The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-06-30
JURY COULDN'T PLACE IT
Responsibility for the Hennessy
Building Accident Unfixed.
DEFECT IN THE SCAFFOLD
Some of the Evidence Seemed to Point
That Way in the Testimony Pre-
scented Yesterday al the
Coroner's Inquest.

The coroner's investigation of the ac-
cident at the Hennessy building last
Saturday was concluded last evening.
The jury returned a verdict simply re-
lating the facts. At last evenings ses-
sion of the inquest several witnesses
were examined and. contrary to the pre-
vious session. at which the ironmen got
somewhat the worst of it in the infer
ence TO be drawn from the testimony
relative to parties responsible, the testi-
mony of the witnesses last evening
pointed to a defect in the construction
of the scaffold which was erected by
those in charge of the masonry work.
Owing to the conflicting evidence rela-
tive to the cause of the accident the
jury was unable TO reach a conclusion
as to who was To blame. and did not at
tempt to attach the responsibility.
S. w. Swift, a ~brickmason, appeared
as an expert and questioned the wit
nesses for the coroner and Attorney
Kirk and Foreman Whitesides of the
brick crew on the building again took
part i'm the examination of witnesses.
John $. Wilson, one of the ironworkers,
testified that he was on the scaffold and
had just stepped off when the accident
happened. Witness went for blocks and
tackle n stepped on the scaffold just
ahead of the others. He crossed over
and, hearing some one call Look out,
stepped off just as the staging went
down. The witness described the man
ner in which the scaffold was built. Be
ing i'm the corner Of the building, the
part which fell had to be supported by
the wall, and was therefore weaker than
the other part of the scaffold.
Samuel w. Swift, a brickmason, was
present as an expert to examine the
witnesses for the coroner. MIR. Kirk
asked the witness If he examined the
scaffold before he went on il. He re-
piled he did not. In response to a ques-
ton from the coroner, the witness said
if the part of the staging that fell had
been built like the rest II would not
have fallen. Witness thought that If
the center of the staging was overload
ed it might sag and cause the upright
supporting the staging to pull out,
which would let the platform down.
Witness never heard any warning given.
John a. Robideau, a laborer in the
employ of Foreman Whitesides on the
brick work, was the next witness. He
thought the staging hat fell was the
same as the rest of the scaffolding. He
said the platform was stacked at the
time with brick and mortar for the ma
sons, but he could not estimate the
weight. Asked if the staging would
have been safe il the iron column had
not rested on it, witness never heard
the ironmen cautioned against using the
scaffold, but had himself been warned
not to overload it.
David Keenan,, one of the bricklayers,
said the SKIS support which went down
was only -four inches in the wall. Had
it been in four inches further ii would
laxra anYRfal nnN xRrnf-hf " IL 400
il was not overloaded with the brick
layers material, but it was when the
iTonmen came on with the gin pole, and
the whole weight was thrown on the
one SKIS which rested on top of the win
dow. The wall was not strong enough
where the timber rested on ii to carry
the weight that was on 1t.
Samuel w. Swift took the stand and
stated he had made an examination of
the place where the accident happened.
He had not seen the platform before the
accident, but from what he saw at the
time he made the examination it was his
impression the timber did not run far
enough into the brick wall. Dry brick
work is supposed to support seven tons
to the square foot, but il the brick work
were green a great weight upon ii would
be likely TO tip the brick. If the timber
had been placed over the pier it would
have carried all the timber would have
held. In response to a question by the
coroner, the witness said, in his judg-
ment, the defect was in the timber not
going into the wall far enough. Reply
ing TO MIR. Whitesides, who asked how
long 1t ought to take for grout, Of the
kind used, to set, the witness said:
Three days at least"
Foreman Whitesides of the brickma-
sons was recalled to give his opinion,
also as an expert. as TO the time re-
quired for the grOut to set. He said IL
would set in five minutes SO hard brick
could not be laid on it. He also said
the SKIS timber which gave way set into
the wal fully six inches. Replying TO
a question by Mr.. Swift, the witness ad-
mitted the brick on which the upright
sat had tipped a little. He could not
estimate the weight the brickmasons
had on the staging. In answer TO a
question by a juror the witness said
only about three men at a time worked
on such a staging.
This finished the taking of testimony
and the jury rendered its verdict. find
ing THAT the deceased, Frank Albert
and JOIN Cunningham. came to their
deaths by falling from and with a scat
fold about 40 feet high in the north
west corner of the Hennessy building,
corner of Main and Granite streets,
Butte, Montana, on saturday, June %,