SLANDER ALLEGED

Press, Volume LXIX, Issue 20937, 18 August 1933, Page 6

SLANDER ALLEGED

— CLAIM BY EASTBOURNE TOWN CLERK (PAESS ASSOCIATION TELZGEAII.) WELLINGTON, August 17. The hearing was continued to-day of the case in which C. L. Bishop, town clerk of Eastbourne, claimed £3OO damages for alleged slander from A. T. R. Duncan, a member of the Eastbourne Borough Council. Further evidence was given for the plaintiff concerning statements which the defendant was alleged to have made at a public meeting. Mr Leicester, counsel for the defendant, said Duncan had been engaged in municipal affairs for more than 20 years. He was a man who would, not hesitate to express an opinion or perform an act if he thought it was in the interests of the people whom he desired to serve. Defendant believed the administration of a certain department was faulty, and that it was an abuse of the system that the plaintiff should be able to purchase petrol through the council for less than he could purchase it elsewhere. The defendant made no direct allegation of theft, and had not used words which would support any such allegation. Counsel applied for a non-suit on the ground that the remarks of the defendant were fair comment and that the words used enjoyed qualified privilege. . . . The Magistrate reserved his decision on this point. Margaret Magill, Deputy-Mayor of Eastbourne, giving evidence, said the impression she gained at the meeting was that Duncan wanted to stop the plaintiff from receiving petrol supplies at the council garage. She did not receive the impression that the defendant charged the plaintiff with theft of petrol. The general looseness of the system was the thing to which he referred.

Defendant in the box said the main portion of his address had been directed to maladministration of services generally, particularly the bus department. He was satisfied that Bishop had been completely honest in his benzine transactions. He had not charged 1 him with dishonesty. Leonard Charles Roffe, a clerk in the office of the Eastbourne Borough Council, said he remembered a Government audit inspector visiting the office. The inspector had gone away before the audit was completed, and had returned again. Mr Leicester: Did you receive instructions concerning some papers? Witness: Yes. I was told to take a sack of papers down to be burnt. Mr Leicester: After the auditor had been and' before he returned?

Witness: Yes. Who gave you the instructions? —Mr Fly, a clerk in the office. Is he a relation to Bishop?—l have heard that he is. Were some of these papers running sheets?—l could not say definitely. What was in the bag? Did you see some running sheets under the desk at the time of the first visit?— Yes. Were they there at the time of the' second visit of the auditor?— No. After further evidence on behalf of the defendant had been given, the case was adjourned until Monday.