Durham Mining Museum - Newspaper Articles (original) (raw)

9th March 1911

Scene In William Pit

Safety Lamp Broken With A Pick Shaft

At the Whitehaven Police-court, on Thursday, before R. Jefferson (in the chair) W. H. Watson, W. J. D. Burnyeat, T. H. Brockbank, J. H. Robinson, G. H. Turner, E. F. Lowthorpe, and G. G. Glen, Esqs., a collier named Wm. Cowan (28), residing at Countess Terrace, Bransty, Whitehaven, was charged with striking James Cowan, whilst working in William Pit, on February 20th, and also with damaging a safety lamp in the pit.

Mr. W. H. Chapman prosecuted on the behalf of the Colliery Company, and Mr. E. Atter defended.

Mr. Chapman, in outlining the facts of the case, said the prosecution was brought by the Whitehaven Colliery Company against defendant, and there were two information's, and they were taken under special rules 135 and 152. The first one included that no workmen shall strike another or throw stone, coal, or other missiles in or about the mine, and 152 specified that no person shall use any safety lamp, other than his own, unless one is given to him by the deputy, and shall not damage by neglect or wilfully any safety lamp, either his own or any other persons lamp whatever. Mr. Chapman then proceeded to give an outline of the general facts leading up to the prosecution. He added that he might repeat that it was anything but a pleasure for his clients to prosecute their own employees, but they had taken these proceedings through an imperative sense of duty for the safety of other workmen in the pit. He contended that that was imperative ground for bringing forward this case, and he asked the Bench to impose a penalty, which would deter others.

The first witness James Cowan, haulage hand at William Pit, aged 16, stated that it was his duty when at work to run full tubs out, and empty tubs in. On the date in question, he was engaged in the Delaval district. When a man's lamp went out, the men would put them on the tube to be brought out, and on the 18th ult., witness found an extinguished lamp on one of the tubs, which belonged to defendant. Witness took a tub sett out, and carried a lamp in his hand to the station to get it re-lighted. Witness had no time to get it lighted, and left it at the lamp station. Witness had to return with an empty sett, and before doing so, he gave the lamp to the man, whose duty it was to light the lamps. An hour and a half later he met defendant on the main road at McAdam's drift. A man named Thomas Russell was in his (defendant's) company, and they were coming out-bye. Defendant asked witness where his lamp was, and he told him it was out at the junction, and he would get it when he went out. Defendant then said witness never fetched the lamps back, and witness then held his light up near the defendant's face to see if he was vexed. Defendant thereupon said, "Don't put your lamp in my eyes," and witness then lowered it to his side, when defendant "let off" with a pick shaft, which he was carrying and smashed the glass of the lamp, putting the light out. The lamp was against witness's leg, when Cowan struck it. He told defendant he would tell Wilson Graham, the overman, about what had occurred. Defendant replied that he didn't care. Witness reported the matter to the deputy, David Slattery, and later he saw the overman, in the presence of defendant. Witness told Wilson Graham what had occurred, and defendant said he had done it, but it was not done on purpose. He meant to hit witness and not the lamp. Witness repeated his statement to the overman later, and defendant again said it was an accident.

Cross examined by Mr. Atter :— Witness had worked down the pit about two years and six months. He denied that he was known as an impudent lad to the workmen. He did not hold the lamp up in defendant's face as an act of impudence, or to annoy him, but he held it up in the face because he (defendant) was "shouting and tearing." Defendant's lamp went out about half past four, but witness did not see it on the tub until six o'clock. When defendant asked him where his lamp was, he told him "Billie" Dougherty has no time to light it. He had his light shining in defendant's face about a minute, and he complained about it.

Wilson Graham, of 22, Henry Street, Bransty, overman at William Pit, deposed that from information given him, he interviewed the last witness and defendant at the Lowca junction. The lad brought his lamp with him, and when he asked him what had broken it he said Will Cowan struck it with a pick shaft. Witness asked him if defendant meant to do it wilfully, and the lad replied, "Yes, he meant to either hit me or the lamp." The lad also complained that defendant had done it because he had not taken his lamp back. He (the lad) held the light up in defendants face as he was going to hit him, and did it to see if he (defendant) was in earnest. Defendant said to witness "You don't suppose I did it on purpose." He afterwards said "I meant to hit the lad, and not the lamp, because he held the lamp in my face." When a lamp was taken to the lamp station to be re-lighted, it was the duty of the lad bringing it to take a spare lamp in for the use of a man losing his lamp. Ordinarily one lamp was used by the trailers and two at the face, but if a lamp went out they generally used one at the face until they got the second lamp. On this particular occasion, there was another lamp extinguished, and the spare lamp went to another man.

Mr. Brockbank :— The boy had to serve out lamps, to two people, and he had only one lamp.

Witness replied that was so, but the boy was not to blame.

Questioned by Mr. Atter as to the general character of the lad, witness said he believed he took liberties with persons who joked with him. The boy told witness that Dougherty, the lampman, hadn't time to light the lamp to be of any benefit to Cowan. Witness met the lad coming out with the lamp at a quarter past six. Defendant was only stopped one day on account of the occurrence. He would say there was danger in breaking the lamp at that point on the main road, because there was a quantity of coal dust.

This concluded the case for the prosecution.

Mr. E. Atter addressing the Bench, contended there was no case for his client to answer, seeing that these proceedings were taken under special rules, which had to be exhibited in certain places, and this he maintained had not been done, and in that there was no case for him to answer, and the prosecution had failed to prove it.

Mr. Chapman said he did not think that mattered in this prosecution.

Mr. Atter pointed out that it was specially provided that the rules had to be posted up. It was the essential part of the case.

Mr. Chapman here asked the Bench to call on his friend to show the essential part before proceedings were issued in that Court, that the posting should take place. There was no obligation in the Act to prove that they should be posted. It was common knowledge that they were exhibited.

Mr. Atter said they were very often posted up in places where they could not see them.

Mr. Chapman :— The question is are they published?

Mr. Atter :— The question is that they shall be published. They must comply with the Act of Parliament.

Mr. Chapman said the special rules were posted at the pit top.

Mr. Atter :— We have no evidence of that, and no proof of it. The Act say, the rules must be published.

The Chairman said they thought Mr. Turner could prove that the rules were published, and the case could be proceeded with.

Mr. Atter contended that there was an injustice done by supplementing evidence after the case was closed.

Mr. Turner, manager, William Pit, said a copy the special rules was posted at the pit top, and at the office in a position, where they could be seen and read.

The rules were printed and in large letters. The rules were signed J. B. Atkinson, and H. M. James, agent, Samuel Turner, Manager, and John Rothery under manager. There were examined three years ago by Mr. Rothery.

Mr. Atter said if a person wilfully, negligently, or otherwise slipping on the footplates and breaks his lamp he is brought up here? — Yes.

The Chairman ruled that the case had better proceed.

Mr. Atter, continuing said as regarded the allegation his client was summoned that on the 20th February, with striking James Cowan, the evidence given by Cowan himself was that he was not stuck, and he contended there was no case on that information.

The Chairman after consultation said that the Bench considered the boy was not struck, and they could proceed with the other case.

Mr. T. H. Brockbank said he expressed a different opinion or the question.

Mr. Atter proceeding with his address, said another thing was the extraordinary bye-laws as confirmed in the special rules by them, and there damaging a safety lamp. He maintained that no more extraordinary rule could be admitted to be enforced in a Magistrates' Court, that this particular rule. A more unreasonable rule could not have been enforced, and he never heard of such a rule where a person could be guilty of a wrong without intention of doing wrong. Mr. Atter referred to the rule with regard to the damage of a safety lamp, and said a person was liable to slip on the footplates, and if his lamp was broken he was liable to be fined. He contended there was not a worse unreasonable rule, and he hoped the magistrates would not mention it being taken there. It was ridiculous that workmen should be bound under such rules. He said his client bore a good character, and was well known. He was one of the men who fortunately, was rescued from the explosion in Wellington Pit. He (Mr. Atter) Thought he was justified in saying that this lad (Cowan) was what they called a forward, impudent, and cheeky boy to the others. He went on to say that when the lad put the lamp within foot of his clients face. He was carrying a pick shaft, which had no pick on it, and he gave some remonstrance against the lad on the buttock with the pick shaft. He supposed that when he saw the pick shaft coming upon him, he would protect himself with raising the lamp, and it was broken. His client gave some explanation to Mr. Wilson Graham, and he incidentally said he thought there was nothing wrong. In conclusion, he hoped under the rules provided, the Bench would not say that his client had done damage to the safety lamp.

Defendant gave evidence, and stated that on February 20th, he was down William Pit on the second shift, and whilst engaged in a working, his lamp went out, and as usual he put it on a full tub about 4-30 for the lad to take to the lamp station to be re-lighted. Witness worked until close on seven o'clock with another man's lamp, when the defendant was working in company with Thomas Russell. As they were leaving, he met Cowan, whom they generally called "Pat." Witness called out "Is that you Pat," and he replied, "I." He asked him where his lamp was and the lad said at the junction. He asked "Why haven't you fetched it in" and he replied, "It's at the lamp station, and Billy Dougherty won't light it." It was then that the lad put his lamp up to defendant's face in a very offensive manner. Witness told him to take the lamp down. It was while the lad had the lamp up to his face that defendant, who was carrying the pick and shaft. Intended hitting the boy of the "stern" in a friendly way, but the pick shaft struck the lamp instead. The lad did not cry or scream. When the boy told him he had broken the lamp, witness said he could not help it. On Wednesday, witness attended the miners' meeting with regard to this case.

Cross-examined by Mr. Chapman :— No annoyance was caused by the lad not returning his lamp as he had another one. When he fame out-bye, he had no grievance against Cowan through having delayed bringing his lamp.

If you had suffered no grievance, why did you say to the lad "Why didn't thou bring my lamp back?" — Well every man likes his own lamp.

Answering further questions, witness said the putting up to his face did not annoy him. He only hit complainant with the pick shaft in a friendly way.

Mr. Chapman :— I am afraid if you were going to swing that at me I should not think it very friendly. (Laughter.) It was done by way of chaff, just like chucking a fellow under the chin, of pulling his whiskers? — Yes. (Laughter.)

Thomas Russell, also a collier at the pit, gave corroborative evidence.

The Chairman said: In this case the rule has been broken, and Wm. Cowan will have to pay a fine of 20s, or 14 days' imprisonment.

Newspaper transcript kindly provided by
West Cumbria Mines Research.