Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1911-02-09
High Street Fire, Caisson
Horror; Machinery
Hall Collapse.
GRAND JURY ALSO ADVISED
ON VANISHED BAIL BONDS
Judge Ten Eyck Tells What
Kind of Negligence Consti-
tntes Manslaughter.

Judge Jay Ten Eyck in the Court Of
Quarter Sessions today, charged the
grand jury to investigate the caisson
disaster, in which, January 81. eleven
men met their deaths. He also charged
on the collapse of Machinery Hall, in
Washington street, December %, where
one man was killed.
In both cases the court told the jury
that indictments for manslaughter
neglect or criminal negligence was
present.
The court also called the jurors at
tention to the disappearance of certain
ball bonds alleged to have been deliv-
cred to the First Precinct Police Court
by a messenger from the office of Jusa
tice of the Peace Miller.
The bonds are those of witnesses for
the trial of Neil Mundy, whose place at
Railroad avenue was raided by the
sheriff's men November 26. Mundy was
later indicted for keeping a disorderly
house.
The courts charge was as follows:
Gentlemen of the grand jury: On
the twenty-third day of December,
1910, serious accident occurred in the
building known as Machinery Hall, on
Washington street, in this city. The
immediate cause of the accident, I
understand, was the falling of the roof
While the building was undergoing ex-
tensive alterations. AS a result of this
accident John Klodrig, a workman en-
gagged in the building, was injured. and
died as a result of his injuries.
Negligence Must BE shown.
IF the falling of the roof was due
to an accident which was not the re-
suit of criminal negligence on the part
of any one. no one can be held crimi-
naly responsible for the death of this
workman, but If 1t was due to crimi-
nal neglect of imposed duty, the party
or parties guilty of such negligence
should be indicted for manslaughter
1.-THE facts, as I understand them, are
substantially as follows:
THE alterations which were being
made in the building included, among
other things, a radical change in the
form of the roof and the manner of
supporting 1t.
1.-THE architect in charge of the work
w. e. Lehman (who, 1 am told, was
himself a part owner), drew the plans
and specifications, and superintended
the work of alteration. After the plans
and specifications were drawn they
were submitted to the building deparf-
ment of the city. in accordance with
the requirements of the city ordinances;
the superintendent of buildings pre-
sented the plans to the building COM
mittee of the Common Council; the
committee recommended that they be
approved; the Common Council there
upon approved them, and a permit was
issued to make the alterations and ad-
ditions in accordance with the plans.
Among other things, the plans pro-
vided for three iron trusses or girders
to support the entire roof. 1 am in
formed that these trusses, as shown on
the plans and specifications. were prob
ably insufficient for the purpose design
ed, in that there was no provision made
for proper lateral bracing of the
trusses.
Not According to Plan.
Il am informed that not only was the
provision in the plans for the lateral
bracing of the girders insufficient, but
that, when the girders were actually
ance with the plans, but were mate
rally changed In this respect, viz, the
plans provided that the upper and
lower cords of the iron roof trusses
should be made of two 6x6 angle irons.
but they were actually made of two
12-inch channel irons, thereby reducing
the fanges of the girders from 12h
inches in width to 611 inches in width.
and very materially weakening the
lateral strength of the girders.
THE girders We're madeby the Goeller
Iron Works. under an order given by
the architect.
THE plans, as approved, further
provided that the old dome ON the roof
should be removed. and that the new
roof should extend over the space for
merly occupied by the dome.
"This provision, it is said. was also
not followed in the actual remodeling,
but there was a deviation from the
plans In this respect, viz. about two
thirds of the weight of the dome and q
large portion of the main roof were
carried on wooden columns supported
on fifteen-inch 1 beams, the 1 beams
being supported by the wall at one
end and by the lower cord OF the truss
at the other end by means of angle
brackets riveted to the truss with four
rivets
1.-THE plans show that these girders
We're to be supported at each end by
columns which were to be built into the
brick wall bnt ,Es lad the columns
were pla sed nsioa II the wall and were
not ever bolre1 10 tae same On the
plan these eoltuhns IRE required to be
10 inches by II iQcEes but the work as
erected al rhe bUnding measures 91s
inches by 20 inches The consequences
of these changes and omissions from the
original plan was thac the south girder
was left wIthoia. propsr bracing, which
1t would heve i 6 some extent Il