The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1894-07-03

tion by Senator DAILY that the Court direct
the jury to acquit the defendant. The Sena-
tor was very severe IN ex-County Super'h-
ten6ent James T. Cannon, who, the lawyer
claimed, was more guilty than Glele ana
who should nave been indicted, if an indlct-
ment had been properly found against Glele.
Judge Hudspeth denied the motion.
Counsellor James L. Minturn then opened
the case for Giele.
John Boyd, Clerk of the f'reeholders, was
recalled by the defense ana requested from
the minutes of 1887 to define the duties OF
the County Superintendent.
Mr.. Boyd read that it was the duty OF the
Board and County Superintendent n such
other person as may he appointed TO super
wise the construction of building, ana 70
supervise the construction ami repairing OF
all buildings, etc.
This testimony was given for the purpose
of making it appear that Cannon and not
Geile was guilty of negligence.
GIELE'S STORY.
Giele took the witness stand n testinea
thus
~ was appointed architect for the Hall of
Records in 1888; I drew the plans and speci-
fieations: | did not draw the contract De-
tween the Freeholders and John a. Brown,
the contractor. 1t was drawn by John A.
Mc3rath."
Counsel for defense claimed that the con-
tract did not require Giele to give any Ger
tificata of work done.
The State asserted that it did and read q
section in the contract to that effect, ana
also read two of the certificates given by
Giele, which set forth that certain WORK NAG
been properly done under the provisions or
the contract, and that Contractor brown
was entitled b be paid therefor. !.
''Why did You certify to the payment OF
S16. O00p asked Mr. Minturn.
Because there was $4,000 to be paid by
Improvement certificates.
II asked Freeholders for money to put IN
some beams, and they said they could not
give it to me. l then asked Mr.. Pagan to
put in the beams and wait for his money.
He refused. l then directed him TO
leave out some beams. If l had
remained the architect, would
have d those girders or beams
put in and they would be there now, put l
was dismissed and of course could not have
this work done. In regard to the ventilators,
| had nothing to do with them, for that
work was done after | was dismissed. In
regard to the roof, you will find by the min
utes that the beams were changed from .
inches to 4 inches, and that Brown agreed
TO make a brick backing. Brown refused 10
put in the brick backing without addltlonaI
pay, and that is the reason the beams run
four inches short. l had temporary beams
put H."
Giele was requested by Counsellor Min
turn to explain the situation of the beams,
tie rods and girders. While doing this he
said that no provision mad been made for tie
rods when he drew the plans. de forgoU TO
put them LII the plans. He told the con-
tractor to leave out a girder aud put the tie
rods in. Giele endeavored to throw the
blame of this on Cannon, who, he said, was
his superior officer and GieIe reported to hlln
and the Board of Freeholders. Cannon
very often gave directions to the worknlen.
CROSS-EXAMINED. J.,
C-ross-eXanlined Gieie said that two ana
one-half girders We're missing on the hrs1
floor and one-half girder on the second floor
and one girder on the third floor
"Was this certificate true which you sign
ed to the effect that work had been done
according to plans and specifications. asked
the Prosecutor.
After much evasion of the question Glele
admitted that it was not true. lie testified
the same way in reply to two other certlil-
Gates. and made the excuse for emitting tn
place the girders in that the court refused
to let the iner work, because they made too
much noise.
When questioned as to why he made the
fourth certificate that the work had been
done according to contract, II that Con-
tractor Brown was entitled to Sl6,00O when
the girders had not been put i'll, Geile ex-
citedly said that girders could be put in after
the building was rooted and a rough coat OF
mortar had been laid, and that Brown was
entitled to $500 for other work done.
Now tell me why you did not put the tie
rods in the plans and specifications which
You drew up!' asked the prosecutor.
sIforgot them"
ssNas that the only reasonl"
"Yes: architects make mistakes"
AT this point the court ordered a recess.