Mexborough & Swinton Times – Friday 23 January 1891
The Fatal Accident at Thrybergh Hall Colliery.
Inquest.
Thrybergh Hall Miners and a Permanent Belief Fund.
An inquiry was held at the Butchers’ Arms Inn, on Wednesday afternoon, before Mr. Dory Wightman, coroner, touching the death of David Scott, a miner, living in Queen Street, Swinton, who was killed an Saturday last while following his employment at Thrybergh Hall Colliery.
Mr. J. A. Bower was elected foreman of the following jury: Messrs. J. Knowles, Herbert Thompson, John Walter Shaw, Alf. Hague, John Crossley, Wm. Stanley, Benj. Clegg. Thos. Jow. Walter Ward, A. Dement, and C. Barlow.
There were also present Mr. F. N. Wardell, Her Majesty’s Inspector of Mines, and Mr. J. Outram, manager at Warren Vale and Thrybergh Hall Collieries.
P.c. Watson was in charge of the inquiry.
Harriett Ann Scott, widow, said her husband was 37 years of age. He had been a miner at the colliery for four years. He had worked in some capacity or another for 14 years. He was brought home dead on Saturday. Witness had made inquiries into the accident, and did not know if there was anyone to blame or not.
Joseph Tingle said he was a miner at Thrybergh Hall Colliery. On the day in question he was deceased’s mate. They were working together. Some bags had been cut by the trammer and deceased was knocking them down for the trammer to fill. They were a top softs, and the decased was knocking the puncheon to let the bags fall. The one he was knocking did not come, but the bags fell and knocked four punches out. About 6 feet across and 13 inches in depth, and weighing about a ton, fell. The end of it caught deceased. If he had been half a yard farther off it would have missed him. Witness helped to get him out, which they succeeded in doing in about 10 minutes. He was then dead. The accident happened at nine o’clock. The deputy, Thomas Ward, had been about half-an-hour before, but did not make any complaint, neither did he make any suggestions.
The Coroner: Now, how do you account for the accident? – It was a slip, which we were not aware of, under the roof.
Did the fall come from the roof? – Yes, sir.
Do you mean to say that you could an have seen It if you had examined it ?
No ; It was on the far side the roof, and we could not possibly have seen it.
Did the deputy try the place ?
I could not say exactly, sir. We were working a little lower down when he came.
Then you say it came from the slip which you could not see? – Yes, sir.
And you didn’t see it? – No. sir.
Witness had worked in the pit about 24 ears. The fall brought three props with it. The deputy did not find any fault with the number of props.
By the Inspector: The length of the slip was 13 feet. There were six props along the length, and that would give a prop for every two feet. The place had not been ” weighting,” but was quite quiet. The demised was drawing the “props,” or puncheons, and witness was holding the light. He was drawing the first one when the stuff came down. The deceased commenced drawing the prop at the nose end.
Why at the loo loose end? – Because he thought he could net exactly reach.
But suppose he had begun at the fast end to draw the props, would, in all probability, the accident have happened?
I cannot say, sir. We thought the roof was very bard, and didn’t know of the slip.
Well, you are a practical wood drawer, and you did what you thought was the best way ?
Yes. sir. We thought it was very hard, and would require a lot of getting down.
Was this “slip,” this letter-off,” at the fast end?
No. It began at the loose end, and tapered out to nothing. We could not see it because it was hidden by the “bags,” or softs. We had more puncheons to set had we wanted them.
As a matter of fact you were drawing them? – Yes. sir.
This came down without any warning? – Yes.
How long had the face coal been got? – Some two or three days. The bags seemed so strong that we thought we should have to draw all the wood before they would come down.
You expected drawing these puncheon without it coming down? – Yes.
And if it had not been for this letter-off in all probability that would have been the case, and all would have been right ? – Yes, sir.
A Juryman asked witness whether the props were lidded, and whether the lids were of the proper size and strength. – The witness replied in the affirmative.
The Coroner asked if anything turned upon these question. Suppose there had been a bigger or stronger sponger lid, would it have prevented the accident? – Witness: No.
Ave you sure that the props were set alright? – Yes. sir.
The juryman was opinion that the slip ought not to have thrown over two of the other props as well,
Thos. Ward, the deputy said he was at the scene of the accident at half-past eight, half-an hour before it happened, and the deceased, last witness, and two trammers, were there. Deceased was cutting two feet off at the loose end. He tried the place and thought It was all safe. He gave no instructions. It was properly timbered. When he heard of the accident he returned, but the deceased had been got out. He afterwards examined the place. The accident was because by the taking out of the first prop, and the coal swung over the other two.
In the course of further questioning a misunderstanding arose between the witness and the Coroner, and the latter said : You may be a very good deputy, but you are a very bad witness.
Did this accident come from the slip or did it not? Was the slip the cause of it? – Yes.
Can you account for it in any other way ? – No, sir.
Then why did you not say so at first? I don’t want to ask you any more questions. The Inspector might.
By the Inspector If this ” letter-off ” had not been there they would most likely have drawn the props without any of the coal falling. The puncheon which deceased was drawing was at the loose end. He had given the men no special instructions which prop to take first. In fact, he did not expect that they would have taken the props at all that day, as Saturday was a short day, and he thought that they had had enough coal down. When he passed the place half-an-hour before the accident he did not say a word to the men, or they to him. He made his usual inspection, found that all was right and passed on. He saw nothing of this letter off: it was covered by the “bags.” Until the accident had taken place it was impossible to see the letter offs. The face coal there had been taken some three or four days. When he passed, the place was not weighting, but all was still.
The Inspector: If you had drawn the props which one would you have drawn first?
I should have taken the centre one first, and the loose end the last.
That perhaps would have been the better way, but these were practical men ? – Yes, they had been accustomed to drawing wood. I have known deceased as a collier myself four or five years.
A Juryman remarked that the deceased used to work with him, and he always knew him as a practical man.
The Foreman asked if it were not possible to detect the presence of a slip by sounding the coal.
The Inspector explained that in a slip there was so vacuum. Any slip, sounding beforehand, would sound as solid as a wall. This with but few exceptions.
The foreman animadverted upon the mistake made by in drawing the prop nearest to the loose end.
The Coroner observed that this drawing of props was merely a question judgment. He supposed it was right to have this to the man’s discretion ?
The Inspector: Yes. it is a mere question of judgement – no breach of rule.
A Juryman alluded to an accident which occurred some years ago at Warren Vale where a slip fell right between two props, which were not properly set, and killed a miner of the name of Pearce.
Levi Cooper, the deceased’s trammer, said when the accident happened he and another trammer were ten yards away having their “snaps.”
The Coroner observed that no responsibility could be attached to Cooper, who was under deceased’s orders, besides being ten yards away.
Witness, in answer to question said the deputy Ward came through half-an-hour before and knocked on the props. He talked to the colliers, but witness did not hear what said. He did not hear anything about wood or anything else.
The Inspector: You didn’t expect that they would get the bags down that day?
Yes, for David said, “We will draw these ‘bags’ while the trammers are having their ‘snaps.’ and then they will have something to go on filling.”
The Coroner again remarked that there no responsibility resting on the trammers, who were subject to the owners of deceased or his mate. He was like to hear the inspector’s view of the accident.
The Inspector said he thought that the accident was caused by the letter-off, which could not have been seen the accident took place and it impossible to say whether if the deceased had in drawing the timber, left prop at the loose end to the last, it would have made any difference. He did not think that there was anything more in it than this.
The Conner supposed that if these men were practical men something must be left to their discretion. There could not be as many deputies as colliers, and therefore something must be left to the colliers, for deputies could not always with them.
The Inspector: Certainly, it is a question as to whether It was right or wrong to draw the loose end prop first. But I do not think they would, in all probability, have prevented the accident if any other course had been adopted, because tits slip would have run out the props in any case.
The Corner: You don’t think that the slip would have been seen by the deputy with ordinary care?
Inspector: No, I don’t think that it could.
In summing up, the Coroner said that the man who knocked the puncheon out had got killed, and whether it was right or wrong to knock that puncheon out was certainly a question. The deputy had said that he should not have not that particular prop out. But if it wrong to do it, the deceased had paid the penalty. It did not seem worthwhile blaming anybody else but the poor man who had got killed, and if he had made an error of judgment he had paid the penalty of it.
A Juryman observed that the accident might have occurred just the same, whichever prop was drawn first.
The jury then returned a verdict tantamount to quote Accidentally killed.”
The Coroner asked if the deceased left any family?
A Juryman replied that he had left behind a widow and six children.
The Coroner inquired if he belonged to any permanent fund at the colliery ?
Mr. Outram stated that the men refused to accept the permanent furn at Thrybergh Halt though they had done so at Warren Vale. The consequence was, that under the same firm. Messrs. Mr Charlesworth and Co., one colliery enjoyed advantages which the other refused to accept. Had the deceased, for instance, worked at Warren Vale, his widow would have dawn 17s. per week until the youngest children were 13 years of age. Now she had nothing.
The Foreman: It is a great mistake not to join the fund. (Hear, tear).
A Juryman: I don’t know what the men are thinking about. They think nothing about making children and less about providing for them in case of anything this sort.
The Coroner asked what object the men could have had in refusing to subscribe to the fund. He could not understand it, but at the same time he was very sorry for the poor woman and her children. This case might very well lie taken to heart by the miners of Thrybergh Hall (Hear, hear).
The jurors subscribed their shillings towards a fund for the widow.