Hide Articles List

12 articles on this Page












WELSHPOOL. BOROUGH POLICE COURT.—TUESDAY. Before the Mayor (Mr D Jones), Colonel Twyford, Messrs D P Owen, John Reese, W Rogers, and D Wall. BREACH OF THE QUARRIES ACT.-James Baker, quarry owner, was charged by P.S. Pryce on behalf of Mr Clement Neve Foster, Llandudno, H.M. In- spector of Mines, with offences against the Quarries Act of 1894.-Mr Lloyd Carter, solicitor, Carnar- von, prosecuted on behalf of the Treasury.—The case against defendant, said Mr Carter, was that he had neglected to put up in his quarry rules and re- gulations, duly forwarded to him by the proper authorities, referring to intervals of work and the provision of proper signals for blasting operations. Under the Act of 1894, which also incorporated a similar measure passed in 1872, it was incumbent upon owners and agents of quarries to draw up rules foi their regulation, and it was most import- ant that these rules should be kept constantly posted in the quarry. As far back as May, 1898, the Assistant Inspector of Mines, Mr Rowland Jones, Chester, had called the defendant's attention to the fact that no such rules were to be found in his quarry. In July last Mr Jones had again noti- fied Mr Baker of the omission. He had further journeyed to Welshpool on September 14th and interviewed Mr Baker who asked what kind of rules he should put up. Accordingly Mr Jones sent him specimen copies of rules commonly adopted by quarry owners; but coming again on December 1st, still found no rules posted up. Continuing, Mr Lloyd Carter said the provision of rules was desirable not only for the protection of workmen, but also for the safety of the public. He was told, he did not know with what truth, that about six years ago a man had been killed at defendant's quarry by an accident in blasting.—Mr D P Owen I don't think you ought to mention such a circumstance. We know nothing about it.—Mr Carter I can prove it.- Defendant: You can't.—Mr Carter: The point is that defendant, by infringing the 41st section of the Metalliferous Mines Act, has made himself liable to a fine of 920 or three months' imprison- ment.—The Assistant Inspector of Mines said, when he visited the quarry on the first of last month, he saw Mr Baker's foreman and asked him if the rules which had been sent had been posted up. The man, showing him some old rules, replied that those were all they had. He was then, as Mr Baker had given him so much trouble, obliged to report the case. Defendant on one occasion told him that he did not know what to put up, and so, out of courtesy, he had sent him a specimen copy of regulations. Defendant: You never did.— Witness: I did. I was not obliged to do it. I could have prosecuted you months ago if I had liked, but I refrained, thinking all the time that you would frame some sort of rules, at any rate.— Defendant: But I have framed rules and regula- tions. I can bring ten witnesses to prove that I have. I can also bring a painter to swear that two months ago I gave him an order to paint on a board a warning that blasting operations were carried on in the quarry. Another thing I will say and that is that Mr Carter has insinuated that a man was killed at my quarry some years ago through proper precautions not being observed in blasting. I will ask him to prove it. If we had an accident it was not our fault. Defendant here handed up some papers to the Bench, exclaiming the while If you can bring any man to swear that I did not put up these rules, then I'm beat."—Mr Carter explained that all quarry owners were permitted to make slight alterations in the rules to suit their particular district so long as the alterations were approved by the proper authorities.—This being all the evidence the Mayor, addressing defendant, said the Bench considered he bad infringed the law, but as Mr Carter did not wish to press the case they would only fine him 10s including costs.—On hearing this defendant took his hat and stalked towards the door.—" Mr Baker Mr Baker called the Mayor. The only answer that came was in the stentorian tones of the defendant calling to his foreman: Come on Jim let's get out o' this." TRESPASSING.—David Gardner, gen., a labourer of no fixed abode, was summoned at the instance of R B Belson, Oswestry, inspector to the Cambrian Railways Company, for trespassing on the line near the Gas House on December 9th.—Mr Minshall, solicitor, Oswestry, prosecuted for the Company.— George Hamer, porter, Wellington Crescent, said about 11-30 p.m. on the 9th ult., whilst going to the gasworks, he found defendant on the line. He had been previously warned for the same offence.— Defendant said he did not remember being warned before.—Witness said that on one occasion when trespassing on the line defendant was very drunk. -MrMinshall not wishing to press the case, Gardner was fined 2s 6d including costs. (During'the hearing of the following cases Mr D P Owen took the chair). HOW A BUTCHER MADE HIS MARK. Herbert Kirkham, butcher, Market-street, Newtown, was charged by George Snook, Borough Surveyor, with unlawfully cleaving meat upon the meat stall in the market, on Thursday, the 21 st of December. —Defendant did not appear.—Mr Snook said he had often warned Kirkham, who had set him at defiance.-By the Bench He had a lot of trouble with these men especially with the representatives of the foreign meat firms. The actual damage to the stall would be slight, about sixpence, perhaps. What made the offence serious was, he thought, defendant setting him at defiance.—Mr W Rogers thought the damage to the stalls was much greater. —Fined 20s including costs or 14 days hard labour. ADJOURNED.—A charge preferred by Mr Snook against Thomas J Evans, ironmonger, Berriew street, of obstructing the street, was adjourned for a fortnight. SCHOOL CASES.—The following were charged, at the instance of the School Attendance Officer, Mr D A Breeze, with not sending their children regu- larly to school or with neglecting to comply with attendance orders previously made Samuel Payne, Mount Pleasant, with non-compliance in respect of his son Harry (5), fined 5s, including costs; also a fresh order made in respect of his two daughters, Sarah (12), attended 47 out of a possible 57, and Mary (7), attended 33 out of 49.— William Pryce with non-compliance in respect of his two children, George (11), and Robert (9), fined 5s; Martha Davies, Bowling Green Lane, order made in respect of her two children, Mary (12), absent 237, out of a possible 237, and David (10), absent 47 out of 48; Edward Davies, Mermaid Passage, order made in respect of his three children Edward, (10), attended 38 out of 48, Lewis, (8), 32 out of 48, and Charles Moses, 30 out of 49. MR D P OWEN'S OPINION ON VACCINATION. Andrew Carter, Hawthorne Cottage, Salop road, applied to the Bench for a certificate exempting him from vaccinating his infant child born on Sep- tember 19. Not many months ago Mr Carter ap- plied for a similar order in respect of another child of his, which was granted. Mr D P Owen I told you before that you were doing a very cruel act. If I had my own way I should never grant an application for exemption. You will suffer for this if you have the small pox in your house. The Government ought to be ashamed of them- selves for passing such an Act.-The application was granted.