Mexborough & Swinton Times – Saturday 8 November 1924
Denaby Miner Killed
Accident at Cadeby
Coroner’s Criticism of Working Practice
Criticism of the present method of working in coal mines was offered by Mr. Frank Allen, the Doncaster District Coroner, at an inquest held at the Denaby Main Institute on Tuesday, on a Denaby miner who was buried by a fall of two tons of roof at the Cadeby Colliery on Saturday.
The dead man was David William Atkin (41), of 20, Tickhill Street, and he was working at the face in the East Top district on the morning shift. He was engaged in “barring” coal on a “bord” face about eighteen feet long, when suddenly, without any warning, a heavy fall occurred, and he was completely buried under about two tons of dirt. Another miner, named Ernest Bourne, was partly buried, while a third, Charles Wakefield, just missed the fall. Bourne was extricated after half an hour but, at the end of an hour’s work, when Atkin was released, he was dead.
Mr. H. Hulley (manager of the colliery), Mr. T. J. Gregory (Y.M.A.), and Mr. H. S. Scott (H.M. Inspector of Mines), were present at the inquest.
The body was identified by the widow, Sarah Atkin, who said her husband left home in good health.
Charles Wakefield, miner, 69, Warmsworth Street, Denaby Main, said he was at work with Atkin in 23’s stall. Atkin was “barring” coal from the face, which was on “bord.” The fall occurred at 11-30 a.m. and Atkin was buried. As much timber was set as was possible until more coal had been removed. Plenty of timber was available. There were no “face supporters,” because they had not got the coal off. They did not use face supports unless they were “holing,” and in that case they set “sprags” on the occasion they were not holing. The “face” was not in the habit of coming over as it was very hard coal. They did not find that this face required “holing.” There was no warning bump.
In reply to the Inspector, witness said the coal on either side of the place where the fall occurred had been “holed.” This “holing” had been done before the recent break-down in the machinery at Cadeby, and had stood for three weeks. At the time of the accident they were trying to get a tub road up to the spot. Earlier in the morning they had done some “holing” but all the coal had been pulled off to the back of the “holing.” Atkin was pulling off a small piece about nine inches thick so that it would not slip on to witness. It was their intention as soon as they had cleaned up the coal, to set more timber. There was no break in the roof and no further “holing” had been carried out since early morning.
Ernest Bourne, miner, 62, Ivanhoe Road, Conisborough, said Atkin was chargeman in the stall, where witness also worked. The coal was not undercut or overhanging when the fall occurred.
The Inspector: Was there any means of setting any “catch props” before the fall occurred?—I don’t think there was. We could not set “catch props” until we had cleared the coal.
The deputy, Garnet Cutts, 9, Clifton Hill, Conisborough, said he visited the place at 8 a.m. and 10-30 a.m. that morning. It was properly timbered and there was plenty of timber about.
The Coroner: So many of these accidents happen when you are working on “bord” and the coal topples over. I had an inquest last night where a man was killed in precisely the same way. I could write the evidence in these cases beforehand. If there is a bit of a break, the coal is bound to come over. How do you account for it coming over at this end?
The Inspector: It has come off to an exceptionally fine “slip.” The “slip” is practically continuous right up through the roof.
Mr. Hulley: The man was trying to get a tub road through, to get away the coal which was down on the floor. The only question is whether he had chosen the proper place to “bar” the coal. If he had been further away towards the “gate,” he would have been safe. It was an error of judgment. He stood on the wrong side.
Mr. Gregory suggested that a practical workman would not have tried the other end, because he would not have got the coal off.
The Coroner said that type of accident, in which the coal toppled over when working on “bord,” was the most frequent form of accident in this district, and they found that it was very rare any form of “sprag” was set unless they were “holing.” The question was whether it was right to be “barring” off a long “bord” face without having more supporters? Was it safe to leave a long “face” like that one, which was eighteen feet in length, unsupported when men were working on the coal? “I may be wrong,” said Mr. Allen, “but it always occurs to me that it is not safe.”
Mr. Hulley: I would agree with you if the “face” was “bord.”
The Coroner: But it was nearly “bord.”
Mr. Hulley: No, it was half and half.
The Coroner: If you have a rule which is not elastic and cannot be adapted to meet the circumstances of the moment, it is no good. Some kind of face support is necessary if this piece is on “bord.”
Mr. Scott agreed.
The Coroner, continuing, said that when they had a long face on “bord” they had very serious risks of accident. “I may be wrong, but I cannot help think that a few face supports would have prevented this accident. Ten minutes might have saved a man’s life, and there, I have from long experience that the majority of these accidents occur when you are working on ‘bord’ and the coal topples over.”
Mr. Hulley said he did not think any sprags would have prevented that accident.
The Coroner: I have had about twenty years’ experience, and in the early part of that experience there used to be killed by hundreds accidents, but now we are getting less of the hundreds and slighting, but we are getting a lot more experienced men killed, and I set it down very largely to the new system of working.
Mr. Gregory: Coal is got easier now.
The Coroner: Yes, and more men are killed. I don’t know how far it is safe for a jury to recommend any departure from the accepted method of working, but it is my experience that this class of accident has risen very greatly, in proportion to other classes of accident. I do not recommend the jury to add any rider recommending an alteration in the methods, but I do want to impress on management and men the advisability of considering whether it was not worth while to return to the old methods of “holing.” The old system had the advantage of many years’ trial and experiences and it seems to me that it was a good deal safer than the present one.
A verdict of “Accidental Death” was returned. Members of the jury and witnesses gave their fees to the widow.