1686 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914

Search for:

Reading Time: 3 minutes [355 words]

Visible Translated Text Is As Follows:

W. Burke came, did make me a proposition to pay me money if I would swear to certain things in favor of Leo M. Frank. C. W. Burke afterwards came to see me and told me that the court had ruled out my evidence, and insisted that I should give him an affidavit. I gave him an affidavit, which stated that I personally knew nothing about Leo M. Frank prior to the murder, except as to what occurred between me and him in his private office. This occurrence, which I have heretofore referred to in this affidavit, occurred at a time when nobody was present in his office except Leo M. Frank and myself.

I have no interest at all in the case of the State vs. Leo M. Frank, and it has embarrassed me to relate what I have in this affidavit with reference to Leo M. Frank's deportment to me when I was in his private office. That part of this affidavit was dictated by me personally to a lady stenographer.

W. J. Laney testified by affidavit as follows:

I, W. J. Laney, do solemnly swear that I have carefully examined the brief of evidence, in the case of Leo M. Frank, plaintiff in error, vs. the State, defendant in error, now of file in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Georgia, and I find that said brief shows that on the trial of said case in the Supreme Court, the State introduced the following witnesses, to-wit:

Anderson, W.B. Gantt, J.M. Mangum, C.W.
Barrett, R.P. Gheesling, W.H. Parry, H.H.
Beavers, J.L. Grice, J.O. Rogers, W.W.
Black, Mrs. J. Harris, Dr. H.F. Rosser, S.L.
Burke, C.W. Holloway, E.F. Scott, Harry
Coleman, Miss J.W. Holloway, W.E. Smith, W.E.
Conley, James Hollis, Mrs. Grace Starnes, J.H.
Darley, N.V. Hunt, Dr. J.W. Stevens, Miss Monteen
Dobbs, L.S. Jefferson, Mrs. Geo. W. Stover, Miss
Epps, Geo. Lassiter, R.M. Waggoner, R.L.
February, G.C. Lee, Newt White, Mrs. J.A.
Ferguson, Miss Helen McKnight, Albert,

Said Brief of Evidence shows, that after introducing the above named witnesses, the State rested.

172

Said Brief of Evidence shows that the State introduced in said trial, the following witnesses in rebuttal, to-wit: