RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1175, 10 July 1911, Page 6

RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD.

AN INTERESTING POINT. (By Telegraph-Press Association.) Auckland, July 8. The Railway Appeal Board disallowed tho Appeal of Guard A. J. Campbell against his dismissal for alleged misconduct arising out of a dispute with tho stationniaster at Tβ Kuiti. Tho hoard wished it understood that the appeal was dismissed solely on the ground of the necessity to uphold the regulation?. It cast no reflection'on appellant's ability in the dischargo of his duty or on his character. IBy Tclecraph.— Special Correspondent.) Auckland, July 9. A point of some interest to railway men cropped up in the case yesterday in which Guard A. J. Campbell appealed against his dismissal from the service. At the conclusion of his cross-examination of tho appellant, Mr. Davidson (for tho Department) proceeded to question the witness regarding previous punishments in the way of fines, tho object being to put before the board the appellant's "record" of punishment. This brought a question as to tho fairness of the procedure from Mr. lee, who pointed out that it tended to prejudice the appellant's case in tho mind of the board. Mr. IJyan agreed tjiat the file supplied onesided evidence, in. fact it showed only what was against a man and did not. set forth his gnod conduct- as well. The chairman (Dr. M'Arthur, S.M:) slated that in a civil court whore a man was up for drunkenness his previous record in I hat respect was taken into account by the magistrate in determining the punishment. Mr. Davidson slated that this was the only opportunity he hnd of putting the mail's record before the board, and that the record always weighed with tlio Department in determining the severity of the punishment, inflicted on a servant. At the conclusion of the evidence the matter was again raised when Mr. Davidson declined to put in the Department's official file relating to the appellant which sets forth fully tho circumstances surrounding each occasion when railway men were punished; Mr. Leo said that the record of a man's previous punishments by the Department did not. coincide with a man's police court record, say for drunkenness, because the former frequently dealt with a different class of case from that before the board. Almost every Tailway man had a "record" of fines for breaches of regulations, but that was a very different thing from so serious an offence as an offenco against discipline. Eventually the chairman intimated that he did not wish to have the "record" or li't of punishments on record against appellant put in, aijd the other members of tho board concurred in this decision.