The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1887-08-13 00:00:00

THE CLAIMS FOl DAMAGES BY lIINLNG

OPERATIONS.

At tbe Birminghern Assizes on Saturday,
before Mr. Justice Wills, the case of Harper v.
Swindell, parly heard on Friday, was resamed.
Mr. Lawrence' Q C., M. P., and Mr. Graham, in.
s'racted by Mr Homer, Brierley Hill, represented
the plaintiff; and Me Self, Q.O , M P., and Mr. A.
Young, instructed by Mesirs. Bern rd, King, and
Soas. Slourbridge, appeared for the defendant.
The action arose out of some injuries said to have
been caused to the plaiutiff's property by operations
carried on in the defendant's colliery. In 1878 the
plaintiff. Thomas Harper, merchant's clerk, livine
at Brierley Hill, bought a house in close proximity
to the c dliery formerly workel by the Homer Hill
Company, and now in the hands of the deft ndant,
James Evers Swindell The house had previously
suffered by the company working within fi,teen
yards cf it, and the then owner received cotnpensa-
tion, while the company left a bank of coal imme-
diately beneath the property, so as to afford it pre-
tection from further injuty. It was alleged by the
plaintiff that between 1881 and IBB6—after he had
spent £lOO on the house in addition to the £176
purchase money—the mining operations carried on
by the defendant remeved part of the stappeeting
coal bank, and caused the house to crack and move
from th , perpendicular. On Ffiday the plaintiff
and members of his family were called to prove the
i,ljuty the house had sustained. The damage first
appeared in 1884, but it was in 1886 that the cracks
in the wall became more a rious.
On Saturday the Court resumed the case with the
evidence of Mr. Pateshall, who made a report in
1881 as to the extent of the damage prior to the
cracks then being fill up. He added that the
property now if free from mining injury, was worth
£3OO The price plaintiff gave for it was very low,
in consequence of its having been previously
damaged.
Mr. H. Dorse, builder, Cradley Heath, gave evi-
dence as to the condition of the house in July last.
The walls were out of the upright to the extent of
from wee half of an inch to two inched—there being
a general leaning towerds the north. Ho estimate I
thet it would cost £9B to repair the chirmige dons
by cracks. Ste., but that would not of course com-
pletely remove the depreeiation of the value
of the property, which he put at about £BO.
eras-examined by Mr. Jell: The principal pelt
of the house was built within the last twenty years.
Mr I. P. Bloomer, builder, Cradley, and Mr. W.
Wdletts, builder, gave evidence of a similar
character.
Mr. Field, mining engineer, West Bromwich,
said he found that the detendent's mine had been
worked in 1886 within a few yards of the plaintiff's
house. In 1884 the operatic) s in the colliery were
within nine yards of the house, and these he
thought, taking into consideration what had pre-
viously occurred, were sufficient to cause the cracks
in the walls of the plaintiff's house. The working,
as in 1886, so close to the property, necessarily in-
creased the damage done.
Mr. Jell, for the defendant, urged that there was
ample proof that the damage which the house un-
doubtedly sustained in 1834 could not by any means
hive been brought about by the operations n
the mine, and since th n there had be ,n no die.
turbanceof the coal beneath. The workieg up to
within nine yards of the house was conducted on
the rib and stall plan, and ceul I not have caused
injury to the property above. The damage it had
sustained was due to the subsidence in 1884, which
co Ad not be attributed to the defendant, and the
damage not being properly npaired extended itself
durine the subsequent years. Supposing, however,
the jury were of opini n the defendaeit was respon-
sible. he considered the £5O paid into Court was
sufficient to meet the claim.
Mr. Enoch Wood, archit of and surveyor, West
Bromwich, said the injuries to the property in
question were due to defective foundation and weak.
ness of construction, and not in any way to mining
op•rations. In 1886 the damage cor:esponded with
what Mr. Patesh,ll reported in 1884; it seemed to
be no worse.
Mr. W. Fiddian, auctioneer and valuer, Stour-
bridge, said he thought t.:20 would cover the dam.
age done, from whatever cause it was.
Mr. W. B. Collis, mining engineer to the defend-
ant, Bahl the mine in question had a very strong
roof consisting of 80 feat thickness of rock The
working in 1686 eras on the very safest system, and
could not have iujered the house. The subsidence
in 1884 was due, he theught, to the working of the
Homer Hill Colliery Company.
Cross-examined: He should have thought the
subsidence could not have been continuous. No
subsidence could, in Ms opinion, result from the
rib and stall system.
Other witnesses having been called to prove that
the operations in the defendant's mine could Lot
h Ise caused t ,e damage, the jury returned a verdict
f e. the defendant.

A.t tha Birmingham Assizas on Tuesday these
ati,us, Fellows v. Swindell, commenced on Mon-
day, were resumed. Thomas Fellows and Jane
Fellows, his wire, brought an action against James
Eves Swindell, before a special jury. to recover
.£6OO. (lama ;es for injury dine to his property by
defendant's mining operations. sir. Lawrence, Q C.
M.P., and Mr. Kettle (instructed by Mr. Homer,
Btierley Hill), were for the plaintiffs; and Mr. Jelf,
Q.C., and Mr. A. young (instructed by Messrs
Bernard, King, and So.'s, Stourbridge), for the
defendhnt.
The plaintiffs were the owners and occupiers of
certain land at Netherton, with five dwelling houses
and a public-house known as the Mogul Inn, and
were expressly entitled by deeds under which they
became possessed of the property to have the same
supported by toe land adjaceut thereto, and by the
coils and other mineral unde neath. The defent-
a it, it was contended, had wrongfully worked and
gotten the coal and :ether minerals from under
certain land adjac±ut to the plaintiffs' land, with the
result that the plaintiffs' land had sunk, and the
dwelling houses, puble house, and other buildings
thereon had become weakened, cracked, and injured.
In respect of the dwelling-houses .£2OO, was
clai red, and in resp-ot of the public-house £4OO
The defendant then denied that he was com-
pelled in working the minerals to have regard to the
support of plaintiffs' proper,y, and alleged also that
the damage to the buildings was due to their
defr wive construe:ion, He also pleaded the Statute
of Umitations, on the ground that the cause of
action, Many, did not acrue within six years of
the commencement of the action. The examinati)a
of witnesses for the defence was continued.

iNfr. Wood, builder and Purveyor, West Bromwich,
seated that she ccetages were the worst jerry bui!d•
hip he ever saw, and they were so dilapidated that
one could not form au opinion as to what damage
was caused by mi :ing op -rations and what was not.
He s'imil I think the co tages had been built a
hundred years.
Mr. Fiddian, surveyor, Stourbridge, gave it as bi-
opinion that many of the cracks which were aeparent
in plantiff's property ha,,l been filled up many years
ago. He had had to deal with pienierty which ha
given way in a 6iinilar m inner, althoiuh thf.re were
no mines near. t_rass-examined :If all the cracks
aopeared about the same time, he should say they
were due to special cause.
Mr. Jeremiah Skidmore, manager at Hoar,.
Sitelding's colliery, and Mr. Collis, mininz engineer,
were both of opinion that the buil tinge, could not
be affected by defendants' mieiug operation.
Mr. Swindell said he noticed cracks in the Mogul
Inn in 1878, and so far as he knew there hal been
no subsequ .nt injury. He had known the cottages
for sixty years, and when he first saw them tiii-y
appeared to be very old and diiapattd.
Mr. Smallman. a mining engineer of fifty-four
years' experience, stated that he had examined all
the property in veition. The cr..cks in the Mogul
Inn app tired to be of vi ry 'emote origin.
but he could not say wh ,n the cracks
in the cottages cunununmd. Ile did nct thi,k
it was pos ible for any of the oracka to havd come
into exi.tence since 18S-I ; nor did he think that the
d lenilart's tniaing uperatiens ha i r uyt,ling to do
with causing da,i.age to any of the property. He
thou _lit it impossible for any injury to be incurred
by mines w Tked on the rib and stall system. as the
defendant's were. If any damage had been
C dto plainaffs' property it inuat nave resultel
fr um the operati els of the oid Homer Hill Colliery
T,.is was the case for the defe. claut, an I his Lori .
ship, in aidressing the jurv, sai i thera was a good
&al to be said in (he way of sym,,a'hy for both
partias. Strong expressions had been used by the
wicnesses on either side. It was urgei on behalf
of the defendant that the seam which he was wors-
ing was an txo. ptionally strong one, and that it was
being worked in such a way as to make it almost
mm n ssible for any damage to accrue. The care
w.ts essentially une for a jery, and depend° ,
entirely on which side they believed.
Th • jury, after about half an hours deliberation,
found tor the defendant, and judgement was entered
so ordiegly.