Cm44i

1. FLETCHER. |

256. Mr. Brown,'] Was there any pressure on that door in No. 6? —Yes, there was 6,000 cubic feet of air pulling against it. 257. I want to clear that point up. You said in reply to Mr. Wilford that it would not affect the ventilation if the door was open? —It would not have affected that split, because, though there was 6,000 ft. pressing, it was being turned down another way. 258. But, still, the pressure was on the door, and when it was open the ventilation would sweep down Nos. 5 and 6 bords ?—Yes, it is short-circuiting. 259. Then if the door was opened by anybody and there was an accumulation of gas in Nos. 5 or 6 bords that gas would not stay there long? —Not with the force of air going through there. 260. If a pocket is formed by a fall in the roof and there is gas in there, what really occurs? The ventilation is going past that place?— The ventilation is going through it, and if it has to climb over the fall there is no doubt that diffusion takes place. 261. Is it not the same as everything else—it takes the line of least resistance? Take as an example the water running down that river outside : there is an eddy formed, and is not that just exactly what takes place in the mine—the ventilation eddies round? —Yes. 262. You have had a good deal of mining experience : what is the usual practice with you as to reporting what is alleged to be a serious accident? —I only report to the Inspector what we consider a serious accident—if I think the man is going to be off work for a fortnight, unless in the case of an eye accident. If it is an eye accident he may tell you it will be better in a day or two, but the eye troubles are very slow. I would not report that; but all serious accidents I report to the Inspector. 263. Do you rely on the doctor's report?— Yes. 264. And does he not tell you whether the accident is a serious one? —Yes, always. 265. Is not that the only way you can judge whether the man is seriously injured or not? — Yes. 266. Mr. Dowgray .] I think you stated in connection with the safety-lamp proposition that if the nrovisions of the present Bill were enforced this mine would be practically able to work with naked lights?— Yes, when the new fan is put in, and if by that means we could double the ventilation. 267. If the provisions of the Bill had been in force and ) r ou had been compelled to divide your mine into ventilating sections, would this disaster have occurred? —The mine is divided into ventilating sections. 268. As described in this Bill?— Seventy-five men to a split. 269. Do you say you have seventy-five men in a split just now? —Yes, just about. 270. Would the provisions be complied with as to the air to be recorded leading into each split, as described in this Bill? —Yes. 271. That has already been carried out in your mine?— Yes, as far as I can do it. 272. I want to be sure. I have been down that mine twice. Is the mine divided into ventilating sections with all the necessary precautions required by this Bill as to air-measurements, and so on ?—Yes, we try to measure it. 273. You record it in a book? —Yes. 274. Can I see that book?— Yes. We measure the air every month. I can show you the book. [Subsequently the book was produced and handed to Mr. Dowgray for his perusal. Witness also subsequently produced his book containing references to the injuries sustained by Massey and Carlyon, regarding which Mr. Wilford had examined him. Witness read the entries as follows: "J. Massey, Huntly, Ralph's Mine; burns; July 12, 1905; sixteen days off work; £1 13s. 4d. — Carlyon, same date." Further particulars read.] Jambs Fletcheb recalled. 275. Mr. Tunks.~\ Were you in any way aware that the inquiry which Mr. Bennie addressed to you regarding accidents, in his letter of the Bth Januarj-, 1914, was without prejudice to any right to prosecute you? —No, I was not aware of that. 276. Were you aware that a prosecution of you had even been contemplated ?—No. 277. Had you any reason at all, Mr. Fletcher, to conceal anything in regard to Conn, Willcox, or Ruston? —No reason whatever to conceal. 278. I may take it that you did not report the cases of Conn and Willcox for the simple reason that you did not consider them serious injuries?— That is so. 279. Have you ever been instructed or informed that you should report every ignition of gas?— No. 280. Did you consider that it was at all necessary to do so ? —No, I did not. 281. After you sent in your list of accidents in 1912 and the following one in 1914, which included both Willcox and Conn, was any further demand made upon you by any one —the Inspector or any one else? —No. 282. Now, were you ever made aware in any way of Mr. Reed's opinions in regard to the mine?— Never. 283. So far as you are aware, was any one else connected with the company made aware of those opinions? —No, not that I was aware of. 284. Did you hear anything about the safety-lamps which Mr. Reed took to the Thames : were they mentioned to you?— No. 285. Several instances of burnings have been deposed to; we have had cases referred to. In regard to the injuries to Robert Cumming, was that in )-our time?—No; I do not know anything about the Cumming case.

61