The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-06-15

lihood was concerned. Was not that
inability to get bread for his fami-
y, the most eXcruciating mental an
guish?
Judge Graham then took up the 131
y. G. Report in the Kilgo case and
the opinion by Montgomery, Judge,
saying that they did not propose to ask
any questions as TO specific amounts of
money lost or the names of customers
but what was the general effect on
the business. These things did not con-
stitute special damages as prohibited
by the Supreme Court
In response TO a question from the
Court as to how the jury could meas
ure the damages for such evidence,
Judge Graham replied that it would
not be necessary for him to show that
he suffered loss of any particular sum
of money, but merely that his sources
of revenue had been taken away and
that if malice was shown, the plaintiff
would be entitled TO punitive or COM
pensatory damages. Would 1t not be
competent in that light to show that
his business had been destroyed?
Judge Moore stated that it looked
to him as though the question was
competent except as in the light of
the Supreme Court opinion.
Mr.. Hicks said that every counsel
admitted that this was not an action
for special damages. But they go on
TO say we want to prove the injury to
the business. There can be only two
sorts OF damages-to the reputation
or to the profession. Special damages
could not be recovered except he
showed that the business had a rela-
ton to the public in a peculiar pro-
fession. He can say as to his ability
to make living under general dam
ages. When he goes into anything
else he runs up against special dam
age. Compensatory damages will COW
or everything and leave no guage to
a jury.
Colonel Argo quoted from Osborne
V. Leach to the effect that actual dam
ages are synonymous with compensa-
tory damages and with general dam
ages; that compensatory damages in
clude all other damages than punitive,
thus embracing not only special dam
ages as direct pecuniary loss, but in
jury to feelings, mental anguish or
damages to character or reputation.
Mr.. Hicks then read to the Court
portions of the exceptions taken by
the defendants at the former trial,
which he alleged were logically the
same as those taken in this trial.
Judge Graham replied to the effect
upon questions asked as to specific re-
suits to business of the plaintiff; what
was sought to be done here was to
show generally an injury to the bust
ness: the one case contemplated Spe-
cial, the other general damages
Judge Moore here stated that he felt
that he must hold that the evidence
was incompetent. but Judge Graham
asked that he might be permitted to
continue the argument and cite au-
thorities.
Mr.. Hicks here asked a rule of the
Court limiting the scope Of the argu-
ment but Judge Graham proceeded
at length quoting numerous authori-
ties
Judge Moore again announced his
decision to be against the admissible
ty of the evidence and the exceptions
were found substantially as follows:
Plaintiff proposed to introduce evil
dence of loss of business and injury
to profession. /. for the purpose of
showing general damages; 2. mental
anguish arising out of loss of bust
ness and inability TO make a living for
his family; 3. for the purpose of snow
ing aggravation of damages and to
lay foundation on which to base
punitive damages.
The testimony of Mr.. Gattis was
continued. He stated that DR.. Kilgo
never came into his store after his
testimony at the investigation before
the trustees for the purpose of trade
or otherwise. Mr.. II. n. Duke had
known him for twenty years. He had
opportunity to know his reputation
and character by reason of having
lived in the same town for seven years.
He had known him in a business way
as secretary of Main Street Sunday
school, which bought books from him
(there was objection to this testimony
and Judge Moore stated that il was
admitted only for the purpose of
showing the opportunity of the de-
PENDANT Duke to know the plaintiff
and his character). He stated, still
over objection, that Mr.. Duke
had every opportunity to know
the conduct of his store After
his testimony the business re-
lations of the defendant Duke
were discontinued. The relations of
plaintiff and defendant had been
friendly up to that time.
The question was asked whether all
the Trustees did not stop trading at
the store.
Mr. Watson stated that the question
was offered as tending to show malice.
Governor Aycock referred to the
testimony of the witness Ballard, say
ing that he would not object if the