526

THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN.

September 4, 1914.

LETTERS TO THE EDITORS.

The Editors are not responsible either for the statements
made, or the opinions expressed by correspondents.

All communications must be authenticated by the name and
address of the sender, whether for publication or not.
No notice can be taken of anonymous communications.

As replies to questions are only given by way of published
answers to correspondents, and not by letter, stamped
addressed envelopes are not required to be sent.

THE RIGHT TO INFRINGE ALIENS’ PATENTS.

Sirs,—There are hundreds, if not thousands, of
English patents in existence which belong to German
and Austrian subjects. A goodly proportion of the
former relate to the chemical dye industry.

Application may now be made at the Patent Office to
deprive any such patentees of their rights.

If the application is granted, the patent or patents
in question may be infringed with absolute impunity,
under the protection of an Act of Parliament passed
recently with this object.

Before making an application under this* Act the
intending user should, we think, ascertain whether or
not the particular patent is really valid, as there are
many invalid patents in existence. If invalid, it
would, of course, be waste of time and money to make
the application. It may be also borne in mind that an
infringer of any patent can be sued only by the regis-
tered owner of that patent. If the latter happens to be
the subject of a country at war with us, he would not
be qualified to sue for infringement until peace was
declared. On the other hand, the infringer who lost his
case could, and might, be ordered to pay damages for
infringement committed even during the war, as it was
open to him to secure exemption under the Act above-
mentioned. The Act seems to possess the serious draw-
back of suspending the patent as against all infringers,
so that the person who takes the trouble to apply for
suspension does not reap any advantage which is not
shared likewise by all other persons. These privileges,
however, will not continue longer than six months after
the end of the war.

Stanley, Popplewtell and Company.

38, Chancery-lane, London, W.C.,

August 27, 1914.

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION.

(Specially Contributed.)

Refusal to Undergo an Operation.

Nurdin v. Nosebridge and Douglas Bank Colliery
Company.—In this case (Wigan), the question was
whether a collier was justified in refusing to have his
leg amputated. It was injured in 1909, and he had
since been receiving compensation. Two doctors
advised that there was no risk attending the operation,
and that it was advisable as the limb was slowly
deteriorating; but the medical man attending the
worker advised no operation and that there was appre-
ciable risk.

His Honour said in this case the question for him to
decide was not whether on the medical evidence the
man ought or ought not to undergo an operation, and
he was very glad he had not to decide that very diffi-
cult matter; but what he had to decide was, Did the
workman act unreasonably in refusing to undergo an
operation which his own doctor had recommended him
not to undergo? It might have been thought there
was some danger in the operation, and, further, that the
leg might, with judicious treatment, be improved, and
be better than a peg leg in case of operation. Under
those circumstances, he could not find that the work-
man was acting unreasonably, and the application must
fail.

Mistake as to Date of Accident.

McCready v. Midland Coal, Coke and Iron Company.
—In this case (Newcastle, May 19) the applicant’s case
was that on May 2, 1913, he was working in a mine
when a piece of stone flew from his pick and hit him
in the right eye. He was off work for a week-end, and
then went back to work. Eye trouble developed, and
he made his claim in November.

Evidence was called for the respondents to say that
at the time of the accident, May 2, when the applicant
said he was working in No. 2 jig, East Red mines,
work in that part had as a matter of fact been finished
in the previous January; and that the applicant made
no complaint about an accident on May 2.

Application was made on behalf of the applicant to
amend the date of the accident from May 2 to January
24, as the applicant fixed the accident as happening on
the day before the jig was closed. And in view of the
evidence of the jig being finished in the end of January,
it was contended that the date should be amended.

In summing up, his Honour said that he felt sorry
to have to arrive at the conclusion he was arriving at,
because he thought it was quite possible that this man’s
present condition was due to an accident which occurred
to him at work. But that would not do. He had to
go a great deal further than that. He had to be
reasonably satisfied that there was an accident, and
that his condition was due to it. He must say that
the evidence had left him in an absolute state of doubt.
The respondents met the case quite satisfactorily by
saying that they could not have had an accident in that
particular jig at the end of May, but applicant and his
witnesses stuck to the May date, and one witness fixed
it definitely by the Chester Cup day. He had
been invited to say that the accident occurred on
January 24, but the witnesses had not corrected them-
selves. He was not satisfied that the employers were

not prejudiced by the late notice. He was in doubt
whether there was an accident, whether notice was
given, and whether defendants were not prejudiced,
and the applicant’s claim must fail.

Benefit of Rising Wages.

Lee v. Walsall Wood Colliery Company.—In this case
(Walsall, May 20) it appeared that in February 1909
the applicant, a stallman, met with an accident which
resulted in his left leg being broken in two places above
the ankle. It was also crushed. He was paid compen-
sation for some time, but was eventually given a job on
the bank at picking coal oft the belt. For this he
received 24s. a week. Since the applicant was incapaci-
tated there had been a general rise in miners’ wages,
and it was submitted that in deciding what compensa-
tion he should be paid the judge was entitled to take
that fact into consideration. The High Court had
decided that a workman who was receiving compensation
was entitled to the advantage of any rise in wages in
his trade which took place subsequent to his being
incapacitated.

His Honour said he was satisfied from the High Court
ruling that he ought to take into consideration the
general increase in wages since 1908, and he awarded
applicant 5s. a week, to date from November 29 last,
but made no order as to costs. He added that his
sympathies were with the respondent, and he considered
the workman was legally entitled to more than he should
have.

Disobedience to Orders.

Chilton v. Blair and Company Limited.—This case
(Court of Appeal, June 30) raised a question of con-
siderable interest in relation to serious and wilful
misconduct. If the workman is seriously injured in the
course of his employment he is entitled to compensation,
although he has been guilty of a breach of rules; but
if he does something altogether outside his employment
his employers are not liable. The applicant was
employed to turn a wheel, but was forbidden to turn it
in a sitting position. In contravening this rule he was
injured. A county court judge dismissed his application
for compensation, but the Court of Appeal reversed this
judgment.

The Master of the Rolls said that it was well estab-
lished that a workman who was seriously and per-
manently disabled by an accident might recover com-
pensation if he was doing the work that he was
employed to do, though doing it negligently and
contrary to rules laid down. On the other hand,
a workman could not recover compensation if he
was not doing the work that he was employed to
do, but was doing something substantially different,
although intended to produce the same result.
An instance of the first class was where a man’s duty
was to oil machinery, and he was told not to do it while
the machinery was in motion. The employer was held
liable, although there was serious and wilful misconduct.
An instance of the second class was found in the recent
case in the House of Lords of Plumb v. Cobden Flour
Mills Company. Where a man whose duty it was to
pile up sacks by hand took upon himself to rig up some
machinery to lift them, it was held, affirming the Court
of Appeal, that he had taken himself out of his employ-
ment.

It was frequently not easy to decide in any particular
case which of the two rules should be applied. The
present case was one of difficulty, but in the circum-
stances his lordship thought that it fell within the first
class, and that the boy’s misconduct in disobeying the
rule about not sitting down did not take him out of his
employment. The learned county court judge treated
the case as falling within the rule of the House of Lords
in Plumb v. Cobden Four Mills. That, however,
was a case within the second class, and his lordship
thought that the learned county court judge had mis-
directed himself on this point. The appeal must be
allowed.

Death Following Hit not Resulting from Accident.

Buckley v. Madeley Coal, etc., Company.—This case
(Newcastle-under-Lyme, June 23) illustrates a fact
which is sometimes forgotten by those who bring claims
on behalf of injured workmen—namely, that death fol-
lowing an accident will not necessarily be regarded as
the consequence of the accident. The evidence was
that on December 2, 1913, the husband of the appli-
cant was getting out a piece of coal or dirt from the
roof. The coal fell, and he was subsequently found
with a great lump of coal on his leg. The immediate
apparent result was a broken elbow, for which he was
attended in hospital for a month, when he left, appar-
ently cured. He died a week later, death being caused
by an abscess on the brain. Medical evidence was
adduced that the deceased had suffered during his life-
time from an inflammatory condition of the frontal
sinus above the nose, and that a shock would have
caused the abscess. Evidence was given on the part of
the employers that the death was due to the abscess and
that the man’s condition was due not to the injury,
but probably to influenza.

In the result, his Honour made an award in favour
of the respondents.

Not “ Arising Out of and in the Course of.”

Cook v. Manvers Main Colliery Company Limited.—
In this case (Doncaster, May 8) the applicant claimed
compensation for the death of her husband, alleged to
have been caused by personal injury by accident arising
out of, or in the course of, his employment on January 2,
whilst working as a coal getter. The respondents
denied that the applicant was coal getting at the time
of the alleged accident, and denied that it arose out of
and in the course of his employment.

His Honour said the question he had to decide was
whether the applicant had discharged the onus of proof
which lay upon her. He thought that the moment
deceased went past the last prop he ran a great risk,

and he thought the deceased knew he was running this
risk. He also thought that going into the ” goaf ” at
all was forbidden, and that the deceased knew it, and
that the evidence showed that the deceased did not go
into the “ goaf,” and he held that the applicant had
failed to show that deceased was killed by personal
injury by accident arising out of and in consequence of
his employment. The application must be dismissed,
with costs on scale D.

*#* We shall be pleased to answer in this column questions
relating to Workmen's Compensation and Employers'
Liability. All communications must be authenticated
by the name and address of the sender, whether for
publication or not. No notice can be taken of anony-
mous communications.

LABOUR AND WAGES.

South Wales and Monmouthshire.

The transfer of idle colliers from the anthracite district
to the steam coal area is in steady progress, a large number
having removed, and, where housing provision is insufficient,
endeavour is being made to arrange special train service
between the men’s homes and their work. It is character-
istic of Wales that the chapels are being utilised for public
announcement, congregations in Neath district, where many
men are unemployed, having been informed by the church
officers that hundreds of them can get engagements in the
Rhondda Valley.

In further prosecution of the purpose to amalgamate with
the Miners’ Federation, the executive of the Enginemen and
Stokers’ Association met on Tuesday in Cardiff to deal with
a request from the Registrar-General. A few days previ-
ously it had been resolved at a special conference to apply
for cancellation of the certificate of registration; and the
demand of the Registrar now was that he should be fur-
nished with reasons for this course of action, in voting upon
the question of amalgamation, seeing that the requisite
majority fixed in the rules had not been obtained in the
ballots which had taken place. After discussion, a reply
in detail was drafted, and this will be submitted in due
course.

The Enginemen and Stokers’ Association will make a
similar levy to that of the miners in aid of the Prince of
Wales’s Fund, namely, 6d. per man, and 3d. per boy,
weekly.

To the monthly meeting of the Western Valleys (Mon-
mouthshire Miners’ Council) Mr. Barker reported on Satur-
day that proposals had come from each side on the banks-
men’s question, and that he hoped a further meeting of the
joint committee would be held this week. It was decided to
present gold watches to Messrs. J. Russell and Burriss for
heroic work in connection with the Senghenydd explosion.

Nerth of England.

The latest published minutes of the Northumberland
Miners’ Association executive committee show that the com-
mittee, after receiving high legal opinion, do not think it
advisable to take the case of the Hazlerigg miners to the
Appeal Court. The committee recommends that both parties
at the Tynedale Colliery should observe the agreement
whereby the men are chosen for dismissal when the number
of workmen has to be reduced. A complaint from Walbottle
regarding the four shift system in operation there was con-
sidered, and the men advised to continue working under it,
as the cavils had been drawn for this quarter. Next quarter
the system should terminate, and the committee advises the
men to arrange a new system to take its place.

Mr. William Weir, who has been appointed to the pre-
sidency of the Northumberland Miners’ Association, in
succession to Mr. Joseph English, has been taking a pro-
minent part in the affairs of the association for many years.
He was a member of the old Conciliation Board Joint Com-
mittee, a member of the finance committee of the associa-
tion, and a governor of the Northumberland Aged Miners’
Homes Association. As chairman of the local Council, he
is on the magisterial Bench. Formerly a staunch Liberal,
he joined the Labour Party after the Miners’ Federation
changed its policy.

FtiaraUJ Aria.

At an executive council meeting of the Lancashire and
Cheshire Miners’ Federation, held in Manchester last Satur-
day, it was decided to make a levy towards the War Relief
Fund. All workers engaged underground or on the surface
are recommended to pay weekly :—Those earning under
15s. per week, Id.; from 15s. to 30s., 2d.; 30s. and above,
3d. per week.

Questions relating to the war were discussed at the
monthly council meeting of the Notts Miners’ Association
held last Saturday afternoon, August 29, at Nottingham.
The following resolution was passed :—“ That the members
of this association, who are engaged in his Majesty’s ser-
vices, whether in the Army, Navy, or the Auxiliary Forces,
shall be exempt from paying their contributions during that
period, but shall not be entitled to any benefit during that
time; further, that we wholly appreciate the efforts being
made to relieve distress caused by the war, our only regret
being that organised labour has not a larger representation
on some of the local distress committees.”

The Carnegie Hero Fund trustees have decided to make
provision for the widow and two children of Mr. David
Livingstone, 38 years of age, pit oversman, who on March 18
of this year was asphyxiated while endeavouring to render
assistance to a fellow workman, who was also asphyxiated,
in Polmaise Colliery, Stirling. The widow is to receive
from the trustees a memorial certificate and an allowance of
15s. per week meanwhile.

German and Austrian Patents.—The Comptroller of the
Patent Office has decided with regard to the licence or sus-
pension of British patents held by subjects of a country at
war with Great Britain that :—(a) A notice will be sent to
the patentee’s address for service and to any licensee before
action for suspension or licence be heard; (b) notice of appli-
cations for suspension or licence will be advertised in the
Official Patents Journal; (c) there will be a short opposition
period and a date for hearing will be advertised in the
Journal, and at such hearing a representative of the patentee
or licensee will be entitled to be heard against the grant of
such suspension or licence: (d) applications made by indivi-
duals in respect of the same patent will be heard, as far as
possible, together, and it will depend upon circumstances
whether the licence will be exclusive or not. These decisions
are not yet printed, but are now in force.