899 Page – American State Trials 1918 Volume X Leo Frank Document

Here is the translated text as follows:

JAMES THOMPSON CALLENDER

Granting you a writ of error in the Supreme Court is on these grounds that I reject the evidence of the gentleman. The very argument assigned by the young gentleman who spoke last has convinced my mind that I am right. The offered testimony has no direct and proper application to the issue; it would deceive and mislead the jury. An argumentative justification of a trivial, unimportant part of a libel would be urged before a jury as a substantial vindication of the whole. By misleading the jury under such legal testimony, you would destroy public treaties and public faith. Nothing would be more uncertain than law if such a legal excuse were admitted in courts of law.

Mr. Nicholas suggested that it might be proper to prove one part of a specific charge by one witness and another part by another, thereby proving the charge.

Judge Chase said that the very argument suggested by the young gentleman who spoke last convinced his mind that it would be improper to admit the testimony now offered to the court. To admit evidence that went to an argumentative establishment of the truth of a minute part of the charge by one witness and another minute part by another witness would be irregular and subversive of every principle of law. It had no relation to the issue; it was a popular argument, calculated to deceive the people, but very incorrect.

Judge Grier declared that he concurred with his brother judge.

Judge Chase: This is a new doctrine, inculcated in Virginia. You have all along mistaken the law and press your mistakes on the court. The United States must prove the publication and the fallacy of it. When these things are done, you must prove a justification, and this justification must be entire and complete as to any one specific charge; a partial justification is inadmissible. I am happy to find that my brother Judge Griffin concurs with me in opinion.

Mr. Hay: The question before the court is whether this evidence goes to prove the truth of the whole charge.

---