Mexborough and Swinton Times August 24, 1907
Breach of Colliery Rules at Denaby.
Mr W. M. Gichard (Rotherham), appeared to prosecute on behalf of the Denaby Main Colliery Company, against John Ashford (Collier) who was charged with a breach of colliery rules 98,
Mr Gilchard stated that a deputy named Springthorpe was going his round of inspection on August 10th and he got to the defendants working place at about 8:30 a.m. Defendant was stood at the entrance of his working place, and his lamp was in darkness. He said he had an accident and his light had been put out. Springthorpe asked how it occurred and defendant stated that his lamp was hung on the “Cocker bolt.” Through a bump in the coalface the lamp fell and he caught it with his pick, which bulged the shield and also damage the inner gauze.
Springthorpe, however, did not concur with defendant’s explanation of how the accident had happened, and had made an experiment, but found it impossible to happen in such a manner. The lamp would be about 2 feet from the swing of the pick.
Mr Gichard pointed out that such a large number of damaged lamps were met with, and the story of the disaster were not always believed that it was necessary that proceedings be taken for the benefit of the safety of the other workers in the mine.
Jane Springthorpe, deputy, corroborated Mr Gichard‘s statement
Defendant contended that it was an accident, but was ordered to pay 7/6 and costs.
Another charge of breach of colliery rules was that against WM. Hayward, filler, of Denaby.
Mr F. Allen, who prosecuted, said that defendant contravened special colliery rule 85 by stepping upon the cage of the number two shaft at the Cadeby colliery, after a signal had been given to the engineman and the cage was in motion.
Thomas Howard, hanger on, corroborated, and defendant, who did not appear, was fined 20s including costs.
Mexborough & Swinton Times, August 3,1907.
There was a batch of colliery offences, for which Mr W. M. Gichard prosecuted on behalf of the Denaby and Cadeby Main Collieries Co, Ltd. In the first case John Headland, trammer, pleaded guilty to a breach of rule by failing to fix back stays to a run of tubs descending a gradient, and for this he was fined 10/– and 11/6 costs.
A miner named Arthur Hutton was summoned for a breach of rule 101 by failing to support the roof in a working place at the distance provided for by the rule.
Defendant pleaded guilty, and was fined 10/– and 11/6 costs.
William. A. Brooke, a pony driver, was charged with a breach of rule 106 in the Denaby mine.
Defendant, it appeared, had, despite the instructions of the deputy, taking a run of more than 10 tubs, and these not being properly secured broke loose, and might have caused considerable damage.
Defendant appeared and pleaded guilty, being fined 5/– and costs.
For a somewhat similar offence, namely, disobedience to the instructions of the deputy, and incidentally placing his own life in danger, John Dermot, a Mexborough trapper, had to pay 2/6 and costs.