Knoxville weekly chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1870-1875, 1872-04-10

DeTSOnS, anu which WOULD inevitably De |
the subject of proof in the suit he was then
defending, is Inconsistent with anything
but the utmost depravity of heart.
To my mind it creates the gravest doubt
as to the guilt of the accused. | admit
that the facts were so recent, that it seems
he should have remembered them. 1t is
true he should have Investigated them
before answering so boldly. These things,
besides Others, cannot be easily explained. |
But it is easier to explain them than it is /
to reconcile the guilt of the defendant |
with the possession, on his part, of COM |
mon sense and common prudence, and !
such a character for integrity as is given |
to him by the many witnesses in the |
case. s..I I...t
As this proceeding is in the nature of
criminal prosecution for perjury, the Court
should be extremely cautious in fastening
so grave stigma on the character of any
solicitor or citizen, in the absence of a
trial by jury the great palladium of hui
man liberty.
True, this Court is not bound to wait for
the verdict of a jury, before vindicating,
| in proper cases, the honor of our exalted
profession and furnishing disobedience to
its mandates. But in all cases it should
exercise this high power only on such ev-
| idence as would satisfy an intelligent and
| impartial jury, and as would leave the con-
| science of the Court with no misgivings
or doubts as to the justice of this extreme
| Il
think said answer was written in mo-
ment of frailty.
The notions therefore disallowed and
overruled. 4
THE DEPENDANT eoSvlcrFD 81 COW
TEMPT AND fINED.
| End. The second motion y TO attach the
! body Of defendant for q contempt Of the
process of this Cont for violating. an in-
junction gra<tod 81 TINS Court IN said
cause, pending between complainant and
defendant In collecting money from Jphn
j. West and Hugh Martin, and appro-'
priating the same to his own use, contrary
TO said Injunction. He IS charged with
collecting about one hundred dollars from
said West about the 9Th Of March, 1869,
and of collecting about two hundred dol
lars from Hugh Martin since the issuance
and service of said Injunction, both sums
being fees, as alleged, belonging to the
firm lately composed of complainant and
defendant.
The answer of defendant admits the col
lection of these two fees, in the modes
thelein set forth i'm detail, but tits denied,
that, by q fair construction of the terms OF
the partnership, complainant had any in
terest in these fees. Any Intention to vio-
late the injunction isdenied.
1t is admitted by the solicitor of COM
plainant, that, if the answer denies
f the charge or fact the defendant must be
, discharged But il is denied tlat the an
|
the charge, but sets up matter in excuse
, or avoidance. In the latter case, it is in
| sisted, the matter in avoidance must be
proved, and must be sufficient to consti-
3 tute a profitable defense or excuse. This i
1 hold to be the correct view of the law ex-
r cept as herein Immediately stated. ~
4 distinction exists between the effect
3 of an answer in a Court of Common Law
and Court of Equity. In the former, ii
g the answer of defendant deny the con-
/ tempt, no opposing testimony will be
heard. and he will ne discharged. But in
in Court of Equity, the answer, though
, it deny the contempt, is not conclusive,
' but it may be overthrown by opposing
t proof or affidavits. 4th Johns Rep. 332
4 IUnderOood u.s. Case, 2d Hum. -. an
, Blockstone Com. 2s6. 90 Comyn's Dig.
t To test this case by the princip,e, that the
: truth of the matter in avoidance must be
proved, and especially in Court of Equi
: ty. 1t will he necessary to refer TO das =
: and facts. The original bin was filed
February 18th, 1868. The fdt for an in
n junction was granted on the same day
: The prayer for the injunction was, that the
n defendant might be restrained and enjoin-
e ed from receiving or collecting any mon
If eys or demands due said firm, and from
t selling, assigning, or in any way disposns
|. of any notes, bonds, securieties, debts, ac
= counts orproperty belonging to said firm
# and that a writ of injunction issue for tina
purpose The order granting the iniunc
, ton directed it to issue az prayed for in tn
e bill. The injunction issued February
= Dist, 1868, was served on the 26th of Feb
II ruary, by the Sheriff of Knox county, anC
,e is in nearly the words Of the prayer in tn
|. bill.
lie The letter of West, introduced by de
l. PENDANT, shows that he paid defendan
l. 500 90 in March following, as fee in tn
In case of West VS.. Coffin. And the letter o
a Hugh Martin, introduced by defendant
le shows that he paid, or accounted with tn
defendant, September 10th, 1865, 10
5000 90, as a fee in the case of Lee VS.. Nal
I. tin. The particular circumstances undo
Is which, and the manner of the payment {
+ this fee are detailed in full in the answe
n of defendant, and, the injunction aside
;, they reflect much credit on the defer
ID dant.
=. The bill of complainant charged thi
"a the terms of the partnership embraced ii
is antecedent business of defendant, as we
1. as that which might arise in the futur
or The answer of defendant admits that a
a cording to the recollection of defendant u
a terms of the partnership are correct
r stated in the bill. This admission in q
h. answer makes the partnership cover Il
n | cases of West vs.. Coffin and of Lee Y
At | Martin, and they are, therefore, within u
a. operation of that injunction, unless Il
n answer to this motion disproves that fa'
he That answer is, in substance, that IL W
g. never the intention of defendant to perm
a. complainant 70 participate in the prof