Breach of Contract – Case Dismissed Against Conisbrough Miner

December 1912

Mexborough and Swinton Times December 14, 1912

Breach of Contract

Case Dismissed Against Conisbrough Miner

Benjamin Wall, miner, of New Conisbrough, was summoned by the Denaby and Cadeby Colliery Company for a breach of the employer and workmen act.

Mr F Allen, who appeared on behalf of the Colliery Company said the claim 17 shillings damages for a breach of contract.

In November 19 the defendant was in charge of stall number 155 in the south district of the Cadeby mine. He went to work on the morning shift, and there was little dirt down in the stall, but that, however did not interfere with him at all. The only thing it did was to obstruct getting out of the tubs in the stall. There were three tubs to be filled. Three day men were engaged in moving the dirt, and it was got out by 8.45. There was plenty of work for him to do the old shift.

Instead of doing that he turned back and met the deputy and told him he was going out. He told the deputy that he was going out because of the dirt. Fully, the deputy, told him he could work. The defendant, and, went out of the pit. The colliery company only brought such cases as that forward as an example. He (Mr Allen) asked the bench to make an order for 5s, if they decided in favour of the colliery company. It was impossible to work the pit if the men were allowed to do as they like, and the management sustained a very serious loss.

Harry Hulley, the deputy, said the stall was safe to work in.

Mr H.S. Witty said the setting down of the stall meant a great loss to the colliery company.

The defendant gave evidence, and cross-examined by Mr Allen, he admitted that there were printed bylaws all over the colliery, but they themselves ought to have a copy of the bylaws. It was not safe to work his stall.

A filler named Hughes, and a dear man named Jack Sheldon, gave evidence in defence. In reply to Mr Nokes, a magistrate, defendant said he was not allowed to remove a fall until the deputy ordered that he should do so.

The bench retired, and on returning the chairman announced that after considering the evidence they did not feel that they could make an order.