SLANDER ACTION

Northern Advocate, 18 August 1933, Page 8

SLANDER ACTION

EASTBOURNE BOROUGH CASE DEFENCE OUTLINED. DISHONESTY NOT SUGGESTED. (Per Press Association. —Copyright.) WELLINGTON, This Day. The hearing was continued in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday of the ease 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 fry plaintiff concerning statements which defendant was alleged to have made at a public meeting. The allegation by plaintiff was that defendant, at a public meeting, used the words that meant that 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 :! servant.

Mr Leicester, counsel for defendant, said that defendant had been engaged in municipal affairs for more than twenty years. He was a man who did not hesitate to express an opinion or perform an act if he thought it in the interests of the people whom he desired to serve. Defendant believed that the administration of a certain department was faulty, and that it was an abuse of the system that plaintiff should be able to purchase petrol through the council for less than he could purchase it elsewhere. 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 defendant were fair comments and that the words used enjoyed qualified privilege. The magistrate reserved decision on this point.

General Evidence. Margaret Magill, Deputy Mayor .of Eastbourne, in evidence, said the impression she gained at the meeting was that Duncan wanted to stop plaintiff from receiving petrol supplies at the council garage. She did not receive the impression that defendant charged plaintiff with theft of the petrol. A general looseness of the system was the thing referred to. Defendant, in evidence, said the main portion of his address had been directed to the maladministration of services generally and particularly the bus department. He was satisfied that Bishop had been completely honest in his benzine transactions. Defendant had not charged him with dishonesty. Leonard Charles Roffe, clerk in the office of the Eastbourne Borough Council, said he remembered a Government audit inspector visiting the office. Th 3 auditor had gone away before the audit was completed and had returned again.

Mr Leicester: “Did you receive instructions concerning some papers?”— “Yes. I was told to take a stack of papers down to the Cobar to bo burned.” Mr Leicester: “After the auditor had been and before he returned?”— “Yes.” Counsel: “Were some of these papers running sheets?”—“l could not say de finitely what was in the bag,” Counsel: “Did you see some running sheets under a desk at the time of the first visit?”—“Yes.” Counsel: “Were they-there at flic time of the second visit of the auditor “No.” After further evidence on behalf of defendant the case was adjourned until Monday. \