RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13860, 25 March 1907, Page 2

RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD

APPEAL AGAINST REDUCTION.

Appca Board was continued on when tho case of Thomas C. Findlav, who appealed against reduction from the pesition of engine-driver at 10s Cxi per day to machinist at 9s per day was heard Tho appeal wae beard beforo District Judge -Haseldcn (chairman), Mr J. Grav (renresentuig- first division), and ill- .lames Robertson (of locomotive department, representing the second! division). Mr M'Villv represented the department and Mr C E Holmes (of Timarii) conducted tho enso for the appellant, Tho contention of the department was that (lie appellant's drinking liabrte wore such that, it was unsafo to allow him to remain in charge of an engine while it was urged for the appellant that Hie punishment was more sovcro than wae warranted by the circumstances. Tho Chairman said hn rementhorcd the circumstances of tho ca.se. J. A Brass was a fireman and Findlayan cnijine-drivcr. They went mlo a hotel at Invcnarpill and drank and drank until Brass died from aoiito alcoholic poisoning. Findlav was then reduced from to * machinist. IMmllay liad previously been warned as to his drinking habits. Mv Holmes said the facts yrcro admitted, hut beforo proceeding with tho case, ho wished to point, oiit tlio delay which had occurred ■ before this appeal" was hoard, llio appeal had boon lodged on October 16, 1906, and tlw delay had prevented Mm from obtaining an important .witness. Tho statutory three, months had elapsed before the case was brought on. Mv M'Villy explained that tho statutory three months expired some time in January. Tho department communicated vsitli the diairmon of the Appeal Boards in December, and tho delay was caused by the fact that tho letter to the chairman <-'■ the South Island Board miscarried, and was not delivered until January. Tho department's intention was to suit tho convenience of tho chairman as far ae possible, and also to hear as many appeals as possible at one time without 'exceeding the statutory three months. Tho Chairman said that tho delay was attributable chiefly to his movements and not to tho department. As far as ho could ceo, if Mr Holmes objected to tho board hearing the caso became the stutu- , tory time had .clapeed it would have to bo struck out. _ Continuing, ho said ho should not think it was' necessary, in order to avoid tho difficulty, that there should be a, chairman, perhaps several chairmen, in such closo neighbourhood .that they could be brought at a day's notice, nor did ho think it necessary that tho board should sit more than once in three months as long as appeals were heard without any tin reasonable delay. It was a. legal provision which would either have to ho amended or by mutual agreement rendored inoperative. Tho evidence given by the ■ appellant at an inquest on tho body of Brass was read by the chairman. It. showed that tho appellant, Hie deceased, and two others— Donovan and Staunton—mot in Invei-eareill on June 16, 1906. Tho deceased said ho had a bad cold, and that ho would tato some bramly and port ivino for it: They wont/inter an hotel, and the deceased had live drinks of brandy anil.port wino in about ,50' minutes. TJiey then wont to another hotel, and tho deceased 3iad three more drinks of brandy and port wine. On going into the fresh air Brass became helplessly intoxicated, and his companions sent him home in a cab. Tho cabman left •him inside the gato at his residence, and he lay there for sortie minutes before ho was taken inside; At tlio inquest tho jury returned a verdict that death was duo to acute alcoholic poisoning. The appellant had stated in his evidence that ho had eix small drinks and was perfectly sober. Mr.illolinca eaid he wanted to prove that the appellant was perfectly sober that evening , .

'Che Chairman said the department did not say that Findlay was' responsible {or this young fellow's death, but it did not reflect 1 any credit upon him. ' The only witness called was tlw appellant, who slated that ho had never bco» reprimanded for over-indulgcnco in liquor sinco his appointment as engine-driver in March, 1906. Ho was reduced on the ovidenco adduced at tho inquest on the body of .T. A. Brass. Ho -was nut awaro tliat ho had committed a breach'of tho regulations on Juno 16. Witness throw ono of his drinks on the floor on Jmic 16, and thcroforo only had fivo drinks. Mr Holmes contended that appellant had not had a fair hearing before coming to tho Appeal Board. There _ had boon no departmental inquiry. . Neither liad tho matter b«-i looked into by tho Punishment Board. ■ Mr M'Yilly said that was so. _ Whore tho evidence was straight and plain thcro was no necessity for holding a departmental inquiry. It was, further, not always.tho practice to submit these matters to the Punishment Board. . Tho board reserved its decision.