TRAMWAY APPEAL

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22818, 27 August 1937, Page 15

TRAMWAY APPEAL

CONDUCTOR'S DISMISSAL CASE FOR APPELLANT "A PRINCIPLE INVOLVED" COURT RESERVES DECISION "An exceedingly important principle is involved in this case, affecting tho whole industry," said Mr. Sullivan yesterday, in opening for Reuben Roland Muller in his appeal against his dismissal by the Auckland Transport Hoard as a tramway conductor. Ticket irregularities and other derelictions of duty wero alleged against appellant, whose case was resumed before Messrs. Wvvern Wilson, S.M., J. A. C. Alltitn and J. 0. Liddell, sitting as a Court of .Appeal. Mr. Stanton was counsel for the board. Mr. Sullivan said that appellant and three independent witnesses would give evidence that there was 110 neglect or carelessness on the part of tho conductor on tho night of Juno 15, when the incident leading to appellant's dismissal occurred. It was impossible for any man to know definitely what passengers individually had paid or had not paid their fares. Sheer Inadvertence Urged It was the sheerest inadvertence that caused appellant to overlook collepting a faro, continued counsel, and it was asserted that tho young woman concerned had every opportunity for paying her faro long before she did. Tho conductor passed her three or four times, and when an inspector boarded the tram she appeared to be flustered. Giving evidence, appellant said 110 was 43 years of age, and had served tho Transport Board for 19 years. Ho said that when the inspector boarded the car on the night in question a young woman almost pushed witness over in proffering her fare. Sho handed him threepence, and ho automatically inquired if she wanted a one-section ticket, which ho issued, with change of Id. Inspector's Attitude "The inspector called out to me: 'That's enough of that, I'll fix this up,' " appellant continued. "Ho talked very loudly, and followed me to the rear of the tram, saying lie would report the matter. He gave me no hope of defending myself. I had no intention whatever of neglecting to collect the fare, and as far as my record was concerned, I did not treat previous inspectors' reports as serious." In reply to Mr. Stanton, appellant said he did not see the inspector board the tram, nor did he know lie was on the tram until tho motorman informed him while 110 was 011 the front platform for the purpose of getting his pipe, which had been left there at the previous terminus. Witness said he did not know what would have happened to the fare if the inspector had not appeared. When Mr. Stanton apologised for the length of his cross-examination, Mr. Wilson said tho matter was one of deep moment to a number of persons, and should be fully investigated. Two witnesses said the young woman entered the tram in the city, and had plenty of opportunity to pay her fare before the inspector arrived. Union President's Evidence The president of the Tramway Employees' Union, Peter Carr,, gave evidence that there had never previously been a case in Auckland of., a conductor's dismissal for being on the front platform, nor, as in this, case, for inadvertently missing a fare. Witness added that missing a faro after walking through tho train twice would be pure inadvertence 011 the part of the conductor. It was a fairly regular practice for employees to be called to the office on these v charges, but complaints liacl been made by some of the men that they had not been given an opportiinit3' of defending themselves. Reports might be mado to tho offico against them, and they would not know anything about them. They would ho lulled into a sense of falso security when not asked for a "please explain." The magistrate commented that he took it that if the matter were trifling no notice would bo taken of it, but if a charge were made of a serious nature the conductor would be asked for an explanation. Decision was reserved.