182
The responsibility for the policeof the District is in the
Captain Superintendent of Police and in the Police communica-
tions in the Director of Public Works and the Captain Superia-
tendent of Police, The plaintiff has no thing to do wi tu tue
Police or with the Policing of the District or with the Police
communications, If any neglect existed it would be either
neglect on the part of the Captain Superintendent of Police or
of the Director of Public Works or both. This is admitted by
the writer in the opening paragraph of the letter. A man
cannot neglect a duty he is under no obligation to perform,
The utmost extent to which the provision of communication could
be said to be a matter
f the plain ti ff's concern is that it
might conceivably be alleged to be part of his duties as
officer in charge of the District to make representations to
the Police or the Government on the matter. The resume of
what has taken place in respect of communications clearly
establimes that mortly after the plaintiff assumed his office
he knew that the whole question had been and was under the
consideration of the Government and what the decision of the
Government on the matter was. Further than this it could not
have been the duty of the plaintiff to go. He had no further
grounds to be put forward. The Governmen this Superiors,had
announced their deci siọn, It was not for him to reverse it
and there was no likelihood of his being able to persuade the
Government to reverse it if it had been his duty as it was not,
to make the attempt.
The libel, it is submitted, consists of allegations of
fact for which the only defence is justification, and justifi-
cation is impossible.
The defence which it is understood will be set up is not
"justification" but "fait comment". But it is submitted it is
not comment and, if it is, it is not fair. If it was comment
it ought to be clearly gathered that the writer was expressing
-10-