RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD.

Otago Witness, Issue 2511, 30 April 1902, Page 30

RAILW AY APPEAL BOARD.

The Railway Appeal Boa/d sat in Dunedin on Saturday morning; present — District Judge Ward (chairman), Mr P. E. Nolan, and Mr i T. W. BTebner. The object of the sitting was to hear evidence in the appeal of Head Shunter J. Morgan, o: DunecUn, against ins dismissal from the service. Morgan was d s-nutsed on the ground of drunkenness on the evening of the vt4th of December la««, and for being obBtiuctive and guilty of insulting und insubordinate behaviour towards his superior officers. Mr W. H. Gaw (chief traffic manager), represented the .Railway Department, and the appellant conducted his own case. Mr Gaw, in stating the case for the department., said that this case arose out of another one, in which a. shunter named Eariy was ic-jnd in a drunken condition on the station platiorm by Mr Bevin (traffic clerk) on the night of ' December 24. When spoken to he cleared out to the goods yard, and Mr Duncan (stationmaster) and Mr Bevin followed him, with the intention of examining him. Or. airival there Morgan wa* found to be obstructive and cndoovouring to -scree., Earh. Hi was also the worse for drink li mself. id.r Duncan, Mr Bevm, and Mr Yv'allace (goods agent) all gave evidence in support of this charge at the departmental inquiry to the efiect that Morgan obstructed them m c&Trj'ing oui. theix duties. The matter was the subject of a departmental inquiry, and after being threshed out the finding was that oi 1 the evening of Decembc-r '24. Head Shuiitei Mor^ju was uudci the influence of liquoi, thai he was oosii active, ?.^ci tried to thwart his super or officers m the execution of their duty ; that he was guilty of very insulting; and insubordinate behaviour towards his euueiior officers; and that there was a grave suspicion that he knew Early to have been on the station platform ar.d tried to conceal the truth. His dismissal was the resu.t of this finding. Before the witnesses for the department were ca'led the appellant drew attention to the fact that the incident of which the appeal was the j outcome happened on Christmas Eve, and as i this is the latter part of April, there might bo some points on which he wa.9 not quite clear, as he had nothing with which to refresh his memory. Christmas Eve, being a holiday night, was a busy night for the passenger traffic. As it had been his custom for years to give all the assistance he possibly could to the pas- j senger department, he let his own work stand i that night in order to assist in getting the pas- j senger trains away, and, consequent'y, his work j was behind. Nothing exceptional happened j until about 11 o'clock, when Mr Bevin und Mr Duncan went to him and asked if Shunter | Early v. at on duty, and he said ll Yes." They ' then askad if he was over or. the station platform, and he s:ud he wes positive that he was . not on the strtiOT p'atform. On being asked why he was so positive, h? said it was because , lie had not rrisfce'l Early from the yard Earl - | was produced, and one of the officers asked him , if he was on the ptation platform He seemed! to be dnmfoundpd, und did net arsvrer. Mor- ' gan touched him, and said, " You wrre rot on Hit- station platform, were you 9 " He then answered, and said ' No. They took him to one of the boxes or huts, and the appellant fol- j lowed them in his interest to defend the man, j thinking he was innocent. I The Chairman Whnt was the charge against j him. I Appellant A charge of being on the station , plalioim. i The C-.aiiraa". Was thei" nothing more ( fcaid '>— Appellant The\ wacterl me to go sr.'ay. t Sir Nolan Whe r e d:d they want you to go' — > i •je'lant 7 took i+ as a requp^t, and went i v he n we all went, winch was in a few seconds, i Appellant (cont mung) said that at a quarter lo 12 Mr Wallar" and Mr Br.vin went to the , >ard, and the former asked if Early v.-as on • the station platform, and appellant said he was t positive that he was not there Erriy wa^ ■ produced by order of Mr Wallact-. the work was stopped, and all the rn&n went to the shunters' box. All except appellant wore orderr-J outside, and he stayed inside with Mr ' Wallace, who then tore a leaf out of the shunters' time book, and told appellant he wanted his, evidence. The latter said, " What for 7 " but Mr Wallace said, "Never mind. I want your evidence. Appellant declined unless he knew the subject. ILr Eevin wh-s-peied some-thing into Mi Yt'allftcc'a tar, whereupon the latter handed Morgana note informing him that he was susp-nded Appellant twice asked the reason for his stsipension, but no Tcply -ups vouchsafed, and h" then ask<=d if it was for defending; an inrorenl mm, and Mr Bevm replied " No", it i>, because you are fliunk" I'nder the proven! or of this charpe aoneilant lost b's tempfr. anc' pjnVibly bald thmcj-* that he thould not hevc =01(1 U<* did : not remember what he said, as he tajrlv lost ; coxiirtii, oi himscli. liiQ oiiii tiuais iic ibhu-uj.- i

beied saying was that if he -were off duty eitka* Mr Bevm Would knock him down or he would 1 knock Mr Bevm down. Mt Gaw, m examining the appellant, asked . him if the following extract from his evidence given at the previous inquiry was correct : — • . " I knew at this time that Early was in some danger, and I thought that "he was innocent, t and that he was accused of being on the platform when I was sure I had sever missed him! 1 from the yard."— Appellant : Yes. Mr Gaw : Then, further on in your -cv .deuce, you said: ' " I did not make use of the remark that I -was 1 not going to nun any man when spoken to > , by Messrs Bevin and Duncan. How could Z • know anything ruining a man unless I] > knew he was m danger?" How do you recon- • j cile these two Statements, -which are exactly the opposite of each other? — Appellant: I think , if you read the evidence both before and after i these extracts you will find that they are all , right. Ido not think it fair that they should? be taken by themselves. The reason I thought , Early was in danger was that during the whole 19 years I was in the service I never saw officers come into the yard at that time of night before and ask for any man. I Appellant (continu ng) said that lie disliked | reporting anyone for being under the influence . of liquor, and had not reported any of his I subordinates for that offence. j Mr Brebner : You were head shunteT, and in a position of trust 9 — Appellant: I -was never placed in the position of reporting a man- for ■being dnrak. My opinion was tlvat Early was s not under the influence of liquor. j Mr Gaw: You considered it wa-s your duty j to -defend him instead of assisting the depart- [ ment to -get at the truth ? — Appellant : I was I so sure that he was not on the. platform, and I. thought there must be some mistake. It j Btruck me Trom what Mr Bevia and Mr Duncan, ! said that Ear ley was in danger. J. -Bevin, traffic clerk, was the fh-st ■witness 1 called for the department. He stated that aTjouD 16.50 p.m. on December 24 he was on the I Dunedin passenger platform, which was ! crowded at the time. He saw a man in railway, i in iform going along the platform, leaning his arms on two other men. His hat was on the back of his head, and he was attempting tof sing. He wa* tinder the influence of liquor. , Witness a°ked him his name, and what he was doing there like that. He said his name* was Eailey, and that he was off duty. "Witness oidered him to the s-tatnnnrascer's office, buc i he bolted to the goods yard. Witness ha-d a, | conversation wfth Mr Duncan, after which both, vent to the goods yard. They saw Head Shunter | Morga.ii, and asked him to produce Earley, bul Morgan was obstructive, and refused to doso, saying he was not going to be the mm of ar.j man This was before they told Morgan. 1 why they wanted Earley. Morgan wa3 speak- ! ing at the top of his voice, and was, witness , said, under the influence of l:quor. Mr Duncan and witness found Eiarley themselves, and! a.°ked him what lie was doing over at the pas- , faei:ger station. Morgan nudged him, and? 1 prompted him to reply that lie hnd not beerr on the passenger station at that time. Earley, was stupid from the pff?(.ts of drick. Morgan also refused to nlle-tv Mr Duncan and witness tc speak to Enrley a'one, but persisted m being; present. Witness said, " L,ook here, Morgan, we give you definite instructions to produce ■ Earley," bul he refused, saying he would not take instructions from them. Mr Wallace (goods ageiu, and Morgan's immediate superior , officer) was then sought, and he and witness rcluined. to the yard, where they found Morgan, still under the influence of liquor When Mr Wallace instructed Morgan to 'bring th« shunters into iiie shnnters 1 box Morgpn rani clown the yard towards them, yelling at the lop of his voice, " Come on, boye, you are all 1 drunk." Earley was produced after some argnrrent between Mr Wallace and Morge/p. tin latter saying that he was nob going to ruin any fellow servant, and! that Mr Duncan and witness were up to some dirty work. Morgan also threatened in fight v.-itness if he wers off duty. Mr Wallace went to sprak tc Earley alone in the box, but Morgan persisted in forcing his presence on them Mr We [lace then suspended Morgan, v. ho would no* leave the premises till threatened with the police. Earley was also suspended. He denied having been at the station, and signed a statement to that effect. Joseph White, porte a"d acting shunter, in reply to question?, <<aid he saw no signs of drink on the appel!ai?,t on the night in question, and witness thought lie was the same as usual tha-t njght. So far 3s witness could see he performed his ordinary duties in the ordinary way. Andrew Dunca; gave c idenc corroborating: Unit given b\ Mt Be\m. In reply to Mr Brcbi »r. w-tucss said he wns quite satisfied that Morgan w?s not in a fit condition to have • charge of railway work oi men on the night ! in question. In reply to appellant, witness Euid ho had no complaints about the work done in the goods yard on the night in question, because the shunting engines were not under his control. The goods phunters were not responsible for throwing any passenger trains late that night. j David Wallace (goods aj ent) a'so corrobexated Mr Bevin' b evidence, nnd, in reply to a question I by Mr Gaw as to wliether the appellant assisted j tnem in any way to el-ear the matter up, wit- ■ ness said he gave no assistance whatever, but* I rather obstructed them. Witness was questioned by the appella' t as to whether he wa3 i in a fit condition to judge otheis on the night in question, but emphatically denied any sug- , gestion that he was anything but perfectly sober. In reply to Mr Xcla-n, witness said ' appellant's quick and fiery temper would not, | in his opinion, account for his behaviour that night. The work was rot carried out in a satisfactory manner that mght. Thom»,<= No:! son, engins-dr.vpr, was the first ■n.tness fcr thp appellant On December It ha was on duty from 2.55 y m. till 12.30 a.m. He saw no sign of clnnk on thp appellant, and saw no drink in the yard that night. Appellant was working with an enjji^e, and theTe was j a cood deal of work to do, but perhaps not so I much as usual. The 12.40 goods train was a. I very d'filrult tram to marshal that night, ardl this work was done by the npnellant. The train I would be m-irshalic J bstweec 10 p.m. nnd in;dnipbt. Witness did not think appellant J cou'd have marshaled thut train if he were urder the influence of liquo' and not responi siblp for his actions. He rlid not think the two j junior shiintw* could have ma i stalled the train if Morgan and Earlry were drunk. He had no comr^a-mts to make with legard to the signalling that nicrht, nor did he hear of any. So far as he knew the wo-k went on as usual. The other witness?s for the appellant were Charles Roilo (engine-dnveT. on duty from 2 o'clock til! 9 30), David Thomson (enginedr.ver). R M'Ad.p (fireman, on duty from 2.55 till 12 o'clock). Alexander Bevendge (casual shunter, on cluty from 1 o'clock till 9 45), Patrick J. J. Barry (shunter, on duty from 1 o'clofk till 10), and Patrick Coshnan (porter in the poofi= yard, or duly from 3.30 to 12). all of them corroborating the evidence of Neilbor. that the wcrrk was performed as satisfactorily as Ti=ual, and that fo far as they ronld judge tne apnellar.t vas not tinder "the influence oi liquor. The appellant then made a.coth r -i statement, in the course of which he stated that from the time he started work he had iicvct left the premise- until he went home, and ho had :-,0thmg Ptrorrsjr-r than taa. Dur ng the t:mc he was in the service there had not been '..he scratcli c[ a pen against him jo- nearh 19 yaare. Ho was susne^d'cl on Ciii.iSl.mas Eve aaid dismissed on "Haica 3. but never received

-ft penny during the whole time. He had to pay bos' return iaxe from Morven to attend the appeal. He did not know whether it was part of ths regulations or not, but .surely the department might have let him travel free. The Chairman then said that the board ■would consider the matter, and the dec.sion TTtrald be forwarded to the Minister in the usual way.