RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD.

Evening Star, Issue 10052, 8 July 1896, Page 2

RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD.

THE WAIWEBA ACCIDENT.

In giving evidence laafc evening in the Waiwera collision case Mr T. Arthur (district traffic manager) produced the record book of the service, showing that the past conduct of Mr Coker, station-master at Clinton, was faultless. This concluding the evidence, Mr Hudson said the officers in the railway were extremely sorry for Mr Coker, against whose character there was nothing. The speaker had known him for a great number of years, and had the highest respect for him. The Chairman said that as far as Mr Coker’s past record went he thought they had had the highest evidence t hey could. Mr Hudson : There is no officer of greater integrity, or one who is more careful and attentive to his duties. 1 dcu’t think we have a better officer in the service.

The Chairman was quite prepared to accept the statement that Mr Coker’s past record was faultless.

Mr Hudson having mentioned that Mr Coker was one of the last men he expected to have made such a mistake,

The Chairman intimated that the Board would make their decision known to the Minister.

JOSEPH TANGNEY’S CASE,

At half-past ten this morning the Board resumed consideration of the case of Joseph Tangney. Cyril H. Biss, assistant manager at Invercargill, said he had under his charge the length of line on which the appellant was engaged. The state of the length was one of the most unsatisfactory in the district, due to the neglect on the part of the appellant.

The appellant said he would like to employ counsel on his behalf. Tne Chairman said it bad already been decided that, except under very exceptional circumstances, it was not necessary to engage counsel. To the appellant: There were other lengths of line in the district which were quite as hard to keep as was the appellant’s. The length south of Pukerau was a hard one. The Chairman : Have you any other questions, Mr Tangney ? The appellant: I have other questions, your Honor, but I cannot think of them. The appellant was allowed time to collect his thoughts, and in answer to farther questions by him the witness said that a man was taken off the length once while a drain was being lowered on another part of the line. It was not the case that other men were taken to work off the length. There were the average number of extra works on the length. To Mr Handisides: During the last twelve months there had been an unusual amount of new work done outside the appellant’s length. That would not tend to throw the appellant’s work behind, except daring February and March.

The Chairman said that the Board’s deci sion would be communicated to the Minis ter.

THE tVAIWEBA ACCIDENT.

Tiie Boaid then proceeded to further consider the case of the parties concerned in the Waiwera collision. It was decided to take up the appeal of —. Bray, clerk at Balclutha. The appellant said he wished to appeal against being dismissed for failing to supply a special circular to the guard and driver of the mixed train on the Bth April, that circular being to the effect that the mixed train and the excursion train would cross at Waiwera. Mr Day, the station-master, was oil duty on account of illness, and witness bad his ordinary wo: k to do, also the stationmaster’s duty, and in addition he had to prepare the accounts for the auditor, who was expected. When the auditor arrived appellant assisted him, being anxious to have a good report, and at the proper time he forgot to give a copy of the circular to the guard and the driver. The fact was that he had too much to do. To the Chairman: He considered that it was the duty of the guard and driver to have found out at the station whether tljere was anything affecting their train. To Mr Haudisidea : He had. been in the service for six years, two years of which time he had spent at Balclutha.

The Chairman remarked that there was not a word in the records against Mr Bray’s previous character. The Board will report their decision to the Minister. «

The next case taken was that of Guard A. Hughes (of the mixed train). The appellant stated that he did not exacts understand why he had been dismissed. Ha knew there was a special train running front Edendale to Clinton on the Bth April, but he had not been informed in any way that t)iat train was to pass Clinton. The only circular he received stated that “on Wednesday, Bth April, a special passenger train would run from Clinton to Edendale and back,” giving the times of arrival and departure at the intermediate stations. Having received only the one circular, he had no means of knowing that any train was going to pass Clinton. Before leaving Waiwera for Clinton he consulted with the driver as to whether he had received a circular, and as the driver had no notice they proceeded on their way, and a mile and a-nall south of Waiwera the collision occurred. The appellant went to the driver of the excursion train, and asked him what right he bad to be on that portion of the road, and the driver replied by producing the circular authorising him to run between Dunedin and Clinton. That was the first that witness had seen of a circular of the kind.

Thomas Arthur, district traffic manager at Dunedin, gave evidence as to the issue of a citcular from the Dunedin office respecting the running of the special train. Witneaa considered that the station-master at Clinton should have supplied the appellant with the circular giving instructions about the running of the special. The Chairman said the only question for the appellant to meet was as to whether he paid sufficient attention to the safety of his train, seeing that he had not received any circular. No doubt there had been grave default on the part of the station-master at Clinton and the locum tenem at Balclutha as to the issue of the circular.

After the luncheon hour the appellant called S. T. Whitcombe, traffic manager at Invercargill. The witness said he considered that the appellant should have received instructions at Clinton respecting the running of the special train. P. A. Duncan, station-master at Gore, also gave evidence.

The Chairman said that the Board 5 s decision would be communicated to the Ministep of Railways.

The fourth man concerned in the collision (Driver Wingham,. of the mixed train) was then called into thp room. The appellant in question said he appealed against the decision to dismiss him because be was net the cause of the collision. The cause of the mishap was that he was not properly advised of the running of the excursion train. He knew that that train was on the line between Clinton and Edendale, but be did not know at what time it was coming back, and having received no circular on the matter he concluded that the special would not interfere with his train until he got to Clinton. His train was due at Clinton at 7.15 p.tn., and the special was due there at 620 p.m. Witness thought that the special would stop at Clinton in the interval to allow the passengers to have refreshment. 'William Wynn, first class fireman and acting driver, gave evidence that drivers of special trains were in the habit of receiving their instructions at Clinton. It was a very rare thing to receive them at Gore. Alexander M‘Kenzie, locomotive foreman, gave evidence as to the appellant’s character. He said that while the appellant had been under him he had always borne a very good character, and had the reputation of being a carefnl and satisfactory man. ■ In answer to a question from Ur Hudson, the witness said that after the consultation had been held at Waiwera, when they had endeavored to communicate with Clinton, it was appellant’s duty under the circumstances to have either refused to leave the station, or, if he left, to be “piloted.” What he meant by “ piloting ” was that a competent person should have preceded the engine at least 600 yards ahead. By this means all risk of collision wonld have been avoided.

This was the last witness called by appellant, and in answer to His Honor Driver Wingham said he had no more to say except that he thought he had been harshly dealt with. He had a good record for twenty years in the service, and the fault occurred through not receiving the circular.

His Honor said the Board would take into consideration the fact that the stationmasters had failed in their duty by not handing circulars to appellant and the guard. The Board’s decision would be conveyed in due course to the Minister. This concluded the sitting, and before adjourning, upon the suggestion of Wr Baxter, the Board thanked the Press for their attendance.