Atlanta Georgian. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1912-1939, 1913-10-23
.ROSSER CHARGES DORSEY
WITH TRYING To HANG ON
SLIGHTEST TECHNICALLY

incorporation of the entire financial
sheet in the brief OF evidence as soon
| as the hearing began. This wrangie
was followed by a series OF others
over practically every reason that
was put forward by the defense.
Before the hearing had progressed
far, II became evident that unless the
opposing attorneys could reach some
sort OF an armistice the hearing
would last four or five days. Attor-
ney Rosser declared during a heated
argument with the Solicitor that the
hearing would drag out two weeks If
Dorsey continued his objections to
every paragraph OF the brief
Arnold and Rosser, in supporting
their reasons for new trial, charged
that the stenographers had failed to
make record Of many of their OBJ
jections and the grounds Of the OBJ
jections.
Dorsey defended the stenographers
and said they had recorded the words
Of the different attorneys. Refuting
this statement, Arnold called atten-
ton TO several places in the record
where the stenographers had merely
made the notation: Counsel argued
this question pro and con"
Questions Its Import.
Dorsey's objection to the first rea
son in the defense's brief was that
the use Of the whole financial sheet
magnifed this feature of Frank
case beyond its proper importance in
a condensed brief of evidence.
I'VE couldn't boil hat down." said
Attorney Arnold, because it's object
Is to show the volume Of work that
Frank did CT Ap.,. z6, and how long
1t took"
"rhen. We are entitled 10 all OF our
evidenced in extenso If that goes in, -
replied Dorsey
Arnold retorted that the defense
stood absolutely on its right to have
the whole financial sheet in the brief.
Judge Roam did not decide on this
point at the time, and the attorneys
passed on 20 the brief, reason by rea-
son. His observation that the object
f the financial sheet could be but one
thing-to demonstrate how long a
time its compilation required-indi-
Gated that he was inclined to listen
to Arnold's contention.
The Judge did not decide on the
first basis for argument advanced by
The defense that the court erred in
letting in Lees testimony that De-
tective Black talked longer to him
than did Frank. from which the Solic-
ltor argued that Frank was not inter
ested in getting the truth from Lee
Second Ground Passed.
The second ground for a new trial
also was left for future discussion
1t was that the court was in error in
letting in Lees testimony that Frank
talked to him less time than Reuben
Arnold, one of Franks counsel, later
talked to him at the time.
Part of the third reason was struck
out upon objection of Dorsey. The
contention of the defense was that
the court was in error to let Detec-
tive Starnes testify that Newt Lee
was at the time ef HIS arrest compos-
ed and showed no signs of trying to
get away, Solicitor Dorsey later using
1t to make a comparison with Frank
who was said to be nervous. The
reference to Lee making no endeavor
to escape was stricken out, the de-
fense's objection to the remaining
testimony being that 1t was Illegal,
unwarranted and prejudicial.
Detectives Evidence Challenged.
In succeeding reasons. the defense
argued for a new trial on the conten-
ton that the court had erred in let
ting In Starnes' testimony that the
conversation between himself and
Frank over tho telephone. April 81