Important Case From Denaby Main.

At the Rotherham West Riding Police Court on Monday Robert Dunning and James Astbury were summoned for having neglected to fix a sufficient quantity of props and bars in the Denaby Main Colliery.

Mr. Rhodes appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Clegg, instructed by Mr. W. W. Chappell, secretary to the South Yorkshire and North Derbyshire Miners’ Association, for the defendants.

In opening the case Mr. Rhodes stated that at the spot where the defendants were working there was a visible crack in the roof running diagonally, which was met by another crack, and it was obvious that with the roof in such a state there should be an extra prop or props. That was at half-past eight in the morning. The deputy pointed out the condition of the roof to the defendants and received an assurance that the work would be done.

Later on in the day the same deputy and the manager happened to be going through the working places and found two trammers at work filling, and to the deputy’s astonishment he found that the props he had ordered to be set at 8.30 had not been placed in the requisite position, and that the two trammers had filled so much of the coal which was down when he went through previously that another large portion of roof had been cleared, and in that portion there ought to be three other props set in addition to the others.

On the following day Astbury went to see Mr. Chambers, and it appeared clear that he himself knew, although he did not hear what had been said by the deputy, that the order had been given to set the props and that they ought to have been set. They really ought to have been set without an order, but the order having been given he left the pit and left his two trammers filling in the place.

He told Mr. Chambers he had come to see him about the “timbering job,” and said that he was very sorry and that he hoped Mr. Chambers would look over it. In summoning those two men what the management had in view was not the material advantage but the protection of the men themselves. As very strong remarks had been made recently upon men having been summoned, he might mention that in those particular cases no one could say that the management had any other object in view excepting the safety of the men themselves, and he challenged anyone to say that they had any other object except ensuring the safety of the men.

When he had proved the cases with a great amount of regret, for the two men had previously borne a good character, the Bench would have no option but to inflict such a penalty as would ensure the observance of the rules of the colliery.

Mr. Clegg said he would take an objection against the formality of the summons. He contended that it was irregular and informal, and therefore that it was not right. If the Bench would look into the summons they would find that it contained two offences. The Bench would have remarked that the miners were bound, without any intimation from the officials of the colliery, to set a sufficient quantity of props. The two defendants were charged with neglecting to set a sufficient quantity of props — that was one offence. The second offence mentioned in the summons was that they neglected to add props when told by the underground viewer. The two offences could not be laid in one information; the offences were distinct, and in consequence the summons was void and could not be heard.

The Clerk: It may be amended.
Mr. Clegg: Oh no, it cannot.

He then went on to say that as his clients were to be dealt with technically he would press his objection.

The Chairman: It is one offence.
Mr. Clegg: We are charged with a double offence.
The Chairman: No; it may aggravate the offence. You say they ought to take out two summonses.

Mr. Clegg said those who took out the summons should confine themselves as to what they were going to charge the defendants with, the neglect to set a sufficient quantity of props when told by the underground viewer to do so. They were having summonses continually where men were charged under the special rules for not setting a sufficient quantity of props or bars. There needed no request on the part of the officials for the men to carry that rule out. There were two distinct offences in the rules, and they must both be laid separately. By the summons containing two offences it was illegal and could not be amended; it was a defect in substance and not merely in form. If separate summonses were taken out for each offence he could deal with the cases as they arose. He was not afraid of the facts so far as his client was concerned, but as they were being dealt with in a highly technical manner he felt bound to take every technical objection he could. He quoted from the Summary Jurisdiction Act of 1848, which stated that every information should be for one matter of complaint only, and not for two or more offences. If there were two he contended that the summons was void.

The Chairman: Then they might be fined in both cases if they were found guilty.
Mr. Clegg said that would be the case. If the men had neglected to set sufficient props it was one offence and they might also be fined for not doing as they were told.

The Chairman: Would it not be called a persecution of the men?
Mr. Clegg: Probably it would.

His friend had introduced something into the case about what had been said concerning the action of magistrates. He (Mr. Clegg) simply wished to deal with the case as it came before the Court. Freedom of speech was allowed. He would base his objection on section 10 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1848.

Mr. Rhodes said his friend would probably scout as monstrous the splitting up of the information if he were to ask the Bench to send those men to prison for two terms of imprisonment. If the argument were carried out to its legitimate conclusion that was what it came to. He submitted that the summons was perfectly good; what it simply did was to point out to the men what they would have to meet.

The Chairman: I think you had better withdraw this and lay a fresh information.

Mr. Clegg: I should have asked for a case if you had decided against me.