January 24, 1913. THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN. 195 THE MINIMUM WAGE ACT. Important Action in North Wales. His Honour Judge Moss has just delivered his judgment in a case which was heard before him at the Chester County Court on December 12 and 17 last, when a claim was made by two of the coalminers employed at the Elm Colliery, Buckley, against the owners of the colliery, for a sum of £16 2s. 6d., alleged to be due to them by way of wages under the price list in force at the colliery. The plaintiffs were Mr. Robert Roberts, of Daisy-hill, Main- street, Buckley, and Mr. John Edwards, of 9, Smelt-yard, Buckley, and the defendants were Messrs. George Watkin- son and Sons Limited, the owners of the Buckley Collieries, of which collieries Mr. William Collin is general manager. His Honour's judgment gives a resumd of the facts of the case. The plaintiffs were represented by Mr. W. Wynn Evans, of Wrexham, solicitor to the North Wales Miners' Federation, and the defendant company was represented by Mr. F. Llewellyn Jones, solicitor, Mold. This case has created considerable interest throughout the North Wales coalfield, and the decision of the judge has been awaited with considerable anxiety. The judgment was as follows : “ In this action the plaintiff Edwards has withdrawn from the case and so far as he is concerned there will be judgment for the defendants against him with costs up to the date of notice of with- drawal. “ The action is brought to recover the sum of .£16 2s. 6d. which will now be reduced to half that amount being .£8 Is. 3d., as there is only one plaintiff. The action, I say, is brought to recover £8 Is. 3d., an alleged balance of wages due under clause 3 of the premier coal price list in force at the defendant’s colliery from February 18, 1911, to June 1 1912. The plaintiff Roberts claims 173 yards at Is. 3d. per yard for working a place with ‘ fast ends.' If his claim is good he would be entitled to one half this, his partner to the other half. “ The plaintiff and his mate (who has withdrawn from the action) were colliers working at the Buckley Colliery of the defendants in the Premier coal, and according to the price list which came into operation in January 1908, the standard rate of wages for ‘through' coal is Is. 2d. a ton plus 2s. 6d. a ton for ‘ yardage' plus the ruling percent- ages, and Is. 2d. per ton plus Is. 3d. per yard for ‘fast ends,' and that although he has been paid for the tonnage he has gotten, he has not been paid the yardage of 173 yards at Is. 3d. per yard. Leaving the price list for a moment and coming back to the claim, I find the claim goes back as far as the month of February 1911. The last week worked by the plaintiff under his old contract with the defendants expired in the week ending March 2,1912. The colliers then came out on strike, and went back on April 6. When they went back on April 6 they signed a fresh contract with the defendant company, and in my opinion, although this is not very material to the issue, as it only governs the question of amount and not the question of principle, the plaintiff is stopped from going back to the period preceding his second engagement. I think it must be taken that when the parties terminated their old contract, and entered into a fresh contract without any claim being made or anything being said on either side, that each had no claim against the other in respect of the old contract. If this is so, the claim is reduced to a claim of 25 yards instead of 173 yards, at Is. 3d. plus the ruling percentages. “Now coming back to the price list, which has been agreed upon between the parties. Without some explanation, no one who is not a practical miner would understand the meaning of the phrases ‘ through coal,' ‘ yardage,' ‘ fast ends,' but both sides are agreed that the item in the price list of Is. 2d. per ton plus 2s. 6d. per yard only applies when the collier is cutting the coal in what is called ‘narrow work,' and it is equally agreed on both sides that ‘ narrow' means cutting a narrow place into the coal out of the solid with coal on each side, or a step, as the case may be—a ‘ narrow' place being not more than 6 or 7 feet wide. There can be no doubt as to this, as both sides admit it. But what is meant by a ‘ fast end ' ? As to this the parties were at issue, and I allowed the defendants to