RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume L, Issue 12242, 16 June 1909, Page 7

RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD.

■ (Per Press Association.) DUNEDIN, June 14. The Railway Appeal Board, at which district Judge Haselden presided, had a lengthy sitting to-day which lasted from 10 a.m. until 1Q p.m. Two cases heard were the outcome of a departmental inquiry into the alleged running of trains at excessive speed on the Otago Central Line—driver N. Woodhead, who had been reduced to fireman grade No. 1 at 9s 6d-per-day for three months, '^and guard W. Wenn, whose pay had also been reduced. Both appealed against the decision of the Department. Counsel for" the appellant driver stated that it was a matter of impossibility on some parts .of * the section to run their trains according to time table limits. Decisions in »both cases were reserved. ,

The third case taken was an appeal by guard J. A. Shiels against the infliction of a fine of £5 for negligence, in connection with the breaking away of 2 loaded trucks from the new Leaversham tunnel works. The trucks charged away with brakes off arid'were riot stopped until they reached Dunedin station yard. Appellant claimed;'that there was no negligence on his part. ' : J. Graham Campbell, tablet porter, on whose part negligence had been shown in connection with the same occurrence, in not having the stop block on.the bran,6h 3ine; locked, and who was fined "£s,"also appealed ion the ground that he had not been given the opportunity of defending himself. He had been suspended and fined on ari admission -made 'by "him-'at'* .the enquiry into, the breaking away of the trucks'. ,

In both, instances. decisions were ireserved.- ". -'. '■-". .-' :• ■-. ■.' "-■■ • . .-'■'■

Robert Millar appealed against' his dismissal from the position of a laborer in the: Hilside wofkshops. The. grojund of the Department's action was; general inefficiency for1 work. Lfengthy evidence was taken, and,,a decision was agiiin reserved;.,' .' ;':'-;" :-■ ;-':.;" v. "',:''"'':'. •>■■". ■-'

' Edward Isaac Keyeslpdged an appeal on tlie grounds that he had been super-, seded by other porters in the matter, of promotion. The Department's case was that he.had:iiot { shown;due capacity forthe position *of 1 shunter when in that position at ■ Balclutha. Evidence was tendered by the' Dep~a^tment from the stationmasters under v whom - appellant previously served as shunter, and the, opinion expressed by them Ayas that he* was " riot physically equal to the;,work. The appellant protested that he was The Judge Held' that ;urider •: the circum-; 'stances he could n6t:see;his way to interfere »with the position. , .