The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1911-05-19
BLAME ON THE CITY.
Jury Gave Capital Iron Works Clean
Bill for Fillmore Street Bridge.

When jury in Judge Whitcomb's
court Thursday afternoon decided the
Fillmore street bridge case, it stated
with no uncertainty that the city en-
gineer's office and not the contractors,
the Capital Iron works, was to blame
for the poor condition of the struc-
ture.
In list of special questions submit
ted by the attorneys for the contrac-
tors, the jurors were compelled to
place the blame for the inferior con-
dition of the bridge before it could
reach verdict. The Capital Iron
Works was suing for the amount due
under the contract and for extras
furnished after the contract was let.
In its amended answer, the city asked
judgment against the contractors for
$4,000 claiming that the bridge was
not built in accordance with the plans
and specifications furnished by the
city engineer.
Under the answers given by the
jury, the city can take it's $4,000
bridge and dump it in the KaW, or it
may leave it suspended in mid-air
above the riotous Shunganunga. But
Topeka must pay for the work. The
contractors were not responsible for
errors in the plans and could not be
punished because the plans said the
structure should be loaded down with
100 tons of brick and cement. 1t is
hardly probable that the case will go
to the supreme court. The victory of
the bridge company seems final and
conclusive and can carry a clean bill
of health concerning its workmanship.
The questions submitted the jury and
the answers thereto were as follows:
Were detailed plans and drawings
which were to be followed in the con-
struction of the bridge prepared by the
plaintiff and submitted to the city en-
gineer for his approval before the work
was commenced?"
Yes
Were such detailed plans and draw
ings approved by the city engineer as
being proper and sufficient to show the
work to be done in the construction of
the bridge. and were the same placed
by him in the hands of ]. E. Bres-
settle. the inspector. who was put in
charge of said bridge to superintend
and inspect it's construction as to ma
teriai and workmanship"
Yes"
Did ]. E. Bressette. as inspector for
the city, remain upon said work and
superintend and inspect the material
and work used and done thereon con-
tinually from the time of the COM
mencement of the work until its COM
pletion?"
YES
Were all suggestions and require
ments made by the city engineer or
by the inspector during the progress
plaintiff. and all defects and imperfec-
tions pointed out. remedied at the
timer"
Yes"
Did J. E. Bressette. as inspector on
said bridge for the city, at the COM
pletion of the work approve of the
same and express his satisfaction both
to the plaintiff and to the city officials
that the bridge was constructed in ac-
cordance with the plans and specifica-
tons and to his satisfaction so far as
the workmanship and material were
concerned?'
YES"
IF the jury finds that the said
bridge in question is not constructed
with sufficient strength to sustain
with safety public travel. is such lack
of strength owing to defects in
plans ?"
yes"
WAS the mechanical work upon the
bridge done in good and workmanlike
manner"
Yes
''Was the additional concrete work
on the abutments necessary to be