Midland & Northern Coal & Iron Trades Gazette, Wednesday, 28 May 1884
A Mining Case Upset
On Monday at the Rotherham Police Court, Robert Dunning and James Astbury, employed at the Denaby Main Colliery, were summoned by the manager, Mr. Wm. Henry Chambers, for a breach of special rule 29, on the 29th April.
Mr. F. Parker Rhodes prosecuted, and Mr. W. K. Clegg defended Astbury on behalf of the North Derbyshire and South Yorkshire Miners’ Association.
Mr. Rhodes said that the rule under which defendants had been summoned provided that miners must build good pack walls and set sufficient props and bars to secure the safety of their own working place, and renew them when necessary, or when told by the underground viewer or deputy. It also provided that when leaving work they must see that the places were in safe order.
The defendants’ tramers were “filling” in the working place, and the defendants, who were some short distance away, were sent for. In consequence of a misunderstanding only Dunning returned to the working place.
The deputy showed Dunning where two props should at once be set. There was a visible break in the roof and another one in a line with it which made the roof very dangerous at that point.
The deputy returned to the place after he had inspected other parts of the pit and found that his orders had not been carried out. He then found another place, all in the defendants’ “take,” where three more props should be set. The defendants not only neglected to set the props, but allowed their tramers to work in the place.
Mr. Clegg argued that the informant was altogether irregular. To neglect to set sprags was one offence, and to neglect to carry out the instructions of a deputy was another, and separate informations should have been laid.
Mr. Rhodes said a good deal had been said about proceedings having been taken before the Court and the decision of justices, but he could say that the management had no other motive in proceeding against the defendants than for the safety of their men.
Mr. Clegg said that the defendants were being dealt with in a highly technical manner; he had no alternative than to make the complainant proceed in a proper manner.
Mr. Rhodes said that as the deputy told the men to set sprags it did not create a second offence. He thought Mr. Clegg would scout as monstrous if he had split up the offences and asked the Bench to send the men to prison for one term after another. If he were to attempt to join two separate informations then the objection made by Mr. Clegg would be allowable.
The Chairman said it would be safer to withdraw the summons and lay fresh informations.
Mr. Rhodes said he would accede to the wish of the Bench.
Mr. Clegg intimated to the Bench that if they had decided against him he should have asked them to grant him a case for the Superior Court.