1410 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914

Search for:

Reading Time: 3 minutes [351 words]

Visible Translated Text Is As Follows:

a drink where it is claimed he was met by Iva Jones and that Jones and Conley went towards home of Conley together.
Jones has since testified, and will as the defendant is
informed and believes, now testify, that he met no one in said
saloon nor on his way by the saloon to his home, except Buddy
Perry, meeting him at Davis and Hunter Streets
Neither the defendant nor his counsel had any reason to
believe that Ivy Jones was telling other than the truth when he
testified to seeing Conley in said saloon, and had no possible
means of knowing, until the original motion for new trial was
overruled, that his testimony was false and that he had not, in
fact, met Conley as testified by him.
The defendant submits that the discovery that this witness Jones
will now testify as is above stated, is such an extraordinary state
of facts as will probably produce a different result on another
trial; that the testimony he will now make came to the knowledge
of this defendant and his counsel since the motion for new
trial was passed upon, and could not have been discovered by the
exercise of reasonable and ordinary diligence.
16. Defendant further shows that he should be granted a new
trial because of the newly discovered evidence obtained from
Miss Helen Ferguson, as follows, to-wit:
On the Saturday preceding the date of the murder she was on
the second floor of the factory after some boxes, and Jim
Conley now in jail, but who used to work at the factory, said to
her: "Yes, take all the boxes you want, Miss Helen"; that she
was stooping over at the time Conley addressed her; that he kept
getting closer to her, and made a move as though he intended to
grab her; that she was very much frightened and run away as fast
as possible.
This witness testified on the original trial, but did not
testify to the facts above outlined, and the defendant, nor his
counsel, had no knowledge of any such state of facts; nor did
they obtain any information that she had such knowledge until
after the motion for new trial had been overruled.
The contention of the defendant, and his counsel is-that
38