0809 Slide – Georgia Supreme Court Leo Frank Appeals Documents, 1913, 1914

Visible Translated Text Is As Follows:

ahead of schedule.

In the body of the opinion, the testimony of the state which
was introduced is showing the time of arrival of the car was that of an in-
spector who testified that once or twice he had timed it, and that the testi-
mony running in ahead of schedule time, and two other witnesses who testi-
fied that they were operatives on the line in question and that they had
known the car to come in several minutes ahead of schedule time. There
is no distinct notice in the opinion of the witness Owens whose only testimony
related to a period after April 26th.

Counsel for the defendant contend that the court overlooked
the special point made on the testimony of Owens to the effect that the
other testimony is generally admissible or not, showing this car to have
come in ahead of schedule time at and before the day of the tragedy, - but
after the date of the tragedy, it could have no possible bearing on the
case, - the criticism in the brief of plaintiff in error, on pages 188 and
189 being as follows: "Owens' testimony deals wholly with transactions oc-
curring after the murder. Whether the English Avenue car scheduled for
Broad Street at 12:07 - got there on time on April 26th was the issue. When
it got there on any other day after April 26th is of no possible moment;
that a given car broke its schedule after a given date in no way illus-
trates whether it did or did not break it at an earlier date."