RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD.

Otago Witness, Issue 2663, 29 March 1905, Page 4

RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD.

A sitting of the South Island Railway Appeal Board was held at the office of the Traffic Superintendent on Friday for the purpose of hearing evidence in regard to two appeals lodged. The. board consisted of his Honor District Judge Waxd (chairman), and Messrs A. Graham (stationi master, Timaru), representing the first 1 division, and A. Dunn (coaching foreman, Christchuxeh), representing the second diTision. Mr A. Grant, traffic superintendent, represented the department, and Mr J. Mcc conducted the case for the first appellant, Porter G. Johnston, late of Milton, who appealed against his dismissal from the service. Mr Grant, in stating the circumstances that led to appellant's dismissal, said that a carpenter at Milton had complained about the removal of a bicycle and the use of bad language by appellant and others in railway employ. Inquiries were held by the department, and the charge relating to the removal of the bicycle was not sustained, but that relative to the use of j bad language was upheld. Appellant knew j his work well, but had latterly become ! careless, and in the interests of the public and of the service his dismissal was considered necessary.

Mr Mcc said the appeal was made on the ground that the punishment was excessive. The appellant was virtually charged with stealing a bicycle, and used the language complained of -under great provocation. When the complainant (Robert Johnston) first went to the hut, wfiere appellant was with others, appellant spoke qtiite civilly to him. bad language being used by someone within thei hut. The offence was committed about 9 o'clock in the evening a considerable- distance from the railway. Appellant admitted using an expression complained of, but under great provocation. He was reported to have used obscene, improper, and most abusive language, but at the inquiry it was stated that the only bad language he used to Robert Johnston and the constable was when they were going away from the hut, and the only remark that the constable and Robert Johnston were agreed on as having been used by appellant was " Get to h out of this."

Andrew Sawers, porter at Milton, said he remembered Robert Johnston's coming to the hut on September 19 last. He heard no offensive language used by Porter Johnston the first time the owner of the bicycle called. The second time he called witness thought he heard appellant tell him and the constable to " clear to h out of this." Witness knew nothing of the bicycle beyond seeing it in a paddock next morning.

To Mr Grant : As far as witness knew none of those present in the hut had more than tlu-eo drinks. Witness could not distinguish the words used at the door, which was nearly shut. Witness was fined in conneotion with the matter.

Further evidence for the appellant was given by Robert Harrison, porter at Milton, ana Cadet James M'Donald.

j Robert Johnston, carpenter at Milton, gave evidence as to leaving a bicycle just inside a fenoe on the night in question ■while making a call, and to its being interfered with, and his discovery that it had disappeared, and his reason for believing the appellant and others knew something about it. He inquired at their cottage, and was received with bad language. Witness then reported the matter to the local constable, who went to the cottage and knocked at the door, when appellant and Harrison came out. The constable said witness blamed them for shifting his bicycle, and they replied with offensive language, which vras continued. The mon were considerably tinker the influence of liquor at the time. The constate wa&jn plain clothes. Witness found his bicycle iText morning lying in a ditoh out in front of the failway station. Witness reported the matter to the stationmaster. He knew none of the men personally. Both Johnston and Harrison kept up a tirade of bad language till witness and the constable left.

Henry Pearee, stationmaster at Milton, said appellant was usually a smart worker, though he had been latterly occasionally neglectful. He had never known him come j|a dut,j \ind«r the influence of li&uor^ a»4

J did not think he was addicted to the use ! of bad language. I Constable M'Rae, of Milton, also gave J evidence. | Mr Mcc paid appellant was perfectly innocent of tho cliargre of removing the 1 bicycle, and knew nothing about it, and he I simply gave way to provocation. The api pellant had a good record during his six ; year=; in tho railway service, and it was j very hard that he should be thrown out of his employment now, with a stigma attached i to his name for language used in a private • place. The fact that appellant had for six . y«ars come in contact with the public on j railway platforms and no complaint had been made against him showed that he was not addicted to this sort of language, and ■ ifc was very hard that he shonld be now 1 dismissed, five months after tho occurrence of an offence t.Lat did not take place in his j working hours, but in his own private dwel- ! ling, and for which there was great provocaj tion. He appealed accordingly for reinstatement, or at least for probation, for , appellant. j His Honor said the board would consider j their decision and forward it to the Minister j in duo course. In the afternoon the board, consisting of Distz-ict Judge Ward (chairman) and Messes A. Graham and J. A. M'Cullough (of j Addington), sat to hear the appeal of j Edward Thomas Monk, plumber, against ( the department's withholding- from him in- , ; crease of wages as per scale. Mr F. W. ' j Maclean, district engineer, appeared o.n be- ' j half of the department, and Mr E. C , Holmes (Timaru) for the appellant. ' Mr Maclean said Plumber Monk appealed against the action of the ' department >n with holding from him a scale increase. Appellant was in grade 2. sub-class 4-. at 9s a ! day. the schedule of the C'a&sification Act making provision for a scale increase of 6d a day, and section 4 of the act stated that increase of pay in any years should depend On efficiency. The increase in Monk's case had been withheld from April 1, 1904. Tho classifications of each member of the staff were gone through each year, and in 1903 the appellant was remarked on as an indifferent workman, and in March, 1904-, he was again classed in that way. and tho recommendation was that the scale increase should be withheld. The chief objection to the scale increase being 'granted was that appellant's work was considered generally of a slovenly character, and he displayed little energy or interest in his work. Monk was offered a transfer to Oamaru, but was not willing to accept it. Every consideration was given him by the department in respect to the attending of plumbing classes which he said he was attending, but although there had been many plumbing examinations and six months had elapsed since the holding over of tho transfer, Monk had not gone up yet for examination. He wouM show samples of the appellant's work. Mr , Holmes, for the appellant, detailed Monk's service in the department's employ, which totalled about 12 years, including apprenticeship, casual employment, and appointment to tho permanent staff in December, 1902, and also called evidence as to the appellant's ability as a workman. Evidence was given by John Hall, till recently foreman of works, Dunedin ; Donald Ppa,rson. maintenance foreman; Miohael Egan, clumber; Thomas Robertson, plumber; Richard Leonard, plumber; by the appellant ; and by James Kane, foreman of works, Dunedin ; after which his Honor intimated that the board's decision would be communicated in the usual way.