El Paso herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1901-1931, 1910-06-17
kINSELLA WALL
To COME DOWN
Council Condemns Adobe
Structure on San An
tonic Street.

| Friday morning requiring simon KIM
sella to remove the wall on the west
side of his property adjoining the pro-
posed Fewel building on the corner Oh
San Antonio and Ell Paso streets Dan
ger of its falling was given as the rea-
son for cOndemnIng the wall.
KinseIla stated that ne would remove
the building. but there appears TO De
a controversy between Kinsella ana w.
]. FeweI relative TO the ownership Oh
the wall, FeWel claiming half OF it.
Judge h n. GOggin representing Elm
sella addressed the council We WaD1
it understood that there is liable 10 Dc
controtersy as to whose property the
wall is on" he said MI. KlnselIa Is
willing to rebuild it, if il is condemned
The deed to Fewel gives him 81 1eet
frontage on San Antonio street ana
KinselIa's deed gives him 10 feet be-
ginning 81 feet east of the corner OF
san Antonio and FL PasO streets
Alderman Hewitt said: a new wall
could be built better and cheaper than
the present one could be repaired
Judge Goggin asked: DO you THINK
it was unsafe before the removal Oh
the Fewel building?'
Hewitt replied: Il presume 1t was not
the removal of the Fewel building mas
undoubtedly decreased the safety II
might have stood 1000 years II pro-
tected from the elements.
Assistant city attorney Volney NJ
Brown asked: WAS there one wall
there or two?' Hewitt said: Evidently
there was but one, though l couId not
say positively"
Wall Unsafe.
- Alderman Blumenthal said:"1 consider
the wall unsafe; / think it is in sections
and is dangerous"
CLAYTON said: Il found it dangerous
and it struck me S being out OF pump
il was evidently one wall, though don't
know"
Judge Goggin said: The west side OF
the wall is just a little less than q
feet from the corner, when "ouIo
would throw the wall practically on
Kinsella's property Fewel claims he
has a right TO go to the middle OF the
wall as 1 understand it.
w H Rattenbury who inspected the
wall in company with Tom Holland ana
J. J. Stewart, said: We concluded that
the wall was not safe 1t is of ADOBE
undermined, there being holes under
meath it. The wall itself is leaning out
toward the west. II is cracked. L don't
think the wind would injure it, but rain
might cause it to fall. 1t should be-re-
moved 1t would cost nearly as much
to repair it as to replace it
Judge Goggin asked: Gould it be
refaced with brick and made safer
Rattenbury replied: Yes, il could be
replaced and a new foundation butt
under it"
Can't Repair Wall.
Tom Holland said: I went up and
looked at the wall; it was all bulsed
out and cracked up. would not consider
it a very safe wall. 1t has several off
sets in 1t. It is out of plumb don't
suppose there is anything on earth that
cannot be repaired, but it, would be
good deal cheaper to tear 1t down,
though it could be undermined and a
new foundation put under it."
Kinsella said: I am willing to put
up a new wall 1 will comply with the
ordinance If the wall is condemned
The wall was all right until Mr.. Fevel
tore down his shackS."
JUDGE Goggin said: Mr.. Kansella has
a tenant in there for a long time and
he wants to protect himself as we'll as
his building"
Volney Brown asked: DO you main
tain that it is safe?"
Kinsella: 1T has been for 80 years,
and it is now; there was no other
wall there"
Alderman Clayton moved that 'inas-
much as the wall is unsafe. It should
be removed" Blumenthal seconded it
and Robinson said: Then the clerk
will be instructed to tear it down or
make II safe"
Alderman Hewitt said: Il have built
protection wall inside and think he
should be given Is days to replace the
wall"
CLAYTON moved that Kinsella be in
structed to remove the wall or put 1t in
a safe condition in Is days. This reso-
luton carried.