Tuesday, 23rd December 1913: No Attack On Dorsey In New Frank Case Brief, The Atlanta Journal

Reading Time: 3 minutes [474 words]

Arnold Makes It Clear That Paper Contains No Personalities

In discussing the supplemental brief which the attorneys for the defense of Leo M. Frank are preparing to file with the supreme court, Attorney Reuben R. Arnold made it clear Monday that it contains no personal attack on Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey.

"While the brief deals solely with mis-statements of the evidence, and misconstructions o f the facts in the state's brief," he said, "we call attention to them only in an analytical manner, and the brief does not charge that there has been any intentional misquotation of the record by the solicitor."

"We simply contend that there are a number of errors in his brief, and in the supplemental brief, which we will file, will call attention these errors, and put the facts squarely before the court."

It is learned that Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey has in the course of preparation his supplemental brief, which will be similar to that of the defense, in that it will call attention to errors, which the state claims abound in the brief submitted by the defense.

Although the brief is being prepared by one of the solicitor's assistants, E. A. Stephens, it may never be filed.

Mr. Dorsey, when asked about it, admitted Monday that the brief was being prepared, but stated that he had not decided whether or not it will be filed, and for that reason he will not discuss its contents.

However, it is remembered that he stated before the supreme court that the defense's brief was filed with glaring mis-statements, and asked the court to peruse the record very carefully.

It is therefore practically certain that the state's supplemental brief, if it is ever filed, will contain an attack on the brief of the defense.

PAGE 18, COLUMN 2

SUPREME COURT OF GA.

ARGUED ATLANTA CIRCUIT

Empire Life Insurance Company vs. G. A. Johnson.

Western Union Telegraph Company vs. State of Georgia.

Nashville, Chattanagooa & St.

Louis Railway vs. Western Union Telegraph Company.

Western Union Telegraph Company vs. Western and Atlantic Railroad Company, and vice versa.

Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company vs. Western Union Telegraph Company.

Atlanta, Stone Mountain and Lithonia Railroad Company vs. John Bradley.

Victoria Jones vs. T. B. Lanford.

W. L. Kelley vs. City of Atlanta et al.

Sam Holder vs. J. L. Beavers.

Arthur Bearder vs. T. J. Donaldsom.

Andrew Martin vs. J. L. Beavers.

H. E.

Stockbridge vs. H. L. Flynt et al.

(Dismissed.)

J. J. Crawford vs.

Bostwick-Goodell Company et. al.

Gordon Nash vs. Wheeler

Mangum, sheriff.

Geoge

W. Hoffman vs.

Mrs.

Ellen F.

Knowles.

STONE MOUTNAIN

CIRCUIT

Georgia Railroad and Banking Company vs.

Annie Auchnachie; and De Kalb.

D.

O.

Neal vs. Town of Decatur; from De Kalb.

D.

C.

Lyle vs. J. W. Phillips; from Rockdale.

Bank of Newton County vs.

American Bonding Company et al.; from Newton.

E.

C.

Reid et al. vs.

Joseph Wooster et al.; from Clayton.

W. E. Moreland et al. vs.

J. D. Walker et al.; from Campbell.