802

THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN.

April 9, 1914

underground in 1912 was only 1’273. He was entirely
at one with the author that far too much precious time
was wasted on the formal signing of numerous reports.
Indeed, the obligations placed on a manager by the law
in this connection represented the most irritating and
gross waste of time ever imposed on any responsible
official outside a penitentiary. Further discussion on the
paper was adjourned till next meeting.

At the annual meeting of the Edinburgh Collieries
Limited, Mr. Adam Nimmo said that during the past
year trade bad been good. Markets which had pre-
viously been exclusively British had been invaded by
foreign competitors, and German coal was becoming a
more and more formidable competitor to British pro-
duction, and had actually found a footing in London
itself. He thought that such competition should not
fail to react upon British collieries, and through them
upon those they employed.

In Dunfermline Sheriff Court, recently, before Sheriff
Umpherston, four men from Lochgelly district were
charged with having contravened the Eight Hours Act
in respect that they had been more than eight con-
secutive hours underground. They pleaded guilty, and
it was contended on their behalf that what they had
been doing was emergency work, as the Government
inspector had ordered the formation of an air-course as
quickly as possible, and they had wrought longer than
usual in order to get the work completed. The Sheriff
imposed no penalty, but warned the men that in future
they must see that they had written authority to do
what they did.

Ireland.

Borings in County Cavan.

A committee has been formed of representative men
and leading residents of Ballyjamesduff, County Cavan,
for the purpose of having borings and tests made in the
district, where it is believed there are extensive seams of
coal, with a view to the development of coalmining there.
The services of a mining expert are being requisitioned
for testing the soil and deposits. It is proposed to get
the Artesian Wells Company to make borings, and a
local subscription has been organised to defray the
expenses of the experiments.

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION.

(Specially Contributed.)

Action by Approved Society.

Jones v. Hughes.—In this case (Carnarvon, January 15)
it appeared that the application was really made on
behalf of Jones by the Prudential Assurance Company
as an approved society under the National Insurance
Act. On June 27 last the applicant was requested by a
quarry employee to assist him in setting right a wagon
which had been improperly loaded. While so engaged
a stone moved and crushed his finger, necessitating
amputation. The respondent, who employed the
applicant, was a contractor for haulage at the Tauralt
Slate Quarry. As the applicant had received nothing
in the way of compensation, the approved society in
which he was insured took proceedings at his request
under section 11 of the Insurance Act, which provided
for such proceedings where there appeared to be
unreasonable refusal or neglect to move on the part of
the insured person. Without consulting his approved
society, the applicant settled the claim, not with the
contractor, but with the quarry company. He now
applied to have the agreement filed and the money paid
into court.

On behalf of the respondent, it was contended that
the party responsible was the quarry company, and not
the respondent, and that section 11 of the Insurance
Act did not apply, as there was no claim against the
respondent.

His Honour dismissed the application.

One-armed^Man’s Risk in a Pit.

Florence Coal and Iron Company Limited v. Gately.—
In this case (Longton, January 13) it appeared that
Gately was a holer. On December 4, 1911, while
working at the face, there was a fall of coal, which
fractured his right arm. The arm had to be amputated.
On November 4 and 5, 1913, he was driving a motor in
the pit which was worked only by one lever. He stated
he could not do this, because the stump of his arm gave
him so much pain. On an application to stop payment
of compensation, the point was raised that it was a
dangerous mine, and that the respondent should not be
asked to work there.

For the respondent, medical evidence was called to
say that it was undesirable the man should work in the
pit.

His Honour was of opinion the work was suitable. He
could not see that a man with one arm would run any
additional risk in working down a mine as a result of
his loss. He made an order terminating the com-
pensation.

Want of Notice.

West Leigh Colliery Company v. Hayward.—In this
case (Court of Appeal, January 14) it appeared that the
respondent was a collier employed by the appellants.
He received a scratch on his knee, and did not go to
work the following day. The knee got worse, but next
day the man went to work. Finally a doctor was called
in, and 10 days after the accident the man died from
blood poisoning. The question was whether there was
evidence to justify the county court judge in finding

that the employers were not prejudiced by want of
notice. The employers did not, in fact, know of any
accident until after the man’s death.

It was submitted for the respondents that, in view of
the evidence, the man was all right before the accident,
and the evidence of the result of the accident, and the
fact that all the witnesses who could speak to these
matters were called for cross-examination, there was
material on which the county court judge could find
that the employers were not prejudiced in the defence
by not knowing of the matter earlier.

Their lordships allowed the appeal on the ground
that it had not been shown that the employers had not
been prejudiced by the want of notice of the accident.

Disobedience of Orders.

Dryden v. Elliot.—In this case (Gateshead, January 13)
it appeared that Dryden, who was employed as a joiner
at a quarry, was instructed on July 25 to put .a roof on
a shed. A number of grindstones lying against the wall
were in the way. While moving one of the stones he
slipped and injured his leg.

The respondent, in his evidence, said be would not
permit Dryden to touch the stones, and a few days
previous to the mishap had said that his own men
would do the work. It needed experience to remove the
stones.

His Honour remarked that the applicant lifted the
stones in furtherance of his employer’s interest with a
view to getting the place ready to do his own work. The
respondent admitted that if the material to be shifted
had been something else but grindstones, it would not
have been improper for him to move it, therefore the
accident arose out of his employment and he was
entitled to an award.

Disease or Accident: Complaint Alleged to be Caused
by a New Explosive.

Leech v. Bedheugh Colliery Company Limited.—In
this case (Gateshead, December 9) it appeared that,
within a few months of the introduction of a new explo-
sive into the respondents’ colliery, six out of 30 deputies
and a number of hewers developed skin irritation or
eruption. In no single instance did any man not
handling the powder catch this complaint. The theory
of a wave of infection was upset by the time between
the outbreaks, and the families of the men concerned did
not suffer. Upon a claim for compensation by one of
the men, he was said to be the victim of an accident.

For the respondents, it was argued that there was not
sufficient proof that the powder had caused the disease,
and that it was a disease, and not an accident.

The manager of the firm who made the explosive, in
his evidence, said that not a single case of skin disease
had ever occurred among the employees engaged in its
manufacture, and that the explosive was in general use
in collieries all over the country.

His Honour said that the manager’s evidence satisfied
him, and ought to satisfy the applicant. Apart from
that, there was not sufficient proof to justify him in
saying the disease was the result of the explosive.
Further, he had come to the conclusion that there was
nothing in the nature of an accident, and he made an
award for respondents.

Sessions and Wilful Misconduct.

Turner or Fraser v. Riddell and Co.—In this case (Court
of Session, November 30) it appeared that Fraser was
a traction engine driver in the employment of the
respondents. On March 28 last, while driving a
traction engine about 11.30 p.m. in Glasgow, he fell off
the footplate on to the roadway. One of the wheels
of a wagon attached to the engine passed over him and
as the result of the injuries he received he died on the
following day. At the time of the accident he was under
the influence of drink and was unfit for work.

The Lord President, reversing the decision in the
Court below, which had held that the accident did not
arise out of the employment, said that if an engine driver
fell off the footplate while driving his engine, it appeared
to his lordship that that was an accident which was
incidental to the employment in which he was engaged.
It was just such an accident as might happen to him if
he slipped his foot accidentally whilst perfectly sober
and perfectly fit for his work. It was argued that the
sheriff-substitute, finding that the deceased was unfit
for his work, came into conflict with the finding that he
was engaged in the performance of his duty of driving
the engine at the time the accident befel him. It
appeared to his lordship that there was no necessary
contradiction at all between these two findings. A man
might be engaged in the performance of his work, and
an accident might happen incidental to his work, even
although he was in a state of intoxication so great as to
be, in the opinion of ordinary people, unfit for the per-
formance of his work, and if an accident befel him
under these conditions it appeared to his lordship that
it was rightly called an accident due to serious and
wilful misconduct, owing to the intoxicated condition,
and it was none the less an accident arising out of his
employment. His lordship thought the facts found by
the arbiter led necessarily and inevitably to the conclu-
sion that the accident occurred not only while the man
was in the course of his employment, but out of his
employment.

When Does Compensation Commence?

Smithson v. Throckley Coal Company Limited.—In
this case (Newcastle, January 23) it appeared that the
applicant had contracted miner’s nystagmus, and he
ceased work on May 30. The point at issue was from
what date the compensation should commence. The
applicant asked for compensation from May 30, when

he first went to the medical referee, whereas the
respondents argued that it should date from October,
when the certifying surgeon’s certificate was obtained.

His Honour gave an award for 18s. 8d. a week from
May, less the amount paid.

No Retrospective |Compensation.

Williams v. Bwllfa and Merthyr Dare Steam Collieries
Limited.—In this case (Court of Appeal, January 22)
it appeared that the learned county court judge
awarded the injured workman, who was an infant at
the time he met with the accident, an increase of
compensation. Schedule 1, par. 16 of the Act of 1906
gave power to increase the weekly payment to any amount
not exceeding 50 per cent, of the weekly sum which the
workman would probably have been earning at the date
of the review, if he had remained uninjured, but not in
any case exceeding £1. In November 1913 the county
court judge made an order for the increase of compensa-
tion and antedated it one and a-half years, the accident
having taken place on February 6, 1911. It was con-
tended that the county court judge could not antedate
his order beyond September 23, 1913, when the work-
man made his application. Further, the respondents
said there was no evidence on which the county court
judge could say that 18 months before the request the
applicant would have been earning more than he was
earning at the time of the accident.

Their lordships allowed the appeal with costs, upon
the ground that the county court judge had not applied
his mind as to what the probable earnings of the
applicant would be on the date of the application to
review. Further, they decided that the county court
judge was wrong in his interpretation of the schedule in
making the compensation retrospective.

Unreasonable Refusal to Operation.

Walsh v. Lock and Co. Limited.—In this case (Court
of Appeal, January 22) it appeared that Walsh was
employed as a miner by the appellants. While working
in a pit in July 1912 some stone fell on his hand,
crushing it, and injuring the middle finger. The
employers, without an award, paid him half-wages from
the time of the accident. He was treated at the Leeds
Infirmary, and all the medical men agreed that the only
thing which would be likely to restore the hand was the
amputation of the injured finger. He asked the doctors
whether, if he submitted to the operation, they would
guarantee that it would give him a working hand which
would be as useful as the old one. The medical men
refused to give the guarantee, and Walsh refused to
submit to the operation. The county court judge held
that the applicant’s refusal to submit to the operation
was reasonable.

Their lordships allowed the appeal, holding that it
was unreasonable for Walsh not to submit to the opera-
tion, but by consent a declaration of liability on the
part of the employers was made.

Nystagmus.

Scullion v. Cadzow Coal Company Limited.—In this
case (Court of Session, October 26, 1913) it appeared
that the question was whether a man at work upon the
surface of the ground above the coalmine was engaged
in the process of “ mining.” On January 7 and 8 last
the appellant was engaged at the pithead of the. re-
spondent’s colliery as a surface labourer. On January 9
he was attacked by a severe pain in the head and
giddiness, and was compelled to cease work. Subsequently
he obtained a certificate that he was suffering from
nystagmus, that he was thereby disabled from earning
full wages, and that the date of disablement was
January 9. The appellant therefore alleged that the
disease which he had contracted must be deemed to be
due to the nature of his employment, provided that
employment was the process of mining. The Sheriff
found that mining as related to nystagmus meant work
underground. The workman appealed. Their lordships
affirmed the decision of the sheriff-substitute.

The Lord President said that in his opinion the
appellant was not engaged in the process of mining.
It was acknowledged that there was no statutory
definition of the process of mining, and that the expres-
sion had to be construed according to the plain ordinary
meaning of the words. His lord ship thought there
could be no doubt the meaning of the expression was the
obtaining of mineral from an excavation in the earth,
which necessarily implied two things (1) the actual cut-
ting or hewing of the mineral, and (2) its removal to the
surface. In no part of that operation was the appellant
engaged. It was conceded in argument that in order to
entitle him to succeed in his appeal it would be necessary
for him to show that the expression “ process of mining”
was equivalent to and interchangeable with the expres-
sion “ on or in or about a mine.” His lordship could
not doubt that if the Legislature had intended that the
process of mining should be equivalent to the expression
“ on or in or about a mine ” the latter expression which
was familiar in this chapter of law would have been used.
That it was not so used was clearly decisive of the
meaning of the Legislature and that it was intended, in
using the expression “process of mining,” to signify
something entirely different.

The appeal was dismissed.

In the House of Commons on Monday, in reply to .Sir
Archibald Williamson, who asked the Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs if he had any information as to the date
when the Panama Canal would be open to traffic, Mr.
A eland said no date was officially fixed on which the canal
will be open to traffic; but the authorities hope it will open
in July.