WILLIAM HENRY CRACKNELL
Laid to rest at the Field of Honour.
Born: 8th July 1883, Ipswich.
Baptised on the 26th August 1883, at St. Peter’s Church, Ipswich – family home at Elliott Street, Ipswich.
Died: 27th October 1920; age: 37; died from shock at the East Suffolk and Ipswich Hospital, Anglesea Road, Ipswich, from internal injuries accidentally received from the deceased being caught in a dough mixer machine, the blades of which were moving at the factory of Edward Fison’s Limited at Ipswich on the 27th.
Inquest held on the 28th October.
East Suffolk Gazette – Tuesday, 2nd November 1920 – CRUSHED IN A DOUGH MIXER – A shocking accident, in which an Ipswich man, William Henry Cracknell, aged 37, lost his life, occurred on Tuesday at the Dock Street premises of Edward Fison, Ltd. He was working at a dough mixer when his arm got caught in the machine’s drums and was drawn into the machinery. So severe were his injuries that death ensued two hours after the accident.
Residence: 51, Surbiton Road, Ipswich.
Occupation: Baker with Edward Fisons Ltd., Ipswich.
Rank: Corporal; Service Number: S4/125657.
Regiment: Royal Army Service Corps.
Grave Reference:
BA.I.71.
Ipswich.
CENSUS
1891 16, Austin Street, Ipswich.
William was 7 years old and living with his parents and siblings at the home of his widowed maternal grandfather.
Samuel Cotton, 60, a Coal Merchant, born Saxmundham, Suffolk.
Henry William Cracknell, 33, a Carpenter, born Ipswich.
Elizabeth Ann Cracknell (nee Cotton), 36, born Benhall, Suffolk.
Ann Cracknell, 8, born Ipswich.
George Cracknell, 5, born Ipswich.
Charles Cracknell, 1, born Ipswich.
1901 6, Cambridge Terrace, Sea View Road, South Shoebury, Essex.
William was 18 years old, a Baker. He was 1 of 3 Boarders at the home of 49 year old, Thomas Whites, a Railway Guard.
1911 52, Cambridge Road, Shoeburyness, Essex.
William was 27 years old, a Journeyman Baker. He was married and Head of the Household.
Emily, 24.
Emily, 6.
On the 4th December 1904, at St. Andrew’s Church, South Shoebury, Essex, 22 year old William married Emily Lucy Knott, born April 1886, Shoeburyness, Essex – daughter of John George Knott, a brickmaker, and Alice Knott (nee Deacon (1st marriage Gregory), of 2, Clifton Villas, West Road, South Shoebury, Essex.
Emily and William had two daughters:
Emily Elizabeth Cracknell, born January 1905, Shoeburyness and baptised on the 2nd April 1905, at St. Andrew’s Church, South Shoebury.
Alice Rosetta Cracknell, born September 1911, Shoeburyness and baptised on the 5th November 1911 at St. Andrew’s Church, South Shoebury.
Suffolk Chronicle and Mercury – Friday, 5th November 1920 – DRAWN INTO DOUGHMIXER – The Inquest on the victim of the fatality at Messrs. Edward Fison’s bakery, at Ipswich, early on Wednesday week, was held at the East Suffolk and Ipswich Hospital on Thursday afternoon. The victim was William Henry Cracknell, aged 37 years, a baker, residing with his parents at 51, Surbiton Road, Ipswich, who by some means became caught by a knife in a dough-making machine, and died a short time after his admission to the Hospital.
Mr. W. K. Beard, His Majesty’s Inspector of Factories for the District, was present, and Mr. Claud Marshall observed the proceedings on behalf of Messrs. Edward Fison, Co., Ltd.
P.-c. William Beedon said that on Wednesday morning he was called to the scene of the accident, and saw the deceased in a dough-mixing machine. At the time, the machine was stationary. A railwayman was trying to get the deceased out, and with the witness’s assistance this was accomplished. The body was being held in the machine by the left wrist, which had been crushed against the back by one of the blades. The witness rendered first aid to the wrist. The deceased complained very much of internal pain, which made it difficult for him to breathe. A doctor came shortly after and ordered his removal to the Hospital, which was done by means of the police ambulance.
Charles Walter Youngman, a foreman shunter on the G.E.R., said he was working at Stoke Crossing when he was called to the assistance of the deceased. As it was found impossible to move the machine to release him, the witness went out and found the constable. The blades had to be prised back before the deceased was released. It was from twenty minutes to half an hour from the time the witness was called to the time the deceased was removed from the machine.
By Mr. Beard: The belt was not running when he first saw the machine. The deceased’s feet were actually on the dough in the trough in front of the machine.
George Albert Broom, a handyman at Messrs. Edward Fison’s, said that he had been at work seven weeks in the bread factory. The deceased came to work at six o’clock on Tuesday evening, and the witness was working with him until the accident happened. About two o’clock, the witness heard a moan, and the witness looked into the river, where he thought the sound came from. Hearing a second moan, he went into the bakery and saw the deceased man in the dough-making machine. His hand, head, chest, and shoulders were caught in the machine, which was moving just a little. The clutch was half open, and the witness immediately opened it altogether, which had the effect of stopping the machine. The witness then ran to the switchboard and switched off the electric current which operated the machine. He returned to the machine and pulled the blades back six inches. This released the deceased’s chest, but finding he could do nothing else, he told the deceased to hold on, and went out for assistance. He went to Messrs. Joseph Fison’s machinery shop on Stoke Bridge, but could make no one hear, although there were some lights showing. At the G.E.R. crossing, however, he found Charles Youngman, and with further assistance coming, the deceased was ultimately released.
The Coroner: Did the deceased say anything to you? Yes. When I first saw him he said: “Good God, help me out.” Later he said, “Mind my chest. Send for my mother.”
Can you tell the Jury at all how it happened that he was found in this position? I think he slipped in.
From where? He must have stood on the greasy dough-trough and slipped in. His feet were in the dough when I saw him. He was wearing canvas shoes.
Had any of his clothes caught in the machine? No.
Continuing, the witness said they had supper at 10 o’clock and drank cocoa. The blades in the machine made one revolution a minute.
Mr. Beard: I think you saw the deceased shortly before the accident? Yes, two minutes. The last of the dough was coming out of the machine, and the next duty would be to put the clutch in to get the machine upright for another charge, but they did intend to charge again. The inside of the mixer was quite clean, but he did not think he was scraping it out, for otherwise he would have had a scraper in his hand.
The Foreman said it seemed to him that the man had the clutch half on without knowing it. The machine moved, and he put his hand on the blade to stop it.
By Mr. Marshall: There is a written notice stating that if anything is required to be done to the machinery, information should be given to Mr. Martin.
Would you put your hand in the machine without the clutch being open? No; it would be a great risk.
Could you work the machine yourself? Yes; it is very simple.
Can you imagine why he should put his hand in the machine? No.
Did the deceased seem to be a man who knew the machine? Yes.
Mr. Martin, an engineer carrying on business in Bridge Street, said that for the last eight years he had done the repairs at Messrs. Edward Fison’s. The machine in question was a Mason mixer, and the witness had attended to it. Up to Tuesday he knew the machine was in perfect running order. He had seen the deceased working the machine several times. It was a very simple machine to manipulate. The witness was called to the scene of the accident and arrived just after the deceased had been released. The dough troughs were on castors, so that they could be moved about the mills as required. The deceased might have slipped into the machine, but the witness thought he had been cleaning the machinery. He had seen the men do this, and had warned them against it. The deceased had apparently got the clutch half out, and in this position the machine might stop for a little while and then jerk a third of the way round.
The Coroner: Why could not the machine be properly protected? If there was a guard, the men would have to put their hands into the machine to clean it out.
Have you seen other machines like this? Yes: I have fixed several in the town, and there is no guard on them. The only way would be for the machine to be cleaned out when it was out of gear altogether.
Do you consider the machine a dangerous one? Yes, it is. He added that the machine, when working full ran at 60 revolutions per minute, and not one, as had been said by the witness Broom. The machine was getting old-fashioned, having been in use fifteen or twenty years. In the new ones the whole barrel revolved, and not the blades only.
The Foreman: Are there marks on the clutch to show when it is right out? No.
If the clutch was half out, would it have sufficient power to draw a man in? Yes. It was oiled about a fortnight ago, and might have gone dry.
The Coroner: It the clutch had been fully out, could it have got back and started the machine in motion? No.
By Mr. Marshall: The clutch was quite free when he saw it on Thursday afternoon.
Mr. Beard said he had visited the scene of the accident that day and at least once before in June of the present year. From his own experience, this was the first accident he had known on that type of mixer, and only one class of dough totally different machine, but the view of the Department was that it was a dangerous machine. The only possible type of guard was an automatic one, actuated from the clutch or belt fork, which closed the mixer except for a small space for the dough to come out, unless the power was shut off from the machine. Most of the guards for securing this were of German origin, and were not now available. At his last visit in June he drew the firm’s attention to the matter, both verbally and in writing, and subsequently they wrote to him informing him that they could not find any engineer who would supply them with a guard. Witness supplied them, after a short interval, with a list of makers of guards. Since then he had heard that none of those firms would supply them. When he spoke to the manager, he told him they should get an automatic guard, but the letter was a circular, pointing out that there was a contravention of the Factory Act.
The Coroner: Can you form any opinion as to how the man got into the machine?
Mr. Beard: I think the root cause was that the man had not got the clutch properly out of gear, but in that case it was only fair to the firm to say that the guard would have to be an exceedingly efficient one. He had seen guards on these mixers, but generally they were not in proper working order. The fact that the man made no cry when first he got in led him to assume he had a fainting fit, and fell into the machine. To get an efficient guard was to provide one which the men would try to put out of action, because it would impede the clearing of the dough.
By Mr Marshall: He had fifteen years’ experience but had never seen a really efficient guard. He did not tell the firm the machine was not to be worked without a guard, for that would be out of his jurisdiction. He had always found the firm willing to do all that was suggested.
Mr. Ernest Tricker Oates, manager of the bakery department of Messrs. Edward Fison, Ltd., having been duly cautioned by the Coroner, said he had entire charge of the department. On the 2nd October he interviewed the deceased, who had applied for the position of a dough maker, and personally took him round the factory, showing him the mixer. The deceased said that he had a good acquaintance with that type of machine. He produced good Army and other references, and the witness engaged him to work alternate weeks, days and nights. For the first week, he was at work on the machine with a man who had previously worked it. His work was always very satisfactory. The witness saw him on Tuesday evening about seven o’clock, and was with him for about an hour. He was so satisfied with the work that he had promised him promotion. The deceased made no complaint as to his machine. Mr. Brown had told him of the Inspector’s visit, and said it was suggested that it would be a benefit if they could get an automatic lever lid. Witness wrote to the makers of the machine, who said they had never made an automatic lid to the machine, but the earliest time in which they could produce one would be from nine to twelve months. Witness wrote to the Inspector, who sent a list of six firms who might be able to supply the lid. He wrote to each of these, but failed to get one. Only on Tuesday morning one firm had written that they would see what they could do if they were sent a full sketch of the machine.
By the Coroner: With care the machine was not dangerous. No circular had been received from the Inspector as to it being a contravention of the Factory Act. About the middle of June one man caught his fingers in the machine, and he was away for a few days. He believed that was just previous to the Inspector’s visit. The man was cleaning out the dough whilst the machine was in motion – a thing he should not do.
The Foreman: What makes them anxious to get the dough out? Are they on piece-work? No. With the night men I think they are anxious to get it out in order to get a longer rest.
Mr. Fretton, house surgeon at the East Suffolk and Ipswich Hospital, said he received the deceased at 3 o’clock on Wednesday morning. He was suffering from very severe shock, and the witness concluded that he was dying. He had an extensive bruise across the front of his chest. There was a fracture of the eighth rib on the left side, and the ninth and tenth were broken from their junction with the cartilage. He had a compound fracture of the left arm just above the wrist. He died twenty minutes past four from shock.
The Coroner, in the course of a lengthy summing up, said that even if there was contributory negligence, if the machine was a dangerous one it made no difference because there was a statutory obligation upon the owners to properly guard it. Apparently the firm had written to all who had been recommended by the Inspector of Factories, but had been unable to secure a proper guard.
The Jury retired, and on returning the Foreman said that the verdict was that death was due to injuries accidentally received, and attached no blame to anyone. They added an expression of sympathy to the relatives.
Mr. Marshall wished to associate the firm with that expression of sympathy. They felt they had lost a valuable servant. Notwithstanding the verdict, his clients had decided not to use the machine in future.
Leave a Reply