Knoxville weekly chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1870-1875, 1872-04-10
THE BRoOKs.FLEMING CASE.
Decision of chancellor Temple.
f. j. BROOKS VS.. JOHN NJ. FLEMING.
l[ofinns


+. j. BROOKS VS.. JOHN NJ. FLEMING.
Notions.
Before delivering the following opinion
Chancellor Temple said he desired to ex-
press his qualification at the very temper
ate, gentlemaDly and able manner with
which the counsel of both parties conduct
ed the argument of the cause. He then
delivered the following opinion:
The first question shall consider in this
case is the motion to strike defendant from
the roll of attorneys and solicitors of this
court, because of conduct inconsistent with
professional character, and incompatible
with the faithful discharge of professional
duties. The specification on which this
motion is based is, That complainant, on
the 18th day of February, 1868, filed his
bill in this court, against the said defen-
dant, alleging, among other things, that
| complainant and defendant had previously
been partners in the practice of law, ana
that the said defendant had Heretofore re-
ceivcd a fee of 5000 90 from James Donald
/ son, of Blount county, and the defendant
! was called on to answer whether said al
| legation was true or not. That on the nth
| day of April 1868 the defendant filed his
answer in said cause, and made answer,
under oath, to said charge, as follows
T." 1t Is not true that respondent received
5000 90 from James Donaldson, of Blount,
and this the solicitor of complainant must
have well known when he drew his bill
An assignment of n judgment was taken
from Donaldson by respondent with view
of securing the fees of Temple & Andrews
and this respondent, but if any part of
said fee has been collected, ii must have
been done by complainant, certainlynotby
respondent"
1t is shown by the receipt of respondent,
| fl,,A ,.Nfn oh hn al
received from James Davis full satisfac-
ton of said fee, and Davis proved on the
trial of this motion that the amount paid
: was $50 90. The defendant, in his answer
to the charges preferred against him, adj
mits that said fee had been paid at the time
his said answer was sworn to and filed.
But he alleges utter forgetfulness of the
fact, and enters into n detailed statement
of the facts connected Herewith.
BY Sec. 1910 of the Code it is provided,
in aflirmance of old English statutes,
''that tho several courts of this State may
strike from there rolls any person not
authorized to practice in said courts, and
also any practising attorney or counsel
, upon evidence satisfactory to the court
= that he has been guilty Of such misde-
+ mcanor, or acts of immortality or impro-
: priety, as are inconsistent with the charac'
q ter or incompatible with the faithful dis
! charge of his profession
/, This is the act under which this motion
> is made. The charge is that he was will
> fully and corrupuy guilty of perjury, II
, | swearing 10 said answer. Jhls grave
r charge involves not only the privileges o
= defendant, as a solicitor of this court, but
. likewise his reputation as good citizen
: If he is guilty of corruptly swearing false
- ly to said fact it is the duty of this cour
= to strike him from the roll of solicitors.
In determining as to his guilt or limo
q cencc, am TO be governed by the same
/ y sIlNas hot
= ern jury, if the defendant We're on tria
, on this charge before it. The fact Is to b.
proved or admitted. But this is not all
The dnimus or intent to commit the Grim
Il must appear also. This the law often in
q fers from the circumstances. But clrcum
?. stances may also show that an act which
Y is apparently crime Is in iact not
+ crime, because not accompanied by tn
Il guilty intent.
r Was there corrupt perjury in this case
l. If we assume that there was, the very au
= dacity and holiness OF the act staggerS u
1t and fills us with doubt. The defendant
e i'm his said answer, speaks of a fact know
" to Donaldson, to Davis and to Andrews
a and most probably to Trowbridge an
l. Caldwell, and to Headrick and Others
e He refers to other facts and circumstance
,e that will aid in his detection, If he
g speaking falsely in heart as well as in fac
c, He is speaking of fact easily proved @
l. disproved, and, as an account was praye'
/ for in the bill, of fact which he, as
" sensible man and respectable lawyer
r must have known would become the SUI
l. iect of proof ON taking the account, If
e, were deliberate act of perjury, he mus
s. have weighed the circumstances surrount
" ing him, and the probability Of detection
" fl he did this, ne must have known I'll
ut falsehood would be detected, for he &c
$ companies the denial, with bold imputa
IS, ton on the solicitor, whom he suppose
had drawn complainant's bill, Of havin
stated what he knew TO be false in mas
y. ing the charge. He also intim ltes tina
Il. the complainant had collected this Yer
ia fee, If it had been collected aud theren
n challenges him to the proof. IL the d
re- fendant possesses common sense, (and th
M proof sho IS high order of intellect) sac
N, conduct. such brazen recSlesaness, in q