The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1881-01-15 00:00:00

OBSERVEIt.

HALESOWEN.

INFRINGEMENT OF TUE MINES REGULATION A.CT.
—At the Police Court, on Thursday, before Col.
Fletcher, E. Gem, and E. B. Ph,llips, Esqs. John
Johnson, Lutley Mill, Halesowen, the manager
for the Whitley CAliery Company, Halesowen,
was summoned at the instance of Mr. J. P Baker
(Government Inspector of Mines for the district)
fur having on the 18th of November last neglecte I
to observe the 20th section of the Coal Mines
Regulation Act of 1872, which prohibit "the
manager of a coal mine from employing or per-
mitting to be employed any person therein, unless
there are in communication with every seam of
such mine for the time being at work, at least two
shafts or outlets separated by natural strata,
affording distinct means of ingress or egress."—Mr
T.Walker (Wolverhampton) appeared in .company
,with Mr. W. B. Scott (assistantinspector of mines)
to prosNcute ; Mr. Homfray (Niessrs, Homfray and
Holberton) appeared for the defendant; and pleaded
guilty.—Mr. Walker said, since the information had
been laid the defendant had complied with the Act
of Parliament, and there were now two shafts down
to the coal. It was also necessary to explain that
the defendant, or he company by which he was em-
pb4ed, had been in communication with the
Secretary of State in the early part of last year, in
order to get exemption from the provisions ot the
Act with iespect to this particular mine, so as to be
able to work the coal by means of one shaft, an
under the 22nd Section of the Act power was
given to the Se.Tetary of State under certain eir-
cum-tances to give exemption in writing to the
owner of a colliery to work a coal mine with one
shaft. The Home Secretary. however, refused to
grant exemption to the defendant, and the Mines
Inspector was directed t ) be vigilant in inspecting
this particular colliery, in order to see that the Act
of Parliament was not infringed. Consequently,
Mr. Scott, the assistant inspector, visited the colliery
on many occasions during the month of Mare.h,
and up to August last year, and on various visits
found that they were working coal, and drawing
it
from one shaft, and not making mere explorations
in eearch of coal. The fact was reported to. the
Home Sem tary and hence the present proceedings.
—Mr. Homfray's explanation was that on the
date named in the summons, when Mr. Scott visited
the coili ry, the company were sinking their second
shift In oriving along an exploring road they
cone upon some bioken ground, and as they
required slack for the engine, they stuck out a
road to get some, and in three weeks afterwards
they had their second shat sunk and communica-
tion made with the other shaft.—Mr. Walktr
remarked that he thought if the Bench heard the
evidence of Mr. Scott it would be shown they were
actually breaking coal from a pillar.—Mr. Homfray
urged that it was necessary to keen the collieries at
work, as the people in that locality were almost
starving, and a number of men and their families
were dependent upon the colliery for their living.
The mine also was not a dangerous one, having
neither gas nor water in it.—Col mei Fletcher :
Your best answer is that you have now coinldied
.with the Act.—Mr. Hondray said the company ha
now complied with it, and when the Hono.
Secretary said there must be a second shaf., the
work was executed with the greatest celerity.—
The Beach fined defendant £5 and coats, Col nel
Fletther observing that the fine would have been
much heavier if defendant had not at once cm-
plied with the requirements of the Act. The
maximum penalty for the offence is £2O.