The Shocking Fatality of a 13 year old at Denaby Main Colliery

December 1896

Mexborough & Swinton Times, December 11, 1896.

The Shocking Fatality at Denaby Main Colliery.
Dangers at The Screens.
Recommendation by The Jury.

At the Montagu Cottage Hospital on Monday, Mr. Bagshawe, deputy coroner, held an inquest touching the death of Charles Henry Wilson, aged 13, who was fatally injured at the Denaby Main Colliery.

.Mr Mellor, deputy inspector of mines, attended the enquiry, as did also Mr Witty, colliery manager, and Mr. Rose, the engineer.

The following were the jury: F. King (foreman), J. Dale, J. Hague, M. Barrett, J. Venables, J. Norman, W. Pettitt, J. Bullock, R. Ford, G. Whittaker, J. Dodsworth, G. Dawson, and A. Goulding.

The jury having examined the body the following evidence was taken.

William Henry. Wilson, father of the deceased, of 14. Firbeck Street, New Conisborough, employed as a labourer at the colliery, said the deceased was his son. He was aged 13 last October. He had worked at the colliery seven weeks. Witness was on the pit top at the time of the accident, which was on Thursday morning, about 8:35 o’clock. He saw his son after the accident. He was conscious.

He had a conversation with him as to the accident. He said he was coming down there “ burgy (spout) screen” to the ground to get some bread and butter, and that he had both feet on a railway wagon at the time. He had to get down, but other wagons were shunted against them, and the concussion knocked him between a wagon end and the spout. Both legs were fractured. Deceased said no wheel went over him.

Why did he go over the wagons? – There is no other way to come either down or up.

He had to come down that way? – Yes.

Are there always wagons there? – Yes.

Do you blame anyone? – I think the foreman in charge was, because the lad was not old enough and strong enough.

You, as father, have greater responsibility than the foreman. You knew he worked there? – Yes, but I blame the foreman as he was underage.

Well, there is considerable blame attaching to you, as father, to let him be in a dangerous place.

Witness: I intended to have him shifted next week.

The inspector: how long had you worked there? – 22 years.

You were very conversant with the place? – Yes.

You knew the spot where the boy was working? – Yes.

You knew it before the accident? – Yes.

You knew he was working there? – Yes.

Did you make any complaint or say anything to any official or to the foreman? – No.

Nothing about whether the place was safe? – No.

This boy had no other way to get there except by climbing the wagons? – No.

Was the boy’s work on the wagon or on the side? – Above.

The lad was on the platform? – Yes.

And he had to cross over the wagons to get to and from work? – Yes.

You thought he was not old enough? – Yes.

You made a remark that he was underage? – Yes.

I have been told they should be 16 before they go across railway wagons.

Can you read ? – A little.

Have you worked in the mine? – Yes.

Have you had rules? – Yes.

And the boy could read? – Yes.

Then why rely on what anyone may tell you; why not read for yourself?

Have you anything disqualifying him? – No.

You have been told? – Yes. You thought it was dangerous? – Yes.

But never thought it necessary to mention it? – I was going to shift him.

But did you say anything about the lad not being big enough are old enough? – No.

Was this boy employed in the moving of railway wagons? – No; he was a labourer.

Mister. Witty asked if Mr Ross could give evidence.

The Coroner: yes, if necessary; but I see six witnesses are summoned. I don’t know why; I won’t allow a multiplication.

Mm. Cavill, living at  No. 8 Bank Street, Mexborough, labourer at the colliery said he was working there last Thursday. The accident happened between 8-30 and 9. He saw it occur. Deceased was sat down with his legs in a wagon. Some wagons “shop” in and knocked the other wagon out. Witness was not into the bottom of the wagon. He heard deceased shout “father!” And he found him in the four foot, under the wagon.

By the coroner: Had you or he any right to be in the wagons? – I had got into see how they were going on.

The boy was afterwards brought to the hospital by an ambulance? – Yes.

In your opinion, is anyone to blame? – I don’t know.

The shunter sent their men. In the usual way? – Yes.

By the inspector: deceased was not working at the time? – He was sitting on the platform with legs over the side and in the wagon. He saw him sitting there he would be very few minutes before the accident, he could have got across and down in two minutes.

Was that the usual way? – The coal wagon or smudge way.

There is no ladder or step? – No; not until the wagon is crossed.

Had you a conversation with him as to why he was sitting there? – No.

How long have you worked there? – Three years.

What way is there? – Only as I say.

Wagons regularly come under? – Yes.

What age are you? – 25.

Did it strike you deceased was in a dangerous position, seeing that wagons were likely to be moved there at any minute? – It did not strike me at the time.

And you said nothing to him? – No.

The wagon came in as usual? – Yes.

By the foreman: is it possible to fix a way better? – I can only think of a ladder.

By a jury man: I thought there were three ways? – Only two.

By the coroner: is there a way except going over the wagons? –  No, I cannot see any other.

By Mr Witty: You know over the spout and onto the platform. Between the soft sand hards? – I don’t know, there is another way.

You have not been there long? – No.

By the foreman: I could not see the man who was shunting the wagon; and he could not see me.

James Rose. Denaby Main, the engineer at the pit, said there were certain screens, and on one of these deceased was working.

Is there any other way down but over the wagons? – Yes, he must go across them, but he can get end way.

It’s very practical way without going over the lines or wagons? – Yes, they can get by the ladder at the end from the top platform, and over the screens without crossing any wagons.

Can that be done with perfect safety? – Oh, yes.

Is that the means of access usually adopted? – I could not say that.

Have you gone over the wagons? – If I have been on the top platform I have come across the screens.

Has every precaution been taken? Could you not make an improvement? – It would be very difficult there.

The inspector had no question to ask.

A jury man: Is there any mode of signalling? – Witness: no, the wagons are changed at any time.

Witness: The man at the main screen calls out to the lower-out to lower the wagons.

Why not erect some signal?

The coroner: I can see no necessity. Juries cannot guard against the follies of other people.

But there might be some warning given. We have had no workmen. The only way known is a dangerous way.

Mr Witty: I understand there was to be a workman here.

A jury man: We have only their colliery companies officials. Mr Rose even did not take the precaution to go the proper way.

The Coroner: we must not have a discussion; I have a number of other inquests, and do not intend to spend the whole day here.

The Inspector: There is an idea that the wagons are lowered away without the people filling them having any intimation of it. Is there not notice previously given?

Witness: The man in the spout gives the order.

There he gives the signal? – Yes.

The man who lowers out the wagons gets the signal? – Yes.

A jury man: it’s not a question of lowering out but of dashing in.

The coroner: There is no other information given?

Witness: no; none at all.

A jury man: the engineer will probably make a proper access after this.

The coroner: we need no further desultory discussion; you may add such rider as you agree upon. The boy was not attending to the business of the company at the time; he was doing nothing but sitting on the edge of the wagon.

A jury man (Mr Dodsworth): but he had to sit on the wagon or jump down.

Another jury man: No. He should be outside the wagon.

Mr Witty said he had been under the impression that another witness would have been called; one who saw it.

  1. Cade said he had called a man who saw it; and he considered him a better witness.

Mr witty: this man told me he did not see it. The other man said he did see it.

The Coroner: We must have no discussion with you at any rate. There is no dispute as to how the accident occurred the question is as to the responsibility of the company in providing or not a proper means of exit at the platform where the deceased was employed. That was the only point for the jury.

A verdict of “accidental death” was passed with the rider: “that we recommend that so far as practicable. The company provide a better access to the screening platform. And also a system of signals before empty trucks are shunted towards the screens.”

The coroner said he should only allow for three witnesses. They are in the employ of the company? PC cade: Yes