IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 < 6" — ► Hiotpgraphic Sciences Corporation \ <^ ^^ \ \ ^9) V '% 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 <>/%/'^(^\ 4^ fc ^ J CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHIVI/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notea/Notes tachniquea at bibliographiquaa Tha Inatltuta haa attamptad to obtain tha baat original copy available for filming. Faaturaa of thia copy which may ba bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the imagea in the reproduction, or which may aignificantly change the uauai method of filming, are checked below. D D D D D Coloured covera/ Couverture de couleur I I Covera damaged/ Couverture endommagte Covera reatorad and/or laminated/ Couverture reataurte et/ou pelliculte Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartea gAographiques en couleur Coloured Ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (I.e. autre que bleue ou noire) I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planchaa et/ou Illustrations en couleur Bound with other materiel/ ReliA avec d'autrea documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serrie peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intArieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajouttes lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela Atait possible, ces pages n'ont pas M filmAes. Additional comments:/ Commentaires supplAmentaires: L'Institut a microfilm^ le mellleur exempiaire qu'il lui a 6tA possible de aa procurer. Lea details de cet exempiaire qui sent peut-Atre uniques du point de vue bibliographlque, qui peuvent modifier une image reprodulte, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans ia mtthoda normale de fiimage aont indiquAs ci-dassous. I — I Coloured pages/ Q Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagtes Pages restored and/oi Pages restaurAes et/ou peilicuites Pages discoloured, stained or foxei Pagea dtcoiorAas, tachetAes ou piquAes Pages detached/ Pages ditachtes r~~| Pages damaged/ I — I Pages restored and/or laminated/ r~^ Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ I I Pages detached/ |~n Showthrough/ Transparence I I Quality of print varies/ Quality inigala de i'impression Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du material supplAmantaira Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or pertially obacurad by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been ref limed to ensure the best possible image/ Lea pages totalemant ou partieilement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 4tA filmAes A nouv^iau da fa9on A obtenir la meiileure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film* au taux de reduction indiqu* cl-dessous. 10X 14X IP" 22X 12X 16X aox 26X 30X a4x 28X 32X tails 1 du odifier une mage Tha copy filmad hara haa baan raproducad thanks to tha ganarosity of: Library Division Provincial Archives of B^'itish Columbia Tha imagas appearing hara ara tha bast quality possibia considaring tha condition and lagibility of tha original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. L'axemplaira film* fut reproduit grAce A la g*n6roffit4 da: Library Division Provincial Archives of British Columbia Las imagas suivantes ont At* reproduites avac la plus grand soin. compta tenu de la condition at da la nattet* de I'exemplaire film*, et an conformity avac las conditions du contrat da filmaga. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimAe sont fiimAs en commen^ant par la premier plat at en terminant soit par la derniAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par la second plat, salon la cas. Tous les autras exemplaires originaux sont filmAs an commandant par la premiAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration at en terminant par la derniAre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol ^^> (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END "), whichever applies. Un das symbolas suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de chaque microfiche, salon la cas: la symbols -^ signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbols V signifie "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure ara filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate tha method: Les cartas, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre filmAs A des taux da reduction diff6rants. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul clich*. il est film* A partir da I'angle supArieur gauche, de gauche A droite, et de haut an bas, an pranant la nombra d'imagas nAcassaire. Las diagrammas suivants illustrant la mAthode. rrata to palure, 1 A □ 32X 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 %7 I \ '^ In the Supreme Court of B. C. ON APPEAL TO THE FULL COURT Betw-ben THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY O! (Defend, AND MARTHA MARIA LANG, Administratrix of the Estate and EflFects of Johtt Lang, deceased, •?.. (Plaintiff) Respondent. APPEAL OF THE DEFENDANT CORPORATION FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON. MR. JUSTICE McCOLL. Appeal Book. (if. lit' ■^ ] .'A ! C. DUBOIS MASON, Solicitor for the Appellants, (Defendants). D. G. MACDONKLL, Solicitor for the Respondent, (Plaintiff.) '--f^' m %. '■ :»^PPP! 'T'f^wmmmmmmimmmmmirm^lfgHm'mmm^-'f!! ' ' i (X>-, mi^' '(¥^1 INDEX. Statement of Case •.••• ^ PLKADINGS. Statement of Claim •J^f*---- 3 Amended particulars of misfeasance ^.T^.^i,.... 5 Statement of Defence '4—^.'"" Reply 4''""' PROCEEDINGS AT TRIAL. Trial — First day, 13th October, 1897 9 PLAINTIFF'S CASE. Thf. Plaintiff's (Mrs. Lang) evidence — Examined by Mr. Macdonell n Cross-examined by Mr. Taylor 12 C. D. Branch's evidence — Examined by Mr. Macdonell 12 Recalled and examined by Mr. Macdonell 26 CharlBS Fern's evidence — Examined by Mr. Macdonell '3 Cross-examined by Mr. Cassidy i? Recalled and examined by Mr. Macdonell 29 Frederick J. Peatt's evidence — Examined by Mr. Macdonell '9 Cross-examined by Mr. Cassidy 21 Re-examined by Mr. Macdonell 24 Exhibits put in and discussion as to evidence 30 Model of bridge put in ; 3° 230835 .iiuypppiii. .,, kiilii^iilii Hiiiiiiii John Cox's evidence, taken de bene esse — Examined by Mr. Macdonell 3a Cross-examined by Mr. Taylor 38 His note book put in as exhibit A to that examination 56 Diagram exhibit R in Patterson put in 59 Re-examined by Mr. Macdonell .^,^^11^.... 6^ John Cox's evidence, as taken at the trial of Patterson v Examined by Mr. Macdonnell (No cross-examination.) John Cox's evidence in this action, Lang v. Victoria, trial- Examined by Mr. Macdonell ."!. 70 Cross-examined by Mr. Taylor 77 Redirect by Mr. Macdonell 102 Further re-cross-examined by Mr. Taylor 104 Evidence of Biggar and Atherly taken at Patterson case read 106 Second Day of trial of this action — Lang v. Victoria, Oct. 13, Murray's evidence taken in Patterson case read 106 Exhibit 7 in Patterson case (model) put in 106 Argument as to further evidence to be admitted 107 Mr. Wilmot'S evidence before Registrar in action of Patterson v. Victoria — Examined by Mr. Macdonell 112 Examined by Mr. Mason 126 Mr. Wilmot's evidence at trial of Patterson v. Victoria — Examined by Mr. Davis 127 Recalled, examined by Mr. Taylor 129 Cross examined by Mr. Davis 131 Examined by Court 132 ii fi HijiiMiyiii 'f^ffifimmm Mr. Wilmot's evidenct before Registrar in Lang v. Victoria — Examined by Mr. Macdonell 133 Examined by Mr. Mason 155 Examined by Mr. Macdonell 160 Examined by Mr. Mason 164 Mr. Dowler's evidence at trial Patterson v. Victoria — Examined by Mr. Davis 166 F, G. Richard's evidence at trial Patterson v. Victoria — Examined by Mr. Davis '"^^■^■•••1 '7° Cross-examined by Mr. Taylor Kv!w?:. 174 Redirect by Mr. Davis ,. 176 F. M. Yorke'.s evidence in Patterson v. Victoria — Examined by Mr. Davis »♦ '77 W ROBT. McIntosh'.s evidence in Patterson v. Victoria. Examined by Mr. Davis '. 179 Cross-examined by Mr. Cassidy 184 G. G, Eigger's evidence in Patterson v. Victoria — Examined by Mr. Macdonell 190 Experts (Warner & Lockwood) evidence in Patterson v. Victoria, printed separately but bound herein, numbered as follows: 192 Edwin Hall Warner's evidence — First day's proceedings, 20 May, 1897. Examined by Mr. Davis 5 Cross examined by Mr. Taylor 17 Second day's proceedings, 21 May, 1897. Further cross-examined by Mr. Taylor 27 Re-examined by Mr. Davis. 42 Cross-examined by Mr. Cassidy 44 Jambs K. C. Lockwood's evidence — Second days' proceedings, 21 May, 1897. Examined by Mr. Davis 45 Cross-examined by Mr. Taylor 57 Re-direct by Mr. Davis 71 i r IMBliIi,,iiUj||PPWP»'^lip:Pmiii ■ 'g — • — ^j^^npn^nw •mfi w. B. Murray's evidence in Patterson v. Victoria — Examined by Mr. Davis Cross-examined by Mr. Taylor Re-examined by Mr. Davis »93 196 197 RoBT. Ralkour's evidence in Patterson v. Victoria- Examined by Mr. Davis 199 Cross-examined by Mr. Cassidy aoa ke-examiued by Mr. Davis -.^^^.^h. ao6 SahuBI. Athrrly's evidence in Patterson v. Victoria- Examined by Mr. Davis Cros.s-examiued by Mr. Taylor DEFENDANT'S CASE. F. M. VoRKT'.'s further evidence in Patterson v. Victoria — Re-calle I examined by Mr. Taylor aij Again re-called and examined by Mr. Taylor 314 Cross-examined by Mr. Davis ai6 H. P. Bell's evidence in Patterson v. Victoria — Examined by Mr. Cassidy aij Cross examined by Mr. Davis aa8 Re-called and cross-examined by Mr. Davis 334 Re-examined by Mr. Taylor 357 W. S. Gore's evidence in Patterson v. Victoria — Examined by Mr. Taylor 3658 Cross-cxa«"ined by Mr. Davis 367 T. Harmon's evidence in Patterson v. Victoria — Examined by Mr. Taylor 367 Cross examined by Mr. Macdonell 369 Re-examined by Mr. Cassidy 371 CapT. W. Grant's evidence in Patterson v. Victoria — Examined by Mr. Taylor 373 Cross-examined by Mr. Macdonell 377 Re-examined by Mr. Taylor 381 MiiP "PUPIP Jisf#^^ w I '."^ I ijinijiijIH-i Third Day of trial of this action— Lang v. Victoria- Judge's charge Reads jury evidence in relation to change of flooring Reads jury evidence as to boring beam No. 3, as requested by Counsel Resumes charge Reaas jury portions of evidence relating to the effect of bor- ing of beam No. 3 Counsel's exceptions Verdict ! ■ ■ ; Judgment of the Honorable Mr. Justice McCoU, (Appealed from). Notice of appeal « 282 288 291 295 298 o 317 319 \ i ! . II mm/K. IN TBESUPBEHECOORT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, ON APPEAL TO THE FULL COURT. Between THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF VICTORIA, (Defendant) Appellant. AND MARTHA MARIA LANG, Administratrix of the Estate and Effects of John Lang, deceased, (Plaintiff) Respondent. lO Statement. 20 This is an appeal from the Judgment and order of the Honorable Mr. Justice McColl dated the 6th day of Novcmlier, 1897, that judgment be entered for the plaintiff against the defendant for $20,000 damages and costs upon the findings of the jury. This is one of the many actions brought against the Corporation of the City of Victoria in respect of the coUajjse of the Point Ellice Bridge, Victoria, on the 26th day of May, 1896, and was brought by the plaintiff as administratrix of her ^ Lite husband, Dr. John Lang, who received injuries which resulted in his death at the Jubilee Hospital shortly afterwards. ■miii The action was originally against the Corporation r\nd the Consolidated Railway Company, but the plaintiff discontinued the action as against the defendant Company on the 17th June, 1897. The action was tried at Vancouver on the 12th, 13th and 14th days of October, 1897, before the Honorable Mr. Justice McColl and a Special Jury, when the jury found a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and awarded $22,500 damages less insurance $2,500, balance $20,000 divided as follows : — $7,500 to the plaintiff as widow and $2,500 to each of her five children. 'o From this Judgment the defendant now appeals. r mmmmmim m I't^i 11 PLEADINGS. Statement of Claim. JH^P' \ Dated the i6th day of June, 1897.!^ ■m WRIT issued the 24th day of November, 1896. 10 !. The plaintiff is a widow and resides at the City of Victoria in the Province of British Columbia and tli * defendants are a Municipal Corporation in the said Province of Mritish Columbia. t 2. The plaintiff is the wife of John Kang decca.scd, and was on or about the 3rd day of August, 1896, duly appointed the administratrix of the estate and effects of the said John Uang decea.scd, who died intestate and as .such >dministratrix .sues for her own benefit as wife of the siiid John Lang decea.sed, and on behalf of his five infant children. 20 3. In the year 1885 the Crovcrnment of the Province of British Columbia i-onstnicted a bridge across the arm of the .sea called Victoria .Arm on or near Point Kllice for the passage to and fro of ftwt pa.s.sengers, horses, and carriages drawn by horses, and for ordinary traffic, and the .siiid bridge l)ecainc and formed part of a highway Ijetween the said City of Victoria and the village of Isstniiiualt. 4. At the time of the construction of the said bridge as aforesjiid it wa . without the liniits of the .siiid defendants, but by letters patent i.s.sued on the 8th ,0 day of January, 1891, confirmed by an .Act of the Legislature of the Province of Hritisli Columbia, passed on the 23rd of April, 1892, chapter 63 of the Acts of that year, the boundaries of the said City were extended so as to include the said bridge and approaches thereto, and the said bridge thereby became the pro{)erty of the defendants and has ever since remained under their sole control and management. 5 The said defendants, at the time tlie said bridge passed so into their }X)Ss- ession and under their management and control well knew the purposes for which .t had been constructed. 6. The said bridge was an artificial structure and erected on mid high- way and the defendants, after the s;iinc l)ecanie subject to its control and manancmeut as aforesaid, were Ixiund and required in so far as the said bridge was concerned and so long as the ilcfendaiits continued to keep it as part of the s;iitl highway to manage and keep the same in repair and safe and fit for persons and vehicles lawfully passing over and along the same, but the dikudants so managed and neglected to repair it that the same became dangerous to persons and vehicles lawfully passing over I'lid along it. 10 20 7. At the time the said bridge was taken over by the City as aforesaid, the rails of a certain tramway oixTated in the City of Victoria, were laid thereon and the tramcars were in the habit of crossing uixni and over the .said bridge as the defendants were well aw'are. The said bridge, at the time the City assumed the management and control of the .s;iid highway of the said bridge forming part thereof, was entirely un.suited for tramway purposes as the defendants were well aware, as the same bad not been constructed for that pnrpo.se or in a suffici- ently strong and substantial niauner to bear the weight of the cars which were being run thereon, yet the said defendants permitted the said bridge to be used for the purposes aforesaid although they well knew that its structure was -^^ altogether too unsubstantial for such purposes, and the plaintiff says that although the defendants had full knowledge in the premises yet tliey invited the public to use the said bridge as part of the said highway. 8. The defendants, from time to time in atlempting to repair and doing work in connection with the repairing of said liridge, weakened the beams thereof by boring auger holes therein and otherwise which tended to hasten the decay of the said bridge and increased its weakness, and by dividing the flmiring on said bridge which further increased its weakness. ^q 9. The said John Lang on the 26th day of May, 1896, become a passen- ger on the tramcar of the Consolidated Railway Company which was carrying pas.sengers along the said highway and along and over the said bridge forming -1 part th<:ie6f, and while the said John I.ang was being lawfully carried on and "vcr said bridge the same gave way and the said car was precipitated into the water under said bridge whereby tlit said John Lang was drowned. lo. It was in eonscciuence of the defendants negligently continuing the said bridge in the condition in which it was in, and for its negligent nianage- meut thereof, and of its neglecting to repair it and negligently repairing it as aforesaid, that the said bridge gave way while the tramcar. on which the said John Lang was being carried, was crossing it 'o The plaintiff claims $25,0(10 by riasun of the wrongs complained of and his costs in this action. The plaintiff proposes that this action be tried at Vancouver, B. C 30 Amended Particulars oi Misfeasance. 1. Placing defective .stringers on which the car rails of the Co,. .dated Railway Conii)any rested in the bridge mentioned in the ,Statement of Claim in the month of July, 1802. 2. Negligently placing .stringers in said bridge in the month of July, 1892. 3. Horing an auger hole in a floor beam of the s;iid bridge in the month of June, 1892, and negligently plugging the hole. 4. In removing the flix)ring in said bridge in i8()2, and replacing it by divided flooring. 5. Hy changing in 1892 the floor beams of .said bridge for beams of a smaller dimension. 30 40 Statement of Defence. Dated till ^rd dav iifjuly, 1897. I. The plaintiff is not and never was llic adiiiinistratiix as allej^ed or otherwise. i. The defendant as to paragraph 3 of the Statement of C!aiin admit;- that at some lime prior to tlie 26th day of May, iH(j6, the Province of Hritish Columliia constructed a bridge known as the Point Ellice Hridge but the said '" bridjje did not tlien and does not now form part of an allejjed hi;^h way between the City of Victoria and tiie viilaj;e of Ivsipiimalt. 3. As to paragraidi 4 of the Statement of Claim, the defendant admits tliat at tlie time of the construction of the said bridge ns aforesaid the said bridge was without the limits of tiie said City of Victoria but the said limits were never extended as alleged or otlierwise so as to include and do not now include the bridge and approaches thereto and the said bridge did not become and is not now the property of the difendant as alleged or otherwise and has not at any time become and is not now under the sole control and manage- ment of the defendant. 20 4. The said bridge was and is constructed upon and over a public har- l)onr an^'7''P!PPPi*lPiPiPW'WSipP! II T 1] IJ 4 ills 1 11 Company by reason of the excessive weight of their cars and the overloading of tile same without the knowledge of and without fault upon the part of the defendant. 12. As to paragraph 6, 7, 8, and 10 the defendant will object that no liability or duty is or was imposed upon it by Statute By-L,aw or otherwise to keep main or preserve said bridge in a good state of repair and in a fit ar.d proper and safe condition for the purposes as alleged or otherwise. 13. No loss has been suffered as alleged or otherwise. 14. The admissions made herein are made for the purposes of this action only. 15. Save as aforesaid the defendant denies each and every allegation contained in the plaintiffs statement of claim. 10 30 Reply. 30 Dated 7th July, 1897. 1. The plaintiff joins i.ssue upon the allegations contained in the State- ment of Defence delivered herein. 2. For further reply to paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 1 1 of the Statement of Defence of the defendants, the plaintiff .says that the' ;il!egations contained in said paragraphs are no answer in law to the plamtiflF's claim in this action. .10 TRIAL FIRST DAY. 12th October, 1897. Mr. D. G. Macdonell, with Mr. E. P. Deacon for the plaintiff; Mr. W. J. Taylor, Mr. R. Cassidy, and Mr. C. Dubois Mason for the defendant corpor- ation. Case for the Plaintiflf. 10 MARTHA M. LANG. Called by Mr. Macdonell. Mr Taylor (to Mr. Macdonell): Von do not want to call Mrs. Lang, do von ' \s far as the fact that she is a widow, and her husband was killed in this accident, and .she is his administratrix, and has five children, I am quite 20 willing to admit that. Mr. Macdonell : And the age of her husband ? Mr. Taylor: Whatever Mrs. Lang sa\s alwut that 1 will accept. Mr. Macdonell: And that he was in a gootl state of health ? Mr. Taylor: I thought that was all agreed on. l)efore hand. Mr. Macdonell: I thought that was reserved to my learned friend. Mr. Taylor: I understood, my lord, that these facts were all admitted, and there is really no necessity of taking up any time for we do admit it, if there is any doubt our not having adtnilted it before. Court: Unless you have some written admissions, the better way will be to state what you admit. Mr. Taylor: I will go over it again: I admit that Or. Lang was killed in this accident — That Mrs. Lang is his widow and admini.stratrix, and that I .see .she states she has 5 children here, all of which I presume is correct. I admit JO that fact and their ages — that has not lieen .stated in the pleadings, but whatever Mrs. I«ang .says as to that, without being .sworn, I will admit. Mr. Macdonell: And that her husband was in a good .state of health? Mr. Taylor: Well, I have no reasan to know to the contrary. Mr. Macdonell: Well admit that, and that is all. Mr. Taylor: Certainly. You want the ages admitted, do you? 20 Mr. Macdonell: Yes. Mr. Taylor: Well, let Mrs. Lang state them without being sworn. Mr. Macdonell (to Mrs Lang): What was the age of your husband, Mrs. Lang? .\ 37. Q How old was your eldest child ? A When he died ? Q Yes ? A Seven — six and a-half. Q At the time of his death ? A Yes. Q .Vnd the next child ? A Five. Q .\nd what was the next ? A Four, and the other was three, and the next was 13 months. Q The youngest was 13 months old when he died? A Yes. 30 40 Q Were they boys or girls ? A Four boys and a girl. My eldest is a girl. Mr. Taylor: Which is the girl ? A The eldest is the girl and the rest are all boys. 10 •^iiMniPPPRmnppi h.. ; ., i:» -1 i Mr. Macdonell: What was his profession? (To Mr. Taylor); Do you admit that ? Mr. Taylor: Certainly. Court : We do not take it through a witness who is not sworn. What I asked you to do was to state those facts that will be admitted. Mr. Macdonell (to Mrs. Ivang): What was his income, Mrs. Lang? Mr. Taylor: Well, now, on the question of income, 1 think I have the 10 right. Court: Yes, you are entitled to — let the witness be sworn. EVIDENCE. 20 MRS. LANG, Sworn. Court: Before you go on with this examination, let the stenographer read out the admissions that have been made. (Which was done.) 30 Mr. Taylor: And I admit their ages to have beem 7, 5, 4, and 3 years, and 13 months, respectively— that the eldest is a girl and the rest are boys. Mr. Macdonell: And that he was in a good state of health at the time of hisdpath? Mr. Taylor: I stated that I have no reason to know to the contrary ; and he was a pas.senger on the hind platform. I think that is in the pleadings. The Court: And his death ? Mr. Macdonell: It wxs admitted that he was killed in the accident— his death resulted from the accident. II 40 Mr. Taylor: I niisundcrstocKl you. I may .say this: I admit he was on the rear platform of the car. He did not die as a matter of fact for .some few days after the accident. I admit that his death resulted from the accident near- ly three weeks after the accident. Court: The len^fth of time that elapsed is immaterial, is'nt it? Mr. Taylor; I thought you a.sked me whether he was killed immediately. I Mr. Macdonell (to witness): What income was he deriving from his pro- jo fes.sion, at the time of his death, Mrs. Lan^? A From $280.00 to $3(X).oo a month. 2 (4 He was in active practice, Mrs I.anjj, at the time of his death? A Yes, oh, yes. Cross-examination by Mr. Taylor. 3 Q Am I ct)rrect in assnmiu};, .Mrs. Lanjj, that you jud^jed that from his day book ? You l(H)ked at it after his death ? A Yes. 20 4 Q Two hundred and eighty to three hundred dollars. I suppose you know, as a matter of fact, that doctors have a gtxxl deal in their day book they do not get paid for? A I know that he made that; that he did make that. 5 Q It is a fact, though, Mrs. Lan^, that there is a jjreat deal of money they have on the Iwxiks the\- do not collect ? A Yes, 1 know that, too. 6 Q The ver\' large proportion of it, is'nt it people they have to attend out of charity, who are piK)r and cannot pay ? A Yes, but I am not counting that. 30 I am leaving that out though. 7 l^ You took the whole amount of his day book at $280.00 or $300.00 a month ? A Well, I know that he made that. 8 Q But you did take that from the day book ? A Yes. 9 y Had he any insurance, Mrs. Lang ? A Yes, $2500.00 of insurance, ID i) 1 infer when you said insurance you meant life insurance? A Yes. 40 C. I). URANCH. Called and sworn Examined by Mr. Macdonell. la niiiiii .4 1 1 Q What is your name ? A Charles D. Hranch. 12 Q What is your occupation ? A I am maiiatjer for this businens — Sun Life Insurance Co. 13 Q Will you tell me what amount will purchase an annuity of $280.00 monthly, or payable quarterly for a man who is 37 ? A Yes — I had the wronjj fi^jures altogether. Court; If this witness is not reaily, let him withdraw. This evidence can 10 be intnxluced at a later stage. Witness stands aside. CHAS. KKRN. Called and sworn. Examined by Mr. Macdonell. 14 Q What is your name ? A Charles Fern. 15 Q Where do you reside, Mr. Kern? A I reside at Victoria. 20 16 Q What is your occupation? .'\ I drive the \'ictoria Phoenix Brewery wagon. 17 Q Do you know Point KUice Hridge? A Yes, sir. i8 Q Do you remember being there on the 26th May, 1896? A Yes, sir. 19 Q What were you doing? A I wa.s driving the wagon across the bridge behind the car. 30 20 Q Behind what car ? A Behind car No. 16. 21 Q Is that the car that went down in the accident ? A Yes, that's the car that went down in the accident. Court: There cannot be any objection to your leading as to all mattp-s not in dispute, until tlie other side object. 22 Mr. Macdonell (to witness): You .saw the whole accident ? A Yes sir. 23 Q What did you first observe about the car after yon got on the bridge ? A Well, I was going behind the car— I was a little behind it— about 70 — about 60 or 70 feet at the time it entered the bridge, and I was going along 13 40 , there until I got on to that span that went down, and I saw wlien I was goinj;; underneath there, nnder the uprights there, I saw a bend unJerneath the car wheel. 24 Q You call those (indicating) the uprights ; A I call those the up- rights. I was going i.i there, sir. 25 Q ^nd you saw what!' A I was going on fioni the Victoria side behind the car. 26 Q The car was going towards which end '. A The car was going on towards Esqninialt. 27 . A That is on the north side. 30 Q How much of a bend did yoi: o'j.>"rve in the rail '. A I: went to about a foot, I guess. 31 Q When you say about half way wonld it be nearer the Victoria side, or the Ks(juiinalt side i Mr. Taylor: Now, I must o))ject to that. There is the square answer of the witness, and th's is cro.ss-examination to further ask him about that. 10 20 3° Court; I do not .see iiny objection. Witness: Well, it was about half way. 37 Mr. Macdonell: Then yon saw the rail bend ' .\ Yes. 33 y About a foot. What then' A Well, I heard a great cia.sh like a falling tree. 34 Q What does a falling tree sound like' A Well, ll is one great crash, if you understand. 35 ii What would it be— the sound' A It nas like a large tree falling just when it is breaking off, yon .«:ce, before it is thoroughly cut through. 40 14 i 36 Q So that it would be like breaking timber, would it > A Yes. 37 Q That was the first sound you heard ? A That was the first one after I saw the bend underneath. 38 Q What position was the car in then ? A It was a little lower on the north side, and then when this sharp snap — when this crash was, then it went to get level again. t 39 Q What position would tb. car be in as far as distance is concerned ? A ,0 Well, it wa', about even; well, it was beginning to lower then, you know. 40 <^ No, 1 am talking at what distance from the Hsquiinalt end would the car be then > A It was about half way. 41 Q Between what(' I am talking now w'.-n you heard the crash, how far from the Ksquimalt end of the span would the car be then i' .\ Well, it was about 75 feet I guess. 42 Q Was the car mcving > A Yes, it was moving until it begun to ^o break, and then it stopped. 43 Q Kroni the time the rail bent until you heard the crash was the car moving ! A No sir. 44 Q Kh ? A Well, fioni the time the rail bent, yes, it was. 45 Q Was it going toward the Ivsquimalt or the \'ictoria side i A It was t 'i'lg towards Ki'.qnimalt. 46 Q Then it was nearer the Ivsquimalt end when you heard the crash ( Mr. Ta\ior; I submit it is not ;> fair question. Court: Mr. Taylor's objection e\"ideuti> 's that it is leading. You are approaching the disputed points, bp".i- in mind. 47 Mr. MacdoncU (to witness): .\fter you had seen the rail bend, how far do y^" think the car had got on to Ksquimalt eiul, before you heard the large cracking noise :' A Well, it didn't get any chance scarcely at all, because the other one, you see, soon followed, it didn't gel any chance to get much further. 48 Q It would get how much, do you think ? A Well, a few feet, may be — may be 4 or 5 or 5 or 6 feet. 30 40 »5 !l J 10 49 Q It was moving all the time ? A Moving slightly, yes, the car was going very slowly on the span because there was another one in front. 50 Q Then you heard this large crasli > A Yes. 51 Q And after that :• A Then there were a whole lot of sharp snap.s, side- walk rails, and these timbers above, and one thing and another, and then the whole thing went down. 52 i) What were you doing during the time the bridge was bending? .\ 10 When I caught sight of the first bend. I began U) back up. I looked over to each side to see if I could turn, but I could not do it, so began to back up very sudden, and I broke a new backing stra]) for backing sudden, and I backed up till I couldut do it any longer — till I heard screams at the back of the wagon, and I could not get it through, and 53 Q How far were you across when you saw the car rail bend ( A I saw the horses and half the wagon on the -^iian. 54 (), How many feet would that be ! A Well, 1 guess about 8 feet may- 20 be. 55 Q Then you backed 15 feet from the time you saw the rail bend until you saw the bridge bend down '. A Yes. 56 Q And it must have taken thai time to fpll ' .-\ Yes, yon see I backed very rash — I backed very sudden. 57 (-1 How many .seconds do yon think it would take to back ? A Well, it took 6 or 8 seconds, of course. I had 11 people in my wagon besides my- 3° .self, and some beer. 58 Q It took you that time to back off? A Yes. 59 Q Do yon kiu)w how long that span is' A Xo, I don't know exactly how long it is. I guess it is about 14(1 or 150 feet. 60 ii Do you remember .seeing Mr. Wilson, the bridge superintendent, on the bridge ( A Yes, he was pretty close to the other end towards Esquimalt. 61 Q How far was he from the car ' \ Well, he w is just in front of it- just slightly in front of if, he was getting on towards t'.ie other end. 40 16 Wp w i .tyill^ ■ " ■' m i i iwi i|p .j|ji)Uj i ri^|i Bi . 1 Hfl |wii w, w i tt i3 li 62 Q And ^the front of the car was close to him ' A Well, slightly. He was a lit' further in the front. 63 Q Do you remember what they call a (iladstone trap on that bridge «' A Yes, I seen some people — I can't hardly remember how many there was in that. 64 Q Do you know who was in that ' .\ There was Potts. 65 Q Where was the car in comparison to him ' Where was he in compar- 10 iscn to the car ;' A He was about alongside the car. He was just behind Wilson, and then there was Mr. Jauies with his bicycle there. Cross-exa:nination by Mr. Cassidy. --;-_,_„, 66 (.) How far was the car ahead of your wagon f — in feet :• .\ It was about 60 or 70 feet. 67 Q You were coming from the \'ictoria side going over towards Esqui- mau ! A Yes. 20 68 y You were just about here (indicating! ? A Yes. 69 Q You had just got to the \'ictoria side of the span with your wagon when you saw the bend in the right rail f A I was further on than that — further on than where your finger points. 70 Q Well, this is the beginning of the span .' .\ That is the beginning of the span, but I was away further on. I was underneath that (hip vertical). I was away further on than where your finger is. 30 71 Q. You were just under here (indicating portal brace) ? A Yes. 72 Q At all events, you were examined at the inquest / A Well, it might slightly be further acro.ss, according to the way I can remember now it must be a little further than that, slightly — probably I was, buttheu the horse takes you a little further ahead again, you see. 73 Yes, when I saw the bridge bend. 79 Q Whereabouts was tlie bend witii regard to tlie car ' I mean to say, the last car — the one that went through ? A It was under the wheel nearest Victoria on thf- Xortii side. 80 t,) That would be one of the rear wheels .' — the right hand rear wheel I A Yes. Si i) Did yon notice any vibration on the bridge ! A Yes, sir. 82 V Swaying apart from the — ' A There was great vibration over the first span before it came to this one. 83 Q That is to say, over the — ' .\ Over the first from the road. 84 Q That is to say, right from the time you got on to the bridge from the Victoria side, yon noticed guat vibration:' .\ Yes, I noticed great vibration. 3° 85 Q When you say vibration do you mean lateral vibration in this way, or swaying up and down f A 1 mean the bridge going this way — the rods all seemed as if they were loose. 86 Q The bridge was shaking from side to side .' A Yes, like that, and the rods seemed as though they were loose. 87 Q Did yon notice the fir.st car get on the bridge ? A Yes, I noticed it go over ahead of us. ^ 88 Q Did you notice the vibration when the first car was going over ? A Well, I was not quite close enough to it. 18 I n i!' 1 ; ! i:ii 89 Q Did it alarm you — this vibration '. A No, it didn't alarm me any more than usual. I had often noticed as much when I had been going over with heavy loads; it did'nt alarm me — well, I always used to notice it to a certain extent. I used to think it was not a very safe bridge — I thought it was too .shaky, I thought all the time. Redirect by Mr. Macdonell. 90 Ci I suppose you heard the rods rattling 1. A Yes, I always heard them. 91 Q When you saw the bend under the hind wheel you did not know how far that hznA extended forward ' A Well, it extended forward as far as the front, and the car canted slightly, and then when the — 92 Q Yes, but the bend may have extended to the front wheel and beyond it i' A A little beyond. Mr. Taylor : I submit this is not new matter. Court ; I will let you re-cross-examine. ^o 20 F. J. PEATT. Called and sworn Examined by Mr. Macdonell. 30 93 Q What is your name >. A Erederick James I'eatt. 94 ^i Where do you live '. A Victoria. 95 Q What is your occupation ' .\ Conductor. 96 Q On the tram > A Yes, the H. C. Electric Tramway Co. 97 What is the length of one of those big cars— this car 16 that went ^^ down ? A It was about 30 to 36 feet over all. 98 Q Do you know how far the trucks are apart ( A Oh, they would be about 20 feet. 19 ; M ■ '51 lO 99 Q Have you measured tliein f A No, I have uever uieasured tlieui I could not say. 100 Q You know this car that went down in the accident f A Yes. loi CJ( The number was — I A i6 102 (i Had that car been running on tliat bridge before ? A Oh, yes, off and on at various times. 103 Q I'rom when I A Well, she was running all the holidays. 104 Q I mean, when did she start to run — \\ uat year i* A Well, I could not say exactly. 105 Q Do you know if she started in '92, '<>3 or '94 f \ I think it wa.s about 'go, '92 '91, along there 'ilic started. 106 (i And she had been running continuously up to this time of the accident f A Yes, to the time of the accident. 20 Mr. Taylor ; Kxcuse nie, he does not say that. 107 Mr. Macdonell (to witness) : Had she been running continuously, off and on, up to the time of the accident ' .\ Yes, but not on that route. 108 Q How often had she been running on that route .' A Well, just on the.se special days. 30 109 C^ How many special days would there be in a year, do you think ! A Well, the^e would be about ten — twelve — ^just whenever — they did'nt run her const.' nt — ^jnst when they had'nt any other cars, why, they used to run her on. no Q Did she carry large holiday e.vcursions ? A Yes, she was the largest car they had. in t^ Was she running in '95 over this same bridge? A Yes. n2 t^ .\nd in '96 up to the time of the accident f A Up to the time of the accident. 113 Q Do you know if a car had just tht same or as heavy a load in '95 as at the time of the accident ' A Well, yes, just about as heavy : she carried very heavy loads. 20 Cross-exainiued by Mr. Cassidy. 114 Q How many people were on that car ? A Well, as near as I can jndge, it was about 120, or 115 to 120. 115 Q There was another car just ahead ? A Yes. to 80. I iv'i Q How many were on that car ? A Well, there would be from 75 10 117 Q What is the weight of car 16 ? A Ver\' near 10 ton. 118 (^ That Point Ellice Bridge is on the Esquimau road ? A Yes. 119 (^ Do you know where the (iorge road is ? A Yes. 120 Q It is not the stinie road ; it is a different road — the Oorge road i . A Well, yes, it is a different road. 121 Q That bridge there goes over an arju of the sen. called the Victoria Arm, doesn't it f A Yes. *° 122 Q The harbor of Victoria runs right up to it ^ A A part of it. 123 Q And the ships come right up to the bridge;' A Ve.s, close to the bridge. 1 24 Q What is the name of the motorneer on your car ' A Farr — Thomas Karr. 125 (i When the bridge collapsefl the upper beams of the bridge fell ^^ down on the car, did they not :' A M'ell I coukl not see, I am sure ; I snn|K>se they did, it all came righi on top of the car 126 (^ The motorneer wa.*; killed was he not by (nie of tho.se Ijeanis ^ A He wiis killed, ;.es, I believe he was killed before he reached the water. 127 O Hy one of tho.se beams ; A Yes. • 12K Q You were on the rear platform 1' A Yes, I wap standing up just inside of the car — ju.st ins'de of the door. ' 129 Q Did you know the plaintiff in this case, Dr. Lang? A Yes, by sight. at ^■:.i;AA.*«tite.f' 1 i :iii 130 Q Where was he standinR' A He was u.i the front platform, I believe, so I understand ; I could not be certain. J 31 Q What is your account of what happened first, in ihe way of any- thing to attract your attention to da-i^er C A Well, I heard the crash, and then the next thin>^ I was in the water. 132 Q Whereabouts was the cra.sh when you first heard it ? A Well, the car \va.s very n"nr the centre of the span. 1 33 Q It w>\s proceeding towards tlie Ksquimalt end and had nearly reached the centre r A Yes. that is the centre of the first— 1 34 Q Span that went down ? .\ \'es. 135 *■»* Where did the sound come from which you first heard — what you call the crash ? A Well, I could not sjiy exactly ; it was just like some- thing breaking — .some beams or timbers. 136 y You, of course, being on the rear A No, I was inside the car, standing up just in ' •"' irni were outside the car ? 20 tlif door. 137 Q 1''^^ first thing that you noticed was tiic falling of the Ijeams was it not, from above ? A Xo, of course I could not see anythin i ill. ! could not .see the beams falling ; I was inside. 138 Q You know however beams did fall from above and .struck the car before it went down ! A I could not see at all. 139 Q Well, you know the motorneer was killed in that way > 30 Court : How could he tell ? 140 Q Mr. Cas.sidy (to witne-ss) : You saw it, did'nt you? A No. I did not. 141 Q Did you \oursclf hear any of these t)eams strike the rotif of the car ' A No, I did not. 142 t^ You just heard a crash ' .\ I just heard a crash, and then the ,q next second I was in the water ; it could not have Iwen more than many seconds. 22 ^.■HMtw.'toniiMMMi ' M.g«iiafata;a M 1 43 Q Yon mean to say the whole thing seemed to give way all at once ? A Yes, the whole thing seemed to give way all at once. 144 Q Practically withont any interval f A No, I don't think there was any interval at all. 145 y The whole bridge seemed to collapse f A \'es. 146 Q And in fact, jnst fell aljont yonr ears and you all ca'.ie down together ! A Yes, ^11 came down together. iq 147 Q Did yon go down with ihe car in the water ;' A Yes. 148 Q Did the car maintain its horizontal position in going down f A Well, it seemed to take a pitch up towards the(iorge, that is, towards the (lorge side of the bridge. 149 tj That is to .say, it canted over ^ .\ Yes. 150 Q To what extent was that cant, now ' .\ Oh, I could not say. ^o 151 y It was not a great cant.' .\ I could not .s;iy, I am sure, how much it was. 152 V .*\t all events, it was a side motion — a cant over to the right .side. 153 (^ Von said in your evidence at a former trial the structure .seemed to fall at once — in other words it went down something likt; an elevator ; A Yes. 154 Q Is that right ' .'\ Yes, that is about right. '55 Q That is to say that the floor of the bridge appeared jn.st simply to fall down straight f A Yes, to go right through. 156 (i In other words, as if the supports from alwve had given way and it fell through ? A The whole thing seemed to come open immediately ; 1 just heard the crash and then the next thing the whole thing was in the water. '57 Q Tliat is to s:iy the floor did not buckle up in the middle ' .\ Not that I— 158 ti So as to leave two declivities — ime at each side, — it went down 30 40 23 'i I ii i li it w ■f 1 9 A Yes— would sway, 179 y And that was always so, and the stronscr the load, I suppose, the greater the vibration > A Yes, with a hcavv load. C. D. BRANCH. Recalled. Kxaniined hy Mr. Macdonell. 180 C^ I think you .suited you were manager of the Sun Life In.surance Co.? A Yes, sir. i8i Q What amount would it require to purchasi' an annuity to pro- duce $280. fx) a month, payable (piarterly, or the way you figured it, for a per- son 37 years old i' A $57,052. 80. 182 Court : Yon mean it would take that sum to purchase an annuity 20 equal to $280.00 a month < A To purchase an annuity equal to $280.00 a month. '83 ^ What expectation of life do yon place that at ? A Aj;e 37. 184 t,^ Hnt the exjxictation of life ? A At that age, 29 years decimal 6. After Recess. 30 Mr. Macdonell : I wish to put in these exhibits that were in the Patterson case, I am filing now, my Lord, the by-laws or rather— Court : K.xhibit "A"— printed by-law. Mr. Macdonell: Ye.s, prolwbly, my Lord, if they could Ix- nnmlwred the S4une as they are in the rattersou case, we could reuieuiber them bitter hereafter. 26 40 lO Cmirt ; Very well. Mr. Mac read. It would prevent K^mm all over it ajjain and siive an enormous amount of time. If my learned friend even wants to read his tes- timony in the Pattersuts me rather in this po.sition, in order to oblige one side they examined a witness and his evidence was taken i^ down, and then perhaps it did not suit, and now I submit that arraujjement should bind both parties. Court: I do not see how it can be possible to bind him to that. Mr. Taylor: Would vour lordship allow me to sn>{nest a reason why that should be so ? Court: No, pardon me; no reason you could nr^e would weigh with me. If you have a binding authority I would acquiesce, but the principle of the 4" thing is so much the other way that I coud not listen. It is unsound. Mr. Taylor : I should like to put this principle before you. The 27 I vi I ^i . ! I i: . ' f I i si ' ■< »l HI ^i K' m i i 1 n defendant in the case consents to the examination of a particular witness, and it is consented that the evidence shall jjoin at the trial. Yon rely upon that, and perhaps find at the trial the man completely changes his testimony, and therefore that is what I say is not a fair proceeding to force us like that. Suppose Cox comes and completely changes his testimony ' We are completely taken by surprise. We might have otherwise had another witness here who is not present as we did not anticipate this course would be adopted. Court : I do not think you have theslighest confidence in the proposition you advance. The reason you give for it certainly indicates that there is '° nothing in it, if the witness, as you suggest now, will swear diametrically opposite to what he swore the other day, I fancy all you have to do will be to point it out to the jury and that vviil count against him, no — I overrule that. Mr. Taylor: Very well, my lord. I just wish to note the objection to the way of his being called. Perhaps your lordship having ruled as to tliat, will :illow nie to suggest that there is another way to shorten this — ask Cox the points upon which he wishes to differ from this, and then read those, and thus shorten the case materially. 20 Court: I am very much obliged to atiy counsel who will .shorten a ca.se like this as much as possible, becaus' after the jnevious trials — without saying what the result was, counsel ought to b*" in a position to shorten the evidence which formerly took so long, biit at tne same time Mr. Macdonell is, within certain limits, absolute master of how to conduct his case, and you and your learned friend are entirely in the same position, and it is for Mr. Macdonell to say how far, in the interests of his client, it should he adopted. Mr. Macdonell; .All the evidence given in the I'attei son case can he read .30 to the jury i'.ud not any other. Mr. Taylor: I'lit in the evidence yon have taken in this case up to date, the examination taken before trial, and taV" the other. Court: Mr. Mttcdonell is willing that the evidence in the Patterson ccse shall be )ead in this case. Mr. Taylor: I am agreeable to that, provided there is also read Cox's evidence as given in this case, ^° ^U Macdonell: No, read the evidence Cox has given in the I'atter.son case, and let that evidence go to the Jury. 38 Mr. Taylor: If my Icatned friend is agreeable to this, he has a iimnber of witnesses who were exatiiiued in the Patterson case. I take it he can take some of those witne.s.scs out, because it is merely repeating over again. The experts, I take it, are the principal witnesses. Take his two experts, Messrs. Lock wood and Warner — and also take Mr. Hell, and any others he can mention, and then we can examine Cox over again. Mr. Taylor: Cox was not cross-examined at all in the Patterson case, hnt I asked as a further ■•o';dition to read Cox's evidence ihe same way. He docs n(!t n'^rc<^ — I s;iy, very well, agree to lead it all ivcept Cox, and he will '° cross-examine and that will settle it and he will Ix the only witness. Court: !)(> you understand, Mr. Macdonell? 1 do not say it is ; atis- factory, but to have tiie evidence in the Patterson case read in this case, and go on with the examination of this witu'-.ss, in addition ' Mr. Macdonell: To make one more s\iggcstion — there was a witness examined this morning — Mr. Fern. If your lordshi]) will allow ine to ask one question, then I will consent. Court: certainly, — one question of rrn. That cannot affect the position. CHARI.KS FKRN recalled by Mr. Macdonell, iSs (^ This morning yon swore the car was about half way across the span ? .\ Well, where the sinking of the wheel nearest Victoria was about half of the span. 1 86 Q Was the end or centre of the car in the centre of the span ' A The end — this way. 1H7 V The end of the car wa.^ about die centre of the span ' .A The cud of the car, under the nearest wheel to-.ards me; that end of the car. iHH (^ So when you say the car was about tile centre, yon mean the end of the car was ^ A Yes, I mean where it sunk d4)wn ; the end nearest Victoria began to sink down ; that is where I mean when 1 s;ud it was about the centre. 21) 30 40 189 Q Mr. Taylor : And the sinkinR was riRlit under the Victoria end of the car > A Yes. 190 Q That would he the north-east end wheel f A That would he the north-east wheel ; the north side at the end nearest \ictoria. 191 y On the Gorge side ? A Yes. 10 Mr. Taylor : Then the way I understand it. Cox is the last witness now r Court : Yes. There is now just this oljservation I ouji^ht to niakf. I'os- sihly the jury niiKht desire t<> jiut some (|ueslion arisinjj; out of this evidence which will he read to iheni fc.r the ])uri)ose of underslaudin)i; it. The jiirv in the Patterson case had the advanta<;e i<{ havinjj had the different portions of the inenil)ers pointed out to them, hut if the j\iry for the i)roper unclei-slandiu}j of the Ciuse wish to ask a (Hiestion o{ thai kind, it should not lie excluded. That ought to l>e understoiKl on both sides. Mr. Macdonell : I niin;ht say that .\therly is here, and the jury — Court : Now, you had hetter let it ^o at that. \'ery ijood, now, Mr. Macdonell asks that the model he admitted. Mr. Taylor : I am willinj.;, suhject to any incorrectness in the de.si^;ii, to 3^ adniif that as an illustration — as illustrative simply of the structure as laid down. I'or me to s;iy it is absolutely aecur.ate, I am not alile to do that, because I do not know anything; alHUit it. It looks to me all rij;ht. If my learned friend wants to examine Cox with reference to it. he can do that. Mr. Macdonell ; I will have to provt that is a tine model of the l)rid.ije. If mv friend will admit that, I want to examine Cox with reference to that. Court : I supi-H)se it m.i\- be taken as a true model as fir as the points in dispute are concerned Mr. Taylor : Me proceeds to examine Cox and prmluces this to illustrate some questions, Me has a jK-rfect rij;ht to do that. 30 40 Court: It is a mistake to suppose any proof is necessary for this purpose — the use of it for any witness to explain his evidence. It might be the most inaccurate model it is possible to conceive, but it is admissible to make a wit- ness more intelligible. But what Mr. Macdonell wants is something beyond that. He says to you "admit that is a perfect model of the bridge," and you say you have no objection to admitting it ? Mr. Taylor: I suppose it is. Court: Well, let it be taken thi.', way: Mr. Taylor admits model of lo bridge to be substantially a true model of the bridge, but if during the trial it should turn out to be inaccurate, leave reserved to call evidence on both sides. 3' mmt^^ 1 m if' i' ' p i I I Examination I)c Bene Esse of John Cox. BEFORE ARTHUR KHAST, DF.I'LTY REGISTRAR. Thursday, 26tli August, 1897, 2 P. M. lO Pursuant to order of Mi AuKust, iSqj, and appointment dated the i8th August, taken at this hour by consent of parties. Mr. Macdonell appearing for tlie plaintiff. Mr. Taylor apfK-aring for tlie (lefendant. JOHN COX l)eing duly sworn, testified; examined by Mr. Macdonnell. Q What is your name ? .\ John Cox. Q Where do you live, .Mr. Cox ? A X'ictoria. 20 Yes Q Were you in the employ of the City of \ictoria in the year 1892 ? A Q When were you employed by the City first? A 1891 May 1891. Q And how long were you in their einidoy ? A Until .Vpril, 1S96. Q What were your duties ? A Well, I was employed as carpenter ; the city carpenter, to k»k after the sidewalks and bridges generally. Q Do you know the Point Hllice Bridge ? A Yes. y Did you ever l in the bridnf or hand railing or sidewalks. Q Undei whose directions ? A Tlit- Cit\ Ivn^iiiuir. y Who is he? A Mr. Wilniot. y The present City iMijjiniir ? A Yts. y He V. as in the cnijiloy of thi City? A Yes, hi- was in tlu- mqiloy of the City in 1892 ; not in 1891. y What sahiry had yon? A I had 52.50 a day, tin- sanii tiie men that were workiiijj under me. y Did yon ever jjet any sfK-cial instructions from Mr. Wiimot, the City Knjjineer, as to reixiirinjj the Point iCllice Ilridne in 1M92? .\ Not except tlie one when there was an accident. y When was tiiat accident? A That wis in iRf)2, June 1 think. y June 1K92. What instructions did you Ret from Mr. W'ihuot, City luiKineer, in ntereiice to point I%llice Itrid^c in |H(;^ then? A Well, after the accident, which hap])cncd in the .ifternoon — 1 mean to say alxmt one or two o'cl(H.-k, or it may have U-en later — the l)rid>;e was sliut off that nij;ht, blocked up at l«)th ends by order. y lU order of whom ? .\ Of the City Knv;ineer. Traffic was shut up at lM)th ends. I received orders the next morning from .Mr. Wiimot to bore the beams of the bridge, that is to see whether — near the haii'^irs — whether they were decayed or not or rotten as yon may term it. y Well, an\ other instructions ? .\ .\fter we bored those iK-ams the borings were numlK-red separatelv and lianded in to the en>;ineer's office. y Hy whose in.structions ? .\ H\ my own. y Did he a.sk for those l)orinKs himself? He asktnl you to return those borinjp; to him ? A I would not swear whether he tlid or not, but they were handed in to the office for them to .see the state of the l)eams. It was handed to 33 10 30 40 Mayor Heaven in my presence, part of it, previous to U-inj; handed into the office, Q Well, they knew, then — at lexst the Mayor and City Ivnufiiieer knew that the lK>rint;s were from the l)eanis of the hrid^je ? A Yes; they were all nnml)ercd one, two, and three, and so on up to nine. Q And it was in consecpiencc of receiving instructions from Mr. Wihnot to do the JxiriuK that yon returned the iMJrings to Mr. Wilniot and the Mayor? A Yes. lo Q Did you do anythinj; to tile bridge iK-fure the aciideiit ? A No, not that I am .iware of, e,\eept that 1 iiii(;lu liave ])iit a sidewalk plank in, or iniglit liave been a floor plank, I could not s;iy. I think my Ixxik would state if there was. I don't see anylhinj; in it at that timt. .\fter, there was. Mr. Tavlor: (J What document is that you refer to ? A That old day book. (nria span ? A I 20 bored three. Q Did any one p ^ist you to bore these three l)eams ? A I bored those three myself. H Do you know what beams they wen-, all ? .\ Tlie\' would be num- bers one, two and three, counting from the end of the Esquimalt span on toward.^ Victoria. Q Towards A'ictoria ? A On the Oorge side. jo Q That would be the West end ? ,\ 'I'lic North-west end. O The West end of the Victoria .span ? A Yes. g The span that fell ? A Yes. Q You lx)red those three beams. Now what part of the.se beams did you bore ? A ( )n the (Jorge side. g Only on the Oorge side, would that W- tlu' North or the .Soiuli side / A The North side. g On the North side. Did you bore any of them on the South, on the 35 * - i L k: te L Kh ■L' ' w^'' m. M Victoria side ? A No, not on that span. Q You arc positive of that ? A Yes. Q Why did' nt you bore more of the beams in that span than the three, do you know why ? A We had not time to bore more tliat eveninjj. I had but one man, just Atherly and myself, and it was gettinj^ late, it must have been four o'clock, and I told Atherly to jj^o l);ick and put down the sidewalk on the other spans that were bored, while I bored the other three, and he did so, and by this time we went home. lo Q Where alwuts did you bore the three beams ? A It was on the Xorth -Mde. Q Near the hanger ? A Yes, on the outside, on the (iorge side under the sidewalk. Q Under the sidewalk. How close to the hanjj^cr did you bore ? A Well it may be .six or seven inches, 1 would not say more than that. Q Hored as clo.se to the hanger as you could ? Mr. Ta\lor: Take his answer, six or se\cn inches. A Well, you have to bore at the angle, to get in. Von could not bore straight down, if vou did yon would come in contact with the vertical. y That is the reason ? A Yes. Q How deep did you bore ? .\ May be seven inches, perhaps not (juite as much ; or it may be more, I could not s;iy. ' y What si/e anger did yon use ? Used inch and a quarter. Q Used inch and a quarter auger. After you hored tlie holes what did you do then ? A Well, I dosed up for that day. y How di(' you clo.se them \\\> > A What I mean to say, we closed work fot that day. Q Hut immediately after borinu ' A 'I'lir nc.\t day I reieivin w,.i, i> i,. 40 get >>akutn and tar and ping them up. y Where did von get the oakum .11. ' tar • A Mcy-iade &. ,Sons. 36 Q What quantity of oakuin and tar did you j;t>t ? A I tliink there was two pounds of oakum, and a gallon of tar, if I rcinenihcr rijjlit. Q Were those items chani;ed to the City do nou know ? A Yes Q Where did you buy them, what place was it yon boiiji^ht them ? At what shop or chandler did you buy them ? A McQuadc it Sons the ship chandler on Wharf Street. Q You told him to charge it to the City ? A I took him an order from lo the City; I could not get it without. Q Then after getting the oakum what did you df""" A We got the material and then we went and plugged them up. Q With the oakum ? \ With the oakum and the tar. Q And tar? .\t least I don't think the tar was used with the oakum; the oakum was used only for the holes, the tar was used for painling the pier below tile high water mark. Wc did nt)t use the tar for the holes, only the 20 oakum. Q Did you u.se any wooden plugs at all in the hoies? A Xo. Q Nothing but the oakum in the holes. Mr. Cox, could \()ii have used a smaller auger than you used there ? .\ I could have u.sed a smaller bit. Q What was the object in using so large an auger as you did use ? A To obtain more particularly the (|uantity that 'vas rotten in the beam. Hy using a smaller one you could not tell how much was rotten. By the large one 3c you could see it in your hand. Q Was it for any one's special benefit " .\ It was for tlie Officer, City liugineer, Mayor and those, to see direct the st^te of tiie beams. y Hut for your own information, as to testing that for ><)ur rnvn informa- tion, yon could have used a sm.iU bit ? A 1 could lia\ c used a very small brace-bit thai size, I could not u.se one le.s.s. Q That would 1h' it xivteeiith of an inch? A Yes, thereabouts, yon 40 could not Karn much bv that. y Hut I mean you could test yourself by that .' .\ t)h, yes. 39 Q Did you bore any other beams in tlie Victoria span ? A None but those three. Q Those three. Cross-Examined. By iMr. Taylor. 10 Q How much painting were you going to do with -lis^ t..r yuu speak of? A The pillars in the water, those iron pillars. Q Were you instructed to do that with the tar ? A Yes, it was not done then, it was done afterwards. Yes. Q Were you instructed to get the Uir for that purpose a 1 that time ? A 20 Q By whom? A By the engineer or by the clerk; I always brought the order from the clerk. Q What did yo- with the older? \ Left it at Mcyuade's; I took it to McQuade and he f • iied the tar. O It was a quart of tar, vou said a gallon ? A It might have been. Q That document says a quart ? A Hoes it? TIk'u probably it is so. Q You s;iy that the object ^if your taking this big auger was that you should take out a large piece in order to show it to the Engineer, who could tell whether or not it was rotten ? A Yes. Q Hut you could tell wliether or not it was rotten with a nnich smaller auger? A You might find it deca\t'd but you could not find out how much. y Hut you could tell it was rotten ■' .\ I might not. Q .'\nd that is what you were sent over to ascertain ? A Yes, and that was my object in using the bigger auger. 30 40 38 :■ i|,mi W . ^ P 'Hi lO 20 Q Were you told to bring the Iwriiigs back to the clerk ? A I believe so. Q You said that you were told to do so, but you did not remember whether Mr. Wilmot told you or not ? A No. Q Is not that what you said ? A I don't think so. Q Who did the borings, you or Athcrly, the two of you were there ? A We sometimes took turn about in boring. Q You changed off? A Yes. Q You used this inch and a quarter for boring ? \ Yes. Q Right through the chapter with all the beams ? A Yes. Q Now you say you bored all the beams in the Esquimalt span that after- noon, and three beams of the Victoria span ? A Yes. Q Did you bore all on the — A I would not swear all, whether two outside of that or not, but there were nine in the whole, in the two spans. Q There were nine l)eams in the two spans altogether? A Yes. Q Those that were in the span ? A No, that were bored. Q That were bored ? A Yes. Q How many were in the spans ? A There was six in one and three in the other. Q That would be if you bored all the beams in the Esquimalt span ? A No, it would not; there were seven. Q There were seven ? A Seven floor l)eams not including the — Q Why did you miss one if you were sent there to inspect them all ? A Well it was so. The way it is now. Q The way it is now. What do you mean by that ? \ The beam is there now. 4° Q The beam is there now i that yon did bore or did not bore? A Did not bore. 30 39 Q That is your reason for saying that you did not bore all the beams that were there then, in the Esquiinalt span t A Yes. Q Hecause yon find a beam now that was not l)ored. A It was not necessary to bore them all, otherwise I would have bored tiie Victoria span all the beams, naturally. I should have bored the Victoria span ri^fht throujjh, all the same way, but it was not necessary to d) it when we found they were all rotten, one after another, with the exception of the one on the K.sciuimalt span. Q All the beams you found rotten ? A Yes, every one of them. lO Q And yon concluded you would not bore any more on the Victoria span, because all yon bored on the other span were rotten ? A No, not at all, we did not have time, l^ Why didn't you ro hack to do it ? A We had other work to do the ne.xt day. Q Did yon tell them you did not examine but the three ? A They were sati-sfied. y Did you tell them that you had not examined but the three f A Cer- 20 tainly, there is the span. Q Who did you tell '. A My borings proved they were not all bored. There were only nine parcels handed in to the enjiineer. Q Did you tell anybody what beams you had bored ? A Yes ? Q Who > A The engineer. Q The specific beams you had bored ? A Yes. yo y Did you tell what beams you had bored «■ A He knew perfectly well. y Did yon tell him ( A Yes. Q When i \ Tl.e next day, when I took the borings I said there is nine, and there is aii lii- borings. Q Did y(m t W him ' A He had sense. Yes, I did tell him. V What did you .say to him ? A I said, are we to bore any more beams, and he said he did not think it was neces.sary. y Why not :■ \ Hecause everyone we had bored was lotten. 40 IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) /. // 4 s^ ^ ^^A^ k W /j 1.0 i.l 1.25 IM M 1.8 U III 1.6 V] V) ^>. V ^ 7 /A Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, NY. MS80 (716) 873-4503 o^ Q Because everyone you had bored was rotten ? A Yes. Q Then it is a fact that all the beams you bored were rotten ? Every one. Q Everyone. They were pretty badly rotten tcjo, weren't they? A I believe they were. Q You believe they were ? A Yes. Q Then why didn't yoi'. replace all the beams in the bridr- V A I had nothing to do with it. Q You had nothing to do with it ? A No. Q You were told to go and bore the beams and plug the holes ? A Yes. Q Did you plug the holes, or any of them ? A Yes, all that we bored, with oakum. " w , Q Did you plug any with wood i' A No. Q You were city carpenter from that period you spoke of in 1892 (■ A What is that ! Q Yon were city carpenter from the time you are talking about ? A Yes. (j What date was it, now, about can you tell me the date in June, 1892 ? A 15th, I thirk. Q F'ifteenth of June ? A The accident. Q I mean the time you bored ? A I cannot state ; it must have been the next the 16th. Q So that you must have told Mr. Wilniot, the city engineer, that you did not bore these on the Victoria side, on tlip 17th > A The next morning. y The next morning, that would be the 17th. .\ Yes. y Well, did you tell him that all the beams should 1k' replaced ? A I had nothing to do with that whatever, telling him that. Q Did you exnress any opinion about it at all ? .\ No ; no conversation about it at the time at all. ID 20 30 40 41 lO Q Weren't you expected to make any report < A No. Q How were they going to find out your opinion whether they were rotten or not ? A There was my opinion that was handed to them. Q Was it your opinion ? A Yes. Q That wa.s something that you bored out of the beam ? A Yes. Q And they were rotten '>. A Yes. Q Everyone of them ? A Yes. . Q Very badly rotten? A Yes, pretty bad. Q You never did, in fact, then, bore the other beams in the \'ictoriaspan? A No. Ci But they were replaced i A I Vielieve they were afterwards. Q You know they were '. A I didn't know for some time ; I had 20 nothing to do with it. y Didn't you know in fact that they were >. A No Q As city carpenter, it was your duty to see whether those things were sound ? A No ; the city took those things out of my bands. y Wasn't it your duty to circulate about the city to ascertain whether the bridges and sidewalks were in gotxl condition or rotten ? A I had nothing to do with it in that ca.sc. It was placed in their own hands, and I had nothing 3° to do with it. V Wasn't it your business to ascertain wbethei or not this material was rotten ? .\ It was not my business at all. Q What was your business i \ To ascertain whether they were rotten. Q To ascertain whether they wore rotten, to find out whether the mater- ials were rotten, the sidewalks and bridges in the cit> ' .\ You mean previous to the accident '. ^^ H At the time of the accident ' A I had not got the chance to do it, when I was ordered the next minute almost — 4» Q VI .my time was it part of your duty to see the sidewalks and bridges as to rotteuness f A On the surface, on tlie road, nothing underneath. Q Who did it underneath ? A There was nothing done underneath. Q Nobody inspected underneath ( A No ; not at that time. Q What were you employed for? A To go around the city, and put in a .sidewalk plank or a bridge plank, or anywhere when it was needed. Q Didn't you hwk at the other beams to find out whether they were rot- '° ten or not ! A You could not do it in this case. Q Was not that what you were employed to do ' A No ; it was not be- cause you could not do it. Q Why not f Was not that what you were einplo)ed for < A Not par- ticularly. 20 Q Well, generally ? A Well, at the close of the year. Q . In 1895, you reported on it? A Yes. y And you reported it sound f A Yes, as far as I could say. Q You reported it. Oid you hxik at it then ' A No. Q Did you know the.se Ixjains were rotten in 1892 '. And yet yon reported that .sonic of those old beams in there were .sound > .\ I had no report in 1892. (^ You have tol us that they were rotten in 1892, and some old beams 3° were left in the bridge ihat were rotten, and yet in 1895 yon reported it .sound to the council ? A Yes ; it was their place to take tho.se two beams out, not mine. Q Yes ; but you knew they were in ther- when yon made the report in 1895? A I did not know. I did not go over the bridge. (^ Y<«i made the report without examining the bridge ? .A Certainly. (^ .And that is the way you did ? A That is the way it was done in all 40 cases. (J Didn't you think that it was your duty — A I was not allowed. 43 Q You made a report, which you signed, not knowing anything about it? A Yes. Q And yet you kneW in 1892 it was rotten, badly rotten '; A Yes, it proved itself in 1892 that it was rotten. Q Now, you testified in a case of Gordon against the Corporation of Vic- toria, in Vancouver f A No. Q Patterson, I mean to say, and the Corporation of Victoria in Van- 10 couver ? Yes. Q A .short time ago ? A Yes. Q You testified there as to the Iwring of the beams. Now was there any- body el.se whose business it was to bore and examine these beams in this bridge in 1892 ? Anybody but yourself,? A No. y And it was not examined by anybody in 1892, as far as you know, but yourself ( A There was no one sent to do it. 20^ (j There was no officer of the city who had any business to do it except yon ? A No ; not at that time. Q Nor from 1892 to 1896? A No. y As long as you were in the employ of the city ? A No. Q And as far as you know, no one did other than yourself? A No. y Is not that right ? What do you say ? A Explain that again. 30 Q So far as you know, no person othn than yourself ever bored Point Ellice Bridge from 1892 to 1896 ? A I don't know that they did. Q Y(m don't think they did ? A No. If there wa.s, it was done unbe- known to me. Ci Now during the times, Mr. Cox, you were not actively employed in repairing something, what did you do ? A What. 40 A For instance, you were working on a yearly salary from the city at that time f A A mi nthly salary. 44 Q You were not etiRaKed every day in repairinfj the sidewalks and bridges t A Pretty near ; yon can see items there wliere I have been every- day of the week on bridjjes. Q But dnriiiK the time yon were not actively einj)loyed in repairiiif,', what did yon do f A Do you imajjine a man could walk over 150 miles a day on sidewalk ? Q No. A That was my duty. Q It was yonr duty to walk about the city and ascertain the condition of the sidewalks ! A Yes. Q And where ever any repairs were needed, to do it ? A Yes ; small repairs we niijjht handle it. Q At any rate you reported whether thex- wanted repairs or not ; and if they were small rejiairs yon repaired them, and bitj ones you reported ? A Somclwdy else did them. Q But )'ou reported > A Yes. Q At the time you were not repairing, yon were looking about the city to find out whether anythiiiR needed re])airing ? A Th.it is right. Q Tiiat is what yon were there for :' A Yes. Q So that yon were bu.sy all the time. Now this auger you u.sed vou produced in Vancouver didn't you ? A I believe so. Q It was all you used that day in all those beams? A Yes. Q Why did you prtxlnce that particular auger I A The one we had to u.se at that time. Q What ? A That was my auger. Q Why did you prf)duce that particular anger ? A Why ; it was the one that was used. Q It was the one that was used all the way through ' A Yes. Q It wa.s an inch and a (puirter auger !' Yes. 20 30 40 45 :• n '' i r Q I suppose you had n hiili dozen au^i ^ tlierc, liadii't you f A No. Q Are you sure about that f A Yes. Q Now, he perfectly sure, Mr. Cox. A In fact the city had no tools at all, not even a saw, at the time. Q And you used your own tools? ,\ Yes; I did use my own trxils. Q And that was your own t A That was mine. or y And it was the only one you had I suppose at the lime > A Vts. (^ So th \i you are positive about that inch and a (piarter aujjer ' .\ Yes. <4 And they were all bored with that, whatever yon did ( A Yes. Q There can Ik- no doubt about that ' .\ Well, I don't think there is any doubt alwut it whatever. Q Answer very carefully, Mr. Cox, now, because it is possible, y(m know, q that you might have ( A No ; it was the only auKcr, and it was my own. Q It was the only au<;er yon used ; the city did not have any tools, and it was the only aujjer you had down there f .\ Yes ; it was the only au^er I used ; the city did not have any anjjer at the time. l^ Now, you bored the beams in the Ksipiimalt s])an, and \ou bored three beams you sa\' in the Victoria span f A Yes. Q Now you testified in N'ancouvcr that yon bored those beams in both 3° ends — north and south ends ? A No. Q You did not. I will see whether you did or not, and I will read it to you ; beginning at line 25 on page 94, down to line 14 on the succeeding page 95. I will tell you what you said there. Yon were asked first, " Will you tell us why you rememlx-r boring only three in that span ' (A) Yes. (Q) Why f (A) It was getting late in the afternoon, and it was scinewhere near four o'clock, and to complete the thing, I had another man round ; and I .sav to this man : ' (io l)ack and put on those planks that we had tore up to bore tho'-e other Ix'ams both in the north and south side ' •" A Yes ; on the sidewalk and not the roadway. H He was to put in those planks that were torn up both on the north and 46 PJJ'I'IIII'.IP.IMM south side ? A Yes, that is right. Q — "To make the place secure lor the night; and I will bore these beams. We had started one. I .says, I will complete those three while you do that, and by that time it will be five o'clock, and we will go home. That is the reason why I bored tho.se three at that time. (Q) Which part of the beam of tho.se three did you bore ? There is a north side?" The north side is the Gorge side ? A Yes. Q "(A) Yes, it was the north side ; we bored the south and north side lo both ; but it was the north at that time when I say I told the man to go back and put on those planks, to nail them down and make them secure. Where he left me boring ; I bored on the Ciorge side." You did .say that you bored them on the north and south side both ( Not in that span. Q You were asked about both spans >. A It does not read right. Q You were referring to the boring of the Victoria span ; .\ Yes. Cj! And you answered ; " We bored the south and north side both." \ 20 No ; I distinctly remember about that. Q You swear that you did not say that ? A Yes ; the north and .south side of the Esquimau .span; that was understood ; but it was misconstrued there. Q " Which part of the beam of those three did you bore ?•' A On the north side. Q "It was the north side ; we bored the north and south side both ?" 30 A No ; not on that span. t^ That statement wa not true ? A No. (^ Wasn't your attention fntlrd to it I K No. Q What do you mean then on the other span ( What did you mean by this then : "tio back and put on those planks that we had tore up to bore those other beams, both on the north and south side ("' \ This is on the north and soutli .side, on the sidewalk. You have got it wrong. 4^ The beams -vere bored on the Esquimau side on the north and south side. 47 im of it. Q They were bored on both ends you mean ? A That is the meaning Q That is what was meant there ; "We bored the north and south side" meaning both ends ? A It means, " You go back and put in the planks on the north and south side that were torn up.'' Q But you had not bored these on the north and south side ; why did you bore one on the north and south side and not the other. A We didn't bore none on the north and south side in the Victoria span. lo Q Did you in the Esquimalt span ? A Yes. • Q Why did you do it in one and not the other ? A We didn't have time. Q Why didn't you go back and finish it ? A We wasn't ordered todo it. Q You were asked to bore and find out the condition of the bridge ? A We were not ordered to do any more boring ; we bored that day, and that was 20 sufficient. Q And you might have bored one beam, and if it was five o'clock you would call that sufficient ? A Yes, if they ordered it. Q And then report the bridge in sound condition ? A It was quite suf- ficient to report the bridge rotten as far as the beams. Q How do you explain your report then in 1895 that it was sound, when this beam had not been removed i* A There wasn't any question 30 about it's being rotten, I don't know, if it is not bored underneath it is not bored on top. Q What is not bored on top ? A That 1 think, it is the number one, I would not be sure on the Ksquimalt span — on the north side, it is boted un- derneath, and the other side it is bored on top. Q You bored some underneath and some on top I A That is what we did. 40 Q Why did you do that < A To ascertain which was the worse. We found the bottom was worse than the other, and we did not bore bu* one or two of them. 48 Q You bored one beam on the Esquimau side at the bottom, and yon found that absohitely rotten ? A Yes ; worse than the top. Q And then you bored the others from the top of the beam ! A Yes. Q And you found them absolutely rotten ' A Yes. '4 You did that with the Hsqnimalt span ' A Ivs(|uimall span only. Q And then yon bored three of the beams on the X'ictoria side, on the top ? A Yes. (j .\nd found them ab.solntely rotten ' .\ Yes. Q And yon found the condition of the Ix-anis on the Ksqnimalt s])an was a little more rotten when bored from the bottom than when bor<.d from the top ( A Yes : the one that we liored. Q And they were all rotten and unsafe at that time ' .\ Yes. Q .\nd yon were aware of that fact ' .\ \'es. Q .^nd yon did not report that to anybody .' .\ It was lejjorliil ilie next morninn;. Q Y A Do yon suppose for a minute that I should say: Here, .Mr. Wilniot, there are two beams in that bridge, and yon have not removed them, and yon ought to remo\e them .' y You knew they were rotten, did you not ' A Yes ; and he knew thev were rotten. 1(1 20 30 40 49 i m fill' & 1 l\ ffil '.' ■ m|Ii H Hi;«i lJ 111 / 1 Q You knew they were absolutely rotteu at that time ? A I did. Q Badly rotteu ? A Yes badly rotten. Q Then, I say, how did you report them sound to the city in 1895 f A I did not report anything sound. A Yes, you did ? A Not the beams , there is not a word about the beams. 10 Q You reported the bridge. A (ienerally. Q Would not that include the beams f A Include the whole bridge generally. Q If you were employed to examine the bridge and ascertain whether it was rotten or not, and you found the bridge rotten, would you report it sound ? A If I was to report upon a beam, that is another question. G You reported this bridge sound ? A I reported the bridge in ^o good condition. Q Was it in good condition ? A The roadway was in good condition, and the piles, and that is all I required. Q And yet you reported the whole bridge sound ; A Yes. Q Without examining it, and notwithstanding that you know in 1895 those beams were absolutely rotten > \ Yes. Q Including this nunibe' , three beams that gave way ? A Yes. Q And it was more rotten at the bottom than it was at the top. A Yes. Q Now let me clear up a point. The beams that you bored in the Esquimau span you bored on the north side < A The Ksquimalt .span upon north and south side. Q You bored the beams on the Esquimalt span both on the north aud on the south ends ? A Yes. Q With the same auger that you bored these beams ^ A Yes. Q And you put one hole in each end, I suppose, in each timber? .\ 30 40 50 lO Just one. Q Just one. And no one else, as far as yon were aware, bored the beams V A I don't know of any that I am aware of Q And you arc- quite positive that you used your own auger > A Yes. Q And that was the auger you produced, the inch and a quarter auger? A Yes. Q That was the only auger you had there '. .\ Yes. Q How do you remember that auger .so well all the.se years ? A I have had it in my chest ever since. Q Have you any other augers there ? A Yes ; I have a half dozen smaller ones and bigger ones. Q When you speak of an auger what do you mean ? You drew a dis- tinction to my learned friend ; when he referred to an auger, you said a bit '. A A bit ; and an aijger is another thing ' Q A bit and an auger are two things >. k A bit is another thing. Q Am I to understand that the handle constitutes the auger and tne screw is the bit i .\ Yes. Q And it was the screw that you produced in Vancouver, an inch and a quarti ; screw ? A Not an inch and a quarter handle. Q What ? A An inch and a quarter auger, not a bit ; bits are about this size, about this long ; perhaps a little longer — some of them. Q An auger has a woored when the lhin>j w;is put on, or when the accident was, or when Mcintosh put those beams on. There wxs lots of repairs done. Q You examined them in 1892. Were there any holes in them then other than the ones you Iwred ? \ I never saw any ; it is possible there were. Q Hut you ne%'er saw any other holes ? .\ N'o. Q Now, Mr. .\therly, who was with you at the time you did those bor- injjs ; he also states you bored these beams at l)oth ends ? A Yes. y He is wronjj alKU)t that ? A Xot in the N'ictoria .sfwn ? .A X.t — he l)ored in the other span, not in the \'ictoria span at all. y You have already told me that what you swore at Vancouver on that part is not true ? Mr. Macdonnell : No, he siiid it was improperly rejMjrted. 5a 3" 40 i fl'l Q Now listen to this, at pnjje 27,^ of tlir apiH-al l)(H)k, tlii' tistiiiiony in Patterson and tlie Cori)oration at tlu- trial. " What was lu' j,'()iii)r to do while yon were doin^ that ".■' (A) lie was >;oin^; t" fiiiisii tlu' horiiij,- sir. (O) lie was Koinn to finish the horin;;, and where ; .\s you wrnl away to ])Ut the planks down on the l'!s(inin)alt span, where did he ).;o mi with the iiurin^;. (A) He started ri^ht to bore on towards the N'ietoria sidf. i,(J) On towards N'ictoria, And at whieh end of the sjian ? That would he the side towards the ('ii)rj;e, or the other side that he went on to Ixire ? (A) We Inm-d it on hoth sides. Yon .sav that statement is not true ? A Me did not hore on the Vietoria side .11' "' at all. Mr. Macdonnell : Just eontinue, ynu will find that he refers y Here i.-; the next cpiestion : "(Q| 1 know, hut the X'ietoria side I am speaking of, now, that we went to hore when you went on putliujj the ])lankiu)i down? (A) On the ('iorn;e side." Well that is the .same thiujj;. Thatiswhat they iKJth said, there at the time, they were , jutting the plank in thcv were lM)rinj; on both sides. You .say these statements are not true :ii any -ati? .\ I say they aint. 20 Q Now I will read from your report here that you made in i-Ho.s .\fter enumerating^ a number of sidewalks and hrid^jes in the eity that vou deal with, you .sjiy Point hllliee nrid^e in ^(mhI eondition ? .\ Yes. Q Now yon jjot written in.struetions to examine that, did -'t you? A No, none. Q Didn't you i>vl a letter from Mr. Wilmot ? .\ No, sir ; and further than that I had no instructions jjenerally either ; that was all my own object ^^ that I made a jjeneral rei)ort. Q It was all your own object eh ? A Yes, I never had any instructions from any one. Q What do yon mean by .starting it out this way : In compliance with yonr request 1 be^ to submit here the following; re])ort with reference to side- walks, water tanks and bridjjes. What did \ou say that for? .\ Well, I thonj^ht it miKht lie my duty to do so. t^ Yon thonnht it was \'ont duty to do so ? .X Yes. (J And what you conceived to be the discharge of your duty, you did it? A Yes. I received no orders to do it. 40 53 ^m il i.aU iBH' f^ hi ^,vi Q You say there was no letter to you to do it ? A No. Q I will show you a letter pretty soon. A If it is there I did not get it. Q Did you ever tell anybody that you plugged those holes you did hire with oakum ? A Not that I ain aware of ; everybody Vnew it. Q Did you tell anybody ? A Not particularly as I know of. Q Was anyKxly there '.csides you and Atherly ? A Mayor Beaven and the engineer were there both when we were starting and finishing. Q And when you finished ? A Yes ; and I said to Atherly, ' ' Pick up that boring and hand it to the Mayor." And he said, "That is pretty looking .stuff." Q He saw it was rotten? A Yes. , ' Q Did you do the plugging when they were there ? A No the next •Jay- • ..--..y.,,,--^, 20 Q Was there anybody there then ? A Not that I am aware of. Q Did you tell anybody )0U had plugged thctn ? A No, I did not. Q Wai that a good way to j>iug tlum ? A I don't know, it might keep the water oi t and it might not. 30 Q Why didn't you plug them with wood "^ .\ Whai would be the u,se of wood any more than cikum ? Q Wouldn't it keep the Mater out better ? A Not a bit of it. Q Not a bit of it ? A No. Q If you put a little tar with that onkum it would make it water tight ? A No, if you filled it with white lead it might have done. Q Would not tar help it ? A No, tar would soak right into the hole. Q It woulf* act to keep water out of the wood ? A 1 don't think so. 4° Q Did you plug that gotxl and tight with oakum ? A I expect we did, with a stick as well as we could. 54 I Q You did plug it good and tight with the stick ? A Yes. Q How did you pound it in /' A Pounded it in with a hammer. Q Put a stick on top and drove it in with a hammer, did you ? A Yes. Q That is the way they calk boats, is it not ? A Something like that 1 believe ;..! never calked boats. Q Is that the stuff that is used to keep water out ? A put in a different way to that. Yes ; but it is ID 20 Q You put this in the hole, I understand, and then put a stick or plug and hammered it in ^ A A stick similar to the size of the hole, and then tamped it. Q Drove it in tight ? A Yes. Q Water could not get in on top of that ? A Yes. You might a.s well say that water would not go through a salt bag. Q What did you put it in for ? A Well, orders is orders. Q Who did you get the orders from ? A That gentleman there. Q That is Mr. Wilmot ? A Mr. Wilmot. Q Well now were you told to plug it with oakum ! A Yes. Q Or, were you told just to plug it ^ A I was told to plug it with oak- um, and the order I received for the oakum and the tar. But the tar was not 3° for the holes, it was for the painting of the columns. Q The painting of the columns underneath. Now what use would a quart of tar to be paint those columns > A Well, I don't know. y Would it go nnything like around them. A Not half way. Q But there would be enough with this oakum to plug up the holes with, wasn't there ? A Oakum. Q Yes put the oakum in, and tamp it as you say, and then put tnr on it:' A No. y There was enough tar ? A There wiv.s no tar in them at all. 55 40 I » ii'J 1 'V V II m 1 iMHK.- » xMIr it i. ^:- t ^'^^^Bi' i lO Q I know you say that, but wouldn't it have been a good thing for that purpose ? A No. Q Now wasn't that the object of ordering that tar ? A For the columns, not for the plugging. Q Who ordered it ? A Mr. Wilmot. Q For that purpose ? A Yes. Q And you swear positively that Mr. Wilmot told you to get the oakum and plug the holes with oakum ? A Yes, what did he give the order for. Q Did he tell you ? A Most decidedly he did. Q What did he say to you * A " Plug the holes with oakum and get an order and get it. ' ' Q This is a book you kept a record in of the work that you did ? (Indi- cating). A It is a private book, it does not belong to the city. ,_ Q It is impounded for this case ? A Well you can have it. There is another book shown to you in the office that I got in 1895 from Mr. Wilmot. Q What do you call this f A It might be a scrap book. The book was here put in marked exhibit A. Q Well, Mr. Cox, from what I can make out, from what you say, this beam was rotten and unsafe in 1892 > A Well, wasn't they all rotten ? Q They were all rotten, at any rate this one number 3 was. A They were all rotten, and that was rotten too. Q And they were un.safe ' A They ought not to have been there. Q In 1892 ? A Never ought to have been left in. Q Of amrse it would get a good deal worse every year after that ? A It was bad enough then. Q It was bad enough then ( A I don't see why they did not take them all out ; in fact they were so rotten they ought all to have been taken out i' A They .saw enough of nine to remove the other three you see. 30 40 56 Q What is that ? A They saw enough of the nine that were bored ; it should have satisfied them they were all rotten. Q That is when I understand you bored this number 3 and found it abso- lutely rotten too ? A Yes ; bored underneath. Q How was it rotten, half or three-quarters of the way through ? A Take the top and bottom, I guess it was pretty nearly half. Q Take the rotten part out, nearly rotten through. Mr. Macdonnell : Q What beam is that, number 3 ? A The one that is there now. 10 now. Q Number 3 is not there now at all ? A I mean the one that is there Mr. Taylor : Q You said they were all alike, didn't you ? Mr. Macdonnell : He said the one that is there now. 20 Mr. Taylor : Q Well, speak about the beams that you told us about in 1892 ; you say they all ought to have been removed, and they were all rotten then I A Yes. Q And they were all about in the same condition ! A Yes. Q And you say that this beam number 3 — that is the third one you know from the end in the Victoria span ? A You mean the one in the Victoria side ? A The one that broke in the accident, in the Victoria span,' the number 3 3° you .see on the diagram ? A Yes. Q And it was rotten > A Yes. Q You put it rotten at the top and bottom about half through ? A Yes, about that, all of that, I calculated there was nine — I calculated the eleventh lieam was the only one — I think it mnst have been this one that is there now that had alx)nt nine inches of solid wood in it. Q The one that is there now f .'\ Ves. Q Which one is that ? A The one that is bored underneath. 40 57 H \ O In the Esquitnalt span ? A Yes. i It was more solid than most of them ? A That was the only one, and I suppose that is the reason why they left it. Q That was the only one that was solid ? A Yes. Q And you think it was solid for eight or nine inches ? A Yes. Q What is the size of the beam ? A About the same size. lO Yes. 20 Q About 18 inches ; and then it was rotten about half way through ? A Q And it was better than the rest of them f A Yes. Q And this number 3 beam th.it broke at the time of the accident — A Yes. Q That was wor.se. Mr. Macdonnell : There is no evidence that number 3 broke at all. I you will place it on the map The witness : Give me a pen and then ro on and then we will see. Q I thought we were talking about the s;ime thing. Take the Victoria span, I think you bored three beams ? A Yes. Q The one nearest Victoria we will call number 3. A Yes. t^ The one nearest the Esquimalt end would be number one, and the one next to it number two ? A Yes. Q I am referring to number three. Now the beam in the Esquimalt span, the beam was solid about nine inches ? A Yes. Q And the other beams that you bored included three in the Victoria span, and were in a worse condition than that? A Yes that is the meaning of it. Q That is what J. understood you. Now this diagram that is exhibit R in 40 the former trial ; (handed to witness). The beam you have referred to in the Esquimalt span is not shown on this diagram ? .^ I see it is not. 30 58 lO ao Q As being rotten half through, and the other beams m the Esqnimalt span and the one, two and three in the Victoria span were still worse rotten ? A Yes. Q More rot in them ? A Yes. Q And number three then would be more rotten than half way through ? A I would not — it is hard to sjiy ; it may be an inch either way- They were bad enough. Q They were bad enough to be taken out at once, any way t A Yes. Q Now, Mr. Cox, didn't you receive instructions from Mr. Wiluiot in writing to mik^ your report in 1S95, on December i8th in a letter in the follow- ing words : "J. Cox, Ksq., City Carpenter, Dear sir, 1 wish you would make in- spection of the following bridges, namely, James Hay, Point Ellice, and Rock Bay bridges, and report by the end of the present year the condition of each ; also note anything you consider should be done in the way of repairs or renewals. Yours obediently, K. A. Wilmot, City Engineer." Now isn t that what you were referring to when you .say, " In compliance with your request 1 make this report." A I don't remember receiving that order ; I m.-ide my report from my own knowledge. Q Isn't it probal)le you did get that ? ,\ Well, I might have, I would not swear to that. If I had, I think I should have had it by nie. Q What is that ? A If I had been served with a report I think I should 3° liave had it by me. Q Well, you were as a matter of fact. The diagram which was marked exhibit R in the Patterson case was put in by Mr. Taylor, marked exhibit B. Q Now, Mr. Cox, do you rememljer the beam you bored from under neath, you say, in the Esquimalt span — where was that ? What part of the Esquimau span ? A What beam ^ ^ (^ You say that one beam in the Esquimalt span you bored underneath, you know, and found it very rotten, and the rest you bored on top ? A It may be num- 59 ber two or three on the west end ; I would not swear whtther it is or not. y That would Ik; the I%squiinalt end of the bridge ? A I would not sav which one. Q It was in fact in the Ksquimalt span ' A 1 know we did bore one underneath, and that is what took up .so much time. Q That beam was under the hip vertical ? A It nii^jlit be, I think not — it may be I would not swear. lO Q You are not positive ah(5ut it ? A No. Q That l)eam is there now, isn't it ? A There is one there. I believe. Q There is one there, yon believe. Now look here, Mr. Cox, do yon know how many old beams were left in the Kwinimalt span > A I do not. Q You do not. You have not examined it since, the I'*s(iuinialt span ? A 1 have been over the bridge, but as to what is in or out, I don't know. ^o Q You knew there were some old beams left in the Ksquimalt .span ! A I believe there was one, I think there was one, in the X'ictoria span, I am not sure. ti .Vt any rate, the one that yon bored underneath and found badly rotten there, was towards the west end of the bridge ' The Ksquimalt end ? A Probably in the centre — it mij^ht have been four, five or six, I would not .say ; fourth, fifth or sixth beam I would not say. Q You told me — mentioned that you bored it at the Esejuimalt end under- neath the beatn ? A Yes, one or two, I would not .saj'. y One or two from the K.squimalt end ? A Yes, on the KIsquimalt span. I would not .say there was more than one ; there might possibly have been two. It took up too much time. Q Well that would l)e the west end of the bridge then ? A Pretty well along there. Q The west end of the Ksquimalt .span ? A Yes. Q I think you have already explained that you bored on the sidewalk .side 30 40 '\% 60 m in every case ? A Yes. Q That would be on the outside of the tracks ? A On the outside ; we could not get inside without tearing iip the floor of the bridge. Q You bored on the \ H Hi t/4 ^■B Q Did you tell Mr. Wilmot the kind of inspection you made ? A He knew the kind of inspection. Q He know the kind of inspection >ou made ? A I could not make any other. Q Now Mr. Cox you did not bore the under part of N'o. 3 beam in the Victoria span ? A \o. i) So you do not know whether it was rotten tinderneath or not ? A 1,0 cannot say. Q You bored into it seven inches or there aliouts ? A There abouts. Q When \()U sji>- it was rotten nou mean traces of rot were in that seven inches ? A Dry rot, traces of it ? A Yes. Q It niiRht iiave sIockI for a year or two in tliat way ? A Vts, it mi^ht and perhaps more. 20 Q Hut bem^j plujrKed with oakum would allow the water to jret in and increase the rot ? A Yes. y N'ery materially would it increase tlie rot ? .\ Fifty per cent. Q The oakum bein); in there would increase the rot fifty ])er cent. Are you sure that Mr. Wilmot saw the borinjfs of tliose beams? A He must have saw it. He stood there in front of me, and the Mayor, both of tliem. Q At the time you were borinjj ? .\ Yes, .\therly handed it to him in his hand. y Handed them the borings ? .\ Yes. y And .showed them the condition of the borin>js ? A Yes ; and the ■•- Mayor, he ptit his fingers so and s;iys "That is cjucer looking stuff ; that is Mayor Heaven. y And afterwards they were put in jwpers and handed ? A They were kept .separate, put in pajx'rs and n>iinbered. .^ y And handed to Mr. Wilmot ? .\ Handed it to Mr. Wilmot the ne.xt morning, and I layed it on his desk. Wliat they did with it I don't know. It was there for them to see. Scmie were n little more than others decayed. 64 3" I ( 1 1 J) Q Who else worked on that bridge ? A Atherly. Q Any one else ? A Not with me. Q Besides you, not with you, but outside of you, did anybody else work ? A Oh, there was a dozen worked on the bridge beside me. I had no occasion to cover any of it except planks, that is all. Q You don't know whether any of the others bored r .y of the beams or not? A i do not. They may have been bored with Mcintosh, or Elliott, or jq any of them. Q Did you use a five-eighths auger at all ? No, I did not. Q, The auger that you used was the inch and a quarter ? A That was the only boring I ever did. Q That was the only boring you ever did, and that was the auger you used ? A Yes. <4 And you put no wooden plugs in any of the beams ? A No, I did not ; only oakum. The examination here closed. 20 ;^i> ! ' '' SB 30 Evidence of John Cox at the Trial of Patterson v. Victoria pil Taken 20th May, 1897. 40 JOHN COX, of Victoria, called and sworn. Examined by Mr. Mac- donell. ]mii 6s Q What is your name ? A Jolin Cox. ,, y Where do you live, Mr. Cox ? A Victoria. Q Were you in the eni])loy of the city of Victoria in the year '92 ? A '91, .sir. Q In what capacity ? A I was actinjj as city carpenter. Q What were your duties ? A My duty was to liwk after the sidewalk.s, bridges, etc. and report the .same to the engineer. Q What was your .salary ? A I was )j;etting the sinie at tluit time in '91 — the same as the men that was under me — no more. y How much? A That was $2.50 a day— when you work. Q Were you .sole city carpenter — or was there an\- other city carpenter, except you ? A No, sir, I was the only one at that time, in that year. Q Were you that in 1892 ? A In 1892 1 wiis appointed permanently carpenter. Q And what official was over you ? A The city enj;ineer. Q Who is he ? A Mr. Wilmot. * '^ Q The Mr. Wilmot that was here ? A That is the jjcntleman. Q And you took your in.structions from him ? .\ Yes, sir. Q In '92 do you remenilK'r an accident on the I'oint lUlice bridge ? A Yes, sir. y You rememljer the bridge being repaired ? .\ Yes. Q Did you get any instructions from Mr. Wilmot to look after the repair of that bridge in '92 or report or do anything in reference to it ? .\ W'ell, the only repairs I did prior to the accident was just on the platform on top of the sidewalk. Q After the accident did you get any .special instructions from Mr. Wil- mot in 1892 ? A Yes. 10 20 30 40 66 I >! 'fi ji ()I What were those instructions I A The next morning after the accident hapjK'ned in the aftern(K>n — one, two or three o'clock were to bore this beam that gave way — or to bore the beams of the bridge — this and all. (I For what purpose ? A To itscertain whether tiic han^jers — what state they were in. Q That is, to see whether they were rotten or not ' A Whether they were rotten or not. y Do you remember when that was — the month '. \ 1 believe it wa.s about from the I2th to the 15th or therealwut, in June. Q 1892 f A I would not swear exactly, but I think thereabout in 1.H92. next morninjj after the accident, I ^^A those iiustruetions. tj! In pursuance of those instructions, what did m>u do? A I bored those beams and handed it to thecity enijineer se|);irately in pajier and numbered. 1 took it into the office, and handed it to Mr. Wilmut. Q There were two sjxins in the bridjje ( \ Yes. Q There was a span towards the Kstjuimalt side of the bridjje ? A Yes. y .And a span towards the Victoria side ' ,\ Yes. (i What they call a Whipple tru.ss ? A Yes. yi That is the span towards the Victoria side. Von enter the bridge from Victoria here (indicating on plan), there is a Pratt combination comes in, this ■jo large .span. You enter from the Victoria sic'e and go across there, here ; that is the end of the first span ' .\ Yes. ao y And then you enter the second .spa». A \'es. 't Q That is the span that collapsed. Now, you can call it \o. 1 or No. 2. In that span it hxs been sworn there were .seven Ijeams. A Yes one in each panel. Q Will you point out on that plan there, the beams that you bored in ^o 1892 under tho.se iu.structions ? (Referring to exhibit "R"; No. i, No. 2 and No. 3. That is all that was Ijored in that span by me or any one else at that time, on the Ivsquimalt side. This is the Kstjuimalt side, as I undenstand it, of 67 ,iM •v.^ ^ that span — that is, the collapsed span. Tins is Roing from Victoria to F.sqni • malt ; that is the Hsquimalt end that gave .va\-. Q Th'.' Es(|uimalt side of the first span that gave way ? A Of the first span that gave way ? A Of the first span from Victoria. Q Will you tell us w'.iy you remember boring only three in that span '. A Yet. Q Why I. A It was getting late in the afternoon. ;'.nd it was somewhere ^ near four o'clock, and to complete the thing I had another man round, and I says n this man "Go l\icii and put on those planks " that we tore up to bore those other beams both in the north and south side. ' ' 'o make the place secure for Ihe night, and I will bore these beams. " We had started one. I siiys " I will complete those three while you do that, and by that time it will be five o'clock, and we will ,'o home." That is the rea.son why I bored those three at that time. <) Which part of the l)eam of those three did you 1)(>re ' There is a north side >. A Yes, it was the north side ; we bored the .south and north side both, ^'^ but it was the north side at th.it time when I .s;iy I told the man to go back and put on those plank, to nail them down and make them secure. Where he left me Iwring I bored Oii ihe (iorge side. ( Jtisl Uwk at this l)eani and see if that is a true model of a beam — one of those flo»-r beams ' .\ I Ijelieve it is. 30 Court : We had better have that i" as an exhibit ; it is not too large. (Weed mcxlcl of portion of floor lieam, marked exhibit " U.") Court : (To witness): Which is the tiorge end cf the lufam ' A This (indicatingV Q Did the laterals go vlinmgh here r \ Yes ; tluy go through like this (illu.strating). Mr. Ca.ssidy : VV'e had Iwtter murk 1 north wuith east and west. Mr. Macdonell asks Mr. l.ockwiHHl to mark in jKiicil the points of tlie ^^^ comjjass on the m\.ivi( J f '■ , |i ^ j «T 'M'.v * tf; ••I'" lO 20 197 Q What was your position, Mr. Cox ? A City carpenter. 198 Q And what duties had you 'f A My duties were to look after all the sidewalks and bridges, and such other buildings that may be under my notice. 199 Q Do you know the Point Ellice H ridge ? A Yes, 200 Q Did you ever inspect it ? A Yes. 201 Q When ? A 1892. 202 Q What time in 1892 ? /\ Early in 1892. 203 Q Sometime in June, 1892? A June, I believe. 204 Q Who instructed you to inspect that bridge ? A Mr. Wilmot, the city engineer. 205 Q What was the occasion of that inspection ? .\ The occasion was there was an accident sometime in June, early in June, I think, by one of the cars, and the bridge had to be sh'ii off — blocked off, to prevent any travel. 206 Q Did you do anything to stop the travel ? .A Blocked off the bridge. 207 Q Hy whose instructions ; \ Mr. Wilmot. 208 Q You stopjx;d the traffic ? .\ Yes. 209 Q Were notices put up to that effect ;* .\ 1 iK'lieve so. 210 Q And you were instructed to inspect ? .\ Yes. 211 Q Whom did you employ with you to inspect (• \ Atherly. 212 (j What was his first name ? .\ Samuel. 213 y Do you see him in court ! A The gentleman there (indicating) 214 y Ycm employed him to help you insiKct ? .\ He was employed 40 by the city at the time. 215 ^ What did you do when yon received the in.structions from Mr. 7' 30 I '''^' ., { » V 1 I- > ' _ I ;T.!i % f ' ] Wilmot to inspect ? A We are instructed to bore the beams. 2i6 Q How many spans are there in that brid^je :* A Two trusses — spans. 217 Q One called what ^ A The Esquimau span, and one the Victoria span. 218 Q That is, a span towards the Esquimalt side and a span towards the Victoria side ! A Yes. 10 219 Q Can you recognize that as a mixlel of one of the spans (referring to model in court) ? A I believe it is a true model of it. 220 Q How many Ixrams do you remember boring in the P'squimalt side of that bridge f \ We bored seven — we Ijored 5 in the Ivsquimalt span. 221 Q H.ive yoii examined any beams in the Ksquimalt end since the accident ? A Since the accident of 1892. 222 Q No, since the accident in 1896, have you examined the beams in the E.squimalt side span ! A Yes, I have seen them. 223 Q I believe it is there now — the Esquimalt span ? A There is two old beams. No. i and No. 7. 20 224 Q Is the Esquimalt span standing over that arm of the sea, now f A Yes. 225 Q What beams in that .span did you not bore : A No. i and No. 7. ^o 226 Q Why do you know you did not bore them ? A Well, I lowered Atherly underneath. 227 Q No — do you find any holes in those beams now f A Lately ' 228. Q Yes? A There is one .small hole that mu.st have been bored .some years ago that I found the other day. There is two small holes have been Iwred underneath from the lx)ttom. 40 229 Q Did you find any holes in either of the.se beams, that is i and 7, that are in the E-squimalt side, that you put in ' A No i 1 t ^ ' I ) ' I i 72 30 (Mixk'l put in position for the jury to view, and construction explained by counsel to jury). 239 Mr. Macdonell (to witness) : Now, Mr. Cox, you say you bored the beams on the Hsquinialt span, under the sidewalk ? .A Yes. 240 Q Did you bore anv of the beams on top of the beams ? .\ On top of the l)eani '. 241 O Yes, the upper side of the beam ' \ Ye.s, they were all bored exeeptiuK one. 242 y Are you .sure as to only one ' .\ Only one, I would not swear ^o to more. 243 Q You are not sure of one, anyway f .\ Yes. '3" Q •'^" ^'""^ *''*" ''"l^" P'" '" tlH-re, now, were not put in by you and Atherly ' A Not put in by me. 231 (J Are they larjijer or smaller than tho.se you put in :' A Half-inch or stimething similar. 232 (I I)o you know how the\ were i)lu).;Kt''l ' A Those holes were kind of "skivered " (?) — put in a small slick like your fnivjcr, just whittled out with your knife and ])lu>;Keil in the hole. You could pull it out with your hand; one of them wa.s pulled out in my presence. • 10 233 Q A"f^ the other beams you and .\therly bored ' .\ Yes. 234 Q Whereabouts ? .\ \\'e bored them on the out.side, on the side- walk on the top. 24.5 Q What do you call the outside ? .\ Well, on the sidewalk ; we t(X)k up the floor. 236 y Tell me where the sidewalk is? .\ Well, it is on both sides of 20 the sjian. 237 Q Outside of the .span ? .\ Yes. 238 <^ .\nd you bored the beams on the outside of the span ^ A Yes; on the outside. ■''^ JMm 73 i ;iK-:,. 344 Q Where was it bored ? A It was bored underneath. 345 C^ Whereabouts as far as tlie length of the Ijeam was concerned « A Riuht under the hanjjer, underneatli. 346 Q Did you bore them at both ends of the beam on the Hs<|uimalt side of the span ? A Yes. 347 Q .Ml of tliem ? A .Ml, except two. I biUc-vi- — No. 1 and No. 7 was not bored. 348 Q You bored at both ends of the others f A Yes. 349 V < )n the Victoria span, how many beams did you bore there ? .\ The first three nearest the I''s(iuinialt span. 150 y Do you know what numbers they would Ik-? A That would i'f .\ >. 1,2 and 3. The beam would i)e number three and counting; from the Victoria side, cm the north side, nearest Ks<|uimalt. 2.S' U Would that be the (lorjje side f' A The (lor^je side, Yes. 252 Q Can you call any fact to mind that makes you remember why you only lM)red three on the \ictoria span 1' A Well, it was this : it was fjettinjf late in the eveuiii);, towards 4 o'clock, and Atlicrly — he was assistinjj me lx)rinK a certain one, and I .siiys : "You jjo back, .\therly, and put down ' the sidewalk plank that we have taken up for the boring;, and to make it, " secure for the ni^ht, and" I says, "by that tiine it will be time to }jo home, " and I will k<» on with the borinjj," and then I bored three only on that side. 2.S3 Q '^ifl M''- Wilmo; see you doin^; anv boring? .\ No, he saw us borinjj. or 30 30 Yes. 2.S4 y J^o y"" rememl)er the .Mayor the sjime eveninj,' being there f A 255 W 'Jill he see you ? .\ Yes. 356 Q Did yon show them the shavings from the Iwrings? A Yes. 257 Q Yon are positive as to that ? .\ Yes. 35H y They saw the size of the auger ' .'V Yes. 40 lai; K:-> J 74 359 Q They saw the shavings ? A Thi'\ saw it all. 260 Q What time of the day did you stop iMiring do you think ( A Close upon 5 o'clock. 261 Q You had to lake up the sidewalk, I lielieve ! A Yes, we could not d,> otherwise. 262 y Did you iiis|x;ct the beams from underneath, at all ? A Yes. 263 Q How did you do that ? A Hy means of a ladder and a seat , a piece of planking with two holes on each side and a little reef at the top — a small piank. I lowered Ather.y down. 264 t,> That is the AthnK who v. here f \ This man here. ^05 () So that was the reason why it took .so long to Iwre those beams ? A Yes. 10 266 Q What did yon do with the Ixirings after \ou got through ' A ^^ They were taken to the office. I took them into the engineer's office my.self, and laid them on his desk. 267 Q Were they all together < A ^lo, they were separate ; they were all marked, but I .suppo.sc he didn't notice t'le tn-.k on the outsin ? .'\ I believe they were. 30 26q (^ Hid y(H« remark some as more unsound than others? \ There was some little true on some — ^jnst a litth more. « 270 Q Did you notice .some any more than others ? A I could not .swear to any. 271 Q When were they taken to Mr. Wilmot :• A The following morning. 2/2 V I/cft with him ( A Left with hiiu in his office. ^ 273 g Did you get any instructions about plugging the holes ? A Yes, I believe tha' dav. 75 HOP lO so 274 Q From whom ' A From the engineer, Mr. Wilmot. 275 Q What (lid hv tell you to plu^r those with ' A Told me to get some oakum and tar and plug up these holes for the present, just temporary. 276 y Did you Ret any oakum ? A Yes. 277 Q From whom ? A McQuade .S: .Sons. 278 y Who W.-IS that oakuni oharf,a-d lo ' A To the City, the corporation. 279 a When did you [ilu^j the hole-:? A I would not swear whether it wxs tile ne.\t day or afterwards. It was the da\ following — the third day after the boring, I believe. 280 Q How did you plug thini ' \ The tar was mixed with the oakum, and just shoved in 'vith the handle of a hammer. 281 Q Was it done for a teni]>orary purpose, or was it — > Objectetl to by Mr. Taylor. Objeetion .sustain' ' 182 Mr. Macdonell (to witness): Wa.s it the intention to remove those beams ? .\ Yes. Objected to by Mr. Taylor. 283 C^ How hard did you drive in the oakum > A Just with the hand so. 284 Q Was it driven in tightly or loosely ^ .\ Well, it might have been driven in tighter. 285 Q I)o you know anything aljout w(hk1, and rot ? A Yes. 286 Q If it was the intention of having those lK.ams '.n there perman- ently for any length of time, how would you have plugged them ? A I would not have plugged them at all. They would have b'en better without plugging. 287 y If you had to, how would \-ou hav done it ? .\ I would have * put in cement, or .s. \ I could not gel in between the iron — you would have to work it through half-wa\-. 294 Q What kind of an auger would you have to use for the holes in those there, now ( A A brace and bit to work half-way ; we could not get round. A .small bit — half inch. ao 295 O I believe you are a ratepayer, Mr. Cox >. A Yes, sir. 296 Q In Victoria !' A Yes, Sir. 297 Q You were not examined at the inquest ? A No, I was not here. 30 * ,,1 ) u .'si If*! Cross Kxamined bv Mr. Tavlor. 40 298 y You were examined though in the Patterson ca.se weren't you .' A Yes, sir. 77 w V 299 Q case ! No. And you were also examined in this case before trial ? A This oi 300 Q Don't you recollect that ^ A No. 301 Q You cannot recollect that > A In this present case ? 302 Q Yes f A Is that the examination in Victoria •' when you was present i 303 Q Yes. A Yes. 304 Q You were examined. So yo>i have testified with reference to the bridge accident twice already, and this is your third time ^ A Yes. 305 Q Speaking generally, is your recollection as good now as it was then ? A Oenerally, I think. I think it is generally. 306 Q And how was it then ! A Good, then. 307 Q I think that you testified that you bored this hole about 7 or 8 ^° inches from the hanger hole on the plank walk side. You testified in the Pat- terson ca.se that you bored these beams at both ends — i, 2. and 3 ? A No, I did not. 308 Q You did not f A No. 309 Q Well, perhaps I am wrong, Mr. Cox. I wasundertheimpres.sion you did testify you Ixjred them at both ends ' A No. 310 Q You say you did not testify that way. Look at line 25, p. 94 ^ evidence in the Patterson ca.se, in the ^fSSSi Ixiok. It is ju.st before exhibit "U" is put in (to Mr. Macdonell.) (To witness) You were asked this question : " which part of the beam of those 3 did yon Iwre :* There is a north .side ? A Yes, it was the north side; we Ijored the .south and north side both, but it was the north side at that time when I .s;iy I told the man to go back, and put on those plank to nail them down and make them .secure. Where he left me Iwring I Iwrcd on the (iorge side." You say you did not say bored on both sides ? A No, on the Victoria span. 311 Q I supjiose that statement was not true in that case? A No, I said as far as the other span was concerned. I said the K.sciuimalt span was bored on the north side. 40 ,^l'; ''{"4 78 312 Q I will call ynur attention to where yon maVe a reference to what you have just said now, at page 94 bejrinninR at the middle of the page, and I will read the questions to see if your attention was not called to that. "Will you point out on that plan there the l)eanis that you lM)red in 1892 under those instructions (referring to exhibit "K" " — referring to the instructions you say yougotfrom Mr. Wilniot, referring to exhibit "R." That was i, 2, and 3, the same as that. 3'3 Q "Numl)er i, number 2, and number 3. That us all that was bored in that span by me or anyone else at that time, on the Esquinialt .side.' '" Witness: f)n the Victoria side. . ao 314 Q On the Esquimau side? .\ No — on the \'ictoria side. 313 ^ " This is the K.squimalt side, as I understand it, of that span : that i.s, the collapsed span, '"his is going from Victoria to Esquimalt ; that is the Esquimalt end that gave way" This was the question asked : "The Esqui- malt side of the first sjjan that gave way :■ ' ' Von say ; "Of the first span from Victoria. ' ' Witness : Ves, that is right. 316 Q " Will you tell us why you remember Ixjring only three in that span ? A Ves. ' ' Then you gi%'e your answer pretty much as to-day, and then you are asked " Which part of the l)eam of those 3 did you lx)re :' When you refer to 3 you are referring to i, 2. and 3, of the span that collapsed ? A Certainly. 317 Q Then you were asked the question. Witness: On the north .side. 318 Q The question says "There is a north side?" and you answer it was the north side. "Which part of the l)eain of those 3 did you bore ? — there is a north side," and then you add yourself, without any further question, " We bored the south and north side l)oth, but it was the north side at that time when I .say I told the man to go back and put on those plank, to nail them down." A The north side; I said the E.squimalt 'Jan we bored on both sides. 319 (^ Was not your attention called to those beams ? .\ That was the only l)eams we bored at that time. That is what I .stated at that time in the presence of this Court. 4° 320 Q You were asked still further with reference to that On page 21 of the de bene esse examination. Vou heard Atherlv also testify at the Patter- 30 son trial t A I lK-lieve I did. 321 (^ And be was with you at the timt" ? A Yes. 322 Q And yon rcnifnilK-r what lie testified as to wliich side of the Ix-ains ? A He siiid the Siinie as I Siiid. He s;iid llial he lM)red — assisted to hore one beam on the Victoria s|Kiti, and I told him to jjo Itaik and put on the planks while I finished borinj; that end. 323 Q I)o yon rriiR-niber whetlv r he s;iid he bored the two end of the 10 ntnnlR'r 3 Iwani ; .\ Me didn't sjiy so, I say he diiln't so. 324 Q Well, we will sci- wli iher he did or not. Mejjinnin^; at t lie place where yon told iiini to go and put down the |il,inks over the sidewalk, pp 272, and 273 of the te.stiniony in the appeal b;innin),' at p. 2 of his evidence marked by the stenographer. "( )n the Ivsciniinalt .span. To do that yon would have to leave him, of course ? .\ Yes, sir. t^ What was lie jjoing to do while yini were doiu); tiiat ? .\ He was jjoin^; to finish the Iwring sir" — (that is you were). V He was Kria side I am sjx'akinj; of, now, that he went to lM)re when yon went put- .^ tinjj the plankinj; down ' " and the answer is "On the t'lorge side." And then yon k<> "•> <•' another tpiestion. vSo von Ixrth said then you bored it on both sides? Witness: I didn't s;iy it. 327 Q .\nd you say that Atherly didn't say it ? .\ He did not. Mr. Mac«lonell: I submit that Atherly did not .say anything of the kind. Court: Yoti will have a chance of showing that at the proper time, and of calling attention to the other portions of the evidence to disturb the position ^q that Mr. Taylor suggests, now. Mr. Macdonell: Hnt if my learned friend will say a witness said so-and-so, 80 3. ,- -1- i. .iiL,...>ti. I 41 lO to this witiicsit when ho did not say so, and I see he is mistaken, then I tliink I have a ri^ht to call his attention to it at the time. Court: Yes, but he is puttinjj this advisidly. It is not as if a casual dis- agre'-nient arose, l-'vidently Mr. Taylor is relying on a substantial variation iH'twt-en a former stati-incnt of this witness, and now, aner what you s;ii(l about the Ixirin^ of them ? 4o I will show you in a moment. Yon were in charge of this work of inspection of bridges and sidewalks from that time to what time? A iSqi, — oh, the bridge only 1' It^i' sj :! ;* ti Ri k '3f SS.'? Q ^°y bridges and sidewalks. In other words you were in the employ of the city from — ? A From 1891 to 1896, April; May, 1891, to April, 1896. 334 Q And part of your duty was to inspect and see the condition of bridges and sidewalks ? A Yes. 335 Q A"d to let the city know ? A Yes. 336 Q I think you testified that the minor cla.ss of repairs you would do jo without saying anything about it to the city, and repairs of a greater degree you would report if they needed repair ? A Yes. ' 337 Q In oiher words, .small mailers you did without reporting particu- larly, and your duty .vos to report work needing a larger extent of money ! A Yes. 338 Q There was no one else during that period whose duty it was to do that work other than yourself? A (Jli, if I sent a man to do it — 20 3.',9 Q Hut I mean to say, the inspection of tiiese bridges? A No one except the engineer. 340 Q Hut that was your particular duty ? A Yes. 3^1 Q And if e\'er you saw anything wrong, you either repaired it, or r.;ported it as needing repairs? A More often repaired it than reported it — any small matter. 342 Q You testified with regard to the number of lieams you lK)red and ^o th size of the auger you u.sed at this Patterson trial, and also in your examina- tion on this trial, at Victoria ' .\ I think so. 343 Q And yon aid an inch and a ipiartcr auger ? A 1 believe I did. 344 Q And since you have e.vamined some old beams that are in the Esquimau span that now stands — A Yes. 345 Q — ''•"' y*^*' *i"'' '^ '•' "'U'-'h less than an inch and a-quarter auger hole f A It is not a half inch — barely a half inch. 40 346 y And No. 7 beam an the span that collapsed, did you see the auger hole in that ^ A No, I wa>- not here wb»n they was broke up. 82 If! '-i 347 Q And the auger holes you did see were smaller than an inch and a quarter, and you say were plugged with wood ' A A stick just about the size of your finger. 348 Q Isn't that about large enough to fill a one-inch hole ? A Some- thing about that. 349 Q It was bored underneath ? A No, between the hanger on top ; there was one on No. i on the Esquimalt span, and one on No. 7 — not on the other. 10 350 Q During the time you were in charge of the bridge was there any '^ther per.son to do any boring f A Miglit have been. 351 Q Do you know of any ? .\ I don't know of any. 352 Q It being your duty you would have known whether there was any other person ( A Other pe 30 357 Q What did he do? \ Generally o%'erhauled the bridge. 358 Q What he laid was stringers ond rails ? A And put a new floor in. 359 y He was doing that for the tramway company :• A The city or the tramway eonipan;-. 360 g lX)n't yoti know lie was doing it for tlic tramway company ' A ^ No, I don't know. 3()i y Oh. come now, Cox, what is flu- use 0/ saying that ' Yoii .say i, t1 Jfe fi3 you don't knew ? A No. 363 Q That is what he did ; he laid some strinji-ers for the car rails ? A For what difference there was between the city and the tramway, that is none of my business. 364 Q You know what he did to the bridge ? A I know it was put on: that is all I know about it. 365 y It was necessary for you to know ? A No ; I was not there at 10 all. It was ehtirely taken out of my hands. 366 Q Hut didn't you see what was going on ? A No. 367 Q You do not mean to te'l us that you whose duty it was to look after these sidewalks and bridges, would see .something of thiit kind going on, without knowing what it was ? A I tell you it was the city engineer who looked after that. 368 y Didn't you know what was done ? A .\fterwards. I was not 20 pre.sent when it was done. 369 Q What they did was to lay stringers for rails foi the car, and laid a new floor ? A Yes. 370 Q And in 1892 they put some new beams in ? A Yes, I believe they did. 371 Q Well, yon know they did, don't you ? You saw it done ? A I don't know how many was put in. 30 372 Q You s.-'w it done ? .\ No, I didn't see it done — none of it. 373 Q ^"^ yo" ^^^ ^^^ ^^ what the effect of it was after it was done ? A How could you after it was covered ? 374 You did not look during the course of it ' A I had no bujiness to. 375 ^ ^'"" did not pay any altciition to it at all ? A No. 376 y A\u\ you were i'll\ larpenttT for three years after lliat period ? Yes. 377 IJ When did you first find that out? .\ I didn't know even until 84 40 i ' if » ' il after the bridge was collap.^d how many new beams was put in that span, until I came back here a year and a-half ago. 378 Q And it was your duty to see what the condition of the bridge was? A No, it was not. 379 Q Then you were not correct a few months ago when you say it was your duty ? A So far as that bridge as you may walk over — so far as the eye could see, and nothing more. 380 Q You were told in 1892 to go and bore some of those beams and see if they were sound, and did bore some of them ? A Yes. 10 381 (^ And .some that you bored you found extremely rotten f extremeh' ; there were pieces of rot A Not I S 1 382 Q Is that so, what you said in your examination h-re only two or three weeks ago in Victoria? You were asked this que.stimi, p. 13, ques. 26: — "Then it is a fact that all the beams you Ixired were r'jite.i . ' '''o which vou an.swered "Everyone." A More or less. 20 383 Q "Q Kvpry one They were pietty badly rotten too, weren't they ? A I Ijelieve they were. Q You l)elieve tliey were f A Yes. Q y Then why didn't you replace all the beams in the bridge ^ A I had noth- ing to do with it. Q You had nothing to do with it. A No. Q Yon were told to go and bore t'" :ams and plug the holes ? \ Yes. Q Did you plug the holes ? A ' all that we bored, with oakum. Q Did you plug them with wood ; A no." You say that answer is not quite correct i" Witness: It may be pretty near the remark, bui so far as s.uing they were badlv rotten — .V 384 Q To see if you were taken by .surprise, in that question we will turn to p. 15, and .see what you said, beginning "weren't yon expected to make any rcpi>rt ?" That is referring to the time you had instructions to go and bore and examine and report "Q How were the> going to find out your opinion whether they were rotten or not ? A There was my opinion that was handed to them. Q Was it yonr opinion ? Yes. Q That was something that you bored out of the beam f \ Yes. A And they were rotten ' A Yes. Q Everyone of 4° them f A Yes. Q Very badi>- rotten ? A Yes, pretty bad. Q You never did in fact then bore the other beams in the Victoria span ? .\ No. (^ Hut they Were replaced ? A I believe they were, afterwards. Q You know Vi i'M #^ »> 7 «5 they were ? A I didn't know for some time; I had iiotliinji; to do with them." We look further down in that question and see what you said then in regard to it. Line 22 — "Q Wasn't it your duty to circulate about the city to ascertain whether the bridges and sidewalks were in gofxl condition or rotten i' A I had nothing to do with it in that case ; it was placed in their own hands, and I had nothing to do with it. ' ' You had instructions to go and report on it at that time ? A No. 385 Mr. Taylor : P. 16. Q "Wasn't it your business to ascertain whether ar not this material was rotten / A It was not my business at all. y What was your busir.ss? A To ascertain whether they were rotten." Witness : Some mistake there. Ii'r. Taylor : We have been gifted with a number of bad stenographers ! A Well, even so. 386 Q " To ascertain whether they were rotten — to find out whether the materials were rotten, the sidewalks and bridges in the city f A You mean previous to the accident ? Q At the time of the accident ? .\ I had not got ^,j the chance to do it, when I was ordered the next minute almost — " (To wit- ness): Now, Mr. Cox, you also said in this examination that you bored one of the beams from underneath. A Yes. 387 y .^nd you found it very rotten ? \ I can't say I said that. 388 Q Well, what do yon say now about it ' It ntay be rotten. 389 Q What do you say now ? .\ I say now it was rotten more or less; as to how much a person can't tell — as to any quantity, a man can't tell. ^q 39" Q Didn't you say as a matter of fact they were about half rotten through^ A No, I did not. 391 y You did not say that? .\ I did not. 392 y What kind of a lecollection havi you got? A I have a pretty g»x)d one. 393 Q Mn.st this rejxjrter Ik- wrong in what he lias reported you as say- ing ? Is that so, Cox > A What is that, sir ? 394 y Do you .-Hi/ this rc])ortti niu.st be wrong, in this statement of what you sfiid ? A Pretty indifferent, some of them. 86 t.i I ( l» 'S i i, . i 20 395 Q At any rate, yon knew this ))eam was prclly badly rotU-n in 1892? A It miRht be ; I don't say that it was ; I ncviT swon- it was. 396 t^ I read what yon say, and yon say that is not correct ? A 1 conld not say how ninch ; mi^ht be one or six or the whole. 397 y Didn't yon say all were so rotten they should all be taken ont ? A I did not ; I dont think so. 398 Q Well, we will see whether yoti did or not. A I think I made ,0 some remark why wasn't tho.se two beams that were left in and taken out dur inR the inquiry — ? 399 Q In pane 24, Mr. Cox, iK-Kinnin^j; at the toj) — Q ^ "'" ^''''■^' asked to lM)re and find ont the condition of the bridj^e f To which yon answered: "We were not ordered to do any more borinj.; ; we bored tliat day, and that was sufficient. Q And yon mi^jht have bored one beam and if it was five o'clock, you wtmld call that sufficient ? A Yes, if they ordered it. Q And then re- p You bored some underneath and some on top ?" Do you say that still ? A Tluu were one or two bored imderneath and the rest on top. 403 Q You answerii to that " That is what we did." .\ Well, even so- 404 y Then yon were asked this :— "Q Why did you do that ? A To 30 40 f 'V. '#1 '«;!■! 1 ''"a IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET {MT-3) 1.0 1.1 1.25 ■-IM u^ liie '- 1. 2^ 2.2 12.0 1.8 U IIIIII.6 V] <^ /J ^>. y Hiotographic Sciences Corporation v V <^ ■1>' c\ \ 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4S03 6^ J 6^ ascertain which was the worse ; we found the bottom was worse than the other, and we didn't bore but one or two of them." That is, you mean the holes you bored iu the bottom disclosed a more rotten state than the holes in the top ? A I suppose that was the meauinjj of it. 4c\s Q You bored one of the I'!s(|nimalt side at the bottom and you found that absolutely rotten t A Yes, worse than the top." 406 " Page 25. i) And then you bored the other from the top of the beam? A Ves. 1^ And you found them absolutely rotten? A Yes. Q 10 Yor. did that with the Ivsquinialt span ' Ks(|uinialt span only. Q And then you bored three of the beams on the Yieturia side on the top .' A Yes. Q And found th-.MU absolutely rotten' A Yes." That was your answer. "Q And yon found the condition of the l)eanis on the Ivsfjuimalt s])an was a little more rotten when you bored from the bottom than when you bored from the top? A Yes, the one that we bored." Witness: Yes. 407 Mr. T.a'ilor : "V And they were all rotten and unsafe at that time ? A Yes. y. And yoti were aware of that fact ' .-\ Yes. Q. And you did not rejiort that to anylKKly ;' A It was rejH)rted the next mominp. Q You handed in those borinjjs ? A That was what we did. Q You say this par- ticular beam (3) in the Victoria span you handed in the borings to them to let them .sec for themselves ? .\ Yes. Q That was your idea in borinj; it < A Yes." Then this question : "i^ I see. Well, Mr. Cox, I would like to ask you how yon could, knowinjj that those beams were absolutely rotten in 1892, make a reix)rt in 1H93 that the brid^je was .sound'" and I ask you now how could you do it :• You did make a repoit in 1892 that the bridjje was sound, and I ask yon now, knowinji; those beams were absolutely rotten in 1892, you could rcjXJrt to the council in 1895 that the brid);;e was .sound ' .\ The only -^"^ way the order tliat I ever receised from the city was this — what I could see, walking; nnmd, with my eyes — walkinj; round that bridjje or any other bridjje. I was not allowed to take up an\ floor or interfere with anything underneath any sidewalk of any description, and that is what I r ]K)rted. 2n ^ ♦ ' * i ' Tffe 408 1^ Do you mean to .say that knowing beams were rotten in 1892 (because you had exumined them by boring;) and knowing; those beams were not taken out in 1895, that you would rcjjort to the council that the bridjje was s«)und ' .\ I didn't know how many wi-; t ikeii out from 1892 to 1895. 409 Q Hid you look to see ? A No, I was not allowed to look. 88 .', ) ai OI 20 410 Q Who stopped you looking C A Well, take the engineer for it and he will tell you. 411 Q Who stopped you from looking at the bridge? A No one stopped me particularly, but I was not allowed to meddle with it. 412 Q I refer you to your report of 1895 ^^^^ you made to the council. After dealing with a number of other matters, you say : "The Point Ellice bridge is in good condition " — A So far as I could see. 413 Q Did you say that, here ? A So far as I could see. 414 Q Did you say that in your report ? A I believe it is there, and if it is not there, it ought to be. 415 Q If you can show me that in the report, I shall be pleased for you to find it ? A It may not be there. 416 Q Presented for 1895 ? A You can't go upon that report. 417 Q Is there anything in that you do not agree with? A I don't want to look at it. 418 Q You add this "This is to certify that the above mentioned bridges are all in general good order and have kept so during the past year. ' ' A Yes. 419 Q Was that true ? A That is tnie. 420 Q How could you say that when you say in 1892 this beam was rotten, and had never been replaced ! A I didn't know but what those beams -q were replaced — I told you before. 421 Q Did you look and sec ? A I was not allowed to lofjk^-only to walk over the bridge and the floor — that is all you were allowed to do. 422 Q Who stopped you from looking at the underneath portion of the bridge ? Was there anybody who ever stopped you ? A Do you suppose I could waste my time going round — f 423 Q Answer the question ? A Yes, if I went to any alderman and ^q said "I would like to take that plank up," they would say you could not do it. 424 Q Couldn't you look > A How could you, without taking up the floor? I. 1^ h ■ m! 89 en] is W oil Tl th: Re of ne so: ye ra m lO 425 Q Then your own report, signed by yourself, addressed to the city engineer. (Reads letter accompanying report.) "Sir, In compliance with your reque.st, I beg to submit herewith the fol- lowing report, relative to sidewalks, water tanks and bridges. ' ' Witness : That is right. 426 Q In other words, you were a.sked to do that ? A That was Mr. Wilmot's instructions at that time. 427 Q And in pursuance of that, you reported this bridge sound, with- out knowing whether or not it was sound ? A By looking over it only ; just what I could see as you walk over it, and from a boat underneath, looking up. That is, all that you can .see from the bottom. 428 Q You could tell from a boat underneath, looking up, whether they were old or new beams ? A You couldn't tell a thing about it. 429 Q Do you mean to tell us that in discharge of your duty to inspect that, that is all you did f A That is all I did in any ca.se. 20 430 y What was the object of getting this report from you ? A Just a general routine of business every year — it was not one year. 431 Q Was it not in order that the city council might know the condition of the bridges and sidewalks ? A They did know previous to that, but they never completed it, 432 Q The city council change, as individuals ? A Every three years — some of them. 3° 433 Q They change every year ? A No, some of them go back for two or three years. 434 Q But there is a new election every year for aldermen ? A Oh, yes. 435 Q t)o you consider that was a fair thing to do to the council and ratepayers to report that bridge as sound without knowing whether it was, or making an examination ? A Yes, I consider it was fair. 4° 436 Do you consider that was even common honesty ? A That is what I was ordered to do, and nothing more. > ^ :' ' ' ' I i ' *\ 'I ■/ ij 90 0: 4 437 Q Vo" have just told me the instructions you got were set forth in your report, isn't it, with Mr. Wilmot, to examine the bridges ? A That is correct. 438 Q And you con.sider you were performing that duty when you sim- . ply walked over, and did not look at the under portion of the bridge at all ? A Not of this bridge. 439 Q You skipped this one ? A I didn't skip any of them. I walked over it half a dozen times. 10 440 Q You were discharged in 1 896 about 30 days before this accident ? A April 1st, I think. 441 Q You were di.scharged from the city service, then ? A Yes. 442 Q Do you wonder at it yourself? A Not a bit of it — not a bit of it. 443 Q You have looked at those beams, or those beams in the Esquimau span ? A Yes. 20 444 Q Since you were examined in the Patterson case ? A Yes! 445 Q You found that some of those beams were bored with a half inch auger ? A No, 446 Q What size f A Half inch bit. 447 Q What is the difference between a bit and an auger ? \ A great deal of difference. ,0 448 Q I don't know it, Mr. Cox — tell us what it is ? A An auger is about 2 feet, and a bit is only about 10 inches or 8 inches. You can have them in all sizes, fmm 2 feet up to 6 feet, if you want an auger. 449 Q An auger is 10 inches ! A A bit — I didn't say an auger. 450 Q .\nd how long is an auger ' A May be 10 feet. 451 Q You observed some cf these beams were bored by a bit ? A Yes. 40 n i \ : I', '' 1 ^ up] hf ' ii 'h <■> 1 ?fi md- 4 '' 45a Q Of what diameter ? A About half inch ; may be a little less. 9» th( mi ha an in all In an I ' ov II ha It, 453 ^ ^'''" hii\t previotisly sworn in the Patterson case that you bored these with an inch and a quarter auger I A Yes, not all of them. 454 Q Well, all that were bored I A Yes — inch and a-quarter. 455 Q '^"^^ w"s "o' y""'' attention called to the fact you had made a mistake about that f A No, I don't say so. 456 Q Didn't you go down with some people who pointed out it was a half inch bit instead of an auger !• A What time are yon alluding to i' 10 457 *^ ^ °*i have told me you went down after yon testified and ex- amined it, and found a half inch hole ? A I found two on the same side, one in each stick. 458 Q Did not Mr. Mason, Mr. Cartmel and Mr. Walker — you know all those gentlemen ? A Yes, I know them. 459 V Didn't they invite you on Monday the 4th of this month — .\ Invite me. 30 460 Q To stop and see them examine the end portions of the beam for auger holes ? A No, sir. 461 Q They did not do that while you were there alx)nt that time ? .\ I was there when thev came, but what their business was I don't know. 30 4O2 Q You were there with Mr. Macdoncll ( A Yes. 463 Q Counsel in this case ? A Yes. 464 Q You were visiting the bridge and inspecting it I A Walking over it, I Ijelieve, and that is all. 465 Q How did you find out there was a half inch hole there then ? A 1 knew that there was months previouslv. 466 Q You examined and found that fact ? A It is right between the hanger. 467 Q Did you tell that fact in the Patterson case < A Everyone knew ^° it, I thought, at the time. 468 y Did you tell it in court ? A No, I didn't— I don't think it. 9a ,1) ■ I i> m m 4 ■" 'i< . {, ■■"¥ 469 Q I)o you know of anybody during; the whole time yon were in charge of that brid>ri- you have told us, who Ixired any holes in it / A I don't know. 470 (^ Was there anybody who had any business to bore any holes < A Yes, Mcintosh, he might ; it was his duty I'lat 1 when they came up and put on the new tram car lines — those new stringers. 471 '-^ That was after you had lK)rcd in 1802' A Yes, that summer, anyway. 10 .72 Q Well, it was in that month of June, wasn't it < A When the accident was ? 473 Q ' don't mean the accident in this c lsc, but I mean the time that you bored the holes in 1892 and found them rotten ^ ,\ That was in 1892, 474 Q They were immediately or almost immediately replaced by new beams ? A Some time afterwards ; that .summer at all events. 30 475 Q Haven't you any closer idea ! .\ Well, it was after June ; it was the 15th June when the accident happened. 476 y And you Iwred on the i6tlW A I stopped the traffic on the same day. 477 Q And you repaired it immediately ? A Yes. 478 Q It was then repaire A (ienerally. 492 y But did you know that. You did know something about biidges^ A .\ little. 493 Q Then yon must have known that, and yet you were willing to It. 1 eople endanger their lives upon a report of yours that it was sound, when you were in ignorance whether it was sound ! A That is all I was allowed to do. 40 494 Q I want to know who stopped you, because we may get at the responsible man < A Well, >ou must go to the engineer. 94 U'i 495 Q Who stopped you inspecting a portion of it ? A The engineer. 496 Q When ? A In all cases ; not when, but in all cases. 497 Q Did you ever try ? A Yes. • 498 Q When ? A Several occasions. 499 Q Tell ine one ? A In the first place we were stopped by an alderman — " you mustn't do this." 500 Q Tell me of one occasion on \vhich you were stopped on Point Ellice bridge > A I don't remember any one occasion. 501 Q Did you ever try !' .\ I think so. 502 Q Tell me when i* A I could not remember. 503 Q Hecause this is a pretty serious matter — a man is sent out to ex- pressly examine and report upon a bridge 1 A I deny that. I was not expressly .sent to examine the bridge. 504 Q You don't deny that report of yours of 1895 ? A I don't deny anything that is in it. 505 Q Then you do not deny you reported it souud in 1895 ( A I did report it sound. 506 Yon have also testified in your examination in this case in Victoria a few days ago, that you bored holes in 1892, and they were absolutely rotten, didn't you ? A Probably .something like that. 507 Q Well, something like that, and did yon ever examine the bridge between 1892 and 1895 to see whether those rotten beams were replaced ' A No. 508 Q And yet you reported it sound in 1895 ' \ Yes, so far as you could see by the eye ; that is all I was allowed to do. 509 Q Is that what you said in your report ? .\ The report does not mention anything like that. 510 Q Would you make a dishonest report ? \ No. 01 20 30 40 iffrfll 4' i ' '^i 95 511 Q You would you make an honest report ? A I believe so, and that is honest. 512 Q That is? A I think so. 513 Q Then your statement that that beam was rotten in 1892 — it is not honest ? A If it is correct in my writing, it is honest, but it is a very great question whether that is, or not. 514 Q You mean the city corporation report of 1895, printed before jq this accident ? A Yes. 515 Q You know that? A Yes. 516 Q And you mean to say the city would falsify your report? A Just as liable to do anything. 517 Q And that is the opinion yon entertain of them ? Just as liable to do anything. 518 Q Why did you work for them Irom 1892 to 1895 > A That is why I went away — to leave them. 519 Q Didn't they discharge you f Did you resign or were you dis- charged ? A 1 was discharged for simph' tiiis — if you will listen to me — 520 Q You were told to go ? A No ; listen a minute. I will tell you how I was discharged. Well, now, the city was getting behind and had no funds to carry on its work, and they came to the conclusion to di.spense with me or the city foreman — that was Mr. Wil.son — and some of the aldennen were in favor of di.schar<7ing Wilson, and putting his duty upon me, so then the majority turned round and so dismissed me and put Wilson in my place. What di'' Wilson do when the engineer sent him under this verj- .same bridge ! — reported it all sound, didn't he ^ 20 30 521 Q I don't know, told right in this here court. .■\ Oh, well, you do know, because it was li ')' ' 522 g In the I'atterson case ? A In the Patterson case. 523 Q When and who stated it ? I want to see what kind of a recollec- tion you have got, because I don't In-licve >ou remember very much about it? 40 J^KSSiii^J 96 A inqi ngi sup bel ev« wii caf no ca A Mr. Wilmot sent Mr. Wilson to inspect the bridge — this was in the coroner's inquest. 524 Not in Court here ? A Yes. right here too. 525 Q Who stated it ? A I don't know who .stated it. 526 Q Was it a witness in the case ? A I could not say. 527 Q You mean someone outside the courthouse ? A No, it was '''■*" 10 right in the courtroom. It might have been Wilson hira.self, for all I know. 528 Q Was Wilson called '. A Yes, he was right here — the street superindendent. 529 Q Was he called as a witness in the case ' A He was called I believe. 530 Q And then testified ? A I believe so — one of the cases, which ever it was. 20 531 Q You did not testify in the (lordon case ? .\ I had nothing to do with it. 532 Q Well, you were not here, then ? He was here in the Patterson case. I was here in the Gordon ca.se, and the Patterson case, too, but I had nothing to do with the Gordon Case. 533 Q ^ ^'U '^•'^ "o* testify in that ? A No. 534 Q They did not pay you any fee, I apprehend, — in the Gordon case ^ — did not subjxjena you '. A No, I didn't a.sk for any. 535 Q We are unable to find that Wilson testified in that Patterson case. You got about $192 didn't you, for coming down and testifying in the Patterson ca.se ? A I didn't get any money at all, only what the court allowed. 536 Q Well, how much was that ? \ Two dollars a day. 537 Q Didn't you get some money to come from the npper ''ountn,- ( A No. 40 f I m ^ t IH 538 Q Where were you .served with the subpoena ? A In Vict( ria. 97 Sli ^ anv for t^ in go' Co re] ini yc at n 539 Q And you got conduct simply from there ? A I didn't get any money from anyone. 540 Q Perhaps I was wrong about that. I was informed you got $192 for corning from the upper countr\' to Victoria ? A I swear you are wrong. 541 y I am quite willing to accept your .statement. You did get $192.00? A No, I didn't even for staying round there. 542 Q You got $130.00 to .stay round for the case and to give evidence ,0 in it, and not to go up country ? Then I got it a little mi.xed? .\ You have got it pretty well mixed. Court ; You do not suggest there is anything improper, do you ? 543 Mr. Taylor : No, my lord, but (to witnes.sj you did get $130.00, Mr. Cox ? A I would not S'vear. 544 Q Well, I suppose Mr. Macdonell is wrong this time ; it is not the refK)rter, thank gotxlness. .\nd that was not to go up countr>'. Where do you 20 mean by "up country (• " \ It might mean anywhere. 545 Q I see. Well, you had no definite idea where it was to go to, but you were just not going to anywhere ? .\ That is like saying they paid me to go somewhere. 546 Q No — paid you to stop here. Where was it \ ou were going ( .\ I was not going anj'where. 547 Q You have not been working since ? A Oh, yes, plenty of work 30 at home. 548 Q You do not mean to .sa>- you drew $130.00 from a poor widow by representing to her you were going up coimtry when you were going to stay here f A A widow ? 549 Q ^'"^s '' A Do you mean my wife ? 550 Q You evidently have a keen .sen.se of the ludicrous, Mr. Cox. You keep a general store in Humboldt street, in Victoria, do you not ? ' A Yes. 40 551 Q Well, I would ju.st like to understand if you would take $130.00 from the.se people — ? M'.t i.-«|si w ^s. ^'Hm 98 dra Yo lb the I 1 in pv he tri ar a to til Court : Well, Mr. Taylor, you have stated that already, and the jury will draw their own inference. 552 Mr. Taylor: Very well, my lord ; I will not labor it. (To witne.s.s): You .spoke about thi.s oakum that you put in the hole, Mr. Cox ? A Yes. 553 Q You testified with regard to that, in \'ictoria, in this ca.se t A I believe so. 554 Q I^" >■"" remember what you said there about it — aliout drivinjj in ,„ the oakum '. A I don't recollect, just now. 555 *^ Well, you told us here a minute ajjo that you pnt it in and drove it in with your hands i A With my hammer handle. 556 (f You did drive it in with a hammer handle ? A Yes. 557 Q -^"d ^ sUcV. ' .\ Small stick. , 558 g And a mallet ? No. 559 Q Y"" had a stick in your hand about the size of the hole? .\ I had no stick — the hammer handle. 560 Q Did you drive it in ti^jlitly '. A Just loosely. 561 Q What^o you mean then at p. 33 of your te.stimo'- your exam- ination de bene esse, Q 16 "(,^ You put this in the hole, I understand, and then put a stick or plug; and hammered it in ^. \ \ .stick similar to the size of the hole, and then tamped it. Q Drove it in tijjht ? \ Yes." That it not true, I support? Witness: I don't belie\-c that "driven in tiglit" is tnie. 562 y " Water could not u;et in on top of that?" To which you answer "Yes," and you add "you mij^lit as well say water could not get through a salt l)ag." Now, you put tar in it, didn't you ? \ Yes. 563 Q Why did you say you didn't, on the examination liefore, in Vic- toria 1 A Don't I say I didn't ? 564 Q Yes — at least, why did you .say you didn't put tar in it, in your ,^ examination in Victoria ? A I don't think I did, because I got the tar for that purpose and no other. 565 ti That is, to put it in the oakum '. A Yes. 99 .^o \ V. •*' 1 Pi 'U '1 1 'I'' % i 566 g And put it in the hole ? A Mixed it with the oaknm, and put the uakuni in the hole. 567 g You got some tar for the purpose of making up that oakum, and then packing it down with the stick / A Yes. 568 g With the object of keeping the water out < A That was the idea. 569 g And that is what you got the tar for, and for no other purpose I 10 A As far as I know. 570 Q You testified in regard to that tar in your examination at Victoria a few days ago f A Yes. 571 g .\nd you said you got a quart of tar ^ A I believe I did — a quart. 57a g And you said you got it for the purpose of painting a pillar ? A I don't think that tar ; there wxs other tar. * 20 573 Q '" P- 7i ''"^ 12, you answer : "The next day I received orders to get oakum and tar and plug them up. g Where did you get the oakum and tar ? A McQuade & Sons. Q What quantity of oakum and tar did you get ? A I think there was two }x)unds of oakum and a gallon of tar, if I re- member right. Q. Were those item charged to the city do you know ? A Yes. g Where did you buy Ihciu ? What place was it you bought them at ? What shop or chandlery did you buy thciii ? A Mcguade & Sons, the ship chandlers, on Wharf st. Q You told him to charge it to the city ? A I took him an order from the city ; I could not get it without, (j Then after getting the oakum, what did you do ? A We got the nuuerial and then we went and plugged them up. g With the oakum ? Q With the oakum and 3" the tar. Q And tar ? A At least, I don't think the tar wns u.sed with the oakum. The oakum was used only for the holes, the tar was used was for paint- ing the pier below high water mark. We don't use the tar for the holes — only the oakum." Is that true or false ! Witness : No ; the tar was got for the ex- press purpose of the oakum in those holes. 574 Q Didn't you say in this examination it was got for the express purpo.se of painting the piers ? A No, 1 didn't. 575 W Vou didn't say that in your examina' a oefore ! A No. 100 40 ♦ ■' ■A ■^1 a -fi ^IVIPIf? lO 576 Q Yon were cross-examined and asked this question: "Q How much painting were you going to do with this tar you speak of? The pillars in the water ; those iron pillars. Q Were you instructed to do that with the tar ? A Yes ; it was not done then ; it was done afterwards. Q Were you instructed to get the tar for that purpose at that time ? A Yes. Q By whom i A By the engineer or by the clerk ; I alwav" brought the order from the clerk. Q What did you do with the order ? A Left it at McQuade's. I took it to McQuade's and he furnished the tar. Q It was a quart of tar — you said a gallon ? " You remember the order was produced to you then at your examination. Do you remember that >. A The order for the tar ? 577 Q Yes ; at McQuade's — from your own book, too ? A Yes. 578 Q And it was a quart of tar ? A It was a quart of tar. 579 C And you had previously said you thought it was a gallon >. A Oh, I don't think so. I think you made a mistake. 580 Q Again the stenographer has made a mistake, and you did not say a gallon f A I don't think so ; I have jot Mr. McQuade's note for it. *° 581 Mr. Taylor : Very well. "Q It was a quart of tar ; you said a gal- lon ? A It might have been. Q That document says a quart > Does it ? Then probably it is so." But you stated then it was for the purpose of painting a pillar ' A I didn't say that. How far would a quart of tar go to painting those i)inars'i' 582 (^ That is precisely how you found out your error, and that is just exactly what I wanted to show ? A It was McQuade's — one quart of tar and twc pound of iiakum — an order from the clerk himself. other. How could I state the 30 mi 583 Q Well, I don't know; the stenographer .says you c id ? A I could produce one of McQuade's notes for a quart of tar. 584 Q And that will prove your statement that it was for the purpose of painting the pillar was intended for something else >. .\ No, it was for plug ging the holes. 585 Q Do you believe yourself ? .\ I do, sir. 586 Q Do you Ijelieve you could go out for thre minutes and come back and rcpesit what you said ? X Oh, yes. 101 40 233335 587 Q Are you positive what you said in Victoria ? A Yes, pretty near. I didn't say anything about a gallon of tar. You can write whatever you like. 588 Q And When the reporter said a gallon, you say he made a mistake ? A Well, it lies between you two; there is no question about that. I wir prove It is one quart of tar from the book at McQiiade's, and two pounds of oakum. I don't see why I should say a gallon when it was only a quart. 10 REDIRECT BY MR. MACDONELL 589 Q When you got instructions to inspect the bridge in 1892, were they special instructions ? A No. 590 Q In 1892 I am talking alwut, now < A Yes, they were special from Mr. Wilmot. '° 591 Q To inspect that bridge properly how could it be done ? A It could not be done otherwise than by boring the Ijeams. 592 Q And to do that what would be necessary ? A You would have to tear up the floor. 593 Q And what would that mean f A Cause an obstruction in the roadway, then. 594 Q Would that be the only inspection required ? A Well, the beams would be the greatest trouble. 595 Q Would there be any other inspection ? A Yes. 596 Q What other? A Iron woik. 597 Q Have you any practical knowledge of that ! A I have not. 59S Q Then Mr. Wilmot kne* that ! \ No. 599 Q Does he know you have no sjiecial qualifications for iron work ? A No, he didn't know it, and never asked me anything specially about it, one way or the other. 30 40 8; , ' ^! ^ ':''i % I'- $f 102 6oo Q Did he know you knew nothing about a bridge ? A Yes. 6oi Q In 1892 you got definite instructions what to do. When you inspected in 1895 you got no definite instructious ? You had been inspecting that year the .same as any other year ? A Ever since 1892. 602 Q But you gave it the same in.spection in 1895 that you gave in other years, except in 1892 — is that right, Mr. Cox ? A That is right. 603 Q Mr. Wilmot was aware of the kind of inspection you were making ? qi A Yes, he was aware of it. 604 Q So when you gave a report in 1895 it wa.s just as the eye could see, as you walked over the bridge or sidewalk ? \ That is all I did. 605 Q When you inspected tho.se floor Ijeams and made a report, Mr. Cox, do you know which was rotten, or which was not rotten, now? I mean as far as memory is concerned ? A Now ? No, I could not tell you. 606 Q When you would .say a beam was rotten, what would you indicate 20 by that ? (Jentlemen, I will show yon ; I have got some here just to show you what I got a few days since. Perhaps the jury will like to see this, and I will tell you where it came from. ' ■.>. 607 Q Where are those borings from > No. I beam on the K.squimalt span, now — Objected to by Mr. Taylor. A That (indicating) is from Mr. Macdonell relative Jerm. I am merely showing what he means by rotten. It is a 30 Court : I think, Mr. Taylor and Mr. Macdonell, that this pan of it has l)een pretty thoroughly exhausted, and I am surpri.sed if the jury do not think they have heard enough on both sides alwut it, but if you insist (to Mr. Mac- donell, I will let you do it, and will let you, Mr, Taylor, cross-examine upon it. 608 Mr. Macdonell ; In that examination my learned friend speaks about, over in Victoria, when you (to witness) say those beams bored were rotten, what did you mean ? I might a.sk you this : You said at the same time, " Q When 4° you .' are furnished with the printed evidence of Witneswes Lockwovxl and Warner taken in the Patterson case, and reading of same by counsel dispen.sed with. i I ,t 'i Second Dav. ao n 30 Same Counsel present. Jury having been called. Mr. I>eacon reads portions of evidence of H. W. Murray, taken in No. 299, '96 (Patterson case). Exhibit " T " in 299, '96, nuxlel of bridge flooring, produced in illustration. — Cross-examination of H. W. Murray, read by Mr. Taylor. Mr. Macdonell : Mr. Murray, in his evidence stated that No. 7 floor beam was not bored. He made an examination and gave his evidence to that effect. 40 He made a .subsequent e.xamination, and found that it was bored and plugged. 1 wi.sh now to call Mr. Murray to correct that and to explain under what circum- stances he made the statement in his evidence l)efore. M. 'I 106 di( SOI an th th th b( St -^h I M i" ! >! I 1 lO Mr. Taylor : I do not si-c any necessity for tliat. It is perfectly true lie did make the first statement and subsequently saw the beam in conjunction with Bome officials, and t(x)k it back. I think it was a half inch au^er hole. Court : I am not RoinR to let him l)c called for another rea.son. You made an arrauKement lietween yourselves, that I did not (luite like, that the evidence that went in before should be read in this case. I should not have agreed to the application, but after what Mr Taylor says, it is unnecessary— he admits that the correction was made. Agreed : That all formal parts of the evidence proposed to be read, shall be omitted. Mr. Taylor : I have two or three witnesses on the question of contradicting Ccx on the boring of this hole. We admitted the whole of the testimony as it stood. Court : Do you mean witnes.ses whose names have not been gi'en ? Mr. Taylor : Yes. Mr. Macdonell : We are simply opening up the whole case again. It was to save time that I consented, knowing that their principal witness, Mr. IJell, was away, to let his evidence taken in the Patterson case go in. Court : This is exactly the result that I foresaw. I did not say so at the time, but I had not the least doubt how it would be — that you would be met with a difficulty of this kind. You agreed specially to Co.x's evidence being given here I'tva voce, that the evidence taken in the Patterson case should go in, and there was no stipulation made about other witnesses. 3'' Mr. Taylor ; Subject to Cox's evidence, I proposed the whole of the evidence in the Patterson case plus the evidence of Cox taken in this case before trial should go in, without any further testimony. My learned friend did not agree to that ; he insisted upon calling Cox, in which case I must have the right to call testimony to contradict Cox. 20 ,>,»! 'i'ii Court : Hut you did not siu' .so. It evidently does lead to misunderstandings or difficulties like the one that is quite apparent, and I quite anticipated it ; but the arrangement was clear and distinct that all the evidence in the Patterson case should go in, and the only other evidence to go in should be that of Cox. You did not stipulate for any further evidence and should be excluded under 107 40 m your arrangement, but it is a grossly unsatisf-^ ctory way of trying the case. 20 Mr. Taylor: I do not propose for one minute in *his case to travel outside of what is a fair and legitimate understanding of what I said yesterday — Court: Pardon me, I cannot allow you to put it that way; for the under- standing I mentioned is my own, and admits of no doubt in my mind. I do not know what Mr. Macdonell understood, but I know what I did. I will let you give the evidence, because I am not going to shut out anytliing that is material to the ca.se ; but i do not tliink you are entitk-d to give it. It is only 10 a mutter of extra indulgence, and it may affect your position in other respects as regards terms. Mr. Macdonell : I certainly understood the agreement as your lord.ship stated it. One of my witnesses, ar. "xpL-rt, was here ready to testify, who did not testify before, and I sent h :n away, and it places me in an unfortunate position. Mr. Taylor: Your lordship, I think you are " going for me " before you quite understand what I am going to say. Court: I hope so. Mr. Taylor: I know it. Hut whatever was said yesterday I do not propose to take anv verbal advantage of, out absolutely to live up to the spirit of the arrangement, and as your lordship now tells me you uudersiood tho arrangement to be just as you narrated it now, I do not propose to take any advantage of it; but it does seem to me thi,^ — Court: To make it a matter of grievance to the jury ? Mr. Taylor: N j; I do not think yon have a right to say that. Court: No; I did not mean that. Mr. Taylor: I do not think yow lordship means that; but I had an under- .standtng slightly different. I thought everything said in that case, .so far as the testimony was concerned, was to go in, except Cox's, and then I thought I should have an opportunity of contradicting Cox. Court: If Cox is here; it is not worth taking up nu)re time- Mr. Taylor; .Ml I proposed to call — 108 30 Court: I have given you leave — Mr. Taylor: — was purely on Cox's testimony; and I was going to confine it to that. Court rto Mr. Macdonell) : I will reserve anything you think necessary in consequence of this — of any injustice that may be done to you, but I am not going to keep out anything that is material. However (to Mr. Taylor), take care that you are not injured by it. I only say this, Mr. Taylor, because it is taken down. oi Mr. Taylor: If ycii, who are an impartial judge in the matter, think that vi-ds the arrangement, I do not call the evidence and I do not press it. Court: It d(Jes not follow that you are necessarily excluded. 1 have full powers as regards that. If you neglected to call that evidence, after the under- .starding I grant it only as a special indulgence to which you have no claim; and I reserve to my.self the power, if you adopt that cour.se of preventing it doing any injury to the other side. ao Mr. Taylor: Then, if that is your view, living up to the spirit of the matter, I .say I do not tender any evidence. Court : Is it for you to .say. You have no grievance at all e\'ents. Mr. Macdonell tenders examination of Cox for discovery herein (marked Ivxhibit i). .Mso examination of Wilmot for discovery herein (marked Exhibit 2). Then the exhibits in the Patterson ca.se will be marked, I presume, as in the Patterson ca.se. Court : They do not require marking at all ; they go in in bulk. Mr. Taylor produces as e:Jn')r for defence .-nds of floor beam No. 7, con- taining the hanger irons and laiertl rods. — Ad'nitted as an exhibit by consent. (To Court) : Hoth my learned frienJ and n-ysell understand the admission of this testimony to l)e subject to jUst excepilwns. Court : Yes. If it was inadmissible then, it could not be admi.ssible now. Motion for nonsuit on motion for judgment. Mr. Cassidy : It will Ix- understcxKl, then, that we have leave to move for nonsuit on motioi; for judgment upon all grounds f 30 40 iM I ^ 1 109 COl to wl thi alt dil yo CO th m at fc 1 a Court : What do yoii say, Mr. Macdonell ? Mr. Macdotiell : I .suppose just the same as iu the Patterson case. Of course we won't accept a nonsuit ; I don't know whether it is necessary even to say that. Court : As at present advi.sed, I propo.se to put in the questions I submitted to the jury iu the other case. I was not sitting in one part of the Full Court which heard the appeal, but I understood from the learned judges they found that the questions and answers were sufficient to come to a decision upon, although their decision has not yet been given, and I took advantage of Mr. Justice McCreight's presence while on the bench here to a.sk him if during the discus.sion at the Full Court it appeared to him that the questions could be framed differently, or he could suggest any additional questions, and he said not. If you have any other questions to submit I am quite prejjared to put them, if I consider they can properly In; put. Mr. Taylor : We have nothing more to suggest than what we .suggested at that time, and the reasons that were given for refusing them. Court : I do not say I would come to the same conclusion, now, Mr. Taylor. I do not remember what those other questions were, but I wish yon to under- stand distinctly that I do not refu.se to put any more questions than tho.se I mentioned. If you desire any others to be put, I must a.sk you to put them again, for I cannot undertake to carry them in my head, or my reasons for refusing them, which I do no; remember. However, you will have time enough for that. lO 2o Vi.|. 1 Mr. Taylor : If my learned friend is agreeable, I am willing to let the jq questions go the way they were put in the Patterson case — and he says he is. Mr. Taylor makes closing address for the defence. 40 -a, ( 1 10 test get evi fac I n IIU sh; ev th; op on 1'. 1 1 m im' Afttr Recess. ■y me, which will explain the ,0 fact of rottenness. Mr. Taylor : I admit he explained to you that it was not rotten at all, hut I am K"'"R '*^' '"'^•1'' what he s;ii(l. Court: If you cannot agree about it, Mr. Taylor, let me have in the morning the references you wish, and Mr. Macdonell also, and I will use my own discretion. There has been tt>o much latitude allowed already, and I sliall use my own discretion; we must have some attempt at regularity, at all events, and this will lead lo a discussion and another speech. .Vt all events, 30 that is all I can do. .Mr. Taylor: Then I will refer \our lordship, so that you may have an opportunity of looking at it this evening, to Cox's evidence taken de bene esse on the question of whether the beam was rotten in 1S92 when he bored it. F. 12 beginning at line t6; ]). 13 at the bottom of the page. Page 15 — well, I have run a line down the side, perhaps it will save you trouble if I give you my copy. Court: Yes, only Mr. Macdonell will want to know, too. 4° Mr. Taylor: Well, page 15, beginning at line q, and p. 25 at line 6 to 8 inclusive; p. 26, beginning at the top of the page and going down, say, to vy ii 'M ' rCh ■ 1 h ! i-f*" ' "■' ■, — ^ III lin qu qtt P- Co thi ap qu til wl on pr th an Tl pa ar line lo, and p. 27, beginning at line 3 down to, say, 7, and that is on the question of whether it was rotten or not when he bored it. Now, the other qtestion — whether he handed in 14 borings or not to Mr. Wihnot, I refer to p. 13 of his examination de bene esse, lines 8 to 10 inclusive. That is so far as Cox goes. Then so far as Yorke is concerned, p. 125 of the appeal book — that is on the point of this missing beam. Then p. 277, Atherly, of the appeal book — the last two question? at the bottom of the page, or the next question but the last. Court (To Mr. Macdonell ■ What you want to do is to take sufficient time to refer me to any portions of the evidence which explain the portions to which Mr. Taylor has referred. As I said before. T . annot allow any comment on tht one side or the other. This is a very serious case, and I do not propose to omit anything which I think will assist the jury on the one side or the other. At the same time nothing must be done except what is in accord- ance with the rules and in such. a way that neither side will be prejudiced. The jury have been very patient, and I have no doubt they are willing to be patient a little longer. My duty is to see they are r.ot unduly pressed and yet are afforded every assistance. Court adjourned till 11 a. m. October 14th, 1897. 10 20 % ':.t ~' .' , \- 30 ' ' ( Examination of Mr. E. A. Wilmot, City Engineer, before the registrar in action of Patterson v. Victoria. &A Under order of his Honor W. Norman Bole, Local Judge in Chambers, dated 23rd January, 1897, before B. H. Drake, Special Examiner herein on 40 3rd March, 1897. ;'^il 113 E. A. WILMOT being duly sworn, testified; Examined by Mr. Mucdunell. y You are the city engineer Mr. Wilmot, are yon ( A Yes sir. Q When were you appointed ! A April, 1892. Q Hy resolution of the Council '. A Yes. 1 was notified by the City Clerk of my appointment. Q Were your duties defined !' A No, not any — Q Your duties have never been defined? A No; nothing more than a by-law; there was a by-law defining .some of the duties of the city surveyor. Q Date of that by-law? A I do not remember. Q Was that previous to your appointment or subsequent ? A Previous. Q So that you knew what your duties would be to a certain extent by the by-law before you became city engineer? A No; not before I became city surveyor, Q What have your duties been since? A General public work. Q Including roads and bridges. .\ Yes, sir. Q Under the direction of the committee ! A Under t' i i> otion of the Council. Q When did you first inspect the Point Ellice bridge as cjty engineer ? A Well, my attention was first called to it in June, 1892. Q In what way? A One of the fliwr l)eams gave way. Q I mean from the Council? A No; I heard of the accident and I went out there. to 20 30 40 mt m ■%■ Mr. Macdonell appearing on behalf of the plaintiff. Mr. Mason appearing on behalf of the defendant City. IV 113 at th« as th re n( tV Q Did you report to the Council? A Yes. I do not reinenilier now whether I rejKJrted to the Council before action was taken or not; hut I reported at once to the chainnan of the street committee, or he may have l)een there at the time for au^ht I know, but action was taken at once to replace it. Q That was in 1892. You do not know as there was any written report as ^o the condition of the bridge at that time? A I Ki>ve a written report after it was repaired. Q After when < A .\fter repairs were made. ' 10 y Were you instructed what repairs to make > A No. Q Mut after you made the repairs you n ited? A Yes; I reported on the condition of the brid^je and what had been done. Q To what extent was public money expended on it f How much i A At that time about $i,6(x). Q Was there any limit? Did the council limit you to any amount in 20 repairing ? A No; no specific sum. Q Do you know the men that repaired it under you > A The first needle-beam that was broken was repiu;d by a carpenter named Clark, and then the sub.secpient repairs — Q I am tilkinj; about the first repairing to it that you spent Jf:,6oo on ! A You might say it was one continuous repair. The first thing was a needle- beam broke — Q The first thing a needle-beam broke? A A floor beam we generally call it. Q .\nd .on instructed — .\ Mr. Clark. y — Mr. Clark So repair that? .\ Yes. Q Did you then report to the citv council what you had done at that par- ticular time? .\ Yes; 1 reported in regard to the work as it went on there. y Did you re{)ort to them the repair of that needle-beam, that that was sufficient to repair it? .\ No; I do not remember of reporting that. .Xs I rememlier it was immediatelv after that that the floor planking was repaired; 30 40 --F-^ 114 there were some other beams first discovered and the>- were repaired, and the cost of the whole was something over $i,6oo. Q Was the bridge in perfect repair then? A After that, yes. Q It was. Then when did you injpect the bridge again ? A Well, I did not personally inspect it — it has been inspected esery year by the city car- penter; all the bridges. Q W ho wa.s he? A Mr. Cox. lo Q A man named Cox. Was he a city official ? A Yes; he had charge of the bridges and sidewalics. (^ Under you? A Yes. ' Q Was his duty to report to you direct ' A Yes; he reported to nie with regard to the bridges and sidewalks that required repairing. Q Did you give him any in.structions hovv to inspect? .V At that time, yes. . . ^,._ . Q What instructions did yon give him :" \ To liore and to see — when I found that more than one was unsound, then I had them al' lM)rcd. 20 •%; 30 Q Hy whom ^ A My him; and any that were unsound were renewed. y Did you see him boring? A Some of them; I was not there the whole of the time. He reported to me the mem))ers tliat were sound. I gave him a list of the I'umlKT of fl(x)r 'K-ams there were in the bridge — 14 altogether — and he reportet'. .vhich appeared to he sound and which were affected more or less. Q The lH)rings, did he pnxluce them, --'niw them to you ? A Well, he gencrallv did when he bored, but 1 cainiot re. ;ember in that in.stance w'hether he did ; I think he did. Q ik) you know what iK-came of those borings? .\ No, I do not k.iow. Q On his reptirt t" yon did you rejiort back to the city council ? A Yes, I reported what requiretl t(» l>e done to renew it. .^ -T?m V Q In July, 1892 .3 A 1892, ye.s. Q Well, they did not follow your recommendations, did they decided to put in the wiMiden. Thev 3" Q Wood. Now, under whose direction> was that repair made ? A 20 Robert Mcintosh was the name of the carpenter ; under my direction. Q When did he start to repair ? A think I have it here (looking at memorandum). On June 29th 1 engaged .M .ntosh. Q In June ^ A 2lum here, " \'i.sited Point Kllice bridge." Q Yon have got a memorandum in July ? .\ Yes, July (th. Point Kllice Hridge complete, except plank between rails. Q S" that it took him alxjut two weeks to repair ? .\ Yes, that was with the exception of a plank Ix'tween the rails. He laid the plank outsidi of he rails. Q What was the cost or exiKMiditurc for thi« repair ? .\ That would be #1,600 ; his rejKiir on that, I think, was #1,640. Q That amount that Mcintosh incurred ' A No, that was the total. Q How much did Mcintosh— A It would Ik.- in the neighborhood of $1,600, for there was only one item ; $1,640, I think, included Iwth. 116 40 MSpS r '•{ M -i,.'! m 1 ri . Q Would Mcintosh be the $40 or the larger sum ? A He would be about $1,600. Q Mcintosh put on to the extent of about $1,600 ; that was paid by the city council ? A That was paid by the council. Q On your recommendation ? Yes, on my certificate. Q Did Mcintosh make any report as to the repairs < A No, no written report. 01 Q Any verbal ? A Well, I was out there every day or so while the work was going on. Q Well now, did you consider those repairs sufficient > Yes, at that time ; I considered the bridge was iti better order than it was immediately before. Q I mean at the time, was it repaired to your satisfaction ! A Yes. Q It was repaired to your satisfaction. Well, do you thin? that all the money that was necessary was expended on the repairs at that time ? A Yes ; well, in addition to the repairs made by the city, the tramway company paid for putting down stringers at that time. That was not included in the $1,600. Q Who put down the .stringersi' A They were put down by Mcintosh. Q Hy the city? A No; they were paid for by the tramway company. It was by an arrangement with the tramway company. 30 Q .\nd who? A .\nd the city. Q .\n arrangement between the tramway company and the city by which the tramway company put in stringers? .\ The tramway company paid for stringers and laying them dowu. Q .\nd they were put down niuler your supervision? .\ Yes. Before that there were joists simply under the floor, and the rails were fastened to the planking, and the oar in going over it between the floor beams the floor bent some, it was springy; and tlie object in putting these stringers in was to stiffen the track. 40 Q To stiffen it and strengthen that? .\ Yes. y Were there certain hangers put ill to then' \ Yes. ^r^tj ^iii w% r 'im Q What were their dimensions? A An inch and a quarter. Q Who did the iron work ? A Mr. Robertson. Q Here in the city ? A Yes. Q Were the specifications drawn by you ? A There were no specifica- tions drawn. They were the same — the former hangers went through the beam, two shanks through two holes in the beam ; and these went outside and had a plate underneath. lO Q They were the stirrup i A The stirrup. (^ Were they the same size as those that went through ? A Yes. Q Who recommended them being the same size ? A Well, no one. Q No one at all. Well, did anyone ask you for your approval as to that at all ? A No ; not that I remember. Q You were not asked for your approval ? Were they put there by you > A Yes ; they were put on under my directions. Q Were you there while iiiey were being put on ? A Part of the time" Q Did you inspect them after they were on ? A I saw them after they were on. Q Did you make any complaint as to them at all ? A Not that I remember of ; no. Q Was any complaint made as to them i" A No ; not that I remem- ber of. Q Were they di.scussed at all in any way- any discussion over them t A I do not remember of any. y Well, after McInto.sh made those repairs, was anything done with the bridge after that ^ A Yes ; it was planked and there were several repairs done to it. ti Planked ; under your supervision ? A Yes. y Hy instructions from the city f A By report of the city carpenter, ii8 20 30 40 I H^^ *t t } i; rep tin] A api use wa be hii a c aft al er£ ne th( sai 119 reporting that it required planking. He reported on all the bridges, indica- ting what needed renewing or repairing. Q The floor needed repairing i A Yes. Q Putting in new flooring, would that strengthen or weaken the bridge ? A It would not have any effect either way. Q Then, outside the flooring, was anything else done to the bridge ? A There was some work done to the approaches ; to the approach— east lo approach. Q In what way? A Well, the — it was on a side-hill, and the water used to run down, and it caused one of the bents to settle a little, and the water was diverted from running in there, and it was blocked up and braced. Q That repair was to strengthen it was it? A Yes. Q The water had a tendency to weaken it ? A Yes. ao Q What year was that ? A That was in 1895. Q Who reported on that t A Mr. Cox reported on it. Q He reported ? A I think he reported on it first. Q As to its being out of repair f A As requiring repair. I would not be positive though who first spoke of it. But I know I went over there with him and saw what was required to be done. 30 Q And the city approved of the repairs ? A Well, there was no Q You reported to the city did you r A I do not remember of making a direct report with regard to that special thing, but it was about that. Q What I mean is this; did the city give instruction.- for it to be repaired after a report to the city, or did Cox simply go on with the repairs and hand in a bill to the city? A I forget the particulars with regard to that, but the gen- eral order in any case of that kind— I repirted to the .street committee what was necessary to be done, and if it was decided to be done it was approved of and 4° the work was done. I do not remember in that particular instance what was said about it. ) i M th th P 11 ti b Q Now that was in 1895. Did you report on the hrtdge yourself in 1895? A Not s]H.'cially. Q In 1896 did you as to that bridirf? A Oh. it was 1895; oh yes, 1895 there was a report on the hrid^e. Q By whom? A The city carjK-ntcr. Q That is Cox? A Yes. Q To whom? A That was an appendix to my report. He reported on the bridges, sidewalks and water tanks. Q Did hv report on this brid>,'e particularly ' A Yes. Q In writinjj? A Yes. , Q Where is tiiat report > A Well, it is enilx)died in the annual report. y Is the annual report printed? A Yes, the annual report of the cor- ^° poration for 1895. Q I)o you remember what Cox reported in it? A He reported the bridge in good condition. I gave him instructions to report on all the bridges, men- tioning specially the Point Ellice bridge, Rock Hay bridge and James Hay bridge. Q You made no refiort yourself ^ A No. Q Did you ever receive any complaints as to the bridge being out of repair? ^^ A No; not that I remember of. Q No verbal reports or complaints? A No. Q Mr. Cox never said — A I mean nothing but what he reported — I mean from the outside. For instance, if there was any planking that required renewing he would rep,'Kestion.s to yon a.s to further repairs? A No; not in this case. y In any case? A No; nothinff further — no further repairs that he spoke of at the time. Por instance, if some of the planking was worn throujjh or decayed he would report on that. He never reported anything that wa.s required Ijeyond what was done. y No one ever mentioned to you or .stated to you that the bridge should Ik- further repaired to a greater extent f A No; not at all. Q Do you know when that bridge was built, of your own knowledge ? A No; I could not say of my own personal knowledge. Q You heard from Mr. (lore, I suppose, the date ' A Yes, I heard it stated. to lai ••.111 Q You know. What is the usual life of one of these timbers in a bridge ao of that kind? A Oenerally about ten years; is good for about ten years. n What is this bridge constructed of I* A Douglas fir. Q Douglas fir; about ten years. Do you know the length of time that .some of these timliers were in that bridge? A Well, I believe about eleven. I '.HI Q What? A I believe it was consuucted in 1885; they had been in eleven years. • ii Well, did it occur to you at any time that they should be repl.Tred — some of those older timbers? .\ No; it did not occur to me that they were decayed. Q I suppase you found out afterwards that they were? A Some of them were; I found out after it broke down. Q An in.spection, I suppose, would discover that? A If they had been inspected when they were decayed it would have. Q What caused the decay; do you know ( A Well, I suppo.se it is where the wood comes in contac'; with wood and retains nioi.sture, is the general cause. 30 40 < u It) 4I . 41. V wo th« th( wl kt th n< i^W- Q Any excavation or anything in the timber that would collect moisture would cause rapid decay ? A Yes. Q For instance, a knot or anything of that kind ? A A knot hole. Q \ knot hole would collect water, and then a decay woiiM itart. A thorough inspection would detect that ? A At those places, yes. Q What became of the timbers that were in that bridge? A Most of them were rafted about the bridge, and I believe some of them are on the lo wharf. Q Any of them destroyed ? A I think some of them were. Q Why !" A I do iiot know. Q Under whose directions or instructions? A I do not know; I do not know that anyone gave directions for it. . >' Q When did you first di.scover that .some of those timbers were rotten after the accident; how soon after the accident? A Well, the second day. Q The .second day you discovered? A The first day I went there I did not see any unsound timber; all that I saw was sound. But the second time I was up there I .saw some ..nsoiind. Q Now, were any of the timbers that the city put in, rotten? No, I did not see any of those decayed at all. Q It was some of the original timbers t A It was some of the original t'mbers, yes. Q Floor beams? A The original floor beams, and one — the end of one upright piece, I think, was partly decayed; that was nil that I saw. Q In the span that went down, were there any of the original floor beams? A Yes. 20 JO *■ ' ■ Q Mostly all original flixir beiyns? A No; they were nearly all new ones. 40 Q How many original flo.><- Ijcams were in the span that went down? A 1 am not sure whether it was two or three. 122 '■ti m OI Q Do you know where they are r A There is one of them down here ou the wharf. Q And the other two? A And the other one, I don't know where they are. Q But they were — ? A There were two that I remember of. Q Did you form an opinion as to whether those were the first that went down? A No. Q Vou did not form an opinion as lo that? A No. Q Did you ever ex', 'es.s or form an opinion a.s to where the weakness in that bridge was at the time of the accident? A No, 1 could t.ot. Q You c»3uld not form one now from your knowledge ^ .^ No. Q So from what you have .seen and heard, you cannot form au opinion as to where !.hc weakness was? \ I could not form an opinion as to what caused the destruction of the bridge. Q Or where there was tht eatest weakness f A No ; I could not. Q Would it be natural to suppose it was in the old beams or in the new beams ? A The old bean»sl should .say were weaker than the new. Q Were the new beams- broken at all in any way? A No; I did not see any of them broken. Q But the old beams you saw ? A One of the old beams broken. Q One of the old ones. Do you know where that beam is now ? A No; I do not know whc.e it is. Q Where was it broken ? A It was broken where the hanger went through. Q Thai is at the end ? A It is near the end. Under the chord. Q V»^as that a probable plave where a bridge would give away first, that ^ particular part ? A That pau might give away without thf bridge going, as it did before. Before cherc was one of the floor beams gave away just at that place. 183 I" i i ' fi \'%\ r th I( th nc de th 111 th he fe( it ca ca 1 lO Q The same part of the beam ? A The same part of the beam. Q Gave way. That was in 1892 i" A That was in 189a. Q Of course that was repaired, and you fonnd the same breakage in this ? A This seemed to be broken about the same way. Q Was the beam in a good state of repair, except at the ends ? A Yes; I did not notice any other place where it was decayed. Q And there is only one beam broker ? A Only one beam broken. Q And there were two beams that v 'e decayed, were there? A No; there was one old beam there that showed slight signs of decay, but was not broken. Q Would that decay weaken it ? It would if it remained long enough. Q So far as it was then, is it your opinion it was weakened by that decay ? A It would be weakened to the extent of the decay. 20 Q To some extent, and that extent you would not see. What caused that decay, do you know ? A Well, moisture. Q Moisture. Was moisture there caused by anything specially defective in the beam itself^ A Well, I could not Si»y as to that. The first beam that broke there was where the hangers went down and the plate underneath held the water, while others that were under similar conditions that were per- fectly sound, I considered that it did not hold water, and that in those ca.ses it would not be the cau.se of the decay — not the same cause. 30 y The beam that was decayed and not broken, you have no idea what caused the detention of moisture in that particular part ? A I think it was caused by the water getting in inside. Q In some crevice ? A Yes. Q Hut what caused the crevice you cannot tell I A Well, I think it was on account of getting around the l)olt beside the hanger. Q Well, the beam that was broken, was it decayed only in one part ? A That was all I noticed. 40 1' I* ' I ,^i ( f f I , J 1 134 A ] inati brok hast^ woul tion just thinl stree Esqt kno\ thel did I >25 lO Q Could it be decayed in more parts than one without your noticing ? A I did not bore it ; I did not make any examination, only a superficial exam- ination. Q Your attention was directed more particularly to the parts that were broken ? A Yes. Q And to the same extent of the one that did not break, you made just a hasty examination of that ? A Yes. Q Those beams must have been in about eleven years then ^ A Yes. Q And the ordinary life would lie only ten years ? A Well, yes ; I would say that would be about the ordinary life of cut timljer. (^ Where did the limits of the corporation extend to before the last addi- tion to the city was added, do you know ? A No ; I could not describe it. Q Well, how far did the last addition extend beyond the bridge ? A Harriet street is the Ixjundary. ao Q Is that beyond the bridge? A Some distance beyond. It crosses just at the siding — the switch. Q How far beyond'^one or two blocks beyond this bridge? A Yes; I think al)out half a mile. Q What street was this bridge on? A This end of it was on Work street, and the other end of it is not a street at all — that is on the Indian Reser\'e. 30 y Is there any particular road or street runnmg over there? A Yes, the Esquimau road. Q Did the city extend on that road beyond tbe bridge? A Not that I know of ; not on the E.squimalt road. Q Nothing beyond the bridge ? A Not on that road. They did beyond the bridge in Victoria West. Q Why not immediately beyond the bridge ( A Well, I would say they ^„ did not that I know of. I do not know of any repairs done there by the city. Q Why ? A There were many other places that required them more. "' " 1 1 ', Q Because it was not necessary. But beyond that again on that same road they did expend money, did they ? A I do not know of any money ex- pended on the Esquimau road. Q Any sidewalks there? A Yes. Q Were they repaired by the city? A Yes, by the city, yes. Q Your supervision extended beyond the bridge, I suppose? A Yes; out to the city limits. EXAMINED BY MR. MASON. ao Q Whilst some of these repairs were being done, any car traffic vas stopped, was it not ? A It was; yes. Q And you adverti.sed a notice that the bridge was dangerous? A Yes; I advertised it closed for traffic. Q Had you reason to believe that Mr. Cox was a responsible, competent man ? A As far as looking after the wood work of the bridges was concerned, and general work, I did. «o Q Were you city engineer when the bridge was taken over? A No. Q Did you ever receive any drawings, calculations or specifications from the government with regard to it? A No. Q Were any furnished by the Lands and Works Department? A Not that I know of. Q Not to your knowledge > A The tramcar was in operation over the bridge when I came on. Q The tramway obtained their authority to run cars over that bridge from the government? A I believe so; yes. 126 •': Ir: m ''\\y ■ ■■ '^Is rn E\ Wil rep.' traf] tra£ pno whc The examination here closed. ■^^'« Evidence of Edward Ashley Wilmot, City Engineer, Taken ■" at the Trial of Patterson v. Victoria. ?fi •1.1. 2oth May, 1897. EDWARD ASHLEY WILMOT— CALLED AND EXAMINED BY MR. DAVIS. 20 Q You have been city engineer for the City of Victoria since 1892, Mr. Wilmot? A Yes, I have: Q There is no one, I believe, over you ? A No. Q That is, no official — subject only to the orders of the council ? A Yes. 3*^ Q I notice that you state in that e.xaini nation that in 1892 when these repairs were being done on the Point Ellice bridge, it was closed for tramcar traffic ? A Yes. y After the repairs were completed : it was again thrown open for tramcar traffic by the city, was it not >. A Yes; the restriction was taken off. Q Large cars, or larger cars, so to s()eak, were running over the bridge prior to the accident of 1892? A Yes. 40 Q Just began a comparatively short time before \ A I could not say when they began. 137 tbroi V.r\v an a thro byl Yes. wm: Just and brol oftl A tape the and wer pQt wh. uut 1 ' r m Q In fact, the car which went through in 1892 is the same car as went through in 1H96? A So I have been told. Mr. Davis (to witness) : In those connnnnicntions, (referrinR to .\nnnal Reports of the Defendant Corporation), I see reference is made Mr. Wilniot, to an accident whicli tring broken in 1892? A No; I don't rememlier that it was; the car pas.sed over the iK-ain. 10 Juror: Was the 1892 car crowded to the same extent as the other' Just about it. It was an excursion — a picnic excursion. A 20 Mr. Davis: Nei^ beams were put in, I see by the report, was there any, and if 30, what difference in the size :' A The new lieanis were 12 by 16; the broken floor beam where it was broken was 12 by 16, but the remaining parts of the beams were 12 by iH — the old iK'ams. Q Except that they tajiered a little at the ends where the hangers were? A They were sized down where the hangers went on; It was not at the tapering — it was on the length of the Ix'am where the hanger went through and ^o the plates went on, and it was the depth between the taper and plate, 16 inches, and the new l)eams were 12 by 16 all through. Q Was there any change made in the hangers at the time the new beams were put in f A The first beam that was broken, some of the hangers were put back again, and put back in the same way. Q With reference to the hangers, some of the hangers were put back, but wh.»t changes were made? \ There were stirnips put on. Q That is, the iron was widened out and went round outside of the beauj in.stead of through i A Round outside of the beam. 40 . u taS >^/'-r Q You heard your evidence read there, Mr. Wihnot ? A Yes. Q That is correct, is it not ? A Yes. Q I believe Mcintosh was li-.e other man who did the repairings ? A Yes; he put in the floor beams he did the other repairing the floor beams — and the new floors and stringers. Q Mcintosh was acting under your instructions? A Yes. xo MR. \yiLMOT, being recalled, on the second day of trial (21st May, 11897), 01 behalf of the defendant, testified, examined by Mr. Taylor: Q You are already under oath, Mr. Wilmot. You examined this 20 broken beam ? A I did. Q Did you find^m augur hole in it ? A No. Q Did you examine for the purpose of ascertaining whether there was or not ' A I did. Q How long a time did you spend on that examination ? A Long enough to examine it thoroughly. Q Who was with you ' A Mr. Hell. CJ Did two of you examine it together ! A Yes. Q And you did not find any augur hole < A No. y You examined the whole beam :' A We examined the two pieces. Q The two pieces ' A Yes. Q Well, you have heard what has been said about the break ;«t the 4" hanger irons ; were the two pieces there complete y .\ Yes. Q That is to say, could tliev have been joined together and make the 139 •<.| I ! I, if com] then brc)l< eud kno' side tend Mr. the that him tend theti that be 11 'i. r.N complete Ijeam ? \ Yes. Q Were the marks of tlie hangers at all in any piece of it ? A Yes ; there was marks of the hanger in the beam. Q On which beam ? A On the long end. Q That would be ? A On the main beam ; not the piece that was brok' n off. Q On the main beam ? A Yes. Q That wonld be the south end or the end next to Victoria, the long eud < You saw the marks of tlie hangers? A Yes. Q Yon .said a half-st'clion of the hanger went tlirough it? A I do not know u half section, hut there was a distinct mark of the hangers. Q The iron ? A The iron. Q You also e.\aniined the short end that was broken off? That was the sidewalk end on the Gorge side? A Ves. y Was there any auger holes in that ! A I did not see any. Q You did not .see any ? Mr. Uavis : Apparently from this examination my learned friends in tend to dispute the boring of that anger IkjIc. When that was proved by Mr. Co.\ they did not cross-examine. .\s the result another witness who saw the hole, and who we have here, we did not call. If they intend to contest that point, I ask now to have that witness called. W'e !iad him here and have him here. Court : There was no suggestion in the cross examination that you in- tended to dispute the fact. Mr. Cassidy : Tlie point, my lord, is that Mr. Wiiinot was called and then Mr. Cox was oalkd afterwards. The first suggestion we had in this case that there was going to Ik; anything of that The Court I am speaking (.f the eross-examinatiou '/f Co- . Would it be more convenient to yon fiial this other witness who ^fr, ty.i\'. spt.iUf^ of to 30 io 40 k' f 1 shot call) com new witi bett eith the you broi acci should be recalled now, or in rebuttal ; I think you are entitled to have him called now. Mr. Taylor : Whatever your lordship thinks is proper. Court : It is fairer for a defence, I think, to have the case of the platntiflF completed as far as possible. As far as this witness has gone you have put no new witnesses in the bo.x, you have simply recalled some of the plaintiff's witnesses. It is fairer, I think, to complete the plaintiff's case. You had better put in your witness now. lo Mr. Davis : He is not here just now ; we have sent for him. We will either pnt him in when he comes here, or put him in the first thing in the morning. . >'i ao CROSS-EXAMINFD BY MR. D.WIS. Q Mr. Wilmot you instructed Mr. Cox to bore those beams in 1892, did you not ? A Yes. Q And he brought you the borings just as you stated ? A Yes ? he brought me some borings and samples of wood. ^ Q He brought you a nnm'^er of them ? A Yes. Q It would he his duty under his instructions to bore that old beam ^ A To bore all the beams. Q You have nothing to say against Mr. Cox's character t A i think tiot. Q You would not think iiini a man that would be guilty of perjury ? A No; no reason for that. ^ Q When did you examine this broken beam f A Shortly after the accident. m ')y "A S.fi'i \- 4-., Q How long after ? A I should say about two days — two or three days. Q Two or three days. Now that beam was to a greater or less extent completely rotten, was it not— that is, portions of it was completely rotten and soft ? A Portions of it were rotten, yes. Q And it was splintered and broken by the breaking, was it not f A It was broken, yes. Q Do you meiin to say that it was impossible for an anger hole to have been there and you not to ha\e found it ? A I would not say it was impossible, but I went specially tt) see if it had been bored. lO fflPP": ■J ^-^ IHit-l I EX AM I Ni: I) y\ COURT. ao ■■;1 ^^% : Q Mr. Wilmot, what became of that broken beam ? A It, with a lot of other timber of the bridge, was left in the arm above the bridge in charge of an Indian living there — an Indian, I think, or a half breed. It was put in a boom together. Q ', eft by whom ? .\ Well, by the city. y lly yourself i .\ No, 1 did nt.t give the direction. y Do you know who did ? 3f> Mr. Taylor: ' will lender Mr. Vorke, who is verv familiar with the debris there. Court; No, 1 just want to .ask — A No, I gave no direction with regard to the di.sposal of the debris. Q When did you .see the broken beam there f A I s;iid, to the best of my recollection, it was two or three days after the accident. Q Have you any knowledge of where it is now? A No. 13a 40 Ex< by A was Witness stands aside. f ■■ ! V if Examination of Edward Ashley Wilmot, City Engineer, '» before the Deputy Registrar, in the action of Lang V. Victoria. Monday, 26th July, 1897, 10 a. m. 30 Mr. Macdonell appearing for the plaintifT. Mr. Mason appearing for the defendant. ( H ,/ 'i 30 EDWAK.n ASHLEY WILMOT, being duly swoni, testified: Examined by Mr. Macdonell: Q What is your occupation, Mr. Wilmot? A Civil engineer. Q Are you in the employ of the city of Victoria f' A Yes. Q As what? A City engineer. Q When were you employed by them? A In April, 1892. 4** Q What were your duties ? A Well, the duties were not defined, but ij was to look after public works generally. * 133 i ji M ass dir bri ins an( wa cai Q Inctudiiifr streets and bridRcs ? A Yes. Q Are you hired by the year? A No; paid by the month. Q Have you performed those duties ever since April, 189a ? A Yes. Q For the city ? A For the city. Q Any one over you ( A No. Q Any one under you ^ A Occasionally; sometimes 1 have an a.ssistant. 01 Q Who ? A Well, I have h.id several. y In 1892? A In 1892 Mr. Parr was assistant. Q Any one else / .\ Well, do you mean a.ssistant engineer or subor- dinates ? Q Subordinates? A Well, yes; then there is the inspector of streets and 2° bridges. Q Who was he ? A Mr. Wilson. .And the inspector of plumbing. Q Was he inspector of streets and bridges in 1892? A No. Q I am talking about 1892; who was in 1892? A There was no one inspector of the streets. There were three foremen who looked after the streets; and the city carpenter looked after the bridges and sidewalks. 30 Q, Who was the city carpenter ? A John Co.\. Q Was he in the employ of the city ? A Yes. Q Hired by them ? A He was engaged by them before I came on. 9 P. id monthly? A Yes. Q And his duties were what ? \ To look after the streets and side" wal. s— at a*ast bridges and sidewalks. ^O Q Did he perform those duties ? A Yes ; he was acting in that capacity. < y ' , ''5 »34 IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 2.5 I.I 1^128 •^ 1^ 12.2 iM 111112.0 1.8 n &, /. J^t^. r/u 1.25 1.4 1,6 ■• 6" — ► 7 Photographic Sciences Corporation \ ^sy ^^ ■\ O 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4S03 6^ ^ n «r. %> i/l ^ re( th e: ca af ci ol te ti IT Q Under your direction? A Yes; generally. Q And reported to you ? A Yes. Q And you reported then to the city council ? A Where occasion required. Q When did you first inspect Point Ellice bridge as city engineer ? A think it was in May, 1892. I think it was in May. I 10 Q Do you know when the city limits were extended so as to include Point Ellice bridge > A No ; I think it was the year before ; but that was before I came on the city. i Q Well the bridge then was within the city limits when you took office A Yes. \-\M ,^ ::,;-.:- Q And was it inspected by you the same as other bridges ; did you look after it the same ? A Yes ; any repairs that were required were done by the city. 20 Q You had the same control over that bridge as you had over any of the other bridges ? A Yes. Q Have you ever heard the statute read defining the limits of the city — the boundaries defined ? A Yes. Q From that, is this site included within the city limits — the bridge ? • A I should say it is within the area described. 30 Q The area described, which is covered within the limits of the city, ex- tends so as to take in Point Kllice bridge. What time in 1892 was your atten- tion called to the Point Ellice bridge ? A At the time the floor beam broke. Q Can you give me the date of that ? You have a memorandum of that^ A (Looking at memo book.) It was on June 9th. Q I8')2 ? A 1892. That was when the beam broke. Q How was your attention called to it ^ A There was one of the floor ^^ beams broke. I don't rememlx;r now who first told me of it ; I went over im- mediately after. Q As part, of 'our duties you went over? A Yes ; I went over there. 135 mt del lo< thi ho be no bii th nc m sh bi '1 ol Q Well, that was part of your duty to look after it ? A It was not a defined part of my duty. ,. Q But generally ? A I considered it so ; yes. Q You considered it part of your duty, and you went over there and looked after it. Did you give instructions for its repair ? A On consulting the street committee ; yes. Q That was part of the council, the street committee? A Yes. jq Q And did they direct you how to have it repaired ? A Not the details how to have it repaired ; but they agreed to renew the floor beam — the floor beam that was broken. , Q Now can you tell me what floor beam that was or what span it was in ? A No. .;<■;' .... ..... Q Well, do you know what span it was in ? A I cannot possibly say now what span it was in. go Q If I draw your attention to it — it was repaired by Clark ? A Ye.;. Q And it was in the span that went down ? A I think probably it was, but I could not say. Q And it was number five floor beam ? A The one that was repaired then ; no, I don't think it was. Number five floor beam, as I remember it now, number five floor beam was the one that was broken in the last accident. Q No ; number three. A Oh yes. Q Now wouldn't it be number five that was broken then? A Yes; it may have been. Q It may have been number five that was broken, and repaired by Clark? A Yes. Q Now how was that one broken — number five ? A It was broken off short where the hanger went through. Q Was it broken off or did the hanger pull through it ? A It was broken off. 136 30 40 Vit IS- m m "di: m i It if v.: ''''it Q I believe the number three that broke at the last accident, the hanger pulled through. A No ; it did not. Q There is a difference of opinion upon that. The beam then was broken offjusitby the hanger? A Uroken off shortly just where the hanger went through. Q Wa.s it very much decayed ? A Yes ; very much decayed. Q The car pas.sed over it safely that time '( A Yes. Q Can you give a rea.son why the car went over safely that time? A The end of the lieam did not drop down. Q The other end ? A The end that was broken did not drop down. Q It dropped .some ? A It dropped some. Q You qualify that. How far do you think it would ilrop then ? A On looking at it .since I don't think it could drop more than about a half a foot. The Ijeam is consid^Tably below the floor, but I don't think that it actually dropped more than al)out — I should .say not more than six inches or a foot. lO 20 Q It dropped far enough to take all strength away from that particular part ? A No, it was sup|)orted. Q Well, now, what would support it, now 1 X The lateral rods — the lateral braces that go through it. They pass through between the hangers, and they go out to the outside of tiie beam l)eyoud the hangers, and they did not draw through the hangers — the wotxl on the (jutside of the nuts prevented them drawing through; and although the beam was broken, still it went through a ■3" portion of the beam a \ held it, that is fro. going down. y The longer portion of that beam — I am not talking now about the .shorter portion — after it broke do you mean to .sa\' that it was any support to the bridge ? A It was not a support to the bridge, but it did not go down. Q It was no support to the bridge after it broke ( A Yes; it held the car after it broke. Q That beam? A Yes; or else the car would drop right down. Q But there were stringers ? A No, there were no stringers; the string- ers were not put in imtil after. 40 1- .\ ;: m Q No; there were the short stringers— the joists? A Well, the floor did not hold it up. Q Well, the jury say it did. Tell me where the strength was in that bridge as to the broken beam? A The beam, the part that was broken, was held from going down by these lateral rods that went through the end; if these rods had broken the thing would have dropped right down. Q Now, then, are the lateral rods a strength to the bridge i A Yes; their purpose is to prevent lateral motion. lo Q Swaying ? A Yes, that is their purpose. A nd there is no vertical bearing on them except in a case of this kind where the beam broke. Q You say they were a strength on account of the vertical bearing? A After the beam broke. Q After the beam broke ? A Yes, they held it. Q Are you giving that as an opinion as an engineer? A Yes, from jo what I saw. I saw the beam there suspended, held in place by those lat- eral rods. Q And you swear positively that that beam did not go below the lateral rods? A Yes. Q Were the lateral rods through the longer part or the shorter part of that beam? A Through both. They were in the longer part and went right out through the shorter part. 30 Q Then the lateral rods must have been some vertical support to the bridge? A After the break. There is no weight on them when the beam is intact; they pass through it, and there is no vertical pressure then on them at all. Q William Clark was the man who replaced it? A Yes, he is the man who replaced it. Q Did you see the beam before he did ? A Ye;-; that is unless he hap- pened to go out at first. I saw the broken beam before I saw him in connection 40 with doing the work. Q Yes, ana you instructed him how to repair it? A To replace it, yes. Wlffl ' ' -U, 'ft •-h * Mti »f4 :* ' 1 138 Q Yes; and that was done? A Yes. lO Q Did you tell him how to put in the hangers? A 1 don't remember giving the detailed instructious. Q Do you know if the hangers were put in identically the same as they were before? A Yes, I believe they were. , Q The same hangers? A The same hangers were put in. Q The same as before. Then did you report to the council after the repair of that accident in 1892? A Yes. Q A written report ? A Yes. j. Q Did they do anything in pursuance to that written report, or report ? A Well, there was no further action to take on that particular beam; after I examined the others 1 found they were defective. Q I am talking about the particular beam. You made a report to the -^ council of the beam being repaired, did they do anything in pursuance of that report? A No; not that I know of. >'. i« that. Q When did you examine the rest of the bridge? A Well, shortly aftei Q Well, why did you examine it ? A Well, to see how the other beams were. Q And did you report that examination to the council? A Yes, I -q reported — yes, I reported what was wanted. Q Did they give you any instructions after that? A No definite instruc- tions, no. Q Any indefinite instructions i A Well, they gave me instructions to replace the wooden beams. Q I believe you recommended iron beams? A Yes, I suggested putting in iron. ' 40 Q And they disregarded the suggestion ? A Decided to put in wooden. Q And in pursuance of that what did you do? A Put in the wooden. 139 ft ' 1 iFfl mil } * is,'! h MM 6.m « ca sc fr ni al 20 Q Who did you instruct? A Mclnto'^h — Rolwrt Mcintosh. Q Did they instruct you in any way to inspect the bridRo f A No. Q When did you inspect that after it was broken first in June, 1892 ? A Well, it was insjiccted — all the bridges were inspected every year by the city carpenter; there was no special inspection of that. Q I)o you know of any .special in.spection of that bridge that was mad >i June, 1892? A June, 1892? iq Q Yes? A Yes, there was a special inspection made immediately. Q By whose instructions ? A Hy my in.striictions. Q To whom / A To Mcintosh; and to Cox first. Q John Cox? A Yes. Q What instructions did you give to John Cox ? A When I saw that some of the other floor beams showed signs of decay — I could tell by in.specting from the top— I told him to bore them all and to report on the condition of each. Q Do you rememljer the date of tho.se instructions to him t A I could not say the date, but it was between the i6th of June and the 29th. Q Yes. You gave him instructions. Now, do you know if he followed your instructions? A I believe he did, yes. Q Did you see him ? A I saw him ; I was on the bridge when he was ^ at work, but not the whole time. Q Was anyone with him f A He had one or two men. Q Do you know who they were ? A No, I don't remember who they Q They were employed by him ? A Well, I could not say how they were employed; by the city; he was the only permanent carpenter, I think. Q He had the power, I suppase, to get assistance ? A Yes, if necessary. Q Do you know if he bored any of the beams ? A Yes. 140 40 ;il'«^ *lj hi OI Q I suppose you saw him boring ? A I saw him boring, yes ; I saw him boring. He brought in the dust — the borings. Q The borings, and reported to you direct ? A Yes. Q And did you report them to the council ? A Yes. Q The result of his report? A Yes ; the number of beams that required renewing. Q Now during the time that he was doing this inspection, was the tram traffic stopped on that bridge ? A Yes ; it was stopped part of the time. Q Who stopped that ? A I gave notice to the tramway company and to the council that the bridge was unsafe. Q And did they stop the traffic ? A Yes. Q The traffic was stopped ? A Car traffic was stopped — the passenger traffic was at any rate. I have got a memorandum here: Thursday, i6th — Notified the tramcar company not to carry passengers over the bridge. This is the first note I have got of calling their attention to it. Q Well, did they obey that notice I A I believe so. Q How long was the traffic stopped on the bridge ? I am not particular to a day, Mr. Wilmot. A I have got a memorandum. July 14th Point EUice bridge was completed, excepting planking between the rails. That is July 14th ; but I have not got a memorandum here when they stopped. jo Q It was stopped for two or three weeks at any rate, or ten days ? A I should sav it was stopped for ten days. Q Now during the time that Mr. Clark was repairing, was traffic stopped' A Yes ; tram car traffic was. Q And, by the way, was that an ordinary car that broke down in 1892 ? A I believe \f was the saiae car that went through — a heavy car. I know there was an excursion, l".:t 1 don't remember personally the size of the car ; but there was an excursion that day, and I understood it was a large car. 40 Q In fact it was numlwr sixteen ? A Nu..iber sixteen. H That was stopped at that time only a day or two ? A Yes. 141 ' ( . . ):n '■-pr. -'1 ' 111 V Q The first repair. On the last repair it was stopped for some time ? A Stopped for some time. The track was taken up and stringers were put in. Q And a notice was then published after that that it was open for traffic ? A I don't remember whether a notice was published that it was open for traffic, or just the notice taken out. Q You reported then to the council it was fit for traffic ? A Yes. Q And in pursuance of that notice they opened it ? A Yes ; traffic commenced. There was no form of opening the bridge. For instance, if a lo bridge is closed for repairs a notice is put in the papers ; then when the bridge is repaired the notice is simply taken out and there is no notice that it is re- paired. Q And that is the usual custom with regard to other bridges ? A Yes. Q When they are repaired. Was Mr. Mcintosh given any special in- structions by you how to repair > A Yes. Q Did he carry out those instructions ? A Yes ; so far as I know, 'o Yes ; 1 believe he did. Q Under your super%'ision ? A Yes. Q Now do you know when he started to work ? A Yes ; I have got a memorandum that he was engaged on June 29th. Q And when did he finish ? A Well, he — the bridge was completed, all repairs and painting and everything, on Friday, the 22nd ; but that included the scraping, the piers and painting those. I am not sure whether he was en- 3° gaged in that or not. Any way, he was engaged up to the i6th July. Q Did he employ his own men who assisted him or did the city ? A The city employed the men that he had in repairing the bridge, that is, putting down the new floor ; but the stringers were put in at the expense of the tramway company by him. Q Under your supervision ? A Yes. Q You supervised that. I think they allowed something like one hun- 4o dred dollars, did they i A I could not say now. I * Mi i ( 142 Q Well, tV° total amount Mr. Mcintosh received was about sixteen hundred dollars, I understand ; what he did for the city ? A That is what the repairs cost at that time ; yes. Q. Well, were you there all the time? A Off and on. Q Off and on? A I was not there continuously. Q But you were not away from it any length of time ? A No. Q Did the tram company have their engineer there looking after it? A No, they did not have their engineer; the foreman of the tramway looked after the laying of the rails. Q That is the T raik? A Yes. Q You had nothing to do with it? A Mr. Mcintosh was working for them in laying down these stringers. Q Were the stringers laid down to your satisfaction ? A Yes. Q The flooring was the last that went down ? A Yes. Q. That was paid for by the city? A Yes, the flooring was paid for by the city, new flooring put down. Q And paid for. Was Mr. Mcintosh engaged by the city specially for this work — A Yes. Q —or was he an employee? A No; he was engaged specially for that. Q Speciallv for this work. After it was completed did you report to the city ? A Yes. Q And Mcintosh w '.s paid by the city for his work ? A Yes, with the exception of what was done for the tramway company. Q Then what became of the old timbers or flooring of that bridge ? A It was rafted up above. Most of it was rafted above the bridge, but some of it was brought down here with the iron. Q I am talking now of the repairs in 1892, Mr. Wilmot ? A Oh. Q Were they sold — the old timbers, the planking? A I don't know 10 20 30. 40 I I * 1 H'M i . I ill I') > i ' ^ ' J. H3 whether they were sold or stolen. Q Did the city do anything with them ? A I don't think they utilized them. Q I understand they were sold by the city ? A I knoMr I recommended .selling them, as 1 did not think they were worth bringing in and using again; but I don't remember whether they were sold. Q You recommended the city to sell them i A Yes; the old flooring. i© Q Now, after Mr. Mcintosh made those repairs in July, 1891, when next was that bridge repaired ? A I think it was repaired in 1895. Q 1895. A 1895. Q It was repaired by a man named Elliott ? A Yes; Thomas Elliott. Q Thomas Elliott; by the city? A Yes. Q You continued to look after it from 1892 till 1895 ? A Yes. 20 Q In fact until the present time ? A Yes. Q Now, between 1892 and 1895, were there no repairs done to that bridge? A I don't remember of any. There may have been an odd plank or .some stick of timber here and theie that was attended to, but no general repairs. Q Was there any sort of repair made to the bridges ? A Yes, the bridges were repaired. Q During between 1892 and 1895 ? A' Yes. Q An odd piece of planking ( A Yes, the sidewalk. V Something like that f A Yes. y So that it was looked after by the city ? A It was looked after by the city, yes. 30 sir. y Now, did you ever get any notice of its being out of repair ? A No, 40 Q i don't mean official notice, but any general notice f A No. 144 'S 11 1 + . 1 1 { !' I \ , # 'm. II Q Ever asked by Mr. Grant or infonned by Mr. Grant ? A No. Q I)o you know if the city took any precautions to prevent heavy traffic on that ? A No, I do not. Q Or furious driving >. A Nothing more than the ordinary by-law that provides against fast driving over any of the bridges. Q Do you know of your own knowledge that that was ever enforced >. A Not of my own knowledge. lo Q Do you know that notices were ever placed on that bridge as to that by-law ? A There is the notice there now. Q Your attention then was never drawn to that bridge being out of repair? A No; not otherwise than by the officials. Q That was in 1892? A I say not otherwise than by officials, Mr. Cox, when some renewals were required. Q That bridge connects the highway between the Victoria side and the E.squimalt side of the Gorge, I believe t A Yes; it connects the Indian Reserve with bridge street. Q The name of that street is Work street, is it not ? A Work street. Q it is a continuation of Work street ? A No, it is not a continuation of Work .street ; the bridge connects it with Work .street ; it is Work street this side of the bridge and the Esquimalt road on the other side, I believe. 30 Q It is the main road to Esquimalt? A Yes, the main road to Esqui 30 malt Q Now, after the bridges were repaired, Mr. Wilmot, did you report that to the cit)^ A I don't remember whether I reported that to the council or not ; they were only slight repairs. Q Well, now, was there any special funds set apart for the repair of bridges ? No ; there was a certain amount voted for streets, bridges and side- walks, and there was a provision made for any special work that was required. 40 But there was no special funds bet apart. Q All money that was expended on the bridges was expended out of the » 4 i '45 lO general fund ? A Cfeneral revenue, yes. Q Set apart for bridges and roads ' A Yes. Q A nd sidewalks / A Yes, and sidewalk.s. Q It was drawn on that fund ' A Yes. Q Now, after Mr. Cox inspected in 1892, did he inspect afterwards? A Yes, he inspected all the hrid^jes. Q That was part of his duties to in.spect all < A Yes. Q This one not differently from the others \ A This one just the same as the othc:s. Q Just the same as the others, it was part of his duties. You relied on his inspection? A Yes, I did. Q He had the special control and the charge of the inspection part ? A Yes, repairs were made from time to time on all the bridges, as he reported they ^° required. Q As he reported. Have you any reports in writing, Mr. Wilmot? A Well, the Lxst one is the only one that is publi.shcd, the 1896 annual report. Q That is the reptirt of 1S95 ; but have yon any other? A No, I have not. He had a memorandum book. Q Now, the supplies that he required for repairs, did he obtain those on his own requi.sition ? A The supplies? ^ Q Yes ? A He reported what was wanted, a requisition was made out for them. Q And the men that were hired, did he send in their names to the coun- cil and the council jxiy >. A .\s a general thing there were two men working with him all the time ; the>' were paid by the day, and on a special occasion he would hire one or two men more. Q And he had the power of hiring those men, had he? A Well, it was not customary to hire them him.self y IJo you know what men he usually hired, or worked for him ? A No, 146 I u\ V\ J I P'l I .1 I''' " % ' t 'i\'' ^■ in i 1, "> 147 1 I don't rememlwr now who was working with him then. ii Is there any way of finding out what men were working for him in 189a t A Yes, I think the accounts would show. Q In the city treasurer's f A In the city oflRce. Q Would that be in the hands of the city treasurer ^ A Yes, I am not sure whether he would have tlu" vacation under which they were paid, but he would have the names of the working men. 10 t^ Where could I find out the names and the duties of the men that Cox hired, and who were working for him i" Do you know where that could be found f A Since 1H92 they got a record of it in the city engineer's office. At 1S92 I don't rememlKT whether there was a record kept then or not. y Now who keeps them ^ A I have a clerk who keeps a record of all the employees, and what they werf engaged in. V Hut you cannot tell as to 1892 ( A I am not .sure, I could not say 30 from memory. A Q Where do you think they would be? A They would be there. Q In whose charge 1' A In the charge of the — well it would be in my charge, in the city engineer's office. Q In the city engineer's office. A The system has been altered since — the system has been altered since of keeping the accounts, of keeping the records. $0 Since 1 892 ? A Yes. , Q After the bridge gave wa\ in 1896 what became of the material ? A Well, it i.s — most of it was rafted above the bridge, that is the wot)den members; and the iron was brought down to the city wharf, and a few of the floor beams. Q Why wasn't it all brought down ? A Well, I understood that the Provincial police took charge of it up there ? Q Who instructed them to take charge of it? A I don't know; Mr. Heaven instructed Mr. Yorke to bring it down; that is what I understood; ar ' 40 i i •+;-^« -^>r. , ' -:m^m' ' f; Mr. Yorke, in going for it, was told by the Provincial police that they would take charge of it. Q Why, under what authority? A I don't know. Hut it was rafted there. Q Why would they take charge of part and not all? A Well, it was very nearly all, nearly all the timber; there were just a few sticks brought down on the scow that the iron came on, and very probably because the iron was attached to them. lo Q Do you know the name of the Provincial police who had charge of it? A No, I do not. Q Did you see some of it in charge of the Provincial police ! A I saw it up there; I don't know whose charge it was in. Q You inspected it ? A Yes. Q And this number three beam, you saw it ? A Yes. 20 Q And I suppose you saw the end that was not broken? A I saw both ends; I saw the whole beam. Q Was the iron in the end tliat was not broken at the time you saw it ? A I don't remember that. Q Well, the hanger did not pull out of the end that was not broken ? A No, of the other end there. Q It was out at tl'e other end? A It was out, yes; it was broken. Q The other end was broken, and the hanger was out of that ? A It was off. Q It was not out of the others? A I think the hanger was out of all — not out of all, but out of nuin\ . They had to take the hangers off in order to get the diagonal braces separate. Q Who had to do this f A The wreckers in taking apart to get the iron ^o work — .some of it; they put some back and some the\' did not. Q Why would they put some back ' A I don't know. 30 r f f f I ^\" Jp '-1 148 Q Who were the wreckers ? A Yorke had charge of them. Q Well, as I understand you, that is the reason that the provinc 'al police kept some of the beams and some of the timbers was that the iron was out of them ? A . No, I don't think that had anything to do with their keeping them; they kept them to prevent them being lost. Q Why did they keep some and not others ? A Well, I say I presume they kept it there to prevent it from ^^oing adrift and getting lost; and the others, there was a small quantity brought down with the iron — all the iron was lo brought down. In getting the iron separate from the timbers, in a good many cases they had to take the hangers out and the pins apart. Q Did they bring any or the beams down that had no irons in ? A No, I don't think they did; I think the irons were in all that were brought down. I would not say positively, but I think. Q Now, this number three beam, when did you see it last ? A I don't remember. 20 Q Give me the dates as near as you can '. A Well, I was up there sev- eral days through the summer. I did not make a memorandum of it at all. Q The accident happened on the 26th of May; how long after the acci- dent ? A Well, I could not say; there is no use of my guessing. Q Would it be a month after the accident? A Yes, I saw it a month after the accident. f f M Q Might it have been two months ? A Yes, I might have seen it two 30 months afterwards. I I !hS Q In whose charge was it then? A It was in a boom. There was a boom made of the upjjcr chord principally, they were fastened together, and all this timlxT was in.side of them, and there was an Indian up there. {) What Indian was that? .\ I don't know. Q Have you any idea of his name ' \ No, I don't remember his name at all. 40 Q Did you speak to him at all >. A Yes; I have seen him there. S:l M 149 \Sl '1-1 '^.. I >.,, Q Did you ask him to take charge of the timber < A No, I did not instruct him to take charge of the timber. Q Why didn't you bring them aown then with the rest of the timber? A Well, I did not take any action in connection with the matter at all. Q You knew there was a suit likely to go on < A. Yes. I thought it was as safe there as an >• where else. (4 And you knew that the greater part of it had been taken down ? 10 A No, a very little of it had been taken down; the greater part of it had been left up there. Q And you took no precautions to have it preserved? A I took no par- ticular precautions; no. Q You were not in.structed to. A No. Q And you have no idea of the Indian's name who had charge of it ? 20 A No. Q You knew it belonged to the city f A No, I would not say that — whether it belonged to the city or government. I knew it was part of the bridge. Q Certainly the beams that were put in by the city belonged to the city ? A It was all part of the bridge. Q And yon knew that the beams that were put in by the city belonged to the city ? A Yes ; I knew that they were part of the bridge. ^q Q Still you took no precautions to preserve it ? A No ; I took no pre- cautions to preserve it, in particular, myself. Q I)o you know what was don? with that timber > A No ; I believe it was burned. Q By whom ? A I could not tell you. I was up tliere this stimmer and they said it was nearly all gone. By whom I could not find out. Q Mr. Wilmot, why do you differ from Mr. Horc in saying that the beam was broken instead of the hanger pulling ihrough ' .\ Ik'cau.se in ex- amining the break you could see where tlie mark of the hanger was in the 40 i ' JvSO i beam, and if it had been pulled through the hanger coming through would tear the hole so that it would not leave — it would obliterate the mark of the hanger itself Q You differ from Mr. Bell, too, in that ? A No. Q Mr. Bell, I understand, says it broke when it hit the water. A It may have broken. Q He says it broke when it hit the water ? A He was of the opinion jq that the hanger pulled right through. Q But he .says that what broke the beam was it hitting the water ■ , A Yes ; I remember. Q You differ with him on that? A ■ VV^ell, I form no opinion as to that. Q You form no opinion when it broke ? A No. Q Well, what would be the most likely time for it to break, before it hit the water or when it hit the water ? A Well, if it broke when falling it would be when it hit the water. Q I am asking you what is your opinion of when it broke ? A Well, I say I have fonued no opinion at all as to when it broke. Q Well, what is the probability ? A Well, I could say. Q Now, were the new beams broken at all f A No ; there were none of them. Q No other beams broken except number three ( A No , that is that one that is broken. Q Hc-v many new beams were in the span that went down f A There were five ; five new ones. Q And how many old ones f A Two. Q One old one you have ? A Yes. Q And one old one has been lost (' A Yes. (4 The old one that you have is much decayed > A It shows signs of decay. ifl ■n',; Q Much or little ? A Well, considerable. Q I understand it was not broken ? A No. Q Can you place the position that beam was in the bridge ? A It was under the hip-vertical. Q On the side next to Victoria < On the side next to Victoria. Num- ber seven. Q Number seven. It was not broken at all ? A No. Q The irons all perfectly sound in it ? A Yes ; well, the irons were cut off, the vertical rods were cut off. Yes ; they were sound. Q I suppose you have the same opinion now — at least, you have no bet- ter opinion now than when you were examined at the trial and examined by myself as to the cause of the accident ? A No. Q You have no opinion or have formed no opinion since the trial? A No. Q You have no further data ? A No ; nothing more than the evi- dence I have heard. Q Does that give you any further information as to the cau.se ? A No. Q Do yon differ from Mr. Hell as to the cause ? A That the iron ? Q Yes. A Well, no- I have not formed an opinion as to whether it was the iron or the wood that gave way first. Q You have not formed an opinion ? A No. Q Yoti did not ft)rm an opinion before and you have not formed one yet ? A No. H And you have received no further data on which to form one ? A No. i) Did you ever .see the specifications of this bridge ' A No ; I never saw them before. V Did you know where they were— informed where they were? A No. y Did you kn»)w that they were in the hands of the Government? A ID 20 30 40 ! I 152 No, I had no information with regard to them at all. Q No information at all.— As to the strain sheet? A No. Q Did you ever know where they were? A I saw the plan there after the accident occurred; I think I saw the plan in Mr. Gore's office, but I did not see him. Q You saw a plan of the bridge in the Provincial Government office, in Victoria ? A Yes. Q After the accident? A Yes. y I suppose it had been there from the time they built the bridge? A I presume it had. Q Were you ever instructed by the city to obtain it? A No. Q I suppose it was then open for inspection — the plans and specifications ? A I presume they would. Q Have you ever figured the strain-sheet at all ? A No. Q You have never figured it — either before the accident or subse juent to the accident >. A No. Q Did you ever see the .strain-.sheet ( A No ; I have never seen it. Q Yoii do not know that it was in court in the Patterson case an*d the Gordon case ? A I do not remember seeing it. I never went over it. Q Have you any idea of the weight of th« car ? A The weight of the car is about ten tons. Q About ten ? And her weight with her load of pas.sengers ? A Well, it was estimated to be about eighteen tons. Q With car loaded ? A With car loaded. Mr. Ma.son ; Do you know that of your own knowledge ? A No. Mr. Macdonell : You form that from the evidence you have heard since ? .\ Yes ; from the number that were on board. lO ao 3" 40 I "'I 153 ■tup;';'; '54 wwm Q Wliat is the natural life of wood in a bridge, Mr. VVilinot ? A Well, it depends on two conditions — the w. A He did, or it would have been renewed. I don't renu-mb(.'r the particulars now that he did rei)ort, but all that be dil not re])iirt ]Krfectly sound were re- newed. 20 Q Yon .say you relied on his ins])-..'ction ' \ Yes. O Is Cox workinj:; for the cit;.- now ' A Xo. Q When did he cease to work? A Oh, I thinlc a little more than a year ago. O That would be about when ' A Well. I think it was May last year. Q May, 1S96? A Yes. - Q Previously to that was he paid l)y the day instead of by the month ? \ No ; previously to that lie was paid by the month, ami then he was changed from nu)nthiy pay to daily payment. (J \'fsf A And he left. t^ Well, did he express to you the reason for leavinjr I A Xo ; I don't think b" did. >,i What was bis reason for leaving do you know ' A Xo, I 30 could not sav. It may have been for that or it may have been to obtain other employment. 40 1 14 ! UJ 157 \n% if 'M^ lO Q Now, do you know how it was that some of the w reckafre of the bridge in 1896 was taken to the Indian reserve and some to the cit.- wharf? A Well, as I just stated, the iron w;i- dl brought to the city wharf, ai'd as I understood the mayor gave instruction^ >■ Mr. Yorke to bring all tin- lumber down. He went up there, and the provincial police had charge of it. That is all I know about it. Q Mr. Yorke brought some of the lumber down to thu wharf ! A Some of it ; yes. :.- Q Where did he get that lumber from, do you know ? A It was part of the wreckage. Q Well, the police stated that they were going to take charge of the lum- ber on behalf of the government ? .\ So Mr. Yorke said. Q Well, now, do you know whether the lumber was carefully examined by the coroner and jury on the iiuiuest ? A They were up t'lere. I could not say how carefullv thev examined. 20 Q IJidn't you go up with them ? A No. y Are you sure of that .■" A I did not accompany them over the — up to the bridge. Q Well, they went there several times, did they not ! A I believe they did ; yes. Q And as far as you can rcmcml)er most of the expert witnes.ses visited the wreck, both at the reserve and on the wharf;' A I don't think there 30 was any brought down to the wharf at that time. It was all up there. Q All the timber was up there ? A Yes. Q When was the timber brought down to the wharf after^vards ? A The experts were up there immediately after the accident. Q Yes. A And then they were several days getting the iron free from the wood and getting it separated and hauling it up, and it was during that time the experts were up. And after they got all the iron they brought it 40 and .soire of the wood down. y Then the lumber that was on the reserve was chiefly lumber that was i^l M y 158 ~ T^t ■■ I'll free from the iron wreckage ? A Yes. Q How long did that inquiry last, do you remeuiber ? A I don't re- member. Q Now you say you saw number three beam on tlic reserve. You saw ' the mark of the hanger ? A Yes. Q And you saw the mark of tlie hanger and yon v-ere satisfied that it did not tear through, otherwise that mark would '..a,e bLcn obliterated? lo A Yes. Q Did you examine the tw o prices carefully to satisfy yourself to that ? A Yes. '■;:•■■ Q You did ! A Y"s. I was sati.sfied from my examination that it did not pull through ; that the gil)-])late at the bottom had not gone quite through. • (.) And the hanger mark was clearly defined i" A Yes. 80 Q Well, did you see any other mark anywhere near the hanger of the boring, or anything of that kind ^ .\ No. Q Would you have seen it if it had been there ? A I would have seen it if it had been bored at the top ; yes, Q You say if it had been bored at the top ; e.vplaiu it. A The beam was laying on its side. It might have been bored on the side that it was lying on, and I would not have seen it. 3° Q Which side would that be f A Well, it is not the upper side, but I would not be sure what side it was on. Q Hut you arc sure it was not on the upper side ? A Yes. Q Well, with regard to the boring, I think you stated yon did not give any special instruction as to the boring ^ A Except to plug up the holes. Q Did yon tell him to plug up the holes? A With wood. /^o (j You did not state what size the holes were to be bored ? A No. y Are you positive as to that ? A I don't remember of stating it. 159 I 1 f .^1 I 'A S 'i m^ I' i ; (H I' 1 Q Hut you arc certain you told liini to plug tlicin up witli wood ? A Yes ; I toltl him to tiore iheui and plui; llit'iu with wood to keep the water from {getting in. Q Then you say tliere is a notice on the bridge at the present time. Do you mean the bridge that broke ; A Yes. Q Or the new bridge ;' A The old one. Q What notice is that ? A I don't remember of reading it ; but there jg i.s a notice, a painted notice, similar to the notice they generally have up on bridges, notifying people not to drive fast. Q That is an old notice, is it imt ^ A Yes. Q Put up by the govern'ueut ( \ I don't know who it i.s pvit up by. Q Was it there wlu-n yon first took the bridge in ' A I couldn't say that ; it is there now. Q Do you remember what formal notice you gave to the tramway com- pany in 1892 that the bridge was unsafe? A I wrote to the managing director to that effect — Mr. Higgins. Q Well, was it a warning or notice ? A To the best of my recollec- tion it was a notice — a written notice that the bridge was unsafe. Q To the effect that the bridge was unsafe ? A Yes. 20 30 1 m EXAMINED HY MR. MACDONELL. (4 You speak of a memorandum book which is on file, Mr. Wilmot ; when did yon see that memorandnm book ? A That is a memorandum of .q work to be done by the foreman. Q Well, where is it now? A Up in the office?* 160 ' t" Q Your office ? A Yes. Q The city engiiuer's office!' A Yes. Q And is it signed tiy C(>.\ ' \ Xo ; it is not signed liy — it is a nieni. orandtini that I put down in the hook, and the foreman sees it there every tuorniui;, for any work tliat requires to he done. Q The nienioranduni that Cox n-'ive von, you don't know wliat hecanie of that !' A I don't knt)w what liccaine of that ; no. jq y Yon don't know wheie that is, j,'(»>d, had or indifTeient f Now, Mr. VVilniot, I asked yon in the examination hifore, in the I'atlei.son ca^t- — I ■iked you this, "Did yon give him " — mean in<,' Cox — "any instructions how inspect " and your answer to me at that time was this, " .\t that time ; yes. ((.'; What instructions did yon ^^'wc Iiim ' {.\) To hove and to .see — wlien I found that more than one was nnsonnd, then I had them all bored. (Q) l?y whom ' (A) "Hy him, an A Yes ; I did. Q Why would you give details to a competent man ? A Because, as I say, to prevent tht- water getting in. Q But he kni v ; he was a competent man ? A Well, I did not know much about him then ; I had only come in only about a month or two. 20 Q You did not know whether he was competent or incompet'-nt ? A That was only a month or two after I first came in. Q A comjK-tent man would not require that rider to be added to the in- structions f A He .should not. Q Not if he had been a competent man ; yet you consider you said to him that he Wis to plug ; you think you remember that ? A I think I remember that. . ^ 30 Q But you would not be sure a.s lo how they were to be ph'cged ? A With wood. Q And \ou would not be sure about that ? .\ .\s to whethei they were to be plugged with wihkI ? Q Yes. A Yes; I always liave them done so. i) Hy him before ? A There v.is only one bridge (hat he bored before, ^^o (^ Where was that < A On the Gorge road. ^ How did he do that f A Hored it and plugged it. 162 ( I '%','< ■f'V J -"&. Q With wood f A Yes. Q Then why was it necessary, Mr. Wihnot, if he did that before to le- peat tne instructions a^ain in this ( A He bored the one before, but I am of the opinion that it was in the second one that I was very pariicular about giv- ing him instructions to pluj; them witli wood, becr.use they were bored in the top, and I don't remember now whether the other one was or not — the old Gorge road bridge that was reported unsound, and he bored it ; but I don't re- member now whether he bored the stringers from the top or the bottom. If he bored them from the bottom there % ould be no necessity of phigging them to preven* the water from getting in ; lut boring from the top — the rea.son that it convinces me that it was there that I told him to plug them with wood is be- cause he could only get at them to bore them from the top in the Point Ellice bridge, but the jthers he could bore them underneath on the grotmd. Q That is the reason you think you told him to plug them with wood ? A Yes, l)ecause they had to Ih- bored from the top. Q And that is the reason you think \ou remember mow that you told him to plu^ them with wood. Uo you know what became of the bored with f A I do not. he lO 20 Q Was it a corfwration auger ? A I could not say that ; he had these tools ; they were corporation tools that he had. Q Do you remember what kind of a handle there was to the auger he had ? A I do not remember. Q Do you know if there was a wmxlen handle ? A No. (^ There is an auger called a reach auger ^ A Yes. Q Do you rememlwr whether it was that kind of an auger ? A I cannot remcn>l)cr. y You have rememliered the size I A Yes. y Utit do you remember the kind of handle ? A No ; I do not remem- btrr the kind of handle. y Whether it w;is a rea-jh or one with a wixiden handle / A No ; I do not. 30 40 '63 •Q But you had no complaint as to the auger at all? A As to the auger ; no. Q And kind of auger ? A No. Q Was Mr. Mcintosh there during the time he was boring? A No; Mr. Mcintosh — at least, he was not engaged by the city ; he was not engaged until after Mr. Cox made his report ; he was engaged then to renew these beams. lO EX.XMIXEI) BY MR. M.\SON. pn \ Q You say that the auger was corporation property ? A I presume it 20 was ; I never heard that the carpenter found his own tools. Q You do not know whether he found the auger, or the corporation ? A No, I could not say of my own knowledge. Q If it was corporation property he should have returned it ? A Yes, I should think so. Q Well, since the accident you have examined some of these beams with auger holes, have you not ? A Yes. 30 Q Have you found any ? A Yes. Q Which l)cams have you found them in ? A Well, there is the old 1)eam numlKT 7, that is down at the wharf. And there are the two floor beams that are in the span tliat is .still standing, that were bored. Q In No. 7, what size auger hole is that < A Well, when I examined it the plug had not been cut off, well, not any more than three quarters of an inch. 40 Ci And the plug was in it ? A The plug was in it. '1 J^'^ M • I i ] -»-!■ 164 Q What kind of a plug was it ? A Wooden plug. The head was brooded a little. Q What do you mean by that ? A Bruised a little, and it was a little larger than the size of the hole. Q And it was in good order ? A Yes. Q The other two beams, you say, were bored ? A Yes. Q What size of a hole are they ? A About the same size — about three quarters. Q Not more ? A One certainly is not more, and the other I could not tell on account of the head of the plug being bruised. Q Were the plugs well driven ? A Yes. Q And sound ? A Yes. Q Did you find any oakum plug in these. A No, I did not see any. The examination here closed. lO 20 )• i ; t ! -s-it: 165 Pvvidence of Wellinj^ton J. Dowler in Patterson v. Victoria First Day ok Trial. WELLINGTON J. DOWLER CALLED AND SWORN. EXAMINED BY MR. DAVLS. [O *i I 30 Q What is your name? A Wellingfton Jeffries Dowler. Q You live in the city of Victoria, Mr. Dowler ? A I do. Q You are the city clerk, I believe >. A Yes. Q How long have you been city clerk of the city of Victoria i A Since October, 1888. Mr. Davis: I wish to file the plan of the city of Victoria which was filed in the Gordon ca.se; the rejjistrar, I think, has it there. Court: Ju.st mark them ajjaiii. It will be .sufficient at the same time to 3° identify them. Plan of the city of \'ictoria. Court: The be.st way will be to call these exhibits by the numbers in the other suit. You tender in evidence, Mr. Davis, exhibit five? Mr. Davis: Is there any objection to that? Mr. Taylor: I don't see any objection to this, particularly. (Marked exhibit "A.") 40 Mr. Taylor: I .see, in looking at this, that it is not an official map, and, therefore, I do not wish to be concluded by it. f>t'5J 't^ .i\ 166 f 1 '^ m 10 20 Court: No; not if you can show any inaccuracy in it. Mr, Taylor: Well, if that point is reserved — Court: It is not necessary to reserve it. Admission does not preclude you from showing any inaccuracy. Mr. Davis: I also file the Uritish Columbia (iazcite of January 8, 1891, containing the proclamation extending; the limits of the city of Victoria. Court: Do I not take judicial notice of that — the proclamation '. Mr. Davis: I don't think so, my lord, under our rule. Court: "H" is tiazette, January 8, iHqi. 1 am takinj; it down as an exhibit, but it is my impression that it is not necessary to prove that. You prove it by producing it, the same as an act of parliament. Mr. Davis (to witness); You arc familiar with the citv of Victoria — streets, bridges, and so on f A Yes. Q L(K)k at that map and follow the limits as described in this statute of of 1892. 1 have no doubt you can do that without even liH)king at the map. Court: It is not nece.s.sary, because the terms of the proclamation expressly include the Point KUice bridge by name; so it cannot be necessary for you to go further. Mr. Taylor: And we go a little further than that — there is no doubt that within the territorial area of th.e limits ;us described as extended this bridge is u) included. Court: You need not anticipate any possible question that way; but, as I pointed out, the terms of the proclamation include the bridge, but with the other question we are not concerned just now. Mr. Davis: I tender in evidence a resolution of the council of June 20, 1892, which is an exhibit in the other ca.sc. (Copy of resolution in tiie Gordon case, 16, marked exhibit "C") I notice the date of that in the copy is wrong. It is a uu)nth out. It is dated tiie 20th June; I think it should be the 20th 4° July. I put in also for tlu- purpose of having the two read together — Mr. Taylor: Hefore my learned friend goes on I desire to record an objec- .^» W 167 r j—^w lo tion to that; there is no evidence to show that the hriiljje Ijelonjjcd to the city, and, therefore, that resolution — Court: That is an objection to the admission of it; the elTect of it is an- other thin;;. This is a copy of the u^ohition, and if material in any way it goes in, n^i how far it is relevaiit is a (|uestion. Mr. Taylor: Possibly your lordship nii^ht be rij;ht. I simply wish to record the objection. Mr. Davis: I put in a letter of Mr. Wihnot to the city, dated July 20, 1892, and then I will have these two read to^jether. (Kxhiliit 15 in the (lordon ca.se marked " U ' in this case.) Court: Kxliibit " I) " is 15 — notliinj; more and nothinj;; less; with any- thing more . t present we are not concerned. Mr. Cu.^sidy: I think with one word wc mijjht niiderstand all this and no further objection need be taken at all. The only objection we have to the admi.ssion of any of the.sc documents, or of any conduct on the part of the council, 20 or the servants of the city, k"'"K '" show that they supposed that the bridge was the city's in dealing with it, is based on this, that we .say that the liability, if any, for any conduct of that kind is personal — that the city never owned the bridge at all, and that it ongh*. not to go to the jury as indicating any dealing with it on the part of the city. Court : I will make this ruling, which will effectually preserve your position : I shall admit any evidence, documentary or otherwise, relating to any action taken by the defendant in resjKct of tliis bridge. I admit it as reve- lant without expressing any opinion, which is entirely premature now, as to ^ what the effect of that evidence in law is. That eflcctuallv guards your objec- tion, and it is not necessary to renew your objection. The two things are as dis- tinct as light from darkness, Mr. Davis : I put in the British Columbia (jazette of June 13th, 1892 : (Marked exhibit " E.") Mr. Davis (to witnes.s) : Now, Mr. Dowler, prior to this accident which took place in June, 1896, was there anv by-law of the Cit\- of \'ictoria purport- ,q ing to regulate in any way either the weight of cars pa.ssing over Point Ellice bridge or the number of passengers on the cars of the Consolidated Railway Co.? A Not that I am aware of. 168 w I ! '( if ' 1 ' I -!aws of themselves show what, from the point of view of the city, was their control over this bridge, and for thav purpose only. Have you copies to put in, Mr. Davis ? Leave re- ■ served to put in these two by-laws, which will l)e exhibits " F" and "G." f,ft i : '«<>. «69 A Mr. Davis : That is all I want just now (to witness) ; but do not go away, as I shall want other documents to be produced. to Evidence of F. G. Richards in Patterson v. Victoria. FlR.ST DAY OF TrIAL. ao r- nm f. G. RICHARDS. CALLED AND S\VORx\. EXAMINED BY MR. DAVIS. Q What is your name :" A Francis Gilbert Richards. V Von live in the City of Victoria, I believe, Mr. Richards ? A Yes, sir. V V\'erc you at one time in the employ of the i'rovincial Government ? A ' was. 30 wa.s. V In what capacity ( A Chief draughtsman. y I n whose office ? A The Lands and Works department. y What year did you leave there f A 1886. y Wen you there at the time the Point Kllice bridge v/as built ? A I 4° y Tiiat was luiilt in what year ? A 1885. 170 'I i )' K^-- Mr. Davis : I tender in evidence the plans and specifications of the bridge filed in the other (Gordon v. Victoria) case. Court : Any objection ? Mr. Taylor : No, your lordship. Mr. Davis (to witness): At the time the bridfje was built, Mr. .J^ichards, was aiiy tramway traffic contemplated — was the bridge built tor that ])urpose ? A It was not built for that purpose ; it was built for ordinary traffic. lo Q You were a member of the council nf tin.' City of X'icturia, I ' Jeve, in the year 1891 ;' .\ I was. y During that year, as has been shown, the citv limits were extended, taking in this Point Kllice bridge ? .-\ The liniils were extended in 1890. Q The pnx'lamation was in i8gi. Did the city get any sum of money from the government in that connection ? A It was arranged between the government and the city that the> should receive — 20 Mr. Cassidy: My lord, we object to this as not being the best evidence of any such arrangement. Court: Receipt of money may be proved for any purpose outside of any document under which its receipt is shown. Mr. Davis (repeats question): .\ 1 believe so — $4,000. (^ For what purpose was that received? Court; If Mr. Cassidy objects that that was received tnider a written doc- ument — Mr. Davis: I am going to ask for its production. (To witness) Was that by virtue of a verl>al or written arrangement ? A Written arrangement. Mr. Davis: I would ask the detendant>. to produce the cc)rres])ondence between the city council and the goveniinent bearing on this point, including the mavor's re|H>rt in 1891 and resolution pas.sed in consequence of it. Mr. Taylor: We will undertake to pnKluce it. Court: In a matter of this kind, which is somewhat unusual, the other side 30 40 ttr i . , < »7» ' y^i^ express a willingrness to produce it. Won't your purpose he served by leave being reserved to put it in, and note their undertaking to produce it '. Mr. Davis: But in all probabilit>' it will be necessary for me to ask this witness a number of questions in connection with it. Mr. Taylor: We have it here, now. Mr. Davis: Is that all? Mr. Taylor: Kxxepting the resolution of fhe council. Mr. Davis: 1 w;mt all the corrcsjxjndence; this is only one, and it Is not either cf the things that I asked for. Court (to Mr. Davis): Have you given notice to produce, with dates ? Mr. Taylor: No. Mr. Davis: The mayor's report with reference to this is mentioned, and was the only one. Court: This was not put in in the other case > Mr. Davis: They did not object in the other ca.se; they were a little more liberal. There is no dispute about this matter. Court: What do von .sav? lO 20 i d llltl I 'I ■"'',> Mr. Taylor: V\'e have no objection to the correspondence at all; they did not give us notice to produce it specifically. 3<3 Court: Prove your notice; there is no necessity for any friction. Mr. Davis: I file this in the meantime. This is a letter from the deputy commi.s.sioner of lands and works of May 9, 1891, to the city clerk of Victoria. Court: Now prove your notice. Mr. Davis: Well, they do not dispute the notice, I understand. This I propose to put in. (Document marked exhibit " I.") Now I wi.sh the exhibit 4° read, and I produce the notice to produce, (lixhibit read by registrar.) Mr. Davis: And this is a further notice to protluce in the same matter. 172 M ledg repo "K well getl dene heg not f.CJI serv out. road read roar difTc the wen part TOT lO 20 Mr. Taylor: Here is the resolution, if my learned friend desires it, acknow- ledging that. ' Mr. Davis : Yes ; but there is more than merely one ; there is the mayor's report. Court: Kile your notice, and 1 admit secondary evidence. "J" and " K" will be the notices to produce. If you think it will suit your purpose as well as having the original documents — copies. That is for you to say. Mr. Davis : Of course, my lord, they do not produce them and I cannot get them ; so I am bound to submit the secondary evidence. Court : It is for Mr. Davis to say whether he will give .secondary evi- dence or take your undertaking and postpone the time till the afternoon ; but if he gives secondary evidence — Mr. Davis : I am content, mv lord ; I will give secondary evidence ; I do not wiKii to break this up now. Court : My ruling is that .secondary evidence can be given. The ques- lic'ii of the receipt of the original dociunents or certified copies afterwards, I re- serve to my own discretion. Mr. Taylor : I beg to point out that there is no particular repwrt pwinted out. Court : I rule, rightly or wrongly, the notice is sufficient. Now, get on. Mr. Davis (to witne.ss) : Was this Point Kllice bridge on one of the trunk 30 roads referred to in that letter of Mr. (lore's ? A I diil not hear that letter read distinctly. Well the (lorge roads are mentioned here. That means more than one road. The Point Kllice bridge is on the road leading to the Gorge, only in a diflFerent direction to what is known as the Gorge road proper. y What tiHik place as a result of that communication from Mr. Gore in the council ? A Those trunk roads were taken over by the city council and were operated or maintained by the city council, including Point Kllice bridge. 4° (^ Were you in the council in 1892, Mr. Richards / A In the early part of 1892. ..'- iii 173 lO CROSS-EXAMINED MR. TAYUtR. «■■';,(, :fei Q Do you know with reference to this accident that happened on the bridge in 1892 1 A No ; that was subsequent to my term of office. Q Did you have any personal knowledge outside ? A I knew that it had happened. Q Were you down at the bridge ? A No ; I wa.s not at the bridge. I knew of the circumstances. Q Mr. Richards, there is only one place called the Gorge toad in Vic- toria, is there not ? One road ? X Well — ao Q Say "yes" or "no" — you know ^ A I know that there is one road known as the (lorge road now but previous — Q The road leading over this bridge is called the Esquinialt road ? A Let me explain. Previous to that other road l)cing built — the present (iorge road being built — that was known as the (iorge road. Q When was it built ? \ 1 think in 1875. (i And this was i8(;i. For pretty nearly twenty years it has been called the Ciorge road ( \ V'es. Q What does this letter .say — " Saanich, Cedar Mill, Cadboro Bay, Hurn- .side and Gorge roads." Docs noi that road refer to that new Gorge road, and not in the plural f A It might. y Isn't that what you understand by it 1. Is that not so i" A It reads that way. Q And you understand by that the Gorge road proper is not this Esqui- mau road ? A The Gorge road proper ; but this road leading to Esquimalt was taken over as a trunk road. 30 40 9| li >74 .' w ■-■T ■ 1 If Q Twenty years a^o? No; 1 am s]K-akin>; of 1891, and It-ads to the (lorjje. ^ Will yon swear that tlu' road that weiit ovt-r the Point I-Ulice hridjje was ever called the (Jor^e road witliin liie last ten years ? A No ; I won't swear to that. Q It has not Iwen called the (lorjje road for ten years ; there has l)een an- other road, thon^h, called the (lor>{e road ? A Yes. Q And that is in a different part of town f A Yes. y .\iid this letter refers to the Saanich road. That didn't jjo over Point I'Ulice bridge ? A No. y The Cedar Hill road didn't ? A No. V The Cadhoro Ha\ road didn't ' A No. y And the Unrnside road didn't ? A No. y .And the (iorjje road, as ii has l)een called for the past ten years, didn't^ A No ; but previous to that it was known as the (lorjje road. Foreman: How many bridjjes are there on thosi- i'>ad.s — "brid^jes" is mentioned in the plural ? Mr. Ta> lor : " Bridges " is not menticmed there. Mr. Davis : Oh, yes. Mr. Taylor : This part of it : " I beg to call your attention to the con- dition of the bridges over the large ravine on the (iorge and Ilurnside roads. " (To witness) : How many are there on the (iorge road ^ A On the llorge road i y Yes, over the ravine t A There are two bridges on the Ciorge road, but one, I think, is within the old original limits of the city before the extension. Q. What do you mean by the larg- ravine on the Oorge road? A That is one jii.st about the limit of the extension, it comes over a portion of the Victoria Arm. »75 10 30 30 40 '1 I dil ; ( friU i -.i^^ '^Vn ^" fe'S MH ^i^M i f ^!J^ ^j^ 4^9| &nH i ^^ m i '^ f^ Z' ■.■.-■ \« Q That is a considerable distance away from Point Kllice bridge? A Oh, yes. Q There are two bridge structures over the ravine on uw Gorge road — a large "nd a small f A Yes. Q Take the Burnside road? A There is one on the Burnside road; but I am not certain whether that is within the extended limits or not. Q At any rate, it is a uiile or two from the Point lilllice bridge? A Yes. y Both structures should be replaced by nev ones at an early date. There is no reference in tho.se to the Point Kllice bridge ? A No, not by name. 20 40 I wm M \ /^^% "li ; ^ REDIRECT BY MR. DAVIS. Q T.iis letter we have been looking at is one document out of a series of document.s in connection with the matter. As a matter of fact, was the Point Ellice bidge one of the bridges a part of the added territory taken over under this arrangement you have spoken of by the city ? A It was. Mr. Ta.lor: I take it that that is :\ nir.tter of d(K-umentary proof Court: I 1/ave ruled that secondary evidence inav be given, If there is to be any order in the proceedings, ai;;! in the way they are to be conducted, you must take my niling for one moment. 30 .76 ! I ■^:V-;i Evidence of F. M. Yorke in Patterson vs. Victoria. FIRST HAY UF TRIAI,. lO F. M. YORKE CALLED AND SWORN. EXAMINED BY MR. DAVIS. 20 Q What is your name ? A Francis M. Yo.ke. (4, Vou live in Victoria, Mr. Yorke ? A Yes, sir. Q You remember this accident of May 26th ! A Yes, sir. y I believe you had sonictking to do with the wrecking after the accident? A Yes, sir. Q Did you weight ihe car which went through the bridge ! A Yes, sir. 3° y What was the weight, including trucks ? .-K 19,847 pounds. y I believe thcie were u few tilings gone — tlie dashboard and a few other things? A. The top of the car and the trolley, and the cu.shioiis and a little of the back part of the car. l,( That wa.s rmighly — 1 helicvi' it was only arrived at roughly — the esti- mate of the weight of the car, people, rigs and ever\ thing on that particular panel or; which the car stood; the rough wciglit ? 4^^ Mr. Cassidy: You have not proved that he knows anything about the people. 1 t »77 IW Mr. Davis: You know by the total estimate ? A No; I was not there, sir. Q You don't know anything a1x)Ut it ? A No, sir. Q What was the length of the trucks — that is, from the rear end to the front end, what would be the length ( That is, on how many feet of the car would the weight of the car rest ? A I don't think wc measured that, sir. y You don't know anything about that? A No. lo (No cross-examination.) Juror: How did you arrive at the weight of the car? A I weighed ite sir, on the cit\ .scales; weighed the trucks .separately and the car separately. I have goi the weight of them .separate. Mr. r>avis, There is just one question, with the ppnnis.>,ion of your lord- ship. Although he .says that he does not remember that they measured thf length of the trucks, 1 would ask him this question — Whether the entire weiglflf 20 would rest within one panel length ? becau.se it is evidence which he gave when he was examined before. Court: How is that ? You recollect that ? Mr. Havis (to witness): You stated, when examined here before, that the trucks would rest on a siiiglt panel — that the length of the trucks war. shorter thau the length of the panel, which was 18.9 inches. Is that correct ^ A Yes, sir; that is correct. (^ Do you know where the Gorge road is ? Court : I think we have the facts as to t'.ie differences between the roads, if that is all. 3c 40 178 '! ^. M E of foi be tlic Robert Mcintosh, Bridge Carpenter, in Patterson v. Victoria. t f KIKST DAY OK TRIAL. lO .W'l f , B 30 CALLED AND SWORN. EXAMINED BV MR. DAVIS. Q What i.s your name ? A Robert Mcintosh. Q" You live in Victoria Mr. Mcintosh? A Yes. Q You are a carpenter, I believe ? A Yes. Q Bridge carpenter and that sort of thinjj — In 1892, I understand from Mr. Wilmot, that it was you wlio An, 'he chief part of the it-pairs on thr Point KlHce bridge, after the accident there ? .\ I did tlu vhief part ; yes. 1 didn't do them all. y No ; there was one floor beam had been replaced before by a man of of the name of Clark ? A Hy s;itnc person. Objected to by Mr. Ca.s.sidy. Objection su.stain°d. Mr. IJavis (to witness) : There had been .someone put in a floor beam be- fore ? A Yes. Q And what work did you do on the bridge ? A I put in some of the .q beams and some stringers for the tramway company. Q And what else ( A Keplanked the bridge ; renewed the planking of the bridge. .?0 ao Q Outside of the one floor beam wliich had been put in before, that you have mentioned, you put in all the new floor beams at that time ? A Yes. Q How did the planking nin which was down on the bridge Ix'fore you replanked it? A Diagonally. Q And what length were the planks ? A In one length across the bridge diagonally. Q They ran from one end (side ?) of the bridge to the other ? A Yes. Q What instructions had you from the city as to the new flooring which you put in :" Objected to by Mr. Cassidy as leading. Mr. Davis : Mr Wihnot said he instructed Mr. Mcintosh. Court (to Mr. Cassidy) : How can you say " what in.structions " is lead- ing ? He had instructions. Mr. Cassidy: Not instructions from the city. Mr. Davis {to witness) : Who instructed you to do that repairing ? A Mr. Wilmot, the city engineer. Q Who jKiid you for the work which was done ? A The city and the tramway as well paid a portion. Q The tramway company |)aid yon for the stringers ? A Yes. Q For that other work who paid you ' A The city. y What instructions did you have from .Mr. Wilmot with reference to the way in which this new floor should be put in ? .A. It .should be cut on either uide of the T rails which should be put in. Q That is, formerly there was a flat rail on top of the planking ? A Yes. Q And when the repairing was done, a T-rail was put in running on two 4° new stringers ? A Yes. 30 180 n ?i';f ■I I r, 4 i ■i Q The tramway — you said, put in those two stringers, and the floor was nt open to n'ake it it^ three lent;th i' A Yes. Q One length up to the upper side of the tramline, one length to the flooring between the rails of the tramline, and one length below I A Yes, Q That is correct ' A That is correct. Q What was the size of the stringers put in by the tramway company ? A Ten by twelve. u, Q What was the size of the beams put in by you ? A The floor beams? Q Yes. A Twelve by sixteen. Q What effect, if any, on the strength of the bridge would cutting the floor beams have, so far as your opinion goes ? A Cutting the floor beams ? 20 30 y I don't mean the floor beams — the flooring < A It would lose the entire carrying strength of the flooring itself.. tj What change was made, if any, in tiic hangers of the beams which you took out and replaced ? A They were changed so as to go round the, stick instead of going through it. They were changed from the original way by being placed round the stick instead of holes being put through the floor beams. Q Could you draw souietliiug that would show 1 Court: That is what yon call a stirrup f Mr. Davis: Changed from hangers to stirrups. Mr. Cassidy: No; yokes to stirrups. Mr. Davis: Well, we will not qi'.arrel about words. I may say in con- nection with this, I will put in a '.- witness who will explain it thoroughly. Mr. Davis (to witness): W hich 1.- the old style ^ A This (indicating ou . sketch). Q This one — and that (indicating) is i he way you left them ? A Yes. 4° Q Describe to the jury the differenct- between those ( A This is the floor beam, and this is the floor beam, also; you are looking at the end of the *'■ I ) •id' 1 §". i8t IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) /. ^/ A Yes. Q That is to say the whole of the floor out to the stringers here was nailed down on top of the stringers all the way along f A Yes. Q And similarly on the other side, on the other stringer ' A Yes. Q I notice that the floor here is simply laid on the top of these joists and not nailed down or fa.stened to any of the heavy timber anywhere along here ? A No. Q So that the position of affairs is this — as far as that Root was concerned it con.si,sted of a nuinl)er of joists simple of ^inch boards placed on end across here, and then simply nailed down to it — it was just simply resting on the floor beams? A Spiked down to them, yes. Q Spiked down to the top of the joists? A Yes. Q Do you mean that the floor was spiked on to the top of the joists ? A Yes. Q As to the space between the rails, the floor was laid transversely instead of diagonally ? — that is to .s;iy — straight across ? A I am not positive. Q At all events, whether that piece of flcxir was laid in between the lines in that way, or not, the planks were similarh .spiked down to the stringers ? A Yes Q So tliat we have this, at any rate, the new position was, we had heavy stringers, the floor spiked down to the stringer at the side here, the floor in the centre spiked down to each stringer, and the outside floor similarly spiked down, and then the rail would be laid on the top of the stringer, so as, I suppose, just to appear above the level of the floor ? A Yes. Q The purpose of that was to prevent undulation in the bridge, in the car passing over it, and in order to distribute the weight of the car over a greater area? A I don't know whether that was the purpose, or not. Q You are not an engineer ? A I am not a bridge engineer. Q And yon do not know then whether the floor of a bridge enters into 20 30 40 P.' ■ ' ^^\ i !■ £. m <*. : ^• n\ ^U 186 '! '-'J ^>. m] 'H^ lO the triangiilation of the system ? Court : Wlien he says at once that he is not :i liridjje engineer, is it worth while taking up time ciossing esiiminiiu' liim upon exjiert evidence. Mr. Cassidy (to witncssj; AhouL tliesi, li ii>i;cTs; The old form of hanger jfoiuR through the floor beam is called vok • linger, is it not ? A No. Q It is not ? A No. Q Whatever yon call it, at any rate the old foi w went through in the way you have stated ? /> Yes. Q Was the new plan an iniprovcinent in your ()j)inion ? A It was, in my opinion, yes. y Who did the blacksmilhiu}; work? A It was done in Mr. Robertson's blacksmith shop. y You saw the job when it came back ? A I did, when it came back. Q Was it a go- of the floor beams that you put in, broke ? 20 .\ I do not. Q Did you consider it was a good job that you did, with the floor beams ? A As far as it went, I considered the workmanship was good. Q Were the old floor beams painted ? A I think on three sides. I think they were not painted on tlie top. 30 Q Did yon paint the ones that you put in on the top ? A Yes. Juror : All the work that you did, whether for the tramway or the city, was under the supervision of the engineer, was it not ? .\ It might have been, but 1 didn't recognize the city engineer as having anything to do with me when I was doing the tramway company work; he may ha^'e had. I was under contract from the tramway cotnpan>', and no person came there to object when I was doing the tramway company work. I didn't know of anybody supervising it. Q Did you liave a contract with the city ? A No. I had a contract with the tramway company for the stringers. ^° Q And what you did for the city was day work ' A Yes. i 188 -.fiTl .M^lll -.r^a I' n Q And you mean to say the city engineer did not suijervise the whole thing? A I didn't recognize him in the contract I had with the tramway. Court : He does not know what arrangement there might have been between the tramway compatiy and the city which authorised the tramwa\- company to come in and do the work. You see, he would not necL.-.sarily be in a position to know anything about that. It really makes nothing, one way or the other, as far a.s this witness goes it does not affect the position at all. '♦ 1 I i ■ lO I i Ml '■•m 189 ?%, lO 4i ■KH ■GEORGE GORDON BIGGAR CALLED AND SWORN, EXAMINED BY MR. MAC DON ELL. I i: 20 First Day of Trial. Q What is your name ? A George (iordoii Higgar. Q You live in Victoria, Mr. Biggar ? A Yes, sir. Q Were you ou the car that met with the accident on the Poini Ellice bridge in May last ? A I was. Q What part of the car were you standing on ? A I was standing on the hind end. Q Whereabouts did you get on ? A On Campbell's corner. Q Stood there all the time ? A No, .sir. (j, Were you on the car when it went ou the bridge ? A Yp ,. Q How far had the car got on the bridge before anything happened ? A It got on a little way over half — about half way on the bridge. Q Do you mean the span or the bridge itself? On the — well, I didn't — DU the span, I mean. Q Just come here a second. Wius it the first or second span of the bridge, coming from Victoria, that went down f A It was the first span. .q Q How many spans are there on the bridge ? .A There is two. Q One towards Victoria ? A And the oth'.-r toward the Gorge. 190 30 ■Ai «r Jjfl Q Take this as the span you went on— Which is the Victoria end ? A This (indicating). Q And that is the road going on to Esquimalt. Here is the end of the span, the other end commencing here ? A Yes. Q Where about do you think the car was on that span when it went down ? A About here. (3) 1 should judge. Q Whereabouts was the end where you were ? A Well, it would be 10 back, I think, thirty-three feet from there. Q The hind end of the car would be about figure what ? A If the car was 33 ft. long, if the distance between that end and there was 33 feet — Q The distance between those two is 18.9 inches? A Yes, the length of the car, whatever it was. Q The front part of the car, where would it be ? A The front part of the car would be about here — a little past post three ; just about there (3). 20 Q How far past 3 would the front part of the car be? A Well, you might .say two feet. Q How could you identify or locate the position of the car > A Well, I was standing right on the hind end of the car, and I was speaking to the people on the bridge, I had just turned here — I was .speaking to Mr. James, who was killed on. the bicycle, I said to Mr. Potts : " Uou't run over this man." Q Who was Mr. Potts? A The gentleman who was driving a black 30 horse. Q The horse that was killed ? A Yes, I said : "Lookout, Potts, you might strike his bicycle. " So Mr. James on the "bike" turned round and came right Iceland the car, he was riding to the left of the car going towards Esquimau. I had just spoken to young Marati, of Seattle ; I said : " The old man rides well," and he says : " yes." I was turned around that way (illus- trating). I was standing this way, and just as I turned round I heard some- thing break. It appearea to be like just a piece of rotten timber, wood, or something, and it kind of startled me for a moment, and all at once the car "^ tipped round right just about like that. It threw me off, ard I went to catch my.self, and it was ju.st like something large breaking— some timber after that first noise — it could not have been two seconds, and I said : " My (Sod, people. \f P^:"\ , .« PI the bridge is gone," — ^just like that, and there was alx)ut 20 peopk all round, in the door of the car and on the platform ; and I went to catch for something and could not, and we struck the water. I struck my head first, and as the car went I could not catch my wind, and I struck the front part of the car with my breast, and I was hit on the back and it made an impression on my back, and I was hit on the head and went under the water, and I didn't remember anything till I came to. 10 Q I suppose as she went down, she went a little more to the Esquimalt side ? A She made a run m fast that I could not keep my feet. The car would cant I should judg»; going — running that way — would cant two feet and a half or more. I went to steady myself and hadn't anything to catch on to ; and people were standing here (indicating) and here, and right around me and the Miss Smiths, tw" ;,ouug ladies. I went to catch something and just about then the timljer broke, and I seen tlien the bridge was gone, and the car im- mediately descend. The first l)reak wiis just like some timber breaking. Q I)o you know the, weight of the car ? A Well, I don't knqw from my own information, o.ily I have heard it is something like 10 ton. jq Q Could you tell about the number ot people there would be on that span about the time it went down — a rough estimate ? A Well, I gue.ss there was over 100 people. Q Were there any horses or vehicles ? A Three horses. Q Could you give an estimate of the weight, in round figures? A Well, I should judge the weight would be over 20 tons ; something along 20 tons, roughly estimated. 30 No Cross- Examination. •■'i; m. t.i ^i 40 193 'i'i s& yA t : TIT t:h:e3 Supreme Court of ffirtttsb Columbia. ■m il ■% ■^> BEFORE MCCOLL, J., AND A SPECIAL JURY. BETWKEN MARION PATTEKSON, THE ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE GOODS AND CHATTELS OF JAMES T. PATTERSON, DECEASED, Plaintiff, AND THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF VICTORIA, Defendants. BimiiDl or i Bieicii of i Eiports Messrs. Wnr ail Loctwood, br i icial SIb t !• h \ ■ I ''I if '1 Victoria, R. C. The Colonist Printing ami Publishing Co., Ltd. 1897. r^. ITTIDEX:. FIRST DAV'S I'KOCKKDINGS, jotli MAV, 184,7. I'AIIK. RviiiENCB OK Edwin Hali. Waknek 5 Examined by Mr. Davis e Cross-examined by Mr. Taylor 17 SECOND DAV, jist MAV, 1897. Mr. Edwin Hali Warner, further Cross-examined by M r. Taylor 27 Re-exaii'ined by Mr. Taylor jj Cross-examined by Mr. Cassidy 44 EVIIIKNLE OK JaMKS B. C. LoCKWOOD 45 Examined by Mr. Davis 45 Cross-examined by Mr. Taylor 57 Redirect by Mr. Davis 71 V^'f" ^5" . ' it \h 1 i I ' -I is*- 1 t , ''•3i FIRST DAYS' PROCEEDINGS. 20th MAY, 1897. %\\ EDWIN HALL WARNER Called an'^ Swokn. Examined By Mu. Davis. Q. What is your name ? A. Edwin Hall Warner. Q. Where do you live, Mr. Warner ? A. Seattle. Q. What is your pmfesaion ? A. Civil engineer Q. How long have you been engaged in that busineaa ? A. Seventeen years. Q. What were yonr qualifications to commence with ! A. I was educated in tiie <'ollege of the city of New York. I am a mcrab'sr of the American Society of Civil Engineers. (). Is your practice at the present time a general practice as oivil engineer, or are you acting for any special company? A. General practice. Q. Daring your 17 years' experience have yon been acting f'.r any companies ? A. Yes. Q. What companies and in what capacity ? A. In various i"iiiacitiei<, from simply iissiKtant to as.sistant chief engineer. Q. For what company ? A. The Seattle, Lake Shore and •Nru'liigan R^'. Co. i,». In the course of jour practice have you had occasion to ileal, ami if so to what extent, with l)riiigcs ? A. I have had oui'iisioii fo design and con«trnct bridges ; I have done both for the Luke .Shore lid and approved the designs, and I have constructed ulioiif ?100,OUO.OO worth of trusses. (J. I believe you have examined this bri.lje — this span which colliipsed f A. Ye-i. Q. InMay, 1^9()? A. In June, 189(1. '■I. -lust tell us how you came to exuniino it ? A. I was ciiliod to Victoria by Mr. Gore on tlie part of the Provincial govetn- nu'iit lis expert. Q. For what purpose!' A. To exiuiine the bridge and teatifv bifore the coroner's Jury, both of which I did. li. Did you when you came to Victoria examine tlie remains iif tlii-t i.'ollitpsed span carefully ? A. Yes. Q. You have, I presume, your notes of that exanination with your A. Yes. "U 6 (J. Before we go into the details, I would like to nsk ymi a qiieption or two generally. I suppose you have examined, of (■(nirsc, the strain sheet f A. Yes. Q. And the plana and specifications of the hridge ? A. Ves. Q. Was it built orii^inally for tramway tniffio at all ? A. No Q. ^Vliat was the weiglit that it was intended to carry— tliiit is, the utmost weight ? A. The specifications called for a thoiiwiiul pounds to the running foot live loud, and 600 dead. Q. That would be 1,600 pounds altogether ? A. Yes. Q. Now, was the dead load increased subsequently to the specifications being made ? A. Yo.s. it It was increased, T sup[)0se, by the sidewalks, for instiuice, that were put on ? A. I fancy so. CJ. At any rate the dead weight, speaking roughly, was increased liy ahon*' how many hundred p'>uiids? A. About 250 poundn. Q. I r A. The |ii>8ts have a shoo, have a wrought iron shoe to hold them at the panel points (J. However, .') is one of the original beams, or is it one of the beams put in by the city '! Mr. I assidy objects* to the form of question, which should he "one of the original hcums, or new beams?" Court: It you object, probably Mr. Davis will avoid puitini.' it, thoiigh as regards technical evidence it is not nsiml to oliject to leading (|iie.>4tionH ; with un expert a certain amount of loadiiii; is necessary. Mr. Davis (to witness) : Was this one of the old beams, or was it a beam put in by soinobody else ? A. It was not one ot the eld original beiiiKS. (J. .Just describe how the hunger was there, because this beam we will idcntily V A. The haiigor was in the north end, there, broken. (). I mean, was it one of those that went ro ind or ttii'iUL'li? A. it wcot through. lot show rot. 111(1 or thi.'iii-'l'^ 9 Q. What (lid you find at No. 4 ? A. Four : New, 12 by 10, outside hangers both removed, appurently sound, 2J lateral in the south end. (}. WuH thut one ol'tlic old beams or put in by someone else 1 A. That was not one ot the original beams. Q. No .S ? A. No. :i : Old, 12 by 18, yoke hangers both reraoved, beam sheared ott' at hanger on the north eiid, section entirely rotten ex'.-ept thin shell on part soiiml wood ; the other end shows dent where brought against post shoe when north end gave way ; bottom of i>eum at houth end was chopped into, evi- dently to get at the hunger nuts which had iieen forced into the tieaiu wlien the bridge /ell ; the wood at this end is rotten, aud tti'duiid hanger and lateral hole:>. (l- Would ycu explain a little more tully to the jury the con- dition of tluit beam at 3 ? A. The condition of that beam at .S was (iiif of extreme rottennoss, apparently the puint on it had held it to geilior; tliat is alxiiit all that remained. It was simply a very thin itliell perhaps in spots an inch all round (sound) > and the baiai! ^ wart rotten wood that you could shove your finirer into That was the condition I tonnd that \w.:,\i in at that end. At the other end there was decay round the hunger iioles and the holes for the luloral braces. Q. How did the end which was .-iheared oft", which is this enil, tliis represented No. 3 — about where was it sheared ! By sheared yiui mean broke'i ? A Yes. (i. About wnere ? A. The beam sheared off at the hangers (HI the north end broke right through the hole. .Iiiror: Was it njften ' A. Oh, yes; as I say, it was com- jileti'ly rotten; there was nothing else but a shell. Mr. L,.vis: How did the condition ot the beam up heie com- I'ari' wiih the condition ot the beam anywhere else ' A. Well, the only part ot the lieain th^t was open at all cxcejit hero (indicat- ing* was at the other end, and the hanger hok's, and where the laleial roils gr) through Q. And was that end in as bad a condition as this ? A. No, tlie wood was rotien around the holes. Q. You spoke I think about posts— at 3 vertical postg ? A. Vertical posts at 3, I hav e a note here '«t pi>ss, three in good con- •litiiMi. two sawed off, one piece broken at tlic sway connection, this proliably No. 3, perhaps No. ft. ti rt>. that yon think as hir as you can locate it that the swfty iMist at 3 was broken ? A. Yes, that post A 3. - iginal floor beams in at the time it fell? A. Yes. Q. And ol those two, one, No. 7, was not broken? A. Was not broken. * Q. The other one. No 3, was broken at the Gorge end, where Mr. Cox said he bored — is that correct 't A. Yes. Q. You have examined of course the iron work in the bridge and also the specifications of the iron work? A. Yes. Q. As well as the wood work and the speciti cations for the wood work ? A . Yes. Q. In that bridge, first spe.iking genorilly, which had the greater factor ot safety, the woodwork or the iri)nW'>rk, in it w.n originally built, that is, when all was now ! A. The iron had tiie higher factor of safety. Q. The factor of these iron stirrups wore I believe, 11 to 1 :" A. Yes, 11. Q. The highest tactor ot safety ot the wood when new was ->. A. Four. Q. So that, prim't. facie, it would be alrao'^t three limes as like — likely the woodwork would give way first th.iii the ironw.nk'; A. Why, there is no doubt uboat that. Q. Now, iron is affected in what way by — we will say 11 ye:ns — having been in use that tune — the time th.it the bridge was Imdt, if known to be allright in the first plaie ? A, If itwasgood imnin the first place and left unpainted, it will rust and scale ott'sliirhtly. Q. You saw the iron on this bridge 't A. Yes. Q. IIow was the iron in that at the time of the collap? o "f die bridge, as compared with its origin i! strength? Was tluKMiny appreciable diminution so far as you could tell? A. No: iliere was apparently no diminution. 11 ticatioiiB for tlie ■hen new w"-* Q. And speaking as an expert, as one whose business it is to Imvo a knowledge of the life of iron in that connection, ought there to bu an^ particular diminution at the end of 11 years — any serious diminution ? A. No. Q. Now, speaking as to the floor beams 3 and 7 which had also been in there II years, of course we know what you found, so 1 won't ask you about that, but speaking as an expert from your knowledge, what would bo the diminution, if any, in the strength of those fir floor beams which had been in 11 years ! A. It would simply be criminal folly on the part of any engineer to allow them to remain in. Q. And so far as this floor beam at 3 was concerned — I do not want appear humorous or anytliing of that sort, but what would be till) factor of safety of that floor beam in that condition ? A Well, yon cann 't take tne strength of rotten wood any more than you can arrange rotten wood so that it will stand. Q. You have heard the evidence of .Mr. Biggar and Mr. Peatt, ns to about where that oar was — .Mr. Biggar puts it two feet over there — I do not suppose .lUyone can be sure to a foot — .it any rate on the panel between 8 and 2, and the fir.st truck it was about six feet, .Mr. Peatt said, from the front of the car, and there would be 20 feet from the front of the car to the back— to the roar car wheel. It would throw the WLole of that car upon a panel bptweon 3 and 4, that being 18.9 in. long. Now, where I understand some of the ironwork was broken. You might now give us that iron that was broken.? A. First note. Chord beams zero to 2, and 6 to 8. Found 7 t)eanis in good condition, one broken 8 inches from the eye, fracture was smooth, no knocking down or reduction of area; sharfi break as if member in tension and suddeidy struck; one of the links, th'it is, two on each truss and two on each end, making 8 ill all, 7 in perfectly good condition, other w.is broken us if it had been suddenly strained in this direction and then suddenly struck; 2 to 3 and o to ti, 8 pieces, 3 inches by 1 inch by 18.!t in. long, one bar slightly crackid, badly bent at one end llj inches from the eye; 3 to 4 and tto -o were 16 |iiei'es in all in good coiKlition. Then of the web members from \ I and G 7, 7 pieces J in. by J in., 25 feet, one missing; this is the condition : One nnbrnken, two cut, lour broken, the head of the missing bar is still attached to A or G tniiture indicated breaking by bending backward and forward A '2, (i (') — eight pieces in good condition, and A 3 and 2 and 1) 0— eisfht pieces fths, round iron, 45 ft. long with turn- bui kle, all bent and broken, those were §ths in. square or round. Do vnii care for anything more i (l. That represents practically all the ironwork i A. With the e.scepiion ot the castings. u'r.f ,i ■ '^ 12 Q. 1 do not core for tlicso. You hiive not yet mentionoil the hangers, and that will covor the imnwork ? A. One l\ s(|iiaru yoke hiinxer still on jiin No. 8 ; one piece 1 J H(|naro yoke inni^ffr Btill in floor beam, but broken : one piece l\ yoke liaii^or liinliy bent, cruckeil half across at tlio eye ; one 1 J yoke luniger rni-<-iiit;, four outside hanger or Hfirrupn in good condiiioii, two 8tinii|i.s mii*8ing out of the ten hangers to he accounted for, seven are iioro and three are lacking. Q. With reference lo thone. there are two — one broken ami one cnicked — and three are missing? A. Yes Q. We will take tlie one broken, what is that — is that one of the original > A. That is one of the original hangers. Q. And the three niicsinsr, what are they? A. t)ne in one of the original hanijers and iwo of 'he later type of stirrups. Q. These changed V A. Yes. Q. That covers practically all the ironwork ? covers all the ironwork. Tliut of a while i one [lieco « l.y H (J. Whiit a' out thi'.t vortical jiost you spoke was that broken? A. Well, tiiat is, 1 found c broken at the sway r-otniei tion. «^. Which nn I would tluit be? At wtiat I think you saiil tlie Gorge or the southern end ? A. That is imiiossible to dcterniiiie. 1 believe that is — my notes say this is No. 8 probably. (J. I want to ask you a general nucstion, Mr. Warner, ht fore going into reasons for it uw\ that kind of thing, what in yoiir ojnnion was it that gave way first in that bridge ? Was it soirip of the woodwork or some of the ironwork? I am only asking gener- ally now ? A. The woodwork. (J. You have shown that there was sume of the ironwork which was broken How in your opinion was that broken ? .\. It may have been broken '•". the falling. Q. Supposing the woodwork gives way and the briduc col- lapses for any reason, could it go down without breaking the liijlit ironwork in connection with the bridge f A. No. Q. It would be absolutely iraiiossible ? A. Why, I si fancy so. JOlllU Q. Would the fact of some of tho ironwork being liroken necessarily be the slightest reason for supposing that that iron wliirli is found broken was the part which gave way firet ? A. Ii would not follow at all ; and in view of that — of the condition of tKat lieani, there is no (piestion in my mind at all as to tho iron being all right and the wood not. Q. This hanger which was found broken was at what tloor beam ? A. The broken hanger is in 5. 18 Q. It being your opinion that it was soitao of tho wr)odwork whicli gave way first, I now want to aak you which i)ortiou of the woodwork it was, and thus caused tho collaiise of bridge ? A. I think it was this floor beam. Q. That i» floor beam No. 3 T A. That is floor lieam No. 8. Q. Which broke at the Gorge end ? A. the Gorge end, and the rest of the truss followed. Which broke at DM at whiit tloor Q. If that vertical post yon spoke of was at 8, as at the time you thought it probably was, does it bear in any way upon it any- thing at all to corroborate or refute your opinion ? A. The idea I formed at the time was this, that the floor beam broke due to its extraordinary load, and as it lowered, tho broken part came down like that and forced the shoe, or rather forced tlie {wst which vertically above it — forcetl that out, you see, buckling out like that (illustrating), bracing it and allowing the rest of ho truss to fall. It seems to me, after the full examination I made, as if tliat was the only rational conclusion I could come to — ^in fact, it was the only conclusion I could come to. ' Q. I believe yon gave evidence at the inquest in this matter ; yon have stated already at that time yon did !iot know about this auger boring ? A. I had not heard of any auger holes, Q. Did yon find anything else as to the broken woodwork of the bridge which corroborates the opinion yon formed that it was the first thing which broke, that gave yoa that impression ? A. I found one of tho 10 by 12 stringers broken. Q. What stringer was that? Were you able to locate it? A. I was able t A. 1 holieve that the floor beam broke at No. 8 on tho Gorge side, that throw the weight on the stringers one of which was continuous from 2 to 4 ; the other was a butt joint, a broken joint on that floor beam, 80 that it left this stringer without support at all and tho weight of '! ^\i i n 14 the cars simply went down through it and breaking the striiiirer either at thut point or that (indicating). Q. That is either point 2 or 4 ? A. Breaking the 8trin«or at cither 4 or 2 — either of those breaks would take place if tlint tlour beam fell. In other words, it is a matter of no importance to he able to definitely locate it ut 2 or 4, because it cannot be done. It can be located in one or the other of these places, however. Q. What is the principal enemy, if I may so term it, of a wooden beam such as this, so far us its life is concerned ? A. Tlio ordinary rot due to moisture. Q. And what is the cause of the rot ? A. Moisture— alter- liately drying and beiug wet Q. If you took u piece of wood like thut and cased it up in copper sheathing, we will say, or anything which was uir-tiijlit, what would be the life ot the wood? A. Well, the life of the wood would be, enclosed in any air-tight concrete, for instance, it would lust indefinitely. Q. The etiect of the air on it is due to moisture — that is, the air is injurious because of the moisture derived from the air? A. Yes, deriving some moisture from the air. Q. Is there anything, outside of fire, or cutting, or soriethiinf of that sort, which would have such u serious effect on the life of ii piece of wood like this, as letting water into it in any way > A. No, nothing that I know of; that is under conditions similar to tiiu^-e of bridgework — except the teredo might enjoy himself, perhaps. Q. The evidence is there wasun auger bole that size. 7 inches deep, in the particular beam we are discussing here, and that it wiw only plugged up by having some oakum poked into it with a -itick; this was done in '»2 What would be the ett'oct of poking oiikiim into it with a stick— make it water tight? A. It would not keep the water out. Q. As a matter of fact, would it have any effect so far in water was concert d ? A. Oh, it would retard the entriiiu c of water for a short time, but it would also prevent its evaporation. Q. By the last, you moan this — after the water got in there, it would be worse than if the oakum was not there ? A. Ve.s. (J. That auger hole was there, us the evidence shows, for four years within a very short time — from .June, 1892, to May, I8!t(). What would be the necessary result of such a hole us thut >. Objected to by Mr. Cassidy as leading. Court : The question is (juite permissible in that form. Mr. Davis : What would be the necessary result of siicii u hole as that remaining in the way the evidence has shown for four years, especially in a wet climate ? A. It would, increase the dottrioru- tion — the rottenness. 'Ml •5 tho Btriii''er isturo — niter- 15 Q And wlien so incrensed, would joii mind tellino; tlio jury to what extent, if you can so exprerta it— whether a sliglit or great, or immaterial or njatorial degree? A. It would bo a groat iDiTcase. Q. You have stated already that in your opinion the first thini; that gave way in that iiridge, and which was conHeiinently till! cause of the l)ridge collapsing, was the broakinij of that floor beam. You also stated in your opinion the cause of the breaking was its rotten condition. Now, I ask to what in your opinion was duo the excessively rotten condition of that floor l)eam ? A. Well, I win answer that simply by the result — they bored a hole in this end— it wos badly rotten ; they bored none m the other and it was rotten round the lateral hole — th6 hanger hole ; and again, in com- paring it with number 7, which was put in at the same time, the note I have of its condition is : Beam rotten in the hanger and lateral hole. It follows then that the capacity for damage of this hole was very great. il The car, of course tho evidence shows, paaocd over floor beam 7 that day. You say, as compared with floor beam 7, this one was very much more rotten — there is no question about that ? A. Yes, ahsolutely rotten ; not a question of decay — it was absolutely rotten. Q. You have given your various reasons for coming to the conelnsion — of course it is natent what yjur answer must bo, but Btill I wish to have it on tne notes as to your opinion. What in yonr opinion was the excessively rotten condition of that floor beam due ? A. It was due to furnishing the opportunity for very rapid decay by boring holes in tlie beam and not properly — and further- more, not properly plugging tljem up. kj' Q. I am referring to which was Which hole are yon referring to ? j the remarkably large sized auger hole — IJ inch hole Used by Mr. Cox. Q. Put it in another way : To judge from all the evidence you have heard and from your examination, so fur as your opinion goes, having seen what happened, with reference to floor beam No. 7, if that auger hole had never been bored there, would or would not on that particular day that floor beam have broken ? A. Well, tlmi is a hard question to answer — what would have happened or wliut would not. (J. It is a matter of ojnniou I am asking you now ; I am not 8«king you to swear to any fact, but your opiinion, considering that 7 was the same age and was not bored, and carried the car — the same loiid, all right ? A. If No. 3 had been in the same condition as No. 7— -you wish to know whether ? I should say that -you (J. Well, give your answer that way ? A. the (jr would have passed over it with safety. A. The oonditiona were the same in the two lieams, with the ex- ception of thia. Q. That exception boins the one hole made bv Mr. Cox ? And 18 it to this hole ^on attribute the difference in the condition otthebearaa? I attribute the diltereuoe iu the condition ot the beams to that bole. Q. The one bored by Mr. Cox ? A. Tea. Q. Now, Ml'. Waniori juct one other thing I want to nak you aboat. How far below the surface of the floor were the hottom chords — thoee irpn chorda. Tcu might explain to the jiirv wliut they are? A. This is known m the bottom chord, which is ninde ap of two and gometimes throe I'ars. Q. How large are the iron Lars ? A. In that case they urc 2 by I inch np to 3 by |, I believe, and they have an eye in cueli end and a pin goes through connecting them, ao they are very much rke a bicycle chain — the links are very long, they are connected ut each point with the verticals — with the diagonals. Q. They run along there the same as parallel to the floor? A.. Yy that, Hay iit 8, tho Btreiiffth of these iron cords on either Hido ol tliiit wniilil im iia grant HH tlie Htreugth of the floor boutn itHolt I A. Vos, that is tiio piinol |i()iiit. (J. Tho weakness of tho chord wouhl be whcrn it wiis on the point imd for some little distaiico on either sido, tho strcni^fli of tlioHO chords wonhl support tlio floor or iinytiiing eUe thut luino op, it would 1)0 at least us grout I A. Yes. Q. Would that floor rnniiing across this way ho of any use in provoiiting a tramcar or whiitovor load happont'd to ho on tlm hridgo Rt tho timo, from going throiigti, in case of one ot those floor beams lircuking. if it ran right across tho full length us it was, orijiinally? A. It might have Hiippliod that small uoeess of strength necCHsary to carry it across, and again it might not, knowing notliing of the physical conditions at the time. Q. But it would ini(|ne8tionttbly add some strength ? A. It would un(|uoationably add some strength. Q. And the test of what that strength would bo would he just the same as the test of what those 3-inch planks would bear? A. Yes. Q,. And that is to be considered from the standpoint of the planks running diagonally that way across these stringers, and reaching as they would, as you sco them here, would that give additional strength — -that is, distribute the weight I A. Yes. Q. So as to carry it away from A. Yes, it would. the broken floor beam? Q. Supposing that floor is cut —this is ono piece now (indicat- ing), this is a second jiiece, and this a third piece. In tlie case of the floor beam breaking, as it broke in 18!)li and 18i)2, would there be the same chances after that floor was cut of the car getting off as it did in 1892, us there would ho if it ryn right acros.i ? A. Certainly Dot. CU0S.S-EXAMINED BY Mu. TaYLOR. (J. If I understand you then, Mr. Warner, you mean to coiiMy this impression, by reason of that rotten floor beam at point, this accident was caused ? A. Yes. *2. You are clear about that point ? A. Yes. (J. And you say the life of wood is from 4 to 7 years? A. So, I said 7 to 10 is my impression 18 Q. This beam had been [nit in, joii know, in 18><.!)? A. "i 88. Q. This accident liiipiiencd in 1890 ? A. Yc8. Q. That was 1 1 years ? A. Ves. Q. So in the ordinary coiirne of time that licain would liavu been iv,' ten anyway ? A. Tt siiould have been — — Q. Taken out .' A. taken ont several years before. Q. And it should have been rotten too, as it wa.-i rotloii ? A. Ye^. Q. These haiisjers you have sjiokcn about, Mr. Warner, i Inn- are square pieces of iron, aren't thoy ? A. Yes. Q. Put into round boles? A. Yes. (J. Bored with a large J":gci ? A. Yes. (J. The result of which in, water can get down int ) tiio>e holes ? A. Yes. Q. Com|iannir that witli the stirruii iron, the piece tliiit i-; ]irit round outside of the lieani, which is the more likely to rot lir.'-t. the stirrup hangers or witii yoke hangers? A. Weil, tliat wmild dejienil on what they liavo nndertu;ath them ; if tiicy have comjiletc ■losurc, say round iron, it ails as a well, why of course the chances for mt are greater. Q. lint they have a s(|Mare piece of iron ](ut into a niiiu'l hole ? A. I am speaking of comiilete closure at the Ixittmn so that t'le water stands round the how ; I say in that case the cliaiuos for rot are mui^h greater than if there is a (diancte lor tlic wiiter to go int., the hole and oui again. (J. Well, that is only a question of degree — whether they are light at the bottom or not ? A. It is a question of degree. Q. But as cdinparing them with the stirrup hangera ? A. Oh, the chances for rot are less with an outsido stirruii. Q. Than it is v.ith the yoke han<;c A. Yes. (i. This WHS a yoki; hanger that hail been in tlicri' i"i 11 years ' A. Yes. (J. And th(^ water could get down this yoke hanger iiil" ilii-^ beam? A. Yes. '■^i. Y^ou speak nf this f.oor beam at 8 being in an exroi iliiii,'!}' rotten condition ! A. Yes. Yes H. You also say that it broke just at the yoivo haiig'i -i. 19 (J. Thiit is jnst wlioro the Jioles wjre lioi'ed throUi,''li and this sqinue iiieco of iron juit in it fur the yoke hanger? A. Yes. Q That you would infer, 1 Uike it, Wiis the rotten part? A. Yes, it was absolutely rotten — there is nothing else you can call it. Q. Tluit is the only ]iart yon looked iit— ju^it wlioro it broke open ': A. The only jiart I looked at wus the broken cud, and in luMition 1 looked at the other end. (^ Y"ou looke ' — that is tln^ far end. These two holes repre- sent where the yoke hanger.'^ went through ! A. Yes. Q. And here (indiouting) is where it broke? A. Yes. A. Yes, 18 inches. t*. Those were only IG inches at the end ? A. At tliut iioiiit it was outside of that hanger. Q. Then that is 18 inches. Then there were two holes tliero ot 18 inches and they were how much diivraeler t 1 5-8ths ( A. 1 5-8ths. Q. And what was the size of this hole for the lateral sway? A. I don't remember ; probably the largest one IJ in. Q. And there were two holes ? A. I can tell you closely what that one was. Let me see, No. 3, it was probably a 1-in. hole. Q. They had been in there from 1885, those large 1 - it - in which the water could get in, there was just a square ;iiuc<' >i in-n put in eac ii one of those holes and these swuy rods pa^tsi i ' ■. '":'" here — the centre ? A. Yes. Q. Q'hat had a tendency to bore out a large portion M u sectional area ot this wood ? A. it did reduce the area. Q. Then you mean to say this harmless little hole of abniit J inch is what caused the rot ? A. I mean to say this: Haviii;; the sumo reduction of area in the other end of the beam, that tlio ditiercnce in the condition of the beam Q was entirely attributable to this little au^jer holo I Mr. Davis : I submit that my .!( . '. friend bad no right to interrupt the witness in the middle ot a» ..iswer. Court : The trouble greatly arl^ies from your nV. bc'.T, bnnclicil up together. I do not see bow it can bo avoide;l, but c. l 'ou! to some irregulurily. (Witness returns to box, i-nd Mr. Davis asks that the iiii'-'vtr he f'.iiibhed without Mitcr.-'ijitio'i ) Court: There ii some diilv v ' in cross-oxamiiiing expert*; r.i you are very well aware, tli^y ai'o. very apt to stick very ■ i'wely to the particular lines which they have adopted. 1 do not smv they Km 21 do so intentioimlly, but they do not quite answer tlie ([uestioii, BomotiMes. . Mr. Davis : But this ia a qucstiou he wae answering. Court : As liir as tliat ia ooneenied, the niiscliief is done. I will wiiteli it, and you will liiive an opportunity of cleiiiinf; it up in locxiuiiination. (To witness.) Do you want to adtl anything to that. Mr. VViirner ? You have hoard the answer read. Do you tliink yourself you want to add anythinir to that? A. Yes, I would like, my lonl, to iiiiish the remark, I wish to say this : llcrewaaa hoiitu, a' >t hored at hoth ends ; one has an e.xtra hole ill it ; the end in '.hich there is an extra hole is completely rotten iit the otlier en i. Twenty feet away the beam is simply rotten rduiid the hole — the lateral rod holes and tlu; hamper hole.s — and it i^< a natural inference tfion that tlio damage must i)e attributable to the iiiereased borinj;. Court: Presupposinsr in other respoct.s tlie londition of the two bwmis was iiiCeisely identical :' A. I beg you' pardon, ray beam. I i lord ; not two beams — the ono portion of ii Court: Well, presupposing the two ends were in other respects ju'eeisely in the same condition 'i Mr. Taylor (to witness) : Wore they ? A. Mtist of necessity. (i. What A. No, I ( oiild not; no one over examined it. ''i You cannot say now whether the [ihites that wore upon this iDtteii beam 3 were tigiit i* A. Or loose; no, I cannot. Q. Eitlier at one end or the others No. 'Ill i U 'I 'I i I i' ii -i'l 22 Q. But you do sa.y that had broke right at the junction of llie yoke hangers ? A. Yes. Q. And as it turned up, you examined the ends ? A. Yes. Q. Tt was not broken at the auger hole ? A. I don't know anything about an auger liole. Q. You don't know whether there was an auger liole tliore ? A. Simply from tlie evidence submitted. Q. But you examined it and you did not fiiiiece of square iron in a roinid hole that got all the rains from '^5 to '02 in the ordinary course of tilings ' A. My dear sir, you do .lot have toirn back for seven years. Vou find that comlition favorable for iotiiiig in I years — some of your own new one.s. Q. This square piocc of iron bad been put in this rouml hole in "85 ? A. Yo8. Q. And you say it is very apt to rot in 5 years — start to rot ? Q. 1 B?o rot has atarted in 4 years under similar conditions. (J. Would't you think under ordinary circumstances it woiiM begin to rot in 7 years — to 'Dli ? A. Yes. (J. So the jirobability is in your opinion that it Iv' lie;inito rot in this hanger previously to 'H2 i A. It may have. (J. You would think so, wouldn't yon ? A. Yes, I -liouM say it nniy have begun; 1 can't say that it would. (J. As a matter of fact, It ia an opiniou you are givinic n iw— not evidence 't A It may have begun after 7 years. (J. At any rate, you found the rot as far in on one side as yen did on the other? A. ^'es. 23 Q. And you did iidt find luiy brciik in thin little nni^'cr hole, if tlicre was one there ? A. 1 don't know, as I say, unytliinj^ al)out an unsrer hole, liecun.se I didn't find it. 'I'lio chances are, however, from the condition in which that stringer was, you could have knocked six inches off the rotten end of it, and wijied out the anger hole conijdetely; it may have done bo. Q. It would have been in a very hml st'ito to have done that much, would'nt it ? A. You do not understand wlmt I mean (J, See if I do, now. When this beam broke apart at the yoke hanger, it was so rotten that yon could have knocked off six iiiiiic." on either side, and have done away with the auger hole ! A. May have done that. IJ. Did you hear Mr. Cox suy that the auger hole was 8 inches over there ? A. Yes. Q. You could liiirdly have wiped that out 'i A. No, I am com[>leiely innocent of any anger hole. .Mr. Davis: I nnderst.mil my learned friend to make the state- ment that this auger hole was 8 inches from the hangers; if he undo ttiiit statement, he is in error, and it is my duly when 1 hoar him milking a wrong statement of that kind to inter[)0se. lie (Cox) liored 7 inches deep; that is whiit he did say. Mr. Taylor (to witness); Suftposing it were 8 inches and it broke at this yoke hanger, you hardly think the unger hole would (.aiise the rot on both sid' ■•? A. Yes, Icnn readil, understand the luiirer hole staitii-g that mi in a large degree ai-.d passing oilier anger lioles. In time it is very possible tor water to have entered tliat linger hole starting the rot, and the rot continue for the 20 ft. acro.ss tilt' lie.im. Ho you see what I am getting at '.' — that the [iresence of the linger holes within a short distance of this one that was bored dues not ini)>ly that the rot mii.st stop there, nor ina.st any rot beyond there be atlributed solely to tiie hanger hole. (i. I don't understand when you say this auger hole should be more likely to produce rot than these two large holes :* A. I say siinplv froin the ob.served tact that at one end you have an auger hole iind an extreme <'ase of rotteiniess is the result; on the other siile \ on li-»ve the same conditions mi luis that au^er hole aur not thev were? You have already explained about the ipiestion ol whetlier these plates wcrv tight or not at the bottom of this beam 'i A. What do you ■K i^ ,! ^ If mean by similar conditions ? were the same. 2» I assume that the ^nerul couditioin) Q. But you say tlie condition of the plate makes a dilt'eionce whether it holds moisture '! A Yea Q, But you do not know tlie condition ? A. But F know this: it is very rarely a '/[U plate will hold the watei and niiikr a well ou any auger hole. It might do so. I don't knosv whether it did or not in this case. Q. Can you state now, a.s a matter of fact, whether or not there was an auger hole at all in that end that was rotten? A. My dear sir, I told you 1 know nothing about an auger hole. Ci. Will you tell me something about this fai.'tor of safely of 4? What do you mean ? A. 1 moan that the ultimate strciiLTtli of the material is four times that of any load that would i>e jiut on it In other words, if you a.isinne a ceitaiu load, you dimension your parts for four times tliat load. Q. Suppose that 10 tons was whut you call the load of that s[)an, and when you 8u\' a factor of .safety of 4, do you mean 40 tons mi^ht pasa sul'ely over it ? A. It means 40 tons is the extreme limit Q. Would jinss safely? A. Well, I should not say sut'cly ; the ultimate strength of tliat iron used was ;')0,er square inch of iron. Q. To bring this down into everyday language, have I iliis correctly from you ' When you speak o) tiie factor of safety, yon moan the luimber of tons that could safely jtass over it ? A. Voj. (}. You si)eak of a liridge with a certain car'ying cap;!"!;!, and a factor of safety of 4 That means four times that aniuiiiit might iiass over its' A. Ycj ; that it would break at foin- tiinos the other amount Q. Anything leas would not break it 1 A. That is it. Q. In your o]iinion what number of tons miglr Iiavi' |ias.seil over this span, assuming all the materials to be in jicrfect conililiou -•the iron and the woodwork :' A. As a regular thing, you laoaii tj say — the daily use of the bridge "i" (J. Yes? A. From 10 tons to 12 tons I should say uoiilil certainly bo the limit. (J. What would have been the limit that you think u.nilil safely go over this span r — what would you permit, say. ')niler special circumstances ? A. With especial precautions, I i .li-dif pass onco an 18 to 20 ton loud. ,11 tliiiik A""''! 25 Q. And then yon f hihk it would be uiwafe to attem]it it a^aiii ? A. It would not l>o wise. If that weio tlio only way of getting a 20-toii load t) Victoria, wliy .natters could lie arruiiired no that the liridife would not siitt'er hy the panning of that load, but it would not be wise to repeat it. (J. IIow do you moan, matters could he arranged ? A. For instance, a 20 ton loud on four wheels would hi-uak through the Hour. (,). You wouM, you mean to say, distribute the 20 tons fairly and evcidy over the face of thi' lloor ? A Yes, 1 mean to say by such an arrangement, as that. I do not mean by strengrbening the truss, but to jirovide for tiie breaking through of the tloor or something of that sort, why, if that was done, a load might bo 'iifcly pii8:ted. (l You have heard the witnesses here to-day as to the posi- tion of this car, the number of ]>assongers in it approximately, and the nnniber of vehicles on the bridge. Do you thiidc it was safe, miller the most favorable cniiditions, to ])ermit tliat load to lie on that span — something over 20 tons, I think Mr Yorlce slid ' A. No, it was not. (I. [laving once permitted a load nf that weight u|)()ii the liridge, would it bi^ safe to repeat it again i A No, it would not he safe to repeat it again. (J. What do you understnnd by the term fatigue of iron ''. A. Tlie fatigue of iron is this : All metals are ela.stie, iron parti- cularly so. You can draw out iron as yon '.\iil a piece of rutiber 1111(1 it will return, alihongh not so pereeptiltly as a small piece of ruliher. to its original position. Tlure is, hoA-ever, a |ioint whore, if yon strain it besoiid, your iron will not. rctiirii : that poiiit is eiilk'd the ela-tic limit. When yon have passed that ela.->tic limit the r(iiitiiiiMu.-.ly doing so, the nicUvl bceomes what is called fatigued (I. If it is oueo stretched beyond the elastic limit ? A. Yes. |ila(iil on the strain shuet ! A. On the liridjjc, not on the utrain shcut. Q. T!io strain shvct in sn|)i)i)'<(Ml tn ho n. roprcscntalion of tlin briilgi; ? A. If you mean tho liricJjjo whon yoii say "strain shr.t " Q. Tlmt is what I moan. 1 ilon't want to r|iiarri'l atxint tciiu-i , 1 simply want to niKlcrstaiui it. So any mulorial tliat lii'i not chiih! up to the rejrulur staiuhml, wonjil liuve a very serious clKct on iln^ iiitinmte .strain on tho hridgi! ? A. It woulil liiivo nn ettbct hy u iiJi ever is laekinj;. i.}. What is tiic . that is tiie ordinary railroad hridj^o possesses a lower factor of siilVly than that of u higiiwoy bridjie. Q. How do you rHooiieiii' tliat ? I do not quite under', Siclor ijf safety what }■'" ■*"y l.uild vii'irniil- „f those iniil.T I factor of V ifcty ti to wh'i' I'""''* II ; whcr. :'«"'' Q. And the fact tliat oii^ritially it was not heavy onoiif;h for it, ml the tram tnitii(; |iiit tipou i( you have idieiidy told us would have tendency to Kliake it to [lieccs (|uicker ? A. Yes. Q, And as a result of that, the life !]f the liHilj^e slmrtcr ? A. The life of the luid;; lid Vx hi hettf er, it would rei|uire more re|)i f^e would lie shorter, or [icrhapH ' I'tter iii'-lieetion. (,' .Shake to jiieces (juickcr ; we wont (|uai rel aliout the toriii ( heeii any mateiial increase in tin,' lust few years in lias th tile \veii:ht of rri A V crv iiiatenal mcrea.se. In fact, in IM(I) was the lKM>inniiiif of the devcloimient of flic commercial side of elt'i'liic railways ; it has liciii ijoinjj fur the past three or four years. The first idea in upplyinj^ electric power to railways was simply to take the old ntyle street cars. ti>. That was a licht car / A. That -vas a light car, ])iit on UHitors and simply incrca.su the wei^dit hy two or three tons, Imt since IVJO <^. Excuse rue — just while you are it — that would make 11 car ahout how niueh ?- -puttinij a motor on the ordinary form of liorse Car ? A. Perhaps 'ight or ten tons. Q. You mean the new car ? A. A cm- and load of . a- ten tons. d fashioned car aii. That is to .say, that tli- would wiiijjli from eight to ten tons ? A. 1 should suy so. (} And the new fashioned car? A. They run as high ns 22 t"iis, the latest devidopiii'^nt id' street railway eiiuipment, it is very heavy -.so much so that they are using TOlh. to .SOlli. rails to carry them, and that is a rail fully as large as for the ordinary railway CHrriaife traffic. (^. The tendency is to increase the .veiglit of the ears and, of cours', the amount of passengers the cars can carry 'i A. Yes, in- cr«a.sing tiie load is the general tendency. i}. That has occurred, you know, in this in.-~tance, do you not, fi'iiiii the investigation you have made ? They had originally light cars ' .\. They had originally light cars, Imt the that rlv k'l ,1 1 1 30 brnkp ttiroiiKli in lh02 whh tlie Biiiiie that lirnku through lutt year ; that is a larger car. Q. They put on a hirffcr car and tlmt broite througli in \>^U'1> A. Yes. Q. Ami tlicn a larger car Htill wont tlifougii ? A. No I unilerfttaml it was the Hanie car that wont tlirougli in 1802 and IMKi. Q. Tliat is what I understand you to answer. At any rati', tin; effect of tliis extra heavy car was to lircak tlie liridiie f A. Yet. (.). I would like to put this as straight as I can, in order to j;i't a short and concise answer. Do you think tiiat bridge, ks conHtnirlcil there, leaving out for tlii' nionient the (jueslion of repair — wai it a safe bridge to cany the weight that was on it thib v ? A. No, it was not designed for that tiallic. Q. And it was not safe for that traffic ? J ', the fact that for 7 or H years it carried that traffic t^. Did it carry that traffic? that traffic safely. A. I can't say that it currii'il t^. You know, as a result of your investigation, that this huh h public' holiday and crowds of people were crossing over for tlii' review ? A. Yes. Q. It was an unusually heavy load ? Yes. Q. Just for a moment, to go back to what you testiticl to before : without going into your technical figures, wliat was the safe carrj'ing capacity of the span, f how much weight woulil you put on it safely and carry it over? A. Well, the dimensions show tliiit tlie web members woidd have carried '20 tons with a factor of sut'etv of 2. Q. Does that include the floor ? A. A weight of 20 tons. Q. That would be une-half of the entire weight that couM lie put upon it ? A. Yes. Q Forty tons, then, would break it down ? A. Twenty tons broke it dowu. Q. Twenty tons with a factor of safety of 2 means W leiw would be the breaking strain ? A. Yes. Q, If all the materialn were new and first-cla.ss ? A. Yes. Q. That weight of 20 tons would stretch the iron to its .lustic limit ? A, Probably. Q. What would lie the effect of stretching to that limit once nil the 20 tons, and then putting another weight of 20 tons "U after that ? A, The effect of it would lie simjjly an adilitional daini,'^ to till! bridge, and perhaps its destruction. Q. In other words, after the iron has once been stretche.l t') itH ebis''.ie limit it is not so jfoiid ? A, No. Twenty timn i,.„„s 40 tmis ilrctclirl to its (,J, Tho factor of Hafety is rodiicoil I A. TImt is true. Q. Ami tlin caleiilnted hefore, Mr. Warno-, if you roiinin- ber, what that sidewalk weighed. Just see hy your not(vs, if ycm iliil ? A. I think not. My recnllrction iH I calculated the total iliwl weight, fS.M) feet. Q, How niuel) would that he in tons on the whole siniii i A. It is an increase nf alioui 50/1 in the dead load over what the original specitications called for. Q. You said a 20-ton c.ir wa.M liaset) on this assii:ii|>tif)n Ilmt the floor weighed .5 tons. That is, the floor without chose sidewalks on I'ach side then' ' A. Yes. (4. Aiid Villi ealcMliited Hie whole thing at 4n and su^itriicti'il .5 for the weight if tlie iioor and ihi'n put on a ■2')-ton car, and yoii liail a factor of safety of 2 '! That is, it woulil tak- 40 tout to iirvnk it down ? A. Yes. Q. And that factoi if .safety was still further Teduced hy tin' addition of this floor > Jn oth-T words, .so uiueii weiudit add-.'il to this floor? A. Yes, any ai' 'ition of that «ort. Q. Just see if you calculated w'..at these weighed — th(^ iidilitiin of sidewalks? A. I am salisfied that I did not. I have nut 11 niemorandum of it. Q. Do you reinemher lu-w wide they were ? A. I heheve tlicy are 5 feet. Q. That would he anoti.T space of 10 feet (iddeil to the uidtii of the floor ? A. I have the total dead weight of the spun. n40— that includes the sidewalkM. Q, What doi'M that amount to, in tons ? A. That is l.").7.'iO Ihs. y. That is 7i tons, isn't it ? — a little ovei- V A. Yes. Q. Instead of lieing .5 tuns weight there wimc "} tons luLil ileiiii wi'ight of the floor'' A. 'I"iie total -lead weight of the span was 7 tons approximately to the ])anol. Q. Then instead of siilitraeting .t as 45, you suhtriic t 7.} f A. You mist.iki' nie ; this "^ tons is not the weight of the .snirwulk alone. Q. AtxI the floor also ? A. It is flu. wciglit of tin' si.!. wilk and the entire floor system, including floor heums, strin;;' 1 . uinl everything. Q. Tl\at i« what T und'TJiland ; but you subtract thi tlien frnni the 4-") r A. From uhat 4."< ! DUIlt 1 here nl't'i- ) the tl.Hir, llJ Clll'lllltV ,'ou rciiiiiii- if yiiii lii'l ' 1 total iliml ivhiili- spiiii ! tT whiit tlifl )se hiili-NMilks su'itriirti''! 5 , iiikI yon lii'l i to iiiviik it (Uicetl hy till- ; (l.l(l."l t"ii til's -till' ii.MitiiTi I llilVl ll"t H I heluvi' liii'.V to till' «i.ltli hi- spun. -^^0- it is 1 -' V'.O llw. t'lll-s f'l.'l '>'-'^'l sjmii «:ts 7 II > A. Yes. <). You attended at the ini|iiest and heaii'i a ijreater porti. .. of tlie evidence ■eliiiiced, ami the wei;;ht was put rs was calculatvd on some table of wei;rlits you proiluced ? A. I suppose so. (). Either you or another expert, and you ajjrecd with it or did nut disagree with it, and you do no* now say that a woiijht of 22 tons would be such a weii,dit that the bridge could not stand ? A Wiiy, ce'-tiiinly, it shows that it fell. ^i. Accordiii'.^ to your calculation, if the materia', we.e good it could not have stoo 1 the wei;^ht ' A. It would be highly hazardous to Httuuipt to put a weight uf that sort on it. Q. .S ), as a Miiitter of fact, it was too much weight tor a design of that .sort anyhow / A. Undoubtedly. Q. Ti !! me about theso top chords— .ere they continuous or jointed ? No, they wer.- jointed between ■ -vch two of the uprights. (). They butted over ? A. Yes •^. In tinit as j{oik1 a desij^u as ii continuous bar i A. No, not <.) It is more apt to give way ? A. Perh«p.s. yes. 1 *,i. In other words, these ends abutted on to one another, and upou any disarrangement of the structure they will eitle-r go out or dilii" i:-. ? A. Yes. <,i. And if they did, (he whole structure would go? A. Yes- t,l. They are held l>J' coni]ire.ssion I A. Yes. Q And the lower chords by tension < A. Nevertheless, that iittli. innventional form of bnildiiii? those highway bridges. V 'I ! I- 34 Q. Not a railway bridge ? A. No, Q. Will you calculate for me the difference in strain of tlmsc hangers by reason of the fact that the car was nway on the side of the l>rid2e ? A. Would not this answer the same purpose ? I have the regulation 12 ton cur, with a 6 ft. wheel base. Q. IS it a very elaborate thing to do to calculate that ? A. It i.H not elaborate; the total weight is 20,000 lbs. It is simply a question of proportion; of the 20,000 lbs., 14,060 lbs., or approxi- mately two-thirds, go to the hanger nearest it— approximately. Q. So, of the total weight there was about two-thirds of it resting — ■ — ? A. On one hanger. Q. Nearest the car rail ? Q. Ye.s. Q. Now, this 20 tons you spoke about was not ba.sed (in an assumption of that kind, was it f It was based upon a faiily I'vt'ii distribution over V A. No, it was based on that assumption. Court (to witness); Based on the existing state of things? A. BasL'd on the existing state ot things. For instance, thuic nn; two trusses in there ; suppose one takes two-thirds and the otiicr one-third, on the 20-ion basis I calculated the strain on the truss. Mr. Taylor: That would increase the strain very materially on the hanger ? A. Just to that extent, yes. Q. And this iianger is subjected to shock when these loads inovo over it ? A. It is suliject to the ordinary shock of a wheel p'is.sing on a rail ; yes, there is a shock at the joints. Q. That has a tendency to weaken the iron in time 7 A. H' it is sufficiently great, yes. C^. Would not the .shock of a load such as this, away beyond the capacity of the truss, have a tendency to shock it ? A. Oh, yos. Q. Here is a question that has occurred to me: I would like to have you explain it. Yon have seen these cars go along tin- street? They .,<) bumping and boiihing up and down ! A. Yes. Q .Supposing they lM)bl)ed up a little — would not that increase the shock ? A. Clearly. Q. And that going up in that way a little — bumping and liob- bing — would doulili! it ? A. Not double it, it would iiu'ivase it, Q. Very materially ? A. Yes. Q. When did you first fiiul o\it about this Hoor beam l.eiiig Ixired ? A. Yestenlay, for the first time I heard it in evidiinr t^. You originally ciime over to Victoria out of curiosilv lo see this bridge, I imii .ine.ss, leaving Seattle the night that the accident ha|)pened ; 1 went ■ ut to look at the wreck, simply, on thousamlH of others had done. \Mq Q. At any rate, beinp' an enfjineer, I supnosu your attention was pnrticularly attracted to it, and you exa'v'ned it particularly? A. Yes. Q. Sulweqnnntly j'oii liail a talk with tlio ^'overnincnt officials ami you examined it for them I A. Yes, for them. Q. In conjunction with Mr. Lockwood, who is an engineer on behalf of the Bridjje Co.? A. He was at tlio time. Q. You went down specifically then to examine for tin- purpose of a.sccrtaiuing the cause of the accident ? A. For the <;<)vern;nent. Q. You t. Pretty elahorate rtotes ? A. They wi'ro read yesterda\ they lire complete. Q. As a result. They are complete ? A. They are a complete arcduiit of the wreckage as we found it. <,>. Ami you of course took that account for the purpose of testifying > A. Yes. Q At the inquest, on Ijehalf of the government ! A. Yes. Q. And J'OU di. Do you remember what it was you a.ssigned. then ? A. To the In liking of tlic Hoor beam 1 assigned the cause of the disaster — U> l\\r extreme rottenne.s.s It is imly fair to read you this— p. 2+.S of your testimony iK'fni. the coroner: "There is a lu-oken hnngiT which Mr. Lockwood sniil he wiisjiot able to locate detinitely, but it was some' where in the miili;.. i,f tlio bridge. That broken striniter wliich may have come li:. ' ^ i 'r p M 36 on 4 oi 5 was very pitcliy anil a very serioiw knot. But. the qucstinn of i)ri'ce(li'nct; in l>reakinj{, that is wliethiT tlie hangur or a good licmji t'rtile A. Clearly impos.silile. Q. As a matter of fact, even in the best condition they emilil not have supported this load of 22 tons that was on it ? I I •■lieveiiUu you ti'stitieii to this effect (see if I have th(> snli-tunce of yo>:r evidence) : That the truth of the matter was. tlu re had lieeii ahsolntely no iiniiii- tenance of the liridjje, and that that wns really th" cause of it f It hud lieen allowed to get into n .shockingly had ci-ndition of r<'[)an', and ii'nv the heavy weights put upon it were the cause of the disaster f .\ I put it even strongei- than that, if I recollect right. I said it was the most criminal piece of maintenance 1 had ever heard of. (^. In other words, no mainti'iiance t A. maintained. The hridge was not Q. So we start on that assumption tliat the liridgt; was nut strong enough for tramway traffic ? A. I agree with you. Q. Not heavy enough to carry the weight. In the next place, it was not niaintained at all and got into a li.td state of rejiair, and it was ahs/mtel}' iiiipossihle to hold up this load ? A, 'I'hey h;id even gone further than tliat. Q. See if that is right ? A. Yet. I was going to say they had IS en gone fuither thin th it , they had split u]) the flour into three pieces after the accidi>nt of 1K!)2, and still further le.ssene I the chance of its carrying any load tliat might come on it. Q. Did yoi snv at the inijuest that had any etl'ect n[Kin it? A. What > Q. Splitting up thiw floor ? A. That question was not riised, if r rememlior; that is my recollection. Q. Well, I will see whether it was. Court: Of coiirsu, it is for you to say: hut how i- tlint material ? You mi^dit Ask him now. Put it to him now, how far it nfFect.s his opinion. Mr. Taylor it. 1 witness) : How far i.s tha. luaterial to the sta- hility of the stnirture ? Here is what you said : — A. ^'hall I lo^wer your question first ? Q. Well, I will ask you : P. 252 ; " Vou d.m't like tli.i stylo of hridie with th(! floors like tliut, do you '^ A. There is ii' I'ljec- 37 tion to it. Q. Isn't it tnori- lialilc to arcii'.ciit liy lmvinu tiiko caru in your co'i'icction. Tiiu stal)ility ot nil truss lii-idj^t's. in fact, most strnctiircs, depunils upon the ])ropcr ailiustnu'iit of its viiiious nuMnliurs." A. Pardon nio : tliat rcniail< nj.plios to the stylu of the floor huauis lieiiig suspendeil tVoin luui^crs as this ouu was. (J. Was that what was usk(! A. It was undoiilitrdly in hetter cuiiditiou. Tiiat is, I should fancy it wits; simply a tpiestion of age. (,'. That truss gains nothing of any strength (ir integrity l._ the IliKir '! A. Till! truss itself does not. Q The floor is sim|>ly a weight that the truss has to carrv ? A. Yes. Q. So that the floor might hreak down on one side and fall fuviiy like a trap door from the truss, or it might hreak on holh sides mid the truss remain intact? A. If you hreak it in the middle as yoii did in two places, it would fall like that. If it was continuous, Ks it was in the first place, and the floor broke ivs it did, it would fall en to thi' chord bars; the floor — the [danking, would rest on the ch(ird bar like that, and (i. How Kir did the plunking go over these chord bars ? A I ilon't remember; it went over the chord bars, I believe. 1^. Do you know whether it went over nt all ? A. Yes, I kiiuw th.it it did go over. 1,1 Are you (juite sure ? A. I am positive in this way — that ill examining the present span, the duplicate spin of that (). It is only fair to say to you you never saw it V A. The nri;,'inal, no. I am speaking from the duplicate span. t,>. Here is a representation of it as originally laid, (.'.xhiliit T). \V. iv iliese particularly heavy beams there, on it, the original design ? A. 1 understand that beam is to represent the position of the chiij-.i Imr. ',> There w no such beam aa that on the orighial floor as laid ? A. .No. <,> Then that is noli accurate, and the same thing applies to tliig side ! A. Certainly, you may say J J -\4 88 Q. In other words, tliis should not bo wood ? There is no siidi piece of wood on the floor. Court: It WHS not put in for that purpose. Witno.ss : To slimv ttie relative po.siti(>n of the iron iiud the Hoor ? Mr, Taylor (to witno.s.s) : Suppose these are joists ? A. Striii^'crs — joisUs, ye.s. Q, You put another joist in here — that is what? — S hv 10? A. Ten l.y 12. Q. To curry the car rail f A. Ye.s. Q. That would have a teny reason of its continuousnoss frojii oni' side to the other. Q. The planking is supported hy joists ? A. Yes. Q. The joists are supported hy the floor beam '! A. Yrs, Q. So that you come down to the floor heum ! A. Yes. Q. Then by putting these long stringers through, you di t lilmti' the weight over those floor lM>ams ? A. Yes. Q. More than it would have been before ? A. than iM^fore. No. 11' I more iM no siii'ii til." striiiHiT . No. 11' I motK' SO Q. Wliy not ? A. For the mason tlint tliuse same stringers or joists wen; contiiuioiis, wert; horc liei'orc, anil you liavu got the saino iiiriisiirc of support for your Honr so long as the tloor hcanis are in |iliii'<', from the small joists that you (j. Have the same measure of sup()ort ? A. Yes, so long as the joists were lirokeii joipts ; for instaneo, tliey extended from one to till' other in that way, and snpiKirted the tloor. (). Jiut the}' would not he as stitfnnd give the same stahility to joists 'i tiy 12 as to timlM^r 10 \>y 12 ? A. N'o, of eonrse not. i). Were these joists what you eoiii moldy call broken jointeil ? A. They were huilt, I presume as that is. Q. That is to say, the.se joists are all jointed ? A. All break on the Huiiie tloor (team. Q. Anil what I understaml you to mean liy hroken jointed is tluit if you run one piece from this tloor laam, to here, you ))Ut a joint till re anil rim your ne.\t stringer ? A. The l.Sft. stringer here on one side, and Q. You mean by broken jointed that these stringers all break ■n the same beam ? A. Break on alternate beam.s. Q. And that has kn element of strength in it as compared with breaking on the same beam > A. Yes. i). It distributes the weight more evenly ? A. Yes. Q. And the old tloor joists all broke on the same beam '! A. So 1 uriilrrstaiid, yes. l^. And the new stringers did not ? A Did not. Q. They were quite a proper thing to put in there '! A. Yes, quite a proper thing to put in tliere ; yes. ^l Could thoy have made that tloor any other way and put tliosf in ? A. Yes ; they might have put th : stringers in and rciilaoiMl- the Hoor exactly .-ss it was before and hau the rail on top. V. Raised it up ? A. Yes ; it might have been inconvenient, but that wixs one tnethod of doing it. i). Thi'V would have ti) have a flat rail thru? iV They might havi' put on a T-rail ; they could have put in any form of T-rail ; it winiiii projfct above the surface — it might be slightly inconvenient to peiipl.' going liy. V- Would not this T-rail they put in also have an ettect of stitl'i iiing it ? A. A T-rail would stitlen a structure. ',' And by that you mean distribute the weight > A. Yes, Hiaki a stronger sup]iort — that covers it. I,' In order to prevent any swaying motion of these floor beams they had some dingonal roils underneath ? A Yes 'I. ^\ 1 1' ^ \ .1' -Mi. Q. You call theni- 40 A. Lateral ri)ds. Q. Were tlicsu the things we ruferrod to as (liap;onal lir.ici'.s ? A. 1 tliink so. Q. Tliat lueana the same tiling i A Mii.st liu. Q. They were put there to prevent any lateral swaying oi' the floor ? A. Yes. Q. Anil these holes represent, in thJH model here, where they go throujjh ? A. Yes. (Referring to exhihit " U.") . Q. Ancl they an; attached to the lower chord of the liriili,'e .' A. The sway liraces ? No, they are attached to the floor l)eiiiii. Q. Wouldn't it lie a uiueh lie-tter waj' to attach tlieni to the chord ? A. It iniijht he. That is a conventional method of swiiy- bracing ; it has been in use for a great many years. Q. You would not put them tliat way, tli(j\igh, iti a hridi;'' tn carry tramcars ? A. I ean hunlly say what 1 would do; 1 can simply say it is an ordiiuiry conventional form ; there is a licttcr form, it is true. Q. What is ■ 'le better form ? A. There is a variety of wiiys. Shall I go into ? (-1. Ju.i^t shortly ? A. You can fa.sten them to the elioni, if jou wish — to the pin connection. Q. And that would have a belter effect than fastening tlieiii into llie iKJor beams simply ? A. Ye.s. Q. So that part of the design could be improved on ? A. Yes. Q. Materially? A. Yes. Q. These "iiai,' )nal sway braces wore pirt of the triiiiguliiiion of the bridge— of the truss ? A. No. Q. They were not ? What W(!r.; you referring to jusi iinv, when yon said "Yes, Mr, Cassidy?" (Witness having eaii;:lit at undeibini remark by Mr. Cassiily.) A. Mr. Cassidv aske! if it were not l>etter they should be part of the truss, and 1 said eeiMiiilv that would be the better way. Now, I say, this is not part of tlie tru.s.s. I presume you were referring to the pre.sent structure. (i. They are not part of the Iriangulation ? A. They .iie nut part of the triaiiguiation of the truss. Q, E.xpliiin what you mean by triangulalion ? A. I lun't know what you mean liy triangulalion. I am trying to answer your questions as you mean them. What you mean is the lateinU Ari' they part of the truss ? — they are not part of the Irus.s. Q. Was it part of the scheme — of the original design of il i: iri '^ 41 (iii^'uliitii)n — tlioiij;!! yim ilon't know wliat tliit iiiciuis ? A. \(j ; I (iim't kuow wliiit it iiii'Miis ill coiiiu-ijtioii with liu.' liridj^'c iit all. Q. Wi'll, that is Olio for you — I don't cither. Ordinarily, in liuildiiij? these liriilge.s, you Imv4! the inuturial thut f;oe8 in tlicni in- Spl'l'tlHl ? A. Y(^S. (} How is that usually iloiie ? A. In Im-iri' striKaurcs the. iiiiitfrial is iiis|ii(ti(l at tlio works; thoru arc I'lij^niiceis who iiiukf a l)iisin(i:s (if (l()in|,r that. (}. That is. orilinarily, tln> coiitiiictor who has to j;tt tiio iron — til fiMiii. The material was not iiisi eeted; it was tiiktMi on trust orii;i- iiiilly ; so if there were niiy dei'icts in it, it mi;;lit have ^.it in without notice ? A. Yes; any seiioiis delects would lie iwjliced hy thu hridj^o ilis|iector for the ijoveninient, ]iro\ ided thi'\ had an inspi'ctor. Q. Hire is another (juestioii that wan asked. 1 think it was liy the coiolK r or else tiy Mr. (/'assidv, p. 'iliS : — " Now, Mr. Wilson asked ymi 11 series of i|uesliiiiis diicetcd to the jioint. of the tirst iiieiiilier that uave way. and he asked you whether it was likely that it occur- red, the cur (lasiiii^ from Victoria to Ivsijuimalt. that it would have rcnclied point (, and (mint H i^'iveii way before the haiie;er at point 5 gave way from a tension strain, and the car passing over it, or con- .siileriii;^ what you have said already as to tlie alisenee of diiiiinutioii of diaiiieler, whether it occuired from a sudden shock ? A. It is im|iH>silile to have leeii suddenly ln'okeii ; that is the opinion I formed. Witness : That is tindoiihtedly correct. I,'. "And you noticed c»oui,di to indicate that it hao heeii pulled apart from n heavy tension strain, or in other words that it had heen insiitlii-ieiit for the piirpo.se ui sustainins the strain which went over it at that p.)iiit ."> t" — to which you answered ' Yes." A. Yes, I see no reason to chanj;e any of that. .A. You Ktiil adhere to tliat ( A. Yvn. •,>. So it was insuflicieiit to support the weij^ht that went over it at .") > A. Yes. ',1 It would have given way, anyway 't I will ri^ad you aii- utlu I i|Uesiion or two — ii ipiestion I asked you on the .same paij;e : " Yn;, were asked whether you ajiproved of the desii,'n of this bridge ? and -, lU said ' for some purposes, yes,' and then you delined tliat piU] -,,■ to bo ft hiijhway bridi,'e; do you ajiprove of the desinjn for a railu v bridi,'e > A. For what tratlic ? () (.'allinj; this tram line a ^«&' 3*: i'' 42 niilwtiy ? A. For limits. 1 loails, yes; for limiU'il loiuls I wouM cnti- niilcr it Hiit'o. Q Ami j'ou ])lii(!(.> tliut limit iit 10 tons ? A. \v». Q. Atiil for niiythiniL; uvcr tlmt, yon would not a|>pr()ve()f tlu^ ili'siyn for a riiilwiiv line f A. I woiilil not ■li'ciii it wImc to rini unythiiij; Q. Yon know perfectly wi'll what I mean — wr)nlil you ap- provo of tile (lesij^n for ii railroad hridi^e cariyin;; a load of ton ton cars or oviM- ( A. I say that tli« linnt would lie 10 tons, if you wito (^. Then may 1 taki! it that you would not approvit of it as n railway liridjjc I A. If T were Imildini; a railway hridiii', I wniild adopt anothiT type." t^. You ptit it at 10 tons ? A. 1 expect I liat evidence is correct ; that is my opinion, (J. Tliat 10 tons was the nafu limit 1 A. Yes. Q. And you say yourself you know. a>i the result of your inves- tigation, they havi- 20 or 22 tons ! A. Yes. Q. So by no possiliility could that .structure have HUHtnined ? A. It. did sust lin it once, uml it pa.ssed over liandy l>y the skin of the teeth, and the secoinl tiine that the same application of that heavy load was niaile it failed. Q. The applic'ition of the first heavy load you speak of. it would not he aide to stand that again? A. It evidently ilid imt Htand it again. Q. But the ap|>lication of that heavy loaic that the floor hi'am at No. ;}, if the car were ahle to get any \M'iL.'lit on it, woulcl Isrcak." That is correct ? Witness: That is con .rt. Q. Coming to the capacity of the hridge, which my lean seems to mi', has left not ijuite as clear us it might have heen c all}'. The capacity of that liriilge, as Imilt, was 1,000 lbs. per foot of live weight ? A. Yes. Q. Anil what is meant by that is that it is Imilt to c thousaml pounds per lineal foot, entirely apart from the stn itself, of dead weight? A. That is what it means, exactly. Q And the oidy aihlition to the clead weight, after the was first designed, were the sidewalks ! A. Yes. It inL'iii- iiH'iil ory a irlure TPli'e aid i'"n- , Y.'R. nytliiiik' yiiu lip- tui) ton ,•1)11 WlTB it' it »•* ft I wmilil jiccl llmt lur invcs- W'\ [ \v skill ? Ill)) isi' I lull I,, sti'iii'tiir'' t ill ii \viiy ; m- oviaciice to iviiil ll"' llmt simply to Sllp|"'«' ttiiy "'■i^'l''' is c'lii' ''t' ,y loiinii'l. it "litrii niiifi"- l)s. pfi- '""■"' It to iMiiy" llu' sti-U'im-'' :tly. ei- til.' 'ri.ljje 4» Q. Ami till' wt)ij(ht of tho siiluwivlks is this 243 lbs. you put in ? A. Yes. Q. Tliiit is tlic Diijrinal deail woifflit— GOO lbs. ? A. Yes. (). Ho tlie only iiinciunt to Ik; "li-ilufteil from the ti;;nros ivh shown by ilu' ori;;iniil sti-iiin shfft would ln' this 'ly.i lbs. pur iiiiual fiiot? A. Yfs. Q. Tilt; fiictor of siiiVty of till! l)rid(,'o as d(>Ni^nt;(I wns 5 ? A. Yes. Q. Tin; length of that |)iinel is something,' over 18 feet? A. Kighteen feet !( iiichcH, i). Tlmt would, rouj^hly speiikini,', bo 19,000 lbs of the re;,'iilnr weiijht less 10 times 240 for the e.xtnt weiirht of the sidewalks, which isaiiont -J.TOO llis ; that would leave alioiit l'),0()() lbs. tf) the panel, with a factor of safety of .'), would be 7.'),0()0 lbs, ? A, Yes. Q. That is making all allowances for ili;ad weight that are to lie made ! A. Yes. (,> When you were speaking of the factor of safety of 2, you iirrivid at that 2, did you not Olijiited to by Mr. Taylor, as leailing. .\lr. DaviH (to witne.ss) : How did you arrive at the factor of Hiifi'ty of 2 i' A. Hy taking the calculated weight, and calculating the strain, and comparing it with the area of the diti'ereiit imiiiber.s. t^. In making that calculation where do you place the tram lino nil the bridge ( As it is show n. l^. That i," what reduces in other words, tho factor of safety to 2' A. Ye.s. Q, It was 5, but when you reduce it to 2, you are making allow- niice for double the weight or more being on, on account of that tram line liiiiig so near one end ? A. Ves. <^ In wdiat part of tiio bridge would it reduce that factor of safety to 2t Would it lie in the floor or tho truss ? A, It would 111' ill the tru-s — in the web members ; that is, the diagonals. Q. Look .at your notes with reference to that. Mr. Warner ! A, •■ Factor of .safety of 2 in the tloor lieani;" the web iiiombers — I Was mistaken when I said that. So the reduction of the factor of safety on this account -this re- iliictinii would be in the lloor beamsand not in the hangers > A. Yes. <,». What is it under those same circumstances in the hangers ? A, live und three-fourth.s. (I So that with the load as it was — with the tramline as it was, tliofiitor of safety of the tloor b, atns would be 2, but the factor of saft't\ of the hanirers would be 5.1 > A. Five and three-fourth.s, yes. > ' ,'lr''ll ■ it'i *vi NM ^1 1^1 44 Q. Utxlt^r th(Mc ciieiiiiiNtiuiecN, wliieli vvutiltl in ull liuiiiuii [rt,iik Hi-nI ? A, Tlio wuiiktmt part. (Ji. VVliicli is tlic floor ImaiiiH '! A. Vi'h. if. AihI Hull i<< iisHUiiiiiii; tliiit llu' floor Iiciuhn iirit as t)ii>y Nvri' urixiimlly t A. Yiis, UNMiiiiiii^' ^ood nuiloriiil filiru Htiiiiii, I,: ' ; for l)()ii){liiM lir. Q. If lliii floor Ih'hiiih tiiiVH Ih'hii di'cayi'il, liy wcakoiiiiii; ycmr I'iielor of Niit'cty. il would he rt'iliict'il no iiiiicli luori' 'I A. It wiiiKI liu ruduuMil Ko miicli iiioru. Q. Wiuijil the iron lio subject to tlic Minio iluterioraiion in ilii' sttliio tiling ? A. No. Q. Yoii tolil my luarnoil frieii.l tliiit you ilid not ootii'i' tiiin HUgor holi! ill tliu lioaui ? A. I did not. Q Would it follow from timt at all, tli-it it wa,s not tl,. "• ? A. No. RE-('K(1S.S-EXA.MI.NK1> IIY Mil CA.SHIIIY. Q, Spcakiii;^ . With whom are you engaged ut the present time ! A. The San Francisco Bridge Co. (J. That is the compauv, I believe, that built the bridge in question ? A. Yes, sir. 188!). Q. How long have you been employed by them ? A. Since ■). '}. What is your position ? A. Manager of the Seattle office. ',>. What experience have you had in bridge work ? A. I followed it constantly for 12 years. . 1 ■i- I ! Kl 46 Q. Has thnt been your sole business ? A.. Yes, sir. Q. Did you make un examination of tbe wreckage of tho span that went down, of tliis l)ridgo, after th3 accident ? A. I did. Q. How long after ? A. Beginning on the 29th day of May and extending for a week at intervals for about a week ; po8.sili'y a iittl'J more. Q. Before I go into tlie evidence of this, Mr. Lockwfwd, I w i,.lil ask yji! to go over -^nd explain a few general mutters to the jury. Show wlii't that is ! 1 am referring to exhibit 3 of " H " in this suit. "x. That i.s a geiiorul drawing showing an elevation of the bridire m it was origiunlly built; also us it appeared at the time of the accidi'nt. Q. Which was the Victoria end '! A. It does not seem to lie marked for the Victoria end, l)Ut apparently that (in is tli' Victoria end. (Point m-irked " V.") There i- first a short leni,'tli of tresiie beginning at th'; Victoria end, and then there comes a r2()ft. Kpan, and then a loOlt. span. >vhieh is the span that failed at the time of the accident, and then another 150ft. span, and then another 120fi,, deck span, and then f.-om there on, a little more of the trestlo wurk. Q. Anil this first span that failci ■ this is the same view riiilly that we have in exhibit " R " ? \. it is the same view tlini wi' have in exh'.liit '' R," except in • H " the truss is showing the ntlior ami ti>o; that is, from the other side of the truss. Q. But it is here the Victoria end, und that drawing .s the Esanii'.alt enil. We have liail refei'ciiee to a number of terriis ijn -iiii; the c.iurse of the (;xannnation. I will x-tk you with refercnc to ilinse that are material. Tiie floor b ;iiiis — which are those ? A. 'i'lie liror bcums ere these members j -l o(>red on exhibit " R" I. '2,;} 4, 6, 6. and 7. Seven in 'liis siian that failed. C^. These, iM I 'inderstanil, were duplicate spans '{ A Tln'se were duplicate spans. Q. Exactly tl'.a same in every respect ? A. Yes, sir Thi.se are wood or iron i" — which? A There wore 52 wooden posts. Q. They ■ un up from the five corresponding floor Ih'iuii' iron bars extending from thi' t)vM)r beam to (he t'i|i cluii 1, inst<;ai'. of vrtical wooden [wcus, aud these two are culled liij) vertict.ls. t,V Where arc the bottom chords of tlie bridj^e. and wliiit arc they? A. '1 In- liottoin chordn arc .shown on this plan In 'ri/.iiiiiill.v als)V.- the floor Oeanis, and just beneath tin- flisir piankiiir; tl"'*'"' pieccH which constitute the main bottom part of the bridge mid carry the load which is placea on the bridge. 47 Q. While we are nt tliat point, j'ou mcntionnd, the floor distance or at any rate the Soor extent in tlie span whicii fell— tloi-H not that cxttnd over the bottom chords ? A. At tlie time of the accident ? Q. Yes? A. It did, yes. Q. What is the sizu of those hottoin chords which are of ''r";i ? A. They vary; at the end of the span on each side of th(:l.ridf{e, tiare are two pieces, 2 inches liy 1 inch ; the next pancla are 3 by"). Q. That would Ix! bctw.'cn 2 and 3? A. That woiil . he l.e- Iwpcn 2 and 3; there nn- two pieces-— 3 by 1, and ln'twecn 3 and 4 tlure are 4 pieces -2 of them 3 by i and 2 of them 3 by Jths. Q. Where are what wa.s referred t < by Mr. Wilmot as possibly supporting,' the floor in IS'M, us tho lateral rods? A. The lateral rd.ls aru shown cm thi> jilan just underneath the bottom chords, and siiown by «mall lines f^oin one Hoor beam to the next. Q. i)' ::;:;,• of thcHe drttwin(,'s .show tho.se rods ? A. Yes, this tlrawin>T shows it very innch better. Q. That is 4 of e;ihil;it •■ H" ? A. We here have the bottom iii'.enil rods showing very plainly— these blue lines running.' from one lluur to the ne.xt one ; that is the Victoria end (marked V). This shows the flour beams much nio;e phiiidy — shows the bottom chord ill detail, the lx>ttom chord pins, vertical posts, hip verticals, very plainly. t^. While we are 'ookina; at the >:feneral construction of that [ilan, yiiu mij,dit givv a j"'.ieral idea — Jiot too minutely so as tn the bridge f A. The princii>al part of any bridge Hpan consists of thi' trusses. In this particular bridge there are two trusses; this drawing represents one truss, aiil it is a .-i'le elevation, uiid the other truss is sup|iosed to be immeiliately hehiiiil this one, and is exactly similar to the lirst one. — ? A. By the truss, I mean the plan ' eleviiiion " ; the truss 'j!. By the tniss yon mean— this ei'vation which is m-irked on consists of the top chonl or this timl)er — these pieces of timber. Q, Those are all tiinbi'r on the top f A. Yes, sir , the bottoMi rhoni which is all of iron ami which is shown here just beneath tlie filler, and what are known as tin. wcl) memhers, whii'h are all of the jiiiiis in between the to|i atnl the liottoni chonls. The web members art- ilivided agiin into what you might call two dilFerent kinds, which aii' till' timber members, whi'di are the vertical posts at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 mill (I, and the iron or tensi\:M members, which consi.st of the hip viTtii'iilh anil the diagonals, which are shown hero in lilue. Now, the fiiiiftion of these woigi'tlier. The intention of the iron members throughout the truss is til t,ke the tension strain, or strain tending to pull the mendiers a|"ol; at either end of this elevation we have an end view of the truss ♦ -■,, -i" "■I' it« N i : ■\4 ..' -?? >^f 48 Q. Before we leave this, is the top chord connecteil or imt ? A. Each top chord consiists of six inilepentleiit pieces, wliidi nvf connected at their eny ineniis of ciistinjfs at the points siiown on tlie plan. Ench of tlie bottom clionls consists of Ki indepeinliiit memliers, cuniiected at the ends hy pins, wliich are also siiown on llu' plan ; the vertical nienthers are connected with the ehonls hy iiniip.-i of shoes and holts nnf)ttom this shows exactly the relative position and si/.e of thebotti)iii and the floor beams ? A. That ia right. Q. If the floor beam were to break off at the end as K descriV>ed in connection with No. •'). could that floor beam ii possibly strike the laterals ? A. No; the floor beam, if it ofl' inside of the hunger would ilrop clear uf the laterals. lileralt Ih'i'II Jlin- . iiri'il '\.m\ Q. Where did No, li sheur off! A. It sheajod ofl inside of the lianji^er. (). So it. coiiid not havo rested on thu liitcriil, as Mr, Wilinoe Niijjyesta ? A. No. , Q. When you cntiie to oxnniiiu' tlio l)ridi:f', were you able to locate the ditlerent eoniponont jmrts of the i)ridf^t! from the debris ? A, Yes, most of them, Q. Were you able to locate the door li(!anis, in the tirst place? A. Yen. Q, Did you find the tloor iuHin •.ihieli iii'ionj;i'd to No. 1? A f WHS aliiu to loi.';itf all i.f the Hooi- b(>inu A. That is a new l»cam, and it 111 I i.iun chopped some on one end, and one eml had some mud on it ;i I . , I. ; tip- 'ji 60 where if. had evidettatly been in the bottom of the bay ; it was in gooil condition. Q. Broken in any way ? A. No. Q. How did you find number 5 ? A. No. 5 was a new boam ; it was bored for hanjjera, one IJ inch hanger still in placo ; one ernl of the beam had mud on it ; it was located at 5 as the lateral nols and the direction in which they lay ; it was in good condition. Q. Was there any other new floor beam which was bored I'ur hangers ! A. No, not any of them. Q. This was the only new beam in which the hangers were jmt back in the same Way as they Were originally ? A. Yes. Q. How did you finil G (• A. Beam was in good e()n|iiiii ut either end, and another broken stringer coming from somi' iiitiT- mediate place in the span which fell. Q. Where diil you locate the first stringer you mentioned ? A. Two broken ones — one fro.n either end of tlie span by joiiiiiiu' on the next adjacent span, and t.Se third stringer from some inttTiiie- diate place in the bridge — I could not tell. Q. So the two that you spoiu: of first were coiniectod witli the three l>eams running to it ? A. Oh, im ; not at all ; they were dour at the end of this span which fell- of the span, not the panel. The other one I could not locate deKnit«ly. Q. How close can you come? A. The end of this l.tokon stringer must have been over Hoor l)eam 2 or 4 or (i. Q. Are you able to give any opinion as to either, or «r tlicy all al«mt equally probable > A. Weil, it is very likely locuti I over 2 or 4. ^ 61 Q. Wa« there at the place where this stringer broke — wus there nny peculiarity about the wood ? A. Yes ; there was a largo knot in the stringer. Q. What one of the hangers was broken ? A. I found one broken yoke hanger and one cracked yoke hanger. Q. Could you locate where the broken yoke hunger wa.s ? A. Tiie broken yoke hanger wa.s still i;< place in lioain Nu. 5. Q. And could you locate the cracked one ? A. No ; the cracked one had been taken out of the dcor beam, and could not bo located. Q. When you speak of beinn; cracl 1— not i.roken sufficiently for the pin to go through ? A. It was not .separated— Minly cracked aUiut half way across the inch and a quarter iron. Q. So that could not have had anything to do with the fall of the bridge ? A. Not at all. Q. I suppose the presumption would be it was broken during the collapse of the bridge ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Would it l)e possible for a bridge like that to give way and fall without breaking more or less of the iron work ? A. I think nut. Q. Which wa.s the weakest portion of that span— the woodwork or ironwork ? A. The woodwork hail the smallest factor of safety. Q. The difference being what ? A. As originally constructed, the fl(X)r — some parts of the Hoor .systoni had a factor of safety of ap- proximately 4, and the least factor of safety in the ironwork was 5. t^. Where wa.s that factor of safety applied in the ironw.-)rk ? A. The smallest factor wa.s in the main diagonals extending from till' hips to points 3 and 5. y. Could they have had anything to do with the original lireiikiiig of the bridge ? A. They did not have anything to do with it. Q. What was the factor of safety of the hangers ? A. As originally built, the factor of safety of ilie hangers was 11. Q. From your examination of the woodwork of the bridge after the span fell, which was the weakest part of that woodwork ? A. The rotten floor beam. Q That is at No. 3 ? A. Ye.s, sir. V So that the woodwork was the weakest portion of the l>rii|^'i , speaking generally as between it and the ironwork, and floor Wain No. 3 was the weakest portion of the woodwork ? A. Un- douhliiily. <,' You have heard the evidence as to where the car was at the time the bridge broke, have you not ? A. Yes, sir. "li H J .-J - . • m 52 Q. Ill fact, you have heard all the evidence that has been givin? A. I have, Hir. Q. Includinjr Mr. Cox's evidence with reference to the l)oriii<; uf that liole. What kind of way, in the tir.st place, is that of t(■^till^ floor beams? A very poor way. Q. What do you complain atKJut, in it ? A. It gives nn ml- ditional cau.sc f«r docny and deterioration of the beams. Q. Is there any neces.sity for using as large an aiifjer ? A. None. Q. A nd would the size of the anger have anythinfj to do with the llama;;!' that a bole like that would tdfi'ct ? That i.'<, would it liu less if it in larger, or would it be loss if it is smaller? A. It wmiM be in a dej^rec los.s, if it wa.s smaller. Q. I suppose there are other ways of testing beams, anylinw, than by boring ? A. Yes. Q. Wbat is till' usual way ? A. The usual practice is to use a sharp pointed iustiumeut of .some kind, similar to a carpeutut's scratch, and to prod for decay defocts. Q. And can they be tested by tapping them at all? A Yts. possibly. Q. Hut the usual thing is as you have montioneil ? A. VCh, .sir Q. What do you think of the method which Mr. Cox I'nipiovtHi of plugging that hole ' A. It amounted to very little. Q. After six months would it bo worse, better, or as guDil ns if he bail not plugged it at all ? A. Well, my opinion is it wouU be worse. Q. And why ? A. Because as soon as the oil got f>iit uf tlu' oakum it would net as a sponge to draw moisture. (i. What is the chief cause of timber like this weakening? A. Moisture from the atmosphere. Q. Or, I .suppose, from any other source? A. Precipitation. t^. What would be the necessary ctfi-ct <(f that bole bciiiu' liori'il as has been di'scrilx'il, mid plugged in the way in wdiicb il wi's? A. It would necessarily cause the beam to rot. Q. How lonL' a time would it take for that — for a rm cftn.^eil by a bole snob as tltiit, to becoinc serious t A. It is biird I" iiiswiT that (piestion detinitidy. Q. I umlerstand you could not say to a month or anytl> ni; like that; but of course you know what I am riTiTiiiig to. Tiii- ne wiis bored for four yi'ars ' A. In four yt-ars it. woiilil probably ' pretty rotten, of counic considering that it was- that it had bi in lln' bridge at the time it was bored, 7 years. 58 Q. How would these other IioIm thiit were in it affect it as comimred with tlmtono? Tuku, lirst, tlic two hanger hoK-s wiiieli went throuj^h, and you itnow, of cuiirse, liow the |)hite went across at the huttoni V A. An open iiole wmilil not eunse rot to bo as rapid lis oiiu which is closed at tho bottom und retains the moisture. Q. Witli reference to these holes, there has heed some sugges- tidii that these lianj^er hoh's, when tiie philips were acri)ss, had ijeen tlused the same as if the hole had only gone [larti.illy through the beam — how is that 1 A. They were oi)en at the hottoin. Q. Kxcept that there was a plate under it ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Still, that plate would not close it < A. It would not. t^. At) it sheared oH was greater than at the other end, and also greater than the rottenness of floor beam No. 7 wdiieh had iKjen in till' same time ? A. Yes, sir. i}. Bearing nil those matters in mini, what was the cause of this li.'ani lireaking at the particular lime at which it broke? A. riio fiu,-t that it ha«l been bored in \»'M. *iit'('- guaru — a great help towards preventing u serious accident. Q. Explain how ? -A. Suppose a floor beam gave way, we now have no support under this floor beam. If that floor beiun guvt- way the weight of the car at this point on the track would ili|iirss the floor beam, and after the floor ])lanking got down about i! iMclii"* the ends of the plank would rest on the iron brttoin chord wl)ic'li would support a very large weight. If the planking wont down con- siderably, or if the planking should break, tlie floor plankini,' wouM go down further and these stringers which you see here, wnnld rest on the bottom lateral rods which you will remember are eoimi'i'teil with the floor beam over here at the hanger, and which would not necessarily go down by the floor beam breaking. The lateral lo.ls iirc cotuiected in between the stirrups and they could not get out until the stirrup would break. If a floor beam should break and u'' down, the plank would go down until the ends ri.'sted on the bottom idiord; that might go down still further and the stringers hold on the lateral rods; these two things together would form a very sii Mipport, and might, in ca.se of an accident happening when a is on there, carry the tramcar safely over to the next floor I prevent a serious accident. Q. If that floor were cut away in the way it wa.-< ' -t I'""' would it affect the point you have just l)een speaking of ' \ hi case the floor were cut in three pieces and we had a 10 by 1- 'iinj,'er >-.! initial ii inicur ..iji anil ■ m 55 iimlor each rail, in case of uii ucciileiit., tin; Hixir lioaiii would deflect tiic floor goinjr over it, mid when tlio strini;ers roach tlie hottoni liiti'riil rod", that wouM cause suinu support — the striiifjers would help curry the load. These long strinf,'ers reiichinj,' from oni; floor lieaiu to the second floor lieaui would also form a sujiport for the tranicar. Now, if the strinjjfers were stron},' enonjrli to carry tlu^ loaded tranicar, of pours'e it eouhl I'un across aixi prolniMy reach tht! next floor Ikmiui ill safety. That is, if the strini,'ers and tlii! lateral rods toj,'etlier were stroll)^ enou)»h, the tranicar ini^ht run on to the next floor lieain in safety; Imt if the two to^etlier were n )t stroni,' enou;^h to carry the load, the plankin<; tieinj^ cut in three pii'ces would form no siijiport whatever; it woulil simply luickle down, and tlie whole thing fall throuj^h ; that is, under the new system. Q. It would he deprived entirely of the support to he j^oiined by the planking resting cm the bottom chords > A. Exactly. Q. You have heard evidence with reference to the accident tliat liappened in 1H02 ? A. Yes, sir. Q. On which occasion, althonsxh a floor heam hroke, the car was cnrriecl safely over. Now, in what respect, if any, was the liridge in 1K!)() less alile to carry the tram over, assumine; the floor heain to Imve liroken, tlian it was in liS!)2 ^ A. It was less ahle from the fact that the floor jilanks were ciit in three [lieces, in.stead of Leing in one jiieco as originally. Q. That is, .so far as the support to lie cleriveil, and which was derived in IS02 from the Literal chords, there was no diHTerence ? — from the lateral rods > A. Practically no difference. Q. They were still the same. So far as the stringers were coiicerneil, if there was any difleronce, those larger stringers, I supjiose, would make it stronger ? A. More favorable, certainly. Q. Cut the one thing that was not there was this flooring f A. Ves, sir. Q. The bridge was built for ordinarv traffic— not tram traffic ? A. Ves. Q. You might just state the capacity of the bridge and the factcirs. You have hoard what Mr. Warner said as to the capacitj' of the bridge ? A. Yes. <^. And the factor of safety > tienlly with what Mr. Warner says. /> ; A. Yes ; I think I agree prac- Q. And what is the ordinary lifi heaiiis ? A. The ordinary life of fliMjr of tills timlier — these floor beams would be probably 8 ' IB J or 10 years; it might be 1 .nger under certain favorable conditions. 'f Something was said by Mr. Warner alxiut welded eyebars ill I'Miinection with tiiat broken hanger. Just describe what an I'yeb.iris? A. An eyebar is a flat piece of iron To take an illus- >f iron To tak triiti 111, we will say a bar 3 inches wide and I inch thick ; at each end of the bar it is enlarged to — instead of being 3 inches wide it S6 wonlil tx' wiy !) inrlicH or it may Im 10 inchoi) wiile, may be 7 iinin") widb, ntul woulil In- circulur in toriii ivt tlio ciiil — in tlin eontr-e of iliiit cnlmyt'iniMit — at tlieoml — tlu'rr WduM l)u ii lioio liorud there,;! inclieH in iliiiuiuter, for a rouixl U)it or pin to ^o throu^li. Q. Wa« tliero any cytdmr in connection with theso Imni^iiK? A. No, «ir. Q. My li-arnoil frimml <]UtiMtionoi one broken nyt'biir cxti'ii.liiii,' from till' KHiniiiiiiilt end ]mi' it. This (indieatinj;) i,s c iiisiilered the Ksqniinalt end i)f tlie biiili,T: this eyebar e.xtends Iroin the |)ii'r to floor beam No 2 ; and it is coii- nucted on to this pin at tlo-ir beam No. 2. Q. What was it for, and whert^ wa.s it biokc>n ? A. It ii oiii' of the main miMubers of the bottom ehord i>f the, bri irrs of the truss whieli carries the entire louil — it carries j of the entire load which I'omes on the truss ; it wns broken near Hoor beam 2. I will explain that each of the trusvs liaii two of these bars uxtitndin^ from to floor Imam 2 ; there were twn trns.ses, and each truss liuil two bars ; that is, thiTe were four l^u-- at each und uf the pier, uach 2 inche.s wide and 1 inch thiek. Q. There were four and this wiw one of the four 't A. Y( ■<, in'l two on each side. Q. CouM you form any idea how it was broken ' A. Well. I am satisfied it wius broken when thu brid^;*.- fell. Q. At anj' rate, could it have had anythinjf to do willi tin' oriffinal collapse? A. It was not the proximate cau.se of 1 1 !■ acci- dent, -no. Mr. Taylor: When you speak of two on eaeh siile of tli'' ^|«in ' A. Certainly ; two pieces for each truss, as I stated. Mr. Davis: Wax the twin bar, if 1 might so call it. at Hit siilc broken .' A. It was not. Q. If the breaking of tliat one wivs the cause of the . i idi'lit. could Ihiit oni' huvu broken too '' A. No. what. w..|,|,., trip <,'. imp ■ift you A »T Orosh-Kxamivkd iiy Mil, Tavi,oh. Q In iimkiiijj tliiN ciilcnlatioii of johin, Mr. Lockwrmil, as to the ( irrying wipaoily or tlu! slniiii slicct, on the cur licinij how far to omi siili — two-tliinls? A. ThriM!-(|iiart A. Well, that is a thini{ Ho one nan antwer. y. Is that a very hiifli percfiitnifo to put in a lirid^'n of that clmrattcr ? A. No, sir: it is tiie oriliiiary streri;,'tli of reiiiiod iron. Cj. Was that refined iron '! A. Sup|K)si>d to lie. Q. I know^snpposed to lie ; the tmulile is there is too much ".supposed to lie " aliout liiis bridge. If it had all bii-n critically •>;- Hiiiini'd, wo would not prolmbly have had the nccidiiit ? A. To the best of my belief, it wait rufirted iron. 1 ex>tniined the iron. (). You reuieiuber it stiuck you it was all welilKss iron nt first, lifter exaininiuf; it for alHiut a week ? A. Yes, I di.scovered after- wards tlie bars were all wuldeil. Q. You were of that opinion until 1 called your attention to that at the inqueot ? A. Yes. Q. Did you make any further exandnatinn at the time '! A f)f what. y. Of the iron, more than to see whether those eyebars were wcliji'd ? A. Not that I remendier of, now. I think I did on that Irip. I think I made an examination of one or two of the breuks. (}. Don't you renieniltor you went down after, to see whether your opinion as to the iron beinj{ weldless was correct, and you came luuk iinil said it was a mistake — it was welded- this eycbar you ex- plained iHjforc luncheon, that forms an eye ? A. Ye.s. <^. And this piece is welded on to the long piece ? A. Yes, sir. *i. In looking at a weld, can yon tell whether it is a perfect or iini). I feet weld ? A Not always. '} 0)uld you tell at all until you broke it apart ' A. Well, yuu riu form or pass your judj,'iiient on it. V But can you really tell < That is another ca.se of supposing ? A. Not absolutely. ' ,i -'Aff il 58 Q. Vim Htiit«'fc>rt>, you coulil imt ti'll wUliout lirunkiii^', in that ri^lit t A. You ciituiot tull tiliNulutcly. i-l. Tliiit m another NuppoNitiou ? A, Yc'.h, sir. l^. N'liw, li't UM j^i't down to tlic wi'ij{lit. I tliink you put t!io Wt'i},'lit tliut iiii;,'lit Im' puMst'il iiviT that iit 1) tons ? A. I put, (Jm panul loiiil that thu Itriilgi; was H^urvd for ttt itliout !) toim. (). I will try.nii'l iniiki' this short, Mr. li ickwnoil, nnij will jiist kIikw you what yo\i wiiil ln'1'ori', fin>l si'i- it you mlhcri' to it >iili. (I'. !tV oV Iiii|U«Ht.) "A lirid;,'!' of thiit ihwriplion (lud ciip.icity, in thiit a liriiij^c suitahle for all kinds of tnillic? A. No; it is suitiilili- for truffle not j,'ri'atly in cxcnss of the wci'^dit. it was li<;urud for ; the saiiir as any lirid;,'!'. CJ[. What wtuj^lil was it tij(urcd for / A t'lif thousand pounds jhu" liiu>al foot that was liiiurcd. not to cxcri'l :U),(>OI) IIpr; the strain shci't shows not to ex d 2S.000 ll.s. ou iUiy one paui'l ; that includes the weij^dit of tlu' floor itself, rthich wei;,'liii| ahout 5 tons, (}. Kourtei'ii tons that would lie alxtul !) hmt-^. A. Yes, on each panel ; that is the weiirhl the hridf^e was ti;;inel, of about li tons pur pauel. Witness: Yt'8. Q. You Htill stick to timt ? A. Yes, sir. Q. You IukI fi<,'urt'd in that 5 tons tlio sidewalk? A. Yes; w I renienilier it, I had, Q. Lflt us ^ot it accurate, hecause Mr. Wnrnor said he li'^iuvil the sidewalk at 7^ tons ; the floor jiroper of the truss, and then linn' would Ih.' tliu sidewalk '( A No; that 5 tons would not ineludi- tin' sidewalk 0^. So, whatever the weiffht of the si'lcwalk in addition to the weijrht of the floor would bo sulHructed from this !t tons'? A. Yen, 8ir. Q. You hoard him this niorninfj; put the total woi;;ht at 1\ tons, and you put the wi'ij;ht of the floor at a, that would leave 2^ tor tlu' sidewalk ? A. Tluit is right; that is appruxiinato. Q. Y'U li^furtMl it to;,'ether, didn't you, the two of you? A. A great many things we went over together. Q. You compared your figures carefully t.)gether ? So tliat would be 2^ tons off the 9 ? A. That is right. Q. That would leave 5^ tons? A. Six and o-hnlf tons. t^. Would b(? about the safi^ load to go on it; tliat wa the weight of the originol ear that went over, wasn't it .' don't kuuw. .•iluillt A 1 Q. [Jut I am speaking from the result of your invest i;; ili"n ' A. We did not investigate the origiiuil car. "Ill III 1(1 ill'' V YtH. Si. tlmt ;,l«)lll \ 1 ,, r.jiiK'ii! AO Q. Btit iliil you see any of tliu ori;;iiml ciirM there ? A. 1 -,a\v NoiiiP Hiniill carx. C^. Fivt! ton piirs? A. As I niiH'inlicr it, tlicy were iipproxU iiiiitt'ly 10 tons -the cur mul tin' loml. t^, A loiidffl car Wdiilil Im' hImhiI lOtoin; then that wmilil lie too iinu'h to let ^o over it i A. Well, it WouM lie Ik little mure thilll the |iiinel load the liriili,'!^ was oriffiiially tij;iireil for. t^. Listen to this answer thon aJHO : (P. 9fl of inqiicnt): "What woiilii you couHidnr tin; ontHiile limit whioli yoii could nllow on that l)rid;{i) " ? A. Well, il Nini,'le loud you ineun a .siiii^le load? ' (}. Yes, either a trunurar or a dray. If you had authority over tlmt hridj»e, where would you ijraw the line '( A. Well, 1 should say if a man eame aloui; and waiiteil to take a load twiee the auinunt, to ciiiMS the hridjfe IM tons if he usecl extra preeautions I mi'^ht allnw him to p't it n('ros.s. And if he wanted to run a load liki' that t!Vi'ry day, I shoidd say no. And if the load was iniifh larger than tliat I should say he hud lietter nut taki' it ai'rii>s at all. Q. Then tluTc i.s a sulitruction of 2J tons from the sidewalk in ConHidering that I A. I heliuve nut. y. .So tlmt would recluoe tlnit IS tons hy •>!, :• A. Possilily. (i. So HlM)ut I. 5 J Would be the limit I As the result of your inve.stifjatioii, you found this ear ami |>assen;;ers 20 tons, and also ascertaineil there were two v.'liieles on the span at the time' A. Home teams and some pe()ple. Q. Im not this tlie fact, to make it short, that there was one vi'liiele, one of the.se linjjjjies that sit l>ack to haek--a ;;ladstone — with \ passenj»ers in ? A. I don't know Q. You did not follow the evidence on that point / A. No. i). But at any rate, with a canyiiii,' capacity of only 1\ ton.s there, and the oiitside limit 15J, suiely the answer to the whole of tlmt IS, if you have 20 or 22 tons, it could not stand it i A. You Want to rememlier that not all of tlmt 22 tons wn< on one |)anel ; it WHS all on one span, tint not on one panel. Q. You were asked in these ijuestious on the hrid;;e, what Would you permit to puss safely r)ver the liridjje ! A. Yes, sir, that is rij^lit; us a sinj,de loaii. <^. And oft repeatearts : as a matter of fact, you have formed an oniniun as to the cause of the bridfjo (giving; Way. Will you let U.S know what it is ? A. Yes, sir ; 1 consider that the primary cause was too heavy a traffie, with the bridge — that is, i\w Driy miglit, nnil they might not; we have positu ' evidence that in 18!)2 they di'l not l.^reak. Q. Assuming the floor beam broke ? A. did in 18,)2. Yes, sir ; which it (l IJ 1 you know what weight was in it in 1S92 ? A. Tliu car was loa^iud about as it was at the time of the ."ccident in 1890. Q. You say that would support it ? A, 1 say that thr^ ili'l. (). Did they extend over the choni link? A. Yes, mi ; thi; plan showed that it did. I l>a.se my supposition on the plan. Q. Do you know as « fact that they did? A. Not of y own knowledgv,'. I (hin't know it I gather it frorti the plan whirl -ho«s the ends go over the bottom chord. 61 Q. Bat yon do not mean serionsly to tell na those tlireo pknks wnnld liavo heM up this weifrht on it, this day >. A. Th«y evidently (lid ; thay assisted it, a great deal Q. I an> speaking of the .client of 1S9G? A. Oh, in 189G the plaaks vt'ere all cat. Q. Do yon snppose tliat they would have nffeetod it? — would hnve saved it in any way if this floor '!)eani hail broken as you say? A. Well, they would have assisted it veiy greatly, and they niiidjt ha\T prevented the accident. Q. How do you account for it when you say there was a j^reat deal more weight than it would carry, anyway :' A. I clo not say there was a greater weight than it would carry. I said a greater hud than it should liavu licen subjected tn. Q. That meanii the sarne thing ? A. No, it does not. Q. Seven and a half tons is what will he a safe load for ii / A. Yes, a safe load per panel — not of the entire bridge. Q. Am I not to infer from that anytliiag aJiove 7i tons would lie an unsafe load for it ? A. No. Q. You could crowd on a Voad indefinitely ? A. Not ijulefi- nitely. Q. Well, the factor of .safety mean" yiin camiot by any possi- bility go up to or beyonil it ? A. No. Q. It has no meaning then in connection with it? A. No — the fiictor cX. safety means the load which yon tiijnre t)he bridge for, urdi- narily ; you .should not strain the members beyonil that factor of safety. At the same time, you can strain them beyond to a ceriain exten , without any great danger. y. Do you mean to tell nie a briilge with a earrying capacity of 10 tiiiis figured wi*h a faotor of cttfi-ty of n, which would mean 50 tons ''. A. Ten tons per panel. ',•. You coubt put .50 tons upon it without any dangi'r? A. < Vrtainly not; 60 is the estimated breaking load ; that i.i taking the factor flf safety at 5 and the .safe load at 10. (I That 50 would break it ? A. Certaiidy. V And the ele.stic iiniit of iron is a haii? A. Approximately. ().. So if you stretch it up to 25 you reach the ela.stic limii of the iiiin I A. Yes. () Fioyond tha^ it would not be safe to go ? A. You should never ion.i iron beyond the elastic limit. ". Yon pnt on« load tlipn of 25 tons on ii on that basis you won have reaeb.d the elastic limit of your iroi '. A. Yes, sir. I ! • f. ^■. I' f)2 y. If you follow that with a load of 30 tons, you would iiuve prot beyond the I'liistic liinit of the iron — isn't that a fact ? A. 1 w ;iiit to qualify uiy answer in rejfiird to the 25 tons. Q. Can you not answer me yes or no to that? A. 1 iluii't care to, at present. You pin me down to the (piestion of Huppusiiif,' 25 tons on one pimel of the bridge. That placing might strain to I lie elastic limit only a part or members of the floor system ; it might imt strain anj' other members in the truss anywhere near the elastic limit. Q. (Question repeated.) That assumes a basis of 10 tons jiIm.s a factor of 5, or 50 ton.s. Half of that factor would reach the elnstic limit of the iron ? A. It might some pieces of iron in the tru.>s, not necessarily all of theiri ; in fact, it was not all of tliem. Q. But you do not consider that the truss and !>'idi{e are stronger than its weakes' part, lo you ? A. Certainly, li.; 1 •;s.s a.s a whole is no stnmger than its weakest part or member. Q. But, having stretched some portions of the iron up to tlnir eln-stic liinit of 25 r A. You miglit not stretch any limit of tlif iron at 2.". tons. Q. Is not that the limit you placed on it yourself ? A. I Mviii probably there are certain pieces in the bridge which would be strained to their elastic limit much quicker than other pieces. Some members of bridges are iron and some wood. Q. Do you mean to say you do not understand my question? A. No, 1 don't say that at all. Q. Then do try to answer it, because I am not trying t» catcli you. You are askiug me questions which, if I answer you directly, are mihleading. Q. Surely you do not propose to answer me indirectly :' A. No, but I have to (pialify u\y answers in order to make it clear. Q. I have not got an answer. I say, on the supposition uf tin carrying eapacitj' of 10 with a factor of safety of 5, or 50 tiwi A. On each panel 'i Q. The elastic limit of the iron, you have told iih' alri'udy i« about 41. If you put on a load of 25 tiois, would you .stri'icli tli' iron to its elastic limit? Vou said yes to that' A. I'l^Jer i' rtfti* conditions. Q. By putting weiglit nu it > A. If you put a weiglit '/f 4* tons on each \mnv\ of the bridge, you cert.'ii/ily wouli' striiiii MJ* members of the t'-uss to the rliMtip limit. Q. Woiddn't you do timt when you pasned n 25't( them ? A Ai>y menilM i f tli'' truss ? Q. Yes. Surely you do not mean to ti'll irie tliat half of the ultiumte breaking striiin is not the clastic limit of iron ? A. Not at nil. It is approxiinately, yes — s|)C'akini,' liroadly Q. Then suppose you jmt that woi^dit on it--tialf of the lireaking .strain. 1 won't confine it to the 2') tons, ht'cansc you won't stick to that ? A. You loa'l the entire liridjjc, certainly. Q. If you load one part, that is strained ; and is it not the same tliiiii; ? A. No, sir; not hy any means; that is where the whole (liHiciilty lies; that is the rea.son I do not an.swer your ([uestions to suit you. () Does a weight on *Ut: bridge stretch the iron? A. Cer- tiiiiily— any weight. Q. A wei^^ht of onedialf the breaking strain woidil hring it to its elastic limit ' A. If you load the truss to one-half the hreakiug slrairi. Q. If you load l)eyond that j'ou get heyond the brcfiking strain of the ire III ? A. Yes. Q. If you ha0 times 700, which would be IO,'i,000 lbs. ',• You think Ihaf one of these spans woidd carry lOfj.OOO lbs? A I see that is one half 1 made tt mistake. Perhaps I had better yif It this way — '/ You i\ad bctt»>r put it some other way I am pretty sure of *•! : A The i riaUing load of the sfian would be 700 times the f«?t<.i of s«(>'ty which was 5 ti:!!es the length of tiie span whii'h wa.s I50i' whicli woidd amotuit altogetiier to ."i2 i.OOO H • In other woi !s, uiiiruniily di.stril'Utcd load if 5'2.'i,0OO His. \viiulr: D\(\ ytnt understand what I OHked you? .V J fliWiLT'it (d(ii In tlie first place you were trying to get the t lin in : 1 1 1 tbe trusses from a single paaol load which yon «ainnot do ; thnt is, you cannot gut tbe Mtruin ui ali the braces of ttie tram ia ene panel load. Q. I think I have been quite fraak with you anil have tol nieniher or tlu; trusH itself which would have huen strained to ai-y where near thu elastic limit ; still I would con- sider it a very had practice to allow trallic of 20 te on two floor beams; it would never all be what we call a panel load. Q. I don't know what you call it, but as a matter of common sense it would be between two beams 4 and .5 ? A. What we call a panel load is a loail by one floor beam, ''nd you could never get the entire load of that car on one floor hewn. It is bound to go to at least two, and soii)etimes three. Q. What distance is there between those floor beams ? A. Kighteen feet 9 inches. Q. Did you hear Mr. Warner this morning speak of the factor of safety of a railway bridge as coini>ai-;' with a highway liridge? He .said the factor of safety for a highway liridge would l)e givater than for a railway bridge. Do you agree with that ' A. No, sir. Q. You put it the other way ? A Yes, sir : the factor of safety would be high(yr for u railway bridge than a highway liridge. Q. You found a flaw in this broken hanger that you found — didn't you find a flaw in the iron ? A. No, not in the broken iron. <('. Did you find a flaw in any iron > A Yes ; one broken hip vertical. W That is a material and important part of the bridge ' A. It is. h ai;ti« as a hanger; it is uot a meuilmr of the truss system proper. ",i You foumi a pretty substantial flaw in that piece of iron > A. I I'outil a cinder s|) )t, where it hid beiMi welded ; yes, sir, 1^. What IS the effoct of a cindet spot i Is it a tUw or no* ' A, It makes a bad weld. Q. It U a (law T A Oh. certainly it is a flaw fij ^i 4 . ri 1 V ee Q. It was about a third or two-thirds through, wasn't it ? A I don't reinembor now. Q. I will just see what j'ou did say. (P. 117 of Inquest). You were naked : — " Q. A slight flaw, nearly half way throujjh ? A. Will, "I don't think it was quite half; I don't think it was half thioiiijh. " Q. Was it a third thrcmgh ? A. Po.ssihlj- it was ; possibly it wn.s; "possilily one-quarter or pos.sibly one-third of a section. Q. Fnnna " quarter to a third is too much to call a slight flaw ? A. Well, a " raii-ly good sized flaw po.ssibly." Q. That was in one of tho original hip verticals ? A Yes. Q. Which one was it ? A. One of t.ie hip verticals ■^t I. I had btttei- look at my notes to l)e sure ; as 1 remember it, thatiswliut it was. I do not find anything in my notes about it, but as I renu'in- ber it, it was the vertical at, 1. Q. What is the factor of safety of that hip vertical ? A. Under 1. Q. The original factor of .safety ? A. 7. Q. That is one of the most important members of the truss, isn't it? A. Well, it is just as any liang( r. Q. It is more important ? Not at ail. Q. Is there any other memV)e' of the trass that is of mori' im- portance ? A. Yes, one ot' the ma'n members of the truss wmiM be more important. Q. Wliftt do you mean by mai i members ? A. The liottdtn chord. Q. And tho top chonl ? A. Yos. Q. Now, the top chord you say was butted and jointed up at each one of those uprights--] to 7, there. A. Yes, sir. Q. You examined that critical! . ?---you know it was that way '■ A. The top chord ? — oh yes. Q. Wa« butted over each one of these. Mr. Warner was slightly in error when he iiientioneil that top chord exteniled over (wo of theae ? A. If he said that, he was mistaken. J don't think lie saiii it, because he certainly understands a tru.ss. Q. Tiiere was no way of fastening thoie tngether tin i w^s there ? A. They were fast in the cast iron Iiloeks. Q. Were they fastened together in the origiiial 1' si,i,'n .' A. No, onlj' from what fastening they got by resting in t!,' nn^'l'' blocks. Q. They were held in comprussion there 'i A. Yes. m 67 Q. If tlioy got out of line, tlio whole structure would go togt'tlier -liucklo like u juckkiiifi! ? A. If they got out of lino far enough, tii(^ bridge would collapse. Q. Do yon consider those as good as a, continuous hnr up there I A. Yes, sir. Q. Would a continuous har do that ? A. If it got far (.iiough out of line, certainly it would collapse under a load. Q. Wouliln't it have to go further than tliost; imtted pieces? A. It might, yes. Q. And they are more likely to get out of line — tho.se butted jiicces, than the other ? A. I don't think so. Q. Whj not .' A. Why is it ? Q. You see, I am asking yon ' Ysn don't think so ? A. No, sir. Q. Do yon say that it might not have been causeil to collapse by the hanger breaking at 4 — 5 i A I think not. Q. Is that what you said buf'T.i .' a. : i^it is what I .said now. Q. I find another reference here to what \ ou said at that time : (P. 127 of Tnijuest) : " Y(ju found a broken ii'inger at 5 > A. Either 5 or 4. Q. Might that not have been the fiist thing to go and curry away the iioor ahead of it '? A. It might, yes, sir. If the Ijroken iiHiigcr was at 4 or .5, the probabilities are that the hangi-r liroke fiist" Q. You do not adhiu-e to that opinion now ? A. There are otlur i|uaiifications placed in there. (). None are placed on that an.swcr ' A. I don't think the liwigi-, I'l'oke first. Q. You do not adhere to that original opinion of yours? A. No, sir. Q. That was given at the conclusion of u week's examination, WHS it not ? A. Yes, sir. y. In ■vlfo, sir. . When ? A. I changed it .since that time ; within a week, within ten days anyhow. (^. Since your connection with this trial I A. Yes, sir. 9- And you changed that bccftuse .someone tolil you about bor- ing iliis beam, I suppose, with the auger? A. No, sir, not fur hat rwii-uu. rea.si <: You changed it for some other reason '! A. Not alone for that 1< f Q. What was tho other reason ? A. I have secured additional evidence in regard to the accident, and wlicre the car waa at the ti iie of the accident, iind whuro the car was in the water after the ,ioci- dent occurred. If I remember rif^htly, I hased my tlieory ot tlie hanger breaking tirnt on the location or the car; and I said tit the time, if I remember rightly, that floor beam did not fall Krst Itecaiwe the car had not reuclioetwuen 3 and 4. I liiivi! seen a photograph of the bridge almost immcliately aftui' the aai- dent occurre, and all the photographs ] saw about that tiio' •^luiwfl le people ami all the wreckage in that vicinity — that is, v,i> umth ad ncnrer Victoria end Umn tlu^ EM(|Hiiiialt (iml. Now, if as a matter of fact further evidence goes to uliow — and I tliinlt it . Eighteen tons where it would be when it passed over the liaii^M-^ A. An 18-ton car with a 14-ft. wheel base. ',•. Thirtc'-n, two and a (pin. ter, that was the wheel ba.se? A, I tigur.'.l it for a 14-ft. wh.el l>a!^e, a 20-ton car, inch and a cjuarter squiu roil. I hav(> it already figijred, right here. ■■ ■ f*l 70 Q. And you mnke it ? A. 5J. Q. You do not make it 2.7 ? A. No, Hir. Q. There is just one tiling further I wish to call your attniiticm to, as a rcHult of your examination la^t time. (P. 277 of Iiii|u>" nr at 4 broke firxt ; that is about what it aimmera down to?" Witiit'.ss : Yes. sir. Q. " Do you think that was broken and that the hanj^erH at 4 nr "Srejnained (rood, that the .sagging of that beam would capsi/i' the " whole bridge? A. I think not." What lio you say to tliat? " It in " plainly shown by the position of the ear in the water that the wliuli! " weight of the e.ir had not reached 3 ? A. I think so. Q. So llmt "it is more likely to liavo gone at this 4 or 5? A. I think so. i}. " There is only one broken fl')or beam / A Yes, sir. Q. That '.v;is at "3. A. Yus, sir. Q. Do you think that was broken and the liaiii^crH "at 4 or 5 remained )|ood ? — that the isagging of tliat beam wdulil " capsize t!io whole bridge ? A. I think not." Do you still adlicre to that? A. Yes, sir. Q. You examined that hanger at 3? A. Yes. Q. And as a result of that you found it broke from what kiml of shock or a strain? A. You cannot tell hardly, from that. 'I'licre was no (eduction of area that I could see. Q. Do you remember this question : " If the hanger at 5 or 4> as the case may be, wherever it happened to be broken first, ludkc from u purely tensile strain by the car going over it. It iiroki' from tiie shock of the load — the excessive load. That is to say, it wimlil be a purely tensile strain ? A. Yes." Witness: I agree with that Q. And you were asked this farther question : " It would l)e frorn ihe application of weight, at all events? A. Yes, sir." Q. Now, there was more weight on that than it could cany safely? A. It was not strained anywhere near its elastic limit, it still liad a factor of safety of 5}. Q. But it was broken by a pull, apparently — by a weight mi it? A. Yes. Q. You still adhere to that ? — that .s correct ? A. Yes. Q. I think you have already told u.< that the floor bcain at 7 was also very rotten ? A. It was quite rotten it the ends, yi-. Q. Do your notes show any boring in that rotten floor horm? A. No, sir. Q. All you know about that is the statement ? A. 'I'h. evi- dence I heard here. Q. Of Cox, who said he liored it? A. Yes. 71 Q. But yon do not Jwihc your wliolo theory on timt fact, do you? — ahout it giving way tlii.'io — tlu' rotten floor liciiiii i A. Wnll, I ntlrilmte the priimiry cuusu of the necidi-nt — that is, thu uccidunt happening juHt at this time, to that hoh- liuin;r horuil. (4. You don't itnow wlicWicr iifard tho tfNtiinoriy hun.-. it WHM, or not itorod ? A. I have REDIUEtT itv Mu. Davin. Q. Thi! fact of your not noticin>? any trace of it, it woiihl not follow, ont! way or liic othor, as to whi-ttuT tin- hoio was tiicro, Mr, Lixikwoot) ? A. The hoh; niij,'ht not iiavts (men tiuTc at tlie tinio I saw it, the wood was very rotten ; it was slieered riglit out. Q. And so broken up you could not toll? A. Yes, sir; it might have been there ond 1 not notice it, and it mif^ht have lieen sheared out entirely. Q. My learned friend has referred to certain evidence taken l^efore tho coniniission, and, very naturally, he diil not refer to all. He asked you with reference to tho break inj,' of the hanger, and referred to Home evidence that you agreed with Mr. Warner that it was broken by a shock. ( P. 277.) " Suppo.se the car was staniling Iwtween 3 and 4 and broke the rotten beiini at 3, would the reaction, the concussion, or anything, break the hanger at ^ ? A. No, sir ; I think not. It might break tho hanger at 4 ; that would be very possible." "Coroner: It might break in the general collapse of the bridge? A. It might break in the general collapse of the bridge at 5, but not from the shock of the breaking beam." Is that correct ? A. That is right; in fact, any iron might have been broken at that time. Q. A juror then asks this : " You assume from that that 4 or 5 Imd broken because tho weight of the cur had not reached 3, is that it? A. YoH, sir." Now. was that the reason why the expression of opinion as to the honger at that time, and y<'U give your opinion as til the broken beam, now ? A. Yes. y. Rosed on the position of the car ? A. I based my theory of the accident at that time on the position of the car, from the fact thi' ,'.. ar, a.s near as I could ascertain, had not arrived at 3, or m ir 3. ')■ • reael this said Imm the' won PXpl of tl T te very next question shows that: "It is plainly shown pii,- tion of the car in the water, the whole of the car had not KM, .i'i A. 1 think so." " Q. So that it is more likely to have at this 4 or .5? A. I think so." Now my learned friend reail ipiestion to j'ou, and asked you if you still agreed to it, and you \i)ndid. ("p. 27f*) : "Do you think that was broken, and the ;ers— it must be 'if' — Do you think that if that was broken and lianger at 4 or .5 re iiained good that the sagging of that beam M capsize the whole bridge'' A. I think not." Will you just dill what you mean ? A. Wtdl, I mean simply the shearing ort Hoor beam would not of itself cause the bridge to collapse ? )\\ T j':| w ^> IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) y A O /. % f/. % ^ 1.0 I.I 1^128 s !r III ^ us. 25 12.0 1.8 1.25 1.4 1 1.6 ^ 6" ► % <^ /a e^M. . > ^ %.. '^# v' Photographic Sciences Cbrporation 4 \ 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, NY. MS80 (716) 873-4S03 ■1? A \ .v-f. 'Q <> '^.S> Bmna y. \ <> . ^ % 72 Q. That is, necessarily ? A. necessarily. It inijjht caUHe it, but would nut Q. And proof of that, of course, wo have in '92. Will you just explain what is meant by the answer you gave my learned friend with reference to the hanger breakinjj with a weight on it. Is t.lmt weight neces-surily limited to one particular weight ? — that is, the car? A. Any kind of weight — any kind of strain — any force that wmili protluce strain enough to break it. Q. Would such a weight be applied to it in the falling of the bridge ? A. It could. m- R Q. I see at P. 281, with reference to the hanger : Q. If that hanger was at 4 instead of at 5, you think the probability of its having been the first thing to break would bo reduced ? And your answer is " yes, sir." Will you just explain why you considered at that time, and I presume still consider — at any rate, you considered at that time if the hanger was shown to be at 4 instead of at .5 tlieie was less probability of that having been the first thing to break, with reference to the weight of the car ? A. The reasoning doesn't seem just clear. Q. If the weight of the car was at 5, which hanger woulii lie more apt to break, 5 or 4 ? A. 5. Q. The question was : " If that hanger was at 4 instoail of at 5, you biiink the probability of its having been the first thing to break would be reduced ? A. Yes, sir." Why do you say the hunirei' would break in all probability where the weight was ? — the car ut that time was shown to be at ."i. Then if the car was at 5 wouM it be apt to break the hanger at 4 ? A. No ; if the car was at 5, it could not break the hanger at 4. Q. This question and answer given at that time show clcmly what you based your opinion on. Supposing that broken Imiiger had been at 3 and tlie car at 5 ? A. It would have been still less probable. Q. But if the car is shown to be, as it has been shown, at 3 and the broken hanger at .5, then what do you say ? A. Then 1 sIkiuIJ say undoubtedly that it was the beam that broke first. • Q. With reference to this flooring extending over the Imttoiii chord. Of course, von did not see that span, but did you see the twin span / A. \ es. Q. How was the flooring in that? A. In three pieces. Q. As it stands now, how is it? A. As I remember it, it ex- tends part across the bottom chonl ; that is the ordinary way i! put- ting the floor on it, so it does extend, and the pl;in shows it. Q. With reference to this flaw you have mentioned in tli> l)i|) vertical, which you wiy was at I A. One. WouKl nut ill you jvist ned frii'iiil it. Is that is, the cm''. that wcmll ,lHng of ilie Q. If thiit iViility of its > And yom- onsideicil at u considered of at 5 there [) break, with doesn't seem ger would he inHtewl of at thing to break ly the lianijer ? the car at I at o wouhl it ar was at a, it show cU'arly broken hanp'r been still less Considering all the facts which you have before you with : to the breaking of the bridge, could that hip vertical have Not at all. ri'lerence l)f(>n the first thing to break ? A Juror; In reference to the time of the change, when they took iiiit two of those 3 by 6 stringers there— joists, and substituted 10 by 12 for them. Then the plank was in three pieces, afterwanlsV A. Yes. Q. Do you think by bringing those 10 by 12 would make up for the lo.ss of strength in cutting the plank in three pieces ? A. No, sir ; not by any mean.s. Mr. Taylor : Does the floor add anything to the strength of the structure, anyway ? Court; You went into that very fully; it is no use opening it up again. ( To Witness ) : What do you say ; A. The floor cer- taii\ly adds strength to the structure. Mr. Taylor : To the truss ? A. No, not to the trass. There is a diflerence between the truss and the structure. Court : I am not going to exclude anything, if you really press it, but I think you went into that very fully — as to the double effect of it — one favorable ami th(! other pri'judicial. m '■* ; ■.■:•; •■ .V: if diown, at 3 and Then I should ver the but tow lid you sue the ! pieces. leinber it, it ex- iry way <■' i'"'' [)W8 it. oned in th- hip '•■ ': '':1i "t -•-r— PT Jll * M f-?jB ■e'T-''' ' Iv ^*^^M B. W. MURRAY, CALI.ED AND SWORN, EXAMINED BY MR. DAVIS. . Second Day ov> Trial. • lO Q What is your name ? A Bernard William Murray. Q You live where ? A Victoria. Q What is your business ? A Inspector and Superintendent of bridges and general construction. Q For what length of time have you had experience in inspecting bridges? 20 A As a boy, I started in '57 for the Midland Railway Company, in Derby, England. Q And you have been connected with that sort of thing ever since ? A Yes, sir, Q I understand you are not an engineer ? A I am not. Q Simply a practical bridge master ? A Jtust a practical constructor. Q Did you see floor-beam 7 of that .span which is gone ? A I could not say to the number of the beam. I .seen one of the old beams. Q Desciibe it ? It was one cf the old beams that were originally put in ? A Yes, sir. Q Could you tell whether it was in the centre of the span or towards tht end ? A I could. Q In what way ? A By the lateral rods and the counter pin ; it would 40 be either the beam at this end or the beam at the other end. Q Then it would be a beam at one of the hip-verticals ? A Yes. 193 Q And the beam at the otlicr was a new l)eain. In what condition was that beam? A Well, I found it rotten around the hangers — the hanger holes, rather, and the verticals partly rotten. Q You did not see beam 3, or did you ? A I did not. Q No. 7, you say, was examined bv vou. Did \on examine it specially? A I did. wm 20 Q For what purpose? A. I was sent for that purpose to examine the 10 beam. Q In order to see what ? A To see whether it was rotten or had been bored in any part. y Had No. 7 been bored in any place ? A No, sir, with the exception of the regular holes. Q Where the hangers went ? .\ Yes, sir. Q Hut I am referring to the same kind of boring as Cox did ; had it been bored for the purpose of testing ? A No, sir. Q Beam 3 you were unable to find ? A I could not find it, sir. Q That is the broken beam ? A That is supposed to be the broken beam. Q Did you search ? A I did, from the bridge to Deadman's Island. Q Did you make enquiries ? A I did. Q Were you able to find that beam high or low ? A I was not able to find the beam. Q You have heard pretty much all the evidence, in fact, all, I think ? .\ I have heard a part of it. Q Have you heard the evidence with reference to the beam being bored — Cox' evidence ? A I have. Q And the evidence as to the strain sheet — of the wood being weaker than the iron and with a lower factor ? A Yes. 30 40 I !' 194 Q You have heard the evidence of the condition of beam 3 ? A 1 have. Q Inrsl of iill, in reference to tliat (louring. Would tlie flooring put down tlie way it was finally pnt by tlie city — that is, instead of running right across as it does here (referring to model) cut in three pieces — np here, and here, and here, again. Would that have any effect on the chance of the bridge, in case a floor-beam broke, goin^ llirviugh or not going through ? A I say it would make it much weaker ; it would have the effect — Q Just describe shortls how it would streugllien, the state of the timber, 10 after the floor-beam was broken ? A H\' the planks going right through, and the rail being on top — of course, it is usually a flat rail, or even a T rail — this would be much stronger for the reason if yon take the plank this length, sup- ported underneath as it is by the stringers and then on iht floor-beams, it will have a greater resistance than if you cut it in three parts. The reason is, when you cut this you make this so much shorter ; this being where the car is it is shorter still, and uidic liable to give way, liy being cut so, it would not have the resistance ; consequent' > , the shorter the pieces, the less the re- sistance, and the more liability to let the car down. ao Court : Like a short or a long plank on thin ice ? A The same thing, your Lordship. Mr. Davis : Yon heard it described how the ends of the planking if it fell six inches would rest on the lower chord ? A I did. Q Would that be, or would it not be a material factor ? A It would while the plank is in full length, but if the plank is short, it would certainly fall down. Q What would be the nece.s.sary effect of an auger hole— the size of that one there — being bored in a floor-beam, some oakum poked in, and then the thing left there for four years ? A In boring an auger hole in there would make a receptacle for water. What would be the result ? A The water would cause rot. 30 ^ Q Evidence has been given that that end was more rotten than the other ^o •n and also that that beam was more rotten at the end than the No. 7 beam. ^A'hat cau.se would you attribute that dilference? A I attribute the cause to the boring of the beam and allowing the water to follow the fibre. 195 Q Now, Mr. Murray, Iiavc yoii luanl tlio evidence of Mr. I^ockwood and Mr. WiiriR-r? A I'artly. y All the inati'ii.il \y.u<-. .\s ii pnictiral hrid^c 111:111, altlmujjh ri'^t an cnKiiietT, llavill^J lieard tlu- siatiMiiiMil tiiai llii.' factor of safety of tlu- iron vv;i9 some tlirec times Krt'iUcr than that of thu woodwork, which pn-' in the first placi-, would hv more ,i])t to yive way — llie iron or the wo(k1\ ' ? A I would ratlu-r not ^o into it for tla- reason tliat is an en^jineer's si.iiu 1 oint, it is not from eonstruction standpoint ; tlu- eotistrnctor is supposed Uj lollow the l)lans and specifications jjiven to hini. Q The r< 'ten condition of that beam as compared with the beam N'o. 7, and the rotii-ii londitio'.i uf the (lorj;e end ('•" that beam as coini).red with the otlu-r end, you attribute to the borinjj i>f this auj;er hole ? A 1 do. to ao CKOSS-l-X.VMIXEI) W \\U. T.WLOR. Q In this original design, if a floor-beam gave way here (indicating), the ends of these planks, if they were long enough, would come down on the lower chord ? A Yes. y You .see these are all jointed here — at least they all rest on the floor beam ? A Yes. Q And the>' are not fastened together, are they, in the original design ? .\ I believe not. 30 Q You lielieve not ? A I am not sure. y .So that if a floor-beatn gave away there, the whole thing would buckle in together there, wouldn't it? A The whole thing would buckle in to- gether ; it would come down as far as the chords. ^q Q You mean to say that the.se ])lanks ju.st nailed to these joists here would .stop it— two light nails ? A There is no man can tell, I think it would be a great factor in stopping. 196 WM Q /ou think the ..alls in the planks would hold the plankinj; ? A No, it is not the nails ; thw flanking would come down on the chord. Q There is no'hing to support it underneath, and there would be an area of how much ? A If there was nothing else to support it you would have the whole length of the bridge. Q Wouldn't it have the tendency of this, Mr. Murray, that when you put long stringers with the joists broken, they would distribute the weight then, that would come on these other sound floor-beams ? A If the stringer lo is over three beam.';, that is half way over two beams and over the other one, if you broke the beam in the centre and the joist was over the beam that gave way, it would cause the car to go down, and tip over. Q And if it were not, it would have a tendency to strengthen it ? A Yes, it would have a tendency to strengthen it ? Q You do not know in what condition they were there ? A I do not. Q That seems to me common sense, Mr. Murray, that must be so. 20 Court : It must necessiirily be a source of strength or weakness, accord- ing to the place of the break. \ Mr. Taylor : And no one knows where that was. Court : That is another question. i > ■ Mr. Taylor : When you speak of a joint you mean — A I mean where the joints abut on the floor-beam. 30 Q .And no two abut on the same one ? \ And no two abut on the same one, no, sir. •RE-EXAMINKD HY MR. DAVIS. 40 Q Now, Mr. Murray, as a m.atter of fact, that floor with the joists under it, after coming down and striking the chord, cannot go very much farther ; 197 that is, there would only be a distance of six oi eight inches above it to the beam ? A Yes. Q Isn't it true that they have a great deal of wet weather in Victoria? A They do have it. Mr. Taylor ; About half what they have in Vancouver ? A I cannot say what they have in Vancouver. Juror : Q Would not that strinj^er come on that broken beam on one lo side, it must come on that ? A Yes, sir. Q It necessarily must come on one ? A Yes. Q And there was nothing else to support it when the beam gave way ? A There was nothing el.se to support it when the beam gave way. . Mr. Taylor : Q That assumes that the joint of the stringer was over the beam that gave way ? A Well, if it went down it would certainly let the car go down. There would be a joint on either one stringer or the other ; on one ao side or the other there would be a joint ? Q But it would make a difference which side it was on ? A Oh, yes Witness stands aside. 30 ; 'hi -^^ . '} ' M 40 198 1';i^- !]''!' r,m ROBERT BALFOUR CALLED AND SWORN, EXAMINED BY MR. DAVIS. I J Second Day ok Trial. Q What Is your name ? A Robert Balfour. Q Where do you live, Mr, Balfour f A At Langley. Q What is your busines.s > A Bridge builder. Q How many years exjjerience have you had in bridge-building? A ^° Twenty-three or four years. Q Just tell the jury some of the work you have been engaged on in th ^ last ten years or so ? A Well, the principal work I have been engaged on in the last ten years I expect has been in connection with the constniction of the Canadian Pacific through the mountain sections. 30 Q You built the bridges through the mountain sections of the C.P.R. ? A I superintended the construction of the bridges. Q You also built briciges, I believe, on the Calgary and Edmonton l.a..>nes? A Yes. Through the South Sa.skatchewan ; the Red Deer and Bow River. Q Yon have been in Court, have you not, during this trial, from the time it commenced ? A I have. Q You have heard all the evidence ? A I have. Q Now, I want to a.sk you, first of all, just putting it shortly — because I ^ do not want to go through it at any great length again — the- effect of the change that was made by the City in the flooring of th.ii bridge. It was originally like that model, it was then changed as you have heard described ; 199 t!j 4' \ i i\ it was cut into thiiae pieces, so that — what would be the effect, to your mind, of that ? Court : You can put it that way, and Mr. Taylor cross-examine. A It certainly destroyed the continuity of the floor, that is across the bridge, it made a break in it, so that when the floor and the floor-beam — there would be no assistance from the planking when it was cut ; after it was cut the floor planking gave no assistance to carry it over the broken floor-beam, which I consider that planking does to a certain extent. lo y And how would it be if the flooring fell so as to get a support from the bottom chords, that is, as it was originally ? Would that be of any assistance to it? A It would be of considerable assistance, especially at the pannel point, where the chord has sufficient strength to withstand the pressure. Q The chord at the pannel point. And how would it compare with the floor beam? A The chord at the pannel point originally had to carry the floor-beam ; consequently it was as strong. 20 Q The chord, at any rate, would sustain the floor-beam ? A It certainly would at the pannel point. Q Now, with reference to the effect of this auger hole which was bored in the wood ; have you or have you not had occasion in your work as superin- tendent of bridges on the C.P.R. and other places, have yon had occasion to test flooi -beams in bridges ? A Oh, yes. Q What method do you use to do it ? A By sounding it with a ham- mer, or shoving a scratcli awl into it, or shoving a knife into it. ^ Q Did you ever bore a hole like that (indicating) ? A I never did. Q What effect do you think a hole like that would have, being there four years ? A It would be injurious, in this climate, at all events. Q Well, would that injury be slight or very material, or what ? A Well, it is a receptacle to collect moisture, and which would cause decay in time. Q How would four years be, as far as the time is concerned ? Would that be time enough to rot the beam considerably ? A Considering that the 40 200 ■■»:'■ ... A ' ! Vk k? . i H ''''.; % beam was an old beam, practically speakinR, in thin climate, when it was bored, I consider four years would be ample time to produce further rot, by collecting the moisture. Q Now, you heard the evidence that the factor of safety in that bridge is higher in the iron than in the wood work f A Yes, I did. Q And you have also heard the evidence that this floor beam was the weakest portion of the wood work f A Yes. Q And you have heard, of course, all the other evidence, both as to the facts, and the expert testimony? A I have. Q Now, from your practical knowledge as a bridge contractor and a bridge superintendent, after having heard thai evidence, and also having heard where the car was at the time that the bridge collapsed, which was just over floor beam 3, what in your opinion was a portion of the bridge whic' first gave way ? A I am of the opinion that the floor-beam broke ; it was the breaking of the floor-beam. Q That would be of course floor-beam No. 3. A. Yes. 10 20 Mr. Taylor quite right ( Do not lead him. I ask your Lordship if you think that is Court : Mr. Davis will be governed, as far as he can, by the rules of evidence. The way I look uix)n expert evidence, there is little harm in lead- ing. Experts come in like so many advocates, practically, on one side or the other, and know practically what questions will be put, and what the effect will be. I do not see the harm of leading, particularly. Mr. Davis : It cannot possibly be leading, because, as a matter of fact there was only one floor-beam broke. Q Now, you have heard the evidence, Mr. Balfour, that this floor-beam had been in the same time as^oor-beam No. 7 ? A I have, yes. Q That it was more lotten than floor-beam number 7, that the Gorge end, where this anger hole had been lx)red four years before, was more rotten than the other e.id. Now, to what would you attribute the difference between that beam and the other beam, and the difference between that end of that beam and the other one ? that is the difference in the rotten condition of the 30 40 ',»!;: 201 -^V ''4 ( ' wood ? A I attribute it to the hole beinj; bored— this test hole being bored in this particular beam and tin- same test hole not having been bored in the other particular beam — the other beam. + il H. I CROSS-KXAMINEI) HY MR. CASSIDY- lO Q Mr. Balfour, you understand from that model there that the joists reach only from one floor-beam to another ? A I understand. Q Yes, and that they are not fastened together in any way at the ends ? A 1 understand. Q Now, the breaking of a floor-beam, then — of any floor-beam, would let 20 all the joists down, would it not, at once? A If they were not spiked — if the flooring was not spiked to thetn. Q I see. If the flooring were not spiked down on the top of them, it would let them all down at once ; they would all fall down immediately the floor-beam broke ? A As far as the floor-beam was. Q Yes ; they would simply tumble. So that the effect after the break- ing of a floor-beam, the joists would only be prevented from falling by the nails? A That is all. 30 Q Of the floor. A Yes. Q What size nails would \ie in the floor? .\ Six and a half or seven inches, I should judge, in a three inch plank. Q Now, the stringers ten by twelve, you have heard them spoken of, have you not? A Yes. Q They go clear over, covering three floor-beams ? A Bearing on three 40 floor-beams, yes. Q Do you understand that at the point in which — thit along the :.p of 202

rfatcr rijridity thun simply these joists — these small joists — 3 inch joist.s, simply laid on top of the floo-- beams and not fastened together ? \ I certainly say so. Q You .say that the stringers would not be mon- rigid ? A Not after the floor lx*am had broken. 20 Q Not after the flcwr-beam had broken ? A No, not after the support had been taken away in the centre. Q Now your idea is that if the floor-beam gave way letting down the joists, except in so far as they are held np by the nails, that the flooring might be caught by the bottom chord, and held up in that way ? A Well, that would be one element of snpjwrt to the floor, one particular means of sujjport. Q You are a bridge engineer and expert are you not ; A I am a bridge 30 builder. Q You are a bridge builder. Now how far would the bottom chords be from the flooring f Hov far would the floor have to fall in order to strike it ? A I understand six inches. Q Now the bottom chords, or chord links of a bridge are a part of the truss; they are tension members are they not ? A They are. Q And part of the truss. They are intended only for tensile strain ; A 4° That is the intention of them. Q To counteract the compression of the upper part of the b*'-'''<^. That 203 ,-ii .»■■' :i &.:i is their piirpose. They are not intended for a sheering strain. They are not intended to sustain a blow from the top ? A No, that is not the purpose they are put there for. Q They are not intended for that ? A No. Q If you dislocate or break away a bottom chord, the bridge collapses does it not f It is like cutting the .string of a bow? A Ye.s, if you disconnect the bottom chord. lO Q Ye.s, that is so; ifyoubreakoneoftlie.se chord links? A Not one alone, for there are more than one together. Q I mean the whole thing; in some places there are three and other places more ? \ They are put in in pairs I believe. y And how mary chord links would pass this broken beam^ A I have not seen the plans \ct. Q Now, l)etween 2 and 3, could you tell frou. this how many bottom 20 chords (indicating on a plan; ? A Two pieces. Q And between 3 and 4 liow many ? That is to say, there are to par- allel chcird links .it each side between 2 and 3; that is .what you mean ? A That is what I mean. • Q And betwt-en 3 i'ud 4 how many? A It is not marked on here although it would appear to be 4. ,, Q It would appear to be .(. To break away those chord links, that is to jq say any pair of them, or a.iy number of the jxirallels between the posts would be just like cutting the stiing of a bow would it not? A It would, yes. Q Now tile l)ottoni laterals similarly — the bottom laterals are for the pur- pose of maiutaiiiiug the nerpendicularity of the chord, are they not? There are two cord members at each side of the bridge? The top chord.s — A Yes. Q How arc thev kej)! in ]>erpendicular ? .\ Which girders, the truss? Q Yes. A There was some braces between the verticals or the posts. 40 Q That is sway bruces, and the laterals, and both the top laterals and ao4 w 'b/H 't ' ■ 1' ¥ '4 ■■ '^ (^-' ■ ■, \ ','■ ' ^ tei. P-^ -.-.. ■ ■■ M :--T ■ ■•■*- '■1' 4» itlsa'2 *1I Ill' lO the bottom laterals are similarly a part of the truss? A Yes, I should judge so; they are part of the bridge at all events. Q Without those laterals the truss could not be kept in perpendicular ? A Without the laterals? Q Without the top laterals? A It would not be likely to remain so. Q No, it would not be likely to remain in perpendicular. Now what do you say of a .system of con. tructiou that has those bottom laterals fastened into a floor-beam snnply, instead of being fastened to the bottom chord link.s — lower links ? Q That is a matter of detail. "I expect tlie best practice is to fasten it direct to the girder — to the truss it.self. Q Directly tt> the trn.ss itself. In other words, if the bottom laterals are fastened merely into the floor-beam, the giving way of a floor-beam destroys that, does it not ? They carry away with the floor-beam, do they not ? A Quite evident. Q They carry away with the floor-beam. You have never seen these 20 original plans and specifications, have you, Mr. Halfour ? A No, I think not. (>• You do not know, do >ou, wliether this floor is so constructed or was so constructed as to reach out user the top of the bottom chord links or not ? A Of my own knowledge I do not. Q Vou do not. Now, assuming that the floor did not reach out over the bottom chord links, and a floor-beam gave way, there would be nothing to sustain the floor, would there except the nails ? A Except the floor itself. y That is, except the nails — . A — in the plan. Q That is to say except the nails on the joLsts. A Do you want me to go into that thing ? Do you want me to go into the support of that floor ? Q It is simple enough ? Court : Don't you think that is pretty well understood by the jury? they say .so. Mr. Cassidv : It may be ; we will leave it at that. 30 ,' i H •u: 40 '--iK^ 205 RE-EXAMINED BY MR. DAVIS. ;<6;' fp«~ Q Would the laterals necessarily be carried away by floor-beams in breaking ? A From the details that I have seen, I would infer not. Q No. That is, the laterals are attached to the hanger ? A That is what I judge from the model of the floor beam. Q And the laterals would only be carried away, only if sufficient weight came down to break them? A Yes. Mr. Cassidy : Q Are the laterals attached to the hanger? — We will prove that later. lo Mr. Davis : That is the case, My Lord. 2o 206 1 1 i ...•4 ■if] • SAMUKL ATHERLY, CAij.Rn on Brhai.f ok Plaintiff, and Sworn, Testified; Examined by Mr. Davis. m 10 Third Day of Trial. Q What is your name? A Samuel ,\therly. Q You live in Victoria I believe, Mr. Atherly? A Yes, .sir. Q You have lived there for some years have you not ? A About nine years. 20 Q Do yon know the I'oint Ellice bridge ? .A Yes, sir. Q Do you know John Cox, the Victoria city carpenter ? A Yes, sir. Q Did you know him in 1892? A Yes, sir. Q I believe you were working under him at various times in 1892? A Yes, for the city sir. The sidewalks and bridges. 30 (4 Did you ever go out to the Point Ellice bridge with him and do any work in connection with it ? A Repairing it, putting planks down, and once we went to test it. Q Speaking of this time that you went out with Mr. Cox to test the bridge, in what way did you test it? A Hy boring. Q Boring, Now in speaking of the two spans, Mr. Atherly, I will speak of the span neare.st the cit>- of Victoria as the Victoria span, and speak of the one nearest Esquimalt as the Esquimalt span. Which .span did you bore first ? 4° A It was on the Esquimalt side sir. Q It was on the Esquimalt side. Now about what time of the day do I \ Mt I 4 207 voii remember did yon get tlir()iiji;h horing the span on the Esquimalt side :" A Well probably between 3 and 4 o'clwk in the afternuon, sir, I will not be sure. Q Along about 3 or 4 in tlie afternoon. Then what if any directions did Mr. Cox gi*e to you ? Mr. Taylor: I submit that is not evi.lence your Lordship. Court: What did he do in consequence of directions given? Mr. Davis: Q What did you do then when you finished boriiiK the Ksqnimalt span, what did you do under Mr. Cox's instructions ? .^ Put the ])lank.s down over the sidewalk. y Put the planks down over the sidewalk in which span I A On the Ksqnimalt. Q On the Esquimalt span. To do that you would have to leave him of course < A Yes, sir. Q What was he going to do while you were doing that < A He was going to fini.sh the boring sir. Q He was going to finish the boring, and where t As you went away to put the planks down on the Ksqnimalt spon, where did he go on with the boring. A He started right to lx)re on towards the Victoria side. Q On towards Victoria, .^nd at which end t)f the span ( That would be the side towards the (iorge, or the other side that he went onto bore ? A We Ixjred it on both sides. 30 Q I know, but the Victoria side I am speaking of, now that he went to bore when you went on putting the planking down f \ On the Gorge side. Q When you went to putting planking down, about what time was it? A Pretty near quitting time, about 5 o'clock. 20 Q And did you help Mr. Cox do anything then when you came back ? A Put the plank down close over the hangers that he had bored. Q That he had bored ? A Yes, sir. (^ That is on the Victoria span ( A 40 \( t I TJ 'A' ■ 'M ^1 I i !« .4. I'l Yes, sir. 208 (J( On the (lorgc side I presume '. A Yes. (^> Where he had bored How many of those did you help him to put down '. A I cannot say sir, iiul the number. Q About how many >. A I should think about 3 or 4, something like that. Q How many cm you be sure of? S. Probably 3. <^ Yes. And you helped him to put down 3 or 4 — 3 you feel as you said, "^ pretty sure of — 3 at least, and then what did you do ? A Then I went home. Q Yon went home. ThiMi what was done with the result of the borinj; ? A That was taketi into tlie office, the City Hall Sir. ij Yes. There is one other question which I pnjbably have a right to ask, and there is some (luestiou made about it, and tliis witness will be a man that can give direct evidence about it, and I ask your Lordship to ask him; and that is whether or not the oriijina! planking across the bridge — of course he would have reason to know about it at that time — extended over the lower chords or not. ' ; The Court : You can ask him that. Q How is that Mr. .Atherlv ? A They ran across the chords. Q They ran acro.ss the chords ( A Yes, and butted against the side- walk. 30 ' .1 : 1 '■'i if '■■:i 1 ,♦■ CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR. TAYLOR. Q How do you remember so well the circumstances in connection with this ? A Of the boring sir f <) Yes. A It was onlv just the one day's work. Q Ju.st the one day's work was all the boring that was ever done there? A That was all I done sir. 40 209 rj^ ^' Q All that you did. Did you never work more tlian i day there? A Well I put in a plank occasionally wiien one ^jot broke, or anythiH);. (i How lonK were yon ill the employ of the city? A Almnt 17 or 18 nn)nths at that time sir. y And dnrinjj that time you were workinjj on sidewalks and bridges ? A And Inid^jcs. y Diirinj; the whole of that perio? I suppose they were, 1 cannot be certain e.xactly to an inch or two. Q What do you mean b\iiot being certain to an inch or two? A That is as to where thev were bored. I . r I. %' Q lUit they were bored under the sidewalk ? A 'I'liey were bored under 2n the side walk. Q Could you .say how far away they were from the chords, how frr awav from the chords ? A I could not be sure sir. i Q Well, could you give me any idea ? A Well, it might be t inches, something like that. Q What is that ? A Thev were bored as close to the iron work, where the hanger iron was — as close as we could. . 30 Q How far away would y. )u i>ut it from that ? A .About 4 or 5 inches. y 4 or 5 inches away from that. Did you oli.serve the bored hole at all ? A No, .sir ; there was a paper that 1 put the shavings there in, and when I handed in the anger, I handed in the paper, and that was sent into the office. Q Did yon say there was a paper in which yon put the shavings? A Yes, sir. Q .\nd you put the shavings in the paper ( \ Yes. y Did you do that, or Mr. Cox ? A .\s I emptied the auger, sir. att 40 -•i't ^ li: :^^ Q As you emptied the auger, yon put the shavings into a piece of paper ? A Yes, sir. Q But you could not be sure of the distance it was away from the hanger holes ? A Not at all. Q I do not suppose you could be sure of the size of the auger now ? A No, sir, I could not tell the size of the auger. Q In fact, it is a matter of indistinct recollection with you now entirely lo after so long a time ? A I know .Dout the boring, that is all. Q Yes. and you are "^erlectly certain it v/as under the sidewalk? A Yes. Witness stands aside. aia ao ^fm\ m ■k !;*'.'.■'< 1 Defendant's Case. FRANCIS M. YORKE, Cauukd and Sworn, Examined bv Mr. Taylor. Second Day of Trial. ■'I Q You have already been examined, not in this action, but the other one ! 20 30 The Court : y Mr. Yorke gave evidence in this case, surely ; did you not, Mr. Yorke ? A Yes. Mr. Taylor : Q Did you see this broken floor-bea.n, Mr. Yorke, that has been referred to ? A Yes, sir. Q Did you find any auger holes in 11 ? A Nj. Q Did you examine it at all carefully ? A I examined it, yes. Q And did not find any auger hole in it ? A No, sir. Q There was only the one broken floor-beam ? .\ That is all. Q Did you see the two pieces of the floor-beam, the whole of it, in other words, was all the beam there ? A No, sir, I did not see the two pieces of it. Q Did you see the whole beam '. A No, sir, not the whole beam. I did at once see the whole beam on the wreck, but wheu I examined it — when we 4° went to examine it, we only found one piece of it. y Did yon examine it at all at the first time ? A Th.* first, no. 213 '1 » ! .'Kli Q To see if there were auger holes or not ? A No. Q You could not tell ? Juror : Q Was the piece that you examined the one that the auger hole would have been in ? A Well — Q The upper end, towards the Gorj,'e ? A Yes; yes, it would be the long end, the upper end towards the Gorge. Mr. Taylor ; Q There was no auger hole in that? A No, there was no auger hole in it. I would not swear there was no auger hole in it, but I did not see one. Q Would not that be the short end that was broken ? A I don't know which side it broke, sir, I canuot tell you, it was the long end that I saw. Juror ; Q If it broke under the railway the short end would be the one that had the auger hole in it. Mr. Davis : Q Mr. Yorke cannot tell the one the auger hole would be in, because he don't know which one was bored. But it was the long end which you saw < A Yes, it was the long end. lO 20 ::*''■■ i I Witness stands aside. 30 k MR. YORKE, Bring RK-c.\ui.i-:n on Bkh.\lk of Defendant, Testified, Examined by Mr. Tayuor. Skcond Day of Trial. 40 Q You are still under oath. You went up to view this wreckage includ- itig this broken beam did you not ? A Yes. 214 >■ J- IP Q Lying in the harbour in Victoria? A Up the Gorge, yes, sir, towards Deadinan's Island. (^ Did you go to the wreckage ? A Yes. — the Provincial Constables had it in a boomthere. Q Did you aiten!|>t to fetch it away ? A Tried to; I sent up .some of the men for it. t^ Would tlicy give it to you ? A No, .sir. |o Q And that is the reason why you dul not bring it ? A Yes, and that is the reason why we did not put it in the scow with the balance of the wreckage. Q Yes; it was in ciiarge of the Provincial Constables. How far was that truck from the pie 1. The truck of that car? .\ The trucks of the car? I have got the marks ; I think they were somewhere under 20 — they were under 35 feet, between 20 and 30 feet from the lower cylinder of the bridge. 30 Q That would be from the cylinder over there bevond the point i, the Esquimau end ? A P'rom the Esquimalt end on the south side; that is the Victoria .side ; the harbou: r'de. Q Yes; on this designtherc, number 7 is the Victoria end of it and num- ber 1 is the Plsquimalt end. Can you .see the figures from where you are ? A 7 at this end, yes. , Q This end is the Victoria end and the other end is the Esquimalt end ? 30 A Yes. Q .Vnd you sav that truck was found Ijctween 20 and 30 feet — ? A No, the trucks were less — yes, between 20 and 30 feet. Q Hetween 20 and 30 feel from the pier on the Esquimalt end? A The lower pier. There arc two piers there. The lower pier. (^ That is the pier on the south side ? A Yes. Q It was found between 20 and 30 feet from the pier on the south side ? A Yes, on the south side. 40 ■\^ M 215 I, Q That would he from the pier that is heyontl point i — it would be zero^ A Yes. And they were laying that way, almost across the bridge (indicating). y Almost acro.ss the bridj;e ? A Yes. The Court: Q Did you notice any broken ends? A As far as we can ascertain the Siwasiics burnt it up, sir. Mr. Tavlor: Q You were ordered to get it for the City ? A Yes; and we could not ^et it. ,q CR()SS-i;.\,\MINKI) HY MR. DAVIS. ,t 'f, Q Where was the other piece of the fl()or-I)eani when you saw the first end? A When we were wreckiuj; the bridge we did not think anything about it, we were trying to get the Ixxiies. The w(X)d floated, and it was easier to get it out than the iron, and we chopped it or unscrewed it and let it go adrift ; and it was flood tide, and it drifted up, and the Provincial Constables were out and they put it in a bcxjui up above Deadman's Island there, about a quarter of a mile above the bridge. Q In your wrecking of the bridge I suppose some of the iron work was broken then i' A No, sir. Q None of it was? ;\ Any of it that was — there was some of it cut, not broken, it was cut and you can see the mark of the chisel on it where we cut it. Q Yes, some of it was cut. 20 •1 .\- H' 40 2l6 i ill i 11 Evidence of Henry W Bell, Civil Engineer, in Patterson v. Victoria. Skcono Day of Trial. HKNRV P. HKLL CAU.KD AND SWORN ; TESTIFIEU. EXAMINED BY MR. CASSIDV. to Q What is your name, please ? A Henry P. Hell. Q Mr. Hell, what is your occupation ' A Civil engineer. Q How long ? A Oh, about 35 years. Q You have had experience in bridges ? .\ Yes. Q Did you make any examination of the wreckage ? A Yes. Q For what purpase i* A To make a report for the city. Q It has just been .said by the last witness that he went with you. A Yes. Q You know this florr '.,^..m numbered 3 that has been spoken of in this ca.se ? A Yes. Q The broken floor beam. That was discovered, I think, amongst the wreckage ? A Yes. 30 30 Q Did you make any special examination of it ' A Yes, I did. I went with Mr. Wilmot up to the Indian reserve, and there we saw the broken beam. .\nd he was interested in examining this — ■Jljiii ai7 40 '^ K lO where the beam had been bored, or if it had been bored, and I took part in the examination, .Tjthongh I did not go there for that purpose -nyself. liut I re- memlier it very well, bec-iu.se he was very insistent about trying to find out whether it was bored or whetht-r it was not. y Yes. Did you .see the whole he;nn ? A I s;iw the two portions of it. Q ^■on saw the two portions of it. Were you able to say from vour ex- atiiination whether the two portions repre.sented the beam ? A Why, yes. Well, tl:at is to say whether they would have been capable of having been put together again in their original form ? .\ Oh, no. You could see that the OTie piece belonged to the other. Q You co'ald sec that the one piece belonged to the other. A Yes, and yon could see likewise the mark of the suspender on it. Q And the mark of the fracture ? A Yes ; and no doubt the beam was rotten, 20 Q No doubt the beam was rotten. WMiat I want to gel at is this : Was there any of the beam missinj; ? A I do not think so. Tueie were the two pieces of the be A Yes, for a heavy weight. Q Now, taking the old floor system and assuming that a floor beam b;o.ve, what would be the effect as far as the joists are concerned? A What would be the effect as far as the joists are concerned ? I do not know as I understand you, Mr. Cassidy. Q Well, here we have this floor you see constructed in this way (indicat- ing) and the joists are simply laid. In evidence it is shewn that these three inch joists are simply laid on tiie top of the floor beams ? .\ Yes. Q Tiiat they are not joined together at the end in any way, and that all the joists meei along each floor beam ? A Yes. „ Q That is to say that each joist only goes from one floor beam to the oiher I A Yes. Q That the floor is nailed down on the top of these joists ? \ Yes. Q Now, you break a floor beam away here, what would be the result ? A Well, I .suppose the whole thing would come down. ao y The whole thing would come down ? A Yes. g Now, taking the case of the stringers— the heavy stringers lo x 12, what would be the result supposing a floor beam broke in that case ? A If the 40 1 n .i \U Tftr 220 stringers were the length of two panels, why they might assist in passing the weight over the broken floor beam. Q Over the broken floor beam ? A Yes. Q Now, it is in evidence that the break in the fl(jor beam occurred in the hanger here. Now, the question of whether the stringer wouM carry this weight along or not would depend upon whether it was broken at that point or not, I siipjMJse (indicating), would depend on whether it broke joints there or not. In other words, su|.)posing the stringer at the Gorge side ran over two lo floor beams, it would can v that car along ? A Would it carry it ? is that the question ? Q Yes. A Well, that is doubtful. Q It is doubtful. Well, upon tlie whole matter assuming the breaking of a floor beam, with which floor do you think the car would have the greater chance to get over the point of danger ? A Oh, I would decidedly take a floor with stringers in it. ao Q Did you figure out the sjjecificatious of the bridge to show how far the planking extended ? A Yes, I see that in the specification that the roadway is nineteen feet wide. A Well, the planking on Q The roadway is 19 feet wide ? A Yes. Q What do ycni refer lo as the roadway? top ; according to the original specification. Q Now, what is the distance between the chord links — that is to say, 3° what is the distance between the chord links on this .side of the bridge and the chord links on that side of the bridge (indicating) ? A Well, I cannot tell you that exactly, but 1 can tell you this, that I believe the proiection would be about one inch on the middle panels, that ;.; *o say, the plank. ng would pro- ject about one inch on the middle panels. Q That is that the panels would project about one inch over the chord links ? A Yes. g And at the end of the bridge? A And at the ends of the bridge— ^ not at all. y And at the ends of the bridge not at all. Well, perhaps that is scarcely aai '! ,1 II Q You think the car mi^ht break right through the floor ? A a thing that anyone would depend on. It is not Q It is not a thing that anyone would depend on. Well, taking the weight of a 20-ton car and breaking away the floor beam from underneath and a.ssnm- ing the board.s of the floor — what length would they l)e — running diagonally in that way ? A I don't know. I don't understand you, Mr. Cassidy. Q You see the floor is put diagonally ; you see it is 19 feet straight across ? A Yes. 40 3^ f r'li ' definite. On the plan there, where would you put the point on each side of the centre at which the floor no longer projected over the chord link ? A I think it would lie on each side of the middle panel. If I remember, there was four bars in the middle panel, and only two in the rest. Q According to the plan here there ajjpears to be two middle panels. By the eye, here 4 looks to be the centre of the bridge ? A Yes, there are two middle panels, it was a pair of two panels. ^ Q Then, if the floor was let down it might l)e supping perfectly rigid, would only project one inch over the top of the chord links at the side ' A Yes. about that. Q About that Well, do you think that these chord links would sustain them, or what would happen ? A No one could tell what would happen. The thing would break right through Q. It would buckle— • Mr. Davis : Don't tell him. Q Now, break a floor beam, — the joists, as I understand you to say, would fall away at once ? A Yes. Q The ends of the joists would fall away. Then the planking of the floor would be resting one inch — would l)e projecting one inch over the top of the bottom chords ? .\ Yes. 10 20 M Q How long would it remain in that position with a 20-ton car ? 1 do not think it would — 30 y Would it remain at all ? .\ No, I do not think so. No one would take the responsibility of that at all. In practice it is a perfect absurdity. Q In practice it is a perfect absurdity ? A Yes. Q In other words, a three inch board of that length won't keep—? A No ; you could place no dependence upon it. ■ y You understand that bridge from an examination of it, do you not > I .q njean to say the whole truss f A Yes, generally I do. Q Now, taking the top chord, what do you say of the system of having the r! t ' 22' '« f; ^m i^ 10 ao top chords biittiiiR on each other as (listinfjuishcd from bciiij; fastened toKt-tlier ? A It is not as good as a spliced cliord. Q It is not as jr„,„l as a spliced chord. And what do yon say of the system of ha vinH bottom laterals passed over the floor heams ^ A Well, it is not got)d practice ; it is not correct. Q Did you make any examination of the piers at anv time? A No, I never examim-d the piers much excepi. the tojjs of the cvlinder. Q Do you know auytliin^' ;il)i)ut the condition ? .\ Do yon mean to ask nie if I bored the bottom ; I did not. Q No, I tlo not mean that. Do yon know anytiiiuK of the condition of the piers at either end of that span that gave way ? A I did not see anything peculiar about the tt)i)s of tiiem. Q Anything; ixcnliar about them in any way? A Oh, they are out of plumb, anyone conid .see that. Q Yon were present at the inquest ? A Yes. Q And gave evidence there yourself? .\ Yes. Q And heard the evidence wliich was given by the other witnesses? A Some of it. Q Some of it ; and vou .sav that yon have made a personal examination of the wreckaii;e? A No, not perfectly ; I did not go the first day. Q I did not say perfectly, but personally ? A Oh, personally ? Yes. Q I do not suppose anybcxly could make a perfect examination of it, but you went down there with the rest ? A Yes. Q Well, now, did you form any opinion from all that, as to what was the direct cause oi' the disaster, as to what member of the bridge gave way ? A Well, 1 do not know that you have got any right to a.sk me that : Court : You are not obliged to answer any question of that kind ; yon are an aq expert witness, Mr. Bell. Hut naturally Mr. Cassidy would like your opinion if he thinks it is going to be favorable to hii.i ? .\ Yon see. My Lord, I had 30 - i nj ' I Tfffi: 234 ■■ X' a dispute with the city about my account ; I made a report which was uever received. Q I do not want to ask you what your report was, Mr. Hell, at all. You were called a« a witness there ' A Yes. Q And you were referring to the examination which you made anterior to giving evidence ? A Yes. y You were paid $750 ? A Yes. ,0 Court : You need not go into that. Mr Mell has ])nt himself into the position of being calle 1 as a witness. I must rule he must answer these questions. :\ Wry well. Q What is vour answer to the question ' .-K .Ask it again, please. Q I .say from your examination of the wreckage, from hearing all tlie evidence given at the inquest, coupled also with what you have heard to-day, I ask you what in your opinion was the member of the bridge that first gave way and 20 precipitated the di.saster ? In other words, what was the direct cause of the accident? .A I cannot tell you the member of the bridge that first gave way, but I have a conviction of what members caused the disaster ; although I might say it is very doubtful too , it .s a very difficult subject. Hut I have a conviction ou my mind a-< to which » ih'.uk was the most likely to cause the di.saster. I think the hip-verticals. y Yon think the hip-verticals ? .\ Ye.s. Q You made an examination of the hip-verticals? \ I want to explain 3° mysei'^. What I meant to convey is this ; if you ask ine to jwear what member failed first, i ■.••on'l; I cannot say that. Q You saw the hip-verticals '. A Yes. y Now, %vhal condition were they in ? ,\ Well, they were broken. ell, did vou make an examination of the breaks ? Yes, I have looked y Well, d at the breaks. 40 y N ow, v ou have heanl it given \n evidence here to-day that the giving I 1 * t- ■*( a «4 -^ k % t t • i •J! '^i ^ vfi «ni ^^' H \ H^ l:j wav of the floor beam at 3 — ! .A Yes. rrto aas Q — was the admitted cause of the disaster. You heard that ? A Yes. Q Do you agree with that ? A No, I do not. Q Will you state your reasons ? \ Yes. 1 think that from the position of the car trucks it is fair to assume that the breaking of the hip-verticals at the Esquimau end pulled the bearings right off the pier. When the hip-verticals broke, one of them was broken about the nut ; there is a washer plate on top of the links ; the links are thirty-seven and one half feet in length. The weight of the load is transferred from the top to the bottom chord by means of this washer lo plate. 'riier<- would be force encnv^h there even by calculating the lea.st friction there could l)e to pull the whole l)earings offoi the pier. That is my conviction of what destroyed it. Q When you say p.jsition of the cor what do you refer to? A I rife.- to the fact of the point where the trucks were shown to me to have been got out by the diver, .^nd also to tiie jHJsition in which the rails were broken. The rails were broken easV of where the trucks were found. I think it is very likely that the trucks were found eastward of the point they ran to, where the accident took place. 20 Q What do you mean by eastward? A vill indicate it (going to the model). The trucks were pointed out to ;ne to be al)out there (indicating on plan). I think it is likely that they went up — Court : Between i and 2. Mr. Davis : What Mr. Bell is practically giving evidence of there is the position of the trucks. Now, I submit, if they wish to shew that the car was not where we have proved it, or that the trucks were in a certain (i.\, the only way to prove that is by st)me — Court : This is on the a.s.sutiiption that it is there, that is all. It is put hypothetieally. Mr. Cassidy : I simply a.sk him what he meant by the position of the car. Q .•\s.suming Mr. Bell, that the lowest— this is wp.st here, i.sn't it!' A Yes. 40 Q I point between i and 5. A Y. Q And, as.suming that the truck nearest the i was a few feet — four or five -2f7tt— :. . ■'■ s I I .«*! . r; sa6 M feet nearer i — from 2 in the direction of i — assuming that to be the position o{ the truck in the water ? A Yes. Q Where would you put the car at the time of the break ? A Where would I put tlie car at the time of the break ? Q Yes? A 1 suppose the trucks dropped from under the car; I don't know where the car went to. Q No, no, do y(m form any connection as to what the position of the car 10 would be at the time of the break of the bridjje, and the truck in question ; you .see ? .\ Yes. I s;iid tiiat before, I think it is very likely that the trucks had gone as far as i and come back again some feet. Q Gone as far as i and come back ai.!;ain ? A Yes, that is quite possible. Q Why ? A Hecau.se the rails were broken east of where the car was found. Q Because the rails were broken east. That is to say nearer the Victoria 20 end ? .\ Yes ; and the rails are continuous over the other span. Q .\nd the rails are contintu)Us over the other span. 1 see. Did you examine the rails to see where the point of breakage took place in them? A Well yes, I did. Q Wherealxtnts, stretching the rail out again in its original position, where would the break Ix: ' .\ One was broken in the Victoria end of the span, and the other was broken somewhere about half way across, I cannot tell exacth". it was certainly broken east of where the truck-* were fouiul. 3° Q Certainlv i)roken east of where the trucks were fimiid ? A Yes. y That is to s;iv that the rails were found fastened, as it were-taking from the top of the Hsquimalt pier — the rails were found shewing that they ran complete nearer the N'ictoria side of the bridge than tlu- centre ? A Tlu\ ran some- where near the centre, . A In fact, I made enquiries to find out. Court : Whether it broke or dropped ; surely if there was any question of that kind it is beyond question ? A I think it did not drop. Mr. Davis : You think it did not drop ? A I think it did not. Q Drop ? A No. In fact, I asked Captain Grant — 30 40 rl aa8 Mr. Cassidy: Nevermind, you cannot give us evidence about that. I asked you whether you formed any opinion — well, you say that the floor l>eain did not drop at all ? A I think it did not. Q How do you think it was broken ? A I think it was broken off when it fell in the water. I tliink the splash in the water broke it right off. Mr. Davi.s : Q Yon tliink, tlien, that this beam was broken off by strik- ing the water, the splash in the svater ? \ Yes. y Well, if the water could break this floor beam, don't you think a 20 ton car could ? A Well, yo\i know that — no, I do not think that ([uestion — it does not .seem to uie to bear so much on the fact, because the force of water striking the sidewalk from that height would be very great. 1 could not tell which was the greater force. I would have to get into that calculation various other things before I could determine that. 10 G I just ask you that question, and if you cannot say at present — ? I haven't calculated for answering that. A ao Q If you think the beam was in such a condition that a fall of 90 feet would break it striking the water, dou't you think that a 20 ton car would break it ? A Oh, yes, a 20 ton car miglit <\o it, too. Hut my opinion is the other way. Q What else do you- ba.se your opinion on than what you have stated — I have not asked you for anytlnng yet — what do you bxse your opinion on ? A I said I basetl it on the br -aking of the hip-vertical, and on looking into which part of the bridge had the lowest factor of safety. «q Q Which portion had the lowest factor of safety ? verticals. A I think the hip- Q You think the hip-verticals. What do you get that from ? A I get it from figuring. Q It is not from the strain sheet of the bridge ? A No. Q The strain sheet shows the hip-verticals have a greater factor of safety than the floor beams, does it not ? A Yes. I got that by figuring on a cer- tain assumption. ■"•'■.ti i 3yj 229 y I will come to that in a imitiicnt, what you >;ot it from Mr. Hell. Hut I just want to ask now if this is not correct, that the strain sheets shew the hip verticals to have a jj;reatti factor of safety than the floor beams. Is that cor- rect? A Well, I could not really tell you that, liecause 1 have not l;iy tiuit strain sheet was wronj* ? A No, I did not say so. I said it was right accordinjj to the a.ssumptious on which it was calculated ; but that the as.su ui])tions were iu)t ri>;hl. Q Now, will you look at the strain siieet and tell me what the factor of .safety accordinjj to the strain sheet is (sti.iiu sheet handed to wituessi Just see what the strain .sheet .shews is the factor of .safety in the hip-verticals ? A I do not sec it marked u|x)n it, the factor of sjifety. Q Do you say that you cannot find from that strain sheet the factor of safety ? .\ < >h, yes ; I can if I go to work and stiuly the strain sheet, but it would take me ])robably longer — The Court : How long wouUl it take you ' .\ It would take me half an hour or more. Mr. Davis : y Do von mean to sav it would take yon half an hour to find out the factor of sijfety from that strain sheet? A It might, I don't know. Q Mr. Hell, von made a thorough examination of this matter l)efore? A I tell yon now I do not know nnicli about this strain sheet. Q You examined the strain sheet before, did ycm not ? A Yes. Q I think you told us that d work first ? .\ Yes. 20 Q That is it, is i«. ? A 1 think so. Q And that the wood of this floor beam was broken during the failure of the bridge? A I tiiink so. Q Might the hip-verticals have been broken during the fall of the bridge ? A Well, I do not think it is likely. Q Might not all the iron work have been l)roken in the fall of the bridge ? A It would indicate frightfully bad iron. Q Might it not have been broken in the fall of the bridge? \ If it was frightfully bad iron it might. Q Otherwise, what? .\ Otherwise, I think it would not. y Wc take t'.ie iron as it was ? A Yes. Q We are talking simply of that iron now. is it not possible that .ill the iron work of that bridge might have broken in the fall of the bridge? .A Oh, I would ncit think it was possible. Q You would not think it w;is possible. There is a bridge engineer, is there not, by the nanu' of Waddel ^ A Yes. 40 ■:«-f. 232 ■i. lO 20 Q Where is he from ? A Kansas City. Q He is a well recognized authority on bridge work ? A On designing. Q He is a bridge engineer ? A Well, I don't know ; I don't think he is one that an able company would send to examine a broken-down structure. Q Isn't he a well recognized authority ? A He is a good man on designs, and a good calculator. Q He is a man, whatever may be your own personal opinion of him, that has a recognized reputation all over the continent? He is, and well deserved too. Q I)o you know his signature? A Yes I have corresponded with him myself. Q This is a report of his, is it not (handed to witne.ss; ? A Well, which part do you want me to read ? Q 1 want you to look at it first and see if it is his signature ? A Yes, 1 have no doubt it is his signature. Q Now, I will read you a certain portion from it and ask you if you agree with him. This is, I n.ay say, a report of him made .ifter going into this matter. Mr. Cassid> I object to the document jroing in. The Court, I think, Mr. Davis, that it would not be admissable. Mr. Davis : I .submit, My Lord, if there is any question I can properly ask, apart from the consideration of putting in the document, that that question would be admissable irrespective of the consequences. Court : 1 rule not. My view <>) that is this ; vou can say to him, if so and »i>, mentioning the cas« says so and so of it, do you agree with him. I do not w» how you caw tC'> further than that You might get in evidence that would tUft t* dAmimuhk in another way. ^ Mf (Mvis : I will put my questions and they can be ob^ted to m they com*, 30 )3 ''v m Mr. Taylor , Mr. Yorke has come h. and he de.sires to leave on the boat at 5 o'clock, and if my learned friend ha.s no objection I would like to call him here. Witnes-s stands aside for the present. lO 20 MR. BELL being re-called on the third day of the trial of Patterson v. Victoria, testified ; cross-examination continued by Mr. Davis. Q Now, Mr. Hell, this b.'am that you examined with Mr. Wilmoi was as Mr. Wilmot has stated, badly splintered and broken ? A Yes. Q And it was badly rotted ? A Partially rotten, yes. Q And it was quite possible, although you did not see any traces of this auger hole that has been sworn to, it is quite possible that that was there, is it not, as Mr. Wilmot him.self says ? Mr. Taylor : No, Mr. Wilmot did not .say anything of the sort. Mr. Davis : I asked him if he would .say that it could not be there, and he said he could not .say so. \ If you mean that the bar was so rotten that the auger hole could not be seen, I do not think that was the case. Q What I am a.sking you, Mr. Hell is this : Will you differ from Mr. Wilniot, who stated — Mr. Ca.s.sidy ; We will have to read that if he put it that way. Q Will you differ from Mr. Wilmot, who stated that although he did not find traces of the auger hole, it was not impossible that the auger liole had been bored there as described. ^o Court : We will wait to have the stenographer turn it up. Stenographer ead from cross examination of Mr. Wilmot : " Do you mean to say that it was 30 ■ 1 ' 1 i bt 6 impossible for an auger hole to have l)een there, and you not to have found it? " (A) " 1 would not say it was impossible, but I went specially to see if it had been bored. ' ' ^ ( 1 Q Now, Mr. Bell, would you differ from Mr. Wilniot ? I believe there was no such auger hole in the beam. A Yes, I do ; lO 2(> Q You .say you lielieve it, I understand you, but would you say it was impossible ? A No, I won't say that. Q No. Now, we were speaking of Mr. Waddell when we adjourned yes- terday. I will just read you from your evidence at the inquest ; the questions asked — page 452. " Is there any possible way that you can give for obviat- ing," and then the answer — " Yes, I think I can describe it to you by a very good man. This is from a good bridge expert. He Ins vt'^Irtcu probably one of the best books on liighway bridges that has been pn>)lished, and he is also a man that is in g'■ sn on the subject." That is the Mr. Waddell that we were talking about the other day ? A Yes. That is with reference to putting in the bottom laterals. Q .\nd you adhere to what you stated on the former occasion, do you ? A I do ; yes, I adhere to that. Q Now, I ask you to read, merely for yourself, this clause of the report we were referring to (document handed to witness). Do not read it aloud, Mr. Hell, but just to yourself. .\ (Doing so) yes. Q Now, wail. I a.sk you to read one other clause here (indicating). A het me direct your attention — Q Never mind now — I k-'ow ; all I want now is for you to read it. This s the clause here (indicating) ; it is the same report — Point EUice Report. A (Witne.ss does so) Yes. Mr. Davis : Now, my Lord, before I question the witness with respect to that, I submit this, that the ordinary rule, of course, with reference to a matter of this kind, would be that I could only put a hypothetic question ; but with reference to expert evidence I submit that the rule is — 835 :,'*; m Court : Don't you think you had better put your question first ; pr-Lably the other side will not object to it ? Mr. Davis : What I propose to do, my Lord, is to read the paragraphs I have shewn to tlie witness and ask him whether he agrees or disajjrees with that. Court : That is quite allowable. Mr. Davis : The first paragraph I read is thi.s — which I have shewn to ,o Mr. Bell. Speaking now of the cause of the falling of the bridge : ' ' The immediate cause was undonbtecily — " Mr. Taylor : Might I just ask is that supposed to be a report on the Point Ellice bridge, or a work on bridges? Court: Mr. Taylor is entitled to know the report you are reading from. Mr. Davis : I will give it to him. 20 The Court : Having done that, Mr. Davis is entitled to put that in the same way as any other account given as the account of any other person, John Smith, or anybody else. Mr. Taylor : The objection is this, that apparently, from what my learned friend says, he has a report made, and he seeks to get that report in now in an indirect way : whereas the proper way to get Mr. Waddell's evidence was to bring him here and allow us to cross-examine. Court : That was the ruling I gave yesterday. ; but I think there is a fallacy 30 in your objection. Mr. Davis might have a theory about it, and he might say, could it be this way, or that way. 1 agree with it. And I will allow the question. Uf course Ibe iury will understand that it is not the report of this particular man that is put in. Mr. Davis : Q I will read 2 or 3 lines before that, so a.s to explain that clause and shew what it is. "Incompliance with your instructions, 1 have examined the Point Kllice bridge, one span of wiiich collapsed, about 10 days ago, and beg to reiwrt concerning the cause of the collapse. The immediate cause was undoubtedly the failure by .sheering of one of the floor beams at one * of its points of support, under a motor car-load, owing to decay of timber. I have examined some of the floor beams and have found them so rotten that the 236 20 wood can lie readily clippi-d ..ml cut in laijje pieces witli ;i |)imi knife, and crumpled in one's fingers." Now, do you ai;rce with that opinion, or do you disagree ? A 1 ajjree that the beam was rotten. Q Do yon an;ree that tlie nnniediate cause of the fall of the hrid>>;e was undoubtedly the failure by sheering of one of the floor Ix-ams at one of its jKiints of support? A No, I do not believe that ; it is contrary to the evidence. Q Now, I will read yon another paragraph that I referred to. "Please remember that, and to form my opinion of the wrecked span, I have examined lo a span which is yet in i)laee, and which is exactly like the fallen one. I also examined the remains of the wieck. .\s far as I can determine, the l)reaks in the iron work were all caused by the falling of the span, and the removal of the debris, and were not the canst' of the failure of the span." Do you agree or disagree with that opinion ? A I disagree. I take objection to the word "all." He says, all the breaks in the iron. Q You take objection to the word "all." You do agree that a considerable portion of the breaks of tlie iron were in the falling of the bridj;e ? A Part of them might lie. Q Yon won't go .so far as to say that some of them were, in your opinion I A Yes, I think .sonu were, but not all. Q Now, when was your examination of the debris of the bridge made : before or after the coroner's inquest? A Oh, it was made both before and after. Q Now, do I understand you to say that the first thing that gave way in that bridge — > .\ Let me correct that for a moment, Mr. Davis; I am not quite certain whether the inquest was going on at the time I examined the timl)er first. Q Yon examined it, the notes show, before, and you also examined it during the inquest ? A I think the 28th was the day I went there, and I am not sure whether the inquest was going on there then or not. Q No, it vas u-^i ^oing on on the 29th. Did you make an examination of the bridge, th u is, tiu examination upon which yon are basing your opinion ^o that you an vii,r 'or. i.y, after the inquest had closed!' A Oh, I based it long after. 30 if 1i 'I' I ' 4 I I ! . i 837 IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (M'^-3) 1,0 l.i 2.5 1 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 ^ 6" ► ,1 VQ <^ /i ^ c?m\^>^ ;> .^.^ ^/^ ^V"' -^c?>: O 7 Photographic Sdences Corporation \ s ^ s ^^ :\ \ % rv % ^ 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 I Pi O^ ' 1 1 Q Long after :• A Yes, long after. Q I see. Now, what I want to get at is this ; do you state that the immediate cause of the collapse of that bridge was due to the breaking of a hip- vertical ? .A. I don't know whether you call it the immediate cause or not. I think the cause that pulled the bearings off the pier, which was really the cause of the accident, I would call it the immediate cause, I think it wa.s the result of the breaking of the hip vertical. Q We lun.st not play with \vords, if that is the case, because what I want so to get at is this ; do you think that the first member of the bridge which gave way was tlu- hip-vertical ? .\ I do, but not that one which I think pulled the bearings off the pier. Q Now, which hip-vertical do you say was the first member of the bridge that gave wav :' .\ I think that the first hip-vertic.il that gave way was at the Victoria end of the bridge. Q Tile hip-vertical at the Victoria end ? \ Yes ; but that is not the hip-vertical tiiat I refer to, the failure of which pulled the bearings off. 20 Q I understand that. Wiiat reasons do you give for saying that the hip- vertical in your opinion at number 7 was the nii.inber of the bridge to give way ? A Well, I derived that from reading the evidence. Q What particular portion of the evidence do you found that opinion upon ? .\ That I cannot tell you. Q But you are giving your opinion now, Mr. Bell, and I would like it. A It is a long time since I have been reading the evidence ; but I will tell 3° you what I gathered from it. Q That is what i want to get. A That there was a sound here (in- dicating) upon that part of the bridge when the car was passing that part of the bridge, of a breakage of some kind, and I think the most likely thing is that hip-verlical. Q Now, is that the sole reason for the opiui(m which you have expressed? A No, it is not. That is the Victoria end. Q I am si)eaking now of the Victoria end, remember, keep closely to that. Wiiat other, if any reason, have you for forming or expressing that 40 I 238 "W m opinion ? A I have no other reason except the reading of the evidence. Q What particular portions of the evidence do you refer to when you say that ? A I cannot go back and tell you that. Q What were the facts contained in the evidence that you refer to ? A I cannot go bick and tell you that, for my memory is not good enough. Q So that at the present time you are stating your opinion that the hip- vertical at 7 was the first member that broke ; but at the present time you can iq give no reason for that, except .some sound that was heard in that direction ? A No, you have not stated it correctly. I say tliat the impression that was left on my mini by making a study of the evidence at that time was that the hip- vertical broke first. But I do not profess to have memory enough to re- member all the evideii'.-e I read. Q I see. Now, Mr. Hell, you knew you were going to be called in this case, did you not ? A I did not. Court : It is only fair to the witness to remember that he was not certain 20 that he would be obliged to answer questions of this kind. My ruling yester- day — I may be wrong — was evidently unexpected. It is only fair to remember that. Q That is quite true. But, Mr. Bell, you were not only called for this trial, but you were called in a trial that preceded this, the case of Gordon and Victoria ? A Yes. 30 Q .\nd you were called on the other suit ? A Yes. Q .Xnd vou were called as an expert ? A I do not profess to be an expert. Q We will not quarrel about words. You were called as an engineer of experience ? A Yes. Q With reference to the collapse of that bridge ? A Yes. Q Wouldn't you as the first thing in preparing for that trial, in order to give evidence sati.sfac'.ory to the jury, and with clearness, consider what con- ^^ elusion you had come to wUh reference to that bridge, and look over the evidence > A I do not think I would — that it would be necessary for me to -ifrr 239 If'i t ■T 1 t 4 • read the evidence again, because I got certain, well-defined impressions that I have retained. Q I see , the impressions are well defined ; hut the reasons on which those impressions are grounded are so vague that you have forgotten them > A They are not vague. Q But such as that you have forgotten them f A I have obtained an opinion from that, but I have not memory enough to remember all the evidence on which I arrived at the opinion. lo Q At the present time you cannot give the reasons on which you base that opinion ? A Yes, I have given it. y Other than the one vou mentioned as to some sound which you say is not the sole one ? What is your answer to that, Mr. Bell ? A What is the question ! 20 The stenographer read it, as appears commencing at line 17 above. A No, that is one of them ; I do not reuicmber of them all. Q Can you remember any other reason ? Can you give any other reason at the present time ? .\ I can give you no reason except the evidence and the impression I derived from it. Q Can you tell me what part or portion of that evidence you refer to ? A No, I cannot tell you now. Q What facts contained in the evidence you refer to? A If you gave 30 me the book I would have to go and look them up. Q I understand ; but I am not doing that. .\t the present time you are not able to give the facts upon which you base that opinion? A Yes ; at the present tin>e 1 am unable to give all the reasoning that I arrived at that opinion. Q You are unable to give any other reason but this sound on which you based that opinion ? Is that so or not ? A Yes, at the present time. Q At the present time. Now, the hip-vertical which you say you think wa.s the first thing to break, at No. 7, was not the hip-vertical with reference to which this flaw has been mentioned, was it ? A Which flaw ? 40 «r 240 ¥^ '1 Q Did yon find any flaw in any hip-vertical ? Yes, there is one partly cut and broken. - Q At which end of the bridge was that hip-vertical ? A It was at the Esquimau end. Q So that you found no flaw or defect of any kind in the verticals at the Victoria end ? A No. Q No. What is the size of those hip-verticals ? .X They are 2 inches [q by I — 2 inches by a half in the bar. Q That is 4 inches of iron in all ? A Yes. Q What would be the factor of safety of those hip-verticals, assuming a load of 40,000 pounds ? A Where would you put the load? Q 1 would put the load where it would be most favorable for your calcu- lation, immediately under, or opposite to that hip-vertical. Can you see this hip-vertical from there ? Here is the hip-vertical which you say first 20 broke. (Witness goes to diagram). Now, I put the load right there at 7 — I put the tram car right at number 7 ; that is the best point for yon is it not ? A Yes ; and do you put it cross-wise of the track ? Q I do not understand. I put it just where it was, Mr. Bell ; do not mistake me ; I ju.st put it where the tram car was. Now, putting the load there whafwas the factor of safety with 40,000 pounds on ? A I do not know 40,000 pounds. But I can tell you .something about it — . Q No, no, kindly first an.swer the.se questions. A I cannot tell you 3" 1 ) I 'j J- that. that. Q Terhaps I can help you to tell it. A I am not going to calculate Q Perhaps I can help you calculate it. A I have got all the infor- mation here you want. Q I know, Mr. Bell, jierhaps you have, but I will get Hiat after a while, or perhaps my learned friend will get it. I have asked )-ou before as to the 4° four hip verticals Now, I will take merely the two neare.st the tram line, which would be presumably the ones to break if any broke. Is that correct? A Yes. V J ;if 323:: 241 4 Q Now, I s;iy, what wimUl he the factor of safety on these two hip-ver- ticals with a load of 40,000 poiiiuls, where the tram car stood ? Can you give it, or can you iwi ? A I can jjive you something. Q I do not want something else. A I have not got that figured. Q I will figure it for you, or at least, assist you in it. There are 2 square inches of iron ; that is correct is it not ? .\ Yes. y The breaking strain of a s{)uare inch of iron is 50,000 piinnds? A ,j. No, it is not. Q Is not that the admitted load in all standard books on the subject? .\ No, not for such work as that, Q Xot for such work as that ? A No. Q What authority can you shew me which differs? A Oh, as far as that goes, I will take my own opinion about that. I think it is perfectly absurd to value that iron as at 50,000 pounds per square inch, 30 Q Why so ? \ I take the mode of its manufacture, and what I know about the wa\ in which it had been used. Q Let us get back to .something definite. Is that' not the recognized breaking strain of a square inch of iron ? .\ It depends on what kind of iron. Q I am assuming, because you know Mr. Waddell says if the iron is fairly good, and you have not disagreed with him on that point ? A If he says it is worth 50,000 poun.ds, most decidedly I di.sagree. jo Q Tiiere were no flaws in the verticals at that end ; you found .so and have so stated. That is correct, isn't it ? .\ That there was only one cut. Q No flaw with the verticals at that end ? A I said nothing about the quality of the iron. Q There was no flaw ? A No. Q As far as the quality of the iron is concerned, are you prepared to say .q it wiis not gcxxl iron ? A 1 am prepared to say that the hip-verticals was not worth 50,000 pounds or anything like that. ■;<*■'■ 1^ 242 Q 'I'bnt is not the qui-stion. Ait you pn-parcd to say that the iron of thosf hip-verticals at 7, that it was not fairly ko,'e— in the hip-verticals at 7, Mr. lUll ? A Wluit is lliat f ^2 lyueslion read). .\ Do you ask nic that (piestion now f Q \'es. A I say is may have been orij^inally. y Yes. Now, I will refer to your evidence at jja^e 462, the first question at the top : " The iron jjenerally you consider a i^^iKK] (|uality." (A) "I suppose it is as }{(wd af, is };enerally put in bridges." Is that correct? A ■'<> Yes. Q That is correct. Now, remember when I am speaking al)out this thing, Mr. Hell, so that we may not have any unknown factor brought in, at the present time I am assuming the iron tu be in as good a condition approxim- atelv as when it was put in ; I am a.ssuming that. We will come to the ques- tion of its having been strained, and possibly weakened, later on. Now, assuming that, is not the regular standard breaking strain of a square inch of iron 50,000 pounds ? .\ Yes, of gcod new iron in the bar. 30 Q It is ordinary average good iron ^ .\ Yes. (J Which you have stated the iron in that bridge generally to be ? A No, I did not .state it to be ; I say it has been probably. Q Remember, I am only referring now to the iron as it originally stood. Now, the breaking strain of that would be 50,000 pounds to the .st|uare inch ? A Yes. Q Of the two it would be 100,000 pounds? A Yes. Q A 40,000 pound load put where it was, would be how much strain on those two verticals ? A You mean 40,000 pounds put on the two verticals ? 243 40 1:: I ft r-h Q Mr. Bell, I think I am clear on that ; I am assuming 40,000 pounds on the tram car ; I am assuming the tram car and the tram line just where it stood, which is two-thirds over. Now, 1 ask you what would be the strain on those 2 hip- verticals at 7, with the 40,000 pound load where it stood? A Tell me the weight on the verticals. Q I am asking you that. A I am not going to figure now. Q I will help you. If the 40,000 pounds were immediately below the verticals, all the strain would fall on these two, approximately? A Yes. 10 Q If the 40,000 pound load was put in the centre of the bridge equally between the two, then one half would go to this vertical, and half to the other ? A Yes. Q That is, they would then have a strain of 20,000 pounds ? Yes. Q If it weie put there where the tram line was, how much strain would go to these verticals (indicating) ? A Well, they would get over three- fourths. 20 Q Did you not say two-thivds at th" inquest ? A No, I don't think so. I have gone into it since. Three-fourths would be about it. Q Three-fourths would be 30,000 pounds ? A Yes. Q Then the strain on these verticals would be jo.ooo pounds ? A From the car ? Q Yes, and I am putting the car at 40,000 pounds, and it is not proved 30 tliat exactly, but approximately. Now, the factor of safety, as.suming the iron to be as it was originally with that load immediately at 7 would be what < I have got it down now so that it is not much tiguriug. A What is the weight you .stated ? Q 30,000 pounds. .\ 30,000 pounds ; you have got 15,000 pounds to the square inch on it. Q Ciive me your answer as to what the factor of safety would be ? A If you ajvsumc 50,000 pounds xs the strength it would be better than three. • 4° Q It would be exactly 3 and one-third. A Yes. -^ f >'■■ ■'. i^ ':■, xJ ¥ •it jS^ 244 I J '' t*;. Q The factor of safety is got by dividing roo,ooo pounds by the load ; a very simple thing ! A Yes. Q That is what it would be originally ? A Yes. Q Which would deteriorate the more during that 1 1 years that bridge was in there, the iron at verticals lunnber 7, or the floor-beam which remained there all the time ? A Oh, the floor beam would rot of course. Q Would there be any question about which would deteriorate the more ? 10 A Well, I don't know about that ; because the bridge was subjected to heavy loads, and the iron may have been (.etcriorating the whole time ; and I think it likelv it was. ■f » %^ Q The one thing we arc sure of, the wood was deteriorating all the time? A Yes. ' Q And the iron may have been ? A It was, no doubt. Q It was, no doubt ? A It wa.s, no doubt ; both of them. Q Hut the wood, from what you saw yourself of that beam at number 3, almost completely rotten — would you not say that the wood, as a matter of fact, did deteriorate more rapidly f A Yes, it had deteriorated rapidly at one point. Q Now, I .say, why do you put the first member of that bridge that gave way as the hip-verticals at 7, instead of the floor-beam at 3 ? A Because it ha.s — the only projjerly calculated strain-sheet — that has the lowest factor of safet\' in the bridge. 3° Q What was the factor of safety of floor-beam 3 at that time ? A Well, the factor of safety of a new floor-beam with a 20 ton car would be about 3^3. Q Now, let us figure that factor of safety out. The factor of safety of the floor-beams originally, when new, was something like 4 ? .\ I cannot tell you that. Q That has been alread\' sworn to ; you would not co.itradict that ? A 1 would not confirm it, V)ecanse I have not gone into it. 4° Q You won't contradict it ? A Hut I am aware that the factor of safety of a floor beam with a 20 ton car is 33. 845 '■f ; .^ • J'' I i ■■I 1 'J. t ^i '■^^\ Q You will not contradict the factor of safety that has been given for those new floor-beams, it being about 4, as 1,000 pounds to the lineal foot ? A Tt seems to me to be too low. Q Will you contradict it ? A I have not calculated it. Hut it seems too low. Q For the present, then, we will assume it, if you won't contradict it. The floor-beam, assuming the whole weight was upon the one panel, the or- dinary load would be 18,000 pounds, would it not ' A Yes. 10 Q The breaking strain would be 72,000 pounds, would it not? ^ Yes. Q The weight would be the same on that floor beam as on the vertical, that is 30,000 pounds actual weight, while the tram was over it. Is that cor- rect ? A I cannot follow you through all that, Mr. Davis. Q Is tiiat .so difficult to fnllow ? A If you want me to go into calcula- tions yon must come out of Court and give me time. I am not going into a 20 lot of calculations. Q You can calculate it more rapidly than I can. A No, I don't sup- pose 1 can. Q I will go through with it slowly, because it is important. Assuming the original factor of .safety to be, as has been sworn to, about 4 in the floor- beam — A Yes. Q Ft a weight of 1,000 pounds to the lineal foot, that would be j the 3" whole span there, 18,000 pounds ; is not that correct ? A Yes. Q Thi' breaking strain would be 4 times that ; that is 72,000 pounds. Isthat correct? A The breaking strain would be 4 times that ? Q Yes, the factor of safety — with a factor of safety of 4 you can get at the breaking strain by multiplying ? A Yes, that is right. V 72,0m) pounds then would be the breaking strain of that beam ? A Yes. 40 Q The load which was on it, assuming this car to have been directly over the beam, the stiain which would be on it would be 30,000 pounds, &i; \ I i 4 t 246 ■f^" to would it not, and from your own figuring ? A Yes. Q What would the factor of safety then be if the floor-beam was new? A If the floor-beam was new ? Q" Yes, I am assuming now that it was new, the same as I have assumed the iron. A I have not figured tliat. Q I will figure it for you. Divide 72,000 by 30,000 and that will give it, won't it ? A Yes. Q And it is a trifle over two? .\ Yes. Q Two and two-thirtieths ? A I will not endorse that as being the right wa\ to view it. > .^ - Q That is what it will be, though, two and two-thirtieths? A • Yes. Q And the factor of safety in the iron, figuring it the same way, would be three and one-third ? A I don't think it has anything to do — it is not the proper way to view it. Q But is tiiere anything wrong with the figuring ? No ; the figuring is correct. But it is no calculation of mine ; it is yours. Q For the weight you think that broke first. Now, if that broke first and the car once got clear of that panel, the bridge would be all right, would it not ? A Oh, the car might run across the bridge, certainly. Q Yes. That is, all that these verticals at 7 and at i do is to hold up „, the load that is on that particular panel ? A Yes. Q That is, those from nothing to 6 and from nothing to 2 form no part of the truss proper ? A No. Q Tho.se sections between, if you put a load on one of them, it will dis- tribute it 10 another ? ' A Yes. Q If you have a load at o, that load win be distributed in this way, would it not (indicating)? A Yes. ^o Q Run up diagonally, and down here, up here, and down here (indi- cating)? A It passes through the triangulation ; although you did not tal e it exactly right. 847 1 5 " r. If m ao Q There is no way, Mr. Hell, by which you can put weights on this hip- vertical — A Except by the load upon it. Q Except by the load actually ufon it. Q That is the difference between the hip-verticals, and the hip-vertical poits? A Yes. Q The other vertical posts will have a weight on them although the load will not be at that point ( A Yes, that is correct. Q Rut the hip-verticals will not have a load on them except when it is right there ? A Yes, that is right. Q Consequently as soon as the car had got past number 7, if the hip-vert- ical broke at number 7, there would not be the slight<"()U wli> that is the reason. Why should you .say that because the tram car rail wa.s broken east of 2, that therefore the car must have passed 2 ? A I did not yive that as the principal reason for the [losition of the trucks. y \ot as the principal leason ? .\ I ^ave that as a reason for the position of the car lia\inn been further ahead and run back. (i Now, I ask yon why was the car fuither ahead .■■ \ Itecause the rail.s would naturally hanjj down towards the e.i.stern side, and the trucks would not j;<) tlironj.,'h nutil the track was burst com])letely. Q Yes. Would not the track — I think yon said the rails were not broken on the- Msqninialt sp.m. Is that correct ? A Yes. Q Thev were broken east of point 2. Now, that span could not col- lapse without the rails breaking, could it ? That is a necessary result of the span collapsinfj, the breaking of the rails ? A Yes. Q Do \ou mean to tell me you could tell where these rails would break, no matL^r where the car was ' .\ They were seen where they were broken. y lint assuming; no one knew where iliey were liroken at all, would you tell me that the i)lace where the cat was on the bridge would show where the rails would necessarily break .'' A No. y The two are in no way connected to<;;ether necessarily ? A No, not in that way. .lo y Now, is there any other reason why yi iu..ik the car was between o and 2 ? A Yes. from the position where the .rucks were found. •4 '^ 250 'v„!l Q Where were they found ? A Between o and 2. Q They were found between o and 2 ? A Yes, between i and 2. Q They would naturally <,'(< a little forward, wouldn't they, in falling? The car was in motion, you know, when the bridge broke ? A Go for- ward ? Q Yes. A Well, that is doubtful, I think. I think they would go pretty straight down. jq Q The Esquimau end of the bridge broke first, on your own statement, • and was pulled ofif the pier ; it went down first, then, didn't it ? A I think so, yes. Q .\rn\ the car was already moving at the time the first break took place ? A Yes. 20 Q That is the first fact we know ? A Yes. Q The second fact on your statement is that the end towards which the car was travelling lowered first ? .X Yes. Q Which would necessarily, would it not, give some impetus to the car? A Yes. Q Cars will run downhill faster than they will up-hill? A Yes, sir. Q And they were then moving. Then, would not the necessary result be that the cars would go farther forward and light down below^ farther for- „ ward thiui where the car stood on the bridge? A That is possible. Q Not only possible, but isn't it absolutely sure ^ A No, I do not think so. It is quite possible. Q J t is altogether probable, isn't it, Mr. Hell? You will go that far, won't you ? A I don't know. Q Yoii don't know that you will go that far ? A No ; I am doubtful about that. 40 You said .something yesterday about the car having gone forward and run back ? A Yes. > '1' 333= 25' I: lO Q That is the bottom of the arm there ? A I said that the car might have gone up to the hip-vertical i, and come back a few feet, I thought. Q Do you mean before it went down, or after it went down? A I mean before It went down. Q Hefore it went down. Hut if the forward end was pi Ued off the pier, that end would be lower? A Well, after it came off, yes. vfter it came off complet<.iy. Q .And tliat end was what lowered fir.st. You heard Mr. W'lson's evi- dence, the street inspector? A Yes. The first thing that would take place would be deflection at the 37 '/:J ft. point. Q Wait a moment ; yon heard from a number of witnesses that that end of tlie bridge was the first to sink ' A Yes. Q Mr. Wilson said that his horse had his front feet on to the other span, and it was dragged back and could not get up ; and you will remember that he stated that the car was something in the neighborhood of fifty feet behind him 20 at that time ? A I do not remember that. Q You don't remember that ? A However, I do not dispute that. Q Did you hear his evidence in the Gordon case ? A No, I did not. If I dont sit very close up to a man I cannot hear him. 30 Q I see. Hut at anv rate you know from his evidence that you heard at the inquest that he was considerablv ahead of the car ? A Yes. Q Now, Mr. Hell, von said with reference to the floor that the specifica- tions showed that it could not possiblv be more than an inch on the chords at some places ? A Yes ; I believe that is wrong. I noticed that myself Ac- cording to the specifications it would be so, but according lo the way the bridge was actuallv built, I believe it was not .so. y So then I need not go into that ? A No, it was a mistake on both sides. y Yes. Now, as,sumiMg that the floor did extend over, I understood you 4° to.sav — A According to the specifications that would have been the fact, but according to the way the bridge was built it was not a fact. Wit; 'J ■! Jl I ; ' I. k r 1- mi ..!> t . ■■■I '.5a i-l! i. A Q As far as I can see, the specifications do not bear on this at all ; it might be, and it niisjht not be. Now, I nnderstand you to say that you would not consider it wise to run a tranicar along supported only by the flooring, with one beam gone ? A Yes. It woukl not be wise, of course. Hut it might happen that at one par- ticular time there might be sufficient support there to draw a car out ; after it fell — after the flooring slipped it got a support on that bottom chord and with the assistance that it had with the stringers running across, the longer ones and the smaller ones, it might pull it out ? My conviction about that is, you can have '" no practical engineer to endorse that. (Jl You stated that already, and you stated it as strongly as \ on could ? A I know I have built bridges, and I know what is the custom — y I would like to have you answer the question. I under.staud that you do not believe in that ? A I do not believe in it at all. Q A reiteration of it will not make it stronger. But will vou sav this. 20 that if the flooring had fallen and dropped to the bottom chords, that it might not be that that 3 inch planking, together with the rest of the floor system, as- suming a floor-l)eam had brokan, might lie quite sufficient .support — it would only be needed for a moment or two — to draw that car out of danger and let it go oflF. A I do not think it would draw it out of danger. Q It might be the electricity that would draw it out ? A It might pre- vent it from going through, it might po.ssible, and it might not. But if you ask me if I would take the resix)iisibility of its not going through, I would not do so ; but it might iwssibly happen. 30 Q Certainlv. A man would be insane if he did it deliberately. But in i8q2 it did ? A I don't know anything about what occurred in 1892. Q You have heard the evidence, a floor beam did break in 1892 ? A I did not pay any particular attention to tluU. Q You heard the evidence thai a floor-beam broke ? A Yes. y And the floor system in some way or other held the car up and it went ^^ over ? A Yes. Q Now, referring to those stringers, you said in your evidence. 1 think. 353 u '^ ■} I 3 ' •1 -I m yon made this statetneiU in your evidence you suggested that probably the stringers alone might have supported it ? A That the stringers alone ? Q Alone. A Without tics ? Q With the one floor beam ? A If I stated that, I said what I did not mean ; for 1 did not believe anything of tlie kind. Q I read to you from the evidence, page 467, at the top : " Have you calculated the strains on the floor-l)eanis? (A) Well, I think I have got some 10 notes about them. ^Q) The stringers under the track? (A) Yes, I have calculated the stringers, and I can tell you that from memory. I make out that the two stringers " — you are speaking now of the ten by twelve stringers. A • Yes. Q — "will carry 24 tons with a factor of safely of four." Do you still adhere to that statement at the iire.sent time? A No, I cannot say' that; I cannot tell you that. If you will allow nie 1 will tell you what I do adhere to. Q Answer this, and then I will let yon you explain. 1 just a.sk you, do 20 you adhere to that opinion which I have read ? \ Yes, 1 adhere to it so far — I say, when I made it it was a properly made calculation, and I supposed it was right. Q Now give any explanation you like, I won't stop you. A Well, 1 have calculated the .strength of the .stringers better since, and 1 make out that the .stringers have a factor of safety of 4 for a 20 ton car. Yes. Y Do you know a book called Carnegie's Focket Companion ? A. 3° Q That is a standard book ? .A. It is. Q Those were fir stringers, I believe ? .A Yes. Q Would fir be .stronger, or weaker, or approximately the same, as oak ? A Well, I have forgotten now, what is in that book for oak, I cannot tell. Tell me what it is. 40 I ■, i I- 'A 1 I I Q I am not a.sking for that. \ 1 can tell you no figures. -mh- i-'i 254 lO Q I don't want figures, l)ut only a relative statement. You must know which is stronger, fir or oak ? A I suppose good oak is stronger, Q We will take oak as being the same then. It will be fair if 1 take> oak. Fir is not so hard. Now, you know what that table is? It is for the pur- pose of getting at the strength. A No, it is no use whatever for that. Q What is it for ? A It is for di.stributed loads ; but it is not for con- centrations. Q Do you mean to say that that table is for getting at a load which is equally distributed over the whole of the timber ? .\ You can get a dis- tributed load over it, but you cinnot derive concentrations out of that table. Q Do yon tell me that this is for the purpo.se merely of getting at a load which is laid evenly over say a fifteen foot hanger. A Yes, or else a centre- bearing load, which is equal to one half. Q Can you tell me what sort of a load could be equally distribtited over a long length ? Did you ever hear of that ? .A 1 have heard — 20 Q Would it be much use to have a table like that '< A Yes, it is. I often use it myself, but not for that purpose. Q It is page i86, edition of 1893. Now, after all, I think we can take your evidence, Mr. Hell, and go on still. You say it is for a uniformly dis- tributed load ? A Or a centre bearing. Q A ca.se like this for a steamer would be a more severe strain, would it not < .\ More severe than distributed, yes. 3° Q So that if I am taking a table which gives a unifonnly distributed weight, I am taking a favorable table for your purpose ? A Yes. Q So that We can go on with this table ? A Yes. •Q Just look at the table there ; .so that you will see that 1 am not mis leading. L;, and assnine that they arc supported bv both floor beams. A Yes. Q In other words — now 12 in., 18 ft. would be 670 pounds to the inch < A Yes. Q Now, in order to jj;et oak, which would be fir, you would add one-third to that ; that would be somethiiij; like 220 or 225, which would make about 895 — we will say rouj:;lily 900 jwunds to the inch ; that is right ? A Yes. 20 y Now, to get a lo-inch stringer, yon would multiply that by 10. That would be 9,000 jMinnds. /\ Nes. Q 9,000 pounds then would be the weight, then, that one .stringer would support, and twice that would be two stringers which would be 18,000 pounds? A According to that table. y Which is considerably less than 20 tons ? A Yes. ,; g A little less than half ? A Yes. 30 y And I suppose again, as yon said before we adjourned yesterday, if there is any difference between you and the book, one is in error, and this book must be the one? A 1 say 1 do not think that book is right for that case. y Thai is all. A Hut if yon care, I could put in a calculation upon tha- point, which will show that there will be a facter of safety of 4 ; I have no objection to put it in. 40 356 ■';■ ■/ 1 ; ! ''■ .1: ,:*: . ■ _ 'T. ' •\ RK-RXAMINF,I) HY MR. TAYLOR. I il Q When you speak about tha' book beiiiR wron};^! ''" >"" '"fan the calculations or the assumptions? A I do not think the book is right at all in assumptions there, because there are no experiments there to find out the value of OouKlas fir. Q That book contains a formula for calculating? A Yes, it is a very lo safe table ; anyone who uses it would be very much on the side of safety. Q When you speak of assumptions on which the calculations have been made by .Mr. Warner and Mr. Lock wood and the assumptions on which you made yours as to the factor of .safety, what do you mean by that, exactly, Mr. Hell ? A Well, the factor of safety must be calculated with reference to some ultimate tensile strength of the material if you are talking about tensile strengths such as bars and links. Q Do I understand you to say that their figures are wrong, based on 20 their data ? .\ Their figures are right, Iwsed on their data, and my figures are right, based on mine. I dispute their as.sumptions. Q You dispute their iussumptions ? A Yes. Q What is the main difference between their assumptions and yours? A Well, the original strain .sheet is calculated for 600 pounds per foot run, and a moving load of a tliousand ])ounds per foot run, half upon each of two trus.ses, with the result that the tension bars ii])pear to have a factor of safety of five, and correct for the loads given as stated, the ultimate tensile strength of the iron being taken at 5o,ck)0 pounds per .square inch. A strain-sheet calcu- lated with reference to the conditions which prevailed at the time of the acci- dent I would calculate this way ; the weight of 900 pouiuis per foot run of the trns.s, one thousand pounds per foot run for a moving load, and a panel load of 20 tons. One half of the 900 pounds per foot, three-ten ths of the looo pounds per foot, and 34 of the shewn panel load was borne by the north truss ; with the result that the factor of safety of the north tru.ss was much lower than those on the original strain-sheet ; the ultimate ten.sile strength of the iron bein)? taken as 35,000 pounds per square inch for welded links, and 31,250 pound? 4° per square inch for bottom hangers and hip-verticals. Q I understand from that, then, that you put the quality of the iron 30 t * f, 1 1 ::l 257 w. somewhat different from 50,000 pounds per square inch tensile strength ? A Yes. Q You put it at 35 ? A Yes. • Q Mow, did >ou say an\thiiig about the reason for that before < Mr. Davis asked you a question here — . A I do not remember about that if I gave — . Q I will just show you, Mr. Hell. Page 462. Mr. Davis asked you this 10 question: " The iron generally ?" — he ask^d you if you were not asked this before at the inquest — " the iron generally you consider a good quality? A I supjiose it is as good as is generally put in bridges," and he .stopped there. I will read you the balance o." Mie evidence that you gave to that question, whicii my learned friend di 1 not read to you : — " Rut there is one — I have not got much confidence in rods that are welded, and perhaps upset, and then a screw cut in them. They go through .so many different operations it is hard to tell what they may do when they are subjected to strains." A Yes. y That is the answer you made at that time, the whole of the an.swer. Now, that strain-sheet and the specification was calculated upon the basis that the iron was not welded, bu*^ vv.!dless? A Yes. Q And the iron, you f.nd, in fact was welded ? A Yes, welded. • Q .\nd for that reason you say rhat that assumption cannot be fairly taken at 50,000 pounds to the .square inch ? A Yes. Q .\iid for that reason you say that the strain-sheet could not be fairly taken at 50,000 pounds to the square inch ? A Yes, I .say that 50,000 pounds would be too much, I believe. Q That is, it is to,- much to fairly take at the time of the original con- struction of the bridge ? A Yes, even then too much. Q Kven then ? \ Yes. You see, >ou should understand that because if those were properly-made weldless links, made in a good shop, properly-made, upset links. — 20 An int'nnission here occurred at request of jury. Mr. Taylor . Q Now, you say t'iit the f.ict that welds were in this iron made the basis of 50,000 pounds to the .square inch unreliable for the calculation ::^^^ •' 25H 40 'H .1 ! I ! i M 1 made upon it ? A It gave too high a value of ultimate strength. Q Would the fact that the bridge had been subjected to heavy loads at any period affect the ultimate tensile strength of the iron ? A It would. Q Henefically or otherwise ? .\ It would be detrimental to it. Q Well, do you think that 35,000 pounds to the square inch would fairly represent the tensile strength, originally or at the time of the accident ? A Oh, I think or-^inally, I can give you a reason for that. When I have iq been building bridges myself I have torn the rods in two with a wheel wrench where they have been welded. .\nd I would not from my own experience put any higher value on them. liecause I have had to send the rods back to the shop to be re-welded. y Then, do I understand that the efTect of a weld is to render a strain- sheet unreliable to the exleiU of anv defects in the 'veld ? A Yes, 30 (4 To the extent of any defects in the weld ? A Yes. Q Now, can yon tell from looking at it, ordinarily, what rvercentage of weakness it would cause by the weld ? .\ No, you cannot tell. But you can see that one bad weld would bring down a whole bridge. Q Awl vou cannot tell from looking at it what the character of the weld is? A No. g So that the fact that it is welded might vary that strain-sheet ' nything from 5 to Ho jK-r cent. ? .V Oh, yes. Hut one would not expect to find such a tvemendous difTerence as that. 3° Q No, but it renders ti'e whole strai.i .sheet uncertain and unreliable? A Certainly. Yes. Q Now, that original calcnlaiio.i of die strain-sheet was based on an evenly distributed loaf' ilso, was it not, on both chords? Yes, it was ba.sedon a load per foot run, and a panel load derived from it. g Yes, that is to say, evenly distributed on the floor? A Ye.s, it was distributed eijually on both trusses. ^'^ Q It was distributed equallv on both trus.ses. That, of cour.se, was "i 259 before the tram car line ran over the bridge at all. It was not built for that purpose? A No. Q And the fact that this car line ran over about three-fourths to one side of the bridge would still further reduce that? A Oh, yes. Q Materially ? A Oh, yes, very much. Q Very much? A Very much. Of course that has been given in evidence already. Q It is on the same principle as carrying a pail of water over a stick ? A The same exactly. Q If you put the pail over to one side, the man at that side carries the most of the water ? A That is the true principle. Q The greater strain is on the man that has the pail nearest to him ? A Yes, the man that has the pail nearest has the most of the load. Q Now, I did not quite understand what you meant when you spoke about the car going forward and back there; that you formed an opinion of that kind from the position of the rails after the accident. What did you mean exactly by that? A Well, I meant thi-i, that it is very likely that the car load had arrived as far forward as the hip-vertical. Q Yes, I understand that. That is as to about i? A Yes. Q And you think it went back? A Yes. Q In what position were the car rails after the accident? A They hung down. Q They hung down? Would you mind taking a little slip of paper and indicating roughly to the jury? A Yes, I can, as I remember it (taking paper). Q Just draw it shortly; it will only take a second? A (Making sketch) As well as 1 remember it was like that. Q Kindly bring this illustration over here to the jury? A One break was here (indicating point which was marked i). This is the east end (indica- ting) and this is the west end (marking the same). And this is another break somewhere about the centre. Here is one break and here is the other (indi- cating). Now, I don't know where the end of this went that corresponded to here (indicating); it might have gone away in the water. The bottom end of that went I don't know where. Q The portion marked at the west end represents the pier nearest Esqui- mau? A Yes. Q And there were rails hanging over the top of that pier into the water? A Yes. Q Two rails were there? A Two rails, yes sir. Q How were those rails fastened above, on the floor or stringer? A CO 20 30 40 ''■ i I '1 AW r i I' ' ' '+. 360 They were fish-plated to thx' rails on the next span. Q The car could not fjc down until the floor fell away from the rails ? A No, the car naturally could not go down as long as it was resting on the rails. Something had to go first. Q Yes. Well, now, was the rail upon the Gorge side, — that would be on the north side — was that longer or shorter from the pier ? Did it extend eastward beyond the pier farther than the south rail, or was the converse the case i A Oh, this one that was broken, that break I believe is on the north lo side. Q That would be the Gorge side ? A Yes. Q The rail on the Ciorge side ? A The rail on the Gorge side is broken up on top of the pier. Q Broken on top of the pier ? A Yes. Y Which pier ? Broken on the eastern on the Victoria pier ? A Yes. 20 Q On top of the Victoria pier? A Yes, the north rail broken on the Victoria pier. Q So that that rail on the (iorge side remained intact, from the pier on the Esquiinalt end to a distance of about how much ? A Oh, somewhere be- low this break. Q It broke, then, very close to the pier ? A Yes. Q On tJie Victoria end ? .\ Yes. Q How about the rail on the south side of the Victoria side ? A It broke somewhere about the centre. Q That is somewhere between three and four ? A Yes ; or it might have been a little east of that ; I think probably a little. The diagram made by the witness was put in, marked exhibit "A i." Q Now, Mr. Bell, you .said you examined this broken beam ? A Yes. Q Do you think it was possible there could have been an auger hole :3n?: 30 40 f^ 'Mi ; I i- -IE.; \ ■ 361 to within 5 or 6 or 8 inches of the hanger holes on top of the beam, without you seeintir it? A Might I look for a moment again ? Q Yes. A (Witness looks at model) I did not see that hole bored. Q This is the model U (marked exhibit U) ; it represents a section of the floor beam ; these two large holes represent the original hanger holes ; this small starting hole here, the anger hole, is where Mr. ('o,\ says relatively he bored. Mr. Das'is : My friend is wrong there. Mr. 'Paylor ; The red point is where he .said he bored ; he fixes no dis- tance from the hanger except this red point Court ; I'-xcept relatively as shewn there. Mr. Taylor ; He does not do tiuit. This starting point here represents the size; the red point represents where Mr. Cox says he bored, and that is the position here, Mr. He'l. Now, I ask you as a result of vou examination, would 20 it have Ijeen possible to have had an anger hole approximately that close to the hanger holes on the (iorge side, without you having seen it? A No, I do not think so. I think if he had bored a hole tliat size I would have found it out? Q How much time did yon spend there looking for that hole ? .\ Oh, we were a long time there. Q I mean to .say looking for this auger hole ? A We might have been twenty minutes. 3*^ tjl You mightjiave been 20 niiiuites looking for it ? A Mr. Wilmot was very anxious about it and I looked. I did not go there for that particular purpose. • -. Q Hut he was there for that purpose ? A In fact I wanted to go away. Q You wanted to go awa> ? Why did you want to go away f A I wanted to go and do other things : I was busy. Q I don't know whether you said that you saw the section of the 40 262 i: ,, hanger hole in the broken beam? A Yes, I did. I saw part of a section of a hole. Q Do you know whether that was in the long side or the short side of the beam, the lonp length or the short length? A I think it was the long length. Q You think it was the long length ? A Yes. Q Now, what weight, with the car going over the span, would there be jq on the sidewalk side of that hanger? A What weight ? Q Yes. A ICighteen tons. ' ' On the sidewalk side ? A On the hanger on the north side. ^ Q I'erha])s it is my fault in not putting the question quite clearly to you There is the roadway, which we will .say this sheet of paper represents ; then the lower chords run down each .side of this sheet of paper? A Y'es. y The sidewalk is outside ? A Yes, the sidewalk is outside. y Outside of the lower chords ? A Yes. Q Now, would the fact of the car pa.ssing over this roadway cause any .strain on the sidewalk? In otlier words, to put it this way, would a defect in the floor-beam, outside of the hanger on the sidewalk side — would that neces- sarily aflx'ct the roadway side of the beam? A I do not understand the question yet. Court : C/ The evidence is that the ! iring was done under the sidewalk, outside of the roadway ? .\ Yes. Q Would the boring at such a place affect the solidity of the roadway itself? A Oh, no, I do not think it would, not if it was b^red outside. I did not understand what he was driving at. Mr. Taylor : It would not affect the roadway inside of the sidewalk. y You saw floor beam number 7 ? A Yes. Q Was that bored ? .\ Yes. Q Anything in the bored hole > A Yes. 263 20 30 40 ,' n I) What ? A A |)lu«. Q A woiKlen plug, or oakum ? A Thcru mi),'lit be some oakum around it, althoiijjli I do not think it. Q Referring l)ack to number 3 floor-beam, tiie fact of a bore l)einj; in it, wonkl that have attracted your attention if there had been an auKcr hole there? A Yes, I think it would. Mr. Davi.s : () My learned friend asked a question that did not arise otit 10 of the cro.sN-examiuatiou, that is as to the elRet of the auyjer hole. Court : I will allow yoti to ask (luestimi'; on that. Mr. Davis : (,> When you say an auj;ii hole bored there two or three inches from the hanyens — when you say that would not affeLt the roadway, you are speaking? merely, are von not, of the amount of wood taken out, and the consec|uent dimiuntiou of the streujjth in the beam ? \ Yes, I am speakin|r of the fact that the hole is away where it would not do any harm. 20 Q Hut rot will travel ? So that the question of rot would not be affected by what you said ? \ Xo. Mr. Taylor : »,» l-'or instance, if you found rot on the roadway side of the hanger, would you attribute that to its comiuy; from the haufjer holes, or from an ann;er hole there on the sidewalk side ? A I would attribute that to the jjeneral desiji;n of the holes in the beam. y You \vo\ild attribute that to the yi^'ueral desiji;u of the holes in the beami' A Yes. 3" Q Hew much sectional area did they take out of the beam ? A 1 think it was 96 !!',uare inches of sectional area bored out of the beam. '. ' Q What is the total sectional area ? A 1 am not certain of that. If I had time I could jjet the book and show \on, but I ha\e not got it here. y HaveyougotitintheCourtHou.se? A No, not in town. (•i Can \ou gi\c me an approximate idea of the proportions of the whole ? 40 A I think it. was less than 50 per cent. Q How much less ? A 1 think it was nearly 50 per cent. n 264 I 'I Q The fact of putting the l)eams in originally with those hanger holes and those diagonal sway-braces, holes in connection with it would take out nearly 50 per cent, of the sectional area of the beam ? A Yes. Q Yon mean about that much ? A Yes. Q And expose it to moisture and rot ? A Yes, but I remember at the same time calculating that there was still enough timber left in tlu: beam to resist the shearing of the strain there where the beam is now. Mr. Davis : Now, my learned friend lias examined on a jwint wliich 1 never had a chance to examine upon. Court : 1 am not going to limit you by strict rules of evidence on the one si'le or the other, but I hope you will this time exhaust the important ques- tions. 10 Mr. Davis : Q Now, Mr. Hell, isn't it a fact that if you bored a hole at this point, that water will get in there i.nd cause rot. That i- correct, isn't it ? A Yes 20 Q And how far that rot will travel within four years is a thing that neither you or anybody else can say ? A No, I do not profess to say how much. Juror : Q I would like to ask if the two portions of the beam that were found were measured to see if the length was the same as the whole beam. Tl'^ Court ; Q Were they, Mr. Hell ? A No, I believe they were not ; buL the broken parts were looked at to see if they would come cio.se to- 3° gether. Q Were they fitted in together? A No, I did not fit them in, but I remember looking at them. 'Q As regard their capability of fitting in closely did you form any opin- ion ' A Yes, I did. I do not think they could iiave bored a hole in them without my seeing it. Ju;'>r : Q Would the length of the two pieces be the length of the 4° whole beam ? A If they had been taken up and put together I 1-. in. ve they would. r "! ;3a?: 165 Q Hilt )ou do not know it ; you did t..ot measure ? A No, I do not know it, I did not put them together. Q Was there any hanjjer holes on the short piece ? Did you see a sec- tion or sign of the hanger holer ? A On the broken end. Q Did you see any on the short piece? A I do not think so, I think I saw them in the big end. ' Q The auger hole only being two or three inches from the other holes jq there night have been a piece of wood dropped off of it, and looked like the other hole ? A You mean the auger hole that was bored into the beam ? Q Ye.s. That a piece of wood might have dropped off of it ? A No, I think not, because my recollection is that what I looked at shewed the thread of the screw. Mr. Davis : Q The thread would be iiiiderneath the beam and not in the beam ? A It looked like that. 20 Juror : Q 'Phe piece divl not sV the holes of the hanger at all ? A What I .saw was the hanger holes am. 'hv bnre holes. Mr. Taylor : Q The Juror is desirous to knov whether the short piece the sidewalk side of this beam up the Gorge — A Yes Q Whether that, where it was broken off sliewetl an\ marks of the hanger hole ? In other words, in this way, there is a section of the beam. V No, I ihink the short — I do not think the short piece did shew it I think it was the long piece. I am not positive, I believe it was the long jiiece ; but it 3° was a .section of the whole. I I ■i i t > ! - i:,: 1; Witness stands aside. 40 266 tr ■ " tti III WILLIAM S. GORE , Cai,i,k» anu Sworn, Examined by Mr. Taylor. 1^- ' Q What is your name ? A William Sinclair Gore, Q You are Surveyor-General of the Province, .Mr. Gore ? A I was at '° the time the bridge was built. Q You were at the time the bri(ijj;e was built. What position did you occupy at the time of the accident ? .X neputy-Commis.sioner of Lands and Works. Q As such, did \ ou make any in.spection of the ruins of the bridge after the collapse ? A Yes. 1 inspected it together with the — ii company with the coroner's iur\'. 20 Q Did you inspect this broken floor-beam you hear referred to as 3 here? A Yes. Q There is only one broken floor,beam ? A Yes. Q Did you insjiect that ? A Yes. Q I )id you see both pieces of it ? A Yes. Q Was there any part of the beam missing — I mean to say was there 30 anything subtracted from the entire length ? .A Well, perhaps nothing but what might have been sheared away from it when the hanger pulled through it. y What is your idea about that ? .V Well, the hanger was found suspended 011 its pin, the eve-bars intact with all its nuts and washers upon it, it is in evidence that it pulled right through the floor-beam. 1 Q Now, you .saw two pieces of the floor team? A Yes. y Did you .see the .shcjrt piece, the sidewalk piece ? A Yes. (J Wa.s there any auger hole on the top of that ? A I never saw one. 40 , tl 2650, Q You never saw one. Now, Mr. Gore, those lateral sway -braces, did they go through the hanger in the original design ? Just come here (to exhibit U). .Exhibit U represents a section of the floor-beain, and these two large holes on top represent the oiigin;il hanger holes ; these two holes at the side, one at each side, represent where the lateral sway-braces went through ; and these pieces, blocked out stjuare here, repre.sent where the sway-braces were screwed on with nnts. 'i'liest- swav-braces cross inside the hanger, between the top and the bottom ot it, where the jib plate is fastened. A I cannot tell you from memory whether tliev did or not ; I can tell you from the plan. Q Just refer to tlit- plan, then, and fill me if you do not mind ? A (looking at |ilaui the scale is so small it is very hard to tell b\ this plan. Court : Mr. I^ockwood wmild know. the hanger ? Do these swav-braces cros.s inside il Mr. Lockwood : The lateral tods do, yes. Here are the holes right through here (indicating on exhibit U) that the rods pa.«sed tlirongh. Mr. Taylor : O The lateral rods, what 1 have been referring to as sway- ^'^ braces, cro.ss on tiie inside of the hanger. Mr. I^ckwood Yes. Q Crossing on the inside, it would be quite possible that that beam could fall away and leave the.sc lateral rods there. Assuming that floor beam to break right at tlie hanger lioles, you would find the lateral rods there still in the hanger, would you not ? They would not fall away ? It seems to me that as a matter of common sense they would not. A Well, they might fall out, because when the wood wa.« out, the ends of the lateral rods would be re- leased, and they might come right throtigh. Q They would have to bend consider;ibh . wouldn't they, to do that? A As Umg as the whole tiling was horizontal they would not fall out. When they tipped vertically, or fell down into the water they might fall out 1 think. 3° ir^ ' w , i Q I)o you think it was possible that that auger hole was there without your seeing it, filled with oakum ? A I certainly never saw it, and never heard of it lx;fore. 40 Court : Q Did yon look for it ? A I did not look for it, because I never heard of it. ^^ 2660/ ^ ! ; CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR. DAVIS. Q Look here for a moment. (Witness taken to exhibit U). Now, as I understood your description, Mr. (Jore, they were sheared off right in this neighborhood (indicating) ? A Yes. Q And that whole iron work was torn right out of the beam ? A Yes. Q At the bottom there is a jib-plate cros.sing ? .\ Yes. Q And the nuts underneath hold the jib-plate in place? A Yes. Q Was that jib-plate torn through ? A Yes. Q That would necessarily tear out some of the wood ? A Yes. Q I think so. lO Witness stands aside. ao M; I'Ai i - IJ ml ;^ 11 30 THOMAS HARMON Cai.leu and Sworn, Testified, Examined by Mr. Taylor. Q. What is your name ? A Thomas Harmon. Q You were upon the car, Mr. Harmon, at the time of the accident ? A Yes, sir. Q One of the sufferers. Will you describe what you first saw"" the first 367 40 1 i ! , . i ■ l)reakiiin; souinl you heard ? A Yes, sir. As we went down and got on the bruigc, just after — almost iiionu'ntarily after passing Captain (irant's boat- house, which occupies a place on the north side of ilie bridge — I saw that, sit- ting on the south side myself, the lasi seat in the car, I recollect seeing Cap- tain Cirant's boat-house, and almost innnediatcly after — Q We want to get the jjosition of Captain (Irant's boat-house to the truss that went down ? A Well, sir, I will give yon as near as I can — I have never seen the bridge since the hour it occurred, but Captain (irant's boat-house, as 1 have been acquainted with it, and b.-eii underneath the bridge and travellec' "^ over it a great many times — Captain (irant's boat-house, it runs tnit under the foot of the bridge on the Victoria side all but level with the inshore abutments that the two centre spans stand on. y Tiial would be the pier ? \ That would l)e the pier. y Just a moment. Taking this as the pier — this point here as the pier (indicating on the ])laii) nearest Victoria, the span that went down, where is Captain (Irant's lM)at-house ? On the right-hand side of this. 20 30 (^ The (iorge >ide ? .K Ves, as near as I can say, that pier would touch the inside part of Captain (Irant's boat house, the corner of that span (indicating). (.i It would be just about on a line with it ( A Ves, as near as pos- sible. Q Just as you passed Captain (irant's boat-house, now, what did you hear ? .\ Well, there was a .sudden ominous break and .sound that I cannot hardly — I cannot find a word to express it, only a heavy twang. Q Was it like an iron or a wood break ? A I could not swear to one or the other, but where we were standing I heard big timbers, big trees snap, almost where we were standing at the present moment ; but it was not that .sound. Q It was not that .scnind ? A No. It was .sharper. That was monien- tarilv. Then — but whether that moment I was in the car or not I cannot swear — I heard other breakage. 40 i) What was the first you heard ? .\ That was the sharp — 11 I M 11 268 Q And that was just as yon passed Captain (Want's boat-house ? A JUHt as the car was nidvinn, 1 cmnot say fxaclly, of conrsc, whure wt- were on thf hri.luf. l)iit it was momi-ntarily — it was jnst after I recollect looking through the heads of the otlicr passenReis and saw Cajjtaiii (iraiit's boat- house. io CROSS-HXAMINEI) BY MR. MACDONELL. Q Yon jjave evidi-iici- in the otht-i case, and I tliink von stated that the car was abont two k-nH;ths of itself (in the bridjre ? A As well as 1 can im- agine ; the car slips alonj^ ((uickly, y Yon were inside the car ? .\ Yes, and sitting down. y I)o you know the ordinary length of the car? A 1 siiould imagine *° that tlittt car would be between 30 and 40 feet long. Q Supposing it was 35 ; that would be about 70 feet on the span ? A I could evidently give it according to figures. Q Vou were not paving particular attention to what part of the span you were on at the time ? .\ That was not my thought for the moment. Q And you may have been farther on than you thought you were, ac cording to the position of the car ? .\ 1 have reason to believe since that it 3° could not have been farther, because she would have gone clear of the bridge and gone down into the mud, which she did not do. Q It depends on the way she drops ? A She did not drop suddenly down, .she went down with a long sweep. y Hut you were on the roof when it was down ? A I was still attached to the car. Q It depends on the velocity of the car on the bridge ; how far you were ^^ on the bridge, as far as that ^oes ? A Ye.s, sir, it would depend on two things ; there was a suddei stoppage, and what drove me out of the car and t'V. % 269 %& rii killed everybody in the car was the force of the hydraulic ram when the car struck the water ; and because we were up so much on the upper side of the car, tliat saved our lives. There was a sudden stoppajje there. And it is evi- dent in my mind since that the Victoria end dropped and acted as \ lever and f.topped the car with the tremendous power coming down Its dropping straight down there first started the car along on the drive down, and then the water broke the force, and tlie other end falling acted as a lever, and that is what stopped the car from going over off of the bridge. y One witU'-s thinks that the car fan back; yon do not? A do not think .vate. will run up hill. Well, I J>3 y i)id you .see Mr. Wilson that dav ? A No, sir, I was sitting in the forward end of the car Q Now, when you heard this sharp clang — the other day you said it sounded like the breaking of part of a ship ; what part of a ship ? A The main yard giving way. y Is that composed of wood and ironhart ? A Wood and ironhart, and 'o a batten of iron. Q .\nd that is the sound of wood and iron breaking ; A Yes. Q (Taking witnts to plan) This is the Victoria side, this is the Esqui- mau side ? A Yes. (.^ Now, one of the witnesses said he thinics that some part of the car was over between z and 3 some places. Now do you think he could be mistaken? He was outside, he said, and standing on the rear end of the car watching 3" vehicles and people passing, and He says : " ' think iiie front part of the car \vas between 2 and j uhen it went down." Now, do you think he would be nearer right than you as to the position ? A I will tell you, my idea was this : Taking the angle, that end going first, which did go, there is no ques- tion alwnt it ; if the car had been th(>re, she would have gone ciear ; if she was nearly off the span she would have gone clear and gone undenicath the mid- way pier. Now, .she remained sonc\vhere near there in that section, 1 believe, as near as I can understand it, about wliere your stick is now, that is where I think she was laid in the water. Had she l)cen farther advanced on the pier 40 when she dropped, before the ;ers that was new — that had been put nuiUr tlie rail traek, it was one ot'theni that was hreakin^; tlial made the noise. It didn't jjo alto^'ether, on account of the rail track heinj; on top ot that, and it had to ^,'u ^,'ralhlally canting l^ I'erlnjis, if yon do not mind my snjj^estinj; to yon, we will come to that in a minute ; as it ajipeared to yun what was jjivinj; way at this lime ? — what was lowering ? A Jt wa' an old stiin^ei that was alonjj on the bridge ; it a])peared to me it was nld liiat was hreakinj,', and letting it down on that western end of liie span on the l^stiniuialt road. Q It would bf at point "()" or "I"? A It would l)e where the two spans iiuet in the centre of the (iorge, on the western side. y Do yon understand wliai the lower chord of the bridge is ? A Well, I am not well jwsted. t^ It is that line that runs ;dong there, between the piers ? A Yes, sir; I understand — that the floor is on ? Ki 20 I 11 I 'f 'hi y Was that lowering anywhere .' .\ No; not tliat I could see; it might have sagged a bit in tin- centre where the car was, I could not tell. I was under the span, and would not see the s;ig in it. y .\t that time was tiiat end resting on the north pier in the centre towards the Ciorge? — the cars going this wa\' I wdl take this iM)ard to illus- trate it. Here is the \'ictoria end (indicating I and the other end — the Esq- uimau enes, sir. y What condition was that in at that time ? Was it on the pier, or off? A Well. I could not tell yon that ; but ,1" 40 275 lO 2(> it must hiive been off, because I see it settling there, and it couUl not settle without it was off the pier. Q Where did it settle ? A On the north-west corner. U And yon say that did what? A It was canting up the (kirge as it fell. Q Which was canting np the Corxe? A The pier— the span. Q What do you mean — ltwiisinth.it position (illustrating)? A Yes, it fell in that (Kwiiion — canting that way— not .so much as that, but considerable. y Which appeared to yon to be tiie lowest part of this side — the (lort;e side? :\ It was, till the end where yon point to there gave way — ^jnst the corner here was the lowest — the nortli-west coiner. Q Until the north-east corner gave way ? .\ Yes, sir. Q Did yon observe anything fall away from the floor? — for instance, these — ircpresenting the rttxji beams? \ Yes, sir y Did any of those fall away from the floor its it was coming down ? A No, that I am positive of; lUere was nothing fell from the bottom of the .span ; there was nothing dropping down or fell that way, because I was right under it. it fell intact ; it went ilown that wa\ — everything. There was nothing gave way underneath, because I could see that particularly. It might have sagged in the pier — the span, but there was nothing fell through it — nothing dropped down. Q Von saw this floor beam of the bridge yesterday ? .\ Yes, 1 was asked to go and look at one, yes. Q You were down there with whom ? A Mr. Murray was there when I went. Q He is a witness who has testified here already ? -A I believe he has. Q Do you know how many old floor l)eams there were in this span that gave way > .\ No, I do not. 40 Q Do vou know which floor beam this was that you saw ? A I was told it was No. 7, but I don't know. 30 II ' ".■ ^', > • 1 i I 376 Q It was ail old beam, was it? A It appeared to be; it had been painted over. Q Did it havea hanger )i; )nKli it? A Yes, it had a hanger through g Were hangers through there, over this beam bored through or round the outside ? A Have you got a beam there ? Q Did this one you saw have hanger holes or stirrup irons? A No, u, sir — holes through. Q Did you find a plug in it ? A Yes, .sir ; there was ,i small phig—'/i or ?^ in. hole. Q Did you mrisure the hole? A No, .sir, I did not. Q What was the diameter you did .say? .V It was not more than }^ in. hole — it might have been. I thought it was '/j inch. Q You saw the plug ? A Yes, sir. Q What was it plugged with ? A .\ piece of this wood, I think. Q Was it oakum ? .\ Oh, no ; it was a wooden plug. We thought it was p. knot first, and j;ot a chisel and cut down and found it was a pi'';;. Mr. Murray .said he thought it was a knot, and we had some dispute abdut it, and he got a chisel and cut down and made sure it was a plug. ao 30 CROSS-EX.AMINKI) BY MR. MAtDONELL. (J How far did the plu;> go in ? A I don't know ; I didn't measure tlie depth of the hole. It might have been i)relty ne.ir through, or ''alf way. If I had thought I might have measured it. I could easily have done it by put- 40 ting something in. Q Was it put in .securely ? A Oh, yes. 277 /v I Q No water could get in ? A It was put in pretty tight. Q Had it been an old plug ? A That I could not tell ; the plug looked all sound and good. I don't know how long it was put in. Q In fact, you had some difficulty in finding it. Mr. Murray did? A I believe he had, I was not there. Q And Mr. Murray went specially there to look at it with you? A No ; ^^ I come there just as he was coming away, and we both went there together. y He drew your atUntion to it ? A No ; I was sent there to have a look at it. y Who by? A Mr. Wilmot, the city engineer. Q .And he was there when you got there? A Mr. Murray was there. Q And he thought it was a knot hole? A Yes, sir. 1 30 y Now, \ ou gave evidence before the inquest, I believe ? A Yes, sir. Q I suppo.se you remember just as well then as you do now as to what took place as far as the car and tin.- accidt nt were concerned ? A Oh, well, I supposi". It is some little time ago, nearly a year. I was quite e.xcited over it then. Q You remembered it just as well then as now ? A I should. Q Mut nothing has happened since to call — ? A No. y You were asked there (p 126) by the coroner : "You said just now, Captain, that you would not be sure, you thought the car was just about the centre of the bridge A It was more than the centre when I looked first, it was about the centre, but it was going .slowly all the time, and teams were driving all the time." A .\pparenth, yes. '2 " Wijei; you looked first it was about the centre ? A Yes. Q You U^ked r<7tind, ar.d it whs in the centre when you saw it ? A It was about the centre ou not see it? A Yes, it might have dropped that, but it c )uld not have dropped more. Q You heard a crackling noise ? .\ Yes, sir. Q And yo\j placed that at a stringer ? A Yes, placed that at a .stringer breaking at the ends. Q You would not hear a rotten beam break at that distance if it was very rotten ? A No, I should not think I would. . 40 * ' Mi a8o Q And the reason yon lieard the stringer break was beca\ise it was a large, sound piece of wood. That crack came before the end came off ? A I can't tell that ; naturally it would buckle down with the rail over it. KE-UIKECT BY MU. TAYLOR. lO 1 Q Do you mean to say a stringer would have to break before or after the end came off ^ A If the stringer was on very solid and nailed on to the bridge and two spans, of course it had to break before that would go clear. Q After the ; pan went, that is what you mean. Mr. Davis : Hefoie. 20 Mr. Taylor (to witness): Which do you mean? Just think for a mo- ment. Take it coolly. Would a stringer have to break before the span came off, or as a result of the span coming off? A Well, you can take it either way you like. Here would be a stringer underneath that rail and it was bolted to both parts — the other is over that join — and it has to give way before that would go down. Q Is it jointed ? , A No ; one is jointed aiid one had to break, and that would hfve to break before it came down. 3° Q vVould it ? A It did, and would. Q Supposing the span went over at the end of the pier, would that stringer break necessarily after that, if not broken before ? A When it slip- ped clear, it would have to break to let it down ; it would all go together. Q Can you .say whether the stringer broke before or after it slipped off the pier ? A Common sense would tell a person how that would go. I can't express it, but anyone can tell that one heavy span had to give way some- 4° where. Q You say you could not see the car through the trestle work. You 281 mean, looking up from tlif floor uiulcriifutli ' A Yes. y Ami you could see undcnuMtli hilt not the top? A Yes. Mr. Davis : The witness said common sense would tell which it was, hut he did not say which it was. Witness : I leave it to your lordshij) how can I tell which hrokc first, and me away from them ? Court : That is a ihoroiivjh answer ; that will do. lO THIRD DAY. Octoher 14th, 1897. 20 Same council present as hefoie. Jury called. JUDdH'S CHARC.K. ' Mr. Foreman and (ientlemen: This is an action brought by Mrs. I^ang on hehalf of herself — • "■ Mr. Ca.ssidy: If your lordship will p^irdou me for interrupting you one moment. \Ve are leavins^ our matters of law as in the previous I'atter.soii case ^ till motion for judgment, hut there is one thing — there is a very considerable variance between the evidence, and what I — Court: What are you asking? " - ^'•v I a.ssidy: I want to put it to your lordship that apart from all the points t.il.i 1 previously in the Patterson case, we would ask your lordship to wit uliaw i'ais case from the jury; that assuming an action lies against the cor- >raJi>!i, tiiat this was their corporate act, and — 40 Court: — Ye.s — well, I decline to do that. I have already held, rightly or wrongly, that the plaintiff' is entitled to go to the jury — he cannot be non- suited against his will, and although that is before the l-'ull Court, I suppose, ■■■■'■ ■ .' :.;■;, '' ' ■ ■■ ■ 282 ^i I'iu IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT.3) LO I.! !f:iM IIM «^ i^ 1112.2 " 2.0 1.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 =^= =^ 4 6" ► Photographic Sciences Corporation ^ ■<> <*. ^^ 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 873-4503 V'^- iM i?. ^ 2() as part of iny judgment, the decision has not yet been given, and until I am told I am wrong by the appellate court, I must adhere to it. (To jury); This is an action brought by Mrs. Lang on behalf of herself and children for damages sustained by them in the loss of the support which of course they formerly had from the husband and father who was killed i.i the unfortunate accident which has been referred to during the progress of this case. Now, you will remember, gentlemen, this right of action is merely for the pecuniary loss which has been sastained; you are not to give damages by way of punishment for sentimental reasons, and when you remember that the real defendants in this case are the ratepayers of the City of Victoria — who of course it not suggested themselves actively participated in the neglect, the acts, or the omissions which brought about this disaster, you will hardly be tempted to exceed the limits which the law prescribes, upon which the.se damages alone may be properly awarded. In the wa)' in which the evidence has been pirt in — that is, to a large extent, the evidence simply that was given before in the case of one Patterson against the same defendants for a similar cause of action, it is necessary for me to caution you that although I could not exclude the references to the former case, because of the evidence given in this way, yet you should not allow yourselves to be influenced by any conclusion which the jnry in that case may have arrived at upon any of the questions which will be left to you, and which will be the same as were left to the jury in that case. Your duty is to make up your minds for yourselves and not permit yourselves to be swayed in either direction by the opinion the former jury may have held upon any of these questions. Another thing I wi.sh to press upon you very strongly, gentlemen, and I do hope you will pay great attention to it, and that is, you ought to arrive at a clear conclusion upon each of the questions. And it is very dangerous, — especially in a matter of this kind, where the law is somewhat uncertain — to compromise upon one question, because some of you may think that the par- ticular answer to that particular question is not material in view of some pre- vious answer you have given to a former question. Now, please, do not do that, because I tell you, in all seriousness, you c"vnnot be certain of tlie result if yo \ act in any .such manner. The only safe way for you to decide upon these questions is to treat each question as if it was the only one submitted, and as if the rights of the.se parties depended upon the particular answer to the par- ticular question, no matter what the previous answer you have given may be. You have heard a good deal from counsel on both sides as to the law ap- 4° plicable to this case, and you have lieen told that I will direct you with refer- ence to the law ; but Iwth counsel have agreed in stating to you as law by which the plaintiff would be bound, that the defendants are not liable in law — 30 ■ 1 ( If- I 283 whatever moral responsibility may attach to imyoiic for the death of the de- ceased—unless you find upon the c. idence that the defendants have been at least guilty of negligence, either as regards the changes admitted to have been made by the tramway company by arrangement with the defendants, or in con- nection with the boring alleged to have been done in the beam, the breaking of which as having been contributed to by the defendants in this way, is claimed by the plaintiff to have been the proximate or immediate cause of the accident. Now, while I do not, for I cannot, say that in my opinion this is either an accurate or a complete statement of the law concluding the parties, I do not «<> think it is for me to differ from counsel as to a question upon which they are so happily, th(jugh to me so unexpectedly, united. If the case was to be left to you generally, that is, to find simply for the plaintiffs or the defendants, it would be necessary to direct you fully as to the law, and it would be my duty to give you my own opinion upon it, although coun.sel could not, of course, complain if I were content to let it remain as they have left it. Hut in the way in which the case is to be submitted to yon because of some uncertainty which unfortunately does exist as to what the law affecting it really is, that is, by putting to you certain questions bearing upon the facts, it would be idle for me to trouble you with any statement of the law which could only be useful in the circumstances, if coming from the counsel it throws light upon their different contentions as to the respective positions of the parties up- on the facts. 20 I shall, therefore, say nothing more with regard to the law than that the parties will have the full benefit upon motion for judgment or in appeal of any principle of law which may be found to apply to this case, whether to the ad- vantage of the one side or the other, and that you need not concern yourselves 30 further with the l.iw. Now, as to the questions, the most convenient way will be for me, though in a general way, to read out each question to you, and then briefly state to you what the material facts are with which you must deal in arriving at the answer. I do not propose to offer any opinion whatever of my own upon any of these questions. The first question is: " Did the Corporation after the extension of the city limits, control and .nanage the bridge as if owner thereof?" Now, yo\i ^° see, gentlemen, this question avoids the legal question of whether the city did own the bridge or not ? The question is simply whether they acted as if they 284 lO 20 did, and that, really, there is no doubt about. The history of the bridge is, as perhaps you may remember — and I am going to put it very briefly, indeed — that in the year 1885 it wasbnilt by the (iovernnient ; that in January, 1891, the city, under the power which is given in the Municipalities' Act, procured an extension of the limits of the city so as to include this bridge, and in this way the bridge was brought within the city limits, and as is shown by the printed report of the proceedings of the Council the city acted v.ith reference to this bridge exactly in the same way as they did witli reference to any other bridge so far as the question of ownership is concerned. You will not have forgotten tiiat after the first accident they stopped all the traffic going over the bridge until the repairs had been made, without consulting anybody, and the tramway company never set up or, indeed, inferred that they had not full power to do that — to stop the traffic upon that bridge as well as upon any other bridge. Therefore, there is no doubt as to what your answer should be as to that question. The next question is : " Was the bridge, as constructed, of sufficient strength for safe use by the tramway company in the way in which it was used up to the time of the accident ? " It is agreed upon both sides it was not — the one thing upon all the parties are agreed. The bridge was not constructed for this kind of thing at all. When it was built, there was no such thing as tramway traffic in Victoria anywhere, and as counsel put it to you, it was never intended to be used for any such purp<}se, and if any enquiry— even the most superficial — had been made as to the design of the bridge or its capacity, it would have been quite apparent it was in the highest degree dangerous that any such traflic as this should l)e allowed over it. The next question is : " Was such use by the company by agreement with the corporation ? " Now, although it is not perhaps exactly necessary "* for your decision, I may as well tell you, as throwinij; light on the situation of the parties and as a proposition of law, that there can be no doubt that the city had such an interest in this bridge as being a portion of the highway, that if they had chosen to exercise the power of stopping its improper use such as this was, they could have done so. They could have forbidden the tramway company to run cars in such a way over it, and if the comp.^.y had persisted, they could have got an injunction. But the question for you is whether in the way in which the city and the tramway company acted, the use of the bridge by the tramway company for these larger cars was not with the permission of 4° the city ? And you will remember, with reference to this question, that after Mr. West had written the letter which he did write in 1891, and in a report by the cit> engineer, Mr. Wilmot, about the unsafe condition of the bridge. !!* 2«5 the cit.v did undiTlake to stop the use of tlr"s bridge for a short time by the company, and did make an arrangement with them by which the company laid down a different kind of foor ; and afterwards the city removed the bar which they had put up and aUowed the liamway company to go on and use the bridge in this way. It will be for you to say whether there can be the least doubt then as to what your answer to that question ought to be. The next question is : " Would the Corporation, if exercising ordinary care, have become aware of the actual condition of tlie bridge in time to have prevented such use by the cimip.iuy before' the accident ? " The facts bearing '" upon this question are sliortly these : that the bridge was never designed for anv st:ch traffic at all ; that tlie plans and specifications of ihe bridge were lying, as the evidence shows, in the office at James Hay, and that the slightest examination of those plans and specifications would have .shown tha! the use of the bridge by cars of this size was dangerous, and could only result in a longer or shorter time in a calamitv such '. s occurreii. You have the letter which was read, of a practical man (you can take it to youi room, I shall not trouble you with it>, in which he points out in iHgi, the danger; you have the long time which the Council allowed to elapse in Mav of that year when tiie letter was 20 written — May, 1892, when Mr. Wilmot made his report as to certain repairs, and still there is inaction on the part of the Council for abuut a mouth, when Mr. Wilmot writes the letter read out by Mr. Macdonell, calling attention to the fact that his report had not been acted upon, and unless .something was done, some such disiister would happen. It does seem, in view of the known life of a bridge of this kind being only 7 or 10 years, if the city had taken any reasonable steps to ascertain what the coiidition of the bridge was, that they must have known of the actual condition of ihe bridge, and that any such re- pairs as they were making were wholK' inadequate to remove the dangerwlnch fn did exist in the use by the company of the bridge for the purposes of traffic with cars weighing 10 tons. It will be for you to say whether the answer to that question will give you any difficult\-. The next question is : " Did the Corporation, before permitting tramcars to pass over the bridge, make any enquiry whether it was of sufficient strength for safe u.se for that purpose ? " Well, there is no contest about it, and no suggestion that ever they did. The next question is : " Could such knowledge have been easily acquired 40 by the Corporation ? " All they had to do was to go over to James Bay, where they knew the plans were, and they would have ascertained that fact, or it 286 voultl .'eoiii as if any bridge t-nniiH-er of ordinary capacity could have told them, but it is for you to say what you think the answer should be. The next question : " Had tiie Corporation, at the time of the accident, suffeied the bridge to fall into such disrepair as by reason thereof to become danRerou!* for such use by the lonipany ?" I do not know there is any such serious contest about that question, or that the answer to that should K'v you any trouble. It seems to be conceded on all sides that the ordinary life of a btidge of that kind is from 7 to 10 years, and that time had elapsed before the accident, .*\nd in view of Mr. West's letter talliiijj tlieir attention to it, and Mr. VVilmot's re|X)rt saying what was really required was the replacement of the beams by iron beams instead of wood, which the council did not do, you probably will find no difficulty in makiufj up your minds about that. The other questions are those about which the real contest has taken place between the parties, and it will be ne(es.saiy for me to refer — which I shall do as briefly as possible — to the evidence of the different witnesses bearing upon these questions. The first of these, and the next after those I have already read, is : " Did the changes made in the bridge by the Corporation and, under an arrangement with it, by the company, materially reduce the strength of the bridge to support a tramcar passing over it?" Those changes were, if you remember, that the company would put in stringers, which I think it was con- ceded on both sides did not weaken the bridge — that portion of the change ; but there was this further difference — that, whereas, before this time the floor had extended from the one chord to the other in one place, the tramway com- pany divided it up into three pieces, the other being, of course, that there would be one on either side of the track, and one between the rails, and a good deal of evidence was given and you heard a good deal of argument on both sides as to the effect of that change. It was contended for the city that in a bridge of this kind the support which could possibly be furnished by a floor even in one piece was necessa.ily of so trifling a character that it could not properly enter into your consideration at all. Upon the other side, it was strenuously urged for the plaintiff that there was some real support before then derived from the fact that the floitringers, and reaching as you would, as you see them here, would tliat give additional strength, that is distrilmte the weight ? A Yes. " Q So as to carr\' it away froni the broken floor-beain < A Yes, it would. " (.}, Supixjsing tiiat floor is cut — this is one piece now, (in- dicating), this is a second piece, and tiiis a third piece. In the case of the floor-beam l)reakiug as it broke in 1896 and 1892, would there be the same chances after that floor was cut of the car getting ofTas it did in 1892, as there would be if it run right across? A Certainly not." 30 Then at p. 37, in cross-examination — I am just showing you briefly how this witness looked at it : " Q What material difference does it make "^ A In my opinion it makes this difi"erence ; in 1892 it was probably that extra strength given by the plank flooring which carried the car out of danger. "(^ You do not think that the bridge was in any better 40 condition in 1892 than it was in 1896 ' A It was undoubtedly in better condition. That is, I should fancy it was ; simply a question of age. 388 " Q That truss gains nothing uf any strength or integrity by the floor ? A The truss itself does not. " Q The floor is simply a weight that the truss has to carry ? A Yes. " Q So that the floor might break down on one side, fall away like a trap-door from the truss, or it might break on both sides and the truss remain intar.t ? A If you break it in the middle as you did in t'vo places it wo'ild fall like that. If it to was continuous as it was in the first place, and the floor broke as it did, it would fall on to the chord bars ; the floor — the planking would rest on the chord bar like that, and — " And then he is interrupted. Then Mr. Wilmot — his evidence was referred to by the witness — it was really so, that at the time of the former accident when the floor was all in one piece the car had been kept up — prevented going through. There is the evidence of Murray, pp. 217, 218 : — "Q First of all, in reference to that flooring, would the *'*' flooring put down the way it was finally put by the city — that is, instead of running right across as it does here (referring to model) cut in three pieces — up here, and here, and here again, would that have any effect on the chance of the bridge in case a floor beam broke, going through or not going through ? A I say it would make it much weaker ; it would have the effect — Q Just describe shortly how it would strengthen the state of the timber after the floor was broken ? .V By the planks going right through and the rail being on top — of course, it is usually a flat ^o rail, or even a T-rail, this would be much stronger, for the reason if you take the plank this length .supported underneath as it is by the stringers and then on the floor beams, it will have a greater resistance than if you cut it in three parts. The reason is when you cut this you make this .so much shorter ; this being where tlie cai is, it is shorter still and more liable to give way. By being cut so, it would not have the resistance ; consequently the shorter the pieces the less resistance, and the more liability to let the car down. " 40 And there is Balfour, pp. 225 and 226 : — " Q Now, I want to ask you, first of all, just putting it 289 shortly — because I do not want to go through it at any great length again — the effect of the change that was made by the city in the flooring of that bridge. It was originally like that model ; it was then changed as yon have heard described , it was cut into three pieces, so tliat — what would be the effect to your Uiind of that? A It certainly destroyed the continuity of the floor, that is across the bridge ; it made a break in it, so that when the floor and the floor beam — there would be no assistance from the plank- ing when it was cut ; after it was cut the floor planking gave no assistance to carry it over the broken floor beam, which I consider that planking does to a certain extent. " Q And how would it be if the flooring fell so as 'o get a support from the bottom chords, that is, as it was originally — would that be of any assistance to it ? A It would be of con- siderable assistance, especially at the panel point where the chord has sufficient strength to withstand the pressure." lO Then there is the evidence of Bell, pp. 251, 252 : — " Q Now, it is suggested that if the floor beam gave way and let the planking of the floor down, that the support of the chord link to the floor would be a source of safety as tending to carry that car along to the ne.\t floor beam ; what do you say with regard to that? A I think it would be a very unsafe source of safety. ' ' You see, he does not agree with the other witnesses. "(4 Just explain yourself? A I mean to say I think the car might break right through the floor. " Q You think the car might break right through the floor ? A It is not a thing that anyone would depend on. ' ' And then on the next page he goes so far as to say — he repeats that : — "No one would take the responsibility of that at all. In practice it is a perfect absurdity — " that there would be any strength afforded by the planking being in one piece. Now, gentlemen, 1 do not think I have given you all the references for 20 .30 40 l\ i r 290 1 1 what these witnesses have said ; bnt what I think, after carefully reading over the evidence as I did last night, is sufficient from each witness to show you what his opinion was, and of course it is for you to decide. The next question is : " Was a hole bored by Cox, the city carpenter, in beam number three as described by him?" Well, now, that, of course, is the main question of all upcn the ground which both counsel have deliber- ately elected to fight this battle. It has been conceded on both sides — I do not say whether rightly or wrongly — that, except upon a favorable answer to that question, the plaintiff cannot succeed. (To counsel) : Mr. Macdonell, where are those portions now you wish me to read to the jury ? They br ir upon this particular question, do they not? (Handed to Court.) The portions Mr. Tay- lor has requested me to read about it are these, commencing at p. 12 : — "Q of ihcm. 10 All the beams you found rotten ? A Yes; every one 20 " Q And youconcluded you would not bore any more on the Victoria span, because all you bored on the other span were rot ten ? A No ; not at all, we did not have time." I had better go on — "Q Did vou tell them that you did not examine but the three ? A They were satisfied. " Q Did you tell them that you had not examined but the three ? A Certainly ; there is the span. "Q Who did you tell; A My borings proved they were not all ' bored. There were only nine parcels handed in to the enf,.neer. " Q Did you tell .inybody what beams you had bored ? A Yes. "Q Who? A The engineer. " Q The specific beams you had bored ? A Yes. " Q Did you tell what beamsyou had bored? A He knew 4° perfectly well. *' Q Did you tell him ? A Yes. 291 "Q When? A The next day, when I took the borings. I said there is nine, and there is all the borings. "Q Did you tell him ? A He had sense. Yes; I did tell him. ' ' Q What did you say to him ? A 1 said are we to bore any more beams, and he said he didn't think it was necessary. " Q Why not ^ A Because every one we had bored was lo rotten. ' ' Q Because every one you had bored was rotten ? A Yes. " Q Then it is a fact thai all the beams you bored were rotten ? A Every one. "Q Every one? They were pretty badly rotten, too, weren't they ? A I believe they were." P. 15, line 8 :— 20 " Q That was something that you bored out of the beam ? A Yes. "Q And they were rotten ? A Yes. " Q Every one of them ? A Yes. " Q Very badly rotten ? A Yes ; pretty bad." The next is page 25 ; — ' 'Q And then )ou bored the others from the top of the beam? A Yes. ' ' Q And you found them absolutely rotten ? A Yes. " Q You did that with the Esquimaltspan? A Esquimalt span only. "Q And then you bored three of the beams on the Victoria side on the top ? A Yes. 30 40 292 ro " Q And found them absolutely rotten ? A Yes." Mr. Cassidy : Page 26, my lord, beginning at 3. Court: "You knew they had not been removed ?" — these beams— he is speaking now at the time of his report that tlie bridge was sound. — "A Do you .suppose for a minute that I sliould say : here, Mr. Wihnot, there are two beams in that bridge, and you have not removed them, and you ought to remove them. " Q You knew they were rotten, did you not ? A Yes ; and he knew they were rotten. " Q You knew they were absolutely rotten at that time ? A I did. "Q Badly rotten? A Yes ; badly rotten. " Q Then I say how did you report them to be sound to the 20 city in 1895? A I did not report anything sound." Mr. Cassidy : Page 27, my lord, at i. Court : " Q And yet you reported the whole bridge sound ? A Yes. " Q Without examining it, and notwithstanding that yon knew in 1895 'lie.se beams were absolutely rotten ? A Yes. "Q Including this number three beam that gave way? ■1 I : ( A Yes. 30 " Q And it was more rotten at the bottom than it was at the top: A Yes." Now, Mr. Macdonell, what you have marked here in pencil is what you have referred to ? Mr. Macdonell : Yes, my lord. Court : " Q Why didn't you put a plug in it then to stop the ^° water? A They were all plugged up that I bored. " Q They were all plugged up that you bored — yes ; but do 293 you say it was any use plugKinK them that way, which would let water ill ? It was according to instructions ? A I'higged with tile oaktiiu ; that is all I know. ." Q HiU you tell nie that it was no good? A A good soldier does what he is told, you know. "Q Yon were told to go and plug it afterwards? A Not afterwards. It was plugged first, and not afterwards, " Q I mean plugged after you bored the hole. You could not do it before you bored the hole. And you left it in such a condition that the water would get in ? A It is bound to get in. How does it get through a ship." Now, p. 268, Yorke's — Mr. Taylor : Tliat is Yorke's. Court : What line do you want ? Mr. Taylor : Heginningat, say line 8. Court : " Q Did you go to the wreckage ? A Yes — the provincial con.stables had it in a boom there " Q Did you attempt to fetch it away .' A Tried to ; I sent up some of the men for it. " y Would they give it to you ? A No, sir. "Q And that is the rca.son why you did not bring it ? A Yes, and that is the reason why we did not put it in the scow with the balance of the wreckage." Mr. Taylor ; That is all, your lordship. Court : " Q Now, Mr. Cox, you did not bore the under part of No. 3 beam in the Victoria span ? A No. " Q So you do not know whether it was rotten underneath or not ? A I cannot say. 10 30 30 40 294 " CJ You horcd into it 7 iiiclu's or tlicrcaiiouts ? A There- flhotits. " y VViicii yon say it was rotten, yon mean traces of rot in that 7 inclies ? A Dry rot. "Q Dry rot— traces of it ? A Yes. " Q It inijj;lit liave stood for a year or two in that way ? A Yes, it mi>!;lit, and perhaps more. 10 " y Hut beinjj phi^Kcd with oakum would allow the water to jjet in and increase the rot ? .\ Yes. " Q Very materially would it increase the rot ^ A Fifty per cent. " Q Tile oakum lieinij in there would increase the rot 50 per cent. Are you sure that Mr. Wilmot saw tlie borinj^s of those beams ? A He must have seen it ; he stood there in front of me, 20 and the Mayor, both of them. "y At the time you were boring? A Yes. Atherly handed it to him in his hand." Now, gentlemen, I am not reading anything more ; yon can refer at the end of the case to any further qne.stit)ns. Mr. Taylor : Your lordship, there is the question of Atherly's, p. 277, at the 1 ottom — the question next to the last. 30 Court: " y In fact, it is a matter of indistinct recollection with you now, entirely, after so long a time ? A I know about the bor- ing — that is all. " Q And you are perfectly certain it was under the sidewalk? A Ye.s. " Now, gentlemen, it may perhaps have occurred to you when there is a long examination of a witness, no matter how iutelligcnt he may be, and more 40 especially when he is not perhaps of more than average intelligence, it would be comparatively easy afterwards to pick upon one side or the other — particular passages in the evidence to make it .seem very coi' "'ctory and very absurd. 295 lO 20 and although 1 have acceded to the request of counsel to read over these por- tions of the evidence — it having been omitted by themselves in their addresses — I do so because I am most anxious your attention should be called to any evidence which either side may deem to be material, and you hardly need I am sure from me the caution that you have to take this as a whole, and not pieces of it. You could not, of course, simply look at the pieces pointed out for the plaintiff as what he relies upon, or the pieces pointed out by the defendants. You have to take the evidence as a whole. I do not know that Mr. Cox's character is impeached — I would not like to put it that far. Mr. Wihnot him- self, in his examination in the other action, which is in evidence before you, is questioned as to Cox's character, He says at once that (!ox bears a good character. His evidence is here — I need not trouble you with reading out the portions I refer to. When it is suggested to him that Cox has such a character as to induce him — Wilniot — to believe he would be guilty of prejury, he .says at ou'je, no. That is the only reference I intend to make as to tiie character of Cox, if you consider — which I do not know — it was seriously attacked on the part of the defendants. You have Mr. Wiiuiot's sworn testimony as to that — he believes Cox to be of good cha acter, and he does not think Cox would mis- state anything purposely ; that b-:" had or could have any interest in mis-stat- ing anything. I do not thing it was suggested — I do not see any evidence of any interest on his part which you could look at to say he was interested to the extent of a copper in the result of this action. Now, it will, perhaps, have occurred to you, as it certainly occurred to me — but I am only giving it to you as a consideration for yourselves alone — that there is nothing extraordinary in Cox's account of the particular duties which he had to perform. Cox was not a bridge engineer. Mr. Cox apparently had the duty of going about streets and sidewalks extending to a total mileage of ^i> upwards of 100, and reporting periodically as to what their apparent condition was. If there was a hole in the floor of a bridge or a sidewalk, I suppose he would report upon that. But I confess, I was .somewhat puzzled at the elabor- ate attention which this supposed extraordinary feature as related to Cox — I say I was pur.zled by the great attention it received on both sides. You observed when Mr. Wilmot, the city engineer, wanted a particular examination made, he gave written instructions for it, and boring was done, whicU involves tak- ing lip planking, which, for my part, I can find no difficulty in believing would not be a matter left to the discretion of Cox, but of course it is for you to say. Another thing is, if Mr. Cox is such a hopeless idiot as Mr. Taylor endeavcred to make him out to be, it is rather n dangerous point to urge, he- cause he had been in the employ of the city for a great length of time, and it will AO 396 be for you to say whether the employment of a man so utterly wanting in under- standing was not, in itself, evidence of gross negligence on the part of the city. However, I dismiss it with that. Co\, however, does say in his evidence, and so far as I can see, whatever inconsistencies and contradictions he may have in- dulged in, he has not departed from this statement — he remembers distinctly boring the particular beam which is in question ; and so far as his evidence is concerned, I have only to say that question is one entire 'y of fact to you — whether this boring took place or not '. You must remembe , you must take his eviJence as a whole — not any particular portions ; and il will be for you to say in spite of any arguments you have heard from Mr. Macdon^ll, in contra- diction of that on the one side and Mr. Taylor on the other, whetlier that dees shake his credit as to the one point which, after all, is the only one you ha%'e to consider — was that beam bored or not ? The other portions of the evidence beariiigonthatarethc.se: The evidence of .\therly, at p. 271. That evi- dence is short, aiii! I direct your attention to it as relating to this point, if you have any doubt about, it, in which Atheriy who, it seems, was assisting Co.\ at this time, corroborates the fact ot the boring having taken place. It is short evidence, you will have no trouble reading it, but it is too long to make it poisibl; to Tsii it tJ yoa now. [O There is the evidence of Mr. Wilmot, the city engineer, taken on ex- amination for discovery. His recollection was fresh- His evidence, which you can refer to, leaves 110 doubt that lie understood at that time that the bor- ing had taken place. If you remember, the boring was done under his in- .struclions, the shavings were returned to him, taken from each boring, and had a number on, so that each bag of shavings was numbered with the number corresponding with the particular beam. I do not read it out to you to oc^rupy your time unnecessarily, but I read it carefully last night, and yon will have the eviderce. He says he understood the boring had been done according to his instrr.ciions, and this Ijeam amongst others, had been bored. Then the evidence to the contrary consists of the statements of persons who said that they .saw the two portions of the beam afterwards and they saw no hole. Some of these persons were not looking for a hole, and others were, and did not see it ; and the question for y,)U on that point is whether the beam haviug been broken at that rotten place where it evidently W'.s rotten, whether the portion being .shorn off — as the expression is — was not shorn to such an extent as to carry awa\ the surrounding portions, .so that the aiv^er hole would not be per- ceptible there. An inch and a quarter auger liole in rotten wood just where the whole is, might — but, ofcour.se, it is for you to say — easily not be ascer- tainable, becau.se, lieing among the breakage — the part being shorn — it dis- 3'' 40 H 297 appeared, and 23. I direct you to the evidence of Mr. Warner on that point pp. 9, 10 10 20 " Q Would you explain a little more fully to the jury the condition of that beam at 3 ? A The condition of that beam at 3 was one of extreme rottenness, apparently the paint on it had held it together, that is about all that remained. It was simply a very thin shell, perhaps, in spots an inch all round (sound ?) and the balance was rotten wood that you could shove your finger into. That was the condition I found that beam in at that end. At the other end there was decay round the hanger holes and the holes for the lateral braces. "Q How did the end which was sheared off, which is this end (this represented No. 3), about where was it sheared ? By sheared you mean broken ? A Yes. ' ' On page 10 there is this reference : " Q Tlie other one. No. 3, was broken at the Gorge end, where Mr. Cox ss.id he bored — is that correct ? A Yes." That shows the breaking was done where the auger hole was said to be, and it is for you to say whether, under those circui. stances, it might not have disappeared, being rotten. And the other lide of it is in cross-examination : "Q And you did not find any break in this little auger hole, if there was one there? A I don't know, as I say, any- thing about an anger hole, because I didn't find it. The chances ,q are, however, front the condition in which that stringer was, you could have knocked six inches off the rotten end of it and wiped out the auger hole completely ; it may have done so." Then Mr. Lockwood too, on page 49 : — "Q What ai)0jt 3 ? A Thre; was an old b;am and was broken off — sheared off at the hanger on the upstream or Gorge side of the bridge. "Q Inside or outside of the hanger — sheared off, or how? A Well, it was sheared off. It does not say here in my notes, but it was sheared off right at the hanger. You could see one of 40 2q8 lO 20 the hanger holes still in the end of the beam, on one of the ends. ' ' Q What condition was number three in ? A Very rotten. " Q How was the end where it had been sheared off as com- pared with the other end ? A It was very rotten." And page 71 : — ' ' Q The fact of your not noticing any trace of it, it would not follow one way or the other, as to whether the hole was therci Mr. Lockwo^.1 ? .V The hole might not have been there at the time I .saw it, the wood was very rotten : it was sheared right out. " Q And so broken up you could not tell ? A Yes, sir ; it might have been there and I not notice it, and it might have been sheared out entirely." Then Yorke, page 237 : — " Q Did you see this broken floor beam, Mr. Yorke, that has been referred to ? A Yes, sir. " Q Did you find any auger holes in it ? A No. " Q Did you examine it at all carefully ? A I examined it, yes. " Q And did not find any auger hole in it? A No, sir." ^ If you consider that at any length, you should read the whole of Mr. Yorke' s evidence. It is not very long, and you will see it bears upon that question. Then there is Mr. Gore's evidence, pp> 325 and 327. •' Q Was there any part of the beam missing" — that is the one in which the boring is .said to have been done " I mean to say was there anything subtracted from its entire length? A Well, perhaps nothing but what might have been sheared away from it 40 when the hanger pulled through it." Then again :- 399 " Q Do you think it was possible that that auger hole was there without your seeing it, filled with oakum ? A I certainly never saw it and never iieard of it before. " Q Did you look for it ? A I did not look for it, because I never heard of it." Then there is Mr. Hell's evidence, 244 : — " y You saw the two portions of it. Were you able to say 10 from your examination whether the two portions represented the beam ? A Why, yes. "Q Well, that is to say, whether they would have been capable of having been put together again in their original form? A Oh, no ; you could see that the one piece belonged to the other. " Q You could .see that the one piece belonged to the other? • A Yes ; and you could see likewise the mark of the suspender 20 on it. "Q And the mark of the fracture? A Yes; and no doubt the beam was rotten." Page 245 :— "Q And what conclusion did you come to ? A I came to the conclusion that there was no hole bored there." Mr. Taylor : I might ask your lordship if you think it would be right — 30 Court : No ; please do not interrupt me. As I said berore, I read over this evidence last night, and it took a long time, because you, gentlemen (to jury), might be afraid, having a great mass of evidence before you and not being familiar with it, to hunt for such portions as were material ; and I made a note of the portions of the evidence to which I wished to direct attention ; but I am by no means saying that is all, but am only making sufficient references to enable you to get the opinion of the witnesses. And I again ask yott in all earne.stness if you have any trouble upon it, to look at all the evidence, and ^ that you will easily find from the references I give. The next is 318 : — "Q I ask you, as a result of your examination, would it have 300 been possible to have had an auger hole approximately that close to the hanger hole on the Gorge side, without your having seen it." Mr. Hell says : "No; I do not think so. I think if he had bored a hole of that size I would have found it out." Then page 323 :- " A juror : Would the length of the two pieces be the length of the whole beam ? A If they had been taken up and put together, I believe they would. lO " Q But you do not know it; you did not measure? A I do not know it ; I did not put them together." No " Was there any hanger hole on the short piece ? Did you see a section or sign of the hanger holes ? A On the broken end." The next is 278-9 ; — 30 "Q 1^0 yon mean to say it was impossible for an auger hole to have been there" — being cross-e.xamined by Mr. Davi.s — "and you have not found it? A I would not say it was im- possible, but I went specially to see if it had been bored." Now that, of course, both parties have delil)erately elected to rely upon, that is to say, the answer you may give to this question. And if you have any serious doubt now as to what the effect of the evidence is, both parties, I am sure yon will agree — are entitled to this — that you should read over all the evidence. You have heard what the coun.sel have said — there are some other portions of the evidence they think material, it is not necessary to remind you, as coun.sel do not, of your sworn duty, but it would be your swcm duty and, more than that, fair play, and the references I have given will enable you to get at the rest which precedes or follows. Now, the next question — to keep you only a few minutes on my account and yours — is the nth: — " Did the boring of such hole cause the beam to become rotten. 40 And I can only say, as I did with reference to some earlier question, that * . 301 that is not a matter seriously dispiitctl. We all know as a matter of comiium sense a Iwrinji; of tliat kind, left wilhutit plii>;j{ing it up, would cause the beam to l)ecome rotten Using the laiijrnaKe of Mr. Warner at p. 14, that is what would hapiKMi. "Q What would be the necessary result of such a hole as that, remaining, in the way the evidence has shown, for four years, especi;illy in a wet climate ? A It would increase the deterioiation — tiie rolteiniess." lO That brings me to tlie last (pieslion, and when I spoke of the seriousness of the other (pu'Stions, 1)1 course I meant taken in connection with the last question: "What was the immediate cause of the accident ? " Mr. Macdonell, for the plaintiff, says the immediate cause of the accident was the rottenness of that l>eam 3 — which was caused by the boring, and he says (1 do not agree with him, I may say in point of law — lint that not here or there) that the plaintiff camiot recover unless that is made out. Now, that is the jmint upon which conn.sel have elected to fight this iiattle, and you have to take it as coun.sel have told you. This is a %'ery .serious question for you, as was plainly 20 put by Mr. Taylor, and yon ought to give it your best attention and I am sure you will. The references upon this (juestion are these; — "Q (Mr. Warner, p. 13): That stringer breaking, as you have described it, either one or the other broke either over the floor beam 2 or 4, does that either corroborate your view .is to the breaking of the floor beam 3 being the original cause, or does it have the opposite effect ? A I believe the floor beam broke at No. 3 on the (Jorge side, that threw the weight on the stringers, one of which was continuous from 2 to 4; the other was a butt ^^ joint, a broken joint on that floor beam, so that it left this string- er without support at all, and the weight of the cir simply went down through it, and breaking the stringer either at that point or that (indicating.) " . ' And then on the next page, 15: — "Q It is a matter of opinion I am asking you now ; I am not asking you to swear to any fact, but your opinion. Consid- ering that 7 was the .same age and was not bored, and carried the "' car — the same load, all right ? A If No. 3 had been in the same condition as No. 7, you wish to know whether — ? 30a " Q Well, give your answer that way ? A I should say that the car would have passes' over it with safety. " Q To what do you attribute the difference in the con- dition of the wood in the floor-beams No. 3 and No. 7 at the hangers ? A As I said before, it is due to the increased oppor- tunity for decay furnished by the hole which had been bored in the— " ii There are the same holes in the other beams that there lo are in this ? A No. "Q Outside of this hole ^ A Yes. " Q '1 i.c same holes are in this beam as were in the others? A The conditions were the same in the two beams with the ex- ception of this. " Q That exception being the one hole bored by Mr. Cox, and it is to this hole you attribute the difference in the condition ao of the beams to that hole. "Q T lie one bored by Mr. Cox I- A Yes." Then there is p. 2' to give the cross-examination : " Q You attribute that entirely to the auger hole, do you ? A I see no other reason." What was attempted to be done was, of course, to verify it two ways — to 30 show that the hole bored by Co.x would produce the rottenness of th-s beam No. 3, and to negative the existence of any other cause. P. 35 (this is in cross- examination): ' ' G r^o y^ remember "'hat it wa.s you assigned then ? A To the breaking of the floor-beam I a.5signed the cause of the disaster — to the extreme rottenness of the floor-beam. " Q It is only fair to read you this (p. 248 of your testi- mony before the coiouer). There is a broken hanger which Mr. 4° Lockwotxl said he was not able to locate definitely, but it was somewhere in the middle of the bridge. That broken .stringer may have come on 4 or 5 was ver\' pitchy and a very .serious im 303 i^. ^^ knot. But the question of precedence in breaking, that is whether the hanger or a good beam failed — whether the rotten part of the floor-beam of the old floor beam gave way, or whether the stringer gave way, it is impossible to determine, now ? A Pardon me, the question asked me was tu determine which failed first : the hanger, the stringer, or the floor-beam. I had previously testified that the extreme rottenness of the floor-beam was the cause ; that I could not, nor did not believe, anyone cou'd assign the order of precedence of the breaking of any one o' these three parts. "Q That is what I understood. It is difficult to a.ssign the order of precedence ? A Clearly impossible. "Q As a matter of fact, even in tiie best condition they could not have supported this load of 22 tons that was on it. I believe also you testified to this eF'.;ct: — .see if I have the sub- stance of your eviJeiice : That the truth of the matter was, there had been absolutely no maintenance of the bridge, and that was really the cause of it. It had been allowed to get into a shockingly bad condition of repair, and now the heavy weights put upon it were the cause of the disaster ? A I put it even stronger than that, if I recollect right. 1 said it was the most criminal piece of maintenance I had ever heard of." to I' K l,ockwood's, p. 51 "Q From your e.vamination of the woodwork of the bridge afcer the span fell, which was the weakest part of that wood- 30 work ? A The rotten floor-beam. "Q That is at No. 3 ? A Yes, sir. " Q So tl'-it the woodwork was the weakest portion the bridge, speaking generally-as between it and the ironwork, and floor-ix;am No. 3 was the weakest portion of the woodwork ^ .\ Undoubtedly. ' ' Q You have heard the evidence as to where the car was 4° at the time the bridge broke, have you not? A Yes, sir." Page 53 = 304 "Q You have stated that the hole bored in the way in which it was, would necessarily cause rot, and that this beam was the weakest portion of the woodword and the woodwork was the weakest portion of the bridge. You have also heard where the car was. From all the evidence that you have beard, and from your examination of the bridge, and from other data which you have been able to obtain with reference to this matter, what in your opinion was the first thing to break in that bridge ? A Floor-beam No. 3. "Q It would follow from that, I presume, that you mean that the breaking of the floor-beam No. 3 was the substantial cause of the fall of the bridge? .A Was the proximate cause. "y And the breaking of floor-beam No. 3 was due, of course, to rottenness ? A Yes. ' ' Q You have sliown that the rottenness in floor-beam No. 3 at that end where it sheared off" was greater than at the other end, and al.so greater than the rottenness of floor- beam No. 7, which had been in the same time ? A Yes, sir. " Q Bearing all those matters in mind, what was the cause of this beam breaking at the particular time at which it broke ? A The fact that it liad been bored in 1892. " Q In the way that has been described ? A Yes, sir." And page 68 also contains another reference to Mr. Lockwood's evidence upon this point : — 10 20 mt it 30 "What was the other reason? A I liave .secured addi- tional evidence in regard to the accident and where the car was at the time of the accident, and where the car was in the water after the accident occurred. If I remember rightly, I based my theory of the hanger breaking first on the location of the ear ; and I said at the time, if I remember rightly, that floor beam did not fall first, because the car had not reached 3. Now, the testi- mony before the coroner's jury all went to show — at least, most 40 of it, practically all that I heard — that the car bad not reached the centre of the span, and If the car had not reached tlie centre of the span floor beam 3 jould not have been the cause of the m 305 accident, As a matter of fact, I am satisfied now that the car had passed the centre of the span, and that floor beam 3 was the cause of the accident." And page 71 ; — ' ' Q Hut you do not base your whole theory on that fact, do you — about it giving away there — the rotten floor beam ? A Well, I attribute the primary cause of the accident — that is, the accident hap|K'niug just at that time — to that hole being bored." 10 Of course, he does not know himself whether he was or not, -is he says : " I have heard tlie testimony here." Now Mr. Wilmot is questioned as to his view of the primary cause of the accident. You will find reference to that in page 25 :— " Q So from what you have .seen and heard you cannot form an opinion as to where the weakness was? A I could not form an opinion w to what caused the destruction of the bridge.'' 20 Then Mr. liell, at pp. 255 and 256, who was an expert called for the de- fendants : — "Q I say, from your examination of the wreckage, from hearing all the evidence given at the inquest, coupled alsi with what you have heard to-day, 1 ask you what in your opinion was the member of the bridge that first gave way and precipitated the disaster ? In other words, what was the direct cause of the acci- dent ? A I cannot tell you the meinber of the bridge thai fir.st gave way, but I have a conviction of what members caused the di.saster, although I may say it is very doubtful too ; it is a very difficult subject. Ihit I have a conviction on my mind as to whicli I think was the most likely to cause the disaster ; I think tlie hip- verticals. " You have had it pointed out to you what they are. You see, he disagrees with the others. His attention is called on this page to the opinions of the other experts, and this question is put : — " Q Do you agree with that? A No ; I do not. "Q Will you state your reasons ? A Yes; 1 think that 30 40 tl 306 from the position of the car trucks it is fair to assume that the breaking of the hip-verticals at thr Esquimalt end pulled the bearings right off the pier. When the hip-verticals broke one of them was broken about the nut ; there is a washer plate on top of the links. The links are 37;.^ feet in length. The weight of the load is transferred from the top to the bottom chord by means of this washer plate. There would be force enough there, even by calculating the least friction tliere could be, to pull the whole bearings off the pier. That is my conviction of what de- stroved i '' And page 259 : — 20 " That is to say, you think the hip- vertical gave way ? A I think that was the main factor in causing the accident ; but if you ask me what part of the bridge broke first, I cannot tell you, and 1 believe no man living could tell you." Now, gentlemen, that finishes the references which I intend to give you. Of course, you will understand that these opinions of Mr. Lockwood and Mr. Warner and of Mr. Wilmot and Mr. Bell are opinions of experts. They give their opinion with reference to the special knowledge they have as bridge ex- perts of the capacity of a bridge of this kind, and what would naturally be ex- pected to happen, as re;;ards what gave way and what was the immediate cause of the disaster in the way in which this accident occurred. They had the ad- vantage before giving their opinions of hearing all the evidence and speaking from their .special knowledge and from the evidence given they advance those opinions. Two of them, Mr. Wilmot and Mr. Bell, cannot say how it hap- ])ened. The other two seem to have a pretty firm opinion on the point, which -^^ you have heard. These opinions do not bind you, of course. Some of you may think you are as good judges of how it occurred, and others may rest upon them. It is for yon to say whether you t ke their opinions and act upon them or not. A good deal of evidence has been given as to how far the tram had got at the time of the accident. I dare say you, gentlemen, can form a pretty good opinion for yonrsflves, apart fioni the opinions of the experts, as to what really was the immediate cause of the accident. I do not know that anything par- ticularly on the evidence suggests itself to my mind except, I believe, it was suggested by some witness tliat the first sound was like a falling or breaking tree, the suggestion being that it was owing possibly to this beam giving way 40 307 n lO first, which was of wood, and not the hip-vertical, which, of course, is not of wood. Now, gentlemen, as regards the amount of damages. In addition to what I have already told you, you will, of course, understand that this amount given in evidence of some fifty odd thousand dollars as Ixjing required to purclia.se an annuity for life of Dr. Lang is not binding upon you at all. It is simply given to you as something to guide you. It is not really contemplatad that the plaintiff should, as a matter of course, be put in the position of being furnished with a sum of money which would provide an income of $280.00 or $300.00 a month, wiiich, if Dr. hang had lived to an old age, he might have enjoyed. We all know how uncertain a practice is. A doctor's practice, like a lawyer's practice, or like a merchant's business, is not certain at all ; it may increase or it may decrease. Then there is the chance of death or of illness or some acci- dent. (-)n the other hand, there is the chance, of course, that a gentleman in Dr. Lang's position might have largely increased his practice. .Ml I can tell yon is, as I cautioned you bifore, that this is purely a (luestion of what is a fail sum, not in the nature of punishment, not because of any sentimental consider- ations, no matter what sym]jathy you naturally would have for Mrs. Lang and 20 her children. Yon have got to take everything into consideration, and when yon arrive at the amount you must deduct from it the $2,500.00, the amount of the insurancy. .\nd then yon will be good enough to apportion the dam- ages — so much to Mrs. J.,ang and so much to each of the children — you have their names, I suppose. Mr. Taylor : My learned friend can hand them in. Court : The usual way is to give Mrs. Lang so much, then the eldest child .so much, and then the next so much, by name. (To Mr. Macdonell) : >^" If your client is in court you might get ilio.se names. (To Jury) : I am sorry, gentlemen, this has been neces.sarily a {■ dious trial. It was iinpo.ssible to have the life which we had in the former trial, with witnesses g. ing into the lx),\ and giving evidence ; and what presses me is you ma;, t —it is only human nature — you may not refer to all the evidence which was not given verbally in this case, which might otherwise have imiire.sscd itself upon you. I have tried to pre.ss upon you to give the evidence (which I took three or 4 hours last night to go through), and 1 ask you again; your most serious and best attention, and I have no doubt you will do so. 40 A juror : There is a question I should like to ask, so as to be sure whether it has any bearing on the case — if the corporation repaired any part 308 of that structure and not the rest of it, whether in that case they are liable to damages I Court : I am sorry you niisimderstixKl tne. Do not trouble yourselves about the liability. You have hcaid counsel say they are Roiu^: to the Privy Council about this, and no doubt they are. I have already stated my view of tile law in the I'attcrscm case, and have nivcii a written judgment It was appealed from, but the Full Court in Victoria have not jjiven their opinion upon the apiK-al, and I mi<;ht tdl you that this case has not changed my mind at all. The counsi-l have chosen to fi>;lit this battle upon a view of the law '° which I tell you frankly I do not think is a clear e.xposition of it, but I hope yon will take me seriously. You have nothinjj to do with the law ; the only part 1 have read to yon was wiitten d" vn, because I wanted to frame my language carefully, for a jiulj;e withou; considering his lanj^najje carefully may make a mistake in what he wishes to sav. Hut you have nolhiuH; to do with the law ; the (piestions ate (piestions of facts, and .so drawn to admit of an answer "yes" or "no," but if you cannot con.scientiou.sly answer them with "yes" or "no" tlien put what. you think is rij^hl. Hiit they we e put so as to admit of l)einj!; answered "yes" or " no," counsel have agreed they shotild 20 be .so put, and I hope yon will have no difficulty in answerinj^ them that way ; but with the effect of tho-ic questions remember yon have uothin<; to do. I might tell yon what I think the effect will he — I have no doubt — but the I'ull Court may diffei- from me, and the Supreme Court of Canada may differ from them, and the Privy Council from them all. Hut what we want to do is to get answers which will put the higher court, which will have to deal with this, in the position of being able to tell what the law i.s — if we find the facts for them they will be able to find the rights of these parties without sending them back for another expensive trial, and all you have to do, gentlemen, is to find -^ those facts. The names of these children are here, gentlemen. The jury, being ma.sters of their own time, I think I might very well adjoarn till 3 o'clock, and let them r,v. „..ay and couie back when tluy please — there will be a room there — and discuss it when convenient. I will be in my room, and if you want my assist- ance, gentlemen, let me know. Mr. Cassidy (to Court): There is one point which seems to me to be im- portant : It was on the question of the flooring and the po.ssibility of its being held up by the chords. The evidence of Mr. Hell was that the chord links were so constructed they could not po.ssibly hold t\p the floor, except — 40 3CO I 20 Court : Do not tell me what Mr. Bell or anybody else said. Yon know perfectly well you are not regular. You ask me to do something — what is it ? Mr. Cassidy : I ask your lordship to read — Court : No, I won't do anything of the kind. As I said before, I won't read anything further. I was not bound to read what I did upon either sit'e. You gentlemen were supposed to refer to the evidence in the same way, and you would have been required to do it, if given verbally, but as a special in- dulgence I did refer to particular portions of the evidence. Now, if you ask me to refer to some more and I agree to that, counsel on the other side will then want to do away with tlie effect of that, and get into something el.se, and we will get into a squabble and a wrangle. I decline to do anything of the kind, but I do say again (to jury) that you read all the evidence. Mr. Cassidy : Of course, your lord.ship is aware that the rule is we can- not take advantage of anything we do not put before your lordship, but as it won't affect the jury at all, I will come hereafter and put the objections. Court: No, if yon have any objections I want them taken before the jury leaves, in a case of this kind. Usually I do not like that practice but it is a special jury and 1 want thcni to hear everything that goes on. Mr. Cassidy : I object to non-direction. I say that is neces-sary that your lord.ship should explain the law to the jury — Court: Now, Mr. Cassidy, you state the proposition of law which you wish me to leave to the jury, and I will tell you whether I will do it or not, but ''o not let ns enter into any desultorv discussion. Ask me to leave to the 30 jury .something which you .say is law. Mr. Ca.ssidy: Well, I want to p •. it in this way — Court: No. (To jury): Y( .. can go, jientlemen. If I find it necessary to briUg von back to tell \ on about anything which I have not done about the la'v, that is my re.sponsibiiity with which you have nothing to do. Mr. Cas.sid\': I am quite ready to do thut, if your lordship is ready for jne tc put it that wav : This is the scope of my objection — 40 Court: Never mind about the .scope. It does not requiu liuy explan- ation. If I cannot see the scope of it, I will he delighted to hear you explain, 310 though it may have puch novelty that I may not be able to grasp it at once, but I wi'l take my chance of that. Mr. Cassidy: I object to your lordship having declined to charge the jury on the law at all. Court: This is extremely irregular, and you know it well. If you say I did not charge tlie jury properly, that is mis-direction, and tell me what prop- osition I did not leave to them. If non-direction, tell me, in equally intellig- ible language, what you wish me to tell them. lo Mr. Cassidy: Your lordship ought to explain the law of negligence to the juiy, and that assuming that the action lies against the defendant corporation at all, and that the act of Cox was the act of the corporation, that they would have to find that in relation to the purpose for which that boring was made — that it was done without taking a reasonable amount of care. Court: Does that finish the proposition ? left to them. Now, the next one. I think that was sufficiently 30 Mr. Cassidy: Your lordsli u^jht to have pointed out tothe jury the way in which Cox plugged that holi ippears from p. 32 of the de bene esse — that he plugged it with a stick and pounded it in with .1 hammer, and alsu liai he put tar — Court: No one knows better than yon that I tiglit not to .. i anything of the kind, and that a judge is not obliged to refer to the facts at all unless he chooses. I have given all the references I intend to, and I will not Ic^ e any- thing more to them. 10 Mr. Cassidy: Without reading that reference again, your lordship ought to have charged the jury that unless they could come to the conclusion that that method of doing the thing was negligent and without considt- 1; for safety and likely to cause disaster, they .should a verdict for the dt ' Court: Ithinktliutpartoftheca.se has been sufficiently left to them, Mr, Ca.s.sidy. Mr Cassidy: Your lordship is putting the fir.st question to the jury — "did .;o the corporation after the extension of tlie city limits, control and manage the bridge as if owners thereof? " Your lordship told them that there could be no doubt that they did. 3" Court: No, I did not say so. What I did say was as I understood I did not think that was seriously disputed, but it was for them to say. Mr. Cassidy : disputed. As to its not being seriously disputed — everything is CO 20 Court: I speak with all respect for you, but I hope you do not intend to waste my time by making objections of this kind. You know perfectly well I had a right to tell the jury in tlie strongest possible language ray view of the facts. I might have gone further and told tliem that those facts were so clear that men of ordinary intelligence .should not have the slighest hesitation about their findings; and might have said to them that in so stating I was merely giv- ing my own view, and was not giving it to them as a direction. Mr. Cassidy: The facts are perfectly clear as to what took place. There is no doubt about the by-law being passed about the extension of the city limits and the rest, but the point I want to put is this — that that does not make the city, as a matter of law — Court: I started by saying that the questions as framed carefully withdrew from them the very point you are upon now, which was a question of law, whicli you know I must determine in the first place, and the appellate court afterwar.Is. I decline to charge tliem any differently upon that point. Yon know if I liad charged them upon the law, in view of the opinion which I expressed in the case of Patterson, the only charge I would ha\'e given them would have been that the defendants were liable on the admitted facts; and I do not suppose \'ou want me to do that. I have seen no reason to change my opinion since the Patterson case. Mr. Cassid>-: In regard to question 3. " Was such use by the company by agreement with tlie corporation" Your lordship told them that there was uu doubt in law tliat the city had such control over the bridge that if they chose they could have stopped tramcars running over it. Court: Yon dispute that as a projxjsition of law ? Mr, Cassidy: Yes. Court: Well, whatever doubt there may be upon this case. I shall be 40 very much surprised to find that the proposition I mentioned admits of any serious dispute. I am of a very strong opinion that that is not arguable. 30 3" lO Mr. Cassidy: That may be so, but still — Court: Well, I decline to withdraw it, at all events. Now, is there any thing else ? Mr. Cassidy: Question 4. "Had the corporation knowledge of the insufficient strength of the bridge in time to have prevented such use by the company befoie the accident ? " Of course it really goes to an objection to that question, and all questions of that kind, that we say there being no obligation — Court: Mr. Cassid\ , you cannot object to any question I choose to leave — in point of fact, you agreed to these questions, but, as you are aware, a judge is the absolute master of what questions lie shall leave to the jury. Mr. Cassidy: But we say to leave that question that way with the explan- ation which your lordship gives to the jury amounts to mis-direction. Court: Why? Mr. Cassidy : Because we say that at law the corporation are not liable 20 to reconstruct that bridge in any way. In other words, they were entitled tj leave it exactly as they found it. It did not matter whether plans were lying over in the Government office, showing it was unfit for traffic, or not, and it was misdirection to tell the jury so. Court : I may have been wrong in my view of the law, and you may be right in yours, but from either point of view it could not possibly be mis-direc- tion. I do not follow you. Mr. Cassidy : Q It is misdirection to put a question of that kind which 3° makes an element in the case of something which is not — Court: That is a question of law with which the jury have nothing to do. Mr. Cassidy : It is immaterial, in other words, whether those plans were there or not, and whether the corporation might have become aware of the condition of the bridge. It places no liability upon them Court : No, I over-rule that. Pass on. The jury have nothing to do ^ with the effect of it. The Full Court, I was glad to see, did not suggest any change in those questions, but were satisfied with them. 313 Mr. C issidy : The same objection covers all the rest of tlie questions, down to 8. Court : Well, I decline to change my view. I cannot see how you are injured. If I could see tiiat yon wouM be, in the remotest way, it would be — but I do not. The questions may be perfect nonsense for the purpose of the verdict, or tliey may be proper questions, but from either point of view they cannot possibly, as I conceive, iiijnre you. They are purely questions of fact and I decline to change them. Mr. Cassidy : I must come back again, my lord, I am sorry to say, t^tliat point of Mr. Bell's — as to the question did the changes materially reduce the strength of the bridge ? Your lordship put it to the jury that as far as the stringers were concerned it was really not claimed they did reduce it, but as far as the cutting of ths fljor was concerned, that was the point ; and in the face of the evidence of that floor being able in 1892 to carry the car over, it was for them to say whether it might not ha\e carried them over by falling down on the chord links at that point. Mr. Bell, who was the only witness called upon that, examined the iiridge and found the chord links were so con- structed that there were four in the centre and only two at the side, and the floor would fall clean through — was not supported by the links at all. I sub- mit, at all events, it was proper for your lordship to put that to the jury. Court : You say that the only witness who gave evidence about it was Mr. Bell. It would have been for the jury to see whether other evidence was given upon that point to which reference was made. But your objection is, I did not leave that evidence as favorably for you — considered from your point of view — as you think it is entitled to be left. I have the misfortune to differ from yon, and decline to change it. Mr. Cassidy : There is one more thing I have forgotten, and that is in Nour lordship's dealing with the evidence which was given at the previous trial of Mr. Lockwood, Mr. Warner and all the rest, speaking about the effect of that boring of the hole, etc., yonr lordship did not draw the jury's attention to the fact that they were dealing with a different state of facts in that case. Court : I was not obliged to do that ; but I took three or four hours last night to read through all the evidence that the jury might have the benefit of the references I have made. I told them I had not exhausted all the evidence, but that they must take that evidence referred to with the rest of the evidence ; it was only as a help to them. I assure you if I had expressed my opinion on 10 20 .^o 40 314 the merits of tlie case, you would not have been more satisfied than you are, apparently, in what I siiid. It really is an tindefended case, from my point of view ; hut in consideration of the fact that I was on the Patterson case, 1 think I was very mild in my remarks. What about the motion for non-suit ? I>o you think it is any use makiny; a motion? I am bound to adhere to my opinion that the admitted facts make the city liable, and I have seen no reason to change that. I do not know, of course, what the opinion of the F^ull Court will be, but it seems to me to be useless for you gentlemen to try to ask my view upon that point. I think the better way is to have no formal agreement. Mr. Cassidy; diet of the jury. Court- Yes. At all events, my lord, we would have to wai' for the ver- Jury retired at 12:35 p.m., to reassemble at their leisure, and Court ad- journed at I p.m. to sit again at 3 p.m. to recei\e verdict. After Recess. Jury returned into Court at 4:5 p.m. with the following verdict: 20 1 Q. Did the corporation after the extension of the city limits control and manage the bridge as if owner thereof ? A. Yes. 2 Q. Was the bridge as constructed of sufficient strength for safe use by the tramway company in the way in which it was used up to the time of accident. A. No. X Q. Was such use bv the company bv agreement with the corporation? A Yes. -^ 4 Q. Had the corporation knowledge of the insufficient strength of tlie bridge in time to have prevented such use by the company before the accident? A. Yes. 5 Q. Would the corporation if exercising ordinary care have become aware of the actual condition of the bridge in time to have prevented such use by the company before the accident? A. Yes. 40 6 Q. Did the corporation before permitting tramcars to pass over the bridge make any enquiry whether it was of sufficient 315 strcnjjtli for fate ii«e for that purpose? A. No. 7 Q. Could such knowledge have been easily ncquire