The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1881-06-04

put up from the edge of the verandah TO the
ground. 1t was by Mr.. Chisholm's orders these
were put up. The overtime work was on the
stage not on the building.
Professor POpovich, teacher at st. Louis
College, remembered Mr.. Hayselden being on
the premises. He asked him if he wanted TO see
the school, because many people came for that
purpose and was told by him that he was one of
the intending contractors. Mr.. II. pointed out
one Of the walls as not being straight. Did not
know which he pointed TO. He had not paid
much attention. He could not see whether the
walls were out or not. He did not say anything
to Father Larkin about what passed.
Cornelius O'Neil a carpenter who lived at the
College, described the breaking of the tie rod on
the Wednesday night previous TO the accident.
Found a flaw in the broken rod. Said to Father
Larkin would like him to get architects opinion
in regard to the breaking of the rod and he
Immediately sent him for Mr.. Wall. Mr.. Wall
told him, when he asked him about it, that there
was no danger, SO he put up a scatfold and when
the rod was repaired put 1t in its place again.
He never noticed anything wrong with the roof
except that there was always a sag in its but not
one that seemed dangerous. a sag might not
arise from giving way of the roof, 1t might be
from laundering IN the building OF 1t. People
could not see the sag from the ground or inside f.;
only from somewhere where one could see on TO
the roof. He never thought the building unsafe
or he would have given 1t a wide berth. So far
as he could remember he had never told anybody
the building was unsafe. On this point witness
was closely questioned by Mr.. Preston and by
the Bench. Mr.. Bickerton stated that witness
had told himself and some other gentleman that
he was sure the building was unsafe and had
told Father Larkin So. If he said so he was so
excited at the time ne did not remember any
thing about Ii. Tried a level on the wall some
hours after the rod broke on Wednesday and
found it perfectly upright.
Charles james Wall was then examined. Was
ut the school ON the Thursday before the accident.
Was told Of the broken rod and that it had been
repaired Father Larkin told him he promised
the use of the hall to the firemen for a ball or
something OF the sort and wanted to be certain
that everything was safe. Made a cursory eX-
animation. At Father Larkin's suggestion went
to lind Chisholm as he had worked on the build
ing. They went together at Z A. NJ, on Friday
to the school, and arranged to put up six piecest
by . ut once, and discussed the best manner of
permanently Strengthening the building. All
that was decided upon then was what should be
done to make 1t safe for that day. Noticed that
the plaster ceiling IN one place was a little sagged.
Told Father Larkin it would be better to test
that plaster before the room was occupied. From
what he saw that morning considered that under
the circumstances of the intended occupation of
the building the proposed struts were necessary.
They would In any case be necessary in connec-
ton with the work of strengthening the roof.
Was there three times during Friday. The
braces had not been put up when he was there
last. Cross examined by Mr.. Russell. The
conversation with Father Larkin was not about
presumed defects in the building, but chiefly
GDOuI the hItuucu party ana the precautions
necessary in regard to it. Has been a lifetime
in the profession. 1t Is considered that IL balloon
frame is if anything stronger than a tenOn frame.
Judgment has to be used in the introduction of
the lumber. Considered 4 pieces l by s stronger
than a solid piece 4 by s. In his opinion the
roof, as designed, with the calculated ~thicknesses
Of timber would have been safe. Was superin-
tending, but there was a rush of work which
prevented any one from properly overseeing the
work. The lathlng and plaSterlng were going on,
n work not contemplated in the arrangements as
to be done at same time as the carpenters work.
During the progress of the work Father Larkin
appeared to have perfect confidence IN the
contractor and told him he need not put himself
about as TO the job, he being then very busy
with the Palace and other work. Never gave II
certificate to enable Chisholm 10 get his money;
he was acquainted with Father Larkin. Supposed
he got his money from him. Did not remember
any conversation with Father Larkin the charac-
ter of which would lead him to consider the
contractors work insufficient. They were occa-
siOnally delayed for want of suitable timber.
Did not pass the building in any way at all.
When the Chisholms complained they could not
get the lumber they wanted they seemed to say
that Father Larkin wanted only to supply II
certain kind and said it was strong enough. Told
them they should get what was specified. Was
ut one time architect for the Kings Palace being
however only employed to make the detail
drawings from the first architects plans. Father
Larkin during the course of this work never
refused or objected to carry out anything he
6uaot1l'Al 40 ANtN60dAN. IL NdS IL PROFESSIONAL
opinion that the celebrity with which the building
was put up would tend to weaken it. When a
number of men We're working together on such
work rs the principals of the roof, and were
hurrying, the tendency would be to have the
work scalnpcd. There was crowding of work
men in the building at the time the roof was
going on. They had about 30 days from Oct.
18th for the work. The plans and specifications,
as regards strength Of timber, were not carried
out IN the building. Made objections to the
contractor during the progress of the work. On
the Thursday noticed that there was a slight
spreading of the wall. Supposed the plate was 2
inches ont OF place at the worst place. Did tell
Father Larkin that the walls were spread and
that there was necessity for repairs. Did not
consider it III the danger it turned out to be in,
from the fact that the rod had parted and been
put up again before he got there. In the original
contract Father Larkin was TO supply the
material.
The prosecution rested and Mr.. Preston asked
that on that evidence the defendant should be
committed for trial before the Supreme Court.
Mr.. Russell said his learned colleague Mr..
Dole having been necessarily absent when an
important part OF the evidence was being given
they wished to consult together before arguing
that the defendant should not be committed on
that evidence. An adjournment to 2 P. NJ, was
granted.
After the adjournment, Mr.. Russell addressing
the Court for the defendant, said that the testi-
mOny that had been presented might be divided
into two groups, the first, that of the witnesses
present ut the fall of the roof, and at the re-
cOyery of the body of the deceased; and the
second, and that OF witnesses who had been
called as experts or as otherwise able TO throw
light on the causes of the accident. He would
not take up the time of the Court with any COM
ment on the first group. He could only regret
as his client regretted the circumstances to which
they had deposed. The testimony of the other
group touched upon the mode OF construction of
the building, the way in which its fall may be
accounted for and the connection of Father Lar
kin with the same. The main point underlying
the case was the ScisHier of Father Larkin whether
he knew, or had reasonable cause to know, that
there was risk to those who entered the building
that day. There were only two out of the whole
of the witnesses whose testimony touched on
this point of scienter, these were O'Neil and