DISMISSED TRAM CONDUCTOR.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1304, 6 December 1911, Page 6

DISMISSED TRAM CONDUCTOR.

HIS APPEAL UPHELD. Before the Tramway Appeal Board yesterday, the appeal of a city trainwaycar conductor against his dismissal from tho corporation service on the ground that, on November 9 last he hod altered the number of his way bill was upheld. Dr. A. W. Jl'Artkur, S.M., presided, the assessors being, for (lie corporation, Mr. J. E. Palmer (Towu Clerk), and, for the union, Mr. 1). Dalton (president of tho Tramwaymen's Union). Counsel for tho appellant was Mr. T. Young, nnd for the Tramways Department, Mr. J. O'Shea (cily solicitor).

The facts of the case, as stated in evidence, were to tho effect that on November 0 last, Inspector Fuller boarded the appellant's ear (an Maud Bay-Lanib-ton Station car), and on examining the tickets of tho pa&ungors uoticed what be considered to bo a discrepancy between the number of one. of the tickets, 95,027, and the starling number of tho ticketblock, D5,1!2j. 'Uliis latter number, it was alleged, had been altered in tho waybill In read, !)S,OiM. According to the ticket inspector, (hi number 05,021 actunlly belonged to the series for tho previous, run from Laiubtnn Station to Island Bny. The contention of the appellant, who slated that be bad hhd eleven years' experience, was that the discrepancy, which was ndniittod, must hnve been due' to a "jump" in the number series on the ticket-block. There had been no alteration in the way-bill.

The board, nftor an examination of the way-bill, announced that, in its opinion, there had been no alteration in the figures. Expert evidence was colled, two sets of conflicting opinions being tendered—one, that there had been no alteration; tho other, that the disturbance of the prain of the paper pointed to an alteration. The president (Dr. M'Arthur) observed that the board did not attach any weight to the evidence of tho exports, and adhered to its previous opinion. After hearing further evidence, the board gave judgment to the effect that the appeal must bo upheld, as the ori(lenco was not sufficient to sustain tho charge that had been made.