RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD.

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 14344, 2 May 1912, Page 5

RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD.

!,,;. Tho Railway Appeal Board for tho ■ South Island continued its sittings yesi tftrday, tho members consistint-" of j Messrs W. li. Haseldcn, S.M. (chair- > man), nnil John Gray and P. Games. I The appeal of William James Cadman against his reduction in rank from , Kiuird 'to porter was continued. Mr Watson appeared for appellant, and Mr 1 -Davidson for tho defendant,. Further • evidence on behalf of appellant was adi duced by A. J. Skerten, John Lori- ! mer, and J. W. Jull. * i Davidson recalled Hugh Wylio, • j who gave evidence to show that-an obj servant; and experienced engine-driver was able to tell whether the air brakes were disconnected or not by observing I the.brake-valve exhaust. j T. Meacher, locomotive foreman, j said that .subsequent to tho occurreneo ho "made a trial trip under similar conId it ions to thoso. pfeviiilinjj; on DeceniI ber SGth.nnd found that "disconnection j of the brake hose'resulted in immediate j decrease of temperature. j Tlir? Board .reserved its decision. j GcSor-jO: Gillespie' ..-.p-xiatc- against his I tratiAforf-iroiT-f ,a;Uard~to sluiTiU'r. ife'luvv- ' I ing|hee?JY; ; ;'ihair'g<-d''' with-a- breneh'-oT i regulation 116. in that'll**, had failed i tit make a -proper report 'on his traiu , being'.iatp batwoen Kaiapoi and lit-n- ---! natts"; oh '-September 24th,' 1910. M> Cameron appeared, for appellant, and Mr Davidson for tho Department. M r Davidson said the reason why so much delay had licen caused in the appeal coming: before; the Board was that' Gillespie, not hayipg been -'-reduced iv rank or pay, could not come before the Appeal Board, and it was purely an act of grace on the part of the Minister that he'had now been able to bring his case before the : Board., He had been fined- Ms , and, transferred ■ from the position-of guard, to that of shunter. Mr. damca : on stated, that Mr Gray, one of the. members of.'tho Board, had had to :\yo'-k -up the case." He (Mi* Cameron) had applied for permission for a member of the North Island Board to sit in Christchurch,',- but that had been found impossible. It must bo very uncomfortable for Mr Gtray to hear the case. He asked tho Board to rule whether Mr Gray should adjudicate on the case or not.; The Board ruled that he should adjudicate. Mr Gray stated that though ho had had to collect evidence in connection with the case, it would not affect his decision in the slightest. He would treat the case quito impartially, and he intended to sit and impartially deal with tho case. Mr Davidson, in opening for the Department, said appellant had made a report as follows:—"Engine F24 broken down." Asked for a fuller report, he j saidsomethin'*; had gone wrong with the; engine,;and water had to be got from; ah adjoining creek to set it going again. The first report was not in accordance with tho regulations. As the result of investigations it had been ascertained that the driver of tho train was under the influence of liquor, that nothing was wrong with the engino at all, and that water had to be obtained from tho creek by means of buckets, appellant assisting, and that the en- ! gine driver had had an altercation with ! his fireman. The appeal of the driver had come'hefore the Board and been 1 dismissed. Mr Cameron held that appellant had J given truthful evidence at the enquiry, j and now he was to be penalised for the j acts of others. It was very hard toj tell whether a man was drunk or not. 1 Appellant reported a "weak-down on tho engine; it wa*> for tho driver txi ■report what had happened. Appellant had done all ho should have done. He had not obtained his old position again, and was irretrievably damned in the public service. .Mr Davidson said j there was 110 imputation whatever j against appellant of being under the in-, fhience of liquor. All ho was charged j with failing to do was in not furnishing ■ a proper report. Mr Cameron said lie! was willing to rely on tho whole of j tho evidence given at a previous en- j quiry, and not produce, fresh evidence. After some di***ussion as to whether j tho second report handed in by Gillespie j was sufficient, Mr Cameron said that ( the fact that the Department- had re- • funded to Gillespie tho amount of his expenses incurred through transfer, showed that they considered they had | been too severe with him in,.tho first! instanoe. He would call Gillespie to' l>rove that he had reported ail the facts which were within his own knowledge, and that his character should | therefore be cleared. Gillespie, F. A. Neale, S. M. Bennetts, and J. McNeely gave evidence in support of the fore- j going- , . . ' Ihe Board reserved its decision aud j then adjourned till 10.30 a-m. to-day,! in the Police Court. j