MAGISTERIAL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 8585, 29 March 1906, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

* CHRISTCHURCH. Thursday, March 29. (Before Mr V. G. Day, S.M.) Drttnkenhess. — William Stewart, for being drunk while in charge of a horse and trap at Papanui, was fined £1 and costs. Undefended CvnL Cases. — Judgment for plaintiffs, for the amounts claimed, was given in the following undefended cases :— Encyclopedia Company (Mr Flesher) v. James Smith, £3 4s; Colthurst, Palairet and Co. and W. H. Ovend«n v. Mrs Brown, 10s 6d; 6ame v Edward W. Clarke, £19 19s ; same v^. Barnes, £7 17e 6d ; same v. John Davis, £3 10a 6d; Beath and Co. (Mr Murphy) v. Albert Cox, £3 3s j samev. John S: Edwards, £4; «same v. Edward Lester, £2 3a 9d ; same v. Mrs A. Nome, £6 5s lid; Mary Ann Genet v. Alexander Genet, £1 8s 6d. A Plumber's Bim/.— H. E. White v. Dr N. A. Neeley, claim £13 6s 2d, the balance of account. Mr Barrett appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Wright appeared for defendant. The plaintiff, a contractor, undertook to instal some piping in defendant's chambers in the Royal Exchange Buildings, to convey air from a compressor, about the establishment, at a pressure of 401 b to 501 b per square inch. This work was cairied out by his employee^ under ths defendant's supervision. Some lime after the work was done the pipes began to leak. Defendant then Baid he wanted the' installation to hold a, pressure of 801 b per square inch as long ac no air was used — a class of work involving difficulty and expense. The plaintiff gave evidence. No safety-valve was fitted to the plant. Expert evidence was given by the Government Inspetcor of Machinery, who stated that the pipe U6ed would have stood 10001 b per square inch. Had he known pressure was given' by the Government Inspector the plant, and would have insisted upon a safety-valve. No pressure the storage cylinder would stand could strain the piping system. Mr J. L. Scott said that the -cylinder, if bulged, might indicate a ■pressure injurious to the joints. A diminution of only four pounds pressure in four days showed excellent workmanship. The foreman plumber who -did the work described it as a very good job. sitting.)

RAILWAY APPEAL CASES ♦ SITTING OF THE BOARD. The Railway Appeal Board resumed its sitting this morning at the district traffic manager's office ; present — Judge Ward and Messrs Gray, Jonee and Williams. =- Mr M'Villy appeared for the Railway Department. The first ca6e heard was an appeal by J-. A. M'Cullough, a leading tinsmith at Chrifitcliurch. against his position on D 3. He stated that he had applied to the Department for a number of documents, which had been refused by Mr M'Villy. First he wanted the local officers-' report- and the minute made on his (appellant's) application for promotion in- 1903. His Honor 6aid that was hardly relevant to the appeal, but if appellant said hie local officers had then recommended him for promotion, the 'point would be considered. For instance, there wa6 a recommendation in 1903 by the workshops manager and another officer, both of whom had recommended his promotion to the 'first grade. Appellant stated that if the recommendation was made then, there was no reason why the promotion should not hare been, made, as promotions were invariably made on the local officerp? report. There was something in his case^that he was not aware of, that he should be treated in this way. There was exceptional treatment meted out to him in that he was not promoted. His Honor said there did not appear to be any exception taken to the appellant's work. But the last minute on the subject, in 1905, showed that the promotion could not be recommended. The appellant continued his case. He had been promoted to his position of leading tradesman in 1900, and as under the Classification Act of 1896 there was no provision made for tinsmiths, he was paid 9s 6d, or the rate of other leading trades. However, lie had received 10s 6d later, but, by the re-classification of 1901, tinsmiths had been placed at a special wage. This, he claimed, gave the tinsmith a maximum wage of 12s a day, and provided for promotion to Grade 1. He Avished to introduce a state- 1 ment mads by Sir Joseph Ward in the House in 1904. ' His Honor : Sir Joseph has made many statements in the House, but we can't take them here. Appellant: I thought anything bearing the stamp of the Government Printer would bo allowed in this Court. Hi 3 Honor : But you might read the whole of " Hansard." Appellant: It should be relevant to know the opinions of the Minister in regard to the method of promotion. His Honor said that if the appellant would confine himself to that point he might read the paragraph. The appeallant quoted the opinion of Sir Joseph Ward to show that, when a man considered he ought to be in a different position, the only way was to rely on the reports of the superior officers in all centres. The appellant continued to quote the statements by iMr M'Villy before the Board, to- the effect that every man was classified according to the recommendation of the head of the department he was in. His Honor : Tha^ refers to annual classification. The appellant continued to quote from Mr M'Villy that length of service had now no connection with classification. The question regarding classification was when a man got into a certain grade, the qualifications be possessed, and what recommendation he obtained from his superior officer. Mr M'Villy said that was the usual practice. The appellant said his point was that the usual practice had been departed frofn in his own case. H. H. Jackson, locomotive engineer at Christchurch, called by the appellant, said that he recommended men for promotion, and in 1905 had recommended the appellant for promotion to Grade 1. The appellant observed that this statement was different to the one previously made by Mr M Villy. The witness continued that 1 the recommendation had not been concurred in by the reviewing officer. He was not prepared to say what he would recommend in appellant's case in the 1906 review. Cross-examined : He was not the permanent officer in charge of the Department. M'Cullough had two tinsmiths under him, and sometimes a labourer. Re-examined : He was the^ only officer recognised on the Hurunui-Bluff section, and could more properly be called a district officer. The appellant wished to call Mr M'Carthy, workshops manager, who had recommended him in 1906 j but his Honor said that this might be considered proved or admitted. The appellant asked whether to save calling other witnesses Mr M'Villy would admit that all the foremen he had worked under had recommended him at some time or other. Mr M'Villy replied that the Department did not consider local foremen, who probably had to report to the locomotive engineer and worshops manager. His Honor said that it would be taken for granted that appellant's character had nothing against it as far as his local superior officers were concerned. W. Haigh, leading fitter at Addington, said he had gone into Grade 2 when appointed to his position, but had stayed in Grade 2 only twelve months. The leading tradesmen expected to be promoted to Grade 1. and if this were not so there would be difficulty in obtaining leading tradesmen. From the t)3'e, from 1902 onwards he could chow that .leading tradesmen had invariably been transferred to Grade 1 after twelve months, if their conduct and work gave satisfaction to the local superior officer In reply to his Honor, witness saad this was the usual custom, but he could not say that it was according to regulation. ' „ Appellant Interposed that he could •show that all the leading tradesmen in Grade 2 in 1902, with hie exception, had been promoted to Grade 1. His Honor asked if witness could say how many men were in the second grade'in 1902. Witness : Yes. • . , Hie Honor: How many are m the second grade now? . \ r) n ■, Witness : None, excepting M Oullough. . ' , Appellant: How many were m tne 1903 second grade? Witness: Five. „ Appellant: How many are in xt nowf Witness: One. Appellant : And did the same thing occur in 1904? - . ■ „ WiWes: Yes. He thought that -to* fact of a man being kept in the second grade would be considered something against him. There were sixty-six ooa r penters at Addington, and of these forty-two were leading carpenters. Appellant stated that this would refute the argument that might be advanced, that he should not be promoted because he had only two men under him. "W. Thorn, leading coppersmith since 1902, said that he first went into the Beoond grade, from which he was promoted after twelve months into the nrst grade. If he had not been promoted he would .have considered that he was not giving satisfaction. Heknew no reason why appellant should not be promoted . Coppersmithing and tinsmrthing were closely allied, and he thought the position of leading tinsmith was the same as his own. . i^js Honor said that all these " thinkings were not evidence. Appellant had "■ ilnec ifio grievance, and 1 must lead *vi-

dence relevant to it. The appellant could call the whole Railway Department or the whole Christchurch office, who might think he had been unjustly treated, but the Board had to decide that itself, and on facts. The appelknt said that if this was so he had better close the case and allow it to go by default. His Honor said that the recommendations of the local officers were the only statements that could weigh. The appellant said he would therefore close his case. Other witnesses could only repeat what evidence had been given. In addressing the Board, the appellant said that he had tried to put the position as clearly as possible before ihe Board: that for some inscrutable reason he had been taken exception to. It would be shown from the statements of Sir Joseph Ward and Mr M'Villy that the custom had been departed" from in his case. He was confident that Mr M'Villy could not prove otherwise. Mr M'Villy said that the Department did not admit that the appellant had been treated in an exceptional manner, but was being paid as much as the Lead of the Department considered he was worth — 11 s a day. Neither the head ; of the branch nor the general manager was prepared to put him into the first grade, in which there must first of all be a vacancy. Appellant was nic highest-paid tinsmith in the service, and was the only leading one. When there was no vacancy in a grade the relative value of his position mustbe considered, and it was no greater than in 1903. If the five tinsmithing shops were concentrated, doubtless appellant would be put in charge of them, as the Department was quite satisfied with his work; but the business in his line was now very emaH, and the Department heT3 that he was very well paid for his responsibility. In reply to a question from the Board, itfr M'Villy said tinsmithing was considered much lower than coppersmithing. This closed the case, and his Honor said h© would communicate the Board's decision to Wellington in the usual way." ___ _«_«»_-.