0162 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914

Search for:

Reading Time: 2 minutes [296 words]

Here is the extracted text from the image:

basement; that he saw Conley there when he went there; that
sometimes when he saw him in his office there would be ladies
there, sometimes there would be two and sometimes one; he
did not know how often he saw Conley there, but sometimes he wou-
ld give him a quarter, that he did that a half dozen or more times
that he went to the factory about once a week for a half dozen
weeks, that he saw Frank there in the evenings and in the day
times, sometimes he would see cold drinks in the office,
Coco Cola, lemon limes, etc. that sometimes he saw beer in
the office, that he never saw ladies there when beer and cold
drinks were there do anything and never saw them do any writing.

The Court permitted this testimony of Dalton to be heard over
the objections made as aforesaid and for such reason committed
error.

This evidence was peculiarly prejudicial to the defendants
because the solicitor insisted, in his argument, that in addition
to being independent testimony looking to the same end, that it
corroborated the testimony of Conley as to immoral conduct on
the part of Frank.

28. Because the Court permitted the witness C. B. Dalton to
be asked the following questions and made the following answ-
ers, over the objection of the defendant made at the time the
evidence was offered, and before cross examination, that the
testimony was irrelevant, incompetent, immaterial, and illegal,
dealt with other matters and things than the issues of the trial
was prejudicial to the defendant.

Q. Mr. Dalton, have you ever worked at the pencil factory?
A. No sir.

Q. Do you know Leo M. Frank?
A. Yes sir.

Q. Do you know Daisy Hopkins?
A. Yes sir.

Q. Do you know Jim Conley?
A. Yes sir.

Q. Have you ever visited the National Pencil Factory?
A. Yes, sir, I have been there some.

79.