Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1873-12-09
THE LAW or CONTEMPT.
Right of Appeal from the Order Of a
GhanceIIOr-ImPOrt Decision by
the Supreme Court.

the Supreme Court.
From the Knoxville Press and Herald, Dec. Z.
The decision Of the Supreme Court,
yesterday, in the cases of Brooks VS..
Fleming, has attracted no little atten-
ton among the members Of the bar
now in the city, and viii doubtless be
Of interest to lawyers throughout the
State.
The cases originated in the Chancery
Court at this place, over a yearago, and
the proceedings therein were published
in our columns in full at the time. We
now briefly recapitulate.
In 1863, Brooks filed his bill in Chan
Gerry here to dissolve the law-partner-
ship of Fleming & Brooks, and OBJ
tanned an injunction restraining Flen-
ing from collecting any fees due the
firm. About four years afterward,
Brooks presented his affidavit, charging
Fleming with contempt of court, in vi
olating the injunction by collecting two
partnership fees, one from John J. West,
and one from Hugh Martin, of Kings
ton, and moved that he be committed
or otherwise punished therefor. Atthe
same time he entereda motion to strike
the name Of Col. Fleming from the roll
of solicitors of the court for the alleged
offence of perjury, charged to have
been committed IN his answer to his
original bill. An answer was filed and
both motions heard together.
After hearing a mass OftestimOny and
elaborate arguments, the Chancellor
adjudged the respondent not guilty Of
the perjury and denied the motion to
strike his name from the roll Of solicit
tors from his court; but being of opin-
ion that he had violated the Injunction
and was IN contempt, fined him fifty
dollars therefor. Respondent Fleming
prayed an appeal, which was granted,
and subsequently the relator Brooks
took writ of error to the Judgment of
the Chancellor in refusing to strike
Col. Fleming from the roll Of solicitors.
Both cases were heard together in the
Supreme Court: last week. -Four queS-
tons arose IN the case:
J. Had Fleming the right to appeal
from the order Of the Chancellor adj
Judging him in contempt and fning
him therefor?
=. If so,Iwas he guilty of the con-
tempt charged?
3. Was Brooks entitled to an appeal
or writ of error, from the decree Of the
Chancellor adiadging Col. Fleming hot
guilty of perjury and refusing to strike
his name from the roll Of solicitors
+. Ii so, was he guilty and should the
Chancellor's decree be overTuled?
Yesterday; Judge Turney delivered
the opinion of the court in the cases,
holding;
l. That an appeal would lie from the
order of Chancellor adjudging a par
ty to be in contempt, and furnishing
him therefor, when such contempt is
not ''in the face Of the Court
2. That in this case, Fleming was not
guilty of the contempt charged.
B. That a relator or person seeking
to disbar an attorney, has no right to
an appeal, or writ of error, from a de-
cree denying his motion,
As a consequence, the Court had no
jurisdiction over the motion to disbar,
and declined to pass upon the tcsti-
mony, though requested 50 to do by
Col. Fleming's counsel. Want Of space
forbids the publication Of the full text
of the opinion.
Judge Freeman dissentcd from the
third proposition, and held that the re-
Iator had the right Of appeal in such
cases. Judge Mcfarland was also OF
opinion, that, if taxed with costs, the
relator might appeal.
The friends Of Col. Fleming will re-
ioice at his complete vindication at the
hands of this supreme tribunal.