The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-19 00:00:00

~ .'''..
s COURT OF SEWERS.
,
r-
-7,1:a41— %,----‘
/17'1se "7,- --s, -s ss)
...,..-e..
A Special Court of Sewers for the City and Libert 'Sit •:s.'•;,;:kssits.7. ..:I;:sfs,-...7 V 4
)
Westminster and part of the County of Middlesex tot'; ' s.'"'-'"''="--* 7
• \ *k. . :v
held at the Sewer's-office, in. Greek-street, Soho, for t iit' ":;\''‘fi.%.;,!;7l-1-7-71- - -.1.
purpose of considering the following reply of Mr. G. Bir \-$,....;:a115. -'fir
contractor, relative to the failure of portions of theta - ..
'4 v‘` I S.SI I h..
main line of the Ranelagh sewer in Gloucester-road; ' ' '
Paddington, and to take such steps as may be necessary
with respect thereto.
" REPLY.—That having executed my contract for the
Ranelagh sewer, in accordance with the plans and di-
rections of your officers, I submit that I am not liable to
reinstate the existing defects."
The chair was taken at twelve o'clock, by T. L. Do-
naldson, Esq., who, having stated the object fol. which
the Court had meti
Mr:GARRARD, who appeared as the solicitor, for Mr.
Bird, requested permission to make a few observations
on the new matter contained in the report of Mr.
Phillips, the clerk of the works.
The report, which was to the following effect, was
then read:—
" The statements that I have made to the Court re-
specting the cause of the failure of the Ranelagh sewer
built along Gloucester road, Paddington, having been
impugned, I beg most respectfully to state that, after a
careful and minute examination of the s ork of the said
sewer, I am still further convinced of the accuracy of
those statements, namely, that the cause orfailure is
wholly in consequence of the inefficient manner in which
the brickwork, in conjunction with the groundwork, has
been executed. Seeing the course the question has
taken, and believing my character is at stake in this
affair, I beg to be allowed to state, that I am prepared
to prove those assertions by facts.
In excavating for this sewer, it appears that the
ground was dug out somewhat wider than the sewer,
including the side walls ; so that after the side or abut-
ment walls were built, a space of a few inches in width
had to be filled in behind the walls with ground, which,
if properly and soundly rammed down, would have been
of sufficient solidity to have borne the lateral thrust of
the arch, and the superincumbent weight of ground
placed above it. The abutment walls are thrust out-
wards from their perpendicular position to the extent of
3 inches or more, compressing the ground filled in
behind them, which was not properly and soundly ram-
med, otherwise its would be next to impossible for the
abutments to have gone outwardi with the pressure to
which they have been exposed : moreover, from the ap-
pearance of the ground taken out from behind the walls
it has not the tenacity and solidity that ground would
have that had been well and soundly rammed.
" As regards the brickwork of the arch of the crown
of the sewer, I beg to re-assert that it has been done in a
slovenly and unworkmanlike manner ; that no respect
has been shown either to properly bonding the bricks
together, or in regulating the courses of bricks with
equal joints of mortar ,• for between some joints there is
scarcely any mortar whatever, and between others the
thickness of mortar varies up to one inch or more.
The, number of courses of bricks in the bottom half-brick
ring of the arch are 50, and in some places there are
only 49, which is three and four courses less than could
and ought to have been got into the bottom ring of the
arch ; therefore, there are nearly nine inches in thiek-
ness of mortar in excess distributed over the arch of the
sewer, where bricks ought to have been used in-
stead. I would beg to call attention to the cir-
cumstance of one course of bricks being lost in
the arch as before stated, a fact in itself evidenc-
ing a great want of attention in the execution.
The bricks appear to be of good quality. The mortar
used was made of Dorking lime and Thames sand, and
is not so strong as I should have expected from the
nature of these materials—it is in a very friable state,
which I should say is caused by the admixture of more .
water with the lime and sand than was requisite, and
too long exposure of the lime to the air ; and, more-
over, from its appearance, the lime and sand has not
been thoroughly mixed. In the composition of mortar
no more water should be used than is sufficient to_bring
it to a tough and proper consistency for using, other-
wise it has the effect of destroying the strength of the
lime to a considerable degree ; and the lime should be
used as soon as possible after it has been burnt, other-
wise it reabsorbs the carbonic acid, which has been
driven off during the process of calcination. Mortar
after being used in a wall loses a considerable quantity
of its bulk from evaporation and contraction, which
causes the walls to shrink and settle • in consequence of
this, as little mortar as possible should be used in build-
ing a wall, more especially in an arch. In the arch of
this sewer, such an unusual quantity of mortar has been
used in the joints, and that so irregularly, that it is
sufficient in itself to cause a considerable settlement, and
also a very great distortion in its form.
" With respect to the abutment walls, the manner in
which they have been built is contrary to the contract,
which says, that ' the brickwork shall be in every re.
spect of the best workmanship, no four courses to rise
more than twelve inches.' There are fifteen courses of
bricks in the abutment instead of sixteen, as shown and
described in the original drawing of the said sewer.
Those fifteen courses rise three feet ten and a.half in-
ches, which is one and a half inch in excess over the in-
structions in the contract, for the like number of courses
—this excess is causes by the joints of mortar being too
large.
" The average width of the sewer between the abut-
ment walls as built perpendicularly on the invert is ten
feet three inches, being three inches wider than that
shown in the original drawing of the said sewer. Then
the springing walls being only three feet ten and half
inches high, it was necessary to elevate the centre one
and half inch above the springing walls, for the purpose
of keeping the requisite height from the tep of the cen-
tre of the invert to the under side of the arch, and in con-
sequence of the inoveased width, and the one half inch _
:'e-net o —n
e: =. te rinks; walls, the aich_lina I.
length . rkh turrunt one
and half inch below what it would have been had the
walls been carried up to their intended height.
" This one and half inch added to the versed sine of
the arch in the original drawing, which is two feet ten
inches, will make the versed sine of the arch as built
two feet eleven and half inches. Then taking the chord
line of the arch at twelve feet three inches, and the
versed sine at two feet eleven inches, I find the length
of the arch line is twelve feet four inches and four-tenths,
which divided by fifty-three courses of bricks, gives two
inches and eight-tenths for each course, including the
joint of mortar ; then for eight courses there-would be
one foot ten inches and four-tenths, and having measured
eight of the bricks taken out of the arch after being
cleansed of-the mortar, I find they measure one foot nine
inches and four-tenths. Therefore, taking this sewer as
actually built with its increased width, fifty-three courses
of bricks could have been got into the arch with ease,
and then allowing ample joints for mortar, which would
be a quarter of an inch in the centre of the half-brick
ring. It is the usual practice in building brick arches
for bridges, &c., to allow for each ring at its soffit one
foot ten and half inches, to the utmost, for eight courses
of bricks.
" I would beg to observe, that there is one section,
No. 28, which shows the side walls in a perpendicular
position, the arch is gone upwards on one side, and is
come down on the other, that is, at the haunches, which,
I should say, is caused by the thick and unequal joints
of mortar being compressed, or giving way with the
weight of ground placed on the arch, as the ground
could not possibly have had the effect of causing the
distorted form there shown.
" Therefore, taking into account the inefficielt man-
ner in which the groundwork was executed, namely, the
neglect to properly back up the abutment walls and
spandrils of the arch with ground well and soundly
rammed, and also the inferior and unworkmanlike man-
ner in which the brickwork has been executed, more
particularly in the arch, I am of opinion that the failure
of the said sewer is entirely attributable to these causes."
After the reading of the report, some considerable
discussion took place as to whether Mr. Garrard, the
solicitor of Mr. Bird, should be heard.
Mr. LESLIE wanted to know what the new allega-
tions were that had been adverted to. Ie thought
neither Mr. Garrard or Mr. Bird had any right to com-
plain of the course pursued by the Court. Mr. Garrard
had done all he could, in a gentlemanly way, to damage
Phillips, and the question was, who was right. Mr.
Garrard had made a most able statement on the last
Court day, and he slid not see why the Court was to
hear him again.
Mr. WiLeoucumr thought Mr. Bird's solicitor could
not be again heard.
Mr. F. BYNG was of the same opinion.
Mr. HAWKES thought the Court would do great in-
justice if they did not hear the further evidence which
Mr. Bird had to tender.
After some further discussion, the Court decided upon
hearing the solicitor of Mr. Bird.
Mr. GARRARD then addressed the Court at some
length, contending that the material assertions in the
report of Phillips werel not founded in fact; that the
work had been done according to the setting out of the
surveyors of the Court, and that the whole course that
had been adopted by Mr. Bird was following the in-
structions he had received from the officers of the Court.
Mr. BYNG thought, after the statements that had been
made, the Court could come to no decision without some
grave inquiries. He thought the matter ought to go
before a Jury, for the purpose of ascertaining whether
what had been stated was true. He was not prepared
to come to a conclusion upon the subject after what he
had heard without much further inquiry. He had no
interest at all in the question, but if he had it would be
in favour of Mr. Bird, whom he had long known, and
whom he believed to be a most excellent man. If they
were to believe what had been stated by Mr. Garrard,
the work had been performed according to the contract,
and the statement of the clerk of the works *as without
foundation.
Mr. WHITE considered the question to be, whether
the failure that had occurred was in consequence of the
formation of the works, the badness of their construc-
tion, or other causes. He believed that the formation
of the arch of the sewer was the cause of the whole ac-
cident. If he did not firmly entertain that opinion, he
should be inclined to think the proper course would be
to go before a jury. He could not but say that he felt
they were attempting to throw upon the contractor that
which belonged to themselves. Added to the bad for-
mation of the sewer, they had not taken care of 'the
work when it was done. He was fully convinced that
the accident had occurred from the formation of: the
sewer. He would, therefore, move that the Court ad-
journ sine die.—(A laugh.)
Mr. LESLIE thought that was a most proper motion
to make, and would most readily second it.
After some further discussion, Mr. WHITE moved,
and Mr. ALLANSON seconded, a ;potion, to the effect
that the defective formation of the sewer was the cause
of the failure, and that the contractor was not liable.
Mr. Wrenouostur moved as an amendment, " That
the proceedings in this case be placed in the hands of
the Solicitors of the Court." This amendment, after
considerable discussion, was carried by fa majority of 8,
there being 16 for the amendment, and 8 again* it:
The Court then adjourned. . ,