The Nightcaps Commission

Southland Times, Issue 11044, 28 September 1907, Page 4

The Nightcaps Commission

MRS CARSON'S EVIDENCE. (From Our Special Reporter.) RIVERTON, Sept- 27. The Commission resumed at 11 a.mArthur Jackson’s evidence was concluded. The Chairman : Was there any sign of bunting on Carson's body ? —His flannel was slightly burnt on the left breast i-ide. Witness continued '■ Did not see Wtiy burning of Welsh’s clothing. Would say that the signs oi burning on Carson's clothing arose from Carson’s lamp. Mr Hanlon cross-examined witness at great length as to his experience of coalmining.—Witness detailed long experionceXow you were anxious after this disaster tc have the matter ventilated ?—Not till after tie C-orcner‘s enquiry.

What steps did you take to- get it ventilated after the enquiry V—l had takf-m vo steps as I had no time to make up the report to send to the executive whicii I promised tfl dot ■ 1 1 Didn’t the Coroner's enquiry sufficiently ventilate the matter for yon ?—No, not for me. Didn't you say at the Inquest "I only want to get tne case ventilated and it has been now”? —Vcs ; I used words to that effect. Did you make any representations to anybody in order to get the matter ventilated,? —No, as I did not intend to taka •my steps until I pul in a report to the executive. Do you know who brought the matter under the notice of executive ? —No. Will you swear you did not ?—I swear on my oath I did not.

You stated in your opinion that Lloyd on the morning of the disaster was under the influence cf liquor. Did you form that opinion merely from the fact that you smelt drink upon him and that bo staggered, or from any other thing; ? No : 1 Kavc many gi lime seen Lloyd under the influence of liquor and to my infrtd that morning he was under the influence of liquor. Yes—under the influence of liquor. But every cun ns soon ns he takes * glass of liquor is under Its influence. 'What do you mean?—He was not himself at all. That was the first time X had seen him drunk under ground. In fact that morning I told Lloyd to get out of the way so that the people would not see him. Don't you think ail the symptoms you saw with the exceotlon of alcohol were consistent with bis being overcome by the gases in the mine ? —No ; not all of the symptoms.

Were not scow of the men gfogU? the lege ■•?—Yas • a good deal more them ho was—sosne of them. I noticed Mcyd , vpas very much bloated in the face i that . was the first symptom 1 noticed- I And you gay in the excitement of that morning' you noticed that ? Yes; bocause I was so, disgusted to sec Lloyd the worsc_ of liquor and men art the same time lying down below. Does it not strike you ns peculiar tblat so far you are the only man who noticed Lloyd was the worse of liqwor ft Xo ; jt docs not strike me as peculiar. Now when you saw Lloyd frequently drunk did you report it to his employers ft —No. 1 ■„ Did you report it to the Union ?—i os ■; I reported this, the only instance I had seen him drunk jbelow ground and when I was under him. and X reported it to the general secretary. To Mr Macalister : There was nothing ■irregular in tho K ru. tun gal a executive moving for a. further enquiry without

consulting the Nightcaps branch ; the executive was only doing its duty. ■ MheM he told Lloyd to get out of the way somewhere, Lloyd said ho would go outuhio, -an*! Ir3 wont out. I*o vou ttgivo with dardiue in saying that lefore Carson anti Welsh went up Carson's heading the fan should havaihocn started ?—Yes. Is that a precaution that should have occurred to any experienced man in charge at the time ?—lt should have occurred to. any experienced miner. To the Chairman : That was not tho only precaution that should have been taken. In your opinion what chances arc there of recovering the coal lying to the right hand, E. to N.lv, between the main haulage road and Oarson's heading V—l dou t think there is a fair chance of recovering t hat cool I;, and 1 think no attempt should

t.c made. Will it all be consumed •?—lt may not all bo ; but it will be dangerous to get at. Mr Hanlon : !i Lloyd says that -when he asked you to do what you could it was 8.30 a.m. on Saturday, will you contradict him ? —\ ee. Someone had made a start with one stopping, but I am not sure about that. Lloyd said when giving witness instructions ‘‘This is n terrible affair, Jackson, give us a baud and do what you can.”

Margaret Gibson Carson, widow of William Short Carson, gave evidence similar to that given by her at the inquest as to Lloyd drinking- all but three nips of a bottle of whisky at her house on! the night before the disaster. Lloyd was intoxicated and went -to sleep on the sofa. Lloyd had stayed at her house like tlutt before—just a few times. He had not so stayed a dortn -times during the last 1-2 months. Thai night Lloyd asked her to borrow 5s ltd and got another bottle. She would not go. Witness was next questioned by the Chairman as to when she next saw

Lloyd. She said ; Ho came back to the house a. few minutes afterwards and told my husband the mine was on lire ; that one of the stoppings was burnt through ; tend ho told my husband to go to the mine. 1 did not 'then see Lloyd, but heard him speaking. 1 next saw Lloyd at 8.30 that mom'ing at tho blacksmith's shop when he appeared to have a few drinks in him. I asked him where was my- husband. Lloyd said, ‘ln the mine ; Duncan has been brought out, but he is dead ; go home ; I will do all I can.” That was all that then passed between us. I next saw Lloyd on the road on Sunday. He asked mo to say nothing about him being fti my house on Thursday- night. Was Mrs Tikey at your house at al'l o-n Thursday afternoon, 20th June, or early Friday moruin-g, 21st June? —She was not in my house at all when Mr Lloyd was there. Here the Chairman asked Mrs Tikey to retire for a ilimo. Did Mrs Tikey have any liquor in your house that evening or early next morning or anything to drink ■?—No. Witness continued : When I told him what he (Lloyd) had drunk at my house he would hardly believe it. He was hardly drunk, but he was not in his sober senses. Chairman : Are you Scotch, Mrs Carson ?—Yes ! Was he “fou” 'laughter) ? Witness (laughing) : Ho was not far from it.

Mr Hanlon ; This lady who was ordered out of Court a few minutes ago is Mrs Joseph Tikcy ?—Yes. What time did she go to your house m Thursday, 20th June?— She called in aliout twenty minutes to eight.

Where was the bottle of whisky when Mrs Tikey was In your house ? —ln the Clipboard, where X had put it after my husband and Mr Llovd went out.

Lloyd has told us that he, your husband and you each bad two drinks out of that bottle ;is that not true ?—No ; it is not true. Neither you nor your husband wore total abstainers ?—No.

And is it not a fact that on other occasions yon have had a glass of whi#sy with Lloyd V —l don't see what that has to do with it. Oh, yes. it has to dc with it. Witness : That's not to say X am a drunkard.

Mr Hanlon .' I only want to know whether you had. I am not trying to blacken your character.

j Witness ; I had only a glass of whisky ; when I was not well —that was in the / presence of Mr Lloyd and my husband. I have had a drink with my husband when Mr Lloyd has been present Did you see Mrs Job. Tikey have a glass of whisky on night of Thursday, '2oth June ?—1 dud not. • | How far docs Lloyd live from your : place ?—1 suppose about half a mile aI way. j Then, Mrs Carson, it would have been -quite impossible for Lloyd after he loft [your place on Thursday evening to have 'gone homo, have his tea, and go to the j railway station? —It is quite impos[sible. I Winifred Tikey (wife of Joseph Tikey, I miner at Nightcaps) deposed that what ' Lloyd had sworn about her having a i drink of whisky at Mrs Carson’s on Thursday was false. She had had on .another date a nip with Mrs Carson a* , lone.

) To Mr Hanlon v Mrs Carson said on ; Thursday night (that she would willingly go to the play when witness asked her, providing Carson came -home, but she idid not think she would, as Llovd was on the booze- She did not think she and Mrs Carson had been in the habit : -if -drinking whisky in her house. Sho did not remember it.

: Mr Green (Inspector of Mines in the ; Southern district) was recalled. Since | early in 1900 he hud officially inspected the Nightcaps mine. Ho held a first' class mine manager's certificate under the Goal Mines Act, also a first-class certificate under the Mining Act. One he obtained by examination, the other was issued to him in virtue of Ids office as Inspector. He bec/tmo aware that any fire existed in Nightcaps mine on March 30t.1i, 1003. He saw the fire in the No. 1 district after his arrival. In his op inton, it had only existed two days on 30th March, when it covered an area of about an acre.

The Chairman : And do you believe that in two days it had grown from nothing to such dimensions ?—Yes. I would tike to add that I believe that the fire only broke out lor the first time on the 2Sth March, and owing to the placing of standing in pillars and bonds the fire rapidly spread over the area mentioned.

Did you at that time inspect the report book of the m'lno manager ant deputies ?—Yes. Did they contain entries of that fir e ? I could not remember that, after this lapse of lime. On 12th April ho gave instructions to the mine manager as to the operations. Mr Lloyd and witness wore in close conference as to the best means of recovering tihe mine without any risk to the man, and how the work was to be gone about. They decided that alter an Interval to allow the mine to damp down and to allow of water to bo brought in from a dnm ol water, a race was to be constructed. After that was completed they arranged that an opening should bo made in order to investigate on the main level and shafts. If the mine was sufficiently cooled down an opening could be made on the main level and have the mine opened for a short

Time —not more than emo or two hours at a time in the 21 hours. There was nothing in writing ; witness gave directions to upo safety lamps for trying the air at the stoppings. Witness gave the manager terbnl directions that it he was successful! in opening the mine, he (the manager) was to make dally use of safety lamps for testiug the mine. He and the manager tested the stoppings with safety lamps. I Did you warn him -earnestly that he iinust henceforward always use safety i lamps ?—Yes, on occasions.

What do you mean by ‘‘occasions ? I mean tho occasions when, the men wont in to deal with the fire. You contemplated a speedy opening up and working of this area of coal after you and Lloyd had taken counsel together ?—Yes ! But not speedily. Did you contemplate the actual working ol this part of the mine for coal ? Yes.

Did you warn him that the minors working for coal must use safety lamps? —No ! My reason was that he knew there was no lire damp in the mine. Would you say that where there was no fire -damp safety lamps were useless ? —No. certainly not.

What nse are safety lamps ? Eminent use for the discovery- of fire damp and nothing else. I would say they are a danger lamp for anything else in mining. They are useful for testing for lire damp, oven though lire damp does not exist, How did you know no fire damp was in this mine —it had never been reported and there had inner been nay ignition of it before the fire. Mr Green, do y-oa, because fire damp has not existed in u min© up to R certain date, think that you are justified in assuming that it will not exist in future ?—I am not justified In assuming that. But in yottr previous answers have you not assumed that ?—Yes ! in this case. Do you wish to make explanation o£ that •?—Yes ! There are a number oi reasons for assuming there was no fire damp, i'iro had never experfenced there. There had been no ignitions. men had worked thero with open lights while stoppings were in progress, and I had tested the stoppings myself with safety- lamps. The Commission adjourned tall 10 tomorrow.