The Birmingham age-herald., 1917-07-03
COURTS RULING IN ADD|NCTON CASE ISFAR REACHING Trial Judge Erred in Refus- ing General Charge, is
 Opinion DEPENDANT HELD
 22 MONTHS IN JAIL Court of Appeals Set Aside Form CT Ruling on the Opinion Rem dered by the Supreme
 Court

After a long drawn out battle in the highest tribunals of the state, which kept him a prisoner in the jail of Jefferson county for 22 months J. L. Addington, charged with obtain ing signature to a mortgage oy falsely representing himself to be d lawyer and under a sentence of 10 years in the penitentiary, was released from confinement yesterday by Judge w. E. Fort following a recent deci- sion of the supreme court
 The case has attracted state wide interest on account of the several rul- ings of the court of appeals and su- preme court in reviewing the case and supreme court will have a far-reach- ing effect
 H. K. White, one of the attorneys for the defendant, who helped to fight the case through the supreme court several times. made a statement last night in reference to the case.
 In regard to the alleged offense
 
 White stated the evidence showed that the defendant was working for law yer, one J. H. McNeill, and had an of flee with him. While answering call to the county jail from man named Martin, Addington was asked to help make bond for a man named Addi- son, who was charged with vagrancy,  visiting him at the jail at that time. Under an agreement the parties went to the office of MT. McNeill, where a mortgage was executed by Mrs. Wood- ruff to secure the fee of McNeill and for the services of Addington in di- vorce and other litigation. Addington held the notes and later sold them to another party who foreclosed the mort gage, but did not put Mrs. Woodruff out of possession. Later an indictment was found against Addington and he was brought to trial on the above charge.
 Of special interest to the legal fra ternity of the state is the several rul- ings of the supreme court which are explained by MT. White in written statement about the case submitted to The Age-Herald. After explaining III QCldIl lHc dCLudl tIdASdCllOn IC- garding the execution of the mort gage by Mrs. Woodruff, Mr. White said: "J. H. McNeill. w. c. Martin and c. c. Martin. who were all pres ent at the conversaf ,n testified that Addington did no, ell Mrs. Wood ruff he was a lawS and it appeared from the evidence t.. at it was under . stood McNeill was to do what work might be necessary in court in behalf of her son and that he did so, and the son got full consideration for the $150 agreed to be paid, and that nei- ther he nor his mother were in any way defrauded.
 On the trial, Judge Fort was asked to give the general charge to acquit Ad- dington, but he thought there was suf- ficient evidence to take the case to the jury. and the jury brought in a verdict of guilty. Judge Fort then imposed the maximum sentence of 10 years. Under the law which denies bail where one is sentenced for more than five years, Ad- dington has had to stay in jail pending appeal.
 Appeal was taken to the court of ap- peals, and in September, 1916, that court rendered a divided opinion-Judges Pel- ham and Evans concurring in affirm ance, and Judge Brown dissenting, upon the view that the trial judge had
 
 ing the jury, and also had erred in re- fusing to set aside the verdict of the jury and grant a new trial.
 Petition for certiorari to review the court of appeals was then filed in the supreme court. and this was where the writer caWe into the case, and filed a printed brief reviewing the entire case on the law and the facts The writer was simply volunteer in the case to assist MT. J. l.. Dreamer, who had tried the case for Addington, and has most ably and faithfully represented him all the way through. The writer's only motive was to aid in correcting what he conceived to be a great miscarriage of justice, and his work was undertaken without any charge therefor, and with z .t any promise of reward,
 NESTOR OF THE BAR
 Col w. A. Gunter of Montgomery. the Nestor of the Alabama bar. and in the writer's opinion, as well as the opinion of most of the bar of the state, the most profound and learned lawyer in Alabama, became interested in the case at the writer's instance, and aided in a second printed brief filed recently IT the case. The result was that while the supreme court held that under the doctrine of several decisions upon its relation to the court of appeals, it would not exercise the power to reverse the court of appeals, it did render an opin- ion, in which it was said: The de termination of the court of appeals ir the matter of the general charge re quested by the defendant should be re- , considered.
 The court of appeals thereupon al the suggestion of the defendants coun sel. reconsidered the case, and on Sat urday set aside its order of October l9 1916, everything application for rehearins in that court, and substituted an ordel granting the rehearing, and in new opinion reversed the case on the grounc that the evidence was not sufficient te support the verdict of guilty by tht jury, and that the trial court had erree in not setting aside the verdict of the jury and granting a new trial
 Addjngton has been today released bN order of Judge Fort after nearly z months of confinement in the count, jail while making his fight for hbert, in the appellate courts