GRAHAMSTOWN VOLUNTEER FIRE BRIGADE.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 268, 17 August 1872, Page 3

GRAHAMSTOWN VOLUNTEER FIRE BRIGADE.

BOARD OF INQUIRY. A Board of Inquiry was held at Mr Gudgeon’s office, yesterday, to inquire into the conduct of Mr Alexander, enginehouse keeper, in consequence of a complaint laid before the Waiotahi Highway Board, by Mr Marks, superintendent of the Brigade. Present: Mr Davies, in the chair, and Messrs Gudgeon, Hazard, Dean (Secretary). Mr Tyler appeared on behalf of Mr Alexander. The following memorandum was read:— “ Waiotahi District Board Office, “ 16th August, 1872. ‘ Extract from minute-book August 14, 1872. “ Mr Gudgeon laid a complaint on behalf of Mr Marks against the enginekeeper that he did not keep his engine properly, nor ready for immediate service, and that when spoken to by him lie refused to obey him (Mr Marks,) and threatened to kick him out of the enginehouse.

It was resolved that Messrs Davies, Gudgeon, and Hazard be a committee to Ascertain the truth of the complaint.

“Sir—The above committee will sit a* Mr Gudgeon’s office, at 3 p.m., ibis day. You are n quested to attend, and prove your complaint. I have the honor to be, “ Sir, “ Your most obedient Servant, “ F. < \ Dean, “ Secretary to the Board. “ E. Marks, Esq., “Superintendent V. 8.” Mr Marks said the threat made use of by Mr Alexander was that lie would kick him (Marks) from one end of the street to the other. When he (Marks) visited the engine-house, the engine was not, in his opinion, in a proper condition. The only order he then gave was to the foreman of the engine, and not to Mr Alexander. Mr Alexander had not disobeyed his order. He (Mr Marks) did not desire to press the inquiry. Mr Tyler said he had been instructed to attend on behalf of Mr Alexander, as it was an important matter to him, as upon it depended his salary, and also whether or not he had b.sen guilty of insubordination. He (Mr Tyler) was in a position to prove that t.'.e engine was properly Kept, and that Mr Alexander was ready to obey Mr Marks’orders, and, in fact, bad obeyed them. What Alexander objected to 'was, that Marks went behind his (Alexander's) back and made remarks to his detriment.

Mr Marks said ho thought Mr Alexander was a very good man, and he should he sorry to Use his services, but that he ought to apologise. Mr Hazard concurred, and said he thought this should be done. Mr Tyler said th# language made use of was outside the Brigade business altogether. Mr Bull had told Mr Alexander that Mr Marks had been slandering him, and in the heat of the moment Alexander spoke. The words were used outside, near Mr Mackio’s workshop. Mr Alexander had obeyed Mr Mark’s orders, although he thought them injudicious and unwise. The engine now had 45owt. of hose put upon it in consequence of Mr Mark’s orders, hut the order coming from a constituted authority, Mr Alexander had carried it out. , The Chairman said he thought there had been some mistakes on both sides. Mr Marks should have spoken to Mr Alexander direct if he thought anythin.' was wrong, and not have gone behind his back to make remarks ; and Mr Alexander ought not to have made use of the language iinput- d to him. The Chairman said it was evident there had been a little misunderstanding. Of co’urse Mr Alexander must obey the orders of the Superintendent. Mr Alexander was a man who had hitherto given satisfaction. Mr Marks said his intention had not b en to mak® a formal complaint against Mr Alexander, but lie communicated with tin- Board in order that Air Alexander's duties be defined. The Board dismissed the complaint, and deemed it unnecessary to call the witnesses.