SUNDER ALLEGED

Hokitika Guardian, 18 August 1933, Page 7

SUNDER ALLEGED

TOWN CLERK SUES COUNCILLOR

THE CASE For THE DEFENCE.

(Per Press Association—Copyright)

WELLINGTON, August 17

The hearing was continued in the case in which O. 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 hove made at a public meeting.

Mr Leicester, counsel for the defendant said that 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. The de.endanf 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 lie had not used words which would support any such allegation.'

Counsel applied for a 11011-suit on the ground that the remarks- of the defendant were fair comment,, and that tile words used enjoyed qualified privi* lege. The Magistrate reserved his decision on this point.

Margaret McGill, 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 de endant charged the plaintiff with the theft of petrol. The general looseness of the system was the. thing referred to. Defendant, in the box, said the main portion of his address liad been directed to the maladministration of services generally, particularly the Bus Depar'temnt. He was satisfied Bishop hacl been, completely ‘ honest in hi s benzine transactions. He had not charged him with dishonesty. : . . Leonard Charles Roffe, a clerk in the office of the. 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? Witness: Yes. I was told to take n sack of papers down to the cobar to be burnt. Mr Leicester: After the auditor had been and before he' returned?'—Yes.

Counsel: Wh'o" l ghvb i^bu, 'th'e liisti'tibtions? Mr Fly, a clerk in the office. Counsel: Is lie a relation of Bishop ? have heard he is.

Wore some of his papers running sheets? I could not say definitely What was in the bag. Did you see some running sheets under- a desk at tlm time of the first visit ? —Yo». Where they there at the time of the second visit of the auditor?—No. After further evidence on behalf of defendant had been given, the case was, adjourned until Monday.