Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

THE ATLANTA liEUKUIAJN AND NEWS. WOMEN OF FACTORY SWEAR FRANK’S CHARACTER ‘IS BAD State Makes Headway With Testimony Hitting Standing of Prisoner Continued from page 2. ing ahead of time?—A. Not at first. Q. Now, did you ever catch him ahdad of time at 12 o’oclok?A. Yes. Q. Plow much?—A. Three minutes. M. When was it?—A. During the ajW-inf of the year. Q. How many time® have ^ou known him to be ahead of time?—A. Only twice. I think, in the short time he has been under me. The witness was excused and N. Kelly, a motorman was called. Dor sey questioned him. Q. Whera were you April 26 be tween 12 and 12:06 o’clock?—A. At Broad and Marietta streets. Q. Do you know’ what tifne the English avenue car came in?—A. It was 12:03. Q. Do you know Matthews and Hol lis?—A. Yes. Mary Phagan Not On the Cars. Q. Did you see them on the car?— A. Yes. Q. At what time?—A. 12:03. Q. Did you know Mary Phagan?—A. Bv sight. Q. Was she on that car when you raw it?—A. She was not. Rosser took the witness on cross- examination. Q. How do you remember that?—A. I looked at mv watch to catch a car Q. Did you look at it yesterday at that time?—A. I don’t remember. Q. Why did not you report about little Marv Phagr.n not being on that car?—A. I did not want to get mixed up in this. Q. When did you first tell the de tectives?—A. I didn’t see the detec tives. 1 told Mr. Starnes this morn ing. Q. Who else was on that car?—A I don't remember. Q. What did you do after that'?—A. I stood at Jackson & Wessels for a time and then went and caught the 12:10 car for College Park. Q. You were not paying any par ticular attention to anything, were you?—A. I was watching the crews being relieved. Q What is the schedule of the Col lege Park and Hapeville cars?—A. The College Park schedule is 8:30 to 8:60 and the Hapeville cars run on the hour and every twenty min- utes. Rosser—Don't tell it so fast. What’s the schedule?—A. A car every ten minute?. Says Car Often Is Ahead of Time. The witness was excused and W. D. Owens, a conductor on the White City line, was called. Dorsey questioned him. Q What time do you get to town at noon?—A. 12:05. Q. Do you remember seeing me English avenue and Cooper street car on April 26?—A. No. Q. Did you ever know that ear to come in there ahead of you?—A. Yes. Q. How much?—A. Two mniutes. Q. Ever more than that?—A. I have known it to be three minutes. The witness was excused and L. F. Ingram, a street car conductor, was called. Dorsey questioned him. Q. Do you remember coming to town on an English avenue car Sat urday. April 26?—A. I do. Q. What time was it?—A. I don’t remember. Q. An English avenue car is due at Marietta and Broad streets at 12:07 o'clock. Do you remember that ear ever coming in ahead of time?—A. Yes; frequently. Sometimes they come in ahead of time and sometimes late. I saw one of those trippers come in this morning at 8:24 when it was due at 8:30 o’clock. q How much have you known the English avenue car to be off sched ule?—A. Three or four minutes. Rosser took the witness on cross- examination. Q. It’s against the rules of the com pany to come in ahead of time, lsn\ it?—A. Yes. The witness was excused and Miss Mamie Kitchens, an employee of the pencil factory on the fourth floor, was called. Dorsey questioned her. Q. How long have you been at the factory?—A. Two years. Q. What floor?—A. Fourth. Q. Were you at the factory to day?—A. Yes. Only Hearsay About Superintendent. Q. Do you know any woman on that floor who has not been called as a witness here?—A. Miss Eva Jones and Mrs. Howell. Q. Are you acquainted with Frank's general character?—A. Only by hearsay, and I don’t want to testi fy. Q. That’s all right. I won’t press the question. Now were you ever in that dressing room on the fourth floor with Miss Irene Jackson when this defendant, Deo M. Frank, came in?— A. Y es. Q. .Well, just tell the jury about it. A. I was back there one day when lie came back and stuck his head in the door. He laughed, and said some thing about us having no work to do, and then went out. Rosser took the witness on cross- examination. Q. Did he ask you if you girls had any work to do?—A. Yes. Q. Didn’t he open the door qnd say: “Haven't you girls any work to do?”—A. He didn't say it that way Q. Who else was there?—A. Miss Ethel Stewart was in there for a time. Q. Aren't you mistaken about Miss Jones and Mrs. Howell not being call ed as witnesses?—A. 1 only have their word for it. Q. I am going to ask you a ques tion we have asked every woman who works on the fourth floor. Did you ever meet Mr. Frank for any im proper purpose?—A. I never did. Dorsey: “Your honor, if that ques tion is admissible, why can’t we ask Miss Wood the question we have in dicated?” Judge Roan: “They claim their questions are only in rebuttal of Conley.” At this time, 1 o’clock, court re cessed until 2,- making the longest morning session yet held In the trial Motorman, Recalled, Denies Talk of Case. The first witness called at the after noon session was W. M. Matthews, motorman. who declared that the Phagan girl came into the city on his car oh the morning of the / murder. Solicitor Dorsey endeavored to show that he had feeling this case which caused him to lean toward the de fense. „ Dorsey—Do you know this man, W. C. Dbbbs?—A\ I do. Dobbs was sent from the courtroom. Q. Didn’t you have a talk with Mr. Dobbs about three days after the murder and say that Mary Phagan and George Epps got off your car at Broad and Marietta Greets?—A. I never told anyone that. Q. Didn’t you tell someone you owed a debt of gratitude to someone connected with this case? Rosser interposed an objection. “Let him give names,” he* said. Dorsey—How long sinee you were a defendant in court?A.—About two years. Q. Who defended you?—A. Mr. Moore and Mr. Branch, Mr. Colquitt and Mr. Conyers. Rosser — You were acquitted, weren’t you?—A. Yes. W. C. Dobbs Sys He 1 Talked With Conductor. Q. Does Mr. Branch live anywhere near you?—A. No. Q. Did you ever talk to me about this case?—A. One time. Q. Did you ever talk to this man (indicating Attorney Arnold)?—A. No. Q This man (indicating Frank)?— A No. Q. You have no interest in this case?—A. No. Q. What were you tried for?—A, Manslaughter. Q. Did the jury acquit you?—A. Yes. The witness was excused and W. C. Dobbs was called to the utand. Dorsey questioned him. Q. Did you ever have any conver sation with Conductor Matthews about Mary Phagan and George Epps coming in on his car?—A. Yes; he told me she came in on the car and that Epps was with her. Q. Did he say Anything about where they got off?—A. Yes; at Marietta and Forsyth streets Rosser took the witness on cross- examination. Q. are the son of Police Sergeant Dobbs who is testifying in this case, are you not?—A. Yes. The witness was excused. J. W. Coleman, step-father of Mary Phagan, was called again. He did not answer and Solicitor Dorsey said that Cpleman’s wife was sick and it would be necessary to send fo?* him. W. W. (Boots) Rogers was recalled to the stand. Dorsey questioned him. Q. Did you notice anything about the stairs and door that Sunday morning in the National Pencil Fac tory from the basement to the first fl^or?—A. Yes; the stairs were dirty and dusty and the door could not be lifted. Man Says He Saw Negro In Alleyway. The witness was excused without being cross-examined. Sergeant L. S. Dobbs wan called to the stand. Dorsey questioned him. Q. Did you see Boots Rogers try to open that door to the stairway leading from theb asement in the pencil factory the Sunday morning the body was found?—A. Yes. Th^ witness was excused,and Rog ers recalled. Dorsey queMtiffhed him. Q. Did you see anything by that chute?—A. Yes; a large pile of shav ings. Rogers was excused and Oxel Til - lanter was called to the stand. . Dor sey questioned him. Q. Were you at the pencil factory April 26?—A. Yes. Q. At what time?—A. Just before 12 o’clock. Q. Did you see anybody?—A. Yes; when I went in I Maw a negro com ing through a dark alleyway. I ask ed him the way to the office and he showed me. Q. Have you seen this boy. Jim Conley?—A. Yes. Q. Is he the negro?—A. I won’t be positive, but he looks like him. Q. Did you see Frank?—A. Yes. Cf. Where?—A. In his office. Q. What was he doing?—A. Work ing. Q. What, did you say to him?—A. I asked him for my daughter-in-law’s pay and got it. Rosser took the witness on cross- examination Q. You are not positive about its being Conley?—A. No. Q. You say you saw a darkey come up from a dark alley. Where was that?—A. At the side of the factory. Step-Father of IJead Girl on Stand. The witness was excused. E. K. ..Graham was called to the stand. Dorsev questioned hirn. Q. On Saturday, April 26. were you at the pencil■ factory?—A. Yes, about 20 minutes to 12 o’clock. Q. Did you see a negro at the en tranced—A. Yes. Q. Have you seen Jim Conley?—A. Yes, I SHW him this morning. Q. Was he the man you saw there? —A. I couldn’t say. 1 notieed a re semblance. though it seems to me that the. man I saw was a little brighter. Q. Did you say anything to him? - ‘A. No. The man with he asked him how to get to the office. Q. Did he show you?—A. Yes. Q. Was he drunk or sober?—A. I didn't see any signs of drunkenness Rosser took the witness. Q. You say the negro you saw was brighter than Conley?—A. Is seems to me he was. The witness was excused. J. W. Coleman, step-father of Mary Pha gan arrived at the courthouse at this time and wns placed on the stand. Dorsey questioned him. Q. Do you remember a conversation you had with Inspector McWhort, of tile Pinkertons?—A. Yes. Q. Did he or not exhibit an envelope found in the factory?—A. He did. Q. What figures if any did the en velope havf on 11?—A. If "had a figure 1 up in the corner. Then a figure was torn out; than a 5. The witness was shown the en velope the detectives brought Into court and he said It did not look like the one shown him. J. M. Gantt Is Recalled to Sand. Rosser cross-questioned the wit ness. Q. You don’t know whether this it the same envelope or not, do you?—A It might be, but the figures are not the same. Dorsey took the witness again. Q. Did you say anything about this envelope not fitting the case?—A. Yes, my wife spoke up and said— Rosser interrupted: “Never mind what your wife said.” The witness was excused. J. M. Gantt was called to the sthand. Dor sey questioned him. Q. Did you ever see Leo M. Frank make up the financial sheet?—A. Yes. Q. How long would it take him?-' A. If he had the data, it would not take him more than one and one- half hours. Q. Was that time clock accurate? —A. No. Q. How did it vary?—A. Two \o three minutes. Rosier took the witness on cross- examination. Q. Did you pay off those girls by it?—A. Yes. Dorsey took the witness again. Q. How often was that clock regu lated?—A. Two or three times a week. Arnold registered an objection but was overruled. 'The witness was excused and Her bert Schiff was recalled. Dorsey questioned him. Q. How much pay did Mary Phagan draw that last week?—A. $1.20. Q. Now I want you to show me on that book there \vher£ the $2 Frank loaned Arthur White appears.—A. It appears as $4 because I advanced him $2 the next‘week and made the en try myself. Q. Where is that ticket Frank made of it?—A. I tore it up. Says He Gave Haas All the Papers. Q. You tore it up?—A. We always do. Q. You were served with a duces tecum to bring to the court a paper signed by Charley Lee in regard to the injury of this man Dudley?—A. 1 was. Q. Did you bring it?—A. I turned over to Mr. Haas all the papers I had. Q. Did you ever show to Lee a writ ten statement he had made about this accident?—A. I don’t think he ever wrote a statement, tl w r as written on a typewriter. Q. Was it in the papers you gave Mr. Haas?—A. It had no right to be | there. Q. Did you hate the game time clock at the time of the murder that you had when Gantt was there?—A. We have tv*o time clocks. Q. How much behind was the clock when you sent for Mr Price to fix it? —A. I don’t think that wa6 the trouble at all. tl think it was clogged with the ribbon. Rosser took the witness. Q. You had $1,174.80 for the payroll except for the loans you were to pay out, and every cent of that was in I wages, was it not? Dorsey: “This is his witness. He ; can not lead him as though it were | a cross-examination.” Rosser: “What? I thought I could cross-exarpine him. Mr. Dorsey has brought in an entirely new matter of that time.” Judge Roan: “The uniform rul has been that when one side Introduces a witness, he remains their witness.” Rosser: “Then, your honor, we have suffered grievously by this. (Turning to the witness) Mr. Schiff, I will now’ shift my method of examining you. <Come clown.” Negro Says He Drank With Conley. Ivy Jones, a negro, was the next witness. Dorsey questioned him. Q. What do you do?—A. Drive for Walker Brothers. Q. On Saturday, April 26, did you see Jim Conley?—A. Yes. Q. Where?—A. At Forsyth and Hunter streets. Q. What time was it?—A. Be tween 1 and 2 o’clock. Q. Can you be more accurate than that?—A. No. Q. Was he drunk?—A. No. Q. Where did you go with him?— A. To a saloon. Q. Then where?—A. Toward his home. I left hirp at the corner of Davis and Hunter streets about three blocks from his home. Rosser took the witness on cross- examination. Q. You and he drank beer at that saloon, didn’t you?—A. Yes; both of us got some. Rem.sbr: “Come down.” llarty Scott, Pinkerton detective, was recalled to the stand. Dorsey questioned him. building, did you see any blood around the scuttle hole on the first floor, which leads to the basement?—A. No. Rosser—This ban all been gone over before and is incompetent. Dorsey—We want to rebut Mc- Whort’s evidence about the bludgeon and the blood. The- objection was overruled. Q. When did the State learn of this bloody bludgeon?—A. I told you per sonally about it on July 15. Further objection's caused Solicitor Dorsey to change his line of question ing. Memory Not Clear on Finding Piece of Cord. Q. Mr. Scott, when you were going through the basement with Mr. Frank, did you pick up a piece of cord similar to that fourid around Mary Phagan’s neck?—A. I think I did. Q. Did you pick it up, or Frank pick it up?—A. My memory is not clear. • Q. Did Newt Lej ever recognize that bloodv shirt?—A. He did not. Q. From whom did you learn Con ley could write?—A. I got the infor mation from my office. I was out of town when they found it out. When did you learn of ik?—A. McWhort told me on Sunday—“ Rosk r objected and was sustained. Q. What did you do when you dis covered Conley could write? Rosser: “Then went into that on the direct.” me objection was sustained. Q. What conversation did you have I with Frank about Darley?—A. We told him we believed Darley had been i going with girls in the factory. He said, “No; Darley is the soul of honor. ! He could not know anything about it.” . Q. * Did Black say to you: “Come on, there is nothing doing?”-r~A. No. The witness was excused, and L y. Kendrick, former night watchman at the factory, was called to the stand. Dorsey questioned him. Dorsey’s questions Met With Objections. Q. Did you have any conversation with Holloway about swearing that Frank called you up? Rosser interrupted: “Holloway was their witness. They can not impeach him.” Rosser’s objection was sustained. Dorsey: “Well, can’t I show intest and feeling, then?” • Judge Roan: “You can only im peach Holloway on points on which he has mislead you.” Dorsey: “That is not the law.” Judge Roan: “Then what is the law?” Dorsey: “I will get you the authori ties.” Judge Roan: “Then I will rule later.” ^ Now. during the two years you were working there, did you ever see women there on Saturday afternoons? Rosser: “You have already ruled on that.” Judge Roan. “You can't ask that.” Q. Did you ever put a slip in the time clock?—A. Yes. Q. How long did it take you?—A. About two or thi%e minutes. Q. Could you hear that elevator running when trhefe was hammering and knocking?—A. No. Q. Have you ever seen Conley around the elevator on Saturday aft ernoons?—A. I have seen Conley there on the way back from lunch. Rosser took the witness. Q. You have seen all the negroes around there?—A. I have seen some of them. The witness was excused and Dor sey tendered as evidence the time slip made by the \^tq,ess. Little Girl Tells of Visit of Reporter. Vera Epps, a little girl 11 years old, sister of George Epps, was called. Dorsey questioned her. Q. Did you know Mary Phagan? A. Yes. Q. Did you talk to a Georgian re porter, Mr. John Minar, the Sunday after the murder and tell him the last time you had seen Mary Phagan was the Thursday before the murder?—A. Yes. Q. Was your brother George Epps, there?—A. He was in the house, but j he wasn’t there all the time this man j was there. Q. Had your brother told you he ' had seen Mary Phagan on Saturday? —A. No. The witness was excused, and C. B. Maynard was called to the stand. Dorsey questioned him. Q. Do you know’ C. B. Dalton?—A. ! Yes. Q. Did you ever see him go into the j pencil factory with a woman?— Yes. Q. When?—A. In June, or July. Q. What time of day?—A. Between 1 and 2 o’clock. Q. What day of the week was it?- A. Saturday. Rosser took the witness. Q. You are sure of that?—A. Yes. The witness was excused and W. T. Hollis, conductor on the English ave nue line on which Mary*Phagan came to town the day she was murdered was recalled to the stand. Dorsey questioned him. Q. Didn’t you have a^conversation with J. D. Reid on Monday after the murder?—A. I don’t know him. Q. Didn’t you tell him that you saw a little boy with her who looked like her sweetheart?—A. I did not. Recognizes Patron But Doesn’t Know Name. Q. You say now, like you did the other day, that if George Epps was on the car you did not know it?—A. Yes. Solicitor Dorsey had Reid brought into the courtroom. Dorsey tlfen ad dressed the witness: Q. Do you know’ this man?—A. He rides on my car. I don’t know his name. Q. Did you tell him anything like I have suggested?—A. I did not. The witness was excused, and J. D. Reid was brought to the stand. Q. On Monday, April 28, did you have and conversation with Conduc tor J. T. Hollis on the street car about Mary Phagan?—A. No. I wasn’t on the ca-r with her. A ripple of laughter ran around the room. The witness continued: “I am a little deaf; will you com e a little bit closer.” Dorsey moved closer to the witness and repeated his question. A. Yes. He told me it made him feel bad because the little girl rode on his car the last time. He said that a little boy named Epps, ‘her sweet heart, rode i nwith her. He said they sat in the same seat and got off to-, gether. Rosser did not cross-examine the witness. City Detective Tells Of McKnight Story. J. M. Starnes, city detective, who has been in the courtroom with So licitor Dorsey since the trial began, was recalled to the stand. Dorsey questioned him. Q. Did you see any stains of blood spots near the scuttle hole on the first floor of the pencil factory when you made ^’our examination of the ATTACK PUTS DEFENSE 11 By JAMES B. NEVIN. The public, that is to say that sec tion of the public willing to be fair and wanting to he convinced accord ing to the facts, should remember, in seeking to steady itself in considering the Frank cas* that as the story of Jim Conley was the climax of the State’s case, so the statement cf Leo Frank was the climax of the defense’s case. It should remember that both statements are to be ^weighed care fully and analytically—that conclu sions are to be jumped at from neither. The horror cf the Conley story, coupled with its unspeakable de tails, temporarily swept the public mind into a seeming solidity of opin- n ion hostile to Frank—It carried in stant conviction to hundreds of minds, through the sheer force of the sinister detail It contained. By and by, how’ever, the public mind rebounded in a way. apd It bo- gan taking counsel with itself. And then came a pause, followed by a swing back more or less to the nor mal. That Is the way It Is with the pub lic mind—always wanting to be just, and Rlw’ays sure to be just, if given time and opportunity, yet prone ever to be fjished along heedlessly in the beginning of terrible stories! It is the^lmmedlate horror of the crime that not infrequently distorts the public’s sense cf proportion pri marily, and makes it unfair to itself no less than to other persons con cerned. But the public in the end is juct. and It Is true to Itself. All it asks —or all it needs—is a chance to re gain its balance, after having been knocked this way or that by a stun ning and unanticipated blow it was not able to ward ofT when delivered. Leo Frank’s remarkable statement to the jury Monday, certainly one %t the most convincing statements, so far as surface indications go. that ever fell from the lips of a defendant In Georgia, still is not sufficient, and should not be sufficient, within itself to warrant the nubile now in rushing to the conclusion that he is innocent. Pendulum Will Come to Rest. And so, as in the case of Conley, while the sentiment of the public swung heavily in tka direction of the State following the Conley story, an.t then swung back in the direction of the defense following the Frank state ment, it eventually will right itself somewhere midway between the two, perhaps, and then look to the rest of the evidence as fitting the one or the other. A woman correspondent writes me: - * ”1 have read your articles daily. Tell me, truly, are you for Frank or against him? I can not tell from what you say.” Now. in a way, I consider that something of a compliment. I am glad this correspondent does not know whether I am for or against Frank, for 1 am neither the one nor the other I merely visit the courtroom daily, and "gather mdTi nosegay of other men’s flowers; and naught but the string that binds them is mine own!” When the storm signals have seem ed fair for Frank. 1 have so set it down. When they have seemed ominous, I have so set that down. In all the ideas and conclusions f have transferred to paper in respect of the Frank trial, the wish never fcas been father to the thought—save In that I always have preferred, and al ways shall prefer, to see a man prove himself a gentleman rather than a scoundrel, if he can. What I do hope to stand for, and try to stand for. and what none of us can afford NOT to stand for, is justice and right, fair play and no special favors, decency and civiliza tion, ann the supremacy of the law of the land! I assure my correspondent that 1 am neither for nor against Frank but that I am for truth and right, and in my own way and after my own fashion I undertake to 9tand by my ideals Justice the Real End. Frank Hooper promulgated a plat form all can afford to mount and fight upon, when he said, before this caoe came on for trial: “It is not so much a matter of finding and convicting Leo Frank, as It is a matter of finding and convicting the murderer of little Marv Phagan!” So long as you feel that way about it. you are on safe and solid ground; but once you get away from that standpoint, you begin groping and lis tening to the persuasive plea of your prejudices and your preconceived opinions, no matter what they may be. When a man is on trial for his life, you don't have to be FOR or AGAINST him—but you DO have to be in favor of a fair trial for him! Then, when everything has begn done in order and according to the best teachings of a thousand years of Anglo-Saxon civilization, even as im perfect as that yet is, the verdict finally recorded under the law’ will provide you a sheet anchor against error and wrong, and you then will be as right as human ingenuity and philosophy can make you right. And after that, you should worry. I guess! Since the Frank statement was de livered. and notwithstanding the fine Impression it made upon the public, the State has succeeded in recovering n good deal of ground, nevertheless; and it probably is true to-day that it stands about as firm as it ever did, if not firmer. It is conceded that the State lost heavily from a legal standpoint when the presiding judge decided on Tues day not to admit any evidence tend ing to break down Frank's character in specific instances not directly con nected with the murder of little Mary Phagan. When one comes to consider the matter of public opinion, however, it may be that the defense in this won nothing more than a Pyrrhic victory, at best, and that it might have been better to let the State go ahead and prove what It could, if it could prove anything. ^ The Solicitor General has said all along that he was prepared to estab lish his allegations of gross immoral ity against Frank; and w r hen Frank seemed to meet that challenge by in jecting his general character in is sue, the public was inclined to ap plaud and to say that was fair and square enough. If the State was "four-flushing”— which Dorsey solemnly affirmed it was not—and the defense appeared to call Its hand, the public was honest enough to grant Frank’s right to do that, and to approve his dare to the State. Effect Is Disconcerting. When, however, the defense is per mitted to enter its call, and Dorsey Is then shut off on the threshold of his attempt to make good on his position, the effect naturally is somewhat dis concerting, even to tnose who believe Frank not guilty. The State stands now in the posi tion of having said, unqualifiedly, that it COULD make good its charges, and then, after having been challenged to do so, of being estopped from proceed ing! In all fairness to the Btate—and to the defense, too, for that matter— this seems rather a hardship upon it. Frank made a brave showing of good character—he seemed to chal lenge the State to do its worst, if it could. And now the State is shut off, upon tho defense’s own motion, from undertaking to do THE VERY THING THE DEFENSE HAS VE HEMENTLY PROTESTED IT r<>UUD N<»T do: There is not much difference, as I see it. in having the impression spread that the State COULD make good, if given an opportunity, and that it DID make goo4, when given an op portunity! The vital thing and the necessary thing, so far as public opinion is con cerned, perhaps, is that the. defense show that the State NEVER COULD MAKE GOOD, IN ANY EVENT! The court does not permit the in troduction of irrelevant evidence—and maybe that is right: it is the law, anyway—but the public does, partic ularly when it can not see the irrele vancy of the evidence. The attitude of Frank personally has seemed to be that of inviting the closest and most searching Investiga tion into every phase of the charge against him—but it seems to me, as I said In another article, that the worst the defense can do for Frank is to let the impression become fixed that there are some things against ■which he sadly NEEDS protection! So far, Leo Frank himself has made the very best plea that has been en tered in behalf of Leo Frank! He has boldly thrown down the gauntlet—and he says he made up his statement in his own way, after his own mind, and without even consult ing his lawyers. He delivered his defense from the stand in a most convincing manner— if it was the truth, it was given speed by being simply told, and in appar ent candor. If it was an untruth, it was deliv ered with consummate art. Only Frank and his God can know, for sure, whether it is the one or the other! Willing To Be Cross-examined. He was reported willing to be cross- examined on his statement, if that might be thought desirable upon the part of the State, but whether the of fer actually was made there is no outspoken evidence. Nevertheless, It probably will do Frank no good in the mind of the public to have It appear that he was professedly willing enough to let down the bars at every point, but that, for some reason, the bars were prevented from being let down—and by Frank’s own sldol The defense can not hope to eat its cake and have it too—that fk, It can not hope jo have both those things unprotested. It can not well say Frank’s character is above re proach and then head off the State in an attempt to prove otherwise. It can not do that in justice to Frank, I think—and certainly not in justice to the State! Sometimes things are done under the forms of law that are tactical and strategic mistakes, notwithstanding. There is no complaint as to their le gal righteousness, perhaps, but there may be some complaint as to their illuminating the subject matter in hand. Perhaps the initial mistake was made when the defense permitted Conley’s first unspeakable charge to go unchallenged—when it even cross- examined Conley upon it—but onee that mistake was made, it may prove in the end to have been a far better policy to fight it out to the ultimate status along ^that line. building immediately after the mur der? Rosser interrupted: “Hcf answered that before.” Btarnes: “I did not." Dorsey: “Now we will jump to the arrest of Minola McKnight. Tell us about that, Mr s Starnes.” A. We had information about w r hat her husband said she knew. We took her to Mr. Dorsey’s office, and from there to the police station. I did not see her until the next day. We got Mr. Pickett and Mr. Craven from the Beck & Gregg Hardware Company to come up and see if they could get a statement from her. I asked Minola if she had rather make her state ment to them or to us. Hhe said to them. 1 said: "Minola, if this is not the truth, do not make it.” When she was about half through I asked her attorney, Mr. George Gor don. to come in. I had the stenog rapher read over what she had said. When he had finished she signed it. Q. Was f»he held by my authority? —A. Sshe was not. Q. Could 1 order you to release her? —A. You told me over the phone you could not tell me what to do. Rosser took the witness on corss- examination. Q. Now, Starnes, you locked that woman up because she would not give you the kind of statement you want ed?—A. No. Locked Her Up Because He Was on Murder Case. Q. Well, why did you lock her up?— A. I was working on a murder case.* Q. Answer my question. A. I am going to tell you. Dorsey—He has a right to answer It. Q. Well, by what authority did you lock her up?—A. By the authority of an honorable officer working on a ruurder case. FPosser—That’s all right. Now, wh.) j issued a warrant for that woman’s j arrest?—A. There was none that I know of. Q. Who arrested her?—A. A bailiff j or deputy from Dorsey’s office went out and got her. He did not arrest i her. Q. W v ho locked her up?—A. I turn- I ed her over to the denk man. Q. And you kei* her there twenty- four hours?—A. Yes. The witness was excused and th^* jury retired for five minutes to take I their usual afternoon soft drink. New and Becoming Dresses For Girls Are Priced at 69c In a few days the early fall sehool wardrobe must be looked into, and the needs of fresh, new wash dresses will be revealed. Here are new dresses that are intended for jusf this purpose. They are beautifully made, in eight different styles, of pretty striped lawns, light and dark shades, and effectively trimthed. Sizes 6 to 14 years— priced for to-morrow’s sale at 69c each. 4 i* Pretty New Dresses for Little Tots at 39c Every one now—they have just come, and will he gladly wel- eomed by mothers who are now finding .their children’s wdrdrobes dilapidated from the hard summer’s wear. These dresses are made of sturdy percales, dotted and figured effects; about six styles—low square neck, short sleeves, long waist- ed, plaited skirt, with belt; 2 to 6-year sizes. Priced at 39c. flvdk The Best Food-Orink Lunch at Fountains Insist Upon S HORLICK’S Avoid Imitations—Take No Substitute Rich milk, malted grain, in powder form. For infants, invalids and growing children. Pure nutrition,upbuilding the whole body. Invigorates nursing mothers and the aged. More healthful than tea or coffee. Agrees with the weakest digestion. Keep it on your sideboard at home. A quick lunch prepared in a minute.