Mexborough & Swinton Times – Friday 25 October 1929

Left Hook.

Colliery Official’s Jaw Broken.

Scene at Pit Gates.

Conflicting Evidence.

A dispute between a colliery under-manager and a miner in which the former had his Jaw fractured as the result of a blow, occupied the attention of the magistrates at the Doncaster (West Riding) Police Court for over three hours on Thursday.

The case attracted a great deal of public attention and the court was crowded.

John Patrick, of Lidgett Lane, Thurnscoe, an under manager at Hickleton Colliery, charged that Crowther, a miner of 90, Furlong Road, Bolton on Dearne, with assault at the Hickleton Main Colliery on October 8^th.

It was alleged that the assault took place just outside the yard rates, on the colliery property, and accordingly there can a further summons brought by the company for a breach of the Mines Act.

Mr. C.R. Marshall prosecuted, and Mr D. Dunn, who defended, put in a plea of guilty.

In outlining the case for complainant, Mr. Marshall stated that until a day or two before the assault defendant was employed at the Hickleton Main Colliery and that the complainant, Mr. Patrick, was an under – manager at the colliery.

On Tuesday Oct. 8th at about 2 o’clock, complainant came up from the pit and was going to the colliery offices. When he arrived at the pit gates, he was stopped by defendant who was standing by the gate. When defendant stopped complainant, he was standing on imaginary line drawn between the gate posts, which was the colliery company’s property. Defendant asked why his lamp was stopped, and complainant replied that it was stopped because he had insulted William Parkin, the time office clerk. Defendant then said, “I am not going to be dictated to by a C. 3. man when I am an A.1. man. That was a reference to Parkin’s physical condition-he was a hunchback. Complainant replied, “if you are not satisfied, you had better see the lad’s father.

About nine months previously complainant had had in speak to defendant who had sworn and threatened a deputy. Defendant referred to that incident and said, “You remember the time , when you said to me, ‘lf you want to insult anyone come to the office and insult me? Well it has come, to that time.” Complainant attempted to pass defendant and stepped aside and as he was passing defendant, he felt a violent blow on the job. He did not see the blow struck and for a moment afterwards he was dazed. He turned round to defendant and said, ‘What are you doing man? Do you want to get yourself into further trouble!” Complainant then went across to the offices and defendant shouted at and cursed him. When complainant got into the office. he found his mouth full of blood. He was attended by Dr. Boyle, and the day after he had to be further attended and his jaw was X-rayed and found to be fractured in two place.

It would appear that defendant had gone to the colliery with the intention of assaulting complainant, because he told a witness, who would be called, that he was waiting for Jack Patrick and ‘ if he said two words of a sort, he would either dot him one or break his jaw.”

A Rare Fracture.

Dr. Callender, of Doncaster said he examined complainant on Oct. 9th. He sent him to be X-rayed and, producing X-ray plates, witness pointed out that complainant had sustained a double fracture of the lower jaw. The jaw was fractured on the left side, the fracture extending from the teeth to the bottom of the jaw, while there was a fracture of the upper part of the lower jaw on the right side.

In answer to Mr. Marshall, the doctor said that some force must have been used to break the jaw in two places. It was his first of a double fracture and he knew such a case to be rare.

The Chairman: Could it been dope by a face?-Yes.

Mr. Dunn: Would one blow have done it?— Yes, it depends upon the angle.

Further questioned by Mr Dunn, witness said that it did not necessarily follow that the degree of violence had anything to do with the extent of the fractures. It all depended upon the angle at which the jaw was struck.

Complainant, whose Jaw was heavily bandaged, said he was an under-manager at the colliery and resided at Lidgett House, Lidgett Lane, Thurnscoe. He bore out his advocate’s statement, and added that be told defendant that he should apologise to the man he had insulted, or see his father, who was an under manager. After further conversation, witness attempted to pass defendant, but he stepped in front of him. Witness then stepped to the side, and as he did so he received a blow to the left side of the Jaw. He did not attempt to retaliate, but asked witness if he wanted to get himself locked up.

Cross examined, witness said that the incident took place by the gates, on the colliery company’s property, and not on the crown of the road. He agreed that he was the man to approach if there was any grievance, and that defendant did the right thing in approaching him. He was not stopped by four other men as he crossed the yard, and he was not in a hurry. He denied saying, “Get out of the road because I don’t want to discuss anything with you.”

Mr Dunn: Did you grab hold of defendant’s coat collar, shake him and attempt to throw him out of your way?—No.

Mr. Dunn: l suggest that you were wrestling with the man and that was when the bow was struck?—No.

Chas. Frederic Mitchell, 10, Vincent Terrace, Thurnscoe East, a pit corporal, said that at five minutes to two he was walking across the pit yard when he saw defendant standing at the gates. His “dudley” was hanging en the gate. They had previously been working together, and witness asked defendant why he was not working. Crowther replied that he had had his lamp stopped. Asked why, he said had been at the office and cursed the timekeeper. He added that he was waiting for Jack Patrick and if he spoke two words of a sort, he would either dot him one or smash his jaw.

Helen Cowley, 41. Saxon Street, Thurnscoe East, said she was standing at her gate opposite the colliery gates at the time in question. She saw Crowther stop Mr. Patrick and speak to him. Some words ensued and then Crowther stepped in front of Mr. Patrick. Mr. Patrick went to pass, and Crowther struck him on the jaw with his left face. He caught hold of Mr. Patrick, and pulled him back to enable him to strike the blow. Questioned as to where the blow was struck, witness said. “just outside the gates.” and Mr. Marshall explained that the gates were net back from the fence for a distance of about five feet.

Cross-examined, witness said that Patrick did not retaliate, but be seemed dazed by the blow and caught hold of Crowther’s coat. She thought he did it to steady himself.

Robert Kerry, 4 Market Square. Goldthorpe, also an under-manager, spoke to coming out of the colliery at the time in question. He was waiting to speak to complainant, and he saw Crowther stop him outside the gates. Some words were exchanged, and then Crowther struck complainant a heavy blow. Complainant crossed the yard to go to the and Crowther shouted after him.

James Glover, No 3 under-manager, of Stewart Street, Thurnscoe, described the blow as a left hook. Cross-examined, he said he saw the men holding one another off. He agreed that he was related to complainant by marriage, but denied any personal feeling in the matter.

The Defence.

For the defence. Mr. Dunn stated that he intended to call witnesses who were not connected with the defendant Colliery in any way. Defendant stopped Mr. Patrick to ask for an explanation for the stopping of his lamp. Complainant had agreed that defendant was doing the right thing to stop him. However, instead of giving him the explanation he became pig-beaded, caught hold of defendant, shook and attempted to striking. That was the reason defendant struck the blow. It had been suggested that defendant had gone to the gates with the intention of committing an assault, and in support of that it had been stated that he had been seen to take off his Dudley and put it on the gate, preparing himself for the encounter.

The real, and more probable explanation was that be went to work and finding that his lamp was still stopped, he waited for Mr. Patrick to ask him for an explanation, and as did not require the water, he emptied his Dudley, and hung it on the gate, Continuing. Mr. Dunn said the case had attracted a great deal of interest in the district, and had caused a great deal of comment, but it was very little removed from the ordinary song which came before the magistrates day after day, and he asked them to regard it in that light. It his client had wanted to assault complainant, be had opportunity to do so, as after the first blow was struck complainant was days and at his mercy, but he was not there for the purpose of committing an assault. He only struck because he thought he was going to be struck. It had been suggested that the incident took place near the gates of the colliery yard, but he (Mr. Dunn), would call witnesses who would say it took place practically on the crown of the road.

Defendant was then called. He stated he was a married man with children. He had had a little trouble with the man in the time office, and a little bad language had been used. His lamp had been stopped on the Saturday, and again on the Monday. He went prepared to work on Tuesday, but found that his lamp was still stopped. Consequently be went to see the secretary of union, but he was not at home, so he decided to wait and see Mr. Patrick. As he did not require the water he had taken with him, he emptied his dudley and waited by the gate. He saw Mr. Patrick come across the yard, and when he got outside the gate, be stopped him. Previous to that four other men had stopped him. By that time Mr. Patrick was on the highway, and witness said to him, “What is the matter with me, Jack?” and Mr. Patrick replied. “What is the matter with thee.” Witness asked shy is lamp was stopped and Mr. Patrick replied. “What hast been saying to yon man in yon office. ” He was referring to the man Parkin in the time-boa whom witness had had a bit of trouble with, and witness said. “Well, I have not cursed an official. He is only a working man like myself.” Mr. Patrick told him to go and apologise to the man or go and see his father. This witness refused to do, saying that he would apologise to no man when he was in the right. Mr. Patrick then said, “I have finished with you now.” to which witness retorted, “What is my lamp stopped fall? Come again me a straight answer to a straight question.”

Witness stepped – in – front of complainant when be said that and after looking at him for a few seconds, complainant, who was a much bigger man, gripped witness by the shoulders shook him and made as if to throw him to the ground, saying. “Get out of my —— road. Witness held on and complainant raised his hands as if to strike. Witness called out, “Let me go.” He managed to pull to one side and be got in the first blow. He had plenty of opportunity to strike again, hot he had no desire to as complainant had let him go.

Cross examine, witness said that Mitchell had probably been talking, and the colliery company having heard him, had Wanted him as a witness. He suggested that Mitchell had been indiscreet, and had got to “back” his story up, He denied Mitchell’s story.

Cross-examined with regard to the witness Crowley, he said that he went to see her after the incident, and she promised to give evidence for him, observing that complainant “got what he deserved.”

However, later she said that her husband had met with an accident, and she could not leave in. Since then her son had found work at the colliery.

Mr. Marshall: Yon mean to suggest that the colliery company has bought evident? I don’t suggest anything. I said I thought so.

John Chambers, 10 George Street. Thurnscoe East, a window cleaner, said he was passing the colliery gates at 2 o’clock, when he saw the two men concerned arguing on the crown of the road. He heard Crowther say. “Leave go Jack, live me have a straight answer to a straight question.” Crowther then struck the blow, when the men were locked. Crowther was a stranger to him.

Frederick William Windsor, of 23, Charles, Street, Goldthorpe, said he went to the colliery, at about two o’clock to look for work. He saw complainant catch hold of the other man by the shoulders who appealed to be released. The blow was then struck. All the conversations took place on the crown of the road.

Janice Myers, 51. Co-operative Street, Goldthorpe, also heard defendant say “give me a straight answer to a straight question. The men had moved away from the gates.

John Thomas Pickering, of Thurnscoe, the last witness for defendant, took the oath and went on to say that he was a churchman, and a number of other things, until he was pulled up by the clerk. He gave similar evidence and addressed defendant as “brother.” Asked by Mr. Marshall why he did so. he replied that they were both ardent workers at the church, and they had got into the habit of calling one another brother. He hoped the solicitor would apologise to himself for the mistake.” (Laughter).

After retiring, the magistrates dismissed the case brought by the colliery company, and for the insult fined defendant £5 in default of which he would be committed to prison for one month’s hard labour. He was gives a fortnight in which to pay.