SLANDER ACTION

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19571, 18 August 1933, Page 11

SLANDER ACTION

TOWN CLERK’S CLAIM FOR £3OO

HEARING UNFINISHED By Telegraph—Preaa Association WELLINGTON, Auguat 17. The hearing was continued of th: case In which C. L. Bishop, town clerk of Eastbourne, claimed £3OO damagefor alleged slander from A. T. R. Duncan, a member of the Eastbourne Borough Council. Further evidence was given for tht plaintiff concerning the statement which the defendant is 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 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 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. The 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 a qualified privilege. The 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 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 petrol. The general looseness of the system was the thing referred to. Defendant’s Evidence. Defendant, in evidence, said that the main portions of his address had been directed to the maladministration of services generally, particularly the bus department. He was satisfied that Bishop had been completely honest in his benzine transactions and he had not charged him with dishonesty. Leonard Charles Roffe, clerk in the office of the Eastbourne Borough Council, said that 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 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 relative of Bishop?—l have heard that 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 the desk at the time of the first visit?—Yes. After further evidence on behalf of defendant had been given, the case was adjourned until Monday.