November 12, 1915. THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN. 993 John Heyes, a property owner -at St. Helens, claimed an injunction restraining Messrs. Bromilow, Foster and Company, colliery proprietors, from working certain mines in such a way as to cause subsidence.—Mr. Rutherford, for the plaintiff, explained that Mr. Heyes was the owner of three dwelling houses, numbered 16, 18 and 20, Marsland- street, St. Helens, and he alleged that about the years 1909-10 the defendants worked their mines under or near the plot of land on which the houses were erected without leaving proper and sufficient vertical and lateral support, with the result that the property had been greatly depreciated in value. The plaintiff did not ask for compensation, so far as the damage was attributable to workings immediately under the plot in question, but his contention was that in this particular instance the subsidence was the result of operations in adjacent mines, the damage being caused laterally and not vertically. The houses were first found to be affected in 1909, when it became necessary to pull them down. They were afterwards rebuilt, and with a view to making them as secure as possible, the foundations were made of concrete, and iron beams were used. Shortly after the rebuilding, the plaintiff purchased the property, and towards the end of 1910 signs of subsidence again showed themselves. It became so serious that 18 and 20 were removed, and now No. 16 was so badly damaged that it was only a question of whether the owner should remove it or it would remove itself.—Mr. Nuttall, for defendants, said that they did not dispute that the houses were in a ruinous condition. The contention of the defendants was that under the conveyance they had a right to work the mines in the way they had done.—Mr. James Tonge, mining engineer, of Bolton, said he had examined the working plans of the defendants’ Higher Florida mine, and in his opinion it was quite clear that a large amount of the damage had been caused by a lateral pull. The first effect would be from workings immediately to the west of the property, and subsequently by the falling in of the goaf some distance to the west. Since 1912 he had noticed a vertical lowering of the surface to the extent of 8 to 12 in., and a lateral movement up to 12 in. The condition in which he found the property was consistent with lateral subsidence.—Cross- examined, he admitted that the mine, which was 1,145 ft. deep, was very badly broken up by faults, but he did not know their extent from actual knowledge.—Mr. Nuttall submitted that under the reservation they had the right to mine the coal from any quarter, even if it involved the destruction of lateral support.—The first witness called for the defence was Mr. James Carter, the mining surveyor to the company. He produced the working plans of the colliery showing the coal got under the plaintiff’s property. He said the longwall or wide work method was the one usually adopted in the St. Helens district. He could not say whether the subsidence was due exclusively to workings underneath the plot of land. If they wanted to take the coal away from under the houses the goaf would be filled solid with dirt, which would give the vertical support, and they would leave a pillar of coal for the lateral support. It was not usual in the St. Helens district to leave pillars. The surface of the district at various points had more or less subsided. It was not .customary in any of the collieries in the St. Helens district to take any precautions to prevent subsidence of the surface in the working out of the mines, beyond the ordinary method of packing in places.—Mr. Stanley Robert Kay, mining and civil engineer, of Leeds, said he was well acquainted with the neighbourhood of St. Helens, and regularly visited the mines there. He did not know of any special precautions taken to prevent settlement of the surface, unless it was for the protection of buildings such as town ‘halls and churches. For ordinary property he did not know of any cases, unless the mines were very near the surface, in which pillars were left. If a pillar were left under all the buildings in that particular locality, practically half the coal would be lost to the country; it would mean that getting on for 150,000 tons of coal would have to be left ungotten to support the cottages, and at 10s. a ton they would have £75,000 absolutely thrown away. Witness said the subsidence took place in a vertical direction, but in -addition to that there was a pull over which had been found to extend over the solid front of the working- place. The effect of “ pull ” had only recently been realised by engineers who had taken special precautions to ascertain by systematic levellings the actual result of subsidence on the surface. The pull over was always in the direction in which the working was over the solid coal. That was the result of 20 years’ levellings. The effect of that would be that the cottages would subside vertically to -a certain extent and the pull resulting from that would invade the area on the west of the property which the plaintiff appeared to claim as lateral support. The pull over might extend beyond the western boundary a sufficient distance to alter the level of the street, but it would be very slight. He attributed the bulk of the subsidence which took place in 1910 to the workings immediately under the plaintiff’s land. The amount of coal directly under the houses would be, roughly speaking, about 2,000 tons, and if the defendants had simply moved that, he admitted the surface, in all probability, would not have been affected.—In the course of legal arguments on the question of the construction of the conveyance, Mr. Nuttall submitted that even if his Honour was against him in the contention that the defendants were entitled to work the coal in any way they liked, the plaintiff could not claim compensation for damage resulting from vertical subsidence, and the greater portion of it was caused in that way.—His Honour said the case was an important and difficult one, and he would take a little time in which to consider his judgment. Lieut. G. Sydney James, who was mentioned in recent despatches by Sir Ian Hamilton, was formerly in the mine management department of the Wigan Coal and Iron Company’s Haigh and Aspull pits. Several summonses against the management of the Orrell Colliery were heard at the Wigan Borough Police Court arising out of the alleged neglect of two pit ponies. Mr. T. F. Ritson, manager of the colliery, was summoned for (1) omitting to enforce certain regulations of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, thereby causing unnecessary suffering to a pony, on October 1; (2) allowing