RAILWAY APPEAL.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1490, 12 July 1912, Page 4

RAILWAY APPEAL.

QUESTION OF RESPONSIBILITY*/

The Railway Appeal Board eat last ovcuing to hear the appeal of Thomas Henry Stubbs, a relieving officer for tho Auckland district, against his dismissal from the railway service. Dr. A. M'Ar,tUur, S.M., presided, aud Messrs. C. P. ■'Ryan and P. Gaines, the other members of the board,' sat with him on the Bench. Mr. M. Deiinehy conducted tho case for the appellant, and Mr. H. Davidson represented the defendant. Tho reason alleged by the Department for .the dismissal of Stubbs was that he, acting as relieving btationniaster at Taupiri, left the main points open, and thereby caused aa engine and three.wagons to be derailed. No evidence was called, but the evidence taken.at tho Departmental inquiry was read to the Court. Tho question at issue was as to who Wis responsiblo for the-locking of thu points. On behalf of tho appollaut it was contended that it was the duty of the guard of tin ballast train which had last • passed through the station to lock tho points after passing through them On to the main line. It appeared that the porter whoso routine duty it was to see that tho points were in order, had not done so, be-, cause he understood that the guard had locked them. ' It was also nreod on appellant's behalf that tho penalty was too severe for the offence. Mr. Davidson arqucd that tho responsibility lay with the officer in charge of the station to eoo that the points were locked, and to issue instructions to one of the station staff to fn« that tlio line was clear and in order. He pointed out also that although the punishment wns severe, it was the only punishment ever meted, out- in such cases. The President of the board (Dr. M'Artluir) said he va* satisfied that appollnnt could not be relieved from responsibility for the accident, but he was not sntisfied Hint the oflonce deserved such foverc punishment. Dr. M'Arthur, in giving- judgment, said that tho appellant fonld not bo altogether, frerd froni responsibility for the 'conduct' of lii* station, but tlie lv fitted the crime. The board decided that the case would bo met by reducing appellant from Grade S to Grade !). This means that ho will be reduced in salary from i!2SS per year to .£220.