The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1899-11-08
SUSTAINS LOWER COURT
OPINION DOES NOT DEAF. WITH
THE MERITS OF THE CASE.
WHICH IS SENT BACK TO BE DIVIDED
The Court Holds that the 1899 Road Law Is
Cons itutional in The State VS.. Sharp.
Adams VS.. Battle Affirmed
by tie Court.

Il he supreme court yesterday handed
down an opinion i'm the case of T. j
Gattis VS.. John G.. Kilgo ct al, for sian
der. The lower court held that the plain
tiff had joined two separate causes of ac
tion in his complaint and accordingly
ordered the case dismissed From this
Judgment the plaintiff appealed The
Supreme court sustains the ruling of the
lower court as to the first point but
over-rules it i'll THE matter of dismissal
and sends the case back to be divided and
tried separately. The opinion does not
touch ON the merits of the case
The court handed down a number OF
either opinions, the most important o.
Which lis the ruling that the new road
law lis constitutional
Chief Justice Faircloth hands down tbs
opinion in the Gattis- Kilgo case, which
is us follows:
The defendant demalrs to the complaint
for that the plafntiff has unlawfus!y
Joined two separate causes of action N
dis complaint against different persons,
and moves to dismiss the action.
The first five sections of the campla l,t
ailege that the defendant John c. Kllgo
in August, 1889 uttered in public siar-
derouS words against the character ana
business relations of the plaintiff and set
out specifically amid at length the words
complained of and further alleges as fol-
lows:
And so the plaintiff alleges THAT in ut
tcring and publishing and circulating the
aforesaid false and defamatory words of
and concerning the plaintiff, the defcn-
dangt, John C. Kilgo intended thereby to
charge and did charge the plaintiff with
an offence equivalent to the crime of will
fui and corrupt perjury, and thereby i'm
tended ito injume and did impure plaintiff
an his name, fame and credit accordingly
as If plaintiff, in the investigation afore
said, had been guilty OF the crime of per-
jury The complaint thereafter further
alleges that the Defendant kllgo anil his
co-defendants in this action Duke, Bron-
son and Odell, contriying and wfckedly
intending to injlme the plaintiff I'M ms
good Name, &c, in September, 1898 did
compose, print and publish i'm certain
newspapers, circulating in this State. or
cause it to he done, a certaiD pamphlet
containing the aforesaid false, SANDER
GUS, libelous and defamatory words of
amd concerning the plaintiff, and prays
for damages. The demurrer WAS slIs-
tanned and liis Honor adjudged that the
action be dismissed and the plaintiff APP
pealed.
The contention of the plaintiff is that
the allegations against Kilgo individually
do not amount to "a cause of action and
THAT they are only indlTcement to the
charge against all the defendants. Tlhc
defendants aver THAT in utteling the
words by Kilgo, alone, he intended to in
jure and did injure the plaintiff, and We
think that is a statement of a cause of
acti0n. The failure to add a prayer fer
relief against KElgo individually is MOI
fatal. 1t would be technically appro-
pirate to pray for damages. Code See.
333 CD. We understand that under the
Code SYSTEM the demand to-
relief is immaterial and tina.
is the case made by the pleadings and the
facts proved or admitted, and not tho
prayer of the party which determines the
measure of relief to be administered. the
only restriction being that the relief given
must not be inconsistent with the plead
ings and the facts. A general prayer for
relief will he implied Harris VS.. sun
den 104 y. c., 374. 1t has been held in
an action for Islander, Separate demand
for damages need not be appended to tin
various allegations setting UP the causes
of action" Gudger VS.. Penland 10S y
c.. 593
Tho balance eff the complaint sets ollt
the charges against Kilgo and the Three
other defendants with prayer for dam
ages.
Can these two causes he joined in the
same complaint? Code Sec. 1861 saws.
'iBut the causes eff action SO
united mrust affect all the PARTIES TO the
action and must he separately stated j
was held in logan VS.. Wallis rs y. G.
416 that There could not be such a joind
or unless Ill the parties to the action arc
effected. We DO not see how the three
last manned defendants are in anywise
connected with the plaintiffs first cause
Of action. 1T seems they were presenl
as a committee when the words OF Tia,
first cause We're uttered, and that they iii
not participate IN slIGn utterances. This
would no more make them liable to an
action than all Others present and ST.
lent In fact the ease is ION all foulS'
with Burns VS. Williams SS n. C., 1913
The same view WAS taken in Land Go
VS.. Beatty ard another CD n. e. 329.
where the confusion and inconvenience
joining such causes was fully Painted cut
with illustrations
We approve the Judgment below slls-
tanning THE demurrer except THAT part dis
missing the action and that is oyer-Imled
When the case is called again for tIaa
it will he Within the discretion Of the
court to allow am amendment If none
Is made, 1t Will be the duty of the judge.
ON just terms, to divide the action on
the docket for Separate trials Code See
212: Street VS.. Tuck "a n. c.. 605: Solo.
mon VS.. Bates 11S y. c. BIC, and sew
Grad intervening decisions. Judgment mod
flied and affirmed. Clark, j. did not sit
on the hearing OF this appeal.
The attorneys for the appellant were
Guthade Il Guthrie, Boone, Bryant q
Biggs, A. w. Graham, and Hicks &
Minor; Winston & Fuller and r. O. Bur
tom appeared for the appellee
II A II ms, Rattfla tba f,,,nc3;o., g.,