The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1874-04-28

defects in the work FIRST not rolling the
road bed; second, the insuffclency Of me
SAND under the curbst0ne; Stainsny said the WORK
must he done right, and told Rogers 10 look after
II. Witness next testified TO examining the pave.
ment In the early summer OF 1873 and finding lack
OF depth. and that the broken stone on top OF the
traprock bottom was one-haif dirt: his at.entson
was called to this by Alderman Wandt. witness
also sw0re that In one or ms examinations ne
iound no foundation stone whatever, put instead,
small stone. Lawrence Hotz ana stepnen ~ ape,
finding H. Ike all the other witnesses, lacking IN
depth and wen mixed with dirt instead o. traprock
niling. The witness Aber testified that he
COMPLAINED no STAINSBY
about the large quantity OF earth that was being
used Stainsby said he thought 1t would make q
more s0lid road to 90 30. Dirt was heaped on the
stone every day. The largest quantity was put on
the first layer Of stone. The pavement was so i'm
perfect tnat In some places it could be dug up with
THE MOST IMPORTANT WITNESSES
lor the prosecution were Andrew Hill and James
u. owen, both experts IN Tellord pavement con-
struct0n. Before these witnesses were called OBJ
lection was made by defendants counsel TO the
argument, In which the Attorney General partic-
pated with much fOrclDliity, Judge Depue decided
to admit such evidence, saving that IN civil suits
such line OF examination was allowable in 0rder
TO snow the extent 0l the damage sustained by
bad workmanship. In a criminal case like this
the reason Tor admitting such testimony
was still stronger, and was pre-eminently
necessary In order 10 show the fraud in the deva-
JlOn from the PROVISIONS OF the contract. Mr. Hill
then TOOK the stand. He had, he said, thirteen
years experience III laying Teord pavement and
was four years engaged In that business In Central
Park, New York. lie gave a description OF how
Telford pavement was properly laid, and said tnat
a solid bottom was hrst nece5 airy, and that each
stone OF the llist layer should be laid In by hand
the stones being eight inches high; that neither
DIRT nor soil should be used in good pavement.
but that all should be solid traprock When dirt
was put in such pavement 1t was done, the wit
ness said, solely
TO BENEFIT THE CONTRACTOR,
for he could do his work quicker and cheaper than
II he used stone. The effect OF using dirt, the wit
ness further said, was that the frost would heave
It In the spring and in rainy weather the pave
ment would be little better than mud road his
practice was not 10 use either dirt or sand in lay
Ing Teford pavement. Mr.. James +. Owen, Chief
Engineer OF the Essex County Road Board, and
Also engineer OF the Board OF Freehoiders, was
under his supervision there had been laid some
fifteen miles OF Teiford pavement in Essex county,
He fully corrOb0rated the evidence OF Mr. Hill, who
has more practical than scientific knowledge OF
pavements. Mr.. owen sw0rc that the principal
feature or TellOrd pavement Is to have a solid
foundation; the true binding Is to NIL the inter-
stices between the stone by narices OF the stones
themselves. II would not ne wOrkman-like to put
DIRT upon the bottom stone; ii the DIRT was placed
upon the first stone 1t would be injurious. In
swer to question by the Attorney General. Mr..
Owen stated that In England, where q great deal
OF Tei.ord pavement was USED. dirt was always
excluded and nothing put in but pure traprock.
In sucn pavements the foundation stone
was not OF sufficient size 1t would be radical de-
ecr, and much more serious Than II the upper lay
ers were not the requisite depth. Before cross-eX-
aiming MIR. Owens, the attention OF the Court was
called to the demise OF member OF the Esse x
Bar, Mr.. 7. =. Ranney, and Mr.. COurtland Parker
In order that the Bar might attend the funeral.
The Court, while expressing It's high opinion OF
deceased, said that the public business would pre-
vent SUCH an adjournment and the trial will pro-
coed TODAY.