The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1900-12-04

aesaiIed in the public prints and ne hau
a right TO go into print to delehu mn
self. This being a privileged occaeioH,
thew had a right to publish, II theE ou
81 in good faith. solely tor the reasons
claimed In order then TO find Tor the
nIaintin on this third issue there mus
be actual malice on the part OF the ue-
PENDANTS. and if there was no such nall1e
prompting the publication OF the pan
phlet. the third issue should De answered.
no.
This term malicious. as used IN thls
third issue. is addressed to the nlotl'e
that ompte the publication Il docs
nor necessarily require that the defend
ants should have published with a wrong
fuI design and intent TO defame ana IN
irre the plaintiff. Actual malice, as the
term is used in this issue. means a
wrongful act lone TO the plaintiff from a
wrongful and indirect motive and that
must be established by the plaintiff ana
found by the jury, that is from a motive
that is wrongful and not in good falth
and not solely for the reasons claimed,
some indirect. Interior motive.
While this is a joint action you will not
Gender a verdict against any defendant
who did not publish from a malicious
motive as has been defined. 10 renoer
a verdict against all. each one must nave
published maliciously. If all published
from such wrongful motives. you will an
sver the issue yes. But if either pub
lished in good faith for the reasons
claimed and alleged. that is in whom no
malice existed you will so indicate in your
verdict. There can be no verdict against
any defendant who did not publish ma
| liciousIy. Only defendants who have pup
lished malicious!y have committed an &C
tionable wrong.
If these defamatory statements were
false and defendants published with a de-
sign and intent to injure the plaintiff, or
because thew were mad at him for teStl-
fying against the president of the col
lece, if that was the motive, or one OF
the motives that induced the publication,
il would be malicious and you will an
swer the issue yes. Because in that event
it would not be for the sole reason of
putting these transactions before the
public.
If the jury find that the defendants in
this case exceeded their privilege, that in
the manner and method of their p%ublica-
ton they went entirely beyond what their
privileged occasion called for, then if the
statements we're false. the malice i'm
piled by law from making a false and
defamatory publication is restored, and in
such case the jury should answer the
third issue yes.
If the defendants angered by the
charges made against the president pub
lished of p~laintiff defamatory statements
that they knew TO be false, or which were
false and defendants had 10 probable
ground to believe them true, and in reck-
less disregard of plaintiffs rights, from
such facts the jury are at liberty to in
aud 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
in good faith for the reasons claimed by
them, actuatcd solely by desire to protect
the college and give its patrons correct
and full of the entire pro
ceedings. in such case there would be no
malice 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
licious. or solely for the reason to give
the public full Information of what took
place, or was it done because they were
mad at Gattis 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 thCv EnpU TO no f. Jcn or nod ~
probable ground to believe to
be true, with every opportunity to know
they were false. and that same was a
malicious publication and published in
reckless disregard of plaintiffs rights,
and that therefore the jury should answer
that issue yes. They ask the jury to find
that this very matter. that it is a privi-
legged publication, is not borne out by
the evidence, that it was because this
trial had been criticised and was the an
swer of the board of trustees to it. when
as a matter of fact they had passed a
resolution to print 5000 copies and wei
coming the papers to publish it before
one word had been said about it. that
they passed a resolution the very night
of the investigation before anything had
been said, and that they made this pub
LEGATION not in good faith, but for some
other reason. Then they ask the jury to
consider. as against the claim that it was
published in good faith, the manner and
method of the publication. And to con
clude from that that it was done to up
hold Kilg0 and condemn his accusers re-
g~ardless OF testimony, and not simply
to inform the public of what had taken
place; that they put it in secular papers
and scattered it over the country; that
there is no evidence that it was put in the
religious papers; that they put it in
charge Of a professor Of the college
without any direction or control, or any
limitation over his authority, that he pub
lishCd a card saying he would send this
publication to anybody who would send
him the postage, that if it was their pur-
pose to publish this fer the information
of the patrons of the college: all thew
wanted TO know was TIE testimony and
the verdict, and that it was not neces-
Sary to publish the speech of DR.. Kilgo
defamatory of the plaintiff. in which the
public was not interested. and that wher
they published the speech of Kilgo they
had some other design than simply &c
inform the public of what had taker
place at that trial.