Mexborough & Swinton Times – Friday 06 June 1902

A claim was made under the Workmen’s Compensation Act by Thomas Williams, miner, of 9. Charles Street, Mexbro’, against the Manvers Main Colliery Company, of Wath-on-Dearne.

Mr. Shepard, barrister, of Leeds, instructed by Messs. Raley and Sons. Barnsley, appeared for the applicant, and Mr. T. E. Ellison, barrister, Sheffield, instructed by Mr. W. M. Gichard, Rotherham, represented the respondent company.

Applicant I said he 44 years of age. and been a miner all his life. He had worked at Manvers for about seventeen years. On Oct. 14th he was in regular employment, and working the Barnsley seam, No. 2 shafts.. He had pulled a piece of coal off with a crowbar , and the coal dropped upon his foot, and threw him with his back upon the rail. His son, Benjamin, who was working with him, picked him up, and they took him to the gate end. He there saw John Taylor, the deputy, and reported to him what had happened. He felt pain in his back. After leaving the pit he was attended to by Dr. J. J. Huey. The big toe of his left foot had been crushed, and his spine injured. He served a notice of claim for compensation on the company on Jan. 4th. For four months he was attended by Drs. Blythman and Steven, the colliery company’s doctors.

His average wages had been £2 5s. per week and he claimed £1 per week since Oct. 25th, and during incapacity.

Further evidence was called for the applicant, whose wife said that the accident her husband had been mentally affected, and had gradually become worse.

Dr. Sadler. of Barnsley, and Dr. Robinson, of Rotherham, also gave evidence.

For the defence it was denied that there wasn’t any injury to the spine, or any disablement therefrom since the time of the filing of the particulars of the claim. The respondent was paid £1 per week for eleven weeks, to 23rd, in respect to the toe.

Dr. John Jas. Huey, practising as a physician and surgeon at Mexboro’, said he had attended the applicant for sluggish liver and dyspepsia, from the beginning of Oct., 1901, to December or January. He never complained to him about his back: his wife might have told him that he had a pain in his back, but be put that down to what he was attending him for and treated him accordingly.

Dr. Blythman, the colliery doctor, Dr. Wm. A. Garrard, consulting surgeon to the Rotherham Hospital, and Dr. B. Stevens all gave evidence which was contradictory to the two doctors called for the plaintiff.

Mr. Ellison submitted that plaintiff had not made out his case.

Mr. Shepherd said even if there was a predisposition to some mental affliction, and an accident such as the one described aggravated it then he was entitled to a verdict on the authority Lloyd v. Sugg.

His Honour, in summing up, said he did not believe one word or precious little more than one word, of what was said in the witness box by the plaintiff. The whole style of the man, the way in which he had given his evidence, the way he had played with it and the way in which he had contradicted himself, and contradicted the other evidence, was, to his mind, conclusive. His verdict must be for the respondents.

Judgment was entered for the respondents.

The hearing of the case lasted the whole day.