Prosecution of Miners at Rotherham

Neglecting to Set Sprags

At the West Riding Police Court, yesterday, Robert Dunning, collier, Denaby, was charged with a breach of special rule 29 in force at the Denaby Main Coal Pit, by neglecting to set a sufficient quantity of props and bars to support the roof, on April 29th. He was also charged on a second information with neglecting, on leaving work, to see the pack walls were kept in safe order. Mr. F. Parker-Rhodes prosecuted, and in opening the case said the man Dunning and another person named Astbury were concerned in this case. The case had already been before the Bench, but in consequence of Mr. Clegg’s objection that two separate offences could not be dealt with in one summons, they had now been summoned separately, and each man had been summoned on the two charges already specified.

In the case now before the Bench Mr. Clegg did not appear, but he did in the other case for the man Astbury, and no doubt the Bench would decide to hear both cases before giving their decision. The facts were that Dunning and Astbury worked together in a bank at the colliery. On the day named in the summons, a deputy named William Wright went into the working place and found that some props required setting. There were a couple of visible breaks in the roof which rendered it necessary that one or two props should be set on each side of the crack to support the roof. The deputy spoke to Dunning on the subject, and marked the place where the props were to be set, and then left. Later on in the day, the same deputy, on going through the place, again found that no props had been set at all, and that the fillers were at work notwithstanding the dangerous state of the working place.

William Wright, the deputy referred to, was then called and gave evidence in corroboration of Mr. Rhodes’s statement. Dunning pleaded guilty to each charge, and said that he had nothing whatever to say in his defence. The Bench decided to hear the case against Astbury before giving their decision.

James Astbury was then charged with a similar offence. Mr. F. Rhodes prosecuted, and Mr. W. Clegg (Messrs. W. J. Clegg and Sons, Sheffield) defended Astbury. Mr. Rhodes briefly related the particulars as stated above, and pointed out that by his having to prefer separate informations the costs to the defendants, if they were convicted, would be increased.

William Wright, deputy, said on April 29th, about 8.30 a.m., he observed the state of the roof and spoke to one of the fillers, who called for the colliers. Dunning came. Dunning and Astbury worked together. He spoke to Dunning, and made a couple of marks on the roof where props required setting. There were two cracks or breaks in the roof, and in his opinion the place was unsafe if props were not set. About 1.30 p.m. he went into the place again with Mr. Chambers, the manager. The two fillers, Neill and Williams, were there. Dunning and Astbury had gone, but the timber was not set as ordered. He found that coal had been filled up between the time of the first and second visits, and props should have been set there in addition to those which he had marked. In his judgment the place was not in safe order. The fillers stopped work and went out of the place. The breaks or cracks in the roof were plain and might have been seen, and also that the place was unsafe by any ordinary miner. There were other props in the place not in use from which they might have selected. There was an additional stock kept which could be had for fetching. The colliers paid the fillers, who were their servants.

Cross-examined by Mr. Clegg, who defended, instructed by Mr. Chappell, secretary for the South Yorkshire and North Derbyshire Miners’ Association, witness said the place was 35 yards long. An argument of a lengthy character took place between the legal gentlemen and the Bench. Mr. Clegg argued that although the men were partners in the working place, the one partner could not be expected to be responsible for the misdeeds of another partner, and therefore it was Dunning’s fault that these props had not been set. Astbury might have been working 25 or 30 yards away, and might not have heard the order, and was therefore not answerable for the other man’s neglect. Mr. Rhodes contended that inasmuch as they were working together at one place, they were, within the meaning of the Act of Parliament, both responsible.

Wm. Henry Chambers, certificated manager, Denaby Main Colliery, said on May 29th, about 1.30 p.m., in company with the last witness, he went into No. 41 working place. Neither Dunning nor Astbury were there, but two fillers were at work, who were, in his opinion, in danger owing to the state of the roof of the working place. On the following day he saw Astbury, who came to him alone, saying he had come about that timbering business, that he was very sorry it had happened, and that the reason he had not set the timber was that he had none; that it was too much trouble to have to “dint” them, and that he hoped witness would look over it. He also said he would rather pay a fine than be summoned.

Henry Williams, one of the fillers, gave corroborative evidence.

Mr. Clegg, for the defence, argued that unless the two partners were working close together they could not both be held responsible, and that Astbury was too far away to be able to look after that part of the place in which Dunning was working. He characterised the case for the prosecution as an attempt to make one man responsible for the failings of another.

The Bench unanimously agreed to convict and to fine the defendants Dunning and Astbury 10s. each and costs in each case preferred against them. Mr. Clegg asked the Bench whether they were against him as to the law or the facts. The Chairman said he did not agree with him as to the facts. Mr. Clegg intimated that if the Bench had been against him on the law of the case he would have asked for a case for appeal.