1558 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914

Search for:

Reading Time: 3 minutes [396 words]

Visible Translated Text Is As Follows:

did we know or have any knowledge that McKnight admitted that he
falsely swore as to the other facts which he now admits that he
did falsely swear to,set out in his affidavit shown to the court
at the hearing and submitted to the court in verification of the
extraordinary motion for a new trial.

McKnight was a witness for the State at the jury trial
and testified as he now admits, falsely "that he looked in the
mirror from the kitchen and saw Frank in the dining room of his
father-in-law's home" and that "he did not eat any dinner" that
"he went to the sideboard of the dining room,stood there a few
minutes and went out and caught a car" and that he "did not stay
in the house more than five or ten minutes". The falsity of this
testimony was unknown to us until after the time aforesaid.

We further claim that we did not know on the date of the
trial thereon nor until after the motion for a new trial had
been overruled, that Mrs.Ethel Harris Miller and Miss Lofkoff
would testify as set out in paragraph seven of the Extraordinary
motion for new trial; nor did we know until after the time, as
aforesaid, that they saw Leo M.Frank between 1 o'clock and 1:10
o'clock of the 26th day of April,1913, at the corner of Whitehall
and Alabama Streets. Neither of us know Mrs.Miller and had no
intimation that she knew or was in a position to know the things
she testifies about. We had made every effort in our power to
discover any parties who did see Frank without the factory between
1 o'clock and 1:30 o'clock; had inquired of every source that we
thought profitable and had obtained at the times as aforesaid no
information about Mrs.Miller.

Miss Dewey Hewell was a non-resident of the City of
Atlanta at the date the crime was committed and was residing in
Cincinnati, Ohio. A messenger of the State was sent to Ohio to
bring Miss Hewell to the trial and such messenger did bring her
to the trial; neither of us, nor anyone representing us,had any op-
portunity to confer with Miss Hewell to determine to what she
would testify. Upon her testifying she was carried back to Ohio
and has since been in Ohio. No opportunity was given us to confer
with Miss Hewell while she was in Atlanta before or after her testi-
mony. We did not know at the date of the trial, nor until the case
45