38

THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN.

July 3, 1914.

rolling stock is buffer shock; and since a locomotive can
haul a train from the working face to the pit eye with
only one stop, and the force of traction is uniform
throughout the run, whereas horse trains have frequent
stoppages, and the pull is essentially irregular, the wear
is on the whole less with locomotive traction. Finally,
the derailment (mostly due to stoppages at crossings and
points) is less frequent in locomotive haulage. In short,
whilst stronger couplings are desirable, in view of the
greater motive power applied, the destructive efforts
are smaller, and the upkeep is, if anything, less expen-
sive. The wear on the rails should certainly be greater
in locomotive haulage, in consequence of the grip of
the driving wheels; but calculation shows that the
increased cost of haulage on this score does not exceed
0-6 centime (three-fifths of a penny) per ton-kilometre
hauled.

The substitution of locomotive for horse haulage
entails certain expenses of installation, comprising
generally the provision of engine sheds in place of
stables, the enlarging of certain roads, and the terminal
stations, increasing the radius of the curves, re-laying or
strengthening permanent way and points, strengthening
tubs and couplings, etc. As an example, the total cost
of these items in one colliery was 30,000 fr. (j£l,200),
and as this expense could be spread over a haulage of
2,000,000 ton-kilometres, the cost per ton-kilometre
amounted to 1| centimes (one-seventh of a penny).

Compressed Air Locomotives.—Only one installation
of this kind appears to exist in Belgian mining practice.
The running costs per shift amount to :—Compressed
air, 7-30 fr.; oil, 0-54 fr.; upkeep, 1-33 fr.; depreciation,
8-45 fr.; a total of 17-62 fr., or including wages (8-73 fr.)
26-35 fr. The work done is 156 ton-kilometres, the train
load being 18-6 tons. The average mileage per shift is
16-8 kilometres, and the cost per ton-kilometre 16-8
centimes. There is one essential difference between
haulage with petrol locomotives and compressed air
locomotives. In the former case the cost per shift is
independent of the size of the colliery; and a haulage of
200 ton-kilometres will work out as cheaply as one of
2,000. With compressed air on the other hand, the
motive power has to be generated by a central com-
pressing plant, the expenses of which bear the more
heavily on each engine in proportion as the number of
the latter is smaller. Hence this system can only be
recommended where the volume of traffic is large, and
requires the services of about six locomotives. Except
in the item of depreciation, compressed air haulage costs
less than that with petrol locomotives.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE.
COURT OF APPEAL.—June 9.

Before the Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Swinfen
Eady, and Lord Justice Pickford.

Workmen’s Compensation : Jumping from a Train.

Rees Price v. The Tredegar Iron and Coal Company
Limited. — In this case, the company appealed from an
award of the judge of the Monmouthshire County Court,
sitting at Tredegar as an arbitrator under the Workmen’s
Compensation Act, 1906. The applicant was in the employ-
ment of the colliery company, and on June 25, 1913, he was
going home by the workmen’s train, which was run by the
London and North-Western Railway Company under a con-
tract with the employers to carry workmen free to and from
their employment. In order to shorten his way home, the
applicant attempted to jump off the train when it was going
at a speed of five or six miles an hour, and was about 100
yds. from the place at which it ordinarily stopped for the
workmen to alight. His coat caught, and he fell under the
train.

The learned county court judge was of opinion that the
conduct of the applicant in alighting from the train in these
circumstances was not such as to take him out of the course
of his employment; accordingly he made an award in his
favour. The colliery company appealed.

The court allowed the appeal.

The Master of the Rolls said that the present case was
one of a class which caused extreme difficulty. The question
was whether the accident arose out of the employment or
not. His lordship had said more than once that serious and
wilful misconduct did not assist in bringing an accident
within the course of the employment, although it did not
deprive a man, or his dependants in the case of death, of
compensation if it could be shown that it did arise out of the
employment. In the present case it was part of the employ-
ment to go backwards and forwards by the colliers’ train,
but where from and where to? The contract between the
workman and his employers was not to take him from any
part of the colliery to any part of the line where he might be
minded to alight. There was no trace of any such arrange-
ment at all. The learned county court judge had really
misdirected himself. The latest authority was Plumb’s case,
which seemed to put the cases on a correct footing.
His lordship thought that it was no part of the workman’s
employment to get out between the platforms. But in saying
that he did not preclude, and did not intend to decide, the
question what might happen if a man who intended to get
out at the proper place took measures to get out before
arrival. In the present case the workman never intended to
get out at the proper place, and that being so, the accident
never arose out of the employment, and the appeal must be
allowed.

The Lords Justices also delivered judgments allowing the
appeal.

June 10.

Workmen’s Compensation .- Assault on a Foreman.

Weekes v. W. Stead and Company.—This was an appeal
from an award of the judge of the Sussex County Court,
sitting at Brighton as an arbitrator under the Workmen’s
Compensation Act, 1906. The applicant was the widow of a
man named Weekes, who was foreman of the yard for the

appellant company. Among his duties was that of deciding
between applicants for odd jobs. Among the men who
applied for odd jobs was a man named Stone, who assaulted
the deceased, with the result that he died in hospital two or
three days afterwards.

The learned county court judge was of opinion that Weekes
met his death by an accident, that it happened not only in
the course of his employment, but that it arose out of the
employment. He, therefore, made an award in favour of
the applicant. The employers appealed.

The court dismissed the appeal.

The Master of the Rolls, in his judgment, said two points
had been raised in the notice of appeal. The first point was
that the masters were not liable on the footing of accident
for that which was the felonious act of some person. In
Trim School Board v. Kelly, it had been decided by
a majority of the House of Lords that there might
be an accident within the meaning of the Act,
although it might be caused by a felony. That point, there-
fore, very properly had not been argued. But it had been
argued in the present case that there was no evidence to
justify the learned county court judge in holding that the
accident arose out of the employment. His lordship did not
desire to shrink from what he had said in Mitchinson v. Day,
that there must be some evidence of special risk incidental
to the employment. It was necessary to consider whether
there was evidence that the risk was incidental to the
employment. In the present case the foreman had to deal
with two classes of men, of whom the class of odd-job men
were shown by the evidence to be a very rough lot, who, if
disappointed, were likely to indulge their resentment by
assaults. The learned judge had not misdirected himself,
and there was evidence to support his finding of fact. In
his lordship’s opinion the appeal failed, and must be dis-
missed.

The Lords Justices also delivered judgments dismissing
the appeal.

June 17.

Workmen’s Compensation : Right of Approved Society to
take Proceedings.

Rushton v. George Skey and Company Limited.—This was
an appeal from an award of the judge of the Tamworth
County Court, sitting as arbitrator under the Workmen’s
Compensation Act, 1906. The applicant was employed in
the respondents’ mine, and on January 10, 1913, he met
with an accident through slipping on a plate by his stall in
the mine. The man was away from work for about three
weeks, and was paid compensation at the rate of 17s. 2d.
a week. In February 1913 he returned to work apparently
cured, but in July 1913 the trouble recurred. On this occa-
sion the man was incapacitated from July 6 to September 22,
and received 10s. a week from his approved society, but
received no payment of compensation from his employers.
On September 2, 1913, the approved society had sent the
workman a form, in which he was asked questions as to the
accident and injury, and whether he proposed to take pro-
ceedings to recover compensation. In his replies the work-
man said that he had no intention of taking proceedings to
recover compensation. He also expressed the opinion that
the injury from which he was then suffering was not due to
the accident in January 1913, which he. described. At the
end of the question whether he proposed to take proceedings
there was the following note :—“ In the event of a member,
through lack of means or other cause, neglecting to enforce
his claim, this society, if of opinion there is a good claim,
will take proceedings on his behalf.” On December 9, 1913,
he was examined by Mr. Leedham-Green, who expressed
an opinion that the injury was due to some venereal disease.
At that time proceedings had already been begun by the
approved society in the name of the workman.

The county court judge held that the injury was due to an
accident arising out of and in the course of the employment,
but that Rushton had not unreasonably refused or neglected
to take proceedings, and that it was not, therefore, compe-
tent to the society to take the proceedings in the man’s
name. He gave as his reason for this that, “ having regard
to what Mr. Leedham-Green told Rushton,” the workman
had exercised a wise discretion in selecting not to take pro-
ceedings. The applicant appealed.

The court dismissed the appeal.

The Master of the Rolls, in his judgment, said the man
had plainly not refused to take proceedings, as he never had
been asked to take proceedings. As to whether he neglected
to take proceedings depended on what was meant by “ neg-
lect.” It seemed to his lordship that it meant not doing
what there was a legal or moral duty to do, and what he was
required, to do by some other person who was entitled to
require it. In a case like this the approved society might
have requested the man to take proceedings. He might
have said he would not, and then it would have been neces-
sary to show that the refusal was unreasonable. The mere
refusal would not be enough. As at present advised, his
lordship thought that the word “ unreasonably ” applied
both to “ refuse ” and “ neglect.” In any case a mere
omission to take proceedings was not enough. It must
appear that the man failed to do what he was under a legal
or moral obligation to do. The truth was that it was the
man’s honest opinion that he had no claim. It was said
that he was an unskilled man, and ought to have taken the
advice of a doctor on the point. His lordship thought he
was entitled to arrive at his own opinion, and decide that he
was not suffering from the result of the accident. It was
worthy of observation that he only received 10s. a wTeek from
the approved society, and that he would probably have
received more as the result of a successful application for
compensation. Therefore, although it was not for the
reasons given by the county court judge, the decision arrived
at by him was right, and the appeal must be dismissed.

Lord Justice Swinfen Eady and Lord Justice Pickford
gave judgment to the same effect.

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.

KING’S BENCH DIVISION.—June 17.

Before Mr. Justice Sankey.

Inferior Bunkering Coal.

M. M. de Arrotegui v. Ingram and Company.—This was
an action by Messrs. M. M. de Arrotegui, of Bilbao, Spain,
against Messrs. Ingram and Company, of York-place, Swan-
sea, to recover damages for alleged breach of contract in
connection with the sale of bunker coal.

His lordship said one thing was clear, and that was that
there was no controversy that Glenavon through coal was a
good and proper coal for bunkering purposes. No suggestion
had been made by the plaintiffs that the coal, which was
styled Glenavon through coal, and came from the Glamorgan

coalfields in the neighbourhood of Port Talbot, was not a
thoroughly good, sound, reliable bunker coal. He came to
the conclusion that the weather on this occasion was nothing
out of the average. It then became necessary to find out
why the “ Castano ” took the time she did on the voyage,
and the first question was whether this vessel was suitable
for burning Welsh coal, and he came to the conclusion that
the vessel was suitable for such a purpose. He should be
extremely sorry, and it would be unfortunate to the Welsh
coalfields, if he found that it wanted special knowledge to
deal with Welsh coal. He was sure that was not a fact.
It was easy for everybody to deal with Welsh coal, it
required no special knowledge, and could be dealt with by
the ordinary engineer of the ordinary vessel. He also found
that the persons dealing with the coal on board were compe-
tent to deal with Welsh coal. His lordship had come to the
conclusion that the number of days that this vessel was
delayed on the voyage was 12 days, and that seven tons of
ash out of 25 tons of coal consumed was abnormal. The
conclusion he came to was that the delay to this vessel was
due to the quality of the coal supplied by the defendants,
and he gave judgment for the plaintiffs for T499 15s. and
costs, except the costs of the analysis, as the plaintiffs’
evidence was extremely unsatisfactory on the question of the
samples of the coal taken, and defendants were not present
at the analysis.

RAILWAY AND CANAL COMMISSION.—June 24.

Before Mr. Justice Bankes, the Hon. A. E. Gathorne-
Hardy, and Sir J. Woodhouse.

Validity of Increased Rates.

The Butterley Company Limited, the Stanton Iron
Works Company Limited, and the Holwell Iron Company
Limited v. the Midland Railway Company, the London
and North-Western Railway Company, and the Lancashire
and Yorkshire Railway Company.—This was another case
raising the question of the validity of the increased railway
rates.

Mr. Macassey, K.C., on behalf of the Midland Company,
said his clients were appealing against an order of the
registrar on a summons taken out by the Midland Company.
The traders’ application was in respect of the recent increase
of rates, and raised two preliminary questions—which the
court had already decided in favour of the railway com-
panies in a previous case—namely, the question of the
validity of the compan'es’ notice of the increases, and the
sufficiency of publication of the new rates. The appli-
cants desired to raise the questions again, and as the traders
in the former application had not gone further with the
case, counsel assumed that the applicants in the present case
desired to pass through the court, and then go to the Court
of Appeal. The Midland Company, to save expense, took
out a summons asking that the two preliminary points
should be tried, but the registrar would not make any order.
Counsel now applied that the two points should be tried.
The railway companies were in a very real difficulty in
getting up the cases on their merits.

Mr. Clements said he appeared on behalf of the appli-
cants, who objected strenuously to the separate trial of the
preliminary issues. The applicants had not yet decided
whether they would eventually go to the Court of Appeal.

After further argument, Mr. Clements agreed to the pre-
liminary points being set down for trial on July 6, and
formal judgment being entered for the railway companies,
so that the matter could, if desired, be taken to the Court
of Appeal by the applicants.

Association of Private Owners of Railway Rolling Stock.—
The 23rd annual general meeting of this association was held
at the Midland Grand Hotel, St. Bancras, London, on
Tuesday of last week, under the presidency of Mr. G. C.
Locket, the deputy chairman, in the unavoidable absence of
the chairman. The deputy chairman moved the adoption of
the committee’s report and balance-sheet for the past year,
and called attention to the substantial amount of the credit
balance which was shown by the latter, and constituted a
valuable reserve fund. He referred to the valuable evidence
given by the chairman of the association before the Royal
Commission on Railways, and to the variety of matters dealt
with by the committee on behalf of members. The adoption
of the report and balance-sheet was seconded by Mr. J.
Bagnold Smith, and carried unanimously; the retiring mem-
bers of the committee were re-elected, and a cordial vote of
thanks to the deputy chairman for presiding Concluded the
meeting.

New Inventions by Bureau of Mines Officials.—Engineers
of the United States Bureau of Mines have recently perfected
six devices, five of which indirectly involve the saving of
human life, and the sixth the saving from waste of natural
resources. In each instance application has been made for
patent in order to retain these devices for the use of the
people without the payment of royalty, and to prevent any
commercial concern from gaining a monopoly in their manu-
facture. One of these affects the use of rescue appliances,
and is due to Mr. William E. Gibbs, consulting engineer of
the Bureau, after research covering several months. The
caustic soda which is used in the apparatus in taking up the
poisonous exhalations of the breath has been so adjusted as
to permit a continuous flow of the expired air. A second
problem—the reduction of the oxygen pressure of 2,0001b. to
the sq. in. to the proper amount needed by the rescuer—has
been accomplished by the invention of a new type of valve.
The apparatus at present reduces the oxygen pressure, but
supplies the oxygen at a constant rate, no matter how much
the wearer needs. With the new valve the supply of oxygen
is regulated by the demands of the wearer of the apparatus,
and no oxygen goes to waste through a relief valve as in the
devices now in use. In making these improvements, Mr.
Gibbs has succeeded in reducing the weight of the breathing
apparatus fully 40 per cent. A third invention is that of a
collapsible mine cage for use in rescue work following a mine
disaster. The designer of this cage is Mr. George S. Rice,
the chief mining engineer of the Bureau of Mines. Mr. J.
W. Paul, engineer in charge of the mine rescue work of the
Bureau of Mines, is the inventor of an electrical signalling
device for use in shafts, especially following disasters. With
this device, a person descending a shaft will be able to signal
the winding engineman. If the man on the cage is over-
come, and the apparatus falls from his hands, a circuit is
immediately closed, and a gong in the engine house, gives
a sudden warning. The device is so arranged that in the
absence of human intelligence to direct the giving of a pre-
arranged code of signals, the gong on the surface and in the
engine house would ring continuously, which in every case
would be the signal to hoist immediately.