Knoxville daily chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1870-1882, 1872-02-22
Baxter Defends His client.

MEssRS EDITORS: The public do not expect
me to turn aside from business and engage III a
personal controversy with every culprit that L
may be employed, as a lawyer, to prosecute for
| crime. III 1T did, your publication of the facts
| in yesterdays CHRONICLE, relieves me OF the
obligation to notice and reply to Mr.. Fleming
| TRADE in Tuesdays Press and Herqtd: But
perhaps a brief statement of additional FACTS Is
due to my client, Major Brooks.
He and Mr.. Fleming were partners i'll the
practice of law from December 1863, to feb-
rnary, 1868. During this period and just be-
| fore the dissolution OF their partne4T$thip,
| he was absent and without any sufficient
! evidence or any intimation from Fleming of
such purpose, he (Flemingl published Maj.
Brooks, his law partner, as an absconding de-
faulter His assault thus made without notice,
prOvOCatlon or proof, was an slneXcusable out
rage, and provoked, as a matter of course, a
dissolution of the business and previous friendly
relations existing between them. Upon his re-
turn on the 18th February, 1863 Maj, Brooks
filed 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 fee of 500 from j.
Donaldson, of Blount county. Fleming an
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 it must have been collected by Major
Brooks. Thus the issue was clearly and dis
tinctly made and defined. The fact was one
within Mr.; Fleming Person9t kI9!cSedge; NOW
had he or had he not received the fee And if
he had received it, did he, in denying its re-
ceipt, up0H has oath, commit perjury?
The fact that he did receive it is evidenced by
a receipt written by himself and bearing date
the 18th of October, 1867, Aow 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 of my profess
sional duty, and rs believe, on sufficient evil
dence. l expected to create futter in the
ranks Of corruption. l anticipated another in
stalment of editorial vituperation and talsehood,
for men who swear lies do not hesitate to pub
fish them. But what of all that Let towards
and criminals quail before investigation, Meth
or l nor my cliant have anything to fear.
Whenever I reach point where l am afraid
to take the responsibilities that pertain to my
profession, or hesitate to discharge plain pro-
fcssional duty / will voluntarily retire from
the practice; and Mr.; Fleming and his
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 a 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 a fact evidenced by Fleming
receipt, that he had. prior to the time of slcear
ing to his answer received that Identical fee.
Upon these two established facts, Maj. Brooks
has preferred the charge of perjury against him.
Why dees he not reconcile or explain how this
is? Wouldit not he more manly for Mr.. Elem
ing either to deny the facts on which the
charge of perjury is based, or admit them, and
explain, if he can, how the two facts
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 offer for thrust
ing the opportunity upon him. He cannot pos
IDLY say if he is detected in pejury, that it was
H1y malice and persecution that induced him to
commit it.
In this, as in all things else, am endeavor-
ing to do my duty, as understand it, and with
my action l am content. Maj. Brooks has been
a citizen of East Tennessee for seven years,
during which time he has conducted
himself with uprghtness, and has, l belive,
the good opinion of his brother lawyers,
and Of all his acquantances, and needs no fur
ther defence; If he does, he will receive it at
the hands of the Court when the matter i'll con-
troversy between he and Mr. Fleming shall be
finally determined. Respectfully, &c,
JNo. BAXTER.