0803 Page – Leo Frank Georgia Supreme Court Appeals Records, 1913, 1914

Visible Translated Text Is As Follows:

12. Because the court in rendering the decision in said
case, overlooked thefollowing material facts, to-wit: Ground 55
of the motion for New Trial, which reads as follows:
"Because the Court permitted the witness L. H. Kendrick
over the objection of the defendant, made at the time the
evidence was offered that the same was irrelevant, immaterial
and incompetent, to testify substantially as follows:
'I worked at the factory for two years. When I worked there
I needed the time about 5:24 o'clock. You would have to change
it from about three to five minutes, I reckon.' have to change
the clock permitted the witness to testify to be heard over the
above stated objections of the defendant, and in doing so
committed error.
Kendrick had not worked at the factory for months and
whether or not the clock was correct at that time was imater-
ial and tended to confuse the jury in their effort to deter-
mine whether or not the clock was accurate upon the date of
the tragedy."
Said ground just quoted sets up material facts constitut-
ing error in said case - which the court in the decision rendered
overlooked, and which was not considered in said decision as ap-
pears from the fact 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 over-
looked 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.

13. Because the court in rendering the decision in said
case, overlooked the following material facts, to-wit: Ground 57
of the Motion for New Trial, which reads as follows:
"Because the Court erred in failing to charge the jury
that if a witness knowingly and willfully swore falsely in a
material matter, his testimony shall be rejected entirely,
unless it be corroborated by facts and circumstances of the
case or other credible evidence.
The Court ought to have given this charge, although no
written request was made therefor, for the reason that
the character of the boy who was attacked by the defendant as
utterly unworthy of belief, and he admitted upon the stand
that he knew that he was lying in the affidavits made by him,
with reference to the crime and before the trial.
Especially ought this charge to have been given, because
the Court, in his charge to the jury, left the question of
the credibility of witnesses to the jury, without any rule of
law to govern them in determining their credibility."
Said ground just quoted sets up material facts constitut-
ing error in said case - which the court in the decision rendered