1146

THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN.

December 3, 1915.

great violence, leaving a jagged aperture 9 in. to 12 in.
wide along the roof and down the left side. The block
was 4 ft. thick, and behind the block a space 7 ft. wide
extended to a fault with a drop of ft. This space
was filled with disintegrated coal of a sooty appearance.
No gas was found before or after the outburst. From
this fact it would appear that an isolated reservoir of
gas had accumulated in the coal shattered by the fault
movement. It was not in communication with a blower,
and the gas was quite exhausted by the single eruption.

Gas from Squeezes.

The subsidence of an undermined area in a coal mine,
known as a squeeze, is attended by the emission of an
increased amount of gas, the volume in some instances
being large. The emission is caused partly by the
crushing of coal in the pillars, so that the gas that
comes from them gradually under normal conditions is
freed quickly. The roof is cracked to some extent, and
ventilation is usually cut off, at least along some of the
main airways.

In the squeeze at the Stevens mine, near Pittston,
Pennsylvania, in July 1904, a large volume of gas was
liberated from workings in the Marcy and Red Ash beds.
The air current of 120,000 cu. ft. a minute brought so
much gas from the squeeze that the return air would
flame in a safety lamp set near the fan in the upcast a
mile distant. This condition continued for four weeks,
while the operators were trying to arrest the squeeze.

A squeeze at the Warrior Run mine, near Wilkes-
Barre, Pennsylvania, in August 1906, was in beds
E, F, D, C, and Y, under an area of 40 acres. The
affected area was in the north basin, which extends from
the anticline down to the bottom of the workings. In
the crest of the anticline there was 350 ft. of rock cover,
but the volume of gas was so great that it came to the
surface, and at one place caused a serious explosion.

(To be continued.)

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE.
COURT OF APPEAL.—November 26.

Before Lords Justices S winfen Eady and Pickford, and
Mr. Justice Bray.

Colliery Subsidence : Previous Working.

M. Manley v. J. and F. Burn.—In this case the defendants,
Messrs. J. and F. Burn, of the West Stanley Colliery,
Durham, appealed from <a decision of Mr. Justice Coleridge
at the Newcastle Assizes, awarding the plaintiff, Michael
Manley, of Stanley, £150 for subsidence alleged to have
been caused by the defendants’ working of seams of coal
under the property. The defendants appealed on the ground
that the learned judge was under a misapprehension as to
the effect of the evidence, and that judgment ought to have
been entered for them.

Mr. Lowenthal, for the appellants, argued that the sub-
sidence, if occasioned at all by the defendants’ workings,
was due to the fact that there had been prior workings, for
which they were in no way responsible, and that but for
those prior workings, what the defendants had done would
have caused no injury. He contended that in these circum-
stances the defendants were not liable. The matter was
one of considerable importance to the defendants, as lessees
of the West Stanley Colliery, as if the plaintiff’s claim was
upheld there might be numerous other claims from house
owners at Stanley, where the colliery was situated. If
anyone was liable, it was the first owner of the mine.
Assuming that the upper seams had been left solid, the
working of lower seams would not have caused the damage.

Lord Justice Eady here pointed out that it might be
that in course of time the surface would have been affected.

Mr. Lowenthal said the evidence was that but for the
old workings, the workings by appellants would not have
affected the house. If, under these conditions, the appellants
were to be held liable, it would be putting upon the person
who was the owner of coal lying under or adjacent to land
which was honeycombed, and for which he was in no way
responsible, a very heavy burden indeed.

Lord Justice Eady said that when working underneath
seams which had been worked there was always a great
danger. That might make the obligation of leaving suffi-
cient supports more burdensome, but it did not free them
from their obligation.

Mr. Lowenthal replied that appellants were under no
obligation to support if the damage arose solely by reason
of previous workings, if the later workings by themselves
would not have brought down the surface. The appellants’
workings could cause no damage if the land had been in its
natural condition, and they were under no obligation to
support honeycombed land.

Mr. Tindal Atkinson, K.C., for the respondent, said that
at the trial Messrs. Burn contended that they were not
liable for anything done by them before 1895, the date when
the plaintiff acquired his property. They contended that
they were not responsible for any excavations before that
date although the damage had occurred since. That was the
whole ground on which the action was fought, and the
learned judge was not asked to distinguish as to what
occurred before 1885, when the defendants took over the
working of the colliery. The whole point was that they
were not responsible for what. they themselves had done
before 1895. He submitted that appellants’ excavations
contributed to the damage which was done. They took the
property subject to the excavations that had already been
made, and iit was their duty to work the mine with due
regard to the effect of their workings upon the previous
excavations.

Lord Justice Swinfen Eady, in giving judgment, said
there was no dispute between the parties as to the amount
of damages, nor was it disputed that the damage to the
house had arisen from colliery workings at some time. The
dispute was whether the appellants had occasioned the
damage. The house had not been built 20 years, but
it was agreed that the subsidence of the land was not caused
by the weight of the superincumbent building. The house
was erected in 1895. No damage occurred prior to 1908.
Below the house were a- number of seams of coal, in which
there had been workings from time to time. The defendants
did not come into possession of the workings until 1885, so
that prior to that date there were no workings to be

attributable to them. In 13 years the house had stood
without damage, so it might be assumed that the earth had
long since come to rest as the result of the previous workings.
The first signs of damage to the house appeared in 1908, and
there was evidence that it would take time for the effect
of the later workings to appear on the surface. In view of
all the facts of the case, he had no hesitation in coming to
the conclusion that the subsidence complained of was
caused by appellants’ workings. He was satisfied that the
effect of the prior workings had long since disappeared, and
that the earth had come to rest. The damage done was
no doubt greater owing to the fact that the strata were
honeycombed by the previous workings, but that made
it more incumbent on the appellants to see that proper
supports were left. It was contended that the risk and
liabilities of appellants ought not to be increased by the
working of honeycombed land, and that their own workings,
apart from the previous workings, would not have let down
the surface. He did not think that contention was a good
one, because it was plain in the evidence that there would
have been no damage to the plaintiff’s house but for the
later workings. The appeal failed, and must be dismissed
with costs.

Lord Justice Pickford and Mr. Justice Bray concurred.

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.

KING’S BENCH DIVISION.—December 2.

Before Mr. Justice Scrutton.

Claim for Subsidence.

W. Jones v. the Consolidated Anthracite Collieries and
Company Limited and Lord Walter F. Dynevor.—In this
case, plaintiff claimed damages for subsidence of land on
which he had built several houses. Against the colliery com-
pany he contended that they had wrongfully taken away the
support of the land, and alternatively he claimed against both
defendants damages for injury to the houses by the surface
being let down.

Mr. T. Atkinson, for the plaintiff, said that Mr. Jones was
the lessee of a building lease under which he took the land
in question, with a liability to build upon it. Prior to that
a mining lease was granted to the predecessors of the defendant
company, and the main question in the case would be
whether any damage done to the plaintiff’s property was done
by the mining operations. That was purely a question of
fact. He contended that the damage was undoubtedly done
by recent operations in excavating a seam lying a compara-
tively short distance from the surface of the ground. Many
of the seams in Carmarthenshire ran very close to the sur-
face; in fact, in some of them there was an outcrop to the
surface. By a lease dated July 17, 1896, the late Lord
Dynevor demised to one David Williams certain mines under
land in the parish of Bettws, for sinking shafts and working
the minerals, but the plaintiff alleged that when working
under his land, the company, who worked the mine, failed to
supply the proper support. He claimed about £730.

In their defence, the company pleaded that they had worked
the mine in the approved method pursued in the Amman
Valley, and’ not otherwise, and in accordance with their
lease. They denied that their mining had caused injury to
the plaintiff’s property, and suggested that possibly it was
due to the foundations of the houses. The company claimed
to have a right under the lease to disturb the land, even if
it caused subsidence of the surface, where no buildings had
been erected at the time the lease was granted to them. If
that were so, then plaintiff would have a remedy against
Lord Dynevor.

Mr. David Thomas, a mining surveyor, of Ammanford,
gave evidence for the plaintiff. Under cross-examination,
witness agreed that the longwall method of working had been
universal in the Amman Valley for half a century, and 'that
by this method the whole of the coal was taken in working
from pit to boundary. This would cause subsidence of the
surface.

On behalf of Lord Dynevor, Mr. Gore Browne argued that
his client could not be held liable.

Mr. Justice Scrutton, giving judgment, said the case
was purely a Welsh one, and should have been heard at the
Swansea Assizes. It was against the wish of the plaintiff
that it was ordered to be tried in London. Continuing, he
said it was agreed some damage was caused to plaintiff’s
houses by the colliery working, and it was suggested the
damage was partly due to defective foundations and non-
compliance with local by-laws. The contention of the
colliery company was that they had implied liberty to remove
the support of the land, and therefore they could not be
sued. Lord Dynevor replied they had no such leave, and
so he was not liable to his lessee for their acts, and he was
not liable under his building lease. The first question he
(his lordship) had to consider was the construction of the
mining lease, and he found as a fact that the <seam could
not be worked by any system without some subsidence of
the surface. He therefore came to the conclusion that the
colliery company were right in saying they had a right
under their grant to let down the surface by mining. This
meant that the plaintiff had no right of action against the
colliery company, and this finding entitled them to be dis-
missed from the action. The next point was whether the
plaintiff could recover damages from his lessor, Lord
Dynevor, and on what ground. He came to the conclusion
that the plaintiff was entitled to damages against Lord
Dynevor on the ground that the surface had been let down,
and also for Lord Dynevor derogating from his grant. The
colliery said that part of the damage was caused by the
bad building of the house. If Lord Dynevor desired to say
this before the referee to whom the case would go, he would
be at liberty to do so. If a house was so built that if there
had been no mining it would have fallen down, that would
have to be taken into account in fixing the damage. The
result was the colliery company would be dismissed from the
action with costs. If the plaintiff paid the colliery com-
pany’s costs he must recover them from Lord Dynevor.

Mr. Gore Browne, K.C. (for Lord Dynevor) said the point
was important to owners of land in mining districts, and
asked for a stay of execution with view to an appeal.

Mr. Justice Scrutton remarked that counsel could go to
the Court of Appeal, but to carry the case to the House of
Lords was rather hard on poor people.

The application for a stay was refused.

Mr. Jones Lied recently obtained options on some of the
most valuable Norwegian coal mines in Spitzbergen. A .
company with considerable capital has been formed in
Petrograd to take over the mines.

LABOUR AND WAGES.

South Wales and Monmouthshire.

The fact that the non-unionist question is responsible for
20,000 to 25,000 notices having been given at the present time
in South Wales has been made too much of, because notices
are given without any cessation of work resulting. The
period of a notice is occupied, usually with entire success,
in bringing to book those Federationists who are in arrears
with their subscriptions, and in forcing into membership
those who are outside. Nevertheless, opportunity has been
taken to argue that employers should co-operate with work-
men in an attempt to prevent stoppages, and that they should
assist the Federationists in securing additional members.
Hitherto, of course, employers have stood quite aloof; but
reference is now made, from the workmen’s side, to the
arrangement which the Yorkshire Conciliation Board has
arrived at. In that case the workmen’s representatives are
said to be at liberty to approach the manager with a list of
men who refuse to join the union, and ask his assistance; and
that if this cannot be obtained, the Conciliation Board has to
be called together within 14 days to decide what steps shall be
taken. It is agreed that in the meantime no stoppage of work
shall take place. Apparently, what the South Wales Federa-
tionists require is that some such assistance as this shall be
afforded them by the employers, and thus the giving of notice
be rendered unnecessary.

The South Wales Federation had before it on Tuesday the
question of allowing Belgian refugees to join the Federation
without payment of the entrance fee. It was decided that if
the refugees satisfied the Federation that they were entitled
to transfer as trade unionists, they should be accepted with-
out payment, but no refugee is to be ‘allowed to work under-
ground unless he has a knowledge of English, and a circular
is being sent round to the lodges to this effect.

At Swansea last week, six men engaged at the Dunvant
Colliery were sued for £3 damages each, and against nearly
70 who had joined in a strike £1 damages each were claimed.
The six men had refused to work because of a grievance as
to the distance they had to throw coal; and when these
were told that their services would not be required further, all
the men held a meeting at the pit top, and next morning all
stopped for the day, but they returned the following day. The
chairman of the Bench suggested that the differences between
the parties should be settled out of court if possible. The
suggestion was adopted, and afterwards a settlement was
announced, the damages to be £1 per man with costs.

North of England.

At last the Northumbrian miner, after many rejections,
has decided to accept the recommendation of a recent special
council meeting that the contributions to the association
should be increased from 6d. to Is. per fortnight per
member, and from 3d. to 6d. per fortnight per half-member.
The proposal was carried by an overwhelming majority, the
voting resulting as follows :—In favour of paying double
contributions, 458; against, 26. As each vote represents
50 members, there were 22,900 members in favour of the
proposal, and 1,300 against.

The returns received by the Northumberland Miners’
Association, with reference to last month’s operations, show
that the steam coal pits of the county worked an average
of 5-46 days per week in November, as compared with
5*31 days in October; and that the household coal pits
worked an average of 5*43 days, as against 5-47 days. The
average of both classes of pits, taken together, was 5*41 days
per week, as compared with 5*36 days.

The men engaged at the Cumberland collieries have been
granted an increase of 3 per cent., in accordance with agree-
ment, and following the advance given in the Midland
Federated area.

Federated Area.

At meetings of Lord Ellesmere’s, Clifton and Kersley Coal
Company’s, and Messrs. Andrew Knowles and Son’s miners
held on Tuesday night, this week, in the Pendleton,
Pendlebury, Walkden, and Little Hulton areas, resolutions
were adopted urging their leaders to take immediate action
in the matter of compelling all non-unionists now employed
in Lancashire and Cheshire coal mines to join the union
forthwith. Similar resolutions have been passed at miners’
meetings in the Leigh and ELindley districts.

At the monthly meeting of the Lancashire and Cheshire
Miners’ Federation, held at Bolton, on Saturday, a vote of
censure was moved against the officials of the Federation
for giving a pledge that there should be no strike in the
coal mining industry during the period of the war. The
conference rejected the motion by an almost unanimous vote.

The council of the Yorkshire Miners’ Association met at
Barnsley last week. The question of the suggested increase
of membership contribution from 6d. to 9d. was considered.
At a previous meeting of the council it was decided that a
ballot should be taken upon the suggested increase of 3d.
The ballot was favourable, but it was necessary that a
second ballot should be taken, which would be the final.
The result of this was announced as follows :—For the
increase, 30,752; against, 41,807; spoiled papers, 769.

A settlement is probable in the trouble at the four collieries
of the Blackwell Colliery Company, viz., Blackwell, A and
B Winning, Alfreton, and Shirland, concerning the question
of “ loose side heading and breaking in,” which at one
time appeared as though it would lead to a strike. Neither
side would at first make concessions agreeable to the other,
but eventually, at the invitation of Sir George Askwith,
Chief Industrial Commissioner, the parties met him at the
Board of Trade, and the result was that a certain procedure
was agreed upon for the setting up of some tribunal for
settling the dispute.

Scotland.

Sir George Askwith has issued his award in connection
with the application by the Scottish miners for an increase
in wages. He has allowed them an advance of 3d. per day.
This is equivalent to an increase of 6| per cent, on the basis
rates of 1888. The men’s demand was for 9d. per day, or
18| per cent. The decision takes effect as from Tuesday,
November 23, where that day is the beginning of a pay or
the beginning of the second week of a pay, and from
Wednesday, November 24, at other collieries. This latest
award is the fourth advance granted to the Scottish miners
since May last, and brings their wages up to about 8s. 9d.
per day.

At the monthly meeting of the executive board of the Fife
and Kinross Miners’ Association complaints from various
districts relating to the employment of non-unionists were
submitted. The general secretary, Mr. William Adamson,
M.P., reported that he was endeavouring to arrange a con-
ference with the Fife and Clackmannan Coal Owners’
Association to consider that and other matters. It was
reported that several meetings of the female workers