The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-05-11

Judge Clark with the names OF thos
from whom testimony was taken II
South Carolina.
The testimony of DR.. Peacock
shows that four years ago this MI
Gattis (meaning Il. j. Gattis, the plain
tiff in this action) was telling that tn
South Carolina Conference was nearl!
/ w0rshipping the defendant, and tina
he was the pet of South Carolina, ye
(meaning r. j. Gattis, the plaintiff il
this action) goes to Judge Clark an(
| tells him just the contrary. Mr.. CAT
tbs (meaning. T. j. Gattis, the plain
tiff in this actiOn) talks so much tina
truth seems to have small opportunity
in his hands.
(Which one of this mans tales viii
you believe? Which one does he be
lieve? Is he worthy of your credence
Read his testimony, and mark hi
lodgings"
5. That the said defendants pub
| lished the following additional word!
found printed as foot note at the enc
of said pamphlet circulated by the de
| PENDANTS as aforesaid
"Was Mr.. Newsom, the official ste
rographer, sworn? 2"
"He was not, nor any of the wit
nesses present and testifying."
why was not this done?"
at was proposed by the board tC
|
under oath, and the chair ruled thai
| the implied oath in such an investiga-
| ton was just as strong, or even strong.
! er, than one administered by an Off
cial authorized to do So"
6. That by reason of the publishing
| and extensive circulation of the afore-
| said false and defamatOry words, here
| inbefore complained Of the plaintiff
! has been deeply Wronged and damag-
ed; suffered great distress of mind and
mental anguish and been seriously
| damaged in his reputation, calling and
| business, aforesaid, in the sum of one
hundred thousand dollars ($100, 600
Wherefore, plaintiff demands judg-
ment against the defendant for the
sum Of one hundred thousand dollars
l$100,000) and costs of this action.
Mr. Duke and Mr.. Odell the latter
not now being party, answer as fol-
lows:
Dr.. John c. KilgO'S Answer.
The answer of DR.. John c. Kflgo is
made separately and is as follows:
The separate answer of the defend
ant, John c. Kilgo to the complaint
of the plaintift alleges:
l. That ne denies the allegation in
section of the complaint as therein
stated.
2. He denies the allegation con-
tanned in section of the complaint,
and he denies that said words We're
published maliciousiy or with intent
charged in complaint. and AYERS the
truth, in relation to the matter there
in retired to, to be as follows and
not otherwise:
3. The defendant was. during the
year 1898 and for sometime prior
thereto and ever since then, Il minis
ter of the gospel and member Of the
North Carolina Conference of the
Methodist Episcopal Church, South,
in good standing and was then, and
for sometime before and ever since,
the president of Trinity College. an
institution of learning for the educa-
ton of youth under the control of
Board of Trustees elected Ey the
North Carolina and Western North
Carolina Conference of said church,
and the Alumni Association; this de-
PENDANT was elected to said position
by its Board of Trustees
4. In the summer of the year 1898
Judge Walter Clark made certain
charges that were extensively circu-
lated in newspapers of that time, re-
1ecting upon Trinity College and upon
the character Of this defendant which
charges, if true, We're damaging to
said college and rendered this defend
ant unfit to fill the position of presi-
dent thereof.
5. The said charges were investi-
gated by the said Board of Trustees
of said college, as they were in duty
to the church and the college. and
this defendant, bound to do, on the
30th and 31st of August, 1898. Upon
the said investigation the plaintiff,
T. j. Gattis. was a witness offered by
the prosecution, and testified against
this defendant in relation to one or
more of said charges.
6. This defendant, after the con-
clusion of the evidence, addressed
said Board of Trustees upon the said
charges and upon the evidence relat-
ing thereto, as he had the right and
privilege in law to do. The pamphlet
report of said proceedings, referred
to in the complaint and hereto at
tached and prayed to be taken as
part of this answer. contains true
report of the evidence and of what
this defendant said in his address to
said Board, as this defendant is in
formed and believes, without addition
or comment
Z. And this defendant says, upon
information and belief that each and
every charge against plaintiff in his
said speech, as published in said pam
phlet, was and is true, in substance
and effect, in that:
Cd Plaintiff was, as this defend
ant is informed and believes, the origi-
nal slanderer of this defendant, in
that he falsely stated of and concern
ing this defendant, that this defend
ant had the reputation in South Caro-
lima of Wire puller.
CD That, having been the recipient
of kindness, assistance and beneficial
good Will from this defendant, and
having expressed for defendant high
regard and affection, plaintiff with
out cause, behind the back of the de-
PENDANT, uttered the false charge
against this defendant in relation to
this defendants reputation in South
Carolina, that made necessary, in
part, the investigation of August 80
and 81, 1898; and the said plaintiff
pretending to testify with great re-
luctance. refused to answer some
questions submitted to him, declared