AN ELECTION SUIT.

Evening Star, Issue 22447, 18 September 1936, Page 1

AN ELECTION SUIT.

FARTHING DAMAGES A jury in the King’s Bench Division recently awarded Mr Walter Richard Owen, J.P., a member of the L.C.C., one farthing damages for slander. The words complained of were said to have been uttered in a question put to him during a General Election meeting at West Lewisham, said the ‘ Daily Tele* graph.’ Mr Owen claimed damages from Mr William A. J. Thorp, alleged that Mr Thorp had used words imputing that Mr Owen had been guilty of dishonesty while he was clerk to the old Lewisham Board of - Guardians. The defence was a denial that the words complained of were spoken, or • that they bore the meaning alleged. Mr Justice Talbot, summing up, recalled that Mr Owen was speaking from a political platform in favour of the Socialist candidate, and that Mr Thorp held different views. The accusation said to have been made against Mr Owen was that, while holding the resonsible position of clerk to the Lewisham Guardians, he falsified their accounts. Dealing with the • suggestion that, when Mr Thorp was speaking, there was so much noise that he could not be heard properly, Mr. Justice Talbot said that Mr Owen’s evidence was that there was “utter aid complete silence.” HOW TO SECURE ATTENTION. “ You may know - from your personal experience,” he continued, that if a personal accusation comes in, however stormy the proceedings may he, there is very likely to be an utter and comi pletc silence. “ Very often it is a device of publio speakers—clergy among others—if there is a good deal of coughing and inattention on the part of _ the audience, to begin saying something which has a personal bearing. The result is that, almost immediately, you get a complete silence, in the hope, perhaps, that some ' scandal is coming.” According to Mr Thorp, the words he used at the meeting were: “Will Mr Owen state his own record while I clerk to the Board of Guardians, and I whether there was not a Ministry of Health inquiry into the falsification of the books.” “ If that is all he said,” observed the Judge, “ it does not amount to an accuI sation of a criminal offence, and, if I you are satisfied that it is proved that i he did not say anything beyond that, I it is your duty to find a verdict for Mr Thorp. “ At the same time, the request was made in what is ordinarily called a I ‘ nasty way,’ and more particularly 1 when it is realised that Mr, Thorp ' knew, or had the means of knowing, that the result of the inquiry had been, a complete absolution or Mr Owen so far as any dishonesty or impropriety/ was concerned.” Mr Justice Talbot, entering judgment, said he thought Mr Owen wa« entitled to costs.