0096 Slide – Georgia Supreme Court Leo Frank Appeals Documents, 1913, 1914

Here is the extracted text from the image:

open the door. When the first question was asked by the solicitor
seeking to elicit whether witness had ever seen Frank up there
in his office doing anything with young ladies before April 26,
1913, the defendant objected on the ground that the evidence
sought was irrelevant and immaterial. The Court ruled that the
evidence would be immaterial, but further questions were asked
by the solicitor and elicited the evidence here complained of.
While Conley was still on the stand, and after cross examina-
tion a day and a half on other subjects, defendant's counsel
moved to rule out, exclude and withdraw from the jury all the
testimony, both direct and on cross, detailing Frank's associa-
tion with women and Conley's watching at other times than the
Saturday of the murder, to-wit: April 26, 1913. Said motion
was made upon the grounds stated and argued at the time the mo-
tion was made, that such testimony was immaterial, irrelevant,
illegal, prejudicial, and dealt with other matters and
things and crimes irrelevant to and disconnected with, the
issues on trial on this case.
The Court declined the motion made at the time upon the
grounds, as stated, and in doing so erred, because the evidence
sought to have been ruled out for the reason stated, and the
same amounted to accusing the defendant of other and independent
crimes---

13. Because the Court, upon motion made when the witness
Conley was still on the stand, declined to rule out, exclude and
withdraw from the jury each and all the below questions propounded
to witness Conley, and his answers thereto: ^
Q. Now, tell what kind of work you had done for him the other
Saturdays: A. I always stayed on the first floor, like I stayed on
the 26th of April, and watched for Mr. Frank, while he and a
young lady would be on the second floor chatting.
Q. You say chatting. Do you know what they were doing? A. No,
sir. I don't know what they were doing. He only told me they
wanted to chat.
Q. Did you ever see him up there doing anything with young ladies?
A. Well, I have---
Q. Well, what would you do before when young ladies come there?

Based on the extracted text, this document appears to be a part of a legal transcript or court document, likely from a trial. It discusses objections made by the defense regarding the relevance and admissibility of testimony given by a witness named Conley. The testimony in question involves observations of the defendant, Frank, interacting with young women in his office on days other than the date of the crime (April 26, 1913). The defense argues that this testimony is irrelevant, immaterial, prejudicial, and pertains to matters disconnected from the trial's main issues. The document details the court's rulings on these objections and the specific questions and answers given by Conley during his testimony. This suggests the document is related to a criminal trial, possibly involving charges of a serious nature given the context of the testimony.