The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1901-04-28
WHO WILL PAY THAT
$4,000 VERDICT.
DR.. KiIgo's Attorney Says
the Conference.
TRINITY COLLEGE WILL
a Curious Shifting of the Fight From
Gattis to Clark.
PRETTY LIVELY WORDS ON BOTH SIDES
appeal Argued and Now The Court is up Against
Proposition For a New Trial and lis
Decision is Awaited With
Interest.


Argument before the Supreme court
in the Catfish ilgo SANDER suit was
concluded yesterday at | o'clock. Mr..
]. Crawford Biggs spoke first, conclud-
ing his argument for Gattis commenced
on Friday afternoon. He was followed
by Gen. B. S. Royster for Kilgo; then
Judge A. W. Graham and Mr.. A. A.
Hicks fer Gattis Judge r. w. Win
ston crossed for KiIgo.
In one respect, at least, the argu-
ment was most remarkable. Gattls was
almost entirely lost sight or in speeches.
for the defendants, and attorneys on
that side devoted much Of their time
and attention to attacks on Judge clark,
who had a controversy With DR.. kllgo
in 1898. and out of which controversy
the suit of Mr.. Gattis originated. rms,
however, was but in keeping with the
brief they had filed IN which, as point
ed out on yesterday. Judge Clark IS
sneered at as that champion OF the
people, and charged with stirring up
class bitterness and hate This is all
intended, some folks appear to think,
to influence those members of the court
who feel unkindly toward Judge Clark
because of his testimony in the recent
impeachment trial. In keeping with
this impression, Mr.. WiGston, in his
speech. which by the way was scath-
ingly bitter and sarcastic, referred 10
the Clark ilgo controversy as the time
when Dr. Kilgo was on trial for nigh
crimes and misdemeanors.
In course of his remarks Mr.. Bi@gs
presented strongly the following points
in regard to the publication of thS
pamphlet complained of by Mr.. Gattis:
There was a controversy, he said be-
tween Judge Clark and Or. Kilgo. It's
trial was the occasion of kilgo's assault
upon Gattis, but the merits of that con.
troversy have nothing whatever to dc
with this case Judge Clark neither
made Kilgo use false and malicious
statements about Gattis nor did he cause
the other defendants to publish them.
That is the subject matter of this litiga-
ton.
But it is said it was necessary tG
make the publication to defend Dr.
I{ilgo from Judge Clark's speech If
that be granted it was not necessary
for Kilgo to make, or the other defend
ants 10 publish. that part of the speech
which made, as the jury find, false and
malicious statements as to Gattis
The question here is whether Judge
Hoke committed any errors of law in
the trial below The attack upon Judge
Clark in the brief does not throw light
en- that There must be some other
motive.
Kilgo's speech which is the subject Of
the action and is in the record is an
cxculpation of Judge Clark, putting the
blame on Gattis as the original slam
derer and hypocrite and saying he de-
coived and misled Judge Clark. This
action is by Gattis for the false and
malicious attack thus made on him. The
attacks made on Judge Clark by de-
PENDANTS through their counsel, below
and here, are counter to kilgo's speech
and therefore the-defendants are thus,
through. their counsel, admitting the
falsity and malice of the attack upon
Gattis. They put no evidence on the
stand to prove the charges against
Gattis to be true and their policy now
in saddling the blame of the original
controversy on Judge Clark is an ex
press admission of the falsity and
malice of <ilgos having charged it on
C.attis.
The order by defendants to publish
was passed four days before Judge
Clark's speech was printed and there
fore it could not have caused the pub
LEGATION of the charges against Gattis.
The defendants pamphlet was print
ed weeks afterwards. The defendants
had time to think. They should have
left out the part assailing Gattis. They
were not compelled to print it because
so ordered by the board. To print and
distribute that part assailing Gattis
was reckless and wanton disregard Of
his rights and therefore malice. Up
church VS.. Robertson, 127 N. c., 127.
Concluding, Mr.. Biggs referred to thar
remarkable brief on the other side"
and read the masterpiece with which
1t closes. AS he did so. Mr.. Winston,
VINO is charged with its authorship, set
his glasses astride his nose and nodded
continually in smiling approval, as fol-
lows:
These defendants have done no
wrong. your honors. INod.1 A COM
bination of circumstances-in part of
local prejudice, [Nodl in part of ami
mostly against wealthy men, Vigorous
nodl two only of twenty of the board
OF trustees have been sued A nod and
smilel-and in part, the greater part,
we fear. Of class bitterness and hate
suggested by the skillful, adroit and
popular papers Of Judge Clark, with
which Exhibit B abounds, IA numbo.
Of mods in quick successionl have re-
suited in verdict of $4,000, a sum
large enough to wreck the fortune of
the average man and to blight his
character. "a nod so vigorous that his
glasses fell off, Can such verdict
stand in a temple of justice? { A short
rod.l We, proud to be humble minis
tiers in that temple, in the name OF
eternal justice, INodl whose laws WI
love. fNod] do solemly pray your hon.
CTS to say and declare that wrong has
been done to the defendants, and that
you, who only can, will correct tbs
same" A nod and smile intended
for the whole courtl
This appeal, Mr.. Biggs characterize-
as the most remarkable production II