CLAIM DISMISSED

Dominion, Volume 25, Issue 168, 12 April 1932, Page 10

CLAIM DISMISSED

Relief Worker Sues Mayor DAMAGES WANTED An Eastbourne Meeting Hearing of the case in which Percy Jackson Carlyle, a relief worker, claimed damages from S. F. Fisher, Mayor of Eastbourne, on the ground that he had been assaulted and struck when he went to attend a meeting of the Eastbourne Unemployment Committee, was concluded in the DJagistrate’s Court yesterday. Mr. E. Page, S.M., held that, in the circumstances disclosed by the evidence, the plaintiff had no right to attend the meeting, and that, if in forcing his way into the room, his hand was injured, he had no legal right for damages. The claim was dismissed. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of the alleged assault his hand and arm were injured, preventing him from attending to his business. He said he had suffered loss of work, pain, and indignity. He claimed £l/1/- medical expenses, £l/11/6 for the loss of one week’s wages, and £47/7/6 as general damages, together with the costs of the action. “Serving Two Masters.” Counsel for defendant, in denying the allegations, said that plaintiff had served on the committee until some time in January, when the Mayor came to the conclusion that, as the plaintiff had been elected chairman of a committee of men who had refused to work on the drainage scheme, unless paid the award rates of wages, he could not serve two masters. It was made clear to plaintiff that his retirement from the other committee, which had been set up by charitablyminded citizens to help the unemployed, ’was desired. Plaintiff had not taken the hint, and at one of the meetings the Mayor had called upon Constable Squire to remove him. On February 13 plaintiff again put in an appearance, and to test the matter the town clerk moved a resolution calling upon plaintiff to retire. The motion was declared carried on the casting vote of the chairman, Mr. Fisher, but plaintiff still refused to leave on the ground that he was not satisfied with the voting. The meeting was adjourned for a few minutes and continued after plaintiff had gone away.

On February 20, counsel for defendant continued, plaintiff went to the Council Chambers, where a meeting of the committee was being held. Mr. Fisher opened the door and asked him what he wanted. Some conversation took place and finally Mr. Fisher slammed the door in plaintiff’s face. Evidence would be given that plaintiff’s hand was not in the door, and that at no time did Mr. Fisher strike him. A complete denial would be given to the allegation of assault. Plaintiff in Box. Plaintiff, in evidence, said he had been on relief works since May of last year. In June or July last he was elected a member of a committee formed by relief workers. On the Mayor agreeing to give them representation on the Citizens’ Unemployment Committee he was appointed their delegate. He admitted that at one or two of the meetings he had been asked to retire. He had done so, thinking that the committee wished to discuss borough matters. He did not know why he had been asked to resign. When it appeared that a practice was being made to exclude him from the meetings he decided not to retire. Plaintiff said that when he arrived at the Council Chambers on February 20 he found the door locked. The Mayor opened it a little, saying: “You are not b well wanted, and you are not b well coming in.” The Mayor, he alleged, grabbed his hand and wrenched it, and then shot out his left hand and pushed him in the shoulder. Plaip.tiff said he had one foot on the steps and to stop from falling, when he was pushed, he put out his right hand. Mr. Fisher shut the door on his hand, injuring it. Mr. Fisher opened the door and when he (plaintiff) pulled his hand away he slammed it. Defendant Gives Evidence, Mr. Fisher, in evidence, said he admitted having slammed the door on plaintiff, but denied emphatically that ins hand was in the door or that he had assaulted him in any way. He denied having used bad language. The magistrate, in giving his decision, said: “The plaintiff has stated that he did not know why he was asked to resign. I think it must be quite apparent that tlie reason was obvious to anyone who attended the meetings. ... I take it that tlie present claim is perhaps not a real demand for this very large sum of money so much as something in the nature of a, test as to his right to attend the meetings. Although there was some bruising to the hand, received in some " way or other, the injury was relatively slight. . . There are two questions involved. The first is whether there was an assault committed by the defendant. . . The evidence leaves me in some doubt. “I think, however, the matter is decided on what I might call a higher ground—that is, the right of the plaintiff to force himself into the room. The committee was not a statutory one, but was composed of citizens called together by tlie Mayor, and I think, having regard to its nature and its constitution, if it can be said to have a constitution, that the permission given tlie plaintiff to attend could be withdrawn. The Mayor, in withdrawing permission, had tlie support of a majority -of the committee, excluding the plaintiff himself. “I think that in the circumstances disclosed by the evidence he had no right to attend these meetings, and that, permission having been withdrawn, lie was therefore not within his rights in endeavouring to force his way into the room. I think, therefore, Hie claim must fail.” Defendant was awarded costs.