The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1902-04-04
GATT|S-K|LGO CASE
Argument Before Supreme
Court Yesterday.
The Question Of Malice Was the Principal Issue,
Outside Of Grouping Of the Ex-
ceptions Taken.

Court yesterday morning. On WedneS-
day Gen. B. s. Royster had opened the
argument for the appellant. Dr.. Kilgo.
Mr.. A. A. Hicks, of Oxford, for the
| plaintiff. He was followed by Mr. T. r.
Hicks, of Henderson, for the defendant.
| Tehn came Judge A. w. Graham, of Ok
, ford, for the plaintiff, Hon. Cyrus B.
/ Watson, of Winston, in a short speech
| for Mr. Gattis, Mr. M. ]. Crawford, of
Durham, closed for the plaintiff, and
Judge r. w. Winston OF Durham. for the
/ defendant.
There was some discussion of the ex-
ceptions to the evidence, but the argu-
1 mnet on both sides was principally di-
| rected to the question of malice. The
defendants cOntended that there was not
| sufficient evidence of malice to justify
the submission of the case to a jury.
They contended that the defendants pub,
lished the proceedings, including the
/ speech, for the protection of the college,
and its president, who had been at
! tackled by Judge Clark and the court
! having held that the occasion was priv
| ilege, and the words of the speech were
not any evidence of malice in them
selves, that the plaintiff had failed to
| show any malice by intrinsic evidence,
| that the trustees had right to believe
and did believe that the charges made by
| Defendant Kilgo against the plaintiff
were true. The defendants claimed that
| not only were the defendants justified in
| believing that the charges were true,
| but they claimed that from the plaintiffs
| own testimony they were shown to be
| true, that the plaintiff was a hpocrite
| and maligner, and the original slanderer,
a hackbiter, and that his store was a
| place Of indecent gossip. They con-
tended that the evidence that the defen-
dant had stopped trading with the plain
| tiff and had stopped visiting his store
| avs no evidence of malice, and thtat the
plea of justification of Defendant Kilgo
was not competent as evidence of malice.
The plaintiffs argued that Judge Shaw
had tried the case below according to the
| former opinion in this case, and that no
error was committed by him, that not
only did Judge Shaw hold that the
speech made by Defendant Kilgo was
absolutely privileged, but he went further
than the Supreme Court in its former
opinion had gone and held that every
thing that transpired at that investga-
IIOI WIS dDSOluI6ly pIINlleSeu, anu
could not be considered by the jury as
evidence upon any of the issues in the
case
| The plaintiffs argued that there was
| abundant. evidence of malice. They ar
gued that the plea of justification put
upon the record and no evidence offered
| by Defendant Kjlgo to sustain this plea
was competent evidence to show the ami
Of ho of
that under the authorities anything that
a defendant does with reference to
plaintiff, either before or after the words
complained of may be considered on the
issue of malice. and the evidence that
the defendant had stopped trading with
) or visiting plaintiffs store was proper
| evidence 10 be considered by the jury
They argued that the jury were justified
III finding that the defendants were mad
at Judge Clark for his attack upon their
president and that they were angered
at the plaintiff because he was the prin-
cipal witness against the president, and
under the opinion of this court on the
former appeal this would be a malicious
act
The plaintiffs argued at length that
not only were the charges false found
by the jury. but that there is no reason
able ground for the defendants to be-
lieve said charges were true, that they
had the means at hand of which they
might have availed themselves and as
certained that the charges were not
true but they chose to remain in ignor-
ance and let the false charges be pub
lished TO the world, though they had
four weeks from the time the resolution
to bo of
peared in which to find out the truth;
that the Defendants Duke and Odell had
known the plaintiff a number of years,
had lived in the same town with him,
were members of the same denomina-
tion ard conference, were frequent vsi-
tors at his store, and traded there, that
his store was a prominent corner in the
city of Durham, and every opportunity
was available to know that the charge
that his store was a place of indecent
gossip was not true, that there was no
evidence before the Board of Visitors or
at the trial at Oxford that plaintiffs
store was a place of gossip, that De-
fendant Kilgo in his speech made this
serious charge without scntilla or
evidence to support it, that many wit
rosses living in Durham testified 1t was
false. and that the slightest investiga-
tion by the defendants who lived there
would have disclosed the utter ground
lessness of the charge, that there was
no foundation for the charge, that it was
the orignation of plaintiff; the report
that defendant had the reputation In
South Carolina OF being wire-puller'
that the first time the plaintin ever
made this statement was in 1898, that
Mr.. Ligon had testified before the
Beard of Trustees that this report was
, in circulation in South Carolina in 1898,
that Judge Shepard testified that that
was Dr. Kilgos reputation there IN
1894 and that other witnesses testified
to the same effect, that there was no
evident support of the charge made by
DR.. Kilgo that Mr.. Gattis was gossip.