SAFETY IN MINES.

Northern Advocate, 10 May 1915, Page 6

SAFETY IN MINES.

A HUNTLY SEQUEL,

TWO MANAGERS FINED

HAMILTON", May S

Judgment was given by Mr Bawson, S.M., in the case in which William Wood and Alexander Penman, managers of the Tanpiri and llalph's mines respectively, wore prosecuted, under special rule 3 oi' the Coal Mines Act, with failing to sou that the workingof the mines wus carried on with all reasonable provision for the safely of the persons employed therein and also under rules 2 and S with failing to oan so Jin uuder-viewer to examine all parts of the mine daily. Mr 'Funks for the. defence, had contended that, the word "mine , " in rule 8 meant only the operative part of the mine, and that the part of the mine, in respect of which the del'endauts were charged, being old workings —that is, standing pillars, from which the winning of coal had ceased to be carried on—were not operative parts of the mine. Mr Tunks also contended that, since the return air on its way to the upcast shaft travelled through the old workiugs, the old workings were airways, ami, therefore, under rule 17, only required examining once a week. The magistrate held that rule S was sufficiently explicit, and that the word "mine." could not be restricted in the way contended. lie also held that, since the return air did not reach all parts of the old workings, they could not be described as airways. Defendants were convicted under rule 2, and fined £5 Is and costs. They were also convicted, but without fine, under rule 1.