0161 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914

Search for:

Reading Time: 3 minutes [384 words]

Here is the extracted text from the image:

an average of something like anywhere from 50 to 60 or 70 cubic
centimeters, or, say from a half to a third of what was found
in this case, and it was plainly evident that none of this materi-
al, had gone into the small intestine, because that was
examined for it from the mouth out to the beginning of the
large intestine, which is many feet away from it in the neigh-
borhood of something like 25 feet away, and there was very
little food found in the small intestine, none at all, as a fact
in the small intestine, which showed clearly, as I have said,
that the contents of the stomach had not begun to be pushed on
into the small intestine at the time that death occurred. This
pushing on begins in about half an hour after such a meal as this
and by the time an hour is reached, the greater part of what is
introduced into the stomach is already down in the small intestine
so that it becomes very clear from this that digestion had not
proceeded to any extent at all.
The above testimony of Dr. Harris was objected to when offered
because the same was argumentative. It was not, as movant contends
a statement of fact, scientific or otherwise, from which the jury
could for themselves draw conclusion, but was a mixture of fact
and arguments.
The Court declined to rule out this testimony, and declined to
force the witness to abstain from argument and state the
facts. This argument of the witness was clearly prejudicial
to the defendant and failure to rule out the testimony was error
21. Because the Court permitted the witness C. B. Dalton to
testify over the objection of defendant, made when the evidence
was offered and before cross examination, that the testimony
was irrelevant, incompetent, immaterial and illegal, dealt with
other matters than the issues on trial and was prejudicial to
the defendant's case; that he knew Leo Frank, visited the Nation-
al Pencil Co's plant and saw Frank there four or five times, that
he was in the office of Leo Frank, that he has been there
three or four times with Miss Daisy Hopkins, and at these times
Frank was in his office; that the witness had been in the base-
ment, going down the ladder, that Frank knew he was in the
building, but does not know whether Frank knew he was in the