11

I.—4a

105. Do you remember an occasion in ISS2 when you showed the Inspector the timbering of some bords? —Yes. 106. On which side of the district was that? —The south side. 107. What had been done there ?—I had retimbered some bords that had been stopped working. 108. Did he express any opinion on that course ? —Yes ; he thought it was perfectly safe at that time. Work was slack at that time, but was brisk on the West Coast, and some of the men, to save giving a fortnight's notice, got up a report that they heard the sea; and, when a man says to the mine manager he is afraid to go down, there is no option but to give him his money. These men had told Mr. Binns this at the West Coast. I had a telegram from Mr. Binns, asking me to bore holes ahead of my workings, and asking me what steps I was taking to prepare against an irruption of water by a fissure. I telegraphed back that I did not understand his telegram, that I had no fear of any irruption of water. After these bords were stopped he expressed an opinion at one time that it would be better if some more props were put in. I did so, and he was perfectly satisfied that this was a good piece of work for a long time. 109. Was there any foundation for this suggestion that they could hear the sea?—None at all. The same men, some three, four, and five months afterwards, came and worked in the same part of the mine, but farther down under the sea than they worked before. One man in particular : I said to him, " Why are you back here : I thought you were afraid to work under the sea ? " He laughed, and said, " There are more ways of fear than one ; I only wanted to get away." 110. Who made the surveys from time to time in your upper-seam workings seaward ? —MrBishop, mechanical engineer and surveyor, and Mr. Taylor. 111. Which side did he survey ?—Principally on the north side. 112. What do you know about Mr. Bishop's competency as a surveyor ? —No more than what I saw of his work at Shag Point. I found it as a rule correct; but on one occasion I found he had placed the position of one working-place wrong. I called Mr. Binns's attention to it on the plan. 113. And that was the only instance of inaccuracy you know of? —Yes. 114. Was his work generally accurate? —Yes. 115. Was any complaint ever made of it by Mr. Binns ? —Never. 116. Under what credentials did Mr. Bishop come into your service ? —He was recommended to me by Mr. Binns. 117. Then, as to Taylor, was he a competent surveyor?—Yes. 118. On which side of the district were his surveys made ? —On the North side. 119. Have you found his surveys accurate ? —Yes. After Taylor left, and went home to England, Mr. Denniston was appointed surveyor, and had to go over Mr. Taylor's survey in the lower-seam working,s and found it was perfectly right. 120. Mr. Denniston is a mining surveyor of considerable experience and reputation: had he any work?—Yes. 121. There is one matter I think, I omitted to refer to, and that is, with reference to some suggestion of falls on the north side? —The seam where these falls took place was split, the principal split was 3ft. 6in. 122. The principal seam is there divided in two? —Yes. 123. Does that split imply anything as to the stability of the seam?—No ; because the cover is. the same over the top of the split. 124. It is not a fracture, but a dividing of the seam into two ?—Yes; a wedge of sandstone coming in between. 125. You say the thickness of the seam was 3ft. 6in. to 4ft. Supposing there were falls there, would that have had the same significance in a seam of that thickness as in a thicker one ?— Decidedly not. 126. In what way is there a difference ? —The measures would choke themselves much sooner. 127. In the former examination some reference was made as to the loss sustained ?—Yes ; I said from £15,000 to £20,000. 128. In what way do you say that heavy loss has been sustained?—ln the loss of the works.. We should have to sink new shafts; in fact, commence the. colliery again. 129. Have you made any estimate as to what that would cost ?—I said that the two shafts would cost about £12,000, and the drives about £3,000. 130. Before you could get them into fair working order?—Yes. 131. Where is the plant lying now? —At the shafts which are abandoned. 132. There is an actual loss of coal that is all ready to be opened out in the upper and lower seams ?—lf we sunk again we should lose a rib of coal three chains wide, and I think sixteen or seventeen chains long. 133. Was there much of the coal ready to be opened out iu the lower workings ? —Yes ; we never opened up right to the dip of the present submarine workings. 134. Was there coal ready to be taken out of the upper workings ?—Yes; these upper workings were going on. 135. You were engaged in the lower seam and in the submarine drive of the upper seam : had you in both these seams coal you w*ere putting out ? —Yes. Of course the work had arrived at such a stage that we should have been in a position to put out more coal every day. We had not long before completed the new plant in the lower seam. 136. And you were in full swing of work at the time ? —Yes. „ 137. Mr. Beid.] While your memory is fresh on the subject, I will ask you as to the question of damages : you say you made, no'ostimate of this damage?—No detailed estimate. 138. Your calculation, then, on the amount of damage is purely problematical.''—l do not say that I have taken out qualities. We put down the depth of the shafts, and the probable cost. 139. And what did you reckon that at ?—The probable cost of working ? 140. The probable depth of the shaft ?—From 500ft. to 600ft.