1401 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914

Search for:

Reading Time: 3 minutes [384 words]

Visible Translated Text Is As Follows:

Broad street during the morning and up to one o'clock in the after
noon; that at one o'clock they left the local store of said
Cotton States Belting and Supply company at No. 9 South Broad
street and walked to Jacobs' Pharmacy corner, at Whitehall and
Alabama Streets, arriving there between 1:00 and 1:05; that the
said Samuel A. Pardee saw the defendant leaning against the
power pole of the Georgia Railway and Power Company; that he re-
calls the defendant had a newspaper in his hand and as said
Pardee passed defendant he waved his hand at him and defendant
answered the salutation by waving the paper.

Defendant further shows that the theory of the state was and
evidence was introduced at the trial in the endeavor to show
that Mary Phagan was killed by Leo M. Frank, at the factory of
the National Pencil Company between 12:05 and 12:30 on April
26th, 1913, and that between 12:56 and 1:30 o'clock P. M. of
that day the said defendant assisted by James Conley moved
the dead body of Mary Phagan from the second floor of the factory
down to the basement. The solicitor general proved by the witness
James Conley that Leo M. Frank was in the factory of the National
Pencil Company the entire time between 12:58 and 1:30 o'clock
on that day assisting the said Conley to move the body from the
second floor to the basement.

The defendant here and now offers to renew and prove to the
court all of the facts herein set forth and swears to the existence
of these facts as the truth and asks the court to investigate them
in this extraordinary motion.

Defendant further submits that the discovery of the foregoing
facts is material, and that it is such an extraordinary state of
facts as would probably produce a different result on another
trial, that said facts were unknown to defendant and to his
counsel, and that it was impossible to have ascertained the
same by the exercise of proper diligence, the said Samuel A.
Pardee and W. V. Green not being witnesses on said trial and the
fact that they were in possession of the facts hereinbefore set
forth was unknown to the defendant and his counsel until after
the motion for new trial had been heard and passed on.

13. Defendant further shows that he should be granted a new trial
upon the newly discovered evidence of Mary Rich, which has come to