The Express.
London, England, 1853-09-27 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, TUESDAY EVENING, SEPTEMBER 27, 1853.

the bow. I laid Mr. Thespian I 'ova ask say that the
wall shrmaLl see some down. He followed me into the
street and said it had stood 12 months, and I could keep it
op if I liked. As repreeenting Messrs. Lucas, I should
not have &sod anything by the wall being taken down,
but I dislike external walls. The district yor was
called in, sad he determined that the wall should be kept
up, and that a new external wall should be built. That in-
volved the underpinning of the old wall, according to the
act of parlianmat. I taw Mr. Thompson the day before
the accident. For one or two days previously I had
had a great deal of unpleasantness, and perhaps
something beyond it with the excavators. They had un-
dermined tho house No. 4, Arundel-street, and undermined
the shoriag of that house. They had dug too low, and
they had in that way rendered, in my opinion, the corner
of the parlour of Thompson's house insecure, but the house
itself (Thompson's house) had not been in the least affected
by it. I had been informed by my clerk (Phillips) that
some one, whom I have since ascertained to be Mr. Stan-
ford, had called to warn me that the excavators were dig-
ging too low. I found that the excavations bad been pro-
seeding too far, and I was very angry about it. That was
on the Tuesday before the accident. Rowe promised that
it should not occur again. He said no harm was done.
The excavators were employed by the contractors. The
following day, the day before the accideat, I observed that
they had still proceeded improperly with the excavatioa,
and that they had broken through Mr. Thompson's cellar
wall under the arch. I was very much concerned about it,
but Rowe told me it was done for the pupae of putting
some cement out of the wet, and that he had made it all
right with Mr. Thompson. I said it was a very improper pro-
carding, and that it most have shaken the wall above.
I had a ladder brought to me, and I carefully inspected
the wall, and found a slight creek. Rowe said it was not
a new crack, but I have no doubt it was a new one. I
said, whether new or old, no one should be in the building
next door with my consent under such circumstances, and
I insisted on his going in with me to Mr. Thompson to ap-
prise him of my opinion. We went la, and I and Rowe
looked carefully mod, and the poor fellow (Rowe) said,
with an air of satisfaction—" You see there is not a crack
about the place." I told Mr. Thompson that he must leave
the plat*, and that I must pall the wall down as I consi-
dered it dangerous. There was some little discussion
about it, and I said the wall on that silo was canvassed and
papered, and they could not see what was behind, and that
I was certaia it was insecure. Thompson said "Ifl go out
who is to pay me for going out." I said that had already
been settled by agreement, and that the diatriet surveyor
would award him compensation for what he might suffer.
lie said that would not do, and he wished
to have a certainty. I asked him what he
wanted ? and he said 101. I said " I did not
come to mate a bargain with you," for he; had named
so small a sum that I thought he hardly knew what he was
about. I thought the 101. was for removing his stock and
providing accommodation, and ! thought it inadequate. Mrs.
Thompson observed, " Everybody says we are no- safe,"
and I replied, " No one can say you are safe." That was as
to the parlour ; it did not affect the other parts of the house,
and I think Mr. Thompson only referred to the parlour,
which was behind the main building. There was nothing
to show that the main party wall was in danger. I had it
examined and plumbed, and it was quite safe. I would
have slept in the front part of the house the night before
the accident without the least hesitation. I am certain
that on the 2nd August there was no crack in
.any part of
the building to interfere with any part of the building.
I did not see the crack which was spoken of
by Mr. Henderson the artist. Atter I had had
this conversation with Mr. Thompson, I directed
that the wall should be plumbed down again, and I
earnestly begged Rowe to we that everything was made
perfectly secure, and I left the building about half-past three
the day before the accident, and I considered the building
was then perfectly safe, except with respect to the patient.
By a juryman—What I have said was as to the parlour,
not as to the louse itself.

The Coroner—Up to what point had the excavations
then gone ?
Witness—Rowe bad orders from me first to ascertain the
strata. We then agreed that ten feet should be excavated
below the level of the surface as it was then. That would
not extend to the footing of the wall, except in one or two
places. The footing were Irregular. The ten feet in
depth would net have been proceeded with if Rowe had
found he was going too low. However a rod tea feet long
was marked, and the workmen went on with it. About
the building that tea feet had bees arrived at. That would
be below the footing in some places. There had beta •
staircase in the middle, and a cesspool, and it had beer.
arched over, and beyond that there were what are celled
pimps in the wall. After I left the building they could
not have reseeded further safely, for they had bees Pex-
Sa~sfiWOO up,
psi
the bricks had not arrived on the
SIM bed eked fair to permit him to go on with
immediat with the old bricks, which
win; eamedleginped. I said, however good they might
be, they il66lldMiereat sista, and would not bond well to-
gether. sot as the spoileatioo forbid the use of old =a-
tonal. I odd MI Om it. There was nothing left to be
dembat the rampleating, and to do that they would have
had to go Mew, bat that would have been done in short
gr.
y a Immo—Though Mr. Rowe was so anxious to go
on with*, underpinning I did not think there was any
I demo. I *sold have been on the ground at nine on the
following day, an hour after the accident, and should have
boa under the wall superintending the underpinning. The
highest shores reached to and tb the joist of the top
floor bat one. The height from the top of the shores to the
ooping of the bones would be eleven feet. It would have
been disprove to have had higher shores. A piece of tim-
ber more than 40 feet must necessarily be very heavy ; sod
it most be obvious that when the top of it premed on the
wall it would press it la, and would have a tendency to
destroy the equilibrium. The excavations which I com•
plained of and., the house in Arundel. street were two feet
or two feet six under the footing of that house. The last
time I saw the shores there had been six excavations beneath
them ; they were perfectly safe then. That was about a
quarter to four o'clock the day before the accident
happened. The ground was generally level, and
in one part, where the staircases were, we could
me the footings, but the excavation had not gone
below the footings. At a depth of eleven Yeet from the
pavement some parts of the footings became obvious, and
then they did not dig below these footings. Needle-shoring
could not have been used, It would have been an act of
insanity to have put a needle through. Ahoy operative who
had done it ought to have been discharged.
The Coroner—How do you account for the accident ?
Witness—l think it so open to conjecture that it would
be hardly prudent in me to state it, but if the jury will
permit me I will do so. My impressions were formed from
the first, and they are not changed. I believe that the
excavators had undermined the wall. I did not see that
they had done so at the time that I left them. There is one
circumstance which wee concealed from my eye at the time,
bat which I ham sem since. The house was a verb nar-
row OILS ' • the beselegis were short, only 12 feet 6 mho
clear of the wall, err the ceilings were flush. Originally,
as it appose. there MI been girders running from the
partition smell the hew to the centre pier, in order to
=be alai alliege mil at some time or other the persons
eleopyieg the Isms bed eat holm along the party wall at
one ord. whisk was tee awns, to erect joists separating the
heads et She well. emi Mavis; the wall unequally sup-
ported. The was dime kid* the house, and covered up,
sad ao hams eye esehil Menet it. Ido not mean to say
that was the Mites. There mast have been a proximate
came bat see enable as to state what it was I must bare
something Men WIMP MI than I now have.
By Mr. Bodkin—l like it that the contractors were to
shore the wall, whether it oat 101. or 601. They would
have been paid for say extras they might have done, and no
more.

By Mr. Hawkins—Rowe wu not clerk of the works. Be
was forums to the contractors, and the two otiose are in-
compatible. I did what a clerk of the works would have
dose. I received no appointment or emolument for so
acting. It was necessary that there should be some rine to
see the work was properly done, and Rowe was there for
that purpose. Be was foreman. Iwu there because I
emsidered limy duty not to lure a workman in difficulty.
If I had seen the excavation improperly conducted, I should
have spoken to Rowe. The men would not have taken an
order from me. Ido not remember whether I saw the
Messrs. Lucas themselves on the premises. Mr. Rowe had
the whole superiatendence of the excavation. They had
two or three feet of excavation to do in some parts when I
last saw them. I stopped them. There were men filling
the coral but not near the wall. I did not consider the
wall unsafe, bat I told Mr. Thompson I would not gua-
rantee it, hccups it is impossible to tell what pockets, as
we all them, there might be in the wall, and as a few
strokes of an axe might have placed the wall in danger, I
thought it better that Mr. Thompson should have a new
party wall, which Messrs. Smith would pay for, and that he
should go oat while it was being built. Besides the raking
shores there wire jack shores.

A note was here banded to the counsel from one of the
jury.
II Mr. Ballantine requested that the note might be read
aloud.

Mr. Hawkins objected and returned it to the juror, but
the coroner requested that it might be shown to him, which
was done, and he read it, and observed that it was exceed-
ingly irregular for any juryman to write such a document.
He was sorry that any of the jury should make himself a
partisan one way or the other. There were there to judge
of the facts, and not to take either one side or the other.
Mr. Ballantine then complained that Mr. Hawkins had
been furnished by Mr. Stereos with a copy et his report,
and that Mr. Stevens had been making suggestions to
him.

Several of the jurymen expreued their regret that Mr.
Hawkins should have been furnished with the report, and
aid no one ought to have been furnished with it but the
coroner.

Mr. Hawkins denied that Mr. Stevens had been making
any suggestions to him.
I he cress•examination was resumed and continued for
tome time, but nothing material was elicited.
By Mr. Ballantine—l have been a surveyor for thirty
years, and have had much experience in shoring. The
shores were the proper height, considering the nature of
the wall. It would have been baxardous to have carried
them up higher. The five shores were amply sufficient.
If I had done the shoring myself I do not think I should
have put up more than four. The footings of the well

were eases tuft about eight er nine feet, bat they wore not
undermined: This wall was not at all perinea by that ti-
ppler,. lam speaking of how it was when I left the place
about a quarter to 4 en Wednesday afternoon, and if any
excavation Piok plies afterwards, it would have been con-
trary to my widen. I thcught Bowe a most judicious and
c•mpetent persist.
By *juryman— When I spoke to Mr. Thompson about
the place being in danger, I alluded merely to the back
indoor. It is obvious that 10i would not have compen-
sated himfor removing him from the house.
Mr. John Linn, of 27, Arundel-street, Strand, clerk to
Mr. Sambrook, coal merchant, stated that he bad occasion
to see Mr. Row* on the morning of the accident, and he
proceeded to the excavation about half-past 7 o'clock. A man
was engaged with a pickaxe excavetieg. Witness observed
that it was soft stuff they were removing, and if they did
not mind the house would be down. He then went home,
and in a few minutes afterwards the hones fell. They ap-
peared to have goes about two feet below the footing of the
wall. The soil appeared to be loom and, almost as loom
as if it was at the river side.
By • jeryman—Pror to the morning of the accident I
had not observed that the excavation had gone below the
Looting. I could see four or five feet in length of the
footings.
By Mr. Bodkin—l was first applied to on Saturday to
come hem as a witness. My examination was taken down
at my own house by Mr. Abraham's solicitor, I believe.
John Brown, coal porter, Newcastle-court, was with the
last witnem on the morning of the accident. There were
four mea on the ground—three were removing rubbish, and
one was cleaning bricks. He and Livett tamed round and
walked down Arundel-street, and when they had gone
about 60 yards they heard the house fall and went back to
see what had happened.
By Mr. Bodkin—l could see the footings of the wall. It
was all nicely got out to begin building. I could see two
feet below the foundation.
A gentleman in the body of the room here rose and said
he wished to give some evidence on a point that had not
been touched on.
The Coroner—Are you a surveyor?—No. What I wish
to speak if will he only common sense. (Laughter )
The gentleman was then sworn, and he stated his name
to be Thomas Baylis, and that he is an Ironmonger, at 273,
Strand. Living almost directly opposite the fallen house,
he had an opportunity of watching the works. The wall of
the house was eat away the whole depth of the wall from
back to frost. He saw the bricklayers doing it. The
were cutting down the wall to bring it to a sort of level.
They cut it, footings and all, he believed, to make it
straight. He saw two or three short shores. There might
have been three, but he did not believe there was one more,
and he did sot think that the plan which had been put in,
representing a aumber of small shores, was correct.
By Mr. Ballantine—l may have said to some of my
neighbours that I would come and offer my evidence.
will swear that the representation on the plan is a false re-
presentation of the number of small shores. There are
seven on the plan ; there were not so many on the ground.
I saw two; there might have been three. I will swear
there were not flee. I swear that both from my own ob-
servation and what others have told me.
_ _

Mr. Abraham wai re-called, andhe:is tad that the num-
ber of shores as shown in the plan WM correct.

__—
B y Mr. Hawkins—There were ten or eleven short shores
in all with those round the corner.
The Coroner then read the yore' report, of which
the following is a copy :
_ _

" To Sontag F. Luilham, Esq., Deputy Coroner for the
City and Liberty of Westminster.

" Sir,—Agreesbly to the instructions contained in your
letter of the 10th inst., with reference to the accident
wising from the fall of the house, No. 184, Strand, we, in
the first instance, appointed an efficient person with assist-
ants to carefully remove the rubbish to a sufficient extent
to enable us to form a correct judgment upon the points at
issue, and subsequently attended on various occasions to
give them consideration. The points referred to being
Whether there has been any want of due care and einem-
pection in shoring up the premises ? Whether any means
might have been resorted to which would have had the
effect of preventing the falling of the house in question?'
First, as to the materials used for shoring. We are of
opinion that they were ample in dimensions and of the best
quality. That thine which were fixed were of proper con-
structlon, end is all respects fit for the purpose; but we
ere further of opinion, that assuming the evident* of Wil-
liam Shrimplin to be correct as to the Match of the shores
and their distAnce from the party wall at the foot, by which
the whole weight of the basement end ground floors was
unaustaiaed, that additional shores should have been placed
underneath, more especially as the whole area on the east
side had been excavated to a considerable depth below the
kitchen floor of N 0.184, and also was stated in some places to
be below the footings of the party wall, and having further re-
ference to the character of the foundation on which it stood
being composed of gravel and sand and some portions of clay.
With retinae, to the second question we beg to state that
we have carefully examined the premises, and that the fol.
lowing appeared to be the facts as nearly as they could be
ascertained :—That the house consisted of six storeys, viz.,
basement story, ground floor, first floor, second floor, third
floor, and an attic story or rooms on the roof ; that the east
party wall was two bricks thick in the basement, two bricks
thick on the ground floor, one and a half brick thick on the
first floor and upwards. As to the footings, no satisfactory
information could be obtained except as regards a ten feet
et the south end, which appear to remain in their original
position as per sketch, and about six inches high. That the
bricks were uniformly good ; that the mortar was of •
mixed character, some being ezesedingly goad, some
perished and bed, and, as far as observation could be made,
superior on the west or inner side. That the joists, as ap-
pears from the holes in the west wall now standing, were
transversely laid—that is, resting en the party
walls in each floor, and, as we are informed,
a girder was fixed longitudinally down the shop.
Of the joists and timbers there is no means of forming an
*pinion, except from the appearance of the joist holes in the
party walls, end thew appear to have been of sufficient
scantlisg. With reference to the position of the walls of
the several stories when down the following appeared That the basement wall, with its footings, had pressed out-
ward at the bottom, and fallen with the western face in-
ward, and the upper floors lying disgonally upon It, also the
western face downward ; thou of the ground and two pair
storey presenting themselves sufficiently to be identified.
With reference, therefore, to the question, ' Whether say
means might have been resorted to which would have had
the effect of preventing the falling of the house in goes-
time ?' we are of opinion that, provided the floors of No.
184 had been shored up on the west side of the party wall
to take off the downward pressure, and provided else addi-
tional shores bad been placed under those Azad in the met
side to secure the ground and basement wane of the east
party wall from pressing out, and that the wall had been
under-pinned to the depth of the footings of she intended
new building, the accident would not have happened.
In arriving at this conclusion we are governed by
what we believe to be the facts, confirmed by the
beet tinfennation to be obtained ; and it Is proper
to add that every facility has been given by ell
parties concerned in promoting the inquiry . The deceased
ffowe, in charge of the works, was stated to be a man of
andoubtedly sound practical experience and judgment, with
every facility at his command for obtaining and using the
amonsmf rendering everything secure ; and that Mr.
Minim, Ms architect, and himself, had paid every atten-
tion they had deemed necessary to that end. And further,
that as melt operations as the foregoing are of extreme
Malty, sod so frequently matter of difference of opinion
with the meet practical men, we consider, generally speak.
inm OM there ma be no better judges of what is necessary
te he dam M metre safety than those persona in chug* of
the end interested in their proper execution. Not-
wi this, however, we can only form our judgment
from the facts elicited during our investi, and record
our opinion aocordingly.—We have the hones, to remain,
sit, your obedient servants,
(Signed) " Jour DINT.
" Fazalasez LLW7OID.
" J. HAY 01•1111
-

- - --- •
Mr. Stevens, surveyor of the western district of the City
of London, wee then called, and he stated that the report
just read ontained • tree representation of his view. on the
subject. He else produced a plan of the remind es it ap-
peared after the accident, and stated that from the appear-
ance of the rains the inference that he drew woe that the
footingspo of the wall for want of sulkiest support had
out, aid that the other part of the wall had slipped
arm it. If it had been a sound wall be should have
thought the shoring would ham been sullelent, but not
with a well of this kind. He theught the dell was mused
by the removal of the ground below the torkkg, mad that it
ttt have bee& preveated U the wad AM bpsa partially
visaed, in short lesgthe, es the paned was re.
moved. If the house led bees elisesd Inside, the floors
would have remained In *dr plsess, altbeegh the wall
bad fallen. He should have placed the asking shares pre-
cisely in the position they were. lie abseil Est Ems made
the excavation all at once, but should have mode it la part,
sad then have underpinned the wall there before
he had gone to another part. dappleing the upper
part of the wall to have bees MitsLued in its
place by the raking shores, the weight on the
lower part of the wall would have been mmal to 16 cwt. to
the square foot. The fall might have Mss prevented if the
wall bad been gradually underpinned. He should have
placed the raking shores precisely in the position they were
put, and also put up smaller shores to keep the lower part
of the wall vertical. lie then would have excavated a
piece at a time, and would have built a " leg," or piece of
brickwall to the wall. He then would have proceeded to
another portion of the wall, and made • new foundation,
and put another piece of brickwork, and so have proceeded
till the wall was securely underpinned. When that was
done, he should have removed the ground for the basement
of the new house to the depth he required.
By Mr. Halluitine—l have heard the evidence of Mr.
Abraham, and upon that evidence I should say that the wall
wee perfectly safe when he left it on the Wednesday. I
found the ground excavated eleven feet below the level in
one part, which is eighteen inches below the footings.
There is a discrepancy there, which may be accounted for
by Mr. Abraham not having observed correctly at that
point, or that a further excavation had been made after
he left it. It might have been made within an hour after
lie left it.

Mr. John Dent, 11, Southampton-bulldings, surveyor,
and Mr. Frederick Lawford, surveyor, 20, John-street,
Adelphi, who had signed tho report, expressed their con-
currence in the evidence of Mr. Stevens.
The court was then adjourned fur half an hour, and on
its re-essembling
The Coroner prlceeded to sum up. Hs said this was an
occurrence by which four ut their fellow-creatures had met
their death at a moment's notice ; and yet it was a matter
of conudation that the lose of life was not greater, as it un-
doubtedly would have been if the accident had occurred at
a later period of the day , and the youug woman,

Eliza Nth Stenharst, had had a most remarkable escape
in being enabled to throw herself down the steps into
the area where she was unhurt, and she survived to give
her evidence in the clear way which they had heard. It
was their duty to inquire into the causes of the calamity,
and whether any blame attached to any person. This in
quiry had occupied a good deal of puelic attention, and he
thought the result would not be altogether usel.se. He
then read the report of the purveyor', and said he thought
there would be no difficulty in arriving at the conclusion
that the cause of the occurrence had been one of the matters
stated in the surveyors' report. Then came the question u
to the person on whom the responsibih.y rested. By the
Building Act certain duties were assigned to the district
surveyors. They were to inapeet buildings in the Mine of
erection, and to me that the requisitions of the act were
complied with. Mr. Angell, the district surveyor, said he
was called in on the 19th of August, and the question was
whether Mr. Thompson's party wall was sufficient for its
purposes; or whether it was neceseary that an external wall
should he built against it. II- declared his opinion to be
that an external wall should be built, and then knowing
the works to be in the hands of the Messrs. Lucas, who
were highly respectable men, he thought a proper notice
would be sent to him. No such notice, however,
was sent. and the reason was diet the builders
thought they were not bound to give notice
till two days before they began to ;ay bricks; and certainly
the act would bear that construction. It was a matter
. much to be regretted that though the unsafe condition of
I this building was well known and much talked of in the
neighbourhood, none brought the matter to the notice of
the district surveyor, who had power to interfere, though
some time might elapse before he could do so effectualiy.
Mr. Angell admitted that in strictness it was his duty to
have gone to the place, ',instill it was not unnataral for
him to suppose thattbe contract being in the hands of such
respectable persons due notice would be sent to him. lie
next came to Messrs. Smith, the building owners. All that
they could do was to employ competent persons, which
they appeared to have done in entering into a contract with
Messrs. Lucas ; and with regard to the contractors, it was
not to be expected that they should pereonally superintend
their works. All they could do was to appoint • compe-
tent person, which they had done in the appointment of
Mr. Rowe, whe, according to the evidence, was a very
able man. It was for the jury to say whether, upon the
whole, they considered there was such grow negligence on
the part of any party concerned as to amount
o manslaughter. It was not sufficient that there should
be a mere error of judgment. There was • eel lusted
case, " The King v. St. Juha Long," where it was held that
a mere error of judgment was not sufficient to sustain an
indictment for manslaughter, and that there must be gross
negligence. With respect to Mr. Abrahams, Me Stevens
had stated that if the facts were as represented by him,
that the excavation was below the footings only in two
places, he should have thought with Mr. Abrahams that it
wee safe. The question was, whether anything was done to
the excavations after Mr. Abrahams left. It was for the
jury to say whether, both as regarded Mr. Abrahams and
Mr. Rowe, there was such • criminal neglect as to amount
to more than an error in judgment.
The jury then, at half past six, retired to consider their
verdict, and returned into court shortly after eight, when
The foreman said—We unanimously find that Robert
Thompson, Sarah Thompson, George Dunn, aad George
Rowe came to their respective deaths by the falling of the
house No. 184, Strand, and that the falling of such house
is to be attributed to the gross negligence of Mr. Abrahams,
the surveyor employed by the Duke of Norfolk, and the
Messrs. Smith in not causing the party wall to be sufficiently
shored up, and underpinned before the excavations for the
new building were commenced. Before we separate we
are anxious to express our approbation of the conduct of
Messrs. Smith in volunteering to bear the expense of em-
ploying independent surveyors to ascertain the cause of
the accident.

The Coroner—Your verdict amounts to a verdict of man-
slaughter against Mr. Abrahams. That I understand to be
the verdict of you all.
Mr. Berger (a juror)—We did not contemplate that. We
innaidered it gross negligence, arising from an error in
judgment.
The Foreman—We did not intend to convey a verdict of
manslaughter against Mr. Abrahams.
The Coroner—lf it is gross negligence, it would be so.
Another Juror—We want t, avoid a verdict of man-
slaughter.
The Coroner—l understand, you do not mean to convey
that there was criminal negligence, but that there was a
want of due care.

Foreman—Just so, but something more than what
amounts to an error of judgment.
Mr. Carr (another juror)—We cannot think Mr. Abra-
hams deficient In judgment.
The Coroner suggested that the verdict might be altered,
by leaving out the words "gross negligence.
The Foreman—We are anxious that our verdict should
not amount to manslaughter.
Mr. Berger—At the same time, we do not wish the ver-
dict altered.

Another Juryman—There is no difference of opinion
amongst us as to the cause of the accident ; but out of
kindness to Mr. Abrahams, we wish to prevent him having
to undergo the serious consequence resulting from a verdict
of manslaughter.
The jury then consulted for a few minutes, after which
the Foreman said—We cannot retract our verdict, what.
aver the eonseqosnces may be, though we did not intend to
bring in a verdict of manslaughter.
A verdict of manslaughter against Henry Robert Abra-
hams was then recorded.
The coroner then issued his warrant for the apprehen-
sion of Mr. Abrahams; and Inspector Dod was bound over
to prosecute, and the witnesses to appear at the nest Old
Bailey sessions.