The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1901-05-31
TEXT OF THE DECISION.


The decision was rendered by Justice
Montgomery and is as follows:
North Carolina Supreme Court; Feb
ruary Term, 1901. No. 1S6 Granville.
t. j. Gattis VS.. j. c. Kilgo, et al,
Appellant.
Winston and Fuller, Royster and
Hobgood and r. T.. Hicks for appellant
Boone Bryant and Biggs, Guthrie and
Guthrie Hicks and Minor, A. w. Gra-
ham and S. M. Gattis for appellee.
Montgomery j. The publication of
the pamphlet that contained the speech
of the defendant Kilgo, which publish
ed speech is the foundation of the plain
tiff's cause of action, was the result OF
an investigation held by the Board of
Trustees of Trinity College, of which
body the defendant, Duke and Odell,
were members, of certain charges Oh
incompctenGy and moral fitness against
the president of the college, the de.
fendant Kilgo. There was also included
in these charges a statement to the eff
feet that the spirit of commercialism
in it's lowest and most dangerous form
was being introduced into the student
life, notwithstanding the claim of the
school for patronage that the founda-
tion and development OF Christian char
acter was one of its chief aims. The
charges were made by one of the most
distinguished and influential citizens of
the State. accomplished in nearly every
department of learning, and himself
Cne of the board of trustees of the in
stitution; and they were published far
and wide, originally in newspaper
printed in Raleigh, and probably read
by more people than any other paper
circulated in the State. Investigation
of the charges was right of the de-
fendant Kilgo as they affected his per-
sonal and professional character; it was
a matter of necessity SO far as the fu-
ture of the college was concerned.
Without an investigation and refuta-
tion of the charges, or the prompt re-
moval of the president and the sinister
influences which were alleged to be at
work in the college, if the charges
should be found true, the institution
would necessarily suffer in it's reputa-
tion with consequent decrease in its
patronage.
Whether or not the speech of the
defendant Kilgo, published by The de-
PENDANTS in pamphlet form and embod-
led with the whole of the proceedings
in the matter. of the investigation, was
a privileged communication, was a
question of law, there having been no
dispute or uncertainty as to the cir
cumstances attending the publication.
and His Honor properly tried the case
as one of qualified privilege. The col
Iege was in one sense a public insti-
tuition. It's patronage was from several
States. especially from North and South
Es~~.,A TO-,
therefore one of general concern.
(Folkard's Starkie on Slander and |
Libel, 223.)
In vindication of the personal charac- |
ter of the defendant, Kilgo, he had the
right to publish fair and honest ac-
count of the acts done in the course of |
the investigation, provided the publica-
tion was free from malice, and on this !
point His Honor, in response to a |
special prayer of the defendants coun- |
sci. used the following words: "Tha, |
if the jury believed from the evidence |
that the defendant Kilgo had been sub |
ject to criticism and adverse comments |
and attacks in the press (from another |
than the plaintiff), and he bona fide be- |
lieved that the publication of the pro-
ceedingS before the board of trustees
was necessary in defence of his charac-
ter and standing and he published the |
speech as part of the proceedings in
order that the whole investigation
might be laid before the public that it |
might judge of the truth of the charges
against him, then the jury should an
swer the third issue Gas to malice) no,
as to said Kilgo instructed the jury, af
ter reading the prayer to them: "A
man first assailed in public prints has
a right to defend himself, and if facts
stated in prayer are true and publica-
tion was made by defendant KiIgo in
good faith and solely for reason given,
there would be no malice as to him,
and jury should by their verdict ex-
cuse defendant Kilgo ON third issue.