0811 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914

Search for:

Reading Time: 2 minutes [183 words]

Visible Translated Text Is As Follows:

21. Plaintiff in error shows that in the 169th and note, the court recited that where the order over ruling the motion for new trial contains nothing which could indicate that the Judge was dissatisfied with the verdict or that he failed to exercise his discretion "the Supreme Court will not inquire whether the Judge is exercising discretion under or by remarks by him, pending the disposition of the motion."

Plaintiff in error contends that the remarks made by the Judge which form the basis of the ground under consideration, were not merely made pending the disposition of the motion for new trial but were part of the oral judgment delivered by the court, disposing of the motion. They were as much a part of the decision of the motion for new trial as the part of the decision which denied the new trial, and it so appears in the Bill of Exceptions, and Plaintiff in error contends that the court overlooked this feature of the record.

Respectfully submitted,

S. L. Roan
Hubert H. Hase
Robert Hase
Leonard Hase,
Attorneys for Plaintiff in Error.