Mas ch 13, 1911.

THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN.

571

the air coming from the face kept increasing, to build
up both airways, and the bodies were built up; but the
decision to leave the bodies there was only come to after
consultation by a jury of managers. The responsibility
was not put on the manager of the pit to decide these
matters. It seemed to him to be too big a responsibility
to be on the shoulders of one man. There was a point
raised by Mr. Leonard Fletcher which very much
interested him, as to the result of reversing the air. In
the particular case mentioned by Mr. Fletcher, if he
remembered rightly, there were two returns and one
intake, and on reversal the air had two intakes and one
return. He would like to ask Mr. Fletcher if he had any
further information in reference to that reversal, or any
further light to throw upon it, and if the result was
exactly in accord with the experience just related in
regard to a mine which had two intakes,, and one return.
By the new Mines Act it was provided that there should
be two intakes. It seemed to him t<5 be open to doubt
as to whether it was a sound proposition to have two
intakes with one return for both, for there was always a
tendency in the air to stagnate and for the bulk of the
air to go along the two airways, with the result that
the two airways were rather a source of danger than of
safety.

Mr. F. N. Siddall, H.M. inspector of mines, said the
case mentioned by Mr. Orchard was one of those
which the Royal Commission on Mines mentioned in
their report, and it was one of the cases on which the
law governing the reversal of air was founded. It was
a notable case, and an account of it was in the Second
Report—he thought it was the second—of the Royal
Commission on Mines.

Mr. Leonard R. Fletcher said he had nothing to
add to the information he gave at the former meeting.
In the case he cited there were two returns and one
intake. One of those returns had to become the intake,
and so the air had to go down a brow which was heated
up, because it had previously been a return airway.
They had great difficulty in making the cool air go
down that way. It preferred to go another way. Only
a very little quantity of air went down, and it crawled
along the floor, as it were. That was all the air that was
got until they had an opportunity of closing the first
intake. Then the air had to go down, whether it liked
to do so or not, and as the new road cooled there was
less trouble in forcing the air down it. In course of
time it became a second intake, and a very useful one,
and they had not had any trouble with it since. He quite
saw Mr. Orchard’s point when he talked about the
danger of having two intakes, but, as far as his own
experience had gone, there had been no trouble except
that which they had at the beginning. But if two
intakes were provided at a pit, the manager should see
that they did their duty, and that they were a source of
safety, and not of danger.

Mr. J. Gardiner said he would like to ask members
of the society if any of them had considered the question
of a steam jet for the purpose of reversing the air. He
and others had tried this method at most of their
collieries with varying results. At some pits they had
got extraordinarily good results, and at others they
expected to have better results, but it had been an
absolute failure. Their method was this : they carried
about 27 pipes down the downcast shaft, a distance of
about 70 yards, and finished off with a short length of
perforated pipe. At the top of the upcast they arranged
a waterpipe encircling the pit, and in this they drilled
small holes. When they desired to reverse the air they
turned the steam on the downcast and water on the
upcast. In one case, in a pit about 400 yards deep,
they managed to reverse the air in five minutes. This
was without fastening the dividing doors. They then
proceeded down the shaft and closed the dividing doors,
gradually going further inbye, and they finally got a
result of about half the normal ventilation in the reverse
direction. At another colliery, where they had a fan
arranged for the reversal, they got half the quantity of
the normal ventilation ; and at one small colliery where
the workings were quite close to the pit, they
were able to get the quantity of about three-fourths the
normal ventilation. Most of their experiments only
covered about two years, and during that period they
found no excessive quantity of gas being given off. It
seemed to him that the advantages of the steam jet were
these : its great simplicity, its great reliability, and the
fact that it would be instantly available, which might
not be the case where a fan was used, if that fan got
damaged in an explosion.

Mr. G. B. Harrison, H.M. inspector of mines, said
that, like many other members, he had been very much
interested in this question of reversal of the air. It had
been a subject of discussion for many months past. He
had often been asked his opinion and what would be the
best thing to do at certain collieries. With respect to
what the last speaker had said as to a steam jet, he had
been asked in some cases if that would be sufficient, and
he had no hesitation in saying he thought it would, and
he had recommended a trial of it before expending
money on anything else, seeing that it was just to be a
stand-by, where the shaft was shallow and the conditions
seemed favourable. He recommended it in another case,
and advised them, when they got it ready, to give it a
trial and see for themselves what it did. In another
case where he was asked if a steam jet would be
sufficient, and he had some little hope it would, he said
unless they were prepared to spend money on something
else he should recommend them to try it, but in some
cases it would take a long time. In the Cadeby disaster
there was an underground fire. They had a steam jet,

and when it was put into use it was not long before it
acted quite well enough to enable them to reverse the
air. As was said then, the varying circumstances must
be considered in every case when judging whether a
steam jet was sufficient. Managers were compelled to
have the means of reversing the air, and they should
not be satisfied with any appliance until they had tried
it. He came across a colliery manager a little while ago
and enquired of him the means he had for reversing the
air. The man said he had an arrangement for reversal.
The next question put to him was, had he tried it. He
had not tried it. At another colliery the manager had
considered some of the advantages of a certain system,
but he was not prepared to try it at once; he had
some idea that it might be a risky operation, and
he asked him (Mr. Harrison) whether his adviser
would take the reponsibility. Mr. Harrison’s answer
was that if the manager would take his men out
of the pit, he himself would have no hesitation in
accompanying him to see the effects of the reversal. If
the manager would like someone to go down with him
he would go down. His (Mr. Harrison’s) idea was that
there were opportunities of trying any plan some
Saturday afternoon, or a Sunday, when the men were
out of the pit, but that in any circumstances the plan,
whatever it was, should be tried before the actual time
of trial came. He had known cases where the parties
concerned thought their plans were sufficient, but when
those plans were put to the test they broke down. In
such a case, if they had trusted to luck, they would
have “ found themselves in a hole ” when the time of
trial came. Many collieries, to his knowledge, were
doing their best to carry out the provisions of the Act
in this respect. One company was making a long,
expensive tunnel. He hoped they would be able to get
something useful out of it. With regard to the case
cited by Mr. Orchard, there were at the time of every
colliery disaster plenty of men who would be willing to
act as a jury of the kind and for the purpose indicated.
In short, be thought that in every case now, and
particularly in all the large collieries, they ought
to be able to reverse the air, and should make sure,
when they had the plant adapted to their use, that it
would really act when necessary.

Mr. J. D. Paton asked for information as to the
possible difference in the conditions of working the
mines in Pennsylvania and Great Britain. If the con-
ditions were not distinctly different, the provision for
air reversal should be established before the demand
arose.

Mr. Stanley. Atherton, who has had experience of
American coalmines, said, with regard to the question
asked by Mr. Paton, he thought it would be better
answered by a statement of his experience in the
Cumberland coalfield. He saw used there an American
fan called a Murphy fan. It was simply a question of
the outer casing reversing. It was not intended that
reversing should take place in it, and he thought it was
rather a difficult matter. The main idea of that
reversing was that when the temperature was such that
it would be futile for a fan to be a blowing fan, the
casing was reversed and it became an exhaust fan,
practically reversing the air. For five minutes it was a
blowing fan and for seven minutes it was an exhaust
fan. But the greatest surprise he had was in regard to
another matter. When at the Wigan Mining School,
they were rather keen on taking measurements, and
they had some infallible rules. They were quite certain
those rules were accurate. He had a copy of those rules
with him and took the usual measurements, and what
surprised him was that this fan would give an actual
efficiency of 25 to 30 per cent, more than was possible
according to his old ideas.

The President was authorised to convey to Mr.
Clifford the thanks of the society for his paper.

Mr. Hugh V. Hart-Davis remarked that at one of
the collieries with which he had to do, where they had
an electric-driven fan, they made some tests. He was
anxious about the motor being overloaded, and was
pleased to find it was not. The chief reason for its not
being overloaded was that the amount of air was less,
and the efficiency, of course, was lowered. He thought
this experience might be interesting to people who had
electric fans. There were not many electric-driven
fans in Lancashire, though there were in Yorkshire and
some other counties.

Mr. Siddall, H.M. inspector of mines : Might I ask
what the actual volume of air was, for if the fan is an
exhaust fan and it is turned to be a blowing fan, that
would cause an addition to the load on the fan, unless
the air was a considerable amount less ?

Mr. Hart-Davis : I could not give the actual figures,
but the amount of air delivered was very much less than
the ordinary amount, and that was balanced equally by
a less efficient working. We took accurate readings of
temperature in both cases. The amount of air was less,
and the efficiency was less, and one balanced the other.

Mr. H. H. Bolton : Was the water-gauge the same ?

Mr. Hart Davis : No, it was very much less in
proportion.

The thanks of the meeting were tendered to Mr.
Clifford for his paper.

Mr. H. H. Bolton said he had been asked to report
the result of a test made since the paper was read. A test
was made during the past mon th, and they got 86 per cent,
of efficiency. As far as they could tell, this was partly
owing to one or two doors being found not properly

fastened when the firemen got towards the far end of
the workings, and also it was partly brought about by
the condition of one of the shafts. In this case normally
there were three downcast shafts and one upcast shafts
and in one of these downcast shafts there were steam
pipes at present, and consequently, when the air was
going its normal way round exhausting, there was a
good deal to be overcome in this downcast shaft
and, of course, as soon as they started forcing the
air, and this downcast was turned into an upcast, they
got a considerably increased quantity of air in it. That
probably accounted very largely for the percentage
of efficiency made, which Mr. Siddall told him he
considered to be a very satisfactory result.

New Members.

The following were elected as members (federated):—
Mr. J no. Samuel, assistant director, School of Mines,
Treforest, South Wales ; Mr. Frederick Habler Downie^
B.Sc., senior lecturer in electrical engineering, School of
Mines, Treforest; Mr. Edgar Charles Evans, B.Sc.,
senior lecturer in chemistry, School of Mines, Tre-
forest ; Mr. Edmund John Spargo, mining engineer,
3, Cable-street, Liverpool.

L&W INTELLIGENCE.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE.

COURT OF APPEAL.

Before the Lord Chief Justice of England, Lord Justice
Kennedy, and Lord Justice Swinfen Eady.

Sale of Explosives: “Actual Net Cost.”

Evans v. Gwendraeth Anthracite Colliery Company.—
This was an appeal by the defendants from the decision
of the Divisional Court (Mr. Justice Channell and Mr.
Justice Coleridge), an appeal from the decision of the
Judge of the Llanelly County Court, and it raised a question
under the Coal Mines Act, 1911. Section 61, subsection 2,
of that statute provides that “ no explosives shall be taken
into or used in any mine except explosives provided by the
owner, and the price, if any, charged by the owner to the
workman for any explosives so provided shall not exceed
the actual net cost to the owner.” The question raised by
the case was what was the meaning of the words “ actual
net cost ” in the section. The action was brought by the
plaintiff to recover the sum of 3s. Id., which he alleged had
been deducted from his wages in respect of explosives
supplied in excess of the amount which could properly be
so deducted. It was proved at the trial that a workman in
the defendants’ employment was engaged to go to his work
half an-hour earlier daily for the purpose of distributing
explosives to the workmen requiring them, and that he was
paid 4s. 7d. a week for this service. The county court
judge held that the owners were entitled to take this sum of
4s. 7d. a week into consideration in arriving at the actual
net cost to them of the powder supplied. The Divisional
Court held that the words “ actual net cost to the owner”
meant the sum paid by the owner at the time when the
explosives were delivered to him. Therefore the owner of a
coalmine could not charge the workmen, in respect of
explosives, for anything in the nature of the cost of dis-
tributing same to the workmen. The defendants appealed.

The Court allowed the appeal.

The Lord Chief Justice, after stating the facts, said
the question was what was, on the facts of the present
case, the meaning of the words “actual net cost ” in
section 61, subsection 2 of the Coal Mines Act, 1911 ?
Originally, three claims had been put forward by the colliery
owner against the collier. It was sufficient for him to say
that two of these had been rejected by the county court
judge. These claims related to establishment charges and
the cost of stores which the colliery owner had sought to
add. The county court judge had found against the colliery
owner on the ground that it was not shown that he had
spent an extra penny on either of them, his expenses being
the same whether he supplied explosives or not. That left
open only one charge which the colliery owner had made;
and that was in respect of the amount which he paid to
a workman for distributing the explosives to the colliers.
This expense, the county court judge found was solely
attributable to explosives, and he said it ought properly to
be added to the cost of the explosives at so much per pound.
The Divisional Court reversed his decision. Mr. Justice
Channell said he had come to his conclusion with some
hesitation, but he thought that the conclusion arrived at by
the county court judge involved such difficulty in calculation
that the Legislature could not have intended it, and
Mr. Justice Coleridge came substantially to the same
conclusion. He (the Lord Chief Justice) was unable to agree
with the decision of the Divisional Court as to the meaning
of “actual net cost.” It was his duty to construe the section,
and in his opinion those words included such an amount
paid to the colliery owner as would not give him any profit,
but equally, would not involve him in any loss, and that the
payments made for delivery of the explosives to the colliers
should be included. The word “ actual ” might be exp’ ained
to represent only such amount as was paid out: but he did
not decide it. The word “net” probably represented the
costs after making all proper allowances, and the use of
both terms, he thought, was intended to make it quite clear
that no more should be charged than the actual out-of-
pocket expense of the owner. That being so, the appeal
therefore succeeded.

The lords justices delivered judgment to the same effect.