The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-06-16

the introduction of the pamphlet on
Wednesday he went on 10 say that the
plaintiff was in the same condition as
before. that they were still under the
rule laid down by the Supreme Court.
He cited authorities bearing on
probable cause. referred to the large
vote by which DR. Kilgo was acquitted
and the preponderance of witnesses in
his favor. He then read portions of
the speech of DR.. Kilgo. contending
that the refusal of Mr.. Gattis TO testify
as TO whether he gave names u
Judge Clark, made it impossible for
him to draw any other inference az
cept that Mr.. Gattis was the original
sIanderer. The only case in which
damages can be recovered is where a
man goes out of the record. No man
ever stuck closer to the facts than Dr..
Kilgo. How did Gattis get into the
case? Why he met Judge Clark on
the train and in response to simple
question as TO what he knew about DR..
Kngo he picked up DR.. Kilgo like a
pike snapped up a roach.
If the case ever gets to jury, You
viii hear things said by every counsel
four thousand times worse than what
DR.. Kilgo said about MIR. Gattis.
Isn't it a pity he is less Of q
talker?"
Cant we all join in that sentiment.
Suppose he had never talked to Judge
Clark on the train?''
He said TO DR.. Peacock one Tina
that South Carolinians were worship
ping DR.. Kilgo again the opposite
(Which one OF his tales will you 1e-
lieve?"
THAT is what we are going to ask
the jury, if we have 10 go to the
jury"
He read Mr.. Gattis' testimony III
which he declined to answer. Hence
! DR.. Kilgo's use Of the words mark his
lodges" We're justified.
AS TO "stabbing in the dark" that
was metaphorical.
AS TO the statement as to DR.. ki.go
having heard gossip until decency de-
i manded that he keep out of such
place, Judge Winston contended that
the remark didn't mean that the Ian
guage was indecent. but merely that
there was talk of an uncharitable sort
which DR.. KilgO considered was of an
unchristian character.
Judge Winston cited other authori-
ties dealing with the question Of
malice. contending that the burden
was on the plaintiff to show it.
What is the controversy? One be-
I tween two great men. One on the
( Supreme Court bench; the other firmly
I fixed as President of Trinity College.
| What earthly motive could their have
been to injure Mr.. Gattis or to injure
/ Judge Clark? Judge Clark's letter. rs
caustic as the bill OF rights, the Decla-
/ ration of Independence almost as
strong as the Sermon on the Mount,
was every bit printed
( The former contentious were on the
| harshness OF the language. the extent
| of the publication. etc. as indicating
| malice That is all out Of the case,
cut out by the Supreme Court
He cited authorities to show that
! evidence of good character will not
| support a charge of want of probable
! cause.
The plaintiff has to overrule the Su-
! preme Court i'm order to get along. lie
! has been trying to do 50 for three days,
but your Honor has held the ship
steady. with the prov to the North
/ Pole
1t is no evidence of malice to know
/ a man. And there was no evidence II
| connect Messrs. Duke and Kilgo with
the publication i'm the Post There
| would not have been more than one
/ COPY to every twenty Methodists
| He read a New York case in which
/ % men were indicted for malice in
signing a petition. There is no evil
dence that Mr. Duke acted otherwise
! than as Il trustee casting MS vote
/ Judge Graham, replying for the
plaintiff. stated that the motion OF
! non-suit was no new incident i'm the
cause. 1t had been twice made be-
| fore Judges Hoke and Shaw.
| The brief of the defendants was
/ based almost entirely upon the same
arguments that were made by Judge
| Winston. Those arguments had been
put forth before both the Superior
and the Supreme courts and over
| ruled in each instance
The only two points which he would
raise would be as to falsity and malice
| of the publication.
Can il be contended that. Mr.. Gattis
was the first man who ever said that
! ]. G. Kilgo was a manipulation and a
wire puller? Can it be doubted after
| the testimony of Mr.. Cannon and
/ Judge Shuford that the statement that
Mr. Gattis was the original maligner
| is false?
Not only was the speech made be-
/ hind closed doors by a man afraid tC
! take the witness stand and submit to
la cross examination but he brought
| i'm a matter which had no bearing OF
| the case; he had spoken in self-glori-
CONTINUED on Page Four.)