Tweet

(Mr. Edge.) Mr. Johnson, it has been suggested that the stone from the shot at the Stenton where Cauldwell and Faulkner were had fallen against the door. How far was the stone off this door? — Six yards. Had the stone in the Stenton fallen upon the door at all? — No, sir, it had not.

You said the stoppings and an iron door and part of the wall were blown to the east? — Yes.

You have been over the whole of this portion of the pit. Can you tell me in your judgement from this point here to the grove in No. 6 which way it had come? — In my judgement it had come out-over. The indications are out-over.

From No. 5 grove to new No. 5 how had the indications gone? — Into new No. 5. The blast had gone in the. From the Grove of No. 5 to the fall at No. 7 the indications seemed as if it had split there. It came out-bye from the fall, and in-over from the opposite direction ; in-bye to where the set was.

Are there any indications in-bye of the Whin dyke? — Slight.

I suppose they died off? — Yes, they died off. Everything is standing there as they were left.

How are the indications in the Alma Bank? — They are in-over according to my notion.

There are nine pillars between No. 6 and where the main door was at No. 5? — Yes.

Travelling up old No. 5, was there much damage done? — Very little.

Are there any indications to speak of out-bye the landing? — Not many. There are a few stoppings.

Can you tell me, does the seam rise or fall from the grove in No. 6 to No. 4? — It rises a good deal.

About how many feet? — 25 or 30 feet. There is a 15 ft. riser we pass over in one instance.

Have you since this explosion had the returns examined? — Yes, sir.

What condition were they in? — They were in a good state. Nothing is moved in the returns.

This applies all over? — Yes, all over. We travelled from the fan into the different districts and nothing has been moved there.

(Mr. Bowey.) You said yesterday, in answer to Mr. Edge, that it was your custom for the deputies and so on to get orders from you every afternoon? — Yes.

This is not an extraordinary thing. It is quite common for managers of collieries? — I do not know what they do at other collieries.

But it is quite common in the coal trade? — I do not know. I can only speak for myself, not what the managers of other collieries do.

Is it not a common thing for the overmen and deputies to consult each other at the colliery office every night? — I do not know that it is a common thing.

And to see the manager? — I cannot speak for other people ; I know what my rule is.

As regards the shot firing at this colliery. Have you any rules with regard to shot firing? — Here are the rules specified in the special rules under the heading of "Deputies.".

Will you please point out where they are? — It is in rule No. 8. "To fire all shots for workmen using safety lamps, where blasting is permitted, having first examined the place where the shot is to be used and the places contiguous thereto."

(Mr. Bowey.) Have you no other rule? — This is the only rule.

Is there no other rule? — I have no other special rule.

Have you no other rules of any kind? — Not for the deputies.

Have you any other rules for anybody? Have you any other rules with regard to deputies or any other persons working in the colliery with regard to shot firing? — I give a written certificate to the stone men, or any other person to be appointed to fire shots.

I am sure, Mr. Johnson, you understand the question. Have you any other rules with regard to shot firing at this colliery? — We have the Act of Parliament.

Now, Mr. Johnson, answer the question.

(Witness.) This is the only rule. I have this license.

(Mr. Edge.) No. 9 is to authorise any other person who fires a shot where safety lamps are used.

(Mr. Bowey.) May I take it that there is no rule, with this exception, giving any direction to any person, master shifter, deputy, or any other person? — I give them a written certificate ; a written license.

What has the license to do with shot firing? — I give them a license to fire shots.

Will you read it? — "This is to certify that I have given authority to ........................... to carry a safety lamp key to lock and unlock, and relight safety lamps. (Signed) WILLIAM JOHNSON, Manager.

But what has that to do with firing shots? — I write the instructions upon the certificates for the person who has a right to fire a shot.

What are the words you write? — That I hereby certify that John Craig or Jonathan Forster is authorised to fire shots, and to examine the places contiguous thereto before firing shots. I then sign my name.

There is no other direction given? — Nothing except the Act of Parliament.

Did you see White on Monday? — I saw him on Monday night between four and five o'clock. I was in the office until five o'clock that afternoon.

Did you see him and the master shifter who had charge of Rivers? — Yes, I saw him to receive his report book.

Was there anything said about having any shot fired that night? — I give them general instructions.

I want a definite answer to my question? — No, sir.

Was there anything said about firing that shot? — No, sir.

Ought White to have known of that shot being fired? — Not necessarily.

Are the jury to understand then that a shot might be fired in this place opposite these doors in the East Pit, and the overman know nothing about it? — Well, he might not know. I did not say anything to him about it.

Did you say anything at any other time? — Yes.

When? — White, the overman, the master shifter, and the other officials are all in together, and everything is heard in common.

This is a general remark.

(Witness.) General instructions, sir.

We are dealing with specific instructions. I want to know if you had any conversation with White, the overman, as to that shot being fired? — I do not know exactly.

Can you say that you had or had not? — I think he would know all about it.

I ask you if you had any conversation with him about it? — I cannot remember.

Did you ever say a word at any time about it? — Yes, we were going to put an extra door in.

Did you tell him that? — Yes.

Was there only one door in? — We were going to put a larger door in.

When did you tell him that? — I cannot say exactly, but it had been in conversation three weeks.

Have you had any conversation with him? — I think so.

Will you swear to that? — I will not swear that I had. I used at night to generally see them.

This is not an answer to my question and you know it. Will you swear that you said anything to him about these double doors being put in? — I would not like to swear, but I think I did.

Had you ever any conversation with Rivers? — Certainly so.

When? — A fortnight before that.

What was the conversation then? — The conversation was this, that we were going to put in larger doors and the stone that would come down was to be sent to bank.

Did you ever give him instructions to fire a shot there? — Yes. On the 28th March I think it was, we were coming up Sunderland Bridge bank together.

What instructions did you give? — To fire a shot to enlarge the place, so that we might get a larger door put in.

Was this large door next to the return? — Yes, next the return.

And the stone was to be got away so as to put the larger door next the return? — Yes.

Did you give instructions as to when the shot was to be fired? — I said as soon as convenient.

Did you give any precautions? — I always do.

Mr. Johnson, I am not asking you what you always do, what I asked was did you? — I said you must be careful and do the thing properly.

You made use of some general remarks, not specific instructions. You gave him no extra precautions? — It was not necessary.

We will see about that. Had Rivers to be there when any shot was fired? — No, he had not.

Then it was a proper thing for that shot to be fired by Cauldwell and Faulkner? — Yes, it was, at least in my judgement.

Had they locked lamps? — No.

How do you know? — I think I found them, at least a portion of them. I did not know whether I saw both or not.

Do you know as a matter of fact? — No shifter uses a naked light.

Had you given a license to lock lamps to Cauldwell and Faulkner? — Yes, to one of them. Cauldwell was the man.

Was there any instructions given to him as to where that shot was to be made in that Stenton? — It was to commence at the nook, or the coal wall.

How far was it from the door next the in-take? — The far side of the kench where the shot was would be about six yards.

What distance would this be toward the in-bye side of the hole and the door? — Rather better than five yards.

Are you quite sure there were two doors there before? — There was a slide and a door.

Were there two doors? — A slide and a door. I have never seen the slide since, but I have found the door.

Was the slide next to the intake? — Yes, all slides are next the intakes.

In truth, there was only one separation door? — One door slide and the manhole if you think proper to call it.

And the manhole door was this next the return? — Yes.

And you were going to substitute that? This was in lieu of the slide door? — It was to double the two slide doors to get coal tubs in.

What was the length of the Stenton? — 15 yards from nook to nook.

What distance was there between the door and the slide? — Well, I am sure I cannot say exactly. We generally put them between two and three yards.

Taking it that they were two or three yards, they were pretty near the Stenton? — The first one is nine yards off the return.

Which one is this? — This is the old one.

And then two or three yards between it and the slide? — Yes.

And this brings the wall near the intake? — Within six yards.

The door next the return is nine yards from the return? — Yes.

And then there were two or three yards between it and the next door? — Yes. The length of the Stenton is 15 yards.

When were you first down the pit after the accident? — I went down at two o'clock that morning. I cannot say to a minute.

Let us look at the Alma Bank. You were not in there that day were you? — Well, I cannot say. I think it was on Friday.

You say that the indications there were doubtful between the junction of No. 4. What were they? — Well, there was the rapper handle was found five yards blown off under the fall, the first fall next to No. 4 off-takes. The end of the cross-cut second crossing was blown apparently out-over and also several of the timbers. The indications upon the coating of the timber were doubtful.

What were they? — There was a coating of dust on the in-bye side. The timber was blown in-bye.

What distance was it blown? — Well, I cannot say. Some of it was blown a few feet and some a few inches.

Can you express a decided opinion, Mr. Johnson, that the blast had been out-bye there? — Yes, I am quite of this opinion that it had gone out over.

Continuing this junction along the Alma Bank, how do you find the indications there? — I find the indications there in-over.

What are they? — There is a large crossing blown down, and the ends of it, and the crossing on the Alma Bank there, near the caution board ; they are blown in over.

What do you mean by the large crossing being blown in-over? — I mean that the ends were damaged and that the timber was blown in-over.

Were the bricks blown in-over? — Partly and partly just laid down. Some had been blown off and they had fallen down.

Were any blown in-over? — I think not.

What other indications were there in-bye? — When we got to the 16 foot trouble the timber is "happed" up, and the indications are not so very good. When we got to old No. 5 the indications are in-over, and straight on towards where the landing is the indications are in-over.

Now, with regard to this door on the Alma Bank way, inside the caution board. I mean the door on the intake. It is a single door? — Yes. I do not see any objection to it myself. We have a regulator to keep the air. It was a door which was worked every day.

There are no fastenings to it? — No. but it worked very well. There are bricks out n the straight up door.

I am dealing with the straight-up door. There is a very large quantity of goaf here? — Well, there is in part.

Considering that there was a considerable quantity of goaf, do you consider that this door was sufficient? — I do. It was not as though tubs and horses were going through. It is bound with a 14 inch brick wall and made of deals 1½ inch thick and battened across.

Supposing anything had taken place in that goaf, a fall of stone, or anything of that kind, would it not be much safer to have double doors there? — I do not see the necessity of it.

Would it not be far safer? — I cannot say that it would.

This is your answer? — Yes. If this door had been left open, the air would rush in, and they would get more. This would be in favour of keeping the gas back.

Which way did the door open? — It opened out-over.

In case of a fall at the goaf? — There is no goaf workings.

There is not, but if there had been a fall? — Well, there might be a fall, but it is not likely. There is a splendid dip.

But a double door would have been better than one? — If it had blown one door open it would have blown two. That is quite clear.

Why was this door not locked? — It was for the deputies. It was not considered necessary to lock this door.

Would it not be safer to lock this door? — I cannot say that it would. There are no naked lights to go there.

We will come back and go into No. 6 way. What do you say as to the indications from the air crossing as far as the out-bye side of the set? — Well, my opinion is that the indications are out-over.

Do you hold a decided opinion about that? — Yes.

What were the indications? — The timber is blown out-over, and coated with dust on the in-bye side very heavily. And likewise at the new No. 5 there are two drum sheaves blown out of their sockets and blown out over.

Are you sure they were blown out-over?

Were they blown any distance? — No, not very far. Some of the plant is 1½ yards distant, and some a few inches. I think from this that the blast must have got a blow at them and blown them out.

Does it indicate which way it came at the junction? — Yes, I would take it so.

Would it not be the reaction, which might bring them out of their socket? — It is not natural to think so.

Not by the reaction? — No, I think they are rather too heavy for that.

In new No. 5 the indications are in-over? — Yes.

Continuing along No. 6, what indications do you get from the junction of the new No. 5 and the set? — The indications are clearly out-over.

From the crossing of new No. 5 to the set going from the junction? — There is one indication that I have always taken notice of. It is a baulk of timber, and the props driven right in over it six or eight inches. It is there now simply as it was left by the explosion. There is another baulk broken in the middle and broken out-over. Then a little further off there is the corner of the ridge taken off. Part of it is shifted out-bye, and a portion of it is blown into the coal. It has shifted the ridge partly out-over, and blown the coal into the return.

With regard to the fall itself, did you find any of these men? — Yes, I found Burns and Lambton.

Were any of these six men under the fall? — Yes, sir, two of them. I did not see them all, four I think there were.

You have heard that these man were all burnt? — Yes.

Is it not a fact, Mr. Johnson, that these four men under the fall are burnt, showing that the fall was the consequence of the explosion? — I think the cause of the explosion was the fall.

Then how do you account for the men being burnt that were under the fall? — Very easily. He would fire upon the naked lights in the top. There is plenty of room for the gas to get through the pores of the stone. Some of these men under the fall were in the empty tubs.

I ask you whether you do not think that the fact of these men being burnt under the fall shows that there was an explosion before that fall took place and whether they were not burnt before the fall took place? — I think it contrary.

Do you think that after the stone fell these men were burnt? — The fall would bring the gas down immediately and liberate a pocket of gas. It would be upon the men instantly.

The fall would? — The fall and the explosion together.

How could that be? — The stone would be upon the men instantly.

But they could not be burnt when the stone was upon them? — Certainly.

After they were covered up? — It would be done instantly.

You would see these men that were killed? — Yes, I saw them when they were got out. They were not all covered up.

No, no, Mr. Johnson, please. I am speaking of these four men that were covered up. Do you mean to say they could be burnt after they were covered with the fall? — Decidedly they could. The fall was of such a nature that they could be burnt.

Very well, if that is your theory. Coming away from the West Pit, Mr. Johnson, and going into the East Pit. You were in there on the morning of the explosion? — Yes, as far as Sheildfield off-takes.

Now the indications from the shaft, as far as the stables, I think you say, were out-over? — Yes, they are out-over.

How far from the East Pit shaft, going along the Sunderland Bridge way from the shaft, were the indications out-over? — For 200 yards.

What are the indications? — Well, the tubs and the timber is blown out-over and the cabin end is blown out-over. Part of the work and the wall which stood between this place is blown out-over.

There is no question, then, that the blast had been out-over? — Decidedly so.

Beyond this point where the shot was fired, and up to the stoppings? — Well, the indications are in-over.

Are they marked? — Yes.

Are they as clear and decisive as the others that are out-over? — I think so.

I thought you said yesterday, Mr. Johnson, that you were not very decided, but you thought they were in-over?- I still think they were in-over.

You were rather undecided yesterday. Which way is it. Were the indications there marked and decided? — They are not so strong as the others.

Do you express a decisive opinion? Yesterday you did not? — I always held the opinion that they had come in-over.

Observe this Stenton where the shot was fired. Beyond this place how are the indications, out or in? — They are in.

Decidedly in? — Yes.

Marked? — Yes.

Are you quite sure that they are in-over from the in-bye side of the Stenton? — Yes.

There are three dips, Mr. Johnson, between the shaft of the East Pit and these doors? — Yes.

And there is a considerable rise towards the doors over the third dip? — No, there is not a rise.

There is a rise towards the Shieldfield way? — Yes.

What is the nature of the strata? — Well, it is pretty good stone-------freestone, slate, and post. In the neighbourhood of these dips it is a sort of gray seggar in the dips, mixed with freestone and some iron bands in it.

Have you ever seen gas in that neighbourhood? — No, sir, I have not seen gas there for some years.

But you have seen it there? — Not for 14 years.

You have seen it? — Yes, when we were exploring. This is the only time I have seen it.

You know that the barometer was low this night? — I do.

And the air was sluggish? — Well, there was a good current of air.

I did not ask you that, Mr. Johnson. I asked you if it was sluggish, as compared with the barometer was low.

(Witness.) When the barometer is low we naturally look for the air being sluggish or soft.

Is the ventilation in the daytime the same as at night? — Yes, the ventilation is never slacked.

Quite as brisk during the night as at daytime? — Yes, quite as brisk.

You have heard that gas was found by one of the deputies in the region of the Shieldfield way that night? — Yes, coming off the goaf.

This gas would go into the return? — Yes, but it would be diluted with air before it got 200 yards.

I am asking you whether this gas would not have to come into the return and pass these two doors? — It could not come in the same state.

I did not ask you that. Would it not have to come past that way? — Yes, the gas as diluted.

This return would have to bring all the gas which came off the goaf that night? — Certainly.

Was there not a scale on that door? — Yes, there was.

Then in truth there was only one separation door? — Which door do you mean.

In the slide in the return there is a scale upon it? — There is no scale on that door.

There is not? — No.

Seeing that the overman did not know that this shot was to be fired, and seeing that the master shifter was not there when it was fired.

(Witness.) He was there shortly before it was fired.

He was not there when it was fired? — No.

You know now that gas was found at the goaf that night? — Yes.

You also know that this return, coming down past the place where this shot was to be fired, would contain gas.

(Witness.) Yes ; but it is mixed with another return.

I did not ask you that. You know that there was a low barometer? — Yes.

Do you know anything as to the evidence given by Professor Able as to the cause of the Seaham explosion? — No, sir, I do not.

Do you know that he said with a proportion of gas of 2.5 mixed with coal dust, where there was shot firing going on, was capable of causing an explosion? — Well, I did not know the quantities.

Do you know that he said so? — I do not know that he said the words you have uttered.

You know that this is a dusty seam? — Yes ; but it is watered every day.

Was the timber watered? — No.

Was there not dust upon the timber? — Very little.

When did you see it? — Three times that week before the explosion.

When was the last occasion? — On the 13th and 14th April.

That is five days before the explosion?

(Witness.) There is Sunday between.

Did you examine it? — I examine everything in the pit.

But did you? — Not particularly for dust.

Will you say that there was not a considerable quantity of dust on that timber on the 13th and 14th? — Very little.

Did you examine it? — I did not examine it closely.

Just as you were going along, that is what you mean? — I always examine timber and lofting and everything to see that all is right.

Did you ever clear away the dust off the timber? — Yes, sir.

When did you clear it away, off the timber, mind? — I had an old man sweeping the timber and then he whitewashed it.

When? — Two or three weeks ago.

Was it before the explosion? — Yes, two or three weeks before the explosion.

And in this very spot? — Yes.

When was it taken off in this particular place? — I cannot say.

Do not you think, Mr. Johnson, that it would be wise to have the dust regularly taken off? — If I thought so I would have taken it off, but there was very little on.

Was there any gas in the return there? You say there was. If Professor Able says that 2.5 of gas mixed with dust where there was shot firing was sufficient to cause an explosion, will you say that there was not 2.5 of gas in that return? — There is not one, I should say.

Have you examined it? — Yes, I have examined it.

How can you say that there is not 2.5 of gas there? — Because I have seen no gas in that return, not for 14 years.

Mr. Johnson, do you know that 2.5 of gas is very difficult to find? — You cannot find any in this return.

Do you know it is exceedingly difficult to find? — I cannot say so, if it is there it will be found.

This small quantity of gas, 2.5, is it not difficult to find? — I want an explicit answer, and if you stand there for hours I will have an answer. Do you know that 2.5 of gas is very difficult to find? — Well, I know it is very good to find.

How do you know? — It will not explode. Mr. Johnson, do you know that 2.5 of gas is very difficult to find? — Suppose it is difficult to find.

Give me a direct answer.

(Witness.) Yes.

Will you swear that 2.5 of gas is not in that return? — Yes, I will swear it.

Upon what ground? — Because it will not explode and will not show on the Davy lamp.

Will you swear that 2.5 of gas was not in that return mixed with air? — Yes, I will swear it.

On what grounds? — Because I never saw it, I should not be afraid to go with a torch there.

You know that 2.5 of gas is very difficult to find. Do you know that any search was made to find it? — Search is always made.

On what ground will you swear that there is not this small proportion of gas in that return? — On the ground that I never saw any for 14 years.

Then the ground on which you swear it was not there was because you had never seen it? — I never saw it for 14 years.

Assuming that 2.5 of gas is very difficult to find, and that it was there in that return, assuming that it was, do not you consider that with one separation door and the slide when the shot fired there with neither the overman nor deputy and with dust upon that timber, do you consider that this was a prudent act to do? — I consider I had two as prudent men as anyone in the coal trade.

This is not an answer to my question, and you know it. Do you consider that with all these facts before you, it was a prudent act to fire that shot? — Yes, I do.

Do you not consider that this shot was the cause of the explosion? — My opinion is that it happened at the fall, at No. 6 set. There was a large fall took place, and gas must have been liberated, and got upon a light. A pocket of gas would be liberated by the fall.

Is not the chain on the out-bye set broken? — Yes, I think it is.

Does this not indicate something striking the set? — It might happen from two or three causes. A sudden jerk from the engineman would cause it.

Have you any right to assume that there was? — It is quite possible.

And it is also possible that a fall came down from the hinder side? — A sudden stop in the break would cause it.

[The broken link of the chain was here put in as evidence.]

(Mr. Bowey.) Is this it? — I suppose so. It has given away at the weld. It is a ?-inch chain.

The Foreman of the Jury observed that the link had been very badly welded.

(Mr. Bowey.) If the fall had fallen on the set would not the natural consequence be to slacken the far rope? — That depends upon circumstances. The brake might suddenly be put on. I have known hundreds of times brakes suddenly put on and the chains broke.

But there are other ways equally as natural. Why do you assume that was the way? — From the position of the drums.

Is it not that some force struck the end of the set? — I think not.

You cannot give any reason why? — I give this reason, a sudden jerk caused by suddenly putting on the brake.

Other reasons are equally as natural? — It might be.

Do you still hold to your statement that these men could be burnt after the fall had covered them up? — Yes, they were not closely covered up.

You did not see them. You were not there, you only saw two?

(Witness.) I saw the others when they were under the fall.

Were they not covered up? — The fall was on top of them and the tubs together, and there were hollow portions or cavities.

This was when you were getting them out? — I was the first man.

You were not the first man that saw these four men? — No, sir, I was too ill in bed.

Who was the first man that found these four men? — I do not know.

Do you, Mr. Edge.

(Mr. Edge.) No, I do not know.

(Mr. Bowey.) Somebody ought to know who got the men from under the set.

(Mr. Edge.) I am told it was Mr. Tait, a viewer. He was here yesterday but is not here to-day.

(Mr. Bowey.) Mr. Johnson, Can you ascertain from any of your officials who was the man that first found these four men? — One of the officials is dead, and the other is very ill. He was knocked down with after-damp.

Who got them out? — I cannot say now, but it will be upon record.

Is Trippett here? — I do not know.

Do you know that it took 24 hours to get to Cairnes, he was so much covered up and under a large stone? — But there would be other debris from the fall as well.

He was entirely covered up, was he not? — Yes, but there were hollow cavities between.

Then you still say he was burnt after the fall? — Yes. He would be burnt instantaneously.

But the fall would be instantaneous? — Yes.

(Mr. Johnson.) Some of these men were out of the set? — Yes, sir, there were.

And they are burnt? — Yes.

And they were covered completely up? — They were not covered up much, sir. There were hollow cavities.

How do you know? — I saw it.

Were the cavities big enough to allow them to get out of the set? — No.

Were these cavities large enough?

(Witness.) Yes, sir, for the flame.

Then it comes to this, Mr. Johnson, one or two of the reasons that you give there are equally natural reasons might be given to produce the same effect. You have come to the conclusion that these men were burnt after the fall? — They would be burnt instantaneously with the fall.

And the fall would be instantaneous? — Yes.

Would not the fall take place after these men got out of the set? — Yes, but they might have tumbled out.

And they might have got out, Mr. Johnson? — I cannot speak to that.

Would not the stone have to fall before the gas was liberated? — The gas and the stone would come together.

But the stone is heavier.

(Mr. Johnson.) It began by the pressure.

You say that these men would be burnt before the stone got upon them? — It would be done instantaneously.

What is the strata there? — Gray metal and blue metal mixed, and two slippery backs running on each side.

Is the stone fallen on each side of these? — Yes.

And at the boards and the working places. Is there any stone down? — No.

Have you ever found any fall in that place before? — No. If I had I would certainly have tried to prevent it.

Was it a place you thought necessary to examine? — I always examine all the way I go.

No, no, Mr. Johnson, did you examine it? — No more than the rest.

Is there any indication? — Yes, it was very warm after it came off.

Is this the only indication? — There was some gas at the other side of the fall after the accident.

Have you found any gas in that place after the accident? — No, sir, I have not found any.

Have you sought for it? — Yes, and could not find it.

Are there any hollow cavities there? — Yes, a leader on each side.

Do you call that a cavity? — Yes.

(Mr. Edge.) May I ask you to point out to me, Mr. Bowey, where Professor Abel stated that 2½ per cent. Of gas would be fired by an ordinary shot.

(Mr. Bowey.) I did not say a shot.

(Mr. Edge.) You said a shot, and I challenge you to do it.

(Mr. Bowey.) I beg your pardon, Mr. Edge, and I challenge you to show that I was wrong, sir. What I asked the witness was whether with all these surroundings it was not imprudent to fire a shot in that stenton.

(Mr. Bell.) At the corner of this junction there is a break. Did you observe how the breaks are blown? — They are blown eastward.

The breaks at the corner of the junction in the two ways are blown east? — Yes, sir.

Are they not blown against this wall? — No, sir ; they are blown right east and the doors are blown that way too.

What is the meaning of this door and regulator in here? — It is to keep it clear.

There are no more workings there? — No, it is a stone drift, properly speaking.

Was this shut? — No, never. The explosion did not affect it at all ; it is standing yet untouched.

Whether did Faulkner or Cauldwell fire the shot? — Cauldwell.

At this caution board in the Shieldfield way there is a door, is it a double or a single door? — I think it is a double door.

Are you sure? — I think so.

The overman White said it was a single door and a sheet. The door on the north side and further in? — This was a single door and a sheet.

The timber opposite the sheets. Was this blown out? — It was all standing.

On the out-bye side coming out-bye to the 12 ft. trouble, there was very little disturbed. There was no timber knocked out? — I think not.

What is the distance? — 50 or 60 yards.

On the in-bye side going in-over there was not much timber knocked out? — No, sir, it was standing by the 16 feet trouble.

Which way was this? — In-over.

(A Juror.) Do you think that the shot would shake the door? — I know that the frame of the door has not been touched. I do not think it would shake the door to any extent. The door would be locked.

Was there a good current of air? — Yes, 27,000 or 28,000 feet per minute.

Then you do not think that any gas would stop there? — I do not think so.

(Mr. Bell.) To your mind what does the timber indicate between the two troubles. The fact of the timber being left standing, what does it indicate to your mind as regards the seat of the explosion? — I do not think there is any indication as to the seat of the explosion.

Do you know that at the very seat of the explosion you generally do not find the greatest amount of damage done? — I cannot say.

In your judgement, do you think you have the greatest amount of damage done at the seat of the explosion? — I cannot answer that question. I have not been down there.

As a matter of theory or opinion? — I cannot say.

Here is a door standing here, and one on the other side into the waste. Is it a double or single door? — It is a double door on the south side.

Is it a locked door? — Yes, all doors into the waste are locked ; at the Shieldfield trouble it is a single door and a canvas. It is a boxed door.

In case of this door being knocked down or left open it would cut this way off altogether, would it not? — No ; in here is a canvas sheet.

Was it sufficient to conduct this air? — Yes.

Sometimes a door gets badly broken.

(Witness.) It is not a heavy gradient ; it is perfectly level.

Had Cauldwell or Faulkner a key to open this door? — I cannot say whether they had a key ; I should think not.

What sort of a lock was it? — It was a screw lock.

You are quite sure that Cauldwell was not allowed to carry a key? — Overmen, wastemen, and deputies carry keys.

From the Shieldfield way and towards the Whin dyke there is a double door marked here.

(Witness.) Yes, it is a locked door into the return.

Then the ventilation from this point is carried straight in to the far end? — Yes.

In the Croxdale way what sort of door have you? — It is a frame door.

Is it a double or single? — It is a single door "kept" with a canvas.

In case of this door being knocked down or damaged the air would come from here, from this regulator.

(Witness.) It all comes that way now. If this door was opened out this regulator would still contain the whole quantity of air coming down here and turning to the east.

Suppose this door was to be broken the air would be cut off? — It could not cut it all off.

Suppose it was broken during the night time and no one was there.

(Witness.) It could not be broken at night time when the sets are not running.

But it might be left open. We have known of doors being left open and also propped open. This was also a single door in the Coldstream way. Is not this a long way to carry your air and sweeping the goaf edge? — There is 300 feet of air per minute. I never saw gas in that goaf.

What distance will it travel? — It will travel round each man's place, and there are 14 men working there.

(Mr. Bell measured the distance on the plan with a scale and said the air would have to travel 1,100 yards.)

(Mr. Bell.) This air has to travel 1,100 yards of goaf before it gets to the last of the workmen. Would it not be best to make a split at this point (referring to the plan) and take fresh air in here? You have a large area of pillars to take it here.

(Witness.) There is no gas there.

(Mr. Bell.) We were told there was gas upon one of the places. Gas once found in that goaf is liable always to be there. You heard the deputy say there was gas in the goaf.

(Witness.) Yes, there was gas in the goaf edge.

He said it was found in the goaf and that he allowed a man to work there after it was found. Was this proper? Well it was not, but he stayed with the man to take out the jud.

He ought to have withdrawn him under the sixth general rule, should he not? — Certainly, if there was gas where the lamp was and he was exposed.

What length of goaf have you here? — 300 or 400 yards.

In a main air current is not 300 or 400 yards a long way from the Croxdale way into the far end to trust your current of air, seeing that you are hemmed in between two goaves? Is it not a long way to trust a single door? — Well, I have not seen any gas there.

You have had gas in the Pipeway? — Yes, it is cut off from there.

Supposing that the gas was cut off here, how long would it be before it could be brought back? — A few hours ; about two hours.

How many men have you authorised to carry lamp keys? — Each deputy has a key, and three or four stonemen.

Had the stoneman in the Shieldfield way a key? — Yes.

Had the man in the Coldstream way a key? — No.

Then there was James Rymond and his partner, had they keys? — They were timbering.

The master wasteman, Michael Rivers, he has never reported gas that he saw, and how is it you allowed him to sign his report book without reporting gas? — He always reported.

He told us that he did not report the gas in the book, he only told the overman or yourself.

(Witness.) He has no license from me to do so. On the Monday night previous to the accident I asked him and all the officials if there was anything in the way, and they said "No."

(Mr. Bell.) There was also gas found in this place at the corner of the trouble.

(Witness.) Very little. On the 24th March I went in myself and travelled from Coldstream, Croxdale, and Shieldfield, and I never saw any at all. Mr. Bell was at the colliery that day.

Was there any found in this corner? — Generally we have it at this corner, close into the trouble.

You have no means of getting air round it except brattising. Seeing that you have gas there ought not there be some other means? — It was a very small piece of gas.

Seeing that there was gas, should you not have given up shot firing? — I have examined every place, and if I thought there was any danger I would have given it up.

The men that were working that night had seven shots fired. The Act of Parliament says you are not to fire shots when gas has been seen, and the workmen must be ordered out.

(Witness.) There were none in this district.

(Mr. Bell.) It was all one district all over the trouble. These marks (referring to the plan) are the caution boards. Seeing that you are close to the goaf do not you consider that they are too far in-bye? Here you are only a few yards from the goaf and here you are close to another goaf. It is a long way in-bye to have caution boards.

(Witness.) We have a large quantity of air going in. It is not like a long way in-bye.

(Mr. Bell.) It is a long way in-bye.

(Witness.) It is a good bit in-bye but not very far. It is not three-quarters of a mile.

(Mr. Bell.) One of the witnesses, Rivers, told us that the air was very sluggish that night. Have you any indicator upon the fan to show you the speed she was running at that night? — We have not an indicator on the fan.

The fan might be running very slow and you have nothing to indicate it? — I know it was not. We have a barometer and thermometer and water gauge.

(Mr. Bell.) These do not show the speed of the engine.

(Witness.) They show the number of strokes she was making.

At the time of the explosion the engineer was not there. The engine might be slackened and neither you nor he know anything about it.

(Witness.) The fan man says not.

(Mr. Bell.) Yes, he is the only man we have to rely on, and if we ask him he will say it was not slackened.

(Witness.) I have asked him.

(Mr. Bell.) The fact of the air being sluggish, the effect would be to liberate the gas from the goaves with a low barometer.

(Witness.) The gas comes out when the barometer is low, that is quite clear. On the 17th the barometer was low, and there was very little reported on the 17th.

Coming back to the hauling engine, which of the drums was this that was broken? — The west pit drum, the one next the rolley way.

Was it a main drum or tail drum? — Main drum.

It would be running in-over that night? — They were following the set in.

Was it the rope that was following the set in? — Yes.

The rope on this drum broke. This was the main rope drum. We will take the main rope drum as the one that follows the full set in. This was the one that was broken? — It was.

We will take the west district the Alma way. You have told us that the indications had apparently gone out-over? — Yes.

Taking from the No. 6 to new No. 5 are the indications to your mind very clearly defined? — They are out-over and to my mind they are distinct and clear.

Perhaps you will mention a few of the indications? — There are the two drum sheaves and the timber.

Were there not some baulks marked as if they had been blown in-over? — There are two or three distinctly out-over.

Might they not be blown out-over with the return or recoil of the blast? — I think not. When we get to the set that was caught by the fall, the chain that we have just seen was hung to this end of the tubs, and the chain at the fore end was tight. The chain had evidently been broken with a jerk from the drum.

A fall upon the tubs would be sufficient to break this link, would it not? — I am inclined to think the other way that it was done by a sudden jerk from the engine.

If you say it was a sudden jerk which broke it, why did it not break the leading rope? There would be the same strain put upon it? — I cannot say why it did not break it, but it is not broken. Put a sudden jerk upon a chain you put hundreds of tons upon it and a chain like this is very easily broken.

Have you ever seen a drum broken with a sudden jerk from the rope? — I have never known it.

(Mr. Willis.) If the brake was suddenly applied to this strong rope, would not the weaker rope be more likely to give way first.

(Mr. Bell.) When you were working this coal do you mean to say there was no gas in this trouble where the fall took place? — Yes, we met with gas passing through this trouble.

Was there gas opposite these boards? — No, not a great deal there.

Had you any lofting upon the top of the timber? — No, sir, I put my lamp up and touched the top with my lamp.

When you met with this gas did it come on like a blower of any considerable force? — Yes, we were troubled with gas considerably there.

Did it continue for any length of time? — Yes, we had it for some time.

Two hours or three hours? — Well, perhaps it might.

Gas coming off that way you would naturally suppose it was coming from some cavity where it would be to liberate? — Yes.

In that case you would not expect a pocket of gas.

(Witness.) We have a seam that gives off gas, a very troublesome seam. We have about a hundred atmospheres there.

(Mr. Bell.) That is something like 1,400lbs. to the inch.

(Witness.) I cannot give the scientific aspect of the question.

(Mr. Bell.) Then why do you say about a hundred atmospheres? — Well, because I thought so from the pressure and from what I have read.

Do you know that falls are very famous places just at present for the seat of explosions? — No, I do not.

All the great explosions have taken place at falls lately and under high pressures.

(Witness.) I cannot say.

Have you read of the celebrated fall at Seaham? — No.

Do you know that all the explosions which have occurred during the last dozen years have been attributed to falls? — No.

We will just go up the Alma bank. This regulator door we had not very clear evidence what sort of door it was.

(Witness.) It is a frame door made of 1¼ in. deals, and batoned across from each corner and built into a 14 in. brick wall. It was not locked. It was a single door and there was no door on the in-bye side of it.

And the door into the south way was also a single door? — Yes, a single door.

Then the door here, W. R., would be a main door for keeping the air from this grove.

This lamp that we spoke about yesterday ; it seems that it was not always put out when the last man left the pit.

(Witness.) No, the fact was, the last man always extinguished it.

This lamp would be burning within half an hour of the explosion. He came out at 12 o'clock. Do not you think it probable he came by this lamp and left it burning? — He says he did.

(Mr. Bell.) He says he did not.

(Witness.) They had positive instructions that all lights were to be extinguished.

Mr. Bell observed that the stories told by the two men about being 10 yards apart from each other was rather too correct to be relied upon. Both men told exactly the same story just as though they had compared notes beforehand.

(Witness.) Well, I cannot say anything about that.

How are the indications from the fall? — The indications from the fall in-bye were pieces of stone stuck into the baulk, and they are in-over what there is. 200 yards from the Whin Dyke the indications cease.

Any explosion taking place here at the fall, would not you expect that the indications be visible more than 200 yards? — I cannot say.

Should you not expect that since the indications of the force of the explosion are visible two miles distant from the fall that they would be more marked in the immediate locality? — I cannot say. He might feed herself in the goaves in coming out. She would disarrange the stoppings. The stoppings were all blown out, and this would act as a siphon or pump to feed her.

But you said there was no gas in the goaves? — I cannot penetrate into the middle of them. I can only speak of the edges of the goaves.

Do not you think she would have shown herself more marked in the No. 6 way? — I think she would make more to the air. She would make to the air in going down the Sunderland Bridge way.

There was an iron here, which way was it blown? — It was blown 21 yards from the out-bye side.

How long before the explosion were you through the Whin Dyke? — I was in there in April.

How many of the tops of the tubs were blown off? — I cannot say how many in the in-bye side of the fall, because they were all broken and backed together to get the men out.

Did you observe the three tubs blown in-bye? — I could not because they were under the fall.

(Mr. Morley.) Will you give me the names of the men under you? — There was Joseph West, the fore overman in the east pit, William White, the night overman, and Charles Hetherington.

Who was the man that had charge of the ventilation in the west pit? — Michael Rivers was master wasteman, with White as assistance, and Naisbit and Thompson the overmen.

Whose duty would it be to make a report of the ventilation on the 17th? — It was all their duties.

Have you a book in which the reports are made? — Yes, there is Michael Rivers report book.

Would it show the actual state of the ventilation, or that it was merely all right? — It would show it was all right, but not the quantity of air actually going in. He did not test the currents.

We have heard that the ventilation that night was sluggish, Rivers said so.

(Witness.) It ought to be reported in the book.

Yes, but he says it is good there.

(Witness.) There is also the overman's report, and William White who came out of the pit three-quarters of an hour before the accident.

What time would Naisbit come out? — 11 o'clock a.m.

He says, "I examined and found the working places all right ; ventilation good." White also says he examined the working places and found the ventilation good. This was the man that was overtaken with the after-damp? — Yes, he would go in between four and five o'clock on Monday morning, and again between four and five o'clock in the afternoon.

Should he not have entered the fact that the ventilation was sluggish? — If he thought so he should. This is his report poor man.

Rivers told us that he found gas in the workings on several occasions, and made no report in the book but reported it to Ralph White.

(Witness.) This would be Joseph White. It would be in reference to the Shieldfield goaf.

Ought he not to have entered this report in his book? — Yes, he ought to have done so.

He told us that he did not do so, but reported to White.

(Witness.) He had no license to do so.

White said he mentioned it to you.

(Witness.) I do not remember him making any report. I examined the book and put the question to him. If he had made a report of this kind I would have corrected it.

When was your attention first called to the caution board lamp, I mean after the explosion? — I do not think my attention has been particularly called to it.

Was it not called to it some time early in May? — Well, I cannot swear to this, but it is quite possible.

Had you any conversation about the effects of this caution board if left lighted? — I cannot swear to it.

Do you remember that the deputy said he thought he put it out? — I cannot remember that.

Do you remember having any conversation with anyone? — No, I do not remember.

Can you swear that you had not? — I did not hear any deputy make this statement.

With reference to the set where this fall took place, there was a light spoken, of which side of the set was it? — It was an oil lamp, a naked light.

Where was that lamp? — Well, I did not get that lamp, I cannot say, but it will be on record. It was somewhere on the set.

Was it to be carried away on the set? — Yes, it was on the tubs. James Cairnes, the rolley-wayman, would have it.

Where was it going to? — To the out-bye end of the landing, to bring some deals away, and some baulks.

They were not timbering trucks? — There was a timbering truck on. They had tying pins to tie the timbers on the tubs.

Was the set going past the caution board? — It was going in that direction, but not so far.

I want to understand about this rope. Your theory was that the set was going in-bye, and that the tail rope, which you call the hauling rope, would therefore be slack. The strain upon the rope would be more the weight of the rope than anything else. This rope you say is a stronger rope, and the coupling chain is a stronger chain than the coupling chain at the in-bye end? — Yes, it is rather stronger.

According to your theory the first thing would be the fall of stone upon one end of the set, and that the explosion would take place immediately? — Yes.

What was there to cause a sudden jerk upon the drum? — I said such a thing might be possible.

Independently of the fall? — Yes.

And not connected with the fall? — Yes, that is it. I have known of such a thing.

Then the only explanation you can give for the breaking of the chain was the sudden jerk from the drum, and that at the exact time a fall occurred? — Yes.

Do you mean to say that this fall covering 12 tubs, would not immediately stop the set. Is it not more likely that the fall would immediately stop the set, and cause the chain to break? — I should think not.

With reference to the shot which was blown out-bye from the Whin Dyke No. 6. Looking at the fact that the timbers are blown about both out-bye and in-bye, do you still hold to your opinion as to the seat of the explosion? — According to the greatest amount of evidence that I have seen, I still think that it has originated at the fall.

When did you first form that opinion as to the origin of the explosion? — Well, I have taken time to consider it. I have examined things carefully over.

Has that opinion increased or grown on you? — Yes, it has increased upon me.

Before you expressed any direct opinion, what was the first impression on your mind? Have you ever thought that the explosion was caused at any other place than the fall? — At one time I thought that it occurred at Sunderland Bridge, but on making an examination I found indications which completely upset that theory.

A report book was produced from which the witness read the following entry :— "April 6. Travelled from the shaft with John Nesbitt into No. 6, back over by engine plane into No. 4 ; found all right and clear of gas. Travelled with Thomas Thompson into No. 5 and back, and found all right and clear of gas."

Do you gather from that that they were beyond the regulating door in the Alma Bank? — They would go into all the workings.

Are there any workings beyond the regulating door? — There are no workings, but they must go in one way and get out the other.

(Witness.) On April 7th there is the following entry in this book :— "Travelled with Michael Rivers up return into No. 4 and from there to No. 6. Travelled through the returns and found all in good order and clear of gas. They satisfied themselves that everything was right.

Now with reference to the license to fire shots. Do you keep any record of the men to whom you grant licenses? — I have not a book with the record in. A month before the explosion I had intended to enter their names from slips, but I have not done so yet. It was my intention to call all the keys and enter them afresh.

Would it not be safer to have a record of each man who carries a key? — Certainly.

Now with reference to the shot firing. Would not the effect of the shot be to counteract the tendency of the air to return from the intake into the return? — It would momentarily.

And if there was gas there the tendency would be to drive it into the main intake? — There could be no gas there.

Is not the effect of the shot momentarily to drive back the air? — It could not drive the fresh air back. There is 20,000 cubic feet per minute.

Would not a shot have the effect of putting a stop to the tendency of the drift of air? — Yes ; momentarily.

And that would occur at the very moment when an explosion took place if the shot firing ignited the gas? — Yes.

(Mr. Bell.) Do you know that the west pit cast up occasionally? — It never did cast up, sir. When we first put the steam pipes in she tilted a bit. We had four separation doors upon the engine plane. I found she would not act very well till the steam pipe was covered.

Supposing she was cast up, what would be the effect upon the ventilation? — If she was to cast up it would change the air.

Supposing the doors were left there tight, could she not get round this way? — She could not get round to the west pit when these doors were in. We had two furnaces in that pit. When we sunk the Success pit and erected the fan, no coals were drawn through this pit. It was made the upcast.

If she should happen to cast up? — It cannot, it is impossible.

But supposing it did? — We would bind the doors immediately.

But you might not be there at the time. Did you find any defective lamps? — Yes, there were several of them broken.

(The Coroner to the Jury.) Gentlemen, do you wish to see the lamps?

(The Foreman.) No, we do not wish to see them.