March 17, 1916.

THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN.

523

man was essential to tlie particular colliery at which he was
working, and, if not, he could not be exempted, and that was
the end of the matter, as far as the court was concerned. The
net results of the one day’s proceedings was that out of 5,523
men engaged at 11 collieries, only 20 were regarded as not
essential, and refused exemption, while eight were given
exemption for three months. The court, at a further meeting,
dealt with the men at the Allerdale Coal Company’s pits,
also with those at Dean Moor and Wythemoor collieries. All
the men whose names came before the court were exempted
unconditionally, except two, who received exemptions for
three months. Five collieries, whose employees aggregated
1,514, passed under review. ‘	>

■At a meeting of the South Staffordshire colliery court last
week, the principal colliery owners of the district claimed for
practically all their men. From the statements made, it
appeared', that as many men as could be spared had been per-
mitted to go, while the representative of Messrs. H. S. Pitt
and Company said that firm was losing hundreds of pounds
by abstaining from fetching back men who belonged to the
“ barred ” classes under the Military Service Act. Exemp-
tions were automatically granted to all men within these
classes, but the military representative opposed the claims of
a few surface men', principally carters. These cases were
referred to the local tribunals, with a recommendation that
they were indispensable. In one of these cases it was stated
that the man was engaged drawing allowance coal from the
pit to the homes of the miners.—The Mines Drainage Com-
mission appealed for 17 of their men who were liable to serve
under the Act. It was pointed out that these men should be
placed in the “ barred ” classes, as the work they were doing
was indispensable to the mining industry. The whole of the
exemptions were granted.

A conference convened by the federation board of the
Ashington group of collieries has passed a resolution demand-
ing the repeal of the Military Service (No. 2) Act.

At the Leicestershire mines recruiting court, the chairman
said it was going too far to ask managers to release inexperi-
enced men employed since August. Mr. Lovell, the miner’s
agent, said the Government would deal with them tin
another way; 11 were obtained by the military from 1,700
workers at four mines. Only one man of military age was
working on the bank at the pit, and he was dumb. Others
were employing men from 65 to 70, and boys of 13.

Dr. Atkinson, H.M. inspector, presiding at the Glamorgan
colliery tribunal on Monday, made a statement as to a pre-
vious decision of the court. He said there seemed to be some
misapprehension as to the position of smiths, carpenters, and
other craftsmen employed by the Ocean Company. The
decision of the court had not been based on Hie fact that
these men should have been starred, but because it was
expedient in the national interest that they should continue
in the work—that is to say, that they were indispensable.
Among the applications submitted at this sitting was one for
the exemption of wagon repairers, Mr. Edwards, on behalf
of that company, representing that unless wagons were kept
improper condition the work could not go on. Mr. V.
Hartshorn observed that it would be a serious matter for the
output if wagons could not be repaired. The tribunal, after
consideration, decided.to exempt two out of the four wagon
repairers. From Nixon’s Company, Mr. Lewis stated that
they produced Admiralty coal entirely. Their workmen, who
at the outbreak of war numbered 8,895, decreased to 7,328.
The total of enlisted was 1,610, but they had filled the places
of a number. The tribunal decided to exempt smiths’
strikers and wagon repairers, but gave instructions that three
out of 42 surface labourers at the Navigation Colliery should
be released, and three out of a similar number at the Cwm-
cynon Colliery. Only four surface men were released at
Merthyr Vale. With regard to Hill’s Plymouth Collieries,
where'3,218 were employed at the outbreak of war, and 2,471
at present, the number of employees showed a present shortage
of 747. All the levels except one had been stopped; and it
was stated on the company’s behalf that labour was very
scarce, and that the company was employing a large propor-
tion of old men. Only three men were released by the
tribunal. From Ynysfeio Colliery, Mr. John Thomas sub-
mitted a statement that whereas at the beginning of the war
they employed 1,162, they had at present only 915; and he
pointed out that there was very much floating labour in the
coal field, for they had engaged no fewer than 1,158 men since
August 1914. One shackler was released. At Locket’s Merthyr
Colliery, Mardy, where 2,500 men were engaged before the
war, the present position of, the colliery was that their
employees were 25 per cent, fewer than at the outbreak of
war. It was argued on their behalf that not a man could
be spared. Only one man was released in this case.

The Maesteg colliery tribunal has had before it the question
of exemption of colliery clerks, and Mr. J. P. Gibbon, who
presided, said that with the exception perhaps of clerks
experienced in special work, the clerk work of a colliery office
might be undertaken by women, as was done on the railways
and in the banks. Two clerks were granted total exemption,
and the third was granted extension for two months. Coke
oven workers at the Clydach Collieries were given exemption
on the ground of being in a certified occupation. The mili- '
tary representative gave notice that he would appeal against
the total exemptions. The tribunal also granted total exemp-
tion to a dispenser engaged by one of the colliery doctors, who
declared that the man was indispensable in carrying on his
colliery practice; also that the man had to keep, record cards
under the National Insurance Act.

North Staffordshire Institute of Mining and Mechanical
Engineers.—A general meeting of this institute will be held
on Monday, the 27th inst., at 5 p.m., at Stoke-on-Trent.

Partnership Dissolved.—The London Gazette announces
dissolution of the following partnership :—C. R. Townsend
and R. C. Turner, engineers, at Wellesley Works, and at
Great Charles-street, Birmingham, as Townsend and Com-
pany and Wheeler Foundry Companies.

The Midland Institute of Mining, Civil, and Mechanical
Engineers.—A general meeting of this institute will be held
at the Queen’s Hotel, Leeds, on Tuesday, March 21, 1916, at
4.30 p.m. A paper on “ Fit Timber and its Preservation,”
by Prof. Percy Groom, M.A., D.Sc., F.L.S., of the Imperial
College of Science and Technology, will be read; and the
paper, “ Notes on the Uses and Markets for Coke Oven
By-products,” read at the January meeting, wall be open
for discussion.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE.
COURT OF APPEAL.—March 11.

Before the Master of the Rolls, Lords Justices Phillimore
and Warrington.,

Increment Duty on Minerals.

Inland Revenue Commissioners v. The Sheffield and South
Yorkshire Navigation Company.—This was an appeal by the
company from a decision of Mr. Justice Rowlatt that
increment value duty was payable by them in respect of
minerals under the canal at Lower Strafforth, Mexboro’,
Yorkshire, demised to the Denaby and Cadeby Main
Collieries Limited under a 10 years lease.

The Master of the Rolls, in giving judgment, said : This
appeal related to increment value duty in respect of coal
mines. It was desirable to consider the relevant sections
of the Finance Act, 1910. Section 1 imposes upon the
increment value of any land a duty called increment value
duty. The scheme of the section was reasonably clear, and
the following proposition might be stated :—

- (1) It is payable only on an occasion which is defined as
being either a transfer or sale of the grant of a lease for
more, than 14 years, or death. I purposely- omit sub-
section (c), which relates to corporations.

(2)	. Increment is the difference between site value on the
occasion and the site value on April 30, 1909, or any subse-
quent occasion, and the duty is one-fourth of this capital
sum.

(3)	The duty is payable by the grantor or lessor, and
not by the purchaser or lessee.

(4)	Land under section 1 includes minerals. When we
come to section 22, we find a new code relating to minerals.
That which is called increment value duty is made payable
in respect of minerals comprised under a mining lease, but
the duty bears a very slight resemblance to the duty under
section 1, and it seems a pity that a different name was not
given to it.

(5)	It is not a charge on an occasion of a grant of a
mining lease.

(6)	The duty is charged annually, instead of being esti-
mated at a capital sum.

(7)	It is recoverable, like mineral rights duty.

(8)	It is called an increment value duty, although the
value of minerals which are being worked grow less and
less, and it is barely possible to suggest a case in which
there might be an increment.

(9)	There is no reference to April 30, 1909, except under
section 22, where minerals which were on that day com-
prised under a mining lease are exempt from increment
value duty.

(10)	Minerals comprised under a mining lease are treated
as separate parcels of land (section 23).

Several difficulties arose in attempting to read section 1 as
modified by section 22 and section 23. Was the occasion to
be wholly disregarded, not only on the ground of a mining
lease, but also on the occasion of a death? Upon the whole,
though not without doubt, he thought the duty payable
annually began to be payable, and continued to be payable,
without reference to any occasion. Subsection 3 was
obscure, but he professed to lay down certain hypothetical
principles, by the application of which the annual payment
was to be ascertained. Take two imaginary figures, and take
two-twenty-fifths of the difference. ’The referee had worked
out the figures, and his finding on this point was not chal-
lenged. As to the particular facts, the minerals were com-
prised in a mining lease-dated December 23, 1909, for a term
of 10 years from January 1, 1910, which lease was vested in
the appellants’ lessees.

On March 13, 1912, a provisional valuation was made,
and on November 10, 1913, the duty was assessed at £57.
An appeal was presented to Mr. Martin, one of the referees.
He held that no. increment value duty was payable on the
ground that a lease for a term not exceeding 14 years was
exempt under section 1. He (the Master) was unable to
accept this view. The provision under section 22 (1) that
no increment value should be charged on the occasion of
the granting of a mining lease really repealed the whole
of section 1 (a) so far as a mining lease was concerned, and
did not leave the 14 years as a relevant fact. The Com-
missioners appealed, and Mr. Justice Rowlatt reversed the
decision of . the referee, and held the duty payable. He
agreed with the decision of Mr. Justice Rowlatt. Section 22
began a new code dealing with the minerals comprised in a
mining lease upon being worked. It was necessary to refer
to section 1 to ascertain the rate of duty, namely 20 per
cent., but for no other purpose. Section 1 was not the only
charging section, for section 22 (3) created an annual charge.
So far as minerals comprised in a mining lease were con-
cerned the charge under section 1 was swept away, and a
new charge of duty under an old name, but with very
different incidence was substituted. The provisions under
section 1, excepting a lease of 14 years, had in truth no
relation to the duty payable under the section 22. When
once the idea of an occasion was given up, an annual pay-
ment dependent on annual workings was the measure of
' this duty. The conclusion seemed to him irresistible that
the acceptance of a lease for more or less than 14 years was
an irrelevant fact. In his opinion the appeal failed, and
must be dismissed with costs.

Lord Justice Phillimore dissented. He said that the pro-
visions of the Act which dealt with land generally were set
forth under sections 1, 2, 25, and 26. The lease was not
such an alienation as was contemplated under section 1, but
still, a mining lease was, in a sense, a sale of minerals, and
therefore, presumably by way of compromise, the mineral
rights duty of 5 per cent, was imposed. If minerals were to
be treated like other hereditaments, the enquiry was to be
made as to what was the original capital value of the
minerals; or, if there had been a previous occasion, what
was the value on that occasion, and a comparison would be
made of one or the other as to what the minerals were now to
realise. And so the increment value duty would be ascer-
tained. But the minerals which were left after the previous
occasion, or after the original valuation, were not likely to
show an increment value. Normally, they would show a
decrement value; still there might be a substantial increment
value to the proprietor. The lode of the seam might prove
either less or more accessible than was expected. The valu-
ation of a duty might also have an element of conjecture in
it that did not exist for the valuation to the surface. But as it
was provided in the Act that the increment value duty should
be charged annually if the previous capital value could be
decapitalised into an annuity, the resulting value would give
one term of comparison, and the annuity the other, and the
calculation became automatic. The measure of decapitalisa-

tion was provided by the convention at two-twenty-fifths
standard. In this way, force was given to every part of the
section, and every case vras covered. This being so, the duty
was only to' be levied on one of the occasions under section 1,
other than the grant of a lease. No such occasion had hap-
pened, and, in his opinion, the appellant company was
entitled to judgment.

Lord Justice Warrington concurred with the Master of the
Rolls, and the appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs.

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.

KING’S BENCH DIVISION.—March 11.

Before Mr. Justice Ridley and a special jury.

Workmen’s Compensation : Question of Liability.

W. Cory and Sons Limited v. The Lambton and Hetton
Collieries Limited.—Plaintiffs claimed to be indemnified in
the sum of £283, which they had paid to the widow of an
employee named Peacock, who was killed by a crane accident
while employed on the defendant’s steamer “ Hedworth,”
which had been chartered by them.

Mr. Rawlinson, K.C., for plaintiff, stated that the
defendant’s steamer took coal to London, and before the
coal was lifted out of the holds the hatches and large steel
fore and aft beams had to be removed. It had become, he
submitted, a usage of the Port of London for the discharging
men to remove the beams, receiving for the work beam
money from the ship’s officers. Peacock acted as hatchway-
man, and during his duties received fatal injuries. Plaintiffs
had paid his widow <£283 under the Workmen’s Compensa-
tion Act, and they claimed to be repaid that sum by the
defendants, contending that Peacock was agent for the
defendants for the time being, or in the alternative, that
these services were according to the London custom.

After evidence, Mr. Justice Ridley left three questions to
the jury :—(1) Were the dischargers doing the work for the
ship owners? (2) were they doing the work at an implied
request? (3) was there an implied indemnity covering
them against accidents.

The jury returned an answer to all the questions in the
affirmative, and his lordship thereupon entered judgment
for the plaintiffs for the amount claimed, a stay being
granted in the usual terms.

PARLIAMENTARY INTELLIGENCE.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—March 8.
Accidents and First-Aid Supplies.

. Mr. Wing asked the Home Secretary of State if he had
been informed*that on February 28 a fatal accident occurred
at the Houghton Pit, county Durham, as a result of a fall
of stone, and that it was reported at the inquest that, on
bringing the miner to bank to the colliery ambulance station,
there were no bandages; and if he would call the attention
of the district inspector to this fact with a view to remedying
such a state of affairs, and see that a similar shortage ot
surgical appliances did not exist at any other pit in the
northern district.

Replying, Mr. Brace said there was no shortage of surgical
appliances at the pit, and the injured man was bandaged and
attended to before being brought to bank in a manner which
earned the commendation of the doctor, who was waiting
on the surface. The doctor thought some further bandaging
advisable before removal, and, unfortunately, the key of the
cupboard where the supply was kept was not immediately
forthcoming. Improvised bandages, however, were used
instead. He did not think that further action on his part
was called for.

Splint Coal Shortage.

Mr. Pringle asked the Minister of Munitions whether
he was aware of the shortage of the supply of splint coal
available for the Scottish iron masters engaged in the pro-
duction of haematite; and, seeing that this shortage involved
a restriction in the output of haematite, whether he would
suspend the issue of export licences for splint coal until the
requirements of local haematite producers wyere satisfied?

Mr. Lloyd George stated that the export of Lanarkshire
-splint (which was the brand chiefly in demand by the
Scottish iron masters) had for over two months only been
permitted to Allied countries, and only then sparingly, and
■in cases where no other coal would suit the intended pur-
poses. Further restriction would necessarily cause injury
to our Allies, but the situation was being closely watched,
and, if necessary, the export of this kind of coal would be
even further curtailed.

March 14.

Technical Classes, Somerset Coal Field.

Sir John Barlow asked the President of the Board of
Education whether he knew that it wTas the intention of the
Somerset County Council to discontinue at the end of the
present month the grant of a sum of money to assist technical
classes in the Somerset coal field; and whether, in view of
the facts that such grant was originally made in 1892, and
had been continued annually ever since, and the number of
accidents had decreased greatly during that period, he pro-
posed to sanction the discontinuance of the grant.

Mr. Herbert Lewis, who replied, stated that the matter
was within the discretion of the local education authority, and
their action did not require the Board’s sanction. . On
December 8 last the Board informed the authority that on
educational grounds they would greatly regret the discontinu-
ance of mining instruction in the area, and that they hoped
that before finally deciding to terminate a type of technical
instruction bearing upon an important local industry, the
authority would weigh the detriment to those engaged in the
industry against the advantage of the immediate saving
effected. The Board had received no reply to this .letter, but
they would again communicate with the authority.

Mr. Henry Steel (chairman of Steel Peech and . Tozer
Limited) has been elected to a seat on the board of the
Bengal Iron and Steel Company Limited.

A new method of using coal in competition with oil fuel
has been tried at Vancouver, British Columbia. Those con-
ducting the experiments say that crushed coal can be
applied to steam producing by the same method in use for
oil. It is said that seven tons of copper ore can be smelted
w.itb one ton of coal by the new process, whereas formerly
the ratio was one ton of coal to one ton of ore.