The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1900-11-27
THE k|LCO TRIAL
NOW UNDER WAY
It Began Yesterday at Oxford
Before Judge Hoke.
JURY CHOSEN IN AN HOUR
The Plaintiff Claims 800, 900 Dam.
ages For SANDER.
THE DEFENDANTS ANS WEIR SEPARATELY
So Many Methodist Preachers Have Been Sum-
moned That the Trial Looks Like a Meth
odist Conference. A Brilliant Ar
raw of Counsel.
ray Of Counsel.
Especial to News and Observer

Especial to News and Observer.)
Oxford, N. c.. Nov. 22.-The Gattis-
Kilgo trial is now we'll under way. 1t be
gan in Granville Superior court this
afternoon at 3:45 o'clock. before Judge
Hoke, and had reached the point at
which witnesses for the plaintiff had
been called and sworn. when court ad-
journed to resume it's session again to-
morrow morning at $50 o'clock.
An hour was consumed in the selection
of a jury. Three jurors were peremptori-
ly challenged by the plaintiff and two by
The defendants. Several were stood aside
for cause by both sides. Two jurors said
they had formed the opinion that Gattis
ought to have damages. One Of these had
already been accepted by counsel for the
defendant. On expression Of his opinion
the Judge stood him aside.
The selection of a jury completed, the
pleadings were read. The complaint sets
forth that plaintiff, Mr.. Gattis, is a
minister of the gospel in the Methodist
church, and was prior to the charges
made against him by DR.. Kilgo, a person
VI SOod oLI1C ubd 1lSdlt, IL liz lnC
good opinion of all persons who knew him.
Also the complaint states that he was a
member OF the book firm of T. j. Gattis
& Son, and was doing a good business in
Durham UP to the time when the alleged
slanderOus words of Dr.. Kilgo we're
spoken and published. These words were
quoted being taken from DR.. Kilgo's
speech in his own defense in the Clark
kllgo controversy, and published in
pamphlet form by DR.. Kilgo and the
other two defendants, B. N. Duke and
w. r. Odell in order, it was charged. to
bring the defendant Gattis into public
scandal and disgrace and destroy his
business.
By this publication the plaintiff claims
10 have been deeply wronged. and dam
aged in feelings and business in the sum
of one hundred thousand dollars, for
which he asks judgment.
The defendant KiIgo made separate
answers from that of Duke and Odell. He
denies that his words were published with
malicious intent. but that they were a
privileged publication, a true and accurate
account Of the Clark-kilgo controversy, to
which the friends of Trinity College and
the Methodist church were entitled. But
while denying that there was any thing
ildllClOuS III us puDllcatlOn, Or. kllSO
declared that everything he said in his
speech about Mr.. Gattis was true. and
that the arguments and differences drawn
from his statements, were accurate.
Messrs. Duke and Odell in their answer.
deny that they published or caused to be
published the speech complained of, but
that the publication was made by order
Of the trustees of Trinity college. They
contend in justification Of this that it was
q privileged publication made necessary
by certain misrepresentation and news
paper comments touching the Clark-Kilgo
controversy, heard before the trustees of
Trinity college in August, 1898. They join
DR.. Kilgo in the denial of any intention
to injure the plaintiff Gattis, but say that
the publication was made in the exercise
of q privilege that the defendant deemed
TO be for the interest of the college, and
TO rcDel attacks that were being made
on =.
The issues submitted by counsel on
both sides were practically the same, ex-
cept that the defendants rendered an
issue as to whether the publication was
malicious. As the plaintiff presented no
such issue. Judge HOke said he would
have to await further investigation OF the
case to determine whether such an issue
SHOulu ne allowed, Out ne animated that
he thought it a proper one.
The other issues are: Did the defen-
dants publish the defamatory words.
Was the plaintiff injured by them, if so
in what amount? The following twenty
seven witnesses were called and sworn
for the plaintiff: Roy. r. b. John, Chas.
w. Johnson, John ". Graham, Rev. Jesse
II. Page, Rev. p. J. Carraway, /. NJ.
Reeves, A. K. Umpstead, Robert Hollo-
way, John Meseley, A. NJ. Rigsbee, John
v. Rigsbee, NJ. II. Jones, Fl. A. Reeves,
Rev. a.. d. Belts, Judge George a. Shu-
ford, j. l.. Pitt, Rev. f. ID. SwindeIl, Rev.
L.. w. Crawford. B. G. Beckwith, Rev. J.
T. Gibbs, A. II. Merritt, V. Ballard, Rob
ert Ferran, Pew. l.. ". Grissom. Henry E.
Seeman, l.. D.. Markham. J. ]. Thaxton
and John r. Webster. Counsel stated
that there were several other witnesses
who would arrive later and be sworn.
For the defense between thirty-five and
forty witnesses have been Summoned.
among them are the following already
here: Bishop Duncan, of South Carolina
DR.. j. r. Brooks, DR.. S. B. T~urrentine,
Rev. j. N. Cole. DR.. bred Peacock, Rev.
John f.. Underwood, Rev. r. w. Bailey
Rev. w. G. Wilson, DR.. E. A. Yates, Rev.
a. p. Tyer, Rev. N. NJ. Jurney, Col. G.
w. Flowers. Prof. J. A. Bassett. ". Bal
lard, G. A. Jordan. O.. w. Carr, r. II.
Parker, w. Z. Manor and r. G. Strong.
There are SO large a number of Methodist
ministers here as witnesses on one side
or the other that the court looks not I'M
like a Methodist conference.
The attorneys appearing in the case to-
day for the plaintiff were Judge A. w
Graham, Cyrus b. Watson, Maj. William
49,
BiggS, S. M. GattiS and A. A. Hicks. For
the defendant. b. S. Register, Cha5. b Ay-
cock, judge montgomery, I. T. Hicks
Judge r. w. Winston and r. Q. Burton,
The case will be stubbornly fought by
both sides and will consume many days