MOTORMAN'S APPEAL.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume VI, Issue 1656, 5 June 1919, Page 8

MOTORMAN'S APPEAL.

UPHELD BY BOARD. A QUESTION OF CONDUCT. At the Magistrate's Court yesterday afternoon, tlio -hearing of the appeal of-Ernest Snow, a raotorman, employed until lately by the Ghristchureh Tramway Board, ■ against his dismissal from the board V service, was continued before the Tramway Appeal Board. The board consisted of Messrs S. E. McCarthy (chairman), J. A. Frostick, and C. O'Donucli. Mr W. J. Hunter appeared for appellant, and Mr J. J. Dougal! for the Tramway Board. Kathleen Know, wife of appellant, was, by permission of the appellant, called to give evidence for the board, before the evidence for appellant, was taken. Witness said that in August of 1918 she obtained a separation order from her husband, on the grounds of drunkenness, obscene language, and the hours lie kept at night. One night witness accused her husband of having been oat with a woman. On that occasion he attacked her, and nearly doubled tier up. However, lie admitted he had been out with a woman, and witness subsequently saw him in company with this woman. To Mr Hunter: She had been iu the Mt. MagVlala Home, not because she was uncontrollable, but for schooling. She had absconded from the home, because they would not allow her to write home to her mother. She was just over 21 when she was married. There was some difficulty over the question of religion, witness being a Roman Catholic, and appellant a Protestant. Mr Hunter: And a Baptist minister performed the ceremony?— Yes. The appellant denied the charges of infidelity made against him by his wife. The woman referred to was a personal friend of his family. Witness said lie was not a teetotaler, but he never went "over the odds'' in his drinking. The tows were caused through his wife being drank, and he had-often gone out of a night to save a row. The cause of the trouble between him and his wife was the company she had kepi. His wife also went to the races, agaiust his express wishes. At, last, things got so bad that witness said he would have peace, even if he had to live in the fowlhouse. They arranged to fix up a separation order privately, but, after the deed had been drawn up, his wife laid a summons against -him.

I To Mr Dougall: Ho liad been reported 'for being in the Masonic Hotel while in uniform about Christmas of the year j before last. He did not object to his wLPe having drink, but he did not like "her having it in hotels, because she. laid herself open to insult. He had come to the conclusion that his wife was unfaithful to him about two years ago, but he had not taken proceedings bei cause he had not substantial evidence, jHe had not refuted his wife's charges in court at the first hearing, because fhe desired peace and quietness. Ou the ! second occasion, when he and his wife I were before the Court, he had been I advised that it was not necessary to 'bring evidence regarding his wife's 'actions. He admitted meeting a woman I once or twice whilst he was working j on the Cashmere Hills line. j Charles Leonard Piner, commercial j traveller, said he had seen Mrs Snow ! drunk on four occasions, twice at hoi- | home. He had known her as a woman 'of vindictive character and of vitriolic I tongue. He had wondered how his I friend Snow had stood it so long. Hiram Hunter (secretary of the i Tramway Union) said the appellant j had been president of the union for the past year. As far as witness knew, j he was a sober man. Arthur Charles E. Brown, tram conductor, said he had worked on the same tram as appellant, and had never seen him under the influence of liquor. i Mr Dougall said that the Tramway Board had taken the matter up conseI quent on the newspaper reports of the i Magistrate's Court proceedings. No j action had been taken after the August proceedings, but after the March proceedings it was decided that, in the best j interests of the service, Snow should be ; dismissed. Mr Dougall pointed out I that, according to Common Law, an employee could lie dismissed with the l requisite notice. The question to be I decided was whether the board -was

justified in dismissing Snow. There were very good grounds for -the board's dismissing Snow, and the dismissal had not been capricious. Even !if Snow's evidence was true, it showed Ibe had condoned his wife's misconduct. It was the duty of the board to see that I its employees' characters were above i suspicion, because they had to come so I much into contact with the public. It was in the interests of the public that i the board demanded that its employees ! should be of unblemished character. ! The board raised no allegation of injefficiency against the appellant, the only j matter tii.-t actuated it being the impropriety of appellant's conduct.

| Summing up, Mr McCarthy said I that the Appeal Board fully agreed that the Tramway Board should keep iu its | employment only men of irreproachable character, but the onus of proof as to j character was on the board. In the I Magistrate's Court case, because appellant had not .seriously contested his 'wife's allegations 'they had been taken [as correct. As for the allegations of i misconduct agaiust the appellant at the | present hearing, they were inconclusive. The Tramway Board had taken no action after the court proceedings in August, so what'took place before I August could not be taken into account. There was no evidence of misconduct against the appellant subsequent to August.

The board upheld the appeal, but ordered each party to pay its own costs.