[
181
!
and of indifference to the interests of the District committed
to his care.
The charges are not confined to the question of communica-
tion. They are general. They embrace the plaintiff's duties
of every description.
The charge is that if the plaintiff had taken more
interest in his duties as a whole i,e, if he had not slacked
he would necessarily have taken more interest in that portion
of nis duties which related to the provision of communication.
The inference is that, if ne had, communications would have
been provided and the murder would not nave occurred, That
is the meaning which the Plaintiff attributed to the letter
and it is distinctly a meaning the paragraph, coupled with the
rest of the letter and particularly with paragraphe two and
three is capable of bearing i.e. that the plaintiff di splayed
a general neglect of the interests of his District officer's
duties and, if he had not done so the tragedy would not have
occurred. That is one innuendo conveyed by the letter.Even if
the charge is confined to neglect of duty generally without
the tragedy as the result it is serious enough, With the
tragedy as the result its gravity is doubled. The defendants
• au mot possibly justify the charge of neglect, apart from any
suggested consequences of neglect. To do so they must establish;
That the plaintiff neglected the duties of his office
(a)
as a whole and was, as a whole, indifferent to the
interests of his District, This they can mot po ssi bly
do, or
(b)
That it was part of his duty to see that communications
were established and that he neglected to do so.
The defendants cannot establish this either, and, if they
could, it would leave the charge of genoral neglect in other
respects unsubstanti ated,
-9-