PROSECUTION FOR MANSLAUGHTER
AT LLANDILO.
At a special sitting of the Llandilo Petty Sessions on Saturday
(before Mr H. Peel, Captain Lewis, and Mr Thursby Pelham) the
adjourned case against the collier Thomas Michael, employed at
the Garnant Colliery, Cwmamman, who was charged with causing the
death of the ten men who were killed at Garnant by the breakage
of the shaft rope on the morning of the 16th January last, was
proceeded with. Mr T. G. Williams, solicitor, Llandilo, appeared
to prosecute; Mr W. Howell, Llanelly, was for the prisoner, who
was on bail. Mr Simons, of Merthyr, the solicitor to the proprietors
of the pit; Mr Hay, the manager; and Mr May, the representative
of Sir George Elliot and Co., of Cardiff, the makers of the rope,
were also present.
Mr T. G. Williams opened the case at some length, explaining the
whole circumstances of the fatal occurrence, which have been previously
given in the Journal. He said he proposed to prove that the prisoner
was liable for manslaughter in this case, as he was at the time
of the accident a trespasser, and performed an unlawful act by
tampering with the "keeps" supporting the cage.
It will be remembered that at the coroners inquest the jury came
to the verdict that the deaths of the men were caused by the rope
breaking as the result of a sudden jerk, and that the conduct
of Thomas Michael (the defendant in this case) in tampering with
the lever which works the keeps, (which, according to the rules
is the sole duty of the banksman) was reprehensible, but not culpable.
George Bartlett, one of the men employed at the works, was first
called, and disposed that on the morning in question he was at
the colliery and saw the men who were killed enter the cage. The
prisoner, Thomas Michael, was there, and witness saw him give
the signal to the engineman to raise the cage with the men in
it. This was done, and the prisoner pushed back the lever to hold
back the keeps. The cage was then lowered, but when nearly out
of sight it stopped as if caught by something in its descent.
Witness did not think it was stopped by the engine ceasing to
work, because the rope was going out, and he heard the cage grating
against something. The cage afterwards re-started, and he soon
heard the fall at the bottom of the shaft.
Cross-examined by Mr Howell-Some days after the accident, David
Jenkins, the banksman, told witness that it was he who lowered
the cage when the men were killed. Witness contradicted him.
Thomas Bartlett, another collier, gave evidence corroborating
the statement that the prisoner gave the signal to the engineman
and worked the lever. The banksman, who ought to have done this,
came across from the other cage whilst prisoner was lowering the
one in which the men were killed.
Dr Howell Rees next proved the cause of death in each of the ten
cases to have been the fall down the pit in the cage. All the
bodies were very much injured, most of the bones being broken,
and the skulls in some instances fractured.
Thomas Thomas, one of the workmen employed at the colliery, corroborated
the evidence fastening the fact upon the prisoner of having worked
the lever and lowered the men. Had never seen anyone else working
the cages but the banksmen except on this occasion. After the
prisoner pulled back the lever the first time the cage whilst
descending caught, and witness thought Michael had let the keeps
spring out. After it had caught in this way he tugged the lever
backwards and forwards with a view to loosing the cage. If the
keeps were not held back by the lever they would naturally spring
forward, and the cage would be caught, and the liability to stop
the cage in its descent would be greater when there was a horsebox
on, as there was on the morning of the accident, than without.
Thomas Morgan, collier, corroborated, and said that after the
first stoppage the cage struggled in the shaft and jerked against
the guide. He heard a scream from the men in the cage, and then
a blow or thump above the shaft, and the railway which was in
front of the "sheaves" fell. He thought that the part
of the rope attached to the cage which broke on the sheave sprung
back and knocked down the railway.
Cross-examined by Mr Howell-He had worked at the colliery for
five years, and nearly everyone at the colliery worked at the
lever now and again. They were in the habit of conducting their
work as quietly as possible, and the usual practice was, if the
banksman was not at hand, for the person nearest the lever to
signal the engineman and let the cage down. They thought there
was no harm in that. When the banksman worked the levers, the
cage sometimes caught in the fangs. He preferred going down the
cage without the horse-door on the cage.
Re-examined by Mr Williams-When the lever was properly worked,
the cage could not catch the fangs.
Mr Howell-He has sworn that it catches with the banksman sometimes,
and that last answer shows that there was an incompetent banksman.
Witness further re-examined, said he did not think a morning passed
without the fangs catching the cage. He had worked at Garnant
since 1875, with the exception of one year. He did not work there
now.
Mr Williams-Were you called at the inquest by Mr Howell?
Mr Howell-I object. He is my friend's witness now.
Mr Williams (to witness)-Take your hands out of your pockets.
Have you ever known of an accident through the catching you speak
of?
Witness-No. I can read a little in Welsh. I was told that the
special rules were hung up in the office.
Mr Williams-Do you know you broke Rule 137 by not reporting these
irregularities?
Mr Howell said no man was bound to turn spy.
Mr Williams said that was not an occasion for Mr Howell's levity.
Mr Howell-Levity? It is you who have introduced levity, and most
insulting levity, too. Your manner has been most unbecoming, and
I shall have a word to say about it presently.
Mr Williams (to witness)-Do you know what is in these rules?
Mr Howell-That is absurd. If the company neglected their duty
of reading these rules to the men once a month, that is not our
fault.
Witness (to Mr Williams)-I won't name anyone who worked the levers.
Mr Howell-That is a most improper question on re-examination.
Its only object is to get names for prosecution. The question
is a most immoral one, and the witness acts most philanthropically
in refusing to answer it.
Mr Williams said he challenged the statement elicited in cross-examination.
Mr Howell said the witness shrank from involving nearly all his
fellow-workmen in a prosecution. He would call gentlemen of such
position who would corroborate this statement, and whom the other
side would not dare impeach. It was a common principle of law
that an advocate must not discredit his own witness ; yet, because
this witness made a statement favourable to his (Mr Howell's)
client, Mr Williams wept into a frightful rage, and bullied, and
endeavoured to discredit him.
The question being repeated, the witness persisted in his refusal
to name any of his fellow-workmen who worked the lever.
In reply to the Bench-Had never seen other persons than the banksman
work the levers in the presence of superior officials or overmen
of the colliery, but persons had worked them when the banksman
was present.
Mr George James May, the representative of Sir George Elliot and
Co., wire rope manufacturers, Cardiff, was next called, and gave
the results of the test which the rope was put to. A piece taken
off the end which went down the shaft showed the breaking strain
of 22½ tons, and a piece from the other end was tested
at the Government testing machine with a result of 24½
tons. He thought the rope, which was of the very best quality
made, was in very fair condition, and ought to have lasted at
the Garnant Colliery about two years and a half, whereas it had
only been supplied sixteen months. He believed that the fracture
was caused by a jerk, or some other sudden strain. The cage, with
the men in it, falling a foot, would cause a strain of ten tons,
and so on increasing three tons for each foot of fall. The rope
was quite equal to a far greater load, under ordinary circumstances,
than was on it at the time of the accident, and if it was spliced
together again he would be prepared to go down the deepest colliery
in England with ten tons on it.
Cross-examined by Mr Howell-Heard Mr Wales, the Government Inspector,
say at the inquest that, in his opinion, the breakage was due
to its being too weak at the point of fracture to carry the weight
it had to carry, and not to any jerk or fall ; and that he believed
that the weakness at that particular part was caused by its being
exposed to the steam issuing from the upcast shaft during the
whole of the sixteen months the rope had been at work.
Mr May-I do not agree with that opinion.
Mr Howell-That is another instance of doctors differing.
Mr May said he had some conversation on the day after the accident
with Jenkins, the banksman, who said there was no jerk, and that
he let the men down himself, keeping both hands on the lever.
He (Mr May) thought Jenkins hardly knew what he was talking about
then. He was very nervous.
Mr T. H. Hosgood, colliery and mechanical engineer, of Swansea,
said he had had 30 years' experience in his profession. He examined
the rope, and found in a piece which was left above ground one
broken wire apart from the fracture. In his opinion the cause
of the fracture was excessive strain caused by a jerk-a sharp
pull of the engine or a fall. He found the wires near the fracture
very much worn, with some corrosion on them, and attenuated, so
that the area was lessened. The rope, he thought, was a good,
serviceable one, and ought to have done the work of the colliery
well. He thought at the fractured part the rope was capable of
standing a strain of twelve tons at least.
Cross-examined by Mr Howell-He did not agree with Mr Wales's opinion
as to the fracture. Had seen the keeps pulled back, and they were
quite clear of the cage whilst being lowered, although there was
only a very little space to spare with one of them.
At this stage the advisability of a further adjournment was discussed.
Mr Howell stating, in answer to the bench, that he some 50 witnesses
in court, of whom he intended to call a dozen or more.
Mr Williams said he had four other witnesses.
It was then arranged to adjourn the hearing to Saturday, the 1st
proximo, at 11 o'clock.
|