INSPECTOR DISMISSED.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17178, 23 October 1923, Page 8

INSPECTOR DISMISSED.

A TRAMWAY APPEAL. An appeal against bis dismissal from the service of the Tramway Board was brought before the Tramway Appeal Board to-day by Harold William Moore, formerly an inspector. Mr H. Y. 4\ iddowson, S.M. presided, and with him on tho bench Ave.ro Messrs J. A. Frostick and fc>. l'\ HutMr Alpers appeared for the appellant aud l pham ior the respondent Mr Alpers said lie proposed to traverse* the evidence called before the Tramway Board officials to show il' pos si hie that nothing had been proved against Moore.. 'ill© charges against Moore, with one important exception, were made by Motornian Armstrong, who had been dismissed on a complaint made by Inspector Moore. Armstrong was a man of ungovernable temper, who would not put up with rebuke. He bad been dismissed because of a fracas with Moore, and also with Inspector I me. The evidence against Moore upon which ho was dismissed, was given or procured by this disgruntled Mr Alpers said that on© complaiut made against Moore had been withdrawn. Ihe complaint had been that Moore had followed a girl down a side street and accosted her. The fact was that Moore had gone along the side street for the purpose of camouflaging his movements and the girl apparently a nervous girl, had been frightened. The whole of the circumstances had been explained to the girl’s father.

llie other charge referred to two girls who were on. familiar terms with Armstrong. As to the first girl it, appeared that: Armstrong was a pa! of hers. He admitted that one night he lent her his uniform overcoat. The version that the girl gave of this to a conductor was: “L was out with a ‘ traramie ’ till midnight last night, and he lent me his overcoat ” There was obviously something fairly familiar between Armstrong and her. She signed a statement to the effect that Moore approached her and asked which car she was waiting for. Moore suggested to her that she- should miss the car and he would see her home. She much resented this conduct. That statement said Air Alpers. was written out by Armstrong and signed by Ijie- girl- A further statement, was made by the girl later to the General Manager. In this she stated that about a, year and ten months before Moore had said to her: Why catch the last car?” From that she thought that Moore would like to see her lnme. In respect to the first statement she said Armstrong had called her to a shop in the Square and read the statement over to her. She said it was not quite correct. Armstrong said if she signed it it would save him his job, and would be torn up the next day. She therefore signed it. That was the way in whicli. Armstrong had secured his evidence against Moore. In the case of the last girl the evidence was equally weak. 'The girl stated that Inspector Moore, who for some time had been touching his hat to her, asked her if she would go into town on the following Friday evening and catch the last car home. She refused. 'That girl, said Air Alpers. had not "been found- She called and saw Inspector Dick, and said she was not going to have anything to do with the matter as it was all Armstrong s spite. The. appellant, in. evidence, said he was thirty-four years of age. He had been thirteen years in the service of the board, and bad been conductor, clerk, motor man. and inspector. He had been inspector for live years. He had no recollection of having, eyer spoken to girls outside the scope of Ins duties-

To Mr Upham : Witness was quite satisfied with the fairness of Air Thompson. He could not suggest any other steps that Air Thompson could have taken in the circumstances. He dm not suggest that there was any bias on the part of Air Thompson. He had denied the statement that he had carried on a conversation with the girl in the side street. Air Upham : AVhen confronted with the girl you admitted practically everything and apologised ?—I did not. The girl had admitted that there were inaccuracies in her statement. She had said that witness had spoken to her at the car. Air Upham : That is not in the complaint. Witness: She admitted that 1 spoke only once. Witness. in reply to further questions, said that on one occasion he had been told by an inspector that he had been rune up. The inspector hail found that it was witness who was wanted. The inspector asked witness if ho had been using his name, and witness denied it. Air Upham : AY as there a meeting of the Inspector’s Association to see if they would assist you?—Yes. And they came to the conclusion that they could not assist you?—No. AVer© you not asked about some other affair about some woman in Riccarton ?—No. You were not asked by Inspector Mitchell ?—No, he asked me previous to the meeting. A'ou admitted the truth of this Kiccarton matter?—l gave Mitchell an explanation. Will you state the circumstances? Witness (to the Magistrate): Is it a fair question, sir? It happened about two years ago. To Air Upham: It was just an indiscretion that witness made about two Air Upham: And you admitted the truth of it? —I admitted that I had made this indiscretion. Do you know that the girl you followed in .Somerfield Street arrived home in almost a fainting condition? [ believe she was frightened tho night lie fore. Where were you going when you went along Somerfield Street? —To the o ther Spreydon car ? No. You were just getting out of the way in order to pick up the next Colombo Street car?—Yes. Then why did not you go down Tennyson Street?—lf 1 did you would ask why I did not go down Somerfield Street. This girl told her father that you were following close on her iootsteps so that she was nearly running into a strange house ?- -She was a very nervous and timid sort of girl. To Air Alpers: He had gone along Somerfield Street because his movements would then bo better concealed from conductors. Had lie gone down Tennyson Street tbe conductors could have seen him. When lie called to see the girl and her father the girl was quite positive that he had spoken to her and persisted in her statement. Witness did not recollect having] spoken to her and told her so. A.lr Dick bad told him that Air 'Thompson was not satisfied with his explanation. He had already written a. lengthy explanation to Mr Thompson and thought he could do no good by seeing him again.

Air Upham: Did not you say to the mother of the girl alter you had called there that it would lie a lesson to you

and that it would not occur again ? No. She said something to me to be careful in future and not give any chances like that. Mr Upham said that Moore had had a good record in all capacities in which he had served. It would have been to the interests of the general manager and the traffic inspector to exonerate him if they could. When the general manager read Moore’s letter of explanation he considered that it did not sound true. At this stage the further hearing was adjourned till this afternoon. The Court resumed at 2.15 p.m. Frank Thompson, genera! manager of the Christchurch Tramways, said that he would have been onlv too pleased if Moore could have exonerated himself. He was pre-di.sposed in his favour because of his long record and his good service. (Proceeding.)