Reading Time: 4 minutes [550 words]


Visible Translated Text Is As Follows:

8.-- Because the Court, in rendering the decision in said case, overlooked the following material facts in the record, to-wit, Ground 26 of the motion for new trial, which reads as follows:

"Because the Court, in permitting the witness Harry Scott, to testify over the objection of defendant, made at the time the testimony was offered, that he had received information from Conley, and nothing upon the defendant, that he had not otherwise gotten from other sources, but that he got his information as to that from entirely outside sources, and wholly disconnected with the "National Pencil Company", over the objections and request of the defendant to be given over the objections above stated, and in doing so, for the reasons therein stated, committed error; was prejudicial to the defendant, because the negro Conley at first denied his ability to write, and afterwards admitted that he could write as well as the State contended in the first place, and because nothing upon the crime, and the Solicitor contended that Conley's ability to write was a fact that the Pencil Company authorities knew Conley could write, and did not disclose that to the State authorities, was a circumstance going to show the guilt of Frank".

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 pages 231 to 234 of the original brief, filed in this case.

9.-- Because the Court, in rendering the decision in said case, overlooked the following material facts in the record, to-wit, Ground 27 of the motion for new trial, which reads as follows:

"Because the Court permitted the witness, Harry Scott, to testify over the objection of defendant, made at the time the testimony was offered, that the same was irrelevant, immaterial and not binding upon the defendant, that the witness first communicated with the State's Solicitor on seeing a negro on the street floor of the pencil factory on April 26, 1913, to Black, Chief of Detectives, and Bass Rosser, that the information was given to the detectives on April 28, over the defendant's objections, permitted the above testimony to be given, and in doing so erred for the reasons above stated. This was prejudicial to the defendant, because it was contended by the State that this witness, Harry Scott, who was one of the Pinkerton detectives who had been employed to ferret out the crime, by Frank, noting for the National Pencil Company, had communicated with the State's Solicitor, and had failed to disclose the fact of seeing this negro, and that such failure was evidence pointing to the guilt of Frank".

This witness was one of the investigators for the Pinkerton Detective Agency, who was employed by Frank acting for the National Pencil Company to ferret out this crime.

Said ground just quoted set up material facts constituting error in said case, which the Court in the decision rendered, overlooked, and which

Related Posts