OFFENCE UNDER THE MINING ACCIDENT ACT.

Thames Star, Volume VI, Issue 1780, 16 September 1874, Page 3

OFFENCE UNDER THE MINING ACCIDENT ACT.

The first of a class of offences referred to in the Mining Accident Statute, was investigated by the City Police Bench yesterday. A nian named Abraham iffolden, the " braceman" employed at Britt's machine, at Huntly, was charged by his employer with leaving the machinery of which he was in charge on the night of the 13th August. The evidence adduced before the bench showed that the employer, having occasion to find fault with the braceman, the latter gave way to a fit of temper, and left the works, telling Mr. Brittto look after the brace himself. It appeared that leaving that portion of the winding gear which the braceman had control over at the mouth of the shaft, affected the other portion of the machinery, and that his desertion of the works caused a delay, and possible » danger to the machinery and mine generally; Mr. Wrixon, who appeared for the defendant, endeavored to show that the defendant's conduct did not come within the provisions of the Act,as he left the machinery in the complainant's charge, the latter as well as the engineer being present at the time he left, and that there' could not be any possible danger accruing. Mr. Brown, for the complainant, contended that the defendant had clearly deserted his work, and he relied strongly on the express wording of the clause, /which stated that the man in charge of any machinery must not leave "unless relieved by a competent person." The bench were at first inclined to the opinion that the offence did not come within the scope of the statute, in consequence of the defendant leaving when there were other persons rei3=y to take his place, but on further reflection they decided that the defendant!* neglect had necessitated the removal of the engineer from his particular work in the engine-house, and that his neglect to wait until he was " relieved," both combined,, would constitute the offence contemplated by the statute. As it was the first offence of this kind, the ;cate would be met by a fine of 40s, and 21« costs.—Bendigo Advertiser, 22nd August. ;-