4. ESCAPEMENT SHAFT-TIME FOR CONSTRUCTION, A mine operator operating a coal mine to the depth of 330 feet prior to July 1, 1877, and in which more than 10 men were employed, and operating the same with one escapement shaft, is liable to the penalty imposed by that act if he failed to have constructed a completed and second escapement shaft on or before July 1, 1880; and the act of 1879 did not repeal the act of 1877 in this respect and did not extend the time for the construction of the second escapement shaft. Hamilton v. State, 102 Ill. 367, p. 368. The act of 1877 provides that in a mine of less than 100 feet deep the operator shall have two years, and if the mine is 100 feet and less than 300 feet he shall have three years, in which to construct the additional escapement shaft. The act went into force July 1, 1877, and accordingly the time for the construction of an additional escapement shaft in a mine over 300 feet deep would expire July 1, 1880. Hamilton v. State, 102 Ill. 367, p. 368. 5. SHAFTS-ENTRANCE PROTECTED. It is the duty of a mine operator under section 8 of this statute to protect the entrance to the shaft and in an action under section 14 to recover damages for injuries for an alleged failure to comply with the statute it is proper to show the entire condition at the entrance of the shaft. Odin Coal Co. v. Denman, 84 Ill. App. 190, p. 196. 6. SHAFT-LIGHTING-PROOF. Section 6 of this act requires a coal mine operator to make suitable provision for furnishing sufficient light at the top of the shaft, and in an action by an injured miner for damages for an alleged violation of the statute in failing to furnish sufficient light it is proper to show what means were employed to that end and how such means met the requirements. Odin Coal Co. v. Denman, 84 Ill. App. 190, p. 196. 7. LIABILITY OF OPERATOR FOR MISTAKES OF INSPECTOR. The statute does not provide how nor to what extent the examination should be made; but if a mine operator employs an examiner holding a certificate authorizing him to act as such, and such examiner makes an examination at the time required, this constitutes a compliance so far as the operator is concerned. A mere mistake of the examiner or a failure on his part to detect a defective place in the roof does not constitute a willfull neglect of the mine operator within the meaning of this statute. Kellyville Coal Co. v. Hill, 87 Ill. App. 424, p. 426. See Illinois Collieries Co. v. Davis, 137 Ill. App. 15, p. 19. 8. APPLICATION AND PROTECTION OF STATUTE--WORKMAN. A person working in a coal mine must be regarded as a "workman" within the meaning of the statute when he is engaged in performing in the mine that character of labor which exposes him to the perils the statutes were designed to protect him against. Mount Olive & Stauton Coal Co. v. Herteck, 190 Ill. 39, p. 41; Mount Olive & Stauton Coal Co. v. Rademacher, 190 Ill. 538, p. 543; Kellyville Coal Co. v. Yehnka, 94 Ill. App. 74, p. 81. 9. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH STATUTE-PROXIMATE CAUSE. The object to be obtained by this statute was to prevent injuries to persons so employed in mining operations that the slightest degree of negligence might not prove fatal; and in a case where it is shown conclusively that if the mining company had complied with the provisions of the statute the accident would not have happened notwithstanding the manner in which the miner did his work, the mining company is liable in damages for an injury or death of a miner. Under such circumstances the injury was not occasioned by the neg ligence either of the miner or of a fellow servant, but was caused by the failure of the mine operator to comply with the provisions of the law. Bartlett Coal & Min. Co. v. Roach, GS Ill. 174, p. 175; Wesley City Coal Co. v. Healer, 84 Ill. 126, p. 128; Catlett v. Young, 143 Ill. 74, p. 80; Eldorado Coal & Coke Co. v. Swan, 227 Ill. 586, p. 591. Coal Run Coal Co. v. Coughlin, 19 Ill. App. 412, p. 415. A mining company that failed for more than two years to comply with this statute in the matter of providing at least two distinct means of ingress and egress for the miners is liable for the death of a miner caused by falling down a shaft extending from the mine in which he worked to a mine below while attempting to escape from the mine on an alarm of fire, though the fire was purely accidental and there was, in fact, no real danger from the fire, as in such case the violation of the statute must be regarded as the proximate cause of the miner's death. Wesley City Coal Co. v. Healer, 84 III. 126, p. 129. See Loescher v. Consolidated Coal Co., 259 Ill. 126, p. 129. Section 8 of this act imposes upon all coal companies the obligation to erect gates at the top of the shaft and to use reasonable care to keep them safely closed at all times when it is not necessary to open them for use, and a failure to do this, and in consequence there is injury to an employee, the operator is liable under the statute and the law of fellow servants does not apply. Coal Run Coal Co. v. Coughlin, 19 Ill. App. 412, p. 416. 10. WILFUL VIOLATION OF STATUTE. The word wilful used in section 14 means a violation of the act or failure to comply with any of its provisions committed knowingly and deliberately. Himrod Coal Co. v. Schroath, 91 Ill. App. 234, p. 237; Odin Coal Co. v. Denman. 185 II, 413. See Catlett v. Young, 143 Ill., p. 74. Section 6 of this act requires coal mine operators to provide safe means of hoisting and lowering persons in their mines with a sufficient cover overhead on their box or carriage used for hoisting purposes for the protection of persons hoisted or lowered into the mines; and where a mine operator wilfully used an uncovered cage for hoisting and lowering miners into its mine, in violation of the statute, an action may be maintained for injuries resulting to a miner although the miner may not himself have been free from negligence. Litchfield Coal Co. v. Taylor, 81 Ill. 590, p. 595; Catlett v. Young, 143 Ill. 74. p. 80; Coal Run Coal Co. v. Coughlin, 19 Ill. App. 412, p. 415. The act of 1872 providing for the health and safety of persons employed in coal mines went into force on the 1st day of July of that year. In an action for the death of a miner that occurred on the 9th day of July. 1872, the question as to whether the mine operator had sufficient time in which by the exercise of reasonable diligence to have complied with the provisions of the statute, was a question of fact. The mining company must have known when the act took effect and if not prepared to comply with its provisions it was its duty to suspend operations in its mines until the necessary preparations could be made, and a failure to do so mus. be regarded as wilful, especially where the company continued to operate its mine in defiance of the law. Bartlett Coal & Min. Co. v. Roach, 68 III. 174, p. 175; A coal mine operator in good faith placed gates at the top of his mine shaft as required by the statute. But merely because the gate happened to be open, wilful negligence can not be imputed nor does it imply wilful disobedience of the statute, especially where the evidence shows that the gate was properly provided but by some mishap had been left open but not wilfully. Coal Run Coal Co. v. Coughlin, 19 Ill. App. 412, p. 414. 11. UNDERGROUND WORKINGS-APPLICATION OF STATUTE. Section 8 of the statute requiring that all underground self-acting or engine planes or gangways on which coal cars are drawn and persons travel, shall be provided with certain named safety appliances, applies to all underground, selfacting or engine planes, and also to all underground gangways on which coal cars are drawn and persons travel, whatever the motive power may be. Sangamon Coal Min. Co. v. Wiggerhaus, 122 Ill. 279, p. 283. 12. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE-KNOWLEDGE OF DANGER, Under this statute contributory negligence is not a defense. Catlett v. Young, 143 Ill. 74, p. 81. See Catlett v. Young, 38 Ill. App. 198, p. 202. In an action by a miner for damages for injuries caused by the failure of a coal mine operator to have the cage equipped as required by this statute, the knowledge only of the miner of the failure of the coal mine operator to have the mine provided with these protections will not defeat the action; and though the injured miner may not have been entirely free from fault the operator is liable if he was guilty of wilful violation of the statute. Litchfield Coal Co. v. Taylor, 81 Ill. 590; Bodell v. Brazil Block Coal Co., 25 Ind. App. 654, p. 658. 13. ACTION FOR DEATH-WHO MAY SUE-PLEADING. The right of action for the death of a miner is by this statute vested in the widow of the deceased, his lineal heirs, adopted children or other dependent persons; and an administrator of the deceased miner cannot maintain an action for damages. Litchfield Coal Co. v. Taylor, 81 Ill. 590; Maule Coal Co. v. Partenheimer, 155 Ind. 100, p. 108. In an action by an administer of a deceased miner against a coal mine operator for damages for the death of a miner, an averment that it was the duty of the mine operator to furnish props and prop the dirt or slate and other dangerous material that fell from the roof and caused the miner's death, does not show a violation of the statute and is not sufficient to charge negligence of the operator under common law rules, Consolidated Coal Co. v. Yung, 24 Ill. App. 255, p. 256. See Consolidated Coal Co. v. Scheller, 42 Ill. App. 619, p. 635, 638; Consolidated Coal Co. v. Parson, 66 Ill. App. 434, p. 439. 14. DEATH OF MINER-ACTION BY WIDOW. Under section 14 of this statute a widow is the proper person to bring an action for the death of her husband while working in a coal mine as she is expressly authorized by this section to bring the suit. This section in its relation to miners is special and must control as to all cases specially enumerated in the act itself, as against the general statute authorizing actions in the name of the personal representatives of a deceased. Litchfield Coal Co. v. Taylor, 81 Ill. 590, p. 592. Where the operator of a coal mine before permitting any person to enter the mine causes it to be daily examined by a competent and duly authorized agent, who in good faith makes such examination to ascertain if there are any dangerous conditions thereof which render it unsafe for men to begin work, and upon such examination fails to find any such dangerous condition, and reports the mine to be in a safe condition when in fact it is not, the operator is not liable to the widow of a miner killed by reason of existing dangerous conditions, as section 14 only authorizes her to maintain an action where the act has been wilfully violated or its provisions wilfully not complied with. In such case it cannot be said that the operator had knowingly and deliberately failed to have the mine examined or had wilfully permitted the men to enter the mine before the same had been reported in a safe condition to begin work. Himrod Coal Co. v. Schroath, 91 Ill. App. 234, p. 237. 15. REPEAL. This act was repealed by an act of May 28, 1879 (Laws of 1879, p. 204), providing for the health and safety for persons employed in coal mines, except such parts as were expressly retained and kept in force by the proviso to section 3 of the act of 1879. Hamilton v. State, 102 Ill. 367, p. 369. MINING OPERATIONS. FIRST GENERAL REVISION, 1879. LAWS 1879, P. 204. MAY 28, 1879. AN ACT providing for the health and safety of persons employed in coal mines. Approved May 28, 1879. In force July 1, 1879. SECTION 1. Be it enacted, etc.: That the owner or agent or operator of each and every coal mine in this State, employing ten men or more, shall make or cause to be made, at the discretion of the inspector, or person acting in that capacity, an accurate map or plan of the workings of such coal mine, and of cach and every vein thereof, showing the general inclination of the strata, together with any material deflections in the said workings, and the boundary lines of said coal mine, and deposit a true copy of said map or plan with the inspector of coal mines, to be filed in his office, and another true copy of said map or plan with the recorder of the county in which said coal mine is situated, to be filed in his office, both of which said copies shall be deposited as aforesaid within three months from the day when this act shall go into effect; and the original or a copy of such map or plan, shall also be kept for inspection at the office of such coal mine; and during the month of January of each and every year after this act shall go into effect, the said owner, agent, or operator shall furnish the inspector and recorder, as aforesaid, with a statement and a further map or plan of the progress of the workings of such coal mine, continued from the last report to the end of the December month just preceding; and the inspector shall correct his map or plan of said workings in accordance with the statement and map or plan thus furnished; and when any coal mine is worked out or abandoned, that fact shall be reported to the inspector, and the map or plan of such coal mine in the office of said inspector shall be carefully corrected and verified. (Amended. See following act, page 146.) SEC. 2. Whenever the owner, agent or operator of any coal mine shall neglect or refuse to furnish the said inspector and recorder, as aforesaid, with the statement, the map or plan, or addition thereto, as provided in the first section of this act, at the times and in the manner therein provided, the said inspector is hereby authorized to cause an accurate map or plan of the workings of such coal mine to be made at the expense of said owner, agent or operator, and the cost thereof may be recovered by law from said owner, agent or operator, in the same manner as other debts, by suit in the name of the inspector and for his use. SEC. 3. In all coal mines that are, or have been in operation prior to the first day of July in the year of our Lord 1879, and which are worked by or through a haft, slope or drift, and in which more than ten miners are employed in each twenty-four hours, if there is not already an escapement shaft to each and (very said coal mine, or communication between each and every coal mine, and some other contiguous mine, then there shall be an escapement shaft for other communication, such as shall be approved by the mine inspector, making at least two distinct means of ingress and egress for all persons employed or permitted to work in such coal mine. Such escapement shaft or other communication with a contiguous mine as aforesaid, shall be constructed in connection |