The news & observer., 1905-06-14

cross examination. Go and show
whether in your trial you did not
have prosecutor who was a violent
Kilgo partisan, whether you didn't
have a jollification with a barbecue
afterwards. 1t is not we who are try
ing to keep back evidence. .
A Pretty Wide Scope.
Judge Winston stated that the ar
gument had taken a pretty wide
scope.
pretty wide" said Mr.. Watson.
Started by the man who has just
jumped up"
This case has been heard twice be-
fore the Supreme Court
"And by two juries!" murmured
Mr.. Watson, from across the room.
Judge Winston, in response to a
question from the Court, stated that
if the Judges mind had reached the
point of considering the matters quail
fled privilege we will have nothing
further 10 sa-.::
Judge Moore remarked that he had
not yet come TO believe the publication
privileged.
The witness was asked whether he
had heard Mr.. Gattis's evidence He
had and it was published i'm the PAM
phlet Objection of plaintiff over
ruled. That he remembered the sub
stance of that evidence The question
as to what was the substance of Mr..
Gattis's testimony was objected to and
the objection was sustained. The sub
stance of that testimony was publish
ed in the pamphlet. Witness was
asked whether Mr.. Gattis refused to
answer question on cross examination.
Objection of plaintiff sustained state
if Mr.. GattiS as q witness said he had
told Judge Clark
Col. Argo objected, saying that when
questions had been overruled by the
Court, it was not proper for counsel
by different methods to try to get the
benefit of the same before the jury
The jury retired
Defendants Questions Ovcrruled.
The questions We're then asked,
these relating to the evidence of Cat
tbs on cross-examination as to what he
had told Judge Clark, and as TO what
he had declined TO answer.
All the questions We're overruled.
Mr.. Douglass justified the questions as
tending to establish the truthfulness of
the alleged libel.
Did he not fail to answer ten or a
dozen question and as to whether he
did not say that Dr. Kilgo was not of
enough Importance for him (Gattis)
to talk about him.
Judge Winston read his questions
and there was objection by the plain
tiff on the ground that they were
asked from the pamphlet marked Ex-
hibit b, which was not evidence on the
ground that later he might use them
before the jury.
hut
Judge Winston said mo more book,
and it was nut down on the report
that counsel discontinued reference to
the book.
The witness was then asked whether
he took part in the publication for
malice; whether the Board of Trus-
tees were actuated by malice. These
questions were overruled.
The question was then asked what
was the purpose of the publication.
That, said Judge Moore, raised a
more serious question. He understood
that the defense was that the publica-
ton was made for the benefit of Trini-
ty College.
Mr.. Watson and Judge Winston
were heard and objection was sustain
ed
state whether Mr.. Duke took any
part in Investigation except to vote"
State whether DR.. Kilgo took any
part except to examine witnesses and
to speak i'm his own defense"
Objections to these questions were
sustained and the defendants except
ed.
state if the whole of DIR. Kilgo's
speech was published in the pamph-
let?"
yes" replied the witness
Now, we propose to read it and let
the witness identify it,
Objection
Judge Moore stated that he thought
all the witnesses could do would be
TO state whether the speech was in
cluded in the pamphlet. hut could not
get the publication in evidence with
out introducing the publication itself
as evidence.
Mr.. Ballard Saved by Objection.
Witness was asked to start at be-
ginning of the publication asked about
yesterday start at the beginning and
read to the jury.
Mr.. Ballard smiled a disconnected
grin and the court room smiled aloud.
Mr. Ballard was evidently relieved
when the question was over-ruled.
Witness was then asked to read the
speech of DIR. Kilgo-overruled.
State whether there was included in
the pamphlet everything which oc-
Cured at the investigation. The wit
ness answered in the affirmative over
the objection of plaintiff. He also
stated that it contained no change,
alteration or emendation.
As TO Door i'm Merritt's Face.
On redirect examination witness
was asked whether the pamphlet con-
tanned any reference TO the locking of
the doors in the face of Mr.. Merritt,
reporter for The News and Observer.
There was a storm of objections and
Judge Winston asked that the jury be
sent out.