Tuesday, 26th August 1913: Dorsey Riddles Franks Own Statement In Final Plea, The Atlanta Georgian

Reading Time: 68 minutes, [11447 words]

Crowds Outside and Inside of Court Vociferously Applaud Solicitor

GOOD CHARACTER NO BAR TO CONVICTION, ASSERTS JUDGE CHARGING JURY

Here is Judge Roan's complete charge to the jury verbatim:

"Gentleman of the Jury-This bill of indictment charges Leo M. Frank with the offense of murder. The charge is that Leo M. Frank, in this county, on the 26th day of April of this year, with force and arms did unlawfully and with malice aforethought kill and murder one Mary Phagan by then and there choking her, the said Mary Phagan, with a cord placed around her neck."

"To this charge made by the bill of indictment found by the Grand Jury of his county recently impaneled Leo M. Frank, the defendant, file a plea of not guilty. The charge as made by the bill of indictment on the one hand and his plea of not guilty filed therein form the issue, and you, gentlemen of the jury have been selected, chosen and sworn to try the truth of this issue."

"Leo M. Frank, the defendant, commences the trial of this issue with the presumption of innocence in his favor, and this presumption of innocence remains with him, to shield him and protect him, until the State shall over come it and remove it by evidence offered to you, in your hearing and presence, sufficient in its strength and character to satisfy your minds beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilty of each and every material allegation made by the bill of indictment."

"I charge you, gentlemen, that all of the allegations of this indictment are material, and it is necessary for the State to satisfy you of their truth by evidence that convinces your minds beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt before you would be authorized to find a verdict of guilty."

Must Be More Than Beyond Mere Doubt.

"You are not compelled to find, from the evidence, his guilt beyond any doubt, but beyond a reasonable doubt, such a doubt as grows out of the evidence in the case, or for the want of evidence, such a doubt as a reasonable and impartial man would entertain about matters of the highest importance to himself after all reasonable efforts to ascertain the truth. This does not mean a fanciful doubt, one conjured up by the jury, but a reasonable doubt."

"Gentlemen, this defendant is charged with murder. Murder is defined to be the unlawful killing of a human being, in the peace of the State, by a person of sound memory and discretion, with malice aforethought, either express or implied."

"Express malice is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a fellow-creature which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof."

"Malice shall be implied where no considerable provocation appears, and where all of the circumstances of the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart."

"There is no difference between express and implied malice except in the mode of arriving at the fact of its existence. The legal sense of the term 'malice' is not confined to particular animosity to the deceased, but extends to an evil design in general. The popular idea of malice in the sense of revenge, hatred, ill will, has nothing to do with the subject. It is an intent to kill a human being in a case where the law would neither justify nor in any degree excuse the intention if the killing should take place as intended. It is a deliberate intent unlawfully to take human life, whether it springs from hatred, ill will or revenge, ambition, avarice or other like passion. A man may for the intent to kill, do the killing instantly, and regret the deed as soon as done. Malice must exist at the time of the killing. It need not have existed any length of time previously."

Law Presumes Malice If Homicide Is Proven.

"When a homicide is proven, if it is proven to be the act of the defendant, the law presumes malice, and unless the evidence should relieve the slayer he may be found guilty of murder. The presumption of innocence is removed by proof of the killing of the defendant. When the killing is shown to be the act of the defendant, it is then on the defendant to justify or mitigate the homicide. The proof to do that may come from either side, either from the evidence offered by the State to make out its case, or from the evidence offered by the defendant or the defendant's statement."

"Gentlemen of the jury, you are made by law the sole judges of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the testimony of each and every witness. It is for you to take this testimony as you have heard it in connection with the defendant's statement, and arrive at what you believe to be the truth."

"Gentlemen, the object of all legal investigation is the discovery of truth. That is the reason of you being selected, impaneled and sworn in this case-to discover what is the discovery of truth. That is the reason of you being selected, impaneled and sworn in this case-to discover what is the truth on this issue formed on this bill of indictment, is Leo M. Frank guilty? Are you satisfied of that beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence in this case? Or is his plea or not guilty of the truth? The rules of evidence are framed with a view to this prominent and-seeking always for pure sources and the highest evidence.

"Direct evidence is that which immediately points to the question at issue. Indirect or circumstantial evidence is that which only ...to establish the issue by proof of various facts sustaining, by their consistency, the hypothesis claimed. To warrant a conviction on circumstantial evidence the proven facts must not only be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt, but must exclude every other reasonable doubt hypothesis save that of the guilt of the accused."

Character Issue Of Importance.

"The defendant has introduced testimony as to his good character. On this subject I charge you that evidence of good character when offered by the defendant in a criminal case is always relevant and material, and should be considered by the jury, along with all the other evidence introduced, as one of the facts of the case. It should be considered by the jury, not merely where the balance of the testimony in the case makes it doubtful whether the defendant is guilty or not, but also where such evidence of good character may of itself generate a doubt as to the defendant's guilt. Good character is a substantial fact, like any other fact tending to establish the defendant's innocence, and ought to be so regarded by the jury."

"Like all over facts proved in the case, it should be weighed and acclimated by the jury, for it may render that doubtful which otherwise would be clear. However, if the guilt of the accused is plainly proved to the satisfaction of the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, notwithstanding the proof of good character, it is their duty to convict. But the jury may consider the good character of the defendant, whether the rest of the testimony leaves the question of his guilt doubtful or not, and if a consideration of the proof of his good character considered along with the evidence, creates a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury as to the defendant's guilt, then it would be the duty of the jury to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt thus raised by his good character, and to acquit him."

"The word 'character' as used in this connection means that general reputation which he bore among the people who knew him prior to the time of the death of Mary Phagan. Therefore, when the witnesses by which a defendant seeks to prove his good character are put upon the stand, and testify that his character is good, the effect of the testimony is to say that the people who knew him spoke well of him, and that his general reputation was otherwise good."

State Allowed to Attack Character.

"When a defendant has put his character in issue, the State is allowed to attack it by proving that his general reputation is not good, or by showing that the witnesses who have stated that his character is good have untruly reported it. Hence the Solicitor General has been allowed to cross-examine the witnesses for the defense who were introduced to testify to his good character. In the cross-examination of these witnesses he was allowed to ask them if they had not heard of various acts of misconduct on the defendant's part."

"The Solicitor General had the right to ask any questions along this line he pleased, in order thoroughly to sift the witnesses, and to see if anything derogatory to the defendant's reputation could be proved by them."

"The court now wishes to say to you that, although the Solicitor General was allowed to ask the defendant's character witnesses these questions as to their having heard of various acts of alleged misconduct on the defendant's part, the jury is not to consider this as evidence that the defendant has been guilty of any such misconduct as may have been indicated in the questions of the Solicitor

MRS. FRANK ARRIVING AT THE COURTHOUSE

The wife of The defendant In the Phagan Case has not Missed a Session of the Trial of her Husband.

General, or any of them, unless the alleged witnesses testify to it."

"Furthermore, where a man's character is put in evidence and in the course of the investigation any specific act of misconduct is shown, this does not go before the jury for the purpose of showing affirmatively that his character is bad or that he is guilty of the offense with which he stands charged, but is to be considered by the jury only in determining the credibility and the degree of information possessed by those witnesses who have testified to his good character."

"When the defendant has put, his character is issue, the State is allowed to bring witnesses to prove that his general character is bad, and thereby to disprove the testimony of those who have stated that it is good. The jury is allowed to take this testimony, and have the right to consider it along with all the other evidence introduced on the subject of the general character of the defendant, and it is for the jury finally to determine from all the evidence whether his character was good or bad."

Good Character May Create Reasonable Doubt.

"You will, therefore, observe that this the rule you will be guided by in determining the effect to be given to the evidence on the subject of the defendant's character. If, after considering all the evidence pro and con, on the subject of the defendant's character, you believe that prior to the time of Mary Phagan's death he bore a good reputation among those who knew him that his general character was good, you will consider that as one of the facts in the case, and I may be sufficient to create a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt. If it so impress your minds and consciences, after considering it along with all the other evidences in the case, and if it does, you should give the defendant the benefit of the doubt and acquit him."

"However, though you should believe his general character was good, still if, after giving due weight to it as one of the facts in the case, you believe from the evidence as a whole that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, you should be authorized to convict him."

"If you believe beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence in this case that this defendant is guilty of murder, then you would be authorized in that event to say 'We, the Jury, find the defendant guilty.'"

"Should you go no further, gentlemen, and say nothing else in your verdict, the court would have to sentence the defendant to the extreme penalty for murder, to wit; to be hanged by the neck until he is dead. But should you see fit to do so, in the event you arrive at the conclusion and belief beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence that this defendant is guilty, then, gentlemen, you would be authorized in that event, if you saw fit to do so, to say: 'We, the jury, find the defendant guilty, and we recommend that he be imprisoned in the penitentiary for life.'"

"In the event you should make such a verdict as that, then the Court, under the law, would have to sentence the defendant to the penitentiary for life."

"You have heard the defendant make his statement. He had the right to make it under the law. It is not made under oath and he is not subject to examination or cross-examination. It is with you as to how much of it you will believe, or how little of it. You may go to the extent, if you see fit, of believing it in preference to the sworn testimony in the case."

"In the event, gentlemen, you have a reasonable doubt from the evidence, or the evidence and the statement together or either, as to the defendant's guilt as charged, then give the prisoner the benefit of that doubt, and acquit him the form of your verdict would be: 'We, the jury, find the defendant not 'guilty.' As honest jurors do your utmost to reach the truth from the evidence and statement as you have heard it here, then let your verdict speak it."

DEMANDS LEO FRANK BE SENT TO GALLOWS AS MARY PHAGAN'S SLAYER

Refreshed by the week-end recess, Solicitor General Dorsey returned Monday to the State's closing argument. By the force of logic and denunciation of his final words to the jury the Solicitor hopes to obtain a verdict of guilty against Leo M. Frank, charged with the murder of Mary Phagan.

The day and a half intermission furnished a breathing spell for the State's prosecutor. He came back to the battle with new spirit and with an absence of the fatigue that compelled him to stop his stirring argument Saturday and ask Judge Roan for a recess.

Solicitor Dorsey was vociferously cheered as he entered the courthouse by a crowd waiting for the trial to open, and in the courtroom there was applause as he went to the State's table within the railing.

Judge Roan entered the room as the applause died down while the deputies were rapping for order. He announced that if there was any semblance of a repetition, he would clear the courtroom. The judge declared that a similar occurrence might destroy the work of four long weeks and warned the audience to keep strict order.

Mr. Dorsey began his speech in a low, hoarse voice.

"Your honor and gentlemen of the jury," he said, I regret the necessity for having to carry this case over into another week and through another Sunday. I might have been able to have finished my speech and his honor have delivered his charge and turned the case over to you. The circumstances made the present course wiser."

Begins to Riddle Frank's Statement.

"When we close proceedings Saturday, I was giving you a brief analysis of the statement of the defendant. I am not going to any exhaustive study of that statement. It is unnecessary to further burden you with it. But there are certain language and statements which merit some consideration."

"The defendants stated after this honor had excluded our evidence, and excluded it properly, that his wife visited him at the police station. He stated that she was there with his father-in-law and his two brothers-in-law. He said Rabbi David Mardx was with him and that he consulted Dr. Marx on the advisability of having her to come up to the top float and see him surrounded by policemen, reporters and snapshotters. He doesn't prove by a living soul that this statement is true. You must rely on his own lips for its value."

"If they could have proved if by Dr. Marx, why didn't they do it? You tell me a loving wife lives who, conscious of a husband's innocence amid such circumstances, wouldn't have braved policemen, snapshotters to have seen him?"

Arnold jumped up.

"I object," he said, "to those outrageous references to his wife. I have sat here in silence during many of his unfair remarks, but to bring in the wife of this man who is on trial for his life is an outrage on law and decency and fairness."

"Let me see," said Judge Roan, "the evidence on which you are speaking, Mr. Dorsey."

Dorsey Fires Hot Retort at Arnold.

"Let the galled jade wines," said Dorsey, sarcastically.

"He has no right to make any such statement," said Arnold, "It is wholly uncalled for."

"I submit the remark," retorted Dorsey, "of Mr. Rosser that this is an unfair speech (referring to an aside) is uncalled for. Frank said that his wife would not come to see him because she was afraid of the snapshotters and reporters and that she did not want to go through this line of newspaper men every time she came to see him. I tell you, gentlemen, there never lived a true wife who would not have gone through a line of snapshotters and reporters in spite of the contrary advice of a rabid or anyone else."

"Let us see who first found out Conley could write. Frank said, 'I was the man who made this discovery. I was the means of getting this Information to the police. I have received too many notes asking for loans not to know that he can write. I know that if you will look in the safe you will find some receipts for watches signed by him, and that if you will go to the jeweler's you probably will find other specimens of his handwriting."

"But Scott says that no such thing ever happened. Why didn't Frank, when those notes were found by the dead girl's body-why didn't he then and there say that that was Conley's handwriting? Tip to the time that it was discovered that Conley could write Frank had said nothing. It was only through the work done by the detectives and the fact the Conley knew they had learned he could write that the negro finally was made to submit specimens of his handwriting."

"Why did Frank keep silent when he knew those notes were the key which would unlock the mystery?"

Dorsey turned to Frank at this point and said:

"You did know that he could write. You knew that if it was found out that the whole mystery would be solved. You had notes asking for loans. You had seen his writing by which he checked up the boxes of pencils. Why did you keep silent?"

"You saw him at the police station and even then never mentioned that he could write."

"Frank says that after this visit of Conley's to the jail, after Conley had gone to the factory and gone through his pantomime at the time almost exactly to the minute that he said it took, that on this visit to the jail he said, 'I told them if they would get the permission of Rosser that I would face Conley.' Now, gentlemen of the jury, Mr. Rosser was at Tallulah Falls that day. Therefore, there was no chance to get his permission that day. But Mr. Rosser was at Tallulah Falls that day, and when he got back did he allow Frank to face Conley? No, he did not."

"Gentlemen, you know it is true that never in the history of the Anglo-Saxon race and in the history of the African race has an ignorant, filthy negro ever accused a white man of crime where the white man was innocent and the white man decline to face the negro. There never lived in Georgia a lawyer who possessed half the ability of Rosser who sincerely believed in the innocence of his client who would not have said to this negro. 'Face my client.' You may say here that you did not know what Conley's statement was going to be, but you could have found out. You could have known."

Rosser Objects To Being Criticized.

Mr. Rosser was on his feet with an objection to commenting on counsel. After a moment's wrangling, Mr. Dorsey insisting that he had a right to commont on the action of the defendant's counsel charging the facts in the record justified him. Judge Roan sustained the objection.

"But they see the force of it," continued Dorsey.

"Now, I don't think that's fair, your honour," said Rosser, interrupting again. There was another minute of wrangling, both Dorsey and Rosser speaking at the same time. Judge Roan again sustained Rosser.

Dorsey turned to the jury, and slapping his hand viciously on the ceiling, shouted:

"If they don't see the force of it you do."

Rosser objected again.

"I insist, your honor that that is entirely proper comment. I ask you, am I outside the record? I have a right to comment upon their conduct in declining to cross-examine witnesses."

"You may comment upon the act of Frank," interrupted Judge Roan, "in not facing Conley and upon his counsel not having given the permission, but it is not proper for you to comment upon why counsel for the defense did not do certain things."

Dorsey turned to the jury:

"This man Frank with Anglo-Saxon blood in his veins, a graduate of Cornell, a man of sense and intelligence and spirit, refused to see Conley because his counsel was not in town. But when his counsel returned and he still had the opportunity he dared not let Conley meet him. It is not necessary to take up this discussion. Would the weakest of you when innocent and wrongfully accused by a man with a black skin on the charge of murder let Rosser or any lawyer in the world keep you from confronting him and sailing the lie. No lawyer of any age or clime could prevent me from meeting a man, be he white or black, who had wrongfully accused me."

Pointing his finger at Frank he continued:

"You want in a room and interviewed old Newt Lee down at the police station at 12 o'clock at night. What did you do? Did you act like an innocent man who was trying to get at the truth? Oh, no!"

Declares Frank Dared Not Attack Negro Lee.

"Instead of going after him and trying to get from him new light on his case-this man at whom you had pointed an infamous suspicion to save your own neck and to save your reputation on Washington street and in the B'nai B'rith-according to Lee, you hung your head and quizzed him not, but said: 'If you don't tell more about this we'll both go to hell.' Then in your statement to the jury, you tried to make it appear that your own detective, Scott, had concocted a scheme against you and lied about what happened."

"The reason Frank didn't put it up to Newt Lee was because he knew Net Lee was innocent. He knew he was guilty and he was only adding to the dastardly crime of assault on the virtue of this little girl by trying to break the neck of this old negro to save his own reputation and neck."

"Listen to his statement. He is smart. Listen how he qualifies and fixes so that when we come back with rebuttal the technical law will protect him. Old Newt Lee had been night watchman at that factory only a few weeks. There had been other night watchmen before, and the charges of going into the place for immoral purposes were during the time before Newt Lee came. He knew the detectives had charged that people had gone in there for immoral purpose but in his statement on the stand, he confined his denial to the time Newt Lee was there as high watchman."

"No, during the time old Newt Lee was there, there was but one person for whom your passion burned," the Solicitor continued, turning to Frank, little Mary Phagan. She never would go there with you. But if you were telling the truth, why didn't you make a bold and emphatic statement that none had ever been there. It was during the summer previous that Dalton and the others testified of the immorality there. There was the chance for impeachment of his statement, and yet you tell me that that's a good, fair, frank statement."

"Now, another thing, listen to this, I read from the defendant's statement, 'Now, in reference to those spots claimed to be blood spots found by Barrett, I don't say they are not blood. They are near the ladies' dressing room, and we also have many accidents near there. Let me say in connection with those accidents near there. Let me say in connection with those accidents that not all accidents are reported. Only those which incapacitate an employee are reported. But I say it might have been blood. It also might have been aniline dye or paint. I have seen girls drop bottles of this colored matter, btu if it had been fresh blood or fresh paint, the gasoline which was spread over it would have become pink or red instead of remaining white.'"

Why Didn't They Bring in a Chemist?

"But I ask you if the gasoline would not have produced the identical result, which the witnesses say was produced? Why didn't you bring before the jury a reputable chemist and a man who would have sustained you in this contention. If you had time to bring in experts to attack the overwhelming evidence of Dr. Roy Harris, why, in the name of truth and justice, didn't you bring in just one chemist to support your theory of the blood spots?"

"You know the reason. You know they were blood spots. You know that you didn't bring in a chemist because the result of spreading the gasoline over blood would have been exactly the result that was produced in the dressing room on the second floor."

Dorsey turned toward the jury at this point and asked:

"Are you going to take this man's unsupported word when his lawyers are unable to get any reputable chemist to come in and stultify himself by declaring that those spots were not blood or that the result produced was not that of spreading gasoline over fresh blood?

"This defense can not-they haven't got any defense. They circle and flutter, but never light. They grab at varnish, rat blood and Duffy's blood, but they never knuckle down to show that it was not blood. In view of the statement of Mell Stanford, who swept that floor and who says it was not there Friday: in view of the statements of Christopher Columbus Barrett, who, despite what they say, continues to draw his livelihood from the corners of the National Pencil Company; in view of the statements of a great many others who went there to see the blood spots, can we get but one solution of the matter? I say you can not."

"Then they fly onto another subject? It is the way they claim Jim Conley took that body into the basement. But, gentlemen of the jury, you know, and they know, that this body wasn't taken down that scuttlehole. It did not show there where the dust was thick. And then did he shoot her down the cute of the Clark Woodenware's place, where the body would have been concealed better and longer than where the body was found? Did this negro, who, they say, robbed this girl-even if he had taken time to write the notes, even if they had hit her with a bludgeon-do you think, gentlemen of the jury, that he would have taken the time to tie a cord around her neck-a cord seldom found in the basement except when it was swept there with the trash, but the proper place for which was in that metal room on the second floor, where little Mary Phagan met her death? If he had done all that-after he had sent her body down the cute-why would he have gone down into the basement and have removed the body from its safest hiding place down there at the bottom of the chute, where the dust, trash and boxes would have kept it concealed for weeks at least? Why would he have removed it out there near the oiler, where the firemen and everyone else would have been sure to find it?"

"I tell you, gentlemen of the jury, that body was never sent down that chute; that body was never sent down that scuttlehole. It was taken down into the basement just as Jim Conely says it was."

"They fly off onto other things. Why, on May 1, when Holloway caught Jim Conley washing his shirt, he said, 'This is my negro.' Fifteen days later, when the second squad of Pinkertons came in, can you tell me, will you tell me, why if he shoved her down that hole, that not until the 15th of May was this bloody bludgeon found, and more blood than this girl has ever been shown to have lost was there?"

"Another thing, Frank said in his statement that this man Quinn came to him and told him he would like to take him back to the metal room, where, the newspapers said, and where everybody else said, and knew that morning, that some blood and some hair had been found."

Stresses Fact Frank Hadn't Examined Spots.

"Although he had seen this in the papers, although he had heard from others in the factory that the spots and hair had been found, although he had been all around there, although the knowledge of the finding of these pots and hair had torn him to pieces, although he was so anxious to get the detectives to work on the case that he had phoned Schiff three times, yet Quinn had to come and ask him to come back there to see the spots."

"Tell me, was that the conduct of an innocent man anxious to help the police? But, strange to say, not even Lemmie Quinn comes to support you in this statement. No one ever saw Leo M. Frank go back there to examine those spots."

"If there was ever a spot on this earth that Frank did not want to see it was the blood spot back there in the metal room, the spot where this little girl met her death. If Frank went down there to the morgue and the sight of that little girl tore him to piece as he tells you it did, let any honest man on this jury tell me why it was he wanted to look upon her dead body again."

"Rogers says he didn't look at it. Black, says he didn't see him look at it."

Attorneys Arnold and Rosser entered strenuous objection.

"Rogers did not say that Frank did

Continued on Page 3, Column 1.

PAGE 3

CROWD SEEKING TO ATTEND THE LAST DAY OF FRANK TRIAL

DORSEY ANALYZES NOTES AS HE ENDS STATE'S PLEA

Continued From Page 2.

not see the body," said Arnold.

Dorsey: "It is in the evidence. I am not going to quibble with you. It is the truth and you know it."

"When Frank came into the room," continued the Solicitor to the jury, "he did not see her. And if he went into that room, neither Rogers nor Black saw him look at her."

"I tell you, the truth is that Frank never looked at the body of the girl again. And even if he did, it was but a glace as the electric lights were switched on. He turned and went into another room."

Arnold interposed another objection. "Your honor," he said, "nothing has been said about Frank going into another room."

Dorsey: "It has. It is in the record, Rogers said it."

Arnold: "It is not in the record."

Dorsey: "I say it is in the record and I challenge you to produce it."

"We don't have to produce it," returned Arnold.

Arnold: "We object, your honor, to him saying that we are quibbling."

Judge Calls Halt In Bitter Clash.

Dorsey: "Well, why don't you look it up then?"

Arnold: "Your Honor, we object. He has no right to go in this manner."

Judge Roan: "Mr. Dorsey, you must not say they are quibbling unless they are. If it is in the record, they are not quibbling unless they are. If it is in the record, they are not quibbling. If it is in the record and they say it is not, then they are quibbling."

"If Frank ever looked that face," said Dorsey, "and I challenge the statement. It was so brief-if she was dirty and begrimed, her hair bloody, her features contorted-if he didn't know her better than he would have you think he did, he never could have identified her."

"Why did he go back there Sunday afternoon? He had been in the bosom of his family and failed to show any nervousness. He said himself he was torn all to pieces. He went back there to put his ear to the ground-to see if there were any whisperings accusing Leo Frank of the crime."

"Rogers didn't see him look at her. Black didn't see him. He himself said the sight tore him to pieces."

"On the way to the police station he trembled on Darley's knee. But like a dog to his vomit, a sow to her wallow, he went back to review that ghastly sight. I ask you if he didn't go back to see if the police suspected Leo M. Frank?"

"He admits his nervousness in the presence of the officers. The Seligs said he was not nervous at home."

Rosser interrupted: "I have the record of that evidence. The question was: 'You now say he went into that dressing room?-A. I wouldn't say. He passed out of my view.'"

Dorsey: "That's cross-examination."

Rosser: "Yes, but it's the truth."

Dorsey: "All right. I am glad you corrected me. The gist of the matter is that he didn't look at the body of little Mary Phagan."

Rosser: "He's wrong about that."

Dorsey: "Take it your way. I am going to throw you that piece of sop. The point is, Frank wanted to get out of the way of the officers. If he went into that room, it was so brief a time, that nobody saw it. He was afraid of anyone who represented the majesty of the law."

Reads Joke to Assure All of Self-possession.

"Out home Saturday night he wanted to assure every one of his self-possession by reading a joke. The laughter was the laughter of a guilty conscience. It jarred. He wasn't nervous at home. But he trembled when he had to discuss the matter with the minions of the law."

"Frank was nervous when he went to run the elevator. He stated he left the box open because of the request of a member of the fire department, who had told him that in case of fire, there was danger of the firemen being shocked if they could not cut off the power."

"Why was that necessary when it was so simple to get the key and just by turning the handle, open the box. Why didn't they bring firemen here to substantiate him? Old Holloway told the truth when he made that affidavit in my office when he said 'Old Jim Conley is my nigger.'"

"The true facts are when Frank came down to that elevator Sunday morning, the box was open, and the key was in his pocket."

Rosser: "Now, your Honor, there isn't a bit of evidence to support that statement."

Dorsey (as one of his deputies handed him the record): "Your Honor, the evidence sustains me in this case, just as it did in the other. I am going to read you Boots Rogers' direct testimony: 'I didn't see him in the room, but I saw him turn into what I thought was a closet, but afterwards found it was a place where someone slept. There was a bed in there.'"

"I don't care what he led out of him," answered Rosser: "I read him the cross-examination, which was the truth."

Judge Roan: "Mr. Rosser, don't interrupt him as long as he stands by the records."

Dorsey: "Yes. I want him to interrupt me. I don't want to misrepresent this case. There is enough straight evidence. I don't want to mislead this jury."

Judge Roan: "I just wanted to know whether you meant the statement that the key was in Frank's pocket as a deduction or a statement of evidence?"

Rosser: "That's what I am objecting to. He stated something that was not so. I don't mean that knew it was not so."

Waives Point As Immaterial.

Dorsey: "I don't care anything about that point. It is my recollection that it is true, but I waive it as immaterial."

"Frank says that after looking at the body he identified it as that of the little girl who had been up the day previous and got her money. He went back to the factory, unlocked the safe, got out his books and found out that there was a girl by the name of Mary Phagan who had got her money the day before."

"This made it impossible for a mistake. He might have added, 'I found her back in the metal room. I made my lascivious proposals to her. She refused me, I struck her too hard and knocked her unconscious. Realizing my predicament, I choked her to death. I had made her envelope out 52 times a year. I had passed her machine every day that she worked. I had called her by name. I had placed me hand on her should.' Of course, it was Mary Phagan. There could be no mistake."

"Frank said in his statement before you. 'Geesling turned her head toward me. He put his finger in the wound on the back of her head. Her face was scratched. Her right eye was blackened. Her tongue was out and there was a deep indentation in her neck. There was blood on the back of her head. Her face was begrimed and dirty.'"

"Do you mean to say that in that flash that Frank took at the face, if indeed he did take any glance at all that he could have comprehended all this detail?"

"Is Detective Starnes a perjurer? Frank said that in his conversation with Starnes the morning of the murder, he asked over the telephone: 'What is the matter; has there been a fire at the factory?' He said that Starnes replied: 'No, there has been a tragedy and we want you down right away.'"

"But Starnes testified that he never used the word 'tragedy.' And that he gave Frank no intimation of what had happened. Again, it has been imputed that the detectives and police force have centered all their activities against Frank, and they have refused to hold any theory which involved anyone else. But if they had been looking for the easiest man to convict, wouldn't they have picked out someone else than Frank?"

Easier To Have Picked Some One Else.

"It would have been easier if the detectives wanted to move along the line of least resistance to have picked out Newt Lee, Gantt or Conley."

"Again, Newt Lee says that Frank called up Saturday night-something that he had never done before. Frank says that he asked about Gantt; that he asked if Gantt had left the factory yet. But Newt Lee says that Gantt's name never was mentioned, and that Frank only asked if anything had happened at the factory."

"Frank had instructed Newt Lee previously not to let Gantt in, whether because he did not want Gantt to see him talking to little Mary Phagan, I do not know. But when he called up Newt Lee that night, you know it was not so much to find out if Gantt had gone as to find out if Newt Lee in making his rounds had discovered the body of the dead girl."

"Frank's lawyers asked you, 'Would you convict this defendant on this circumstance, or on that circumstance?' No; but I would put all these circumstances together and I would say, inconformity to truth and justice, that they bound an unbreakable strand about this man. They make such a rope, such a strand, such a cable, that it not only is impossible to conceive any doubt at all."

"Frank was in jail. He made a statement that he didn't leave the office between certain hours. Frank didn't know that his own detective, Harry Scott, had found Monteen Stover, who went to the factory that day and found Frank absent."

"In his statement before you, Frank tried to get around this by saying that he had no recollection of leaving his office, although he may have done so unconsciously as men often do. But I tell you that if he had not been back there with Mary Phagan, Monteen Stover would have seen him and got her pay."

"Harry Scott, working with the city detectives, asked Frank these questions: 'From the time that you came back from Montay's until you went upstairs at 12:50 to see Mrs. White, did you leave your office?'" Frank said "no."

"Scott asked: 'From the time that you left Montag's until Mary Phagan came for her pay, did you leave your office?' Frank said 'no.'

Can Not Believe Frank's Story.

"Not until Frank saw the wonderful capacity and the wonderful ability the devotion to truth and right of Harry Scott, did he set him out from his councils. Not realizing the importance of his statement, he told his own detective right in the presence of John Black that at no moment from the time return from Montag's until 12:50 did he stir out of his office."

"Do you mean to tell me that a conscientious jury can believe this man in his statement on the stand which throws aside the story he told his own detective? You can do it, but as you live wherever you go, your conscience will oppress you."

"If you, do it, you lose the peace of mind that goes with a clear conscience and that goes with a knowledge of duty well done."

"He indicated nervousness when he talked to Starnes. When Black went out to get him and he sent his wife to the door, he betrayed nervousness by the rapidity in the form of the questions he put."

"But before that he had warned old Newt Lee to come back at 4 o'clock. Dutiful old darky that he was. Newt Lee was there. He found Frank engaged in washing his hands. He sent old Newt out although Newt insisted that he wanted to sleep, and there were plenty of places around that factory where he could have lain down and had a nap. But no, Frank was waiting for Jim Conley. He wanted him to come back and burn that body so that the police of Atlanta today would not have solved the mystery of the death of Mary Phagan and probably would not have known she was killed in the factory."

Frank Needed to Be Sustained.

"He didn't want Gantt to go into that factory, but met him at the door. Gantt told him he wanted to get a pair of shoes. I was almost providential that Gantt had two pairs of shoes there. Frank hung his head and said he noticed a boy sweeping out a pair of shoes. He gave the color of the pair, but when Gantt insisted that there were two pairs, he allowed him to go in with old Newt Lee. Lo and behold, both pairs were found!"

"Frank told you how he acted on that occasion. Newt Lee told you how he jumped. Starnes and Black said he was nervous. You say (pointing to Frank) it was because of the auto-ride; it was because you had missed breakfast; it was because of the grewsome sight."

"Oh, he needed to be sustained. He needed someone to support him when he sent his wife to the door. He needed someone to support him when he had her telephone to Darley to meet him at the factory. He needed to be sustained when he sent for Haas. He needed to be sustained when he sent for Rosser, big of reputation and big of frame, dominating and controlling so far as he can, everybody he can."

"And this man Darley we had to get into the enemies' camp to get him. Fortunately, I got on the job early and issued a subpoena for him. Fortunately, Darley did not know he did not have to come, so he obeyed and made an affidavit in my office. Therefore, he came up here and upheld his affidavit in so far as he had to."

"Darley said that Frank was nervous and trembled in the factory. He said he shook like an aspen land when he sat on his lap in the automobile. He said in his affidavit to me Frank was completely unstrung."

"This man called for coffee at the factory, as Durant called for Bromo seltzer; trembling and shaking, he said it was due to looking on such a grewsome sight. Durant explained his appearance from inhaling gas. You tell me these statements of his explain away the evidence of his nervousness? No, you know it was only the consciousness of the infamous crime that he had committed."

"That isn't all. This man Grice was going to catch on the second morning after the murder stopped at the factory and saw him. He swore he was nervous."

Trembled in Shoes at Fear of Scott.

At this point the jury was allowed to retire for a soft drink.

"Old Newt Lee says that when he went back to the factory that Saturday afternoon at 4 o'clock," said Dorsey in resuming his argument "he found the inside door locked. He says that Frank came out of his office and given him instructions. That light down in the cellar that had always burned bright was turned down until it glowed no more than a lightening bug. You tell me old Jim Conley felt the necessity of turning down that light? I tell you it was turned down by Leo Frank when he went down to place the notes beside the body after he had found that Jim Conley wasn't coming back to burn it."

"He turned it down in the hopes that Newt Lee would not discover the body that night."

"And here is Harry Scott. It didn't take an affidavit to hold him to the truth, though I tell you I trembled in my shoes after my experience with Darley. While he was their detective, Scott was one of the most important witnesses for the State. For a time, I was fearful he had thrown me down. But he stood by the truth like a man. He said that Frank squirmed and twisted in his seat; rubbed his face, sighed and drew deep breaths."

"On his way to the police station, Darley, the man next to him in power, said he trembled on his knee that he was nervous and pale; that his eyes were large."

"Tuesday morning, just before he was arrested, if he ever was arrested, Policeman Waggoner, sent to watch him from across the street, found him pacing back and forth in his office. He said that he came to the window and looked out at least twelve times within thirty minutes."

Not Dared To Impeach Kelley.

"I have already talked to you about the time element. The defense has shown that Mc Coy did not have a watch. They have tried to down George Kenly, and there have been impeachments on both sides. They have tried to impeach George Epps, but there is one man for the State upon whom they have not dared to cast suspicion. That is this man M. Kelly, who rode on the same car with Matthews and Hollis from Broad and Marietta streets to beyond Hunter. He says that he knew Hollis and Matthews and that he knew Mary Phagan was not on the car. There is no impeachment of him."

"Mr. Rosser says that he does not care anything about the medical evidence-that he paid but little attention to it. Well, gentlemen of the jury, I am not going back on my praising, and there is nothing more wholesome for the normal stomach than cabbage, cornbread and buttermilk, and it's good enough for any man."

"Rosser's words that he does not care for the medical evidence are belied by the number of men they brought in on this particular evidence. They did not bring one reputable chemist to refute the testimony of Dr. Roy F. Harris. They brought in surgeons and general practitioners. Why, I would not be surprised if their reason or going out to get these general practitioners was not in the effort to get some of the family physicians to bring here and influence the jury."

Arnold objected.

"Your honor," he said, "that is absolutely unfair. It is insulting to the jury."

"I insist that my words are eminently proper," said Dorsey. "I have not changed any fact. I am simply expressing my opinion. I am going to compare the qualifications of the physicians they brought in with that of the experts we placed upon the stand. They went out and got general practitioners, and I am bringing out the fact that there must have been some other reason than any knowledge their physicians might have."

"Go on," said Judge Roan.

"I thought so," said Dorsey.

Arnold Objects To Dorsey's Statements.

"Your honor, we object to that," said Arnold. "He has no right to make such comments as that."

"He has the right to comment on his opinion," said Judge Roan.

"Well, we want both of our objections recorded, your honor," said Arnold. "Of course, you may rule them out, but we insist on it just the same."

"I can see no other reason," continued Dorsey, "for going out and getting general practitioners except upon that theory, and I saw that the number of doctors put up here by the defense belies the statements of Mr. Rosser that they did not attach much importance to the State's contention that little Mary Phagan met her death at a certain time."

"I say, gentlemen of the jury, that Mary Phagan met her death some time between the time she entered the factory shortly after noon and the time Mrs. White came in at 12:35 or whatever time it was and found Frank at the safe-and Frank jumped at the sight of her."

"Then they put this young man of seven years' experience, the young man from Michigan against Dr. Roy F. Harris, secretary of the Georgia State Board of Health, a native born Georgian and one of the most eminent authorities in the State. Mr. Rosser says that he admitted Dr. Harris' father to the bar and that his father was one of the brainiest men he ever knew, but that his son is not of the same quality."

"But, gentlemen of the jury, will you take the opinion of the young men of seven years' experience and the other young men, the pathologist of Alsace Loraine, against the opinion of Dr. Harris. Take this man Olmstead, surgeon of the Georgia Railway and Electric Company, a man who saws off bones and experiments with cabbage in diseased stomachs. Why this man had a perfect diarrhea of words and constipation of ideas. You tell me that his word and that of the other general practitioners tis to be taken against such testimony as that of Roy Harris, a pathologist of note, and against Clarence Johnson and of Niles and Funke?"

"I want to read you here an excerpt from the address of a lawyer named Hammond, who was prosecuting a man by the name of Dunbar for the murder of two little children. His words are better than I could speak. It will explain the cause of all this nervousness of Leo Frank."

Nature's Accusation, He Calls Nervousness.

"It had to come, a mighty secret of fact in his heart, the overwhelming consciousness of guilt. It was nature overburdened with a terrible load that spoke. It was fear, remorse and terror, remorse for the past and terror for the future. Special shadows dotted before him, the specter of the girl, this trial, the gallows, and infamy. Guilt forces itself into the speech and conduct and is its own betrayer."

"So far not a word about Conley. Let us discuss Conley for a moment. We can leave Conley out and we have got a course of conduct indicative of guilt, because it is consistent with the theory of guilt and inconsistent with any other hypothesis."

"Is Dalton a low-down character? If so, is he not exactly the kind of a man that would be found consorting with this woman. Daisy Hopkins, I grant you that Dalton in his younger days was not what he would have been. You brought witnesses from Walton County to testify as to his bad character, but we took Dalton after he got to Atlanta and did for him what you didn't dare to do for Daisy Hopkins. We gave him a good character. Rosser says, 'Once a thief, always a thief.' He says that a thief is eternally damned, but Christ in His dying agony on the cross turned to the thief at his side and said, 'This day shall thou be with Me in Paradise.'"

"If our religion teaches anything, it teaches that a thief can be reformed; that he may be rehabilitated and become a useful member of society."

"Did we sustain Dalton? By far more witnesses than you put here to impeach him. Did we sustain Dalton? We sustained him not only as to character, but also by C. T. Mayer, unimpeached and unimpeachable, who testified that he actually saw Dalton go into the pencil factory with a woman."

"Corroboration of Conley? Of course, it's corroboration of Conley. They failed absolutely and ingloriously to explain this woman, Daisy Hopkins, which is another corroboration of Conley."

Rosser Could Have Found Who Dressed Up Conley.

"Rosser said he would give anything to know who dressed Jim Conely up. If he would use half the effort to find this out that he did to impeach Dalton he would have found it out really enough. The man who dressed up this negro, whom you would have dressed in deserved not the condemnation but the praise of this jury."

"Let us see why Jim Conley should now have been delivered into the hands of the police, which, if no better than the Sheriff, are just as good."

Dorsey picked up a copy of the plea in the habeas corpus proceedings which resulted in the removal of Conley from the county jail back to the police station, and read it through.

"This plea charged many things,"

Continued on Page 13, Column 1.

PAGE 13, COLUMN 1

WITNESSES FOR DEFENSE PROVE CONLEY TALE TRUE, DORSEY ARGUES TO JURY

Continued From Page 3.

he said. "Among them was that Conley was being intimidated by friends of Frank in jail. That he was given sandwiches, offered whisky and was threatened with physical harm, cursed and otherwise abused. It also charged that Conley was kept in a cage with a number of desperate criminals, one of whom was under sentence of death, and would have been willing to swear to anything to prolong his life. Also that Conley was quoted as making statements which he never made. That in contrast to this, the defendant Frank was kept in a cell block to himself and that no one except those he desired to see was allowed to visit him.

"If it was right for Frank to have the privilege of not seeing anyone he did not want to see, why should not Conley have had the same right? Even by newspaper men the defense attempted to show that certain actions and words on his part refuted his statements.

"Judge Roan issued the order which remanded Conley from the county jail to the city jail."

Rosser interrupted-We object to that, your honor. You did not order Conley back to police headquarters. You discharged him from custody.

Dorsey-The effect was the same.

Rosser-We insist that it was not. The order issued here discharged him from custody.

Judge Roan-I will explain to you. In the first instance I issued an order releasing him from the city jail and another order that he should be held in the custody of the county jail. What I did the last time was to vacate both orders. The effect was the same as remanding him back to the custody of the police."

"Conley was first in the common jail and then remanded to the police station, and the effect of the Judge's next order was to turn him loose. But for the police bringing him to testify in this case he might have been spirited out of town and his important testimony silenced forever.

"They claim he is impeached, but I assert he is unimpeachable by any man except persons with their hands in the till of the National Pencil Company. Unimpeached as to character, except by hirelings of the National Pencil Company, yet they would turn this man loose and set aside all this important evidence when all they have found against his record are charges of disorderly conduct at the police station.

Says Conley Is Abundantly Sustained.

"I tell you, gentlemen, Conley is abundantly sustained. Our proof of the general bad character of Frank sustains him. Our proof of the general bad character for lasciviousness, not even denied by a single witness, sustains him. Your failure (pointing to attorneys for the defense) to cross-examine and deliver up the sources of information of the girls who testified that his character was bad-those girls Arnold called hair-brained fanatics without rhyme or reason-sustains him."

"Frank's relations with Miss Rebecca Carson, going into the dressing room with her in the broad day, first given by Miss Jackson, the defense's own witness--"

Rosser interrupted: "Miss Jackson never said anything about Frank going into a room with Miss Carson."

Dorsey: "You are right, you are right. Well, then, by witnesses whose names I can't recall.

"Their statements sustain him. The statements that this libertine and rapist looked into the dressing room of these young girls with a sardonic smile sustains Jim Conley.

"Miss Kitchens, who refuted Mr. Arnold's statement that he had called all the women on the fourth floor to testify as to Frank's character, sustains Jim Conley."

"Darley sustains him. Truman Mc Crary, the old darkey praised so highly, sustains him in the statement as to where he put his sack of hay at the time he drew his pay. Monteen Stover, telling of her easy walking shoes, sustains him. She sustains him in that at the moment Frank was with this unfortunate little girl. She went to his office and he was not there."

"Conley heard footsteps going to the rear. Monteen Stover went up afterwards. Is that not substantiation?"

"Lemmie Quinn, your own dear Lemmie, in connection with the testimony of Mrs. Freeman and Miss Hall, about the time he went to Frank's office, sustained him. Frank's statement about consulting his attorneys before deciding whether or not to make public the statement of Lemmie Quenn's visit on Saturday, sustains him.

"Dalton, proving a good character during the last ten years, sustains him. Daisy Hopkins sustains him. Brent, on the second floor, sustains him. The testimony of Holloway in an affidavit before he realized its importance, sustains him. The testimony of Boots Rogers, that the power box of the elevator was unlocked, sustains him."

Clash Over Conley's "Did," and "Done."

The affidavit of Minola Mc Knight made before Mr. Craven and Mr. Pickett sustains Jim Conley. The use of that cord to choke her, which is around the factory in such abundance, sustains him. The existence of notes alone sustains him. No negro in the history of his race, after a rape, ever wrote notes to cover up the crime. The diction of the notes-'I did' when Jim says 'I done'--"

Rosser interrupted: "Well, he didn't say that. He says 'I did' and I have records here. He says here where he tells of Frank telling of having to watch, 'I disremember whether I did or not.'"

Dorsey-I will have to know who wrote it before I believe it.

Rosser-If God Almighty were to say it you wouldn't believe it.

Attorney Arnold read the record-"And he said he would stay on the floor like he did before."

Dorsey-Yes; you are reading his quotation of Frank.

There was laughter throughout the courtroom. Deputy sheriffs rapped for order.

Arnold-Here it is both ways, quoting Frank and direct.

Dorsey-I am not bound by that report. This jury heard it and I am willing to trust them.

Rosser-Yes; I know that you are not bound by any rule of conduct in the universe.

Parry, the court stenographer, at this juncture said that Conley was quoted both ways. He said that the character for "did" in shorthand was quite different from the character for "done," and there was no cause for mistake.

Dorsey Takes Up Context of Notes.

"The testimony shows that Jim in a majority of instances used the word 'done' instead of 'did.' I will not quarrel over that matter any longer. I am willing to leave it to the jury."

"The phrase: 'That long tall black negro did this by his-self' shows a conscious effort on the part of Frank to limit the crime to one man."

"Conley is sustained as to the time of Frank's arrival at the factory Saturday morning by Frank himself. He is sustained as to Frank's visit to Montag's. He is sustained as to the folder that Frank carried in his hand."

"Arthur White borrowed $2 from Frank when he left at 3 o'clock that afternoon. Schiff testified that an entry always was made of these loans, or that a little slip was left in the cash box, indicating that the loan had been made."

This is coverage of the closing arguments in the 1913 Leo Frank trial (Solicitor Dorsey's argument and Arnold's mistrial motion). Let me know if you'd like the remaining pages transcribed as well.

"But where is the paper? Where is the entry in any book? We have asked them to show us an entry and they have failed to do it. The fact of the matter is that Frank neglected to make the entry. Why was it? It was because his mind was so occupied with the crime that he had committed and with the problem of getting rid of the girl's body that he totally forgot the entry."

"Frank in his statement before you said that he made every man sign for the loans he obtained. But they can't show the signature of this man White. I tell you, gentlemen of the jury that he didn't take a receipt from White because his mind and conscience was on the terrible crime he had committed."

Where's Mincey? Dorsey Queries.

"Do you tell me that if everything had been normal he wouldn't have taken the receipt? There's only one reason he didn't take it and you know that reason."

"Conley also has been sustained by the fact that Frank had rich relatives in Brooklyn, and by the time that Frank left the factory that afternoon."

"Where's Mincey?"

"Echo answers where. Either Mincey was a myth or he was such a diabolical perjurer that these lawyers of Frank's knew that his testimony would nauseate any fair-minded jury that heard him."

"Where's Mincey? I ask. If you were not going to produce him and let the jury see him, why did you parade the statements in his affidavit before these men in the jury box? You know, and everybody knows, that if Mincey could have helped your case you would have had him here if you had to go over Georgia with a fine-tooth comb to find him."

"Every act of Frank proclaims him a murderer. Every word announces that he it was who foully strangled little Mary Phagan. Every circumstance proves his guilt. The circumstances are extraordinary, yes, but they are as true as is the fact that little Mary Phagan lies dead."

"She died without a blot on her life or her reputation. She died because she would not yield her virtue to her superintendent.

"I have no purpose and have not had any in the prosecution of this trial that you gentlemen should not have had as honest men. Your honor, I have done my duty, and I have no apology to make. So far as the State is now concerned, you may charge the jury. This jury has sworn to be unprejudiced and unbiased, and has said under oath that they will consider this case with fair-mindedness and as honest men should, and I can but believe that there will be but one verdict-and that it will be guilty, guilty, guilty."

Attorney Arnold at the conclusion of Solicitor Dorsey's argument at 12 o'clock, arose and made a motion for a mistrial. Attorney Arnold based his motion on the applause which at different times during the proceedings has broken the order of the courtroom.

"Your honor, at the beginning of this trial," said Arnold, counsel for the defense, "I requested that the courtroom be cleared of spectators. I am going to make a motion for a new trial and we are prepared to prove each of the instances upon which we base our request, unless your honor is willing to admit that they are true."

"First, when the court refused to rule out the evidence of Frank's relations with other women as given by Jim Conley, that there was applause in the courtroom."

"Second, on Friday, August 22, when the trial was on, and had just recessed for lunch, and when the jury was within 200 feet of the courthouse, and just as the Solicitor General was leaving the courthouse, the crowd gathered around and in plain hearing of the jury yelled: 'Hurrah for Dorsey.'"

"Third, that on Saturday, August 23, while the trial was still in process, and had just adjourned, a large crowd gathered in front of the courthouse, and as the Solicitor General left the courthouse, yelled: 'Hurrah for Dorsey.' The jury at this time was in a cafe at lunch within 100 feet and was in plain hearing of the noise, and that the crowd moved up in front of the cafe and again yelled: 'Hurrah for Dorsey,' all within plain hearing of the jury."

"Fourth, on August 25, while the jury was in a room within 20 feet of the courtroom, that as the Solicitor General entered the courtroom, the crowd in the courtroom arose and applauded him, and that your honor admonished the crowd that if it happened again he would clear the courtroom."

"And that all of this applause has tended to coerce and unduly influence the jury. The conduct was most disgraceful and the defendant has not been given a fair show at any time during the trial from the start to the finish."

"I never saw a trial where there were so many manifestations of feeling. They have a natural tendency to intimidate and influence the jury."

"I make the motion for the new trial and I stand ready to prove what I have said."

The jury was out while the arguments on the mistrial were being made.

Dorsey Objects to Mistrial Motion.

Dorsey arose with a strenuous objection.

"I take issue with the defense," almost shouted the Solicitor. "I never heard any such thing as Mr. Arnold speaks of. I think it would be the most ridiculous thing in the world to entertain the motion. I don't know whether all that Mr. Arnold has said is true or not, but I want your honor to overrule the motion because it wouldn't amount to anything if it were true."

Arnold interrupted Dorsey.

"Didn't you hear the applause this morning, your honor?" said Arnold, addressing Judge Roan. "Didn't you hear the cheering last Friday and Saturday? Didn't you hear them yell, 'Hurrah for Dorsey?'"

Judge Roan admitted that he had heard cheering, but denied that the exclamation, "Hurrah for Dorsey," had reached his ears.

Several witnesses took the stand to testify as to the demonstrations which were claimed to have influenced the jury. Arnold himself was one of them.

Deputy R. B. Deavers testified also that just before the jury entered the German Cafe on Saturday afternoon he heard a demonstration, but asked if he heard, "Hoorah for Dorsey!" he declared that he did not.

Deputy C. F. Huber said that he was with the jury Friday afternoon, but when asked if he had heard the demonstrations, said that he had not and did not know anything about it until next morning.

The crowd in the courtroom laughed at Huber's statement.

"Your honor," shouted Attorney Arnold, jumping to his feet, "I want that in the records. Who else was with you?" Arnold asked of Huber.

"Mr. Liddell," Huber answered.

"Say," interposed Attorney Hooper, "aren't we going to be given an opportunity to cross-examine this witness?"

In the confusion Hooper's protest was overlooked. Attorney Arnold asked that Liddell be brought in, but Judge Roan ruled against the defense, denying a new trial.