0196 Page – Leo Frank Georgia Supreme Court Appeals Records, 1913, 1914

Here is the extracted text from the image:

President of the State Board of Health and Dr. Harris who had
been and was its Secretary. This row between the doctors stated
is utterly immaterial and irrelevant and was harmful to the
defendant because it tended to discredit the testimony of Dr.
Westmoreland who resigned from the Board and to sustain the testi-
mony of Dr. Harris who remained as Secretary of the Board after Dr.
Westmoreland's resignation.

- 49. Because the court permitted the witness E. H. Pickett
to testify over the objection made when the testimony was offered
that it was wholly and entirely irrelevant, immaterial incom-
petent, illegal dealt with transactions between other parties,
threw no light on the issues involved and did not bind the
defendant, to testify:
"Minola McKnight at first denied that she had been warned by
Mrs. Selig when she left to go to the solicitor's office on May
3rd not to talk about the case, that when asked she stated that
she was on that date instructed not to talk. At first, Minola said
her wages had not been changed by the Seligs, that she was receiv-
ing the same wages as before the crime. At first she said her
wages hadn't been changed and then she said her wages had been
raised, just what I can't remember because it varied from one week
to another, she said the Selig family had raised her wages.
The only statement she made about Mrs. Frank giving her a hat
was when she made the affidavit, we didn't know anything
about the hat before."

The Court permitted this testimony to go to the jury over the
objections above stated and therein erred. The Court stated that
he admitted this testimony on the idea that the ground of im-
peachment for Minola McKnight had been laid.

This testimony was prejudicial to the defendant, because the
Court in admitting it, left the jury to consider the statements
of Minola McKnight, that Mrs. Selig had instructed her not to
talk, that the Seligs since the crime had raised her wages, that
Mrs. Frank had given her a hat.

- 50. Because the court permitted the witness J. H. Hendricks
to testify, at the instance of the solicitor and over the
objection of the defendant that the same was irrelevant, incom-
petent and immaterial, 113,