Reading Time: 28 minutes [5137 words]


Visible Translated Text Is As Follows:

testimony was offered that the same was irrelevant, illegal and incompetent, to testify substantially as follows: "The ladies' dressing room on the second floor with Leo M. Frank, some time was in the evening and sometimes in the morning, working hours, saw them come in and saw them come out during working hours."

"The court permitted this testimony to go to the jury over the objection of the defendant made as aforesaid and in doing so committed error. The court stated that this evidence was committed to dispute the witnesses they had called.

"It was wholly immaterial to the issues involved in this case whether Frank did or did not go into a private dressing room with Miss Carson; it did not tend to prove the charge of Frank's immorality with reference to women."

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, which 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 facts alleged herein to be overlooked in this ground were discussed in the brief filed by plaintiff in error, as will appear from 209 to 212 of the original brief filed in this case.

3. Because the court in rendering the decision in said case, overlooked the following material facts, to-wit: ground one of the motion for new trial, which reads as follows:

"Because the court erred in permitting the solicitor to prove by the witness Lee, that the detective had taken the solicitor to prove the witness Lee, and asked him more questions, made to him, the witness Lee, that the detective had talked to the witness Lee, about 12 o'clock at night on April 26th. 'At the request of Black and Scott, the detectives, Frank was induced to have an interview with Lee, the witness, for the purpose of eliciting information from him. The solicitor contended that Frank made no effort to find out anything from Lee, and to that end, sought to show and was permitted to prove by Lee that Black talked longer to him than did Frank at the time stated.' The trial court, in admitting such evidence over defendant's objection, committed error, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was error, and the court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant, and in admitting such evidence over the objection of the defendant, and the admission of such evidence was

Related Posts