ALLEGED SLANDER

Southland Times, Issue 22097, 18 August 1933, Page 7

ALLEGED SLANDER

TOWN CLERK’S CLAIM. CASE FOR THE DEFENCE. (Per United Press Association.) Wellington, August 17. The hearing was continued 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 the statements which defendant alleged had been made at a public meeting. Mr W. E. Leicester, counsel for 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 to perform an act if he thought it in the interests of the people whom he desired to serve. . The defendant believed the administration of a certain department was faulty and that it was an abuse of a system that the 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 the defendant were fair comment and that the words used enjoyed qualified privThe Magistrate reserved his decision on this point. Margaret Magill, deputy-Mayor of Eastbourne, giving evidence, said that 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 the defendant charged the plaintiff with the theft of the petrol. The general looseness of the system was the thing referred to. The case is proceeding. Defendant in the box said the main portion of his address had been directed to maladministration of the services generally, particularly the bus department. He was satisfied Bishop had been completely honest in his 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? — Yes. I was told to take a sack of papers down to the cellar 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 related to Bishop?—l have heard he is. Were some of these papers running debts?—l could not say definitely what was in the bag. Did you see some running sheets under the desk at the time of the fiist visit?—Yes. Were 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 Mondav.