COUNCIL’S PETROL

Greymouth Evening Star, 16 August 1933, Page 7

COUNCIL’S PETROL

PUBLIC MEETING COMMENTS LEAD TO SLANDER CLAIM [PER press association*.] WELLINGTON, August 15. Damages amounting to £3OO are claimed by C. L. Bishop, Town Clerk, at Eastbourne, from A. T. R. Duncan, a member of the Borough Council, in an action at the Magistrate’s Court. The allegation is that the defendant at a large public meeting, used words that, the plaintiff contends meant t'iiat the plaintiff had taken benzine, the property of the Council, in excess of the free allowance, and without paying for such excess, thereby committing theft as a servant. Mr. Haggard, counsel for plaintiff,

said that defendant was formerly an employee of the Council. Before the action was brought, plaintiff’s solicitors wrote to defendant demanding an apology for, and a withdrawal of statements. Defendant replied that he had never accused plaintiff of taking petrol, and consequently could not withdraw a statement that had never been made. In spite of defendant’s denial that he had any defamatory intent, he proceeded to search for evidence in support of the accusation. Following a meeting of the Council, defendant took steps to inspect the Council’s books, and finally expressed himself as satisfied that plaintiff had not taken any benzine over and above his allowance without paying for it.

Outlining the general grounds of de

fence, Mr. Leicester said the defendant, who was a candidate for the Eastbourne Borough Council election, and who headed the poll so far as the male candidates were concerned, was particularly concerned with the question of the administration of the Council’s bus service. It had been considered by four out of the nine Councillors that his dismissal was unwarranted, and that feature of the matter must form an element for consideration in the case. His defence was that his speech was directed throughout at what ho deemed to be maladministration of the service. The defence, so far as the words were concerned, was' that, the precise words mentioned in the statement of claim were not used by defendant, and that the language used could not be taken by any reasonable listener to raise the inference

that the plaintiff had stolen any petrol. There was never any suggestion, nor had there been, that what ever petrol plaintiff obtained was not charged up to him in the ordinary way. It would also be pleaded that defendant was addressing a meeting of ratepayers, that defendant was an elector, and was entitled to criticise the affairs of the Borough; and that anything he said on the occasion was privileged. Evidence along the lines of Mr. Haggard’s opening address was given by tho plaintiff. Cross-examined by Mr. Leicester,

the plaintiff stated that the defendant’s address was more in the nature of an attack upon the then Mayor and himself rather than criticism of Borough affairs. •

Witness: It was more personal. Did he refer to the fact that some persons had been prosecuted for stealing benzine from the garage?— Yes.

Did he say that if drivers neglected to bank up petrol, no one was the wiser? —'Yes.

Did he attribute this state of affairs to want of supervision?—Possibly. Did he go on to say that the Council had"from time to time supplied the garage with pounds and pounds worth of tools, and that the tools were mostly stolen, lost or strayed?—No. Did he go on to say that he had occasion to complain during his term of office as an Inspector that Councillor Wise had authorised repairs effected at the garage?—He said he had complained to the office about various matters, and I took no notice of him. Did he not say that if he were elected he would put a stop to the practice of supplying people with Council petrol? —No. Did he refer to the Mayor’s car being in the garage for attention at various periods?—No. Don’t you remember him saying: “This sort of thing has got to cease, and I want to tell you that, if the Mayor places his car in the garage tomorrow, it would be blown out, and he will be blown out with it?” —I don’t remember that. Witness said that any petrol that he booked up would be booked up in a perfectly open manner. At some periods he would be owing the Council for two or three months’ petrol. The Council was always safeguarded. Alfred William Press, managing director of Thompson Bros., Ltd., tesfified to whht he heard at the meeting. “Do I take it,” said the Magistrate after hearing the evidence, “that the impression made on your mind was that the defendant suggested the plaintoff was getting benzine dishonestly, and cloaking it by faking the bus running sheets?” Witness: That was the impression on my mind.

The case for the plaintiff had not been completed when the Court adjourned until to-morrow morning.