1457 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914

Search for:

Reading Time: 3 minutes [349 words]

Visible Translated Text Is As Follows:

The attorneys for the defendant, under the law, propounded
in this case certain questions to Dr. H. F. Harris, sworn by the
State on the trial of this case, said Harris not having been
asked either by the State or the defendant any question with
reference to the hair. Said Harris, before D. O. Smith, Com-
missioner duly appointed to take his evidence in answer to ques-
tions propounded by defendant's attorneys, testified substantially
as follows, viz: "I am state health officer and director of
laboratories of the State Board of Health. I made two examina-
tions of the body of Mary Phagan. The Solicitor General sent
some hair found on a machine and asked me to compare this hair
with hair taken from the corpse of Mary Phagan. I examined these
specimens under a microscope. I did not make an exhaustive exam-
ination, though the examination was sufficient to show that the
hair given me was almost certainiy that of a female, and was cer-
tainly from the head of a Caucasian. The specimen of hair
given me by the Solicitor General's assistant, and that obtained
from the head of Mary Phagan resembled each other so much that
it was impossible for me to say definitely that it was not Mary
Phagan's hair. I have recently examined hair taken from the head
of several persons, and have found that individual hairs from the
same individual differ as much in shape as the hair given me by
Mr. Dorsey."

The State will show, in opposition to this ground of the
motion, the entire evidence obtained by the State from Dr. H. F.
Harris, and the State contends that in no view of the facts de-
veloped under the law does this constitute any ground for a new
trial being granted.

The contention of the State was, under the evidence adduced
as shown by the brief of evidence, that this was the hair of Mary
Phagan. The State now insists that the evidence adduced warranted
the contention that it was the hair of the deceased, and the State
did not ask the question of Dr. H. F. Harris because the State
was fully apprised as to the fact that said Harris' evidence
could not have any probative effect.