|
LLANDILO PETTY SESSIONS.
The usual fortnightly petty sessions were held at the Shire-hall,
Llandilo, on Saturday, before Mr Thursby-Pelham, Mr Herbert
Peel and Mr Vaughan Philipps.
Some unimportant case having been disposed of, the court proceeded
with the hearing of the charge of manslaughter against Thomas
Michael, which had been adjourned from the special sessions
of the previous Saturday. As before, Mr T. G Williams, Llandilo,
prosecuted, Mr W. Howells, Llanelly, defended, and Mr Simons,
Merthyr, appeared for the Garnant Colliery Company.
Thomas Morgan, re-examined by Mr T. G. Williams, said: On last
occasion I stated it was a daily occurrence that the cage caught
in the fangs. It was the bottom of the cage that used to catch.
To Mr Howells: It used to catch in the fangs. One side of the
cage used to pass the fangs, and the other side would be caught.
That would be after the lever had been pulled back. This being
so, it was likely the lever and fangs were not in good working
order. The fangs did not all recede as they should do, and the
two fangs kept the carriage up on one side. That is my opinion;
I am certain of it. I am sure that the fangs opened on one side
and not on the other. There was nothing else to catch the cage.
It is my opinion that the fangs did not work properly.
Re-examined by Mr Williams: I was present at the inquest when
Mr Wales gave evidence. He spoke English, and I could not understand
if he said that the machinery at the colliery was in good order.
I am the person who refused to give the names of the persons
who worked the keeps. The keeps caught nearly every day. I cannot
say why they did not catch every day. I cannot say if it was
only when the cage was not raised sufficiently high off the
keeps, and the lever not drawn sufficiently back, that the cage
caught. When the cage is resting on the fangs you cannot pull
the lever back. When the cage used to catch, it was the custom
for the banksman acting at the lever to signal to the engineman
to lift the cage up. Then the signalman would be enabled to
pull back the keeps.
To Mr Pelham: The fact of the fangs not working properly always
gave us an idea that there was great danger. The workmen never
objected to go down, but we had conversations among ourselves.
John Davies, Red Lion, near Garnant Colliery, said: I am an
overman at the Garnant Colliery, and it is my duty to see that
everybody is at his place in the morning -on the bank first,
and below afterwards. On the morning of the 16th of January
I arrived about ten minutes to four, nearly three hours earlier
than usual. The accident had happened before I got there. As
soon as we had the pit clear I went down, and saw ten bodies.
They were the bodies of John Evan Jones, &c. (gives names),
colliers employed at our colliery. I assisted in raising them
up. They were taken to the office and examined by Dr. Rees in
my presence. The fangs do not catch the cage very often, and
that only happens when the engineman has not raised the cage
from the fangs. It might be the fault either of the engineman
or the banksman. It might occur if the banksman does not work
with the engineman and draw the lever at the proper moment.
When the keeps rest on the fangs there is no danger at all.
The affair works here just as it does in other collieries I
have been at. Unless the cage was raised by the engineman it
would be impossible for one man's strength to pull the lever
back. It was the duty of the banksman to work the lever. David
Jenkins was the banksman on the 16th of January, and had charge
of the lever that day. It is also part of his duty to give the
signal to the engineman. The banksman should stand with his
back to the drum and engine, holding the lever with his right
hand and taking the signal in his left. It would be very inconvenient
to stand on the east side of the lever. He would not have so
much power over the lever in that position. I have been the
overman for the last nine years at this colliery. On my oath
it is not true, to my knowledge, that anybody and everybody
could work that lever. I have never seen anyone but the authorised
banksman work the lever. Thomas Michael was a labourer at the
colliery, and had no authority to work the lever.
To the Clerk (Mr Bishop): I had power, in the absence of the
manager, to authorise occasional banksmen. The manager was not
present before I got there on the 16th.
To Mr Williams: I produce a list of the men who were from time
to time empowered to act as banksmen. After hearing what Thomas
Morgan said, I asked them all if they had acted.
Mr Howells objected.
Examination of witness continued: This list contains the names
of most of the men at the colliery, but no names of boys.
Mr Howells said the list of names was merely a list of those
who told the witness something in conversation, and he objected
to let it be put in.
Mr Williams eventually withdrew the document.
Examination continued: On the 16th of January the machinery
was in good working order.
The Chairman -It could not be in good order after the rope was
broken, and he was not there before.
Examination of witness resumed: I saw the machinery on the 15th
of January, and everything was right.
Cross-examined by Mr Howells: I have occasionally seen the cage
catching in the fangs from the causes I described. It was not
caused by bad machinery. Since the accident we cut off the collar
board less that a quarter of an inch of wood. That is all the
change made since. Cutting that off allows the long trams to
work. Some of the trams were rather long. The object was to
make the fangs go farther in. The banksman always has his back
to the engine when he goes to draw the lever. I have never thought
of the question whether or not it would be advisable for the
banksman to be so placed that he could look towards the engine.
I do not think the engineman would pay any attention to a hand
sign. This lever requires no great strength to work, and an
ordinary man could either push it or pull it.
Re-examined: When the cage was not properly raised it rested
on the fangs, and was not caught in the fangs. In such a case
it would not be possible for the cage to go down level with
the collar board.
Daniel Bevan, a mechanical engineer and fitter at the Garnant
Colliery, said: Amongst my other duties one was to examine the
rope. On the 15th of January I examined the rope that broke
on the 16th. I did not observe any single wire broken in it.
As far as I am able to judge, the rope was in such order that
it ought to have done its work for a long time. I used to examine
the rope daily, and I would have observed it if there had been
a wire broken in the rope. In case I had discovered a wire broken
I would report it to my superior officer. In September, 1882,
the rope that preceded this was disused because I found one
or two broken wires in it.
Cross-examined: I examined the rope in its working position.
On the 15th I examined it while the engine was moving it slowly
through my hands. There would be an accumulation of grease on
some parts of this rope, and I scrape some of them now and then.
I did not scrape all the grease off on the 15th. In parts covered
with grease a broken wire might escape my notice. After the
wire was broken I did not see any old broken wires. I had no
opinion as to how the rope was broken. The part broken was a
little corroded inside, but no single wire seemed to have been
previously broken. The corroded wires were rather reduced in
size where the fracture took place. Of course they would also
be somewhat reduced in strength. Sometimes the rope is exposed
to steam from the upcast shaft.
Re-examined: I mean the wires were somewhat rusted. The rope
that preceded this was used for about two years at the colliery.
That was exposed to the steam the same as this. Only three ropes
had been used on that side of the pit -one for five years, one
for two years, and that which was broke for sixteen months.
When a wire breaks the end springs out, and no ordinary amount
of grease would cover it. The rope which had been used two years
lay five years in the store-room before it was brought into
use for these two years. That would tend to prevent the rope
lasting so long as it otherwise would.
The court then adjourned, and after lunch the first witness
called was David Jenkins, who said: I live at Prospect-place,
Cwmamman, parish of Bettws. I was employed at the Garnant Colliery
as banksman, and was the day banksman on the 16th of January
last. I was appointed banksman when the works started, in 1874,
by the manager who was before Mr Hay. The duty of the banksman
is to take care of the mouth of the pit -to take care of the
people and everything that passes through the pit. The lever
and the signal are under the banksman's charge. As banksman
I was paid differently from the colliers, and had a regular
daily wages higher than the regular wages of labourers. The
prisoner, Thomas Michael, was employed as a labourer at the
colliery. It is no part of labourer's duty to touch the levers
or signals. That was no part of Thomas Michael's duty on the
16th of January last. During the time I have been there nobody
except an authorised person has touched the levers or signals.
On the 16th of January I went to the Garnant Colliery about
half-past three in the morning. A man we call John the Mill,
whose surname I do not know, was night banksman at the time.
The ordinary course was for him to leave when the colliers had
finished -generally from five to six in the morning. He had
not left when I went there on the morning of the 16th. Some
of the night shift were still down in the pit. I do not know
that the night banksman let down any of the day shift. When
I went to the pit I saw the day hitcher and two or three persons
with him. I let them down. I next let down a horse and a haulier.
At that time the cage had the horse door on. The next load that
got in the east cage after the horse and haulier were these
men that were killed. When these men got in I was coming over
from the western cage. I was crossing from about the west lever
to let the men down. From where I was at the west cage I could
not see everything that took place at the eastern cage. There
were men standing between so as to obstruct my view. When I
first started to cross I could not see who was at the east lever,
but as I went on I saw Thomas Michael at the lever. I did not
give him authority to be there or touch the lever. He had his
hand on the lever. I could have given him leave to work the
lever if I liked, but I would not, because he was an incompetent
man. I could lawfully give permission to a competent man while
I was there. When drawing the lever he stood on the east side,
and in a contrary position to that in which I would stand. I
stand with my back to the engine, pull the lever with my right
hand, and signal with the left. Where Michael stood it would
not be so convenient to work the signal; he would have to cross
hands. I did not hear the signal before the cage started. As
I crossed from one cage to the other I heard the east cage descending.
When the top of the cage was level with the collar board the
cage caught. Then, of course, the bottom had gone a long way
past the fangs. The greater portion of the cage had passed the
fangs. The fangs are about a foot, I think, below the top of
the shaft. I had no opportunity of stopping Michael. He had
done it before I got on to where I was. When I got as far as
the east lever the cage was standing, and as far as I could
judge it had caught in the fangs. I cannot say it stopped a
second before it went down. I do not know if the machinery was
stopped or not when the cage stopped descending. When I got
up to the east lever I signalled to the engineman to get the
carriage up again if possible, as it had stopped. The machinery
was then in motion. Just after I gave the signal the carriage
descended. If the lever had been drawn back properly, this cage
with the horse door on could not catch in the fangs. If the
banksman and engineman did not work together the cage might
be stopped by the fangs, but there would be no danger in it.
The catching I saw on the 16th of January was quite a different
thing, and had nothing to do with that. The bottom part of it
had gone through the fangs that morning.
To Mr Bishop: I did not see Michael doing anything further than
keep his hand on the lever.
Cross-examined: I have heard witnesses stating that the great
objection to standing where Michael was is that one cannot work
the lever and signal conveniently at the same time. The night
banksman has not his two hands entire. I do not know if he has
more than one hand although he works signal and lever. Speaking
in fright after the accident I may have said that I had my two
hands on the lever when it occurred. I said that for several
days after, and to a good many people. I changed my tale because
I knew the truth must come out in the end. I am telling truth
now. I say I had not my two hands on the lever. I said it was
I who did it, because, as Michael was not in the habit of working
the lever, it was better that I should take the blame, and perhaps
it would silence the matter. When I saw Michael at the lever
I said nothing to him, and did nothing. I let four down that
morning in the west cage. That was a prohibited cage; it was
not legal. That cage was coming up when the men were going down.
The horse door did not project, and would not make the cage
more likely to catch.
Re-examined: There would be room for the cage to go down with
the horse door on if the lever was properly worked. I did not
stop Michael because I did not see him doing anything till the
cage had passed the fangs, and then it was too late. Bartlett
and others contradicted me when I said I worked the lever at
the time of the accident.
John Hay said: I reside at Cwmamman and am a certificated colliery
manager. It is worked by the Garnant Colliery Company, and the
offices are at Swansea. Since July, 1882, I have been manager
of the colliery. I have had seventeen years' colliery experience.
As manager I am responsible for the working of the colliery.
Persons acting as banksmen are appointed by me, or in my absence
by the overman. I have made a plan (produced) of the colliery.
It is eight inches from the collar board to the fangs. The bottom
of the cage is larger than the higher parts, but the sides are
perpendicular. The distance between the ledges of the horse
door and the fangs is two inches. Before men are appointed banksmen
they have to go through a certain course of instruction. The
pit is 77 yards deep, and the length of the rope is 240 yards.
I bought it of Sir George Elliott and Co. in September, 1882.
I made a return to Mr Wales after the accident, respecting the
length of time the former ropes were working. I had to depend
a good deal on hearsay, but I have since found a book which
shows that there were mistakes in the returns I made. It was
on a representation of the workmen to the overman that an alteration
was, since the accident, made in the fangs. That did not add
to the safety in any way. I closely examined the fracture in
the rope. The wire in the underside were much worn. The fracture
in all the wires was quite fresh. On the down end the wires
were all clean, but some of them were dirty at the pit end.
About ten feet from the fracture on the pit side I took a bit
of the rope to a testing machine at the Elliott Works in Cardiff.
I tested every wire separately. I believe the tensile strength
of that part of the rope would be the same as the part which
was fractured -or nearly so, for I found the area of the fractured
part was not so great.
Cross-examined: I manage a mine at Brynamman. I am at the Garnant
Colliery one day in the week, and whenever I find my presence
is required. I went to Cardiff to test the rope to satisfy myself.
I paid my own expenses and was not sent by the colliery company
or anyone else. There would be some sulphur coming up to the
rope at the part where it broke. Sulphur does tend to corrode
wire ropes.
Re-examined: The ropes we used previously were equally exposed
to this action of steam and sulphur.
Mr Howells then addressed the bench at considerable length and
with great earnestness. He said that Mr Williams, in opening
called this an unique case, and certainly it was so with regard
to the way in which the prosecution was conducted. The bench
would now see that the company wished to make his unfortunate
client their scapegoat. Mr Williams nominally prosecuted on
the part of the police, but it was rather Mr Simons who was
prosecuting for the owners of this colliery, who were anxious
to shield themselves as far as they could. Indeed, Mr Simons
had not only assisted throughout, but had at length boldly thrown
off the veil and went so far as to examine witnesses. Two independent
theories had been set up. That of the prosecution was that the
fangs caught the cage and caused a slackening of the rope; but
the theory he (Mr Howells) would put forward was the theory
of Mr Wales, the Government Inspector (it was admitted that
he advanced it at the inquest), and that was that the cage never
caught in the fangs at all, but that the breakage was caused
by the weakness of the rope at the place where the fracture
took place, this part having been exposed to the steam from
the upcast shaft during the whole sixteen months the rope was
in use. Mr Howells went on to say that hardly one disinterested
witness was called for the prosecution. They were almost all
people employed by the company, who took the foremost part in
carrying out the prosecution. They ventured to call one witness
who was no longer in their employ, and he gave evidence quite
the reverse of what they wanted. He proved their neglect and
irregularities, the penalties of which they now tried to evade
by visiting their sins on the head of this poor workman. As
to the effort they made to show that the rope was good fifteen
feet from the point of fracture, nobody cared to dispute that.
According to the case for the defence, the rope was weak at
the particular part which was fractured, and a good reason was
given for that. Mr Hosgood tried to depreciate the opinion of
H.M. Inspector of Mines by saying that, although he was a certificated
manager, he was not like him (Mr Hosgood), a mechanical engineer.
It was probable, however, that H.M. Inspector had more practical
knowledge with regard to ropes used at collieries than most
of those who called themselves mechanical engineers. What special
qualifications had these mechanical engineers to make them oracles
with regard to ropes? They had plenty of these mechanical engineers
walking about in Llanelly, but there they called them fitters
(laughter). The Act required that the manager of a colliery
should exercise daily supervision, but Mr Hay was manager of
other works at Brynamman, and only came to see the Garnant Colliery
one day in the week. Mr Howells then went on to argue that in
common sense, as well as in legal proceedings, testimonies should
be weighed, not numbered, and that the evidence of Mr Wales
should be regarded as of more value than that of all the witnesses
who had yet been examined. No man could be more disinterested,
and there could be no man whose character and qualifications
were less open to impeachment.
Mr Thomas E. Wales, H.M. Inspector of Mines for South Wales,
was the first witness examined for the defence, and said: I
live at Swansea. I have examined the rope in this case. I examined
it on the day the accident happened, on the 16th, and the following
day. I also examined the fangs or keeps which the east cage
rests upon. I also attended the inquest. Before giving my evidence
I heard the evidence of Mr May and Mr Hosgood. The result of
my examination is that I found the rope at the point of its
fracture considerably worn, and so weakened as to be unable
to bear the load it had to carry. I believe that such weakness
was brought about by the rope being corroded by the action of
steam.
To the Clerk (Mr L. Bishop): I have not tested it.
To Mr Howells: I am of opinion that this accident was caused
by a fracture arising from the weakness of the rope, and not
from the fangs catching. If the cage, in my opinion, had caught
at the fangs, and if there had been five, six, or seven feet,
as has been suggested, there would have been a great shock and
jerk at the drum when the cage fell, and the shock and noise
would have been very strongly felt. I inquired if that was the
case. The rope running at ten feet a second would have let six
or seven feet run slack.
Cross-examined by Mr Williams: I know Mr Hosgood for a considerable
number of years. I do not know him as a man holding an eminent
position in the mining world of South Wales. He never had anything
to do with collieries or mines, but he was a manager of iron
works. I never heard he was under Mr Fothergill as that latter
gentleman's manager of fifteen collieries. If he had been Mr
Fothergill would have been obliged to state that to me as inspector.
I believe he managed iron-works for Mr Fothergill. A mechanical
engineer's knowledge of a rope might be greater than a colliery
manager's. I do not say that a rope is not more in his line
than in mine. I examined the colliery a second time, because
there were no ropes there at first, and I went back to see both
cages at work. The east cage with the horse door on passed down
easily enough. I think this was on the 17th of February. I made
my two examinations before the inquest. No, the second inspection
was made after the inquest, for the rope was not on before.
When I gave evidence at the inquest I did not know that the
horse door was on. No part of the horse door projects out farther
than the bottom of the cage. I have heard it stated here by
Jenkins that the cage rested for a second. I do not admit that
it must have had something to rest upon. I believe it rested
on the rope. I believe the engine was stopped before Jenkins
gave any signal. I am far from convinced, after all the evidence
that has been given here, that the cage ever stopped at all.
I do not say that it might not have caught in the fangs if they
were not properly kept back. This might happen if an inexperienced
man or any other man failed to keep the lever back, but that
is not probable here. I have never known a case in my experience
of a colliery fitted up as that is where a cage caught on the
fangs and broke the rope. I know it was the coroner who sent
for Mr Hosgood to give evidence. I do not know that he is as
independent a witness as I am. The strain of a cage on a rope
is the same ascending or descending.
To Mr Bishop: I will say that the rope where I found it fractured
was not sufficient to carry two tons, the weight of the cage
and the men.
To Mr Williams: It was I who recommended the coroner to get
Mr Hosgood to give evidence. Most certainly I decline to fall
in with his or any man's theories. I think it is right to mention
that Mr May and I travelled together on the day of the accident,
and had two specimens of the rope in the railway carriage. We
discussed the matter, and he said then most distinctly that
in his opinion the fracture was due to the weakness of the rope,
the wires were so worn. He never said a word about the cage
catching in the fangs.
To Mr Howells: The fracture seemed to be clean enough, that
the wires that were broken were very much worn, and Mr May was
of the same opinion. Nobody could tell from examining a fracture
whether it was broken by a jerk or a pull. I do not think Mr
Hosgood or anyone else could give a proper opinion on that point
from examining the fracture.
To Mr Bishop: I will not say with certainty that the drum would
have been marked had the rope been broken by excessive strain,
but there would have been a great shock at the drum.
To Mr Williams: I found the other parts of the rope very good.
To Mr Pelham: That is nothing unusual. A rope always gives at
one point when it breaks at all.
Re-examined by Mr Howells: A bar that was marked was shown to
the jury to show that it was caused by the cage catching in
the fangs.
At this point Mr Howells was proceeding to call another witness,
named Joseph Jones, but
The bench informed him that it was unnecessary to go farther,
as they considered that what they had already heard justified
them in dismissing the case.
Some other cases which remained for hearing were adjourned for
a fortnight.
|