0175 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914

Search for:

Reading Time: 3 minutes [353 words]

Here is the extracted text from the image:

The Court, over the objections of the defendant, on the grounds
stated, permitted this testimony to go to the jury and in doing
so erred.

This was prejudicial to the defendant because the solicitor
insisted that the finding of the envelope and stick were con-
cealed from the authorities.

37. Because the Court erred in permitting the witness Leech,
a street car inspector, at the instance of the solicitor and
over the objections of the defendant that same was irrelevant,
immaterial, and incompetent, to testify that he had seen street
car men come in ahead of their schedule time. That he had
seen that often and had seen it last week. That he, Leech, had
suspended a man last week for running as much as six minutes ahead
of time. That he suspends them pretty well every week and that
he suspends a man for being six minutes ahead of time just like
he would for being six minutes late. It frequently happens that
a street car crew comes in ahead of time and that they are given
demerits for it and that he sometimes suspends them for it. That
the street car crews are relieved in the center of town; that
sometimes a crew is caught ahead of time when they are going to
be relieved. That it is not a matter of impossibility to keep the
men from getting ahead of time, although that does happen almost
every day. That there are some lines on which the crew does not
come in ahead of time because they cannot get in.

It frequently happens that the English Ave., car cuts off the
Fiver car and the Marietta car. It often happens that these cars
are out off. That when there is a procession or anything moving
through town, it makes the crew anxious to get through town, that
they are punished just as much for coming in ahead of time even
a day like that as they would be any other day. They do their
best to keep the schedule, but in spite of it they sometimes
get off.

The Court permitted this testimony of the witness Leech over
the objection of the defendant that the same was irrelevant,
immaterial and incompetent, and in doing so committed error.

92.