The Birmingham age-herald., 1911-08-26
FRANK NE[SONON
 THEPARK QUESTION
c. B. Smith Says He Was Never Able to Find Any
 Irregularity

| Frank Nelson, Jr., president of the
 North Birmingham Land company, issued
 formal statement yesterday in which | he defends his position heretofore ex-
 pressed on the North Birmingham para, property. He says in his statement that
 A. l.. Thorp is mlsinformed as to his com
 pany ever offering any exemption to one
 parcel for immunity as to the other. | His statement follows:
 My attention has been called to ar
 article by A. L. Thorp in The Age Herald
 of August "A. touching the North Bir- | mingham park.
 l MT. Thorp says l seem to be under the l impression that the title to this valua- ble property is in the North Birmingham
 Land company because my attorneys told | me so. I will say in this connection | that 1t has long been the custom with | business people to have their titles to prop erty examined by reputable attorneys to ascertain whether or not the titles are good l know of no better evidence that the North Birmingham Land company has good title to this property than the opinion of my attorneys, who have exam ined the records. Just how an attorney of MT Thorps type determines a good title to property I am unable to state. He further states that Mir. Nelson and Mr. Green both knew that the North Bir- mingham Land company offered the city of North Birmingham deed to what is now used as park if it (the North Bir- mingham Land company would refrain from bringing suit to recover what the land company had sold off and to promise to pay should ever North Birmingham be made part of Birmingham, and says from this a reading public can come to it's own conclusions. I can see no motive why MT. Thorp should make deliberate misstatement in connection with this park, but there is absolutely no truth in this statement or anything like it: The North Birmingham Land company has never made proposition to deed the present park, nor any part of the present park, to the city of North Birmingham, nor has it ever asked the city of North Birmingham not to bring suit to recover any part of the land claimed as park already sold"
  park controversy, c. B. Smith, former city attorney of North Birmingham, said.
 q was instructed to look into the own ership of the property and did so l could not find where any records had been destroyed. The maps were simply not on record. I was never told by the council to proceed against the company, prin- cipally, I. believe. account of the fact that the situation is very complicated and evidence is not sufficient now to make out complete case for the city.
 '"rhe only testimony that I could find was from many old residents that they had been influenced in buying their home sites from the North Birmingham Land company because of the park being To- cated on the map where 1t now stands. That is good evidence, as it is exactly similar to the Avondale case. But it Is not conclusive, and there is deep ques- tion whether the city could recover on that testimony alone. I have been wholly unable to find the slightest reason or evi- dence to believe that the records have been tempered with. have never found any suggestion of such, and as I ex amined the records l could see no signs of the mutilation complained of. The maps are simply not on file so far as l have been. able to ascertain.
 'In justice to Frank Nelson, Jr, presi- ident of the North Birmingham Land company now, l would say that all the alleged irregularities arose before he was connected with the company in any way. His administration has never. so far as know. attempted to influence any legisla- ton anent the park in North Birmingham. The alleged destruction of the records was long before he became head of the company"