1898 - Coalmininghistorypa.org

No. 11. BUREAU OF MINES. xxxviiunder and in pursuance of section 1 of article 15 of tlie act of theGeneral Assembly of June 2, 1891, above referred to, said sectionbeing asfollows:"Section ]. Upon application of the Inspector of Mines of theproper dis'trict, acting in behalf of the Commonwealth, any of thecourts of law or equity haviiig jurisdiction where the mine or collieryproceeded against is situated, whether any proceedings have or havenot been taken, shall prohibit by injunction, or otherwise, the workingof any mine, or colliery where any person is employed, or is perniittedto be, for the purpose of working in contravention of the provisionsof this act, and may award such costs in the matter of the ininjunction,or other proceedings as the court may think just, butthis section shall be without prejudice to any other remedy permittedb}^ law for enforcing the provisions of this act. Written noticeof the intention to apply for such injunction in respect to anymine or colliery shall be made to the owner, operator or superintendentof such mine or colliery, not less than twenty-four hours beforethe application is made.""Your orator therefore prays:"First. That an junction may be issued from this honorable court,temporary until final hearing, afterwards to be made permanent, enjoiningand restraining the Elk Hill (-oal and Iron Company, itsagents, servants or employes, from working the said mine known asRichmond Number Three (3) and operating the same or any portionthereof, with any men."Second. Your orator further prajs for such other and further reliefas to your honors may seem meet, or the Commonwealth may beentitled to according to the rules and practice of equity."The defendant company made the following answer tothe foregoingbillof complaint:"First. We admit the facts alleged in the first and second paragraphsof complainant's bill, except that the said defendant com-I»any has other powers under its charter besides thoBe stated."Second. We deny that the defendant company has disregardedthe provisions of the act of Assembly quoted in the third paragraphof complainant's bill, and we deny that we have failed to provide asecond opening from the Clark vein to^ the surface, and the reasonablysafe and available appliances connected therewith, but aver thata second opening or outlet from the Clark vein to the surface, in additionto the main shaft, has been maintained for six years last pastwith reasonably safe and available ap])liancesconnected therewithto enable employes to escape at the said second outlet or opening incase of accident to the hoisting machinery at the main shaft or outlet,and no complaint or claim has been made by the Mine Inspector|