CANNOCK ADVERTISER
September 1900
The Cheslyn Hay
Colliery Catastrophe
The Finish Of The Inquiry
Verdict Of Manslaughter
Against Hill
The final sitting of the Coroner’s Court took p1ace at the Woodman Inn, Littlewood, Cheslyn Hay, on Friday afternoon at 3.30. Mr A. B. Smith (Deputy Coroner) read over the evidence taken at the previous hearings to the witness’s and this was signed by them in the presence of the jury. All the solicitors representing the parties interested were present as were the Miner’s Agents, and the Rev. H. V. Stuart (Vicar of Cannock).
The coroner, in summoning up, pointed out that the man Hill, the engine Winder, was responsible on his own showing for what had happened. That being so, he was liable to be charged with manslaughter. The owners of the machinery were not responsible for what had occurred, as shown by the evidence of Hill and Mr Davies, the expert. The only question it seemed to him was ‘was Hill in a proper state of mind to understand what he was doing at the tine of the accident?’ He afterwards pointed out that in the case of the Slaugh Railway Disaster, the engine driver, who had been driving the same class of engine for 23 years, left Paddington sober, and in his right mind, yet in the course of an hour he ran through the signals, which were against him, and when he had been in the habit of passing three or four times a week. The jury in this case found that the man was suffering from Temporary Mental Aberration. He was inclined to think that such a finding might be dangerous, yet it might be true; and it might be true in this case; therefore they just had to see whether they agreed that Hill neglected the proper working of the engine, having taken on himself the responsibility of properly driving the engine, upon which the lives of the men depended. Then they had to decide whether, at the time of the accident, he was in the full possession of his faculties.
The jury were then left to consider their verdict.
The jury returned a verdict that the man Hill was guilty of manslaughter. They found that the accident was caused by the improper and negligent driving of the winder.
The prisoner will be immediately brought before a magistrate, and remanded until next week.
The Cheslyn Hay
Colliery Disaster
Magisterial Proceedings
Hill Committed For Trial
At a special court held at the Public Rooms on Thursday morning, before Mr F.B. Buinstead, Wm Hill (47), formerly winder at the Coppice Colliery, Cheslyn Hay was charged with the manslaughter of the three men, Enoch Lloyd, Cannock, Henry Stanton, and Joseph Edwin Lawson of Cheslyn Hay on the third inst.
The prisoner was represented by Mr. T. P. Haslam, of Wolverhampton.
The evidence which was given by Joseph Bates, banksman, Walsall Road, Bridgetown, Joseph Hichens, Hightown Street, Cheslyn Hay, Wm. Jellyman, miner, High Street, Cheslyn Hay, and
Dr. Wm. Hosegood was practically the same as at the inquest.
John Follows, the engine-wright at the Old Coppice Colliery, deposed that the engine worked all right on the morning of the accident. The prisoner was under him. Witness had been employed at the Colliery for the past eight years. He had not examined the brake the morning of the accident.
By Mr Haslam: Hill had worked on an average, for a few days before the occurrence, twelve hours a day. It would make an average eight working days per week. Enginemen, as a rule, worked twelve hours a day. Prisoner was expected to work from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. He would not say that Hill worked fifteen or sixteen hours a day for some weeks previous to the accident. Prisoner was provided with assistance. Hill’s son, who was 22 years of age was employed by the firm and worked, with his father. Whatever happened during his absence, and while his son was doing his work the prisoner was considered liable, Hill could have what time he liked for his breakfast and dinner. There was no bell on the indicator to give warning when the men were nearing the bottom of the pit. He had never had to complain of the way in which Hill did his work.
Inspector Burgess stated that he was present at the inquiry relating to the death of the three men. Hill was cautioned by the coroner as to any evidence he might give. Hill at the enquiry said he was in charge of the winding engine. He heard a sound, and turned to see if one of the valves was alright. When he turned to look at the indicator, he said that the men were a lot nearer the bottom of the shaft of the mine than he was aware of. He reached over to pull the lever, but he did not get hold of the catch and it would not move. By the time he released the catch, it was too late. Hill was committed for manslaughter on the coroners warrant, and witness told him he should arrest him. He cautioned him and charged him, but he made no reply. Prisoner was bailed out the same night.
By Mr Haslam: Witness had known Hill for about five years and had always found a sober and steady man.
Prisoner was committed to take his trial at the ensuing Assizes. On the application of Mr Haslam, bail was allowed as here to for. Hill being bound to appear in the sum of £80 and two sureties of £40 each.
Cannock Advertiser 8th Dec 1900
Cheslyn Hay Colliery Disaster
William Hill (48), engine driver, was indicted for the manslaughter of Enoch Lloyd, Henry Stanton, and Joseph Edwin Lawson at Cheslyn Hay, on September 3rd.
Mr Harrison prosecuted and Mr Plump defended.
In opening the case to the jury, Mr Harrison said it was a case of manslaughter quite out of the ordinary character. Prisoner was a man who had the highest character, who had been employed for nineteen years as engine driver at the Old Coppice Colliery, and who had a splendid character for honesty, sobriety, and hard work. Yet he was charged with the death of the three men through culpable negligence. There were two shafts at the colliery, and in each shaft there was a cage, and these cages were so arranged that as one cage descended in one shaft the cage in the other shaft ascended. In the engine house there was an indicator which showed exactly the position of the cages in the shaft, and the man in charge of the engine regulated the engine accordingly. There was a powerful brake attached to the engine. It was worked with foot of the engine winder at any time. So powerful was the brake that if the engine was going full speed ahead, the application of the brake would stop the cages, in the shafts. There was also, within reach of the engine winder a throttle valve by which he could regulate the steam.
There was also a reversing lever which was within reach of the engine winder by which the engine was controlled. It was the duty of the engine winder when he was powering or raising the cage to watch the indicator, and he could turn off the steam when he did, and if necessary he could reverse the engine and finally he could stop and apply the brake it would be shown that it was the duty of the winder to turn off the steam when the cage was half way down the shaft. On the morning of September 3rd the prisoner commenced to lower miners into the pit at the same time bringing up the miners who had been on night shift. Before the prisoner went on duty the engines were examined by Joseph Fellows, the enginewright, and were found to be in a good state. Prisoner lowered about seventy men, and about twenty minutes to seven o’clock he started to lower the cage which contained the eight men including the three men who were killed. The banksman, Joseph Bayes, noticed that the empty cage was coming up very quickly end that was the first intimation he had that something was wrong. The empty cage went up into the framework, and considerable damage was done. At the bottom of the shaft was a man named Joseph Hichens, who superintended the lowering and raising of the men. He saw the cage containing the deceased men coming down the shaft at a great rate. It dashed on to the framework at the bottom of the pit, and two men fell out of the cage which rebounded and the third man fell out of the cage, and all three were killed. When the engine-wright and the other men went into the engine room after the accident they found prisoner terribly upset. Prisoner said It is a terrible job, arid subsequently he added, ‘I could not get the lever over,’ meaning the reversing bar. It subsequently appeared that the prisoner in his hurry had failed to grasp the catch on the reversing lever. The engines were examined by Mr Davies, a mining engineer after the accident, and he found that the machinery was in proper working order. Prisoner gave evidence at the coroner’s inquest and he said he had no complaints to make against the machinery. Prisoner also said if he lost his head for a moment or two, and that probably was the cause of the accident. In his evidence before the coroner prisoner stated that while the cage was going down he suddenly heard a noise, and he thought that one of the valves had gone wrong, and if the valve did go wrong it was quite possible the prisoner might have lost control of the engine. Prisoner said he took his eye off the indicator for a second or two to look around at the valve and then in looking at the indicator again he saw that the cage had gone down the pit farther than it ought to have done. Prisoner said he at once reached over to the throttle valve end closed it, that he tried I push the reversing lever over, but in his excitement he failed to cease the catch, and consequently the lever would not work until it was too late, and it was only then that he applied the brake. It took about half a minute for the cage to go to the bottom, and in the ordinary course the drum on which the rope was wound revolved twenty times. It was found that the drum had six times more than twenty, so that the cage must have been nearly at the bottom of the pit before he attempted to stop the engine. The prosecution said that in this the prisoner was guilty of neglect and that he ought to have watched the engine more carefully.
Evidence was given by numerous witnesses.
Mr Plump, in addressing the jury for the prisoner, argued that there had been no such negligence as to render him liable to the criminal law, and that the prisoners good character and long years of service entitle him to the most earnest consideration at the hands of the jury. Deplorable as the accident was, he asked them to say that the prisoner was a victim of circumstances, and the victim of natural fallibility, and of nerves. Hearing a noise in the valves it was a perfectly natural thing to look round though it might not have been the right thing to .
His Lordship said the question for the jury was whether the prisoner had failed to use an ordinary amount of care and skill in the discharge of his duties. Was what he did in looking round at the valve a reasonable act and free from negligence, and was the fact of his being unable to seize the catch of the reversing lever due to negligence or was it an accident.
The jury found the prisoner not guilty and he was acquitted.
