0796 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914

Search for:

Reading Time: 4 minutes [534 words]

Visible Translated Text Is As Follows:

testimony was offered that the same was material, illegal and incompetent, to testify substantially as follows: The ladies' dressing room on 1 have seen Miss Rebecca Carson come into the ladies' dressing room on the fourth floor with Leo M. Frank and saw them working hours, hours.
She then came in and saw them one out during working hours.
The court permitted this testimony to go to the jury over the objection of the defendant made as is foresaid and in doing so committed error.
The court stated that this evidence was admitted to dispute the witnesses they had offered.
"It was wholly immaterial to the issues involved in this case whether Frank did or did not go into a private dressing room with Miss Carson; it did however, prejudice the jury as indicating Frank's immorality with reference to women."

Said ground just quoted set up material facts constituting error in said case, which the court in the decision rendered, overlooked, and which were not considered in said decision, which appears from the face thereof.
Plaintiff in error says that the error committed, as is disclosed from an inspection of the ground here quoted, was material.
The facts alleged herein to be overlooked in this ground were discussed in the brief filed by plaintiff in error, as will appear from 209 to 212 of the original brief filed in this case.

3. Because the court in rendering the decision in said case, overlooked the following material facts, to-wit: ground one of the motion for new trial, which reads as follows: "Because the court erred in permitting the solicitor to prove by the witness Lee, that the detective Black asked the solicitor to prove ness, Mr. Frank then day when he talked to him, asked him to the tit- did Mr. Frank the day when he talked to him at the station house o'clock at night on April 27th.
The witness Lee at twelve (12) "At the request of Black and Scott, the detectives, Frank was induced to have an interview with Leo, the witness, for the purpose of eliciting information from him.
The solicitor contended that Frank made no effort to find out anything from Lee, and to that end, sought to show and was permitted to prove by Lee that Frank talked longer to him than did Frank at the time, etc.
The court let the evidence in over objection of defendant, then and there made, that the trial, object to such evidence upon the ground that it was irrelevant, immaterial, irrelevant, and in no way illustrated any issue in the case, and admitted the evidence over such objections and in doing so erred.
The court admitted the evidence and a mere conclusion of the witness and injurious to the defendant."

Said ground just quoted set up material facts constituting error in said case, which the court in the decision rendered overlooked, and which were not considered in said decision, which appears from the face thereof.
Plaintiff in error says that the error committed, as is disclosed from an inspection of the ground here quoted, was material.
The facts alleged herein to be overlooked in this ground were discussed in the brief filed by plaintiff in error, as will appear from page.