CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22035, 18 August 1933, Page 10

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

ACTION BY TOWN CLERK ALLEGED SLANDER BY COUNCILLOR. (Pee United Fresh Association.) WELLINGTON, August 1?. The hearing was continued to-day of the case 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 for the plaintiff concerning statements which the defendant was alleged to have 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 did not hesitate to express his opinion or perform an act if he thought it was in the interests of the people whom he desired to serve. The defendant believed that the administration of a certain department was faulty and that it was an abuse of a system that plaintiff should b e able to purchase petrol through the council for less than he could purchase it elsewhere. _ The defendant made no direct, allegation of theft and had not used words which would support any such allegation. Counsel applied lor a nonsuit on the ground 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 _of 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 the bus department. He was satisfied that Bishop had been completely honest in his benzine transactions. He had not charged him with dishonesty. Leonard Charles Roffe, 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?—Yes, 1 was told to take a sack of papers down to the Cobar to be burnt. Mr Leicester: After the auditor had been and before he returned?—Yes. Who gave you the instructions —Mr Fly, a clerk in the office. Is he a relation of Bishop?—l Have heard he is.

Were some of these papers running sheets?—l could not say definitely what was in the bag. Did you see some running sheets under a desk at the time of the first visit?— Yes.

After further evidence on behalf of the defendant had been given the case was adjourned until Monday.