TRAMWAY APPEAL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVII, Issue 18116, 5 June 1919, Page 7

TRAMWAY APPEAL.

OISE OP MOTORMAN SNOW. appeal upheld. The Tramway Appeal Board, consisting of Messrs S. E. M’Carthy, S.M., J. A. Prostick and 0. O’Donnell, continued yesterday. its hearing of the appeal by Ernest ,Snow, formerly employed as a motorman by the Christchurch Tramway Board, against his dismissal from the board’s service. Mr W. J: Hunter represented the appellant and Mr J. J. Dougall the board. The ad-' journment had been' made- in .consequence of the' Appeal Board ruling at tiro previous sitting that the respondents must prove the discieditabla conduct alleged against, appellant. The iollowing evidence was led:— Kathleen Snow, wife of the appellant, said that she had been married about six years. In August of last year she applied for a maintenance and separation order, alleging cruelty and drunkenness, and the order was granted. The reason for making the application was the appellant’s late hours, his using obscene language and his drunkenness. He used to come home at ahy time up till 4 a.m.—“ just to suit himself.” He was always sobor' when he came home from a night shift, but when he was on a day shift ho used to come home late and the worse for drink! One night he appeared without his collar, and said he had left it at the Workingmen’s Club. Rows used to ensue, aoid' ho used to hit her. She tried to hit him back, but always got the worst of it. This did not always occur. Sometimes he used to lie down and go to sleep. However, it was nothing for him to catch her by the throat. One morning he came home at three o’clock, and she accused him of keeping another woman’s company. As a result he treated her very badly, but admitted the truth of the accusation- She had seen him out with the woman since. Sometimes he used to give the excuse that he had been playing billiards at the tramway sheds. He frequently told her-that lie “ did not want her.” Once he cut her eye, and her next-door neighbour had to see to it. -Witness gave further evidence of appellant’s alleged improper conduct with another woman. When she accosted him while be was in company with this woman, continued witness, he told the woman to go ahead, as he would. ca-tch up. He then hit witness across the face and head, but said he would not draw blood for her “to show to the Court again.” This was after the hearing of the case between them at the Court. She would denv allegations bv appellant that, she consorted with undesirable people, and was frequently awav from home. She was never once absent at -a time when she should have provided meals for him

To Mr Hunt«r: She had been placed in the Mount Mngdaln Institution when she was about fifteen years of age. She was not nnt there because she was uncontrollable. but simplv to receive her schooling. She absconded because tho authorities would not allow her to write homo to her mother. She left the con rent school at TCumara when she was about ton years of age. After that sbe remained with ber (mother till she went to the Mount Mncrdala Institution. She was put in the Institution because she would not go to school- (Later witness said she was not sure about these dates.) Sho married when she was twenty-one years of nue. “ There was not a better man going ” than appellant “ until the=e last two years,” said the witness. He used to help her in household duties, and was been on gardening. She had called Snow a mongrel once or twice. She attended races, but not regularly. She did not dress extravagantly. She did not frequently drink in hotels. She never attended “ beer parties.”

Mr Bengali: What are thevP Mr Hunter: They call them " beg parties ” in some districts. Witness, continuing. said she had never been drunk. Her husband ha 1 been g tine? round since the commencement of the present case “ trying to buv pccrtle over.” Mr TVmo-ell ohieoted to questions ss to alle< v «rl misdemeenourc bv witness. Mr M’C«rthv ruled that they could be asked, but evidence in contradiction of statements bv witness in record to these matters eo"H not, be brought. Ernest Snow d°n'nd the allegations of improner conduct between himself and the “ other woman” mentioned.. His r. ife had continually accused him of being out with other wonaen. Sometimes he used to olnv billiards for an hour or two after he knocked off work at about midnight. He was not an habitual drunkard. He had once been reported bv an inspector for being in. the Masonic Hotel, but the inspector had not accused him of drinking there, His wife used to be frequently drunk, and rows used to ensue. Witness was out in the"" street “ all hours in the nizht to a&vo rows.” She used to make

improper assertibns concerning his parentage, and used to attend races contrary to liis express wishes. Further, she , undesirably consorted with other women.

Mr Dougall asked Mr M’Carthy whether evidence: as to alleged misconduct of Mrs Snow was proper. Mr M’Carthy ruled that witness could proceed with' his evidence. Witness made further allegations or improper conduct by his/ wife, but denied ill-treating her.* Once they went to a solicitor and had a deed of separation drawn up, but later she refused to si"n it. He had decided that for the sate of “ peace and quietness ” separation was necessary. Later the Court case between them came:on. ,He attended Court by himself, thinking that he had only to agree to an order for, maintenance and separation, but his wife' brought .certain evidence against him. Later Mrs Snow proceeded in the Court against him for increased maintennneo. At the hearing he denied evidence she cave about, bis allefod violent conduct towards her. To Mr Dougall: He was reported tithe inspector for bein' - / in the Masonic Hotel while in uniform about L Christmas twelve months.. ITo - had never struck'Mrs Snow. His wife swor, in the the Magistrate’s Court that she never touched drink, but had admitteu at the present hearing that sho haa drink occasionally. He sometimes went into hotels once a day, but he did not think his wife should do so. He diu not object to. her having drink, but did not like her having it’in hotels. She laid herself, open to insult by going into the hotels, and he felt responsible for her He had come to ilio conclusion that hia wife was unfaithful to him about two years ago, but had not taken proceedings because he had not substantial evidence. He had not refuted his wife’9 charges in Court at the first hearing, because for 11 peace and quietness” he thought it best to let the order be granted. He, however, denied the allegations against him. On the other occasions, when he and h. wife were before Court, he had been advised that it was not necessary to bring evidence regarding liis action He did not know, that girls had been taken past their stopping place on the Cashmere line up to the terminus. He had been in Manning's brewery with the watchman about twice at night, and had had a drink there. Appellant’s wife kept the house fairly clean generally. He admitted meeting a woman once or twice while he was, w’orkingon the Cashmere Hills line. Charles Leonard Finer, commercial traveller, employed by W. Best and Co., said that he had seen Mrs Snow decidedly under the influence of liquor. Mr Dougall objected to this evidence being taken.

Mr Hunter asked the Court to admit the unfortunate aspect of the ease, in that Mrs Snow was permitted to bring allegations against appellant, but appellant was not allowed to adequately defend himself.

After consultation, the board decided to allow Mr Hunter to proceed with his cross-examination.

Witness continued that he had seen Mrs Snow drunk on more than one occasion He, gave evidence of hearing a quarrel between Snow and his wife, and said he told Snow afterwards that ho had “ never heard a woman with such a vitriolic tongue in nil his life-” Snow used to “ take a glass, now and then,” but was not a drunkard. When Snow and his wife were in good temper, he never saw a pair that were more demonstrative in their love. Snow did not strike him as a cruel man. Witness was closely acquainted with Snow.

Hiram Hunter, secretary of the Christchurch Tramway Employees’ Union, said Snow had been a member of the union for some time, and had just concluded a term as president of the union. He had , had exceptional opportunities of observing Snow. Snow had been all that a man should be. Arthur Charles Leonard Brown, a tram conductor, said he had been for the last twelve months conductor on a car on which Snow was a motorman. He had never seen Snow under the influence of liquor. Snow was a sober and efficient workman. He had once seen Mrs Snow apparently under the influence of liquor. He did not know of Snow’s having gone to Manning’s brewery at nigiit. Mr Hunter said a tramway employee wished to give evidence of having been to Manning’s brewery at night, as he knew the watchman there- Apparently a mistake was being made, and Snow was receiving an undue amount of suspicion in regard to the matter. The board decided that the evidence was unnecessary.

Mr Dougall said that there were certain matter® in connection with the Cn=hmere Hills line which had come tinder the notice of the board, but Snow had not been censured therefor, and be would not press the matter now. Clause 12 of the tramway employees’ award did not applv in the present case. Clause 7 was the one that bad to be considered, because the .matter was taken up on the board’s initiative as the result- of reports.in newspapers. After the Snow ease in March the matter was brought up at the Tramway Board’s meeting, and it was decided

that it was best in the interests of th@ board to give Snow notice of dismissal. Snow appealed against the dismissal,but it was resolved that the appeal should not be sustained. Employers tiad a right to give notice of dismissal for no specific reason, provided proper notice was given, but under the award Snow had a right of appeal. If Snow’s statement that day were ..true, he was guilty of improper conduct in his case in the Magistrate’s Court, when lie consented to a maintenance order being, made. The board’s conductors and motoraen came constantly into contact with the public, and it was important that they should - be men of unobjectionable character. He submitted that if, when the board took evidence by Mrs Bates, Snow’s next-door neighbour, it was found to be in substance corresponding to her evidence ..n the Magistrate’s Court, then the board'had very grave' reason to doubt Snow’s fitness for the position which he had occupied under the board. Further, it also had reason to doubt his fitness if his dence was correct, and he had lived with his wife after believing her to be unfaithful. He submitted that Snow had given strong evidence that he was not such a man as should remain! IB the board’s service. . The notes of Mrs Bates’s evidence m the Snow case in the MagHtralterS Court were handed up to the Appeal Board, and Mr M’Cnrthv asked if counsel would agree to these being neceotea on them face value, seeing that it would otherwise be necessarv for the board to sit at Mrs Bates’s house, as she was unable to go out of doors. Mr Dougall agreed to the course suggested. , _:*• Mr Hunter pointed out that bnow was not represented by • counsel, 'ana Mrs Bates was not cross-examined at. the Magistrate’s Court hearing. However. if the board would bear that m mind be would raise ho objection to the notes being accepted as suggested. The board then retired to formulate its decision. •, Upon resuming, Air M Cartny said:“The board agrees in the fullestpossible manner to the determination 01 the Tramway Board to keep only men of irreproachable character in its employ. These men are placed in charge, of tramears which are sometimes lft remote localities, with women ana children as passengers, and it is. essential that motormen. and conductors should be men of irreproachable character. The board had to determine in this case whether appellant is a man of bad character. We had to consider tlie charges against appellant or drunkenness and orueltv to his wife. If we consider that these charges are sustained, then defendant should not bo retained in the Tramway Board’s employ. The onus of proof lies on the Tramway Board- It is true that at the Magistrate's Court Snow was judged guilty of habitual drunkenness and crueltv to bis wife, but Snow did rot seriously contest the case, and consented to the order, not admitting the charges of cruelty and drunkenness. . Mr M’Oarthy continued that the board, having heard the evidence from start to finish, had arrived at the eon-, elusion that the evidence adduced in Kupoort of the charges of cruelty and. drunkenness were inconclusive. However. had it been conclusive, the board could not toke cognisance of anything that took place at the first benringof the' Snow’case ’in the Mnjn«toate’s Court, as toe board had waived the matter and was now reiving on .the proceedings in toe second ''Magistrate’s Court case. In that case Snow’s conduct was not in issue. However, for wLnt took place in the Magistrate's Court apnallant was largelv resuortsibls The board’s decision, was tont The,appeal should be upheld, but that each party should nav its own costs. .!