St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1886-12-02

torneys during the entire evening. Mr..
O'Brien claiming that the questions asked
witnesses by Mr.. Warner were not in
the points at issue and Mr.. Warner con-
tending that he only desired the facts in
the cases to be heard.
Plumbing Inspector Cheney testified TO
visiting Seegers house on August at
Dunnigan's request. He saw some OF the
vent pipes not coated or painted with tar
as provided. but at no time was he Notified
to inspect the job by Dunnigan or any of
the workmen. On croSs-examinatlOn he
admitted that the vent pipes were painted
or coated with tar and pitch to preserve the
pipes. In answer to questions put by Mr..
Barrett, of the board, witness said he did
not give cert fcates of inspection except
when asked for by the property owners. A
great deal of new plumbing was not exam
ined after it
WAS ALL COMPLETED.
He had never notified the board of public
works or health officer when he 'dropped on
to- jobs which were being done without per-
mits. but always reported such cases to the
building inspector. He had found about
l25 jobs being done without permits since
April at which time the ordinance was
amended so as TO require permits to be
500 would not be nearer the number of jobs
which had been done without perm is.
w. j. Freaney, a plumber of fifteen
years experience, and who had done bust
ness here for four years. was the next wit
ness. He examined the plumbing i'll Heine-
mann's house at the request of Dunnigan.
He found small leaks in the pipes
which were noticeable under smoke
tests. In his opinion the condition
of the unused cistern in the cellar
of Heinemann's house had more to do with
sickness of the family than the sewer gas
which might have escaped through the
leaks discovered. The vent pipes in See
gers house. he thought, were coated or
painted with tar, but he knew this was not
always done. for work which he had put in
was passed by the inspector without the
vent pipes being so painted. In the cistern
in Heinemann's house he found eighteen
inches of bad smelling water and decom-
posed wood. OF the leaks found in the pipes
he thought only one of them would have
leaked in the ordinary use of the plumbing.
The ordinance. he said, was practically OF
little use to the public or 10 the plumbers
The plumbers tried to have the ordinance
made so it would be ineligible to them and
to the public. but without success. 1t had
been changed amended and bOtched by the
council SO that he and other Intelligent and
competent plumbers did not know what the
conditions of the ordinance required. Henry
Adamson testified to making tests at See
gers and Heinemann'S houses. He found
at Seeger's three or four feet OF pipe not
painted. Heinemann's house, several leaks
three in Joints in the old cistern and one
in the water closet. The joints did not seem
to be put in right. The smoke tests didn't
show any large leaks, but they were de-
structive. GuStave Heinemann testified to
Dunngan putting plumbing in his house.
The witness wanted to explain in detail
ALL ABOUT THE CASE,
but the board decided it could not pass
Judgment as to damages sustained by him.
aud would listen only to testimony which
would show violation of ordinance. He
noticed foul smell in the house and spoke
to Dunnigan about it. When the tests
we've made four or five leaks
were discovered. Dunnigan told him
sometime in August that the
work was completed and he moved in the
house with his family. Robert Seeger testi-
fed to the work in his house and Heine-
mann's being done in an imperfect manner.
In his own house the smoke test showed
that the ventilating pipes from the bath tub
and closet had been D. some mistake joined
together instead of being joined to the vent
pipe. The only question asked on cross
examination elected the information that
witness was brother-in-law of Hene-
mann.
This concluded the testimony and the
attorneys not wishing to argue the matter
further the board held a short executive
session. AS a conclusion the board decided
to hold
AN EXECUTIVE SESSION
Friday night. at which time, with the help
of the city attorney, the building inspector
and the records of the building inspectors
office. they would arrive at decision.
Mr.. Heinemann and Mr.. Seeger stated
last evening that they could not say as yet
whether action would be commenced
against Dunnigan for damages. MIR. Heine-
mann said it would not necessarily depend
Oh the result of the investigation as to
whether suit would be comm enced or not.
Up to the present time he had pushed the
matter for the public good, but as to what
steps he would take in the future he was
unable to say.