and scalp made before her death?" "Unquestionably." "Did you make an examination of her stomach, doctor?" "Yes." "What did you find in it?" "Cabbage and biscuit that is, I guess it was biscuit. It was wheaten bread, anyway." "How far had it progressed toward digestion?" "Very slightly."

At this time Dr. Harris took a bottle from the suitcase that he carried to the witness stand with him, and said, "I have a sample of the cabbage here, if I am permitted to show it." "Yes, you can show it to the jury," said the solicitor. "Was this the condition of the cabbage when it came from Mary Phagan's stomach?" "Yes." "How long would you say the cabbage had been in her stomach?"

THIRTY MINUTES AFTER LUNCH.

"It is impossible to say exactly. I am confident, however, that it could not have been there more than half an hour."

Dr. Harris brought two more bottles from his suitcase. "I have two samples of cabbage taken from the stomach of normal persons after one hour." He showed the bottles to the court and the jury. Their contents were pasty in contrast with the other sample from Mary Phagan's stomach, which could be recognized immediately as cabbage and was almost intact. "Dr. Harris, did you ever examine the vital organs of her body?"

Dr. Harris testified that there was no evidence of an assault, but there were indications that violence of some sort had been done. He said that some of the blood vessels were dilated. "What did the dilation of these blood vessels indicate?" "It indicated that violence of some sort had been done a little time before death." "How long before death was this violence done?"

Possibly five or ten minutes, replied the witness. The blood vessels were dilated, and it takes an appreciable time for inflammation to begin. Judging from the character of the inflammation, said the witness, he did not think the interval between violence and death was more than five or ten minutes. "Doctor, how long after death does rigor mortis begin?" "It varies so much, that it is impossible to say. I don't think that would be of importance, in determining the time of death, because as I say it varies in different cases." "Is there any standard with reference to strangulation cases?" "No, sir. I have seen rigor mortis begin within a very few minutes after death." "Does it ever begin before death?" "No, sir. It may be delayed for many hours. I have seen persons dead for hours in whom rigor mortis had not set in. It begins with the eyelids and goes down, and goes off in the same way." "Can you state how long Mary Phagan was dying?" "No, I could not exactly." "How long after she had eaten the cabbage and bread was it before death occurred?" "To the very best of my opinion, she must have lived between one-half and three-quarters of an hour after eating."

At this point the witness stopped, and appeared to be very faint. In a weak voice: "I'll have to ask you to excuse me. I cannot go on further. I am very weak." "Just one more question, doctor," asked the solicitor. "How much blood did Mary Phagan lose before she died?" "I couldn't tell that." "When can you come back, doctor?" "I'll try to come back tomorrow. I've been in bed for three days and I got up to come down here. I am utterly exhausted."

Dr. Harris was very pale and appeared quite. He was assisted from the stand and out of the court room by one of the deputy sheriffs. Early during his testimony he had paused and asked for a glass of water, and with it had taken a dose of some medicine.

FEBUARY CALLED.

G. C. February, stenographer to Chief of Detectives Lanford, was called to the stand and identified a report of a conversation between Frank and Lanford on Monday, April 28, in Lanford's office. The defense let it go in without objection, after some discussion. That report later on was read to the jury in its entirety, by Assistant Solicitor Stephens. It was a short statement of Frank's movements from about 11 o'clock, April 26, till the next morning.

The part which it was assumed the state was most anxious to get in was Frank's statement that Mary Phagan arrived at the factory between 12:05 o'clock and 12:10, perhaps about 12:07. The rest of the statement detailed in Frank's language his movements during the rest of the day. The statement quoted Frank as saying that he took a bath Saturday night and was wearing then different under clothes than the ones he wore on the day of the tragedy. Attorney Rosser examined February and convulsed the court by his opening question: "Have you got a dictograph on you?"

Attorney Rosser questioned February specifically about Frank allowing Lanford to examine his clothing. "He has been chief of police for a number of years, hasn't he?"

The witness answered, "I don't know that he ever has been chief of police." "Well," said Rosser, "chief of detectives, then that's worse."

Before the witness could answer, Mr. Rosser turned to Chief Lanford, sitting in court and pointed out "this handsome man here" as the one he meant.

SAW FRANK SATURDAY.

Albert Mc Knight, negro, husband of Minola Mc Knight (the woman being the cook at the Selig residence), was called to the stand. "How long has your wife been employed by Mrs. Selig?" "A year or two years something like that." "Where were you between 1 and 2 o'clock on Saturday, April 26?" "At Mr. Frank's house." "Did you see Mr. Frank?" "Yes, about 1:30 o'clock." "What did he do?" "He went into the dining room and went to the sideboard." "How long did he stay in there?" "About five or ten minutes."

The solicitor turned the witness over to the defense. "Who was there, besides you?" asked Mr. Rosser. "Mr. and Mrs. Selig and Mr. Frank's wife. I was sitting in the kitchen." "How do you know that Mr. Frank didn't stop to eat? You can't see through from the kitchen to the dining room, can you?" "Yes, sir, you can see through." "Don't you know it is impossible to see through the swinging doors?" "The swinging door was open and you can look into a mirror in the corner of the dining room and see the room." "And Mr. Frank went to the sideboard? You don't know what he did there."

Secretary of State Board of Health Compelled to Leave the Witness Stand on Account of Illness

"No, sir."

Oh, you couldn't see the sideboard from the mirror?" "No, sir." "How big is the kitchen?" "I don't know." "Well, about how big?"

The negro couldn't answer definitely, and the question was waived. "How big is the dining room?"

The negro couldn't describe that, either. "Have you ever been in the dining room?" "No, sir." "What kind of furniture is in there?" "I don't know." "What kind is in the kitchen?" "Well, there's a safe and a stove and a table." "Where did you sit in the kitchen?" "At the side of the back door." "Were you sitting right in front of the little hall between the dining room and the kitchen?" "No, sir, not exactly." 'Wait a minute till I look at a diagram of the house I've got here," said Mr. Rosser. Then he put this question:'

Well, don't you know it's impossible to sit in the kitchen and look through this little hall into the dining room?" "No, sir."

Mr. Rosser called the negro from the stand to explain to the jury, on the diagram of the Selig-Frank home, how he could sit in the kitchen and see all over the dining room. The negro insisted merely that he could sit in the kitchen and see into the dining room, and that in a mirror there he could see a reflection of almost all parts of the dining room. "You haven't got a curve to your eyesight, have you?" asked Mr. Rosser. "No, sir," said the witness. "You can't look at a curve, can you?" "No, sir." "Where was Minola?" "She was in the kitchen." "Didn't she go into the dining room?" "Yes, sir, she went in once." "How long did she stay?" "About two minutes." "Do you know whether Mrs. Frank and Mrs. Selig ate anything?" "No, sir; I didn't see them eating."

HEARD THEM TALKING.

"You never saw Mr. Selig at all?" "No, sir." "Where did you go from, to the Selig residence?" "I went from home." "What time did you get there?" "Some time after 1 o'clock." "You saw Mr. Frank come in and go to the sideboard?" "Yes," "He walked up to the sideboard, walked out, and went to town?" "He went back into the sitting room, where Mr. Selig was." "I thought you said you didn't see Mr. Selig?" "I didn't, but I heard him talking back there."

Mr. Rosser held up the diagram in front of the negro again. He asked the negro how it was he could sit back in the kitchen and hear them talking in the sitting room or the hall. The negro reiterated that he heard them. "And you never moved away from the door until you left to go home?" "No, sir." "Did Minola go with you?" "No, sir." "When did you first tell this tale after the 26th of April?" "After I came back from Birmingham." "To whom did you first tell it?" "Mr. Craven, the boss of the plow department at the Beck & Gregg Hardware Co." "Was that before or after they got Minola?" "Two or three days before." "You never told any others?" "Yes, sir, later I told Detective Starnes, Detective Campbell, Mr. Martin and Mr. Dorsey." "That's the time Mr. Dorsey had Minola sent to jail, was it not?" "I don't know whether he did or not." "He said, 'Take her on down,' didn't he?" "I don't know, sir. I guess so."

Solicitor Dorsey entered an objection. "I did nothing of the kind," said he.

SAW FRANK TAKE CAR.

"They brought Minola out of Mr. Dorsey's office while you were there, didn't they?" "No, sir." "You didn't go to the jail with Minola?" "No, sir." "Did you go to see her when she was locked up down at police barracks?" "I didn't know she was locked up till I got home from work that night." "You say it was about 1:30 o'clock when Mr. Frank came home to lunch?" "Yes, sir, it was about that time, but I can't say for certain." "And you didn't see Mr. and Mrs. Selig or Mrs. Frank?" "No, sir." "What car did Mr. Frank catch to come back to town?" "He caught the Georgia avenue car at Pulliam street." "How do you know? You were still sitting in the kitchen, weren't you?" "No, sir, I was on my way home and came up Georgia avenue behind him."

Solicitor Dorsey took up the redirect examination of the witness. The solicitor caused the negro to repeat emphatically that from the point where he sat in the kitchen he could see Mr. Frank and did see him.

COURT ADJOURNS.

Judge Roan had the jury sent to its room, and stated that the jurors had expressed a request that some magazines be sent to them, that they be allowed to write notes to their wives, and that they be permitted to get fresh linen. Solicitor Dorsey said he had no objection if the magazines were censored properly by the sheriff and any notes received or sent by the jurors were censored also. The defense had no objection.

Judge Roan adjourned court at 5:05 until 9 o'clock Saturday morning.

Rusty Horseshoe Hangs Near Judge In the Frank Trial

In the court room where Leo M. Frank is on trial for his life a rusty horseshoe hangs.

Just above Judge Roan's head, in the window to the right, the symbol of fortune is fastened to a nail by a piece of mouldy string.

Many eyes have been on it for the last few days, and speculation has been rife as to the why and wherefore of its presence. Will the luck go with the prosecution or the defense?

No one seems to know who put the horseshoe there. Perhaps when the chamber of commerce was first built it was left on the nail, perhaps some clerk in the old city hall hung it up. At any rate, it has been there for many years, getting a little browner every day.

PAGE 5, COLUMN 7

Rusty Horseshoe Hangs Near Judge In the Frank Trial

In the court room where Leo M. Frank is on trial for his life a rusty horse-shoe hangs. Just above Judge Roan's head, in the window to the right, the symbol of for- tune is fastened to a nail by a piece of mouldy string. Many eyes have been on it for the last few days, and speculation has been rife as to the why and wherefore of its presence. Will the luck go with the prosecution or the defense? No one seems to know who put the horseshoe there. Perhaps when the chamber of commerce was first built it was left on the nail, perhaps some clerk in the old city hall hung it up. At any rate, it has been there for many years, getting a little browner every day.

PAGE 5, COLUMN 3

There Is One Joy in Being A Juror: Collectors Barred

Members of Frank Jury Can Not Communicate With Members of Family and Can Read No Newspapers, Not Even Baseball

How does it feel to be shut up with eleven other men for one week, maybe two, possibly three? How does it feel to be in the midst of a city and not of it, quarantined from the wife and children just a few blocks away, from business, from letters, from newspapers, from everything except six hours of daily testimony on a murder case?

Nobody knows except the Frank jurymen, and they can't tell you, for you won't be allowed to talk to 'em.

For five days and five nights their only companionship has been each other, all they had to do was eat and sleep and hear testimony. And by this time, they are probably worrying.

Sunday comes. No murder trial to hear, but the same strict surveillance to undergo. They will be guarded as carefully as ever, perhaps taken for a little walk some time during the day, but no visit home, no word from their loved ones, no news of what the world is doing.

As careful a watch is being maintained over the Frank jury as any jury ever experienced. Not a single communication is allowed to be seen by a single member unless it is first censored.

The other day it was necessary for one member of the jury to sign an insurance policy. It was scrutinized by the lawyers as if it had been a faded replica of the code of Justinian, but nowhere could these lights of the Atlanta bar find any insurance phrase that might possibly influence that juryman for or against Leo M. Frank. They let him sign it.

When the first of the month arrived, Deputy Plennie Minor says that there were many requests that the jurymen be allowed to sign pay rolls and attend to other business matters.

Eleven of these twelve good men and true, moreover, are married. Some of them have children. It is just as hard on the wives and kiddies as it is on the fathers and husbands. But while the youngsters can see pictures of papa in the papers and know what he is doing, papa himself is ignorant of how things are going with his little sons and daughters. He knows only that they are all right, and will be waiting for him when the trial is over.

But even the adversities of a juryman has its joys. There are no collectors knocking at the juryman's door and of course it is all right with him if the counsel for the defense objects to the juryman being worried by all those first-of-the month bills.