APPEAL DISMISSED.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVI, Issue 17267, 17 September 1919, Page 7

APPEAL DISMISSED.

TRAM CONDUCTOR'S CASE. " GUILTY OF CARELESSNESS." NO DISHONEST MOTIVES. Judgment in the case in which George Christoff appealed to the Auckland Tramways Appeal Board against his dismissal from employment as a tram conductor was delivered yesterday. Mr. A. Moody appealed for the appellant and Mr. Rogerson for the respondents, the Auckland Council. In giving judgment, Mr. E. C. Cutten, S.M., chairman of the board, said that the appellant had been dismissed for failing to issue tickets to passengers who had paid their fares and for allowing others to alight without taking their fares. ''The appellant does not deny that the two things occurred," said Mr. Cutten, " but says that he had no intention of not issuing tickets when paid, and that he had no opportunity for collecting the fares or the other passengers. He admits that he did not tear off certain tickets for which fares had been paid until approached by the traffic manager, some time after thu passengers had alighted. " Even if the appellant's conduct had been quite innocent," continued the chairman, " it was a gross breach of the regulations? the compliance with which is essential to the welfare of the whole tramway system. If such a breach were not corrected there would be no check on dishonesty. There were only 33 people on the car at the time, and if the conductor was unable to manage them he must be a failure with a full car. If Christoff had been a new hand trrts case might havo been overlooked, but it is difficult to come to any conclusion other than that he baa been guilty of very serious carelessness in. collecting fares. "The appellant had been at work for three years," continued Mr. Cutten, '' and had no marks against him, and I wish particularly to emphasise that there was i nothing in the evidence to prove that he had any dishonest intentions. But it is clear that be has been guilty of a very serious breach of the regulations and has displayed either grave carelessness or serious incapacity for bis work. I think his dismissal was justified, and for that reason, in my opinion, the appeal must be dismissed." Mr. W. J. Holdswor-h, representing the City Council on the board, concurred with the" chairman's view, but Mr. A. G. Barnes, for the Tramwaymen's Union, .said : "In view of Christofi's good character and of the absence of dishonest intent, I think he might have been punished in some way other than by dismissal."