EASTBOURNE CASE

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 48, 25 August 1933, Page 8

EASTBOURNE CASE

UNFOUNDED CHARGE

EXPRESS MALICE PROVED

CLERK AWARDED £200

Holding that the defendant had been actuated by express malice and had used an election meeting to vent Jus personal spite against the plaintiff by making an unfounded charge, of theft against him, Mr. E. Page, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court today, awarded £.200 damages to C. L. Bishop, Town Clerk of Eastbourne, who recently brought an action against A. T. K. Duncan, a member of the Eastbourne Borough Council, claiming £.300 damages for alleged slander. "On the facts," said Mr. Page, in the courso of his judgment, "I find in favour of the plaintiffs In my; view it is established that at tli.o public meeting on May 2, 1933, called in connection with his candidature for the Eastbourne Borough. Council, the defendant spoke substantially the words alleged in tlie statement of claim. WORDS CLEARLY DEFAMATORY. "That these words arc defamatory is clear. The obvious- implication conveyed by them is that the plaintiff had been dishonestly obtaining benzine from the council garage without paying for it, and had been, covering such, action by a manipulation of the running sheets —in other words, that he had been committing theft of the property of his employers, tho Eastbourne Borough Council. "It is contended on behalf of the defendant that the occasion was one of qualified privilege. . . . The defendant's public meeting was attended by a large number of people, many of whom were doubtless neither ratepayers nor electors of the borough, and in my view the occasion was not a privileged one. Assuming, however, that it were held to •be privileged, such privilege would be destroyed by proof of express malice. EVIDENCE OF ILL-WILL. "There ia here- ample evidence of illwill against the plaintiff on. the part of the defendant. His belief that his reduction in status from traffic manager to traffic inspector occurred after the plaintiff took office; Ms feeling against the Mayor and the plaintiff regarding his suspension in July, 1931; the complaint which he thereupon made to. the Audit Department regarding the plaintiff; the letter which subsequent to his dismissal some twelve months latex he wrote to the Audit Department regarding the plaintiff; his letter of September 20, 1932, addressed to the Mayor complaining that the latter and the plaintiff had 'conspired to victimise' him, and expressing Iris 'desire for one hour's freedom of speech at a council meeting with the Press present'; and, finally, the nature of his language at this public meeting, all bear witness to a feeling of ill-will and hostility against the plaintiff. . "In my opinion, in making the statements the defendant was actuated by express malice against the- plaintiff, and if the occasion were held to be a privileged one, the privilege was destroyed. A SERIOUS ALLEGATION. "A further ground, taken by counsel for tho defendant is that the matter complained, of was fair comment about a public officer. I am unable so to regard it. It professes to be statements of fact rathe/ than comment, but on any view of it I am unable to hold that such allegations amount tot fair comment. For these reasons I think the plaintiff is entitled to a verdict. "To a man holding a public position of trust as Town Clerk ana'treasurer to a borough, an allegation that he wag stealing the property of his employers cannot be regarded! as other than a serious one. I think that the defendant took advantage of the opportunity presented by this public meeting to vent his personal spite against the plaintiff by making this unfounded charge." ... . The-Magistrate awarded £200 damages, and said that the plaintiff was entitled to the costs of the proceedmAt the hearing, Mr. D. B. Hoggai-a appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. WE. Leicester for the defendant.