CLERK ALLEGES LIBEL

Taranaki Daily News, 16 August 1933, Page 9

CLERK ALLEGES LIBEL

COUNCILLOR THE DEFENDANT TROUBLE OVER PETROL SUPPLY. EASTBOURNE COUNCIL CASE. DENIAL OF ANY DEFAMATION. By Telegraph—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. 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 in the Magistrate’s Court. The allegation is that the defendant at a large public meeting used words .that the plaintiff contends meant that Bishop had taken benzine, the property of the council, in excess of his free allowance and without paying for such excess, thereby committing theft as a servant. Mr. Hoggard, counsel for Bishop, said that Duncan was formerly an employee of the council. Before the action was brought Bishop’s solicitors wrote to Duncan demanding an apology for and withdrawal of his statements. Duncan replied that he never accused Bishop of taking petrol and consequently could not withdraw a statement he had never made. In spite of Duncan’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 Duncan took steps to inspect the council’s 'books and finally expressed himself as satisfied that Bishop had not taken any benzine over and above his allowance without paying for it. »

Outlining the general grounds of the defence Mr. Leicester said Duncan, who was a candidate for the Eastbourne borough council election, and who headed the poll so far as male candidates were concerned, was particularly concerned with the question of administration of the council’s bus service. It had been considered by four 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 he 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 Duncan and that the language used could not be taken by any reasonable listener to raise the inference that Bishop had stolen the petrol. There was never any suggestion that whatever petrol Bishop obtained was not charged to him in the ordinary way. It would also be pleaded that Duncan was addressing a meeting of ratepayers, that he was an elector and entitled to criticise the affairs of the ■borough, and that anything he said on that occasion was privileged. PLAINTIFF QUESTIONED. Evidence along the lines of Mr. Hoggard’s opening address was given by Bishop. Cross-examined by Mr. Leicester he said Duncan’s address was more in the nature of an attack upon the then Mayor and himself than a criticism of borough affairs. Mr. Leicester: In the matter of administration? Witness: It was more personal. Mr. Leicester: Did he refer to the fact that some persons had been prosecuted for stealing benzine from the garage?— Yes. Did he say if the drivers neglected to book up petrol no-one .was any wiser?— Yes. ' ... ■ ■■' . Did he attribute this state of affairs to want of supervision?'7-iPqssjbly. : Did he go on to say the -council had from time to time supplied the garage with pounds and pounds worth of tools and that the tools had mostly been stolen, lost or. strayed?—N<x Did he go on to say < that die had Occasion to complain during hLs term of office as inspector that Councillor Wise had riot authorised repairs to be effected at', the garage?—He said he had complained to the office about variousmatters and I took no notice of him. Did he not say if he was 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 to-morrow it will be blown out, and he will be blown out with it?—l don’t remember that.

(Bishop said that any petrol he booked would be 'booked 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. Apred William Press, managing director of Thompson Bros. Ltd., testified as to what 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 plaintiff was getting benzine dishonestly and cloaking it by faking the bus running sheets?”.

Witness: That impression was in my mind.

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