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

| CLARK were uSCI III the 1 q civ 49,
| smoke only at the instance OF Judge
| Clark under a pledge OF secrecy. That as
| to his being a hypocrite and talking about
Kilro TO Peacock, he says that his state
ment to Peacock was when he first went
ia South Carolina Conference, when there
was this demonstration over kilgO, and
hat before he had again spoken TO Pea
cock in the way of detracting from kllg2,
it was three years after this first state
ment. when the association etwee MN
and Kilgo had become cold, and they
were having very little 10 do with each
other when this statement was made;
that since the time of the first state
ment he had found out what was the true
standing of KiIgo in South Carolina, and
that it was that Of a wireouller. SO
! far as having un-Christian gossip over
his counter. he t~estifies that he has never
permitted it: that so far as he knew no
such conversation ever took place, and
hat so far as he understood 1t he has
not gossiped about the brethren OF the
cloth or Iaynen or other citizens. And
as further evidence that what he said
was true to Judge Clark, and that he was
NOT the original maligner, there is the
evidence of Judge Shuford, who testifies
that in 1894. about the time DR.. Kilgo
| GAME 10 ~ III % olILid, AG-'SD - 0f1A
| tanburg. S. c.; was there at different
| times: hat it was where his wife's peo-
| nIe lived. and she was sick there that
spring. and he was there at one time as
long as six months, and being a member
of the Methodist church and knowing
Kllgo had been elected president of Trim
ity College was attentive to what was
said about him. From various persons
he learned they said this defendant was
a wirepuller and manipulation of ecclesias-
teal bodies. and that sometimes he did
so by indirect methods.
They say that was three years before
| anything was ever heard from Gattis, and
that that had been circulated in various
quarters for more than three years, and
that all he had to do with it was to speak
to Judge Clark in a private conversation
under the pledge of secrecy. And they
say that the witness Lyon states that
| this defendant was in the habit Of manip-
ulating there.
They allege that the plaintiff was IL
good standing and enjoying the confidence
| Of his fellow man; that in their answer,
upon which they Joined issue, the
defendants did not deny this. That
the 1st and End allegations are not de-
MED; that it amounts to a practical ad-
mission that this man was not the kind
of man that the speech of Dr.. Kilgo
said he was. Again they ask the jury to
consider the fact that a large number of
witnesses have spoken to his character
naming them) some fifteen in all, both
ministers and laymen, both Methodists
and members of other denominations have
taken the stand and testified that for
forty years he has gone in and out among
1 tho ,oorIn onI hoe o1u-ov horne tho
character Of a high-minded man.
On the part of the defendants upon that
second issue, they ask the jury to consider
+! the fact that so far as the evidence
| disclOses the defendant was the only man
who ever gave Judge Clark any informa-
ton ~defamatOry Of kilgo. that he was
the only man practically who testified
that there was any charge against him in
South Carolina, that they have failed to
bring a single witness who had lived with
Kilgo and knew what kind of man he was
to testify against him.
That not only from CIark's letter but
from any other evidence developed on this
trial, no man has ever heard a word
/ defamatory of Kilgo except that proceed
ing from the mouth Of this plaintiff, and
that he spoke of him not only to Judge
Clark, but that he spoke of him in a way
to detract from him to Underwood, and
also Beaman. That according to his own
admission he was talking about Kilgo to
Peacock when he was receiving Kilgo's
patronage at his store. While showing in
every way that he was on good terms
with Kilgo, he was going around to these
people saying things defamatory Of him:
that he was the only man who testified to
such facts before the board Of trustees
that Lyon and Jennings, while they said
Li1no. Iil Op1noyor 10 :, Nv bic ,o;,+ -
fore ecclesiastical bodies in South Caro-
lima, they gave him a high moral
character. That this plaintiff Gattis was
tho only man who had ever said anything
detracting from DR.. Kilgo's position and
standing. That not only did he speak of
Kilgo in this way, but that he spoke of
others. That he admits having said of
Yates that he was not an efficient man
in his calling, that he spoke of Hall and
said he was unpopular. A witness by the
name of Umpstead stated that it was the
reputation of this man that he talked
too much. 1t is contended on the part
of the defendant that from the evidence
and the admissions of the plaintiff on the
stand, they should decide that this
charge was true. that what it amounted
to was substantially that the whole thing
originated from the testimony of Mr.. Cat
"
making these statements to Judge Clark
and Underwood. Beaman and Crawford
and to Peacock he was receiving patr0n-
age from DIR. KilgO and telling him he
was his friend, and that is what this
charge amounts to and that it is sub
stantially made out that he was a malig-
ner and was really acting the hypocrite
You will consider this testimony and
see whether upon this second issue this
charge or any material part thereof has
been made out. If you find that every
defamatory theme, libellous charge is
false, YOU will answer the issue yes. II
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 tho third issue
Was tho defamatory publication malic.
ious?
AS stated to the jury this is a case
OF qualified or conditional privilege, anC
the burden is on the plaintiff, before he
can establish an actiOnable wrong anC
recover. TO prove to you that this publ
cation was malicious. Now when an oc-
casion is privileged in this way, as stated