EASTBOURNE TOWN CLERK

Evening Star, Issue 21493, 18 August 1933, Page 12

EASTBOURNE TOWN CLERK

SLANDER SUIT AGAINST COUNCILLOR [Peu United I’kess Association.] 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 Irony 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 tor the defendant. said that Duncan had been engaged in municipal ‘affairs tor more than twenty years. He was a man who did not hesitate to express ins opinion or perform an act if he thought it was in the interests of the people whom lie desired to serve. The defendant believed that‘the administration of a certain department was faulty, and that it wr? an abuse of a system that plaintiff’ should be able to purchase petrol through the council for loss .than he could purchase it elsewhere. The.defendant made no direct allegation ol theft, and had not used words which would support any such allegation. Counsel applied for a nonsuit on the "round 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 ot Eastbourne, giving evidence, said the impression she had gained at the meeting was that Duncan wanted to stop plaintiff receiving petrol supplies at the council’s garage. She did not receive the impression that the defendant charged plaintiff with the theft of petrol. General looseness of the system was the thing referred to. The defendant said that the main portion of his address had been directed to maladministration of the county council’s services generally, particularly tho bus department. Ho was satisfied that Bishop had been completely honest in his benzine transactions, lie had not charged him with dishonesty. Leonard Charles Rolle, clerk in the office of,tho Eastbourne Borough Council, said he remembered the Government audit inspector visiting the office. The latter had gone away before the audit was completed, and had returned again. Mr Leicester: Did you receive instructions concerning some papers?— Yes, 1 was told to take a sack ot papers'down to the Cobar to be burnt. Mr Leicester: After the auditor had been and before he returned ?—T os. Who gave you the instructions'. Mi Flv. a clerk in the office. Is he a relation of Bishop ?—1 have heard be is. Were some of these papers running sheets?—! could not say definitely what was in the hag. . Did vou see some running sheets under ii desk at the time of the first visit? —Yes. , , ~ r -\fter further evidence on bolinlt ol the defendant had been given the case was adjourned until Monday.