0095 Slide – Georgia Supreme Court Leo Frank Appeals Documents, 1913, 1914

Here is the extracted text from the image:

tion with women than he had not seen any other man in that has
children; that he had seen Frank in the office of the Pencil Co.,
about two or three times before Thanksgiving, and a lady was in
the office and she was sitting down in a chair and she had her
clothes up about her privates, and Frank was down on his knee,
and she had her hands on Frank; that Frank saw Conley when he came
out of the office, that when Frank came out of the office he was
hollering "Yes, sir, that is right, that is right" and he said
"That is all right, it will be easy to fix it that way;" that
at another time he saw Frank in the packing room of the factory
with a young lady lying on a table---she was on the edge of the
table when he saw her.

While Conley was on the stand, and before he was crossed about
seeing the circumstances testified about, and after cross examin-
ation upon other subjects had been had for a day and a half,
counsel for the defendant moved the Court that the next above
stated testimony of the witness Conley be ruled out, withdrawn
and excluded from the jury, stating at the time that such motion
ought to be granted, because the testimony was irrelevant, imma-
terial, illegal, prejudicial, and dealing with other matters and
things, and crimes, irrelevant and disconnected with the issues
in this case.

The Court declined to rule out, withdraw, or exclude this
testimony from the jury, but permitted the same to remain before
the jury.

The action of the Court was erroneous and highly prejudicial
to the defendant, and demands a new trial.

Such action of the Court was error because said evidence was
illegal, irrelevant and hurtful to the defendant and involved
other transactions not legitimately under investigation, and
the same amounted to accusing the defendant of other and indepen-
dent crimes.

51. Because the said "Conley" testified
that he watched for Frank, at the Pencil Factory, four times on
Saturdays, not on the day of the murder, and once on Thanksgiving
day 1912, while Frank was with a woman in his office, detailing cer-
tain signals by which the witness Conley was to look and

Based on the extracted text, this document appears to be a legal brief or court document related to a trial. It discusses testimony given by a witness named Conley regarding observations of Frank in compromising situations with women at the Pencil Factory. The document details objections made by the defense counsel to exclude this testimony on the grounds that it was irrelevant, immaterial, prejudicial, and dealt with matters not directly related to the case at hand. The court's decision to allow this testimony to remain before the jury is contested as erroneous and prejudicial to the defendant, suggesting this is part of an appeal or motion for a new trial.