The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-08-15 00:00:00

CHESTER ASSIZES

YESTERDAY.—CIVIL SIDE
Before Baron Gurney.
COAL MINES, BAGILLT.
Hanmer v. Euton awl others.

The Solicitor-General (Sir W. Follett), Mr. Hill, (At-
torney-General of the Palatine), Mr. Temple, and Mr.
Hanmer, counsel for the plaintiff ; and Mr. Jervis, Q.C.,
Mr. Welsby, and Mr. Townsend, for the defendants.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL stated the case, to the effect
that the plaintiff, Mr. W. Hanmer, was the trustee of Sir
John Hanmer, under the will of the late Sir Thomas
Hanmer, who was possessed of considerable estates in the
county of Flint, including the mine in the parish of Flint,
known as the Dee Bank Colliery, and which it was com-
plained had been destroyed by the negligent or wilful
wrong acts of the defendants, the Messrs. Eyton, large
mining proprietors, in the same county. The property
in question borders the River Dee, and consisted of
several valuable veins of coal ; the dip was from
the uplands down towards the river ; the veins
were the three and five yards, which were very valuable,
and dipped under the river. In 1826 it was leased to par-
ties named Howells, for twenty-five years, reserving a
royalty of one-seventh. It was since worked by the Dee
Bank Colliery Company. Adjacent to this colliery was
one worked by the defendants, leased from Dr. Richard-
son. About 45 years ago the late Mr. Ellis, of Cornist,
worked Sir John Hanmer's mines, and several also of the
the adjacent mines. He worked through tWo faults, and
opened into one. which let an immense body of water
supposed to be tapped from the river Dee, which filled a
large space under ground, and formed a sort of subterra-
nean lake, known as the boot water, from the Boot Col-
liery ; and which was kept out of the rest of the collieries
by a fault. This body of water was well known to all the
colliers, and it was also known, that if the fault was dis-
turbed it would have disastrous effects upon all the adja-
cent collieries. The defendants began to work their wine
at Bagillt about eight or nine years ago, and had nearly
exhausted them. It was so situated that water flowed
from it into the pits, whose engines had to remove it. About
3 years since they sunk a pit towards the fault which was the
barrier against the boot water. Notice was given to their
agent that they were proceeding in driving levels, which
would destroy all the collieries ; and which notice was re-
peated. He should prove by their own workmen, that
this notice was given, and that they coutinued to work
towards the fault in question. The accident happened on
Sunday, the 2nd of July last; and it was providential that
it happened on that day, as one hundred lives might have
been lost ; the boot water burst in, and first destroyed the
defendant's pits, and then the plaintiff's pits. In the first
instance the defendants offered to pay the expense of drain-
ing the plaintiff's pits ; but the learned counsel said he
was instructed that that could not be done, but that the
colliery was totally destroyed. With respect to the ques-
tion of damage, he entered into a variety of calculations,
by which it appeared that for some years the royalty had
averaged annually about £1,547 ; and that there were
about ninety-one acres of the three and five yard veins,
which gave a gross tonnage of 2,344,427, but deducting
the usual per tentage, the net tonnage would be about
1,687,998 tons. It would take 90 years to exhaust these
beds. He entered into two calculations founded upon
different scales; one came to £20,194, the other to £30,944.
After some further observations, he stated that he should
sustain his statement by evidence ; and as Sir J. Hanmer
had lost his property by the default of the defendants, he
was entitled to full compensation at their hands.
A number of witnesses were then called to prove the
case as stated by the learned Council, and at the rising of
the Court there remained two witnesses to examine on
behalf of the plaintiff.
The cause excited considerable interest, in consequence
of the amount of property at stake, the damages being
laid at £200,000.