1788 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914

Search for:

Reading Time: 3 minutes [349 words]

Visible Translated Text Is As Follows:

set up presented no good and sufficient reason in law why the same should be sustained and the motion be dismissed; that said judgment was erroneous in sustaining the sixth ground of the general demurrer, because the ground of demurrer therein set up presented no good and sufficient reason in law why the same should be sustained and the motion be dismissed; that said judgment was erroneous in sustaining the seventh ground of the general demurrer, because the ground of demurrer therein set up presented no good and sufficient reason in law why the same should be sustained and the motion be dismissed; and that the said judgment was erroneous in sustaining the eighth ground of the general demurrer, because the ground of demurrer therein set up presented no good and sufficient reason in law why the same should be sustained and the motion be dismissed.

And for: Further assignment of error, the said Leo M. Frank, now plaintiff in error, says that the said judgment was erroneous in sustaining any and in sustaining all of the said grounds of general demurrer because none of said grounds presented, nor did all of said grounds present, any good and sufficient reason in law why his motion should be dismissed.

And for further assignment of error he says: The said judgment, in sustaining the first ground of the special demurrer, was erroneous, because said ground of demurrer presented no good and sufficient reason in law for striking that portion of the motion of plaintiff in error in which first ground of special demurrer pointed out, the said portion of the motion, as movant contends, being material and being relevant to the right of movant as set up and contended for in his said motion, and in paragraph 6th thereof, and the question set up in said 6th paragraph not having been adjudicated in the decision of the Supreme Court of Georgia as contended in said ground of special demurrer.

And for further assignment of error he says: The said judgment was erroneous in sustaining the second ground of