THE GARNANT COLLIERY DISASTER
____________________
At Llandilo County Petty Sessions on Saturday (before Mr H.
Peel and Captain Lewis) Thomas Michael, a collier employed at
the Garnant Colliery, Cwmamman, was charged on remand, with causing
the death of ten men who were killed at the colliery on Wednesday,
January 16, owing to the breakage of the shaft rope, it being
alleged that the prisoner had unlawfully tampered with the "keeps"
of the cage, thereby causing a jerk which snapped the rope. Mr
T.G.Williams, solicitor, Llandilo, appeared for the prosecution,
and Mr W. Howell, Llanelly, for the defence. Mr Williams applied
for a further remand in order that the case for the prosecution
might be completed. He did not think it was necessary to open
the case or prove the formal facts of the accident. Those, no
doubt, their worships had already gathered from the newspaper
reports. It was certain that the deaths of ten men were caused
on the 16th of January, and the theory of the prosecution was
that, owing to the prisoner being a trespasser and doing an illegal
act, he caused, not murder, but manslaughter. He would call the
attention of the bench to the verdict given by the jury at the
inquest.
Mr Howell objected to the verdict being put in from a newspaper
report. If it was to be put in it should be proved in the ordinary
way. Mr Williams said he did not wish to put it in, but only to
call the attention of the bench to it. The inquest, which had
been concluded, was only held on a few of the bodies, which were
in different districts, and he should ask their worships to remand
the case until after those enquiries were over. Mr W. Howell,
on behalf of the prisoner, said he thought this prosecution had
been altogether a little premature. The matter had been before
the coroner, and they had heard the evidence which had been brought
forward there. If the prosecution had been well advised the proceedings
would never have been instituted. The inspector of mines, who
occupied a quasi-judicial position, had sworn before the coroner
that the accident, in his opinion , was caused by the worn side
of the rope, and not by a jerk, and that the breakage was the
result of its being too weak to bear the strain, in consequence
of its being exposed to steam. He contended, therefore, that,
in the face of this, it was not reasonable that any jury could
convict ; and it would be a great hardship to commit the prisoner
for trial. There were two theories put forward for the accident,
one by the prosecution and the other by the inspector of mines.
He thought they should certainly not commit the prisoner for trial
simply because there was this conflict of testimony. The prosecution
alleged that the prisoner was a trespasser ; but he was not a
trespasser at all. He was employed at the colliery, and the act
which he did, and which was alleged to have caused the accident,
was not absolutely illegal. It was not an unauthorised act, because
the banksman, Jenkins, was standing by and did not stop him. He
asked the bench if there was any reasonable probability of a jury
convicting in such a case. The prosecution had already had ten
days to get up their case since the last remand. Mr T.G.Williams
said he had only had the case two days. The Chairman of the Bench
said he could see no objection to a further remand. Mr Howell
said, after that intimation, he could not press his objection
further, but consent to a remand. Prisoner was then bound over
in sureties to answer the charge on Monday, February 25th.
|