Knoxville weekly chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1870-1875, 1872-02-28
The secret OF FIenaibg's Attack ON Brooks
ana Raxter.


We published yesterday q simple abstract
from the proceedings Of the Chancery Court, in
the case of Il. j. Brooks VS.. Jno. NJ. Fleming.
As the latter gentleman deems the case SO inn
portant as to make it the occasion OF bitter as
sault upon the client opposed to him and his
solcitor-public interest and curiosity demand
that we should publish the facts of the case. 1t
will be seen from the grave charges made and
the manner of their being made, that Mr..
Fleming will find it necessary to answer them
otherwise than by violent abuse of the parties.
If he is not guilty of perjury, as Mr.. Brooks
charges, Mr.. Fleming ought to say SO and
prove the charge false. 1t will not do to an
swer by accusing Brooks of being carpet
Dagger" That IS no longer badge Of disgrace
IN this community. 1t does not matter that
Maj. Brooks solicitor is not personal friend
of Fleming's. The charge against Mr. Flem-
ing is that he is guilty of PERJURY, He is
Prosecuting Officer for the State for this county
and he ought either to resign or provo the
charges false. Can he do it
THE CHARGES AND PROOF.
For some years Mai. L. j. Brooks has been
hard at work in Washington county as one of
firm developing the iron interests of the old
Embreeyille Iron Works. Owing to protracted
sickness of his wife, he sold out his interest in
the furnace n few days ago for 5000, to engage
in other business. He visited Knoxville and on
examining into his business, temporarily neg
lected during his absence at Embreevile, he
found it necessary to employ Col. Baxter and
take the following steps:
THE PETITION AND CHARGES.
To the Hon. o. p Temple, Chancellor &c,
setting in ChdReery at hjiorrAle, for Kjior
COuBltY, Tennessee
l.. j. Brooks comes and complains of John
NJ. Fleming, an Attorney and Solicitor of this
February, 1868, he and the said Fleming prac-
ticed law as partners in this and other courts.
But on TIE 10Th day of February 1868, your
complainant filed his bill, No. 1889, in
partnership accounts. To this bill, SO filed,
said Fleming was duly and regularly made a
defendant. Complainant among other allega-
tions in his said bill, charged that said Fleming
had Heretofore received a fee of 500 from
Donaldson, of Blount county, and called on said
Fleming to answer, upon his corporal oath
whether said allegation was true. On the 18th
April following, said Fleming, in Pursuance of
law and in conformity with the practice in this
Court, prepared an elaborate answer to COM
plainants said bill, and among several other
statements. which complainant believes and
charges TO be false, he answered as follows
1T is not true that defendant received 500
from G. Donaldson, of Blount county, and this
the Solicitor of the complainant must have we'll
KNOWN Wlen no drew MS Dill. An assign
ment of a judgment was taken from Donald
son by respondent with view of securing the
fees of Temple & Andrews and this respond
ent, but if any part of said fee has been col
lected, It must hare been done by complainant
certainly not By respondent"
This answer was duly sworn to by said Flem-
ing, before Z. w. Adkins, at the time Deputy
Clerk of the Circuit Court of Knox county,
who, under the laws of Tennessee, had compe-
tent power and authority to administer said oath
in the premises.
said Fleming had heretofore received said fee
due from said James Donaldson, of Blount
county, in full, to wit on the 18th day of OctO-
Der, lS67-not quite five and half months be-
fore the filing of his said answer which is evil
denced by his written receiptin his we'll known
handwriting, now in possession Of complain
ants Solicitor to be ready to be produced and
exhibited to the Court as evidence whenever re-
quired.
Upon the strength of this receipt and other
evidence to be produced on the hearing of the
foregoing charge, your complainant charges
that said Fleming made on oath in judicial
proceeding false statement in regard TO q ma
terial issue involved in said suit in the partcu-
lar hereinbefore stated, and that he did so know.
ly and corruptly, and that he then and there
committed the crime of perjury wherefore
complainant charges that the said John NJ,
Fleming has been guilty of high crime, the
commission of which is inconsistent with pro-
fession@l character and incompatible with the
faithful discharge of his professional duties
And complainant therefore prays that he be
furnished with copy of this complaint, and
that he be required, by rule of this Court, tC
stricke from the roll of Attorneys and Solic
tors of this Court And on the hearing com
plainant prays, if the facts alleged be found t.
be true, that he be, by an order of this Court
stricken from the role of its Prhcticing Attor
neys and Solicitors. And complainant pray:
for such further and general orders in tbt
premises as may in the opinion Of this Court
be Just and proper and in duty-bound
complainant will pray, &c
JNO. BAXTER,
Sol. for Com +. j. Brooks.
THE ORDER OF THE COURT.
f. j. Brooks We. John M. Fleming.
No. 1882
The complainant comes, and through his So
licitor moves the Court for decree pro con
Jesse, both as 10 the original and amended bill
And it appearing TO the Court that defendant
answer, filed on the 18th of April, 1863 was du
ly excepted TO and the exceptions sustained OF
the 18th of Anril 1863. and that iha dafnndan