Butterknowle & Cockfield Coal Co.

Registered in 1920

Warning: This is not intended to be an exhaustive history of the company, but an indication of the changes of ownership and the links between companies and directors in those companies. Only collieries, pits etc. in the North of England are shown - the company may own other properties etc. outside this area and there may have been other changes of ownership etc. for which we currently do not have details.

At Barnard Castle yesterday Edward William Williams, described as a coal mine proprietor, whose address was given as Edward-street, Craghead, County Durham, appeared before the magistrates on the charge of having at Cockfield, between October 12, 1925, and March 6, 1926, obtained by false pretences and intent to defraud divers sums of money, amounting to £574 8s. 1d., representing subsidy from his Majesty’s Mines Department under the Coalmining Industry Subvention.

The Bench granted a remand, the accused being liberated on his own recognizances of £200, and his father, a coalminer, of Cockfield, becoming surety in a similar sum.

At Staindrop Police Court, near Barnard Castle, yesterday, Edward William Williams, colliery proprietor of Craghead, County Durham, appeared on remand on the charge of having at Cockfield, between October and January last, obtained by false pretences from the Mines department £574 8s. 1d. subsidy under the Coal Industries Subvention Act. Mr. Ferens, solicitor, Durham, represented the Director of Public Prosecutions, and said the defendant was a mine owner, trading under the style of Butterknowle and Cockfield Coal Company, the colliery being at Blackton-in-Baldersdale. Between October and January last the defendant sent in returns of coal drawn from his pit and the number of men employed. The return for a period ended October 3 gave the output as 1,660 tons and the men’s shifts as 797. The defendant received as subsidy £60 5s. 10d. The return on October 31 showed 1,336 lifted and 840 shifts worked, the subsidy paid being £70 15s. 3d. On January 23 the output given was 1,182 tons and 881 shifts, the subsidy being £193 9s. 4d.

Mr. Ferens produced indorsed cheques to show that the defendant had received the money. Other returns were made in due course, but the Mines Department were not satisfied, and certain inquiries were instituted. He would call evidence to prove that instead of the pit turning out the large amount of coal alleged and the number of men employed, it was doing practically nothing at all, and no subsidy should have been claimed for it.

Several witnesses declared that the pit had not worked since 1923, one saying he saw it being dismantled early last year.

The Bench declined to deal with the case summarily, and adjourned the hearing for a week to enable a witness from the Mines Department to prove documents put in by the prosecution.

Source: The Times Newspaper