The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1894-07-03
GIELE'S ORDEAL
The Hall of Records Arcni-
tect Excited Under Cross
Examination.
TRYING TO SHIFT THE BLAME
Certificates Signed Which We're
Not True-Rubbing 1t Into
Cannon.
TRYING TO SHIFT THE BLAME

Cannon.
The trial of Architect Louis ii. Giele was
resumed after recess yesterday afternoon,
with Clerk Boyd of the Board of Freehold
ers on the stand, under cross-examination by
MIR. Minturn. The efence is that the Board
of Freeholders themselves had immediate
supervision over the building of the Hall of
Records, through their Committee on Public
Buildings and County Superintendent Gan
non. TIL County Superintendent had au-
thority over the architect, and Mr.. Gieles
reports were all signed and concurred in by
Superintendent Cannon
Joseph H. Cutley of No. 6 Chestnut ave-
nue. was next called by the State. He testi-
fed that he was a contractor. and had been
such for seven years. be was the snb-con-
tractor for the mason work on the Hall or
Records. In response to Mr.. Winfields
question he testified that he had
the building sine its acceptance by the
Board of Freehelders and found numerous
deficiencies. The plans and specifications
called for the carving of certain cornlees,
which carving has not yet been done.
Senator DAILY objected to the witness on
the ground that he was not competent, and
the qualification OF the witness to testify
was not proven. Mr.. Daily also objected to
any questions being asked except those that
related directly to the work, for which
Giele certified that the fourth payment of
SIG, 900 was due TO Contractor Brown.
Judge Hudspeth ovefruled the objections,
and ruled that any fraudulent. act of the
architect during the time he was employed
to supervise the work could be tried under
the Indictment. MIR. DAILY asked Tor excep-
tions to the ruling.
SHAMEFUL OMISSIONS.
Prosecutor Winfield then drew from
Cutley the fact that the blue stone saddles
called for in the plans had not been put IN.
Five of the iron girders had also been left
out. Two in the cellar, one on the next
floor and two on the upper floor. There
were also five beams left cut in. the main
building.
Mr.. Winfield then asked when the beams
should have been In, and witness replied
that they should q " been put In place as
soon as soon as the walls were built.
Senator Daily objected to any testimony
that related to the first, second and third
payments on the ground that they had been
outlawed by the statute Of limitations. This
was followed by a legal argument between
the Court. Prosecutor Winfield and Senator
DAILY. The Court held that even if the first
three payments had been fraudulently certi-
fed to by the architect and they were out
1awed, but he had certified to the last pay
rnent. knowing that the work under the first
three payments had not been properly done,
the eltlawry of the former ones would not
affect the indictment.
Mr.. Winfield-"Mr. Cutley, have you
made an estimate of What it would cost to
supply the girders that we're left out"
Witness-s'I have"
Mir. Winheld-"What would it cost?"
Mr.. Daly-eI object to the question on the
ground that the witness Is not competent TO
answer
Another argument followed and the OBJ
lection was sustained.
after considerable beating about the bush
the Prosecutor finally extracted from WIT
ness the fact that the iron girders at the time
the building was erected cost three cents a
pound. Witness also swore that the beams
that supported the roof of the building in
stead of resting on the stone work as the
plans called for, had been placed against the
stone work and supported by split Jolsts
nailed to the stone work.
SHIFTING THE BLAME.
Cross examined by MIR. Minturn, witness
said the fact that the beams had not been
put in properly was the fault of the carpen-
ter whose duty it was TO cut the holes III the
stone wall for the beams to resti in. The car
penter did not want to go to the trouble as
the mortar had hardened. Witness also tes-
titled that since the Grand Jury made an in
~yestigation a brick wall has been built which
now support The beams,
Mr.. Minturn also drew from witness the
1dCU U1dU SOulluS SuIFOA eohhO
and Architect Giele had had some trouble
with Jacob Dubois, who had the contract
for doing the carpentry work, because OF
his neglect to conform to the plans and
specifications.
More objections were made at this point
and finally Mr.. Minturn asked Cutley where
Contractor Brown was now.
"In the Weehawken cemetery" promptly
replied the witness.
Witness also testified that the beams had
been placed further apart than stipulated IN
tue plans, but on cross-axaininatIon ne ad-
mitted that the changing of the plans in
such q case was a matter of discretion left to
the architect.
Prosecutor Winfield then asked if it was
discretionary with the architect to reduce
the amount of building material without
also reducing the amount to be paid and the
witness replied that it was not. More time
was spent in wrangling over the admission
of testimony and Judge HudspetA had to rap
several times for order.
EXPERTS TESTIFY.
Architect Edwin Pattison wa Me next
witness. He said that he bad ez mined the
building and the plans and discovered thai a
number of beams had been left out. Mr..
Minturn tnen said to Che witness, IF you
were putting up this buiiding and the plans
called for twenty-five beams to be LAID three
feet apart. aid thel length Of the building
would not allow of your putting in that
many beams three feet apart, would you
put them in!"
Witness replied tina he would not. This
the defense claim TO be a strong point in
their favor. They assert that Giele had
taken this position in the matter.
Gustave Blau, another architect, was also
called. He testified to the roof beams not
being properly put in place. The heating
apparatus was also badly put I'D and was In
complete.
The State rested at that point and Judge
Hudspeth adjourned the case until this morn
8 1E ToDAY's PROCEEDINGS.
The trial of Louis H. Giele was resumed
today. The proceedings began with a mo-