The Sun.
London, England, 1853-09-20 00:00:00

THE LATE ACCIDENT IN THE STRAND.

The following evidence was adduced at the inquest
yesterday, after we closed up our report in our first
edition :--
George Cove, of No. 275, Strand, carpenter, deposed
- - I reside immediately opposite the house that has fallen.
Before it fell, Mr. Thompson, the deceased, called upon
me two or three times, and asked my opinion respecting
it. He first called upon me six or eight months ago
upon the subject, but has frequently asked me about it
since. I told him I considered that the house was de-
cidedly dangerous, and advised him to speak to the par-
ties engaged in the works regarding it. He told me
that the surveyors had assured him that it was perfectly
safe. He did not say what surveyors. I wish also to
express my opinion upon this matter, having had con-
siderable experience in building and shoring. I consider
that the house was not properly shored. The raking
shores were not high enough, and the bottom part of the
house appeared to be neglected altogether. There were
some five or six of the shorter shores, but I am of opinion
that the plan of shoring adopted generally was imperfect.
The shoring was not adequate. They were not placed
in a proper position. I attribute the accident to the in-
sufficiency of the shoring, and to the excavations that
were going on behind the wall, because it appeared to
me that they were below the wall, and even below the
footings of their own shores.
Robert Brown, of No. 1, Strutton-ground, Westmin-
ster, labourer—l am in the employ of Mr. W. Hearn,
sub-contractor of Stangate, who was engaged to do the
excavations at the houses in the Strand. We began there
on the Bth of August last. I worked under the dim-
, tions of Mr. Rowe. No one else gave me directions.
We got the earth all levelled out 10 feet deep from marks
which Mr. Rowe and Shrimplin made on the wall for us
to go from, and 51 feet long.
The Coroner—Did you cut into the party-wall
Witness—Yes, Sir, in three places. I mean the main
wall altogether, that goes from the Strand to the back
of the house. Ido not mean that we cut into the brick-
work. We only tried with the shovel to see whether we
were below the foundation.
By a Juror—l made three cuts up to the foot of the
wall to see where the foundation was. Those cuts were
about 12 feet apart. I was on the ground when the
building fell, and fell close by Mr. Rowe. The wind oc-
casioned by the crash threw me over.
By Mr. Hawkins—l heard the crack before the build-
ing fell. The wall appeared to give way about the
middle, and to make a bend from about 12 feet up, and
to burst. The mortar flew out all over me.
Thomas Ayes, of No. 58, Tothill-street, Westminster,
an excavator, corroborated the evidence of the last wit-
ness. He stated that three holes were cut, two behind
and one in front, "to let the foreman see where the

foundation of the wall was." The two behind were
about 16 or 18 inches below the foundation, and the one
in front was about the level of the foundation. He added
that he was at work on the premises when the house
fell. He ran into one of the vaults under the street, and
was blocked in immediately, and was uninjured.
Mr. Samuel Angell—l reside at No. 18, Gower-street,
and am the district surveyor to that part of St. Clement
Danes parish which is in the duchy of Lancaster. I re-
ceived no notice from the builders of any works being
about to be executed adjoining the premises, No. 184,
Strand ; but I knew that a building was going to be
erected there. I received no formal notice. Perhaps,
I should mention here that the Act of Parliament pro-
vides that two days' notice shall be given to the district
surveyor " before commencing operations." This is rather
a vague term, and I believe a general notion prevails
among builders that it means two days before the laying of
bricks. lam sure that in this case there was no wilful
neglect on the part of the builders. I was on Mr.
Smith's premises on the 19th of August, in consequence
of having been called upon by Mr. Phillips, Mr. Abra-
hams' clerk, who brought me the plans for building Mr.
Smith's premises. I conceived that Mr. Phillips called
on the part of Mr. Abrahams as survey Mr. Smith.
Those plans comprised the Working drawings for the re-
building of the premises. The question arose whether
the party-wall was to stand or to be taken down. I
recommended that it should stand, and that an external
wall should be built against it. Mr. Phillips stated
that he would mention the case to Mr. Abrahami', and
I considered that it was arranged in that manner. I
was of opinion that the wall was quite sufficient for Mr.
Thompson's purposes, but not sufficient for the new
building which was to be placed there. There was no
variation afterward from that plan that I am aware of.
Mine was a preparatory survey, and was not made
during the progress of the works ; or was I at all aware
that the works were progressing. I had received no
notice that the works were commenced, and had not
passed the premises since. I have power to inspect all
buildings that are in progress ; but the act provides that
a notice shall be served, and I had no personal know-
ledge that any works were progressing here. Not having
received any notice, I do not consider that is was my
duty to inspect the building. If I had been aware, how-
ever, that the works were in progress, I should have
considered it my duty to go and inspect the works,
whether I received notice or not, but I had no know-
ledge that the works had commenced. I had not the
slightest idea that there was the remotest danger to
passengers.
A Juror—ls it not your duty to keep a look-out when
works are going on in your district, to see that they are
so conducted as to occasion no liability to the life or
limb of passengers and the public ?
Witness—Yes, it is my duty.
The Juror—With or without notice ?
Witness—Yes, either with or without notice.
The Foreman—You are appointed as district surveyor
to the parish of St. Clement Danes. If you, by any
means, are aware that a building is in progress, do you
consider that it is your duty to direct your attention to
that building without having received notice ?
Witness—Yes, I do certainly ; but in this case I ex-
pected that notice would have come in the usual way,
and then, of course, I should have gone and inspected
it.

A Juror—How many times did you visit this building
in the course of the work ?
Witness— Twice.
The Juror—ln how long a period of time ?
Witness—ln a fortnight.
The Juror—Does not the act require you to attend
from time to time, and to watch the progress of the
works ?

Witness—l consider that, beyond the preparatory
survey, my duties had not commenced. I consider that
my duties do not commence until the building-up is
begun.
In answer to other questions from different members
of the jury, the witness said—l think that the district
surveyor has no jurisdiction as to the pulling down of
houses, nor am I aware that it is his duty to inspect
shoring. A penalty attaches to the builder for not
giving notice to the district surveyor. When I inspected
the premises on the 19th of August, I saw and appre-
hended no danger whatever. Whether underpinning is
essential depends very much upon the nature of the
foundations. The foundations here appeared to me to
consist of a good bed of gravel, which is one of the best
that you can have to work upon. It is by no means a
slippery or shifting foundation.
By Mr. Bodkin—The practice of the trade is, I be-
lieve, to give notice to the district surveyor two days
before the " laying of bricks." That appears to be the
generally received opinion, and I think it is the fair one,
because the law provides that two days' notice shall be
given " before any building is begun to be built." It
also provides, " before any party-wall, external-wall,
chimney stacks, or flues, shall be begun to be built, re-
built, cut down, or altered ;" but that portion of the
section does not apply to the case at all.
By Mr. Hawkins—lf I find, upon inspection, that any
irregularity has been committed by the builders, I can-
not interfere, but must give 48 hours to them to repair
their irregularity. If they fail to do so upon receipt of
that notice I still cannot interfere, but it is my duty to
give information to the official referees. Then, upon the
receipt of such information, the official referees are to
hear the matter, and if there appears to be any danger
of the rules of the act being broken, they may authorise
a survey of the premises.
Mr. Hawkins--This is a most extraordinary state of
the law. I want to show that in case of actual danger
to the public nothing can be done within at least a month.
Mr. Bodkin—Nothing is extraordinary to those who
are acquainted with the Building Act.
Mr. Hawkins, amid considerable amusement, read the
section of the act from which, he said, it appeared that
a building might be unsafe to passengers for at least a
month before it could be secured. In the case of a build-
ing being in so ruinous a condition as to endanger the
lives of passengers, it became the duty of the surveyor,
upon receiving information of such ruinous or dangerous
condition, to apply forthwith to the official referees, who
might order a survey to be made. Then, if that survey
were not executed, an application was to be made to the
Lord Mayor, if in the City, or to a justice if elsewhere,
who might direct such survey to be made within 14 days.
Witness said that that was so.
Mr. Hawkins—So that if a building be ever so unsafe
to the public, it cannot be touched by any process of law
until about a month's time ?
Witness—JuSt SO.
At this stage of the proceedings, the court having sat
nearly six hours,
The Coroner intimated that, as it would not be pos-
sible to conclude the case that day, this would probably
be a convenient point for adjourning.
The jury acquiesced, and the proceedings were accord-
ingly adjourned for another week.