RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD.

Otago Witness, Issue 2211, 16 July 1896, Page 19

RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD.

The Railway Appeal Board for the South Island (his Honor Judge Ward, Messrs D. Handisides and H. Baxter) sat at the traffic manager's office, Dunedin, on Tuesday. Mr Hudson, representing the Railway department, was also present.

THE CASE OF JOSEPH FOWtEB.

Appellant stated that on the 3rd March he arrived at work at a quarter to 8 o'clock. He was sober, and worked with the gang. He was told to go alocg tbe line and see a place where sleepers were required. Appellant did so, and on tho way down, about \ o'clock, was taken ill with cramp and diarrhoea. He could not tell whether it was inflammation of the bowels or not. When he gpt off the trolly he went to have a drink. The inspector saw him, and said he would suspend him. Appellant said he was taken ill, bul tbe inspector said-he would suspend him all the same. There was an inquiry at ''Gore and .be (appellant) was dismissed, though the evidence was in his 'favour. He had evidence whioh had been taken at Gore in writing to place before tho board.

His Honor said it was not pos3ib!o to accept that. They could not take evidence taken here, there, and everywhere. Appellant replied that it was not possible for the witnesses to be present. They had a coal mice, and could not lenvo it, beoause it was flooded, and three pumps were kept going. The board could telegraph to Gore at his expense if they would do so. The evidence waa taken before two justices — Andrew Marten and James Beattie.

Hrs Honor repeated that they could not accept that evidence.

Appellant then mentioned that he was a married man, had been 12 /years in the service, and had not a mark against him for drunkenness or anything eke. He had a first-class record for work.

Murdoch M'Leod (called by appellant) said he was in Riversdale on March 3, and during a term of 12 months that he worked with appellant he never saw him the worse for drink during working hour/. • This had reference to 12 mouths before suspension.

Joseph Crisp, inspector of permanent ways, said that on the 3rd Maroh he saw Fowler under tbe influence of liquor, at 20 minutes to 5 o'clock, about 15 chains from the Gore railway station. He was sitting on his velocipede. Witness asked him what he was doing there at that time of day, and he said it was all right. Witness said it was not all right ; and Fowler replied, " Oh, it's all right. Don't be too hard. Come and have a drink." Witnesi declined, and told him he-was suspended. He never said that he had been taken suddenly ill. He said his wife was ill. He had been a good man previous to this, and witness had no fault to find with him except for that day's doings. Appellant argued that he was not working for the department at a- quarter past 4 o'clook. His Honor pointed out that the statement made by appellant did not agree with the written statement before him. There was not a word in that about being ill.

Evidence was al«ff given by John Coom, resident engineer at Dunedin, and the district tr*flio manager, after wbioh hit Honor iutimated that the, board's decision would ba communicated to the Minister. THB CASE OF THOMAS TANGNEY.

The fii'sb charge against appellant was that he left his work during working hours and went to the hotel drinking.

His Honor said the evidence on this was not conclusive, and they might pasa it. The second charge was with keeping platelayer Williams after 4.15 p.m., at whioh time he was entitled to leave work, beipg more than four miles from home. , ' '

Appellant gave a lengthy reply to this charge, in the court,© of, which be explained that he went away for a wheelbarrow. He had instructions to keep the men over working hoars. His Honor considered the explanation feasible enough. * The third charge was with loafing about and not working. Appellant said of course he had a big gang «f men, and when anyo» was in charge of a big crowd he could not work himself and look after the men, The fourth oharge was that appelUnt was the worse for liquor and incapable of work on the 15th Febroaty. Appellant denied this charge, and said he was working at the ballasb train. His Honor asked him if he had any witnesses, to which appellant responded in the negative. Mr Hudson asked appellant whether he had nol been removed and reduced in rank. Appellant said he got notice from the engineer that he was not giving satisfaction as a ganger. Mr Hudson asked what reason was given. _-■ Appellant 'said he simply got an intimation that he was not giving satisfaction. He admitted he- had received a letter from Mr Bits about the matter. Mr Biss had complained on one occasion of the way the work was carried ,on. The inspector had' never complained to t him. He had no witneues to call. ■ ] Inspector. Trevey, of ths permanent way, deposed that the appellant kept his part of tjte line fairly well. It was a bad part to keep, and the length was never in what migbt ba called good order, but he believed the man worked fairly well. He (witness) had written several times to him. On one occasion he found fault with him for not finding one place that he should have found.' He did not do his work as well as the majority of gangers under witness's control. Witness fpund fault with him for not employing ■ more time on the length. He did not find fault with him for being inoompetent or unskilful. The work was put in right enough, but there was a want of judgment in distributing the labour over tbe length. Inspector John Coom also gave evidence, and, in reply to Mr Handisides, said that with the labour at his command appellant should have been able to keep the length better. It was decided at this stage to postpone the case for the evidence of Mr Biss, assistant engineer. THB WAIWEBA COLLISION. The board then considered the appeals by the men concerned in the collision at Waiwera on the Bth April. The names of the appellants were— R. Bray (olerk at B&lclutha), Guard A. Hughes (of the mixed train), Driver J. Wingham (of the mixed train), and B. Ooker (stationmaster at Clinton) * The case of Mr Coker was taken first. He said he was appealing against the deoision of the general manager as advised through the district trajfic manager, for dismissing him from the service, for failing to supply the guard and driver of No. 20 train * with a copy of a train ( circular. Appellant would like to point out that the running of a.special train did not affect the running of this No. 20 train" between Clinton and Balclutha. This oircular did not affect the running of train No. 20, and he did not supply the guard and driver of (hat train with the

ciroular, and he understood that he was dismissed for that. On Easter Monday he bad been working on night duty, and started work the following day earlier than usual. Ho had been working harder than usual. He noticed that No. 20 train was not affected by the running of this special, and he did not observe that No. 29 was, or be thought he would have made up instructions for botb guards and drivers, as had been his custom as a matter of extra precaution. He had overlooked it. He dealt with the circular as it should have been. He had been 20£ years in the service as stationmaster without a single fault being found as far as train running was concerned, and he thought his dismissal was unnecessarily sovere and harsh, especially seeing that it stopped tho pasaiug of his compensation, £154 11s 4d. William Gibb, railway guard between Clinton and Dunedin, deposed that during the time appellant had been at Clinton circulars had been regularly supplied to trains. Mr Day, stationmaster atßalolutha, had not been in the habit of asking witness whe'.her he was supplied with train circulars.

Donald M'Kenzie, porter at Clinton, remembered the Bth of April. He saw two circulars Concerning tho running of the triine, posted up on the notice board in the porters'- room. ■ The guards had aocess to this room. Had 'seen Guard Hughes there. Thew circulars, - were posted up prior to the running of the special train.

Edward Dobie, stationmaster at Abbotsford, 6aid he had seen the oircular dealing with special train advices. 16 would depend on whether the stationmaster at Clinton was instructed' specially whether he should give the driver and guard of train No. 20 a copy of the special train oircular. That was assuming ib wab a terminal station.

His Honor said Clinton was a terminal station, and the circular t said thit stationmasters of terminal stations should advise guards and drivers of special trains.

Witness said were he at a terminal station he would make it hit duty as Btitionmaster to tea the necessary information given.

On appellant again putting the question as to whether it would be the duty of the master ab Cliuton to supply circular S 96—158 to the guard and driver, witness said it was not clear to Him that Clinton should supply the ciroular. It appeared from an explanation by Ml* Baxter that No. 20 train was that running from Gore to Balcluthti, and it became 29 on its running back again. He took it that witness meant that Clinton could not be regarded as a terminal station, as the train was between Gore and Balclutha. 0

To Mr Hudson: The circular dealing with special train advices said that Clinton was a, terminal station under all circumstances, and reading it that way it was. the duty of the. master to supply guards and drivers with copies of oirculars. Mr Hudson drew attention to a letter of instructions to the stationmaster at Clinton, in which it was stated that copies of circulars affecting the running of trains should be supplied to guards and driven, irrespective of the station whence the train started. Witnesi considered that no general instructions would override this.

Thomas Arthur, distriot traffic manager, produced tho record book. Hs had alw*ya looked upon appellant; as a good officer. There was nob time for the oircqla.r concerning the running of the special train4o be sent to Gore. This concluding the evidence, Mr Hudton •aid the officers in the railway were extremely aorry for Mr Coker, against whose character there was nothing. The speaker had known, him for a great number of years-, and had the highest respect for him. His Honor said that at far as Sir CoWi past record went he thought they had had tho highest evidence they could. - Mr Hudson : There is no officer of greater integrity, or one who is more careful and attentive to his duties. I don't think we hare a better officer in the service. > His Honor was -quite prepared to accept th« statement that , Mr- Coker's pal t record was

faultless.

Mr Hudson having mentioned that Mr Cokei was one of the lasb men he expeoted to have made suoh a mistake, His Honor intimated that tbe bo&rd would make their deoision known to the Minister, and consideration of the further appeals adjourned till this morning at 10.30.

The Railway Appeal Board resumed its sitting ou the morning of the Bth at 10.30. His Honor Judge Watd presided, and. associated with him were Messrs Baxter and Handisidei. Mr Hudson appeared on behalf of the Railway department.

APPEAL OF JOSEPH TAKONET.

The board resumed its consideration of the case of Joseph Tangney. Cyril H. B.'st, assistant manager at Invercargill, was first called. He stated that appellant; had been under his oharge for some three op four years. He. had frequently spoken fco him .of the state of his length, which he (witness) . considered to ba- one of the worst in the district. Ihis state was due to the negligence of appellant, • ... In reply to a query as to whettecTio wi«hed to put any questions to the witness, appellant said that he wi»aea-to employ a counsel. His Honor observed that.it had already been decided that it was unnecessary; to employ counsel in these cades except under very exceptional circumstances. In answer to appelhnt, witness said that, there were worse lengths tnan that Tangney had tp look after. There. were not many short rails in the length. He could not say if there were two miles of-shorb rails. He did not know the . exact distance. There were lengths on the main line which had more gorso than appellant's length. There were other lengths as hard to keep as Tangney'i. v ■ To Mr Handisides : The fact that there had been an unusual amount of work done outside appellant's, length did not tend to throw his work behind, except during, ifabruary and March. .. .*■ ■ •<> This concluded the case, and Mr Tangney was informed that the decision of tho court would be forwarded to the Minister. % THE WAIWERA COLLISION. The appeal of E. Bray (olerk), A. Hughes (guard), and Engine-driver Wingham, who hajl been dismissed in connection with the collision at Waiwera of an excursion train to Kdendale and a mixed train, was then taken. The appeal of R. Bray being taken first, he , was called, and stated that he wished to appeal against being dismissed for failing to supply a special circular to the guard and driver of the mixed train on the Bth April, that/circular being to the effect that the mixed train and the excursion train- would cross at Waiwera. Me Day, the stationmaster, was off duty on account, of illness, and' witness-had his ordinary work to do, also the stationmaater'a duty, and in addition he had to prepare the aocqunts for the auditor, who was expeoted. When the auditor arrived appellant assisted him, being anxious, to have a good' report, and at the proper time he forgot to give a copy of the ciroular to the guard and the driver. The fact was that he had too much to do. To the Chairman : Be considered that n vtS

the duty of the guard and driver to have fonnd out at. the station whether, there was anything nffecting their train. He had passed the junior »nd civil service. His Honor : There is net a word against his previous character. In reply to Mr Hudson, witness admitted that at the departmental inquiry ho stated that he was thoroughly acquainted with the rules, and he knew that when be got oirculars regarding special trains, such as he did receive, he should have enclosed them in envelopes specially printed by the departmout for snob, communications, and, addressing them to the guard and engine driver, have t placed them in a certain place. This he did not do. He left it till the following morning, when he thought Mr Day would be down and would attend to the matter. In the, pressure of work next day .tbe matter escaped his memcry. Although he wa« convergent with the rule?, lomething more than knowledge was required— ntme'y, experience— and his experience was nob »uch ivs enabled him to fill tbo position of Btationmaster at suoh a station as Balolutba. 1 Mr Hudion : It was not the want of knowledge or experience that made you fail to crcloss the circulars in the envelopes and address them to_the guard and euginß driver ? Witness admitted this, aud reiterated his fo mer statement as to pressure of work. Thi? concluded tbe evidence. His Honor intimated that the decision of the cot* rd would be forwarded to the Minister for ■-E*'tWB.YS. ' ' Guard A. Hughes wes next called. He itated he was guard of the mixed train. He did not exactly understand why h'« had been dismissed. He knew there was a special train • mnning from Edendftle to Clint;n on the Bth ' April, but ho had uot bten informed in any way that tbat train was to pa s tJl'nton. The only circular he received slab d that "on Wednesday, Bth April, a special passenger train would run from Clinton to Edendale and back," giving the times of arrival &nd departure at tbe iuterImediate stations. Hiving received only tbe one circular, he bad no meaiis of knowing that any twin wps going to pass Clinton. Before leaviDg • 'Waiwera for Clinton he consulted with the driver

as to whether he bad received a circular, and as the driver had no notice they proceeded on their •way, and a mile and a-half south of Waiwera the collision occurred. The appellant went to the driver of the excursion train and asked him what right he bad to be on that portion of the road, and the driver replied by producing the circular authorising him to run between Dun«din and Clinton. Thiib was the first that

witness had seen of a cuMilar of tha'kind.

His Honor: Were joa not aware th*t a 1 Bpf oial paeseDger train was coming from Bdendale, which you had to pass. Appellant : I had n.t been iaformed in any mvx if a special train was to pass Clinton. Appellant put in the only circular that he received, which gave the times of a special train running from Edendale to Clinton. Bi< Honor': This refers solely to Clinton it- 1 Edendale . Appellant: Tbat was the only circular I received. To Mr Hudson: Witness went on duty at Go-e about 11 o'clock, The special was then at Dunlin. If the special waited for his train at Clinton it' would have to wait for 55-minutes. ■ He had known trains to wait as lodg asth&t. 1 He thought the special would wait there till ■ the passengers had dinner. At the department*} inquiry he had ei»t\d that he forgot t»< ask' for the ciroular at Balclutha. He admitted that he coriiuited the diiver' twice about the special, and he consulted Mr Russell onca. He also went td'ihe telephone to communicate with Clinton, but could not get Clinton. Still ho was confident that the special would wait at Clinton. As a first-class guard he thought he would cay now that he had taken every' precaution to ensure the sifety of his train. He was convfisinb with the rules for the guidance of guards in doubt; One .thing was that a plot showing a red flag in the daytime and a' red light at night thould precede the train at a dig- • tacce of 600 yards.' It' he had adopted this course he did not think it would have avoided the collision.

Thomas Arthur, tr-ffic manager, being called, said he made arranp omeuts for the running of -the specitl train. He' produced the instructions to guards and s* at ior masters that he issued the day before. He advised the district

traffic manager at luvoi'cargill. He sent to notices south of Clinton as it was unneces-

ttvy: his Honor inquired if there were any rules tdling tbe guards *h»re to look for notices. Guard Hughes replied in tbe negative. Id reply to appellant, witness said ho had .received a communication from him with regard to supplying not ! ce s to him, and he read the letter. The statiooruaster at Clinton should bare supplied witness with instruction?. Hi* Honor eaid that the ' quest'on appellant

bad to meet was that, seeing he had not receh ed a circular su to the movements of the special 'south of Clinton; he' had not exeroited the fullest precautions to preserve the safety of the. train. No doubt there was grave default : on the psrb of the statiODmaster at Clinton and • the. locum t'thtns at. Balolutha respecting the isspe of circulars in regard to the running of 'the special train. - , » - -S. T. Whitocmbe (traffic msnagerat Iriver-> ' carfcili^aud P. A; Duncan (sUtionmaster at Gore) also g».ve evidence.

This concluded the care, and the appellant was informed that the decision of the board vuld be communicated to Wellington.

Diivtv Wingham, of the mixed traiD, then was called. H<s said tbat he appealed against the decision to dismiss him because he was not the cause of the collision, The cause of the mishap was 1 tbat he was not properly advised of the runnicg-of tte excursion train. He knew that tbat train was on the^ine between Clinton md Edendaie. but he did' not know at what time it was coming back, and having received 06 -circular on the matter he concluded that th« special would not interfere with his train 1 until he got to Clinton. - His train was due at

Clinton at 7.15 p.m., and the special was due / there at 6.20 p.m. He thought that the special would wait at Clinton for his train.- He iud heard of trains waiting &t a station for a loog ~ while to/let passengers have refreshments. He thought that the passengers would have diunor at Gore, and there would be " speechifying." He took no special precautions further than keeping a good look-out. He received no Instructions at Balclntha, nor did he aek for any.

John Nicbol, actiDg-driver, said that he was

fireman on WiDgham's engine on the day of the accident. He said that he received no circular or instrnctions regarding the running of the special north of Clinton. .William Wynn, first-class fireman and actingdriver on the Invercargill section, also gave evidence. . Alexander M'Kfcnzie, locomotive foreman, gave evidence that Winghgm always proved to fee a capable driver.. Mr Hudson asked Mr M'Kenzie as an experienced locomotive driver what Wingham should have done when he found himself in doubt as to the position of the Edendale' train, looking at (he fact that he knew the Edend&le train was

due at Clinton at 6 20. p.m., and that his train was due there at 7.15 p.m.

Mr M'Kenzis replied th*t under the circumstances Wingham should have refused to leave the Wedwera station till he was s&tieued thab the line was clear, and if he did leave he should have had the train piloted on by some competent person, who should have preceded ib by some 600 yards. If this had been done the collision would not have occurred.

B.fore closing the case tbe appellant stated that he wicked to say he thought he had been harshly dealt iribh after having been 20 years in the service.

His Honor: The boird will take into ooneiderition thai the £tationm&s l .era had failed iv their duty in not supplying circulars to you or the guard. Our deoision will be communicated to the Minister.