Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

k i I i h >jA.< AiV D A ii v v >3. DORSEY FIGHTS HARD TO BOLSTER UP DR. HARRIS' EVIDENCE Ends His Case With Hard Assault On Defense; Leo Frank Testifies Again Continued from Page 1. occurred three or four times to her knowledge. Mias Carson wan called by the So licitor and Indignantly denied that such an occurrence ever had taken place. Saw Frank Lay Hand On Mary’s Shoulder. Of even greater importance, al though of less sensational interest, was the testimony of Mias Dewey Hewell, who sworye that Prank was In the habit of talking: frequently to Mary Phagan; that he called her by name, and that he stood close to her and laid his hand familiarly on her shoulder. She w r as not able to relate the subject of the conversations when she was cross-examined. She did not know but that Frank might have been talking about her work. Miss Ruth Robinson corroborated the Hewell girl in her testimony. Miss HeweTl was brought from the Home of the Good Shepherd in Cin cinnati to testify against Frank Neither w’as able to say that there had been anything improper or unus ual in Frank's talk with Mary. N. Kelly, an employee of the street railway company, said that he stood at Forsyth and Marietta streets April 26 and took the English avenue car at 12:03 to Alabama street. He said he knew Mary Phagan and that she was not on this car from Forsyth and Marietta streets. His testimony, ii believed by the Jury, is extremely Im portant to the State, as it supports the State's contentions in two re spects—first, that Mary Phagan go off the car at .Forsyth and Marietta Btreets, and, second, that the car was considerably ahead of time. Other street car employees testified that it was not unusual for the English ave nue car, due at 12:07, to come in ahead of the Fair street car, which is due at 12:05. Experts Corroborate Harris’ Evidence. Solicitor Dorsey, successful in hls endeavor to re-open the question of the time Mary Phagan met her death as Judged by the condition of the food found in her stomach, gathered a brilliant array of stomach and in testinal specialists Wednesday to lead in an onslaught against the testimony of the experts called by the lawyers for Leo Frank. Dr. Clarence Johnson, a well-known Atlanta specialist, on being asked a hypothetical question embracing the condition in which the cabbage in Mary Phagan's stomach was found, gave it as hls opinion that the girl came to her death within an hour after the digestion began. This corroborated in a measure the testimony of Dr. Harris, who esti mated the time at from half to three- quarters of an hour after the cabbage had been eaten. Dr. George M. Niles, who holds the chair of gastro-enterology at the At lanta Medical College, swore that di gestion could not have progressed more than an hour under the condi tions described. He was quit© posi tive digestion had progressed less than an hour. Dr. John Funke, professor of path ology and bacteriology at the Atlanta Medical College, testified that he had been shown sections of the organs of Mary Phagan by Dr. Harris, a cir cumstance which had not been made known until this point in the trial. The defense had charged that Dr. Harris had made his experiments and analysis in secret and had consulted no other expert. Dr. Funke later admitted that he had not made the examination until about a week ago after the charges had been made and he had been asked by Dr. R. T. Dorsey, brother of the So licitor, to inspect the specimens. Asserts Girl Was Criminally Attacked. This expert corroborated Dr. Har ris in his declaration that Mary Pha gan was a victim of criminal vio lence, but h e fell somewhat short of substantiating Harris on the time the cabbage had been in the stomach be fore the digestive processes had been stopped by death. Being pressed for a definite answer on this point, h© said: “One can not say positively, but it is reasonable to assume that digestion probably had progressed an hour, maybe a little more, maybe a little less.” Dr. JohnsoYi was extremely cautious in his answers. He dictated his re plies slowly and studiedly to the court stenographer and picked his words k and phrases most carefully. He said first in reply to questions fby the Solicitor that it was hls scien tific opinion that the digestion of the cabbage and bread in Mary Phagj*n s stomach had stopped within an hour after they were eaten. Attorney Ar nold, how’ever, got the expert to change his answer to “w'ithin an hour after digestion had begun,” forcing Dr. Johnson to admit that the begin ning of digestion many times la de layed by poor mastication or overdi lution of the gastric fluids. The wit ness would not undertake to say how long it was before the first processes of actual digestion had begun in the case of Mary Phagan. Much surprise was occasioned when it was learned thAt Jim Conley had been brought to the courthouse at the command of Solicitor Dorsey. It was rumored that he would go on the stand, but Solicitor Dorsey insisted that he had him brought over merely to have him identified by persons who could swear to his good character. Defense Puts Up Hard Battle. A lively argument over the State’s proposal to call three or four promi nent physicians fo controvert the testimony of the defense’s medical experts marked the opening of the Frank trial Wednesday. Luther Rosser and Reuben Arnold vigorously fought the introduction of witnesses for this purpose in the State’s rebuttal. Solicitor Dorsey maintained he had a perfect right to develop as much testimony along this line as he wished. The defense took the attitude that all of their medical experts were call ed only for the purpose of rebutting the testimony of Dr. H. F. Harris, secretary of the State Board of Health, who will go down in the his tory of the Phagan case as the wit ness who professed to determine the time that intervened between the time that Mary Phagan left home and the time she was killed by th e condition of some undigested cabbage in her stomach. Attorney Arnold argued tha if the State had wished to obtain the testi mony of other medical experts to corroborate the statements of Dr. Harris, they should have been called in the original presentation of the State’s case instead of in the rebuttal. He said that the defense had not attempted to cover any new points through the physicians th^y had on the stand and that these experts were questioned solely with the purpose in view of discrediting Dr. Harris. Endless Process Seen by Arnold. “If this 1s to be nllowod." said Ar nold, "it will mean that it is to be simply an endless process. I never heard of such a thing before. If Mr. Dorsey is permitted to call all the medical experts he wishes to bolster up the testimony of Dr. Har ris, I shall call back all of the ex perts we had on the stand.’’ The argument had its beginning late Tuesday afternoon when Dr. Clarence Johnson, a well-known At lanta specialist, was called to tho stand just before adjournment. Ros ier and Arnold entered their objec tions the instant that Solicitor Dor sey began questioning the witness along the same line that he had ques tioned Dr. Harris when the State presented its case against the de fendant. “I Just want to question this man in rebuttal of the denfense’s wit nesses,” insisted the Solicitor. “Th^y testified that Dr Harris was making a wild and reckless guess when he declared that Mary Phagan was killed withfh three-quarters of an hour after she ate and left home. I want to prove by Dr. Johnson and the other experts that 1 will call that this declaration of Dr. Harris was based on scientific principles that are well known to the physicians who special ize along those particular lines.’’ The Solicitor said that lie had plen ty of authorities to uphold him in his stand on the admissibility of the testimony in rebuttal and asked the Judge to adjourn until Wednesday morning so that he might have time to look them up. The Solicitor got Dr. Johnson to say before he left the stand that Dr. Harris was premis ing his statement upon substantial physiological principles and that it was in no sense a wild guess. It was the plan to recall Dr. Johnson to the stand again as soon as court opened Wednesdav. Expert Permitted to Answer State’s Query. Dr. Clarence Johnson was called and Solicitor Dorsey resumed hls ar gument on the admissibility of evi dence supporting Dr. H. F. Harris. "I have this authority,” said Dor sey. “It has been the well-recog nized practice to follow this course. I have not been able to put my hand on a specific authority, though I have looked for it for some time How ever. 1 think your honor will recall that it is the uniform practice to al low the State to make out a prima facie case and go into the whole thing later. It is within the discretion of the court to allow a case to be reop ened even after the State and the de fense have rested." “What I want to know is," said Judge Roan, “if you want to reopen this whole case.’’ ”1 have a right to do that," said Dorsey. "Where would this thing end?" asked the Judge. “They would have the right to rebut.” “Of course the court would not al low anything absurd.” “What is more absurd," asked Ar nold. “than for the State to bolster up Its testimony after the matter is closed'; I know some judges who have been elevated from the offb e of Solicitor Genera! who would allow the State to bring In anything on rebut tal. If this is to be reopened, we are going .to ask to be allowed to bring back our experts to go over the re buttal. If Dr. Harris’ testimony needs bolstering, he should have put up the doctors at first." “As a matter of right," said Judge Roan, “you (Dorsey) have not any. As a matter of discretion of the court you have. I will exercise that discre tion in your favor, Mr. Dorsey. You may go on with the question." | LEO FRANK’S MOTHER ON HER WAYTO COURT MRS. REA FRANK. Girl Died Within Hour After Eating Cabbage. Solicitor Dorsey had the court ste nographer read the hypothetical ques tion about the length of time the cabbage Mary Phagan ate had been in her stomach and whether a doctor could determine anything definite about the time of death or whether It would be a wild guess. The answer was: “To answer that question under the oath I have taken I would have to know whether the pathologist was thoroughly capable and employed the most modem scientific methods.” Q Well, arsume that he was, doc tor?—A. It a capable pathologist found there was only combined hy drochloric acid with due considera tion of other conditions as possible factors, I would express In my opin ion scientifically that the digestion of the bread and the cabbage was stop ped within one hour after eating. The witness then addressed the court: “Your honor, I would like to have my answer read to me by the ste nographer.” The request was granted. Q. Is every stomach a law unto Itself?—A. No. Arnold took the witness on cross- examination. Q. What are some of the other pos sible factors?—A. I didn’t say that. Q. What did they say, then?—A. I said there were probable factors in the cut on the head and strangula tion. Q. Well, how would that affect di gestion?—A. Anything that disturbs the circulation of the blood would af fect digestion. Q. What did you mean by me chanical conditions?—A. The thick ness of the stomach, the size and the general appearance. Q. Do you consider the color test reliable?—A. Yes. Q. It depends entirely on the eye of the man?—A. Not exactly. Q. If a man were color blind would it affect the test?—A. Why, of course. Says Digestive Juices Disappear After Death. Q. Now this acid has an ascending nnd descending scale, hasn’t it?—A. Yes. Q. What is the highest degree of activity?—A. Do you want my ex perience? Q. No, the science.—A. , I think it varies from 30 to 40. Q. What becomes of the pancreatic Juices of the stomach after death 9 —A. There are no pancreatic Juices of the stomach. They are in the in testines. Q. Well, what becomes of them aft er death?—A. They would lose the chemical property in time, but the physical pancreatic Juice would re main. Q. What becomes of free hydro chloric acid after death?—A. When the stomach disintegrates it disap pears. Q. But tell me, doctor, what be comes of the free hydrochloric acid after death regardless of time?—A. It eventually disappears. Q. What delays the beginning of the digestive process?—A. If mas tication was not good, or rather very bad. it would be delayed. Q. Would walking delay it?—A. Not unless it was a tiring walk. Q. Well, when you answered Mr. Dorsey’s question, you only meant one hour from the time digestion started and not how long it had been in the stomach?—A. Yes. Q. You said, as I remember it. that digestion began within an hour and was arrested?—A. 1 prefer to have my answer read. Q The stenographer is taking every word you are saying. He will do you justice.—A. It is not Justice for my self I want. I want to do Justice to all. “Yes. I know that,” said Arnold, and, continuing: Q. Could you tell by looking at that cabbage how long digestion had been delayed?—A. In my laboratory I could tell exactly. Here it would only be an estimate. Witness Declines to Guess at Anything. q. You mean a guess?—A. I don’t guess at anything. Q. You never made any test on Mary Phagan’s stomach?—A. No. Q. You are simply testifying what possibly might have been done 9 —A. I am simply testifying to scientific truth. The witness was excused and Dr. G. M. Niles, another stomach and in testinal specialist, and a professor at the Atlanta Medical College, and also author of a book on pellagra, was summoned. Dorsey questioned him? Q. Does science recognize that even.' stomach is a law unto itself?— A. Every healthy normal stomach has certain fundamental relations to all other healthy normal stomachs. In answer to the hypothetical ques tion embracing the case of Mary Phagan, Dr. Niles answered: “In the orderly process of the course of digestion, there should be pure hy drochloric acid in the course of one hour. I am answering my question without regard to any psychic or physical shock. I am not going much by the appearance of the cab bage as the statements of the re sults of the laboratory tests.” Q. What have you to say about variations of diseased stomachs?—A. There are wide variations. Stomachs have idlosyncracies, but where they are very marked I would not call them normal. Q. There Is nothing that differs so much as individual digestion, is there? — A. 1 would say that a man's tem peramental view of life differs more than that. Q. How long does it take cabbage to digest?—A. I can not answer that question absolutely. Q. Don't you know what the books say—from four to four and one-half hours?—A. I can not answer that specifically. Q. What is the longest time you have known cabbage to remain in a fairly normal stomach?—A. Four or five hours. Q. You found It there In a normal stomach five hours, havenH you?—A. The remains of it. Q. Is starch one of the carbo hydrates?—A. Yes. Q. Then cabbage is a carbohy drate?—A. Yes. Cabbage Had Not Been In Stomach Three Hours. Q. Then the digestion should begin in the mouth?—A. That is the pre liminary mechanical process. Q. Well then, in a normal stomach, if the cabbage were not well masti cated it would be there some time before the stomach started work, wouldn’t it?—A. No, I would say the stomach got busy immediately. Q. You would not say how long that cabbage was In that little girl's stom ach, would you?—A. I would not. Q. Now, look at that cabbage and tell me whether it might not have been there three hours or more. Dr. Niles looked at the cabbage several minutes and said: “No; if it had been in the stomach three hours, it would have been more pulverized.” Q. Now. if this little girl ate that cabbage, bolted it down in a hurry to get to town and see the parade, would you say that that circumstance delayed digestion?—A. Well, if she was hungry and took any pleasure in eating the meal, the mastication or lack of it would not make any great difference. Q. Then mastication does not make any great difference?—A. It certain ly does. Q. Did you make any examination of the stomach?—A No. Q. You made none of the tests?— A. No. 4 Q. Do you know 1 that the doctor who made the examination did not save any of the contents of the stomach?—A. I read it. Q. Did you know that he did not call any physician in to help him?— A. Yes. Q. That he did not divulge any of the findings until he came here?—A. Yes. Q. That he kept those findings se cret?—A. Yes. Q. That we only have hls plain unsupported statement?—A. Yes. Dr. Harris Not Guilt Of Breach of Ethics. Dorsey took the witness. Q. Is there any set of ethics that praohibits those things?—A. I never heard of it. The witness was excused and Dr. John Funkie, who holds tho chair of pathology and bacteriology at the Atlanta Medical College where he graduated twelve years ago, was called to the stand. Dorsey ques tioned him concerning an examina tion made of Mary Phagan's body, and then pronounced hls usual hypo thetical question about the cabbage. A. About the cabbage. I w’ould not like to say positively that with the conditions found in the laboratory test taken into consideration, that the first six feet of the small intes tines were clear, and If there was found 32 degrees of combined hydro chloric acid, I would say Uie cab bage had been there an hour, maybe a little more or less. Arnold took the witness. Q. When did Dr. Harris come to you in reeard to this exabinatlon?— A. He didn’t come to me, I was asked to look into it last Saturday. Q. Who asked you?—A. Dr. Dor sey. the brother of the Solicitor. The wltnes was excused and Dorsey tendered a telegram from Leo M. Frank to Adolph Montag. in New’ York.'on April 28, as evidence. This telegram read: Atlanta. Ga., April 28. 1913. Adolph Montag. Imperial Hotel, New York. You may have read in Atlanta papers of factory girl found d?ad Sunday morning in cellar of pencil factory. Police will eventually solve it. Assure my uncle I am all right in case he asks. Our company has case well in hand. LEO M. FRANK. O. M. Battle, manager of the Pos tal Telegraph Company was called. Dorsey questioned him. Q. Up to April 2D did either Frank or the National Pencil Company do business with you?—A. I could not say. Q. Did Frank send a telegram through your company on April 2t ?— A. I have one dated April 29. “I made a ml&take,” said Dorsoy. “It was April 28. It was received April 29. I just put him up because he said he could not divulge anything except in court.” The witness was excused. W. G. Peeples. of the Western Union Telegraph Company, was called. Q. Did the Western Union Tele graph Company have any telegrams sent by Leo M. Frank on April 26, 27 or 28?—A. No. Q. Did your company have any on the dates covered by the subpena duces tecum?—A. Yea Q. Let me have them. Dorsey looked at the telegram* and said: “Your honor, these are not signed by Frank and I don’t care to intro duce them.” Girl Says Frank’s Character Is Bad. I character?—A. Yes. Q Is it good or bad? Miss Myrtlce Cato was the next wltnests called. Dorsey questioned her. Q. Are you acquainted w'tth the general character of Leo M. Frank?— A. I am. Q. Is it good or bad?—A. Bad. Q. Did you work at the National Pencil Company?—A. I did. Q. When?—A. For about three and one-half years up to \prll 28, 1913. Q. On what floor did >>u work?—A. Fourth. Dorsey turned to Rosser. “She is with you,” he «Lid coolly. "Come down,” said Rosser. Miss Maggie Griffin was called to the stand. Dorsey questioned her. Q. Were you acquainted with the general character of Leo M. Frank prior to April 26?—A. Yes. Q. Was it good or bad?—A. Bad. Q. Did you work at the National Pencil Factory?—A. Yes, for two months. Q. On w'hat floor?—A. Fourth. Rosser took the witness on cross- examination. Q. Where did you work? Dorsey interrupted to say: “I haven’t finished. I have another ques tion yet.” ~ Q. Are you acquainted with Frank’s character for lasciviousness? That is, his conduct toward women? I don’t want you to answer until the Judge rules. Your honor, doesn t the fact that he denies certain charges make my question admissible? Rosser: “Let the Jury retire If he is going to argue this, but your honor has already ruled.” The jury left the room. Judge Roan: “Mr. Dorsey, give me some authority on that.” Dorsey: “We don’t need any au thority for that. The defendant’s own statement makes It admissible." Dorsey looked on hls table for a copy of Frank’s statement, but did not find it. He continued addressing the court: “While this jury Is out I want to say that I want to put up a witness who will say she saw Frank go In the dressing room on the fourth floor with a woman." Rosser: “You have already ruled on that.” Dorsey: “This Is a specific instance to rebut and impeach the statement of the girls on the fourth floor. We want to show that he went into that dressing room with a forelady.” Judge Roan: "You can show his general character for lasciviousness. I don’t know about the other. You will probably have to call the woman and put the question to her and then seek to impeach her.” The Jury was ca ’ed back. Rosser—Your honor rules here on a trial for a Georgia murder that tho Solicitor can ask about the defend ant's character for lasciviousness? Judge Roan—I do. Swears Frank’s Relations With Women Are Bad. The jury returned to the courtroom at this time. Dorsey continued the questioning. Q. I will ask you If you are ac- quanited with Frank's general char acter for lasciviousness—his relations with women?—A. I am Q. What is it? Good or bad?—A. Bad. Rosser took the witness. Q. How many girls did you know on the fourth floor?—A. Four. Q. Where do you work now?—A. Fulton Bag and Cotton Mill®. Q. Where do you live?—A. No. 84 Evans Drive. The witness was excused and Miss Cato was recalled. Dorsey ques tioned her in regard to Frank’s gen eral character for lasciviousness and she declared that It was bad. Rosser took the witness on cross- examination. Q Where do you work now?—A, At Cone’s drug store, Decatur and Pryor streets. Q. Where do you live?—A. At No. 59 Tumlin street. The witness was excused and Mrs. Marlon Dunning was called to the stand. Dorsey questioned her. Q. Are you acquainted with Leo M. Frank’s character?—A. Yes. Q. Is it good or bad?—A. Bad. Q. Are you acquainted with his general character for lasciviousness— his relations with women?—A. No. Q. When did you work at the pen cil factory?—A. About two years ago. Q. For how long?—A. Two weeks. Not Much Acquainted With His Character. A. Bad. The witness said the general char acter of Frank for lasciviousness was bad. She was not cross-examined. Mrs. L. T. Corse y was called but did not answer. It was stated that she was sick. Miss Nellie Pettus was called. Dorsey questioned her. Q. Do you know Leo M.^fYank?—A. Yes. Q. How long have you known him? —A. I dfdn’t know him exactly, ex cept I knew him when I saw him and knew' about him. Q. Was his character good or bad 9 —A. Bad. Q. Did you know hls general char acter for lasclvloufmess?—A. Yes. Q. Was It good or bad?—A. Bad. Q. Where did you work at the pen cil factory?—A. I didn't work there. My sister-in-law worked there. She hardly ever went there on Saturday and I went there to get her nay. Q. Who did you see there? Rosser interposed an objection, but was overruled. A. I saw Mr. Frank once. Rosser took the witness on cross- examination. Q. Who is your stlster-ln-lew?—A. Mrs. Lillie May Pettus. Q. Where did she live?—A. No. 9 Oliver street. Q. Does she work there now?—A. No; she quit working there about three weeks before the murder. Witnesses Fail to Answer When Called. The witness was excused and the following were called, but failed to answer: Mrs. T. C. Harrison, Miss Pearl Dobson and Thomas Black- stock. Miss May Davis, No. 3 Louis avenue, an employee of the pencil company, said Frank’s character was bad. Rosser cross-questioned her, asking but one question: Q. Where do you work now?—A. I am not working now. Mrs. Mary E. Wallace, an elderly woman In mourning, was called. Dorsey questioned her. Q Did you ever work at the Na tional Pencil Factory?—A. Yes; three days. Q. When?—A. July, 1911. Q. Did you know Leo Frank’s gen eral character?—A. Yes. Q. Was it good or bad?—A. Bad. The witness declared that Frank’s general character as to lasciviousness was bad. The witness was not cross- examined. Estelle Winkle was next called to the stand. She said that she worked at the pencil factory for one week in March, 1910. She said that Frank’s character was bad. On cross-exami nation she said she was not working now, and gave her residence as be ing twelve miles from Griffin. Miss Carrie Smith was the next witness. The rapidity with which she was chewing gum created a ripple of laughter in the courtroom, and depu ties were forced to rap for order. The witness testified that she worked on the fourth floor of the pencil fac tory, and that Frank’s character was bad. She w’as not acquainted with his character for lasciviousness. On cross-examination she said she re sided at No. 257 Simpson street, and that she worked for the factory off and on for three years, working there the last time about three weeks after Christmas. Miss Ruth Robinson was the next witness. Dorsey questioned her. Saw Frank Speak to Mary About Her Work. Q. Did you ever work at the pen cil factory?—A. Yes. Q. Did you know Mary Phagan?— A. Yes. Q. Did you know Frank?—A. Yes. Q. Did you ever see Frank talk ing to Mary Phagan?—A. Yes. Q. What were they talking about? —A. Her work. Q. Well, how often did he talk to her?—A. Several times. Q. What would he do?—A. Show her how to fix pencils. Q. How would he do it?—A. Just take pencils and show her. Q. Did you ever hear him speak to Mary Phagan?—A. Yes. Q. What did he call her?—A Mary. Rosser took the witness on cross- examination. Q. Are you sure of that?—A. Yea The witness was excused, and Miss Dewey Hewell was called. Dorsey questioned her. Q. Where are you located now?— A. In the courthouse. Q. I mean, where were you before you came here?—A. Do you mean where my parents live? Q. Yes; where do you live?—A. No. 8 Por.ter street. Q. Where are you living now?—A. In Cincinnati at the Home of the Good Shepherd. Says Frank Put Hand On Mary Phagan’s Shoulder. The witness was not cross-ex amined. Mrs. H. R. Johnson, of Stonewall, was called to the stand. Mrs. Johnson declared she worked at the pencil factory for two months in 1910. Dorsey questioned her. Q. Are you acquainted with Frank’s general character?—A. Yes. Q. Is It good or bad?—A. Bad. Q. Are you acquainted with his general character for lasciviousness? —A. Not very well. Dorsey—Answer yes or no. Rosser—She has answered. Dorsey—All right, she has said not very much. Rosser took the w'ttness on cross- examination. Q. Where is Stonewall?—A. On the street car line. Rosser—Come down. Dorsey—Just a minute. What floor did you work on?—A. The fourth floor. The witness was excused and Miss Marie Karst, of No. 191 Kelly street, w r as called. Dorsey questioned her. Q. Have you ever w'orked at the pencil factory?—A. Yes. On the sec ond floor about two years ago. Q. Are you acquainted with Frank’s Funeral Designs and Flowers FOR ALL OCCASIONS. Atlanta Floral Company 455 EAST FAIR STREET. Q. What sort of a home is that— no, never mind that. Did you w r ork at the National Pencil factory during Februarv and March, 1913?—A. Yes. Q. Did you ever see Frank talk to Mary Phagan?—A. Yes. Q. How did he act?—A. He would come to her machine and put hls hand on her shoulder. Q. What would he say?—A. He would put hls face close to hers and call her “Mary.” Rosser took the witness on cross- examination. Q. You didn't work in the metai room very long, did you?—A. Abou: two weeks. The witness was excused and Miss Rebecca Carson was recalled, Dorsey questioned her. Q. Did you ever go into the dress ing room on the fourth floor with Mr. Frank?—A. I never did. Dorsey—Como down. Miss Myrtlce Cato w’as recalled. Dorsev requested her not to answer the question he was going to put un til the court ruled i^on it. Q. Did you ever see Frank go into tfie dressing room on the fourth floor with Miss Rebecca Carson? Rosser interposed with an objec tion, but the witness answered "Yes,'* before he could stop her. "That Ain’t All I Know,” Says Witness. The objection was not forced. Q. How often did you see It?—A, Three or four times, and that ain’t aal I know. Rosser took the witness on cross-* examination. o. Who was on the floor when you saw that?—A. Several women. Dorsey took the witness again. Q. How did you see it?—A. I wasi in that end of the building. The wltnefts was excused and Mta4 Maggie Griffin was recalled In re-* buttal of Miss Carson’s testimony, Dorsey questioned her. Q. Did you ever see the defendant and Miss Rebecca Carson go into the dressing room on the fourth floor?—• A. Yes; three or four times. Q. How long a period did that cor* er?—A. Sometimes they would stay* In there about fifteen minutes and! sometimes about thirty minutes. Rosser—We must oppose that. Judge Roan—The objection is simm tained. Q. What time 1n the day was ItT—v A. Sometimes in the morning and sometimes in the evening. Rosser—We are objecting to It alL The court sustained the objectlori again. Says Car Ran Ahead of Schedule. Continued on page 3, column 1. The Perfect Baby Of the Future A Simple Method That Ha* a Wonder* ful Influence Upon the Future Infant Too much can not b« a aid for a wonderfnl rrw Kb, familiar to many women ai Mother'* I'M end It la more eloquent In lta action than all the healtl Mias erar laid down for the guidance of moth era. It Is an external amOriUon that apiaadi lta Influence upon all the cords. muaclea. ligament* and tendona that nature oalla Into play; they ot* K md gracefully without pain, without strata, and us leave the mind care-free and In Joyous antlo* ipatloa of the greatest of all womanly ambition. Mother's Friend must therefore be considered ag directly a most lmporant Influence upon the flhef* acter and disposition of the future generation. n la a conceded fact that, with nausea, pain, ner vousness and dreao banished, there is stored up E ch an abundance of healthy energy aa to bring* to being the highest Ideals of those who fondly theorise on the rules that Insure the coming of tha perfect baby. Mother's Friend can be bed at any fl.00 a br“*- '* *- — •' remedies tahed few ... Mother's Friend la prepared by the Rradflekl Reg ulator Co.. 189 I.amar Bldg . Atlanta. Oa.. aftst a formula of a noted family doctor. Write them for a very Instructive book to ex it mothers. Bee that your druggist will mppU with Mother's JiWsO. Cl naoy. ither's Friend ean be bed at any druggist at ' a bottle, and It la unquestionably one of those (Her that always has a place among the olier- i few In the medicine cabinet. COX Jt College and Conservatory College Park« Georgia. Cox College and Conserva tory Is being recognized more every day as an insti tution for thorough instruc tion and high standards, in the Academy, College and Conservatory de partments. F 1 f teen units are required for entrance t o college work. In its history of 70 years it is to day more thor oughly organ ized than ever before. Cox College Is ideally located near Atlanta, the most pro gressive city In the South, and lta health record Is unsurpassed. It boast* of having the most modem equipment for Instruction In literary and conservatory work, and prides Itaelf In Its beautiful campus with many bo* ♦ tentcal specimens. Its well equipped libraries, laboratories and museums add much to the proficiency of a thorough curriculum Cox College has always drawn patronage from the best families of the South, and It points with pride to Its many students and alumnae who occupy some of the most prominent place* In our South land. The present staff of officers and teachers In the literary and conservatory departments numbers thirty-one. The guiding principle in the selection of the faculty has been for moral worth and pro ficiency, and Its members represent some of the best American and European Universities and Conserva tories. Seventy-first session begins September 10th. Parents who desire for their daughters tho best instruction under the most favorable surroundings, apply COX COLLEGE AND CONS ERVATORY, College P«rk, Qa. The witness was excused and Hon*f ry A. Hoffman. Inspector for thek Georgia Railway and Electric Com pany, was called. Dorsey questioned him. Q. Do you know Matthews*, whd runs on the English avenue line?—A* Yes. Q. Who is he under?—A. He is un der me from 11:80 until he goes to> dinner. Q. Was he under you April 26?—* A. Yes. Q. For what time?—A. Thirty-seven minutes. Q. Ls there any set schedule such as 12:07 1-2?—A. None on the board. Q. Prior to April 26, were you ever on hls car when he cut off the Fair street car?—A. Yes. Q. What was the time the Fair street car was due to arrive?—A. 12:05. Q. At the time Matthews cut off the Fair street car, was the Fair street car on time?—A. Yes. Q. Did you ever compare watches with Matthews? Arnold objected, but said he would not argue the point. His objection was overruled. A. Yes. Q. Did you ever find Matthews when his watch was not with yours? —A. Yes Q. How far off was he?—A. Thirty or forty seconds. Q. Did you ever call his attention to running ahead of time?—A. Yes. Q. Do they come in ahead of time often?—A. At lunch and supper, near ly always. Three Minutes Ahead of Time at Noon. Rosser took the witness on cross*- examination. Q. You don’t remember whether ho was ahead of time April 26, or not, do you?—A. No. Q. Do you discharge a man for be- i