THE GARNANT COLLIERY DISASTER.
_____________________
On the magistrates, Mr H. Peel and captain Lewis taking their
seats on the bench, on Saturday, at Llandilo, Mr T. G. Williams,
addressing the bench, and on the last occasion of the hearing
of the charges against Thomas Michael in connection with the colliery
accident, one of their worships left the court before he had an
opportunity of asking that the costs of the prosecution be allowed
as far as it was in their power to do so. He need not remind them
that the case was one which ought to have been brought before
them. -Mr Howells, Llanelly, who defended Michael, and who was
present in court, asked if Mr Williams was asking for costs against
his client. -Mr. Williams: No, as against the county. -After the
case had been disposed of he had received a letter from the solicitor
to the Treasury offering to take up the prosecution, but it was
received too late to be of service. It showed it was a case deserving
of enquiry. -The bench thought so too, and acceded to the application.
At a later stage, Mr Williams appeared on behalf of the Garnant
Colliery Company to prefer a charge against D. Jenkins, that he
on the 16th of January last, did whilst employed as a banksman
in the employ of the Garnant Colliery Company, break a special
rule of the colliery by allowing more than eight persons to go
down in the cage at a time. Defendant admitted the offence. Mr
Williams said that the proceedings were instituted merely to show
that the company had, as far as possible, adopted the special
rules, and they were in no way wishful that the defendant should
be hardly dealt with. He might state that the less they fined
the defendant the more would the company be pleased. The company
were wishful to enforce the rules to their fullest extent, and
these proceedings were taken to prevent further accidents, if
possible, and to show that if a lache occurs it would not
pass unnoticed. -Mr Peel: You wish to have the penalty mitigated?
-Mr Williams replied in the affirmative and referred to the fact
that intervening objects prevented defendant from seeing how many
men were really in the cage at the time of the accident. -Mr Peel
said it was rather a curious case, and the only conclusion to
be arrived at was that he had not neglected his duty, but that
someone else undertook it. The difficulty was removed by defendant
pleading guilty to the charge, and he was fined in the sum of
£19 8s.
|