MINING CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXX, Issue 86, 13 April 1899, Page 2

MINING CASE.

STORAGE OF EXPLOSIVES. ]

G. N. McGruer, mine manager of the Crown mine, was charged before Mr Bush, Warden, with having on or about the 9thv March left certain explosives,, viz., 41b nitro-glycerine, not properly protected in one of the drives of the Crown mine.. Mr Clendon appeared for complainant, and Mr Miller for defendant company. Mr Miller raised a preliminary objection that the summons was issued, for the Magistrate's Court instead of the Warden's, and the information was by permission of the Warden altered accordingly. Mr Clendon in opening stated this was an important case, as raising thepoint of the duty of mine managers to strictly carry out all provisions of the Act for protecting men's lives. The offence was laid under Section 206 and Sub Section 2 B. and C. of the Same section. The Mining Inspector had previously warned Mr McGruer to keep the gelignite covered. On this occasion Messrs Coutts and Ryan visited the mine and found 41bs gelignite lying loose ■in a bit of paper, entirely exposed and within 3ft of the tramway. The contractor was using this gelignite and when Mr Coutts told the mine manager he said it could not be protected as the. Mining Act required, and instructed the contractor to dismiss all his men as a protest against the interference. Messrs Coutts and Ryan gave evidence as to the finding of ; the gelignite, and under cross-examina- :.< tion Mr Coutts stated that this was not ;' the first time such packages had been seen lying loose in the Crown mine. The , danger from having the package loose was that men passing might kick or tread > on it, and the miner when taking it to the face in this state would run a great risk carrying a candle. Mr Miller contended he had no case to answer, as the Act demanded that these packages should be 'taken into' the mine in properly covered cases or canisters, and there was no evidence that this had not been done. Further this package was being used and did not therefore require . 1 to be stored as only the reserve supply should by the Act be kept stored. The Warden decided to hear the evW dence for the defence. George Norman McGruer deposed tha.i '^l he had never taken explosives into thi'j ; • Crown Mines uncovered, nor had he ever.: stored explosives in the mine. In thg X year 1892 the canisters were hung up on * nails in the levels, but on the suggestion of Mr George Wilson, the then mining M inspector, strong boxes were made for :? holding the canisters, and expressly fQr,';,|£ the protection of the explosives. He had - never yet seen packages of gelignite lying-' about as complained of. No accident fromv ■ explosives had ever occurred in the Crown mine, with the exception of once, when a , man named Johnson, about seven, years :'•'., ago, was anxious to ascertain if a cap v, would go off if a lighted candle was ap- \ plied to it. Everything possible has been || done in the Crown Mines to ensure the ' .; \ safety, of explosives. F. R. Daw, superintendent of the Crown ,'i; Mines Company's operations at Karanga- ii hake, deposed that every reasonable pre- '■'•s caution had been taken to ensure the pro- i teciion of life and property. If a, mining ; 4 Inspector would make any further suggest M tion to what has already been done, he *;< would gladly do his best to carry out the-"'^l same. ...... '■. ■ l'fM Percy Rusden, storekeeper and clerk -at r the mine, and R. Rusden, shift boss, also ;- gave evidence. Mr Clendon contended that as the manager had charge of. operations he wa3 responsible for anything occurring-. , s-v The Warden said that the point had f been raised as to extent of responsibility 1 that rested upon the mine manager, i but 1 he was not going to consider that just 1 then. It seemed to" him that he must f judge on the evidence adduced, and this he W 'held was very weak indeed. The case|§| broke down on the weakness of the evidence, given for thte prosecution. The two charges would therefore be dismissed. George Norman McGruer, manager of , the Grown Mines, was also charged that proper and sufficient protection, to wit, a bar, had not been placed at the incline shaft, and as a result a man named Kelly fell down a depth of 70ft and receiv* ed very severe injuries. Mr Clendon ap* peared for the mining inspectorl, and contended that though perhaps Kelly may have committed a breach of duty, It did not absolve the company, from the liability. A considerable amount of evidence waai. given, the Mining Inspector mentioning! . that though the place where the miner Kelly fell down and was injured was ; called a winze, he called it an underlay shaft. For the defence expert evidence was called to show there was a difference ■ between the shaft and the winze; an<3. after counsel had addressed the Court on the point, the Warden ruled there was adifference between these two workings. '" and they were mentioned separately in the Mining Act: Evidence showed It was the winze, not the shaft, Kelly fell down and the complaint was dismissed; WORKING A BATTERY ON SUNDAYS George Gilmore, mine manager' of the Waihi G.M. Co.* was then charged on the information of the Mining Inspector with having allowed the battery at Waihi to: work on Sunday. Mr Clendon appeared for the informant, and Mr Miller for the company. The latter Admitted the offence, but raised the point that : Mr Gilmore had not anything to do with the battery. Mr Banks.was battery, superintendent, Mr Gilmore not having had ! the slightest connection with the working of the battery for the past six or seven years. Mr Clendon asked for a ruling on the point, as the Act stated that the mine manager was the person -liable, and, if not, they wanted to find out who was. The Warden reserved his decision on the point until next Court day. ,