RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD.

Taranaki Herald, Volume LX, Issue 143782, 4 May 1912, Page 3

RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD.

HEARING OF OASES. Per Press Association. PALMERSTON N., May 3. Tho North island Railway Appeal Board sat at Palmerston to-day, Dr. APArthur presiding. Mr. C. P. Ryan represented tho first division, and Mr. P. Games the second division. Mr. Mount appeared for the department. Charles Murphy appealed against his dismissal') lor alleged insubordination. Murphy was told by tho coaching foreman to put a box on tho Foxton train. He refused, because the box was not properly labelled or oxoossed, which was contrary to the stationmaster’s instruction. The coaching foreman considered the box properly labelled. Murphy denied tho correctness of the evidence signed by him at the departmental inquiry. Tho chairman said that Murphy must have been a lunatic to sign anything without reading it first. Judgment was reserved till to-morrow.

Walter Short appealed against his dismissal. Ho went from Wellington to Shannon on transfer. When asked by the foreman to sign on he refused to do as requested. It was alleged that ho was under the influence of drink, and was cheeky to the goods agent. Decision was reserved.

Robert Loo appealed against tho reduction of his salary. Appellant is a signalman, and was reduced for going to sleep while on duty in tho signal box at Palmerston. The appeal was dismissed without calling on the department.

SOAIE OASES DECIDED. 7

PALMERSTON N., Alay 4.

The findings of the Railway Appeal Board were delivered this morning in the oases heard yesterday. In regard to Porter Short’s petition against dismissal, the court unanimously was of opinion that the appellant was not under the influence of liquor, but at the same time was of opinion that appellant should have signed on time as requested. Tho hoard recommended that a fine of £1 would meet the case.

With regard to tho appeal of Porter Murphy against dismissal, the court was of opinion that there were faults both on the part of appellant and of the coaching foreman, and that both parties were heated. The exercise of tact on the part of the superior officer would, in the opinion of the court-, probably hiivo prevented the occurrence (a refusal to put luggage in a van). The incident was an isolated one in the service of appellant, and tho board considered tho punishment outweighed the offence. In its opinion the appeal should be upheld. Dr. M'Arthur congratulated all concerned on the amicable manner in which tho proceedings had been conducted.