The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-11-10
AlIusion to Tonnoffski
Privileged and Made
NO PROBABLE CAUSE
Acted From Sense of Duty. Rule as to
Members Tending to Bring Order
Into RidicuIe and Contempt.
Expelled For Misappro-
priation of Funds.

The answer of the defendant in the
case of George L. Tonnoffski, Deputy
Clerk of Federal Court. VS.. Eugene P.
A,bea. of Winston, was filed yesterday
afternoon in Wake Superior Court by
his attorneys, Messrs. Busbee and
Busbec.
1t will be remembered that the ac-
ticn is one for damages for Islander
growing out of the expulsion of the
plaintiff Tonnoffski from the Grand
Encampment of Odd Fellows a num-
Der of years ago on charge of mis-
appropriation of funds of the order
of which he was at the time Treasurer.
Mr. Tonnffski it will be recalled.
stated that he had left his home for
his office with about $500 of the or
der's money in a pocket of his coat.
on his arrival at his destination, he
found in the pocket nothing but a
hole. He promised to refund the
money to the Order and made one or
two Partial payments, but was at
leagth expelled on a charge of misap
propriating the funds, the encamp
ment inclining to view with mixed
emotions the story of the pocket and
tho hole
In his suit against Mr.. Albea, the
complaint i'm which has hitherto been
published, Mr.. Tonnoffski alleges that
the defendant stated that he was a de-
faulter from the Grand Encampment
and that he would not be admitted
to the sessions of the Grand Lodge.
In the answer filed yesterday the de-
PENDANT denies using the words at
tributed to him, stating that what he
said was in effect that Mr.. Tonnoffski
had been expelled from the encamp
nent on a charge of incorporation
OF funds, and that he ought not TO b
admitted to the Grand Lodge until
that body had taken vote uTOn the
question of his qualifications as a
member; that neither the actual words
used nor those alleged in the com
plaint are actionable: that they We're
uttered and published upon probable
c,.use, without malice, and that even
if they were in themselves slanderous
and malicious, they would stlll not
support an action as they were spoken
to members of the Order on business
ri the organization ana were therefore
privileged communications.
Summary of the Answer.
The answer, admitting paragraphs
/ and of the complaint, denies the
allegations of paragraph 5, thereof,
except in so far as is set out in the
second ground of defense, and denies
the allegations of paragraphs 4 and 5
OF tho COMPLAINT
In his second ground of defense the
defendant says that as 20 the allega-
tons of paragraph of the complaint
charging that the defendant uttered
and published of the plaintiff the fol-
lowing false, slanderous and malici-
Gus words: George Tonnoffski had
been elected representative to the
Grand Lodge of the Independent Order
Of Odd Fellows sby Manteo Lodge.
l. o. o. F.. but that as such represen-
tative he. the said George L. Ton
noffslIi, is not entitled to q seat in this
grand body, and would not be admit
ted to its sessions. the use of the
words set forth in the complaint is
denied what he did say being: THAT
said George l.. Tonnoffski having been
expelled by the Grand Encampment of
North Carolina uDon charge of hav-
ing embeZZled or misapproprlated its
funds said Tonnoffski should and
ought not to be admitted to a seat in
the Grand Lodge of North Carolina
until the Grand Lodge had taken ac-
ton by a vote, either approving or
disappearing the said action of the
said Grand Encampment."
The defendant further says that
neither the words ALLEGED nor those
1ctus1lly published and uttered as
above set forth are slanderous. de-
f1matoIy or actionab!e, since at the
time he uttered and published ne
words the plaintiff was a member of
the Order of Odd Fellows in good
standing and il was his duty and his
right to vote and pass on in the
Grand Lodge toe matter of the plain
tih's expulsion by the Grand En-
campment and his consequent stand
ing and relation TO the Grand Lodge
said question being then under dis
cussion by number of the members
of the said Grand Lodge and it hav-
ing been discussed and passed upon
in some of its phases at the next
previous session of the Grand Lodge;
and that it was at the time the inten
ton of some of the members of the
Grand Lodge to prefer charges and
try the plaintiff in the Grand Lodge
on the same charges as had been pre-
ferred against him for embezzlement