The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1900-11-24

CONTINUED from Second PaSe.J
by the Board to take every mans word
as if he was under OATH and the CHAIR
ruled that the implied oath in such an
investigation was just as strong or even
stronger than one administered by an OIL
fetal authorized to do So
g. That by reason of the publishing and
extensive circulation of the aforesaid
false and defamatory words hereinbefore
complained of, the plaintiff has been
deeply wronged and damaged suffered
great distress Of mind and mental an
guish, and been seriously damaged in his
reputation. calling and business aforesaid
in the sum of one hundred thousand
($100,000) dollars.
Wherefore plaintiff demands judgment
against the defendant for the sum of one
hundred thousand ($1OO,OO0) dollars and
the costs of this action.
SEPARATE ANSWER OF JNO. G. KILGO
The separate answer of the defendant
John c. Kilgo, to the complaint of the
plaintiff alleges:
1. That he denies the allegations in
section of the complaint as therein
stated
2. He denies the allegations contained
in section of the complaint and lie de-
mics that said words were published ma
Iiciously or with intent charged i'll COM
plant and ayers the truth in relation
to the motives therein referred to, to be
as follows and not otherwise.
3. The defendant was, during the year,
1898, and for some time prior thereto,
and ever since then, minister of the
gospel and member of the North Caroli-
ma Conference of the Methodist Episcopal
Church South in good standing; and was
then, and for some time before and ever
since, the President of Trinity College,
an institution of learning for the educa-
ton OF youths under the control of a
Board of trustees elected by the North
Carolina and Western North Carolina
Conferences of said church. and the Alum
nj Association, this defendant was elect
ed to this position by its Board of Trus-
tees.
4. In the summer Of the year 1898,
Judge Walter Clark, made certain charges
that were extensively circulated in news
papers of that time rejecting upon Trim
ity College and upon the character OF
this defendant, which charges if true
were damaging to said college and rem
dercd this defendant unfit to fill the po-
stion as president thereof.
5. The said charges were investigated
by the said Board of Trustees of said
college as they were in duty to the
church and the college, and this defend
ant, bound ITO do on the both and 31st
of August, 1888. Upon the said investiga-
tion the plaintiff 7. J. Gattis was wit
ness offered by the prosecution and testi-
fled against this defendant in relating tc
one or more of said charges
g. This defendant, after the conclusion
of the evidence addressed said Board oil
Trustees upon the said charges and upon
the evidence relating thereto as he had
the right and privilege in law to do
The pamphlet report of said proceedings
referred to in the complaint and hereto
attached and prayed to be taken as a
part of this answer, contains true re-
port of the evidence and of what this de-
PENDANT said in his address to said Board
as this defendant is informed and be-
leycs without addition or comment
Z. And this defendant says upon infor-
nation and belief, that each and every
charge against plaintiff in his said speech
as published in said pamphlet was anC
is true in substance and effect in that
G) Plaintiff was as this defendant is in
formed and believes, the original Sian.
ueTcT Oh JnlS ueIenQdnL, III JndG ne IdiSe-
ly stated of and concerning this defend
ant that this defendant had the reputa
tion in South Carlina of a wire-puller.
CD That having been the recipient O
kindness, assistance and beneficial goot
will from this defendant and having eX
pressed for defendant high regard anC
affection, plaintiff without cause, behint
the back of this defendant uttered Thu
false charge against this defendant il
relation to this defendants reputation
in South Carolina, that made necessar.
in part the investigation of August g
and 81 1898; and the said plaintiff pre-
tending to testify with great reluctance
refused to answer some questions sub
mitted to him, declared that he could no
answer others that this defendant be
lieves he could answer, and attempted t
be witty and sarcastic on the witnes
stand at the expense of this defendant
all of which appears in plaintiffs evi
dence as shown in said pamphlet
(3) That plaintiff did permit GOSSIP
and unseemly talk to be carried on il
his store at Durham.
(4.) That plaintiff did say to Dr. Drei
Peacock in substance as defendant is in
formed and believes, that it was wortl