Knoxville daily chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1870-1882, 1872-04-04
THE BRoOKs-FLEMING CASE.
Argument of Judge Geo. Brown.

The argument of the case against Jno. NJ.
Fleming was opened yesterday morning for the
defence by Judge Brown, who spoke substan-
TALLY as follows:
l shall not notice at length the part OF the
charge relating to the contempt OF court IN Vlo-
lating the Injunction, for the answer Is so COM
nlete n defence that the court can have no doubt
| as to the innocence of the defendant.
As to the charge of perjury, it seems rather
remarkable that 1t should be made now after
| this answer has been filed nearly six years. 1t
seems strange this charge of perjury is now
4 tr1mped up. Now what is the defence Mr..
Fleming does not prevaricate in his answer He
does not answer, as he might have done, that
Donaldson did not pay him the fee. Davis paid
and meets the charge fairly. When he drew his
answer he did not think of Davis. he thought of
Donaldson. 1t was his fee and not Davis, and it
is fair to suppose he did not think of the latters
payment in this connection. But suppose We
admit he remembered it; does any one suppose
he would have corruptly. sworn to a state of
facts so easily disproved? Judge Andrews
knew all the facts, Your Honor knew them,
Donaldson knew them, and to believe that
man of Fleming's ability would have sworn to
facts so easily contradicted, Is to admit him
guilty of an amount of stupidity greater than
we would charge upon any member of this bar.
A rascal surveys the chances of detection before
he swears to facts he knows to be false This,
then, is clear case of disremembsring the facts.
Suppose he was sober when he wrote his an
swer, he might not have remembered the facts.
All lawyers know how often the war, and es.
pecially in Blount county, cases were mixed
up. Some of US didn't know which side we
were on. had to find out often who was my
client But the receipt satisfies me Fleming
was not in his sober mind when he wrote it.
The writing does not show it, but the way it Is
drawn does. He has made mistakes in 1t that
show he was not in his right mind.
To show that defendant was fair in his trst
answer he admits to collecting more money
than he is charged with. To believe this charge
true is to believe that man of Fleming abiI-
ity and high position would swear a lie for $40.
We know he has been disSipated. We know
he has reformed. 1t is asked now to strike him
from the Rolls, to disgrace his family. We are
taught to be merciful and forgive. We ought
to give him now the right hand and help him
stand up Without forgiveness the Christian
religion is a mockery and by-word.
There is nothing in this case. There is not
the shadow of crime. There is no intention to do
wrong, and that is the main element in crime.
With this view of the case we leave it to your
Honor, confident that justice will be done our
client.
Judge l.. c. Houk followed Judge Brown
His line of defence was somewhat different from
that of his associate. He said he was not will
ing to base the defence on the ground of drunk
ennesS. 1t seemed to him that the facts of the
case were such that to accuse defendant of
swearing corruptly false is too absurd and mons
trous. This was substantially the theory of
Judge Houk's defence. During the course of
his argument, Judge Houk spoke of the charsc
ter of defendant, sustained by large number
of reputable citizens, as compared with the
character of Brooks, who was now absent, said
he probably skulking from his honest creditors.
Chancellor Temple here interrupted Judge
Houk, saying that thus far the entire discussion
had been marked by great propriety and he
oD,,II rofcr n tO no 6auarfnd \
Col. John Nethesland closed the defence. He
took substantially the position assumed by
Judge Brown. He thought the proof showed
that Fleming had been for so long time, and
SO excessively addicted to intemperance, that
he was in no condition mentally to remember
the facts of this case He thought this case was
one where mercy and forgiveness should be exer-
cised The defendant had reformed, had ceased
his drinking and should be encouraged and up
held.
The arguments of all these gentlemen are
spoken of as able and creditable.
Col. Baxter closed the case. In reply to the
defence Of Judge Brown that Fleming got the
fees of Donaldson and Davis Mixed Mr.. Baxter
read from the answer to show Fleming referred
TO the assignment and knew the condition of the
fee. 1t would seem, said Mr.. Baxter, from the
argument of defendants counsel, that this is a
case of persecution on the part of Brooks. But
the facts in this case do not place Fleming in q
position to make such plea. The proof shows
that he published his partner Brooks when
temporarily absent from the State as defaulter,
absconding with State money, when he knew it
was not true. Yet he never retracted his charges
or corrected them, but suffered them to stand
against his former partner and friend. Mr..
Baxter then reviewed the entire case and claim
ed that the facts were too few, too prominent
and material, and that the circumstances did
not permit defendant to excuse himself on the
plea of drunkenness or disability to recollect
the facts,