SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA APPEALS

0001 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 The visible text in the image is: REEL NO. 6.3911
0002 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image:---**Top Left Section:**FOR PHOTOGRAPHERS AND LABORATORY USE ONLYFilm this "TEST PATTERN" at the beginning of the book, volume or pages being microfilmed, after each "volume" and "to be continued". Center the Test Pattern at the reduction being used. Insert the reduction and the exposure ("red." and "exp.") with photocopy.Filmer ce "MODULE TEST" au commencement du livre, volume ou pages que l'on microfilme, après chaque "volume" et "à suivre". Centrer et filmer à la réduction utilisée. Inserer la réduction et l'exposition ("red." et "exp.") avec photocopy.Filme diesen "Prüf-Muster" (Test-Pattern) zum Beginn eines jeden Buches,
0003 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image:---**Department of Archives and History****330 Capitol Avenue****Atlanta****Georgia****30334****MICROFILM LAB****Georgia - Supreme Court****Supreme Court Case File****Leo Frank V. The State**Due to a high reference rate in the past and an anticipated high rate in the future, these portions of a much larger record series are filmed as a protection and as an aid to researchers.**Feb. 17, 1914 First Appeal 14162435**Bill of Exceptions or Enumeration of ErrorsBrief of EvidenceRecord of case**Oct. 14, 1914 Second Appeal 1423617**Brief of Evidence, original and amendedRecord of case including copy of first appeal**Nov. 14, 1914 Third Appeal 1426741**Record Group: Georgia Supreme
0004 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 The visible text in the image is:**BEGIN**Given the context of the image, which appears to be a title card or a screen from a film or video, it is likely that this image is from the beginning of a movie, video, or presentation. The word "BEGIN" suggests the start of something, possibly indicating the commencement of a film, a chapter, or a segment within a larger work. The style and presentation also hint at a vintage or retro aesthetic, which might suggest it is from an older film or a modern production aiming for a nostalgic feel.
0005 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: No. 8008Oct. Term, 1918.CRIMINAL
0006 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: State of Georgia, Fulton County.Be it remembered that at the July Term, 1913, of FultonSuperior Court,--His Honor, L. S. Roan, one of the Judges of theSuperior Court of the State of Georgia presiding--there came on tobe tried the case of the State of Georgia vs. Leo M. Frank,same being an indictment for murder. On the trial of said casethe jury found the defendant guilty without any recommendationfor imprisonment and the court imposed the death sentence upon thedefendant.At the same term at which said verdict was rendered,and in due and legal time, defendant
0007 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: R. L. Cremer makes the following affidavit, deposing and saying as follows: That he is a resident of Albany, Georgia; that he is acquainted with Mack Parkas, who works for Mr. Sam Parkas, who operates a livery stable and sales barn in Albany; that between the time of the murder of Mary Phagan and the trial of Leo M. Frank, exact date this deponent cannot state, deponent was standing in front of Mr. Sam Parkas' place of business on Broad Street, in the presence of Mack Parkas and others, including a party
0008 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: Julian A. Lehman, makes the following affidavit, deposing and saying as follows: that he is personally acquainted with A. H. Henslee, one of the jurors in the above case; that on June 2, 1915, between Atlanta, Ga., and Experiment, Ga., the said Henslee expressed his opinion that Frank was guilty of the murder of Mary Phagan, and that this was in deponent's presence and hearing; and in the hearing of other persons on the train at the time; the words used to the best of deponent's knowledge and recollection were-"Frank is as
0009 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: trial in said case ; that since the trial of said case and the verdict and sentence therein, it has come to their knowledge that two of the jurors who sat on said case, to-wit: M. Johenning and A. H. Henslee, were prejudiced, partial and biased against Leo M. Frank, the defendant as evidenced by affidavits attached to motion and hereinafter referred to; that said prejudice, partiality and bias were present on their part, when said Johenning and Henslee qualified as jurors in said case as shown by said affidavits, but that
0010 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: with H. Johenning, one of the jurors who served in the trial of LeoM. Frank for murder of Mary Phagan; that during May, 1915, said M.Johenning met deponent and deponent's daughter on Forsyth Street,Atlanta, Georgia, and then and there deponent said M. Johenning expressedto the deponent and deponent's daughter the firm belief that Leo M.Frank was guilty of the murder of Mary Phagan. This statement wasmade by M. Johenning forcefully and positively and as his profoundconviction.H. Q. Loevenhart makes the following affidavit, deposingand saying as follows: that for some eighteen months prior
0011 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: no knowledge whatsoever as to H. Johenning and A. H. Henslee, two ofthe jurors, being prejudiced, partial and biased in said case, asevidenced by the affidavits of B. B. Lovenhart, Mrs. J. C. Lovenhart,Miss Marian Lovenhart, S. Amon, Max Farkas, R. L. Gruner, John W. Holmes,S. H. Grey, S. M. Johnson, J. C. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I.
0012 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: no knowledge whatsoever as to H. Johenning and A. H. Henslee, two ofthe jurors, being prejudiced, partial and biased in said case, asevidenced by the affidavits of H. B. Lovenhart, Mrs. J. D. Lovenhart,Miss Marian Lovenhart, S. Aron, Max Marks, R. L. Grenary, John W. Holmes,S. H. Grey, S. H. Johnson, J. A. Innis, W. W. Walker, J. W. Coleman and C. B.Stough. Affiant did not know either of said jurors and had never seenor heard of them before; that he did not know until after the trialand did not have any
0013 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: room, he was sitting on the front row of the spectators benches; thatduring the course of the trial deponent saw the jury pass to thejury box from the rear of the court room, the jury passed immediate-ly by this deponent and also by a man, whose name is unknown tothis deponent, but who was a spectator in the court room, who wassitting about three feet from this deponent, just across an aisle, noone being between this man and deponent; as the jury passed this man,at the time specified, this man took hold
0014 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: the automobile approached the corner of South Pryor and East HunterStreets, he observed the Jurymen in the Frank case turn into SouthPryor from the east, out of East Fair St. Street, and deponent stoppedhis automobile to look at the jury, and while doing so noticed thatwalking alongside the jury were some six or seven other men. De-ponent was on the west side of South Pryor Street while the jury inthe above entitled case was walking north along the east side ofSouth Pryor Street. Deponent's brother, Sampson Kay, got out of theautomobile stating
0015 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: room there was also cheering in said court room. There was alsoapplauding in the course of Mr. Dorsey's speech a couple of times onsaid date.Miss Martha Kay makes the following affidavit, deposing andsaying as follows: that she is a resident of the City of Atlanta, liv-ing at #264 South Pryor Street; that on Monday morning, August 25,1913, the last day of the trial of the said Leo M. Frank, in the abovestated case, she was present in the court room in company with Mrs. A.Shurman, of #240 Central Avenue, before time/court to
0016 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: Samuel A. Boorstin makes the following affidavit, deposingand saying as follows: that on Friday evening, on the 22nd day ofAugust, 1915, at about 5 or 5:30 P.M., he was present at the courtroom of Fulton Superior Court, Judge H. Stonean presiding, during thetrial of the State vs. Leo M. Frank; and after adjournment, and whenthe jury had been taken from the court room, and shortly thereafter,the Solicitor General, Hugh M. Dorsey, had passed out of the courtroom, there was a large crowd waiting outside, through which the jurypassed, comprising, perhaps, no less
0017 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: had him. I could not see the man that was carried on the shoulders of the men very well, but was told that it was Dorsey. There was a this time fully three thousand men gathered around the court house, filling the streets on all sides of the court house. I only know Col. Dorsey by sight.J. H. Cochran makes the following affidavit, deposing and saying as follows that he is a resident of Atlanta, Georgia; he remembers the close of the trial of Leo M. Frank, and was present in front
0018 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: feet from the Kiser Building, and that both outside of the Cafe and in the Cafe, the cheering of the Solicitor General could be heard by any person.H. G. Williams, makes the following affidavit, deposing and saying as follows: that on the 26th day the Frank trial closed, and verdict of guilty was found by the jury against Leo M. Frank, accused of the murder of Mary Phagan, this deponent was on South Pryor Street, in front of the court house;This deponent saw Solicitor General Dorsey come from the Court House and
0019 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image:---Friday noon, before the above stated case went to the jury on Monday, he was present in the court room where the trial of Leo M. Frank was being held; that when court adjourned and the jury had left and gone to lunch he came out of the court house and there was loud cheering for "Dorsey", which lasted for several minutes. Deponent walked from the court house to his office on seventh floor of Temple Court Building, and when he reached his office some one asked deponent what all the racket or
0020 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: thenetary come out of the court house about six P. M.; that a fewminutes after the jury came out of the court house, Mr. Dorsey ap-peared in the entrance, whereupon a great cheer arose from the peoplecrowding in the streets and around the court house entrance; that atthat time deponent saw the jury about fifty feet from the entranceof the court house, the jury at the time crossing the street diagon-ally toward the German Cafe; that in the opinion of deponent the yellsand cheers would have been heard several blocks away; that
0021 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: Charles J. Moore makes the following affidavit, deposing and saying as follows: that he is an attorney at law, occupying room 301 on the 3rd floor of the Kiser Building, at the corner of Hunter and So. Pryor Streets; that on Friday, August 22nd, deponent was in his office and saw the jury come out of the court house entrance at about 6 P.M. that soon after Mr. Dorsey appeared in the court house entrance and a great cheering and yelling occurred by the crowd immediately opposite the entrance, and afterwards the
0022 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: in the Frank case, admits having made certain statements as to Frank'sguilt of the murder of Mary Phagan, but says these statements weremade after the trial of Leo M. Frank, and not before; they say thatso far as they know, the said Henslee has not been in Monroe, Georgia,since the trial of Leo M. Frank, and they reiterate the statementthat all statements made in their hearing by said Henslee, and testi-fied about by these deponents on September 27, 1915, were made beforethe commencement of the trial of Leo M. Frank for the
0023 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: the time, which was shortly after the Mary Phagan murder, almost everyone was discussing the murder, and this deponent was very much interested in the matter, as was everyone else; this deponent heard the man with Hemslee say to Hemslee "I don't believe Frank committed that murder; if he did, he is one Jew in a million, not one Jew in a million would commit such a crime"; and to this statement said Hemslee replied in deponent's hearing: "I believe he did kill the girl, and if by any chance I got
0024 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: that they are personally acquainted with Julian A. Lehman; and that said Lehman is a man of the highest personal and moral character, and reputation, and that he is entirely trustworthy, and worthy of belief, as to any statement made by him.G. W. Hasell and R. P. Spencer, Jr., make the following affidavit, deposing and saying as follows: that they are personally acquainted with Julian A. Lehman, and that said Lehman is a man of the highest personal and moral character, and reputation, and that he is entirely trustworthy and worthy of
0025 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: Frank, which is now pending in the Superior Court of Fulton County,Georgia.Leo M. Frank makes the following affidavit, deposing andsaying as follows; that he is.the defendant above.named; that he didnot know, nor has he ever heard until the end of his.trial in theabove stated case, that A. H. Henslee and Marcellus Johenning hadany prejudice or bias against deponent, nor that they, or either ofthem, has ever said or done anything indicating that they believedin deponent's guilt, or had any prejudice or bias against deponent.Shi Gray deposes and states by interrogatories issuedunder Section
0026 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: showing a picture of the jury in the above stated case,and showing a likeness of Juror A. H. Henslee. I know A. H.Henslee by sight. I have heard A. H. Henslee discussing the questionof whether or not Leo M. Frank was guilty of the murder of MaryPhagan, between the death of said Mary Phagan and the commencementof the trial of Leo M. Frank charged with the murder of Mary Phagan.Several parties were talking. Some said they thought Leo M. Frankwas guilty of the murder of Mary Phagan, others said they did not.Henslee
0027 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: I know A. H. Henslee, who served on the jury in the above stated case at the trial commencing July 28, 1913. I have known him about six or seven years. About the time that Conley was reported to have made a statement, I was coming into the city on a street car from the home of my daughter. Henslee was on the car, I heard him say this, in reference to Leo M. Frank's guilt of the murder of Mary Phagan: "I think he is guilty and I would like to
0028 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: 1912, and particularly the likeness of A. H. Henslee. I know A.H. Henslee. A. H. Henslee was in Monroe, Georgia, between the timeof the murder of Mary Phagan, as reported in the papers, and thetime of the commencement of the trial of Leo M. Frank for themurder of Mary Phagan, to-wit: July 28, 1913. What impressed mewas that Henslee was the most vehement in his expression as to theguilt of Leo M. Frank of the murder of Mary Phagan, of anyperson I had heard talk about it. The Phagan murder was, atthe
0029 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: The court also considered the following affidavits as acounter showing presented by the State, to-wit:F. E. WINBURN, makes affidavit deposing and saying as follows:That I was a juror on the Frank case; I did not knowpersonally either A. H. Henslee or M. Johenning, who were also jurorstrying this case, until after we were sworn in on said jury; I hadoccasion to and do know the conduct of these two men on the jury;at no time did either of them express themselves in a way to indi-cate that they were in the least
0030 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: connected with the case, at any time, or that there had been any cheering in any way growing out of or connected with the Frank case, until after the verdict was rendered, and I was told about said incidents; the jury left the courtroom every time before the Judge, lawyers, and audience were permitted to leave, and there was never any applause or cheering either inside the court or outside of the court, within my knowledge, while the case was being considered; the jury, in leaving were always attended by the deputy
0031 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: THAT this cheering did not in anywise influence or affect theverdict which had already been made, nor did it have any influencewhatsoever. THAT deponent remained absolutely unaffected and un-influenced by the cheering or the surroundings and in answeringon the poll, deponent truthfully answered after he had heard thecheering that it was his verdict and in so answering sustainingthe verdict, he discharged his duty and now subscribes to the cor-rectness of the verdict as rendered. THAT neither on Saturday,August 23, 1913, nor on any other day or date, did any man or menother
0032 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: D. TOWNSEND makes affidavit, deposing and saying as follows:THAT he was one of the jurors who served on the abovestated case and heard the cheering which followed soon after thereading of the verdict of guilty in open court and which saidcheering was by parties outside of the court, and which cheeringoccurred during the time the jury were being polled in court;THAT at the time the cheering was heard, no objection whatsoever wasmade by anyone representing Leo M. Frank, or by Leo M. Frank himselfnor was any motion made at the time by
0033 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: -5-the said A.H.Henslee of the said M.J.Ochenning believed that Frankwas guilty until after the entire case had been heard and con-cluded and submitted to the jury, they at least did not so expressthemselves, or give vent to any other expression within my hearingor knowledge, indicating any bias or prejudice against the saidFrank; I did not know how A.H.Henslee stood on the issue untilafter the first ballot had been taken; then said Henslee made atalk and stated that he had cast a doubtful ballot; there wasone ballot marked "doubtful"; he explained to the
0034 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: --6--the roarTHAT we were usually taken direct from the courthouse to theGerman Cafe, located midway of the block on Pryor Street, op-posite from the courthouse, and it took us a very short timeto go there - I should estimate about three minutes at the outside.Upon reaching the German Cafe, we were taken directly to a privatedining room in the rear of the building and the door immediatelyclosed; after being shut up in this room, we never heard any soundsthat in the slightest resembled cheering or applause; the onlycheering that was heard at
0035 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: by the side of the Jury, and neither did anybody within myknowledge, ever speak to any juror at any time or place outsideof the presence of the court. THAT if any man evergrabbed any juror by the hand or held any conversation with anyjuror, the same was not in my presence; no man ever grabbed me bythe hand at the place referred to by W. P. Neill in his affidavitnor did I see or hear or know anything about any man grabbing anymember of the jury by the hand or saying anything
0036 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: --8--been heard and concluded and submitted to the jury, they atleast did not so express themselves or give vent to any otherexpression within my hearing or knowledge, indicating any biasor prejudice against the said Frank; I did not know how A.H.Henslee stood on the issue until after the first ballot had beentaken; then said Henslee made a talk and stated that he had cast adoubtful ballot; there was one ballot marked "doubtful"; he ex-plained to the jury why he cast this doubtful ballot and sub-mitted some suggestions with reference to the evidence;
0037 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: ---9---opposite from the courthouse, and it took only a very short timeto go there - I should estimate about three minutes at the outside.Upon reaching the German Cafe, we were taken directly to a privatedining room in the rear of the building and the door immediatelyclosed; after being shut up in this room, we never heard anysounds that in the slightest resembled cheering or applause; theonly cheering that was heard at any time while the case was beingconsidered was the cheering that arose shortly after the verdictof guilty was read, when there
0038 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: was, so far as I am concerned, and as to the other jurors, sofar as their deportment shows, I believe was rendered froman honest opinion, based on the law and evidence of the case.A. L. WISHEY makes affidavit, deposing and saying asfollows:THAT I was a juror on the Frank case; I did not knowpersonally either A. H. Henslee or M. Johenning, who were alsojurors trying this case, until after we were sworn in on saidjury; I had occasion to and do know the conduct of these two menon the jury at no
0039 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: ---11---of Henslee and likewise of each and every man on the jury:THAT I did not at any time, while a Juror, hear any applauseexcept such as occurred in open court, and which was heardby the Judge, jury and attorneys in the case; I did not knowthat there had been any cheering or anybody connected with thecase at any time or that there had been any cheering in any waygrowing out of or connected with the Frank case, until afterthe verdict was rendered, and I was told about said incidents.THAT on one occasion
0040 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: anything that had the slightest resemblance to cheering, andI never heard any applause except that heard by the judge and onlyheard about the cheering after having been discharged from thecase; THAT neither on Saturday, August 23, 1913, nor on any otherday or date, did any man or men other than the bailiffs in chargeof the jury ever walk with or by the side of the jury, and neitherdid anybody within my knowledge, ever speak to any juror at anytime or place outside of the presence of the court; THAT if at anytime
0041 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: -13-in a way to indicate that they were the least bit prejudicedor biased, but each of these men, as did I and every othermember of the jury, deported themselves as honest, upright,prudent and impartial jurors; if either the said A.H.Hensleeor the said M.J.Chenning believed that Frank was guilty untilafter the entire case had been heard and concluded and sub-mitted to the jury, they at least did not so express themselves,or give vent to any other expression within my hearing orknowledge, indicating any bias or prejudice against the saidFrank; I did not know
0042 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: -14-were permitted to leave, and there was never any applause orcheering either inside of the court or outside of the courtwithin my knowledge, while the case was being considered;the jury, inclosing, were always attended by the deputysheriffs or bailiffs, one always going in front and one al-ways in the rear; we were usually taken direct from the cour-house to the German Cafe, located midway of the block on PryorStreet, opposite from the courthouse, and it took only a veryshort time to go there - I should estimate about three minutes -at the
0043 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: --15--or saying anything to any juror, or attempting to say anythingto any juror, and within my knowledge, there was no communi-cation at any time or place or in any shape, manner or formwith any juror, with any party on the outside; all communicationshad by the jury with outsiders, so far as I know, were throughthe bailiffs and said communications were authorized by thecourt and known to counsel on both sides of the case: THATso far as I am personally concerned, and so far as I know asto each and every juror on
0044 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: --16--doubtful ballot, and submitted some suggestions with reference to the evidence; up to that time, so far as I know, said Henslee had not intimated or expressed any opinion whatsoever with reference to any feature of the case; and I did not at any time while a juror, hear any applause except such as occurred in open court, and which was heard by the Judge, Jury and attorneys in the case; I did not know that there had been any cheering of anybody connected with the case at any time or that
0045 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: that arose shortly after the verdict of guilty was read, whenthere was cheering both on Hunter and Pryor Streets, and saidcheering was loud and long; with the exception of this cheering,I never heard anything that had the slightest resemblance tocheering, and I never heard any applause except as heard bythe Judge and only heard about the cheering after having been dis-charged from the case; THAT neither on Saturday, August 23, 1913,nor on any other day or date, did any man or men other than thebailiffs in charge of the jury, ever walk
0046 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: --18--Mrs.Jernie G.Lovenhart and Miss Miriam Lovenhart, both made before the same Burk aforesaid and on the day aforesaid, THAT the facts are these with reference to this: THAT I never having expressed to the said Lovenhart or any one else any opinion with reference to the guilt or innocence of said Frank, except as hereinafter set out: THAT some time about two weeks before the Frank case was/set for trial - which, if my memory serves me right, was about the latter part of June, 1913 - I had a casual conversation
0047 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: --19--J.T. OZBURN makes affidavit, deposing and saying asfollows:THAT I was a juror on the Frank case; I did not knowpersonally either A.H.Henslee or M.Joehenning, who were alsojurors trying this case, until after we were sworn in on saidjury; I had occasion to and do know the conduct of these twomen on the jury; at no time did either of them express themselvesin a way to indicate that they were in the least bit prejudicedor biased, but each of these men, as did each and every othermember of the jury, deported themselves as
0048 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: had been any cheering of anybody connected with the case at anytime, or that there had been any cheering growing out of or con-nected with the Frank case, until after the verdict was rendered,and I was told about said incidents; the jury left the courtroom every time before the Judge, lawyers, and audience were per-mitted to leave, and there was never any applause or cheeringeither inside of the court or outside of the court, within myknowledge, while the case was being considered; the jury, in leaving,were always attended by the deputy sheriffs
0049 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: any man grabbing any member of the jury, by the hand or sayinganything to any juror, or attempting to say anything to any jurorand within my knowledge there was no communication at any time orplace or in any shape, manner or form, with any juror, with anyparty on the outside; all communications had by the jury with out-siders, so far as I know, were through the bailiffs, and saidcommunications were authorized by the court and known to counselon both sides of the cases TFAT so far as I am-personally con-cerned, and so
0050 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: --22--a talk and stated that he cast a doubtful ballot; there was oneballot marked "doubtful"; he explained to the jury why he castthis doubtful ballot, and submitted some suggestions with referenceto the evidence; up to that time, so far as I know, said Hensleehad not intimated or expressed any opinion whatsoever with re-ference to any feature of the case, except as above; THAT as toM.J.Schenning, so far as I was able to judge from his conduct anddeportment, said J°Schenning was an upright, honest, fair, pru-dent, impartial and conscientious juror, imbued with only
0051 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: --23--when there was cheering both on Hunter and Pryor Streets, andwild cheering was loud and long; with the exception of thischeering, I never heard anything that had the faintest re-semblance to cheering, and I have never heard any applauseexcept that heard by the Judge and only heard about THIRTYother cheering after having been discharged from the case.THAT the cheering which occurred just after the reading ofthe verdict in said case occurred during the time the jurywere being polled by the Court: THAT at the time the cheeringwas heard no objection whatsoever was
0052 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: --24--other juror, or attempting to say anything to any juror, exceptas above and within my knowledge there was no unauthorized com-munication at any time or place or in any shape, manner or form,with any juror, with any party on the outside, all communicationshad by the jury with outsiders, so far as I know, were throughthe bailiffe, and said communications were authorized by thecourt, and known to counsel on both sides of the case; THAT sofar as I am personally concerned, and so far as I know, as to eachand every juror on
0053 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: --25--or bias, either for or against the said Leo M.Frank, and thatwas absolutely true; furthermore I stated that my mind wasperfectly impartial between the State of Georgia and Leo M.Frank, accuse of Murder; that answer given under oath, wasabsolutely true; my attitude toward the case was that of an im-partial, unprejudiced man, seeking only to do my duty as a citizenand as a Juror, with a due appreciation of the fact that a man'slife or liberty must not be taken except the State produce evi-dence to overcome the presumption of innocence which
0054 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: --26--committed the crime ought to be hung, whether Frank or any other person; the conduct of the entire jury after they were empannelled and sworn, was that of honest, upright, and impartial jurors; no member of the jury, including myself, while knowledge, ever expressed an opinion of the guilt or innocence of Leo M.Frank during the trial, until after all the evidence was in, speeches in and the court had charged us to render a verdict; as illustrating the attitude which I occupied in this case, I will say that when it
0055 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: -277-doment give any date when I was supposed to have made the re-marks attributed to me; but I was not in Albany from June 2nd.,and 3rd., 1913 at which time I was there, until September 18th.,1913;if at any time between April 26th. 1913, and July 28th., 1913, Iever saw Moak Farkas in Albany or elsewhere and had a conversation withhim, I have absolutely forgotten it; I do know that I did not seethis man Moak Farkas on my trip to Albany June 2nd., 1913 and June 31913; I did see Sam Farkas
0056 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: --28--Ga., spending the night of June 2nd., at the New Albany Hotelin Albany, Ga. THAT said Lehman does not state where it was thatthe said statement was made by me on June 20th.,1913. I unqualifiedlystate, that I never on June 20th.,1913, or on any other date, madeany such statement to Lehman or to anyone else; On June 19th., 1913,I was at Opelika, Ala, and Columbus, Ga., and on the 20th., I wasat Columbus, Chipley and Cataula, Ga., and drove from Cataula toWaverly Hall by private conveyance and from Waverly Hall I went
0057 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: in the City of Atlanta, say "I am glad they indicted the Goddamn Jew", they ought to take him out and lynch him, and if Iget on that jury I will hang that Jew sure." I emphaticallydeny that I used any such expression at any time or place; I am amember of the Elk's Club; said Club has among its members a largenumber of Jewish people, many of whom are my friends. I neverentertained any prejudice or animus against the Jewish people, oragainst any one of them, and I did not make
0058 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: at this time, anything more than the headlines of the newspapersand I had not formed any opinion based on newspaper reports orcasual rumor as to whether or not Frank was the man guilty of thecrime, and I did not express myself in the language attributedto me by the said Ricker or any other language; nor did I knowthat the public sentiment was so strong against Frank that he wouldnot be able, if acquitted, to get out of the City of Atlanta alive, andI positively and emphatically deny that I ever made use
0059 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image:---- 31 -H.Shi Gray, S.M.Johnson, and John M.Holmes on rendering the verdict of "Guilty"; I was introduced by Mr.Holmes to their many friends and acquaintances as having been one of the jurors on the Frank case; I furthermore stated on this occasion which I refer to, namely, September 2nd., 1913, that said Frank was a moral degenerate and apervert; I based this statement on the evidence adduced upon the trial; before that I did not have any knowledge or information whatsoever which would have warranted me in surmising that Frank was a degenerate
0060 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: Stated in my recollection, until September 2nd, 1915, that Ihave ever expressed any opinion, anywhere, at any time priorto this trial, that Leo M. Frank was guilty. I do not remember;I never had any prejudice against the said Leo M. Frank, and Inever had any fixed opinion, or entertained any kind of opinionof the merits of the case until I heard the evidence; and Iqualified as a juror with an unbiased mind, and with a disposi-tion to readily yield and conform to the evidence, and to be con-trolled absolutely by the law
0061 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: outside of the courthouse; I did not hear any applause in thecourtroom that I now recall, except as above stated; I do not re-call what occasioned any laughter, except that occasioned by thecross examination of Jim Connelly by Mr.Rosser, counsel for Frank;I laughed myself, as did the audience and all of the jury, whenConnelly told Mr.Rosser how he spelled certain brands of pencilsand other words; I laughed and the audience laughed when B.Daltontold Mr.Rosser when and where he was born, stating that he wasthere but could not remember; also in conjunction with
0062 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: anything about it if anything like that took place and I didnot hear the sheriff speak to anyone about it; there was no com-munication at any time or place in any shape, manner or formwith me from the outside after the jury was empaneled and so faras I know, there was no communication with any juror except let-ters which came through the sheriff or bailiff and which were bythe court permitted; and I never read any letter, or communicationof any character that had not been opened before it came to methrough the
0063 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: walking two abreast, said jury following immediately behinddeponent Pennington: THAT Deponents have read the various affi-davits which deal with alleged cheering of the Solicitor General ashe left the court house on said Friday afternoon August 22, 1913;opponents under oath they did not hear any demonstration of any kind on said afternoon, nor did theyhear any applause for the Solicitor General or for any one else;THAT when court adjourned on Saturday, August 23, 1913, soonafter the noon hour, deponents took the jury from the court-house northward along Pryor street; they did not, on
0064 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: said six or seven men or any other number of men talk to thejurors or any of them, on South Pryor Street, or the German Cafe,or at their rooms at the Kimball House, or elsewhere, at anytime, between the time the jury was impanelled and the time whenit was discharged after having finally rendered its verdict inthe said case, so far as deponents know or believe; at no timeand in no place did deponents see any member of the jury in thiscase communicate with, or attempt to communicate, with any one ex-cepting
0065 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: he occupied an anteroom to the court-room in which said case was tried directly across the hallway from the jury room; that in leaving the jury box, and retiring to the jury room, it is necessary to pass through three doors; that deponent knows of the occasion of the applause in the court room when the Judge declined to rule out and exclude the evidence of Jim Conley as to two certain acts of degeneracy and perversion on the part of Leo M. Frank, the defendant; deponent was present in the court
0066 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: M. Johenning makes the following affidavit, deposing and saying as follows: That he was one of the jurors who served on the above stated case and heard the cheering which followed soon after the reading of the verdict of guilty in open court, and which said cheering was by parties outside of the court, and which said cheering occurred during the time the jury were being polled by the court.At the time the cheering was heard no objection whatsoever was made by anyone representing Leo M. Frank or by Leo M. Frank
0067 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: the reading of the verdict, while the jury was being polled, Deponentsays that at no time did he see any one appeal to or attempt to speakto any member of the jury, except officers of court in the dischargeof their duty. Deponent further states that he never at any timewitnessed or knew of any misconduct on the part of any member of thejury, but states, under oath, that at all times, when in his presenceeach member of the jury deported himself as an upright, honorable andconscientious juror, seeking to faithfully discharge his
0068 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: to Judge, the jury at all times, when he was present, deported themselves as honest, honorable, conscientious, unbiased and unprejudiced jurors, and at no time were any of said jurors guilty of any misconduct, within his presence or knowledge.Drew Liddell makes the following aff. & vit, deposing and saying as follows: that he is a deputy sheriff of Fulton county, Georgia and was on duty constantly during the trial of the above stated case. On Friday, August 22nd, and Saturday, August 23, 1913, deponent, with other deputies, accompanied the jury to and
0069 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: C.J.Bosshardt makes affidavit as follows: I have read the affidavit of J.T.Osburn, executed on Oct.16,1915,and hereby adopt said affidavit of said Osburn, and that the said allegations contained in said affidavit are true and correct. C.J.Bosshardt makes affidavit as follows: I am one of the jurors who sat on the above stated case, and heard the cheering which followed and after the reading of the verdict of guilty in open court,and which said cheering was by parties outside of the court, and which cheering occurred during the time the jury was being
0070 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: W. H. Howard, J.C.Gallier, T.W.Cochran, P.L.Cordy, J.E.,Howard, J.D.Lookridge and C.O.Summers each make affidavit that theyknow A. H. Henslee, one of the jurors who served in the case of theState of Georgia, vs. Leo M. Frank; that each of the witnesses is ac-quainted with the general character of the said A. H. Henslee, andthat the general character and reputation of the said Henslee is good,and from his general character and reputation, each of deponents wouldbelieve the said A.H.Henslee on oath.H. Pitts & L. Lyle, T. J. Webb, and John H. Kelley, each makeaffidavit
0071 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: I was aiding the Sheriff, and as a deputy was stationedimmediately in the rear of the jury box. I was in positionto hear all that the jury could hear in the court room, andat no time did I hear any applause, except what occurred inopen court, in the immediate presence of the Judge presidingand which was officially noticed by him: No cheering from theoutside was heard, excepting during the polling of the jury,after their verdict had been read. I observed no misconducton the part of any Juror, and no communication or attempt
0072 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: member of the jury individually or the jury collectively fromthe time the jury was impanelled until they had rendered their vverdict and had been discharged. I am the Deputy Sheriff regular-ly assigned to the Criminal division of Fulton County SuperiorCourt and was on duty and in charge of the courtroom during theentire time Leo M. Frank was on trial; I have read theaffidavit of Mrs. A. Shurman and others with reference to thecheering on the outside of said courtroom during Friday andSaturday and Monday, the last three days of the trial. I
0073 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: xxk any spectator or person at or around the said courthouse, duringthe trial of Leo M. Frank other than the officers of the law, tohave in their possession or on their person any pistol or armsof any kind or character.W. F. Medcalf, makes affidavit, deposing and sayingas follows:I was a Juror on the Frank case. I did not knowpersonally either A. H. Henslee or L. L. Johenning, who were alsojurors, trying this case, until after we were sworn in on saidjury. I had occasion to and do know the conduct of these
0074 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: conscientiousness of Johenning is true of Henslee and likewiseof each and every man on the jury; I did not at any time, whilea juror, hear any applause except such as occurred in open court,and which was heard by the Judge, jury and attorneys in the case;I did not know that there had been any cheering of anybodyconnected with the case at any time or that there had been anycheering in any way growing out of or connected with the Frankcase, until after the verdict was rendered, and I was told aboutsaid incidents;
0075 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: my presence. No man ever grabbed me by the hand at the placereferred to by W. P. Weill in his affidavit, nor did I see orhear or know anything about any man grabbing a member of the Juryby the hand or saying anything to any juror, or attempting tosay anything to any juror, and within my knowledge, there was nocommunication at any time or place or in any shape, manner, or form,with any juror, with any party on the outside. All communicationhad by the Jury with outsiders, so far as I know,
0076 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: for new trial and said amendment to the motion for new trial beingparts of the record in said case, and reference being hereby had tothe same; and movant further specifies as to each error complainedof that the court failed and refused to grant a new trial upon eachand every ground contained in said motion for new trial and theamendment thereto, reference being hereby had to the same as if fullyembodied herein, the same being of record.Defendant further excepts to said judgment overruling themotion for new trial and alleges error therein in not
0077 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: 9th. The Judgment of the Judge refusing a new trial insaid case.This ____ day of ____ 1913./s/ Reuben R. Arnold/s/ Leonard HaasAttorneys for Leo M. Frank,Plaintiff in Error,Address, Atlanta, Ga.I do certify that the foregoing Bill of Exceptions is trueand contains and specifies all of the evidence and specifies all ofthe record material to a clear understanding of the errors complainedof; and the Clerk of Fulton Superior Court is hereby ordered to makeout a complete copy of such parts of the record in said case asare in this Bill of Exceptions specified,
0078 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 The visible text in the image appears to be handwritten and somewhat difficult to decipher due to the quality of the image. However, I can make out the following: 12 of November 1847Received of Wm. H. English
0079 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: GEORGIA, Fulton County.I Hereby Certify, That the foregoing Bill of Exceptions, hereunto, attached, is- the true original Bill of Exceptions in the case stated, to-wit :Leo M. FrankPlaintiff in Error.VSThe State of GeorgiaDefendant in Error.and that a copy hereof has been made and filed in this office.Witness my signature and the seal of Court affixedthis the 15th day of November 1913.Clerk Superior Court Fulton County, Georgia.Ex-Officio Clerk City Court of Atlanta.
0080 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: Filed in officeClerk. 191Filed in officeClerk. 191Bill of ExceptionsState of GeorgiavsWill FrankCase No.Albany Circuit,Term, 191
0081 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: BILL OF EXCEPTIONSTHE STATESUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA.OCTOBER TERM, 1898.CRIMINAL DOCKET NO. 1052FILED IN OFFICE NOV 15 1898CLERKFRANK
0082 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: FileNo. Atlanta Circuit Term, 191Leo M. FrankVERSUSThe State of GeorgiaTranscript of RecordFiled in office. 191 Clerk.DAILY REPORT CO., PRINTERS, ATLANTA
0083 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: 10852Frank & State(INDEX.)Bill of Indictment.............................1Plea...........................................1Verdict.........................................3Sentence........................................3Motion for New Trial...........................4Amended Motion for New Trial...................5Certificate of Court...........................7Order Overruling Motion for New Trial..........237Charge of the Court............................238Approval of the Court..........................239Brief of the Evidence..........................244
0084 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: (BILL OF INDICTMENT.)The State, No. 9410,Vs. Fulton Superior Court,Leo M. Frank. May Term 1913.True BillL. H. Beck, Foreman,24th day of May 1913.Hugh M. Dorsey, Sol. Gen'lJ. N. Starnes, Prosecutor.STATE OF GEORGIA,FULTON COUNTY.The Grand Jurors, selected, chosen and sworn for the County ofFulton, to-wit;1. J. H. Beck, Foreman,2. A. D. Adair, Sr.,3. F. P. H. Akers,4. B. F. Bell,5. J. G. Bell,6. Sol. Benjamin,7. Wm. E. Besser,8. C. M. Brown,9. O. A. Cowles,10. Walker Dunson,11. Geo. A. Gershon,12. S. C. Glass,13. A. L. Guthman,14. C. M. Kains,15. R. R. Hubbard,16. R. R. Hash,17.
0085 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: and there choking her, the said Mary Phagan with a cord placedaround her neck, contrary to the laws of said State, the goodorder, peace and dignity thereof.Hugh M. Dorsey, Sol. Gen'l.J. N. Starnes, Prosecutor.Fulton Superior Court 1913.WITNESSES FOR THE STATE.J. W. Hurt, Dr.L. S. Dobbs, (Police)J. N. Starnes "R. P. Barrett,W. W. Rogers,Harry Scott,B. B. Haslett,Grace Hicks,E. F. Holloway,N. V. Darley,H. L. Parry,J. M. Gantt,William A. Gheesling.Copy Bill of indictment and list of witnesses before GrandJury, waived before arraignment. Full panel Waived.Roeser and Brandon,R. R. Arnold,Herbert Haas, Deft's Att'ys.2.
0086 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: (P L E A.)July Term 1913.The defendant Leo M. Frank, waives being formally arraigned, and pleads not guilty.F. A. Hooper,E. A. Stephens andRush W. Dorsey,Sol. Gen'l.Rosser and Brandon,R. R. Arnold,Herbert Haas,Deft's Att'ys.-------------------(VERDICT.)We, the jury, find the defendant guilty.Date August 25th, 1913.F. E. Winburn, Foreman.
0087 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: (SENTENCE.)The State, No. 9410.Vs. (1.) Indictment for Murder. Fulton SuperiorLeo M. Frank. (1.) Court, May Term, 1913, Verdict of (1.) Guilty, July Term, 1913. Aug. 25, 1913.Whereupon, it is considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the defendant, Leo M. Frank, be taken from the bar of this court to the common jail of the county of Fulton, and that he be safely there kept until his final execution in the manner fixed by law.It is further ordered and adjudged by the Court that on the 10th day of October, 1913,
0088 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: (MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL.)State of Georgia,Vs.Leo M. Frank.(1). Conviction of Murder.(1). In Fulton Superior Court.(1). Motion For New Trial.And now comes the defendant in the above stated case and moves the court for a new trial upon the grounds following, to-wit:1. The verdict is contrary to the evidence.2. The verdict is contrary to the law.3. The verdict is against the weight of the evidence.4. The court, over the objection of the defendant, heard evidence of other transactions and tending to establish other crimes and offenses, wholly separate and distinct from the charge
0089 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: In the meantime let the execution of the court's sentence besuspended. It is further ordered, that until such time as thismotion may be heard and decided, that the movant have fullleave to amend this motion for new trial.This 26th day of August, 1913.L. S. Roan,Judge S. C. St. W. Ct. PresidingFiled in office this the 26th day of August, 1913.F. V. Myers, D. ClerkGEORGIA, FULTON COUNTY.Service acknowledged, copy received all other andfurther service waived. This Aug. 27th, 1913.F. A. Hooper,Hugh M. Dorsey,E. A. StephensSolicitor General Fulton County, Georgia.We further agree to the
0090 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: (AMENDED MOTION.)GEORGIA, FULTON COUNTY.State of Georgia, No.Vs. Fulton Superior Court.Leo M. Frank. July Term, 1913.And now comes the defendant in the above stated cause, LeoM. Frank, and amends his motion for new trial heretofore filed inthis case, and says:That the verdict in the above stated case should be set asideand a new trial granted for the following reasons, to-wit:1. Because the Court erred in permitting the solicitor to proveby the Witness, Lee, that the detective Black talked to him, thewitness, longer and asked him more questions at the police stationthan did Mr.
0091 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: jailer, had interviewed Lee just before the present trial.The solicitor, over the objections of Frank's atty's that the evidence offered was immaterial, irrelevant, and the expression of an opinion, was permitted by introducing said evidence to draw a comparison of the time occupied by Frank and Arnold to their respective interviews, and, in doing so, the Court erred because the evidence offered was immaterial, irrelevant and the expression of an opinion.3. Because the Court permitted the solicitor, over the objection of defendant made at the time, evidence was offered that the same
0092 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: were, also, Greek crosses on the picture. It was conceded by theState that these dotted lines and crosses were no part of norrepresented any part of the building, but were put in the picturefor the purpose of illustrating the theory of the State, as show-ing where the body was found and where it was carried.The admission of the picture in evidence, with the lines andcrosses thereon, was, when offered, objected to because, asmovant contends, it was argumentative, representing andillustrating the State's view of the case by means of red linesand crosses, which
0093 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: 8. Because the Court refused to permit the witness Black totestify on cross examination that when he found a bloody shirt inthe bottom of a barrel in Newt Lee's house, that he carried theshirt to the station house showed it to Lee, and, when Leewas asked by the witness if the shirt was his, the solicitorobjected that the witness should not be allowed to answer thequestion: "Did he (Lee) say that the shirt was his?"The Court would not permit the witness to give Lee's answerthat the shirt was his.This answer of Lee's
0094 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: (up to her waist) and Mr. Frank was down on his knees, and shehad her hands on Mr. Frank and I found them in that position."Q. "When you came into the office before Thanksgiving day, now,when the lady was sitting in the chair?"A. Yes, sir; he saw me when he came out of the office, he saw me."Q. What was said when they saw you?"A. "When Mr. Frank came out of the office Mr. Frank was holler-ing 'Yes, that is right, that is right' and he said, 'That is allright, it will
0095 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: tion with women than he had not seen any other man in that haschildren; that he had seen Frank in the office of the Pencil Co.,about two or three times before Thanksgiving, and a lady was inthe office and she was sitting down in a chair and she had herclothes up about her privates, and Frank was down on his knee,and she had her hands on Frank; that Frank saw Conley when he cameout of the office, that when Frank came out of the office he washollering "Yes, sir, that is right,
0096 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: open the door. When the first question was asked by the solicitorseeking to elicit whether witness had ever seen Frank up therein his office doing anything with young ladies before April 26,1913, the defendant objected on the ground that the evidencesought was irrelevant and immaterial. The Court ruled that theevidence would be immaterial, but further questions were askedby the solicitor and elicited the evidence here complained of.While Conley was still on the stand, and after cross examina-tion a day and a half on other subjects, defendant's counselmoved to rule out, exclude and
0097 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: A. I would sit down on the first floor and watch the door for him.Q. And watch the doors for him? A. Yes, sir.Q. How many times did you watch the door previous to Saturday, the 28th of April, 1913?A. Well, I couldn't exactly tell you; it has been several times I watched for him.Q. Who was there when you were watching the door? A. Well, I don't know, Sir, who would be there when I watched the door, but there would be another young man and another young lady there during
0098 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: was in the office, and she was sitting down in a chair, and she had her clothes up to here (indicating), and Mr. Frank was down on his knees, and she had her hand on Mr. Frank, and I found them in that position.Q. Well did you ever see him on any other occasion? A. Yes, I have seen him another time there.Q. What other occasion? A. I have seen Mr. Frank in the packing room one time with a young lady laying on the table.Q. How far was the woman on
0099 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: CROSS EXAMINATION.Q. Now, you said you watched for Mr. Frank? A. Yes, sir.Q. When was the first time you ever watched for Mr. Frank?A. The first time I ever watched for Mr. Frank alone andknew he was in the office------Q. When was the first time you ever watched for Mr. Frank aloneor with somebody else? Don't make any difference. A. I couldn'texactly give you the------Q. Tell us the best you can? A. Some time during last summer,when I was watching for him.Q. That was the first time, now? A. Yes, sir.Q. Whereabouts
0100 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: there when he called me and talked to me about the work.Q. And that was on Saturday A. Yes, sir, that was on a Saturday.Q. About what time, now A. I don't know, somewhere about threeo'clock, though.Q. Sometime about three o'clock A. Yes, sir.Q. What was your Saturday hours, Jim A. I always generallyhave to work from the time I get back there until half pastfour that evening.Q. What time would you usually get back there A. I would leaveaway from there about half past two, ring out the clock, andcome back
0101 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: Q. How come you to know she lived there? A. Because I passed herhouse every morning.Q. And the man was named Dalton? A. Yes, sir.Q. Who was with Mr. Frank? A. The lady that was with Mr. Frankwas Miss Daisy Hopkins.Q. Where did she live? A. I don't know, sir, where Miss DaisyHopkins lived.Q. Where did she work? A. She worked up on the fourth floor.Q. Do you know where she is now? A. No sir.Q. Now, what time of day was that? A. It would always be some-where about three or
0102 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: Q. Was there a woman in there with him? A. Yes, sir; alady was in there with him.Q. Called you in the presence of the lady? A. Yes, sir.Q. Talked to you in the presence of the lady? A. Yes, sir.Q. He talked to me in the lady's presence.Q. And that was Miss Daisy Hopkins? A. Yes, sir.Q. And that was about three o'clock? A. Or half past three.Q. In July last? A. Yes, sir.Q. What did Mr. Frank say to you in that lady's presence? That'sthe time (first) time he ever
0103 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: Q. When this young lady went off and came back and broughtDalton back, where did you see her again? A. I saw her and Mr.Dalton when the come in at the door.Q. You were watching them? A. Yes, sir.Q. Then where did they go? A. Upstairs to Mr. Frank's office.Q. Did you see them go to Mr. Frank's office? A. I heard themwalking in Mr. Frank's office.Q. Then how long did they stay in Mr. Frank's office? A. Theydidn't stay in there long, ten or fifteen minutes I reckon.Q. Then where did
0104 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: elevator? A. No, sir; there isn't a door back of the elevator; there's a big wooden door, just a step there.Q. I know, but it goes back in the back there. A. Yes, sir.Q. Then you opened that door? A. Yes, sir.Q. Then came back and opened that trap door? A. I came and pulled up the trap door.Q. And then they went down there? A. Yes, sir.Q. She said "All right, James"? A. Yes, sir.Q. Then you went and opened that door? A. Yes, sir.Q. She didn't tell you to open
0105 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: I couldn't give you what time they came back up.Q. It was after 3:30 when this window raising started? A. Yes, sirIt was after 3:30 when this window raising started.Q. He told you to go down, they came up after a while?A. Yes, sir, they came up after a while.Q. Came up the same way they went down? A. Yes, sir.Q. Up through the same door? A. Yes, sir.Q. You kept that door locked all the time? A. No, sir, I didn'tkeep it locked, I just kept it shut and stayed there
0106 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: say: "That's all right", and then left.Q. Then he came out behind you and left? A. Yes, sir.Q. Now, that's the first time? A. Yes, sir.Q. Now, when was the next Saturday? A. The next Saturday was mighty near the same thing.Q. Well, what was the next Saturday; I didn't ask you whether it was the same thing or not? A. That was about two weeks after that.Q. Was that in August or in July? A. Well, it was about the last of July or the first of August.Q. Well, do you
0107 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: Q Where did he tell you that? A. In the box roomQ. Anybody else present? A. No, sir, not as I knows of.Q. What were you doing in there? A. What was I doing in there, I was looking after the boxes.Q. What did he tell you then? A. He told me, "Now you know what you done for me last Saturday" -Q. He told you: "You know what you done for me last Saturday"?A. The other Saturday, I says: "Yes, sir, I remember". He says: "I want to-put you wise to
0108 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: Q. Where were you at? A. I was standing there by the clock.Q. He popped his hand? A. No, sir, he popped his finger.Q. He popped his finger and bowed to you? A. Yes, sir.Q. Then you went down? A. Yes, sir, then I went down.Q. And stood by the door? A. Yes, sir.Q. Didn't look it? A. No sir, I didn't look it; I shut it.Q. Then what next happened? A. I don't know, sir, what next happened.Q. Did you hear Mr. Frank come out of his office at all?A. No,
0109 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: 50001110sat there at the door until he notified me to do that.Q. I'm talking about the time you went and got that man and came back? A. I was standing by the door, yes, sir.Q. Stood there from that on? A. No, sir, I didn't stand there from that on.Q. What did you do? A. I stood there about the trash barrel then.Q. On the first floor? A. Right there by the side.Q. And then you heard them going back? A. I heard them go to Mr. Frank's office, yes, sir.Q. When
0110 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: watched for him and Mr. Dalton, too, before that Thanksgiving day.Q. Give us the best you can, of the next time? A. That was somewhere along in the winter time; I don't know, sir, the exact time.Q. Well, Thanksgiving time is winter time, ain't it Jim?A. Yes sir, but this is before Thanksgiving.Q. How many time before Thanksgiving? A. I watched for him there three times before Thanksgiving Day.Q. Well, you've given me two of these times? A. Yes, sir.Q. When was the the next one--about when? A. I don't know, sir;
0111 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: Q. About what time? A. I don't know, sir, I couldn't tell you exactly.Q. Where was you when he told you? A. Right at the elevator.Q. Was it before twelve o'clock? A. I don't know, sir, whether it was twelve o'clock or not.Q. After twelve? A. I don't know whether it was after twelve or not.Q. You don't know anything about that; you can't remember that? A. No sir.Q. Anybody standing around there then? A. There was Gordon Bailey standing there.Q. That's Snowball? A. Yes, sir.Q. Anybody else there? A. Not to
0112 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: A. Yes sir, the three time he said: "I want to put you wise"Q. And that was the three times--say it the three times up tothat time? A. Well, yes sir, to my remembrance it was.Q. You don't know that then? A. No sir, I don't know that.Q. Well, you said that though. A. Yes, sir, I said it.Q. Did he say anything else to you but "I want to put you wise"at that time and place? A. Yes, sir, "I want to put you wiselike I been doing the other Saturdays
0113 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: Q. What kind of eyes did she have? A. I don't know, sir, I never paid no attention to hereyes.Q. What kind of hair? A. I don't know, sir, exactly-had hair like Mr. Hooper there got.Q. How do you know Mr. Hooper so well; you seem to know him pretty well, don't you Jim? A. No, sir, I don't know, sir, I have seen Mr. Hooper before.Q. He had a good deal to do with you down there? A. No sir, I seen him once when he come down to the cell
0114 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: Thanksgiving Day had on white shoes and stockings.Q. Now, the next day what did she have on? A. The next dayshe had on the same thing, black skirt and white waist.Q. She had on exactly the same thing? A. Yes sir.Q. And this other---There was a girl dressed in green all over?A. Yes, sir, there was a girl dressed in green all over, thislast one.Q. And you don't know who she is? A. No sir; she worked upthere on the fourth floor, but don't know her name.Q. You don't know whether she
0115 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: sweeping up there ever since last January.Q. You saw that little girl every day, that went to meet Mr.Frank, didn't you? A. This last one?Q. Yes. A. I didn't see her every day but I seen her there.Q. Saw her many times and didn't ask who she was? A. No sir,I didn't ask who she was.Q. Don't know who she was? A. No sir, I don't know who she was.Q. Now, when she came in, did she see you when she came in?A. Yes sir, she seen me as she come in.Q.
0116 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: what hour? I met Mr. Frank there that morning about eighto'clock.Q. Anybody else there? A. I didn't see anybody else there.Q. Where did you meet him then? A. At Mr. Frank rightat the door; I was sitting on the box when he come in.Q. That's when he mentioned it to you again? A. That's whenhe taken me on the inside and told me---Q. Tell me the words? A. After he went on the inside, he says:"How are you feeling?" I says: "I'm feeling all right, Mr.Frank". He says: "Come here" he says,
0117 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: Q. Now, you had, you say, seen her there a few nights before?A. Yes sir.Q. Sitting in Mr. Frank's office, was she? A. Yes sir.Q. What time? A. Somewhere between eight o'clock,Q. What did you have to do that? A. I had to stack some boxesup on the fourth floor.Q. Eighth floor? You had to stack some boxes? A. No sir, Isaid fourth floor.Q. That was about Thanksgiving Day? A. Yes sir.Q. Was it the same week of Thanksgiving you saw her up there?A. I don't know sir, whether it was the
0118 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: into his office.Q. Where was he standing? A. Standing by the trash barrel, smoking a cigarette.Q. She went upstairs and went into Mr. Frank's office, and you heard her? A. I heard her going towards Mr. Frank's office.Q. You heard her go in there? A. I couldn't hear them go in; I heard her going towards it.Q. Didn't you say you heard those others go in? A. No sir, I said I heard them going towards the office.Q. You didn't say you saw them go in? A. No sir, I said I
0119 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: that you stayed there? A. I reckon so; I don't know how longexactly it was.Q. Then the lady came down? A. No sir. Mr. Frank says: "I'llstamp after this lady comes, and you go and close the door and turnthat right latch"Q. That was the first time he ever told you about the night lock?A. Yes sir.Q. The other times, he told you just to close it?A. Yes sir.Q. But that time he told you to put the night lock on? A. Yes sir,and he says: "I'll stamp, and if everything is
0120 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: and he says: "Yes", and she says: "Well, does he talk much", andhe says: "No, he's the best nigger I've ever seen."Q. She stopped there and looked at you? A. No sir.Q. Didn't you say she stopped and asked Mr. Frank: "Is thatthe nigger?" A. She asked Mr. Frank that.Q. She stopped and said to Mr. Frank: "Is that the nigger?"A. No sir, she didn't stop.Q. She just kept walking? A. Yes sir.Q. Neither stopped, neither one of them stopped?A. No sir, neither one of them stopped at all; she just said
0121 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: Q. Then went home? A. No sir, I went to Peters Street and stayed a good while.Q. Drank some more beer over there? A. No sir, I didn't drink no beer over there.Q. Didn't drink but one beer that day? A. I don't know, sir, how many I drank at that saloon on Forsyth and Hunter.Q. About what time did you leave the factory? A. I don't know, sir, it was a little before twelve o'clock, but I don't know what time.Q. So the girl didn't come out of the factory that
0122 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: How long was that after Thanksgiving? A. That is somewhere afterChristmas, way after Christmas, when I watched for him.Q. That was in the dead of winter, then? A. Yes sir, in thedead of winter.Q. About when? A. About January, I reckon.Q. About the middle of January, or when? A. I don't know, middlefirst or last, I can't say--somewhere in January.Q. How do you know it was somewhere in January? A. Because itwas right after the first of the year.Q. Well, if it was right after the first of the year you know
0123 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: Q. You can't remember what he told you except he was going to have a man and two ladies after awhile? A. Said; "A man and two ladies will be there this evening" and I said I may can make some money off this man.Q. Said what? A. That I could get to make a piece of money off this man.Q. That was all he said to you about that? A. Yes sir.Q. Didn't tell you when they would come? A. Said be there this evening about the same time.Q. You didn't
0124 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: Q. Broad, open daylight? A. Yes sir.Q. What time did the man and the ladies come? A. Somewhere abouthalf past two or three o'clock.Q. About half past two or three o'clock, they came? A. Yes sir.Q. They come right in? A. No sir, they didn't come right in.The two ladies stayed back; the young man, he come in. He askedme was Mr. Frank in the office; he says: "Mr. Frank put you wise?I says: "Mr. Frank put me wise, how?" He says: "Didn't he tellyou to watch the door, two ladies and
0125 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: Q. Give me a description of those young ladies?A. Well, I disremember what the ladies did have on.Q. Can't you remember what either one of them had on?A. No sir, I can't remember what either of them had on; I didn't pay much attention.Q. Can't described either one of those women at all, can you?A. No sir.Q. What sort of looking man was he? A. He was tall, slim built, heavy man.Q. Ever see him before? A. I have seen him there talking to Mr. Holloway.Q. Did he work there? A. No
0126 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: Q. Well, I am talking about January. Is that the last time you watched for him until this time? A. Yes sir, I think it was----if I am not mistaken.Q. Well you ain't mistaken about it, are you Jim? A. I don't know sir, I couldn't tell you about that.Q. You have no recollection of any other time? A. No sir, no recollection of any other time.Q. You have got no recollection, you can't remember it, if you did? A. Well, I don't know sir-----Q. Now let us take that time about
0127 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: Q. You mean you watched for him one Saturday and then the secondSaturday you watched for him again? A. Then on the second Saturdayafter that, I watched for him.Q. You missed a Saturday? A. Yes sir.Q. And then you watched the next Saturday? A. Yes sir.Q. That is what you say about it now? A. Yes sir, that is what Isay now and what I said before.Q. Now the Saturday after you watched for him the second time,what did you do? A. I don't know sir, I disremember what I did.Q. You
0128 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: best recollection? A. Yes sir.Q. Of course, you don't know except from you best recollection.Then you didn't watch for him until Thanksgiving Day?A. Until Thanksgiving Day.Q. What did you do the Saturday before Thanksgiving Day? A. Idon't remember what I did.Q. What did you do the Saturday after Thanksgiving Day?A. I don't know what I did.Q. And the next Saturday? A. Well, the next Saturday, I couldtell you what I did that Saturday.Q. And the next Saturday? A. Well, I don't know, sir, what Idid the next Saturday.Q. And the next? A.
0129 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: A. Yes sir, after Thanksgiving Day.Q. About the last of September? A. After Thanksgiving Day,yes sir.Q. About the last of September? A. After Thanksgiving Day, yessir.Q. Now Jim, you don't remember any of these dates?A. No sir, I don't remember any of these dates. I can't tellabout them.Q. Let us see how much money, you drew that Saturday that you watchedfor him? how much money did you draw that day?A. I don't know, sir.Q. What time did you draw it? A. I don't know, sir, what time Idrew it.Q. Did you draw
0130 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: Q. How much did you draw? A. I don't know, sir.Q. Now, that third time, on the day before Thanksgiving, thatis, three times before Thanksgiving, according to your recol-lection? A. Yes sir.Q. Now did you draw your money that week? A. Before ThanksgivingI couldn't tell you about that.Q. You don't know whether you drew your pay or whether somebodydrew it for you? A. No sir.Q. Or how much you drew? A. No sir.Q. You don't remember that, do you? A. No sir.Q. When did you draw your pay, before or after Thanksgiving,that
0131 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: Q. When did you leave that day? A. I don't know, sirQ. Who did you see at the factory that day, that you remember?A. Well, I saw, I reckon, most everybody there.Q. Well, who do you remember seeing there? A. I remember seeingMr. Frank.Q. Do you remember seeing Mr. Frank? A. Yes sir.Q. The day before Thanksgiving? A. Yes sir.Q. Did you see him the day after Thanksgiving?A. Yes sir, I saw him the day after Thanksgiving.Q. You remember those two facts well? A. Yes sir, I rememberthose two.Q. You saw Mr.
0132 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: Q. Well, you know that was $1.50? A. No sir, I said it was $1.25.Q. Well, outside of the factory, do you remember what you gotfor your services? A. Outside of the factory, I remember onceI got a half a dollar, then, again, I remember getting half adollar.Q. That is when you were watching for him, you say?A. Yes sir.Q. And you got how much on Thanksgiving Day? A. I got $1.25.Q. The day before that? The day just before that, I don'tremember just how much I got from him that day.Q.
0133 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: Thanksgiving morning? A. I didn't see him Thanksgiving morning,but I saw him the day before Thanksgiving.Q. That is the time when you heard him talk talking in thepresence of Snowball? A. Yes sir.Q. He didn't hesitate to talk for Snowball? A. No sir.Q. He talked before Snowball just like he did before you?A. Yes sir.Q. The first time he did that was Thanksgiving Day, that he talkedbefore Snowball? A. Not Thanksgiving Day, no sir.Q. The day before Thanksgiving? A. Yes sir, the day before.Q. When was that when you and him and
0134 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: Q. How long had Snowball worked at the factory? A. I don't knowsir ____Q. Now, that time when you watched in January, was Snowballthere that day--I believe you said it was in January?A. Yes sir, I said I watched one time in January.Q. Well, was Snowball there? A. I don't know whether he was ornot.Q. Now, the only time you ever heard Mr. Frank say anything infront of Snowball was that time you have just mentioned?Thanksgiving is that what you said? A. Yes sir.Q. You heard him say something before Snowball then?A.
0135 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: you watched for him? A. I couldn't give you the date. I couldn't tell you the date about it at all______Q. How long was that before the day you watched for him?A. I don't know, just directly after Mr. Frank had come there.Q. That was after he had that talk with you that you are talking about? A. After he had what talk with me?Q. The one that he had with you in the elevator?A. Yes sir, that was after that time.Q. The first time you ever saw him have any talk
0136 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: Q. When did Miss Daisy Hopkins work there? A. Oh, she worked in 1912.Q. 1912? A. Yes sir.Q. You are certain of that? A. Yes sir, I am certain she worked there in 1912.Q. What floor did she work on. A. She worked on the fourth floorQ. The fourth Floor? A. Yes sir.Q. And she worked there in 1912? A. Yes sir.Q. What time in 1912 did she quit there? A. I don't know what time.Q. About when, Jim? A. I don't know when she quit there.Q. What time of the year
0137 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: Q. You don't remember when she left? A. No sir, I don't remember that.Q. Was she married or a single lady? A. I don't know.Q. Now, describe Miss Daisy to us? A. Well, Miss Daisy, she was a low lady, kind of heavy, and she was pretty, low, chunky, kind of heavy weight, and she was pretty.Q. Can't you give a better description of her than that? A. No sir, that is the best I can give of her.Q. What sort of color hair did she have? A. Well, I don't remember
0138 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: Q. You say she was a white lady? A. Yes sir, and she was low and ohunky.Q. How old was she? A. I don't know how old she was.Q. How old did she look to be? A. She looked to be like about 23 years old.Q. About 23 years old? A. Yes sir.Q. Was she working there when you went there or not?A. I don't know.Q. You don't know? A. No sir.Q. The only time you can remember was that she worked from June, 1912, until Christmas, 1912? A. Yes sir, about
0139 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: Q. You don't remember the date now? A. No sir.Q. You don't remember his name? A. I know his name was Dalton.Q. What else besides Dalton? A. No sir, I don't know his first name.Q. You don't know where he lived? A. No sir.Q. Or where he works? A. No sir.Q. Describe Mr. Dalton to me? A. Do what?Q. Tell me what kind of a looking man Mr. Dalton was?A. He was a slim looking man, and tall with it.Q. A slim looking man, and tall with it? A. Yes sir.Q. And
0140 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: Q. Then he was about the size of Mr. Arnold, Mr. Dalton was? A.Yes sir, just about that size.Q. How old a man did Mr. Dalton look to be? A. He looked to be aman somewhere about 35 years old.Q. About 35 years old? A. Yes sir.Q. You don't know where he lived? A. No sir.Q. You don't know anything about that? A. No sir. I don'tknow where he lived at.Q. How many times did you ever see him? A. I don't know aboutthat.Q. Did you see him around the factory? A.
0141 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: Q. What date was that, about when? A. I don't know, it was on aSaturday, I disremember the time.Q. That is the time you have already told about. You havedone told about that? A. Yes sir, I have done told about it.Q. This morning? A. Yes sir.Q. What month was that? A. I don't know, somewhere about thelast of August, I reckon.Q. About the last of August, you reckon? A. Yes sir.Q. When did you see him again? A. I didn't see him no more, Idon't reckon, until along up to about
0142 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: seen Mr. Dalton now in about a month or more.Q. Where did you see him the last time? A. The detectivesbrought him down there to the station house, and said had Iever seen him about in there.Q. And you told them what you knew? A. Yes sir, I told them aboutwhat I knew.Q. And you haven't seen Mr. Dalton since then? A. No sir.Q. Now Jim, how was Mr. Dalton dressed the first time you eversaw him? A. Well, I disremember how he was dressed.Q. Can't you give us any help about
0143 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: Q. Did he have any whiskers? A. No sir, he didn't have any whiskers.Q. And you don't remember whether he ever had any mustache? A. No sir, I can't remember whether he had a mustache or not.Q. You wouldn't want to say about that? A. No sir, I wouldn't want to say about that, because I don't remember about that.Q. Now, take the first day you said you waited there for Mr. Frank. Did you see anybody, Mr. Darley, that day about the factory, or Mr. Holloway? A. The first Saturday?Q. Yes,
0144 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: Q. You don't think you saw him? A. No sir, I don't think I saw him.Q. He was sick? A. He was sick that Saturday.Q. He was sick on that Saturday? A. Two Saturdays in June.Q. He was sick one Saturday when you watched? A. Yes sir.Q. About what date was it; about what date was it, when you watched, when he was sick? A. It was somewhere about three o'clock I reckon.Q. What month was it that old man Holloway was sick when you watched? A. I don't know whether he
0145 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: Q. About what time? A. Well, it was somewhere about the last ofAugust.Q. Last of August? A. Yes sir.Q. Well, now, did you see anybody that day? Was Mr.Holloway sick that day, too? He was sick that day, too, wasn'the? A. No sir, he wasn't sick that day.Q. Did you see him. A. Yes sir, I saw him that day.Q. What time did he leave that day? A. I don't know; he leftabout two o'clock I reckon.Q. Don't reckon, please, Jim, tell us if you have any memoryabout it, say so, and
0146 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: Q. Yes that is right, Well now, that day Mr. Darley was there that day? A. Yes, sir I remember seeing him there that day.Q. Was Mr. Schiff there? A. Yes sir. Wolf was there that day.Q. What time did Mr. Darley leave? A. I don't know what time he left.Q. What time did Mr. Schiff leave? A. I don't know what time he left.Q. What time did Mr. Holloway leave? A. Mr. Holloway left away from there about half past two.Q. Do you remember that? A. Yes, sir, I can remember
0147 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: Q. The next time you watched was right after Christmas?A. No sir, the next time I watched was Thanksgiving Day, then--Q. You said awhile ago September was after Thanksgiving?A. Yes sir, after Thanksgiving day.Q. All right. Well, now Thanksgiving Day, the day you have told about in January, who did you see there in January, I mean who of the force? A. I disremember now who I did see in January when I was there that morning.Q. You disremember? A. Yes sir, I disremember.Q. Can you remember anybody you saw there? A.
0148 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: Q. You can't remember whether he was there or not?A. No sir.Q. You wouldn't swear that he was not there? A. I will swearI didn't see him; I will swear he wasn't in the office withMr. Frank.Q. You swear to that? A. Yes sir.Q. Will you swear he wasn't there that day? A. I will swearMr. Irby was working in the office.Q. Thanksgiving-Day? A. No sir, he wasn't working in theoffice on Thanksgiving.Q. The next time, was there any ladies working on the fourthfloor? A. I don't remember.Q. You don't remember whether
0149 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: Q. didn't you say he always gave you that signal? A. No sir,I didn't say he always gave me that signal.Q. Gave it to you Thanksgiving? A. Yes sir.Q. And repeated it to you that day again, the 26th? A. Yes sir.The witness Conley was examined by the solicitor, who broughtout the direct questions and answers supra, and was then cross-questioned by the defendant, when counsel brought out thecross-questions-and-answers supra.Thereafter, and while the witness Conley was still on thestand, Defendant's counsel moved to rule out, exclude, andwithdraw from the jury each and
0150 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: he had committed murder, but because he was accused of depravity and degeneracy.When the third of the direct questions here sought to be excluded was asked by the solicitor the defendant objected because the evidence sought would be immaterial. The Court sustained the objection but the solicitor continued with the balance of the direct questions and answers here objected to and the cross questions were thereafter asked and the answers given. The Court therefore erred in not excluding and withdrawing all of said testimony.14. Because the Court erred in not ruling out,
0151 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: Mr. Dalton---The lady that was there was a tall built lady, heavy weight, she was nice looking, had on a blue looking dress with white dots in it, had on a greyish looking coat with kind of tails to it, white slippers and white stockings.Cross Examination------The first time I watched for Mr. Frank was sometime during last summer, about in July. I would be there sweeping and Mr. Frank come out and called me in the office. That was on a Saturday, about three o'clock. As to what Mr. Dalton would do,
0152 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: what you done for me last Saturday. I want to put you wise, thisSaturday". I says: "All right, what time". He says: "Oh, abouthalf past". He got back from lunch about a quarter past two,then Mr. Holloway left, and then Miss Daisy Hopkins came into hisoffice. Mr. Frank came out, popped his fingers and bowed to me-bowed his head to me, and then went back in the office. Then, Iwent down and stood by the door. I didn't look it; I shut it.I don't know what happened next! I didn't hear him
0153 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: came out and stamped right above the trash barrel. I was downstaire about the trash barrel. He told me he was going tostamp two times; then he stamped, and I opened the door, andthen I came back and sat on the box about an hour and a half.Mr. Frank says: "I'll stamp after this lady comes, and you goand shut the door and turn that night latch" That's the firsttime he told me to lock the door, and he says: "If everything isall right, you take and kick against the door". And
0154 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: room when he told me to watch for him that time. I don't knowif he knew Snowball was there or not. The day before Thanksgivingwhen he talked to Snowball, we were on-the elevator. Snowballcould have heard anything that was said. Mr. Frank saw Snowballstanding there-----Miss Daisey Hopkins, worked at the factory fromJune 1912 until Christmas. I worked on the same floor with her.I am sure she worked there from June until about Christmas. Shewas a low lady, kind of heavy, she was pretty, chunky, kind ofheavy weight. I remember that she was
0155 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: I think some ladies were working up on thefourth floor. I don't know about the third time, and I don'tknow whether anybody was working there Thanksgiving afternoonor not, I didn't see Mr. Schiff at all that day. I will swearhe wasn't in Mr. Frank's office that day. I don't rememberwhether any ladies worked there the other times I was watch-ing, or not......I don't know whether I told them (detectives)about watching for Frank at that time - I haven't got anyopinion about it, I haven't got any recollection. He told meabout stamping and
0156 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: The Court ruled that such evidence would be immaterial, butafter this ruling the solicitor brought out the direct testi-mony and excluded. After the direct testimony supra had been brought outand excluded. After the direct testimony supra had been brought outthe cross testimony supra, here sought to be withdrawn was alsobrought out in an effort to modify or explain the directevidence. Under the circumstances the Court ought to havegranted the motion to exclude and withdraw all such evidenceand for failing to do so committed error.Movant assigns as error the action of the Court
0157 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image:---17. Because the Court permitted, over the objection of defendant's counsel made when the same was offered, that the same was irrelevant and immaterial, the State, by Mangum, to testify that Conley and another party went down from the pencil factory to the jail, that he had a conversation with Mr. Frank about confronting Conley, Frank then being on the fourth floor of the jail; that Chief Beavers, Chief Lanford, and Mr. Scott, with Conley, came to the jail to see Frank, and they asked him if they could see him; that he
0158 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: "I discovered, as I say, at that time, that our ideas about howquickly cabbage digested were rather erroneous, and as Iremarked a moment ago, I observed that the stomach freed itselfof a mixture of cabbage and bread just about as quickly as weonly gave bread alone; the amount of recovery on the part ofthe mucous membrane in the way of sufficient gastric juiceswas about the same practically or probably a little bit morerecovery with cabbage."It is the only way I can get at it, it is the only realknowledge I have on
0159 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: certain that this girl either came to her death orpossiblythe blow on her head at any rate, a very short time, perhapsthree quarters of an hour or half an hour or forty minutes,or something like that, before death occurred. I then began anumber of experiments with some gentlemen who had normal stom-ache with a view of judging of the time." I had the mother of the girl to cook some cabbage and itwas given to people with absolutely normal stomachs; that Iknow from investigations of their stomachs." I will state in general
0160 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: indicated in every instance,from 38 to 70 minutes in every single instance, the cabbagewas practically digested, practically altogether so.Over objections made as is above stated, the Court permittedthis testimony to go to the jury and in doing so committed prejudicial error. Experts can testify from the given state of anyscience, but cannot explain the process or results of particularexperiments made by themselves.20. Because the Court permitted the witness Harris to tes-tify as follows:"I wish to say that I made a microscopic examination of thosecontents of the stomachs, and while I found in
0161 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: an average of something like anywhere from 50 to 60 or 70 cubiccentimeters, or, say from a half to a third of what was foundin this case, and it was plainly evident that none of this materi-al, had gone into the small intestine, because that wasexamined for it from the mouth out to the beginning of thelarge intestine, which is many feet away from it in the neigh-borhood of something like 25 feet away, and there was verylittle food found in the small intestine, none at all, as a factin the small
0162 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: basement; that he saw Conley there when he went there; thatsometimes when he saw him in his office there would be ladiesthere, sometimes there would be two and sometimes one; hedid not know how often he saw Conley there, but sometimes he wou-ld give him a quarter, that he did that a half dozen or more timesthat he went to the factory about once a week for a half dozenweeks, that he saw Frank there in the evenings and in the daytimes, sometimes he would see cold drinks in the office,Coco Cola,
0163 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: Q. How many times?A. I don't know; three, or four, or five times.Q. Were you ever in the office of Leo M. Frank?A. Yes sir.Q. On what occasion?A. I have been there two or three times with Miss Daisey.Q. Where was Frank when you were there?A. He was in the office; I don't know whose office it was, but he was in the office.Q. Were you ever down in the basement?A. Yes sir.Q. What part of the basement did you visit? Can you tell me on that diagram (indicating).A. I have been
0164 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: Q. What else?A. Some beer, some times.A. Some beer?A. Yes sir.Q. Were those ladies doing any stenographic work up there?A. I never seed them doing any writing. I never stayed there long, but I never seed them doing any writing.Q. You never saw anything of that kind going on?A. No sir.The court permitted these questions and answers to be heard by the jury, over the objection of the defendant, aforesaid, and committed error, for the reasons aforesaid. His evidence was particularly prejudicial to the defendant, because the solicitor insisted in his argument
0165 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: the motion of defendant's counsel to rule out the testimony ofthe witness Conley tending to show acts of perversion on thepart of the defendant and acts of immorality wholly discon-nected with and disassociated from this crime. (Such evidencebeing set out and described in grounds 13 and 14 of this motion)The Court declined to rule out said testimony, and immediatelyupon the statement of the Court that he would let such testimonyremain in evidence before the jury, there was instant, pro-nounced and continuous applause throughout the crowded courtroom wherein the trial was being had,
0166 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: witness Harris was upon the stand, the crowd laughed jeeringlywhen Mr. Arnold, one of the defendant's counsel, objected toa comment of the solicitor, and that, too, in the presence ofthe jury.And again,during the trial, when Mr. Arnold, one of thedefendant's course, objected to a question asked, the followingcolloquy took place:" Mr. Arnold: I object to that you Honor; that is, enteringthe orders on that book merely; that is not the questions heis asking now at all.The Court: What is the question he is asking now?(Referring to questions asked by the Solicitor General).Mr.
0167 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: The Court admitted these samples of partly digested cabbagetaken from the stomach of others, as aforesaid, and in doing so,committed error for the reasons above stated, and for the further reason that there was no evidence, as the defendant's counselcontend, that the same circumstances and conditions surroundedthese other parties in the eating and digestion of the cabbageas surrounded Mary Phagan in the eating and digestion on herpart and no evidence that the stomachs of these other partieswere in the same condition as was Mary Phagan's.26. Because the Court, in permitting the witness,
0168 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: above stated. This was prejudicial to the defendant, because itwas contended by the State that this witness, Harry Scott, whowas one of the Pinkerton detectives, and had been employed toferret out the crime, by Frank acting for the National PencilCompany, had not promptly informed the officials about the factof Mrs White's seeing this negro and that such failure was evidencepointing to the guilt of Frank.This witness was one of the investigators for the PinkertonDetective Agency, who was employed by Frank acting for theNational Pencil Company to ferret out this crime.28. Because the
0169 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: crime he accompanied Mary Phagan from a point on Bellwood Ave.,to the center of the City of Atlanta, by showing that on April27th at the house of Epps, he asked George, together with hissister, when was the last time they saw Mary Phagan. In reply,the sister of Epps said she had seen Mary on the previousThursday, but the witness Epps said nothing about having come totown with Mary Phagan the day of the murder but did say he hadridden to town with her in the mornings of other days occasionallyUpon cross examination,
0170 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: it was wholly immaterial as to what his custom previous to thattime had been.31. Because, during the trial the following colloquy took placebetween the solicitor and the witness Schiff:-Q. Isn't the dressing room back behind these doors?A. Yes, it is back behind these doors.Q. That is the fastening of that door, isn't it?A. Yes.Q. And isn't the dressing room back there then?A. That isn't the way it is situated.Q. It isn't the way it is situated?A. It is not, no, sir.Q. Why, Mr. Schiff, if this is the door right here and---A.
0171 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: 32. Because the Court erred in declining to allow the witnessMiss Hall to testify that on the morning of April 36th, andbefore the murder was committed, Mr. Frank called her over thetelephone, asking her to come to the pencil factory to do stenographic work, stating at the time he called her that he had so muchwork to do that it would take him until six o'clock that day toget it done.The defendant contends that this testimony was part of theres gestae and ought to have been heard by the Court, and fail-ure
0172 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: A. No sir.Q. With J. M. Gantt, the man who was bookkeeper and was turned off there?A. No sir, I never told him any such thing.Q. No such thing ever happened?A. No sir.Mr. Arnold: Before the examination progresses any further, I want to move to rule out the witness said there wasn't any truth in it, but I want to move to rule out the questions and answers in relation to what he said Frank proposed to do to him right now. I think it is grossly improper and grossly immaterial; the
0173 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: everybody knows are incompetent.The Court: Well, I sustain your objection.Mr. Arnold: If the effort is made again, your Honor, I amgoing to move for a mistrial. No man can get a fair trial withsuch innuendoes and insinuations as these made against him.The Court: Have you any further questions, Mr. Dorsey?Mr. Dorsey: That is all I wanted to ask him. I will bringGantt in to impeach him.The Court: Well, I have ruled that all out.Mr. Dorsey: Well, we will let your Honor rule on Gantt too.The assertion by the solicitor that this witness
0174 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: sation with Mrs. Freeman and Miss Hall; this testimony was stronglydisputed by the solicitor. Lemmie Quinn's statement that he wasin Frank's office just before going into the rear, that wasof the greatest moment to the defendant, because it strongly tend-ed to dispute the contention of the State that Mary Phagan was kill-ed between twelve and half past.The Court erred in ruling out and declining to hear this, forthe reasons above stated. The testimony was relevant, material,and part of the Res gestae and should have been sent to the jury.35. Because the Court
0175 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: The Court, over the objections of the defendant, on the groundsstated, permitted this testimony to go to the jury and in doingso erred.This was prejudicial to the defendant because the solicitorinsisted 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 andover the objections of the defendant that same was irrelevant,immaterial, and incompetent, to testify that he had seen streetcar men come in ahead of their schedule time. That he hadseen
0176 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: This was prejudicial to the defendant, because the crew on the English Ave., car upon which the little girl, Mary Phagan, came to town, testified that she got on their car at ten minutes to twelve. That under their schedule they should reach the corner of Broad and Marietta Street at 7-1/2 minutes past twelve. That they were on their schedule time on April 26th and did reach that place at 12-07 or 12-07-1/2. What other crews did at other times or even what this crew did on other occasions was wholly
0177 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: "When the witness Conley was brought to the jail Mr. Roberts came to the cell and wanted Frank to see Conley. I sent word through Mr. Roberts that Frank didn't care to see him. Mr. Frank knew that the detectives were down there and afterwards they brought Conley up there and of course Mr. Frank knew he was there. I knew and Mr. Frank knew he was there. Mr. Frank was at once side and I acted as spokesman. Mr. Frank would not see any of the city detectives. Frank gave as
0178 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: absence of his own counsel, was evidence of guilt.46. (j). Because the court permitted Miss Mary Pirk to be askedthe following questions and to make the following answers oncross examination made by the Solicitor:Q. You never heard of a single thing immoral during that fiveyears--that's true? (Referring to the time she worked at thePencil Factory)A. Yes sir, that's true.Q. You never knew of his (Frank's) being guilty of a thing thatwas immoral during those five years--is that true?A. Yes sir.Q. You never heard a single soul during that time discuss it?A. No
0179 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: ould acts of immorality with women be heard, even on crossexamination, as evidence of bad character, and reputation, uponFrank's trial for the murder of Mary Phagan.Lasciviousness is not one of the character traits involved in acase of murder and can not be heard in a murder trial, evenwhen the defendant has put his character in issue.41. Because the Court permitted the witness W. D. WcWorth totestify, at the request of the Solicitor General, over theobjection of the defendant made at the time the testimony wasoffered, that the same was immaterial." Mr. Pierce
0180 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: defendant, made as above stated and in doing so committederror, for the reasons herein stated.This was prejudicial to the defendant, because the SolicitorGeneral, contended that his failure to sooner report the findingof the club and the envelope to the police were circumstances ag-ainst Frank. These detectives were not employed by Frank, but byFrank for the National Pencil Company, and movant contends thathe is not bound by what they did or failed to do.The Court should have so instructed the jury.43 (66) Because the Court permitted the witness Irene Jack-son, at the instance
0181 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: A. I didn't time him; he just came and looked and turned andwalked out.Q. Came in the dressing room?A. Just came to the door.Q. Came into the door of the dressing room?A. Yes.Q. How was Miss Ermille Mayfield dressed at that time?A. She had off her top dress, and was holding her old dress inher hand to put it on.Q. Now, you reported that to the forelady there?A. I did not but Ermille did.Q. Now did you talk or not to anybody or hear of anybody ex-cept Miss Ermille Wayfield talking about
0182 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: Q. Now when was it that he run in there on Miss Ermile Mayfield?A. It was the middle of the week after we had started to work,I don't remember the time.Q. The middle of the week after you had started to work?A. Yes sir.Q. Was that the first time you ever heard of his going in thedressing room, or anybody?A. Yes.Q. That was the first time?A. Yes sir.Q. Then that was reported to this forelady?A. Yes sir.Q. Then when was the second time that you heard he went in there?A. He went
0183 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: that room and stand and stare at them?A. Yes sir, I have heard something, but I don't rememberexactly.Q. You heard that, how often did you hear that talked?A. I don't remember.Q. You don't remember how often you heard them say he walkedin there and stood and stared at them?A. I don't remember.Q. You don't remember that; well now, you said about three timesthose things occurred, and you have given us two, MissWayfield and your sister, what was the other occasion?A. Miss Mamie Kitchens.Q. Miss Mamie Kitchens?A. Yes sir.Q. Mr. Frank walked in
0184 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: A. No sir.Q. He didn't come in the room?A. He pushed the door open and stood in the door.Q. Stood in the door, what kind of dressing room was that?A. It was----just had a mirror in it, you mean to describe the inside?Q. Just describe it, was it all just one room?A. Yes sir, and there were a few lockers for the ladies.Q. A few lockers around the walls, a place where the girls changed their street dress and got into their working dress, and vice versa?A. Yes sir.Q. Now, what else
0185 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: A. No sir.Q. Was that before or after he had been in the dressing room?A. I don't remember.Q. Well, he pushed the door open and stood in the door, did he?A. Stood in the door.Q. Looked in and smiled?A. Yes sir.Q. Didn't you say that?A. I don't remember now, he smiled or made some kind of a face which looked like a smile, like smiling at Ermile Mayfield.Q. At Ermile Mayfield, that day she was undressed?A. But he didn't speak, yes sir.Q. He didn't say a word, did he?A. No sir.Q. Did
0186 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: of Mary Phagan was taken from the office floor to the cellar ofthe factory?Q. Now, Mr. Branch, take this exhibit and that picture, and takeup Conley now, and give every move he made?A. Am I to give you the time he arrived there? (Pencil Factory)Q. Yes, give the time he arrived.A. I will have to give that approximately; I was to be thereat 12 o'clock, and I was a few minutes late, and Conley hadn'tarrived there then, and we waited until they brought himthere, which was probably ten or fifteen minutes later,
0187 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: A. No sir, I know the time I arrived there and the time Ileft the factory.Q. First, I want you to state what he said he did, and what hesaid Mr. Frank did, and then come to the time business?A. I don't quite understand what you told to do.Q. Just go ahead and tell what Conley said he said, and whatConley said Mr. Frank said, and show what Conley did the dayyou were over there, take it up right back here where the bodywas and go on with it, leaving out, however,
0188 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: and carry it back, and he put the body on his shoulder and car-ried it back to this sawdust which is away back here, and thathe came on back and there was something else there which he saidhe threw on this trash pile, and Mr. Frank was up, he said, inthe cubby hole, he said, somewhere back there, and later helead us up there, and that Mr. Frank told him to run the elevatorup, so Conley and the officers and the rest of us who werewith him came up on the elevator,
0189 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: Q. What time was it when Conley got there?A. I should judge it was about a quarter past twelve, I didn't look at my watch.Q. A quarter past twelve, what time did you get there.A. I must have gotten there five minutes before he did.Q. Then what time did you leave?A. I left about one o'clock.Q. What time did he begin?A. They rushed him right up the steps and probably two or three minutes after he got up there, he began this enactment, and he went very rapidly, in fact, we sort
0190 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: Q. How much after one?A. I do not know, probably five or ten minutes.Q. One-ten then, now, how much of the time during that time you were there did it take Conley to act what he acted, leaving out the conversation he had with the different men?A. That would be a difficult thing for me to estimate, while he was acting, he was acting very rapidly, he kept us on the run.Q. All right, now, leave out now the time that it took this man to answer the questions that were put
0191 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: to go and illustrate that affidavit when he says now on thestand that much of it was a lie, and that it did not happen thatway at all; that this evidence was of another transaction, not binding on this defendant.45. Because the Court declined to allow Dr. David Vaxx togive testimony in behalf of the defendant as to the character ofthe Jewish organization known as B'Nai Brith. Defendant's counselstated at the time that Dr. Vaxx would testify that while the B'Nai Brith was an international Jewish charitable organization,its charity did not extend
0192 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: A. No sir.Q. You say you have never heard of any act of immorality on the part of Mr. Frank prior to April 26, 1913?A. No sir, I did not.Q. You never talked with Herne Stanton or H. V. Baker, the conductor or motorman?Q. I will put it that way then: you never heard that the Saturday before little Mary Phagan met her death, Mr. Frank went out on the Hapeville car on which Herne Stanton and H. W. Baker were in charge, and that he had his arm around the little
0193 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: showed me where to put the pencils. Nobody was in there but Mr.Frank and Mary at the time I went in there. Mary was going to herwork when Mr. Frank stopped to talk to her. Mary told him thatshe had to go to work. Mr. Frank was talking about he was theSuperintendent of the pencil factory. He told her that hewas the Superintendent of the pencil factory and that hewanted to speak to her and she told him she had to go to workand I never did hear any more replies from
0194 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: "The President ( of the Board Dr. Westmoreland) then addressedthe Board at length on his reasons for thinking that the Sec-retary should be requested to resign, the subjects dealt withbeing too numerous and too lengthy to be included here in theirentirety. After the President's address, the Board adjournedand reassembled again at four O'clock in the afternoon, at whichtime Dr. Harris' side of the controversy was heard."" The Secretary not having been present at what transpiredfollowing this was not in a position to take note as to theproceeding, but was informed by the
0195 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: tion, which had been unanimously adopted by the Board on motion of Dr. Harbin, seconded by Dr. Brown--the resolution having been drawn by a committee appointed by the Board, consisting of Drs. Benedict, Taylor and Doughty.-" That the committee appointed to frame a resolution expressing the opinion of the Board with regard to the charges preferred against the Secretary by the President of the Board in a report to the Governor, and upon which they are called upon to act, beg to report as follows:" Resolved; That the members of the Board
0196 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: President of the State Board of Health and Dr. Harris who hadbeen and was its Secretary. This row between the doctors statedis utterly immaterial and irrelevant and was harmful to thedefendant because it tended to discredit the testimony of Dr.Westmoreland who resigned from the Board and to sustain the testi-mony of Dr. Harris who remained as Secretary of the Board after Dr.Westmoreland's resignation.- 49. Because the court permitted the witness E. H. Pickettto testify over the objection made when the testimony was offeredthat it was wholly and entirely irrelevant, immaterial incom-petent, illegal
0197 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: " I am a motorman for the Georgia Railway and Power Company,running on April 26, 1913, on Marietta to Stock Yards andDecatur street car. The Cooper and English ave., run is on thesame route from Broad and Marietta Street to Jones Ave., Prior toApril 26, 1913, the English Ave. car run by Waches and Hollis onit did run to Broad and Marietta streets ahead of time, howmuch ahead I cannot say positively. About April 28th and subse-quent thereto Waches and Hollis, in charge of the English Av-car, about twelve o'clock when they
0198 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: the hour and the Cooper Street car is due seven minutes afterthe hour. In order for the English Ave. car to cut off theWhite City car, the Cooper Street car would have to be ahead oftime, that is the English Avenue car would have to be ahead oftime. If the White City car was on time at 12:05, the EnglishAve. car would have to get there before that time to cut itoff. That happens quite often. I do know that the car thatMathis and Hollis were running did come into town ahead
0199 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: Fair Street car, which is due at 12:05 at the junction of Marietta and Broad Sts., the Fair street car would be on its schedule. I have compared my watch with Mathis' watch prior to April 26th. There was at times a difference of from 20 to 35 or 40 seconds. We are both supposed to carry the right time. When I compared my watch with Mathis' I suspect mine was correct, as I just had left it the day I looked at Mathis' watch, and mine was 20 seconds difference and
0200 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: three weeks and the fact that the clocks were not keeping accuratetime three weeks before the trial was immaterial, and the evidencethereon tended to mislead and confuse the jury. Gantt did notwork at the factory during the three weeks just prior to thecrime, and his testimony as to the clocks related to the time hedid work at the factory.54. Because the Court permitted the witness Scott to testifyin behalf of his Agency, over the objection of the defendant,that the same was irrelevant, immaterial and incompetent, sub-stantially as follows:"I got hold of the
0201 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: Myrtle Cato, Mrs. C. D. Donegan, Mrs. H. R. Johnson, Miss MarieKaret, Miss Nellie Pettie, Miss Mary Davis, Mrs. Mary E.Place, Miss Carrie Smith and Miss Estelle Winkle to testifythat they were acquainted with the general character of LeoM. Frank prior to April 26, 1913, with reference to lasciviousnessand his relations to women and girls and that it was bad.The Court admitted this evidence over the objections abovestated, and in doing so erred for the reason herein stated.In determining general character in cases of murder, lascivious-ness or misconduct with women is not
0202 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: " I know Miss Rebecca Carson, I have seen her go twice into theprivate ladies dressing room with Leo M. Frank."The Court permitted this testimony over the objection of thedefendant made as is aforesaid and in doing so committed error.The Court stated that this evidence was admitted to dispute thewitness they had called.It was wholly immaterial to the issues involved in this casewhether Frank did or did not go into a private dressing roomwith Miss Carson. It did, however, prejudice the jury as indicat-ing Frank's immorality with reference to women.59. Because the
0203 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: Court before the jury had retired to consider of their verdict andbefore the Court began his charge to the jury.This request was a legal and pertinent one, particularlyadjusted to the facts of the case and should have been given, andthe Court in declining to give it committed error, although thegeneral principle involved might have been given in the originalcharge.51. Because the Court refused to give the following pertinentlegal charge in the language requested:"If the jury believe from the evidence that the theory orhypothesis that James Conley may have committed this crimeis just
0204 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: this is sufficient to acquit him and it is not necessary that heshould go further in his proof and exclude every possible idea ofhis guilt. No such burden is upon the defendant.This request was submitted in writing and was handed to thecourt before the jury had retired to consider of their verdictand before the court began his charge to the jury.This request was a legal and pertinent one, particularly adjustedto the facts of the case and should have been given, and thecourt in declining to give it committed error, although the gen-eral
0205 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: and I wish the stenographer to take it down, and we propose toprove every fact stated in the motion unless the Court willstate that he knows the facts and will take cognizance of themwithout proof.First, that counsel requested before this trial began thatthe court room he cleared of spectators.Second, when the Court declined to rule out the evidence asto the other alleged transactions with women, by Jim Conley,the audience in the court room, who occupied nearly every seat,showed applause by the clapping of hands and stamping of feetand shouting in the presence
0206 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image:---The court admonished the people that if the applause was repeated, he would clear the court room.Now, we move upon those facts, which tend to coerce and intimidate and unduly influence this jury, that the court here and now declare a mistrial, and we stand ready to prove each and every fact there and we offer to prove them. Now, if your Honor will take cognizance of those facts as stated, then, of course it will dispense with proof. If your Honor does not take cognizance of them, we are ready to prove
0207 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: they were about 100 feet from the court house, entering theCafe. That he heard the applause but did not hear the crowdhollo "Hurrah for Dorsey; he heard the holloing and cheeringand the 'jury could have heard what he did. That the applause heheard was outside of the Cafe, he did not hear the cheering fromthe inside of the Cafe. That he did not remember how many peoplecame up in front of the Cafe. No one came in the Cafe into theroom where the jury was, that is in the room in the
0208 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: love for my friend to meet all the approbation that he may getfrom the public, I did think that it was an outrage, the cryingand shouting; that is what I thought. If the juror were whereMr. Deavours said they were, they could hear no trouble abouthearing it, if they had good ordinary hearing. On Friday Iwas in the court room when I heard most of the crying, I do notknow where the jury was then.Charles F. Huber, testified. I was in charge of the jury whenthey left the court room Friday afternoon.
0209 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: facts, movant contends, olearly show that the defendant was nothaving a fair trial by reason of the great excitement of thecrowd. The court room was in an exceedingly small building, onthe ground floor, and was crowded during the trial, and defendant contends that this prejudice and animosity of thecrowd against him, as shown by the frequent applause, necessarilyreached the jury box and prevented him from having a fair trial.As permitted by the Court, in his order just aforesaid, weattach hereto in support of this motion for new trial the affida-vits hereto attached,
0210 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: (Referring to questions asked by the Solicitor General).Mr. Arnold: He is asking how long it took to do all this work connected with it. (Referring to work done by Frank the day of the murder.)The Court: Well, he knows what he is asking him. (Referring to the Solicitor General.)Upon this suggestion of the court that the solicitor knew what he was doing, the spectators in the court room applauded by striking their hands together and by the striking of feet upon the floor, creating quite a demonstration Defendant's counsel complained of the
0211 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: Dorsey."(f). On the last day of the trial, Monday, August 25th, 1913a large crowd, including many women, had assembled in thecourt room before court opened, taking up every seat in thecourt room. The jury were in their room about 20 feet from thecourt room, and as Mr. Dorsey entered the room, the crowdapplauded loudly by clapping of hands and stamping of feet,which the jury perhaps could have heard. The court did nothingbut admonish the people that if the applause was repeated, hewould clear the court room.(g). On Monday the last day of
0212 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: attending court was such as to inevitably affect the jury.The exhibits hereto attached marked J to AA inclusive are made a part of this ground.66. Because the fair and impartial trial guaranteed him by the constitution of this State was not accorded the defendant for the following reasons:The court room wherein this trial was had was situated at the corner of Hunter and Pryor streets. There are a number of windows on the Pryor street side looking out upon the street and furnishing easy access to any noises that would occur upon
0213 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: poll of the jury, which was then in progress, and notfinished. Indeed, so great was the noise and confusion withoutthat the Court heard the responses of the jurors during thepolling with some difficulty. The court was about 15 feet fromthe jury. In the court room was the jury, lawyers, newspaper men,and officers of the court, and among them there was no disorder.The polling of the jury is an important part of the trial. Itis inconceivable that any juror, even if the verdict was not hisown, to announce that it was not, in
0214 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: I don't remember how much she paid me, and the next week theypaid me $3.50 and the next week they paid me $6.50, and thenext week they paid me $4. and the next week they paid me $4.One week, I don't remember which one, Mrs. Selig gave me $5, butit wasn't for my work, and they didn't tell me what it was for,she just said "Here is $5, Minola."The Court permitted this part of the affidavit to be read tothe jury over the objections above stated, and in doing so erredfor the
0215 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: in so doing, committed error, for which a new trial should begranted.70 (qqq) Because the Solicitor General, in his argument tothe jury, stated, as follows: "The conduct of counsel in thiscase, as I stated, in refusing to cross examine these twentyyoung ladies, refutes effectively and absolutely that he hada good character. As I said, if this man had had a good character,no power on earth could have kept him and his counsel from askingwhere those girls got their information, and why it was they saidthat this defendant was a man of bad
0216 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: need not-in similar instances be repeated, but that the Courtwould assume that similar objections had been made and overruled.This argument of the Solicitor was not only illegal, but prej-udicial to the defendant, in that he, in substance, urged uponthe jury that a cross examination of female witnesses for theState, who testified to Frank's bad character for lasciviousness,would, upon cross examination, have testified as to specific actsof immorality against him.71. (rr). Because the Court permitted the Solicitor, over theobjection of defendant's counsel, to argue before the jurythat the wife of the defendant did
0217 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: in arguing the relative value of the expert testimony delivered bthe physicians called for the State and defense, to intimatethat the defense, in calling its physicians had been influencedby the the fact that certain physicians called were the familyphysicians of some of the jurors. In discussing it, the solici-tor said: "It would not surprise me if these able, astutegentlemen, vigilant as they have shown themselves to be, didnot go out and get some doctors who have been the family phy-sicians, who are well known to some of the members of thisjury, for
0218 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: 74. Because the juror Johenning was not a fair and impartialjuror, in that he had a fixed opinion that the defendant wasguilty prior to, and at, the time he was taken on the jury andwas not a fair and impartial and unbiased juror. Affidavits showingthat he was not a fair and impartial juror are hereto attached andmarked Exhibits E, F, G, and I, and made a part of this motionfor new trial.The opinion, conduct and state of mind of this juror priorto, and at the time of, his selection as a juror
0219 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: solicitor, and the crowd laughed at him, and Mr. Arnold appealed to the court.On Saturday, prior to the rendition of the verdict on Monday, the Court was considering whether or not he should go on with the trial during Saturday evening, or what hour he should extend it in the evening, the excitement in and without the court room was so apparent as to cause apprehension in the mind of the Court as to whether he could safely continue the trial during Saturday afternoon; and, in making up his mind about the
0220 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: When it was announced that the jury had agreed upon a verdictcrowds had thronged the court room to such an extent that the Courtfelt bound to clear the court room before receiving the verdict.This the Court did. But, when the verdict of the jury was rendered, a large crowd had thronged the outside of the court house;some one signaled to the outside what the verdict was, and the crowdon the outside raised mighty shouts of approval. So great was theshouting and applause on the outside that the Court had somedifficulty in hearing
0221 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: such transaction, Mary Phagan met her death, then Conleywould be an accomplice of Frank, although he had no personal partin her killing.The Court, under proper instructions, ought to have left itto the jury to say whether Conley was or not an accomplice ofFrank; and, in failing to do, and because he failed to do so theCourt committed error.77. The Court erred in not charging the jury that if, underinstructions given them, they found that Conley was an accompliceof Frank, they could not convict Frank under the testimony ofConley alone; but that, to
0222 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: she had them on a stool, I believe. She was dressed. I don'tremember how her dress was; I didn't look. I paid no attention tohim, only he just walked in and turned and walked out; looked atthe girls that were sitting in the window and walked out. Therewas something said about this, but I don't remember. I have heardsomething about him going in the room and staring at them, but Idon't remember exactly. Mr. Frank walked in the dressing room onMiss Mamie Kitchens. She and I were in there. I have heard
0223 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: incidents at the Pencil Factory, wherein Conley, after having madethe third affidavit, purported to re-enact the occurrence of themurder between himself and Frank, wherein the body of Mary Phaganwas taken from the office floor to the cellar of the factory,the testimony permitted by the Court being substantially as follows:"I will have to give you the time of Conley's arrival at theFactory approximately. I was up there at twelve o'clock, and Iwas a few minutes late. Conley had not arrived there then. Wewaited until they brought him there, which was probably ten orfifteen
0224 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: said he said he went back, and he did go back, led us back, and told about taking up the body, how he brought it up on his shoulder, and then, in front of a little kind of impression on the wall, he said he dropped it, and he indicated the place, and then he come up and told Mr. Frank about it—that he would have to come and help him or something like that—and that Mr. Frank came back and took the feet. I believe he said, and he took the
0225 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: two desks (indicating); that Mr. Frank sat down in the chair at that desk, and he told him to sit at the other desk, and Mr. Frank told him to write some notes; he was asked by some of the officers to write what Mr. Frank told him to write, and he sat down there and wrote one note, and I believe---I know the note he wrote, and I don't know whether he wrote one or two and that Mr. Frank handed him some money and that later he took it back,
0226 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: (a). This so-called experiment made with Conley was solely an endeavor on their part to justify his story;(b). The sayings and actings-of Conley, as aforesaid, not under oath, had and made without cross examination, and reported by the witness to the court, the net result of which is a repetition of Conley's statement, without the sanction of an oath.(c). That Conley went to the factory immediately after making his last affidavit, that that last affidavit is not the way he tells the story on the stand; that he tells it wholly differently
0227 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: for lasciviousness; that is, his relations towards women?A. Yes sir.Q. Is it good or bad?A. Bad.The Court admitted the above question and answers, over objection of the defendant as above stated, and thereby erred, for the reasons stated.82. (ggg) Because the Court over objection of the defendant, made at the time the evidence was offered, that the same was immaterial, incompetent, illegal and prejudicial to the defendant permitted the Solicitor General to ask the following questions, and the witness, Mrs. H. P. Johnson, to make the following answers:Q. Now, are you acquainted
0228 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: 84. (eeeo) Because the Court, over the objection of the defendant, made at the time the evidence was offered, that the same was immaterial, incompetent, illegal and prejudicial to the defendant, permitted the solicitor general to ask the following questions, and the witness, Miss Nellie Potts, to make the following answers:Q. Are you acquainted with his (Frank's) general character for lasciviousness; that is, with women prior to that time?A. Yes sir.Q. Is it good or bad? A. Bad.The Court admitted the above questions and answers, over objection of the defendant as above
0229 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: The Court admitted the above questions and answers, over the objection of the defendant as above stated, and thereby erred, for the reasons stated.87 (hhhh). Because the Court over the objection of the defendant, made at the time the evidence was offered, that the same was immaterial, incompetent, illegal and prejudicial to the defendant, permitted the solicitor general to ask the following questions, and the witness, Miss Estelle Winkle, to make the following answers:Q. Are you acquainted with his (Frank's) general character for lasciviousness, that is, his relations with girls and women?A.
0230 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: became material to determine what time this English Ave., carreached Broad Street on the day of the murder. The motorman Mat-thews and the conductor, swore that on that day the EnglishAve., car reached Broad Street at 12:07. The Court permittedthis and other like testimony to be introduced tending todiscredit their statements that the car was on schedule timethat day. In doing this the Court erred, for the fact thatthe English Ave., car was ahead of time as much as fourminutes on other days did not indicate that it was ahead of timeon
0231 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: English Avenue car was ahead of time as much as four minutes, onother days did not indicate that it was ahead of time on theday of the murder.90. (kkkk). Because of the following colloquy which occurredduring the trial and while the witness, John Ashley Jones,was on the stand, during the cross examination of Jones by theSolicitor:Q. You never heard anybody down there say anything about Mr.Frank's practices and relations with the girls.A. Not in the Pencil Factory.Q. Not at all? You never did talk to any of these young girls,did you?A. No,
0232 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: Q: You never heard of that at all?A: I never heard that. I had been in Mr. Frank's---Q: You never talked to Tom Blackstock, then, did you?A: I haven't the pleasure of Mr. Blackstock's acquaintance.Q: Did you ever know Mrs. L. D.Coursey?A: I can't say that I ever heard of her.Q: Miss Myrtle Cato, you never heard of her, and that he wouldgo into the---A: Mr. Dorsey, I have been down thereQ: By the Court: He wants to know if you ever heard of thatbefore.Q: He made no apology and no explanation,
0233 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: about Frank?A. No sir, I don't know her.Q. Did you ever hear C. D. Duncan, talk about Frank?A. No sir.Q. You never heard any of these factory people talk about him?A. No sir.The Court erred in permitting the Solicitor, although the witness denied hearing all of the remarks referred to, to say in the presence of the jury that he was not four-flushing, but that he was going to bring the witnesses there, thereby improperly saying to the jury that he had such witnesses and meant to bring them in.The Court erred
0234 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: jury had the right to consider, and that is as to whether, even though they did not believe his plea of not guilty the truth, still if they had a reasonable doubt in their minds of his guilt they should acquit him.98. (qqqq) Movant further says that a new trial should be gr anted, because of the following:Mr. Dorsey, the solicitor general, in the concluding argument, made the following statement:"Now, gentlemen, ( addressing the jury) Mr. Arnold spoke to you about the Durant case. That case is a celebrated case; it was
0235 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: - 000230 -" Mr. Dorsey: Mr. Arnold brought this in, and I telegraphedto San Francisco, and I want to read this telegram to the jury;can't I do it?""Mr. Arnold: If the Court please, I want to object to anyparticular letter or telegram, I can telegraph and get myinformation as well as he can. I don't know whether the infor-mation is true, I don't know who he telegraphed about it; I havegot a right to argue a matter that appears in the public printsand that's all I argued,-what appears in the papers,- it
0236 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: Mr. Arnold: Certainly he can, as a matter of public notoriety, but not as a matter of individual information or opinion"."The Court: You can state, Mr. Dorsey, to the jury, your information about the Durant case, to-wit, he did, but you can't read anything - don't introduce any evidence".Mr. Dorsey (resuming) "My information is that nobody has ever confessed the murder of Blanche Lamont and Minnie Williams. But, gentlemen of the jury, as I'll show you by reading this book, it was proved at the trial, and there can be no question
0237 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: written, and that a new trial should be granted because theargument was illegal, unwarranted, not sustained by the evidence,and tended to inflame and unduly prejudice the jury's mind.Neither the letter from Piokett nor the telegram was read furtherthan is shown in the foregoing statement.93. Movant says that a new trial should be granted becauseof the following grounds:The Solicitor General having, in his concluding argument,made the various statements of fact about the Durant case, asshown in the preceding ground of this motion, the Judge erredin failing to charge the jury as follows, to-wit:The
0238 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: he sued the Marquis for damages, which brought retaliation onthe part of the Marquis for criminal practices on the partof Wilde, this intellectual giant and when the Englishlanguage is read, the effrontery, the boldness, the coolness ofthis man, Oscar Wilde, as he stood the cross examination of theablest lawyers of England -- an effrontery that is characteristicof the man of his type, that examination will remain the subjectmatter of study for lawyers and for people who are interestedin the type of pervert like this man. Not even Oscar Wilde'swife, for he was
0239 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: crimes, but a man of high intellect and wonderful endowmentswhich, if directed in the right line, bring honor and glory ifthose same faculties and talents are perverted and not controlled,as was the case with this man, they will carry him down. Look atVdue, the mayor of Charlottesville, a man of such reputationthat the people elevated him to the head of that municipality; butnotwithstanding that good reputation, he did not have rock bed cha-racter, and becoming tired of his wife, he shot her in thebath tub, and the jury of gallant and noble
0240 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914 Here is the extracted text from the image: killed his wife because of infatuation for another woman, and put her remains away where he thought as this man thought, that it would never be discovered but murder will out, and he was discovered, and he was tried, and he said at said to the glory of old England, he was executed."96. Voyant further says that a new trial should be granted, because of the following ground:The Solicitor General, in his concluding argument, spoke to the jury as follows:"But to crown it all, in this table which is now turned to