The Midland Examiner and Wolverhampton Times. — 1877-10-27 (Wolverhampton, West Midlands, England)

PROPHECIES CONCERNING THE LAST DAYS NOW BEING ACCOMPLISHED."  ALLEGED HOMICIDE AT WOLVERHA DIP. TON. FATAL RESULTS OF INTEMPERANCE.  CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION AGAINST A CANAL  ' On Tuesday, in the Sessions Court of Wolverhampton. proceedings were begun under the Judicature Act, before the Official Referee (Mr. Dowdeswell, Q.C.), touching claims against the Birmingham Canal Company for damah es. The plaintiffs in the one case were Messrs. George Thomas and Richard I Thomas, jun., of the Hatherton Colliery Bloxwich ; and in the ether Messrs. S. Groucutt and Sons, coalmasters, Bilston. The case of the Messrs. Thomas, which was first entered upon, was conducted by Mr. Anstie (instructed by Messrs. Duignan and Co., solicitors, Walsall); whilst Mr. Jelf (instructed by Messrs. Wragge and Co., of Birmingham) was for the company. Messrs. Duignan were represented by Mr. Williams, and Messrs. Wragge by Mr. Evans. Mining engineers were at the elbows of the legal gentlemen; and Mr. H. J. Marten, C.E., was present in support of the case for plaintiffs. The proceedings charged the defendants with negligence, entitling the plaintiffs to damages; and they likewise contemplated the issuing of a mandamus to the Sheriff of the county for a trial by jury to assess compensation under the liability clauses. The case for the plaintiffs was that, under the pressure of the heavy flood of October, 1875' the canal company, to save their banks, opened their sluice communicating with Sneyd Brook, and the brook, already full, burst its banks and overflowed the surrounding country. The water went down the Beechdale Pits into a by-pit and thence into No. 4 Pit, and completely drowned it out. So much water had been liberated from the canal that it went on the Hatherton pumping station, where, although it did not get over the bank, yet it percolated through the bank and entered the pit. For six or seven days it rose in the pits, which were not unwatered for months. During the whole of this time the works were suspended, the mines were broken down, and otherwise great damage was occasioned. The acts of the canal company constituted negligence. There had been remissness in , taking precautionary measures; and they were therefore liable to damages. But it was the duty of the canal company to compensate for the injury done without reference to negligence for the flooding of th• collieries constituted trespass. Several witnesses were examined in support of the state of facts alleged by the claimants and the court adjourned. On resuming the proceedings, on Wednesday, The Referee asked Mr. Austie if ke intended to go through in detail every item in the claim, because if so the enquiry might occupy an almost indefinite period. Mr. Austie said, with a view of curtailing the enquiry, he was prepared to suggest that if, as the result of the referee's report to the Court, the defendants were liable to pay damages, that the question of the amount of His damages should then be at once referred to an accountant or some person, like a mining engineer, accustomed to deal with such matters.  This course was agreed to, and Mr. George Thomas, the senior plalntqf, was examined as to the flood in the mine, .the causes which led to it, and the amount of damage done.  On Thursday the enquiry was resumed. Mr. H. J. Marten, C.E., one of the witnesses, said he considered that the natural flow of water in the Sneyd brook on October 20, 1875, would have been 1,280 cubic feet per minute. In his opinion the proper course for the defendants to have taken would have been to have constructed weirs opposite each drainage flow. If the weir at Pelsall had been kept open and enlarged, an another constructed north of Bloxwieh. the pressure of water upon the Sneyd brook would have been considerably reduced. If he had been in the place of the defendants he should not have permitted the summit level of the canal to have remained so high as it did. He should have kept it at a ' summer ' level. The plaintiffs case being concluded, some formal evidence was given on behalf of the defendants, after which the court adjourned.