0805 Page – Leo Frank Georgia Supreme Court Appeals Records, 1913, 1914

Visible Translated Text Is As Follows:

"The clock of the pencil company was not accurate. They may vary all the way from three to five minutes in 24 hours. The Court admitted this testimony over the objections made and in doing so committed error, for the reasons stated. This was prejudicial to the defendant, because whether the clocks were or were not accurate on April 26th was material to his defense. The witness Grant had not worked at the factory for three weeks and did not know that the clocks were not keeping accurate time three weeks before the trial. Grant's testimony that the clocks were not accurate and confused him, and the testimony as to the clocks related to the time he did his work at the factory."

Said ground just quoted set up material facts constituting error in said case - which the court in the decision rendered overlooked, and which were not considered in said decision as appears from the face thereof. Plaintiff in error says that the error committed, as is disclosed from an inspection of the ground here quoted, was material. The fact alleged herein to be overlooked in this ground was discussed in the brief filed by plaintiff in error, as will appear from page 46 of the reply brief, filed in this case.

16. Because the Court in rendering the decision in said case, overlooked the following material facts, to-wit: Ground 42 of the Motion for New Trial, which reads as follows:

"Because the Court permitted Leo M. Frank, at the instance of the Solicitor-General, to testify over the objections of the defendant, made when the testimony was offered, that the same was irrelevant, immaterial and prejudicial, that on April 26th, 1913, he received a report from the police about the finding of a club and envelope in the police station about 17 hours afterwards. After I reported it about four hours afterwards. I told John Black about the envelope and the club. I turned the envelope and club into the possession of H. B. Pierce, the Court heard this testimony over the objection of the defendant, made as above stated, and in doing so committed error for the reasons herein stated.

This was prejudicial error, because the Solicitor-General in the argument to the jury, contended that the failure of the police to find the club and envelope was a circumstance against Frank. These detectives were not employed by Frank, but by the National Pencil Company, and movant contends that he is not bound by what they did or failed to do. The Court should have so instructed the jury."

Said ground just quoted set up material facts constituting error in said case - which the court in the decision rendered overlooked, and which were not considered in said decision as appears from the face thereof. Plaintiff in error says that the