The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-11-22

said. ii the pavement would last 80 long 1t
would take twenty years of hard service to
wear or to compress it to the thlnness to
which this year-old pavement had sud-
denly dwindled. The spongy specimen
was admitted as evidence of a pavement
accepted by Mr.. Ashworth as satisfactory.
Harry Nieman. an inspector from the
Superintendent of Streets office, was also a
witness during the day. Nieman had been
detailed by Mr.. Ashworth to inspect the
laying of an lrOnstone pipe sewer on
Broderick street, between Ellis and O'Far-
rell. The specifications call for ''Y" at
every twenty-five feet, but the witness was
not willing to swear there was a ny" in
the whole length of the block. 1t is
charged that these side pipes are placed at
irregular distances and there is not nearly
the number which the specifications call
for. Nieman said that In such work the
property -owner had been consulted as
much as possible. and that in the case of
the sewer under investigation this had
caused the Irregularities. Should one
owner of twenty-five feet wish the ny"
and the owner of the next lot
to the north wish his ''Y" to
be near his north line here
would be case where fifty feet inter
vened, and should the third owner wish
his 'Y" to be near his south line here
would be another case where but ten or fiji
teen feet INTERVIEWED. Nieman was not will
ing to say, however, that there was "Y'
in for every twenty-five foot lot, but he
thought he might do SO if he had his book.
He came back again in the afternoon, but
he reported that the marks they had left
on Broderick street to locate the "Y's" in
the sewer had been obliterated and he
could not tell anything about them. Mr..
Black asked if he had cut the marks one
quarter of an inch deep in the curb, but
the witness said he had not. He was asked
how he marked the "Y s." and he said by
bits of brick, on the fences, or in any way
that was handy.
Mr.. Nieman having concluded his testi-
mony his Honor Judge Murphy an
nounced that he was in some doubt as to
the responsibility of the Superintendent
of Streets in the matter of private street
contracts. He believed that in accepting
such work the Superintendent of Streets
was not bound by any limitations, except
his own idea of the fitness of things. In
public contracts he must be bound by th e
requirements of the law, his Honor be-
lieved, but in private contracts, SO long as
he ana the property-owners were satisfied,
he believed the Superintendent of Streets
could not be made liable for misconduct. =
Mr.. Black argued that either public or
private contracts must be up to certain
legal standards. else there would at once be
an end to all uniformity Sewers could be
laid deep or shallow. "Y's" could
be laid as outsiders saw fit, and the
City would have no power to con-
troll the work being done on her own streets.
He argued, too, that in the case in ques-
ton, the Broderick-street sewer, although
the work was done by private contract,
there was deputy inspecting the work all
the time. Mr.. Alderman argued as the
court had spoken at first and Judge Murphy
then took the matter under advisement
until today.