Mexborough and Swinton Times November 6, 1891

Fatal Accident at Manvers Main Colliery.

Fall of Roof Through Negligent Prop Drawing

Inquest

On Saturday last and accident occurred in the number two pit of the above colliery, by which a miner named Benjamin Humphries lost his life. It appears deceased was engaged drawing props when a sudden a sudden fall of roof took place, and almost completely buried in. He was extricated as soon as possible, was but was found to be quite dead. Deceased was a very steady man, about 29 years of age, and had only been married about 12 months. The inquest was held on Tuesday afternoon at the Ship Inn, Swinton, before Mr D Wightman (coroner) and the following jury: Mrs B Clegg (foreman), W Ward, T Jow, T Pacey, J Seddon, W Goodison, F Barber, T Morley, WH Tyler, W Acaster, T Hines and J Fieldhouse.

Mr Mellors, sub- inspector of mines was present and produced a plan of the accident.

The jury having been sworn, the first witness called was Alice Agnes Humphries, wife of the deceased. She said her husband was 29 years of age, and was a miner at Manvers Main Colliery. She did not know how long it had been a miner, but he had been won ever since she knew him. Witness believed he had been an insurance agent once.

James Pendlebury, Marie, said he worked with the deceased. He did not know how long the deceased had worked in a pit. He had known him nine months. The accident happened at 10 o’clock in the morning. Witness was engaged with deceased in drawing timber and replacing it, and were working in what was known as number one “jinney.” There were three working together – the deceased, witness, and a trammr. He was not under deceased; they were both on piecework. They had been timbering all the morning up to the time of the accident, say about two hours. Deceased had drawn 13 props when the fall of roofing took place. Witness worked by himself. Between them he thought they had put up nine or 10 prop. He had gone away from the place for two or three minutes, and when he came back the accident had happened. As soon as he got near he heard the trammer’s voice saying, “Come on, Jim.”

Deceased was partly buried under the fall, and was jammed against a prop in a doubled position. Witness and a man named Henry Phillips got him out. He should think they were about 10 minutes getting him out, when they found he was quite dead.

By the Coroner: he had worked 35 or 40 years in a colony. Deceased was drawing a prop when the accident happened. He was loosening it. They had drawn 13 in the same way. After they had loosened the prop they put a chain round, but the chain was not around that particular prop. They generally loosened the prop first, and then put the chain around. He thought that was the right way.

By the Inspector: the outset eight or nine pots that morning. They had set two liners. He was with deceased about two hours. As far as he knew the liners which had been set were set all right.

By the Coroner: he sometimes sought the deceased was an experience. He had told him that he was a “left-handed collier.” He had set the prop’s all right. He did not want to be experienced to set a prop.

The Inspector (shown witness a plan: If deceased had drawn the first prop here (pointing to the spot) would the accident have happened?

Witness: it might not have done. He could not say for certain.

The Inspector: But would it not have lessened the possibility of an accident?

Witness: It might have done. In all probability it would have done.

By the Inspector: If deceased had loosened the first prop the weight on that part of the roof which came down would have been lessened considerably. If it had been a straight break roof not fallen. There was a lot of weight on that part which fell.

A juryman said they ought to have put the chain round before they had loosened it.

Another Juryman said he did not think so. He had always loosened the first, and then slip the chain round. If there were to the chain round first they would loosen all the chains they had.

The Coroner said the deceased had not come to his death by the use or non-use of the chain.

Mr George Kenyon said he was under manager at the said colliery. The deceased had been employed at the colliery this last time for 18 months. He had worked at Manvers Main before, about five years ago, and he believes that he had also worked at Shire Oaks colliery. He had worked nowhere else, to his knowledge. He considered him a complete collier in every respect. He could judge a left-handed collier meant an inexperienced one, or an incompetent collier.

Witness was about a mile off when he heard of the accident, when you arrive there the deceased had been got out, was being put on the ambulance to be taken out of the “jinney.” Witness had examined the place, and he thought deceased had been carrying too much weight of roof. He ought to have drawn the bottom prop. He could not imagine why he had not done so. The last witness had no power to compel deceased to draw the prop, and he thought it had been drawn the accident would not have happened. Deceased was very steady man, and worked very well. He thought he was a man, and one who understood his business. It had evidently been an error of judgement on his part.

By the Inspector: Deceased had worked as a trammer, for he would then have had every opportunity of judging whether he was right or not doing as he did.

The Coroner, in summing up, said he did not see that anyone was to blame. Deceased was evidently his own master, and could do as he liked. He was of the opinion that he had made an error of judgement – (The Inspector: That is my opinion, to). – The coroner said that in the was so he had paid a fearful penalty. According to the evidence he thought he ought to have drawn the first prop. It was an accident.

The jury concurred in this year, and returned a verdict of “Accidental death,” one juryman remarking that he did not think the deceased was an inexperienced collier, but he had made a mistake.