Mexborough & Swinton Times – Friday 17 May 1929

Missing Prop.

Thurnscoe Miner’s Life Lost Through Error of Judgment.

Hickleton Main Accident.

The Coroner (Mr. W. H. Carlisle) held an Inquest at Thurnscoe on Friday on Harry Dickenson (54), dataller, of 100, Houghton Road, Thurnscoe, who was killed in the Hickleton Main mine the previous day.

Mr. J. Mannikin represented the management of the colliery and Mr. W. M. Starkey the local branch of the Yorkshire Miners’ Association.

Herbert Dickenson. 119, Houghton Road, Thurnscoe, plasterer’s labourer, gave eve deuce of identification of deceased, who was his brother.

Thought It Was Safe.

Fred Stanton, of 6, Ledley Street, Goldthorpe, said he was working with deceased in the north-east district. They had got out two wooden bars and a girder. Deceased hit the prop which held up the girder with a hammer twice. Witness told him not to hit it any more but to put the safety chain on and pull. Deceased said “All right.” and was attempting to put the chain on when the girder fell. They had used a chain earlier, but this time they did not think it was dangerous to use a hammer. There was a cavity over the girder, but witness could not say how extensive it was. He thought the distance from the next girder was 8 feet 6 inches to 9 foot. Deceased had said he thought the place was fit to go under. It was a worked-out portion, and witness agreed that it was a place to the careful. A deputy came round earlier. The accident happened about 10.50 p.m.

The Coroner: You know the proper distance for the props to be apart is not more than six feet?

Witness returned no answer.

The Coroner: With your experience you should know. You were evidently struck that it was dangerous to use a hammer?—Yes, them is always a certain amount of danger in a mine.

The Coroner: That is no answer. You agree there is about 10 ft. 4in. unsupported roof? Don’t you agree it was unsafe for a man to work under?- We thought it was safe.

Fatal Gap.

Mr. H. B. Scott (H.M. Inspector): You say you did not think it was unsafe. Do you know that on every road where the roof is unsatisfactory, props are set four feet apart? You are a by-worker and I suppose you set timber. Do you set props as you have a mind to?-We set them where they want setting.

Mr. Scott. You have not had on this particular road girders three or four feet apart. At this place there was one set ten toot sway from the last. Do you suggest that was right and in order?—We thought it was in order and safe enough.

Mr. Scott: You know the requirements of the Act?

Mr. Scott read from a section, “Props must be set at regular intervals,” and said to witness: In this particular part of the road you have props ten feet apart; surely you do not say you thought it was safe?

Witness: We thought it was safe.

Mr. Scott: Did the deputy give you any instructions?—No: he had a look round.

Mr. Starkey: How long have you been working at this particular place—Fourteen days.

Witness further stated that they thought the place was safe, and they tried to keep the place, safe.

Deputy’s Admission.

Edward Robinson, 107, Chapel Lane, Thurnscoe, deputy, said he visited the place between 7.30 and 8 p.m. on the night in question. He inspected the work which the men were doing. They had drawn two have and a girder. His did not give them any instructions because everything was in good order and looked very safe.

The Coroner: What have you to say about there being ten feet between the girders?

Witness agreed there had been some timbering, but he did not suggest it was taken out that morning.

The Coroner: You could see there was one prop missing. Did you not think it advisable to tell the men to set one? – It looks safe.

Yon know the regulations, and it is your duty to see they are carried out? — The weight was gone.

The regulations are there to be observed! —Yes.

As you now know, it was not safe. Had you given instructions for a set of timbering probably it would have prevented the accident from occurring. At any rate, you are more candid than the last witness. Did you not think it was an obvious thing to have done?- I did not think it was because the roof was really good and solid. It there had been any sign of danger I would have had it remedied.

Do you not look for these things as part of your duty?—Yes, I always try to do all that is possible.

Mr. Scott: You will agree that you did examine this particular portion of the roof? —Yes.

Did not it strike you there was a distance exceeding that required by law?—lt did not strike me at the time, otherwise I should have had it remedied straight away.

Mr. Scott: It strikes me yon never made a proper examination. Here you are in a place where two or three men are drawing off. You               should examine all roads where timber is to be withdrawn, for safety contrivance to be used. Yon naturally have to examine these. How many bars or girders would bare been drawn off in that shift had not the accident happened?—Four.

So it was your duty to examine to see if the men were to use safety contrivance. Did you give any instructions?— Not on that particular morning. The men had no right to knock the prop out.

Mr. Scott then read from the regulations that it was the duty of the foreman or deputy to examine roofs.

Witness denied leaving it to the men to knock out props where they thought fit. He had previously told them in that gate that they were not to draw without using a “Silvester,” and he had provided them with an extra chain for further safety.

Mr. Scott: The only way you can account for the distance of ten feet is that you did not notice it, and forgot it — I did not notice it.

Mr. Scott: It is your duty to examine the place. That is what you are there for.

In reply to other questions witness said he had confidence in the two men and agreed that he committed an error of judgement. It would not happen again, and he promised to give instructions every morning. With extra chain provided, and the “Sylvester,” it need, there would have been a distance of 25 feet between the men and the place of the accident. About two tubs full of small dirt fell, and Dickenson was dead when got out. It took about 25 minutes to do this. There had been a fall of dirt here previously. He examined the place every day.

Formal evidence as to the injuries was given.

Error of Judgement.

The Coroner: That is the whole of the evidence, and it is very unsatisfactory. To do the deputy justice, he tells us candidly he made an error of judgment, but for which the accident would never have occurred. At the same time, the men were experienced, but the deputy should see the regulations am carried out. He admits an error of inclement, and be failed to observe that another prop should have been set. The other witness did not give evidence in such a straightforward way, and I am sure we all appreciate that the deputy is man enough to say the accident may have been due to lack of carrying out of regulations which are made to he carried out to prevent accident.

The jury returned a verdict of “Accidental death.”