THE DISMISSED ENGINEDRIVER.

Evening Star, Issue 8407, 7 January 1891, Page 2

THE DISMISSED ENGINEDRIVER.

The Wellington correspondent of the ' Lyttelton Timet ’ supplies the following fuller information upon a matter to which brief reference hat been made in oar telegtams : On inquiry to day into the case of the Manawatu Company's engine-driver, dismissed for a breach of the regulations the other day, I find the facts to be as follow : On a holiday, not long ago, a special was taking a number of excursionists to a flag station of the line picknickicg bent. Not far from Paikakariki the train came to a stop. Heads were thrust hurriedly out of windows, and questions would have been asked if there had been need ; but the appearance of an engine with an empty train coming down the line (a single one) told everybody plainly what was the matter. The excursion train backed to Paikakariki and shunted, while the unwelcome comet following got shunted out of the way in full view of all the excursionists, who made the comments that might naturally be expected. The inquiry 'which took place in due course elicited that the driver of the empty train had left Wellington with the excursionists, under order to return with one of the regot&r trains, which -was to stop at his station. He was to come ont of bis siding and couple on behind. When the regular train got down, and was standing alongside the platform, the driver of the excursion could not get out of his siding, the points being locked. When he found a guard with a key, and got out, the regular train had gone on, the guard afterwards explaining that he had not observed whether the excursion bad been or not been coupled. The driver of. the excursion train imagined that it was his doty to go on, though he had failed to couple to the regular tram, started down the line and met the other excursion special coming np as stated. Now the rales, of which every driver has a copy, provide that no driver shall start without orders from his guard, and without the proper signal. The officials of the company argned that as there was no guard to give the signal, the driver, who having failed (through no fault of his own) to couple on to the regular down train, ought at once to have returned to his siding to stay in safety until some one in authority, who knew the traffic managements, could have given him farther orders. The driver argued, I understand, that the crossing order he held in connection with the other

train overrode the regulations, which, he farther considered, conld not be applied on single lines. The officials, thinking that a dangerous error in judgment on the driver’s part, disrated him to the position of fireman for one month. He appealed to the directors, who, on consideration of the facts, censored the officials and dismissed the man from the service.