New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-03-12

THE WORK WAS FAULTY-A SIGMA
TuHE WHICH MEANT NOTHING
The inquest into the Orchar1-st disaster was re-
sumed yesterday morning before Coroner o Measher
and a jury. Timothy ). Ornsby mad charge OF the
district where the collapse occurred There are
o.netv-eight blocks in this district. and I'VE ware
houses Abraham Levy represents Inspector oTins-
By while for John G.eave and Peter Comes the '"o
contractors appeared August y. Wagner AS
s.stant DIstr!ct-Attorney John +. Mclntyre ana
Colonel Robert O. Townsend are for TIE pTosecu-
lion There were nine Jurors selected the hrst Day
he greater number Of whom were afcni'ec's' lH'Ve
additional Jurors were selected on SATURDAY uS|
Their names are Charles Baxter Charcs leu''e
and John l.. Hamilton.
Superintendent Brady. Of the Buildihs l'ep"'
rnent. IS represented by Mr.. Gutenberg. counsel oil
the Building Department
Several policemen and other witnesses tes''Iet az
to the removal and Identification Of bodies anu 'iie"
Guy Bennett Waite an examiner Of plans IN 'he
Building Department, was called lie slL nv ~
,mined all the plans that came 10 the BniidinS
Department. He said that he passed on 'he PanS
,o- the Orchard-st building and they were al r's"'
and in accordance with the law
Waite said he did not know the firm OF hlroy q
Co. but that Mr.. Kirby. of the Building Depart
rnent. occupied the same position as ne (witness)
did.
when you examined the plans did you notice that
,-irler stretching from one wall 70 the o'her hau
10 pier 70 rest upon for support?
81 did notice It. sir
"D,d Won make a note of that on the plans?'
81 did not. sir.
This was the glrder that the jury Friday last
decided had caused the disaster
How much weight did the grier bear"
about sixty tons-thrty tons on either side.
Doesn't the law require that there should be
pier to support the girler?
NO sir; the law does not require a pier
"Ir the weight was not properly divided among
the grdcrs was II not the duty of Inspector Ormsby
to report such fact?
at WAC the duty Of somebody to report it,
The witness said that. according to the plans. the
walls were Of sufficient thickness 10 support the
glrder.
Wasn't IT your duty TO show your superiors that
tho ners were not present to support the girder?"
asked of me jurors
81 hadn't time 10 do IT,
How much time do you spend in examining plans
Ike these
about ten or fifteen minutes"
Whose duty 1t 10 report II there was an
unequal distribution Of weight?
1.-The inspector should report it
did he make such report?
~ don't know. sir.
Louis A. Horner OF No. 80 East hundred
and-fortieth-st an architect connected with the
Building Department, took the stand. His duty Is
10 examine plans and mark them 80 X II they
are all right
Foreman Flag questioned him the plans. The
witness said II the weight was not evenly distrib
that the Building Department looked TO the builder
the architect and the inspector TO report any vio
Mr., Mcintyre then called INSPECTOR ormsby, but
Mr. Levy objected, and recess was then taken
HIS SIGNATURE CARRIED NO RESPONSE
BILITY.
After recess the witness Vreeiand was recalled 70
the stand. lie said he had drawn up plans and
specifications for buildings in the Annexed District
in 1865 He did know whether Ormsby knew
anything about buildings
The witness said ne himself signed the plans
when he they were marked 20 X" by the
Then you have no responsibility in this matter
.'No. sir not the least"
Then your signature on the plans, SAID the
foreman, practically amounted 70 nothing
TT was merely matter Of official routine"
FAULTY CONSTRUCTION SHOWN
Superintendent Brady. OF the Building Depart
ment. took the stand. lie said he was mason
and builder by trade and sometimes drew plans
for buildings lie had not the plans which
filed November t. 1884, but admitted that
s CONSIDERED the building iaTy ,S0ng heTe
were some flaws in the plans he should nave called
attention TO them. ...,.-
and who is r. responsible tor the collapse,
II think the person who made the calculation as
weak point in the plans
BY this the witness meant the examiner AMI civil
engineer who checked the plans. The witness
thought the inspector having the wGrk IN charge
the plans nd.
In reply TO Foreman Eogg. superintendent Bra9y
eaid ne thought Waite could have examined the
plans in twenty minutes, and that Orrnsby visited
the buildings In Orchard-st. almost every day, &C
cording 10 his (Ormsbys) reports.
Tho Superintendent then read Ormsby's last re-
port In which IT stated that the accident was
due 10 the walls being frozen and then thawng out
suddenly
Were there any deviations from the plans?"
Yes. sir there was first a cellar ten feet deep
where there only 10 be an excavation sulii-
cient to protect the beams in the bottom OF the
building six-story building was thus constructed
which should have been provided with freproof
halls and stairways. which were never contem-
plated"
"Dont You think this very serious depart
from the plans?"
Undoubtedly sir"
The Superintendent said the whole character OF
the work careless. loose and faulty ! got the
building shored up" said he after the collapse and
thus prevented. / believe, other parts Of It from
falling. If had received word two hours before Il
fell could have had the walls shored Up and pre-
vented the loss OF life.
John z. Kirby. examiner in the Building De-
partmen,. was then called: He said that his father
drew the plans for the buildings and he thought the
plans were all right At this point adjournment
taken until to-day az 1870 O'Clock.