New Britain herald., 1926-03-10

tained owing to their distorted con. ditien,
 "The detail Of bearing walls Is based upon field measurements and as accurate as could be obtained, most of the walls being completely destroyed as to construction. though not materially, The standing DOT lions giving good evidence of the construction Of the dest ~yed sec 'tions. These details are drawn on q larger scale as indicated to aid in the study of them. They are shown in a vertical plane view, a vertical sectional view and horizontal plane view. The first shows detail location on a vertical plane. or faco of the walls, the second also show detail location on vertical plane but at right angle to tho first. or q cross section of the walls showing height, thickness Of walls, anchor bolt fastening Of timber, etc. The third show detail location on a hor- izontal plane or positions on the ground,
 The details of the gypsum block construction and its position on the roof structure is shown in the same manner. the angle of slope of the roof being tho only detail not ob- tainable in the field.
 "The indications arc that the ex- cessive high wind at the time vas an important factor in the failure and tended to move the roof struc- Iture towards the southeast, bringing an over turning force at the top of the brick pilasters on East Main street,
 "Without question one or more of these brck pilasters failed. and the roof structure dropped at that point, bringing the entire structure down. ! Much stress has been laid upon the neglect to procure a permit from the city inspector, covering the new alterations, which had been done on the roof While it Is con- teded that there was q violation Tn the city ordinance In this respect no theory as yet has been advanced by experts that the alterations which had been made without pro- curing q permit, was the proximate cause of the accident. Therefore this element is a mero technicality.
 "A mere surmise that there may have been negligence on the part Of some person. who might be held liable for this disaster, Is not suftl~ cient even to bind over on probable cause. There must be substantlal evidence, by winch the prosecuting attorney can prove criminal negh- gence.
 "The facts or circumstances must be such as would warrant the pros ecutins attorney in inferring from them the fact of criminal negh- gence, by reasoning in the ordinary way according to tho natural ana proper relation of things, anu con- sistently with the common sense and experience of mankind.
 "It Is the duty of the prosecut- ling attorney, to marshal his facts in any given case, before it's pre- sentation to the trial court. If he should find sufficient evidence to warrant a prosecution for case Of criminal negligence, then he should be prepared to establish 8 prima facie case for the state. Tn these kind of cases the trial court, sets only as an inquiring magistrate If each court is satisfied after the nroper evidence has been submitted 'to it, that the accused should De l held for 6 further hearing, then the said court may bind the accused over to the higher court on probable cause. Assuming all the evidence herein submitted in favor Of the state to be true, vet no fair minded man can draw the inference that