IN LOVING MEMORY OF
WILLIAM ALEXANDER
LOST AT SEA MAY 26TH 1931
AGED 64 YEARS
ALSO AGNES, HIS WIFE
DIED JAN 2ND 1937 AGED 64 YEARS
ALSO JOHN, THEIR INFANT SON

ASKAM MAN COMMITTED FOR TRIAL

Witnesses’ Story of Affair on Duddon Sands

CHARGES AGAINST TWO OF THE MEN DISMISSED

Hearing of Case to be Continued

At Ulverston Magistrates Court, on Saturday, the hearing was resumed of the case in which seven fishermen belonging to Askam are charged with being concerned in an alleged affray on Duddon sands in which some of them were severely injured. The men belong to two families of fishermen, who are stated to have been in dispute over the placing of fishing nets on the sands. Owing to the number of cross charges and the necessity of investigating each particular one by the interrogation of witnesses, the hearing has already occupied a considerable time, the court sitting until 6.30 p.m. on Thursday.

The names of the accused, and the charges against them, are:
Henry Birbeck (35), charge with maliciously wounding William Alexander, senr., and Samuel Alexander.
James Birbeck (30) and William Birbeck (22), charged with the same offence.
William Alexander, senr. (60), charged with maliciously wounding Samuel Birbeck.
William Alexander, jnr. (39), James Alexander (17), and Samuel Alexander (21), charged with the same offence as William Alexander, senr.

All the accused were further charged with assault.

The first three accused were represented by Mr. Stanley Fisher, and the others by Mr. F. W. Poole.

WITNESS’S ILLNESS

The witness who fainted at the last hearing (James Alexander), again went into the box, and the Chairman asked him if he had recovered. He was accommodated with a chair, when Mr. Stanley Fisher proceeded with his cross examination, but immediately showed signs of collapse again. The Magistrates Clerk asked witness what was the matter with him, and he stated that he was “feeling bad.”

Mr. Fisher: You spoke to Stevenson. Was it before the Birbeck’s returned? Was it about the time your father shouted to you?

Witness: Yes.

Was the net at which you were working about the spot of No. 5 pit? – No, nearer the locks.

Do you remember what time it was when you went to your net? – About half-past seven. When I left home.

Would it take about a quarter of an hour to get to the net? – Yes.

You had been working at your net about an hour before the Birbeck’s arrived? – No, about half an hour.

When they left your net was it still light? – It would be closing in dusk.

Had they to go another 300 yards? – Yes.

Could you see them at their net? – Yes.

Was your Teddy at your net? – No.

WOMAN’S EVIDENCE

The next witness was Jane Alexander, residing at 34, Furnace-place, Askam, who said that between 8.30 and 9.00 o’clock, when she went down on to the Askam foreshore in consequence of what she had been told, she there saw a crowd of men, including the three accused, surrounding her brother, Samuel, who was lying on the ground. Her brothers, James and William, were also there. She also saw her father, who was bleeding from the ear, and his face was covered with blood. Immediately, her brother Samuel got up from the ground, and she saw that he was bleeding from the face. William Birbeck had a net stake in his hand (similar to the one produced). The four Birbecks were chasing her brothers James and William. Her brother William had called for her to go for the police.

Cross-examined by Mr. Fisher, the witness said it was practically dark when she got on to the shore.

It was so dark that you could not see more than a few yards in front of you? – No, sir; not when I first got on to the shore.

Was John Bodley there also? – Not then.

He was actually on the shore when you got back the second time? – Yes.

Did you say “If it had not been for my father there would have been none of this”? – No, sir.

Did Bodley ask you who the men were on the other side of the channel? – No.

Did you hear him call, “Where’s Birbeck”? – No.

Did you hear you brother William shout: “You know as much as I b***** well do”? – No.

WENT FOR THE POLICE

In reply to further questions witness said, the fight had started before she went for the police. Her brother Samuel was on the ground, and her father had just got up and was going home.

Where was your brother Teddy? – He was not there, he was ill in bed. He got up and went on the shore afterwards to meet my brother, after the fight was over.

Edward Alexander was the next witness called. He said he was a labourer on the L. M. & S. Railway Engineering Department, residing at 34, Furness-place, Askam. About 8.30 p.m. on the date in question he was in bed suffering from influenza. In consequence of what his mother told him he struggled out of bed and went down to the beach, when he saw his brother Sam coming off the shore. Blood was falling from his head on to his clothes down the front. He did not see any of his other brothers or his father; neither did he see any of the Birbecks.

It would be turned 9 o’clock when he reached the place where he met his brother Samuel. It was dark.

In reply to Mr. Fisher, witness said he did not see his sister Jane on the shore, nor his brother William. He saw John Bodley, who was quite near to him.

Did you pick up a stake and strike Birbeck? – No.

And did Henry Birbeck ward off the blow and strike you with his fist and knock you on to the sand? – No.

How long had you been in bed with the ‘flu? – Since 3 o’clock the day before.

Wm. Hewitson, iron-ore miner, residing at 94, Steel-street, Askam, said that about 10 o’clock on Saturday, April 25th, he was shown the spade produced by P.C. Parkinson and identified it as his property, and the one he had lent to either Henry or William Birbeck about a month previously.

William Maxwell Stevenson, an unemployed labourer residing at 123, Sharp-street, Askam, said he remembered about 8.30 p.m. on Thursday, April 23rd, being on the shore at Askam, when his attention was drawn to Samuel Birbeck, whom he recognised by his voice. He could see he was fighting with two or three more, and he heard the blows, stakes being used. A few minutes later he heard William Alexander shouting, “Come on, you three.” Witness was shrimping, and walked down the Channel to the nets. He also saw James, and two others. He could see a lot of figures, and a crowd had assembled on the shore before he left.

Mr. Fisher cross-examined witness at some length.

IN THE DUSK

Joseph Bodley, a labourer, living at 153, Sharp-street, Askam, said that shortly after 9 o’clock on Thursday, April 23rd, in consequence of what his sister-in-law told him, he went down to the shore, just on the dry-water channel. When he got there he saw Jane Alexander with a net stake, and Wm. Alexander, junr. He also saw about four or five forms in the dusk.

In reply to Mr. Fisher, witness said he did not see any blows struck. He saw Samuel Birbeck, who came past where he was standing on the dry-water channel. Witness noticed he could scarcely walk and was staggering forward, and his clothes seemed to be wet.

John Bodley, of 90, Steel-street, Askam, said that about 8.30 he was on the shore at Askam and met Samuel Birbeck. After reaching home and hearing of the disturbance, he returned to the shore about quarter to nine. He met Jane Alexander and stopped there with her. He also saw William Alexander, junr., and his brother Edward, but saw nothing of the Birbecks.

In reply to Mr. Fisher, witness said he asked Jane Alexander what had been going on, and she replied “If it hadn’t been for my father, there would have been none of it.” He asked her who was on the other side, and she made no reply. He could not recognise the figures as it was too dark, although they were only ten yards away. He shouted across the channel “Where’s Henry Birbeck?” and he recognised William Alexander’s voice shouting back “You’ll know as much as I do.” He then went across the channel and saw both William and Edward Alexander.

Mr. Fisher: Edward Alexander has sworn in the box that he was not across the channel on that particular evening, what have you got to say to that?

Witness: I say he was.

How long were the police after you in getting to the shore? – Ten minutes.

How many would there be in the crowd? – About 30 or 40.

CUTS OVER HEAD

P.C. Parkinson, stationed at Askam, said at 9 p.m. on Thursday April 23rd, he was in company with Sergt. Law, and in consequence of what he was told went on to the shore at Askam, and saw a crowd of people coming from the shore. Near the water’s edge he saw Samuel Alexander, who was bleeding freely from the bridge of the nose and to cuts over the left eyebrow. Witness took him to Askam Police Station and rendered first aid. Shortly afterwards William Alexander, senr., came to Askam Police Station. Samuel Alexander’s left ear was almost severed from his head and he was bleeding profusely. About 10.30, the accused, Henry Birbeck, came into the police station, accompanied by his brother, Samuel. Samuel was in a fainting condition and had a deep scalp wound.

In consequence of a statement made by William Alexander, senr., he took Henry Birbeck into custody and charged him with unlawfully and maliciously wounding William Alexander and also with wounding Samuel Alexander by striking them with a spade. He replied, “How could I strike a man when I was on the ground with a man pointing a double-barrelled sporting gun at me. That was William Alexander, the old fellow’s son.” The constable later visited Birbeck’s house and took possession of the spade (produced), which he found in the back yard. It was very wet and covered with wet sand. The following day at 3.30 p.m. he interviewed James Birbeck, of Steel-street, Askam. After cautioning hi he told him he was making enquiries respecting an affray on the shore, the previous night. He also told him he would be detained, pending enquiries. At 1.15 p.m. the same date he took possession of the gun (produced) which was handed to him by the wife of William Alexander, junr., and later the same day cautioned and charged the three accused together. Henry Birbeck replied, “Carry on,” William Birbeck made no reply, and James Birbeck replied “We hadn’t a _____ spade; we are too _____ English to have one.” Whilst the men were in custody William Birbeck said he wished to make a statement. James Birbeck also made a statement.

The written record of these to statements were produced in court and read.

In reply to Mr. Fisher, witness said he asked Mrs. William Alexander if she had a gun and she said she had not one in the house. She later handed the constable the gun (produced) which was hanging up on the wall.

CUTS OF FACE

Sergeant Law, stationed at Askam, said that when he reached the shore he saw Samuel Alexander standing by the water’s edge. He had a deep cut on his nose and two over his left eyebrow. He asked Henry Birbeck if the spade was his and he replied, “I would rather not say.” Witness then asked him, “Did you not tell me that the spade was Alexander’s last night?” Birbeck replied, “I am not going to say anything about it until I see which way this thing is going.”

P.C. Parkinson, recalled, gave evidence as to serving copies of the statements (made by the accused) on each of the other Birbecks.

A previous witness, John Bodley, was also recalled and questioned by Mr. Fisher.

This closed the case for the prosecution against Henry Birbeck.

Mr. Fisher, for the defence, submitted that not enough evidence had been presented to support the charge against James Birbeck.

The magistrates retired for consultation.

On their return, the Chairman said the Bench proposed to listen to what the defence had to say with regard to James and William Birbeck, as they were of opinion (sic) their cases were of common assault, and they would not proceed with the more serious charge with regard to these two.

ONE MAN FOR TRIAL

The Chairman, addressing Henry Birbeck, the first of the accused, said: “You are charged with wounding Wm. Alexander with intent to do him grievous bodily harm, and similarly charged in respect of Samuel Alexander. Have you anything to say?”

Henry Birbeck: No, sir.

Mr. Fisher intimated that the accused would reserve his defence.

Henry Birbeck was then committed for trial at the next Lancaster Assizes. He was allowed bail in the sum of £25.

An application by Mr. Fisher for a legal aid certificate was granted.

Mr. Fisher said it was the contention of the defence in the two cases of common assault that the whole of the trouble arose out of jealousy on the part of the Alexander family, all of whom did a certain amount of fishing, and the defendant resented anyone coming to certain places on the foreshore and setting nets. He suggested that the Bench “could not possibly have heard more contradictory evidence.”

THROWN INTO CHANNEL

Samuel Birbeck, the first witness called for the defence, said he had no interest in fishing. On the evening in question he set off to go along the shore, leaving the house at 8.40 p.m. He kept to the shore, and when he got to the bridge he met Jack Bodley and Wm. Askew. He said he had walked some distance when five of the Alexanders ‘ran out at him,’ knocking him to the ground, and carrying him a distance of 50 yards, and throwing him in the channel.

James Birbeck said he went to his net in company with his brother William. They set off for home when Alexander, senr., shouted, “Come on lads, let the ________ have it now; we have got them all here.” There was a fight afterwards. He dragged his brother Sam away unconscious, to save him from any more blows. He heard his brother shout, “Is that you Harry?” When he got to his brother Samuel he took hold of him. At no time had he a stick, nor did he strike Samuel Alexander. He did not see his brother William strike, his whole attention being taken up with his brother Samuel.

Wm. Askew, of Queen-street, Askam said he visited the shore about 8.45 p.m. The first person he saw was Jane Alexander. James Birbeck remained with his brother. He did not see James Birbeck or William Birbeck strike Samuel Alexander.

In reply to the Chairman, he said he did not see any blows struck.

Wm. Birbeck said he was carrying a spade. He saw the Alexanders, and said they were knocking his brother Samuel with stakes. Four or five surrounded him. The stake belonged to Edward Alexander.

Mr. Fisher: Did you knowingly strike Samuel Alexander? – No, sir.

Did you use any more force than was necessary to protect yourself? – No.

Did you see your brother James? – Not at all.

CASES DISMISSED

The Bench hereupon dismissed the cases against James Birbeck and William Birbeck.

Supt. Crapper then proceeded with the prosecution of William Alexander, senior, William Alexander, junior, James Alexander and Samuel Alexander, charged with assaulting and wounding Samuel Birbeck. The Supt. said that the facts were largely as stated in opening the first case.

Samuel Birbeck, a general labourer, residing at 113, Steel-street, Askam, said he recalled a day last July when gathering winkles on the shore at Askam. He heard one of the Alexanders say to his brother Henry, “I will bring the gun and blow your ____ brains out.” His brother told William Alexander, junior, not to be so silly as he would fight him a fair fight any time. No further quarrel occurred until April 23rd, this year. He was walking along the beach, and saw the four Alexanders and another called Bob. He noticed that William Alexander, junior, had a gun under his right arm, and the other four had fish-net stakes. They ‘set about him’ right away.

“LET HIM DROWN”

He heard one of them say, “Take him to the Channel; throw him in and let him drown.” The second time he saw the Alexanders all three had stakes and all struck him with them. He later found himself at 84, Steel-street, Askam. His injuries, he said, included a cut over the head 2½ inches long. He was also bruised about the body and arms. After attention by ambulance men, he was attended by Dr. Southern.

Cross-examined by Mr. Poole, the witness said there was “nothing unusual” going on on the shore.

Mr. Poole: Why did you send Hewitson for the police?

Witness: Because William Alexander shouted “Come on, chaps, get to the other ______ .”

You were assaulted by five men, nearly drowned, and yet you went to assist your brothers? – No.

Could you see anything on the shore? – I could see a crowd.

When you got back on the second occasion, a crowd had assembled? – Yes.

Witness, in further cross-examination, denied that he was attracted to the shore by hearing voices, and went armed with a stick with a knob on it, and that he aimed a blow at the younger Alexander, who took the stick off him.

STAKING STAKES

Henry Birbeck, of 84, Steel-street, Askam, said he remembered about 8 a.m. on Thursday morning he went to his brother James’s net. One of the Alexanders (James) came out to their net to do fishing. When he passed him and put some stakes in, James Alexander went home. Five minutes later, Wm. Alexander, sen., came down and said, “What do you mean by putting those stakes in front of our Sam’s net?” Witness replied, “We have equally as much right to put those stakes there.” Alexander said to witness, “I think you are asking for trouble.” Witness asked, “Who with?” and he replied “My son, William. I’ll bring him to you, and he’ll knock hell out of you.” Witness said, “Go and bring him, and we’ll see if he’ll knock hell out of me.” When he was going away he said to witness, “You’ll see.”

About 8.30 the same evening witness went to the nets with his two brothers, William and James, and took the fish out of the nets. His brothers were cleaning the arm of the net while he was sanding the corner of the net. After they set off for home they passed three men – Edward and Harry Alexander and another. About 30 or 40 yards further on, Wm. Alexander, sen., came running across the bank, shouting to his sons, shouting “Come on, here they are!” One of Alexander’s sons shouted to his father, telling him to get himself home. They saw someone making towards them, heard the clattering of stakes, and then heard someone shout, “Harry, Harry!” Witness ran to his brother’s assistance, and there were the Alexanders – William, sen., William, jun., Edward, James, Samuel and Harry – all standing over his brother “braying” him with net stakes.

IN THE MELEE

His brothers, James and William, were following on behind, and as soon as witness got up Edward Alexander ran at him with a net stake. He was delivering his blow when witness guarded the blow off with his left hand and struck him in the jaw with his right fist. He was bruised on the arm between the wrist and the elbow by the blow.

“William Alexander (continued the witness) rushed at me with a gun, and I made a grab and got the gun by the barrel. Whilst I was struggling with him with the gun, old Alexander came and hit me at the back of the head with a net stake. I got up and ran perhaps 20 yards to where my brother William had left his spade. I went back with the spade and made for the man with the gun, and drove him across the dead water channel. A crowd gathered and he said, “Come on Harry, I’ve been waiting for you.” He was retreating. When the crowd said the police were coming Samuel Alexander was charging him with a net stake, and he was guarding him off, and jabbed him with the spade. Old William, likely, got in the road, same as the rest.” Later witness went for the police, with his brother Samuel.

Mr. Poole (cross-examining): Your object in going to the police station to make a voluntary statement was to mislead the police? – No, sir.

You didn’t say anything to the police about jabbing anyone with a spade then? – No, I didn’t say anything about the spade.

You say, in the voluntary statement, that you were knocked off your feet and young Will Alexander stood over you with a double-barrelled sporting gun? – Yes.

Yet in the box today you could not say definitely that it was a double-barrelled gun? – I felt it was by the barrel.

ATTACK OR DEFENCE?

You got the spade and went for the man with the gun. You do admit you attacked with the spade? – I did not attack, I defended myself.

Dr. Southern said that on being called to Askam Police Station he found Samuel Birbeck suffering from a deep cut in the scalp, 2½ inches long. Witness stitched the wound. He also found the man to be suffering from bruises on his scalp and weals on the body, shock, and loss of blood, and took him home in his car. In his opinion, the wound was caused by a blunt instrument. He saw the man the following day, when he was suffering from weakness as a result of loss of blood, and he advised his removal to hospital, but he refused to go.

James Birbeck, a labourer, residing at 84, Steel-street, Askam, said he was on the shore with his brothers, William and Henry, attending to the nets. He had just finished and was about to return home when he heard Alexander, senr., shout, “Come on, lads, give the _____s it while we have got ‘em together.” Before that one of the Alexanders shouted to his father, “Get yourself to _____ out of it,” and the elder Alexander said, “Come on, while we’ve got ‘em here!” A form was coming towards him in the dusk, and he recognised the voice of his brother, Samuel. The whole of the Alexanders were striking out with net stakes at his brother Samuel. He went to his assistance and while he was attending to him, they attacked Henry and William. He also heard William Alexander, junr., say to his brother, Henry, “I have been waiting a long while for you Harry, I’ll blow your ______ brains out as soon as you get in reach.” He heard the women in the crowd say to William Alexander, “For God’s sake think of your wife and kids.”

The witness was cross-examined by Mr. Poole, respecting the discrepancies appearing in his signed voluntary statement and his evidence given in court.

“FINISH THEM OFF”

William Birbeck gave evidence that at 8.30 on the evening of the 23rd he and his brothers went to the shore. They did not see any of the Alexanders until they were coming home, when they saw three of them. He saw his brother Samuel making towards him. As he approached he called out, “Make this way lads; they are waiting for you in this hollow,” and Wm. Alexander shouted, “Here they are lads, finish the ___ off.” The next thing he saw was that the Alexanders had ‘set upon’ his brother Samuel, and were beating him with net stakes. Wm. Alexander was carrying a gun, and witness heard somebody shout, “For God’s sake don’t do it! Think about your wife and kids.” He had dropped the spade some yards back.

Mr. Poole: How did your brother get the spade again? – My brother went back for the spade to shield himself in self-defence.

He got it and entered into the affray again with the result that he jabbed and injured two of the Alexanders? – No, I didn’t see that.

How far was your brother Samuel from you? – From 30 to 40 yards on the right-hand side.

He was nearer to you than Alexander, sen.? – Yes.

How many were there with Alexander, sen.? – Four.

The four you could see immediately attacked your brother Samuel, and you and your other brother went to his assistance? – Yes.

And they were still beating him? – Yes.

 

At 6.30 p.m. the Court adjourned, the Chairman intimating that the case would be proceeded with at 10 a.m. to-morrow (Tuesday).

FIVE ASKAM MEN FOR TRIAL

THE ALLEGED AFFRAY ON DUDDON SANDS

CONCLUSION OF LENGTHY CASE AT ULVERSTON

The hearing of the case against Askam fishermen alleged to have been concerned in an affray on Duddon Sands, was resumed at Ulverston to-day, when the magistrate were Ald. S. Taylor (in the Chair), Mr. J. Walker, Mr. J. H. Ellwood, and Mr. D. Lawn.

The accused were William Alexander, sen. (60) charged with maliciously wounding Samuel Birbeck.
William Alexander, jun (39), James Alexander (17), and Samuel Alexander (21) charged with the same offence as William Alexander, sen.

All the accused are further charged with assault.

Mr. F. W. Poole appears for the defence.

Henry Birbeck (35), has already been committed for trial at Lancaster Assizes, charged with wounding William Alexander, sen., and Samuel Alexander, with intent to do them grievous bodily harm, and has been released on bail. Charges against James Birbeck (30), and William Birbeck (22), in connection with the affair, have been dismissed.

William Askew, an iron-ore miner, residing at 139, Steel-street, Askam, was the first witness called. He stated that about 9 p.m. on April 23rd he was on the shore, and there saw Samuel Birbeck, bleeding from the head, which was running down each side of the cheek. His clothing appeared to be very wet. He also saw Jane, Ted and William Alexander, junr. He saw Samuel Birbeck come down and cross the channel. William Alexander, jun., came on the scene, and, making a motion to his pocket, warned them to stand back, saying to the crowd, “If you come over here, I’ll blow your brains out.” He saw fighting going on, but he could not tell who the men were, as he was too far away. He saw a figure on the floor on his hands and knees, and when he got there found it was Samuel Birbeck.

Mr. Poole: In consequence of what you were told, you went down to the shore and saw Samuel Birbeck come down after two or three minutes and cross the channel. Did you notice whether he was carrying anything? – No, sir.

At that time he was not bleeding from the head? – No.

And William Alexander was then about 10 yards away from you? – Yes.

Edward was with William at this time and a crowd was gathering? – Yes.

“TROUBLE GOING ON”

And the trouble was going on on the sands, about 150 yards away? – Yes.

And Samuel Birbeck made for where the trouble was going on? – Yes.

William Alexander had nothing in his hand to carry out his threat of shooting? – Not that I could see.

Sergeant Law, stationed at Askam said that at 9.30 p.m. on Thursday April 23rd, in consequence of what he was told, he went on to the shore at Askam in company with P.C. Parkinson, and later saw Samuel Birbeck at the police station. The latter then had a wound on the top of his head about 2½ inches long. At 11.30 the following day he saw the accused, James Alexander, in Furnace-place, Askam. He cautioned him and told him he was making inquiries regarding the affray on the shore at Askam the previous day; and that he would be detained pending inquiries. He took him to the police station. At 6.30 p.m. the same day he saw William Alexander, jun., in company with Det.- Constable Rothwell. He cautioned him and told him he was making inquiries regarding the affray on the shore at Askam the previous day; and that he would be detained pending inquiries.

HIT WITH A SPADE

Det.-Cons. Jas. Smith Rothwell said that at 1 p.m. on April 24th he interviewed William Alexander, sen. He cautioned him and told him he was a detective from Ulverston making inquiries into the Askam Affray. He made a statement, which witness took down in his pocket book. This was now read in court.

This contained the following:-

“Between 8.30 and 9 p.m. on April 23rd I went towards a group of my sons, Jim and Sam, and the Birbecks, who were ‘rowing’ on the shore. The Birbecks were striking my sons with stakes. When I got closer I saw seven Birbecks and mates around our Sam beating him. I ran off to call the police.

“IF I HAD A GUN ….”

As I was running away Harry Birbeck hit me four times on the head with a spade, and made a cut which nearly took my left ear off. There has been trouble for months over the fishing between the two families of us. I have no gun, but if I had a gun I would shoot the lot of Birbecks if I had plenty of shot. But I got lamed before I struck a blow. I only had a walking stick with me.

At 1.20 the same day, witness again saw William Alexander, senior, at his home, cautioned him and told him he would be detained pending inquiries. Witness was present later that day when accused was charged with the offence by P.C. Parkinson. At 6.20 the same day in company with Sergt. Law, he saw William Alexander, junior. He was also present later the same day when the latter was cautioned and charged by P.C. Parkinson.

Mr. Poole: Where was this gun found? – William Alexander junior’s, house hanging on the wall.

It was not a likely weapon for a man to take to a scrap, is it? – No.

P.C. Parkinson, stationed at Askam, related the event which occurred on April 23rd on the shore. He said that Samuel Alexander was standing by himself near the water’s edge. He had a deep cut on the bridge of his nose, and two deep cuts on the left eyebrow. Witness later dressed these injuries at the police station. Shortly afterwards, the accused, William Alexander, senr., came to the police station with his left ear almost severed from his head. About 11.30 p.m. the same day, Henry Birbeck and his brother Samuel came to the police station, the latter being in a fainting condition. His injuries had been dressed, and witness later saw a cut on his head. It was a deep scalp wound across the top. Both his arms were also bruised. On the following day he cautioned the three accused, Wm. Alexander, senr., William Alexander, junr., and Jas. Alexander. Charging them together that they did at about 8.30 p.m. on Thursday 23rd April, 1931, unlawfully and maliciously wound Samuel Birbeck by striking him on the head with sharpened wooden fish-net stakes on the shore at Askam. Wm. Alexander, senr., replied, “I can’t be charged, I was attacked.” Wm. Alexander, junr., replied, “We will reserve all evidence until the court. There is only one thing I will say, and that it will be very difficult for the Birbecks to get any witnesses except for the police.” Jas. Alexander made no reply.

“I WAS ATTACKED”

At 3.15 p.m. on May 18 he apprehended accused Samuel Alexander, on a warrant at his home. He cautioned him and read the warrant to him and he replied, “There is only one fault in it, that’s all.” Samuel Birbeck: “I never touched him.” The same day he served copies of statements made by Henry and James Birbeck on each of the accused. Wm. Alexander, senr., replied, “I should not be in it, I was attacked.” William Alexander, junior, James and Samuel Alexander, made no reply.

Samuel Birbeck, Henry Birbeck, James Birbeck and William Birbeck were here called whilst the statements he had made was (sic) read over to him by the magistrates’ clerk.

P.C. Parkinson, in answer to Mr. Poole, said he had not been able to ascertain that any of the Alexanders had had a gun during the past two years, with the exception of the rifle produced.

THE DEFENCE

Mr. F. W. Poole, for the defence, said some of the evidence had been proved to be absolutely false. That of the witness Askew, an entirely independent witness, was contradictory to that of the Birbecks’. He submitted that there was no case on which the accused could be committed for trial.

The bench retired for consultation, and on their return, the Chairman, addressing Mr. Poole, said they had decided to over-rule his submission.

The accused were then formally charged by the Clerk, with “wounding Samuel Birbeck with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm on the 23rd April.” And Mr. Poole proceeded to call evidence.

‘LET ME BE AT HIM’

Samuel Alexander, a fisherman, of 34, Furnace-place, Askam, said he was fishing at his nets on the evening of April 23rd. He and his brother, James, went down to the nets about 7.30, and Henry, William and James Birbeck came to them whilst they were down there. Henry Birbeck said, “Let me at him. I will cut him in two and throw him in the channel.” He was carrying a spade at the time, and was the worse for drink, and his two brothers, James and William, tried to get him away, and eventually they got him away, and they went down to their own net, 200 yards further away. Witness and his brother were still at their own net when the Birbecks came back again, passing within 300 yards. At that time his brothers, Henry and James were with him. He left his brother Edward in bed, and he never came to the net. His father was shouting to them to “Come off”, and the Birbecks were about 30 yards away from his father. As soon as he (witness) got near Henry Birbeck hit him with the spade. At that time he saw nothing of Samuel Birbeck. He denied that he and his father and brothers beat Samuel Birbeck.

James Alexander was also called.

William Alexander, junr., denied that any member of their family had a gun of any description during that evening. When he met Samuel Birbeck the man was carrying a net stake and was making in the direction of the nets.

Further questioned by Mr. Poole as to what happened on that occasion, witness said, “I said to him, ‘Where are you going Sam? Don’t go across there to make any bother, Sam; keep yourself back.’” Birbeck then struck at witness with a spar and he warded the blow and took the stick from him, pushing him in the face. He fell to the ground. Witness stayed by the edge of the dead-water channel, and a crowd began to collect shortly afterwards. They all came from the Steel-street side, and they also began to collect against the dead-water channel. He never saw his brother Edward. Witness did not see Henry Birbeck or his (witness’s) father. He was chased back across the dead-water channel by William and James Birbeck. He denied that he joined with his father and brothers in beating Samuel Birbeck.

HAD NO GUN

The Chairman: Did you say you would blow their ______ brains out? – Yes, sir.

Who were you addressing? – The whole crowd on the shore, who were threatening the Alexanders.

Had you anything to shoot with? – No sir.

Wm. Alexander, sen., replying to Mr. Poole, said he went down to the shore about half-past eight. He was carrying a hazel walking stick owing to his leg being bad. He went in the direction of the nets, and there saw his sons, Sam and Jim. He shouted to his sons to “come off” as they were quarrelling.

Mr. Poole: Where were the Birbecks; could you see them? – Yes, though it was a bit hazy.
Witness added that he saw the three Birbecks and his own sons when running when Harry Birbeck left them and came straight on to him and struck him with the spade. His son, Samuel, was surrounded by Birbecks. He denied that he and his sons beat Samuel Birbeck that night, and he also said that he had not seen the latter that night.

The four Alexanders were committed for trial at the next Lancaster Assizes, and allowed bail in the sum of £25.

Mr. Poole also made an application for a certificate for legal aid, which was granted.

THE ASKAM SANDS AFFAIR

JUDGE’S STERN WARNING TO ACCUSED

MISSING MAN’S POSITION

The jury at Lancaster Assizes on Friday week, returned a verdict of ‘not guilty’ in the case in which William Alexander, junr., James Alexander, and Samuel Alexander, were jointly charged with wounding Samuel Birbeck, with intent to do grievous bodily harm, on April 23rd.

Wm. Alexander, sen., father of the three men, was also committed for trial, but in the meantime he had disappeared.

Mr. Blackledge, who prosecuted, said that although the man’s clothes had been found on the shore, his body had not been recovered. Therefore, he had to presume that he was still alive, and he applied for a Bench warrant.

Granting the application, Mr. Justice Macnaghten said it was not a new device either in fact or fiction for a person to leave his clothes on the shore in order that people might presume him dead.

Prosecuting, Mr. Blackledge said the Alexanders and the Birbecks had fishery interests and also had lusty families. The trouble seemed to have arisen over a struggle between the parties for the best places on the shore, wherein to put their nets. On the evening in question Samuel Birbeck, who was not interested in the fishing, went for a walk along the shore, and was suddenly set upon by the Alexanders, one of whom had a double-barrelled gun, and the others had stakes. He sustained injuries about the head, and was also bruised extensively about the body. It was further alleged that he was thrown into the channel, which contained two feet of water, and then William Alexander, junr., when the crowd had been attracted looked like interfering, threatened to blow out anyone’s brains who dared to come near.

The defence set up by Mr. Rupert Greene for the accused was a complete denial that either of the accused men had inflicted on Birbeck the injuries he sustained. Wm. Alexander, jun., alleged that he took a stake from him in self-defence, but the other prisoners denied having touched him. Another member of the family stated that when Birbeck was attacking his brother he struck him.

The jury were absent for only a few minutes before they returned with a verdict of not guilty.

Discharging the accused, his Lordship advised them to go home. “Let there be no more fighting in Askam,” he added.

Addressing the jury in relation to the case in which Henry Birbeck was alleged to have wounded two of the Alexanders with intent to do grievous bodily harm, the judge said that it might be that the jury thought that had been six of one and half a dozen of the other.

The Foreman: Yes, sir.

The Judge: If the Crown were to proceed with the other indictment, your verdict would probably be the same? – In all probability.

His Lordship (to Mr. Blackledge): Under those circumstances I think it would be right for the Crown to offer no evidence against Henry Birbeck.

After formal proceedings, Birbeck was found not guilty and discharged, his Lordship remarking that he hoped that this sort of thing would not be repeated in Askam. If there were any further disturbances and either of the parties who had been there that day were concerned in it, it would go hard with them next time.

His Lordship directed that the warrant for the apprehension of the father should remain, as there was certain evidence against him which was admissible against the other prisoners in his absence which might have had an influence on the cases already heard.

 IN LOVING MEMORY OF
ROBERT BRADSHAW
SON OF JOHN AND BARBARA HANKEY
WHO WAS KILLED AT THE ASKAM IRON WORKS
FEB 1ST 1894 AGED 19 YEARS.
ALSO THE ABOVE JOHN HANKEY
WHO DIED DEC 11TH 1874
AGED 40 YEARS.
ALSO WILLIAM BRADSHAW, THEIR SON
WHO DIED NOV 23RD 1871
AGED 10 MONTHS.
ALSO PATTISON SON OF
WILLIAM AND BARBARA PENNINGTON
WHO DIED JAN 8TH 1883
AGED 3 YEARS.
ALSO THOMAS TEBAY,
WHO DIED AT JOHANNESBURG
SOUTH AFRICA
JUNE 4TH 1894, AGED 31 YEARS.
ALSO THE ABOVE WILLIAM PENNINGTON
WHO DIED AT KIMBERLEY, SOUTH AFRICA,
JUNE 6TH? 1903, AGED 61 YEARS
ALSO THE ABOVE BARBARA PENNINGTON,
WHO DIED NOV 4TH 1916 AGED 80 YEARS.
“AT REST”

MURDER OF AN ASKAM MAN ABROAD

Information has been received by Mrs. Pennington, Ireleth-road, Askam-in-Furness, of the death of her son, Thos. Tebay, aged 31 years, and the particulars given point to a horrible murder having been committed. On June 2nd, Tebay was waylaid in a lonely spot near Johannesburg and robbed of a considerable amount of money. When found by a pedestrian, he presented a sickening sight, his head having been fearfully battered in. He was removed to a dwellinghouse, and great care was taken, three doctors being constantly in attendance, but he never regained consciousness, and died on the 4th, two days after the occurrence, and was buried on the 6th. It is stated in the letter that two or three Cornishmen have been arrested by the police authorities, it being suspected that they concerned (sic) in the murder. The deceased left the Furness district six years ago. He leaves a widow and one child at Chorley. The deceased was a brother of Robert Hankey, who was killed in the ironworks some months ago.

SINGULAR FATALITY AT THE ASKAM IRONWORKS

On Thursday night, a strange accident occurred at the Askam Ironworks, whereby Robert Bradshaw Hankey, aged 20 years, living at Ireleth, met with an untimely end. Between seven and eight o’clock he was talking to some of the men at the works, and left them to attend to his own duties in one of the boxed bays of iron ore, which are emptied into the barrows by means of shoots. Nothing more was seen or heard of him until half-past ten o’clock, when a man found Hankey’s arm was protruding through one of the shoots. On examination it was found that the poor fellow was quite dead, the body being cold. The body was conveyed to his home. Deceased was a member and player in the Askam Football Club, and had occasionally been included in the first team. He was one of the picked fifteen to play against Carnforth on Saturday. Much sympathy is felt in the district for the bereaved relatives.

Another account says: - Hankey was working on the night shift, and was seen at 4.45 by Frederick Sirett, foreman. The deceased was then at his usual employment on the gangtree (sic – gantry?), and it is conjectured that in running down the shoot the metal had stuck, and with the intention of loosening it he got a crowbar. Whilst using this he must have overbalanced himself and fallen into the box, and dropped a distance of nearly 50 feet, landing at the bottom head first. He was quite dead when found.

On Saturday, Jno. Poole, Esq., opened an inquest at the Bay Horse Inn, Ireleth, before a jury, of whom Mr. John Noble was foreman. The evidence of Wm. Buxton, Thos. Proctor, Fred. Sirett, was taken, and they stated it was the duty of deceased to loosen the ore if it got stuck in the shoot, as it did sometimes when damp.

Deceased’s mother said the lad had often complained of the dangerous occupation, and had said that somebody would be killed. Accidents had occurred there before, but had not been fatal.

The inquiry was adjourned, so that further evidence could be got, and the jury and coroner see the place where the accident occurred.

THE FATAL ACCIDENT AT ASKAM. – The adjourned inquest on the body of Robert B. Hankey, was resumed at the Vulcan Hotel, on Wednesday, when the Company was represented by Mr. S. Hart Jackson, and the friends of the deceased by Mr. R. F. Thompson, Kendal. The jury returned a verdict of Accidental Death, adding a rider to the effect that there was not sufficient protection for the workmen, and in future there should be a rope suspended from a bar at the top by which the man in the box could escape.

SUDDEN DEATH AT ASKAM. –  On Friday morning (i.e. 11 December) a miner named John Hankey, residing at No. 1, Huddleston Row, Lots, Askam, died very suddenly. The man was seized with pains and grew seriously ill. Dr. Anderson, of Askam, being called out of bed shortly after midnight to visit him. The doctor was quickly in attendance. The patient seemed merely to be suffering from colic, and the doctor gave him some medicine. Hankey then seemed better for an hour or so. About 2 a.m., however, he suddenly staggered whilst in the kitchen, and fell down dead. The relatives quickly summoned Dr. Anderson, who was instantly in attendance, when he found that life was quite extinct. The deceased leaves a wife and a family of young children. He was employed at the Greenscoe mines, the property of the Furness Iron and Steel Company, Limited, of Askam, and has been about ten years in that neighbourhood. He was a strong-built fellow, with every appearance of health. Some time ago Hankey was employed filling ore at the back of the furnaces, and was also for a time engaged on the slag bank, so that he was well-known on the works.

 IN LOVING MEMORY OF
ROBERT BRADSHAW
SON OF JOHN AND BARBARA HANKEY
WHO WAS KILLED AT THE ASKAM IRONWORKS
FEB 1ST 1894, AGED 19 YEARS
ALSO THE ABOVE JOHN HANKEY
WHO DIED DEC 11TH 1874
AGED 40 YEARS
AND WILLIAM BRADSHAW, THEIR SON
WHO DIED NOV 23RD 1871
AGED 10 MONTHS
ALSO PATTISON SON OF
WILLIAM AND BARBARA PENNINGTON
WHO DIED JAN 8TH 1883
AGED 3 YEARS
ALSO THOMAS TEBAY
WHO DIED AT JOHANNESBURG
SOUTH AFRICA
JUNE 4TH 1894, AGED 31 YEARS
ALSO THE ABOVE WILLIAM PENNINGTON
WHO DIED AT KIMBERLEY, SOUTH AFRICA
JUNE 6TH 1903, AGED 61 YEARS
ALSO THE ABOVE BARBARA PENNINGTON
WHO DIED NOV 4TH 1916, AGED 80 YEARS
AT LAST, “REST”

SINGULAR FATALITY AT THE ASKAM IRONWORKS

On Thursday night a strange accident occurred at the Askam Ironworks, whereby Robert Bradshaw Hankey, aged 20 years, living at Ireleth, met an untimely end. Between seven and eight o’clock he was talking to some of the men at the works, and left them in order to attend to his duties in one of the boxed bays of iron ore, which are emptied into the barrows by means of shoots. (i.e. shutes) Nothing more was seen or heard of him till half-past ten o’clock, when a man found that Hankey’s arm was protruding through one of the shoots. On examination it was found that the poor young fellow was quite dead, the body being cold. The body was conveyed to his home. No particulars can be got as to how the accident occurred. Deceased was a member and player in the Askam Football Club, and had occasionally been included in the first team. He was one of the picked fifteen to play against Carnforth to-day (Saturday). Much sympathy is felt in the district for the bereaved relatives.

Another account says:- Hankey was working on the night shift, and was seen at 4.45 by Frederick Sirrett, foreman. The deceased was then at his usual employment on the gangtries, (sic) and it is conjectured that in running down the shoot the metal had stuck, and, with the intention of loosening it he had got a crow bar. Whilst using this he must have overbalanced himself and fallen into the box and dropped a distance of nearly 50 feet, landing at the bottom head first. He was quite dead when found.

An inquest will be held this morning.

A SAD FATALITY AT THE ASKAM IRON WORKS

THE INQUEST
A QUESTION OF DANGEROUS EMPLOYMENT

An inquest on the body of Robert Bradshaw Hankey was held at the Bay Horse Inn, Ireleth, on Saturday morning, before Mr. Coroner Poole, and a jury of whom Mr. John Noble was foreman. A plan of the workings was produced and explained to the Coroner and jury. – William Buxton said he lived at 47, Sharp-street, Askam, and was a mine filler at the Iron Works. He knew the deceased quite well, who was employed as a lime stone breaker, and also to see that the ore was running properly down the shoot. He lived at Ireleth Brow, and was 19 years of age last birthday. He last saw him alive on Thursday morning. Deceased would go to work again at five o’clock, being on twelve hour shifts. The deceased had worked there about two years. The ore goes to the top of a landing in wagons, and were (sic) tipped during the day into the shoot or boxes. The box at the top was 24 feet wide, there being four outlets, from which the barrows below were filled, and the ore was carried from there to the furnace hoist. The depth of the box was from 24 to 25 feet, and it was part of the duty of the deceased to see that the ore went down during the night and did not stick. If it stuck he had a pick. There was a ladder from the top to the bottom of the short. By a Juror: - The deceased would stand on the ore when using the pick. There was no room for a plank. By the Coroner: - He had a pick to loosen the ore with. The barrows were filled from the bottom of the shoot, and an ordinary barrow load would be about 10 cwt. The barrow was filled by means of a lever. The boxes were put up about four years ago. – By a Juror: - The ore often stuck when damp. They worked all the holes in both boxes regularly. – The Coroner: - It appears to me that it is a very dangerous thing for a man to stand on the ore when shuffling it down. – A Juror: - That is my opinion. – Witness admitted that it was dangerous to stand on the ore when the top was not full. He could go there and nothing like that would happen to him. – The Foreman: - It appears to have been a death trap in this case. – Witness said he had often gone into the box to get the stuff down. – By a Juror: - Sometimes they probed the hole from the bottom with a bar. The ore perhaps might have a slip, and the man might get fast with it. He did not know whether those were the circumstances in this case or not. – Witness (continuing) said he found the deceased about half-past 10 o’clock on Thursday night when he went to the shoot for ore. There was only a small quantity of ore in the bottom of the shoot, and he probed the hole with a bar and touched something. William Whiteside struck a match, and they looked up the hole and saw the deceased’s hand. He was head foremost. He was got out, and was quite dead. He should have gone to work at 5 o’clock. – By a Juror: - The men on the previous shift had missed Hankey. – By the Coroner: He had not known of anyone being fast in this box. He had heard of Wm. Smith being fast in another box, and he was pulled out with ropes. Smith was an old man and could not get out, but a young fellow would have crawled out like a cat. That did not occur in witness’ shift. – Thomas Proctor said he lived at Steel-street, and was a charger at the Askam Iron Works. He went to work at half past nine, and shortly afterwards heard a remark passed that the men on the afternoon shift had not seen the deceased since half-past seven. They had shouted and got no answer. Thomas Hutchinson told him that they heard some knocking close to the box, and thought it was deceased, but they afterwards found out it was the weighman. – Frederick Sirett (sic) stated that he lived at 55, Sharp-street, and had been furnace foreman for about two and a half years. During that time these shoots had been used for about two years for ore, and previous to that for limestone. The deceased was the limestone breaker, and if the shoots did not work properly he attended to them. When the ore got low and the weight was off the ore did not run so very well, and deceased would have to go inside to start it off again, generally using a pick. If the ore was not too low the deceased would get on to the beams, and if it was low he had a ladder to go to it. If the hole was full the deceased would stand on top of the ore. He did not considered (sic) that a very dangerous thing to do. – The Foreman: It seems a very dangerous proceeding. – The Coroner: If the man got hold of the beams with one hand he could not take a pick very well with the other. It would take both hands. Is it an ordinary method of doing work at iron works? There is no other way of doing it. I don’t know whether these shoots are used at other works. They are used at Millom, but the depôts are not so high as ours. There have been no accidents here to my knowledge. I have never heard of Smith being fast. Hankey never complained to me of any danger. – By a Juror: - It was a common occurrence when the ore was damp for it to stick fast. – By the Coroner: - Witness went to work at five o’clock, and he saw nothing of the deceased before he went to his supper at 9.30. – By the Foreman: No search was made. If any men are short at the works it would be the deceased’s duty to look after extra men, and they thought he was attending to that. – By a juror: - There was no man on the top with him, but if he required assistance he could get it. – By the Coroner: - Deceased had no special direction for the work. – Mrs. Margaret Pennington said she lived at Sea View, Ireleth. The deceased was her son. He has complained about the place he worked in, and had said many a time that it was not fit to work in and that someone would be killed. She could not say whether he had complained to anyone over him or not. – By the Foreman: - A fortnight or three weeks ago he complained of an accident by which he was stunned. By a Juror: - He came home with the skin off his shins. She told him to be careful, and he replied that she would not say that if she knew the place he had to work in. He said that he had complained to a man named Sirett. Deceased went to work about five o’clock on Thursday, and she never saw him alive again. The deceased’s face is scratched. – Sirett (recalled), in answer to the Coroner, said the deceased had never complained to him about the place being dangerous. He may have complained to Mr. Bumby. – He told his mother that he had complained to you? Not on any occasion had he complained to me. – Mrs. Pennington: I think he will have. – The Coroner said he had formed an opinion in this case, but perhaps the jury would like further evidence before they gave a verdict. He thought Smith should be called. [It was stated that Smith was ill.] Several of the jury said they had been very little enlightened as to the nature of the work, and the inquiry was adjourned to Wednesday next at 3.15, when the coroner and jury will inspect the place where the accident occurred*.

* No paragraphs in original; Sirett spelt with one r and two; coroner and jury capitalised and not in original.

ADJOURNED INQUEST

A JURY ON PROPER PROTECTION FOR WORKMEN

The adjourned inquest into the circumstances attending the extraordinary death of Robert Bradshaw Hankey was held at the Vulcan Hotel, Askam, on Wednesday afternoon, the inquiry lasting two hours. Prior to the inquest, the Coroner (Mr. John Poole) and the jury visited the scene of the accident. Mr. S. Hart Jackson, solicitor, Ulverston, appeared on behalf of the Askam and Mouzell Iron Company, and Mr. R. F. Thompson, solicitor, of Kendal, represented the relatives of the deceased. Mr. J. Law, factory inspector, Preston, was also present. – Wm. Buxton was the first witness called into the room, and in answer to the Coroner he said that he was told that the deceased’s pick was found after the accident. – By Mr. Thompson: - He had known the deceased five or six years. He was a very steady young fellow and pretty well respected. Smith was pulled out of the box by means of a rope. Witness could have got out without the aid of a rope. He was in the box on one occasion when a man got his foot fast. That was before Mr. Bumby came. Witness did not know that Hankey had got fast previous to the occasion when he met his death. Witness knew a man called Benjamin, and had heard that Benjamin got fast last Sunday morning. Could not say whether he was got out with the aid of ropes. The sides of the shoot for some distance were perpendicular. The ore, when wet, sometimes stuck. There was no clay in the ore. He had worked at the ironworks 10 or 11 years, and was there before these particular shoots were used. He knew they had been used for limestone. He did not know that when the shoots were made that there were ropes connected with them. He had, however, seen ropes in the boxes, but he did not think there was a rope when Hankey met with his death. There was a rope alongside the ladder, so that the men could get hold of it when going down the ladder. – By Mr. Jackson: The rope hung by the side of the ladder so that the men could steady themselves when going up or down. He did not know whether it had been used for any other purpose. Witness went on to the top after Hankey had been discovered, and the ore was pretty near to the top of the box. There was a hole in the centre. There was a good light. – Frederick Sirett (cross-examined by Mr. Thompson) said he had been in the employ of the company nearly 12 years. He admitted that the shoots were used for limestone at first. There had been no difficulty on his shift, except one. He knew a man named Smith, but he was not on his shift. He had never heard before this job occurred that Smith was nearly smothered in the box. He never heard that Hankey was almost smothered in this box in the summer of 1893. It was not true. He had heard of Benjamin being fast last Sunday morning, but no ropes were used to get him out. He asked Benjamin how it occurred, and he replied that he had only got one foot fast. Witness saw him in the box with another man. Some of the ore was sticky when wet, and was bad to get away if the sides were fast. When it was fast a pick or a bar were needed. There was a bar at the top as well as at the bottom. He would swear that the unfortunate young fellow never complained to him under any circumstances about the dangerous condition of the place. He never asked witness to stop with him at night. At Xmas time when they were short of coke he had extra men at the depôt, but the deceased had never said that he was afraid, and that he wished witness would be about when he was at this dangerous work. Such a remark was never made by the deceased to witness. Witness knew that ropes were used in the boxes when they were first worked, but the men said the ropes were no good. The deceased did not say so to anyone to his knowledge. He was not working there then. He would swear that the deceased never asked for ropes. There was no rope there when deceased met with his lamentable death. There were no iron bars (illegible) the boxes. They were perfectly open except where the ore was. He had not seen boxes of this description at other works. He had had no experience in regard to these boxes. There was formerly wood beams in the boxes at the Askam works, but the weight of the ore broke them down. He had never heard that iron barriers were placed across similar boxes as a protection. – Some disagreement took place as in a previous answer to a question, which led Mr. Thompson to say: Now be cautious what you are about. Will you swear on your solemn oath that this poor young fellow never asked you for ropes as a protection? I could not swear to it right down like that. – I must have an answer. Let’s have no play about it. It’s a serious matter, and I warn you. Will you swear that he never asked you for ropes as a protection for himself? He never asked me that I am aware of. – Who did he ask? I don’t know. – Do you swear he did not ask you? Yes. – Then didn’t you know that he was very frightened after he met with that first difficulty? The first difficulty was on the bottom. – Will you swear that he did not say that he was frightened? Yes. – Didn’t you know he told his mother that he wanted protection there? No. – Didn’t he tell you that his mother had asked him to be very particular, and to ask you for protection? No. By Mr. Jackson: Deceased had never told witness that he was frightened of his work. Witness went to the top of the bay after the accident happened. The ore was within 18 inches of the top of the bay with a hole down the centre of the shoot. The lid of the trap door was on. A man could not use the ladder when the ore was within 18 inches of the top at the sides, nor would a rope be of any use then. When Benjamin shouted that he was fast the boxes were half empty. He had never heard of anyone complain of danger when in these boxes, and he had not made any complaint to his employers that the work was dangerous. – The Foreman: You say Benjamin had one foot fast? Yes. – If another barrowful of ore was taken away, was there anything to prevent Benjamin going in? No. By a Juror: He could not say for what reason the wood beam was put in. – By Mr. Law: It was a common occurrence for the men to draw the ore at the time when other men were in the hopper. – By Mr. Thompson: Supposing the ore was being regularly taken away a rope would be of use as the ore got lower. No important questions were put to Thomas Proctor – Henry Bumby, examined by Mr. Jackson, said he was the manager at the Askam works. He would have been at the inquest on Saturday had he not been called away to London. He had been manager of the works since the end of July, 1892. He then found Hankey employed as a miscellaneous labourer at the “back”. His work was to break limestone, and to loosen the ore in the boxes when necessary, and do any other work required of him. He did his work satisfactorily. The men wheeled the ore from the bottom of the bay, and when the ore stuck Hankey had to go on to the top to loosen it when the men could not probe it from below. He was on the works on Thursday evening up to 8.15, and he returned when he heard of the accident. He found when he got there at ten minutes to eleven that the body of Hankey had been taken out. As soon as he ascertained that Hankey was dead he went on to the top to see how the accident had occurred. He found Hankey’s torchlamp hanging from a crowbar which had been placed across the rails. The stage itself was lit by electric light. The electric light was outside of the bay, the torchlight being for lighting up the bay. At the two sides of the bay the ore was within two feet of the top. There was not the slightest necessity for a man to get into the box with the ore as it stood. The ladder goes to the beam. With the ore as it was in the box the ladder would not have been of any use. When the ore was low the men went down the ladder. They had to get on top of the ore when it was very low, but only when it was low. A man was then liable to catch his feet if he was not careful. He had never heard of a fatal or a serious accident in these places before. He had been eighteen or twenty years connected with the work. There were similar bays used at the Millom works, at Cleveland on the East Coast, and South Wales, with slight differences according to the works. There were similar bays at the largest mines in this district, and he had never heard of a serious accident in any of these bays. He heard about a man being fast in the bay last Sunday. There had been no complaint to him that the work was at all dangerous. – The Coroner stated that the bays at the mines were nothing like those at the Ironworks. – In answer to the Coroner, Mr. Bumby said that on Thursday the last ore would be put in at five o’clock, and the men would be drawing continuously. – Mr. Thompson: You say this poor young fellow had no right in the box? - There was no necessity at that time. – And yet with the same breath you say it was necessary when the ore was low? Yes. At some time or other it would be necessary. – How many difficulties have you had with these unfortunate holes or boxes? None whatever. Have you not heard of any man getting fast? I heard today that a man named Smith got his foot fast. - Did you hear that the deceased only just escaped being smothered last summer? I never heard of such a thing. – Can’t you rub your memory up a bit. Do you recollect the deceased being fast? – I have no recollection of any serious difficulty. – I am not asking about any serious difficulty, but about any difficulty. Have you any knowledge of the deceased having any difficulty in this box? No. – Have you ever been asked for ropes? – Never. – Have you ever been asked for anything to give protection in this place? None whatever. If anything had been asked for it would have been given immediately. – Were there any ropes in this box when you first came to the works? No. I have never heard of them except in this room today. – Have you seen any of the boxes at the other mines? I have not paid special attention to them. – Round such dangerous place as these, have you ever noticed iron breakers being put across? I don’t remember ever seeing such a thing in the boxes. I have known it done in open bays. – Don’t you think it would be a good thing? I am afraid not for our ores. – Would it not afford a twofold condition, firstly to break the ore, and secondly to give a little protection to any man who had to get the ore down such a dangerous place? I don’t think it would give any protection. It would break the ore to a certain extent. – Do you think it a proper thing to have iron girders for protection? It would stop the ore running. – Life is of more value than the ore running. Would iron girders afford any protection in this dangerous employment? I don’t know that the work is dangerous. I don’t see how any girder could be put up and be of use here. – When the ore went down the middle was there a Y shaped chasm? Yes. And had the men to work in this chasm? There was no necessity for it. Have you heard about Benjamin having to be pulled out with ropes? No. I heard to the contrary. – Don’t you think, as a practical man, that it would have been better if two men had worked together at this dangerous place? There was no work for two men, even if the place was dangerous. – I know trade is not so good as it was, and you want to be careful, but would it not have been better if you had two men instead of one man while such dangerous occupation was going on? It’s a simple question, but perhaps a poser. There was not work for more than one man. – I am not asking you that. Would it not be better to have two men here? Two men together would have been safer, possibly, if we had any reason to suspect danger. – You had notice of Smith being in danger? He was not in danger. – I believe the deceased was steady, industrious and intelligent? Moderately intelligent. – You considered him intelligent enough to be put on a job like this? Yes. – Didn’t you conclude long before this accident happened that some provisions should be made for protection? The only thing I thought necessary was to have a steady man there. – And if the deceased had not been a steady man would it have been necessary to have more protection? I should not have allowed an unsteady man to go there. – Then you consider the place dangerous? Not the place where he worked, but the place he had to go up. – I want to localise you to the hole where the ore went down. Would you have allowed an unsteady man to work there? No. Do you wish us to understand that you apprehended danger to an unsteady man? I refer to the place where the man had to pass in order to go to his work. – You considered the risk was too great? No, not until now, when I find there has been an accident. – What do you propose to do now? – The Coroner: This is not a question for the witness. He will have to consult his employers. – Mr. Thompson: You consider it a matter that wants looking into? – Witness: I think there wants some rules for the guidance of the men. – And that you can do? I shall have to try. – By the Foreman: I don’t remember any men called Huck or Nibbs being fast. – By a Juror: There should be a considerable space between the shoot and the ore at 11 o’clock on Thursday night. - William Smith said he lived at 23, Furnace-place, Askam, and had worked at the Iron Works about 26 years. For the last two or three years he had broken limestone, and had gone into the ore box the same as the deceased. He got fast in one about twelve months ago, and he was pulled out with ropes. About two months ago he had another fall. He was going to get the ore down when he slipped, and, fortunately, threw himself forward on to the ore, instead of going head foremost into the box. When the ore was damp it got fast on to the plates and it had to be got down with a pick. There were ropes there up to five or six months ago. There was one in each bay, but the metal had cut it through. The deceased complained about it being dangerous when he got fast last summer. He never heard him complain to anyone in authority. – Mr. Thompson: The deceased told you he was fast last summer? Yes. – Did he complain it was a dangerous place? Yes, and he cautioned me. – You had two escapes? Yes. – And ropes were used on one occasion to get you out? Yes. – How did you get out the other time? I got out myself. – There were no ropes when Hankey met with his death? No. – No protection of any sort? No. – Nothing to lay hold of in case of an emergency? No. – Don’t you think it would be better to have two men working there instead of one to protect each other? Yes, it would be a great deal better. – So as to give an alarm if anything happened? Yes. – Have you heard of William Huck being fixed up in this place? Yes. – And of Nibbs? No. – About Benjamin? Yes. – Sirrett (recalled): The Coroner: The last witness has said there were ropes in this place up to 5 or 6 months ago? I know nothing about them. – You had charge of this place, and it is curious you did not know there (sic) were there. Did you ever see any ropes there? Yes, in the bottom of the bay. – How long ago? Six months or more perhaps. – The Coroner: You did not tell me that before? Mr. Ward had ladders put in instead of ropes. – The Coroner summed up lengthily, and said there must be considerable danger if a man was on top of the ore when men were using their bars at the bottom of the shoots. It seemed an exceedingly risky thing for a man to do. For instance, at a quarry when the men had to bar down the stone they had a rope attached to their body, and were lowered from the top. When he first gave his evidence Sirrett said that he never knew of any ropes being in this box, but it appeared that formerly there were ropes, but a ladder had been substituted. When the men go into the box they had to go across the ore, and then the ladder was no protection whatever, and he doubted whether a rope fastened to the ladder would be any protection. If there was a rope it should be used from the top. Sirrett and Mr. Bumby had denied that any complaint had been made to them, and he believed what Mr. Bumby had said, but whether Sirrett’s statement was true or not was a matter for the jury. So far as this accident was concerned, there was no criminal liability on the company at all, but as to whether there was any civil liability on the question of damages it was a matter between the two solicitors present. The jury would be fully justified, he thought, in recommending that some better protection should be adopted by the company to prevent any like accidents in the future, leaving the company to adopt any such means as they think proper. It was not for them to advise the company as to what measures they should take if they concurred that any measures were necessary for better protection of the men. – The jury, after private consultation, brought in a verdict of ‘Accidentally smothered’, and added the following rider: “That we are of the opinion that proper precautions had not been taken by the company for the protection of the men working at this place, and we recommend that this rider be brought to the notice of the company, who should take such steps as they may find necessary to prevent any like accident in the future.”