Birmingham age-herald., 1895-04-12

James L. Nail. Our firm, in connection with James E. Hawkins, defended Mr. Burnett, and if there was any corrupt agreement or arrangement, or any ar. rangement whatever, between MT. Nail and MT. Burnett 1 knew nothing of it. The statement in said report that MT. Nail counseled or advised with Mir. Burnett and his attorneys of record as to which venire the jury to try him before should be SC. lected from, or which would be best for said Burnett to be tried before, is untrue.
 "Tbat said Burnett and his attorneys of record and MT. Nail agreed upon venire, then drawn and to be summoned and impaneled for the criminal court of Jefferson county, on May 16, 1894, is also untrue. After said jury had been drawn, and after they had been summoned and made public, MT. Burnett did bring to our office list of the jury summoned for the week during which he was to be tried, which he said he obtained from the office of the clerk of the criminal court of Jeffer- son county. He had perfect right to get this list and to exhibit 1t to his counsel, 1t being public property. After looking over this list, and, as 1 remember, during the week in which MT. Burnett's case was tried, Mir. Burnett and MT. Nail were in our office together, and we asked MT. Nail about certain jurors living in his neigh bor- hood and whom he was supposed tions with reference to their sur roundings, their fairness and what bias or prejudice they might have, one way or the other, as is the practice with all lawyers. After answering these questions, which only took few moments, Mir. Nail left the office and 1 did not see or speak to him again about the jurors or the case, and never heard or knew of any unfair or cor rupt arrangement or, in fact, of any ar rangement whatever between MT. Burnett and MT. Nail. I heard nothing of the mat ter until within the last few weeks when the solicitor, MT. J. H. Little ,Itold me that there had been an improper agreement be- tween MT. Burnett and Mr. Nail. Then few days ago I met the solicitor on the street, when he informed me that subLopn had been issued for me to go before the grand jury in connection with this matter, Tn which conversation he again told me that there had been some improper relations between MT. Burnett and MT. Nail and asked me if had seen Mr. Nail and MT. Burnett together, or if they had come to our office together during the pendency of MT. Burnett's case. told Mir. Little then in substance what have now stated, and asked him what hour would suit him for me 10 go before the grand jury, as 1 was then engaged iu the trial of a cause. He first said 2 o'clock that day and then, after reflection, said it was not necessary for me to go; that Mir. Lane had already been before tLe jury, and he knew about the same that did. which would be suffi- cient.''
 MT. James E. Hawkins, one of the at- torneys who defended MT. Burnett, is in Huntsville attending United States court, and could not be seen to get his statement.
 WHERE IT sTARTRD.
 A little over year ago R. D. Burnett, the proprietor of the Florence hotel bar, and at that time also proprietor of the Bur- nett saloon, across Nineteenth street from the Florence hotel, was arrested on a charge of keeping gambling device in his saloon. The grand jury indicted him, but on his trial, which began May 19, 1894, he was acquitted.
 On the statutes of Alabama is law mak- ing bribery and the accepting of bribes felony, but through some defect it has been rendered Imperative. That makes it common law offense, which is only mis- demeauor, and the statute of limitation bars any prosecution after the expiration of twelve months. In this case the twelve months, it is understood, have expired since the otfense is alleged to have occurred.
 An AGE- HERALD reporter asked MT. Charley Graham for statement last night with reference to the money he is charged with having paid Mir. Nail, but he declined to talk.
 The reporter failed to find MT. Burnett, and is unable to give his side of the story.
 REPLIES TO MIR. A. T. LONDON. To the Age-Herald:
 BIRMINGHAM, Ala, April Il, 1s95.-In your issue of yesterday appeared an inter- view with Mir. Alex T. London, '.eounsel for the Cincinnati, Hamilton and Dayton Railroad company in their fight against the Southern, ,' as explained in your intro. ductory remarks.
 Certain statements in this interview de- mand notice from me. But first l call at- tention to the fact that am not of counsel in the case of the Central Trust com pany vs. Alabama Great Southern Railroad com papy ct al., which has just been brought in the chancery court at Birmingham, nor have I any interest in the result of that suit.
 vs. Alabama Great Southern Railroad com pany, now in the supreme court of Ala bama, and after calling attention to the postponemept of the hearing Of tie case from December z to February by the su- preme court, MT. London proceeds: "The the 1st day of April. It icus Stated by the chief justice that the adjournment oper iuoutd not preuent decision, but the deci- sion had not get been rendered by the sa- preme court of AIabama. (Italics mine.)
 ''It Is an open secret that the counsel employed by the appellants in that case in the supreme court, have stated that they had nc case, and though tioo months hare elapsed since the case ioas fully argued, no decision has get been rendered"
 l desire first to "unbosom myself'' con. corning the alleged ''open secret" referred to by this very diligent attorney of the Cin- cinnati, Hamilton and Dayton Railroad company. There is just this much truth in his statement: I, being only one of three counsel for the appellants in that case, did state in Montgomery, during the penoency in the legislature of the so-called rAlien Railroad pill, v that in my own opinion 1t was doubtfnl that the compIainants Gree nough ct als., were the proper parties to sue to prevent the commission of the frauds which were being attempted by the Cincinnati, Hamilton and Dayton Railroad company and it's agents.
 did not express myself dogmatacslly upon this point, but only incidental and for the purpose of emphasizing my belief that there was a clear and meritorious