1421 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914

Search for:

Reading Time: 2 minutes [219 words]

Visible Translated Text Is As Follows:

testify to the facts above set out, and neither movant not his
counsel could have discovered the same by the exercise of due
diligence.

Roeser and Brandon,
Leonard Haas,
H. J. Haod,
R. F. Arnold,
Attys. for Movant.

GEORGIA, FULTON COUNTY.

Personally appeared Leo M. Frank, who upon oath deposes and
says that the facts in the above and foregoing amendment for new
trial are just and true as they stand.

Leo M. Frank,

Sworn to and subscribed before me,
this 24th, day of April, 1914.

C. W. Burke,
N. P. Fulton Co., Ga.

State of Georgia,
In Fulton Superior Court,

Vs.
Leo M. Frank.
Extraordinary motion for New Trial
at March Term, 1914.

GEORGIA - FULTON COUNTY.

Personally came before the undersigned attesting officer,
Leo M. Frank, who upon oath says that neither at his original
trial, nor at the time of making his original motion for new
trial, nor at the time the same was overruled, did he have
any knowledge of the facts testified to by Mrs. Maude Bailey
or Mrs. May Barrett, as set forth in their affidavits made in
this case. Affiant, from Tuesday April 29th, 1913, has been in
prison, and has been unable to go out and investigate the
evidence of his case, and has been compelled to rely upon
others to do the work for him. He exercised all possible
diligence, under the circumstances, to ascertain all facts
which throw any light upon the truth of the charge against him.