The Atlanta Georgian,
Friday, 3rd October 1913,
PAGE 1, COLUMNS 1, 3, 4, 5 & 7.
PAGE 1, COLUMN 1
PAGE 1, COLUMN 3
Slaton Sets
Days
For Clemency
Pleas
Governor Slaton has promulgated a rule that hereafter
petitions for clemency will be heard in the executive offices on
the fourth Thursday and Friday of each month.
The Governor is forced to the adoption of this rule in order to
find time for other public business.
PAGE 1, COLUMNS 4 &
5
TWO FRANK
JURORS
CHARGED
WITH BIAS
J. A. HENSLEE
MARCELLUS JOHENNING
PAGE 1, COLUMN 4
Court to
Relieve
Congestion
at Jail
In order to alleviate the crowded condition of the Fulton
County jail. Judge Calhoun of the Criminal Court of Atlanta, will
open court next Monday in the room occupied by Judge Bell.
Judge Bell will retire to his chambers and there hear cases in
which juries are not necessary.
Judge Hill will open the Superior Court in the Thrower
Building.
PAGE 1, COLUMN 7
SOLICITOR
CERTAIN TO
GET DELAY IN
WHICH
TO PREPARE
EVIDENCE
With the prospect Thursday of a postponement of the
hearing of the Frank motion for a new trial when it comes up
Saturday, there came also the positive assurance that Solicitor
Dorsey would have absolute denials from the two jurors charged
with prejudice in the motion.
Marcus Johenning, No. 161 Jones avenue, one of the jurors,
declared Thursday that the accusation was a complete falsehood.
I served on that the jury because I did not want to try to be
out of doing so, said Johenning, even though I would gladly
have escaped the work. And now, to accuse me of having told a
falsehood in secure the month's service is rank injustice.
I lost money through neglect of my business, and there was
not a man on the jury who had anything to gain, other than to do
his duty as a citizen. If there are any persons who have made
affidavits that we did not do Frank justice, they have lied
outright.
I don't know anything about the affidavit but what I saw in
the papers, added Johenning. Solicitor Dorsey has not notified
me that there was any such affidavit. If there is one it is
absolutely false.
I made no utterances before the trial that would disqualify
me for jury service. Friday before the case was called, I was
informed that I had been drawn as a talseman. I did not mention
that to anyone but my business partner, and that was for
business reasons.
I went to the trial absolutely impartial. My mind was
unprejudiced. I was in the attitude of demanding that the State
prove its case.
I would have gladly avoided serving that month on the jury,
and the only reason I did serve was because I did not want to lie
out of it.
As soon as I can see the affidavit we will show that is
flimsier than the paper on which it is written.
Henslee's Friends Tell of Denial.
J. A. Henslee, a travelling salesman and second juror charged
with having been prejudiced, has moved to Barnesville since the
end of the Frank trial. However, his Atlanta friends Thursday
declared that he had made strenuous denials to them of the
accusation when became public some time ago.
The last doubt about the postponement was removed
following a statement of Solicitor Dorsey, who declared that it
would take him from new until Saturday and perhaps longer to
check up the brief of evidence alone.
The Solicitor added however, that he would plunge into the
subject immediately with the view of preparing his answer at the
earliest possible moment. Although he refused to venture an
assertion as to the length of the delay, it is believed that the
hearing will be postponed longer than one week.
The judge has it in his power to proceed with the hearing
regardless of the many requests of the Solicitor or the defense
but it is certain the no such ruling will be invoked Saturday.
The motion has not been served on me, said Mr. Dorsey
Wednesday morning, but without regard to the amended motion,
it will take me from now until Saturday, even longer to check up
the brief of evidence alone.
The evidence is quite a bulky affair, as it is contained in
nine volumes, each one of which must be examined with the
utmost care.
Huge Task Checking Evidence.
Although it had been announced that the amended motion
would be placed in the Solicitor's hands Wednesday at noon, this
was found to be impossible because of the magnitude of the work
of checking up the evidence. Attorney Rosser's clerks worked all
the afternoon in an effort to get in to the Solicitor Thursday
morning. It probably will be in Mr. Dorsey's hands before noon
Thursday.
PAGE 2, COLUMNS 1 &
8
PAGE 2, COLUMN 1
FELLOW FRANK JURORS DEFEND
ACCUSED MEN
PAGE 2, COLUMN 8
ALL BRAND
CLAIM OF
BIAS AS
BOSH'
Trial Fair, Judge Impartial,
Cheers
Unheeded, Declare Panel
Who
Convicted Factory Head.
Fellow members of the jury which found Leo M. Frank guilty
of the murder of Mary Phagan at the National Pencil Factory on
April 26t and strongly Friday morning in defense of the jurors
accused of bias and prejudice by the defense in its question for a
new trial.
In the hearing of the motion of the defense, which is called
before Judge Roan Saturday, it is probable that Solicitor Dorsey, in
combatting the move for a new trial, will present statements and
affidavits from every member of the jury, denying the charges of
prejudice.
Brands Charges as untrue.
F. E. Winburn, claim agent for the Atlanta and West Point
Railroad, one of the Frank jury, brands as untrue the charges
made by the defense.
I do not believe there was a man on the jury that found
Frank guilty but who voted for the verdict because the evidence
made the guilt of the factory superintendent plain, Mr. Winburn
said. The charges that the jury was prejudiced are untrue. There
was no doubt in my mind when all the evidence had been heard.
I heard no cheering; neither was I prejudiced. When I served
on the jury I sacrificed my own interests, but I did my duty as a
citizen. The trial was fair. I thought Judge Roan more than fair in
his rulings. So far as I am concerned, I want to say that the verdict
was fair, and could not have been otherwise than what it was.
Defends Fellow Jurors.
I have tried to keep out of the argument because I was not
attacked personally by the attorneys for the defense, but I agree
heartily with the statements of Mr. Jenning as published in
yesterday's Georgian. While I did not know any of the other jurors
to the trial, my association with them for that 29-day period
satisfied me they all men of honor and integrity.
A. L. Wisbey, cashier at the Buckeye Cotton Oil company,
would make no extended comment on the case.
I was influenced no one, he declared. I heard no cheering.
I think the trial was as fair as was ever given to any man. I believe
Judge Roan was fair, and I think each man on the jury voted Frank
guilty because he could not do otherwise on the evidence
submitted.
Charles J. Bosshardt, an employee of the Foote-Davis
Company, characterized the charges of bias and prejudice as
bosh.
Denies He Was Prejudiced.
And I see no reason why Frank should be given a new trial,
he added. I heard none of the alleged cheering, and I was not
influenced in any way, by anyone or anything. The members of
the jury seemed to me to be gentlemen, and certainly they were
intelligent.
Judge Roan, I think, is a fine man, and I have never seen a
fairer judge. I never was prejudiced against Frank. I tried to give
him the benefit of the doubt in my own mind all the time. I say it
was all fair and square, and that the charges that some of the
jurors were influenced by this and that are all bosh.
PAGE 3, COLUMNS 1 &
8
PAGE 3, COLUMN 1
FRANK JURY DECLARES
TRIAL FAIR
PAGE 3, COLUMN 8
ALL
BRAND
CLAIM OF
BIAS AS
BOSH'
Trial Fair, Judge Impartial,
Cheers
Unheeded, Declare Panel
Who
Convicted Factory
Head.
Fellow members of the jury which found Leo M. Frank guilty
of the murder of Mary Phagan at the National Pencil Factory on
April 26 came out strongly Friday morning in defense of the jurors
accused of bias and prejudice by the defense in its motion for a
new trial.
The jury was a unit in declaring that Frank received as fair in
declaring that Frank received as fair a trial as any man ever
received in Georgia, in defending the rulings of Judge L. S. Roan"
which they declared vehemently were more than fair to Frank's
cause"and all of them denied emphatically that they were
influenced or prejudiced by the cheering and other incidents of
the trial on which the defense based its motion for a new trial.
In the hearing of the motion of the defense, which is called
before Judge Roan Saturday, it is probable that Solicitor Dorsey, in
combating the move for a new trial, will present statements and
affidavits from every member of the jury, denying the charges of
prejudice.
Brands Charges as Untrue.
F. E. Winburn, claim agent for the Atlanta and West Point
Railroad, one of the Frank jury, brands as untrue the charges
made by the defense.
I do not believe there was a man on the jury that found
Frank guilty but who voted for the verdict because the evidence
made the guilt of the factory superintendent plain. Mr. Winburn
said, The charges that the jury was prejudiced are untrue. Thaws
noy mind when all the evidence had been heard.
I heard no cheering; neither was I prejudiced. When I served
on the jury I sacrificed my own interests, but I did my duty as a
citizen. The trial was fair. I thought Judge Roan more than fair in
his rulings. So far as I am concerned, I want to say that the verdict
was fair, and could not have been otherwise than what it was.
Defends Fellow Jurors.
I have tried to keep out of the argument because I was not
attacked personally by the attorneys for the defense, but I agree
heartily with the statement of Mr. Johenning as published in
yesterday's Georgian. While I did not know any of the other jurors
prior to the trial, my association with them for that 29-day period
satisfied me they are all men of honor and integrity.
A. L. Wisbey, cashier at the Buckeye Cotton Oil Company,
would make no extended comment on the case.
I was influenced by no one, he declared. I heard no
cheering. I think the trial was as fair as was ever given to any
man. I believe Judge Roan was fair, and I think each man on the
jury voted Frank guilty because he could not do otherwise on the
evidence submitted.
Charles J. Bosshardt, an employee of the Foote-Davis
Company, characterized the charges of bias and prejudice as
bosh.
Denies He Was Prejudiced.
And I see no reason why Frank should be given a new trial,
he added. I heard none of the alleged cheering, and I was not
influenced in any way, by any one or anything. The members of
the jury seemed to me to be gentlemen, and certainly they were
intelligent.
Denies He Was Prejudiced.
And I see no reason why Frank should be given a new trial,
he added. I heard none of the alleged cheering, and I was not
influenced in any way, by any one or anything. The members of
the jury seemed to me to be gentlemen, and certainly they were
intelligent.
Judge Roan, I think, is a fine man, and I have never seen a
fairer judge. I never was prejudiced against Frank. I tried to give
him the benefit of the doubt in my own mind all the time. I say it
was all fair and square, and that the charges that some of the
jurors were influenced by this and that are all bosh.
F. L. V. Smith, No. 481 Cherokee
PAGE 9, COLUMN 1
CHARGES OF
BIAS
BOSH,
ASSERTS
FRANK JURY
Fellow Members Unite in
Defense
Of Men Accused of
Prejudice
By the Defense.
Continued From Page 1.
avenue denied emphatically that the jury was prejudiced.
The charge that the Frank jury was prejudiced is utterly
untrue, said he. I can say with positive certainty, speaking not
only for myself, but for the entire jury, that each man did his duty
as he saw it, and that the verdict was reached fairly and
impartially.
We were not influenced by the cheering, and could not
have been, because we were always in the anteroom, and could
not tell which side was being cheered. The deputies told us
absolutely nothing. I am not versed in the technicalities of the
law, but it seems to me that Leo Frank had a fair trial as he
possibly had.
Higdon Also Emphatic.
J. F. Higdon, of No. 108 Ormewood avenue, was no less
positive in his denial that the jury was prejudiced against Frank.
The jury was certainly not prejudiced in any way, he said.
The trial was as fair as it could have been. We were not
influenced by the cheering, one way or the other. I can see no
reason why Frank should be given a new trial.
PAGE 4, COLUMNS 1,
5, & 8
PAGE 4, COLUMN 1
SENSATIONAL CHARGE IN
FRANK CASE
Says Juror Declared Eagerness to
Hang Accused
PAGE 4, COLUMN 5, 6,
& 7
CHARGES
PREJUDICE
AGAINST FRANK
JUROR
C. P. STOUGH.
PAGE 4, COLUMN 8
PREJUDIC
E DENIED
BY
THOSE ON
PANEL
C. P. Stough Deposes That
A. H.
Henslee Showed
Animus Be-
fore Being Drawn.
With members of the Frank trial jury rallying to the defense
of their comrades accused of bias and prejudice, the revelation
was made Friday that, in a sealed deposition to be used by the
defense. A. A. Henslee, one of the jurors, is accused of having
made this statement before he was chosen as one of the twelve
men to try the factory superintendent:
I believe Frank is guilty, and would like to be in a position to
break his neck.
The man who swears that the accused juror made this
statement, in spite of the fact that he swore of being unprejudiced
when questioned as a talesman, is C. P. Stough, organize of the
Masons' Annuity and a well-known business man.
Affidavit To Be Feature.
His affidavit will play an important part in the fight for
Frank's life, which opens Saturday before Judge Roan, which very
likely will be postponed at that time. Solicitor Dorsey undoubtedly
will ask for time in which to examine the volumes of contentions
made by the defense in their plea charging 115 errors.
Mr. Dorsey, it is understood, will make an immediate
demand for the affidavits against Henslee and Johenning, who
also is alleged to have uttered remarks that showed prejudice
before the trial began.
Mr. Stough spoke reluctantly to a Georgian reporter as to the
contents of the affidavit he had made regarding Henslee.
Forced to Make Statement.
I dislike very much to be brought into it, and was really
literally forced into making it. I at first refused, but was
summoned and was compelled to make it. The affidavit tells of a
conversation I had with Mr. Henslee while riding to town on a
street car one morning several weeks before the trial. At that time
he, of course, did not know that he was to be summoned as a
juror.
He asked me what I thought of Frank, and I said I believed
he was guilty. I believe he is guilty, too, and would like to be in a
position to break his neck,' he replied.
Mr. Stough resides at No. 115 Holderness street, and says he
frequently rode to town with Henslee. Since the trial Henslee has
moved to Barnesville, but is said to have denied the words
alleged to have been spoken by him.
Kept the Matter Quiet.
When the Frank jury was selected I told my wife of Mr.
Henslee's remarks, but not wishing to get mixed in the matter,
kept it quiet and told no one else, continued Mr. Stough. Shortly
after the completion of the trial I was in Royston and told a friend
of mine and, without my knowledge, he informed Mr. Rosser. Two
of Mr. Rosser's men came to see me and worried me for two
weeks, but I declined to give them any information.
I then received a summons from Judge Bell's court
instructing me to go before S. N. Teitlebaum, commissioner, and
was compelled to go. I have known Mr. Henslee for a long time
and like him very well, but his words to me indicated prejudice.
His
PAGE 10, COLUMN 1
CHARGES OF
BIAS
BOSH,
ASSERTS
FRANK
JURY
Fellow Members Unite in
Defense
of Men Accused of
Prejudice
by the Defense.
Continued From Page 1.
words did not have the intimation that he would like to be on the
jury, but I took them to understand that he meant he would like to
be with a crowd who would take charge of Frank. He simply said,
I would like to be in a position to break his neck,' and that was
all.
Dorsey to Ask Publicity.
When the hearing of the motion for a new trial is called
before Judge Roan. Solicitor Dorsey, it is understood, will request
the court to require the defense to submit in open court the
affidavits of the alleged bias of jurors.
Following this request, Mr. Dorsey will request a two weeks'
postponement of the hearing in order to give him time to check
up the brief of evidence and examine the amendment to the
motion offered by the defense.
Mr. Dorsey declared Friday that he was looking into the
legality of having jurors the affidavits with him regarding their
alleged unbias in rendering the Frank verdict. This point probably
will be settled in court Saturday morning.
The court has it in its power to refuse this request and order
both prosecutor and defense to proceed with the hearing, but
there is little likelihood that this will be done in view of the fact
that the Solicitor has had but two days in which to examine the
evidence following the filing of the amended motion Wednesday.
Hooper Aids Solicitor.
Mr. Dorsey was busily engaged Friday in examining the brief
of evidence. This voluminous record, as pointed out by Mr.
Dorsey, is about 14 inches in height and is contained in seven
volumes. The entire record, including the amended motion, is
something like 22 inches in height.
Attorney Hooper, who assisted Mr. Dorsey in the prosecution
of Frank, is also relaying with the Solicitor in examining the brief
of evidence.
The jury was a unit in declaring that Frank received as fair a
trial as any man ever received in Georgia, in defending the rulings
of Judge L. S. Roan"which they declared vehemently were more
than fair to Frank's cause " and all of them denied emphatically
that they were influenced or prejudiced by the cheering and other
incidents of the trial on which the defense, based its motion for a
new trial.
Brands Charges as Untrue.
F. E. Winburn, claim agent for the Atlanta and West Point
Railroad, one of the Frank jury, brands as untrue the charges
made by the defense.
I do not believe there was a man on the jury that found
Frank guilty but who voted for the verdict because the evidence
made the guilt of the factory superintendent plain, Mr. Winburn
said. The charges that the jury was prejudiced are untrue. There
was no doubt in my mind when all the evidence had been heard.
I heard no cheering; neither was I prejudiced. When I served
on the jury I sacrificed my own interests, but I did my duty as a
citizen. The trial was fair. I thought Judge Roan more than fair in
his rulings. So far as I am concerned, I want to say that the verdict
was fair, and could not have been otherwise than what it was.
Defends Fellow Jurors.
I have tried to keep out of the argument because I was not
attacked personally by the attorneys for the defense, but I agree
heartily with the statement of Mr. Johenning as published in
yesterday's Georgian. While I did not know any of the other jurors
prior to the trial, my association with them for that 29-day period
satisfied me they are all men of honor and integrity.
A. L. Wisbey, cashier at the Buckeye Cotton Oil Company,
would make no extended comment on the case.
I was influenced by no one, he declared. I heard no
cheering. I think the trial was as fair as was ever given to any
man. I believe Judge Roan was fair, and I think each man on the
jury voted Frank guilty because he could not do otherwise on the
evidence submitted.
Charles J. Bosshardt, an employee of the Foote-Davis
Company, characterized the charges of bias and prejudice as
bosh.
And I see no reason why Frank should be given a new trial,
he added. I heard none of the alleged cheering, and I was not
influenced in any way, by any one on anything. The members of
the jury seemed to me to be gentlemen, and certainly they were
intelligent.
Judge Roan, I think, is a fine man, and I have never seen a
fairer judge, I never was prejudiced against Frank, I tried to give
him the benefit of the doubt in my own mind all the time. I say it
was all fair and square, and that the charges that some of the
jurors were influenced by this and that are all bosh.
F. L. V. Smith, No. 481 Cherokee avenue, denied
emphatically that the jury was prejudiced.
The charge that the Frank jury was prejudiced is utterly
untrue, said he. I can say with positive certainty, speaking not
only for myself, but for the entire jury, that each man did his duty
as he saw it, and that the verdict was reached fairly and
impartially.
We were not influenced by the cheering and could not have
been because we were always in the anteroom, and could not tell
which side was being cheered. The deputies told us absolutely
nothing. I am not versed in the technicalities of the law, but it
seems to me that Leo Frank had as fair trial as he possibly could
have had.
PAGE 5, COLUMN 1
SWEARS JUROR WAS EAGER TO
HANG FRANK
PREJUDI
CE
DENIED
BY
THOSE
ON
PANEL
C.P. Stough Deposes
That A. H.
Henslee Showed
Animus Be-
fore Being
Drawn.
With members of the Frank trial jury rallying to the defense
of their comrades accused of bias and prejudice, the revelation
was made Friday that, in a sealed deposition to be used by the
defense, A. H. Henslee, one of the jurors, is accused of having
made this statement before he was chosen as one of the twelve
men to try the factory superintendent:
I believe Frank is guilty, and could like to be in a position to
break his neck.
The man who swears that the accused juror made this
statement, in spite of the fact that he swore of being unprejudiced
when questioned as a talesman, is C. P. Stough, organizer of the
Masons' Annuity and a well-known business man.
Affidavit To Be Feature.
His affidavit will play an important part in the fight for
Frank's life, which opens Saturday before Judge Roan, which very
likely will be postponed at that time. Solicitor Dorsey undoubtedly
will ask for time in which to examine the volumes of contentions
made by the defense in their plea charging 115 errors.
Mr. Dorsey, it is understood, will make an immediate
demand for the affidavits against Henslee and Johenning, who
also is alleged to have uttered remarks that showed prejudice
before the trial began.
Mr. Stough spoke reluctantly to a Georgian reporter as to the
contents of the affidavit he had made regarding Henslee.
Forced to Make Statement.
I dislike very much to be brought into it, and was really
literally forced into making it. I at first refused, but was
summoned and was compelled to make it. The affidavit tells of a
conversation I had with Mr. Henslee while riding to town on a
street car one morning several weeks before the trial. At that time
he, of course, did not know that he was to be summoned as a
juror.
He asked me what I thought of Frank, and I said I believed
he was guilty. I believe he is guilty, too, and would like to be in a
position to break his neck,' he replied.
Mr. Stough resides at No. 115 Holderness street, and says he
frequently rode to town with Henslee. Since the trial Henslee has
moved to Barnesville, but is said to have denied the words
alleged to have been spoken by him.
Kept the Matter Quiet.
When the Frank jury was selected I told my wife of Mr.
Henslee's remarks, but not wishing to get mixed in the matter,
kept it quiet and told no one else, continued Mr. Stough. Shortly
after the completion of the trial, I was in Royston and told a friend
of mine and, without my knowledge, he informed Mr. Rosser. Two
of Mr. Rosser's men came to see me and worried me for two
weeks,
Continued on Page 2, Column 1.
PAGE 11, COLUMN 1
CHARGES OF
BIAS
BOSH,
ASSERTS
FRANK JURY
Fellow Members Unite in
Defense
Of Men Accused of
Prejudice
By the Defense.
Continued From Page 1.
but I declined to give them any information.
I then received a summons from Judge Bell's court
instructing me to go before S. N. Teitlebaum, commissioner, and
was compelled to go. I have known Mr. Henslee for a long time
and like him very well, but his words to me indicated prejudice.
His words did not have the intimation that he would like to be on
the jury, but I took them to understand that he meant he would
like to be with a crowd who would take charge of Frank. He simply
said, I would like to be in a position to break his neck,' and that
was all.
Dorsey to Ask Publicity.
When the hearing of the motion for a new trial is called
before Judge Roan. Solicitor Dorsey, it is understood, will request
the court to require the defense to submit in open court the
affidavits of the alleged bias of jurors.
Following this request, Mr. Dorsey will request a two weeks'
postponement of the hearing in order to give him time to check
up the brief of evidence and examine the amendment to the
motion offered by the defense.
Mr. Dorsey declared Friday that he was looking into the
legality of having jurors the affidavits with him regarding their
alleged unbias in rendering the Frank verdict. This point probably
will be settled in court Saturday morning.
The court has it in its power to refuse this request and order
both prosecutor and defense to proceed with the hearing, but
there is little likelihood that this will be done in view of the fact
that the Solicitor has had but two days in which to examine the
evidence following the filing of the amended motion Wednesday.
Hooper Aids Solicitor.
Mr. Dorsey was busily engaged Friday in examining the brief
of evidence. This voluminous record, as pointed out by Mr.
Dorsey, is about 14 inches in height and is contained in seven
volumes. The entire record, including the amended motion, is
something like 22 inches in height.
Attorney Hooper, who assisted Mr. Dorsey in the prosecution
of Frank, is also relaying with the Solicitor in examining the brief
of evidence.
The jury was a unit in declaring that Frank received as fair a
trial as any man ever received in Georgia, in defending the rulings
of Judge L. S. Roan"which they declared vehemently were more
than fair to Frank's cause " and all of them denied emphatically
that they were influenced or prejudiced by the cheering and other
incidents of the trial on which the defense, based its motion for a
new trial.
Brands Charges as Untrue.
F. E. Winburn, claim agent for the Atlanta and West Point
Railroad, one of the Frank jury, brands as untrue the charges
made by the defense.
I do not believe there was a man on the jury that found
Frank guilty but who voted for the verdict because the evidence
made the guilt of the factory superintendent plain, Mr. Winburn
said. The charges that the jury was prejudiced are untrue. There
was no doubt in my mind when all the evidence had been heard.
I heard no cheering; neither was I prejudiced. When I served
on the jury I sacrificed my own interests, but I did my duty as a
citizen. The trial was fair. I thought Judge Roan more than fair in
his rulings. So far as I am concerned, I want to say that the verdict
was fair, and could not have been otherwise than what it was.
Defends Fellow Jurors.
I have tried to keep out of the argument because I was not
attacked personally by the attorneys for the defense, but I agree
heartily with the statement of Mr. Johenning as published in
yesterday's Georgian. While I did not know any of the other jurors
prior to the trial, my association with them for that 29-day period
satisfied me they are all men of honor and integrity.
A. L. Wisbey, cashier at the Buckeye Cotton Oil Company,
would make no extended comment on the case.
I was influenced by no one, he declared. I heard no
cheering. I think the trial was as fair as was ever given to any
man. I believe Judge Roan was fair, and I think each man on the
jury voted Frank guilty because he could not do otherwise on the
evidence submitted.
Charles J. Bosshardt, an employee of the Foote-Davis
Company, characterized the charges of bias and prejudice as
bosh.
And I see no reason why Frank should be given a new trial,
he added. I heard none of the alleged cheering, and I was not
influenced in any way, by any one on anything. The members of
the jury seemed to me to be gentlemen, and certainly they were
intelligent.
Judge Roan, I think, is a fine man, and I have never seen a
fairer judge, I never was prejudiced against Frank, I tried to give
him the benefit of the doubt in my own mind all the time. I say it
was all fair and square, and that the charges that some of the
jurors were influenced by this and that are all bosh.
F. L. V. Smith, No. 481 Cherokee avenue, denied
emphatically that the jury was prejudiced.
The charge that the Frank jury was prejudiced is utterly
untrue, said he. I can say with positive certainty, speaking not
only for myself, but for the entire jury, that each man did his duty
as he saw it, and that the verdict was reached fairly and
impartially.
We were not influenced by the cheering and could not have
been because we were always in the anteroom, and could not tell
which side was being cheered. The deputies told us absolutely
nothing. I am not versed in the technicalities of the law, but it
seems to me that Leo Frank had as fair trial as he possibly could
have had.
J. F. Higdon, of No. 108 Ormewood avenue, was no less
positive in his denial that the jury was prejudiced against Frank.
The jury was certainly not prejudiced in any way, he said.
The trial was as fair as it could have been. We were not
influenced by the cheering, one way or the other. I can see no
reason why Frank should be given a new trial.
PAGE 6, COLUMNS 3 &
8
PAGE 6, COLUMN 3
SWEARS JUROR WAS EAGER TO
HANG FRANK
PAGE 6, COLUMN 8
PREJUDI
CE
DENIED
BY
THOSE
ON
PANEL
C.P. Stough Deposes
That A. H.
Henslee Showed
Animus Be-
fore Being
Drawn.
With members of the Frank trial jury rallying to the defense
of their comrades accused of bias and prejudice, the revelation
was made Friday that, in a sealed deposition to be used by the
defense, A. H. Henslee, one of the jurors, is accused of having
made this statement before he was chosen as one of the twelve
men to try the factory superintendent:
I believe Frank is guilty, and could like to be in a position to
break his neck.
The man who swears that the accused juror made this
statement, in spite of the fact that he swore of being unprejudiced
when questioned as a talesman, is C. P. Stough, organizer of the
Masons' Annuity and a well-known business man.
Affidavit To Be Feature.
His affidavit will play an important part in the fight for
Frank's life, which opens Saturday before Judge Roan, which very
likely will be postponed at that time. Solicitor Dorsey undoubtedly
will ask for time in which to examine the volumes of contentions
made by the defense in their plea charging 115 errors.
Mr. Dorsey, it is understood, will make an immediate
demand for the affidavits against Henslee and Johenning, who
also is alleged to have uttered remarks that showed prejudice
before the trial began.
Mr. Stough spoke reluctantly to a Georgian reporter as to the
contents of the affidavit he had made regarding Henslee.
Forced to Make Statement.
I dislike very much to be brought into it, and was really
literally forced into making it. I at first refused, but was
summoned and was compelled to make it. The affidavit tells of a
conversation I had with Mr. Henslee while riding to town on a
street car one morning several weeks before the trial. At that time
he, of course, did not know that he was to be summoned as a
juror.
He asked me what I thought of Frank, and I said I believed
he was guilty. I believe he is guilty, too, and would like to be in a
position to break his neck,' he replied.
Mr. Stough resides at No. 115 Holderness street, and says he
frequently rode to town with Henslee. Since the trial Henslee has
moved to Barnesville, but is said to have denied the words
alleged to have been spoken by him.
Kept the Matter Quiet.
When the Frank jury was selected I told my wife of Mr.
Henslee's remarks, but not wishing to get mixed in the matter,
kept it quiet and told no one else, continued Mr. Stough. Shortly
after the completion of the trial, I was in Royston and told a friend
of mine and, without my knowledge, he informed Mr. Rosser. Two
of Mr. Rosser's men came to see me and worried me for two
weeks,
Continued on Page 2, Column 1.
PAGE 11, COLUMN 1
CHARGES OF
BIAS
BOSH,
ASSERTS
FRANK JURY
Fellow Members Unite in
Defense
Of Men Accused of
Prejudice
By the Defense.
Continued From Page 1.
but I declined to give them any information.
I then received a summons from Judge Bell's court
instructing me to go before S. N. Teitlebaum, commissioner, and
was compelled to go. I have known Mr. Henslee for a long time
and like him very well, but his words to me indicated prejudice.
His words did not have the intimation that he would like to be on
the jury, but I took them to understand that he meant he would
like to be with a crowd who would take charge of Frank. He simply
said, I would like to be in a position to break his neck,' and that
was all.
Dorsey to Ask Publicity.
When the hearing of the motion for a new trial is called
before Judge Roan. Solicitor Dorsey, it is understood, will request
the court to require the defense to submit in open court the
affidavits of the alleged bias of jurors.
Following this request, Mr. Dorsey will request a two weeks'
postponement of the hearing in order to give him time to check
up the brief of evidence and examine the amendment to the
motion offered by the defense.
Mr. Dorsey declared Friday that he was looking into the
legality of having jurors the affidavits with him regarding their
alleged unbias in rendering the Frank verdict. This point probably
will be settled in court Saturday morning.
The court has it in its power to refuse this request and order
both prosecutor and defense to proceed with the hearing, but
there is little likelihood that this will be done in view of the fact
that the Solicitor has had but two days in which to examine the
evidence following the filing of the amended motion Wednesday.
Hooper Aids Solicitor.
Mr. Dorsey was busily engaged Friday in examining the brief
of evidence. This voluminous record, as pointed out by Mr.
Dorsey, is about 14 inches in height and is contained in seven
volumes. The entire record, including the amended motion, is
something like 22 inches in height.
Attorney Hooper, who assisted Mr. Dorsey in the prosecution
of Frank, is also relaying with the Solicitor in examining the brief
of evidence.
The jury was a unit in declaring that Frank received as fair a
trial as any man ever received in Georgia, in defending the rulings
of Judge L. S. Roan"which they declared vehemently were more
than fair to Frank's cause " and all of them denied emphatically
that they were influenced or prejudiced by the cheering and other
incidents of the trial on which the defense, based its motion for a
new trial.
Brands Charges as Untrue.
F. E. Winburn, claim agent for the Atlanta and West Point
Railroad, one of the Frank jury, brands as untrue the charges
made by the defense.
I do not believe there was a man on the jury that found
Frank guilty but who voted for the verdict because the evidence
made the guilt of the factory superintendent plain, Mr. Winburn
said. The charges that the jury was prejudiced are untrue. There
was no doubt in my mind when all the evidence had been heard.
I heard no cheering; neither was I prejudiced. When I served
on the jury I sacrificed my own interests, but I did my duty as a
citizen. The trial was fair. I thought Judge Roan more than fair in
his rulings. So far as I am concerned, I want to say that the verdict
was fair, and could not have been otherwise than what it was.
Defends Fellow Jurors.
I have tried to keep out of the argument because I was not
attacked personally by the attorneys for the defense, but I agree
heartily with the statement of Mr. Johenning as published in
yesterday's Georgian. While I did not know any of the other jurors
prior to the trial, my association with them for that 29-day period
satisfied me they are all men of honor and integrity.
A. L. Wisbey, cashier at the Buckeye Cotton Oil Company,
would make no extended comment on the case.
I was influenced by no one, he declared. I heard no
cheering. I think the trial was as fair as was ever given to any
man. I believe Judge Roan was fair, and I think each man on the
jury voted Frank guilty because he could not do otherwise on the
evidence submitted.
Charles J. Bosshardt, an employee of the Foote-Davis
Company, characterized the charges of bias and prejudice as
bosh.
And I see no reason why Frank should be given a new trial,
he added. I heard none of the alleged cheering, and I was not
influenced in any way, by any one on anything. The members of
the jury seemed to me to be gentlemen, and certainly they were
intelligent.
Judge Roan, I think, is a fine man, and I have never seen a
fairer judge, I never was prejudiced against Frank, I tried to give
him the benefit of the doubt in my own mind all the time. I say it
was all fair and square, and that the charges that some of the
jurors were influenced by this and that are all bosh.
F. L. V. Smith, No. 481 Cherokee avenue, denied
emphatically that the jury was prejudiced.
The charge that the Frank jury was prejudiced is utterly
untrue, said he. I can say with positive certainty, speaking not
only for myself, but for the entire jury, that each man did his duty
as he saw it, and that the verdict was reached fairly and
impartially.
We were not influenced by the cheering and could not have
been because we were always in the anteroom, and could not tell
which side was being cheered. The deputies told us absolutely
nothing. I am not versed in the technicalities of the law, but it
seems to me that Leo Frank had as fair trial as he possibly could
have had.
J. F. Higdon, of No. 108 Ormewood avenue, was no less
positive in his denial that the jury was prejudiced against Frank.
The jury was certainly not prejudiced in any way, he said.
The trial was as fair as it could have been. We were not
influenced by the cheering, one way or the other. I can see no
reason why Frank should be given a new trial.