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

find the jury in their seats.
Asked if they were ready to rem
der their verdict they replied in the
affirmative. and handed up their find
ings as set forth above.
Judge Hoke complimented the jury
on their patience throughout the ten
days trial, and thanked the bar for the
high toned plane on which the case
had been conducted.
After the came out of the court
room the jury talked freely about the
trial. They said they made up their
minds from the evidence and the
judges charge and were little in
fuenced by the speeches of lawyers.
''The speech that had most effect
on us though" one of them exclaimed,
was that of Mr.. Watson
''And how did you arrive at the
amount of damages?'
swell we considered the age of Mr..
Gattis, the destruction of his business,
the fact that he can never preach
again, and all that. Then each juror
put down on piece of paper his esti-
mate of damages. These were aver
aged and the result was $4,000. The
highest of these was $4,000 by Mr..
Blacl1ley, strong Methodist. and so
we agreed on $4,000. If Mr.. Gattis
had been a younger man we would
have given more. We thought our
verdict was against public sentiment
and were greatly surprised to find that
it was endorsed by everybody"
Judge Hoke's charge which was
heard by a large number of people
and most highly complimented by all
who heard it, for it's learning and i'm
partially, was in full as follows:
JUDGE HoKE's CHARGE.
Libel gentlemen of the jury, is where
enc wrongfully and maliciously publishes
of another false and defamatory matter
which is calculated to iniure him in his
calling, degrade him in his social life or
bring him into ridicule and contempt. In
this action T. ]. Gattis sues the defen-
dants, Jno. c. Kilgo, B. N. Duke and w.
r. Odell, alleging that they have pub
lshed such libel about him and asks
damages at your hands for the wrong
they have done him. The defendants,
admitting that they published the defa
matory words, deny that they have done
so falsely or maliciously and deny that
they have done the plaintiff any action
able wrong, and having joined issue on
these allegations have brought their
cause before you for decision
On these pleodings there are four is
sues submitted for your consideration.
/. Did the defendants publish the de-
famatory matter set out and declared in
the complaint?
2. Was such defamatory publication
false?
8. Was same malicious?
4. What damage is plaintiff entitled
to recover for such wrong and injury.
On the first issue. if you believe the
evidence you will answer that issue yes.
The evidence tends to show that they
authorized this publication. and l do not
understand the defendants to deny that
they issued this pamphlet of which the
plaintiff complains.
That brings you to the consideration Of
the second and third issues; was such
publication false and malicious?
In the ordinary relations of citizens,
where libellous matter is published and
circulated, the law will in the first in
stance presume that the same is false
and infer that it is malicious. till the
contrary is made to appear. But where
the publication has qualified or conditional
privilege, one who, complaining must es
tablish by the greater weight of evidence,
not only that it was published, but that
it was false and malicious. To make
such a publication, where there is quail
fled privilege, an actionable wrong, the
law puts upon the plaintiff the burden of
establishing that the same was false and
malicious. On the evidence in this case.
if it is to be believed, it is one of quail
fed or conditional privilege. and the bur-
dens on the plaintiff to establish by the
greater weight of evidence that this de-
famatory publication was both false and
malicious. If you are satisfied that this
and everv material libellous
part thereof is false you will answer the
second issue yes. If you find that any
material defamatory matter, a material
part thereof, is false you will answer the
issue yes and indicate the part that you
ma is false. If no material part is false
you will answer the issue no.
That brings you to consider what is in
this publication he complains Of The en-
tire speech Of Dr.. Kilgo before the Board
of Trustees is annexed to the complaint.
and is in evidence before the jury. The
parts especially called to your attention
complained of by the plaintiff are these:
'.If you will take the whole situation and
connect it with the testimony of Mr.
Gattis you will likely find the original
slanderer." Again in referring to the
testimony of Mr.. Gattis. on the witness
stand that he would not have testified for
500. he refers to that statement in his
speech that was published: Zone hundred
dollars is high price for him, and means
an ordinary man would have given a high
price for a like commodity. Behind
pious smile religious walk, and a solemn
twitch of the coat tail many men carry
a spirit unworthy of them Another al
legation is that he had evidently gossip
ed too much in South Carolina. And
again speaking of the criticism that
Gattis had been witty at his expense,
says Poor wit over the suffering heart
of his brother whom he has iacerated in
the dark" Again he SAYS that Gattis
was guilty of vicious conduct, and that
between the man hiding himself by the
highway and making a victim OF inno
cent traveller. and a man who. in the
dark assassinates character. send me to
the woods with a revolver and let me
murder my passer by rather than malign
my fellow man. Again the publication
Ox hot ,E H. hot fn41 -.