Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1893-06-08

! ing at Eosendale Park in 1881 He said
4 the storm tore away stone wall at Rattle.
I snake run aud rolled away great heavy
4 stones, lie also noticed the damage along
| Shipley run. He saw no distractions al
/ the mouth of the sewer,
Frank Ninsinger another employee Of
! the street and Sewer Department, testified
| to the severity of the storm.
William Walls recalled the storm Of
| July 18th, 1891. The witness works for the
I Jackson & sharp Company and was
| brought into court on forthwith sum
mons. lie testified that he passed through
the sewer the morning after the storm and
saw nothing IN the bottom of the sewer
except sand that might be looked upon rs
| an obstruction,
Daniel W. Deputy gave similar testi-
mony. lie said he measured the sand in
the bottom OF the sewer and found sand
eight inches deep.
samuel A. Price clerk in the city treas.
urer's Office, testified to the condition Of
Front street subsequent to the storm.
Alter the testimony of Patrick Neary
| and James Lane TO the character Of the
storm and the condition of the sewer,
court took recess until 30 j.. III.
Jesse Lane was FIRST recalled TO the stand
III the afternoon. He was cross
examined by Judge Ball regarding the
cphdlilpn ui Shipley run sewer on the
morning OF the Hood Of July 10Th, 1891.
DAVID N0Olman testified to seeing the
sewer on the morning after the storm and
salI There was perfect gorge in the sewer
htrpl I. Basset, civil engineer OF
Trenton, n. j., was the next witness, who
WAS asked TO step aside in the morning to
allow other witnesses to testify. Mr.
| bradford put this question to the witness ;
TAkng rainfall OF SO inches, OF
winch at least tNu.thirds fell in an interval
81 from y t. % minutes, let mo ask you
| whether III the construction of sewers
| provision Is ever made to carry away that
| amount Of water
'nuch u provision never knew" said
ihc witness. Ia reply to Il question Of the
! mel Justice. the witness said such an
| emergency was not contemplated in the
| construction Of sewers.
Mr.. bradford asked the witness to ex-
pam " the court aud jury what element
| entered INTO the determination Of the size
| q sewers and culVerts. Mr.. Bird objected
| to the question, but was over-ruad
| lie witness replied that there were five
! elements which entered into the consIruc
tilon Of sewers, namely: The acreage. the
elevation, distance Of flow rate of fail and
| the permeabllity Of the surface.
| The witness was asked to give what i'm
ms oWniun was an extraordinary rainfall.
| u" SAID that III the history OF sewage en-
| gineerlng, he never knew of a rainfall eN.
| ceedlng two inches pcr hour In the city
| Of Providence, K. l., the witness said that
| nom 1881 to 1874, a period Of 40 years.
there were but three Instances in which
| the rainfall exceeded two inches per hour.
lie sand a rainfall OF 3.6 inches in period
| oil ~ minutes. or over inches an hour,
! such as fell IN this city july 18th 1891
never came under his observation.
Ia reply 10 Mr.. liradford's question, the
| witness said that with such Il rainfall as
| the records of the city show, Front street
] a..
canal TO carry away such an enormous
amount of water.
| The witness in his redirect examination
SAID that sewers were not intended to carry
| away phenomenal fall Of rain.
During his cross examination of the
| witness, Mr.. Bird said that one could not
! pun quart OF beer in Il pintibOltc
"Nut without you have the bottom
| plug, retorted the witness.
| harles u. Dawson was the next witness,
lie Is driver for the Diamond Ice Com
| panY. lie rccolcctcd the rain of July
\ 9Th 1891. The witness said that the
heaviest Of the rain storm lasted about %
| minutes.
lnc following witnesses testified 10 the
| severity q the storm james T.. Rowland,
Isaac II. Dallas, George Black, George N
Yates, Michael J. MaOney, Hillary b.
| Wallace George Lyons and Joseph G.
! Taylor.
john NJ Whitford, manager of EVERY
| sNENiNG, was called to tile stand b. MIR.
! Bradford who said his object was To pruve
\ che severity of the storm as told III the
columns 1i EVERY EVENING, Morning .lsns,
! the kHcniHg JOiUyHi and all the papers Of
| the city. Mr.. Bird objected to the lilies of
| the papers going IN evidence and Nj Whit
lord was allowed to step down from the
| stand.
This concluded the evidence for the day
aud court at $40 o'clock adjourned until 10
| O'Clock Tuesday morning
EN-Sler!I William summons first took
the stand Tuesday morning.
HE ubJeci i'll recalling the witness was
to prove that the establishment of the
sewage system IN the south western part of
| the city. ana the improvement the city
had maie about Front and Adams streets,
had tendency to decrease the flooding of
| PROPERTY i'll that vicinity.
W. W Bullock, who has been acu TAINTED
| with the vicinity tor IA years, said the
| flooding had materially decreased since
tive sewage system has been established
Ezra Fell was recalled and said that the
| morning after the flood the sewer iulet in
| front OF the establishment of owen j.
licssioh was submerged in water.
| Frederic ii. Robinson, ex.chief eAgi.
| hecr OF the city engineering and surveying
! department, was recalled and said that it
would be beyond the requirements Of any
| engineering TO construct a sewage system
| capable of carrying away a rainfall Of 8 4
inches ~ from 70 to y minutes.
u thalkl1y Ilaiton, engineer in charge
| OF sewers WAS recalled and testified that
| the sewer OF 1901 was ample for all pur-
/ poses of sewage at that time.
ne case was still in progress when court
| took recess until 80 O'Clock p. m.
| Evidence in rebuttal was produced by
| MT. Bird il court on Tuesday when the
! damage case was resumed Daniel pipr-
\ son, .Ir., formerly superintendent of +.
| bittmcnthnl d Co.'S morocco factory, was
| called rs an expert in regard to sewers. As
| the testimony was for the purpose Of con
| tradcting other witnesses, Mr. Bradford
| lntcrpOSed objection, COntrnding hat there
| would be no end Of the examination If
! thus was allowed to go OH The court s,ls.
| tanned the objection.
William 4. shannon is a switehnan at
| tho west yard lie testified that he had
| frequently seen it rain .mnCh harder than
| it did on July 10Th, lA9l.
>. y, lruitt, who was for three wears
| captain Of the night watch at the yards of
the Harlan " llpllingsworth Company,
| gave similar testimony.
Mrs Maria Kicncr testified that during
| the ~ years she had lived opposite the
| premises Ut Mr.. Hession the property had
| been Hooded no less than eight times
Joseph II. smith, captain of a Yacht at
| the HARLAN & Hollingsworth Company.
| was called IN regard to storm.
Are you any relation to Anthony
| Smith 2" asked Mr. Nandesrift
"Who is Anthony Smith ?" Interro.
gated Mr., lilrd. Mr.. Nandegrift replied
that he did not know.
Are you related 10 the NandegfiGts, y
| Mr. Bird asked the witness, "or to the
birds, added Mr.. Nahdegrift.
The witness denied that he was mixed