The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1914-06-06
Attorneys for the Convicted
Factory Superintendent
Prepare to Take Case to
U. S. Supreme Court.
BY ASSOCIATED PRESS.

Atlanta, Ga, June 5.-Hearings on
the motion to set aside the verdict
which pronounced Leo NJ Frank
guilty of the murder of Mary Phagan,
the little factory girI, for which crime
the young factory superintendent is
now under sentence of death, opened
before Judge Ben H Hill Of the Fulton
county superior court here today
The motion of the defense is based
upon the claim that Franks constitu-
tionaI rights were violated when the
verdict was returned during his alb
sence from the court room. JudSe L.
s. Roam. trial judge in the famous
case, permitted the returning Of the
verdict while Frank was absent, on
representation of attorneys for both
prosecution and defense that there
was possibility of a public demonstra-
ton in the event the accused man
should be present.
TO HIGHEST COURT.
In their determined fight to secure
Franks freedom, his lawyers, in addi-
tion to making every effort to secure
new trial for their client, decided
10 tdhS the case " the = I4IlSO states
supreme court if necessary. 1t is
through the motion to set aside the
verdict that they propose to do this.
Should Judge Hill deny this motion,
an appeal will be taken to the United
States supreme court. Hearings on
the extraordinary motion for new
trial also will be held by the state su-
preme court in the near future. So
licitor General Hugh NJ Dorsey said
early that he was ready to oppose the
motion to set aside the verdict and
that, so far as he was concerned, there
would be no delay when the hearing
was opened today.
The answer of the prosecution to the
motion to set aside the verdict was
read to Judge Hill by Solicitor General
Dorsey Immediately after the hearing
was opened. After he had finished
this, Mr.. Dorsey filed a general de-
murrer to the motion.
In his answer, Mr.. Dorsey admitted
that Frank was not present in court
when the verdict against him was re-
turned. but declared that both Frank
and his attorneys had waived his
presence and that the attorneys agreed
to the court not to take advantage of
the defendants absence. The solicitor
general argued that Franks absence
was permitted by the court and did
not operate to the injury Of any one
or deprive Frank Of any right guar
anteed by law.
Referring to public opinion in con-
nection with the case, Mr.. Dorsey said
that at no time was there any well
grounded basis of reason for the sus-
piciOn that mob violence would be
done the defendant or his counsel ha d
they been present. He charged that
Franks lawyers so conducted the case
that innocent occurrences were mag
nified and a studied effort made to
impress the court with the existence Of
prejudice and public feeling against
the accused man. In concluding his
answer, Mr.. Dorsey asserted that
Frank by his silence until April Ii.
had forfeited all right to take eXcep-
ton to the verdict on the ground that
he was not present when handed down.
Mr.. Dorsey claimed that attorneys for
the defense were legally bound by the
agreement made at the time the YER
dict was returned, not to take advan-
tage Of Franks absence.