RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 534, 15 June 1909, Page 7

RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD.

(bt teleobatk—peess ab3ooUtion.) ' ■ • .'. r Dunodin, June 14. v The Railway Appeal Board (District Judge Haselden sitting as president) held a lenglhy sitting to-day, lasting from 10 a.m. until 10 p.m. Two of the cases heard were- the outcome of a Departmental inquiry into tho alleged running of trains at excessive epeeda on tne Otago Central line. ■■■'■;.. A driver (H. M'oodhead), who had been ieduced fireman grade No. X, at Us. 6u..pe'r.day; for throe mouths, and . Guard W. Wenn, whosepay had also been reduced, both appealed against tho decision of the; 1 Department. Counsel for the appellant driver stated tnnt it was a matter of impossibility on "some parts of the section to run trains according to time-table limits.. in both cases were reserved. :■ .■■. *. . The third case taken was an appeal by Guard J. A. Shiels against the infliction of a fine of £5 for negligence in connection with the breaking away of two loaded trucks from tho Now Cavorsham Tunnel works'. ■ The trucks brok«j away with the brakes off, and wore not stoppeduntil they reached Dunodin Station yard. Appellant claimed 'that there was no negligence on his part. J. Graham Campbell, tablet porter, on whose part negligence had also been alleged .in connection with the eamo oceurrenoo,innot having, the stop blook on the branch lino locked, nnd who was fined £5, also appealed, on tho ground that ho had not been given an opportunity of defending liimeelf, but had been suspended and fined on admissions made by him at the inquiry into tffo breaking away of the trucks. r In both instances decisions w«ro rosorved. Robert Millar appealed against his dismissal from the position' of labourer in the Hillside workshops. Tho ground of tho . Department's action was general inefficiency. Lengthy evidence was taken, and decision wae again reserved, Edward Isaac Kcyes lodged an appeal oh tho grounds that he had been unjustly suporseded by other porters in the matter of promotion. Tho Department's enso was that he had not shown dno capacity for tho position oft shiiiitor iwhen in that position at Ihl. olutha. Eridenoe tendered for the" Department by stationmasters under whom appellant bad prtviously served as shunter, wd fhe opinion expressed by them was that ho wae not physically equal to the work. Ap- i pelloirt protested that he was quite capable of doing tho work, but tho board hold that, under the ciroumstancee, it could not soo its way to interfere with appellant's "position, ' . . \