The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1903-04-25

AS in the Ledger, one of them critics.
ing thd. Supreme Court of the State for
granting new trial, calling it a "parti-
san court" and also spictly commenting
on the attitude of some ministers of the
Gospel toward organized capital, one on
Jury Reform" and all sorts of com
nents clipped from papers in different
parts of the State, favoring the plaintiff
in the suit. Then Ia reply to a CORE
spondent who had asked the cost of the
trial to the county and the inconvenience
it had caused to residents of the county
by causing other cases to be put off.
The editors reply contained a warm de-
tense of Mr.. Gattis.
Then "Joshuay's Vision" was read from
the local paper, amid inextinguishablc
laughter
Major Guthrie asked if Judge Winston
had written that piece.
Judge Winston: Surely the Major
does not think l could write anything as
good as that. don't know of anyone
except perhaps Nath Lunsford or Major
Guthrie who could write anything like
hat"
Nath Lunsford, who really did write it,
came in a little later.
Further on came a controversy on the
case between the Duran Recorder
I'D the Oxford Ledger.
Then two editorials, one of the 21st of
February. 1901. were read, which Judge
Winston said they regarded as the most
hurtful of all The February one con-
tanned reference TO the News and OBJ
server calling attention to the fact that
Ex-Governor Russell had been employed
by DR.. Kilgo to argue his case in the Su-
preme Court, and says in one place
''The Ex-Governor having but recently
appointed two of the judges to the posi-
tons they now hold, Mr.. Duke considers
HIM. it is said, sort of four eaved
clover that viii bring him good luck and
possibly save him part of that $4,000
Judgment rendered at Oxford
After Judge Winston had finished read
ng from the exhibit Judge A. w. Ora
ham read the counter affidavit of T j.
Gattis, as follows:
COUNTER AFFIDAVIT AGAINST RE-
NOVAL.
The plaintiff, T. ]. Gattis, in opposition
to the removal of this case from The
county of Granville for trial in another
county. and in reply to the affidavit of
John c. Kilgo, offered for removal being
duly sworn makes the following affidavit:
Affiant says that so far as he is in
formed and believes there are not prob
able grounds to believe that a fair and
impartial trial of this case cannot be
obtained in the county of Granville, and
t is noticeable. and the court should
consider that his co-defendant, B. n.
Duke does not join in the affidavit OF
said John c. KiIgo.
Affiant says tat he has been personally
present at each trial of this case in the
said county of Granville, and has been
close observer of the conduct of each
Of the three several trials in said county
two of which were upon issues submitted
to jury and resulted in atlantis favor.
and so far as affiant observed there was
nothing in the conduct of either trial of
which the defendants had or have any
just cause to complain
According to atlantis observation
there was very much less public interest
manifested at the last jury trial than at
the one which preceded it. At the last
jury trial the court room was not crowd
cd at any time. and at times during the
/ trial the audience in the court room
1windled to less than one fourth of the
capacity OF the court room, and some.
| times during the argument the audience
was much less than one-fOuTth the ca
pacity of the court room.
Afiant further says that while it is
true that at the first jury trial at which
verdict was rendered in favor of the
plaintiff for the sum of twenty thousand
dollars $500, 000) there was very consid-
cradle public interest manifested in the
trial on the part of the good people of
Oxford ad the court house was densely
crowded, but the crowd in attendance
was composed very largely of ladies and
scool boys and girls and a very large
array of witnesses on each side, many of
/ whom were non presidents of Granville
county, and the ladies and school boys
and girls were not competent to serve
as Jurors.
Affiant further says that It is a matter
/ Of record in this cause and stated by
te Hon. -, A. Eoke. the presiding judge
at the first jury trial Of this case. in
certifying over his SIGNATURE to the Sd
preme court the case on appeal, as fol-
/ lows page 7S: This trial was conducted
! throughout by attorneys for both parties
! upon a digniied and high plane and tire
conduct of the audience, in the opinion
of the court. was secmly and becoming.
At different times in the argument where
good point was made on either side,
the audience showed intelligent appre-
citation, but there was no unseemly
demonstration and nothing to indicate.
so far as the COURT could discern, that
there was any sympathy with one, more
! than the other Of the parties"
Affiant says il is true that the verdict
Of the jury at the last trial was rendered
about midnight when most Of the good
people of Oxford were asleep in their