CUT SHORT.

Auckland Star, Volume LVI, Issue 290, 8 December 1925, Page 15

CUT SHORT.

TRAMWAY APPEAL CASE. A JUSTIFIED DISMISSAL. NO EVIDENCE OF ESPIONAGE? The appeal of the tramway conductor, William Frederick Trembath, against ]ii 3 dismissal from the service of the Auckland City Tramways, on the ground of having knowingly allowed a passenger to travel two sections on a single section ticket, and having failed to_ promptly collect fares, was dismissed by the Tramway Appeal Board yesterday afternoon without the respondents being called on to present their case. Messrs. E. C. Cutten, S.M., (chairman), A Thompson, and J. Liddell constituted the Appeal Board, and after lunch the appellant was submitted to a keen cross-examination by Mr. Stanton for the City Council. Trembath stated that before October 17, the date on which a passenger named Cluett was challenged on the°second section oi the route from the Dominion Road terminus to Symonds Street by an inspector, and admitted having used only a one-section concession he had often noticed Cluett on the car over that route, mostly on the front platform. It was about a month previously that he had noticed this passenger, and generally did not see him until after Valley Road section was passed. He had seen Cluett sometimes at the terminus, but did not think it remarkable that ,£e should present a onesection card after the Valley Road stop was passed. It was quite likely that a man who boarded the car at the terminus would not be noticed by witness, as con--ductor, until after the first stop had been passed. Cluett had always paid with a one-section ticket, and since he had admitted always travelling from the terminus, he must have been habitually evading payment for . one section. It was untrue that Cluett made a practice of talking to witness and the motorman before getting on the front platform at the terminus. --, The Witness Explains. Closely cross-examined about the number of people on the car when it reached View Road, where the inspector hoarded it in the second section, ■witness declared there was the full Bitting complement of 52, in addition to 3 or 4 on the platform at the front, and 7 or 8 standing in the front compartment where he was. Inspector Richardson was wrong when he said the number in the car was 59. When it was pointed out to .witness that he made the number just about the same as the inspector had, he stated that he thought counsel had referred to Valley Road, and amended his estimate to about 67. To a suggestion that there had been ample time to collect all the fares before Valley Road stop was reached, witness made no reply. The time allowed him on the occasion, he said, was from 3 to 31 minutes, seeing that the car was running a minute late. The reason why he did not make this explanation at the inquiry by Mr. Forde (tramways manager) was that his case was then in the hands of Mr. Liddell, secretary of his union, who acted as he thought best. Corin Henry Bolter, who lived next to Cluett in William Street, said he often travelled in the same car. On this occasion he was on the car, and his fare I was not collected until after the first! section was passed; he- -presented - a i three-section ticket, the only one he had.' He noticed the inspector get on the car, : and go to the front platform and speak j to Cluett without looking at the tickets of the other people in the witness' part of the tram. . Wm. H. Evans, who was motorman on this tram, was emphatic; that the conductor had "no chance in the world" of collecting all the fares in the tram before they got to the first section. Just the day before this incident he had mentioned the matter to Inspector Richard- , son, who admitted it was, unfair to expect the conductor to get through, estimating that there were 130 "people on the car at Valley Road that day. On October 17 there were not so many, but they still had a heavy load. Witness emphatically denied that neither he nor Trembath had more than the usual nodding acquaintance with Cluett that onegot with a regular.- passenger. The Particular Passenger. H. J. Cluett, the passenger in the case, *aid he knew neither' Trembath nor Evans by name, and never more than passed the time of day with them. After the incident with the inspector, Trembath a few days later asked him to put that statement in writing, and he did so, and ' even when writing the statement at his '■. lodgings he did not know Trembath's j name, referring to him as-"the 1 con- i ductor.'f He had been travelling over the route for about twelve months, he said. I In cross-examination, he said he usually paid a cash fare, and sometimes he had had a two-section concession card, but I he did not make a practice of getting"" cards. He had also, used one-section j cards, but -did not make a practice of ; .using them for two sections, his act on ; this occasion being just a bit of folly j on his part. On many mornings the car j was past the first section before the con- | ductor reached him. He travelled mostly j on the front or the rear platform, in j order to get easily off the car at Symonds j Street, where he had to catch a car for j Newmarket. He could not say why the { conductor should accept a one-section I card and snip it when witness regularly j travelled two sections. On this occasion ! ne had only a one-section card. ■< } -^ r - Stanton: The inspectors state that your concession cards had the peculiarity of having nearly as many inspectors' punches in them as conductors' snips. Does that not suggest that your cards were snipped only when the conductor saw an inspector get on the car? — I often paid cash. . If the inspector says you never produced a cash fare?—l have sometimes. You know Inspector Richardson ?—Yes. j Have you known him go through the j car previously and check your fare ?—No; j A can't remember. I He will tell us he checked'your fare on [ six or seven occasions, and each time j it was a one-section card.—That is not correct. Conductor Boatman, who was on the I iront of tbe car from the terminus to •' go on duty, gave evidence, estimating the I Tm 1 w° n the car at Vie > v Road about I +w •* admitte d in cross-examination tnat if Conductor Trembath placed the number at about 67 he was the more nicely to be correct. ■ Ur -•Sullivan said he would, rest'his I case there, but would reserve the right W call two experts in rebuttal should it ; oe necessary. j Magistrate's Strong Remarks. Mr. Cutten, S.M: Two of us absolutely refuse to hear any more evidence. We camiot possibly allow the appeal in this Mr. Sullivan: I wish to be allowed to ? i\ a statement - I have been retained " "y the Union, and there is a strong

feeling amongst the members of the Union that a system of pimping is going on at the present time. I am instructed Mr. Cutten: There was nothing in what has come before us to justify that. Mr. Sullivan: The evidence itself contains so many contradictions. Mr. Cutten: I have sat on the Bench for a great many years, and I would not believe one word Trembath or Cluett said. There, you have it. It is quite useless Mr. Sullivan. Nothing you can say will change our decision. .Mr. Sullivan: As your Worship pleases; seeing you. don't wish to hear anything further, t can't do anything more. ' ° Mr. Cutten: We have heard all you have to say. Mr. Sullivan: I was going to call an expert to say it is impossible to check all the fares within that section. There is evidence that it is impossible. Mr. Cutten: On his own evidence, apart from anything else, the appellant shows he is absolutely inefficient. He had been there at least twelve months travelling with this man, and according to his own statement he had never collected any but one-section fares. He was not the man for an employer to have there. Mr. Sullivan: This conductor was there only every alternative week. The other conductor is in court to swear that the. man paid his ordinary fare every alternative week, when he was on. Mr. Cutten: So much the worse for Trembath. On his own admission he was inefficient. If you bring the other man to swear that this passenger paid him the ordinary fare it suggests that the matter with Trembath -was one of arrangement. His dismisal was absolutely justified. .Mr. Stanton: I don't want it to go out that there is the slightest truth about any system of espionage or victimisation. . - Mr. Cutten: There is no justification in the evidence before us of any such statement.