Knoxville weekly chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1870-1875, 1872-02-28


MEssRs EDIToRs: The public do not expect
me TO turn aside from business and engage in q
personal controversy with every culprit that 1
may he employed, as q lawyer TO prosecute for
crime. If it did, your publication of the facts
| in yesterdays CHRoNICLE, relieves me of the
obligation TO notice and reply to Mr.. Fleming 5
tirade in Tuesdays Press and Herald. But
perhaps brief statement of additional facts is
due to my client Major Brooks.
He and Mr.. Fleming were partners in the
practice of law from December, 1865, to Feb
ruary, 1868. During this period and just be-
fore the dissolution of their partnership,
Major Brooks went East on Business While
he was absent and without any sufficient
evidence or any intimation from Fleming of
such purpose, he (Fleming) published Maj.
Brooks, his law partner, as an abseonding de-
faulter His assault thus made without notice,
provocation or proof was an inexcusable out
rage, and provoked, as matter of course, a
dissolution OF the business and previous friendly
relations existing between them. Upon his re-
fled his bill in the Chancery Court for Knox
county to dissolve the partnership and adjust
and settle their accounts. In his bill he charged
that Fleming had received a fec of 500 from j.
swered this bill on oath on the 18th April follow,
ing and on his oath denied that he had
received said fee or any part of it, and
as clearly and distinctly alleged that if collect
ed at all, il must have been collected by Major
Brooks. Thus the issue was clearly and dis
tinctly made and defined. The fact was one
within Mr. Flemings personoI knotcledge. Now
had he or had he not received the fee And if
he had received it, did he, in denying its re-
ceipt, upon his oath, commit perjury?
The fact that he did receive it is evidenced by
q receipt written by himself and bearing date
the 18th of October 1867, now in my possession,
and ready to be produced in evidence whenever
the court may require it. 1t was on this evidence
that the rule to strike him from the role OF at
torneys was asked for and obtained. The motion
was made by me in the discharge ofmy profess
sional duty, and as believe, on sufficient cyl
dence. l expected to create f1utter IN the
ranks of corruption. | anticipated another IN
stalment of editorial yituperation and falsehood,
for men who swear lies do not hesitate to pub
lish them. But what of all that :? Let towards
and criminals quail before investigation, Meth
er l nor my cliant have anything to fear.
Whenever reach point where | am afraid
to take the responsibilities that pertain to my
profession, or hesitate to discharge a plain pro-
fessional duty, will rotantarity retire from
the practice and Mr.. Fleming and his
co-adjutors had rs we'll take cognizance Of
this fact and act upon it in the future.
1t is of little avail in this case to discuss mo-
tives. The enquiry is foreign to the real issue.
1t is O matter of record in the Chancery Court,
that Brooks charged and Fleming denied, on
his oath, that he had received the Donaldson
fee. 1t is also fnct evidenced by Fleming
receipt that he had, prior to the time OF Sieear-
ing to his answer, received that identical fee.
Upon these two established facts, Maj. Brooks
has preferred the charge of perjury, against him.
Why does he not reconcile or explain now THIS
is? Would it not he more manly for Mr.. Flem-
ing either to deny the facts on which the
charge of perjury is based or admit them and
could co-exist and he be innocent If he
is guilty, he is not worthy Of the profession to
which he belongs, and ought TO be stricken
from the roll, If innocent, he ought to be glad
of an opportunity to show his innocence
and hence have no apology to otter for thrust
ing the opportunity upon him. He cannot pos
IDLY say if he is detected in perjury that it was
my malice and persecution that induced him to
commit it,
In this, us in all things else, am endeavor-
ing to do my duty, as understand it, and with
my action am content. Maj. Brooks has been
a citizen of East Tennessee for seven years
himself with uprghtness, and has, 1 beliye,
the good opinion of his brother lawyers,
and Of all his acquaintance, and needs no fur
ther defence; if he does, he will receive it at
| the hands of the Court when the matter in con-
! troversy between he and Mr. Fleming shall be
| finally determined. Respectfully, &c,
JNo. BANTER.