1366 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914

Reading Time: 3 minutes [361 words]


Visible Translated Text Is As Follows:

314

by Respondent and in the judgment of the representatives of the State there was necessity for the same.

Wherefore this Respondent agrees, to the passage of an order revoking former orders in this case; and waives his presence at the Court, upon a hearing of same.
(Signed) Wm. M. Smith,
Attorney for James Conley.

Georgia, Fulton County.
Personally appeared before me, the undersigned attesting officer, James Conley, who after being duly sworn deposes and swears that the facts set out in the above and foregoing response so far as they come within his own knowledge are true and where derived from the information of others he believes them to be true.
(Signed) James Conley.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this June 13, 1913.
C. C. Tedder,
Notary Public, Fulton County, Ga.

IN RE:
Application of Hugh M. Dorsey, Solicitor-General to release James Conley from Legal Custody.

In answer to the petition and order in the above stated cause, served upon us, as attorneys for Leo Frank, we herewith answer and show cause as follows:-

1. If the intention of the Solicitor General is to discharge this negro from custody because (a) he is in fact not a material witness against Frank or (b) although he is a material witness, his integrity and character are such that he ought to have his liberty and be trusted to obey the subpoena of this court, then, considered as a witness only, he ought to be discharged and indeed he should not have been imprisoned at all. But in such case to enact the farce in the court's presence of releasing the negro and immediately return him to his wet-nurses at the Police Station, would resemble child's play.

2. But if the Solicitor believes that one of a number of contradictory statements made by this negro may, if properly preserved, be made valuable in the prosecution of Frank, and that the negro may destroy its value if left free to talk, and in order to stop his mouth it is necessary that the detectives should keep him in charge, then we think we have the right to protest against any order of a court of justice that winks at such a purpose.

Related Posts
Top