|
THE GARNANT COLLIERY DISASTER.
------
THE CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER AGAINST
THOMAS MICHAEL.
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 the 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 the 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. There
were two other inquests on the other bodies, which were in different
districts, and he should ask their worships to remand the case
until after those inquiries 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 state
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 would
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 would not press his objection further, but consent to a remand.
-Prisoner was then bound over in sureties to answer the charge
on Monday, February 25.
|