John Glanville

Birth, Marriage and Death information

     John Glanville was born circa February 1857 at Cleator, CUL, ENG; registered Whitehaven.
     He was baptized on 22 February 1857 at Cleator, CUL, ENG, parents named William and Ann Glanville.
     He married Mary Ellen Graves circa November 1880 at Whitehaven registered, CUL, ENG, Mary Ellen Grives and Mary Ellen Holmes both marriage this district and quarter with same GRO Reference as John.
     He died on 6 August 1908 at Whitehaven registered, CUL, ENG; recorded age 52.
Information recorded:
Whitehaven News
3rd September 1908
Inquest At Cleator Moor
Registrar Refuses To Give A Burial Certificate
Mr. Gavan-Duffy Protests
On Saturday afternoon last at one o'clock Mr. G. L. Skerry, Coroner for the lordship of Egremont, held an inquiry in the Court House, Cleator Moor, touching the death of Mr. John Glanville, which took place at Fletcher-street, Cleator Moor, on the 27th August.
Deceased was a miner, and met with an accident on Thursday, 6th August, from a fall of stone whilst at work at Messrs. Cammell and Co.'s Mowbray Pit, Frizington. He returned to work on Friday and Saturday. On the following day (Sunday) he complained of feeling unwell and on Tuesday Dr. Byers's assistant was called in. Deceased gradually grew worse, and died on the 27th as above stated. A certificate was given by Dr. Byers to the effect that deceased died from pneumonia, but on this being sent to the Registrar he refused to grant a certificate of burial, it being within his knowledge that deceased had met with an accident whilst following his employment. Mr. William Leck, His Majesty's Inspector of Mines, was present, as also were Mr. T. Gavan Duffy on behalf of the relatives; Mr. Isaac Walker, manager of the Mowbray Pit, representing the Company, and Dr. Byers, who made the post-mortem examination.
Mr. Charles Gowan was chosen foreman of the jury.
Mrs. Mary Ellen Glanville, widow of deceased, gave evidence of identification.
By the Coroner; Deceased was 52 years of age and was an iron-ore miner working at Messrs. Cammell's Mowbray Pit, Frizington. He died on Thursday morning, the 27th inst. He came home about 3.30 on Thursday, 6th August, with his leg crushed and side bruised. He was generally home about ten minutes to three. His shift ended at two o'clock. When he arrived home he took off his clothes and asked for some water to wash his leg. He said there had been a fall at the pit and he had caught his side. He took no dinner and afterwards went to bed. I washed and dressed his leg, which was all cut at the front and bruised at the back. The skin was all broken right down from his knee to his foot. After washing it with clean water she put some ointment on it. It was an ointment he made himself. He was very sick directly he came home, and vomited phlegm, and also said to me "I have not told you the worst." He stayed in bed until morning, and did not take any food on rising. He was in good health previous to the accident, and before leaving for work at 5.10 had had a cup of tea, an egg, and a piece of bread and butter. He had nothing in the nature of a cold about him. Next morning (Friday) he got up about 4.30, and had a cup of tea but eat nothing on account of feeling so sick, and went out to work at 5.30. There were bruises on his left side and right shoulder. He complained of his leg on Thursday and said nothing about his side until Saturday, and she did not see it until Monday. He came home from work on Friday about three o'clock, washed, had a little dinner, and went to bed. He did not make a practice of going to bed every day after coming from work. He went to bed on Friday to rest his leg. At six o'clock he got up to have a cup of tea. He complained of his leg, so I washed and bathed it again and at 9.30 he went back again to bed. He did not get anything to drink. He had been teetotal for a long time, and belonged to the Salvation Army. On Saturday he rose at 3.30 and left for the pit at 4.30. He had a cup of tea and a fried egg. He was always complaining of being very sore all over his body. He came from the pit at twelve o'clock and reached home at one o'clock. After washing himself he went to bed; and did not get up until 7.30. He rose on Sunday morning, and had breakfast and then went back to bed again. He generally went to a place of worship on Sunday morning, but on this morning he said he was so lame and sore that he couldn't go. He had some tea on Sunday morning, but ate no dinner. He had a little cake at tea and went to a place of worship on Sunday night. He was in bed all day on Monday, and did not go back to work. On Tuesday I sent for the doctor, and he said he had got a little chill. Dr. Byer's assistant attended until Dr. Byers himself came on the following Saturday. It would be two years ago since he had had a illness of inflammation, and he was attended at that time by Dr. Byers. He had ailed nothing since he had the illness above stated.
By the Foreman: I showed the doctor the bruises when he came on Tuesday afternoon.
Mr. Leck: Was it on Thursday or Saturday afternoon your husband said he would not tell you the worst?
Witness: Saturday.
Mr. T. Gavan-Duffy: On the day of the accident the fact of him arriving home 40 minutes late might be due to the fact of him having to limp home?
Witness: Yes.
Mr. T. Gavan-Duffy: Did Dr. Byer's assistant examine you husband's leg and shoulder? — No.
What sort of certificate did Dr. Byers assistant give you? — The usual one, stating Glanville (her husband) was unable to work.
Was that accepted by the manager at the pit? — No, it was sent back.
Did you get another certificate? — Yes.
What was stated on that certificate? — A relapse of influenza.
Had you husband ever had influenza in his life before? — No.
In answer to Mr. Leck you said it was Saturday your husband made the remark that he would not tell you the worst. Was it not Thursday? — Yes, it was Thursday.
In further evidence witness stated she had eight children alive, five of whom had been dependent upon deceased. He was always anxious to work, and eager to get back although injured. The ointment she gave him would not give him influenza.
John Pickering, iron-ore miner, residing at 103, Frizington-road, Frizington, said he worked with deceased at Mowbray Pit. There were two labourers named Samuel Nicholson and Isaac Williamson working with Glanville and himself. On the 6th August he was working in No. 9 Company. There was no fall of metal on Thursday. There was a fall of metal on Wednesday hard beside where he was working. He was certain the fall took place on Wednesday, and no one was injured. On Thursday, Glanville was putting in a "prop" to support the roof when two or three loose stones knocked the "prop" from his hand and he fell down. He did not appear to be much hurt. One stone grazed the side of his leg, and the prop did not strike him as far as he saw. The stone seemed to fall quite softly, and might be about two feet square. I had to shift the stone to get his foot loose. The fall was not sufficient to bruise his side. He said his leg was rather stiff, but he was no worse. He had cord trousers on and they were out at the knee. The two labourers, Samuel Nicholson and Isaac Williamson, were present when the accident happened, and I was close behind him. It was a loose bank of stones, two or thereof the pieces projecting out. The fall might have been caused by Glanville whilst putting in the prop. The fall of stones knocked the prop out of Glanville's hand. Deceased had complained of a cold a fortnight before, and at the time of the accident it was still noticeable. I saw deceased again at work on Friday and Saturday. He complained very little and only said his leg was a little stiff. He did not complain of injuries to his side and shoulders. He worked a usual on Friday and Saturday, and I expected him at work on Monday.
By the Foreman: The size of the props we were putting in was 8ft. The stone which fell was from a loose bank of stones at the side.
By Mr. Leck: He was standing in the top of the bank of stones, and it was possible his standing on these stones caused them to roll down. There was no fall from the roof, only from the heap of stones.
At this stage Mr. Leck produced a rough sketch for the information of the jury, clearly showing the nature of the ground where the accident occurred, the propping and the loose stone bank.
Mr. Gavan-Duffy: Can you tell us the weight of the stone which fell on Glanville? — No.
Can you reconcile the two different statements you made as to the cause of the accident? In answering the Corner, you said the accident might have been caused by Glanville putting in the prop, and in answering Mr. Leck you said it might have been caused through he
himself standing on the loose bank of stones, and causing the stones to roll down. Which of these statements are true? — Witness: The first one maybe.
Do you think the last one may be? — Yes.
Do you think neither of them might be? — I don't know.
Before you came here to give evidence affecting a widow and a number of little children, you ought at least to try and be something definite.
You said Glanville complained of a cold to you. Why should he complain to you? Have you any medical knowledge? — No.
You also said you heard deceased coughing a bit? Did you give him anything to cure it? — No.
In your evidence in chief you stated that on Friday and Saturday Glanville had his bait. What did his bait consist of? — I don't know.
Do you seriously want the jury to believe that you watched him eating his bait, and did not know what it was? — I didn't take much notice.
In further evidence witness said there was a good fall on Wednesday as much as they could fill for two days.
Samuel Nichol, miner's labourer, 77, Ennerdale Road, Cleator Moor, said he was working in No. 9 Company on the 6th August. He saw two or three stones falling down and Glanville fell. He was about four yards away. He did not see the prop give way. He came up to Glanville when he fell. He was sitting on the ground. The stone was lying on his leg. I think Mr. Pickering took the stone off and Glanville got up and walked away. He did not say he was hurt. Mr. Pickering asked him if he was any worse and he said no. I did not notice his trousers leg torn.
By the Foreman: I only heard the fall of stone.
By a Juryman: He finished his bait on Friday and Saturday.
By Mr. Leck: I heard a fall and I then came in to see what was up. The prop was lying alongside of him.
Mr. Isaac Walker, Pardshaw, manager at Messrs. Cammell's Mowbray Pit, said he saw Glanville when he came up the pit. He said he very near got his leg broken but he was no worse. He didn't limp nor did he loose his breeches to let me look at his leg. He did not report the accident.
Mr. Leck: The Act only provides for reporting accidents of a serious personal nature. — Witness: Yes.
Mr. Gavan-Duffy objected to the Coroner admitting the conversation between the deceased and the manager as evidence at that inquest. The Coroner thought it might be admitted as a conversation.
Mr. Duffy said he did not wish to throw any doubt about the accuracy of what Mr. Walker said, but he did strongly object to any conversation relating to deceased which took place without the presence of a third party being admitted as evidence.
Dr. Byers, Cleator, said he first saw Glanville on the 22nd August. His assistant had been attending him before. He had attended deceased for small ailments. He was a healthy man. On the 22nd he went to see him. He was evidently very poorly; and on examination found him to be suffering from pneumonia on the right side of the chest. I visited him two or three times a day and prescribed medicine. He died about twenty minutes past six on the 27th August. Since then he had made a post-mortem examination and found that there were three recent scars on the leg. The chest discolouration was very great. The heart was dislocated and the muscle showed fatty degeneration. The right lung was full of pneumonia. On the left side there were adhesions proving that deceased had had pleurisy. The whole lung was slightly congested as it naturally would be. Pneumonia was the ultimate cause of death. There is no doubt that after an injury a man is in a debilitated condition and more liable to wake any disease. There was no sign of influenza.
A Juryman: Why isn't Dr. Byer's assistant here to give evidence?
Dr. Byers: He is at present in Liverpool.
Mr. Gavan Duffy: Is he still issuing certificates?
Did you ever hear of a case of a man having a relapse of a disease he never had? — No.
Was it likely for a case of influenza to drift into pneumonia? — It was possible.
Did you make the post-mortem examination this morning? — Yes.
On what authority did you make the post-mortem examination? Did you ask permission of the family? — It had been arranged.
Arranged by whom? — I went to make the examination, and there was no objection.
Is it customary for a doctor, the accuracy of whose certificate of death is in dispute, to make a post-mortem examination without asking for or obtaining the assistance of another doctor?
The Coroner (interposing): Dr. Byers made the post-mortem examination at my request.
Dr. Byers: I am sorry if I did anything wrong.
Mr. Gavan Duffy: I wish to enter the strongest possible protest against what has been done. Some notice at least might have been given to us of the intention to hold a post-mortem examination, so that we may have had if necessary an independent medical man.
The Coroner: Yes, you have a perfect right to have an independent medical man at the post-mortem examination, and it is not too late yet.
Gavan Duffy: Yes, it is. You have issued a certificate of burial, and the final arrangements for the funeral have been carried out.
The Coroner: If you are wishful in future to have notice in a case where a post-mortem is deemed necessary, you can have it.
Mr. Gavan Duffy: We are quite entitled to that.
The Coroner said he would instruct the police in future to send Mr. Gavan Duffy notice.
The Coroner, in summing up, said this was a rather more difficult case than usual to place before a jury. Dr. Byers attended deceased since the 22nd August, and certified to the registrar that death was due to pneumonia. The registrar having in some way thought that this man met with an accident did not care to register the death without communicating with him. On hearing of this I wrote to Inspector Whiteside on the matter, and he told me that death was due to pneumonia, but that he had had an accident in Mowbray Pit some time ago, and Dr. Byers was not able to say if there was any connection between the accident and immediate cause of death. The fact seems to be he met with an accident on the 6th of August and hurt his leg. There was no evidence of his complaining to anyone else. He worked on the following Friday and Saturday. It is quite possible that the shock of the injury left him in a state that he would easily contract pneumonia. Dr. Byers' assistant had certified when giving a certificate that he was suffering from an attack in the nature of influenza. It was quite possible those were symptoms he had then. Pneumonia might have been accelerated from the shock of the accident. Dr. Byers has found no evidence to-day that the injuries were the direct cause of death.
The jury retired to consider their verdict, and found that death was due to pneumonia, but whether the accident he met with on the 6th August at Mowbray Pit was the direct cause the jury could not state.
The jurymen gave their fees to the widow.

Other information

     John and Mary Ellen Graves had 10 children by the 1911 census, two having died by that date.