C.—l 4.

152

f.T. C. MAODIABMTD.

1. Mr. Wiljord.] I shall be glad, doctor, if you will describe the injuries to William Kelly, who was injured on 9th July, 1914. They are put down by Mr. Fletcher, the mine-manager, as " Kelly was singed " ?—I put in the statement about that. Kelly had burns to his head and face and to the upper part of the thorax. On the head and face the} T were of the first degree ;on the left ear and over a point over the right clavicle they were of the second degree. The left side of his moustache was completely burnt off, and his hair and eyebrows scorched and singed. I visited him on five or six occasions at his house, and he was off work from the 9th July to the 24th July. 2. Do you know whether he was burned previously, or on any other occasions ?—I could not say absolutely—not to my recollection. 3. Did you know where Martin's coat was found ?—I did not actually see the place. 4. Did you see the boot that was discovered near Martin ?—No. 5. Would you say that the burns to Kelly were merely superficial ?—There was actual exfoliation of the skin in two places over his ear. Over his left ear there were burns of the second degree. 6. In regard to the other men whose bodies you saw, did you know which was Martin's body ?- Yes. 7. You remember bodies Nos. 36 and 43 ; did it appear to you that there was any greater force on any of the bodies of the deceased than there was on Martin ?—There were two bodies which were practically decapitated, Nos. 30 and 31, by the force which struck them. I consider the force which struck them must have been tremendous. 8. And a greater force than that which, struck Martin ?—Most probably. 9. That would agree with Redmayne's theory that the force at the point of origin would be less than that further on in the course of the explosion ?—lt would. 10. Mr. Tunks.] In regard to the bodies Nos. 30 and 31, which you refer to, the injuries to the head were practically the only injuries ?— Yes, they were killed outright. 11. But if they had been struck lower down their injuries might have been the same as those of Martin ? —It was an enormous force. The heads were practically shaven off. 12. I understand that Martin's body has fractures ?—Yes, fractures to his legs and skull. 13. With a piece of coal driven deep into the head ?—Not very deep, but partly driven into the skull. 14. So that though the force apparently was greater further on, Martin experienced great force ? —Yes. 15. And there was also an extraordinary wound in the abdomen ?—Yes, but there was another body which had a similar wound. I would not say that the force which struck Martin was as great as that which struck Nos. 30 and 31. 16. I think a burn of the first degree is not a very serious matter ?—Not as a rule. 17. And I think Kelly was able to get out and about within a day or two of his accident ?—I do not know that. 18. When you visited his house you found that he was out and about ?—I know he went to the . Dog Show, but without my permission. 19. Did he suffer anything as the result of going to the show ?—1 do not think so. 20. The Chairman.] How soon after an accident do you see the men who are injured ?—I saw the first body which was found in the mine. 21. But in regard to Kelly?—l see them, if the injuries are severe, at the pithead, or otherwise at their homes. 22. In regard to Kelly, when would you see him ?—I saw him in the morning. He came home from work early in the forenoon, and I saw him as soon as he arrived. A message was sent to me, and I called at his house. 23. Do you communicate with the manager as to the extent of the injuries received by the men ? —As a rule, if a man is seriously injured. The manager very often rings me up. 24. In regard to Kelly's case, what would be the first intimation as to the extent of the injuries which the manager would receive ?—The first intimation he received was when I met him on the street. 25. If not satisfied by his own observation, could he learn from you the nature of the injuries ?— Certainly. 26. In regard to Kelly's case, section 62 of the Coal-mines Act requires a mine-manager to report " any accident attended with serious injury." Would such injuries as Kelly received, in your opinion, come within that description, and be such as ought to be reported under that section ?—I do not regard Kelly's injury as a very serious one. 27. But the Act says " accident attended with serious injury " ; would that be a serious injury ? T think every injury caused by an ignition of gas is a serious injury, speaking as a colliery surgeon. 28. And you think this injury was caused by a gas-ignition ?—Kelly told me so. 29. Do you know about the injuries to Conn and Willcox ?—Yes. 30. Were those serious injuries ?—No, they were not serious. They necessitated the man staying away from work. Conn was away from the 16th February to the 4th March, 1912. He had burns on the arms, neck, and face. Willcox was suffering from burns to the face and hands, due to ignitions of gas. I would not regard them as burns endangering life. 31. Do you know whether they were caused by gas ?—Conn told me so, and the other men also. He came straight from the pit or was brought to me after the thing happened. 32. Mr. Brown.] What would you regard as being a serious accident? —An accident involvingrisk to human life. 33. Such as total partial incapacitation by a broken limb ? —What do you mean by total partial incapacitation ? 34. That is a term used in the Workers' Compensation Act; if it were an arm the man would lose part of the use of that arm ?—I would regard a fractured limb, or an injury which involved the loss of the use of that limb, as a serious accident.