The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-11-26
A REPLY TO JUDGE BROWN
Hon. A. w. Graham, One of the Attorneys for Mr..
Cattis. Writes Of Judge Browns Published
Statement.

sued Kilgo and two associate trustees
for publishing the pamphlet contain
ing the entire proceedings alleging
such publication was libellous and
made out of malice
l respectfully submit that. if the
Honorable Justice. himself, wishes to
be fair, he should have stated to the
public that plaintiff did originally sue
Kilgo for SANDER and libel and the
Supreme court held that the two
causes of action could not be joined
tsee 125 n. G. r., page 1889. And as
libel is the graver offence of the two
and the injury wrought by it is SO
much more extensive and permanent,
plaintiff elected to sue for libel And
the Honorable Justice should have
further told the public that Justice
Montgomery, whom he is so fond of
quoting had held in 12Sth n. c. Re-
port. page 41O. that the uttcrancc of
kiloO's speech was absolutely priv
ele%ed and no action would lie for IT,.
Another grave error into which the
Honorable Justice has fallen is when
he states that the pamphlet "con-
tanned everything against kilgo as
well as for him" Has he paid SO, little
attention to the case as not to know
that it does not contain many things
that occurred on that trial to show
contain the fact that, at Kilgo's direc-
ton, the door was slammed in the face
of F. L. Merritt, reporter of the News
and Observer. and held so as to pre-
vent him from coming into the room
where the trial was going on? Does
1t contain the fact that Judge Clark
asked the privilege of having a ste
nographer. and was denied, though
the only other Stenographer present
was Kilgo's private secretary, and he
not sworn? Does it state that Judge
Clark asked the privilege of speaking
and was denied unless he would agree
not to publish his speech? Now, Mr.
Justice, these are facts which plain
tiff was ready to prove, and offered
to prove. but was denied the right
and they and many others of a similar
nature arc not found in the pamphlet
and still you publish, over your hon
ored name, that the pamphlet con
tanned everything against Kilgo as
well as for him.
He says he became convinced that
it was the plain duty of the trustees
to publish the proceedings as the head
of their great UNCONVENTIONAL college
was on trial affecting his honor, in
tegrity and character as q preacher
But, Mr.. Justice. was it any body's
duty to publish that part of a speech
that was false and defamatory and in
furious to the reputation OF an hon
OIed minister OF the gospel who had
sat with them in conference for thirty
eight years. and for whose character
and picty they annually vOuched
And you are well aware that in the
famous case of Belknap VS.. Ball, IL
Lawyers Rep. An. p. 70, it is held
that, publications of faleshoods are
never privileged. No public interest
can be subserved by their publication
and circulation
He states that he does not hold
himself responsible to any man for
his opinion as a judge-he only de-
sires that a clear statement be made
of the legal proposition presented on
appeal. No one desires to hold him
responsible as a judge, and not one
word of this would have been written
if he had confined himself to his prov
ince as a judge, but when he enters
the public arena and attempts
through the press to justify opinions
based on false premises, he will not
fobject to those. who are familiar with
his mistakes. calling attention to them
1t is great pity, in his explanation
of his course, he should haye given to
the public statement SO full of ef-
rors. And many will say, that, if he
was no more familiar with the law
than he seems to be with the facts
of the case, they are not surprised al
his erroneous decision.
A. w GRAHAM
Oxford, N c., Nov, IS.