The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-05-02
WAS WHOLLY UNFORESEEN
Investigation of the Death of
Robert Benefits.
WAS STRUCK BY A ROCK
There Was No Covering Over the Chute
for Protecton-They Were Engaged
in Timbering the Raise at the
Time of the Accident.

coroner Julien held an inquest at
Richards undertaking rooms last even
ing to investigate the accident in the
Leonard mine Saturday morning in
which Robert BENEFITS sustained in
iuries by being struck on the head by
rock, which resulted in his death the
following day. From the testimony it
was apparent the accident was wholly
unforeseen. The jury rendered YER
dict accordingly.
Herman Rothbert, who was working
with BENEFITS when he was hurt. said
he and BENEFITS We're lining up
chute and We're just above the 700 level
when a rock came from above some
where and struck BENEFITS squarely on
top of the head, knocking him down
the chute. The accident occurred about
10 O'Clock in the morning of Saturday.
At the time witness was three feet
away from Bennetts passing the lin
ing planks into the chute to BENEFITS,
who was spiking them On. He saw the
rock hit BENEFITS and roll out on the
floor. There was no covering over the
chute for protection. 1t would be a
good plan to have such protection. but
not customary, and a man might work
in the chute a hundred times again
and never get hurt. He did not know
where the rock came from; looked to
see, but did not ascertain. Witness
was an experienced miner and under
stood BENEFITS to be an old hand at
his business.
G. w. Kuhn, a miner at the Leon
ard, said that four men, he and his
partner and BENEFITS and Rothbert,
| We're engaged in timbering a raise.
Witness and his partner had covered
their chute and BENEFITS and Roth
bert were at the time engaged in COW
| r.
ner covered their chute the first thing
they did and had BENEFITS done like
| wise the accident would not have oC-
| Cured Witness regarded BENEFITS
getting hurt as due to his own negli-
gence. 1t was his place to protect
| himself and no fault attached to the
| mine management.
| William G. BENEFITS. no relation Of
| the deceased happened along just as
| the accident occurred. His description
of it correspondent with the statements
of Rothbert. 1t was necessary, he said,
for men working in a chute to cover
it over for protection, as it was dan
| gerouS place to work. Why he had
| failed to do so, witness could not say.
| The fact that he did not do so doubt
less cost him his life. Witness did not
| consider the mine management at fault
| in any way. -sv
2, Frank. Duffy was working partners
| with the witness Kuhn. His testimony
correspondent with chat of his partner,
and in addition he stated that the
ground overhead was bad and Ben
netts should have taken the precau-
| ton to cover the chute; there was no
| reason for his failure to do so. as every
facility was afforded him for doing so.
| Carl r. Davis, foreman at the Leon
ard. said blast had been fired just
| above where deceased was working on
| icrh he Hp
thought the rock must have come from
| where this blast had been fired. He
attributed the accident to the fact that
| BENEFITS had great deal of work to
do and he thought BENEFITS must have
gotten in a hurrysand failed to take
, the precautions he ordinarily would
| BENEFITS was an old timberman and a
careful workman. The skull of the
| deceased was very badly fractured by
the rock, and this undoubtedly pro-
| duced DEATH la
Deputy Mine Inspector Frank Hun
| ter investigated the accident He found
the facts as stated by the preceding
| witnesses, In addition he said the
| chute in which BENEFITS was working
| ran from the sixth to the seventh floor
| On the sixth there was a quantity of
| loose ground, and undoubtedly the rock
fell from this point. Had the chute
| been covered at the sixth BENEFITS
| would not have been hurt.
The only conclusion Mr.. Hunter had
| been able to reach as to what caused
| the rock to fall was that the hammer
ing in the chute must have Jared Il.
AS BENEFITS was provided with every
| thing he needed to work with, it was
| Mr. Hunters opinion that death of the
| deceased was due to his own negli-
| gence.
The jury returned a verdict that
| unforeseen
dent