December 17, 1915.

THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN.

1251

In January 1914, the first plant for producing incom-
bustible stone dust from colliery shale, as finely ground
as fullers’ earth, was installed at 'a colliery.

In June 1914, local newspapers reported an explosion
at this colliery, but there were no casualties, although
some years previously a similar explosion had disastrous
results, with heavy loss of life.

It is quite a probability that the presence of stone dust
in the later explosion was answer able for the absence
of casualties; and it reflects great credit on the colliery
company who so soon adopted the Committee’s recom-
mendations of No. 5 report, and, above all, is a strong
confirmation of the wisdom of the Committee’s recom-
mendations.

Since No. 5 report was issued, several plants have
been installed in South Wales and other districts for
producing stone dust from shale by the same method as
the fullers’ earth, and the result has been in all cases a
buoyant dust which will float on equal terms with coal
dust. Many hundreds of tons have been produced, and
shale so treated has apparently no inconvenient effects
on miners’ healthj it may be so regulated by automatic
distribution that only the amount required to produce a
50 per cent, presence of ash is applied.

Conditions vary in different pits, but the work having
been carried out in the recognised dustier conditions of
South Wales, the practical results so obtained should
have greater weight than those conducted under the
easier conditions existing in the northern districts.

It will be found that this distribution of buoyant dust
has considerably improved the percentage of ash—not-
withstanding the published opinion of a manager : “ To
raise his natural percentage of 40 per cent, ash to 50 per
cent, was impracticable.”

It has been stated (No. 5 report) that stone dusting
as a remedy is a matter of degree; but, in the more
dangerous conditions in South Wales, the weightier
problem has been tackled on practical lines, and the
“ degree of safety ” may be readily and economically
carried to “ safety ” when conducted on the lines of
Nos. 5 and 7 reports, if the details of buoyancy and
distribution are properly attended to; as is being done
on practical lines in South Wales.

Fullers’ earth is not so expensive as to be prohibitive,
and is being used in several large collieries. Its fineness
is such that 80 per cent, will pass a sieve having 240
holes to the linear inch. Dust from colliery shales is
being produced by the same method, and of equal fine-
ness, at a cost not exceeding 5s. per ton.

Shale dust which will pass a 200 mesh and be rejected
by a 240 is grit, and will not float on the atmosphere,
but has a tendency to deposit. This feature must be
tally realised, as buoyant dust is to be desired.

I have followed the recommendations of No. 5 report
as to fine dust, and provided means of automatic dis-
tribution.

In January 1914, one of his Majesty’s chief inspectors
made a special investigation of my method of distribu-
tion in a colliery, and traced the stone dust for over a
mile from the place in the roadway at which I was
distributing.

This letter is long, but reviews operations of a practical
nature extending over two years, and I trust will be
interesting .as showing that the Committee’s recom-
mendations are practicable. I shall be pleased to give
any information on enquiry from any of your readers.

L. G. Hill, F.R.S.A.

5, Oxford-road, Acocks Green, Birmingham.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE.
COURT OF APPEAL.—December 10.

Before Lords Justices Phillimore and Pickford, and
Mr. Justice Bray.

The Tonypandy Colliery Riots.

South Glamorgan Coal Company Limited and the Powell
Duffryn Steam Coal Company Limited v. the Glamorgan
County Council and Standing Joint Committee of the
Quarter Sessions. — This was an appeal by the Glamorgan
County Council and the Standing Joint Committee of the
Quarter Sessions from a judgment of Mr. Justice Bankes in
actions arising out of the Tonypandy strike riots in November
and December 1910. The actions were brought by the
Glamorgan Coal Company Limited, to recover £23,000
expended by them in feeding Metropolitan and other imported
police during the strike in the Rhondda Valley; and by the
Powell Duffryn Steam Coal Company, claiming 1-2,022 for
similarly feeding police in the Aberdare Valley. The actions
resulted in judgment being given for the plaintiffs.

Mr. Duke, K.C., for the Standing Joint Committee, said
that the local authorities had asked that troops should be
sent to quell the disturbances, as the strikers numbered some-
thing like 18,000—12,000 employed by the Glamorgan Coal
Company, and 6,000 by the Powell Duffryn Company. The
Government decided to send Metropolitan police, and some
850 were drafted into the county. With other police drawn
from other districts, the imported police numbered about
1,000, and it was in respect of their upkeep that the actions
were brought. The Government, with the active assistance
of Mr. D. A. Thomas, had endeavoured to lay a retrospective
statutory duty on the defendants to pay these charges, but
after the introduction of the Bill nothing was heard of it.
The obvious expectation was that the Government would pay
the charges. It was natural that it should be the view in
the locality that the War Office would pay, because in 1898
and 1899 there was local litigation in the King’s Bench Divi-
sion, when it was decided that the expense of troops sent into
the county for the preservation of peace was not a county
council expense.

Lord Justice Pickford said the Standing Joint Committee
took the view apparently that either the Government should
pay, or that the colliery companies should pay for their own
protection. But it was hardly a private matter.

Mr. Duke, continuing, asked if the position was not that
of a great possessor of property engaged in a controversy in
which he would not give way. He advanced economic views.

Lord Justice Pickford here interposed that wrecking
collieries was hardly an economic affair.

Lord Justice Phillimore said the Standing Joint Com-
mittee paid the aiding counties, and satisfied them, which
looked as though they ratified the Chief Constable’s action.

Mr. Duke said in some cases they only paid housing.

Mr. Duke said the Standing Joint Committee discriminated
as between colliery proprietors and others. He urged that
the Chief Constable was a statutory authority, and acted as
principal and not as agent. To speak of another authority
as his agent was a misapplication of terms.

Lord Justice Phillimore said the Committee was none the
less a Committee because it acted as a Joint Committee, and
when it acted it did so for its principals. He thought that
either the Committee or the Council might be sued. He was
at the moment inclined to think the Committee had power
to bind the Council. At any rate, it was a contractor.

Mr. Duke, continuing, said he felt bound to dispute the
inference of the learned judge in the court below that the
county from the first were required to bear the cost of the
police. The statement that they would pay had been made
without authority, and, as far as he knew, without the power
to put the burden upon the county. Counsel then quoted a
letter written by appellants to the respondents : “ You may
be right or wrong, but if your workmen come to wreck your
collieries, you must protect yourselves.”

Lord Justice Pickford said that might be a proper attitude
for a public authority to take up; but it was new to him.

Mr. Duke contended that the county authorities had no
notice or knowledge of what was going on in respect of feed-
ing, and that the feeding was not included under any sug-
gested warning by the plaintiffs’ agents that they would not
do it gratuitously. Consequently, there was neither agree-
ment nor acquiescence which would warrant a claim under
any circumstances in respect of that feeding. It seemed
to him that the whole question of the liability of the county
rate depended upon the state of facts which the learned judge
had found.

Mr. Holman Gregory, for the Glamorgan County Council
said his clients stood in a different position from that of
the Standing Joint Committee, which were a step further
removed from the plaintiffs, and as there was no privity
between plaintiffs and the County Council, so the companies
had no right of action against the Council upon a money
claim of this kind. The Council would have to pay if the
Standing Joint Committee were liable.

Lord Justice Phillimore told Mr. Clavell Salter, for the
Glamorgan Coal Company, that the court could relieve the
respondents to a certain extent. The court was of opinion
that the findings of the learned judge had been sufficiently
questioned to upset them, .and respondents might take it
that the food, drink, and hire were supplied by the plaintiffs
at the request of the Chief Constable, the requests being in
the nature of a contract. Also it might be taken that the
Chief Constable did not make request as principal, but as
an agent, and who ever was the person for whom he was
acting he might be deemed to have lawfully bound those
persons.

Mr. Holman Gregory said that if their lordships decided
against their contention, the County Council might be placed
in a very serious position. Every dispute between a trades-
man and the Standing Joint Committee which led to litigation
might result in the County Council being made parties. They
therefore desired that their position should be thoroughly dis-
cussed and decided. It would be very serious if the Council
were made parties to actions of this sort, even if only nomi-
nally, because they would have to appear, and something
would have to be done. It would be most serious if they
were to have a declaration made against them with costs in
such actions.

Their lordships said they would take time to consider their
judgment.

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.

KING’S BENCH DIVISION.—December 9.

Before Justices Ridley, Lush, and Lowe.

Colliery Assessment.

Davis and Son y. Assessment Committee of the Pontypridd
Union and Others’.—This case raised important questions in
regard to agreements between collierv owners and assessment
committees for the provision of a basis on which collieries
should be assessed to rates.

Mr. Ryde, K.C., for the appellants, said that his clients
were the owners and occupiers of certain mines with their
appurtenances at Bodringallt and Ferndale, in Glamorgan-
shire. On February 1. 1904, an agreement was made between
the Assessment Committee of the Pontypridd Union, within
which the appellants* properties were situated, and a number
of colliery owners, including the appellants, for the settle-
ment of a basis for the assessment of colliery property within
the Union. The agreement provided that for the purpose of
any rate made or to be made after June 30, 1903, these
collieries should be assessed half-vearly, and on the amount
of coal worked at each colliery. The tonnage used for these
calculations was to be long tons of 2,5201b., and the actual
amount of the coal consumed at the collieries was to be
deducted. The agreement concluded by providing that it
should be determinable by either of the parties giving to the
other 12 months* notice in writing to that effect, and that it
was to be understood that the Assessment Committee had no
power to bind their successors, or the overseers, or the indi-
vidual ratepayers of anv parish affected. The agreement was
only entered into in the public interest, and because it was
thought to be the best method of avoiding frequent, trouble-
some, and expensive enquiries. After the execution of this
agreement the overseers made assessments from time to time,
in accordance with its provisions. No notice was ever given
on either side of an intention to terminate the agreement.
Shortly before 1908 the appellants acquired a site, and thereon
erected and fitted an electric power generating station, which
was first used in February 1908. This building cost
£100,000. The energy supplied was not local to any pit, but
was sent to all the pits, some of which were .between two and
three miles distant. Before the equipment of this plant the
appellants purchased a considerable quantity of electric power
from the South Wales Power Company. That had since
been reduced greatly, but not totally superseded. Only 0-2
per cent of the power was used for purposes other than the
effective working of the coal. On April 25, 1913, this
generating station was for the first time assessed separately
and apart from the collieries. The appellants appealed
against such assessment to the Quarter Sessions, on the
ground that the agreement of February 1, 1904, was a valid
agreement, and binding upon the Assessment Committee, that
the generating station was an appurtenance of the appellants’
collierv, and should not have been assessed as a separate
hereditament. The Court of Quarter Sessions, however, said

that they could not take any legal notice of the agreement,
and dismissed the appeal. The appellants now appealed to
the Divisional Court by way of case stated.

Mr. Parsons, K.C., on behalf of the Assessment Com-
mittee, said that the Committee were not bound by the
agreement. There was a new committee every year, and
the Committee of 1904 could not bind its successors. The
Committee could not compromise a dispute to the prejudice
of the overseers.

Mr. W. W. Mackenzie, K.C., for the Overseers of the
Pontypridd Urban District Council, contended that the
question was whether there h#d been created a new heredita-
ment since the execution of the agreement in 1904. He
thought there had. The generating station had a value
of its own, apart from the collieries. The Assessment Com-
mittee could not bind the Overseers by any agreement.

Mr. Justice Ridley, giving judgment, said that the agree-
ment entered into on February 1, 1904, was a very common
thing where coal mines had to be assessed to rates. Its
object was to provide for a way in which a fair and
equitable assessment might be arrived at. Such an agree-
ment was perfectly legal, in his view. In this case,
certainly, the Assessment Committee had entire power to
enter into it. He thought it might be contended that the
overseers of any particular year could refuse 'to be bound
by any act or agreement of their predecessors. He was not
called upon to decide that point, but he could imagine cases
where the overseers would take that view. When it came
to the knowledge of the rating authority that the appellants’
generation station had been in existence for four or five
years, and was not according to the agreement, nor included
therein, they put in a new rate, assessed the generating
station at £15,000, and added it to the existing valuation in
respect of the collieries. Whilst adopting the agreement of
1904, they added to it a valuation and rate. It was quite
clear that the method of calculating the rate was based on
the output of the colliery. The generating station was used
in substitution for obtaining the power from elsewhere. It
was a new and more beneficial arrangement, and was no
doubt likely to raise the value of the colliery. In his view,
the rating authority could not use the agreement of
February 1904 as they had done, and at the same time add
to it a new valuation in respect of the station. The rate
was therefore a bad one. He did not understand how the
Quarter Sessions could say that they “ could not take any
legal notice of the agreement.” It was a perfectly legal
agreement into which the Assessment Committee could enter,
and was clearly binding on the court. The court could not
disregard it.

Mr. Justice Lush and Mr. Justice Low agreed.

The case was accordingly remitted to the Quarter Sessions
with an opinion that the rate was bad, and that the entry
in the valuation list should be struck out.

The valuers for Messrs. D. Davis and Sons were Messrs.
Humphreys-Davies and Company, and for the Assessment
Committee, Messrs. Ryde and Sons.

December 15.

Before Justices Ridley, Avory, and Lush.

Coal Mines Act: Responsibility of Owners.

Atkinson v. Lewis Merthyr Consolidated Collieries.—This
was an appeal by Mr. Atkinson, H.M. inspector of mines,
from a decision of the Caerphilly justices arising out of pro-
ceedings taken under section 31, subsection 3, of the Coal
Mines Act, 1911, which provides that in every mine in which
mechanical ventilation was made use of, there should always
be ready adequate means for reversing the air current.

Mr. Ivor Bowen, K.C., in support of the appeal, said that
the matter had been previously before the court, but the case
was remitted to the magistrates for re-statement on certain
points. The proceedings were taken after the Senghenydd
Colliery explosion in October 1913, and the summonses were
against the Lewis Merthyr Company, as the owners of the
Universal Colliery, it being alleged that those responsible
had contravened the provisions of the Act. The summonses
were dismissed as against the owners, and the question for the
court was as to the degree in which Mr. Rees, the managing
director of the company, was responsible. For the respon-
dents, it was submitted that neither Mr. Rees nor the other
directors had anything to do with the management of the
mine, and that the conditions prevailing in this case were
such as to absolve them from liability. He (Mr. Bowen)
contended that Mr. Rees knew what was going on, and that
he was sufficiently interested in the scheme for installing the
apparatus for reversing the air current to have justified his
conviction for non-compliance with the provisions of the Act.

Mr. Disturnal, for the respondents, argued that it was
perfectly clear upon the evidence that Mr. Rees had nothing
to do with the scheme, and that Mr. Shaw, the manager, had
absolute control of the matter.

Mr. Justice Ridley, in giving judgment, said the question
raised some rather nice points, but the court had come to
the conclusion that the owners were responsible, and that
the decision of the justices was wrong. In their opinion,
the owners ought to have been convicted. The Act laid
down that the ‘‘owner, agent, or manager’* were alike
responsible for a contravention of the Act in certain circum-
stances, and he did not think it had been shown here that
Mr. Rees had not taken any part in the management of the
mine. The appeal would be allowed, and the justices
directed to convict.

Justices Avory and Lush concurred.

Manchester Geological and Mining Society.—An ordinary
meeting of the members of this society will be held at
Queen’s Chambers, 5, John Dalton-street, on Tuesday,
December 21, at 4 p.m. (instead of Tuesday, December 14,
1915, as previously arranged). The agenda includes the
following :—Delegate report of the British Association,
Manchester meeting, September 1915, by William Watts;
paper on ‘‘Visual Signalling,” by Harold Green; and an
exhibition of visual signalling by five engineering firms.

Boring for Coal in Bucks.—At the Geological Society on
Wednesday night, Dr. A. Strahan. F.R.S., director of
the Geological Survey, gave an account of a deep boring
for coal at Little Africk, near Missenden (Buckingham-
shire). This boring passed through beds ranging from
the middle chalk to jurassic, when cores were brought up
showing silurian fossils. Although no carboniferous rocks
occur in this area, the boring adds much to our knowledge
of the nature of the palaeozoic floor in the neighbourhood
of the London Basin.