The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1900-12-02

defamatory theme, libellous charge is
false, you will answer the issue yes If
YOU find that no material part is false
you will write your answer no.
Having responded to the second issue.
gentlemen of the jury, you will consider
the evidence determining the third issue,
Was the defamatory publication malic.
i3us?
AS stated to the jury this is a case
CT qualified Or conditional privilege, and
The burden is on the plaintiff. before he
can establish an .actionable wrong and
recover, to prove to you that this publ
cation was malicious, Now when an oc-
casion is privileged in this way. as stated
by a respectable writer on this subject
it is so for some reason, and acts as q
protection where it is used in good faith
for the reason that calls it forth The
defendants claim that they are privileged
in this case for the reason that they are
trustees of Trinity College, that the pres
ident whom they had elected had been
attacked, that this investigation in which
they determined thetruth of the charges
had been criticised in the public prints
that the college was a public institution
inviting public patronage and more espe-
cially the patronage Of the North Carolina
and South Carolina conferences, and that
they published the pamphlet in order to
give a correct account to the public for
The information of the people who had
right to know and for the protection OF
the college committed to their charge,
AID Of the conferences and their other
ratrons. The defendant Kilgo also sets
u privilege personal to himself and says
he had a right to publish it because his
personal character and standing had beer
assailed in the public prints and he had
a right to go into print to defend him
self. This being privileged occasion.
t3ey had a right to publish, if they did
SO in good faith, solely for the reasons
Gained In order then to find for the
Plaintiff on this third issue there must
BE- actual malice on the part of the de-
flndants, and if there was no such malice
prompting the publication of the PAM
hlet, the third issue should be answered
NJ.
This term malicious, as used in this
third issue, is addressed to the motive
that prompted the publication. 1t does
rot necessarily require that the defend
ants should have published with a wrong
fll design and intent to defame and in
jure the plaintiff. Actual malice, as the
term is used in this issue, means a
wrongful act done to the plaintiff from a
wrongful and indirect motive and that
n ust be established by the plaintiff and
found by the jury, that is from a motive
that is wrongful and not in good faith
end not solely for the reasons claimed,
some indirect, Interior motive
While this is a joint action you will not
render verdict against any defendant
who did not publish from a malicious
olive as has been defined. To render
a verdict against all, each one must have
published maliciously If all published
from such wrongful motives, you will an
swer the issue yes. But If either pub
lished in good faith for the reasons
claimed and alleged, that is in whom no
n alice existed you viii so indicate in your
verdict There can be no verdict against
any defendant who did not publish ma
liaiously. Only defendants who have pub
lished maliciously have committed an ac-
t.0nable wrong.
If these defamatory statements were
f, lse and defendants published with a de-
sign and intent to injure the plaintiff or
because they were mad at him for testi-
fling against the president of the col
tie motives that induced the publication,
l. would be malicious and you will an
styer the issue yes, Because in that event
i would not be for the sole reason of
quitting these transactions before the
lsblic.
If the jury find that the defendants in
tbs case exceeded their privilege, that in
TIE manner and method of their publica-
ton they went entirely beyond what their
privileged occasion called for, then if the
atements were false. the malice i'm
r!ied by law from making a false and
q efamatory publication is restored, and in
s3ch case the jury should answer the
third issue yes.
If the defendants angered by the
charges made against the president pub
lished of plaintiff defamatory statements
that they knew to be false or which were
f,lse and defendants had no probable
ground to believe them true, and in reck-
less disregard of plaintiffs rights, from
such facts the jury are at liberty to in
FIR that the publication was malicious
aid that there was lack of good faith in
defendants. If you find these to be the
facts, you will answer the issue yes
If, however, the defendants published
III SOOu ldlJH LOT the reasons claimed by
them, actuated solely by desire to protect
the college and give it's patrons correct
and full information of the entire pro-
ceedings, in such case there would be no
nalice and the jury should answer this
third issue no. though the charges con-
tanned therein may have been both false
and defamatory
Applying this. was the publication ma
liaious, or solely for the reason to give
the public full information of what took
PLACE, or was it done because they were
mad at Cattis or for some other indirect
reason or motive.
On the part of the plaintiff it is con-
tended that this publication was not in
good faith, nor simply to inform the pat
rons of the college and for that reason
alone. They contend that it was pub
lished by the trustees because they were
angered at the charges made against the
president and with Gattis who had testi-
fed against him. that they were pre-
determined to clear and support their
president regardless of evidence, and
that from that motive they published
what they knew to be false or had no
probable ground to believe to
be true, with every opportunity to know
they were false, and that same was
malicious publication and published in