OPPOSITION BUS

Evening Star, Issue 19320, 5 August 1926, Page 2

OPPOSITION BUS

QBABHYBAO APPEAL

[Special to the ‘St*b.’l

CHRISTCHURCH, August 4. Because ho rode in an opposition bus william Priest, until recently employed as a quarryman by the Christchurch Tramway Board, was dismissed from tho board’s service. He lodged an appeal for reinstatement before the Tramway Appeal Board to-day. _ Mr Widdowson, S.M., presided, Air J. J. Dougall appeared for the board, and Mr Charles for the appellant. _ Mr Dougall submitted at tho outset that tho Appeal Board was concerned solely with tramway work. The Tramway Board was empowered under the Christchurdh Tramways Act to run a quarry, but that was quite distinct from the tramways. Metal was cortaiiiiy used in tho construction of the tramway system, but it did not take metal to run. tho trams. Ho contended that the appeal was outside the jurisdiction of the Appeal Court. Mr Widdowson; What are the points 0 £ tllO CftSC Mr Charles: He was dismissed on the grounds of alleged disloyalty, in that ho rode in a private bus to Sumner instead of in a tram. Air Widdowson (smiling): That is a very serious offence. Mr Charles: It is, sir. (Laughter.) When, the appellant was dismissed from the board’s service, Air Charles said, ho was dismissed on that score, but the reason had been advanced that he had been dismissed because of unsuitability. Atr Widdowson: Ts he a member of tho. Laborers’ Union? Mr Charles; Yes.

Air Charles admitted-that the appellant had been entitled to one hour’s notice only. Mr Widdowson: Did ho got that notice?—Yes.

Afr Frank Thompson, general manager of tho Christchurch tramways, said tho qiiarrymon did not come under the tramways award. Tho case was adjourned sine die to' enable an investigation of the point raised by Air Dougall.