Denaby Accident – Young Miner Killed in the “Deep” – Coroner’s Severe Comments

January 1926

Mexborough and Swinton Times January 22, 1926

Denaby Accident
Young Miner Killed in the “Deep”
Coroner’s Severe Comment
Too Young for Responsibility

At the Fullerton Hospital, Denaby, yesterday, Mr Frank Allen held an inquest into the death of Martin Higgins (23), miner of 69, Braithwell Street, Denaby Main, who died at the Hospital on Tuesday following injuries received by a fall of roof at the Denaby Colliery on the previous night.

Margaret Egan, the widow, gave evidence of identification, said how we went to work on the afternoon shift on Monday. She heard of the accident at 10:30 p.m., and saw her husband in the Hospital at 2 a.m. on the following day. He died shortly after. He had worked in the pit ever since he left school.

John Taylor, filler, of 73 Annerley Street, Denaby said on that on Monday he was at work in the in the “Denaby Deep” with Martin Higgins in stall 253. Higgins was in charge. The tub road was being moved but witness had nothing to do with the timbering. Only the witness and Higgins were working in the stall stop witness was not in the stall at the time of the accident, having left to get a drink of water. While away he heard the noise of the dirt falling running back found Higgins under a stone. A shot firer was there and witness went for assistance. It took six or seven minutes to get Higgins Higgins out.

In answer to Mr Humphrey, Inspector of mines, the witness said Higgins was setting props, but he (witness) had not seen him draw any. Higgins had been filling coal and the witness was filling coal the whole of the shift.

Instructions Disregarded

John William Derrance, deputy, 58 Victoria Road, Mexborough said that on Monday afternoon he visited stall 253 at 4.45 when Higgins and Taylor were working there. Higgins was getting coal and Taylor was filling. They had made no start towards shifting the tub road and witness told them to start that work, as they had got enough coal. The witness also told Higgins not forget to set the bars. There was plenty of timber about. When the witness examined the place after the accident he found that only props are been set; no bars had been put in. The roof was bad. Higgins was in charge of the stall.

Coroner: Is it usual to the lad of 23 in charge of a bad place – Well, yes, sir because he was a competent man.

Don’t you think you was too young for the job? – He had served his apprenticeship.

Having regard to what happened, do you think Higgins was sufficiently experienced to be in charge of a place like this? – We have done the same thing before.

Who is responsible for saying who shall be in charge of the place? – The day deputy is in charge.

Mr W Still (manager): That would rest with myself and the under manager.

The Coroner (to the witness): You told Higgins to set bars and he did not do so? – That is right sir.

In answer to the Coroner, Mr Still said Higgins had set five prop but had not set bars.

HM Inspector (to the witness); Did you examine the roof from under which the timber was to be withdrawn? – Yes, but not minutely.

Did you give instructions that safety appliances were to be used for withdrawing the timber? – No sir, he should have known.

You know it is your duty to do so? – Yes.

A Casual Inspection

James Bracegirdle, shot firer and deputy, of 117 Sandymount Road, Wath on Dearne, said he was in charge of the district. He first came into the stall at 6:30 PM and made a casual inspection. No shots were fired in 253 stall until after the accident. The witness examine the face timber and roof at 6.30. Higgins at that time was setting a permanent tub road prop, and Taylor was filling a tub of coal. The face timber at that time was in, but no bars were set. Bars were not required because the roof was in good condition.

The Coroner: You say that now? – Yes.

Two bars would have prevented the accident? – One bar would have prevented the accident.

And yet you say bars were not necessary? Does not this disaster alter your opinion at all? – Colliers use their own discretion unless they have direct orders.

He had direct orders – I was not aware of them.

Do you say a boy of 23, working in a dangerous place should decide on his own responsibility whether bars are required are not? – His experience should teach him that.

A deputy is supposed to have more experience is he not? – Yes

Did you tell this lad he need not set bars? – No sir.

Did you not suggest it would be safer if he did set them? – No sir.

Dr McArthur give evidence as to the nature of the injuries.

Out of All Reason

The Coroner, addressing the jury, said it appeared that our half a ton of stone had fallen and had covered almost the whole of Higgin’s body. As to the circumstances of his death there was not much doubt that it was accidental. When they got to the other points of the case careful consideration was necessary. It might be the result of an agreement with the Yorkshire Miners Association, but it seemed out of all reason that a youth of 23 should be in sole charge – with men under — of any place in the pit, but to put him in charge of what was admittedly a dangerous place was quite unreasonable.

If a man had a right to be employed as chargehand at the age of 23 in a dangerous place it was about time the system was altered. The agreement as to sharing wages were all very well, but there was a limit to the reasonableness of that. A boy of 23 rarely had had experience necessary to qualifying for taking charge, particularly in is (the Coroner’s) judgement was it improper he should have charge of that admittedly dangerous place. They had it from the first deputy that that that was in a bad rule, and bars are necessary, and had, in fact been fixed to within five props of the point of the accident. It was that deputies order that such work should be continued. On the face of it it looked as if the morning shift, might have carried the bars further than they did, but it was clearly incumbent on the afternoon shift to put the bars in as quickly as possible, and the deputy told Higgins so.

Inexperienced?

He (the Coroner) did not suppose Higgins ever foresaw the consequences withdrawing five or six middle set temporary props without setting bars, and that suggested he did not know sufficient about the job. The matter might be an arrangement with the men’s union – he did not know what the rules of that pit wearing with regard to chargemen – but, generally speaking, if there was a system which permitted a boy of 23 to be in sole charge of a stall and work practically alone, that system should be altered as quickly as possible in the interests of the youths themselves.

Witnesses Contradiction

The Coroner went on to say he really could not understand what the witness Bracegirdle was driving at. That the bars have been set to within such a short distance of the point of the accident was conclusive that somebody who knew something about the job knew that bars should be set. After saying that bars were not necessary, Brace girdle said the accident would not have happened if the bars had been set. Could they understand the mentality of a man like that? It was sheer contradiction from beginning to end. He (the Coroner) could hardly say that Bracegirdle was responsible for the accident, but a man who could pass such an opinion as he had done, clearly had a good deal to learn. Whether it was Bracegirdle’s real state of mind, whether he was trying to shield the deceased, or himself, or anyone else, he (the Coroner) could not say, but he could not understand a man holding it a deputy certificate, who could give such an opinion is that no props want setting, in the face of his colleagues and the other workman, who had already set bars. He certainly thought Bracegirdle ought to be very seriously think about the accident and the lesson that ought to be derived from it.

Manager’s Statement

Mr W Still, the manager, said that Higgins had been trained at the Denaby colliery under his own father, and as a collier he had all the experience required by the Coal Mines Act. It was not their custom to put a young man in charge of a stall, and Higgins had not been there regularly because there were older men in the place, but owing to somebody been away, Higgins was in charge the afternoon.

He (Mr Still) did not altogether agree that the condition of the stall was abnormal although it was not as safe as it might been. After all, they must have some young men learning the work and become unable to take over important jobs. There was nothing to prevent them putting a young man of the age of Higgins in charge of important work if the experience of the management believed he was competent enough.

Higgins progress at led them to believe he was competent to take over any stall. Nobody regretted the accident more than the management, and he took the opportunity of expressing sympathy with Higgins relatives. The manager felt that Higgins was one of those men who would go a long way. He (the money) wanted to impress upon the jury that it was not their custom to put such young men on important work, although it had been so on this occasion.

The coroner said the jury would welcome the statement that it was not the usual practice and it was more or less because our older man was not there that Higgins was in charge. Because a man at work two years on the coalface was legally qualified to be in charge of a stall, it did not necessarily mean he was a practice man. There was a way of gaining experience and that came with age.

Mr Roberts for the Denaby branch of the union said he would like to endorse what had been said by Mr still with regard to the principle of putting men in charge of stalls Higgins was an exceptional man and he did not think they were fine more instances are men of that it’s taking the responsibilities that Higgins did. He expressed sympathy with the deceased’s relatives.

The jury returned a verdict of “Accidental death” and the foreman of the jury said Higgins ought to have had assistance in setting bars. They wish to be identified with the expressions of sympathy.