REGENT ACCIDENT AT WAIHI MINE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XL, Issue 12408, 22 October 1903, Page 7

REGENT ACCIDENT AT WAIHI MINE.

'jit TELEGRAPH. —OWN COKHESrONKENT.] Waihi, Wednesday. John Hexdeeson, engineer in charge cf the Waihi Company's No. 5 shaft, was charged to-day before air. Warden Bush by Mr. Coutta, mining inspector, under section 214 of the Mining Act, 1898, with negligence while in charge of work at the Waihi Company's No. 5 shaft on September 11, by which two* men wire injured. Defendant pleaded not guilty. *...-. • _^ Mr. I'orritfc appeared f<Sr the Mines Department, and explained the nature of the accident. He said the prosecution was principally brought for cho purpose of bringing home to the men themselves the fact that t.ie law placed upon them the responsibility oi ascertaining for themselves that the appliances they used were safe, and that the 7 were justified under the Mining Act In.re fusing to use anything which was unsafe, and were not to depend solely on. the mine managers or persons* in charge. James Gilmour, mine manager, said Henderson had general charge of No. 5 shaft, and all mechanical appliances. Anything going wrong, the men would report to Henderson, and look to him for orders. The accident was caused by two of the yokes which supported the column of pipes in the shaft having been removed. The removal of the yokes was not reported. Henderson was not on duty at iJie time of the accident. The men employed were fully competent. C. Lloyd said ho was in charge of the shift. He and Owen were injured. He took his orders from the boss of the goingoff shift. The only thing he wa.3 told was that the pipes were within a length of No. 6 level. If he had known that the yokes above had been removed he would not have gone on with the work. Thomas Owen gave similar evidence. Defendant said he had given instructions to Graham, the previous shift boss, to remove the pipes. He had given no orders that the yoke* should be taken away. He had always told the men that the first consideration was to make themselves safe.

Mr. Bush said the men should be taught to take more care in their own interests. When a man was in charge of a department, he had no right to trust to anybody. He did not think Mr. Henderson had been

guilty of any great negligence, but he should have taken evory opportunity of satisfying himself that everything was safe. The same remark applied to mine managers. He was not quite satisfied as to whether Mr. Gilmour or Mr. Henderson was really the responsible officer. He wished to make it clear that lie would not take as an excuse from mine managers or other officers that their instructions had not been carried out. It was their duty to see them properly carried out.

Defendant was convicted and discharged. There was a further charge against Charles Lloyd, shift boss, of failing to satisfy himself of the safety of ths appliances. Defendant pleaded guilty In consideration of the injuries he had received, defendant was dismissed on payment of costs, amounting to £3 12s.

A similar charge against Henderson was then withdrawn.