The San Francisco call., 1896-06-28
THE CONTRACTORS
ARE CONDEMNED.
Verdict of Coroner's Jury
in the Fifth Street
Fatality.
THEY WERE CARELESS.
The Architect and Original Con.
tractor Especially at
Fault.
THE EVIDENCE CONFLICTING.
Employees of the Various Con.
tractors Hear Things
Differently.
THE EVIDENCE CONFLICTING.

Coroner Hawkins commenced an In
vestigation into the disaster on Fifth
street by which four lives we're lost
through the collapse of building last
Monday.
S. Kelly, owner of the collapsed build
ing, testified as to letting the contract for
its repair to Sibley & Gleason, and that
SibIey had charge Of the excavation.
A. Z. Lutgens, an expert, testified that
he was a contractor and had considerable
experience in that line of business. He
was of the opinion that gross carelessness
had been displayed in the bracing of the
building.
He explained that from all appearances
the jackscrews supporting the building had
slipped to one side, thus allowing the
building to fall.
On the south side, facing Mint avenue,
lateral braces had been placed, resting
against the cradles. In the opinion OF the
wit ness such braces were wrongly placed
John Sullivan and NJ. S. Stratton cor
roborated Lutgens.
L. B. Sibley, the grader who made the
excavation under the building, was called.
He did not commence work, he said, until
the house had been raised by Contractor
Gleason. Then he excavated around the
old foundation, bracing the basement wall
as he proceeded. Several braces were put
in, he said, from the wall to the cribs
with the permission of the house mover.
These braces, he believed, were safe
and strong enough to hold much more
weight then was placed upon them. 1.-The
sand,". said Mr.. Sibley, twas damp and
should have been held up by its own con-
T 1,,Ir hnr rrac fnrr0
enough on these braces to upset the equi-
librium of the building. The height OF
the building Itself was great enough, to
overcome any tendency OF the sand to
crowd the wall inward. Besides these
braces there were several supports from
the ground to the wall.
The Coroner subjected the witness to
close cross-examination on this point but
he stated positively that the braces were
in place and that he had seen them since
the disaster.
Here SibIey was excused, and Engineer
Shaughnessey being called fatty contra
Gicted Sibley on the position OF the an
gular braces.
This contradiction led to the jury pay
ing visit to the premises.
On their return Architect Kollofrath,
being examined as to the weight of the
chimney on the south side, said it would
be between five and six tons. This, how
ever, was supported by three shores or
need les.
sibley was again called and asked as to
the height of the cellar and the manner In
which the bulkhead was brace ed.
He said the tim bers used were 2x12 and
ten feet long, while the braces were 6x6
and braced from both ends.
He did not notice any braces under the
chimney. The sills were sufficiently strong
to support the building.
olIa
amined.
He observed one brace from the lateral
to the shoe. He could not say if the brac-
ing was all that was necessary, because
conditions might alter and no two cases
would be alike.
His opinion was that the brick wall
which was being set on the north side of
the basement had good deal to do with
the accident, and to his mind this was the
cause, as the water washed away the sand
upon which the cradle rested.
Ellis Davis, a colored man. who was
Sibley's foreman, was examined. He was
under the building at the time OF the col
lapse. He described how the bracing was
done against the rustic and not against
the studding He considered il to be
Gleason's business to see that the building
was properly braced up from the outside.
?. Gleason, who had the sub-contract to
support the house on silts during the
time that the brick foundation was being
put in, explained how he secured the
building, which was on the same principle
as houses are moved along the streets, and
in this condition he said it was perfectly
SAFE
He attributed the accident to the care
lessness of Sibley in placing the braces
which supported the bulkhead on the
Mint-avenue side against the cradles upon
which the weight of the building rested.
Those braces tripped the house, so to
speak, and caused it 10 fall.
He haa cautioned Davis against putting
the braces in that position, and, in fact, he
was so angry that he swore at him and
told hlm to brace his bulkhead with slant
ing timbers and when he had it secured to
take those that were against the cradles
away. He was positive that that was what
caused the di isaster.
The Coroner had Davis recalled to ques-
ton him on this conversation, but the
man of color denied ii point blank. This
brought Gleason to the witness chair
again, when he positively affirmed his
previous testimony.
: Arthur Miller and Michael Howard, who
worked for Sibley, were examined as to
their conversation, but they heard moth
ing.
Harvey MCGOWAN and Dennis Sullivan,
both of whom worked for Gleason, corrob-
grated their employer in his testimony re-
garding his statement about Davis and the
braces.
E. Jewett was one of the men who was
under the building at the time OF its col
lapse. His attention was attracted by
hearing one of the jackscrews fall from
its position on top of the cradle on the
side next to Mint avenue. When he saw
it fall he ran and saved his life.
Florin Bailey corroborated the last wit
ness on seeing the screw fall, and he, too,
ran out.
Cornelius Cronin, brick-cleaner, said
that the braces put between the bulkhead
and the cradles knocked the pinning from
under the house and caused II to fall.
This ended the testimony, and after
some hours deliberation verdict was re-
turned which, after stating the situation
in legal form, condemned the contractors
in the following language:
We further find that the architect, E. Kollo-
frath and the original contractor of the build
ing Adam Miller, while said building was UNI
dergoing repairs and alterations, were clearly
at fault and in error for allowing the bracing
to be done in what we consider a dangerous
and faulty manner, AMI in not ordering said
faulty bracing removed, and properly and
safely replaced by other and more effective
bracing.
We also consider that the house-mover. p
Gleason, was at fault, for the reason OF allow