Rushden Echo, 16th March 1900, transcribed by Kay Collins

Higham Ferrers Petty Sessions
Proceedings under the Factory Act

Monday, before the Mayor (Mr C S R Palmer), Mr E B Randall, and Mr Owen Parker. Mr Parker took the chair for the disposal of the first case.

No Medical Certificate

Thos Patenall, Higham Ferrers, was charged with a breach of the Factory and Workshops Acts 1878 and 1895, at Higham Ferrers on January 23rd 1900.

The prosecutor was Mr Chas Francis Wright, of Northampton, who. After being sworn in Scotch fashion, said he visited Mr Patenall’s factory on January 23rd and found a boy named Ernest Martin, under the age of 16 years, working there. He examined the factory register, and found no register that the boy had obtained the medical certificate.

Ernest Martin, 15, said he had been working at the factory for nearly 12 months. He had not been passed by Dr Crew before the inspector came.

Mr Patenall said he asked the boy if he had his certificates, and he said “Yes” so witness employed him. It was not till the inspector came that he found out that the boy had not a certificate. He had only the school Board certificate for labour. Witness sent the boy to Dr Crew.

A fine of £1 and costs, total £1 10s. 6d. was imposed.

Sequel to the Accident at the Brickyard

The Ferry Brick Co Ltd., Higham Ferrers, was charged with a breach of the Factory and Workshops Acts at Higham on Jan. 15.

Mr Chapman, the manager, represented the company.

Mr Wright, who prosecuted, said the charge was for failing to fence certain machinery.

Thomas Wm Digby said he was engine driver at the brickyard. On Jan 15th he was working at the brickyard and Albert Mobley was also working there. Mobley met with an accident. Witness was in the engine house when the accident happened. He saw Mobley about half a minute after it happened, when he was lying on the floor by the side of the machine. Witness examined the machine. On a shaft of the machine was left the boy’s slop and a part of his waistcoat. It was wrapped round. The shaft itself caught the slop. On the shaft was a wheel that worked the shutting off gear. There was also a set pin, which projected about 1½ins. from the shaft. The shaft was about two feet from the ground, and 2½ins. diameter. The shaft was part of the brick machine. The machine would not work without the shaft. He did not see the shaft in motion directly after the accident; he stopped the engine, because one of the young fellows said there was a boy in the machine. The shaft was fenced at the time, but not full length. About 9ins. were exposed. The set pin and collar were not on the 9ins. Exposed. The shaft had since been covered up.

In reply to Mr Curtis, witness said the slop and waistcoat were about 4ins. from the set pin, which had not caught the clothes. To get to the position he was in the boy must have squeezed through a 9ins. space. He must also have stooped, he could not have got in walking upright. He could not have done his work without going inside the fence. The slop on the shaft did not belong to the boy, but he had been wearing it. The inspector had been since the accident, and said a fence must be put up.

In reply to Mr Wright witness said he supposed the boy wenbt to shove the clay into the mixer.

Alfred Francis said he was at work for the Company on Jan 15th. An accident happened to Mobley, from whom at the time witness was about two yards distance. Mobley was placing some clay into the machine just before the accident. Witness had not seen the boy near the shaft before the accident. Witness had freed the machine on the day of the accident once. He had not seen Mobley do it. One of the barrow men generally did it, but if they were not there they had to stop till they got there. He had only done it once.

Cross-examined by Mr Curtis, witness said there was a fence in front of the shaft on the day of the accident. Before the boy could get to the shaft he would have to stoop down and go sideways through a space about 9 inches wide. If it had been his work the boy could have done it without going inside the fence. He could have freed the machine with a spade from outside the fence. When witness freed the machine he stood outside the fence.

At this juncture the Bench decided to adjourn the case, in order to allow them time to inspect the place and machinery.

The only witness after the adjournment was Albert Mobley (14), who said he had been working at the brickyard. On Jan 15th he was working there, and had an accident. Just before the accident he was cleaning the machine., He was unblocking the bottom mixer with a spade., the machine being in motion at the time. He remembered that the shaft was revolving. He could not say what part of the shaft caught him. He had been in the infirmary seven weeks, and was still an outpatient. He had been able to do no work since.

Cross-examined by Mr Curtis, witness said he did not have to stoop down to get to the machine.

Mr Curtis said his defence was that the machinery was securely fenced so far as was required by the Act. It had been shown from the evidence that the Company made an effort to securely fence the machinery, and that the fence was sufficient to secure the machinery against those who were to go in contract with it. But for the small size of the boy he would not have been able to get in the position he did. There was a desire on the part of the Company to carry out the requirements of the Act.

The Mayor said they could not help, after viewing the premises and hearing the evidence, considering that there had been some negligence on the part of the Company. There was a considerable portion of the machinery certainly in unsatisfactory positions, and they had decided to proceed under Section 5 of the Act, and inflict the maximum penalty of £10 and £1 1s 0d costs.