w ^ IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I sM 11^ l^ Ilia ilM IMO 1.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 ^ 6" — ► Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, NY. 14S80 (716) 872-4503 .^" £p. .& (P.- t<*/ CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the Images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. □ n Coloured covers/ Couverture de couieur I I Covers damaged/ Couverture endommag^e Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur6e et/ou pellicul6e Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes g6ographiques en couleur Coloured inic (i.e. other than blue or blacit)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou nc'^^e) I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ D Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Relid avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intdrieure Blanic leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout6es lors d'une restcuration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsqus cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6X6 filmies. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl6mentaires: L'Institut a microfilm^ le meiileur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6X6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, oj qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mdthode normale de filmage sont indiquds ci-dessous. r~~| Coloured pages/ D D D D n Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagdes Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaut'6es et/ou peliicul6es Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages d6color6es, tachetdes ou piqu6es Pages detached/ Pages ddtachdes I I Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of print varies/ Quality indgale de I'impression Includes supplementary material/ Comprand du materiel suppliimentaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t6 filmdes 6 nouveau de fapon 6 obtenir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film6 au taux de reduction indiqui ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X y 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X I tails t du odifier une mage The copy filmed here ha^ been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Library Division Provincial Archives of British Columbia The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. 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. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — ^ (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: L'exemplaire filmA fut reproduit grAce A la gAndrositA de: Library Division Provincial Archives of British Columbia Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, coii)pte tenu de la condition et de la netteti de I'exemplaire filmi, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprim6e sont filmds en commengant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmds en commenpant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole — •► signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole V signifie "FIN". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre film^s d des taux de reduction diff^rents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul cliche, il est film^ d partir de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images n^cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mdthode. rrata to pelure. □ 32X 1 2 3 4 5 6 ;7vy % M: [n tite pm <£m\\ml No. 56 of 1898. ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ]]RITISH COLUMBIA. CO O EH liETWEEX THE COEPORATION OF THE CITY OF VICTORIA - Appellants. AND MARTHA MARIA LANG (Administratrix of the Estate and Effects of John Lang, deceased)- - - . . liespondent. < o tn E-i Sz; Q O 9^ Ph CASE FOR THE APPELLANTS. L This la an Appeal from the judgment of the Supreme Court of British Cohimbia (Full Court) given on Ajjril tst, 1898, dismissing the Appellants' application, that judgment should be entered for the Appellants, or that there should be a new trial. 2. The action in respect of which the present Appeal arises, was brought by the Respondent as the Administratrix of John Lang, deceased. T ^ Respondent is the wife of the said John Lang, deceased, and this action was brought by her, for the benelit of herself aud oi the infant children of the said Joiin Lang. ^'^ i> -I ^' ^^n^ «^ction was orighially against the Appellants and the Consolidated kailAvay Comi)any, but the Respondent discontinued the action against the Consohdated Railway Company on June 17th, 1897. 4. This is one of several actions which were brought against the Appellants in respect ot the collapse of the Point Ellice Bridge, Victoria, British Columbia on May 26th, 189G. L78987J J '02 Q 8 O o o , i WMpiMMHWI GIFT \,\ I' ■ I i 5. Ill tlio year 1885, tlic bridji^o known as t,lio Point EUico Uridiro, oonncctiiij; tho City of Victoria with Es((uiiiiaU, was ('onstruc'tcil by the (jovcrnnKMit of tlie Province of P)ritish Cohiinhiu, over a public harbour, ar inlet of the sea, known as the Victoria Arm. The water at this point is tidal, and is navigable for large vessels. When Point P^llice Jiridge was constructed it was outside the limits of the City of Victoria. When the limits of the City of Victoria were subsecjuently exten(U;d so as to take in the; area which contains Point Ellice Bridge the extension of the limits of the City of Victoria did not impose u])on the Appellants the duty of maintaining Point Ellice Bridge, and the control of the said bridge was not vested in the 'O Appellants. The A])pellants did not take over or assume possession of the said bridge, and they did not control or manage it. The said bridge always remained under the management and control of the Province of British Columbia, or of the Dominion of Canada. 6 Point Ellice Bridge was constructed of wood and iron, and consisted of four spans. The two centre spans were I.IO feet in length, and they rested upon ])iers of iron filled with concrete. The two centre spans were erected according to a design known as a " Whipple Truss." By this design the upper chord of tho bridge, or arc of the truss, was held in compression, and the lower chord by tension. The upper chord was not continuous, but consisted -o of a series of wooden members butted together at the points of contact. The lower chord consisted of a series of links resembling a chain, and depended for its continuity and weight-sustaining power upon its being in a state of complete tension. This tension was maintained by the continued compression of the upper chord, or arc, of the truss. If the com])ression in the upper chord was released, or if it was }mt out of line, the strain on the lower chord would be released, which would cause the whole structure to collapse. The floor system of the bridge was attached to the lower chord of the truss by a series of pins. The truss sustained and carried the floor system by ineans of a series of pins ; over these pins pieces of iron, called "yoke hangers," •'^J were susi)ended. The ycke hangers ]ienetrated each end of the floor beams through auger holes, wliich were 2 inches in diameter, two of such auger holes being in each end of each floor beam. The yoke hangers were square [)ieces of iron, and were placed through the auger holes and fastened at the bottom of each end of the floor beam by means of a ])latc of iron (acting as a sort of washer) called a "jib-plate," which was secured by nuts at the bottom. The floor beams were prevented from swaying by means of a series of diagonal cro.ss rods between each and underneath the floor. The ends of these tliagonal rods were fastened to the Hoor beams by means of auger holes in the ends of the Hoor beams through which the diagonal rods })assed, and were lo secured by jib-plates with nuts at the outer sides. A considerable portion of the sectional area of the ends of the floor l)eains was removed by reas(m of the boring of the hanger and diagonal cro.ss rods holes. Joists, 2 inches by 12 inches, rested upon the floor beams, and tho flooring of the bridge was laid upon these joists. This flooring consisted of 3-inch by 12-inch floor-boards laid diagonally. 1 GIFT 10 •JO .ij5| ;io 10 so 7. Ac(!ordiug to the orijiinal jilaiis and spccirications tlio l)ridjj;o was (lesin'ned for onliuary veliicidar ti'all'K; and not for a tramway. Tlio liijj;lu'st factor of safety in the iron work of tlio bridye was 11. hut in some parts tlio factor of safety was as low as from 5 to 51. The highest factor of safety of the wood work was 4. After the plans and specifications for tlie l)ridge had been accepted, but before the bridge was constructed, it was deemed advisabk^ to add sid(vwalks on each side f'oi foot passenger trallic. The floor system of tlie bri(lg(!, accorchng to tiie original (h'sign, liad a. weight of 5 tons. The atkhtion of the two .side-walks inci'(Vise(l this weight to "ilf tons, nO per cent, in excess of the weight as originally designed. The carrying capacity of the bridge was thus reduced by the amount of this extra weight, I.e., l)y '2!, tons. When the tranicav rails were laid (k»wn by the TraTuway Company under their statutory powers, as hereinafter stated, the rails were not placed in the centre of each spun but three-(.(uai't(M's of the way to one sid(\ The eflect of the additional weight of the side-walk's and of tlie tramcar rails being placed on one side, instead of in the centre of th(! s])ans oi' the bridge, was to reduce the factoj' of safety in the iron work from 11 to T)^, and in the wood work fi'om 4 to •_'. The original design of the liridge was alsr) departed from in the following particulars. According to the original plans and specifications, weldless in.ii was to have been used, whereas in fact all the eye bars in the diagonal rods of the bi'idge were welded. The etlect of this alteration fi-om the (jriginal design was to diminish the relial)ility of the strain sheets to an extent which would vary according to the ini])erfections in the welded iron which was used. s. The Tramway Company (i.e., The (Consolidated JJailway Company and tiieir prede(^essors in title) were authoriseil and empowered by statute to construct and maintain a single or double line of tramways between (among other plac(>s) the City of X'ictoi'ia and the Town of Ksquinialt, for the purpose of carrying passengers and freight. The 'I'ramway C'onipany were also ithorised aii'l em])owered to use cither {>lcctric or any other motive power which was considered ex})edient. HEfonn. p. 1 1 s. 1 I ■->. p. |-_M,I.'I0. p. i;il,l. IS. p. lL'l,i. 10. p. i:'.'.), I. ;t. i;5!). pp. 14 0,1. '■.0, 15.-), 1. -20, \' p. iGO, i.;)o. o H Q Ph 03 'BQ 9 o 9. The line of tramways whieli the said Company wci'c authorised and em]X)wered to construct included J'oint J'".llice Ih'idge which was then outside the limits of the City of Victoria. 10 10. Tram lines were constructed on the said bridge by the Tramway Com])any, and tramcars were run by the .said Compan}'' over the said bridge on lines which had been laid down (m the said bridge before the limits of the City of Victoria were extended. The Tramway Company constructed 40 the said lines and ran the said tramcars under the powers vested in them as aforesaid, and not subject to or under the control of or under agreement with the A])pellants. 2341*)- Rkcori). M. In 1S92 the limits of the City of Victoria were extended by the " City of Victoria Act, ]Hi)2," Statutes of J5ritish Cohiinl)ia, 18S)2, c. 6:5, s/l6, so as to iuchide the said bridge within the area of tlie City of Victoriii. I ■ I p. los. 12. In June, 1S92, while a tramcar heavily laden with passengers was l)assing over the said bridge one of the floor beams broke at the hang(!r holes, but the tramcar passed over the bridge in safety. After this accident the bridge was examined by the order of the Appellants. Inve of the flot)r beams of the span which collapsed were replaced with new timber, a new flooring was laid over, transverse planking being substituted for diagonal planking. Heavy longitudinal beams or stringers were laid down for the purpose of adding 10 strength to the bridge, and of preventing vibration when tramears passed over the bridge. The Tramway Com})any paid for the stringers and also for the cost of laying them down. The new flooring was paid for by the Ap])ellants. 13. On May 2()th, 1806, large crowds of {)eople were proceeding in tramears, carts and other vehicles as well as on foot across the I'oiut Ellice IJridge leading from Victoria to Es(piimalt to attend a review. There was one tramcar, with about 75 to HO people upon it, which was close in front of the tramcar which was on the portion of the bridge which collapsed. The last-mentioned tramcar weighed about 10 tons and was about oO feet over all. Therc! weio about 115 to 120 people upon the tramcar, a immber whi(;h was greatly in 20 excess of its carrying caj)acity. When the said tramcar was proceeding across the bridge and had got about half way over, one of the si)ans of the l)ridge gave way, precipitating the tramcar into the sea below. 14. The deceased, John Lang, who was in the said tramcar when the span of tlie bridge collapsed, was killed. 15. The Statement of Claim (which was delivered on June 16th, 1897) alleged : — (1) That although at the time when the said bridge was built it was without the limits of the City of Victoria, by letters })atent issued on January 8tli, 18*.)1, and confii'med by an Act of the Legislature of the Province of British Columbia (ch. 63), the boundaries of the City of Victoria were extended .so as to include the said bridge, and that the said liridge thereby became the property of the -Appellants, and has ever since been under their sole control and management. (2) That after the said bridge became subject to the control and management of the Appellants, the ^\.pi)ellants were bound and 'efiuired so long as it was used as part of the highway to manage and keep it in n^pair and in a safe and fit condition for persons and vehicles lawfully passing over and along it ; but the Appeal lants neglected to repair the said bridge, so that it became dangerous to passengers and vehicles. 30 5 10 lu (3) That at the time whon tin; Appellants took over the control and niana},^einont of the said bri. 2;!1. the Kes])ondcnt would not be entitled to succeed against the Ap[)ollants unless the Kespondent proved that tho holes were bored in the manner described by 10 tho said John Cox. When the .'^aid Jolm Cox was examined in tho case of Patterson w. The Corporation of the City of Victoria, the A])pellants had no opportunity of meeting or checking his evidence, as no intimation was given to them that any such evidence was going to do given, or thi:t any such allegation was going to be made. Tho said John Cox was, therefore, not cross-examined in the case of Patterson v. Tho Corporation of the (,'ity of Victoria. After the saitl John Cox had given evidence in the case of l*atterson v. Tho Corporation of the City of Victoria, an application was made to take tho evidence of the said John (^)X da ht'iic essv in this case. The evidence of the said John ('ox was taken before the Deputy Registrar on August 'JOth, 1H*.)7, and was put in 20 at the trial of this Action. According to the evidence given by the said John Cox at his examination, which was taken de hciie esse, this beam was rotten when he examined it in ly'.)2. The .said John Cox's evidence on this point was as follows : — CD o H 5z; W Q O P-i CO 40 30 40 Q. " All the beams you found rotten ? " p. 24, i. ,'?4. A. "Yes, everyone of them." p. 2r), i, ii. Q. " Then it is a fact that all the beams you bored were rotten ? " A . " Everyone." Q. " Everyone. They were pretty badly rotten, too, weren't they ? " A. "I believe they were." Q. " And then you bored three of the beams on the Victoria side on the top ?" p. 30, 1. n. A. "Yes." Q. " And found them absolutely rotten ? " A. "Yes." Q,. " Well, Mr. Cox, from what I can make out, from what you say, p. 34, i. ii, this beam was rotten and unsafe in 1892 ? " A. " Well, wasn't thev all rotten." Q. " They were all rotlci^ — at any rate this No. 3 was ?" A. " They were all rotten, and that was rotten, too." Q. " And they were unsafe { " A. " They ought not to have been there." Q. " That is when I understand you bored this No. 3 and found it P 35, 1. 8. absolutely rotten, too ? " A. " Yes, bored underneath." Q. " How was it rotten, lialf or three-quarters of the way through ? " A. " Take the top and bottom, I guess it was pretty nearly half." OQ B c o o I i^mlm mn '1 lUxoiin. 62. p. 53, 1, 11. 8 It is manifest from tlio alwvc extracts from Cox's t^vidonn^ that Moor boarn No. 3 was rotten when he examin(Ml it in \H\)2. Notliinji; was done to such hcam from that limn until the collapse* ol'tlie hii(I;.,'(> on May 20lh. ISJM). If the l)eam was in the condition descrihed hyCox. it is wholly impossible that the hole which he horecl in it and the ])lu<,' <,'ave evidence vlvil nice at the trial of this action he endeavonred to explain away the evidence which he had f;iven in his examination d^' liene i's.. 387. " And you found it very rotten ? " A. "I can't say I said that." Q. 388. " Well, what do you say now about it ? " A. "It may be rotten." Q. 389. " What do you say now ? " A. "I say now it w^is rotten more or less ; as to how much a person 30 " can't tell, as to any quantity a man can't tell." Q. 390. Did not you say, as a matter of fact, thev were about half " rotten through ? " A. "No, I did not." Q. 891. You did not say that ? " A. "I did not." Although the said John Cox endeavours to qualify the evidence which be gave at his examination da hena esse, he states that there was a considerable quantity of rot in floor beam No. 3, when be examined it in 1892 (see ])p. 52 and 54 of the Record). 40 20. Evidence was given by the said John Cox and E. A. Wilmot, the Appellants' Engineer, as to the instructions which were given to the said John 40 9 Cox to report on tho stiUt' of tlic siiitl l)riflj,'{' aitcv tlio siiid accidcmt in Juno, Hkcokd. \H\)'2, and as to tlic niatnirr in wliicli llii' liolcs wore; liorcd in the? floor beams in the said bridge, for the purpose ot ascertainiiif^ vvhetlier I lie Iteaini^ wen* defective. At the trial of I'atterson /•. the Coi'poration of the ( 'ity of Victoria, 10 20 30 40 1. 30. ■ >--.|- ..- ^ ^j , the .said .lohn Cox .said that he received instructions from tliesaid K. A. Wihnot to bore the beams for the pui-pose of aseertainin;.,' what state they were in, and that in pursnaiK • of such instiiuitionshe borcul holes in some of tln^ beams, and in beam No. ',i, with an auf^cir of tlu^ si/e of an inch and a ipiartor, to a depth of seven incrhes, and that after borin;^ the hole ho caulked it up with oakum, which ho [Hit in with sticks as a iemp:)ra^ ['Ui;^ji;in}^' to k(>ep the water oet. In his examination, taken di' bene esse before > lio Deputy Kej^dstrar, the .said John Cox said — Q. " Did you over tell anybody that ycni [tlut^gcd these holes you did P- ^^> ' l^- boro with oakum ? " A. " Not that J am aware of ; everybody knew it." Q. "Did you tell anybody?" A. " Not particularly, as T know of." Q. " Did you tell anybody that you had i)lugged thorn ? " A. " No, i did not." Q. " Was that a gofxl way to pluj; them ? " A. " I don't know ; it might keep the water out, and it might not." Q. " Why didn't you plug them with wood ? " A. " What would be tin; use of wood any more than oakum," Q. " Wouldn't it keei) the water 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 oakum it would make it water tight?" A. "No, if you tilled it with white lead it might have done." Q. " WouUl not tar help it ? " A. "No, tar would soak right into the hole." Q. "It 'vould act to keep water out of the wood ? " A. "1 don't think so." Q. " Did you plug that good and tight with oakum ? " A. "1 expect we did with a stick as well as we could." 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 hamnic." Q. " Put a stick on top and drove it in with a hammer, did you ? " A. "Yes." Q. " Drove it in tight ? " A. "Yes." [78987] 3 1.39. p. 34, 1. 5, P4 O CQ H Q O Oh CO OQ 6 o o o Record. 10 In his examination at the trial of this action the said John Cox gave evidence as follows : — p. 46. i| p. 50. p. 80, 185, 1. 11. p. 187, 219, 220, 198, 1. 18. Q. 279. " When did you plug the holes ? " A. " I would not swear whether it was the next day or afterwards. " It was the day following — the third day after the boring, I believe." Q. 280. •' How did you plug them ? " A. '"The tar was mixed with oakum, and just shoved in with the " handle of a hammer." Q. 283. " How hard did you drive in the oakum V A. " Just with the hand, so." lO Q. 284. " Was it driven in tightly or loosely ? " A. "Well, it might have been driven in tighter." For further on this point see the cross-examination of this witness, pp. 61, 62 and 63, Q. 654 to 588. This witness was also cross-examined as to the boring of the holes in the floor beams (see pp. 50 seq. of the Record). The following extracts are of special imj) rtance (p. 50) — Q. 342. " You testified with reji^ard to the number of beams you bored " and the size of the auger you used, at this Patterson trial, and also on " this trial at Victoria ? " oq A. "I think so." Q. 343. " And you said an inch and a quarter auger." A. "I believe I did." Q. 344. " And since, you have examined some old beams that are in " the Esquimalt span that now stands 1 " A. "Yes." Q. 345. " And you find it much less than an inch and a quarter auger hole ? " A. "It is not half an inch — barely a half inch." Q. 346. " And No. 7 beam, on the span that collapsed, did you see 3q the auger hole in that ? " A. " No, I was not here when they was broke up." Q. 347. " And the auger holes which you did see were smaller than an inch and a quarter, and you say were plugged with wood ? " A. " A stick put about the size of your finger." According to the evidence of the said E. A. Wilmot, he instructed the said John Cox to bore the beams for the purpose of examining them, and to plug up the holes so made. The said E. A. Wilmot, stated he saw the said John Cox boring with a |^ or f inch auger. After the collapse of the bridge in May, 1896, beam No. 3 (which the 40 said John Cox stated he bored witlx a 1^ inch augur and plugged with oakum) was examined, but no angur hole was found, and although the beam was broken the two pieces were complete. In some of the other beams auger holes 11 were found. The lioles were plugged with wood. The plugs were well driven in and were sound. In these holes no oakum was found. The auger holes were ji. lo very much less in size than 1| incli, they were not more than about j^ inch. •''0. IlKrOKI). 10 21. Evidence was given by experts, called on behalf of the Appellants and the Respondents, as to what part of the said bridge first collapsed and as to what effect, if any, the holes which wei-e bored in the Hoor beams in 1892 had upon the colla])se of the bridge. Evidence was also given as to whether the alterations which the Appellants ma(l(! in the flooi-ing weakened the said bridge, and whether such alterations contributed to cause the collapse of the said bridge. Edwin Ilall Warner and James B. C. Lockwood were the experts called on behalf of the liesj)oudent, and Henry P. Bell was the expert called on behalf of the Plaintiff. These witnesses had given evidence in the case of Patterson r. The Corporation of the City of Victoria, and by agreement the evidence given at the trial of that action was read in this case. The evidence of the said Edwin Hall Warner is on pp 117-150 of the Record. The evidence of the said James B. C. Lockwood is on })p ir)0-17o of the Record. The evidence of the said Henry I'. Bell is on pp. 187-218 of the Record. The evidence which was given by the cxj)ert witnesses called on behalf of the Respondents in Patterson r. The Corporation of Victoria, which was taken as given at the trial of this action, was based upon Cox's evidence given in the first-named case, but in his evidence given therein no mention was made of the beams in the said bridge being rotten. PP 40-43. m EH Q I 30 40 22. It was admitted by both Warner and Lockwood, the experts called on behalf of the Respondents, that the design of the bridge was not suitable for tramcar traffic, and that it was not safe for hea\y traflic. The witness Warner stated that the size and weight of the tramcars which were run by the Tiamway Company over the bridge had increased since 1800. The larger and heavier tramcars enabled a larger number of passengers to be carried, thereby increasing the load which the l)ridge had to carry. This witness also admitted thin the effect of subjecting the bridge to tramcar traffic, for which it was not des'gned, was to weaken the bridge, and thus to accelerate the natural process of decay. The result of the evidence of this witness was that the collapse of the bridge was due to the fact that the bi'idge was used for traffic which was too heavy f(jr it, combined with the fact that the bridge had not been repaired. The witness Lockwood stated at the inque^^ which was held to inquire into the cause of death of the deceased and the oilioi- persons killed by the collapse of the bridge that the overloading of the bridge was the primary cause of the disaster. His evidence at the trial of this action was sujjstantially to the same effect. The witness Warner admitted that the alteration whicli was made in the floor system of the bridge, as stated in paragraph 13 hereof, after the accident of 1892, would not have the effect of weakening the structure, but would rather tend to strengthen it. pp p- p- p- pp. p- p- . I3(i-i;i 140. 141. 147. .161-4. 137. 137. 142, pp. PP 1Gl'-3. 144-r- si 8 llKCOHD. It2. pp. lOS.lG'J, 170, 171. U p -^r,-. i 12 28. Having regard to the answer given by the Jury to the last question put to them (see next page, 1. 15)), it is important to notice the evidence given by the witnesses Warner an(l Lockwood as to the part of the bridge which first gave way. The witness Warner stated that it was chjarly impossible to assign the order in which tlie lianger, jind the stringer and the Hoor beam No. 3 broke. When giving evidence at the inquest, the witness Loekwood stated tliat the hanger jn'obably broke first. This opinion was given l)y Lockwood after he had made an exhaustive examination of the brolcen bridge and from notes which lie had made at tlie time of such examination. When challenged at the trial of this action with the e\'idencc which he gave at the inquest, he stated lo that he had changed his opinion since his connection with the trial of this action. 24. The Appellants submitted that there was no evidence to go to the Jury of liability on the part of the Appellants to the llespondent, but the learned Judge declined to withdraw the case from the Jury. '2i). The learned -Tudge left 12 questions to the Jury, which the Jury answei'ed. The following are the questions and the replies of the Jury thereto : — (1) "Did the Corporation after the extension of the City limits " control and manage the bridge as if owner thereof 'i " 20 Answer. "Yes." (2) " Was the Iji'idge 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 'i " Answer. " No." (3) " AVas snch use by the Company by agreement with the " Corporation i" Answer. " Yes." (4) "Had the Corporation knowledge of the insufficient strength of "the bridge in time to have i)revented such use by the Companv before 30 " the accident r' Answer. " Yes." (o) " Wonld the Corporation if exercising ordinary care liave become "aware of the actual condition, of the bridge in time to have prevented such " use by the Com])any before the accident i " Answer. " Yes." {(')) " Did the Corj)oration before permitting tramcars to pass over the ' bridge make any iiKpiiry whether it was of sufficient strength for safe use ' for that jjurpose ? " Answer. " No." 40 (7) " Could snch knowledge have been easily actiuircd by the ' Corporation i " Answer. " Yes," 13 10 (8) " Had the Corporation at the time of the accident suffered the ' bridge to fall nito such disrepair as by reason thereof to' have become ' dangerous for use by the Company ? " Answer. " Yes." (9) " 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 ? " Answer. "Yes." i » • (10) "Was the hole bored by Cox, the city carpenter, in beam No. 3 as described by him ? " Answer. " Yes." (11) 'I Did the boring of such hole cause the beam to become rotten ! Answer. " It materially assisted." (12) " What was the immediate cause of the accident ? " Answer. " The breaking of floor beam No. 3." HKrORD. 20 Upon these hndings by the Jury the Respondent applied for judgment Ihe learned Judge said he would reserve judgment, but that if the full Court upheld his judgment in the case of Patterson ^•. The Corporation of the Citv of -0 \ictoria judgment would be for the Respondent, but if his judgment in that case was not upheld judgment might not be for the Respondent. On November 6th, 1897, Mr. Justice McColl ordered judgment to be entered for the Respondent for $20,000 and costs p 253. t B 30 40 .n,J^\ /^'; ^ro^"^l"^^^ appealed to the full Court that judgment should be pp 253.^54 entered for the Appellants on the following grounds :— (1) That no power, duty, or liability in relation to the bridge in question, or in regard to roads and bridges generally, was given to or imposed upon the Appellants by their Act of Incorporation, nor was any cause of action given to persons injured by negligence of the Corporation m relation thereto. •> '^ o i (2) That it was beyond the corporate powers of the Aiipellants to nu;d(iU> v/itli the structure of the bridge at all, and the things done to the bridge which are complained of, were the iiersonal acts of those persons who did them or ordered them to bc^ done and not acts of the A mdlant Corporation. - ' (3) That if the Api)ellaiits did assume to perform the public duty theretofore performed by the Provincial Government, of maintain:.!-' the PM,.lic higliways and bridges within their corDorate limits, they are not as .eh public highway authorities, liable to members of the public in damages O O Q H— 1 I 14 Record. ^ov injuries caused by the negligent act either of misfeasance or nonfeasance in doing that work. (4) That the clisaster if attrilmtable to the Appelhmt Corporation at all, was caused by mere acts of nonfeasance on its part. (5) That the findings of the Jury are inconclu.sive and insufficient to support the judgment. (6) That there is no finding of the Jury that any of the acts complained of were negligently done, and the evidence shows that they were carefully don(\ (7) That there is no finding of the Jury that any of the acts com- plained of caused the disaster. The Appellants also applied for a new trial on the following grounds : — (1) Of pjn-direction by the learned trin! Judge in refusing to charge the Jury at all as to what in law constitutes negligence, and in neglecting to leave the essential questif)n of negligeiice to the Jury, either by properly framed questions or otherwise. (2) Of non-direction in refusing to point out to the Jury that the opinions of the experts ap})earing in their evidence, taken in the case of Patterson r. Victoria, and put in evidence in this case, to the effect that the boring of the hole in beam o by Cox caused the disaster, were based upon the evidence of Cox given in that case, which substantially differs -^ from his evidence in this case. 10 p. 256. in :-ot. i pp. 258, 259. Wi > 27. By an order dated Fcliruary 25th, 1898, the Full (^^ourt of the Supreme Court of British Columbia ordered the Appellants' siiid Appeal should be inscribed for hearing before the .said Full Court, and that the said Appeal be heard notwithstanding that the order for Judgment pronounced by the Honourable Mr. Justice McColl had not been entered or otherwise perfected by the ii,espondent. 28. The Appellants' Appeal to the Full Court of the Supi'eme Court of British Columbia was heard on tlie 14th and loth days of March, 1H!)8, by the Honourable Mr. Justice Walker, Mr. Justice Drake, and Mr. Justice Irving. The Judgment of the Full Court was delivered on the 1st day of April, 181)8, by Mr. Justice Drake. The Full Court dismissed the Appeal to enter Judgment for the Appellants, or to grant a new trial, on the ground that such A])peal wo- identical with the case of I'atterson r. The Corporation of the City of Victoria, and that the Full Court was bound by the decision given in that case. 29. On April 4th, 1898, tlie Appellants obtained leave from the Full Court to appeal to Her Majesty in Council, and this Appeal has been duly admitted. 30 15 30. The Corporation of the City of Victoria is a Municipal Corporation, REconn, and is the creation of Statute ; and such rights or duties as it })()sscsscs, or as are incumbent upon it, have been conferred or imposed by tlio Legis- lature. The Corporation of the City of Victoria was "governed and regulated by the Municipal Acts. The Municipal Acts were Consolidated in Ai)ril, 1892, by the ^Municipal Act, 1892 (o5 Vic. c. '32). Section 2 of the Municipal Act, 1892, provided that " Municipality shall include any City, Town, " Town.shi}) or Di.strict, heretofore incorporated or which may hereafter " be incorporated and (istablished under this Act." This Act did not provide 10 that any of sxich Munici])alitics should be a highway authority, or give them any initial ownership, power or control over roads, streets or bridges, within their respective territorial limits. The only })ower relating to this subject was given by section 104, the material provisions of which are as follows : — " In every Municipality the Council may from time to time make " alter and repeal by-laws for any of the following purposes or in " relation to matters coming within the classes of subjects next herein- " after mentioned, that is to say : — (90) " Koads, streets and bridges o CQ H Q O CM a? 20 30 (107) " For opening, making, preserving, improving, repairing, " widening, altering, diverting, or stopping u}) roads, streets, squares, " alleys, lanes, bridges or other public communications within " the boundaries of the Municipalitv or the jurisdiction of the " Council " No by-law for re))airing, improving or altering or in any way relating to the highway or bridges in question was ])asseil bv the A; pellants. On May 20th, 1892, the Estimates ]',y-h\\v 1892 was passed. ' This By-law Kxi.ihit enabled the Council of the Corporation of the City of Victoria to raise the """'^ 30 siun of !?25,000 for the purpose of being expended upon streets, bridges and PP- '^-^2. sidewalks, and to exj)end such sum upon a resolution of tiie Council being ])assed to authorise such expenditure. This By-hiw was ])urely tentative, it only contained an estimate of !?2;"),000 as a fund for possibU' use on road-, streets and bridges. There was no l)y-Iaw authorising thi> r(4>airing of the structure of the bridge in question or of the highway over it. There was no resolution authorising the alteration and repairs done to the bridge. Assuming even that there was a statutory iluty ui)on the Apjiellants to re])air the said bridge a private person su(>li as the llespondent cannot maintain an action against the Appellants foi' any injury such person may have sustained by reason of the A])])i'llants' breach of duty unless such right of action was expressly given by Statute, as the Api)ellants are a corporate public body and are 40 «- ----m BO p o o o P^ 16 theroforo not liable for more nonfeasance, of action was given by any .Statute. It is not suggested that such right 31. The Appellants contend that the fact that certain alterations and repairs were made to the said bridge was not enough in law to fix them with liability. There nuist be a deliberate and unecpiivocal corporate act. This cannot be presumed from what was done by the A{)[)ellants' servants, particularly as the said bridge belonged to the Provincial Governmer*^, and was a link in the Provincial main highway. It's only profital)lo use was by the Tramway Company. The A[)pellants, therefore, did not assiune the control of the bridge so as to be liable in law for what may have been done lo bv their servants. i «(i * 32. The Appellants further sulnnit that even if the evidence of John Cox is accepted that the matters deposed to by him would -not render the Appellants liable. The said John Cox was a skilled and com])etent workman, and the acts whii^h he states he performed in examining the beams in the bridge by boring holes in such beams and plugging them up afterwards were reasonable and neees.sary for examining the state of tlu^ bridge. The method adopted was not shown to have been improfjcr or unusual for the jmrposes for which it was done. The examination was for the i)ur))()se of ascertaining the extent and nature of repair which the said l)ridge required, and was, therefore, 20 a reasonable and proi)er thing to do. There is no finding of the Jury that the said John Cox bored the holes in the beams in the .said bridge in a negligent or improper manner. There is, further, no finding of the Jury that the holes bored by the said John Cox had been plugged in a negligent or improper manner, and there is no finding of the Jury as to the effect, if any, wliieli such plugging had upon the collajjse of the said bridge. 00. The said bridge was constructed and the Tramway Company had acquired a statutory right to run their tramcars over the said bridge before the limits of the city of Victoria were extended, and therefore th(> Ap])ellants had not the right to exercise any authority or control over the .said l)ri(]ge. i^q Although the jury found that the Tramway Company used the bridge l)y agreement with the Appellants there was absolutely no evidenci; of any such agreement, the user by the Tramway (Jompany being under the Tramway Company's statutory powers. Whatever defect there may have been in the original construction of the bridge, and even if at the time when it collapsed it was a ntiisance. this would not give the Pespondent any right of action against the Appellants, for the Appellants would only be liable for misfeasance and not for neglect to repair, although such negluct to repair might constitute an indictable breach of duty. 34. The Appellants submit that the judgment appealed from is erroneous ^Q and that judgment should be entered for the Appellants, or that a new trial should be granted for the following among other 17 REASONS. 10 20 I'O 30 .iO 10 I. IJccauso Point Ellico liridgo was outside the limits of the City of Victoriii, when it was constructed, anil for some years after it had been constructed, and the Appellants are not res])onsiI>le for any defects which there may have been in the construction of the said bridge, nor for tlie condition of the said l)i'i(li:^e, noi' for the purposes for which tlie said bridge was used. "2. Uecause wlicn the limits of the City of Victoria were extended so as to include Point Ellice Bridge, the Tramway ^' (Jompany were running tramcars over the said bridge, imder the powers granted to the Tramway Company b}" statute, and the Tramway Company continued to run tramcars over the said bridge, after the limits of the City of Victoria had been extended under their statutory powers and not by agreement with, or under the power, or control of the Appellants. o. iJeeause the Appellants had no power to prevent the Tramway Company from using Point Ellice Bridge. 4, Ijecause there was no evidence that the Tramway Company used Point Ellice P>ridge by agreement with the Appellants. o. Pecausc no duty or liability was imposed by Statute upon the Api)ellants to repair, or to keep in repair. Point Ellice ISridcje. 0. Because there was no corporate act of the Appellants which a.ssumed the control of Point Ellice Bi'idge so as to render the Appellants liable for the repair of Point Ellice Bridge, and no by-law was passed by the -Appellants wliicl) authorised the Appellants to repair the said bridge. 7. liecause the Appellants are a corporate body, and are, there- fore, only liable for misfeasance, and there is no evidence of any acts of misfeasance on the part of the Appellants. 8. liecause there is no finding of the Jury that the .Appellants were guilty oi any acts which amounted to misfeasance, or that such acts were the cause of the collapse of I'oint Ellice JJridge. 02 <1 O OQ H Q O CO O I— I P W o o p^ Ph o s 3 o i I 1 1 18 9. Because, even assuming tlio Appollauts arc rpsponsihle foi' \\w acts of John Cox in boring holes in the beams of I'oint l^lliee llridge, and in plugging tliem up afterwards in the manner described by John Cox, such acts of Jolin Cox do not amount to misfeasance on the part of the Appellants. 10. Because there was no finding (jf the Jury that John Cox negligently or impropei'ly bored, or plugged, the holes in Point Ellice Bridge. 11. Becau.se there was no evidence that the hole bored in beam No. ?> by John Cox was the substantial cause of such beam 10 becoming rotten. 12. Because there was no evidence that the bnnking of floor beam No. '.3 was the imme(liate cause of the accident. 13. Because the \erdict of the Jury was against tlie weight of evidence. K. B. HAf.D.WK, JOHN 1). CKAAVFORJ). m l\ ■ «i| CQ <1 O oa H Q o CM a? &3 ir-^-^ No. 50 of 1898. r! ■' I ON APPEAL FllOM THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. I r'ns THE CORrOllATlON OF THE CITY OF VICTORIA AND MAirrilA MAItlA LANG. : I ^.- I i 1 . ¥ I ' ^ ■' ( CASE FOR APPELLANTS. HUBBARD . 2;-)?,' 1.25. McCollJ., the Trial Judge, in liivour of tlie Plaintiff (Respondent here), in an action brought by her in the Supreme Court against the Corporation of the City of Victoria (Appellants herej. 2. The action was brought by the JJespondent, Administratrix of the estate „„ 2-3 and eftects of her late husband John Lang deceased, to recover dama-res for herself and the children of the marriage, by reason of the death of the said John Lang through an accident on Point Ellice Bridge within the City. 10 ' The material circumstances are as follows. o w o o o o o I. — BCJILDING OF HkidGK. , -.r^' ^V ^^^^ *^^ limits of Victoria ext'nded to the near foreshore of an arm of Victoria Harbour at a point reached by one of the city streets called Work Street; and on the other side of the arm' was a public highway built by the Government of British Columbia extending some distance +o the village of Esquimau. " ^ V. «<. s. A ■■■'■■ . Record, 4. fn thfttycar the Provincial Government built, nt tlmt point and connecting p.l04,l. 21. ^jip ^yfQ highways, a public bridn;e across the arm, called I'oint Ellice Bridjjo, thus p. 89, ]. t7. forming part of and completing a public highway through and between Victoria and Esquimau. II. — Extension ok City Limits. I 1 •' KxliiljU Book, p. U, 1.30. p. 13. 5. By the Municipal Act, Uritish ('oluinbia Statutes If^S'J cnp. 18 sec. 17, provision was made for the extension of the limits of municipalities. (5. IJy the lirilisli Columbia Statute; of 1S9U cap. o7 sec. the last named provision was cnlargiHl. 7. On th(! 21st October 18!)0 the Corporation of Victoria passed a by-law 10 No. 124 providing for rxti-nsions of the (/iry liii)its, whicii included Point Ellice liridge and a district on the; otiicr side of the arm through which the highway to Esquimau pas8'.!(l. 8. Tlie proper pitliniinary stc']t3 having been taken, on 8th .January 1891, the Lieutenant-dovornor in ('ouncil by Letters Patent duly proclaimed the extension of thi; limits so as to include the bridge and the district beyond, and the City limits w(;r(! from that date so fur extended, 9. By the Municipalities Act, British Columbia Statute 181)1 cap. 29 sec. 267, the limits were difiried and establisiied so as to include the premises. 10. By the Victoria City Act, British Columbia Statute 1892 cap. (iJi sec. 16,20 repealing sec. 2G7, the limits were again defined and established so as to include the premises; and ir was provi(h;d that the by-law and Letters Patent should be deemed to be amended so ns to conform to the provisions of tlmt section, which made some changes in other parts of the limits. III. — IIklation ok City to Bridge. 11. From the time of its incorporating O/dinaiicc in I860 to the present day the City iias been invested with rights, power;; and duties as to roads streets and bridges within its limits. Iv. By thi; Act "to consolidate and amend the M-inicipal Act," British Columbia Statute 1891 cap. 29, certain general provision? on these heads 30 extending to the City were re-enacted as fcUows: — 96. In every municipality the Council mty, from ii-ne to cime make, alter and re[)eal by-laws for any of the following purposes, or In relation to matters coniing within the classes of subjects next hereinaftf" ruentioned, that is to sav : — * " It • • • (2) to (7). [For aiding the construction of tramways.] » # * ♦ " * (9). For constructing, operating and maintaining tramAvays, street rail- ways and ferries, and for regulating the conditions and terms under which 40 the same may be used : * « * -^ « - ; ^88). [Road tax.] 8 10 80 40 (8y) Roads, streets und bridges, and for erecting yatCM on public highways within hnlf-u-mile of a railway crossing and for the regiilatioti of trafHc at such gates : (90). [Statute labour.] " * • « • • " (98) to (101). [For deuliiigwith side-walks and shade-trees ou streets.] « * « « » (106) For opening, making, preserving, improving, repairing, widening, altering, diverting, or stopping up roads, streets, squares, alleys, lanes, bridges, or other public conunuiiications within the boundaries of the municipality or the jurisdiction of the Council, and for eiUi'rlng upon expropriating, breaking up, taking or using any r^'al property in any way necessary or convenient for the said purposes without the consent of the owners of the real [)roperty, subject to the restrictions contained in sections ' 206, 207, 208 and 209 of this Act : (107) The surveying, settling and marking the boundary lines of all streets, roads and other public oojnimniications: (108) To regulate the width of new streets and roads: (109) For regulating ti-e plans, level, width, surface, inclination and the material of the |mvcmcnt, roadway and sidewalk of streets and roads : (110) To establish a general grade for the streets and roads in the said municipality: (111) [Special rates for street improvements.] (112) To compel removal of snow, ice, and dirt, and to provide for removal in case of default : (113) The regulating or preventing the encumbering, injuring or fouling by animals, vehicles, vessels, or other means, of any road, street, square, alley, lano, bridge, or other communication : « * » • • ^ (119) The regulation of the traffic within the municipality, and the prevention of immoderate riding or driving: (120) To authorise compiinies or individuals to construct an}'- street railway, or tram and other railways, along any street or high.vay within the niu.iicipality, on such Terms and conditions as the Council shall see fit, and for regulating and governing the same, and for fixing the rates to be charged therefor: Provided that in all cases where tramways are laid "flat" rails only shall be used, and all rails shall be laid flat with the street : » •• t • ♦ « (132) To dispose of a public street or highway, or any portion thereof, whenever deemed necessary, in exchange for adjacent or contiguous lands expropriated for the purpose of imp' vi.ig, widening, straightening, or diverting a public street or highway, and to execute deeds for property so exchanged : W^)'^; p w w o o Ph O o o a2 in EiMbit Book, p. », 1. 10 and p. 33, L 43. Kecord, p. 83, 1. 12. p 10«, 1. l». Exhibit Book, p. 13. These provisions were re-enacted in the later nonsolidations and have ever since their enactment continued to be the law. 14. Immediately after the extension of the limits the Provincial Government ceased, and the City commenced and has ever since continued, to assume and exercise complete control over, and management of the bridge, as owners thereof, and the same has ever since formed part of a main City thoroughfare ; and the law as to the regulation and government by tlie City of general and tramcar traflSc has applied thereto. IV. — Relation of Tramwav Company to Bridge. ~ 15. On 20th Novembf3i' 1888, before the extension, an agreement was made lo between the City Coi'ponitioii and certain parties desirous of forming a company for constructing and operating a tramway and street cars in Victoria whereby the said parties were allowed to lay a line of rails and apply electric or other motive power and run cars in certain streets, subject to certain conditions, and also over and along any briJge in Victoria subject to certain conditions, including the satisfaction of a city officer as to location and materials. 16. The said parties were at once thereafter incorporated for the i)urposes mentioned, under the British Columbia Companies Act Part II Provincial, by the name of the National Electric Tramway and Lighting Company Limited, and they proceeded with the work. 20 17. By the Act to incorporate the National Electric Tramway and Lighting Company, British Columbia Statute 18^s9 cap. 39, that Company, composed of the same corporators, was incorporuted with certain [jowers. 18. By the liritish (.ohuiibia Statute 181)0 cap. 5'2, the powers conferred on the said Company were delined, and it was authorised on certain terms to construct and operate by electric or other motive power tramways, to connect with the Coinpany's system in Victoria, upon the lands highways and bridges lying between Victoria and various points, including Jlsquimalt and the highway and bridge in question. 19. Under these powers the (!)onipany built and applied electric power to 30 various tramways on .several routes including the Point EUice Bridge and the highwfiys on each side thereof, and were operating that line at the date of the extension of the City limits. 20. For convenience notice is here taken of the fact that there was l.'iter legislation touching the Company ; namely British Columbia Statute 1894 cap. 63, and British Columbia Statute 1896 cap. 55. I 'J Kecord, p. 41,1. 14. Exhibit] 114 U (plans). Record, p. I.W, 1. i!> Exhibit 112. Record, p. 109,1. Rxbibita ixnil B. V. — Description of tue Span so far as Material. 21. The part of the bridge in which the accident occurred was on the <^"^ Victoria side, being one of two Whipple through truss spans each 150 feet long. The span was made partly of wood and partly of iron ; the strains of tension 40 being borne by iron, those of compression by wood. 22. The floor was originally made of planks laid diagonally exteriding the 27. whole way across the bridge and beyond the line of the lower chords. This floor was laid on wooden longitudinal joists which were supported by wooden floor beams, seven in number, laid at right angles to the length of the bridge. have ment 3 and jreof, 1 the ;raffic made lo apany ereby other s, and iuding rposes ial, by luited, 20 ghting )sed of iferred rrns to onuect lyinor ly and iwer to 30 nd the of the IS Inter 1894 ou the long. tension 40 Liig the lis floor :n floor p. 151,1.31. Plan Exhibit H(4). 12. 23. The floor beams were suspended by iron hangers, which were passed Record, through holes bored in the beam, and fastened by iron plates screwed to them p.iiO,l. 20, on the under side of the beam. 24. These hangers were, so far as five out of seven floor beams, including the beam in question, are concerneel, sustained by diagonal iron rods which were fastened to the top beam of the trriss. 25. Below were the iron lower chords extending longitudinally and tying the ends of the truss; and the iron lower laterals, stretching diagonally across each panel of the ispan. 10 26. This, in the original construction, the stability and strength of the floor Record, beams were of course essential; but the flooring as constructed added p. 168, 1 substantially to the supporting strength of the bridge. VI,— The Accident of 1892. 27. On the 9th of June 1892, while an electric tramcar was passing over the P- 83, 1. 24, Victoria Span, floor beam No. 5 broke close by the hanger, its failure being due *'**■?• to decay. 28. But the car passed over safely, as the flooring, though it settled, p. 79, !. 20. remained unbroken. 29. The City Engineer, who was the executive officer of the Corponition '^^ charged with the duties hereinafter mentioned as performed, forthwith, in discharge of his duty, hispected the scene of the accident, and reported thereon p. 70, 1. 30, to the iStreet Committee of the Council, which forthwith authorized the renewal et seq. of the broken floor beam, and thLs work was at once done under the engineer's orders. VII. — The Examination of the Bridge, Repairs, and Acts of Misfeasance, Negligence, and Creation of Public Nuisance, 30. Immediately afterwards the Engineer decided to make a more general examination of the condition of the bridge ; and in the course thereof lie instructed Cox, the City carpenter, to bore auger holes in the floor beams, so that 30 he might test by the dust or borings their condition as to decay ; and accordingly Cox bored, with an inch and a quarter auger, close to and just outside the hangers, holes, seven inciies deep, in the upper j)art. of some of the floor beams, numbering ,ibout five in the Esquimalt span, and numbering three, being the beams first, second and third from the Esquimalt end, in the Victoria span. 31. Cox thereupon delivered the borings to the engineer, each marked and numbered Avith his report ; and on the followin!e lo iireally accelerated and extended rottenness and decay; and in the boring ar.d plugging as described tliere was mi.sfeasance, negligence and the creation of a public nuisance. 36. Tlie Engineer c,n tlie 15th June 1892 reported to the; City Council as follows: — " I have the honor lo report that on Thursday last on of the floor 20 beams ot I'oitit Ellice Uridge was brokeii off: the cause was a heavily loaded tramcar and the rotten condition of the beam. " The broken beam was taken out, and a sound piece of similar dimen- sions. viz.: 33'' X 12'" x 16'\ substituted the work of repairing, was completed on Monday last. On examination it was found that eight of the remaining floor beams Avere more or less affected by wet and dry rot, most of them to such an extent as to render the bridge unsafe for loaded tramcars, or heavy waggon traiTio. I would strongly recommend that the impaired floor beams bo rei)laeed as soon as practicable. '• Iron beams would be the most endurable, and I consider cheapest in 30 the long run, approximate cost ^IjSOO.OO (fifteen hundred dollars) serviceable ibr say fifty or seventy-five years. " Wood floor beams would cost, approximately, S5()0.(M.) and sixty dollars) ser^ ice.ible for say six to eleven years." 37. The Faiirineer, on the 2i)th .)une 1892, wrote to the the following letter: — " 1 beg to call your attention to the fact that fraincars and heavily loaded waggons still cross Point EU'ce Bridge, although that structure was reporterl unsai'e for such traffic at a meeting of the Council of the 16th inst., and a notice to the same effect published in one of the daily 40 newspapers. " If the l)ridge is not closed at once a serious accident is liable to occur at any moment as the bridge is in a decidedly dangerous condition." 38. The Engineer Avas thereon instructed by the Counci' to replace the condemned beams in Avood, and to make some other repairs ; and the Council closed the bridge to traffic. (five hundred City Council a| 39. The bridge was designed and consti'ucted for ordinary traffic, not Record, for electric tram traffic ; the electric tram cars were of much greater weight and P- 104, 1. 32. imposed a much severer strain on the floor beams than ordinary traffic ; the tramcar track was placed not in the centre, but so far towards the side of the p. 160, 1.10. bridge at which the hole was made and the floor beam later broke as to throw three-fourthb of this great strain or. that end of the beam; and tfms the obligation of not impairing, and the duty of maintaining, the strength of the beam at that end, and the probability of the bridge being made dangerous by reason of the hole, and of the creation of a public nuisance thereby, and the rcspf^ isibility 10 of reopening the bridge to traffic were intensified. 4(J. The Tramway Company was by the City in the course of the repairs p. 88, 1. 10. allowed to substitute heavy stringers for two of the light floor joists and to P- 110,1.1. substitute T rails for the flat rails then in use. 41. The Avork was performed under the supervision of the Engineer; and, p. 87, 1. 34, the flooring: beinj; found too far gone, new floorinjj was under his instructions put «' «^?- in, but on a different plan, the new flooring being, instead of planks extending P; ^'''> '• -»> diagonally across the bridge, planks crossing at right angles, and cu<" into three sections, one between and one at each side of the rails. 42. The effect of this change was seriouslj'' to lessen tlie supporting p. 110, 1. 17. 20 power of thu flooring already described, and the change was an act of misfeasance P- 1^7,1. 47, and negligence. ' 43. The floor beam No. 3 in the Victoria span, being the last of those bored by Cox, was not removed, while the hole made to test its condition wiis not p. 45, 1. 20. further or permanently plugged or effectively protected against wet; and the beam P- 120,1.30. was brought into and kept and left it: the defective and dangerous condition described ; and in this there Avas misfeasance, negligence and the creation of a public nuisance. 44. On the 29th July 1892 the Engineer reported to the Council as follows : — 30 " I have the honor to I'eport that the work of repairing Point EUice liridge was completed on Friday the 22nd inst. was done consisted of replueing nine cross floor X IG '. renewing the whole of the floor planking. 40 '' The work that beams 33 feet x 12" putting in some new [)osts under the trestle approach, scraping and painting the cylinder piers between high and low water where; they were encrusted with barnacles, &c., and tightening up all the rods. " Besides the above, six of the cylinder piers were sounded, which was done bj- boring into them with an aui;(r, the timbers inside the cylinders were found to be perfectly sound but the material composing the concrete around the piles, inside the cylinders was in a loose state. " As the floor joists of the bridge as originally constructed witc not sufficiently strong, or stiff enough to be safely used for tramcar traflie. " The otter of the Tramway Company to put in, at their own expense, longitudinal stringers 10 x 12 under each rail for the whole length of the bridge was accepted. " These stringers besides strengthening the bridge, prevent on account of their rigidity, the undulating motion that was formerly produced by the Exhibit Rook, p. 1. 1. 27, OQ O o O O 1 s f. •_ passage of the iram cars, and which subjected the bridge to an unnecessarily '" ' " , severe strain. "When the repaix's were first undertaken it was contemplated only to ■ : . renew eight cross floor beams, but after the planking Avas removed it was found to be in such a worn condition that it was deemed more economical to renew it than place it back again. , "The total cost of repairs and renev/als amounts to about §1,620 exclusive of the work done by the Tramway Company." Exhibit 45, The cost of the repairs was paid by the City out of a general vote for Book, p. 22, $25,000 lor streets bridges and sidewalks, granted under by-l;iy 162 for !892. ^® 46. The City, after the repairs, negligently and improperly reopened the bridge to general and tramcar traffic on or about the 2'6vd day of July 1892, and so continued it till the accident in question. Vlll. — The Inteuval. Record, 47. In the interval between the reopening of the bridge to trpffic and the p. 89,1. 4. accident which occurred in May 1896, the City continued to e.xercise complete p. 71, 1. I. control over the bridge, and assumed to look after it; and in 1895 made certain repairs, not however indtifling floor beam No. 3. kM p. 115,1.43, p. 7e, 1. 37. p. «, I. 1, el p. 1.^9, 1. 18, p. 157, 1. 4, et seq. seij. etsfq. el seq. IX. — Thk Accidknt in Question. 48. On the 26th May 1896, while a loaded tramcar was crossing the Victoria 20 span towards Esquimalt, and when it had reached such a point tliat the chief weight was on floor beam No. 3, that beam broke at the hanger, ou the side where the hole had been oored, with the result that the car went down, the span collapsed, and Lang sustained injuries which caused his death. 49. The breaking of the beam was due to rottenness, which had been materially induced through the boring of the hole, and had so far extended that p. 120, 1.30. the beam was at that end nothing but a shell; and the bridge was at and before the date of the accident bj' reason of the premises dangei'ous to the public. 50. The Corporation had knowledge of the insufficient strength of the bridge, and would if exercising ordinary care have become aware of the actual 80 condition of the bridge before the accident. 51. By its conduct hereinbefore described the City was guilty of misfeasance and negligence and created a public nuisance in the premises and became and is liable to the Plaintift' for the consequences of the accident. Exhibit Book, p, 15. p,* X. — The Trial. Eccord, 52. The action was begun on the 24t]i day of Novtmber 1896, and therein p. 2, 1. 1. the Kcspondent claimed damages from the Appellants by reason of the premises, p. 3,1. 40. 63. The Appellants denied liability on various grounds, pp. 6-253. 54. The action canic on lor trial before AIcColl J. with a Jury on the 12th October 1897, and lasted three days. 40 9 10 10 20 30 55. The learned Judge left to the Jury the following questions, to which «««>rd, they returned the indicated answers : — P- 252, 1. 8. (1) Did the Corporation, after the extension of the City limits, control and manage the bridge, as if owner thereof ?—A. Yes. (2) Was the bridge, as constructed, of sufficient strength for safe use by the Iramway Company in the way in which it was used up to the time of accident ? — A. No. (3) Was such use by the Company by agreement witli the Corporation? — .4. Yes. (4) Had ihe Corporation knowledge of the insufficient strength of the bridge in time to have prevented such use by the Company b^efore the accident ?~A. Yes. (5) Would tlie Corporation, if exercising ordinary care, have l)ecomo aware of the actual condition of the bridge in time to have prevented such use by the Company before the Hccideut ?~A. Yes. (6) Did the Corpoiatioii. before permitting tramcars to puss over tlie bridge, make any enquiry whether it was of sufficient strength lor safe use for that purpose ? — A. No, (7) Couhl siich knowledge have been easily acquired by the Corporation ? — A. Yes. -z -j j (8) Had the Corporation at the time of the accident, suffered the brid^ro to fail into such disrepair, as by reason thereof to have become dancrcrous for use by the Company ?-~A. Yes. ° (9) Did the changes made in tlie bridge by the Corporation, and under an arrangement with it by the Company, maf-^rially reduce the strength of the bridge to support a tramcar jjassing over it ?— /i. Yes. (10) Was the hole bored by Cox, the City carpenter, in beam number d, as described by him ? — A. Yes. (11) Did the boring of such hole cause the beam to become rotten '— A. It materially assisted. (12) What was the immediate cause of the accident ?— .1. The breakin-r or floor beam number 3. * 56. The jury awarded the followiiis; damao-es:— R 1 '^""Q^^nnnrfn"',-''- '!"!'■'' ^'''^^''^^■^^^ l^«s "fe insurance $2,500.00. p. 252, 1 Balance, $20,0(JO.OO, divided as fbUows :-[Wi(low] Mrs. Lang, §7,500 00- 38. m i o o o 40 40 XI. — Thk Judgment and Appeal. 57. On motion for judgment the learned Judge reserved his decision tilJ after the delivery of judgment by the Full Court on an appeal hi another case of Fattersoiw'.\ictoria, arising out of the same accident, and now also under appeal to this Court. 58, Thereafter, on the delivery of that judgment, the learned Judge ordered the entry of judgment for the Plaintiff. . , . p. 253, I. 1. B 10 l^ecord, 59. An appeal was taken by the City to the Supretne Court in Full Court p.258, 1. 16. on the ground that judgment should have been entered for the City for the following reasons : — 1. That no power, duty, or liability in relation to the bridge in question, or in regard to roads and bridges generally, was given to or imposed upon the Defendants by tlieir Act of Incorporation, nor whs any cause of action given to persons injured by negligence of the Corporation in regard thereto. 2. That it was beyond the corporate powers of Defendant to meddle with the structure of the bridge at all, and the things done to the bridge 10 whicii are complained of are the personal acts of tliose persons who did them or ordered them to be dune, and not acts of the Defendant Cor- poration. 5. That if tlie Defendant did assume to perform the public duty, theretofore performed by the Provinciiil Goveinment, of maintaining the pubbc highways and bridges Avitliin their corporate limits, they are not as such public hiiihway authorities, liable to members of the public in damages for injuries caused by an}- negligent act either of misfeasance or non-feasance in doing that work. 4. That the disaster if attributable to the Defendant Corporation at all, ''^^ was caused by mere acts of non-ieasance on its part. 0. That the lindings of the jury uro inconclusive and insufficient to support the judgment. 6. That there is no finding of the jury that any of the acts complained of were negligently done and the evidence shows that they were carefully done. 7. That there is no finding of the jury that any of the acts complained of caused the disaster. p. 254, 1. 7. 60, A motion was also made bclbre the Full Ccairt for a new trial. p.257,1. 30. 61. The Appeal and Motion were argued on the 14tli and loth da} s of'^^ March 1898; and the Court (Drake, "Walken and Irving J-l), holding that the case was not distinguishable irom Patterson r. Victoria, gave judgment on the 1st April 1898 dismissing the ap])eal; and refused the . lotion for a new trial. p. 2;)?, 1. 1. ()2. The judgment was delivered by Drake J. the other judges concurring, in the following terms : — '• This case is identical with the Patterson case. It arises out of the same accident and the same questions were submitted to the jury and they gave very nearly identical answers. The Defendant has appealed upon similar grounds and has further moved for a new trial. " I am bound by the decision in the Patterson case and this appeal must 40 be dismissed. '■ As to the application for a new trial I fail to see that the Defendant has iriade ou* any case. They allege that the evidence of Cox substantially differs from the evidence he gave in the Patterson case, in fact, he was not subject to cross-examination in that case, but the jury have had the benefit of hearing his original evidence and his cross-examination and as the value or weight to be attached to any witness's evidence is essentially a matter for T Court )r the |r;e in to or IS any )ration neddle bridge 10 ho did t Cor- ; duty, ng the not as images easatice . at all, '-iO lent to plained ^refuUy plained Hays of 30 hilt the on the ial. jurring, ; of the nd they d upon !al must 40 fondant tnntially was not ; benefit le value fttter for 11 the jury this Court cannot grant a new trial on such a ground as this There must be something substantially wrong in the verdict arrived at; it must be unreasonable and one that reasonable men could not have arrived at from the evidence adduced. I see no such ground here and the application must be dismissed with costs." 6'ii. This appeal is taken only from tlie judgment dismissing the appeal from the decision of the trial Judge; and there is no appeal from the dismissal of the application for a new trial. 64. Reference to the other case of Patterson u. Victoi'ia (T) B.C R. p. 633) Rpcoi-d, 10 shows that the findings of the jury in that case, though adequate, were not so viimlaT'^ strong as those in the present case. It is found by the jury in the present case patterson that the Corporation after the extension of the limits controlled and managed the Hccord, bridge as if owners thereof; that the immediate cause of the accident was the 1>P- '75-6. breaking of the floor beam number 3 ; that the hole was bored therein by Cox, the city carpenter, as described by him; and that the boring of such hole materially assisted in the beam becominfj rotten. It is also found in the present case that the changes made in the bridge by the City and under an agreement with it by the Company, materially reduced the strength of the bridge to support a tramcar passing over it. 20 it is also found that the Corporation had knowledge of the insufficient strength of the bridge, and would if exercising ordinary care have become aware of the actual condition of the bridge in good time before the accident. 65. It will be observed that these findings dispose of several contentions which were advanced at great length during the trial and limit largely the mate- rial questions now open. XII. — The Patterson Case. 66. As the decision in this case is rested on the reasoning and judgments iti the Patterson case, it seems convenient to state here the contentions of the Respondent in that case and the result of the judgments thereon. 67. The Respondent contended among other things : — (1) That the Court can supplement the findings if necessary by any inferences dedueiblo from the evidence, not inconsistent with the findings. (2) That the negligence consisted, not in the boring alone, but in the boring without taking proper precautions by eff^'ective plugging; through Avhich course in time the injury was caused; and this was misfeasance rendering the Defendants liable. (3) That the findings showed that the Corporation had after the extension of the City limits controlled and managed the bridge as owners; • • that they had this power ; but in any event their action was enough to render them liable. (4) That no b}'e-law was necessary but if otherwise the bye-law proved was adequate. 68. In the Patterson case the trial Judge thought (5 B.C.R. p. 634) that, if p. 17G,1. 3.i. a by-law Avas nece;:sary, the extension by-law was sufficient ; but he did not consider this question of any importance, in view of the control admittedly 5 B 2 30 40 OQ o o o o o i ' !l' Victoria j'. Patterson Record, p. 177, 1.12. E- P. 181,1. 32. p. 182, 1. IG. :i ■ 12 exercised by the City over the bridge in consctiuence of the extension, ufter it took place. •.' ,.i • .if He proceeded as follows : — " The facts us they appear to me are that after the extension referred to, the defendants assumed and exercised complete control over the bridge in question, which formed part of a main hi<^Invay passing throuofh the City; that subsequently, and before the accident occurred, the defendatits became aware that the condition of the bridije was such ns to make its use by the Tramway Company highly dangerous; that the defcnilnnts thereupon asserted as against the Com|)any and the Coinjiany conc'Mled to them the right to stop 10 such use by the Company until the bridge should have been made safe therefor; that the defendants accordingly did close the bridge against traffic of all kinds and instructed the City luigincer to examine the bridge and report upon its condition; that he did so; that upon receiving his report the r)ofendants renewed ])ortions of the bridge, the work of renewal being done l)artly by themselves and partly by the Company under an arrangement between thcin, certain changes being made for the purposes of the Company; and that afterwards the Defendants threw open the bridge for traffic and allowed the ('ompany again to use it as before." Me founded his judgment on the view that the City, having authorised the 20 use by the Companv of the bridire in a manner necessarilv entailing its destruction, were liable for the destruction so brought about by them. 09. On the appeal to the Full Court, in the I'attcrson case, Davie C. J. states the facts, as there reappearing, as iollows: — " It appears that Cox, the City carpenter, in tiie discharge of his duty and by the order of the City Engineer, hud hor'cd :iii :iuger hole part; way through benni number 6 for the purpose ol testing it, and had then plugged up the hole with oakum. The beam was [lerniitted to remain in this condition until the accident, the primnry cause of whicli the jury find was was the breaking of this beam, which was tiioroughly rotten at tiie place 30 where it broke ; and the jury also find that the hole bored by Cox undoubtedly added largely to the rottenness ot the beam. As there is no question that the findings are abundantly supported by the evidence, the qnesticm ot course is whether the facts which ihey establish give the Plaintiff a cause of action against the Corporation." The h;arncd Judge holds tiiat no right of action would arise fro..i a mere failure to repair, or a mere omission to do what the Corporation might or perhaps ought to have done. But, while mare non-feasance gives no right, he points out that if a Corporation, by any act which it does, impedes or endangers the highway it is guilty of a misfeasance and causes a nuisance for which it is 4o responsible. Nor is it necessary that the nuisance should be attributable to any one act, or that it should be in the nature of a trespass, or be any act of commission. On the contrary many of the cases of liability for misfeasance are in respect of acts of omission, which would have been merely non-feasance but for antecedent acts which in the public safety required to be guarded against. 13 30 SO 20 80 40 Thus the question is not the narrow one " did the hole bored cause the Victoria v. accident ? ", but the more comprehensive one " did the Defendants produce a Patterson nuisance in the highway and so cause the accident ? ", which nuisance may arise fgr 'i oi from a combination of act and omission. And then the question is " does this combination or any of its incidents give a cause of action ? " The cause of action is that act on the Defendants' part which gives the Plaintiff his reason of compLiint. The cause of complaint here is not the mere boring of the hole, but the iailure, after having bored the hole, to take precautions against the increased rotting of a hole which must become saturated with water in wet weather. He goes on to say, — " When the jury find that the boring of the hole added largely to the p. 185, 1. 43. rottenness of the beam they mean, also, I think, or, if not, we are bound to infer, that the beam would not have rotted so quickly, that is to say, would have lasted longer had it not been for the boring; in other words, that the causa caiisans of the accident was the failure to take timely precautions against the increased rotting produced by the hole, thus tracing the immediate cause of the accident to the neglected hole made by the Corporation. The breaking of the beam was the accident, the rottenness of the beam caused the breaking, and the act of the Corporation in boring the hole produced the rottenness." The learned Judge proceeds to deul with the Judgment of the Trial Judge as foUoAvs : — "The evidence also shows tliat in the summer of 1892 the Corporation p. 18G, 1. 5. were warned ol the dangerous condition of the bridge, and that they then closed it to tramway trafhc, as it was their undoubted right and duty to do. Thoy were rccommeiuled by their cnjrineer to put in iron beams throughout, and, had they done so, tlie accident, in human probability would not have occurred, as it is shown by the evidence that the iron work of the bridge on which the iron beams would Iiave depended had a factor of safety of eleven, which, even with heavy trafKc of the cars, had never been i-eaehed or nearly reached. The Corporation, however, discarded the advice of their engineer, and, having sim^jly put in a few new Avooden stringers, after a short dchiy themselves opened tlie bridge ro traffic, thus lulling the public into security and inviting them into a dangerous trap." " The learned Judge wliose decision is under appeal is of opinion that these undisputed facts of themselves, irrespective of the particular findings of the jury, entitle the PlaiititF to recover, and it may become necessary in another action, or in a lii"her Court, to decide whether his view is not the correct one." He concludes thus: — " In this case, however, I am satisfied that upon the findings of the jury, p. isc, I. 21. and the Diets necessarily to be inferred therefrom, the Plaintiff is entitled to judgment, unless there be anything in the Defendants' point that the Defendants in repairing the bridge, closing it, and then throwing it open, acted tdira vires for want of a by-law, but this objection is, I think, met by the case of Bernardin v. North Dufferin [Can.] 19 S.C.R. 581. Moreover, I think there was a by-law, if one was wanted, in No. 1G2, authorising the expenditure of §25,000.00 on the repair of roads and bridges." QQ o o P-I o o o 14 if' :| n ]\ Victori* V. Patterson Record, p. 187, 1. 87. p. 188, 1. 3. ♦ 4 p. 188,1. 25. i'[ I H 70. McCreight J., says:— "I think the answers to Questions 10, 11 and 12 having regard to the respective questions, and the evidence nre findings that the hole bored in the floor beam Number & by Cox, the City carpenter, on the northern side of the bridge, added largely to the rottenness to that boatn, the breaking of which (of course through its rottenness) was the immediate cause of the accident. I cannot say that the findings are such as a 'Jury, viewing tlie whole of the evidence reasonably, could not properly find.' i)n the contrary, I think the evidence of the witnesses Warner, Lockwood, Murray and Ballbur, and that of Gore as to the jib plate having l)eun ' torn through ' the rotten beam fully 10 warrant the finding as to the immediate cause of the accident." " . . . it seems to me that the action of the Council by Cox, their carpenter, in boring the augur hole and leaving it for four years in such a state as largely to add to tlie rottenness ot the beam, is more directly a nuisance than what was done by the Corporation in the Hathurst case, and constituted more directly a miHfea?ai!ce. The connection of the non-repair of the barrel drain with the hoh; which caused the accident, was not so obvious or so direct ;i.s lii.ii; of the dee[) auger hole in the present case, with the rottenness of beam Number 3, increasing during the four years from 1892 to IS'Jfi, and wiiich a little care should have foreseen and prevented by removal 20 of the beam. Cox, the carpenter, says : ' The hole was caulked up with oakum for the ))resent time only, witli the understanding that the whole thing would be moved. I suppose it was to keep the water out for the present.' " Q. "How did you put the oakum in?" A. "Just put it in with sticks." "This Avitness was not cross-examined. It is argued that the conduct of the Defendants was that of nori-feasanee rather than misfeasance, but I think the answer is that there is more misfeasance in the present case than in the Bathurst case." 30 He goes on to say : — " But I think the Plaintiffs case may also be rested safely on the ground put by the learned Trial Judge: that the Corporation are responsible for the state of the bridge, as they would be for the state of the streets, regard, of course, being had to the doctrine of nonfeasance and misfeasance; that the Defendants, while so responsible, became aware in June, 1892, that the bridge was in a dangerous state, especially having regard to its use by the Tramc.ar Company; that some eight of the beams were found in June, 1892, to be unsound, in addition to that which broke and had to be removed ; that the City Engineer recommended iron beams in lieu of the 40 wooden beams, many of which appear to have got into a bad state between the years 1885 and 1892, when tlie first beam was broken under the weight of a traincar which, as Warner, the Civil Engineer, says, passed over barely ' by the skin of the teeth,' and the second time that the application of that heavy load was made it failed. He further seems to have thought it the ' most criminal piece of maintenance he had have ever heard of,' and I gather the structure was altogether too light for tramcars, and even the substitution 10 16 of iron for wooden beams might not have averted the disaster. I shall not further deal with the judgment of the learned Trial Judge, except to say that I think it is correct, and that the closing of the bridge against traffic of all kinds, with the consent of the Company and the renewal of portions, partly by the Defendants, and partly by the Company under arrangements with the Defendants, show the Defendants felt the state of the bridge was their responsibility. Hud they kept it closed ngainst tramway traffic, ut all events, they would have done well, or at least they should have taken great precautions such as its dangerous case required, but the throwing open of the bridge again for all traffic, including tramcar traffic, .seems to have been an unmistakable act of misfeasance which renders any discussion as to the doctrine of non-feasance as distinguished from misfeasance in this case irrelevant." 71. Drake J., dissented on the ground that the case was one of non-feasance Victoria v. only. Patterson 72. It will thus be seen that it was impossible without overruling the ^^?t'\ Patterson case to interfere with the judgment in the present case. ^" ' '*** XIII. — Reasons. 73. The Respondent submits that the Judgment appealed from is correct 20 and should be confirmed, and that the appeal should be dismissed with costs, for the following among other, REASONS. ,_s> (1) Because the Appellants were guilty of misfeasance and negli- gence nnd breach of duty, and created a nuisance in the promises, in such sort that they became and are liable to the Plaintiff for their loss by the accident in question,— (a) by r(?asoii of the boring and plugging of the hole as described ; {b) by reason of the defective reconstruction of the flooring; (c) by reason of their reopening and keeping open the bridge to general tram traffic in its unfit state known to them;" (d) by reason of the public nuisance of a dangerous bridge created by their action. (2) On the findings of the jury. (3) On the grounds appearing in the judgments above summarised. (4) On the grounds hereinbefore appearing in this case. EDWARD BLAKE, D. G. MACDONELL. 30 f t l« t(je ^rii)!) (!t;0unril No. 56 of J 898. On Appeal from the Supreme Court of British Columbia. * F* BETWEEN THE COJIPORATION OF TPIE CITY OF A^CTORIA (^Defendants) Appellants, AND MARTHA MARIA LANG (Adminis- tratrix of the Estfite and Effects of John Lang deceased) {Plaintiff) Respondent. ^^T-"^ ^ a IS i' CASE OF THE RESPONDENT. S. V. BLAKE, 17, Victoria Street, S.W., for the Respondent. 1 |n t\t |1riljn (^mml No. 5(1 of 18!)8. ON APPEAL niOM THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. BETWEEN THE CORPOllATION OF THE CITY OF VICTORIA Appellants, AN'I> MARTHA MARIA LANG (Adiuinistnitiix of the Estate urul Effects of John Lang, deceased) . . Reqwndenf. E ECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 INDEX OF REFERENCE. No. DESCllirTION OF DOCUMENT. Date. Page. 1 2 3 4 5 Statement of Case .... ... Pleadings, Statement of Claim Amended Particulars of Misfeasance Statement of Defence Reply 16tli June, 1897 3rd July, 1897 . 7th July, 1897 . 1 2 3 3 5 I GQ o P ; W ; W ' O ■- O Iv Ph I'- d V, & S. ' the Respondent. J i u . ^ u I S.i.l * No. 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 17a INDEX. DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT. Phoceedixos at Trial. First Day. Case for the Plaintiff. Admissions by the Defendiuit." JIartha Maria Lang — Examination Cross-e.i'timinaiio'ii Cbailes D. BiUiicli — Examinatinn {^in part) Charles Fern — Examination .... Cross-examination . Be-examinatio): Frederick James Featt^— Examination Cross-examination Re-examination Charlr-a D. Branch (re-calM). Examination (continued) Discussion as to exhibits and evidence in Patterson V. tlie Coiporntion of the City of Victoria Charles Fern (re-called) Examination {continued) Discussion as to evidence .... Examination de bene ease of John Cox, taken before Deputy Registrar Arthur Keiist Cross-examination He-examination Evidence of .John Cox, taken at the Trial of Patterson v. the (.'otporation of tlie City of Victoria ...... •John Cox — Examination .... Cross-examination Re- examination .... Re-cross-examinalinn Evidence in Patterson v. the ( 'orjjoration of the City of Victoria, road and handcl to the Jury Date. 12th October, 1897 12th October, 1897 12th October, 1897 12th October, 1897 12th October, 1897 12th October, 1897 12th October, 1897 12th October, 1897 12th October, 1897 26th August, 1897 20tli May, 1897 . 12th October, 1897 12th October, 1897 Page. 6 7 7 8 Q 10 12 12 13 15 IG 16 18 19 20 23 38 40 43 47 63 6} 65 ■'■*? No. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 INDEX. DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT. lU Second Day. Case for th e Plaintiff {continued). Discussion as to furtLer evidence to be admitted . Evidence of Edward Ashley Wilmot, taken before a Special Examiner, in the actior of Patterson V. the Corporation of the City of Victoria, by order of His Honour \V. Norman Bole. Examination .... Cross-examination . Evidence of Edward Ashley Wilmot, taken at the Trial of Patterson v. the Corporation of the City of Victoria Examination .... Further examiita/'on Cross-examination . F.xamincdiini h\j the Court Evidence of Edward Ashley Wilmot, taken before the Deputy Registrar in this action Examination .... Cross-examination . fle-examinatioH Re-cross-examination Evidence of Wellington Jeffries Dowler, taken at the Trial of Patterson r. the Corporation of the City of Victoria. Examination ..... Evidence of Francis Cilbcrt Richards, taken at the Trial of Patterson v. the Corpori.tion of the City of Victoria. Examination ..... Crosn-exa nmtation . . . . Retxaminatioii . . . . Evidence of Francis M. Yorke, taken at the Trial of Patterson v. the Corporation of the City of Victoria. Examination ..... i;5th October, 189/ 3rd March, 1897 20th and 21st May, 1897 'JOth May, 1897 , 2b,t May, 1897 . 21st May, 1897 , 21st May, 1897 . 26th Jnly, 1897 . 20th May, 1897 20th May, 1897 20th May, 1897 66 70 78 78 78 80 81 81 82 82 95 98 101 101 104 i06 107 108 A 2 il BIS mi w IV INDEX. Ko. nESCRIPTION OF DOCmVIENT. Date. Page. ; Case for the Plaintiff (continued). i 25 Evidence of Kobert M'lutosh, taken at the Trial of Patterson v. tlio Corporation of the City of Victoria. \ I Examinattojt 20th May, 1897 . 109 Cross-examination . . . . 112 26 Evidence of George Gordon Biggar, taken at the Trial of Patterson v. the Corporation of the City of Victwria. Examination .... 20th May, 1897 . 115 Evidence of the experts (Warner and Lockwood taken at the Trial of Patterson v. the Cor poration of the City of Victoria. 27 (1) Edwin Hall Warner — Examination 20th May, 1897 . 117 Cross-examination . 20tliand21stMay, 1897 127 Re'examination 21st May, 1897 . 148 Re-cross-examination 21st May, 1897 . 149 28 (2) James B. C. Lockwood — Examination 21st May, 1897 . 150 Cross-examination . . 160 Re-examination 171 29 Evidence of Bernard William Murray, taken at the Trial of Patterson v. the Corporation of the City of Victoria. Examination .... 2l8t May, 1897 . 173 Cross-examination . • • • • • 175 Re-examination . . . . 176 30 Evidence of Roljert Balfour, taken at the T'ial of Patterson v. the Corporation of the City oi Victoria. Examination 21st May, 1897 . 177 Cross-examinat^'on . . . . 179 Re examination . . . . . 13' 31 Evidence of Samuel Atherly, taken at the Trial ol Patterson v. the City of Victoria. 1 Examination .... ':;ind May, 1897 . 181 Cross-examination . ■ • • • • • 183 i INDEX. ( No. DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT. Date. Pago. Case for the Defendant. 32 Further evidence of Francis M. Yorke, taken at tlic Trial of Patterson v. the Corpoiation of tlie City of Victoria. Exami' atioti ..... 21st May, 1897 . 185 Fur. Iter examiitalion . 185 Cross-examination .... . 186 iiH Evidence of Henry P. Bell, taken at the Trial of Patterson v. the Corporation of the City of Victoria. Examination ..... 21st May, 1897 . 187 Cross-examination .... 194 Further cross-examinatinn 22nd May, 1897 . 197 Re-examination .... . 212 34 Evidence of William Sinclair Gore, taken at the Trial of Patterson v. the Coi-poration of the City of Victoria. Examination ..... 22nd May, 1897 . 219 Cross-examination .... • . . . . 220 35 Evidence of Thomas Harmon, taken at the Trial of Patterson v. the Corporation of the City of Victoria Examination ..... 22nd May, 1897 . 220 Cross-exam i lu'ion .... . 221 lie-cxamina!-on .... . 223 36 Evidence of William Grant, taken at tbj trial of Patterson ;•. the Corporation of ihc City of Victoria. Examination ..... 27th May, 1897 . 224 Cross-examination .... 227 Ii'r-examitiation .... 229 Third Day. 37 •Tudgc's Charge to the .Tury 1 tth October, 1897 230 (Jounsel's Olyectinus . 248 Verdict ..... 252 38 Judgment of the Honourable iVIr. Justice McColl . Ctli Novemlier, 1897 . 253 PfW f ■i VI INDEX. No. DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT. Date. Page. In the Full Court of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, 39 Notice of Defendant's Appeal . "ull Court, from the Judgment of Mr. J v. tlcCoU, or for a New Trial ...... 22nd November, 1897 . 253 40 Order, dismissing Appeal from the Order of Judge Bole, of 28th .January, 1898 .... 8th February, 1898 254 41 Order, giving leave to Appeal to the Full Court, subiect to all just oljjections .... nth February, 1898 . 255 42 Order, ullowing Appeal to be brought ou 25th February, 1898 . 256 43 Reasons for Judgment of Drake, J. (Walkem and Irving, J J., concurring) January. 1898 257 44 Order, dismissing Appeal, from Judgment of Mr. Justice McColl, of 6th November, 1897, and Motion for New Trial 1st April, 1898 . 257 45 Order, permitting Appeal to the Privy Council 4th April, 1898 . 258 46 Certificate of Registrar 15th June, 1898 . 259 i f i i\\ tijc |rik dLoiintil No. 56 of 1898. OX APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF BlilTISII COLUMBIA. BETWEEN THE CORPOIIATION OF THE CITY OF VICTOIMA Appellants, AND MARTHA I\rARIA LANG (Administmtrix of the Estate and Effects of Joijx Lanc deceased) . . Respondent. liECOKD OF PKOCEEDINGS. No. 1. Stattment. This is an appeal from tiie judcimont and order of the Honourable .Air Justice McColl dated the (Jth day of Noven.ber, 1897, that judoment be entered lor the I lanitiff a-rauist the Defendant for 820,000 damages and eosts upon the nnduifis ol Uie jury. This is one of the many actions brought against the Corporation of the City of \ictona ni respect of the collapse of the Point Ellice Bridge, Victoria, on the 2bth dav ot iMay, I89G, and was brought by the Plaintiff as administratrix of her 10 late husband, Dr. John Lang, who received injuries which resulted in his death at the Jubdee Hospital shortly afterwards. The action was originally against the Corporation and tbr Consolidated Kailway Company, but the Plaintilf discontinued the action as a"ainst the Defendant Company on the 17th June, 1897. ° The action was tried at Vancouver on t\vi 12th, 13th and Mth days of October, 1897, b: fore the Hon(jurable Mr. Justice McColl and a Special Jury when the jiu'v found a verdict in favour of the Plaintiff and awarded 322 500 damages less insurance l?2,500, balance !>20,000 divided as follows:— .S7'500 to the Plauitiff i;s widow and $2,500 to each of her live children. ' ' 20 From this judgment the Defendant now appeals. EECORD. In the Supreme Court of British Columbia. No. 1. Statement of Case. 1^1 ft. I RECORD. In the Supreme Court oj British Columbia. No. 2. Statement of Claim, IGth Jane, 18»7. IV No. 2. Pleadings. Statement of Claim. Dated the 16th day ofeTuiie, 1897. Writ issued the 24th day of November, 189G. 1. The Plaintiff is a w:do\v and resides at the City of Victoria in the Pro- vince of British Columbia and the Defendants arc a municipal corporation in the said Province of British Columbia. 2. The Plaintiff is the wife of John Lang deceased, and was on or about the 3rd day of August, 1896, didy appointed the administratrix of the estate and eifects of the said John Lang deceased, who died intestate and as such admiriis- 10 tratrix sues for her own benefit as wife of the said John Lang deceased, and on behalf of his five infant children. 3. In the year 1885 the Government of the Province of British Columbia constructed a bridge across the arm of the sea called Victoria Arm on or near Point Ellice for the passage to and fro of foot passengers, horses, and carriages drawn by horses, and ior ordinary traffic, and the said bridge became and formed part of a highway between the said City of Victoria and the vilhige of Esquinialt. 4. At the time of the construction of the said bridge as aforesaid it was without the limits of the said Hefendauts, but by letters patent issued on the 8th 20 day of January, 1891, eoiiiirmed by an Act of the Legislature of the Province of British Cohunbia, ])assed 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 a[)])roiiches thereto, and tlie said bridge thereby became the property of the Defendants and has ever since remained under their sole control and manageuient. 5. The said Defendants, at the time the said bridge so passed into their possession and under their management and control well knew the purposes for Avhich it had been constructed. 6. The said bridge v.-as an artilicial structure and erected on said highway 30 and tlie Defendants, after the satue became subject to its control and management as aforesaid, were bound and required in so far as the said bridge was coucerued and so long as the Defendants continued to keep it as part of the said highway to manage and keep the same in repair and safe and tit for persons and vehicles lawfully passing over and along the same, but the Defendants so managed and neglected to repair it that the same became dangei'ous to persons and vehicles lawfully [)assing over and along it. 7. At the time the said bridge was taken over by the city us aforesaid, the rails of a certain tramway ojierated in the City of Victoria, were laid thereon and the tramcars were in the habit of crossing upon and over the said bridge as the 40 Defendants were well aware. The said bridge, at the tiirie the city assumed the management and control of the said highway of the said bridge forming part thereof, was entirely unsuited for tramway purposes as the Defendants were well aware, as the same had not been constructed for that purpose or in a sufficiently stronp: and substantial manner to bear the weight of the cars which were being run tiiereon, yet the said Defendants ])erniitted the said bridge to be used for the purposes aforesaid although they well knew that its structure Avas altogether too unsubstantial for such purposes, and the riaintiff says that although the Defendants had full knowledge in the pi-onises yet they invited the public"to use the siiid bridge as jiart of the said l?ighway. 8. . ,e I ;etendants, from time to time in attempting to repair and doing Avork in connection with the repairing of said bridge, weakened the beams thereo't" by boring auger holes therein and otherwise which tended to liasten the decay of 10 the said bridge and increased its weakness, and by dividing the floorini; on said bridge which further increased its weakness. 1). The said John Lang on the 2(;th day of May, 1890, became a ])assL'nger on the tramcar of the Consolidated Railway (yompany which was carrying passengers ahjng the said highway and along and over th'e said bridtje forming part tliereoi;_ and while the said Jolm Lang was being lawfully carried on and over said bridge the same gave way and the said car was precipitated into the water under said bridge whereby the said John Lang was drowned. 10. It was in consequence of the Defendants negligently contimiing the said bridge in the condition in which it was in, and for its negligent mauaoemeiit 20 thereof, and of its neglecting to repau- h and negligently repairing it as aforesaid. that the said bridge gave way while the tramcai'-, on Avliich the said John Lang was being carried, was crossing it. '"^ The I'laintifT claims $25,000 by reason of the wrongs complained of and his costs in this action. The Plaintiff proposes tliat this action be tried at Vancouver, B.C. UECORD. In tke Siiprtvie Court of British Columbia. No. 2. Statement of Claim, 16th Juno, 1897 - continued. Xo. 3. Amended Particulars of Misfeasance. No. 3. Amended L Placing defective stringers on which the car rails of the Consolidated rnSt'c?^ headway Company rested in the bridge mentioned in the statement of claim in 30 the month of July, 1892. 2. Iscgligeiitly placing stringers in said bridge in the month of didy, 1892. 3. l^oring an auger hole in the floor beam of the said bridge in the month of June, 1892, and negligently plugging said hole. _ 4. In removing the "flooring in said bridge in 1892, and replacing' it by divided flooi'ing. h. By changing in 1892 the floor beams of said bridge for beams of a smaller dimension. • 40 No. 4. Statement of Defence. Dated the 3rd day of July, 1897. 1. The I'Liintiff is not and never was the administratrix as alleged or otherwise. 2. The Defendant as to paragraph 3 of the statement of claim admits <^ B 2 No. 4. Statement of fJefcnce, 3rd July, 1897. m i RECORD, Jn (hr iSuprcme Court of British Columbia. No. 4. Statement of Defence, Srd July, 18!)7 — conlimuil. 1 '.; that at some time prior to tlio 2Gth day of May, 180f!, the Province of T>ritish Cohimbia constructed a bridi^c known sis the i*oint Kllice liridjie l)Ut the said bridge did not then and does not now form part of an alleged highway between the City of Victoria and tlie villacfe of Esipiimalt. o. As to par;iLrrai)h 4 of the statement of claim, the Defendant admits that at the tim;! of the construction of the said brid;;e as aforesaid the said bridge was without the limits of the said City of Victoria but the said limits were never extended as aUeged or otherwise so as to include and do not now include the bridge and ap[)roaehes thereto and the said bridge did not become and is not now the property of the Defendant as alleged or otherwise and has 10 not at any time become and is not now under the sole control and manage- ment of the Defendant. 4. The said bridge was and is constructed upon and over a public harbour and inlet of the sea known as the Victoria Arm, the waters whereof at the points Avhere the said bridge is constructed were and arc tidal and navigable for large vessels and over and niK)a the foreshore of the said htirb Jiir and the extension of the city limits referred to did not include within the city limits that part {>t tiie highway on which the said bridge was constructed as alleged but the same alwavs was and remained under the exclusive control of the Dominion of (Januda and 'f the limit'5 of the said city ever were assumed 20 to be extended so as to include the land and alleged highway upon which the said bridge was constructed and to devolve or vest the same in any way in the said corporation, same Avas assumed to be done by an order of the Li(;utenant- Governor-in-Council of the Province of British Columbia the subject matter in question not being within the power or control of the said Provincial Government. 5. The said Corporation of the City of Victoria never acquired, took over or assumed possession of the said liridge as alleged or otherwise, but the same has always been the property and subject to the control and management of the Province of British Columbia, and the Defendant has never known and does not 30 know the purposes for which the said bridge was constructed as aforesaid. G. If the Consolidated Railway Company had or acquired a.ny right to use such bridge for the purpose of running cars and carrying passengers over same such right was acqm ,d frou) the Province of I'ritish Cohnnbia and not from the Defendant, 'i'he Dei'cndant had not and never has had any power to prevent or regulate the use of the said bridge by the said Consolidated Hallway Coin[)any and did not know whether or not the said bridiie was sutficientlv strou"' and substantial to hear the weight of the cars which were being run or used thereon and never invited the public or the said Consolidated Railway Company ♦^o use the said bridge as part of the said alleged highway or otherwise. 40 7. Xo auger holes were bored In any beams of the said bridge by the Defendant or any one in Its employment or service as alleged or otherwise and nothing Avas done by the Defendant that weakened In any way the said bridge or the beams thereof and the Defendant did not divide the flooring of the said bridge as alleged otherwise. 8. If the Defendant did tiny work of reconstruction or of repair on the said bridge it was done voluntarily and not in pui'suance of any power obligation or 6 duty im|iosod on. the Corporation in tliat bt'luilf whotlier by statute, by-hnv or otherwise and the work Wiis flone caret'nlly and in a workmanlike manner and the bridfije was thereby improved in re,ii,ard to the safety thereof and if same after- wards fell into disrepair it was not by the neglij^ence or fault of the Defendant and the death of the said John Lanij was not caused by any of the acts or defaults cliarged against the Corporation or any neglect on its part. 9. The said John Lang was not on the SOth day of May, 180G, a passenger on the tramcar of the Consolidated Railway Company which was carrying passengers over the said bridge when the same gave way as alleged or otherwise. ^^ 10. If it should be proved that the said John Lang was a passenger on the said car and if it should be proved that the said car was overcrowded the said John r.ang had full notice and ' nowled^e that the said car was so overcrowded and that the said bridge was unsafe and he was contributory to his death by his negligence and in boarding an overcrowded car. n. The said, bridge was at the time aforesaid in a fit and proper and safe condition for all ordi nary purposesof ti-affic including car traffic and any breakage of sam bridge Avas causetl by tfie act ol'TFie Consolidated Railway Compan}' by reason of_t]ie_cxceflau'i.' weight of their cars and the overloading of the same without the knowledge of and without fault upon the part of the 20 Defendritrt*. 12. As to paragraphs G, 7, 8, and 10 the Defendant will object that no liability or duty is or was imposed upon it by statute, bye-law or otherwise to keep main oi- ])reserve said bridge in a gooil state of repair and in a fit and proper and safe con Jition for the purposes as alleged or otherwise. 13. No loss has been suffered as alleged or otherwise. 14. The admissions made hercui are made for the purposes of this action only. 15. Save as aforesaid the Defeiidnnt denies each and every allegation con- tained in the Plaintiff's statement of claim. RKCORD. In the Supreme Court of British Culumbia, No. 4. Statement of Dcfenco, Srd July, 1897 — continued. 1 t: 30 No. f). Rei)ly. Dated 7th July, 1897. 1. The Plaintiff joins issue upon the allegations contained in the statement of defence delivered herein. 2. For further reply to paragr;ip]is 4, 5, G and 11 of the statement of defence of tlie Defendants, the Plaintilf says that tiie allejTatioiis contained in said paragraphs are no answer in law to the Plaii cift's claim in this action. No. 5. Haply, 7th July, 1897. sssa i i r ■ ' ^0 I ' KECOUD. Jti the Supreme Court of British C'oluinhia, Proceedings at Trial. No. G. AdmisHions by tiie Defendnnt, 1 2th Oct., 1897. TjJIAL. (HEFoitK Mr. Justice McColl.) First Day, No. 6. 12th October, 1897. Mr. 1). fJ. Macdoncll, with Mr. !•:. W De.'icoii for tlie IMaintiff ; Mr. W. J. Taylor, Mr. R. Cassidy, and Mr. C. Duhois Masiiii tor tlio Deloudiuit Corporation. Case for the Plaintiff. Martha M. Lanrj. Called by Mr. .Ahicdoiicli. Mr. Taylor (to Mr. ]\Iiicdoiiell) : Wm do not want tu call Mrs. Laiifr, do *^ you ? As far as the i'act that she is a widow, and hur htisband was killed in this accident, and she is his administratrix, and has live children, 1 am (luite willin<>: to admit that. Mr. Maedonell: And the ap;e of her husband? Mr. Taylor: Whatever .Mrs. Lan,u' says jibout thnt I will accept. Mr. Macdoncll: And that he was in a good state of health? Mr. Taylor: I th()un;ht that was all agreed on, before liand. Mr. Maedonell : I thought that was reserved to my learned friend. iMr. Taylor: I understood, my Lord, that these facts were all admitted, and there is really no necessity o( taking up any lime for we do admit it, if there is 20 an}' doubt our not having admitted it liefore. 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 Dr. Lang was killed in this accident — that ^Irs. Lang is his widow and administratrix, and that 1 see she stat(!S she has five children here, all of which I presume is correct. I admit that fixct and their ages — that has not been stated in the pleadings, but whatever Mrs. Lang says as to that, without being sworn, I will admit. Mr. .Macdoncll: And that her husband was in a good state of health? Mr. Taylor: Well, I have no reason to know to the contrary. 30 Mr. Ma^cdonell: Well ad. nit that, and that is all. Mr. Taylor : Certainly. You want the ages admitted, do you ? Mr. Miicdonell: Yes.' Mr. Taylor : Well, let Mrs. Lang state them without being sworn. Mr. Maedonell (to Mrs. Lang) : What was the age of your husband, Mrs. Lang? A. 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. And the next child? A. Five. 40 Q. And what was the next ? A. Four, and the other was three, and the next was 13 months. Q. The youngest was 13 months oM when he died? A. Yes. Q. Were they boys or girls ? A. Four boys and a girl. My eldest is a girl. Mr. Taylor: Which is the girl? A. Theeldest is the girl and the rest are all boys. Mr. Maedonell: What was his profession? (To Mr. Taylor): Do you admit that? Mr. Taylor : Certainly. Court: Wc do not take it througli a witness wlio is not sworn. What I asked llECOUD. you to (U) was to state those facts tliat will be admitted. Mr. Macdonell (to Mrs. Lang) : What was his income, Mrs. Lang? Mr. Taylor : Well, now, on the question of income, I think I have the right. Court: Yes, you are entitled to —let the witness be sworn. In the Supreme Court of lirilish Columbia. Mrs. Lang, sworn. No. 7. Evidence. Court: I'efore you go on with this examination, let the stenographer read 10 out the admissions that have been made. (Which was done.) Mr. Taylor: And I admit their ages to have bieii 7, 5, 4, and 3 years, and 13 months, respectively — that the eldest is a girl and the rest are boys. j\Ir. Macdonell: And that he was in a good state of health at the time of his death ? Mr. Taylor: I stated that I hiive no reason to know to the contrary; and he was a passenger on the hind platform. [ thiidv that is in the pleadings. The Court: And his deatli? Mr. .Macdonell : It was a(hnitted that he was killed in the accident — his death resulted from the accident. 20 Mr. Taylor: I misunderstood ^■(m. T may say this: I admit he was on the rear platform of the car. He did not (lit; as a matter of fact for some few days after the accident. I admit that liis death resulted from the accident nearly three weeks after the accident. Court : The length of time that elapsed is immaterial, isn't it ? Mr. Taylor: I thought you asked me whether he was killed immediately. 1. Mr. Macdonell (to Witness) : What income was he deriving from his pro- fession, at the time of his death, Mrs. Lang? A. From 82SU.00 to SoOU.OO a month. 2. Q. He was in active practice, Mr-^. Lang, at the time of his death? .1. Yes, oh, yes. 30 Cross-exairnnnUon In/ !Mr. Taylor. 3. (J. Am 1 correct in assuming, Mrs. Lang, that you judged that from his day book P You looked at it after his death ? A. Yes. 4. Q. Two hundred and eighty to three hundrjd do!iL.rs. I suppose you know, as a matter of fact, that doctoi's have a good deal in their day book they do not get paid for? J. I know that he made thai; that he did make that. .'■\ (}. it is a fact, though, ^Irs. Lang, that there is a great deal of money they have on tlie books they do not collect? ^4. Yes, I know that, too. G. Q. The very large pro[)orlion ot it, isn't it people they have to attend out of charity, who are poor and cannot i)ay? J. Yes, but I am not counting that. 40 I am leavini: that out though. 7. Q. You took the whole amount of his day book at !i?280.00 or $300.00 a month? A. Well, I know that hv. niadi: that. 8. Q. l)Ut you did take that from the day book? A. Yes. 9. Q. Had he any insurance, .Mrs. Lang? .1. Yes, .S2, 500.00 of insurance. 10. (i>. I infer when you said insurance you meant life insurance? A. Yes. No. 7. IVocecdings at Triiil. I'laiiitiff's Case. Mnrthii Maria Lung. Examination, 12tli Oct., 1897. Cross-exam- ination. /.' Pl hi 1 H m RKCUUD. In the C, 1). nrancli. Called and mrorn. 8 No. S. Supreme Examined bi/ Mr. Macdoiicll. Court iif Brttis'li Columbia. No. 8. PlaintilPs Ciwc. C. D. Branch. Exaiiiiiiatiuu 12lli Uct., 11. Q. What is your name ? .1. Ciiarlcs D. llniiich. 12. (I. Wliiit is your o(;cu|)ntion? ,1. 1 am iiiaiiiigcr for this bu.sincss — Sun Life Insurance Co. l.'i. Q. Will you tell me wiiat amount •.viil purchase an antmity of !^i80.()0 monthly, or payable ((Uarterly for a man who is '-M'i A. Yes — Iliad the wrong tiig went down. ^M. Q. What were you doing during the lime the bridge was bending? A. When I caught sight of the first bend, I began to 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 strap for backing sudden, and I l)ackijd up till I couldn't do it any longer — till I heard screams at the back of the wagon, and I could not get it through, and — 53. (2- IIow far were you across when you saw the car rail licnd? J. I saw the horses and half the wagon on .ne s|ian. 54. Q. I.'ow many feet would that be? A. Well, I guess about 8 feet 20 maybe. 55. l^. T ju you backed 15 feet from the time you saw th'^ '-ail bend until you saw the liriciii'e bend down? ^4. Y"es. 56. A. Yes js, you Sv-C Q. And it nuist have taken that time for it to fall? backed very I'ash — I backed very sudde-n. 57. Q. Mow many seconds dD you think it would take to back? J. Well, it took o or 8 seconds, ot course. I iiad 11 people in my wagon besides Jiiyselt", and some beer. 58. Q. It took you that time to back off? .4. Yes. 50. Q. Do you know how long that s[)an is? A. No, I don't know exactly 30 how long it is. I guess it is about 14U or 150 feet. 60. Q. Do you remember seeing Mr. Wilson, the bridge superintendent, on the bridge? A. Yes, lie was pretty close to the other end towiirds Esquimalt. 61. II. How far was he irom the car ? .1. Well, he was just in front of it — just fclightiy in front of it; he was getting on towards the other end. 62. Q. And the front of the car was close to him? A. Well, slightly. He was a little further in the front. 63. Q. Do you remember what they call a Gladstone trap on that ])ridge? A. Y^'es, I se(,'n S011..0 people — I can't hardly remember how many there was in that. 40 64. i). Do you know who was ?n that? .1. There wa:- Potts. 65. (^K Where was the car in comparison to him ? Vv'^here was he in com- parison to the car ? A. He was about alongside the car. He was just behind Wilson, and then there was ]\Ir. James with his bicycle there. Cross-examination by Mr. Cassidy. 66. Q. How far was the car ahead of your wagon? — in feet? .1. It was about 60 or 70 feet. qk 11 If*)^ 67. Q. You were coming from the Victoria side going over towards Esqui- malt? A. Yes. 68. Q. You were just about here (indicating)? A. Yes. 60. Q. You had just got to the Victoria side of the span with 3'our wagon Avhen you sav.- the bond in the right-liand rail ? A. I was further on than that — further on than where your finger points. 70. (2- Well, this is the beginning of the span? A. That is the beijinniiig of the s])an, but I was away furtlier on. I was underneath that (hip vertical). I was away further on than wiiere your fniger is. 10 71. (^>. You were just under here (indicating portal brace) ? .1. Yes. 72. Q. At all events, you were examined at the incpaest? A. Well, it might slightly be furtlier across, according to the way I can remember now it must be a little further than that, slightly — probably I was, but then the horse takes you a little further ahead again, yuu see. 73. (J. At all events you were just entering on this, and the car was about 60 feet ahuad of you? ,1. Yes. 7-1'. (2. Sixty to seventy? ^1. Well, of course, I haven't measured. I can oaly tell you what 1 think about it. 75. (2. You have said already in your examination to my friend that the car 20 would be about 75 feet on the span and about half way ? Th\jre was another car on ahead o[ the first one, was there not ? ^1. Yes, sir. 76. to it. 89. Q. Did it alarm you — this vibration ? A. No, it didn't alarm me any more than usual I had often noticed a.s much when I had been goin^ over with heavy loads; it didn't alarm mo — well, I always used to notice it to a certain extent. 1 used to think it was not a very sale bridge — I thouglit it was too shaky, I thought all the time. Redirect by j\Ir. ]\Iacdonell. 90. Q. I suppose vou heard the rods rattling? A. Yes, I always heard them. ' 10 91. Q. AVhen you saw the bend under the hind wheel you did not know how far tliat bend 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? A. A little beyond. Mr. Taylor: 1 submit this is not* new matter. Court : I will let you re-cross-exaraine. No. 10. Plaintili'3 Case. F. J. I'eatr. Examination, 12th Oct., 1897. No. 10. F. J. Peatt. Called and sworn. Examined b;/ Mr. ]\Iacdoncll. 93. Q. What is your name? A. Frederick James Peatt. 20 94. Q. Where do you live ? A. Victoria. 95. Q. What is your occupation ? ^1. Tonductor. 9(5. Q. On the tram? A. Yes, the H. C. Rlectric Tramway Co. 97. What is the length of one of those big cars — this car 1 G 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. 99. Q. Ilavo you measured them? A. No, I have never measured them I could not say. 100. Q. You know this ear that went down in the accident? .1. Yes. 30 101. Q. Tiie number was ? A. 16. 102. Q. Had that car been rumung on that bridge before? ^1. Oh, yes, off and on at various times. lO'^. Q. From when? A. Well, she was running all the holidays. 104. i^. 1 mean, when did she start to run — what year? J. Well, I could not say exactly. lUf). (I bo you know if she started in '92, '93 or '94? .1. 1 think it was about '90, '92, '91, along there she started. 106. Q. And she hud been running continuously up to this time of the accident? A. Yes, to the time of tlie accident. 40 Mr. Taylor : Excuse me, he does not say that. 107. Mr. Maedonell (to Witness) : Had she been running contintiously, off and on, U[) to the time of the accident? .1. Ye.s, but not on tliat route. 13 108. Q. How often had she been running on that route ? A. Well, just on these speciiil days. 109. Q. How many special days would there be in a year, do you think? A. Well, there would be about ten — twelve— just whenever — they didn't run her constant— just when they hadn't any other cars, why, they used to run her on. 110. (}. Did she carry large holiday excursions? A. Yes, she was the largest car they had. 111. (2. Was she running in '95 over this same bridge? A. Yes. 112. Q. And in '96 up to the time of the accident? A. Up to the time of 10 the accident. 113. Q. Do you know if a car liad just the same or as heavy a load in '95 as at the time of tl o accident? A. Well, yes, just about as heavy: she carried very heavy loads. Cross-examined by Mr. Cassidy. 114. Q. How many people were on that car? A. Well, as near as I can judge, it was about 120, or 115 to 120. 115. Q, There was another car just ahead? A. Yes. 116. Q. How raanj' were on that car? ^4. Well, there would be from 75 to 80. 20 117. Q. What is the weight of car 16 "^ A. Very near 10 ton. 118. Q. That Point EUice Bridge is fhe Elsquimalt road? A. Yes. 119. Q. Do you know where the Gorge road is? A. Yes. 120. Q. It is not the same road; it is a difFen at road — the Gorge road? A. Well, yes, it is a different road. 121. Q. That bridge there goes over an arm of the ^ea called the Victoria Arm, doesn't it ? A. Yes. 122. Q. The harbour of Victoria runs right up to it? A. A part of r. 123. Q. And the ships come right up to the bridge ? A. Vcs, close to the bridge. 30 124. Q. What is the name of the motorneer on your car ? A. Farr — Thomas Farr. 125. Q. When the bridge collapsed the upper beams of the bridi' fell down on the car, did they not? ,1. Well T could not see, I am sure ; ' appose they did, it all came right on top of the car. 126. (I. The moiornecr was killed was he not by one of those beams ? .1. He was killed, yes, I believe he w;is killed before he reached the water. 127. Q. Hy one of those beams? A. Yes. 128. Q. You were on the rear platform ? .1. Yes, I was standing up just inside of the car — just inside of the door. 40 129. Q. Did you know the PlaintilF in this case, Dr. Lang? A. Yes, by sight. 130. <). Where was he standing ? A. He was on the front platform, I believe, so 1 understand; I could not be certain. 131. (). Wfiat is your account o( what happened first, in the way of any- thing to attract your attention to daiiirer? .1. Well, I heard the crash, and then the next thiiiii- I was in the water ^ RECORD. In the Supreme Cinirt of j, Britisl ij Columbia. ' No. 10. I'laintiff's Case. F. J. Pcatt. Examination, 12th Oct., ISit? — continued. Cross- examination. [IN: flljifl RECORD. In the Supremfi Court uf British Cohimhia. No. 10. Plaiiitiff'.s Case. F. J. Poatt, Cross- examination, 12th Oct , 1897 — continued. 14 132. Q. "Whoreabotits was the crash when you first heard it? A. "Well, the car was very near the centre of the span, 133. Q. It was proceeding towards the Esquimalt end and had nearly reached the centre? A. Yes, that is tlie centre ot' the first 134. Q. Span that went down ? xi. Yes. 135. (>. Where did the sound come from which 5'ou first heard — v/hat you call the crash ? A. "Well, I could not say exactly; it was just like something breaking — some beams or timbers. 13(). Q. You, of course, being on the rear platform were outside the car? A. Xo, I was inside the car, standing up just inside of the door. 10 137. (^. The first thing that you noticed was the fidling of the beam.s was it not, from above? A. No, of course I could not see anything at all. I 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 motcM-neer was killed in that way ? Court : How could he tell ? 140. Q. Mr. Cassidy (to witness) : Y'ou saw it, didn't you ? A. No, I did not. 141. <^). Dill you yourself hear any of these beams strike the roof of the car? 20 A. Xo, I did not. 142. Q. Y^ou just heard a crash ? A. I just henrd a crash, and tlieii the next second I was in the water; it could not have been more than many seconds. 143. Q. You mean to say the whole thing seemed to give way all tit once? A. Y'es, the whole thing seeiiicd to give way all at once. 144. Q. Practically without any interval ? yi. No, T don't think there was any interval at all. 145. Q. Tiie whole bridge seemed to collapse ? A. Yes. 146. Q. And in fact, just fell about your ears and }ou all came down 30 together ? .4. Yes, all came down together. 147. Q. Did you go down with the car in the water? .1. Yes. 148. (2. Did the car maintain its horizontal position in going Well, it seemed to take a pitch up towards the Gorge, that is, tovard side of the bridge. 149. Q. That is to say, it canted over ? .1. Yes. Q. To what extent was that cant, now? A. Oh, I could not say. (2- It was not a grettcant? A. I nould not say, I am sun , how much down? A. > thci Gorge Q. At all events, it was a side motion — a cant over to the riglit-hand side. 40 Q. Y'^ou said in your evidence at a former trial the struftuie seemed 150 151, it was. 152 153 to fall at once — in other words it went down something like an elevator? A. Yes. 154. Q. Is that right? A. Yes, that is about right. 155. Q. That is to say Liiat the floor of tlie bridge appeared just simply to fall down straight ? A. Yes, to go right through. 156. Q. In other words, as if the supports from above had given way and it 15 ^%^ tell throu£''^i ? A. The Avholc thing r,ecraccl to come open immediately; T just heard the crush and the He next thino- the whole thiiio^ was in the water. 157. Q. That is to say the floor did not buckle up in the middle? A. Not that I 158. Q.. So as to leave two declivities — one at each side, — it went down straight? A. Yes, everything was down; everything was cleared right away when I come up. 15'J. (>. And the whole floor of the bridge went straight down ? .1. Yes. Redirect bij Mr. ^.Incdoncll. 10 IGO. Q. You were inside the car? A. Yes, sir. IGI. (I. You are judging not from what you saw but from what you felt? A. Yes ; just what I felt. 3(j2. (). l>eciiuse it Avould be impossible, I mean, to see? ^1. Oh, I could not see anything. 16-H, (2- And I suppose you could not see even the end of the bridge from where you were in the car? .1. No, not then. 1(>4. Q. And you are judging now of about where the car was, from the velocity it had ? — the car was moving? ^1. Yes, it was going very slow. 165. Q. You thuik, then, you wt)uld be about half wr/ across the span? 20/1. Yes, about half way. I could not tell you exactly because I was inside of the car. 1(56. Q. And. it might have been a little nearer? Mr. Cassidy: Does your Lordship think, in view of the examination he presented to the witness that this arose? Court: Yes, I think it arises out of your cross-examination. T Avill let you re-cross-examine. Mr. Cassidy: But I want to point out it is a very important point — the gist of the thing, and I would ask my irieiid not to lead his witness. Court : Yes ; I was going to say he must nut iead. 30 167. Mr. Macdonell: Could the car have been a little nearer the Esquimalt end than the centre — was it possible ? Objected to by Mr. Cassidy. 168. Mr. Macdonell: I will put it another way. (To witness): You could not see either end of the span ? A. No, I could not see either end of the span. 169. (2- So that the exact position of wdicre the car Avas you could not be positive? .1. No, I could not be positive; 1 ''ould not swear to it. 170. (). lUit judging from the rate the car was going you thought the end would jH'obably be near tiie centre? 40 Court : Mr. Macdonell, you should not indulge in that. Mr. Macdonell: I will put it another way. Court : Xo; listen a moment. The mischief is done, and the jury will pro^ bably think, as this is evidence o( belief and impression that it will lose the weight it might otherwise have, if the witness did not adopt your own suggestions. There is no dilHculty in getting his own view ul what occurred without getting tlie answers framed by the questions. RECORD. • \ In the j : Supreme Court of British Columhia. No. 10. / : : PlaiutilV's Case. F. ,T. Pcatt, Hc-cxamiii- atioii, 12th Oct., 1897 — 'onlinitcd. ^ i y f!;i. i W t J RECORD. In the Supreme Court of Brltk'h Columbia. No. 10. Plaiiitin's Case. F. J. Pcitt. Re-examin- atioii, 12tli Oct., 1897 — CO II ti lined. No. 11. PlaintifTs Case. C. D. Brunch (re-cal!cil). Exam inal ion 12tli Oct., 1897 — conlinucd. 'I 16 171 Mr. MacJonell (to witness): You could not see either end of the span? A. No. 172. Q. You were inside? A. Yes. 173. Q. Then, as you said before, you arc only judging according to the speed of the car whore tlie car was? A. Yes. 174. Q. A juror: Would the bridge rattle and shake like whenever the car went on? A. Yes; it always did that. Mr. Taylor: I would ask your Lordship to ask — as I do not suppose it is proper for uie to do so — a question which occurs to me as the result of a cjuestion just asked ? 10 Court : Yes, certainly. 175. Mr. Taylor: The question was this: He speaks of the bridge shaking and rattling when a car went on. Does he mean by that a swaying motion — vibration above the car ? 176. Court (to witness) : You hear the qu-jstion ? A. Yes. 177. Mr. Taylor: It was the upper structure thai was vibrating? A. Yes; those irons and tilings which are on 178. Q. Would sway? ^1. Yes — would sway. 179. Q. And that was always so, and the stronger the load, I suppose, the A. Yes, with a heavy load. 20 greater the vibration? No. 12. Plaintiff's Case. Discussion as to tlie Exhibits and Evidence iii Patterson r. Victoria, 12th Oct., 1897. No. 11. C. D. Branch re-called. Ej'mnined by Mr. Macdonell. 180. Q. I think you stated you were manager of the Sun Life Insurance Co.? A. Yes, sir. 181. Q. What amount Avoiild it require to purchase an annuity to produce 8l'80.00 a mouth, payable quarterly, or the way you figured it, for a person 37 years old? A. $57,052.80. 182. Court: You mean it would take that sum to purchase an annuity equal to $280.00 a month? A. To purchase an annuity equal to .$280.00 a month. 183. Q. What expectation of life do you place that at? A. Age M . 184. Q. But the expectation of life? A. At that age, 29 years decimal G 30 No. 12. After Recess. Mr. Macdonell: I wish to put in these exhibits that Avere in the Patterson case, I am filing now, my Lord, the by-laws, or rather Court: Exhibit " A"— printed by-law. Mr. Macdonell: Yes, probably, my Lord, if they could be numbered the same as they are in the Patterson case, we could remember them better hereafter. Court: Very well. Mr. Macdonell: There is by-law No. 124, that is not numbered in the Patterson case — if some other number could be put on that — the extension of the 40 corporation limits. I! i I ! 17 Court : Why not keep it to the end of the list ? Yon will have probiibly a number for it. You will have to put them in regularly, you know. 1 liave nothing to do with the Patterson case. Mr. Macdonell : No, my Lord ; I uiitlerstand. Call John Cox. Mr. Taylor : In this regard I may say that my learned friend obtainiMl an order to examine Cox before trial, and hi; was examined. His evidence is all down and it could be read. It would prevent going all over it again and save an enormous amount of time. If my learned friend even Avants to read his testimony in the Patterson case and in this case, put them both in, if you want to. 10 Mr. Macdonell: There was a lot of evidence that was irrelevant; it took two or three hours, and I think it will shorten it to have him examined again. Mr. Taylor: I submit that having taken tliis evidence de bene es.sc, we are entitled to have it in. This was taken by consent. Court: You do not suggest that notwithstanding the Plaintiff's couiise^ should wish to call the witness, he should not bo examined V Mr. Taylor: The consent was this evidence should he put in and read at the trial, as I understood it, ami that puts me I'atlier in this position, in order to oblige one side they examined a witness and his evidence was taken down, and then perhaps it did not suit, and now I submit that arrangement should bind 20 both parties. Court: I do not see how it can be possible to bind him to that. ]\lr. Taylor: Would your lordship allow me to suggest a reason why that should be so ? Court: No, jjardon me; no reason you could urge would weigh with me. If you have a binding authority 1 would acquiesce, but t!ie principle of the thing is so much the other way that I could not listen. It is unsound. ^Ir. Taylor: I should like to put this principle before you. The Defendant in the case consents to the examination of a particular witness, and it is consented that the evidence shall go in at the trial. You rely upon that, and 30 perhaps find at the trial the man completeh- changes his testimony, and therefore that is what I say is not a liiir j)rocei,>ding to force us like th;.t. Suppose Cox comes and completely changes his tcstinior.y ? We are completely taken by surprise. We might have otherwise had another witness here who is not present as we did not antici|)ate this course would be ado"ted. Court: 1 do not thiidv you have the slightest confidence in the proposition you advance. The reason you give for it certaitdy indicates that there is nothing in it, if the witness, as you suggest now, will sAvear diametrically opposite to Avhat he swore the other day, I fancy all you have to do will be to point it out to the jury and that will count against him, no — 1 overrule tuat. 40 Mr. Taylor: Very well, my Lord. I just wish to note the objection to the way of his being cidled. Perhaps your Lordshi[) having ruled as to that, Avill allow me 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. Court: 1 am very much obliged to any counsel who will shorten a case like this as much as possible, because after the previous trials — without saying what the result was, counsel ought to be in a position to shorten the evidence which d D UECORD. In the Supreme Court of liritish Columbia. No. 12. PlaintifTs Case. Discussion as to the Kxhibits and Evidence in Patterson v. Victoria, 12 th Oct., 181)7 — continued. 18 « . < : ■I RECORD. Ill the. Supreme Court of BrUish Columbia. N0.T2. Plaintiff's Case. Diacassion as to the Exhibits and Evidence in Patterson v. Victoria, 12th Oct., 1897 -—condnned. formerly took so long, but at the 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. iMacdonell to say how far, in the interests of his client, it should be adopted. Mr. Macdonell : All the evidence given in the Patterson case can be read to the jury and not any otlier. j\Ir. Taylor: i^it in the evidence you have taken in this case up to date, the examination taken before trial, and take the other. Court : Mr. Macdonell is willing that the evidence in the Patterson case shall be read in this case. 10 Mr. Taylor: I am agreeable to that, provided there is also read Cox's evidence as given in this case. Mr. IMacdonell : No, read the evidence Cox has given in the Patterson case, and let that evidence go to the jury. Mr. Taylor : If my learned friend is agreeable to this, he has a number of Avitnesses who were examined in the Patterson case. I take it he can taki; some of those witnesses out, because it is merely repeating over again. The exi)erts, I take it, are tiie princi[)al witnesses. Take his two experts, Messrs. Lockwood and Warner — and also take !Mr. Bell, and any others he can mention, and then we can examine Cox over again. 20 Mr. Taylor : Cox was not cross-examined at all in the Patterson case, but I asked as a further condition to read Cox's evidence the same way. He does not agree — I say, very well, agree to read it all except Cox, and he will cross-examine and that will settle it and he will be the only witness. Court: Do you understand, Mr. Macdonell? I do not say it is satisfactory, but to have the evidence in the Patterson case read in this case, and go on with the examination of this witness, in addition ? Mr. Macdonell : 'J'o make one more suggestion — there was a witness examined this morning — Mr. Fern. If your lordship will allow me to ask one question, then I will consent. 30 Court : Certainly, — one question of Fern. That cannot affect the position. No. 13. Plaintiff's Case. C. Fein (recalled). Examination 12th Oct., 1897 — continued. No. 13. Charles Fern recalled by Mr. Macdonell. 185. Q, This morning you swore the cai Avas about half way across the span? J. Well, where the sinking of the wheel nearest Victoria was about half of the span. 186. Q. Was the end or centre of the car in the centre of the span? .1. The end — this way. 187. Q. The end of the car was about the centre of the span? A. The end 10 of the car, under the nearest wheel towards me; that end of the car. 188. Q. So when you say the car was about the centre, you mean the end of the car was ? A. Yes, I mean where it sunk down; the end nearest Victoria began to sink down; that is where I mean when I said it was about the centre. 19 189. Q. Mr. Taylor: Aiitl the sinking was right under tho Victoria ond of the Ciir? A. Yes. 190. Q. Thut would be the north-east wheel? .1. That would he the north-east wheel; the north side at the end nearest Victoria. 191. (J. On the Gorge side? .1. Yes. KKCORD. In the Supreme Ciiiirl of liritish Columbia. No. 14. No. 14. Plaintiff's Ciisc. Mr. Taylor: Then the way I understand it, Cox is the last witness now? Court: Yes. There is now just this observation I ought to make. J'ossibly . — r the iurv might desire to ])Ut some question arising out of this evidence which will J1?"M'!!f„o*^ 10 be read to them lor the pui'pose ot understaiidmg it. 1 he jury ni the Patterson I2th0ct,, case had the; advantage of having had the different portions of the members pointed 1897. out to them, but if tlie jiu-y for the proper understanding of the case Avish to ask a question of that kind, it should not be excluded. That ought to be understood on both sides. Mr. Macdonell: I might say that Athcirly is here, and the jury • Court : Now, you had better let it go at that. Ver\' good, now. Mr. Macdonell asks that the model be admitted. Mr. Taylor: lam willing, suiiject to any ineorrecrness in the design, to admit that as an illustration— as illustrative simply of the structure as laid down. 20 For me to say it is absolutely accurate, I am not able to do that, because 1 do not know anything about it. It looks to me all right. If my learned friend wants to examine Cox with reference to it, he can do that. Mr. Macdonell : I will have to prove that is a true model of the bridge. If my friend Avill admit that, 1 want to examine Cox with reference to that. Court: 1 suppose it may be taken .ns a true modtl as far as the points in dispute are concerned. Mr. Taylor: He proceeds to examine Cox and produces this to illustrate some questions. He has a perfect right to do that. Court: It is a mistake to suppose any proof is necessary for this purpose — 30 the use oi' it for any witness to explain his evidence. It might be the most inaccurate model it is possible to conceive, but it is aumissible to make a witness more intelligible. But what Mr. IMucdonell Avants is something beyond that. He says to you " admit that is a periect model of the bridge," and you say you have no objection to admitting it ? Mr. Taylor : I sui)poso it is. Court: Well, let it be taken this way : Mr. Taylor admits model of 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. ■ j ! I) RECORD. In the Supreme C. urt of Lritish Columbia. No. If). Plaintiffs Case. Examination de bene esse of John Cox before Deputy Registrar, 26tii Aug., 1897. .1 'i 20 No. 15. Kxftinirifition de bene, esse of .Tohn Cox. l^cf'orc; Arthur Kenst, Deputy Registrar. Thursday, 2(Uh August, 1897, 2 p.m. Pursuant to order of (Jth August, 1897, and appointment dated the 18th August, taken at this hour by consent of parties. Mr. Macdonell appearing for the Plaintiff. Mr. T.aylor appearing for the Defendant. John Cox being duly stcoim, testified. Eivainined by Mr. Macdonell. 10 (2. What is your name? A. John Cox. Q. Where do you Uvo, Mr. Cox? A. Victoria. Q. Were you in the employ of the City of Victoria in the year 1892? A. Yes. Q. When were you employed by the city first? .'I. 1891 — May, 1891. Q. And how long were you in their employ? A. Until April, 1896. Q. What were your duties? A, Well, I was employed as carpenter; the city carpenter, to loolv after the sidewalks and bridges generally. Q. Do you know the Point Ellice Bridge? A. Yes. Q. Did you ever look after it in any way? A. Yes, in a similar way, just 20 the floor way only. Q. When first ? A. I cannoL swear that I did anything in 1891. ^. Well, in 1892 ? ^. May be in 1892. Q. What did you do in 1892 first ? ^1. I may have put planks in the bridge or hand railing or sidewalks. Q. Under Avhose directions? A. The city engineer. Q. Who is he ? .1. Mr. Wilmot. Q. The present city engineer? A. Yes. Q. He was in the employ of the city ? A. Yes, he was in the employ in 1892; not in 1891. 80 Q.. What salary had you? A. 1 had $2.50 a day, the same as the men that were working under me. Q. Did you ever get any special instructions from Mr. Wilmot, the city engineer, as to repairing the Point Ellice Bridge in 1892? A. Not except tho one when there was an accident. Q. When was that accident? A. That was in 1892, June I think, Q. June 1892. What instructions did you get from Mr. Wilmot, city engineer, in reference to Point Ellice Bridge in 1892 then? A. Well, after the accident, which happened in the .afternoon — T mean to say about one or two o'clock, or it may have been later — the bridge was shut off that night, blocked up 40 at both ends by order. Q. By order of whom ? A. Of the city engineer. Traffic was shut up at both ends. I received orders the next morning from Mr. Wilmot to bore the beams of the bridge, that is to see whether — near the hangers — wliether they were decayed or not or rotten as you may term it. 21 (2- Well, any other instructions? .1, After wc bored those bctiujH the borinfrs were numbered separately and handed in to the engineer's office. Q. By whose instructions? J. I'y my own. Q. Did he ask for those borings hiinsflt ? He asked you to reluru those borinps to him? .1. 1 would not swear whether ho did or not, but they were handed in to the office for them to see the statt; of the beams. Tt was handed to Mayor Heaven in my presence, part of it, previous to being handed into the office. Q. Well, they knew, then — at least the mayor and eity engineer knew that the borings were from the beams of the bridge? -I. Yes; they were all num- 10 bered one, two, and three, and so on up to nine. Q. And it was in consequence of receiving instructions from Mr. Wilmot to do the boring that you returned the borings to Mr. Wilmot and the mayor? A. Yes. Q. Did you do anything to the bridge before the accident? .1. No, nui that I am aware of, except that I might have put a sidewalk plank in, or luight have been a floor plank, I could not say. I think my book would state if there was. I don't see anything in it at that time. After, there Avas. Mr. Taylor: Q. What document is that you refer to? A. That old day book. (P>ook handed to Mr. Taylor). 20 Mr. Macdonell: (2. Did you have any assistance in boring the beams? A. I had one man. Q. Who was he? A. Samuel Atherly. Q. lie went with you? A. He was working with me daily on the sidewalks. Q. It was necessary to have him, Avas it, to assist you? A. Yes. Q. Do you know how many .spans were in that bridge ? ,1. Seven sfians in each. Q. How m.my sj)ans in the bridge ? .1. Oh, there was two spans in the bridge. Q. rhere is what they call the Esquimalt span, isn't it, towards the Esquimalt side of the Gorge, and the Victoria side? A. Yes; one west and east. 80 Q. One west and east. Do you know where you started to do the boring, in which spiui r .1. On the Esquimalt span. Q. .''Esquimau first. In the morning ? .1. Yes. Q. Who did that span? ,1. Me and Atherly. Q. Whereabouts did you do the boring in that span, the beams? A. It was either number one or two on the Esquimalt counting number one that way towards \' ictoria. Q. No no, I am talking now about the Esquimalt span. What beams in that did you bore do you remember ? A. They were all bored except one. Q. Are you sure as to the only one or more not being bored? -1. I believe 40 they were all bored, I would not swear, they may have been two out. Q. Yes; well now, talking still about the Esquimalt span . I. I know there were nine in the hole. Q. Talking about the lilsquimalt span, did you bore each end of the beams in that span, or just one end ? A. Some of them, not all. Q. Some you bored both ends in the Es(juimalt span? Then did you bore .any of the beams in the other span, the span we call the Victoria span? A. I bored three. RECORD. In the Siiptrmr ■' Court of British Columbia. No. If). I'laintilV's ': Case. Exainiiiatioii tie bene ease of John Cox 1 before ; ' ", Deputy j Registrar, 2fjth Aug., i 1897 |i ' — continued. I 4 "! ■|i RECORD. In the iSuprtmr Court of Britix'h Columbia, No. 15. P!Bintifl"'s Oase. Examination de bme essr of John Cox before Deputy Registrar, 26tii Aug., 1897 — continued. ^ U. Did (inyont! assist you to hore tlicsu tlin-e beams? ..'1. I bored those three iiiysflf. (). Do you know what beiuns they were, nil ? . I. They would be numbers one, two aiid put down tlie sidewalk on the other spans that Avere bored, while I bored the other three, and he did so, and by this 20 time we wont home. Q. Whereabouts did you bore the three beams? A. [t was on the north side. (I. Near the hanger? A. Yes, on the outside, on the Gorge side under the sidewalk. Q. Under the sidewalk. How close to the hanger did you bore? A. Well, it may be six or seven inches, I would not say more than that. Q. Bored as close to the hanger as you could? Mr. Taylor: Take his answer, six or seven inches. A. Well, you have to bore at the angle to get in. You could not bore straight down, if you tlid you would come in contact with the vertical. 30 Q. That is the reason? J. Yes. (I. How deep did you bore? .1. May be seven inches, perhaps not quite as much; or it may be more, I could not say. (I. What size auger did you use? A. Used inch and a quarter. Q. Used inch and a quarter auger. After you bored the holes what did you do then ? A. Well I closed up for that day. Q. How did you close them up? A. What I mean to say, wc closed work for that day. Q. But immediately after boring ? ^1. The next day I received orders to get oakum and tar and plug them up. 40 Q. Where did you get the oakum and tar ? -1. Mc(Juade & Sons. (l. What quantity of oakum and tar did you get ? A. I think there was two pounds of oakum, and a gallon of tar, if I remember right. (I. Were those items charged to the city do you know? ^1. Yes. (,'. \\'here did you buy them, what place was it you bought them? At what shop or chandler did you buy them? A. McQuade & Sons the ship chandler on Wharf Street. ' i 23 I took him an orclci' I'l-oin the re ORD, \Vt^ <'ot th»! innteriiil Q. You tohl hun to charge it to the city? city; I could not ;^(;t it without. Q. Then after gettiiijr the oakum what did you do ? .1 and then we went and pUigged tlicin up. Q. Witii the oakum? A. With tin; oakum and the tar. Q. And tar? At k'ast I don't tliink the tar was used with the oakum; the oakum was used only for the holes, the tar was used Cor |)aiuting the pier below the high water mark. We did not use the far for the holes, only the oakum. Q. Did you use any wooden plugs at all in the holes? A. No. 10 Q. Nothing hut the oakum in the iioles. Mr. Cox, could you liav(? used a smaller auger than you used there? A. 1 could have used a smaller bit. (,>. What was the object in using so large an auger as you did use? .1. To obtain more particularly the quantity that was rotten in the beam. My using a smaller one you could not tell how mucii was rotten. By tiic large one you could sec it in your hand. Q. Was it for any one's special benefit ? .1. It was for the olHcer, city engineer, mayor and those, to see direct the state of the beams. Q. lint for your own information, as to testing that for your own intorma- tion, you could have used a small bit? A. I could have used a very small brace- 20 bit that size, I could not use one less. Q. That would be a sixteenth of an inch ? A. Yes, thereabouts, you could not learn much by that. Q. But I mean you could test yourself by that ? A. Oh, yes. Q. Did you bore any other beams in the Victoria span? .-1. None but those three. Q. Those three. Cross-eicamined bij Mr. Taylor. Q. How much i)ainting Avere you going to do with this tar you speak of ? A. The pillars in tlu; water, those iron pillars. Q. Were you instructed to do that with the tar? .1. Yes, it was not done 30 then, it was done afterwards. Q. Were you instructed to get the tar for that purpose at that time? A. Yes. Q. By whom? .1. By the engineer or by the clerk; I always brought the order from the clerk. Q. What did you do with the order? A. Left it at McQuade's; 1 took it to McQuade and he furn'shed the tar. Q. It was ii quart of tar, you said a gallon ? A. It might have been. Q. That document says a quart ? A. Does it ? Then probably it is so. Q. You say that the object of 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 40 or not it was rotten? A. Yes. Q. But you could tell whether or not it was rotten with a much smaller auger? A. You might find it decayed but you could not find out how much. Q. But you could tell it was rotten? A. I might not. Q. And that is what you were sent over to ascertain? A. Yes, and that was my object in using the bigger auger. Q. Were you told to brmg the borings back to the clerk ? .1. I believe so. In Ihu Sii/inme Court ()/' Ihltinh No. l.'i. // Plaintiff's Case. Exainlniitioii (le hine esst of Jolin Cox licforc I )fipiity licfiistrar, 2Ctii Aug., 1897 — continued. A // Cross- examinatiou. f t 11 i i ' Ih In the Supreme Court of Drilish Columhia. No. 15. Plaintiff's Cross- examiiiatiou de bene est. ; of John Cox before Deputy Kogistrar, 26th Aug., 1897 — continued. 24 RECORD. 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 ? .1. I don't think .o. Q. AVhodid the borings, you or Atherly, the two of you were there ? ^4. We sometimes took turn about in boring. Q. You cliange'i off? .1. Yes. Q. You used this inch and a (quarter for boring? .1. Yes. Q. Right through the chaj)ter with all the beams? .1. Yes. Q. Now you say you bored all the beams in tlie Esquimalt span that after- noon, and three beams of the Vietoria span ? .J. Y>:<. lo Q. Did you bore all on the .1. I would not swear at al' whether two outside of that or not, but there »vere nine in the whole in the two spans. Q. There were nine beams in the two spans altogether ? .1. Yes- Q. Those that were in the span? ^4. Xo, that were bored. ().. Tiiat were bored ? .1. Yes. Q. lie u>any were in the spans r A. There was six in one and tiiroe iu the other. Q. That would be if you bored all the beams in the Esquimalt span ? A. No, it would not; there were seven. ^. There Avere seven ? A. Seven floor beams not including the 20 Q. ^Vhy did you miss one if you were sent there to inspecn them all ? A. Well it Avas so. The way it is now, Q. The way it is now. What do you mean b\' that r .1. The beam is there now. Q. The beam is there now? that you did bore or did noi bore? .1. Did not b'jre. Q. That 's your reason for saying that you did not bore all the beams that were thore ^hen, in the Esquimalt span ? ^1. Yes. Q. iJceause you find a beam now that was not bored. A. It was not necefi- sary to bore them all, otherwise I would have bored the Vietoria •span all tlie 30 beams, naturally. I should have bored the Victoria span right thro igli, all the same way, but it wrs not necessary to do it when we found they weie a!' rotten, one after another, with the exception of the one on the Msquiundt '^paii. Q. All the bea!^us you found rotten ? A. Yes, eve one of them. Q. And you conelud.'d you would not bore unj- nvjre on the Victoria span, because all you boved on the other spai; were rotten? A. No, not at all, we did not have time. Q. Why didn't you o back to it ? A. We had next day. Q. Did you trll them you did not examine but the satisfied. (l- ')id you tell th::m that you liad not examine.! but Certainly, -ihere is the snan. Q. Who did yc/u tell 't A. M)' borings proved they v.'cre not all bored Thei'e were only nine parcels handed in tu the engineer. Q. Did yoa tell anybody what beams you had bored? A. Yes. Q. Wiio ? A. 'Ihc engineer. other work hrce ? .1 to do the They were 40 the three ? ^4. 25 Q. The specific beams you hud bored ? A. Yes. Q. Did you tell what beams you had bored ? -1. He knew perfectly well. Q. Did you tell him? A. Yes. 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. (^. 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 necessary. Q. Why not? ^1. Because everyone we had bored was rotten. 1^ (i. Because everyone you had bored was rotten ? A. Yej. Q. Then it is a fact that all the beams you bored were rotten ? A. Every one. (2- Everyone. They were pretty badly rotten too, weren't they? A. I believe thi-y were. Q. Yuu believe they were? A. Yes. Q. Then why didn't you replace all the beams in the bridge ? 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. 20 (,). Did you plug the holes, or any of them ? A. Yes, all that we bored with oakum. Q,. Did you plug any with wood? .1. No. (J. You were city carpenter from that period you spoke of in 1892? A. What is that? Q. You were city carptnter from the time you are talking about? A. Yes. Q. What date was it, now, about can you tell me the date in June, 1892? A. 16th, I think. Q. Fifteenth of June ? ^4. Tltc accident. 30 (2. I mean the time you bored? A. 1 cannot state ; it must have been the next the 1 6th. Q. So that you nmst have told Mr. Wilmot, the city engineer, that you did not bore these on the Victoria side, on the 17th? A. The next morning. Q. The next morning, would that be the 17tli? A. Yes. Q. Well, did you tell him that all the beams should be replaced? .1. I had nothing to do with that whatever, tolling him that. Q. Did you express any opinion about it at all? A. No; no conversation about it at the time at all. Q. Weren't }ou expected to make any report ? A. No. 40 Q. How were they going to find out your opinion whether they were rotten or no' P A. There was my opinion that was handed to them. (2- Was it your opinion ? A. Yes. (2. That was something that you bored out of tie beam? A. Yea. Q. And tiiey were rotten? .1. Yes. (,/. Everyone of them ? .1. Y'!S. Q. A'ery badly rotten? A. Yes, pretty bad. d " B RECORD. In the Supreme Court of British Columbir,. No. 15. Plaintiffs Case. Cro33- exnrainatiou de bene esse of John Gox, before Deputy Registrar, 2Gth Aug., 1897 — continued. I I m flu I I '/ I- RECORD. In the Supreme Court of British Columbia. No. 15. Plaintirs Case. A. No. You never did, in fact, then, bore the other beams in the Victoria span ? Cross- examination de bene esse of John Cox before Deputy Registrar, 2Gth Aug., 1897 — continued. Q. But they were replaced ? A. I believe they were afterwards. ' .4. I didn't l:now for some time ; I had nothing i Q. You know they were ? to do with it. Q. Didn't you know in fact that they were ? A. No. Q. As city carpenter, it was your duty to see whetiier those things were sound ? il. No ; the city took tho.^e things out of my hands. Q. Wasn't it your duty to circulate about the city to ascertain whotlier the bridges and sidewalks were in good condition or rotten ? A. I had nothing to do 10 with it in that case. It wus placed in their own hands, and I had nothing to do with it. Q. Wasn't it your business to ascertain whether or not this material was rotten ? A. It was not my business at all. Q. What was your business? A. To ascertain whether they were rotten. Q. To ascertain whether they were rotten, to iind out whether the materials were rotten, the sidewalks and bridges in the city? -(. You mean previous to the accident ? Q. At the time of the accident ? -1. I had not got the chance to do it, when I was ordered the next minute almost 20 Q. At any time was it part of your duty to see the sidewalks tiud bridges as to rottenness? A, On th' -.."face on the road, notliing underneath. Q. Who did ic underneath '^ A, There was nothing done underneath. Q. Nobody inspected underneath? ,.1. 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,. riidn't you look at the otlier beams to find out whether they Avere rotten or not? A. You could not do it in this case. Q. Was not that Avhat you v/ere employed to do? A. No; it was not because you could not do it. 30 (2- Why not? Was not that what you were employed for? A. Not particularly. Q. Well, generally? .1. Well, at the close of the year. Q. In 1895, you reported on it? -I. Yes. Q. And you reported it sound? .1. Yes, as far as I could say. Q. You reported it. Did you look at it then ? ^1 . No. Q. Did you know these beams were rotten in 18!)2? And yet you reported that some of those old beams in there were sound? .1. I had no report in 1892. Q. You have told us that they were rotten in 1892, and some old beams 40 were left in the bridge that were rotten, and yet in IS 95 you reported it sound to the council ? A. Yes; it was their place to take those two beams out, not mine. Q. Yes; but you knew they were in there when you made the report in 1895? A. I did not know. I did not ^o over the bridge. Q. You made the report without examining the bridge? A. Certainly. Q. And that is the way you did? A. That is the way it was dune in all cases. 27 (3. Didn't you tbink that it was your duty A. I was not allowed. Q You made a report, which you signed, not knowing anything about it? A. Yes. Q. And \et you knew in 1892 it was rotten, badly rotten? A. Yes, it proved itself in 1892 that it was rotten. Q. Now, )ou testified in a case of Gordon against the Corporation of Victoria, in Vancouver? A. No. Q. Patterson, I mean to say, and the Corporation of Victoria in Vancouver? A. Yes. 10 Q. A short time ago ? A. Yes. Q. You testified there as to the boring of the beams. Now was there any- body else whose business it was to bore iiud exumliie these beams in this bridge ill 1892? Anybody but yourself? A. No Q. And it Avas not examined by anybody in 1892, as far as you know, but yourself? ^4. There was no one sent to do it. Q. There w^^ no officer of the city who had any business to do it except you ? A. No ; not at that time. (2. Nor from 1892 to 189G? yl. No. Q. As long as you were in the employ of the city? A. No. 20 Q- As far as you know, no one did other than yourself? A. No. Q. Is not that right? "What do you say? A. Explain that again. Q. So far as you know, no person other than yourself ever bored Point EUice Bridge from 1892 to 1896? .4. I don't know that they did. (}. You don't think they did? .4. No. If there was, it was done unbeknown to me. Q. Now during the times, Mr. Cox, you were not actively employed in repairing something, Avhat did you do ? A. What ? Q. For instance, you Avcre working on a yearly salary from the city at that time? A. A monthly salary. 30 Q. You were not engaged every day in x'epairing the sidewt.lks and bridges? A. Pretty near; you can see items there where I have been every day of the week on bridges. Q. P)Ut during the time you were not actively employed in repairing, what did you do? .4. Do you imagine a man could walk over 150 miles a day on sidewalk? Q. No ? A. That was my duty. (^,. It was your duty to walk ahout the city and ascertain the condition of the sidewalks? A. Yes. Q. And wherever any repa'.-s were needed, to do it? .1. Yes; small 40 repairs we might handle it. (i. At any rate you reported whether they wanted repairs or not; and if they were small repairs you repaired them, and big ones you reported? .4. Somebody else did them. Q. But you '-eported? .4. Yes. Q. At the time you were not repairing, you were looking about the city to RECORD. fn the Supreme Court of British Columbia. No. 15. PlainlitTs Case. Ciosa- cxaminatiou de hme esse of John C!ox before Deputy Registrar, 26th Aug.^ 1897 —continued. '-i find out wluillirt iiitything needi d repau-ing Q. That is what you were there lor ? d ? .1. That is riiilit. .4. Yes. £ 2 IT ll UECORD. In the Supreme Court of British Columbia. No. 15. Plaintiff's Case. Cross- cxaminntion de bene case of John Cox before Deputy Regiatrar, 26th Aug., 1897 — continued. A. Yes. The one we had to use Why; it was the one yl. Yes. 28 Q. So that you were busy all the time. Now this auger you used you produced in Vancouver didn't you ? .1. I believe so, Q. It was all you used that day in all those beams? Q. Why did you produce that particular auger? A. at that time. Q. What? A. That was my auger. Q. Why did you produce that particular augev ? .4. that was used. Q. It was the one that was used al! the way through ? Q. It was an inch and a quarter auger? A. Yes. 10 Q. I suppose you had half a dozen augers there, hadn't you ? .1. No. Q. Are you sure about that ? A . Yes, Q. Now, be 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 ? A. Yes; I did use my own tools. Q. And that was your own? A. That was mine. Q. And it was the only one you had I suppose at the time? A. Yes. Q. So that you are positive about that inch and a quarter auger? A. Ye3. Q. And they were all bored with that, whatever you did? .1. Yes. Q. There can be no doubt about that? A. Well, I don't think there is any 20 doubt about it whatever. Q. Answer very carefully, Mr. Cox, now, because it is possible, you know, that you might have? A. No; it was the only auger, and it was my own. Q. It was the only auger you used: the city did not have any tools, and it was the only auger you had down there? A. Yes; it was the only auger I used; the city did not have an auger at the time, Q. Now, you bored the beams in the Esquimalt span, and you bored three beams you say in the Victoria span? A. Yes. Q. Now you testified in Vancouver that you bored those beams in both ends — north and south ends ? ,1. No. 30 Q. You did not. I will see whether you did or not, and I will rend it to you; beginning at i'.nc 25 on page 1)4, down to line 14 on the succeeding page 9o. I will tell you what you said there. You were asked first, " Will you tell us why you remember boring only three in that span? (A.) Yes. (Q,.) Why? (i4.) It was getting late in the afternoon, and it was somewhere near four o'clock, and to complete the thing, I had another man round ; and I says to this man ; ' Go back and put on those planks that we had tore up to bore tiiose other beams both in the north and south side'" A. Yes; on the sidewalk and not the roadway. Q. He was to put in those planks that were torn up both on the north and *0 south side ? yl. Yes, that is right. Q. — " To make the place secure for the night ; and I will bore these beams. We had started one. I says, I will comi)lete 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 those three at that time. (Q.) Which part of the beam of those three did you bore? There is the north side ? " The north side is the Gorge side? A. Yes. j i 29 Q. "(^.) Yes, it was the north side; we bored the south and north side both ; but it was the north at that time when I say I told the man to fjo back and put on those planks, to nail them down and make theni secure. When ho leit me boriiiir; I bored on the Gorge 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? A. Yes. Q. And you answered: "We bored the south and north side both." A. No; I distinctly remember about that. 10 Q. You swear that you did not &.iy that ? A. Yes; the nortli and south side of the Ksquimalt span ; that was understood; but it was misconstrued there. Q. "Which part of the beam of tliose three did you bore?" A. On the north side. Q. " It was the north side; we bored tiie north and south side both ?" A. No; not on that span. (^^^Jllia.t-Statement was not true? yl. No. Q^Viisn't your attention called to it ? A. No. Q. What do you mean then on the other span? What did you mean by this 20 then: "Go back and |»ut on those planks that we had tore up to bore those other beams, both on the north and south side ?" A. This is on the north and south side, on the sidewalk. You havo got it wrong. The ])eams were bored on the Esrpnnialt side on the north and south side, Q. They were bored on both ends you mean ? ^1. That is the meaning of it. Q. That is what Avas meant tliere ; " We bored the north and south side " meaning both ends? .1. It means, "You go back and put in the planks on the north and south side that were torn up." (2- But you had not bored these on the north and south side; why did you 30 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. Q. Did you in the Ksquimalt span? A. Yes, Why tlid you do it in one and not the other IlECORD. time teiiig r( -(IT In the Supreme Ciiurt of . British ' Columbia. No, 15. Plaintiff's Case. Cross- examiuutiou (le bene esse of John Cox before Deputy I'esistrar, 2Gth Aug., 1S97 — continued, ' Q. Why tlid vou do it in one and not the other ? A. Wo didn't have Q. Why didn't you go back and finish it? J. We wasn't ordered to do it. (}. You were asked to bore and find out the condition of the bridge? .1. We were not ordered to do any more boring; we bored that day, and that was sufficient. 40 Q. And you might havo bored one beam, and if it was five o'clock you would call that sulRcient? ^1. Yes, if they ordered it. Q. And then report tiie bridge in sound condition ? ..1. It was quite sufficient to report the bridge rottet;. as far as the beams. (2- How do you explain your report then in 1895 that it was sound, when this beam had not been removed? .1. There wasn't any question about its b eing rotten, I don't know, if it is not bored underneath it is not Dored on top. VVTiatls not bored on top? A. That I think, it is the number one, I would I : *■'' "i\ // HECOUD. In the Supreme Court of British Columbia. No. If). , Plaintiff's Case. ' Cross- examination f/e bene esse of John Cox l)efore Deputy Registrar, 26th Ang., 1897 — continued. 30 not be sure on the Esquiinalt span — on the north side, it is bored underneath, and the other side it is bored on top. Q. You bored some underneath and some on top? A. That is what we did. 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 but one or two of them. Q. You bored one beam on the Esquimalt side at the bottom, and you found that absolutely rotten ? .1. Yes; worse than the top. Q. And then you bored the others from the top of the beam ? .1. Yes. Q. And you lound them absolutely rotten ? A. Yes. Q. You did that with the Esquimalt span ? A. Esquimalt span only. Q. And then you bored three of the beams on the Victoria side, on the top ? A. Yes. Q. And found them absolutely rotten ? .4. "1 es. Q. And you found the condition of the beams on the Esquimalt span was a little more rotten when bored from the bottom than when bored Irom the top? A. Yes; the one that we bored. A. Yes. reported the next 10 Q. And they 'vcre all rotten and unsafe at that time ? Q. And you were aware of that I'act ? A. Yes. Q. And you did not report that to anybody ? A. It was 20 morning. Q. You handed in those borings? A. That was what we did. Q. You say this particular beam in the Victoria span you handed in the borings to let them see for themselves? A. Yes. (}. That was your idea in doing it? A. Yes. Q. I see. Well, Mr. Cox, I would like to ask you how could you, knowing these beams were absnlntely rotten in 1892, make a report in 1895 that the bridge was sound? .1. We didn't know — I had no business to touch the remov- ing of anything. : Q. You knew they had not been removed? A. Do you suppose for a minute that I should say: Mere, Mr. Wilmot, there are two beams in that bridge, and you have not removed them, and you ought to remove thera ? Q. You knew they were rotten, did you not ? A. Yes were rotten. Q, You knew th(;y were absolutely rotten at that time ? Q. liadly rotten? A. Yes badly rotten. Q. Then, I say, how did you report them sound to the city in 1895 ? did not report anything sound. did? A. Not the beams; there is not a word about the ^0 and he knew they A. I did. A. I Yes, you A. the Generally, beams? -1. Include the whole bridge a beams. Q. You reported the bridge ? Q. Would not that include generally. Q. If you were employed to examine the bridge and ascertain whether it was rotten or not, and you found the bridge rotten, Avould you report it sound? J. If I was to report upon a beam, that is another question. 31 Q. You reported this bridge sound ? .1. I reported the bridge in good condition. Q. Was it in good condition ? A. The roadway was in good condition, and the piles, and that is all 1 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 ? ^l. Yes. Q. Including this number, three beams that gave way? A. Yes. Q. And it was more rotten at the bottom than it was at the top? 10 A Yes. Q. Now let me clear up a point. The beams that you bored in the Esquimalt span you bored on the north side? A. The Esquimalt span upon north and south side. Q. You bored the beams on the Esquimalt span both on the north and on the south ends? A. Yes. (I, With the same auger that you bored these beams? A. Yes. Q. And you put one liole in each end, I suppose, in each timber ? .1. Just one. Q. Just one. And no one else, as far as you were aware, bored the beams? 20 A. I don't know of any that I am aware of. Q. And you are quite positive that you used your own auger P A. Yes. Q. And that was the auger you produced, the inch and a quarter auger? A. Yes. ()„ That was the only auger you had there? A. Yes. I). How do you remember that auger so well all these 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. Wiien you speak of an auger what do you mean? You drew a distinc- 30 tion to my Icin-ned friend ; when he referred to an auger, you said a bit ? A. A bit; and an auger is another thing. Q. A bit and an auger are two things ? A. A bit is another thing. Q. Am I to understand that the handle constitutes the auger and the screw is the bit? .1. Yes. Q. And it was the screw that you produced in Vancouver, an inch and a quarter screw? .1. Not an inch and a quarter handle. Q. What? .1. 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 wooden handle? .1. Yes. 40 Q. Horizontal ? A. Yes. Q. And it is attached perpendicularly to that horizontal handle ? .1. Yes, that is cori'ect. Q. The auger that you used then was an inch and a quarter? A. Yes; that is the one. Q- When you spoke to my learned friend about a bit, what did you mean? A. A bit is what we use with a brace — this wny — (making circuhu* motion). Q. A small A. A small little thing. RECOUD. In the Supreme Court of British Columbia, No. 15. Plaintitfs Case. Cross- cxamiiiatiou de bene ease of John Oox before Deputy Registrar, riGtli Aug., 1897 — continued. I'M- 1^ ■■! "i? t- 4, j 32 RECORD. In the Supreine (hurt of British Columbia, No. 15. Plaintiff'8 Casu. Cross- examinntion de bene ease of John Cox before Deputy Registrar, 26th Aug., 1897 ^ continued. Q. The same construction as an aii^er ? A. Pi'tty much only niuch smaller. (I. You clitl not use a bit? A. No. (2. Would you call a hole five-cier or a bit? Q. There is no distinction c.Kccpt the handle you put on them? A. That may be it. Q. I just want to understand it? ^1. Yes; that is it; that is so. Those small ones are what we call a brace and bit. Q. AVould you be surprised to find that the holes put in there were five- 10 eighth inch holes? .1. No. Q. You have just sworn they were inch and a quarter? somebody else put them in. (2. If there were any such holes, when were they bored ? Thev may have been bored when the thing was put A. No: there was A. I on, or jn't know, when the accident was, or when Mcintosh put those beams on. There was lots of repairs done. Q. You examined them in j8y2. Were there any holes in them then other than the ones you bored P A. I never saw any; it is possible there were. Q. But you never saw any other holes? A. No. 20 Q. Now, Mr. Athcrly, who was with you at the time you did those borings; he also states you bored these beams at both ends? A. Yes. '.}. lie is wrong about that? A. Not in the Victoria span ? A. No — he bored in the other span, not in the Victoria span at all. Q, You have already told me that what you swore at Vancouver on that part is not true? Mr. Macdonell: No, he said it was improperly reported. Q. Now listen to this, at page 273 of the appeal book, the testimony in " What w.is he soing to do while Patterson and the Corporation at the trial. you were doing that? (A.) lie was going to finish the boring sir. {(2) He 30 was going to finish the boring, and where ; as you went away to put the planks down on the I'lsipiimalt span, where did he go on with the boring. (A.) He started right to bore on towards the Victoria side. (Q.) On towards Victoria. And at which end of the span? That would be the side towards the Gorge, or the other side that he went on to bore? (.1.) We bored it en both sides.'' You say that statement is not true ? A. He did not bore on the Victoria side at all. Mr. Macdonell : Just continue, you will find that he refers l^. Here is the next question: "(^2-) I know, but the Victoria side I am speaking of, now, that we went to bore when you went on putting the ])lanking 40 down? (.1.) On the Gorge side " AVell that is the same thing. That is what they both said. thor(; at the time, they were putting the [jlank in they weie boring on both sides. You say thcsejitjitements are not true at ajiy rate? A, I say thev aint. " ' (>. Now I will read from your report here that you made in 1895. After enumerating a number of sidewalks and bridges in the city that you deal Avith, vou sav Point EUiee Bridge in jjood condition ? A Yes. 33 Q. Now you got written instructions to exumine that, didn't you? A. No, KECOKD. 20 none. Q. Didn't you get a letter from Mr. Wihnot? .1. No, sir ; and further than that 1 had no instructions generally either ; that was all my own object that I made a general report. Q. It was all your own object eh? .1. Yes, I never had any instructions from any one. (2- What do you mean by starting it out this way. In compliance with your rL'(|uest I beg to submit here the following report with reference to side- 10 walks, water tanks and bridges. What did you say that for? ^1. Well, I thought it might be my duty to do so. (2. You thought it Avas your duty to do so? A. 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. Q. You say there was no letter to you to do it P yJ. No. Q. 1 will show you a letter pretty soon. .1. If it is tlicre I did not get it. (J,. Did you ever tell anybody that you ]iluLrged those holes you did bore with oakum'i' .1. Not tnat I am aware of; everybody knew it. Q. Did yon tell anybody? .1. Not particularly as I know of. Q. Was anybody there besides you and A tlierly? .1. Mayor Beaven and tlie 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 borimr and hand it to the Mayor." And lie said, " That is pretty looking stufr." (}. He saw it was rotten? .1. Yes. Q. Did you do the plugging when they were there? A. No, tiie next day. Q. Was there anybody there then? ^1. Not that I an; aware of. 30 Q. Did you tell anj-body you had plugged tliem? ..1. No, I did not. Q. Was that a good way to plug them ? A. 1 don't know, it might keep the water out and it might not, Q. Why didn't you plug them with wood? A. What would be the use of wood any more than oakum? Q. Wouldn't it keep the water out better ? A Not a bit of it. ^2. Not a bit of it? A. No. (2. If you put a little tar with that oakum it would make it water tight? .1. No, if you rilled it with wliite lead it might have done. (,K Would not tar help it? .1. No, tar would soak right into the hole. 40 (/. It would act to keep water out of the wood ? .1. I don't think so. Q. Did you plug that good and tight with oakum? A, I expect we did, with a stick as welt as we could. Q. You did j)lug it good and tight with the stick? -1, Yes. Q. How did you pound it in? A. Pounded it in witli a hammer. (^K Put a stick on top and drove it in with a hammer, did you? A. Yes. Q. That is the way they caulked boats, is it not? A. Something like that, I believe ; I never caulked boats. In thi- Supreme Court of British , Columbiaf-\ ■ ^ No. 1.-,., Plaintiff's Caj»e. Cross- cxiiinin ation (If heiw esse of Joim Cox, before Dcpiity Registrar, 2(;tli Aug., 1897 — continued. ■ I ir 34 * •- RECOiiD. In the Suprtme Court of British Columbia, No. 15. FlRintiflfs Case. Cross- examiaation de bene esse of John Cox, before Deputy Itegistrar, 26th August, 1897 —continued. Q. Is thnt the stuff that i.s used to keep water out ? A. Yes; but it is put in a different wiiy to that. Q. You put this in the hoh-, I understand, and then put a stick or plug and hammered it in? A. A stick similar to the size of the liole, and tiien tamped it. Q. Drove it in tiglit? .1. Yes. Q. Water couhl not n;et in on top of that? .1. Yes. You might as well say that water would not rro through a salt ba":. Q. What did yon put it in for? A, Well, orders is orders. Q. Who did you p^et the order.s from ? .1. That gentleman there. W Q. That is Mr. Wilmot ? A. Mr. Wilmot. Q. Well now were you told to [)lug it with oakum? .1. Yes. Q. Or, were you told just to plug it? A. I was told to plug it with oakum, and the order I received for the oakum and the tar. But the tar was not for the holes, it was for the painting of the columns. (2. The painting of the columns underneath. Now what u.-so would a quart of tar be to paint tliose columns ? A, Well, I don't know. Q, Would it go anything like around them. A. Not half way. (}. But there would be enough with this oakum to jdug up the holes with, wasn't there ? A, Oakum. 20 Q. Yes put the oakum in, and tamp it as you say, and then put tar on it? A. No. (2. There was enough tar? .1 There was no tar in them at all. 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 30 and plug the holes with oakum ? .1. Yes, what did he give the order for. Q, Did he tell you? ,1. Most decidedly lie did. Q. What did he say to you? -^-l. " 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). /]. It is a private book, it does not belong to the city. Q. It is impounded for this case ? .1. 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? A. It might be a scrap book. The book was here put in marked exhibit A. 40 (2- 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 unsafe ? A. They ought not to have been there. Q, In 1892 ? A. Never ought to have been left in. Q. Of course it would get a good deal worse every year after that? A. It was bad enough then. 35 10 20 40 It out. Q. It wim bad enough then ? A. 1 don't see why they did not tnke them all ^'CORD. A, They saw enough of nine to the nine that wore bored; it this number 3 and found it Take Cross- Q. You don't see why they did not take them all out — in fact they were so rotten they ought all to liave been taken out ? remove the other three, you see. Q. What is that? A. They saw enough of should have satisfic.-d them they were all rotten. Q. That is when I understand you bored absolutely rotten loo? A. Yes; bored underneath. 10 (}. How was it rotten, half or three-quarters of the way through? the top and bottom, I guess it was pretty nearly half. Q. Take the rott(>n part out, nearly rotten through. ]\Ir. Maedonell: (J. What beam is that, number 3 ? .1. The one that is there now. Q. Number 3 is not there now at all? A. I mean the one that is there now. Mr. Tnylor: Q. Vou said they were all alike, didn't you? Mr, Macdonell: lie said the one that is there now. 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 20 then? J. Yes. Q. And they were all about in the same condition ? ^l. 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? Q. The one that broke in the accident, in the Victoria span, the number 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 ? ^l. Ycs, about that, all of that, I calculated there was nine — I calculated the eleventh 80 beam was the only one — I think it must have been this one that is there now that had about nine inches of solid wood in it. Q. The one that is there now ? A. Yes. Q. Which one is that ? A. The one that is bored underneath. Q. In the Esquimalt span? A. Yes. Q. 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. What is the size of the beam? A. About the same size. 40 Q. About 18 inches; and then it was rotten about halfway through? A. Yes. And it was better than the rest of them? A. Yes. And this number 3 beam that broke at the time of the accident In the Supremo Court of Britiih Columbia, No. 15. riaiiitiffd' Casu. A Q. Q. Q. Q. A. Yes. Q. Mr cxniniiiation de bene esse of John Cox beforo lii'puty l>c(j;i.strar, 2(!tli Auguitt, 1897 — cnntiniud. That was worse. Macdoimell : There is no evidence that number 3 broke at all. If you will place it on the map The Witness : Give me a pen and then go on and then we will see. d F 2 // 4 36 RECORD. Q. T tlioii^rlit we were tiilkin^f about the same thing. Tiike the Victoria span, I tliiiik you horu'd three beatns? A. Yes. ji In Ihe Supreme Court of liritiaf, Columhiri. I No 15. I'laintiff'a If ff (j,. The o!ie iRiirest. Victoria we will call nuiuber 3. ..-l. Yes. Q. The one nearest the I'.stjuiinalt end would be number one, and tlie one next to it number two ? A. Yes. Q. 1 am rcrerriiii^ to number three. Now the beam in ti>e Es(|uimalt span, /the beam was soMd about nine inches? ,1. Yes. Q. ^nd file other beams tliat yon l)ored inehided three in the Victoria span, and were in a I'-oi'sc condition tlian thiit ? A, Yes, that is the meanin;; of it. I i CroM- Q- That is what I understood \'ou. Now this diagram that is e.\liil)it li in \q fxamiiintion tlm foruier trial; (handed lo Witness). The beam you have referred to in tlie ''f iT c" Hsfpji'nalt span is not shown on this diagram? .1. I see it is not. hdore // '' ^^' -'^^ bein;^' rotten halt through, and the otluM" beams in the Ivsquimalt Dciiiity /' span and the one, two and three in the Victoria span were still worse rotten? JtcgUti*, A. Yes. -f-lS'jV^"^' /! a More rot in them? .4. Yes. "\ continued. ^- And number three then wouid be more rotten than halfway throu;>h? // A. I would not — it is hard to say; it may be an inch either way. They were // bad enough. / I Q. They were bad eiiougli to be taken out at once, any way ? .1. Yes. 20 Q. Now, .Mr. Cox, didn't you receive instructions from Mr. Wilmot in writing to make your report in 18:)"), on December I8th in a letter in the following words: "J. Cox, Esq., City Car[)enter, Dear sir, I wish you would make inspec- tion of the (bllowing bridges, namely, James iJay, Point EUice, and Mock IJay bridges, and I'eport 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, E. 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"? .1. I don't remember receiving that order; I made my report Irom my own knowledge. 30 Q. Isn't it probable you did get that ? A. Well, I might have, I would not swear to that. If I had, I think i should have had it by me. (^. What is that? A. If 1 had been served with a report I think I should have had it by me. Q. Well, you were as a matter of fact. (The diagram which was marked exhibit R in the P.atterson case was put in by Mr. Taylor, marked exhibit B.) __^ Q. Now, Mr. Cox, do you remember the beam you bored from underneath, you say, in the Esquimalt span — where was that ? What part of the Esquimalt span? A. What beam ? 40 • Q. You say that one beam in the Esquimalt span you bored underneath, you know, atid tound it very rotten, and the rest you bored on top? .1. It may be number two or tliree on the west end; 1 would not swear whether it is or not. Q. That would be the Esquimalt end of the bridge? A. I would not say which one. 37 Q,. It wns in fact in the Esquimalt span? A, I know wc did bore one under- neath, and that is what took up ho much time. (). That l)(iun was under the hip vertical ? .4. It mij^ht be, I think not — it may be I would not swear. Q. You are not positive about it? ^l. No. Q. That beam i.s tliere now, isn't it? A. There is one there. I believe. (). There is one there, you believe. Now look here, Mr. Cox, do you know how many old beams were left in the Esfiuimalt span? A. I do not. Q. You do not. You have not examined it since, the Esquimalt span? A. 10 1 have been over the bridge, but as to what is in or out, I don't know. (I. You knew there were' some old beams left in the l']s(|uimalt span? .1. I believe there was one, I think there was one, in the Victoria span, I am not sure. Q. At any rate, the one that you bored underneath and found badly rotten there, wns towards the west end of tiie l)rid;^fe? The Esquimalt end? A. Probably in the centre — it mifjht have bici; four, five or six. I would not say; fourth, iifth or sixth beam, 1 would not say. Q. You told me — mentioned that you bored it at the Esquimalt end under- neath the beam? A. Yes, one or two, I would not say. 20 Q- < 'ne or two from the Es(|uinialt end? A. Yes, on the Esquimalt span. I would not say there was more than one; there might possibly have been two. It took up too much timo. Q. Well that would be the west end of the bridge then? .1. Pretty well along there. (I. The west end of the Esquimalt span ? A. Yes. (1- I think you have already explained that you bored on the sidewalk side in every case? ^'1. Yes. Q. That would be on the outside of the tracks? A. On the outside; we could not get inside without tearing up the floor of the bridge. 3Q Q. You bored on tlio sidewalk sicle in each instance, both in the Esquimalt span and the Victoria span ? J. I ))elieve so, except what was bored underneath. (). .And you said that was, as near as you could recollect, six or seven inciies from the hanger holes? .1. Pretty near that, probably a liUle_more^hat_ is, the top of the holes might have been more than that. Q. You laid the sidewalk over them ajzain? A, Yes. Q. Then the sidewalk would be over the iioles ? A. Yes practically. Q. 'i'he boards of the sidewalk would be over the holes that you bored? A. Yes. Q. How do you account for this beam number seven in the Victoria span 40 having been bored ? A. I don't know. Q. You told me that you were the only person to do that, and that you never bored any more tlian three in the Victoria span ? A. I never bored any more than those three, and was not aware that any of them were bored. Q. And that you were ui charge Irom 1892 to 1896; you must have quit shortly before this accident? A. In April. Q. And the accident was on the 2Gth of May, just a month after you quit? A. Something like that, yes. RECOIU). In the Siipmne ('i)iirt tif lintish ( 'ii/iimbia. No. 1.5. Pliiimiir'.s Caso. Cro.'s- oxiiiiiination (le hriie cute of Joliii C'lj.i, hefiirc IX'piity Hn},'i-tiar, 2(Jtli Au«., 1897 — continued. ii // 38 r I RFCORD. In the Supreme Court of British CoUmbiii No. 15. PlaintiflTo Case Cross- examination (li bene cuse of John Cox, beforp Depaty Registrar, 26th Aug., 1897 — continued. 9 11 Q. And you are not awnve of ixnyone else havinir tKTipered with the bridge during tliat month? A. No, I don't think there could have been anything done between that time and the accident. Q. And thc^e was no one authorized to deal with it as far as you knew but yourself, from April, 1892 to April, 1896? Q. No, nothing, Woil, I believe there \vm some mnn sent there in one case, to block up t!.p en.st end, that was underneath, on the right L-ide line. Q Tliat would not he on the ^pan that stands? A. Not in the spnii at all, right on the embankment, lacing on the road. It was r;ght on the bank. That is all that I remember of nnyyne else having anything to do with it. 10 Q- Now, Mr. Cox, you are pi etty familiar with all the circumstances; the fact of the matter is tliat beam was rotten in 1892, and should have been out; hat is it, isn't it? .1. That is it. Q. And you do not for a moment say that that hole of yours caused it to be rotten; it was rotten at th(! time? A. It made it worse. 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 you say it was any use plugging them that way, which would let water in? Mr '"^Hcdonnell: It v/as accordiuff to instructions? .1. l'luo;<];cd with (he 20 oukuinj iiu is all I know. Q. But you tell me that it was no good? A. A good soldier does what he is told you know. (2. You were to go and plug it afterwards? A. Not afterwards. Not after- wards, it was plugged first, and not afterwards. Q. \ mean pli ggcd after you bored the hclc ; you could not do it before you uoi'dd the hole. \: u yon left it i;* si'.ch a condition that the water would get in? A. It ia bound to get in. How does it get through a ship? Q. Wjy di I you here the beams i;. that Ava) at all? A. I had orders to do it, 30 Q. An.l you made no report lo them it was rotten? A. Yes. Q. E.xcept handing in the borings? A. That is it. Q. That is it? .4. That is enough, I think. Q. Because it was in su' ii a bad condition that anybody could see it? A. No, you could not see it; you -ould not tell but that beam was as sound as a new beam till you went into the centre. Q,. Until you bored ? ^1, Yes. Q. And then you found it out? ^1. Yes. Q. And th';n it was ;otten in the centre: A. Yes, pretty much. Q. Did you consider it safe then if there was any weight on it? A. Of 40 course after the accident you could see. Q. They should liave been taken out then, they were all rottf^n then in 1892 on the inside ? A. Yes. Re-ejiiamina- tioa. lie-examined by Mr. Macdonell. Q. Mr. Cox, when you wero requested to inspect the bridge that was f suppose simply superfi'^ial inspection, was it ? Superficial, what yoi. could see from the outside? 39 Mr. Taylor: I object. A. That is all. Mr. Taylor : I submit that is not a proper question. He may be asked by my learned friend what instructions he got. What construction he put upon that instruction is for the Court, and not for him to determine. Q. You are not a civil engineer ^ A. Me, no. Q. The person to make a minute Inspection of the bridge, or bridges was Mr. Wilmot? A. Yes. Q. Do you know that he ever did that himself? ^. I do not. 10 Q. And the inspection that you made was a superficial ins])ection ? .1. It was just— well you might say partial — ^just as you might walk over it or go under it in a boat. Q. Did you tell Mr. Wilmot the kind of inspection you made? -^1. lie knew the kind of inspection. Q. He knew the kind of inspection you made? A. I could not make any other. Q. Now Mr. Cox you did not bore the under part of No. 3 beam in the Victoria span '^ A. No. 0,. So you do not know whether it was rotten underneath or not ? /I. I JO cannoi say. Q. You bored into it seven inches or thereabouts? A. Thereabouts. Q,. When you say it was rotten you mean traces of rot were in that seven inches? A. Dry rot. traces of it? A. Yes. Q. It migh', have stood for a year or two in that way? A. Yes, it might and perhaps more. Q. But being plugged with onkum would allow the water to get in and increase the rot? A. Yes. Q. Very materially would it increase the rot ? A. Fifty per cent. Q. The oakum being in there would increase the rot fifty per cent. Are 30 you sure that Mr. Wilmot saw the borings of those beams? A. lie must iiave saw it. He stood there in front of me, and the mayor, both of them. Q. At the time you wen- boring? .4. Yes, Atherly handed it to him in his hand. Q. Handed them the borings? A. Yes. Q. And showed them the condition of the borings? A. Yes; and the mayor, he put his fingers no and says " That is queer looking stufif' ; tiiat is Mayor beaveu. Q. i»nd afterwards they were put in ))apers and numbered? J They were kept separate, put in papers and numbered. 40 Q. And handed to Mr. Wilmot ? A. Handed it to Mr. Wilmot the next morning, and I laid it on his desk. What thuy did with it I don't know. It was there for them to see. l.'oine were a little more than others decayed. Q. Who else ivorked on that bridge? A. Atherly. Q. Anyone 'jlse? .1. Not with nie. Q. Hesidco you, not with you, but. out.siiU' of you, did anybody else work ? A. Oh, there was a doztii worked on the bridge beside me. I had no occasion to cover any of it except planks, that is. all. RECOUD. In the Supreme Court of British Columbia, No. 15. Plaintiff's Case. Ro-cxamina- tion f/« I'ltne esse of John Cox, before Deputy Registrar, 2f>tli Aug., 1897 — ciintinued. If i» -I I "^ . 40 RECORD. /n thi Supreme Court of Bri/is/i Columbia. No. 15. Plaiiitifl's Case. lie-examina- tion lie bene esse of .loiin Cox, b«ture Depnty Henijirnr, 2f)th .\ii),'., 1897 — r'jiilliiued. No. 16. I'liiintirs Case. Evideiiwj f/f Ji liiii ( 'ox, taken at the trial of Patterson »■. Victoria, on the 20th May, 181»7. Examination Q. You don't know whether any of the other.s bored any of t'.ie l)eams or not? A, I do not. They may have been bored with Mclntcsh, or ElUott, or any of them. Q. Did you use a five-eighths aui^er at all ? A. No, I did not. Q. The aun;er that you used was the ineh and a quarter? .1. Thiir was the only borinjif I evor did. Q. That wa3 the only boring you ever did, and that was the auger you used? A. Yes. Q. And you put no wooden plugs in any of the beams? A. No, I did not; otily oakum. 10 The examination here closed. 'm 1 No. 16. Evidence of John Cox at the trial of Patterson v. Victoria. Taken 20th May, 1897. John Cox, of Yict(jna, called and sworn. Examined h/ Mr. Macdoneil. Q. What is your iiameV .1. John Cox. Q. Where do you live, Mr. Cox? A Victoria. Q. Were you in the employ of the city of Victoria in the year '92 ? A. '91, sir. Q. Jn what capacity? A. I was acting as city carpenter. 20 Q.. What were your duties? .1. My duty was to look alter the sidewalks, bridges, etc, and report the same to the engineer. (2- What was your salary? A. \ was getting the same at that time in '91 — the .sstme as the men that was under nie — no more. Q. How much? A. That was !52.50 a day — when you work. Q. W^ere you sole city cari)enter — or was there any 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 I was appointed [)ermanently carj)enter. Q. And what official was over you? A. The city engineer. 80 Q. Who is he? A. Mr. Wilmot. Q. The Mr. Wilmot that w.as here? A. That is the gentleman. Q. And you took your instructions from him ? A. Yes, sir. (2. Im '92 do yon remember an accident on the Point EUice bridge? A. Yes, sir. Q. You remember the bridge being repaired? .1. Yes. (^, Dia 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? A. Well, the only repairs I did prior to the accident wa« just on the platform on top of the sidewalk. 40 Q. After the accident did you get any special instructions from Mr. Wilmot in 1892? A. Yes. ^ WkiA were those instructions? A. The next morning after the accident 41 '•TYP'S happened in the afternoon — one, two or three o'clock were to bore this beam that gave way — or to bore the beams of the bridfijc — this and all. Q. For what purpose ? A. To ascertain whether the hangers — what state they were in. Q. That is, to see whether they were rotten or not ? A. Whether they were rotten or not. (2- Do you remember when that was — the month? .4. I believe it was about from the 12th to the 15th or thereabout, in June. Q. 181)2? -1. I would not swear exactly, but I think thereabout in 1892. 10 The next moniing after tiie accident, I got those instructions. Q. In pursuance of those instructions, what did you do? A. I bored those beams and handed it to tlic city engineer sejjai'ately in paper and numbered. 1 t^ok it into the otHce, and handed it to .Mr. Wilmot. Q. There were two spans in the bridge? A. Yes. Q. There wns a span towards the Esquimalt side of the bridge? -1. Yes. Q. And a span towards the Victoria side? .1. Yes. Q. VVIiat thiy call a whi|)ple truss? .1. Yes. Q. That is the span towards the Victoria side. You enter the bridge from Victoria here (indicatuig on plan), there is a I'ratt combination comes in, this large 20 span. You enter from the Victoria side aiid go across there, here; that is the end of the lirst span? A. Yes. Q. And then you enter the second span? A. Yes. Q. That IS the span that collapsed. Now, you can call it No. 1 or No. 2. In that span it has been sworn there were seven bearns. A. Yes, one in each panel. Q. Will you point out on tliat plan there, the beams that you bored in 1892 under those instructions? (Ilelerrinf; to exhibit " R ") Xo. 1, No. 2 and No. ii. That is ail that was bored in that span by me or any one else at that time, on the Kscmiirialt side. This is the Escjuinialt siving the water to keep eiear of t!;c bridge — to run off to the side. Q. What size auger did you use? .1. Inch and a quarter. Q. Where did you get that auger? A. My own property. (,K Now, Avill you just bore in tliat beam as you did in 1892. A. I don't know whether I co"ld without a chisel. Court : Why is it necessary to bore P Mr. Macdonell : That is, point out where you bored? Court: Yon had better maik it in colored pencil. 80 Mr. Macdonell : Marked red. Court: It is all red, say boring. Mr. Macdonell : Was it in the end towards the Gorge side and the hangers. It was between the end of the beam ixnd the hangers, on the Gorge side? A. Ye.s. Q. How far did you bore that hole ? A. Seven inches. Q. After you got througli boring — is tliat an inch and a quarter ? A. That is an inch and a quarter ? Q. -lust go in a little (referring to angering). After you got through boring that hole; in seven inches, Avliat did you do r A. I took the borings out 40 and saved every one of them and ])ut it in paper separately, one from the other, right thrc ugh. (t .'.n. \\'ere notices put up to that effect? -1. 1 believe so. 210. {)_. And \()U were instructed to inspect? .1. Yes. 211. Q. Whom did you employ with you to ins[)ect? A. Atlierly. 212. Q. Wlial, was his first name? .1. Sanmel. 21';}. Q. Do you see liim in co.irt? .1. The gentleman there (indicating). 214. Q. \(n\. (jnployed him to iielp you inspect? .1. He Was employed 40 by the city at the time. 21.'). (2. What di. Q. What do you call the outside ? A. Well, on the sidewalk; we took up the floor. 40 230. Q. Tell me where the sidewalk is? A, Well it is on both sides of the span. 237. Q. Outsideof the span? A. Yes. 23S. Q,. And you bored thi; beams on the outside of the span? A. Yes; on the outside. (Model put in position for the jury to view, and construction cxp'ained by counsel to jury.) 45 239. Mr. Macdonell (to witness): Now, Mr. Cox, you say you bored the RECORD beams on the Esquimalt span, under the sidewalk? A. Yes. 240. Q. Did you bore any of the beams on top of the beams ? .1. On top of the beam ? 241 . Q. Yes, the upper side of the beam ? A. Yes, they were all bored excepting one. 242. Q. Ar-j you sure as to only one ? A. Only one, I would not swear to In the Supreme Court of British Columbia. more. 243. Q. You arc not sure of one, anyway ? A. Yes. 10 244. Q. Where was it bored? A. It was bored underneath. 245. Q. Whereabouts as far as the length of the beam was concerned ? A. Right under the hanger, underneath. 240. Q. Did you bore them at both ends of the beam on the Esquimalt side of the span? A. Yes. 247. Q. All of them? A. All, except two, I believe— No. 1 and No. 7 was not bored. 248. Q. You bored at both ends of the arb-.'-c? A. Yes. 249. Q. On the Victoria span, how many i)eams did you bore there? A. The first three nearest the I'lsquimalt span. 20 250. Q. Do you know what numbers they would be? A. That would be No. ] 2 and 3. The beam would iie nuLi^- .• three and counting from the Victoria side, on the north side, nearest Esquiiaait. 251. Q. AVould that be the Gorge side? A. The Gorge side, yes. 252. Q. Can you call any fact to mind that makes you remember why you only bored three on the Victoria span? A. Well, it was this: it was getting late in the evening, towards 4 o'clock, and Atherly — he was assisting mo boring a certain one, and J ys: "You go l)ack, Atherly, and put down the sidewalk " plank that we ' . taken up for the boring, and to make it secure for the " night, and" I s..^.., "by that time it will be time to go home, and I will go on 30" with the boring," and then T boiiil three onl) on that side. 253. Q. Did Mr. Wilmot see you dolug any boring? A. No, he saw us No. 17. Plaintiff's Case. Evidence of John Cox. Examina- tion, 12th Oct., 1897 — continued, boring. A. 254. Yes. 255. 256. 257. 258. 259, Q. Do you rcmeiriber the mayor the same evenmg beinj' there 40 Q. Did he see you ? A. Yes. Q. Did you show them the shavings from the borings? A. Yes. Q. You arc positive as to that? A. Yes. Q. They saw the size of the auger? A. Yes. Q. They saw the shavings? .4. They saw it all. 260. Q. \\'hat time of the day did you stop boring do you think? .1. Close upon 5 o'clock. 26 1. Q. You had to take up the sidewalk, I believe? A. Yes, wc could not do otherwise. 262. (2. Did you inspect the beams from underneath, at al'? A. Yes. 2()3. (I. I low did you do that? A. l?v racjins of a ladder and a seat; apiece of planking with two holes on each side and a little reef at the top — a small plank. I lowered Atherly down. :m 46 ^ ^ RECORD. /n the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Na 17. Plaintiff'H Cnsc. Eviilence of John Cox. Examina- tion, 12th Oct., 1897 — continued. A 264. Q. That is the Atherly who is Iiorc? A. This man here. SJ65. Q. So that was the reason why it took so loni; to bore those beams ? A. Yes. ^ 26(). Q. What did you do with the borin;;s after you e hand so. 284. Q. Was it driven in tightly or loosel)^? .1. Well, it might jmve Heeti 40 driven in tighter. 285. Q. Do you know anything aliont wood, and rot ? A. Yes. 286. Q. If it was the intention of having tliose beiims in there jiermiiiit'iitly for any length of time, liow would you have plnjriZed them? A. 1 woidd not have plugged them at all. They would have liiiii better witiiout plug did you bore ? There in a north side ? ..'1. Yes, it Wiis the north side; we bored the south and north side both, but it was the north side at that time when I sa}- I told the man to go back, and put on IlKCOUO. In the Suprem Court of liritiih Columbia. N^17. Plaintift'g Coae. Evi(l('nc« of John Cox. Kxtimiiia- tiuii, 12tli Oct., 1897 — foniinued. Cross- cxuminatiuD. f liiy'cki/ f^: \ ii Ill 48 RECORD. In the Hupremt Court of Britinh Columbia. No7l7. Plaintifl''H Case. Kvi(]cnc(! of John Cox. Cross- oxniniiiatii)ii, 12th Oct., 1897 •—cuntinued. those plnnk to nail thorn down and iniikc them secure. Whore he loft mc borinff I bored on the Gorge side." You suy you did not say bored on both sidcsr A. No, oil the Victorlu spun. 311. Q. I suppose that statement was not true in that case ? A. No, I said as far as tlie other .span was concerned. I said the Escjuimalt span was bored oa the north side. 312. Q. I will call your attention to where you make a reference to what you have just said now, at page 94 beginning 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 beams that you bored in 18!)iJ under tho.se 10 instructions (referring to exhibit " R ") — '' referring to the instructions you say you got from Mr. Wilmot, referring to exhibit " U." A. That was 1, 2, and 3, the same as that. 313. Q. " Nund)er 1, number 2, and luimber 3. That is all that was bored in that span by irie or anyone else at that time, on the Escjuimalt side." Witness: On the Victoria side. 314. Q. On the Escpiimalt side? .'I. No — on the Victoria side. Slf). Q. "This is the Esquimalt side, as I understand it, of that span : that is, the collapsed span. This is going from Vieturia lo ivscpiimalt; that is the Es(|uimalt end that gave way " This was the question asked: " The lvs(jiiimalt 20 side of the first span that gave way?" You say: "Of the fir,st span from Victoria." Witness: Yes, that is right. 310. (}. " Will you tell us why you remember boring only three in that span? A. Yes." Then you give your answer pretty much as to-day, and then you are asked " Which part of the beam of those 3 did you bore? When you refer to 3 you are referring to 1, 2, and 3, of the span that coUapesd? A. Oer- taiidy. 317. Q. Then you were asked the question. Witmsss: On the north side. 318. Q. The (piestion says "There is a north side?" and you answer it 30 was the north side. " Which part of the beam of those 3 did you bore ? —there is a north side," and then you add yourself, without any further (piestion, " We bored the south and north side Ijoth, but it was the north side at that time when 1 say I told the man to go back :ind put on those plank, to nail them down." A. The north side; 1 said the Esquimalt span we bored on both sides. 319. Q. Was not your attention called to those beams? A. That was the only beams we bored at that time. That is what 1 stated at that time in the presence of this Court. 320. Q. You were asked still further with reference to that — On page 21 of 40 the de bene esse examination. Vou heard Atherly also testify at the Patterson trial ? A. 1 believe I did. \ 321. Q. And ho was with you at the time? A. Yes. 322. Q. And you remember what he testified as to which side of the beams? A. Me said the same as I said. He said that he bored — assisted to bore one beam on the Victoria span, and I told him to go back and put on the planks while 1 finished borin": tiiat end. 41) •523. ','. I'i)\()ii rrincinluM' wlicthi'f III! 8niil lie Ixntil tlic two ends ol ilic miiulxr .'! hfiiin'r .1. lie «li(liri siiv wo; 1 say ho didn't so o'lL tj. Widl, \vi; will si'i; wlictlicr lit- did or not. ]!f;;lmiiii;;- at tlic |i!:if( where you tnld him to <;o and put down the planks over tUo. sidewalk, pp. •JT'i, and 'J7.'l of tin; totiniouy in the appi'a! liook. It, woidil hi' hi'^iimini,' at p - ol his I'vidcnct: iiiarkcd by tin' stcno;:rMpli( r. " < >n the Msipiiniall span. To do that you wunl. He was UoinLf to linisii the horim:, and where. 10 as you went au ay to pi;t the planks down on the Ms(|nimall. spun, where did he go on with the borin;fr J. lie skirted riL'ht to Ixire on towards the N'icloria side." Witne.ss: That wa.^ me. '>'2b. .Mr. Taylor: Yes. '"On touai'ds N'ictoriu, and ut whieh end ol the span? That would be towards the (jorjre or the other side;?" anil Atherlv answered "we bored it on both sides." Witness: Xo. o:J(i. Mr. Taylor: He did not- eh-' To ;:o on: "I know, but the Victorin side I am speakiii;!f of, now, that he went to bore when yon went putting the plankin;; down?" and the answer is ''On the (lori^e side." And then you ^'o oi\ to another (picstion. .So you both said then you bored it on both 20 sides ? Witness: I didn't say it. :>'27. (,l. And you say that: Atherly didn't say it "r .1. lie did not. Mr. ^lacdonell: I sid)niit that Atlurly did not s"y anythin;,^ of the kind. Court: ^'oii will have a ehance of showing that at the proper time, and (if cullinjT attention to the other portions of tlie evidence to disturb the position that Mr. Taylor su!j;u^ests, now. ^Ir. .Maedonell : IWit if my learned friend will say a witness said so:md-so, to this witni.'ss wl.iMi he did iiotr s:iy so, and 1 see he is mistake?!, then I think I have a ri;.dit t(» eall his attenti(.n to it at the time. (]()urt: Yes, but he is puttini;' thi.-> .-idvisedly. It is I'ot as if a easnal dis- ;jO Ji^'reenient arose. Evidently .Mr. Taylor is r(dyiiiher's notes, it is not usual to interrupt. Mr. Maedonell: No; but I say he is mistaken in what Atherly said. Court: Well, you will have an opportunity in re-cxaini nation to read as nuich or as little of it as you like. Mr. lay'"'; For the purpose of keepin;^ this clear on the notes, I direct attention to (pu..-lion and answer 27;5, Appeal I'took, in the Patterson c;ise, beginnin<^ at line I'l, and ending at line 12. Court: vvfier dl, there is viiry little X'eason for any misunderstanding about 40 this evidence, beeaase under the arrangement made the jury will be able to take this evidence into the jury room with them, and if it rests upon the misphicing of a comma, the jury an^ n,l of IlrilM < 'ii/iimbin. No. 17. Phintiff's Kviileiicc of (,'ross- I'Xiiiniiiiitiuii, IL'lh Oct., I f y M IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I m iij^ 1^ ? ■- IIIIIM ;■ m 12.0 1.25 III 1.8 1.4 111.6 Photographic Sciences Corporation \ -s^ "h V ^^ ■ *- \\ -^.^<> %^ 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 4^ I 'f 6^ w ' r :;■ oO Pi -!■■■ Si! RKCORD. J)i thv Supreme Court of British Columbia. No. 17. Plaiutiff's Case. Evidence ol' Joliii Cox. Cross- (^xamiuation, 12th Oct., 1897 — continued. o'Jlt. Q. You testified in Victoria on u commission there a short time u<(0? A. Ves. oo(). (I. Y'ou were examined and cross-examined there, and you spoke of boring' not on the span tiiat collapsed, but on the span nearest Esquimalt — boring some beams there, didn't you? A. They Avere all bored except two hi the Es(|uimalt span. ;!.')1. Q. Do you remember what you saic' about the boring oi' them then, Mr. ("ox"- ,1. 1 (orget exactly— -what is it? ■iVi'i'l. (J. You don't remember what you said about the boring of them ? 1 will show yon in a moment. You wcu-e in charge of this work of inspection of 10 bridges and sidewalks from that time to what time? .1. 1891, — oh, the bridge only. '.)'■'>■'). Q. Xo, bridires and sidewalks. In other words you v,-ere in the employ of the eiiv from—? .1. From 1S9] to I8'JG, April:" Mav, 1891, to April, ISDC), oo4. (^>. And part of your cdity was to inspect and . see tlie condition of bridges and sidewalks? .1. Yes. ooo. Q. And to let the city know? .1. Yes. .'J.'Ui. (1- 1 think you testified that the minor class of repairs you would do without saying anything about it to the city, and repairs of a greater degree you 20 would report if they needed repair? A. Yes. o.'57 (f,. In other words, small matters you did without reporting particu- larly, and your duty was to report work needing a larger extent ot money? .1. Yes, o.'J8. (I. There was nu one else during that period wliose duty it, was to do that work other than yourself? A. Oh, if 1 sent a man to do it t'i'.WK (>. But I mean to say, the inspection of these bridges? .1. Xo one oxcept the engineer. 340. U. But that was your particular duty? A. Y'es. 341. (^K And if ever you saw anything wx'ong, you either repaired it, or ."iO reported it as needing repairs? A. More often repaired it than reported it- -any small matter. 34'2. Q. You testified with regard to the number of beams you bored and the size of the auger you used at this Patterson trial, and also in your examination on this trial, at Victoria? .1. I think so. 343. (J_. And you said an incli and a quarter auger? A. I believe I did. 344. (J,. And since you have examined some old beams that arc in the Escjuimalt span that now stands ? A. Yes. 345. (J. —and you find it is much less than an inch and a quarter auger 40 hole? .1. It is not a half inch — barely a half inch. 34(3. Q. And Xo. 7 beam on the span that collapsed, did you ^ee the augei hole in that? .1. No, I was not here when they was broke up. 347. (J. And the auger holes you did see were smaller thati an inch and a quarter, and you say were plugged with wood? A. A stick just about the size of your finger. 318. (,). Isn't that about large enough to fill a one-inch hole ? .^. Some- thing about that. ■^ ""*■- ■V*5^'?r.tr^'Tr'^-""Tt .-"'^ P 51 349. (2. It was bored undernonth ? A. No, between tbe hiui.n<;r on top; there was one on No. 1 on the Esqiiinialt span, and one on No. 7 '-not on the other. :550, (2. During the time yon were in cliar^c of the Ijridgc was tlien; any other person to do any boring? A. Might have been, 351. V- Do yon know of any? J. I chm't know of any. 352. Q. It being your duty you would liave known whether there was any other person? /I. Other people liave overlianled that bridge, b'-sides mv. 353. Q. Do you know of any while you were there? .1. No. ^0 ^ 354, ^2- And you were in charge, too ? .1. When other folks were working on it, I had nothing to do with it, 355. (2. You wore in charge of the bridge up to within thirty days of the accident? .1. No, when other people worked on the bridge, 1 was relieved, I had nothing to do with it, gentlemen. 35G. (). Then 1 ask yon what other people? .1. Mcintosh repaired the bridge after the accident. 357. (). What did he do ? .1. (ienerally overhauled the bridge. 358. Q. ^Vhat belaid was stringers and rails ? .1. And put a new floor in. 359. Q. He was doing that for the tramway cora[)any? A. The <;ity or the 20 tramway company. 360. Q. Don't you know he was doing it for the; tramway company? A. No, I don't know. 3G1. Q. Oh, come now, Cox, what is the use of saying that? You say you don't know? A. No, 362, (2. You don't know anything about it ? .4, No. 363. (2. That is what he did; he laid some stringers for the (;ar rails? .4, For what difference there was between the city and the ti-auiway, that is none of my business, 364. (2- You know what he did to the bridge? .1. I know it, wnsputon; 30 t^hat is all I l;o and bore son:e of those beams and sec if they were sound, and did bore some of them ? A. Yes. 381. Q. And some that you bored you found extremely rotten? A. Not extremely ; there were lucces of rot. 3S2. (>. Is that S.I. what you said in your examination here only two or 20 throe weeks Jigo in \'ictoria ? You were asked this question, p. 13, ques. 26: — " Then it is a fact that tdl tiie beams you bored were rotten ? " To which you answered "Every one." A. More or less. 383. Q. " Q, Every one. They were pretty badly rotten too, weren't they ? A. .1 believe they were. Q. You believe they were? A. Yes. Q. Then why didn't you re|)lace all the beams in the bridge? A. I had nothing to do with it. Q You had nothing to do with it. A. No. (i. You W(!re told to go and bore the beams and i)lug the holes? .1. Ye^. Q. IVid you plug the holes? A. Yes. all that we bored, with oakum. Q. Did you plug them with wood? .1. No.'' You say that answer is not quite correct? Witness: It may be pretty near the 30 remark, but so far as saying they were badly rotten — ■ — 38I-. (2- To see if j'ou were taken by surprise, in that question we will turn to p. 15, and see what you said, beginning " weren't you expected to make any report? " That is referring to the time you had instructions to go and bore and examine and loport " Q. IIow wt-re th(!y going to find out your o])inion whether tlu:y were rotten or not? .1. There was my opinion that was handed to thetn. Q. Was it your opinion? .i. ^'es. Q. That was something that you bored out of lh(! benm ? .1. Yes. Q. And they were rotten? -4. Yes. Q. Every one of them? .1. Yes. (i. Yery badly rotten ? ,4. Yes, pretty bad. <>. You never did in fact then bore the other beams in tin; N'ictoria span? .1. Xo. (^. "^ But they wcjrc replaced? .1. T believe they wer(;, afterwards. (},. You* know thev were ? A. 1 didn't know for some time; T had nothing to do with them." We look further down in that question and see what you said then in regard to it. Line 22—" (). Wasn't it your duty to circulate about the city to ascertain whether the bridges and sidewalks were in good condition or rolten? A. I luui nothing to do with it in that case ; it was placed in their own i'ands, and I had nothing to do with it." time? .1. No. You had instructions to go and re))ort on it at that Tsn 53 3i!l 385. Mr. Taylor: P. IG. Q. "Wasn't it your business to ascertain wlictlmr or not tlr's material was I'otton ? .1. It was not nay business at all. Q. What Avas your business? .1. To ascertain wliother tliey were rotten." Witness: Sunie mistake! tliere. Mr. Taylor: Wv liave been gii'ted witli a nuinl)Pr of I)a(l steiiooniplicrs ? .1. Well, even so. 886. (}. " To ascertain whether they were rotten — to lind out wlietlier the materials were rotten, the sidewalks and bridgc^s in the city: A. Vou mean previous to the accident? Q. At the time of the accident? A. I hud not u^ot the 10 chance to do it, when [ was ordered tiie next minute almost — ~" (To Witness) : Now, ^Ir. Cox, you also said in this examination that you ijored one of the l)i!ams from under neatli ? .1. Yes. 387. Q. And you found it vcrv rotten? .1. 1 can't say J said that. 388. Q. Well, what do you say now about it? .1. It may be rotten. 381). (2- What do you say now ? .1. 1 say now it was rotten more or loss; as to how nuich a person can't tell-- as to any <(uantity, a man ean't tell. 390. Q. nidn'tyou say as a matter ol' fact they were about, iialf rotten through? .1. No, 1 did not. 391. Q. Vou did not say that? A. I did not. 20 392. (I. What kind of a recollection have you got? .1. T have a pretty good one. 393. Q. Must this reporter be wrong in what he has reported vou as saying ? Is that so, Cox? A. What is that, sir? 394. 0.. Do you say this reporter nuist be wrong, in this statt-ment of what you said? .1. Pretty iridilFerent, some of them. 395. Q. At any rate, you knew this beam was pretty badly rotten in 1S92 V A. It might be; I don't say that it was; T never swore it was. 396. Q. 1 irad what you say, and you say that is not correct? .1. I could not say how mueli ; might be one or six or the whole. 30 397. . WV'll, we will see whether you did or not. .1. 1 think I made some remark why wasn't thoso two b(,'ams that were left in and t,akeii one during the in. You wen; asked to bor(! and lind out the condition of the bridge? T • which you answered: " We were not ordered to do any more boring; Ave bored ttiat day, and that was suflicient. <). And you might have bored one beam and if it was live o'clock, you wouhl call that sutRcient. .1. Yes, if they ordered it. Q. And then •10 report the bridgi; in sound condition? .1. It was quite sufficient to report the bridixe rotten as fur as the beams "' Witness: You min'Iit have wrote it down, but I didn't say rotten. too. Q. This was written not by me, but bv the shorthand re[)orter. " And llien report the briilge in sound condition? .1. It was quite sullieicnt to report. the bi'idge rotten as fivr as the beams (,'. How do you ex|)lain your report then in 1 890 that it was sound whei; this beam No. 3 had not been removed? .1. There wasn't any question about its being rotten; I don't know; if it is not REOOKD. In the Supreme Co'trt of liritisk Columbia, No. 17. riainliff'.^ Cttso. Kvideiiccof .lohu Cox. Cross- (examination, 12tli Oct., 1897 — cimlinued. I ! 1 -P' il A\ ^ll ,\\ 1 ' 'I RECOIID. In lliv Sti/jmiiif Cotirl of British (,'olumhici. No. 17. Plaintill's Case. Evidence «i<' .John Cox. Cross- exaniiimtioi), 12th Oct., 1897 — eoutimift/. '. > t 54 bored uiuk'rr.aath if, is not bored on top." Do you know whut you moan by that Jinswcr ? Witness: Wliicdi biiani are you refernn<>- to? 401. Mr. Taylor: "V. What is not bored on to^ ? A. That, I think it is the No. 1 — T would not bo sure;— on the Es(juinmlt span on the north side it is bored undc.i-neatli, and the other .^ide it is boi'ed on top."' You answered that W!l y (\K You bored some underneath and some on top?" 1. There were one or two bored underneath and the rest ? .1. Yes. 402. (),. And then l)o you say that still ? on top, 4Uo. Q. Y'ou answered to that " That is what we did." A. Well, even 10 so 404. Q. Then you were asked this: — " Q- Why did you do that? -I. To ascertain which was the Averse; 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 in the bottom disclosed a more rotten state than the holes in the to[) ? .1. I sup[)ose that was the meaning' of it. 40.'). (}. You bored one of the Esquimalt side at the bottom and you found that absolutely rotten? A. Yes, worse than the top. 40(i, " Page. 2.5. Q. And then you bored the other from the top of the l)eaniV .1. Yes. (). And you found them absolutely rotten ? .1. Yes. Q. You 20 did that witli the Escjuirnalt span? A. Esquimalt span oidy. Q,. And then you bored three of the beams on the Victoria side on the to])? .1. Yes. Q. And found them absolutely rotten? A. Y''es." That Avas your answer. " Q. And you found the condition of the beams on the Esquimalt span was a little more rotten when you bored from the bottom than when you bored from the top? .1. Yes, the one that we bored." Witness: Yes. 407. Mr. Taylor : " ('i. And they were all rotten and unsafe at that time? A. Y'es. Q. And you were aware of that fact? J. Yes. i),. And you did not report that to any])ody? .1. It was reported th(! next morning. Q. You handed in those borings? A. That was what we did. <,>. You say this particular beam 30 (o) in the Victoria span you handed In the borings to them to let them sec; for themselves? .1. Yes. Q. That was your idea in boring it? .1. Yes." Then this (piestion : " ^/. I see. Well, Mr. Cox, I would like to ask you lunv could you, knowing that those beams were absolutely rotten in 1802, make a report in 18!)o that the bridge was sound ? " and I ask you now how could you do it? You did make a report in 18U2 that the bridg(( was sound, and I ask you now, knowing those beams Avere absolutely rotten in 1892, you could rejiort to the council in 1895 that the bridge was sound? .1. The only way the order that I ever received from the city was this — what f could sec, walking rou!id, with my eyes — walking round that bridge or any other bridge. 1 was not allowed to takci 10 up any floor or interfere Avith anything underneath any sidewalk of any descrip- tion, and that is Avhat I reported. 408. Q. Do you mean to say that knowing beams Avere rotten in 1S92 (because you had examined them by boring) and knowing those beams were not taken out in 1895, that you Avuiild re[)orc to the coimcil thai; the bridge was sound? A. I didn't knoAv hoAv many Avas taken out from 1892 to 1895. 409. Q. Did you look to see ? A . No, I was not alloAved t.o look. 65 410. Q. Who stopped you looking;? .1. Well, tiikc flio cngiiicor for it ami he will tell j'oii. 411. (i. Wild stopped you from lookiiifr at tho brid^^o p yi. Jfo one stopped me particidiU'ly, but I v/as not allowed to meddle with it. 412. (,). I roi'er you to your re[)i)rt of 181)") that you mr.do 1o tho (•ouncii. After dealin<;- witli a nuinl)er of other masters, you say: "The Point MUice bridoe is in g(jod CDuditiou " A, So far as I coidd see. 41."'). Q. Did you say that, here? A. So far as 1 could sec. 414. Q. Did you say that in your report? .1. I believe it is there, and if it 10 is not there, it ouijht to be. 415. Q. If you can show me that in the report, J shall be pleased for you to find it? A. h may not be there. 416. Q. Presented for 181)6? A. You can't y;o upon that report. 417. Q. h there aiiythinfj; in that you do not agree with? .1. T don't want to look at it. 418. (J. You add this: " This is to certify that the above mentioned bridffcs arc; all in ii^eneral ;^ood order and have kept so during the past year." ^1. Yes. 41!). Q. Was that true? .1. That is true. 20 420. (^. llow could you say that when you say in 1802 this beam- was rotten, and Iiad never been replaced? .1. I didn't know but what those beams were replaced — I told you before. 421. Q. Did you look and see? A. I was not allowed to look — only to walk over the bridge and the floor — that is all you were allowed to do. 422. (>. Who stopj)ed you from looking at the underneath portion of the bridge? Was there anybody who ever stopped you? .4. Do you suppose I could waste my time going round — 423. (f. Answer the question ? .1. Y'es, if ; went to any alderman and said " I would like to take that plank up," they Avould say you could not 80 do it. 424. (i. Couldn't von look? A. How could vou. without taking un the floor? 425. IJECOUD. In the Supreme: C'liirt of British Columbia. No. 17. Plaiiititt's Case. Kvidorico of John Cox. Cross- cxamiimtiou, ]2tliOct., 1897 — continued. 'I' enL'ineer. "Sir (,). 'I'hen your own report, signed by yourself, addressed to the city (Heads letter accompanying report.) , In compliance with yonr request, I beg to submit herewith the following report, relative to sidewalks, water tanks and bridges." Witness: That is riiiht. 42(). (2. In other words, you were asked to do that? A. That was Mr. Wilmot's insTructions at that time. 40 427. IJ,. And in i)ursnance of that, you reported this bridge sound, without knowing whether or not it was sound? A. Dy looking over it only; just what I cmdd see as ) on 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 ni w beams? .1. You couldn't tell a thing about it. 421). (2. Do you mean to tell us that in discharge of your duty to inspect that, th'«t is all you did? A. That is all I did in any cose. 11 ■ ; . -f n •^SMSfl J ' m "ii^ .- 1 ( '■ 1 t it' .. Was it not in order that the city eouuf.'il nii<:;lit know the fionditiou of tlie bridges and sidewalks? A. They did know previous to that, but they never completed it. 4o2. (J. The city council chan<(e, as individuals r A. K very three years — some of them. 43^1 (/. They change every year? .1. No, some of them go back for two or i,hre(! years. 4o4. (>. I'lUt there is a new election every year for aldermen ? A. Oh, yes. 10 43f). (J. ]}() you consider that was a fair thing to do to the council and ratepayei's to report that biidge as sound without knowing wlietlier it was, or making an examination ? ^1, Yes, I consider it was fair. 4;>(). Q. Do you consider that was even common honesty? A. That is what I was ordered to do, and nothing more. 4.")7. (I. You have just told nu; the instructions you got were set forth in your report, isn't it. with Mr, Wilmot, to examine the bridges? A. That is correct. 4/58. (J.. And you consider you were ]terlorming that duty when you simply walked over, and did not look at the under portion of the bridge at all ? .1. Not 20 of this bridge. 4.">9. (j. You skipped this one? A. \ didn't skiji any of them. I walked over it half a do/en times. 440. Q. You were discharged in 1896 about .")(• days before this accident? April 1st, 1 think. 441. Q. You were discharged from the city service, then? A. Yes. 442. Q. Do you wonder at it yourself? .1. Not a bit of it — not a bit of it. 443. Q. You have looked at those beams, or those beams in the Esijuimalt span? A. Yes. 444. Q- Since you were examined in the Patterson case? A. Yes. 30 44-'). Q. You iound that some of those beams were bored with a lialf inch auger ? A. No. ^1. A great 410". Q. What size? A. Half inch bit. 447. Q- What is the difl'erence between a bit and an auger deal of difference. 448. (I I don't know it, Mr. Cox-tell us what it is? A. An auger is about 2 feet, and a bit is otdy about 10 inches or 8 inches. You can have them in all sizes, from 2 leet up to G feet, if you want an auger. 44!). Q. An a\iger is 10 inches ? /I. A bit — L didn't say an auger. I'50. Q. And how long is an auger? A. May be 10 feet. ■10 451. Q. You observed some of these beams were bored l)y a bit? A. Yes. 452. Q. Of what diameter? A. About half inch ; may be a little less. 458. Q. You have previously sworn in the I'attersou case that you bored these with an inch and a-quarter auger? A. Yes, not all of them. 454, Q. Well, all that were bored? A. Yes — inch anrl a-quarter. 455. Q. And was not your attention called to the fact you had made a mistake about that ? A. No, 1 don't say so. 57 •POi 40 456. 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 you alluding to? 457. Q. You have told me you went down after you testified and examined it, and found a half inch hole? A. I found two on the same side, one in each stick. 458. (}. Did not Mr. Mason, Mr. Cartmel and Mr. Walker— you know all those gentlemen ? A. Yes, I know them. 459. Q. Didn't they invite you on Monday the 4th of this month A. Invite me. 10 460. 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 about that time ? A. I was there when thoy came, but what their business was I don't know. 462. Q. You were there with Mr. Macdonell? A. Yes. 463. Q. Counsel in this case ? A. Yes. 464. (}. You were visiting the bridge and inspeoting it ? ^1. Walking over it, I believe, and that is all 465. Q. IIow did you find out there was a half inch hole there then? A. I knew that there Avas months previously. 20 466. 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. Q. Did you tell it in court? A. No, I didn't— I don't think it. 469. Q. Do you know of anybody during the whole time you were in charge of that bridge you hove told us, who bored any holes in it ? ^4. I don't know. 470. Q. Was there anybody who had any business to bore any holes ? A. Yes, Mcintosh, he might; it was his duty that time when they came up and put 30 on the new ti'am car fines — those new stringers. 471. Q. That was after you had bored in 1892? A. Yes, that summer, anyway. 472. Q. Well, it was in that month of June, wasn't it? A. When the accident was ? 473. Q. I don't mean the accident in this case, but T mean the time that you bored the holes in 1892 and found them rotten? A. 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. 475. Q. Haven't you any closer idea? A. Well, it was after June; it was 40 the 15th June when the accident happened. 476. Q. And you bored on the 16th ? A. I stopped the traffic on the same day. " 477. Q. And you repaired it immediately? .4. Yes. 478. Q. It was then repaired immediately after the accident ? A. The first beam that broke was repaired by Clarke, sometime after that they re-constructed it alto/gether. 479. Q. Well, now, how long? A. I can't tell you how long. d I RECORD. In the Supreme Court of Britith Columbia. No. 17. PlaintiflTs Case. Evidence of John Cox. Cross- examination, 12th Oct., 1897 — continued. 4-^!M ■I. ' ;.;i^ i( ,i n \ RECORD. In the Supreme Court of hritkh Cohimbia. No. 17. Plaintiff's Case. Evidoncc of John Cox . Cross- examination, 12th Oct., 1897 — continued. I )f 10 it — not without an A. I didn't 58 480. Q. You have not tlic faintest ide.i ? A. No — nothinir to do with it, whatever. 481. Q. You have no recollection at all r .1. Before winter, probably. 482. Q. I suppose tlicy trotted along all summer over a rotten bridge — you never reported it ? A. I had no occasion; after the accident I had nothing what- ever to do with it. 483. Q. But you did have to do with it all that summer — bridges and sidewalks? .1. Well, I went over it. 484. Q. Supi)ose you had known that rotten beam was in that bridge, would you have reported that bridge sound? .1. I didn't know there was a rotten beam in it, not then. I should have suggested then to move that out, but I found afterwards 485. Q. Would you have considered you were doing your duty if you reported the bridge sound when you knew there was a rotten beam in it? A. No, I should not; I would not have interfered with order. 48G. Q. Suppose you knew this bridge had a rotten beam ? know. 487. Q. J ask you if you had known A. That is another question. 488. Q. Supposing you did, would you consider it your duty to report 20 it? A. If I had known the bridire was in danirer, it certainly would have been my duty. 489. Q. Do you consider that you acted in accordance with your duty when you reported it sound, and did not know whether the rotten beam was removed? .1. It was not my duty after the mechanics and engineer had gone over it-it was not at that time my duty to look underneath the bridge. 490. Q. And you wore quite willing to report it sound, without knowing anything about it? ^1. Just by what we could see by walking over it, and nothing more. 4'.tl. Q. Didn't you know that the under part of the bridge had a good deal 30 to do with the strength and carrying capacity of it? A. Generally. 492. Q. iiut did you know that. You did know something about bridges? A. A little. 493. Q. Then you must have known that, and yet you were willing to let people 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. 494. Q. I want to know who stopped you, because we may get at the responsible man? A. Well, you must go to the engineer. 495. Q. AVho stopped you inspecting a portion of it ? A. The engineer. 40 49i!. 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 nie one ? A. In the first place we were stopped by an alder- man — "you mustn't do this." 500. Q. Tell me of one occasion on which you were stopped on Point Ellice bridge? A. I don't remember any one occasion. ':»: 59 501. Q. Did you ever try? .502. Q Toll me when? ^1. A. I think so. I could not reincrnbcr. 603. Q. Hccause this is n pretty serious matter — a man is sent out to expressly examine and report upon a bridge? ^1. I deny that. I was not expressly sent to cxauiiiu! the bridge. .^04. Q. You don't deny that rennvo of yours of 1895? A. T don't deny anything that is in it. 505. (2. Then you do not deny you reported it sound in 18U5? A. I did report it sound. 10 50(). You 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. .007. (^l Well, something like that, and did you ever examine th bridge between 1892 and 1895 to see whether those rotten beams were rei)laced ? A. No. .")08. Q. And yet you reported it sound in 1895? A. 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? mention anything like that. 20 5)0. ij,. Would you make a dishonest report ? A. No. Q. You would make an honest report? A. I believe so, and that 511. is honest. 512. 513. honest ? Q. That is ? A. 1 think so. Q. Then your statement that that beam was rotten in 1892 — it is not 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 this accident? A. Yes. 515. Q. You know that? A. Yes. 80 516. 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 you entertain of them. ^1. Just as liable to do anything. 518. Q. AVhy did you work for them from 1892 to 1895? A. That is why I went away — to leave them. 519. Q. Didn't they discharge you ? Did you resign or were you discharged ? A. I was discharged for simply this — if you will listen to me 520. Q. Y^ou 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 40 to carry on its work, and they came to the conclusion to dispense Avith me or the city foreman — that was Mr. Wibon — and some of the aldermen were in favour of discharging W^ilson, and putting his duty upon me, so then the majority turned round and so dismissed me and put Wilson in my place. What did Wilson do when the engineer sent him under this very same bridge? — reported it all sound, didn't he ? 521. Q. 1 don't know. A. Oh, well, you do know, because it was told right in this here court. d I 2 UECORD. In the Supreme Court of British Columbia. No. 17. Plaintift"8 Case. Evidence of Jolni Cox. Croas- cxaininatioD, 12th Oct., 1897 — continued. The report does not >^^\ r; W : i ' m nECORD. In the Supreme Court of British Columbia. No. 17. Plnintilfs Cnsc. Evidence of •John Cox. Cro«8- examination, 12lli Oct., 1897 — continued. 00 522. Q. In the Patterson case' .1. In the Pattorson cnsc. 523. Q. When and who stated it ? I want to .see what sort of a recollec- tion you have got, because I don't believe yon remember very much about it ? A. Mr. Wilmot sent Mr. Wilson to inspect the bridge — this was in tl.j coroner's inquest. 524. Q. Not in Court here? A. Yes, light here too. 525. Q. Who stated it? A. I don't know who stated il. 526. (}. Was it a witness in the casf;? A. I could not say. 527. i^. You mean someone outside the court house? A. No, it was right in the court room. It might have been Wilson himself, for all I know. 528. Q. Was Wilson called ? A. Yes, he was right superintendent. 529. Q. Was he called as a witness in the case ? A. 10 believe. 530 it was. 531 with it. 532 case. I here— the street He was called I Q. And then testified? A. I believe so — one of the cases, whichever Q. You did not testify in the Gordon case? A, I had nothing to do Q. Well, you were not here, then? A. He was here in the Patterson was here in tiie Gordon case, and the Patterson case, too, but I had 20 nothing to do with the Gordon case. 533. Q. You did not testify in that? A. No. 534. Q. They did not pay you any fee, I apprehend, — in the Gordon case — did not subpama you ? A. No, I didn't ask 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 case? A. I didn't got any money at all, only what the Court allowed. 536. Q. Well, how much was that? A. Two dollars a day. 537. Q. Didn't you get some money to come from the upper country ? A. Ko. ^ 3G 538. Q. Where were you served with the subpoena ? A. In Victoria. 539. Q. And you got conduct sim[)ly from there ? .1. I didn't get any money from anyone. 540. Q. Periiaps I was wrong about that. I Avas informed you got $192 for coming from the upper country to Victoria? A. I swear you are wrong 541. Q. I am quite willing to accept your statement. You did get $192.00? y{. No, I didn't even for staying round there. 542. Q. You got $130.00 to sta)' round for the case and to give evidence in it, and not to go up country ? Then I got it a little mixed ? .1. You have got it pretty well mixed. 40 Court: You do not suggest there is anything improper, do you? 543. Mr. Taylor: No, my lord, but (to witness) you did get $130.00, Mr. Cox? A. 1 would not swear. 5^4. Q. Well, I suppose Mr. Macdonell is wrong this f'luv;; it is not the reporter, thank goodness. And that was not to go up country. Where do you mean by " up country ?" A. It might mean anywhere. 545. Q. I see. Well, you had no definite idea where it wna to go to, but 40 61 you were just not going to anywhere? A. That is like saying they paid me to go ■ somewhere. 546. Q. No — pnid you to stop here. Where was it you were going? A. T was not going iinywhere. 547. Q. You have not been working since ? A. Oh, yes, plenty of work at home. 548. Q. You do not mean to say you drew $130.00 from a poor widow by reprcsentinr to her you wc I. going up country when you were going to stay here? A. A widow? 10 549. Q. Yes? .1. bo you mean my wife r 550. (,>. You ev'ii ntly I avc a keun sense of the ludicrous, Mr. Cox. You keep a general store in Hum')oldl Street, in Victoria, do you not? A. Yes. 551. (,>. W(.'ll, I would just like to understand if you would take $130.00 from these people Court: Well, Mr. Taylor, you have stated that already, and the jury will draw their own inference. 552. Mr. Taylor : A^'ery well, my lord; I will not labour it. (To witness): You spoke about this oakum that you put iu the hole, Mr. Cox ? A. Yes. 553. Q. You testified with regard to that, in Victoria, in this case ? 20 A. I believe so. 55 l<, Q. Do you remember what you said there about it — about driving in the oakum ? A. I don't recollect, just now. 555. (i. Well, you told us hei-e a minute ago that you put it in and drove it in with your hands? A. With my hammer handle. 556. Q. You did drive it in with a hammer handle ? A. Yes. 557. Q And a stick ? A. Small stick. 558. Q. And a mallet ? A. No. 559. Q. You had a stick in your hand about the size of the hole P A. I had no stick — the hammer handle. 80 560. Q. Did you drive it in tiglitly ? A. Just loosely. 561. (}. What do you mean then at p. 33 of your testimony — your exami- nation de bene esse, Q. 16. "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." That is not true, I suppose ? Witness : T don't believe that " driven in tight " is true. 562. Q. " Water could not get in on top of that ? " To which you answer •' Yes," and you add, " you might as well say water could not get through a salt bag." Now, you put tar in it, didn't you ? A. Yes. 563. Q. Why did you say j'ou didn't, on the examination before, in Vic- 40 toria ? A. Don't I say'l 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. Q. That is, to put it in the oakum ? A. Yes. 566. Q. And put it in the hole ? A. Mixed it with the oakum, and put the oakum in the hole. 567. Q. You got some tar for the purpose of making up that oakum, and then packing it down with the stick ? A. Yes. BECORD. In the Supreme Court of British Columbia. No. 17. Plaintiff's Case. Evidonce ol' John Cox. Cross- examination, 12tli Oct., 1897 —continued. * f pr i a ■i RECORD. iiSi In the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Plaintiff's Case. Evidence of John Cox. Cross- examinatioD, 12th Oct., 1897 — continued. 62 568. Q. With the object of keeping the water out ? A. That was the idea. 569. Q. And that is what you pjot the tar for, and for no other purpose? A. As far as I know. 570. Q. You testified in regard to that tar in your examination at Victoria a few days ago? A. Yes. 571. Q. And you said you got a quart of tar? A. I believe I did — a quart, 572. Q,. And you said you got it for the purpose of painting a pillar? A. I don't think that tar ; there was other tar. 10 573. Q. In page 7, line 12, you answer: ''the ne.\t day I received orders to get oakum and tar and plug them u)). (2- Where did you get the oiiKum and tar? A. McQuade & Sons. Q. What quantity of oakum and tar did you get ? A. I think there was two [rounds of oakum and a gallon of tar, if I remember right. Q. Were those items charged to tlie city do yon know? A. \es. Q. Where did you buy them? What place was it you bought them at ? What shop or chandlery did you buy them ? A. McQuade & Sons, the ship chniidlers, 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. Q. Then after getting the oakum, what did j'ou do? A. We got the material and then we went and plugged them 20 up. Q. With the oakum ? .1. With the oakum and the tar. Q. And tar? A. At least, I don"t think the tar was used with the oakum. The oakmn was used only for the holes, the tar was used was for painting the pier below high water mark. We don't use the tar for the holes— only the oakum." Is that true or false ? Wi'-ness : No; the tar was got for the express purpose of the oakum in those holes. 574. Q. i)idn't you say in this examination it was got for the express purpose of paintiny the engineer or by the clerk; I always 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 j'ou remember that ? A. The order for the tar? 577. Q. Yes; at McQuade's — from your own book, too ? A, Ye.s. 40 578. Q, And it was a quart of tar? A. It was a quart of tar. 579. Q. And you had previously said you thought it was a gallon ? A. Oh, I don't think =o. I think you made a mistake. 580. Q. Again the stenographer has made a mistake, and you did not say a gallon? x\. I don't think so; I have got Mr. McQuade's note for it. 581. Mr. Taylor: Very well. " Q. It was a quart of tar; you said a gallon? A. It might have been. Q. That document says a quart? Does it? Then 63 10 40 probably it is so." But you slated 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 pillars P 582. Q. 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 two pound of oakum — an order from the clerk himself. How could 1 state the other? 583. Q. Well, I don't know; the stenoffrapher says you did? A. I could produce one of McQuade's notes for a quart of tar. 10 .')84. Q. And that will prove your statement that it was for the purpose of painting the pillar was intended for something else? .1. No, it was for plugging the holes. 585. Q. Do you believe yourself ? J.. I do, sir. 586. Q. Uo you believe you could go out for three minutes and come back and repeat what you said ? A. Oh, yes. 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. (}. And when the reporter said a gallon, you say he made a mistake ? A. Well, it lius between you two; there is no question about that. I will prove it is 20 one quart of tar from the book at McQuade's, and two pounds of oakum. I don't see why 1 should say a gallon when it was only a quart. lie-direct by Mr. Macdonell. 589. Q. When you got instructions to inspect the bridge in 1892, were they special instructions? A. No. 51)0. (2- In 1892 I am talking about, now ? ^1. Yes, they were special from Mr. Wilmot. 531. Q,. To inspect that bridge px'opcrly how could it be done? A. It could not be done otherwise than by boring the beams. 592. Q. And to do that what would bo necessary? A. You would have to 30 tear up the floor. 593. Q. And what would that mean? ^4. Cause an obstruction in the road- UECORD. way then. In the Supreme Court of British Columbia, No. 17. Plaintiffs Case. Evidence of Jolin Cox. Cross- examination, 12th Oct., 1897 — continued. Re-examin- ation. .1. Well, the beams 594. Q. Would that be the only inspection required ? would be the greatest trouble. 595. (2. Would there be any other inspection? -I. Yes. 590. Q. What other? A. Iron work. 597. Q,. Have you iuiy practical knowledge of that? A. I have not. 598. Q. Then .Mr. Wilmot knew that? J. No. 599. (2. Does he know you have no special qualifications for iron work? .1. 40 No, he didn't know it, and never asked me anything specially about it, one way or the other. ()0C. Q. Did he know you knew nothing about a bridge? A. Yes. GOl. (2. In 1892 you got definite instructions what to do. When you inspected in 1895 you got no definite instructions? You had been inspecting that year the same as any other year? A. I'^ver since 1892. 602. (2. But you gave it the same inspection in 1895 that you gave in other years, except in 1892— is that right, Mr. Cox? .1. That is right. 1- n -V,..,*:;: : i'^i RECORD. In the Supreme Court of British Columbia. No. 17. Plaintiflf's Case. Evidence of John Cox. Re-examin- atiou. I2tli Oct., 1897 — continued. I Re-cro89- examinatioD. 64 603. Q. Mr. Wilmot was aware of the kind of inspection , ou were making ? Q. Yes, he was aware of it. 604. Q. So when you frave a report in 1895 it was just as the eye could see, as you walked over the bridge or sidewalk? A. That is all I did. 605. Q. When you inspected those floor beams 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 abeam was rotten, what would you indicate by that? Gentlemen, 1 will show you ; I have got some here ju«t to show you what I got a few days since. Perhaps the jury will like to see this, and I will tell you 10 where it came from. 607. Q, Where are those borings from? A. That (indicating) is from No. 1 beam on the Esquimalt span, now Objected to by Mr. Taylor. Mr. Macdonell: I am merely showing what he means by rotten. It is a relative term. Court: I think, Mr. Taylor and Mr. Macdonell, that this part of it has been pretty thoroughly exhausted, and I am surprised if the jury do not think they have heard enough on both sides about it, but if you insist (to Mr. Macdonell) I will let you do it, and will let you, Mr. Taylor, cross-examine upon it. 20 608. 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 ask you this : You said at the same time, " Q. When you say it was rotten you mean traces of rot were in that 7 inches? A. Dry rot. (^. Dry rot— traces of it? A. Yes?" Witness: Yes. 609. Q. That is what you mean when you say rotten? ^4. Yes, traces of rot. 610. Q. What effect would letting water get in on that dry rot have ? A. Wet and dry ? 611. Q. Yes, what effect would it have ? A. Well, it would hasten the rot. 30 612. Q. If water did not get into that dry rot, what would the effect be ? A. It would rot still. 613. Q. Quicker or slower? xL Not rot so quick, because it would not have so much moisture. 614. Q. My understanding of this is, the moment moisture got on to that, it would hasten the rot ? A. That is it. 61.5. Q. And when you say those beams were rotten, you mean there were traces of dry rot in all of them ? A. Yes. I give 40 Re-cross-examined by Mr. Taylor. Court (to Mr. Macdonell) : You produced in a packet some borings you leave to put them in ; they are either in or not Mr. Macdonell : They are not in, my Lord. I stopped. I do not put them in, in order to shorten it. It does not signify. If my learned friend is going to touch on those, he need not trouble to cross-examine. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Cox was asked a special question by my learned friend as to v/hat kind of instructions he had — he was to look at this bridge and was 65 ■7r'"rr'>*n \\-\ 20 In the Sujireme Court of British Columbia. No. 17. I'laiatiffs Caae. Evidence of John Cox. Ke-cross- examiQatioD, 1 2th Oct., 1897 — continued. supposed to walk over it, generally. I am going to ask him if his instnictionCi RECORD, were not in the following terms and read him the letter: " December 18, 1895, J. Cox, Esq., city carpenter. Dear Sir, I wish you to make an inspection of the following bridges, namely, flames Ray, Point Ellice, and Rock Bay bridges, and report by the end of the present year the condition of each. Also note any- thing you consider should be done in the way of repairs, or renewals. Yours obediently, E. A. Wilmot, city engineer " That Avas the request referred to in your report. Now, the request was in tiie letter of December 18, 1895, and the report is dated January 2, 189G. 'J'he letter, you observe, requests you to report 10 by the end of the year. " Also nore anything you consider should be done in the way of repairs or I'enewals," jind he says " in compliance with your request I beg to report," and so on. t!16. Court: I have just one question, Mr. Cox, speaking about your duties generally, about v.'alking over the bridges, and, as I think you pnt it, '"reporting anything yon could see with your eye." Wl'o gave you instructions ? ^4, Mr. Wilmot, in all cases. 017. Q. Had yon ever written instructions ? A. No, sir. 618. Q. Were }ou ever interfered with by anybody as regards taking up sidewalks or anything of that kind for the purpose of seeing the condition of the 20 bridges? A. Yes. 619. Q. When? -1. I was interfered with on James Bay Bridge, in one case, under Alderman Humphreys. 620. Q. What year was that ? A. 1895— let's see,— 1896— in the summer of 1895, in September. 621. Q. What was that interference? A. Well, people had complained to me and also Alderman Wilson — who was an alderman too, at that time — com- plained to me why didn't I take up this here disgraceful sidewalk floor on James J^ay liridge, on the north-west corner of it. Well, I had been chastised so much about this — it was a very bad floor, and the under work was bad, so I took upon 80 myself to take up I think it was 200 feet of it, and I had the material to put down the new plank, so as soon as I took it out and repaired the under work 1 could put it down quick, and flnish it the next day. Alderman Humphreys came along in the afternoon, and said: "Who gave you instructions to do this ? Who told you to do this? What are you doing this for ? " 622. Court: Without going into that, I am speaking of an earlier period. Before. 1895 had any interference been made? A. This same man interfered — Alderman Humphreys. First Day, continued. No. 17a. 40 Evidence of G. G. Biggar, taken in the Patterson case. No. 299, '96, read n^. 17^ by Mr. Deacon; also examination of S. Athcrly. — Mr. Cassidy reads cross- Evidence in examination of S. Athcrly. — Mr. Deacon reads examination of J. B. C. Lockwood. Patterson t>. At request of counsel on both sides, jury are furnished with the i)rinte(l ^"'J'^"-'*' ' - - - T J J • i.1 I) X. ^ 1 I'ead and ike:, ni tlie Patterson case and i,„,„i„,! »„ \ !l evidence ot witnesses Lockwood iuul Warner takt reading of same by counsel dispensed with. d handed to the jury. V i j , 'i RECORD. In the Supreme Court of British Columbia, No. 18, Discussion as to furtticr Evi'^ence to be admitted. No. 18. Second Day. October 13th, 1897. Same counsel present. Jury havinj; been callecl. Mr. Deacon reads portions of evidence of B. W. Murray, taken in No. 299 '96 (Patterson case). E.xhibit " T " in 299, '9«, model of bridge floorinjr, pro- duced in illustration. — Cross-e.xamination of B. \V. 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 thac effect. He made a subsequent examination, and found that it was bored and plugged. 10 I wish now to call Mr. Murray to correct that and to explain under what circumstances he made the statement in his evidence before. Mr. Taylor : I do not see any necessity for that. It is perfectly true he did make the first statement and subsequently saw the beam in conjunction with some officials, and took ; back. 1 think it was a half inch auger hole. Court: I am not going to let him be called for another reason. You made an arrangement between yourselves, that I did not quite like, that the evidence that went in before should be read in this case. I should not have agreed to the application, but alter what Mr, Taylor says, it is unnecessary — he admits that the correction was made, 20 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 Cox on the boring oi' this hole. We admitted the whole of the testimony as it stood. Court: Do you mean witnesses whose names have not been given ? 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. Bell, was away, to let his evidence taken in the Patterson case go in. 30 Court: This is exactly the result that I foresaw. I did not say so at the time, but I had not th i least doubt liow it would be — -that you would be met with a difficulty of this kind. Yoa agreed specially to Cox's evidence being given here ?vVa voce,, that the evidence taken in the Patterson case should go in, and there was no stipulation made about other witnesses. Mr. Taylor: Subject to Cox's evidence, I proposed the Avhole of the evidence in the Patterson case plus the evidence of Cox taken in this case belbrc trial should go in, without any further testimony. My learned friend did not agree to that ; he insisted u[)on catling Cox, in which case I must have the right to call testimony to contradict Cox. 40 Court : But you did not say 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 yonr arrangement, but it is a grossly unsatisfiictory way of trying the case. 67 Mr. Taylor: I do not propose for one minute in this 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. Macdouell understood, but I know what I did. I will let you give the evidence, because I am not going to shut out anything that is material to the case ; but I do not think you are entitled to give it. It is only a matter of extra indulgence, and it may affect your position in other respects as regards terms. 10 Mr. Macdonell : I certainly understood the agreement as your Lordship stated it. One of my witnesses, an expert, was here ready to testify, who did not testify before, and I sent him 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: 1 hope so. Mr. Taylor: 1 know it. But whatever was said yesterday I do not propose to take any verbal advantage of, but absolutely to live up to the spirit of the arrangement, and as your Lordship now tells me you understood the arrangement 20 to be just as you narrated it now, 1 do not propose to take any advantage of it; but it does seem to me this Court : To make it a matter of grievance to the jury ? Mr. Taylor: No; I do not think you have a right to say that. Court: No; I did not mean that. Mr. Taylor: I do not think your Lordship means that; but 1 had an under- standing 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 thcaght I should have an opportunity of contradicting Cox. Court : If Cox is here; it is not worth taking up more time 30 Mr. Taylor: All I proposed to call Court: I have given you leave ^Ir. Taylor : was purely on Cox's tescimony ; and I was going to confine it to that. Court (to 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 tiiat you are not injured by it. I only say this, Mr. Taylor, because it is taken down. Mr. Taylor: If you, who are an impartial judge in the matter, think that 40 was the arrangement, I do not call the evidence and I do not press it. Court : It does not follow that you are necessarily excluded. I have full powers as regards that. If you neglected to call that evidence, after the under- standing I grant it only as a special indulgence to which you have no claim; and I reserve to myself the power, if you adopt that course, of preventing it doing any injury to the other side. Mr. Taylor : Then, if that is your view, living up to the spirit of the matter, I say I do not tender any evidence. d K 2 RECORD. In the Supreme Court of British Columbia. No. 18. Dhcassion as to farthor Evidence to be admitted — continued. I . .i t : i \r. RECORD, In the Supreme Cotirf of British Columbia. No. 18. Discussion as to further Evidence to be admitted — continued. 68 Court : Is it for you to say. You have no grievance at all events. Mr. Macdonell tenders examination of Cox for discovery liei'ein (marked Exhibit 1). Also examination of AVilmot for discovery herein (marked Exhibit 2). Then the exhibits in the Patterson case will be marked, I presume, as in the Patterson case. Court : They do not require marking? at all; they ^o in in bulk. Mr. Taylor produces as exhibit for defence ends of floor beam No. 7, con- taining the hanger irons and lateral rods. Admitted as an exhibit by consent. (To Court): Both my learned friend and myself understood the admission of this testimony to be subject to just exceptions. 10 Court : Yes. If it was inadmissible then, it could not be admissible now. Motion for ronsuit on motion for judgment. Mr. Cassxdy : It will be understood, then, that we have leave to move for nonsuit on motion for judgment upon all grounds ? Court : What do you sny, Mr. Macdonell? Mr. Macdonell: I suppose just the same as in 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 advised, I propose to put in the questions I submitted to the jury in the other case. I was not sitting in one part of the Full Court which heard th(; appeal, but I understood from the learned judges they found 20 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 ben(;h here to ask him if during the discussion at the Full Court it a[)peared 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 prepared to put them, if I con- sider they can properly be put. Mr. Taylor: We have nothing more to suggest than what we suggested at that time, aiid the reasons that Avere given for refusing ther Court : 1 do not say I would come to the same conclusion, now, Mr. Taylor. 30 I do not remember what those other questions were, but I wish you to under- stand distinctly that I do not refuse to put any more questions than those I mentioned. It you desire any others to be put, I must ask you to put them agidii, i'or I caiuiot undertake to carry them in my head, or my reasons for refusing tliem, wlii(;h I do not remember. However, you will have time enough for that. Mr. Taylor: If my learned friend is agreeable, I am willing to let the questions go the way they were put in the Patterson ease — and he says he is. Mr. Taylor makes closing address for the defence. After Recess. !Mr. Macdonell makes closiufj address for the Plaintiff. iO Mr. Taylor: My learned friend challenged me to refer to portions of the testimony. For instance he stated that I said Court: Mr. Macdonell has invited you to do that which it was very indul- gent of him to do, because you are not entitled to it. You had better i"ead the evidence without comment. . . 09 'IT '1*1 10 20 30 Mr. Taylor: Well, he will find it on page 12 of Cox's examination. Mr. Macdonell: Read his cross-examination by me, which will explain the fact of rottenness. ^Ir. Taylor : I admit he explained to you that it was not rotten at all, but I am fToin": to read what he said. 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 ray own discretion. There has been too much latitude allowed already, and I shall use my own discretion ; we must have some attempt at regularity, at all 10 events, and this will lead to a discussion and another speech. At all events, that is all I can do. Mr. Taylor : Then I will refer your 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 Avhether the beam was rotten in 1892 when he bored it. P. 12 beginning at line 16 ; p. 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 ray copy. Court : Yes, only Mr. Macdonell will want to know, too. Mr. Taylor: Well, page 15, beginning at line 9, and p. 25 at line 6 to 8 20 inclusive; p. 26, beginning at the top of the page and going down, say, to line 10, 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 "^ question — whether he handed in 14 borings or not to Mr. Wilmot, 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 questions 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 30 to refer me to any portions of the evidence which explain the portions to which Mr. Taylor has referred. As I said betbre, I cannot allow any comment on the 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 accordance 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 not unduly pressed and yet are afl'orded every assistance. RECORD. > il In the 1 Supreme [ Court of British Columbia, No. 18. j Discnsaion ' , | as to further • 'Jj 1 Evidence to \^^ be admitted ' ' — continued. ■»! :, 1 :f W-!H 40 Court adjourned till 11 a.m. October 14th, 1897. 70 RECORD. In the Supreme Court of British Columbia. No. 19. Plaintiflfri Case. No. 19. Examination of Mr. E. A. Wilmot, City Eno;ineer, before the Registrar in action of Patterson v. Victoria. Under order of his Honour W. Norman Bole, Local Judge in Chambers, dated 23rd January, 1897, before B. H. Drake, Special Examiner herein on 3rd March, 1897. Mr. Macdonell appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff. Mr. Mason appearing on behalf of the Defendant City. Evidence ofE. A. Wilmot, before Special Exinniner ia Patterson v. Victoria, Examination, 3rd Mar., 1897. E. A. "Wilmot being fully sworn, testified. Examined by Mr. Macdonell. 10 Q. You are the city engineer Mr. Wilmot, are you V A. Yes sir. Q,. When were you appointed ? A. April, 189*2. Q. By resolution of the council ? A. Yes. I was notified by the city clerk of my appointment. \>. Were your duties defined ? A. No, not any Q. Your duties have never been defined? A. No; nothing more than a by-law; there w.'is a by-law defining some of the duties of the city surveyor. Q. Date of that by-law ? ^. 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 20 by-law before you became city engineer? .1. No; not before I became city surveyor. Q. What have your duties been since ? A. General public work. Q. Including roads and bridges ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Under the direction of the committee ? A. Under the direction of the council. Q. When did you first inspect the Point EUice bridge as city mgineer? A. Well, my attention was first called to it in June, 1892. Q. In what way ? A. One of the floor beams gave way. Q. I mean from the council ? A. No; I heard of the accident and I went 30 out there, Q. Did you report to the council? A. Yes. I do not remember now whether I reported to the council before action was taken or not; but I reported at once to the chairman of the street committee, or he may have been there at the time lor aught 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 to the condition of the bridge at that time? A. I gave a written report after it was repaired. Q. After when ? A. After repairs were made. Q. Were you instructed what repairs to make? A. No. 40 Q. But aiter you made the repairs you reported ? A. Yes ; I reported on the condition of the bridge and what had been done. Q. To what extent was public money expended on it? How much? A. At that time about $1,600. 71 1 ! 10 10 Q. "Was there any limit? Did the council liirjit you to any amount in HECORD. 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 repaired by a carpenter named Clark, and then the subsequent repairs Q- I am talking about the first repairing to it that you spent $1,600 on? A. You might say it was one continuous repair. The first thing was a needle-beam broke Q. The first thing a necdle-beara broke ? A. A floor beam we generally call it. Q. Q- In the Supreme Court of British Columbia. No. 19. Plaintiffs Case. regard what you had to the work done as it at that went on Evidence of B. A. Wilmot, before Special Examiner in Patterson ti. Victoria. 3rd Mar., 1897 — continued. 20 6 20 Y 30 t30 40 40 And you instructed A. Mr. Clark. Mr. Clark to repair that? A. Yes. Did you then report to the city council particular time ? A. Yes ; I reported in there. Q. Did you report to them the repair of that needle-beam, that that was f.^*^""*'""' sufficient to repair it? A. No; I do not remember of reporting that. As I remember it was immediately afti-r that that the floor planking was repaired ; there wore some other beams first discovered and they were repaired, and the cost of the whole was something over $1,600. Q. Was the bridge in perfect repair then ? ._.^Aftep that, yes. Q. It was. Then when did you inspect the bridge again ? A. Well» L did not person ally inspect it — it has been inspected every year by the city carpenter ; all the bridges. Q. Who was he ? A. Mr. Cox. Q. A man named Cox. Was he a city official? .1. Yes; he had charge of the bridges and sidewalks. Q. Under you ? A. Yes. Q,. Was his duty to report to you direct ? A. Yes; he reported to me with regard to the bridges and sidewalks that required repairing. Q. Did you give him any instructions how to inspect ? A. At that time, yes. Q. What instructions did you give him ? A. To bore and to see — when I found that more than one was unsound, then I had them all bored. Q. By whom ? .4. By him; and any tliat were unsound were renewed. Q. Did you see him boring ? A. Some of them ; I was not there the whole of the time. He reported to me the members that were sound. I gave him a list of the number of floor beams that were in the bridge — 14 altogether — and he reported which appeared to be sound and which were affected more or less. Q. The borings, did he produce tliem, show them to you ? A. Well, he generally did when he bored, but I cannot remember in that instance whether he did; I think he did. Q. Do you know what became of those borings ? .1. No, I do not know. Q. On his report to you did you report back to the city council ? A. Yes, I reported what required to be done to renew it. Q. And notified the city council that tiie inspeciion had been made by Cox? I do not remember whether I mentioned his name. I notified them that it required eight additional new beams, in addition to the first one. i ri ;ivl.: w \ ■ 'tMVi\ u i. 1 ■ W f: ■ t; ■ > 1 fn' ': RECORD. /n Me Supreme Cour: of British Columbia. No. 19. Plaintiff's Case. Evidence of E. A. Wilmot, before Special Examiner in Patterson v. Victoria. Examination, 3rd Mar. 1897 — continued. 10 72 Q. Can you give me the day and the month and the year about that ? A. That was the 9th of June, 1892, when the first one occurred. Q. But 1 mean at the last, after Cox's inspection you asked for eight additional floor beams, when was that? A. I think that was in the following month. I wrote to the council suggesting putting in iron beams, or at least giving the prices of iron and wood, and suggested that 1 thought, on account of the dur- ability of iron, it would be cheaper in the long run than wood. Q Yon recommended iron. About what date was that ? A- That was, to the best of my recollection, early in Jiilv. Q. In July, 1892? A. 1892, yes. Q. Well, they did not follow your reconunendations, did they? A. They decided to put in the wooden. Q. Wood. Now, under whose directions was that repair made V .4. Robert Mcintosh was the name of the carpenter; under my direction. Q. When did lie start to repair? A. I think 1 have it here (looking at memorandum). On June 29th I engaged Mcintosh. Q. In June ? A. 29th. Q. When did he finish ? A. In July 14th, I have got a memoranduin here, " Visited Point EUice Bridge." (2- You have got n memorandum in July? A. Yes, July 14th, I'oint 20 Ellice Bridge complete, exoepl pLink between rails. Q. So that it took him about two weeks to repair? A. Yes, that was with the exception of a plank between the rails. lie laid the plank outside of the rails. Q. What was the cost or expenditure for this repair? A. That would be $1,600; his repair on that, 1 think, was $1,640. Q. That amount that Mcintosh incurred? A. No, that was the total. Q. How much did Mcintosh ? A. It would be in the neighbourhood of $1,6U0, for there was only one item; $1,040 I think, included both. Q. Would Mcintosh be the $40 or the larger sum ? A. Me would be about 30 $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 ? A. Yes, on my certificate. Q,. Did Mcintosh make any report as to the repairs ? A. No, no written report. Q. Kny 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 ? A. Yes, at that time ; I considered the bridge was in better order than it was immediately 40 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 think that all the money that was necessary was expended on the repairing 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 81,600. Q. Who put down the stringers ? A. They were put down by ^Tclntosh. 73 ■r In the Supreme L'liurt of liiitish Columbia. No, 19. Evidence /// .f E. A. /// Wilmot, // before Special Kvideii of AVi before 8pc ExumiDcr iu Pattcrnon v. Victoria. Exiuninalioii, 3rd March, Q. By the city ? -I. No; they W(M'u paid for by tlio tniinway compiiny. Ft REOORD. was by an arran^ciuent with th'! tramway company. U, And whop .1. And the city. Q,. An arran^jfcmcnt biitwccn the tramway company and tlie city by which the tramway company put in stringers? .1. The tramway company paid
Vere they discussed at all in any way — any discussion over them? A. I do not reniend)er of any. Q. Well, after Mcintosh made those repairs, was anything done with the bridge after that? .1. Yes; it was planked and there were several repairs done 40 to it. Q. Planked; under your supervision? A. Yes. (2- 13>L-iiiAtnuitio ns f rom the city ? .1. \\ y report of the city car penter, reporting ti)at it requimrjilahTving. He reported ~oii all the bridges, indicating what needed renewing or repairing. Q The floor needed reiiairing ? .1. Yes. Q. Putting in new flooring, would that strengthen or weaken the bridge ? . A. It would not have any effect either way. /i d L I 74 HKCOIiD. //( thf Supreme Court of Britinh Columbin. No. 19. l'laintid''g Gate. Evidence ofE. A. Wllniot, before Special Examiner in Pnttcrson v. Victoria. Examination, 3rd Jlarcli, 1897 —continufd. (I Then 1 was outsido tlic Homc work tlono floorin• You never received or heard of any complaints as to tlie bridge being out of repair? A. No, Q. Except as Mr. Cox reported it. None of the city officials spoke to you with reference to the bridge being out of rejjair, or wanting repair? A. No; nothing that I renieinber oi, Q. Or tlie tramway company V A. No. Q. Did Mr. Cox make any suggestions to you as to further repairs? .1. No; 10 not in this case. Q. In any case? A. X); nothing further — no fiu'ther repairs tiiat he spoke of at the time. For instance, if some of the plunking was worn through or decayed he would report on tliat. He never reported anything that was rcrpiired beyond what was done. Q. No one ever mentioned to you or stated to you that the bridge should be further repaired to a greater extent? A. No; not at all, Q. Do you know wlien that bridge was built, of your own knowledge ? A. No; I could not say of ;ny own personal knowledge. Q. You heard from Mr. Core, 1 sn|)pose, the date? A. Yes, 1 heard it 20 stated. Q. Y^ou know. What is the usual life of one of these timbers in a bridge / of that kind ? A. Generally about ten yeurs; is good for about ten years. //| (il. What was this bridge constructed of? A, Douglas fir. Q. Douglas fir; about ten years. Do you know the length of time that some of these timbers were in that bridge ? A. Well, I believe about eleven. Q. What? A, I believe it was constructed in 1885; they had been in eleven years. Q. Well, did it occur to you at any time that they shoidd be replaced — some of those older timbers? A. No; it did not occur to mo that they were 30 decayed. Q. I suppose you found out afterwards that they were ? A. Some of them were; I found out after it broke down. Q. An inspection, 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 suppose it is where the wood comes in contact with wood and retains moisture, is the general cause. Q. Any excavation or anything in the timber that would collect moisture would cause ra|)id decay? J. Yes. *0 Q. Fur instance, a knot or anything of that kind ? ^1. A knot hole. Q. A knot hole w^'-'d collect water, and then a decay would start. A thorough inspection w( .id detect that ? A. At those places, yes. Q. What became of tlie timbers that were in that bridge? A. Most of them were rafted about the bridge, and 1 believe some of them are on the wharf. Q. Any of them destroyed ? A. 1 think some of them were. Q. Why ? A. I do not know. d L 2 ;/ ltK(;ORD. In the Su/iremfi Court of lirilhh Viilumbia. No. 19. I'laliiiiffii; Ciise. Evideiico of !■:. A. Wilmot, boCoro Special Kxaiiiiiior ia I'lUtersou v. Victuriu. Exainiiintion, ;{i(l Miircli, 1897 — cjnluitied. I * i •mtmimmmammmm 76 JPII ^.1- UT, IlE(^OHD. In the Supreme Court of British Columbia. No. 19. Plaintiffs Case. Evidence of E. A. Wilmot, before Special Examinci' in PattersQ-.i v. Victoria. Examination, 3rd Maieli, 1897 —continued. (2. Under whose directions or instructions? A, I do uot know; I do not know that anyone gave directions for it. Q- AVhcn did you first discover that some of those timbers were rotten after the accident; how soon after the accident? .1. Well, the second day. Q. The second day you discovered ? ^1. The lirst 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 unsound. Q. Now, were any of the timbers tliat the city put in, rotten? A. No, I did uot see any of those decayed at all. Q. It was some of the original timbers? A. It was some of the original 10 timbers, yes. Q. Floor beams r -.1. The original floor beams, and one — the end of one upright piece, I think, was partly decayed ; that was all that I saw. Q. In the s[)an that went down, were there any of the original floor beams ? A. Yes. Q. Mostly ail original floor beams? A. No; they were nearly all new ones. Q. Hov/ many original floor beams were in the span that went down ? A. I am not sure whether it was two or three. Q. Do you know where they arc? A. There is one of them down here on 20 the wharf. Q. And the other two? A. And the other one, I don't know where they are. Q. Q. down ? But they were ? A. There were two that I remember of. Did vou form an opinion as to whether those were the first that went A. No. You did not form an opinion as to that ? J. No. Did you ever express or form an opinion as to where the weakness in that bridge was at the time of the accident ? A. No, I could not. Q. You could not form one now from your knowledge ? A. No. 80 Q. So from what you have seen and heard, you cannot form an opinion as to where the weakness was ? ^. I could not form an opinion as to what caused the destruction of the bridge. Q. Or where there was the greatest weakness? A. No; I could not. Q. Would it be natural to sujipose it was in the old beams or in tlie new beams. A. The old beams I 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 •, 40 I do not know where it is. Q. Where was it broken? A. It was broken where the hai.ger went through. Q. That is at the end ? A. It is near the cud. Under the chord. Q. Was that a probable place where a bridge would give away first, that particular part? A. That part might give a'ray without the bridge going, as it did before. Before there was one of the f^oor beams f^ave away just at that place. 77 ill this? Yes; I Q- The same part of the beam ? A. The same part of the beam. Q. Gave way. That was in 1892? A. That was in 1892. Q. Of course that was repaired, and you found the siuc; i breaiiii A. This seemed to be broken about tlic same way. (^. Was the beam in a good state of repai r, except ."^t the ends? did not notice any other [)laco where it was decayed. Q. And there is only one beam broken ? ^1. Only one beam broken. Q. And there were two beams that were decayed, were tliere ? .1. No; there was one old beam there that showed slight signs of decay, but was not 10 broken. Q. Would that decay weaken it? A. 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. 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 delective in the beam itself? A. Well, I could not say as to that. The first beam that broke there was where the hangers Avent down and the platejjmderneath h£ld_the 20 wajfir^ while others that were under similar condrEfoiis thaFwere perfec"tTy sound, T^nsidered that it did not hold water, and that in those cases it would not be the cause of the decaj- — not the same cause. Q. 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. But what caused the crevice you cannot tell? A, Well, I think it was on_a£CQiiiit_iilU^uttiii^ju::aiind ^lebolt beside the hanger . ^ [|__ Q. AVell, the beam that was broken, was it decayed only in one part? .4. 30 That was all I noticed. Q. Could it be decayed in more parts than one without your noticing ? A. I did not bore it ; J did not make any examination, only a superficial c-Kamination. (^. Your attention was directed more particularly to the part.s that were broken? A. Ves. Q. And to the same extent of the one that did not break, you made just a hasty examination on that? J. Yes. Q. Those beams must have been in about eleven years then ? .1. Yes. Q. And the ordinary life would be only ten yeart:? .1. Well, yes ; I would 40 say that would be about the ordinary life of cut timber. (.^>. Where did the limit., of the corporation extend to before the last addition to the city was added, do you know? ^4. No; I could not describe it. (,). Weil, how lar did the last addition extend beyond the bridge? A. Harriet Street is the boundary. Q. Is that beyond the bridge ? A. Some distance beyond, it crosses just at the siding — the switch. (I How far be3'ond — one or two blocks beyond this bridge? .!. Yes; I think about half a mile. RECORD. In the Supreme Court of British Columbia, No. 19. Plainliflfa Case. Evidence of E. A. Wllmot, before tSpecial Examiner in Patterson v. Victoria. Examination, / 3rd March, | 1897 — fontini'cd. 11 ' M i" :i'l 78 M \4M\ yd J "M; RECORD. Iti the Supreme Court of British Columbia, No. 19. P'aintifTs Case. Evidence of K. A. Wilinot, before Special Examiner in Patterson v. Victoria. Examination, 3rd .Marcl;, 1897 — continued. Cross- examination. No. 20. Plaintiff's Case. Evidence of E. A. Wilmot, taken at the trial of Patterson v. Victoria, on the 20th May, 1897, Examination. 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 Reserve. Q,. Is there ary particular road or street runninf)^ over there? A. Yes, the Esquimau Road. (}. Did the city extend on that road beyond the bridge ? A. Not that I know of; not on the Esquinialt Road. Q. Nothincr beyond the bridge? A. Not on that road. I'hey did beyond the bridge in Victoria West. Q. Why not immediately beyond the bridge? .1. Well, 1 would say they did not that I know of. I do not kr.ow of uiiy repairs done there by the city. 10 Q. Why? A. There were many other places that required them more. Q.. Because it was not necessary. But beyond that again on that same road they did expend money, did they? ^1. I do not know of any money expended on the E.squimalt road. Q. Any sidewalks there? A. Yes. Q. Were they repaired by the city? .1. Y'^es, by the city; yes. (). Your su])ervision extended beyond the bridge, I suppose? A. Yes; out to the city limits. £r,amined by Vlv. Mason. Q. Whilsl snine of these repairs were jeing done, any car traffic was stopped, 20 was it not ? .1 . It was : yes. (). And you advertised a notice that the bridge was dangerous? .1. 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 woodwork of the bridges was concerned, and general work, I did. f,<. Were you city engineer when the bridge was taken over? A. No. (I. I)id you ever receive any drawings, calculations or specifications from the Government with regard to it ? A. No. (),. Were any furnished by the Lands and Works Department ? .1. Not that 30 I know of. Q. Not to your knowledge ? A. The tramcar was in operation over the bridge when I came on. (/. The tramway obtained their authority to nui cars over that bridge from the Government ? .1. I believe so ; ves. Ihe examination here closed. No. 20. Evidence of Edward Ashley W^ilmot, City l-lnginecr, taken at the trial of Pattcr.son v. Victoria. i^Uth May, 1807. 40 Edward Ashley Wilmot — Called and e^'amincd by Mr. Davis. Q,. You have been city engineer f '- r the City of Victoria since J 892, Mr. Wilmot? A. Yes, I have. Q. There is no one, I believe, over you ? .4. No. 79 -rn 10 40 Q. That is, no official — subject only to the orders of the council V .1. Yes, Q. I notice that you state in that examination that in 1892 when these repairs wore being done on the Point Ellice bridge, it was closed for tramcar traffic? /]. Yes. Q. After the repairs were completed : it was again thrown open for tramcar traffic by the city, wis it not? A. Yos; the restriction was taken off. Q. Large cars, or larger cars, so to speak, were running over the bridge prior totheaccident of 1892? ^. Yes. Q. Just began a com{)aratively short time before ? A. I could not say when 10 they began. Q. In fact, the car which went through in 1892 is the same car as went througli in 189(j ? A. So I have been told. JMr Davis (to witness) : In those communications (referring to annual reports of the Defendant Corporation), I see :'eference is made to Mr. Wilmot, to an accident which took place m 1892 — the floor beam broke. Did the car go through on that occasion? A. Xo. Q. It was held up by what? A. The end of the floor beams is held up by lateral rods — the end of the broken beam was held up by the lateral rods. Q. The lateral rods were the same as in 1896 ? A. Yes. 20 Q. At that time the rail rested on the top of the floorinsr, I believe ? A. Yes. Q. Was the flooring broken in 1892? A. No; I don't remember that it was; the car passed over the beam. Juror: Was the 1892 car crowded to the same extent as the other? A. Just about it. It was an excursion — a picnic excursion. Mr. Davis: Xew beams were put in, I see by the report, was there any, and if so, what dittoronce in the size ? ^1. The new beams were 12 by IG; the broken floor beam where it was broken was 12 by 16, but the remaining parts of the beams were 12 hy 18 — the old beams. 30 Q,- Kxcept that they tapered a little at the ends where the hangers were ? A. Tiiey were sized down where the hangers went on. It was not at the tapering — it was on the length of the beam where the hanger went through and the plates went on, and it was the depth between the taper and plate, 16 inches, and the new beams were 12 by 10 all through. Q. AV'as there any change made in the hangers at the time the new beams were put in ? A. The first beam that was broken, some of the hangers were put back again, and put back in the same way. IJ. With reference to the hangers, some of the hangers were put back, but what changes were made ? A. Tliere were stirrups put on. ^Q Q. Tiiat is, the iron was widened out and went round outside of the beam instead of through? A. Round ontside of the beam. Q. You heard your evidence ruad there, ]\Ir. Wilmot ? ^1. Yes. (,>. That is correct, is it not ? A. Yes. (J. I believe Mcintosh was the other man who did the repairings ? .1. Yes; he l)Ut in the floor beams he did the other I'epairing the floor beams — and the new floors ai;d stringers. (^K Mcintosh was acting under your histructions ? .1. Yes. RECOHD. In the Supreme Court of Brithh Columbia. No. 20. Plaintiff's Case. Evidence of E. A. Wilmot, taken at the trial of Patterson v. Victoria, on the 20th May, 1897. Exaniination — continued. 'iill In, ! ^ 1' I m ril '$Mi ■^■4 L. t!^^ RECORD. /« (he Supreme Court of British Cohtmbia. No. 20. Plaintiff's Case. Evidence of E. A. Wilmot, taken at the trie! of Patterson i: Victoria, on the 21 St May, 1897. Examination — continued. A. Yes. ? A. No. We examined the two pieces. 20 80 Mr. Wilmot, being recalled, on the second day of trial (21st May, 1897), on behalf of the Defendant, testified, examined by Mr. Taylor. Q. Yon are already under oath, Mr. Wilmot. You examined this broken beam'r ,1. I did. Q. Did you find an auger hold in it ? A. No. (i'. Did you examine for the purpose of ascertaining whether there was or not? A. I did. (^. How long time did you spend on that examination? A. Long enough to examine it thoroughly. (I. Who was with yon r A. Mr. Bell. 10 Q. Did two of you examine it together? (i. And you did not find any auger hole Q.. You examined the whole beam ? A. Q. Tlie two pieces ? ..4. Yes. Q. Well, you have heard what has been said about the break at the hanger irons; were the two pieces there complete ? A. fes. Q. That is to say, could they have been joined together and make the complete beam ? A. Yes. Q. Were the marks of the hangers at all in any piece of it ? ,1. Yes ; there was niarks of the hanger in the beam. Q. On which beam? .1. On the long end. Q. That would be ? A. On the main beam ; not the piece; that was ' broken oft^'. ^ Q. On the main beam ? A. Yes. Q. That would be the south ciud or the end next to Victoria, the long end ? Y'ou saw the marks of the hnniiers ? A. Yes. Q. You said a half-section of the han. 18!J2? .1.1892. That was when the beam broke. 80 Q. How was your attention called to it ? .1. There was one of the floor beams broke. I don't remember now who first told me of it; I went over imraodiatclv after. Q. As part of your duties you went over? .1. Yes; I went over there. (,'. Well, that was part of your duty to look after it ? A. It was not a defined part of my duty. (,'. But generally P A. I considered it so; yes. <,). 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. 40 Q. That was part of the council, the street committee? .1. Yes. Q. And did they direct you how to have it repaired? ^1. Not the details how to have it repaired ; but they agreed to renew that floor beam — the floor beam that was broken. Q. Now can you tell me Avhat floor beam that was or what span it was in? A. No. (l Well, do you know what span it was in ? A. I cannot jjossibly say now what span it was in. d M 2 RECORD. /;* the Supreme Court of British Columbia. No. 21. Plaintiff's Case. Evidence of E. A. Wilmot, taitcn bufbro the Deputy Hegistnir, 01) the 2 nth July, 1897. Examinatiou — continued. ■ 1 ,'H m ii"'" 84 !'■■' I. '■*^, RECORD. fn the Suprome Cuiirt of British Columhia, No. 21. Pliiintiff's Casth July, 1897. Examination — continiiril. 86 (,>. And (lid you report that oxaininatiou to tlie 001111011? A, Yes, 1 reported — yes, I reported what was wanted. Q. Did they give you any instructions after that? A. No definito instruc- tions, no. (i. Any indefinite instructions? A. Well, they <,'ave me instructions to re- place the wooden beams. (,'. I believe you recommended iron beams? A. Yes, 1 suggested [)Utting in iron. (J. And they disregarded the suggestion? .1. Decided to put in wooden. Q. And in pursuance of that what did you do ? .1. Put in the wooden. 10 (/. Who did you instruct ? .1. Mcintosh — Robert Mcintosh. •Q. Did they instruct you in any way to inspect the bridge ? .1. No. (,>. When did you insp''ct that after it was broken first in -June, IHOii? A. Well, it was inspected — all the bridges were inspected every y('ai'Jjy_the_eity carpenter; there was no special inspection of that. (i. T)o you know of any s])ecial inspection of that bridge; that was made in. June, 18!)2f .1. June, 1892? (,>. Yes? .1. Yes, there was a special inspection made iirnnediatcly. Q. iiy whose instructions? .1. By my instructions. (J. To wliom? A. To Mcintosh; and to Co.\ first. 20 Q. John Cox? A. Yes. Q. What instructions did you give to John Cox ? .1. When [ saw that some of the other floor beams showed signs of decay — I could tell by inspecting from th(! top — 1 told him to bore them all and to re|)ort on the condition of each. Q. Do you remember the date of those instructions to him ? .1. I could not say the date, but it was between the 16th of June and the 2!)th. Q. Yes. You gave him instructions. Now, do you know if he I'ollowed your instructions? A. I believe he did, yes. Q. Did you see him? A. I saw him; 1 was on the bridge when he was at 30 work, but not the whole time. (}. Was anyone with him ? .1. He had one or two men. (^. Do you know who they were? .1. No, I don't remember who they were. Q. They were employed by him? .1. Well, I could not say how they were employed; by the city; he Avas the only permanent carpenter, I think. Q. He had the power, 1 suppose, to get assistance ? A. Yes, if necessaiy. Q. Do you know if he bored any of the beams? A. Yes. (J. r suppose you saw him boring? A. J saw him boring, yes; I saw him He brought in the dust — the borings. 40 The borings, and reported to you direct? A. Yes. And did you report them to the council ? A. Yes. The result of his report ? .1. Yes; the number of beams that required boring. Q. renewing. (,>. 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. ~ ""■ ~~ — " " ^ 10 20 40 No. 21. I'Inintiff'a Case. Kvidencc of K. A. Wilinot, tiikcu before till! Deputy Kegistrar, on the 26tii 87 Q. And did they stop the traflic. .1. Vcs. (}. The traffic was stopped? .1. Ciir traffic wn? stopped— the p!issenf!;er traffic was at any rate. I have ut you wen; not away from it any kn;fth of timu ? .1. No. (yK Did the tram company have their enjrlneer there lookinp; after it? A. ^^ No, they did not have their en^'ineer; the foreman of the tramway looked after th(! laviiiir of I la- rails. (l That is the T rnilsV .1. Yes. Q. You hal nothing to do with it? .1, Mr. Mcintosh was workinst of it was rafted above the bridge, but some of it v/as brought down here with the, ii-on. '^^ Q. I am talking now of ' h- ■ (pairs in 1892, Mr. Wilmot V .1. Oh. Q. Were they sold -the old timbers, the planking? A. J don't know whethe* they wuj'e Kold or stolen. (J.. Did the city do anything with them? A. I don't think they utilized them. Q. I understand they were sold by the city? .1. I know I recommended \ selling them, as I did not think they were worth bringing in and using again; (but I don't remember whether th(\y were sold. \ Q. You recommended the city to sell them? .1. Yes ; the old flooring. (I Now, after Mr. Mcintosh made those i-epairs in July, 1892, when next <0 was that bridge repaired ? .1. f think it was repaired in 1895, Q. 1895? A. 1895. Q. It was repaired by a man named Elliott? .4. Yes; T'homas Elliott. Q. Thomas Elliott ; "by the city? .1. Yes. (^. You continued to look after it from 1892 till 1895? /I. Yes. Q. In fact until the present time? A. Yes. Q. Now, between 1892 and 1895, were there no repairs done to that bridge? 89 A. I don't remember of any. There iimy hiive boeu an odd plank or some stick of timber hero and there that was attended to, but no ^xeiieral repairs. (^K Was there any sort of repair made to the bridges? .1. Yes, the bridges were rei)aircd. Q. During between 1892 and 1895? .(. Yes. Q. An odd piece ot planking? .1. Yes, the sidewalk. Q. Something like that? A. Yes. Q. So that it was looked after by the city ? .1. It was looked after by the 30 city, yes. Q. Now, did you ever get any notice of its being out of repair ? .1. No, sir. (^). I don't mean oHicial notice, but any general notice? .1. No. Q. Ever asked by Mr. Grant or inibrmed by Mr. Grant? A. No. (J. Do you know if the city took any precautions to prevent heavy traffic on that ? J. No, I do not. (2- Or furious driving V ^1. Nothing more than the ordinary by-law that provides against fust driving over any of the bridges. fj. Do you know of your own knowledge that that was ever enforced? 20/1. Not of my own knowledge. 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. Vour attention then was never drawn to that bridge being out of repi.ir ? A. No; not otherwise than by the officials. Q. That AVfts in 1892 ? A. 1 say not otherwise than by o3icials, Mr. Cox, when some renewals were required. Q. That bridge connects the highway between the Victoria side and the Esquimalt side of the Gorge, I believe? A. Yes; it connects the Indian lleserve with Bridge Street. •■'O Q. The name of that street is Work Street, is it not ? A. Work Street. (2. It is a continuation of Work Street ? .1. 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 tlie Esquimalt road on the other side, I believe. (}. It is the main road to Esquimalt? A. Yes, the main road to Esquimalt. Q. Now, after the bridges were repaired, Mr. Wilmot, did you report that to the city? A. I don't remember whether I reported that to the council or not; they were only slight repairs. Q Well, noWj_wiis^ there ,j,ay speciidfji^ set apart for the repair of bridges? .1. Nof there was a certain amount voted ior streets, bridges and side- walks, and tiiere^vas a provision made for any special work that was required. But there was no special funds set apart. Q. 7UI monry that was expended on the bridges was expended out of the general fund ? ^1. General reveime, yes. Q. Set ajjart lor bridges and roads? A. Yes. Q. And sidewalks? ^1. Yes, and sidewalks. Q. It was drawn on that fund? A. Yes. d N ItKCORD. /h the Hiipremo Court of lintish Vulumbia, No. 21. rittiiitiflf's Case. Evidonco (if K. A. Wilmot, tukuii before thu Deputy Kenistrar, «^ii the 2Gth July, 1897. Exiuniimtion — continued. 40 i/'. RECOir). Ill the Stipreme Court of British Columbia. No. 21. Flaintiflf's Case. Evidence of E. A. Wilraot, taken beforn the Deputy Registrar, on the ?6th July, 1897. Exatnination — continueih 90 Q. Now, after Mr. Cox inspected in 1892, did he inspect afterwards? A. Yes, he inspected all the. briJojes. Q. That was part of hi.s duties to inspect all? A. Yes. Q. This one not differently from the others? ^4. This one just the same as the others. Q. Just the same as the others, it was pr.rt of his duties. You relied on his inspection? .1. Yes, I did. i). He had the special control and the charge of the inspection part? A. Yes, repairs were made from time lo time on all the bridges, as he reported they required. 10 Q. As he reported. Have you any reports in writing, Mr. Wilmot? A. Well, the last one is the only one that is published, the 1896 annual report. Q. That is the report of 1895; but have you any other? A. No, I have not. He had a memorandum book. (}. Now, the supplies that ho required for repairs, did he obtain those on his own requisition? .1. The supplies? Q. Yes? .4. He reported what was wanted, a rennisition was made out for them. Q. And the men that were hired, did he send in their names to the council and the council pay? A. As a general thing there were two men working Avith 20 him all the time ; they Avere 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 himself. Q. Do you know what men he usually hired, or worked for him? A. No, I don't remember now who was working with hira then. Q. Is there any way of finding out what men were working for him in 1892? A. Yes, I think the accounts would show. Q. In the city treasurer's ? A. In the city office. Q. Would that be in the hands of the city treasurer ? A. Yes, I am not sure whether he would have the vacation under which they were paid, but he 30 would have the names of all working men. Q. Where could I find out the names and the duties of the men that Cox hired, and who were working for him r Do you know where that could be found ? A. Since 1892 they got a reccird of it in the city engineer's office. At 1892 I don't remember whetlier there was a record kept then or not. (,'. Now who keeps them? A. 1 have a clerk who keeps a record of all the employees, and Avhat they were engaged in. Q,. But you cannot tell as to 1892 ? A. I am not sure, I could not say from memory. Q,. Where do you think they would be ? .4. They would be there. 40 il. In whose charge? 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 officer the system has been altered since of records. Q. Since 1892? A. Yes. A. The system has been altered since- keeping the acf.ounts, of keeping tlie T^ ^T * 30 Q. After the bridge gave way in 1896 what became of the material ? .4. Well, it is — most of it was rafted above the bridge, that is the wooden members; and the iron was brought down to ihe city wharf, and a few of the floor beams. (I. Why wasn't it all brouglit down ? A. Well, I understood that the provincial police took charge of it up there. Q. Who instructed them to take charge of it ? .1. I don't know; Mr. Beaven instructed Mr. Yorke to bring it doAvn ; that is what I understood; and Mr. Yorke, in going for it, was told by the provincial police that tliey would take charge 10 of it. Q. Why, under what authority ? A. [ don'i know. But it was rafted there. Q. Why would tliey take charge of part and not all P 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. Q. Do you know the name of the provincial police Avho had charge of it ? A. Xo, I do not. Q. Did you see some of it in charge of the provincial police? A. I saw it 20 up there; I don't know Aviiose ciiarge it was in. Q. You inspected it? .1. Yes. Q,. And this number three beam, you saw it ? A. Yes. Q. And 1 suppose you saw the end that was not broken? A. 1 saw both ends; I saw tbo whole beam. Q. Was the irvn in tin; end that was not broken at the time you saw it? A. T don't remjuiber that. Q. Well, the hanger did not pull out ot" the end that was not broken ? A. No, of the other end there. <^ ; Q. It was out at the other end? ^l;_Jtjvas out, yes; itMvas broken. "> "0 (2. The other end was broken, and the hunger 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, l)Ut out of many. They had to take the hangers off in order to get the diagonal braces separate. Q. Who had to do this? .1. The wreckers in taking apart to get the iron work — some of it; they put some back and some they did not. Q. Why would tliev put some back? .4. I don't know. (^K AVhu were the wreckers? ^1. YVrke had charge of them. (J. Well, as I understand you, that is the reason that the provincial police 40 kept some of the beams and some of the timbers was that the iron was out of them? -I. No, 1 don't think that had anything to do with their keeping them; the}' kept them to prevent them being lost. Q. Why did the\- keep some and not otliers? ^1. Well, T say 1 presume they kept it there to prevent it from going adrift and getting lost; and the others, there was a small quantity brought, down with the iron — all the iron was brought down. In getting the iron separnte from the timbers, in f> good many cases they had to take the hangers out and the pins apart. d N 2 UECORD. Ill the Supreme Court of British Columbian No. 21. Plaintiff's Case i|i Evidence of E. A. Wilniot, taltea before tlie Peputy- Kegistrar, on the 26th July, 1897. Examination — continuvd. , -li. a i^U^^-y^. I I '■1 : 92 : ^ il f* <■ • i RECOIID. In the Supreme Court of British Columbia. No. 21. Plaintiffs' Case. Evidence ofE. A. Wilmot, taken before the Deputy- Registrar, on the 2r)th July, 1897. Examination — continued. * Sic. Q. Did they bring any or*tIie beams down that had no irons in? xl. No, I don't fhink they did ; I tiiink the irons were i^^ all that were brought down. I would not say positively, but I think. (2- Now, this number three beam, when did you see it last? A. I don't remember. Q. Give mo the dates as near as you ean? ^1. Well. I was up there several days through the summer. I did not make a memorandum of it at all. Q. The accident happened on the 2Gch of May; how long after the accident? A. Well, I could not say; there is no use of my guessing. (2. Would it be a month after the accident ? A. Yes, I saw it a month after 10 the accident. Q. Might it have been two n-onths? A. Yes, I might hi.v v 't two months afterwards. Q. In whose charge was it then? A. It wac in a bo .a. There was v. boom made of the upper chord principally, they were fastened fogether, and all this timber was inside of them, and there was an Indian up there. Q. What Indian was that? A. I don't know. Q. Have you any idea of his name ? A. No, I don't remember his name at all. Q. Did you speak to him at all ? A. Yes ; I have seen him there. 20 Q. Did you ask him to take change of the timber? A. No, I did not instruct him to take charge of the timber. Q. Why didn't you bring them down 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 anywb ire else. (2. And you knew that the greater part of it had been taken down ? ,4. No, a very little of it had been taken down; the greater part of it had heo- it. up there. Q. And you took no precautions to have it |)resei'vod? A. 1 took no par- , r ticular precautions; nc. Q. You were not instructed to? J. No. Q. And you have no idea of the Indian's name who had charge of it? ,1. No. Q. You knew it belonged to the city? .1. No, I would not say that — whether it belonged m the city or Government. I knew it was part of the bridge. (2. Certainly the beams that were put in by the city bi.,.j ^ ,d to tl-^ "ity? A, It was all part of the bridge. Q. And you knew that the beams that were put in by the city beloi ' 'o to the city? ..-1. Yes; I knew that they were part of the bridge. Q' Still you took no precautioi.s to preserve it? .1. No; I did not take any precautions to preserve it, in particular, myseli. Q. Do you know what was done with th.'i ritnbt'r, .1. No; I believe it was burned. Q. By whom? A. I could not tell you. 1 wa? up tlicre this summer and they said it was nearly all grne. By whom I could not hnd out. 93 Q. Mr. Wilmot, why do you differ from Mr. Gore in saying that the beam was bro'-.eii instead of the hanger pulling through? .1. IJecause i examining the break you could see where the mark of the hanger was in the 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, to, in that? .1. No. Q. Mr. Bell, I understand, says it broKe when it hit the water. A. It may have broken. 10 Q. He says it broke when it hit the water? .1. He was of the opinion that the hanger pulled right througli. Q. JJut he says that what broke the beam was it hitting the water? A. Yes: 1 remember. Q. You differ with him on that ? .1. ^Vell, I form no opinion as to that. Q. Ycu form no opinion when it broke? -I. No. Q, Well, what would be the most likely time for it to break, befoi-e 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 20 1 have formed no opinion at all is to when it broke. Q. Well, what is the probability? .1. Well, I could say. Q. Now, were the new beams broken at all? A. No; there were none of them. Q. No other beams broken except number three ? A. No, that that is broken. Q. How miiny new beauis were in the span that went down ? were five ; five new ones. Q. Q. 80 Q. (I decay. Q. Q. (}. Car you , under the hip-vertical Q. On tlie side next to Victoria ? seven. Q. Number seven. It was not broken at all ? .1. No. ■10 Q. The irons all perfectly sound in it ? A. Yos; well, the irons were cut off, the vertical rods were cut off. Yes; the}'^ were sound. Q. I suppose you have the same opinion now — at least, you have lU) better 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. (,'. You have no further data ? .4. No; nothing more than the evidence I have heard. RECORD. In the Supreme Court of I British. Columbia. No. 21. Plaintiff's Case. Evidence of E. A. Wilmot, taken before the Deputy Rogisti-ar, j on the 26th / July, 1897.1 Examination — continued. is that one .1. There And how mnny old ones ? ^l. Two. One old one you have? A, Yes. And one old one has been lost? .4. Yes. The old one that you have is much decayed? -4. It shows signs of Much or little ? A. Well, considerable. 1 undc'stand it was not broken ? A. No. "'•If J th':! position that beam was in the brid'i;e ? On the side next to Victoria. . it was Number 4; f il '-Mil ll ■»« RECORD. In the Supreme Court of British Columbia. No. 22. Plaintiflf's Case. Evidence ofE. A. Wilmot, taken before the Deputy Registrar, on tlie 26th Jaly, 1897. E.'&amiaation — continued. 94 Q. Does that give you any further information as to the cause ? A. No. Q. Do you differ from Mr. Bell 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 P .1. No. (}. You did not form an opinion before and you have not formed one yet ? No. Q. A) ■ Iiave received no further data on which to form one? .1. No. A U. Did jr see the specifications of this bridge ? A. No; I never saw they were ? A. No, them before. 10 Q. Did you know where they were — informed where A. No. (2- Did you know that rhey were in the hands of the Government ? I had nu information with regard to them at all. Q. Xo information at all. — As to the strain sheet? ^4. 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 oflfice, but I did not see him. Q. You saw a plan of the bridge in the Provincial Government ofhce, in Victoria? A. Yes. 20 (2. After the accident? .1. Yes. Q. I suppose it had been there from the time they built the bridge? A. I presume it had. (}. 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 subsequent to the accident ? A. No. Q. Did you ever see the strain-sheet ? .1. No ; I have never seen it. 30 Q. You do not know that it was in court in the Patterson case and the Gordon ease r A. I do not remember seeing it. 1 never went over it. Q. Have you any idea of the weight of the car ? A. The weight of the car is about ten tons. (I. About ten? And her weight with her load of passengers? A. Well, it was estimated to be about eighteen toos. Q. With car loaded ? ,1, With car loaded. Mr. Mason : Do you know thut of your own knowledge? A. No. Mr. Macdonell: You form that from the evidence you have heard since? A. Yes; from the number that were on board. 40 (j.- What is the Jiatural life of wood in a bridge, Mr. Wilmot ? ^1. Well, it depends on two conditions — the wood and the position it is in. Q. Well, the most favourable; taking it in a bridge such as this and under conditions such as this was ? .1. Well, about — well, from seven to ten years. Q,. Seven to ten. It would not be safe to be in the bridge after ten years ? A. Well, it might be ; but it would not be safe to trust it. 10 20 SO 40 95 Q. Would it decay faster after it was in seven years than it would before the time up to the seven years? A. Yes ; it probably would. Q. It probably Avould decay a little faster — that is, it would decay faster for the three years frorji seven to ten than it would from four to seven ? .^^1. Yes; I think it would. Q. Have you inspected the timbers that are now in the span now standing ? A. No; not since. Q. They were nearly all new P A. There were five new in it. Q. All except the hip verticals ? A. The hip verticals. 10 Q. They were old timbers ? A. Yes. Q. And four in the other span that went down ? A. Five. Q. Nine new ones? A. There were ten altogether new ones; there were nine put in the second time — by Mr. Mcintosh. There are fourteen floor beams altogether and there was only four old ones. Q. In the span that went down one hip vertical was old and one hip vertical was new ? -1. Yes. *Examined hij Mr. Mason. Q. You say that when the first beam broke the end that broke did not drop down because it was supported by the laterals ? A. Yes. 20 Q. Did the same thing occur in 1896? A. I could not tell you. It was broken very much the same way. Q. Would they afford the same support- in 1896 as they did in 1892? A. Yes ; I should think eo. Q. The same, and no more and no less? A. I should think so; it would depend on the break. (.1 You say thi! floor did not hold it up in 1892? A, No. Q. AVIiiit is your reason for saying that ? .1. The floor did not extend over the course. Q. The floor did not ? A. No. 30 (2- It did not extend over the course in 1892 ? A. No. Q. Do you know that of your own knowledge ? ^. I know it to the best of my recollection. (X Now you say Mr. Cox followed out your instructions in 18i)2 ? .1. Yes; so far as I know. Q. Well, how were chose instructions given? A. I gave him randum. Q. You gave him a memorandum? .1. A list of the floor beams to examined, and he marked alter each the condition in which it was. Q. And did he return you that memorandum ? A. Yes. 40 i}. The same piece — ^he same memorandum that you gi -^e him? .1. lie gave me a memorandum of the floor beams. (i^ But I say that was the same memorandum on which you had given him his instructions? A. I don't remember now : but he gave me the memorandum of the condition of the beams. Q. Well, you say Mr, Cox has a book. What book was that? -I. He has a memorandum book of the work that he did. RECORD. // bi the. \l Supreme Ij , Court of British I j Columbim.' I No. 21. Plaintiflfs Case. Kvidencc of E. A. Wilmot, taken before the Deputy- Registrar, on the 26th July, 1897. Examination — continued. Cross- examination. *Sic. a memo- oe lit RECORD. In the Supreme Court of British Columbia. No. 21. PlaintifFs Case. Evidence of E. A. Wilmot, taken before the Deputy Registrar, on the 26th July, 1897. Cross- Examinatiou — continued. 96 Q. For the city? A. Yes. Q. Who made the entries in that book? A. He did liiraself. Q. Did you make any of them ? A. No. Q. Well, didn't he have another book in which you put instructions calling his attention to work that was required to be done? .4. There was a memo- randum book in the office with instructions to different employees. Q. What has become of that book ? A. That is in the office. Q. It is? J. Yes. Q. Had not Mr. Cox a special book — an instruction book? A. ?To; not a special instruction book. 10 Q. Well, do you remember what instructions you gave him. A. In 1896 ? Q- No ; in 1892 ? A. Well, 1 gave him instructions to examine all the floor beams and report on the condition of each, whicli he did ; and it was on the strength of that report that inc old ones were taken out and the new ones put in. Q. Well, did you give him instructions as to the boring ? A. Yes, I told him to bore the beams and plug up the holes. IJ. You say you saw him boring? A. Yes; I saw him. Q. How was he boring? .4. He was boring near the end of the beam. Q. Which beam ? A. I don't remember now which one it was; somewhere 20 near the middle cf the bridge. Q. How many did you see him bore? A. I don't remember seeing him bore but one. Q. And you don't remember which one that was? A. J don't remember which one that was. Q. What size hole was he boring? A. I should say from one-half to five- eighths of an inch. Q. Well if you did not see him bore all the holes, how do you know whether or not your instructions were carried out? .4. I followed his report. Q,. You followed his report? A. Yes; all the beams that he pronounced .30 were not perfectly sound wore replaced. There were just four of the fourteen that were pronounced perfectly sound. Q, Did he state how he bored them? A. I don't remember whether he stated so or not. Q,. You say that he reported this beam number three perfectly sound? A. He did, or it would have been renewed. I don't remember the particulars now that he did report, but all that he did not report perfectly sound were re- newed. (,>. You say you relied on his inspection? A. Yes. Q. Is Cox working for the city now? A. No. 40 Q. When did he cease to work? A. Oh, I think a little more than a year ago. Q. That would be about when? ^1. Well, I think it was May last year. Q. May, 189G? .4. Yes. Q. Previously to that was he paid by the day instead of by the month? A. No; previously to that he was paid by the month, and then he was changed from monthly pay to daily payment. 97 '^'"^•' ^ Q.. Yes? A. And he left. Q. Well, (lid he express to you the reason for leavinj^? A, No; T don't think he did. Q. What was his reason for leaving do you know? A. No, I could not say. It may have been for that or it may have Ijeen to obtain other employment. Q Now, do you know how it was that some of the wreckage of the bridge in 1896 was taken tu the Indian Reserve and some to the city wharf? .1. Well, as 1 just stated, the iron was all brought to the city wharf, and as I understood the mayor gave instructions to Mr. Yorke to bring all the lumber down, lie 10 went up there, and the provincial police had charge of it. That is all 1 know about it. Q. Mr. Yorke brought some of the lumber down to the wharf? A. Some of it; yes. Q. Where did he get that lumber from, do you know? .1. It was part of the wreckage. (}. Well, the police stated that they were going to take charge of tL;: lumber on behalf of the goverinnent? -1. So Mr. Yorke said. Q. Well, now, do you know whether the lumber was carefully examined by the coi'oner and jury on the inquest ? .1. They were up tliere. I could not 20 say how earefull)' they examined. (J. Didn't 3'ou go up with them? A. No. Q. Are you sure of that? A. I did not accompany them over the— up to the bridge. (^. \Vell, they went there several times, did they not? A. I believe they did; yes. Q. And as far as yuu can remember most of the expert witnesses visited the wreck, both at the reserve and on the wharf? A. I don't thiidx tliere was any brought down to the wliarf at that time It was all up there. Q. All the timber was up there? ^1. Yes. 30 Q. When was the timber brought down to the wharf afterwards ? A. The experts were up there immediately after the accident. Q. Yes. ,1. And then they were several days gettiufr the iron free I'rom the wood ajid getting it separated and hauling it up, and it was during that time the experts Averc up. And after they got all the iron they brought it and some of the wood down. Q. Then the lumber that Avas on the reserve was chiefly lumber that was free from the iron wreckage ? ,1. Yes. (). How long did that inquiry last, do you remember? A. I don't remember. 40 (). Now you say you saw number three beam on the reserve. You saw the mark of the hanger ? A. Yes. Q. And you saw the mark of the hanger and you were satisfied that it did not tear through, otherwise that mark would have been obliterated ? A. Yes. Q. Did YOU examine the two pieces carefully to satisfv yourself to that? A. Yey. IJ,. You did ? J. Yes. I was satisfied from my examination that it did d HECORD. Ill the 'Supreme Court of British Columbia. Xo. 21. Plaintiflfs Case. Evidence of E. A. Wilmot, taken before tlie Deputy Registrar, on the 2C;th July, 1897. Cross- cxamiiiatiou — continued. F, ; ; J^ ! 98 r ■;h ■ M RECORD. In the Supreme Court of British Columbia. No. 21. Plaintiff'.s Case. Evidence of E. A. Wilmot, taken befoiv the Deputy Registrar, on the 2Gtli July, 1897. Cross- ezamiuatinn -continued. I Re-examin- atioD. *Sic. not pull through ; that the gib-plate at the bottom had not gone right through. Q. And the hanger mark was clearly defined? A. Yea. Q. Well, did you see any other mark anywhere near the hanger of the boring, or anything of that kind ? A. 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; explain it? A. The beam was laying on its side. It might have been borfid on the side that it was lying on, and I would not have seen it. ^^ Q. Which side would that be ? A. Well, it is not the upper side, but I would not be sure what side it was on. Q. But you are sure it was not on the upper side? ..^.^^es. Q. Well, witF regard to tlie boring. I think you stated you did not give any special instruction as to the boring ? A. Except to plug up the holes. Q. Did you tell him to plug up the holes? A. With wood. (j. You did not state what size the holes were to be bored? A. No. Q. Are you positive as to that? A. I don't remember of stating it. Q. But you arc certain you told him to plug them up with wood? A. Yes; I told him to bore them and plug them with wood to keep the water from 20 getting in. Q. Then you say there 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 is 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 not ? A. Yes. Q. Put up by the Government? A. I don't know who it is put up by. Q. Was it there when you first took the bridge in ? A. I couldn't say that; .30 it is there now. Q. Do you remember what formal notice you gave to the tramway company 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 ? .t. To the best of my recollection it was a notice — a written notice that the bridge Avas unsafe. Q. To the effect that the bridge was unsafe. A. Yes. *Examincd by Mr. Macdonell. Q. You speak of a memorandum book which is on file, Mr. Wilmot ; Avhen did you see that memorandum book? A. That is a memorandum of work 40 to be done uy the foreman. Q. Well, where is it now ? .1. Up in the office? Q. Your office? A. Yes. Q. The city engineer's office? A. Yes. Q. And is it signed by Cox? A. No; it i^ not signed by-it IS a 99 memorandum that 1 put down in the book, and the foreman sees it there every morning, for any work that requires to be done. Q. Tiie memorandum that (^ox gave you, you don't know what became of that? A. I don't know what beeame of that ; no. Q. You don't know where that is, good, bad or indifferent? Now, Mr. Wilmot, 1 asked you in the exdiniiiation before, in the Patterson case — I asked you this, " Did you give him " — meaning Cox — " any instructions liow to inspect? " and your answer to me at that time was this, " At tliac time ; yes. (Q.) What instructions did you give him? (.1.) To bore and to see — when 1 10 found that more than one was unsound, then I had them all bored. (Q.) By whom? (A.) By him, and any that were unsound were renewed?" A. Yes. Q. i\ow was that correct? A. Yes. Q. Now, are those the instructions that you gave him to bore the beams? A. Yes. Q. Those were all the instructions that you gave P A. All that I remember of giving; yes — boring and i)lugging. Q. Now Avait. In the Patterson cnse, before Mr. Cox gave his evidence, Mr. Wilmot, you say nothing as to plugging; you simply say, "My instructions 20 were to bore " ? A. Yes. (}. Now, that is correct? A. Well, that is what I meant, as far as testing the wood is concerned, to bore. Q. Bore? And if Mr. Cox says that all the instructions you gave were to bore, I suppose that would be right, you say ? A. Yes; to test the wood. Q, Now, Mr. Wilmot, since 1892, that is a long time? A. Yes. Q. And I suppose you have forgotten and do not remember any better now tlian you did thrte or four months ago when I examined you before, do you, as to the instructions that you gave him? A. Yes; well, in giving the instructions for the testing — I was refcrrinfj onlv to the instruction for ascer- 30 taining what condition the Avood Avas in. Q. I suppose Mr. Cox Avas a practical man, was he ? A, Yes. Q. Competent? A. He Avas supposed to be. Q,. Supposed to be ? Noav isn't it natural, Mr. Wilmot, to say simply, " Here, Mr. Cox, go and inspect those timbers by boring, and see if they are all right " ? Y^ou gave instructions in about that Avay ? A. Yes and I spoke about plugging. Q. NoAv, be careful? A. Yes; I did. Q. Why Avould you give details to a competent man? A. Because, as I say, to prevent the Avater getting in. Q. But he kncAv; he AA'as a competent mnn ? A. Well, I did not know much about him then; I had only come in only about a month or tAVo. Q. You did not know Avhether he Avas competent or incompetent ? A. That Avas only a month or two after I first came in. Q. A competent man Avould not require that rider to be added to the instructions ? A. He should not. Q, Not if he had been a competent man; yet you consider you said to d o 2 40 UECORD. In the Suprer.ic Court of British Columbia. No. 21. Plftintiff's Cuse. Evidence I of K. A. i Wilmot, / taken before tiio Deputy Hegisirai-, on the 26tli July, 1897. Re-examiuf ution. I -^continutd. • I ■?»»;' — ■'»*<| M h/" f$ ^ i RECOIID. In the Suprenifl Court of British Columbia. No. 21. Plaintitt''.s Case. Evidence ofE. A., Wilmot, lakoi befci e the Deputy Registrar, on the 2G[h July, 1807. Rc-exaniin- ation. —contitnird. I 100 A. I think I remember .sure as to how they were to be plugged ? hitn thiit he was to phig; you think you remember that ? that. (J.. Rut you would not be .4. With wood. Q. And you would not be sure about that ? A. As to whether they were to be plugged with Avood? ^2. Yes. A. Yes; I always have them done so. (J. Uy him before? A. There was only one bridge that he bored before. (J. Where was that ? A. On the Gorge Road. Q. How did he do that? A. Bored it and plugged it. 10 Q. With wood ? A. Yes. Q. Then why was it necessary, Mr. V/ilmot, if he did that before to repeat the instructions again it; this ? .1. He bored the one before, but I am of the opinion that it AVas in the second one that I was very particular about giving him instructions to plug them with wood, because 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 remember now whether ho bored the stringers from the top or the bottom. If he bored them from the bottom there would be no necessity of plugging them to prevent the water from getting in; but boring from the top — the reason that it 20 convinces me that it was there that I told him to plug them with wood is because he could only get at them to bore them from the top in the Point Eilice bridge, but the others lie could bore them underneath on the ground. Q. That is the reason you think you told him to plug them with wood ? A. Yes, because they had to be bored fiom the top. Q. And tiiat is the reason you think you remember now that you told him to plug them with wood. Do you know what became of the auger that he bored with ? .1. T do not. (,>. Was it a corporation auger? .1. I could not say that; he had these tools; tliey were corporation tools that he had. 30 Q. Do you remember what kind of a handle there Avas to the auger he had? A. I do not remember. (2- Do you knoAv if there Avas a Avooden handle? A. No. Q. There is an auger called a reach auger ? /> . Yes. Q,. Do you remember Avhether it Avas that kind of an auger ? A. I cannot remember. Q. You have remembrred the size ? -I. Y'^es. Q. But do you remember the kind of handle ? .1. No; I do not remember the kind of handle. Q. Whether it Avas a reach or one with a Avooden handle? .1. No; not. Q. But you had no complaint as to the auger at all? .1. As to auger; no. Q. And kind of auger? .1. No. Q. Was Mr. Mcintosh there during the time he Avas boring? .1. Mr. Mcintosh — at least, he Avas not ensrao-ed bv th(! city; he Avas not enga<.' therefore, that resolution Court: That is an objection to the admission of it; the effect of ii is another thing. This is a copy of the resolution, and if material in any way it goes in, but how far it is relevant is a question. Mr. Taylor: Possibly your Lordship might be right. I simply wish to record the objection. Mr. Davis: I put in a letter of Mr. Wilraot to the city, dated July 20, 1892, 103 10 20 30 fn the Supreme Cniirl of Rrxthh Columbia. No. 22. riaintiff's Case. Evidence of Wellington .1. Dowier, takon at the trial of Piittorson V. Victoria, on the 20tli May, 1897. Examination — continued. and then I will have these two read tofrcther. (Exhibit, 15 in the nonlim case HECOIID. marked " D " in this case.) Court: Exhibit "D " is 15 — nothing more and nothing less with anything more at present we are not concerncMl. Mr. Cassidy: I think with one word we might understand all this snid no further objection need be taken at all. The onlj' objection we have to the admission of any of these documents, or of any conduct on the ])ixrt of the council, or the servants of the city, going to show that they supposed that the bridge was the city's in dealing witii 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 ought not to go to the jury as indicating any dealing with it on the part of the city. Court: I will make this ruling, whiclj will effectually preserve your ])osition: I shall admit any evidcuco, documentary or otherwise, relating to any action taken by the Defendam in respect of this bridge. I admit it us relevant without expressing any opinion, which is entirely premature now, as to what the effect of that evidenee in law is. That effectually guards your objection, and it is not necessary to renew your objection. The two things are as distinct as light iVom darkness. 20 Mr. Davis: I put in the British Columbia Gazette of June 13th, 1892 : (Marked exhibit " E.") Mr. Davis (to Witness) : Now, Mr. Dowier, prior to this accident which took place in June, 189G, was there any by-law of the City of Victoria purporting to regulate in any way either the weight of cars passing over Point I'^llice bridge or the number of passengers on the curs of the Consolidated Railway (^o.? -.1. Not that I am aware of. Q. There was a by-law, was there not, regulating tramways and inte?- alia regulating the rate of speed at which tramcai's should travel within tlu; city of Victoria? A. Yes; there was. 30 Q. There is also a by-law regulating the veiiicular traffic? J. Yes; the ordinary vehicle traffic. (I Subsequent to the accident of May, 189G, was any by-law passed by the city of Victoria regulating the weight of cars and the number of passengers on the cars of the Consolidated Tramway Co. within the City of Victoria ? .1. Yes. Mr. Cassidy : We object to that on the ground that it is sought to fix us with an impropriety beforehand by showing that we did something after- wards. Court: There is another objection. (To Mr. Davis): You ought to produce 40 that. Mr. Davis: My Lord, 1 am going to. Court : Well, the objection will be more proper when it is produced, Mr. Cassidy: There is no action against the corporation for not passing a by-law. ('ourt: Mr. Davis has only gone so far as to identify a particular by-law that is in existence. No evidence of its contents can be given without its i)roduction. I will reserve leave, if you require it— if you are not ready. I I T RECORD. In the Supreme Court of British Columbia. No. 22. Plaintiff's Case. Evidence of Wellington J. Dowler, taken at the trial of Patterson v. Victoria, on the 20th May, 1897. Examination — continued. No. 23. Plaintiff's Case. iT.vld'jnce of F. G. Bichards, taken at the trial of Patterson v. Victoria, on the 20th May, 1897. Examination 104 Mr. Davi.s: The by-laws I refer to are numbers 265. 266, and a number my learned iriend is unable to giv ) me at present; but is a by-law repealing 265; but I will let that go — I will not put that in. The liist one I do not put in, my Lord. Court: I admit those for this reason, that unless it appears that some change in the legal position of the city occurred between the time of the accident and the time of the passing of these by-l'.tv*s jucIi as that they would derive an authority which did not exist at that time ; these by-laws of themselves show what, from the ])oint of view of the city, was their control over this bridge, and fo" that pur- pose only. Have you copies to put in, Mr. Davis? Leave reserved to put in 10 these two by-laws, which will be exhibits "F" and "G." 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. 20 I 'vas. No. 2o. Evidence of F. G. Richards in Patterson v. Victoria. First l^ay of Trial. F. G. Rich i'ds, called and .'/worn. Examined hj Mr. Davis. Q. What is your name? A. Francis Gilbert Richards. Q. You live in the city of Victoriu, I belice, Mr. Ricliards r A. Yd, sir. Q. Were you at one time in the employ of the provincial government? A. I was. Q,. Li what capacity ? A. Chief draughtsman. Q,. In v;hose office? A. The Lands and Works department. Q. What year did you leave there r A... J 880. Q,. Where were you at the time the Point EUice bridge was built? A Q. That was built in what year? .1. 1885. Mr. Davis : I tender in evidence the plans and specificati'.ins of the filed \v the other (Gordon v, Victoria) case. Court. Any objection? Mr. Ta}dor: No, your lordship. Mr. Davis (to 'Vitness): At the time the bridge was any tramway traffic contemplated — wtis the bridge A. It was not built for that purpose; it was built for ordinary traffic. t.i- You were a member of the council oi' the City of Victoria, I believe, in the year 1891? .1. I was. Q. During that year, as has been shown., the city limits were extended, taking in this Point Ellice bridge? A. The limits were extended in 1890. Q. The proclamation was in '.891. Did the "ity get any sum jf money from the goverinnent in that connection ? A. It was arranged between the 40 government and the city that they should receive Mr. Cassidy : My lord, we object to this r.c not being the best evidence of any such arrangement. Court: Receipt of money may be proved fo'' any pur[)0se outside of any document under which its receipt is shoAvn. was built, Mr. built for that bridge Richards, purpose ? 30 105 h 30 any Mr. Davis (repeats question): A. I believe su — $4,000. Q. For what purpose was that received? Court : If Mr. Cassidy objects that that was received under a written document Mr. Davis: I ain goinp: to ask for its production. (To witness) Was that by virtue of a verbal or written arrangement ? A. AV"itten arrangement. Mr. Davis: I would ask the Defendants to produce tlic correspondence between the city council and the government bearing on tiiis point, inchiding the mayor's report in 1891 and resolution passed in consequence of it. 10 Mr. Taylor : We will undertake to produce it. Court : In a matter of this kind, whicli is somewhat unusual, the other side express a willingness to produce it. Won't your purpose be served by leave being reserved to put it in, and note their undertaking to produce it? Mr. Davis : But in all probability it will be necessary for me to ask this witness a number cf questions in connection with it. Mr. Taylor: We have it here, now. Mr. Davis : Is that all ? Mr. Taylor : Excepting the resolution of the council. Mr. Davis: I want all the correspondence; this is only one, and it is not 20 either of the things that I asked for. Court (to Mr. Davis) : Have you given notice to produce, with dates' Mr. Taylor: No. j\Ir. Davis : The mayor's report with refer'mce 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 case; they Avere a little moi'e liberal. There is no dispute about this matter. Court : What do you say ? Mr. Taylor: We have no objection to the corresjjondencc at f.li ; they did 30 not give us notice to produce it specifically. Court: Prove your notice; there is no necessity for any friction. Mr. Davis: I lile ♦"' 's in the meantime. This is a letter from the deputy commissioner of lands nnu works of May 9, 1891, to the city clerk of Victoria. Court : NoAV pro^ l- 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 wish the exhibit read, and 1 i)roducc the notice to produce. (Exhibit read by I'egistrar.) Mr. Davis : And thi,^ is a further notice to produrie in the same matter. Mr. Taylor: Here is the resolution, if my learned triend desires it, acknow- 40 ledging that. Mr. Davis: Yes; but there is more than mer'^lyone; there is the mayor's report. Court: File your notice, and I admit secondary evidence. '•J"and''K" will be the notices to produce. If you thiidc it will suit your purpose as well as having the originul documents — copies. That is for you to say. Mr. Davis: Of course, my Lord, they do not ])roduce them ami E cannot get them; so 1 am bound to submit the secondary evidence. (/ P l!l':CORD. In the Supreme Court of Brittsh Columbia. No. 23. PlaintiflF's Case. EvMence of F. G. Kiclmrds taken at the trial of Patterjou v. Victoria, on the 20th May, 1897. Examination — conliinted. ^vf. ;- if I I '^ 106 RECORD. In the Sur^ftne Court of Bfilish Columbia. No. 23. riaintiff's Case. Evidenc: of F. G. Richards taken at the Trial of Patterson r. Victoria, on the 20tlt May, 1897. E.xaniinatioM — rontinwd. Court: It is for Mr. Davis to say whether he will give seconclary evidence or take your undertaking and postpone the time till the afternoon; but if he gives secondary evidence Mr. Davis: I am content, my Lord; I will give secondary evidence; I do not wish to break this up now. Court : My ruling is that secondary evidence can be given. The question of the receipt of the original documents or certified copies afterwards, I reserve to my own discretion, Mr. Taylor : 1 beg to point out that there is no particular report pointed out. 10 Court : I rule, rightly or wrongly, the notice is sufficient. J»l ow, get on. Mr. Davis (to Witness): Was thio Point Ellice Bridge on one of the trunk roads referred to in that letter of Mr. Gore's? A. I did not hear that letter read distinctly. Well the Gorge roads are mentioned here. That means more than one I'oad. The Point Ellice bridge is on the road leading to the Gorge, only in a different direction to v;hat is known as the Gorge road proper. Q. What took place as a result of that communication from Mr. Gore in the council r .1. Those trunk roads were taken over by the city council and were operated or maintained by the city council, including Point Ellice bridge. 20 Q. Were you in the council in 1892, Mr. Richards? A. In the early part 1892. Q. Do you know with reference to this accident that happened on the bridge 1892 ? .4. No; that was subsequent to my term of office. C2. Did you have any personal knowledge outside "i A. 1 knew that it had happened. Q. Were you down at the bridge? ^1. No; I was not at the bridge ? I knew of the circumstances. of in Cross- examination. CroHs-examined Mr. Taylor, Q. Mr. Richards, there is only one place called the Gorge road in A^ictoria, 30 is there not ? One road ? A. Well Q. Say " yes " or " no " — yon know ? ^l. I know that there is one road known as the Gorge road now but previous Q. The road leading over this bridge is called the Esquiinalt road ? .1. Let me explain. Previous to that other road being built — the present Gorge road being built — that was known as the Gorge road. (2. When was it built? .1. 1 think'in 1870. Q. And this was 1891. For pretty nearly twenty years it has been called the Gorge road ? A. Yes. (),. What does this letter say — " Saaiiich, Cedar Hill, Cadboro Bay, iJurnsidc .10 and Gorge roads," Doen not that road refer to that new Gorge road, and not in the ])lural ? A. It might, Q. Isn't that what you understand by it? Is that not so ? .1. it reads tliat way, Q. And you understand by that the Gorge road pi'oper is not this E.^quiniait 107 mm^'zii 20 road ? ^1. The Gorge road proper; but this road leading to Esqunrmlt was ttkeii over as a trunk road. Q. Twenty years ago? A. No; I am speaking of 1891, and leads to the Gorge. Q. Will you swear that the road that went over the Point Hlliee bridge was ever called the Gorge road within the last ten years? .1. No; 1 won't swear to that. Q. It has not been calleJ the Gorge road for ten years ; there has been another rocd, though, called the Gorge road? A. Yes. 10 Q And that is ill a different part of town? .1. Yes. Q. And this letter refers to the Gaanich road. That didn't go over I'oint Ellice bridge ? A. No. Q. The Cedar Hill road didn't ? .4. No. Q. The Cadboro Bay road didn't? A. No. Q. And the Burnside road didn't? A. No. Q. And the Gorge road, as it has been called for the past ten years, didn't? A. No ; but previous to that it was known as the Gorge road. Foreni',11 : Mow many bridges are there on those roads— '• bridges " is men- tioned in the plural? 20 Mr. Taylor: " Bridg* - " is not mentioned tlierc. ]\Ir. Davis : Oh. yes. Mr. Taylor: This part of it: "1 beg to call your attention to the condition of the bridges over .■ lai'ge ravine on the Gorge and Burnside "oads." (To Witness): Mow maii\ ire there on the Gorge road? I. On the Gorge road? (J. Yes, over the raviiu' ' .1. There are t\\ > bridges on the Goru'' road, but one, I think, is within ;. old original limits of the city before the ex- tension. Q. What do you mean by tlie large ravine on the Gorge roid? .1. That is one just about the limit of the extension. F' comos over a portion of the 30 Victoria Arm. Q. That is a considerable distance awav from Point Ellice Kl'ICOliH. [h ih, tStiprcme Court of British Columbia. No. 23. riaiiitiff'a Case. Kvideuct' of F. G. Itichai'ds taken .It tbc trial of Prtttersou f. Victoria, on the :.'Otli May, 1897. (.'lilSS- !■■■ nination ■ outinueil. 01 away 1, yes. Q.. Tiiere are two bridge structures Mver the ravine on the Gorge road— a large and a small ? A. Ves. Q. Take the Burnside road ? .4. Tin am not certain wdietiier tiiat is within the ■ - one on the Burnside road ; but I •nded limits or not. '■ x\ Q. At iuiv rate, it is a mile or two from the Point Ellice bridge (l. Boih structures shoidd be replaced by new ones at an early date. There 40 is no reference in those to the P(>int Ellice bridge ? A. No, not by name. licdi/'t'cf hji Ml-. Davis. Q This leller we hav(! been looking at is one document out of a series of docunieiils in connection with the nititter. .\s a matter of iact, was liie Point Ellice bridgi! one of tde bridges a part oi tlie added territory taken over under this arrangement you have spoken of by xXxc cit\? A. It was. d ' 1-2 I{e-e.\|iimiu- atioii. .^^: j„ ii^ Ki -^^»*TH' RECOHD. 7w ihe Supreme Court of British Columbia. No. 24. Plaintiff's Case. Evidence of F. M. Yorke taken at the trial of Patterson v. Victoria, on the 20tli May, 1897. Examination. 108 Air. Taylor : I take it that that is a .aatter of documentary proof. Court : [ Iiave ruled that secondary evidence may be given. If there is to be any order in the proceedinp;s, and in the way they are to be conducted, you must take my ruling for one moment. Xo. 24. Evidence of F. M. Yorke in Patterson v. Victoria. First day of Trial. F. M. Yorke called and sworn. Examined hy Mr. Davis. Q. What is your name? A. Francis M. Yorke. 10 Q. You live in Victoria, Mr. Yorke ? A. Yes, sir. Q. You remember this accident of May 26th P A. Yes, sir. Q. I believe you had something to do with the wrecking after the accident? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you weight the car which went through the bridge ? A. Yes, sir. Lt. What was the weight, including trucks? A. 19,847 pounds. Q. I believe there were a few things gone — the dashboard and a f"w other things? A. The top of the car and the trolley, and the cushions and a little of the back par', of the car. Q. That was roughly — I believe it was only ai-rived at roughly — the estimate 20 of the weight of the car, people, rigs and everything on that particular panel on which the car stood; the rough weight. Mr. Cassidy: You have not proved that he knows anything about the people. Mr. Davis: Y'ou know by lIio total estimate? A. No; I was not there, sir. Q. Y'^ou don't know anything about 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 lengtl. ? That is, on how many feet of the car would the weight of the car resi; ? A. 1 don't think we measured 30 that, sir. Q. YovL don't know anything about that ? .1. No. (No cross-examination.) .Juror: How did you arrive at the woiglit, of the car? .1. I weighed it, sir, on the city scales; weighed the trucks separutily and the car separately. I have got the weight of them separate. Mr. Davis: There is just one question, with the permission of your Lord- ship. Although he says that he does not remember that they measured tlie length of the trucks, 1 would ask him this (jue.stion — ^ Whether the entire weight would rest within one panel length? because it is (ividence which he gave wlien 40 he was examined before. Court: How is that? You recollect that? 109 10 Mr. Davis (to witness) : You stated, when examined here before, that the trucKS would rest on a single panel — that the length of the trucks was shorter than the length of the panel, which was 18.9 inches. Is that correct ? A. Yes, sir; that is correct. No. 25. Robert Mcintosh, Bridge Carpenter, in Patterson v. Victoria. First day of Trial. Called and sworn. Examined by Mr. Davis. Q. What is your name ! A. Robert Mcintosh. 10 Q. Y''ou live in Victoi'ia Mr. Mcintosh? ^1. Yes. Q. You are a carpenter, I believe? A. Y"es. Q. Bridge carpenter and that sort of thing — 'In 1892, I understand from Mr. Wilmot, that it was you who did the chief part of the repairs on the Point Ellice bridge, after the accident there ? A. I did the chief part: yes. I didn't do them all. Q. No ; there was one floor beam 1 vd been replaced before by a man of the name of Clark ? A. By same person. Objected to by Mr. Cassidy. Objection sustained. Mr. Davis (to Witness) : There had been someone put in a floor beam 20 before? A. Yes. Q. And what woi*k did you do on the bridge? A. I put in some of the beams and some stringers for the tramway companj'. Q. And what else? A. Replanked the bridge ; renewed the planking of the bridge. Q. Outsido of the one floor beam which 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 run which was down on the bridge before you replankod it ? ^4. Diagonally. Q. And what length were the planks? A. In one length across the bridge 30 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. Wilmot said he instructed Mr. Mcintosh. Court (to Mr. Cassidy): How can you say '"what instructions" is leading? He had instructions. Mr. Cassidy: Not instructions from the city. Mr. Davis (to Witness): Who instructed you to do that repairing ? A. 40 Mr. Wilmot, the city engineer. (>. AVho paid you lor the work which was done ? -4, tramway ns well paid a portion. Q. The tramway company paid you for the stringers? Q. For that otlicr work who paid you ? A. The city. The city and the I. Y^es. UECOUD. In the Stiprem* I Court of* Britis h Columbia, No. 25. Plaintiff's Case. Elvidenco of Robert Mclntosb, taken at the trial of Patterson f. Victoria, on the 20th May, 1897. Examination. i ,*• I • "»«-l «! RECORD. In the Supreme Court of British Columbia. No. 25. Plaintiff's Case. Kvidence of Robert Mclntosli, taken at tlie trial of Patterson v. Victoria, on the 20th May, 1897. Examination — continued. uo Q, \\'hat instructions did you Iinvo from Mr. Wilmot with reference to the way in which this new floor should be put in ? A. It should be cut on either side of th(; T-rails which shoukl 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 new strinjrers? A. Yes. Q, The tramway — you said, put in those two stringers, and the floor was cut open to make it in three length ? A. Yes. Q. One length up to the upper side of the tramline, one length to the 10 flooring between the rails of the tramline, and one length below. A. Yes. Q. That is correct ? ^1. That is correct. Q,. What was the size of the stringers put in by the tramway company ? A. Ten by twelve. Q. What Avas the size of the beams put in by you ? A. The floor beams? Q. Yes A. Twelve by sixteen. (I. What effect, if any, on the sti'ength of fhe bridge would cutting the floor beams have, so far as your opinion goes P A. Cutting the floor beams ? Q. 1 don't mean the floor beams — the flooring? J. It would lose the entire carrying strength of the flooring itself. 20 Q. What change was niade, if any, in the hangers of the beams which you took out and replaced ? A. They Avere 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 something that would show ? Court: That is what you call a stirrup? Mr. Davis : Changed irom hangers to stirrups ? Mr. Cassidy : No • yokes to stirrups. l^lr. Davis: Well, we will not quarrel about words. I may say in connection with th'S, I will put in another witness wlio will explain it 30 thoroughly. Mr. Davis (to witness) : Which is the old style ? A. This (indicating on sketch). Q. This one — and that (indicating) is the way you left them ? .4. Yes. Q. Describe to the jury the difference between those ? A. This is the floor beam, and this is the floor beam, also; you are looking at the end of the floor beam now, you understand. These werc^large holes bored through there to admit this l^-inch iron; they were changed. Instead^ oT going through the stick they were spread out at the top, and of course when spread out they would not roacii as far as when they v/ere going through ; and there were pieces welded ^ in — the same iron. Juror: How wide would that iron be? One and a quarter inch square ; they would turn over the pins that connect the main counter braces. Mr, Davis: You mean a new piece of iron was welded in each side? A. Yes, that is four welds in each piece, and the thread was eut oft' each so as not to interfere with it, and not to have to re-thread it again, the thread was cut off. m <"iiu 111 Juror: Was there a plate across the bottom? -I, Yes. Q. What was the size of those bolts in diameter ? .4. QiiQ-XiutLa.tjuurtcr inch square iro n^ a 2-i ncli hole Jjorcd throu,£;h this (^ri^i^inally, ami when the pla1:nvrr?~was' screwed up, the water would keep in there all the time, and my idea in changing it was that there should be no water to prevent the beam from rottino-. Mr. Davis : The plate was put on and the nut screwed on. And so as to save the thread they cut it off, and welded it in a new piece? A. Yes. Juror: Those are separate rods? -1. One rod is bent over this pin nt the 10 top. I did not take time to draw it very accui'ately. You understand, when it spread at the top, it shortened them and thoy iiad to be each welded in to bring them down and get the nuts on. The gil) benm ran out underneath the side- walk, but not whore the hangers were Q. And that is the beam 12 by (i ': J. Yes. (Sketch by witness marked exhibit " S.") Mr. Davis : Is that (exhibiting model) a correct model of the bridge, of the floor part of the bridge as it stood originally, showing the stringers underneath, and the floor and the way it ran diagonally? .1. Yes. (Model of flooring of bridge, marked exhibit " T.") 20 Q. This (indicating) being the Gorge side of the bridge, we will say, show about where the tramline ran? How did that planking run dingonally ? Would that be the Gorge side, or this? ^1. AVell, you can make either side, it all depends; if you are going out of Victoria, this (indicating) would be the Gorge side. Q. Show about where the rails ran, and mark it in lead pencil? (Witness indicates and marks) somewhere about in that proportion. Q. What was the change when the floor was put down? ^1. Those. Q. The two stringers — ^^joists we will call them — those lying underneath the tramway rails — were taken out, and two new joists which you call stringers were 30 put in instead, they being 10 by 12? A. Yes. Q. The old ones being 3 by 12 ? A. Yes. Q. And the rail instead of lying on the floor as it did before, was placed directly on top of one of the- e two new stringers — is that correct? ^1. Yes. Q. And what about this floor then? What effect did that have on the floor? How was the floor changed? J. There was 4 inches — the floor was cut — came up to that rail. Q. To the lower rail we will call it, continuously, from the edge of the bridge? A. Yes. Q. And then it was cut at the lower rail? That is, the lower rail divided the old part of the floor between the rails? .1. Yes. Q. And they cut again at the upper rail? .1. Yes. Q. Tliat is, instead of being one continuous piece of flooring, it was divided intollr.ce? A. Yes, exactly. Juror: About what was the width of the flooring? .1. Four inches, about, at the liottom. I think the rail v/as a 4-inch rail ; of course it slooped off in between hen; somewhat to allow for th(> flange of the wheel. Mr. Davis: How did the new stringers that were put down across, lap or RKCORD, 40 In the Supreme Court of I Britith Columbid, No. 25. Plaintiff's Case. Eviilenco of Robert Mcintosh, taken at the trial of Patterson v. Victoria, on tlie 20th May, 1897. Examination — continued. i 9 IS m 112 'i I 51 f Uh ■■"% SBIffll \k RECORD, In the Supreme Court of British Columbia. I No. 25. PlaintiflTs Cose. Evidence of Robert Mcintosh, taken at the trial of Patterson v. Victoria, on the 20th May, 1897. Cross- examination. about oil the floor beams. I see the old stringers ran across — overlapped. How was it when the new stringers were put down? A. They abutted right on those floor beams, on the centre. Q. The sti'ingei's were 36 feet long ? A. That is, each stringer would catch three — one reached from the centre of this to the centre of this. Q. And they broke joists in this way — two would abut on that beam, and the next two on this? A. No. The right hand side one we would say would abut on this one, and the left hand side would abut on this one. Q. They would abut alternately, but no two would abut on the same beam? A. No. 10 Cross-examined by Mr. Cassidy. Q. You were employed by the day, Mr. Mcintosh ? A. I was. Q. You arc a carpenter ? A. Yes. Q. You had nothing to do yourself with the inspection of the floor beams, or deciding what beams were to come out? A. No, I had not. Q. You know that there was an inspection made by a man called Cox ? A. I believe so, yes. Q. It was indicated to you by Mr. VVilmot, the engineer, which particular beams you should take out ? A. It was. Q. In putting those stringers for the rails to rest upon, were you doing that 20 work for the City of Victoria, or for the tramway company ? A. The tramway company. Q. Who paid for that? A. The tramway company. Q. I notice these old joists which held up the floor — those are 3-inch boards, are they not? A. Three inch by 12, yes^Itli Q, Put on (;n^~? A. Yes; I am liotpositive ; they might be 4 inches. As far as my memory serves me, it is 3 inches. Q. I noticed that they pass from one floor beam to another. That is to say — that each of them covers only one of these panels? A. Yes. Q. This is a panel ? ^l. Yes. SO Q. Panel is the distance between one floor beam and another ? A. Yes. Q. I notice these joists overlap each other — were they bolted to each other t the point of overlapping in any way ? A. No. Q. They were just laid that way on the beams ? ^4. Yes. Q. Now, do you know what the purpose of substituting heavy stringers was? No, I can't say that I know. Q. These stringers at all events were 10 by 12 ? A. Yes. Q. Timbers? A. Yes. Q. And they were so laid that each of them covered a length of two panels ? A. Yes. 40 Q. And each of them rested upon three floor beams? A. Yes. Q. And the rail that was laid on the top of that, that was a heavier rail, was it not ? A. I could not say whether it was a heavier rail or not, as far as the weight goes per foot, it stood higher. Q. The old rail at all events that was laid on top of the floor was what is commonly called a ? A. Flat rail. 113 30 40 Q. And these other rails are more in the nature of ordinary railwm I'iiils ? A. Yes, T-rails. .1. Muchstiffor? A. Yes, vertical. 0,. When you speak of cutting this floor and leovin^a space for the tramway rails, what you really mean is this — the whole floor was removed, and condemned as it stood ? It was condemned ? A. It was worn out — yes. Q. And removed ? A. Yes. Q. And then what was done with this — T call these joists — that is correct, isn't it ? A. Yes. 10 Q. No joists were removed, except such as were in the way of putting down the new stringers ? .1. That is all. Q. When these new stringers were \)Ut down, the new floor was nailed down on top of the old joists, and also nailed down on top of the new stringers ? A. Yes. Q. That is to say the Avliole of the floor out of the stringers here was nailed down on top of the stx'ingors all the way along? .1. Yes. Q. And similarly on the other side, on the other stringer P A. Yes. Q. I notice that the floor here is simply laid on the top of these joists and not nailed down or fastened to any of the heavy timber anywhere along here ? 20^. No. Q. So that the position of affairs is this — as far as that floor was concerned it consisted of a number of joists simply of 3-inch boards placed on end across here, and then simply nailed down to it — it was just simply resting on the floor beams ? ^t. Spiked down to them, yes. Q.. Spiked down to the top of tlie joists ? A . Yes. Q. Do you mean that the floor was spiked on to the to[) of tlie joists P A. Yes. Q. As to the space between the rails, the floor was laid transversely instead of diagonally ? — that is to say — straight across ? A. I am not positive. 80 Q. At all events, whether that piece of floor was laid in between tho linos in that wav, or not, the planks were similarly spiked down to the stringcis? A. Yes. Q. So that we have this, at any rate, the new position was, we had heavy stringers, the floor spiked to th-^ stringers 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 stringers, 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 tlie car over a greater 40 area? A. I don't know whether that was the purpose, or not. Q You are not an engineer ? ^1. I am not a bridge engineer. Q. And you do not know then whether the floor of a bridge enters into the triangulation of the system? Court : When he says at once that he is not a bridge engineer, is it worth while taking up time cross-examining him upon expert evidence. Mr. Cassidy (to witness) : About these hangers. The old form of hanger going through the floor beam is called yoke hanger, is it not? A. No. d Q liKCORI). /m M« Hupremt Court of British Columbia. No. 25. Plaintiff's Coso. Kvidenco of Robert Mcintosh, taken at the trial of Patfeisou V. Victoria, on the 20tb May, 1897. Cro.(.'■;) •-I' ;H i 4^4^ RECOUD. /h Mo Suprtni* Court of Britinh Columbia. No. 26. Plaintiff's Case. Evidence of G. G. Biggar, taken at tlio trial of Patterson v, Victoria, on the 20tli May, 1897. Examiiiutiun — conliniifil. 116 A. Well, it would be buck, A. If tho onr was Q. Where.»bouts was the end where you were ? I think, thirty-three feet from there. Q. The hind end of the car would be about fij^urc wliat ? 33 ft. lon;^, if the distance between that nnd there was 3.5 feet Q. The distance between those two is lS*!i inches ? .1. Yes, the length of the car, whatever it was. ()„ 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). (}.. How far past 3 would the front part of the car be ? A. Well, you migiit say two feet. 10 Q. How could you identify or locate the position of the car? A. Well, I was standing riglit on the hind end of the car, and I was speaking to the people on the bridge, I had just turned here — 1 was speaking to Mr, ,lame.s, who was killed on tlie bicycle, f said to Mr, Potts: " Don't run over this man," Q. Who was Mr. Potts? .1, The gentletnan who was driving a black horse. Q. The horse that was killed? A. Yes, I said: "Look out, Potts, yon inifjht strike hi; bicycle." So Mr. James on the " bike " turned roun') and came right behii a the car, he was riding to the left of the ear going towu' s Esfjuiraalt. Iliad just s[)oken to young Marati, of Seattle; 1 .said: " The old 20 man rides well," and he say.s: "yes," I was turned around that way (illus- trating). I was standing this way, and just as I turned round I hoard some- thing break. It appeared 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, and T went to catch myself, and it was just like something large breaking — some timber after that first noise — it could not have been two seconds, and I 'said: "My God, people, the bridge is gone," — ^^just like that, and there was about 20 people 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 30 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 ])ack and it made an impression on my back, and I was hit f)n the head and went under the water, and I didn't remember anything , till I came to. Q. I suppose as she went down, she went a little more to the Esr|uimalt side ? A. She made a run so fast thf t 1 could not keep my feet. The car would cant I should judge 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, two young ladies. I went to catch something and just about then the 40 timber broke, and I seen then the bridge was gone, and the car immediately descend. The first break was just like some timber breaking. Q. Do you know the weight of the oar ? A. Well, I don't know from my : own information, only I heard it is something like 10 ton, Li. Could you tell about the number of people there would be on that span about the time it went down — a rough estimate ? ^1, Well, I guess there was over 100 people. 117 ■ Q. Were th( re any horses or vi'liiclcs? A. Three horses. Q, CouUl you jrive an estimate of tlie weight, in round figures? Well, I should judge the weight would he over 20 tons; something along 20 tons, roughly estimated. No cross-examination. No. 27. In the Supreme Coui't of British Columhia. IJcfore McColl, J., and a Special .lury. IJetween 10 Marion Patterson, the Administratrix of the goods and chattels of James T. Patterson, deceased PlainiijJ\ and The Mufiicipal Corporation of the; City of Victoria . . . Defendants, HKCOUU. In lite Supreme Cuurt of Dritisk Ciilnmbia. No. 27. riaintir.s Case. F.vidoiico of Mr. E. II. Wftnier, t.ikeii at tliA trial of Patterson v. Victoria, on the 2(;tii May, 1897. ExamiuatioD. Reprint of the Evidence of the experts Messrs. Warnei- and Lookwood, as reported by the ollicial stenographer. // First Day's Proeeeduigs. 20th May, 181) 7. Edwin Ilall Warner ca/ted and sworn. Examined by Mr. Diivis. Q. What is your name ? .1. Edwin Ilall Warner. 20 Q. Where do you live, Mr. Warner? .1. Seattle. Q. What is your j)rofession ? A, Civil engineer. Q. How long have you been engaged in that business ? A. Seventeen years. Q. What were your (jualitieations to commence with? A. I was educattid in the college of the city of New Yoriv. I am a member of th(! American Society of Civil Engineers. Q. Is your practice at the ])resont time a general practice as civil engineer, or are you acting for any special company ? ^4. General practice. Q. During your 17 years' experience have you been acting for any com- panies? A. Yes. 30 Q. What companies and in what capacity ? A. In various capacities, from simply assistant to assistant chief engint-er. Q For what company ? A. The Seattle, Lake Shove and Michigan lly. Co. (I. In the course of your practice have you had occasion to deal, and if so, to what extent, with bridges ? A. 1 have had occasion to design and construct bridges ; I have done both for the Lake Shore Rd. and approved the designs, and I have constructed about 8100,000.00 worth of trusses. Q. 1 believe you have examined this bridge — this span which collapsed ? A. Yes. Q. In May, 1896 ? /!. In June, 1896. !^H™?WHW^fBBlSnBB^WB^HII-i!.ajJ_i. mm. lu i 118 h '' •4i^ /• 7 /// // /// KECORD. In the Supreme Court of British Columbia, No. 27. Plaintiff's Case. Evidence of Mr. E. H. Warner, taken at tlie trial of Patterson v. Victoria, on je 20th May, 1897. Examination — continued. Q. Just tell us how you came to examine it ? A. T was called to Victoria by Mr. Gore on the part of the Provincial j^overnment a.sexjxu-t. (2. For what4Iurpose .-^ A. To exmnine the bridge an d te stify before Jth c coronef'd jury, both of which I did."~ — — (i. Did you when you came to Victoria examine the remains of tins collapsed span carefully ? A . Yes. ^2. You have, I presume, your notes of that examination with you? A. Yes. Q. Before we go into the details, I would like to ask you a question or two generally. I suppose you have examined, of course, the strain sheet ? 10 A. Yes. Q. And the plans and "pecifications of the bridge ? A. Yes Q. AVas it built ori"[inaily for tramway trcific at all ? A. No. (j,. What was the weight that it was intended to carry — that^js^ the utmost weight r A. The spei:ifications called for a thousand pound." to the running foot live bad, and (iUO dead. " (J. 'JMiat would be 1,600 pounds altogether? .1. Yes. Q. Now, was the dead load increased subsequently to the specifications being made ? A. Yes. Q. It was increased, I suppose, by the sidewalks, for instance, that were put 20 on r A. ] fancy so. (J. At any rare the dead weight, speaking rougldy, was increased by about how many hundred pounds ? A. About 250 pounds. (2. 1 suppose these T-iails and stringers increase it still more? A. Still more. Q. That would iner"use it so far as the dead weight is concerned "^ A. Yes. (,>. The factor of safnty in A. That is my recollection. Q. And that^ v.ould be decreased by t)ie ii'crt-c.ae in the (J. So that at the time of the accident v'lat wouM be the strain which one of these panels, some: 18 feet long, would cari'y with safety, supposing the bridge was in as good a condition a;- when i was built — that is, of the ordinary traffic over it ? A. Well, it was do.slgned for 1,600 pounds, with a factor of sufetv of :>. r (2- Taking from that some 900 pounds would leave 700 ? .1. Yes. / I ^^). Soon the 18-foot span, supposing the bridge to be as goocl as originally, would be s mething like 12,000 poujids ? A. Something like that. (i. Seven liundred times 18 — th,^t is 12,600. I am not speaking now of the 40 I factoi of safety, but of the carryin" cajiaclty, in the sense that that is understood. It is unnecessary, I .uppose, to ask }'ou if the wood was in (uiy way decayed or ' weakened, of course that carrying capacity would be deo'cased (hat much ? A It would be diminished just as much. (2. AVhat is the l ife of th at timber — the average life? A. It should be good J /; from 7 t'2_liiJ^c'i''Sj according to the condition. //! Q. lileven yeirrs would be beyond its lite, would it not? A. Probably. the bridge was originally, I believe, 5 to I ? dead weight ? 30 119 Q. Two of the beams, the evidence shows — two of the original beams were in there at the time this span coUapsccl. Coming down to details, Mr. Warner, you have said that you examined the wreckage of the bridge. Did you find .ill or nearly all of the material of the bridge there ? A. Yes, the great majority was found ; some of the parts were missing. Q. We will take first No. 7 — did you iind floor beam No. 7? A. I found floor beam No. 7. (2- You might perhaps explain to Liie jury how you are abh.- to identify these particular beams, because some of them possibly like myself are not bridge 10 men, and would not understand otherwise? A. The method generally is this: . Between the floor beams there are rods whicli vary in size for each panel. Conse- quently, when I found a floor beam with a certain size rod running in one direction and a difterent size in another, I was able to locate it as either one of the corre- sponding panels each side of the; centre. For instance, the rods in floor beam No. 2 would be identical with floor beam No. G, but the of the railway (?) stringers on the floor beams showed the direction in Avhich thoy ran, and the position in which the floor beam was in the original bridge. Ilcnce I could locate definitely by that means whether it was (! or 2, or 3 or T). That was the case in all except one beam, No. '2; there was nothing to definitely locate 20 that, but every other floor bcum had been located; hence that nmst have been No. 2. Q. Beginning at 7 — did you find floor beam No. 7? A. 1 found floor beam No. 7. Q. AV hat are your notes with reference to that? A. Floov^q^mJ^o, -7,: One piecj 12 by 18; old and painted; has two 2-inch by 1.} verticals on either end cut, ai.d pieces of 1^- and IJ-inch laterals. The laterals, I was satisfied, Avere cut jiLwr eckin gthe span; verticals removed from iTorth end, beam rotten Jn hanger and latenTrRoJes. "^ -- Q. With reference to this flooi* beam 7. You have heard all the evidence 30 given in this thing so far, I believe? A. Yes. Q. Was tiiat beam No, 7 one of the original floor beams in tbo bridge, or was it one of those put in dnring the repairs you have heard mentioned? A. It was one of the original floor beams. Q. And that was decayed only where? .1. R otten in the hanger and lateral holes. Q. beam? (I lianger holes? My excellent condition, or how would you specify the matter? 40 not calljt._i.ij a, fairly gpqd^ condition. (2- Tell me how much rot there was about these recollection is simply that it showed rot in the hanger holes Q. (5ut outside it did not? .1. Outside it did not show rot. (l We will pass to No. 6 on that span — what did you notice about it? .1. Floor beam No. 6: 12 by 10, new; outside hangers removed, beam was sawn nearly in two near the centre ; 1 J lateral in south end of beam. Q. In what condition was thiit beam? .1. It was evidently in good con- dition ; I have made no note. RECORD. ^i the Supreme Court cf British Colnmhia. No. 27. Plaintiff's Case. Evidence of ^r^. E. n. Warner, taltcii at tho trial of I'littursou V. A'ictoria, ou tho 20th May, 1897. Kxamiuatiou — eonlinuerf. To what extent was that— speakii^g generally, in what condition was that .1. It simply showed rot around the holes. Would }ou call it in a fairly good condition, or very bad, or in an ■ 'A. Well, I sho uld y ; . M 1 '^-^Sn >^Sffi i M V' ^^H ^ I^B /, I / RECORD. In the Supreme Court of Britigh Columbia. No. 27. Plaintirs Case. Evidcnco of Mr. E. H. Warner, taken at the trial of Patterson v. Victoria, on the 20th May, 1897. Examination —contimud. 120 Q. You say it was new ? /I. By " new " 1 mean not one of the original floor beams. Q. I understand you to say you mean there were only two original floor beams left in the span? A. Yes. ll. And this was not one of those two? A. No; it was 12 by 16. Q. And speaking from recollection and looking at your notes, in what con- dition was that ? A. In good condition, ajjparently. il. Speaking about 5? A. Twelve by 16; bored for yoke hanger, one broken yoke hanger in the north end of beam, apparently sound; south end shows dent in top, evidently caused by post shoe. ^^ Q. What is meant by that? A. The posts have a shoe, have a wrought iron shoe to hold them at the panel points. ~—~ Q. However, 5 is one of the original beams, or is it one of the beams put in by the city r Mr. Cassidy objects to the form of question, which should be "one of the original beams, or new beams." Court: If you object, probably Mr. Davis will avoid putting it, though as regards technical evidence it is not usual to object to leading questiuns; with an expert a certain amount of leading is necessary. Mr. Davis (to witness): Was this one of the old beams, or was it a beam put 20 in by somebdy else? A. \t was not one of the old original beams. (^ J st describe how the hanger was there, because this beam wo will identity: .1. The hanger was in the north end, there, broken. Q,. 1 mean, was it one of those that went round or through? A. It w ent through. "" (I. What did you find at No. 4? A. Four: New, 12 by IG, outside hangers both removed, apparently sound, 2| lateral in the south end. Q. Was that one of the old beams or put in by someone else? A. That was not one of the original beams. (j. No. o? A. No. 3: Old, 12 by 18, yoke hangers both removed, beam .30 sheared off at hanger on the north end, section entirely rotten except thin shell on part sound wood; the other end shows dent whore brought against post shoe when north end gave way; bottom of beam at s outh end was chopped into, evi- dently to get at the hanger imts which liad been forced Into the beam when the bridge fell;, the wood at this end is rotten, and around hanger and lateral holes. " — ~ ' Q. AV'ould you explain a little more fully to the jury the condition of that beam at 3 ? J. 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 sinqily a very thin shell perhaps ii' spots an inch all round (sound)? and 40 the balance was rotten wood that you could sliove your Rnger into. That was the condition 1 found that beam in at that end. At the ot her end there was decay round the hanger holes and the holes for the lateral~i)racesl! '■ _ (f. How did tlie end which was sheared off, which is this end, this repre- sented No. 3 — about where w s it sheared? By sheared you mean broken? A. Yes. Q. About where? A. The beam sheared off at the hangers on the north end, broke right through the hole. 121 yes; as I say, it was completely votteu; iiKCORD. Juror: Was it rotten? A. Oh, there was nothing else but a shell. — Mi'. Davis : How did the condition of the beam up here compare with tlie condition of the beam anywhere else? .1. AVeli, the only part of the beam that was open at all except here (indicating) was at the other end, and the hanger holes, and where tiie lateral rods go through. (2. And was that end in as bad a convUtioiL.as this? .1. No, tlie wood was rotten arouni-thfiJioles. " " ' ^ Q.i^ou spoke I think about posts — at o vortical posts? .1. Vertical posts 10 at 3, I have a note here — of posts, three in good condition, two sawed off, one piece broken at the sway connection, this probably No. 3, perhaps No. 5. Q. So that you think us far as you can locate it that the swa y post at 3 was broken? A. Yes, that })0st at 3. Q. Going on to 2 to finish these floor beams, what did you find about that? A. No. 2, 12 by 16, new, outside hanaers both removed, apftarcntly sound, no particular marks to place it; all others i\ave been located so it must be numbered as above. Q. That was not one of the original floor beams of the bridge? A. That was not one of the original floor beams of the bridge. 20 Q. No. ], what about that? J, Floor beam No. 1, new beam, 12 by 16, laterals all removed. One end has two by half inch verticals ( ?) broken under nuts on top of beam; other end has one 2 by l broken under nut on top of beam; other vertical broken 11, this is relating to tlie iron by the way. Q. Never mind about that? .1. Beam was chopped at one end by wreckers at the lateral rod connection, shows wet rot. Q. Was that one of the original beams or not? A. No. Q.. Had that beam broken in any way? A. No, it had not. Q. So that of all the seven floor beams of that span which collapsed there were only two of the original floor beams in at the time it fell? A. Yes. 80 Q. And of those two, one. No. 7, was not broken ? A. Was not broken. Q. The other one. No. 3, was broken at the Gorge end, whei-e Mr. Cox said he bored — is that correct? .1. Yes. Q- You have examined of course the ironwork in the bridge and also the specifications of the ironwork? A. Yes. Q. As well as the woodwork and the specifications for the woodwork? A. Yes. Q. In that bridge, first speaking generally, which had the greater factor of safety, the woodwork or the ironwork, as it was originaUy^liuilt, that is, when all was new? A. The irgn hadj. he higher fa ctor .ofjaaficly 40 (J. The factor of theso iron stirrups were I believe, 11 to 1? A. Yes 11. Q. The highest factor of safety of the wood when new was— ^^F A. Four. Q. So that, prima facie, it would be alniost three times as. like—lilvely the woodwork would give way first than the ironwork ? A. VVhy, there is no doubt about that. ' ' (^. Now, iron is affected in what way by — we will say 1 1 ye.irs — having been in use that time — tiie time that the bridge was built, if known to be all d R Jn the Supreme Court of British Columbia. No. 27. . riaintiiTa' Case. Evidence of Mr. E. H, Warner, taken at the trial of Patterson v. Victoria, oil the 20th May, 1897. Examination — coulinued. / -- 1 -{^ jB « U m f 1 ' British . Columbia. No. 27. Plaintiff's Case. Evidence of Mr. E. H. Warner, taken at the trial of Patterson t'. / Victoria, on the 20lh May, 1897, Examinntiou — continued. Q. You saw the iron on this bridg;e? .1. Yes. (2. How Avas the iron in thai at the time of the collapse of the bridge, as compared with ics original strength? Was there any appreciable diminution so far us you could tell ? A. No; there was apparently no diminution. Q. And speaking us an expert, as one whose business it is to have a know- ledge of the lifie of iron in that connection, ought there to be any particula r diminution at the end of 11 years — any serious diminution ? A. Xo. Q. Now, speaking as to the floor beams 3 and 7 which had also been in tiiere 10 11 years, of course we know what you found, so I won't ask you about that, bi't speakin g as an experj from your knowledge, what would be the diminutioin, if any, in the strength ofth ose fir flo or beams which had been in 11 years? A. It would simply be crimi nal folly on the part of any engineer to allow tliera to relBani in. ~ ' ' "^ Zf And so far as this floor beam at 3 was concerned — I do not want to appear humorous or anything of that sort, but what would be the factor of safety of that floor beam in that condition ? ^l. Well, you cannot take the strength of rotten wood any more than you can urrange rotten wood so that it will stand. Q. You have heard the evidence of Mr. Biggar and Mr. Peatt, as to about 20 where that car was — Mr Biggar puts it two feet over there — I do not suppose anyone can be sure to a foot — at any rate on the panel between 3 and 2, and the first 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 rear car wheel. It would throw the whole of that car upon a panel between 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 ? ^1. First note. Chord beams zero to 2, and 6 to 8. Found 7 beams in good condition, one broken 8 inches from the e^e, fracture was smooth, no knocking down or reduc- tioiToriu'ea ; sharp "break us it member in tension and suddenly struck; one of 30 the_l inks, t hat is, two on each truss and two on each end, making 8 in all, 7 in perfectly "good condition, otliex_wa8 broken as if it had been suddenly strained in this direction arJ then suddenly struck ; 2 to 3 and Ij to G, 8 pieces, 3 inches by 1 inch by 18.9 in. long, one b ar slig htly cracked, badly bent at one end 11^ inches from the eye; 3 to 4 and 4 to 5 were 1(5 pieces in all in good condition. Then of the web members from A 1 and G 7, 7 pieces 2 in. by I'm., 25 feet, one missing; this is the condition: One unbroken, two cut, four broken , the head of the missitig bar is still attached to A or G fracture indi- "cnted breaking by bending backward and forward A 2, G 6 — eight pieces in good condition, and A 3 and G 5 there were eight pieces, 7 in good condition, one lias "' been cut off near the bottom end. H 4 and F 4 — 5 pieces in good condition, two cut off lit the top end, one near the centre — evidently been done in wrecking the bridge. When I say that, I mean gath'iring up the wreck C r» and E 3 — 3 |»ic,«:(.s with turnbuckle; condition: Two are sail fast to pins E3 and are cracked at eye, in th(! eye at K six are broken and cul, some in several places, evidently done in wrecking 1) 2 and D li — eight pii-crs ^ths, round iron, 4.'j ft. long with turidniekle, all bent and broken, those were ^ths in. square or round. Do you care for au}- tbing more? 123 ii» Q. That represents practically all the ironwork? A. With the exception of the castings. Q. I do not care for those. You have not yt^t muntioned the liangei-s, and that will cover the ironwork ? .1. One IJ s quare yoke hanger still on pin No. 3 ; one ))icce l^^^square^yokeJian ger still hi ^oor bq am, T)Ut broken: one piece 1 [ yoke ha nger badly bcntt craclTcd half "across a t the e ye : one Ij yoke hanger missing, four outside hanger or stirrups in good condition, two stirrups missing out oTThe ten hangers to be accounted for, seven are here and three are lacking. (2. With reference to those there arc two — one broken and one cracked — and A. Yes. Q. We will take the one bro ken, what is that — is that one of the original ? A. That is one of the original hangers. Q. And the three missing, what arc they'" A. One is one of the original hangers and two of t^e later type of stirrups. Q. These changed ? A. Yes. Q. That covers practically all the ironwork? A. That covers all the iron- work, Q. What about that ve rtical — pu&t you spoke of a while ago— was that broken? A. Well, that is, i found one piece 8 l)y 8 broken at the sway 10 three are missnig ." be ? At what J think you said the Gorge or impossible to determine. I believe that is — my 2oconnectia!i- 7^. Which end would that the soutliern en.i ? A. That i.s notes say this is No. 3 probably Q. I want to ask you a general question, Mr. AVarner, before going into reasons for it and that kind of thing, what in your opinion was it that gave way first in the bridge ? Wai_it some of the woodwork or some of the ironwork: I am only asking generally now ? J. The woodwork. (/ You have shown that there was some of the ironwork wliich was broken. How in your opinion was that broken? A. It may have been broken in the .30 falling. Q. Supposing the woodwork gives way and the bridge collapses for any reason, could it go down without breaking the light ironwork in coimection with the bridge? .1. No. (2. It would be absolutely impossible ? .1 Why, I should fancy so. Q. Would the fact of some of the ironwork being broken necessarily be the slightest reason for supposing that that iron which is found broken was the part which guve way first ? A. It would not follow at all; and in view of that — of the condition of that beam, there is no question in my mind at all as to the iron being all right and the wood not. 40 (). This hanger which was found broken was at what floor beam ? A. The broken hanger is in 5. Q. It being your opinion that it was some of the woodwork which gave way first, I now want to ask you which portion of the woodwork it was. and thus caused thi; collapse of bridge ? A. I think it was this floor beam. Q. '1 hat is floor beam No. 3 ? A. That is floor beam No. 3. Q. Which broke at the Gorge end: .1. Which broke at the Gorge end, and the rest of the truss followed. d R 2 RECORD. In the Supreme Court of British Columbia. No. 27. Plaintiff's Case. Evidence of .Mr. K. H. Warner, taken at the trial of Patterson v, Victoria, on the 20th May, iSa?, Examinatia \ I 1 1 RECORD. In the ' Suprtme Court of British Columbia. , MuJ iu^^I^^bb^ I^Wm ffiUHiH ' mi '■:■ "•■'' No 27. Plaintiff's Case. Evidence of Mr. K. H. Warner, taken at the trial of Patterson r. Victoria, on the 20tli May, 1897. Examination —conitnuf.il. 124 Q. If that vertical post you spoke of was at 3, as at the time you thought it probably was, does it bear in any way upon it anything at all to corroborate or I'cfuto your opinion ? A. The idea I i'ormed at the time was th is, th at the floo r beam bro ke due to its^'xtraorclnnin(J[oa(T, and as it lowered, the broken part came down like that ancTforcec r^ the "sEoe , or rather forced the post which vertically above it — forced that otit^you see, buc kling o ut like that (illustrating), bracing it and allowing the rest of the truss to fall. It s^ems jto me, a fter the f ull examination I made, as if that was the only rational concIusiojiXcoullcaine to — in fact, it wa¥T!ie~6nl^]conclusl(m,l could come.to. Q. I believe you gave evidence at the inquest in this matter; you have \q stated already at that time you did not know about this auger boring ? A. I had not heard of any auger holes. Q, Did you find anything else as to the broken woodwork of the bridge which corroborates the opinion you formed that it was the first thing which broke, gave you that impression ? A. I found one of the 10 by 12 stringers that broken. Q AVhat stringer was that? Were you able to locate it ? A, I was able to locate that on the south side ; that is to say, it was one of the inside stringers, and it was either 2 or 4 that broke. Q. Just describe it? .1. In other words, it was a stringer extending from 20 this floor beam. Q. From floor beam No. 1? A. From No. 1 to No. 3, or from No 3 to No. 5. It was broken either over 4 or over 2 ; at the break there is a large pitching out. Q. And how Avas the wood apart from the knot, was there anything the matter with the wood? .,^1. One piece 19 feet long broken across the edge of floor beam as shoAvn by a dent, break is very x'agged, slivered, and the edge pitching out taking up two-thirds of the area ot piece. Q. That stringer breaking as 3'^ou have described it, either one or the other broke either over the floor boam 2 or 4, does that either corroborate your view as 30 to the breaking of the floor beam 3 being the original cause, or does it have the opposite effect ? A. I believe that the floor beam broke at No. 3 on the Gorge 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 stringer without support at all and the weight of the cars simply went down through it and breaking the stringer either at that point or that (indicating). Q. That is either point 2 or 4? A. Breaking the stringer at either 4 or 2 — • cither of those breaks would take place if that floor beam fell. In other words, it is a matter of no importance to be able to definitely locate it at 2 or 4, because it ^0 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 as its life is concerned? x\. The ordinary rot due to moisture. Q. And what is the cause of the rot r A. Moisture — alternately drying and )en)g wet. Q, If you took a piece of wood like that and cased it up in copper sheathing, we will sayij)r_anything which was air-tight, what would be_the lifc_5f ^^^^ wood ? 125 A. Well, the life of the wood would be, enclosed in any air-tight concrete, for instance, it wou ld last indefinitely. Q. The effect of the an* on It is due to moisture — that is, the air is injurious because of the moistui'e derived from th(! air? A. Yes, deriving some moisture from the air. Q. Is there anything, outside of tire, or cutting, or something of that sort, which would have such a serious cffect_on the. life of a piece of wood like this, as letting water into it in a iij^5vay? A. No, nothing that I know of; that is under conditions sunilar to those of bridgework — except the teredo might enjoy liimself, 10 perhaps. Q. The evidence is there was an auger hole that size, 7 inches deep, in the particular beam we are discussing here, and that it was only plugged up by having some oakum poked into it with a stick; this was done in '92. What would be the effect of poking oakum into it with a stick — niake it water tight ? A. It would not keep the water out. » Q. As a matter of fact, would it have any effect so far as water was con- cerned? A. Oh, it would retard the entrance of water for a short time, but it would-alaix prcvent its evap nriition. — Q. By that last, you mean this — after the water got in there, it would be •20 worse than if the oakum was not there? A. Yes. Q. The auger hole was there, as the evidence shows, for four years within a very short time — from June, 1892. to May, 1896. What would be the necessary result of such a hole as that ? Objected to by Mr. Cassidy as leading. Court: The question is quite permissible in that form. Mr. Davis: What would be the necessary result of such a hole as that remaining in llie way the evidence has shown for four years, especially in a wet climate? A. It would increase the deterioration — the rottenness. Q. And when so increased, would you mind telling the jury to what extent, 30 if you can so express it — Avhether a slight or great, or innnaterial or material degree ? .1. It would be a great increase. Q. You have stated already that in your opinion the first thing that gave way in that bridge, and which was consequently the cause of the bridge collapsing, was the breaking of that floor beam. You also stated in your opinion the cause of the breaking was its rotten condition. Now, I ask to what i n yo ur gpitiion was due the excessively rotten condition of that floor TieamT *1. Well, I can answer that simply by the result — they bored a hole in this end — it was badly rotten; they bored none in the other and it was rotten round the lateral hole — the hanger hole ; and again, in comparing it with number 7, which was put in ^QSit 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. Q. The car, of course the evidence shows, passed 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, absolutely rotten; not a question of decay — it was absolutely rotten. Q. You have given your various reasons for coming to the conclusion — of RECORD. fn the Supreme Court of British Columbia. No. 27. Plaintiff's /// Case. ' '/ Evidence ofMr.E. H. Warner, taken at the trial of Patterson v. Victoria, on the 20tli May, 1897. Examination — continued. Ill RECORD. In the Supreme Court of British Columbia. No. 27. Plaintiff's Caso. Evidence ofMr. E.H. Warner, taken at the trial of Patterson v. Victoria, on the 20th May, 1897. Examination — conimied. 126 course it is patent what your answer must be, but still I wish to have it on the notes as to your opinion. What, in your opinion was the excessively rotten con- dition ot that floor beam due ? .1. It was due to furnishing the opportunity for very rapid decay by boring holes in the beam and not properly — and furthermore, not properl}' plugging them up. Q. Which hole are you referring to? A. I am referring to the remarkably large-sized auger hole — 1| inch hole — which was used by Mr. Cox. Q. Put it in another way: To judge from all the evidence you have heard and from your examination, so far as your opinion goes, having seen what happened, with reference to floor beam No. 7, if t.hi^t, auger hole had neve r bee n 10 bored there, would or would not on that,, pariicular day tluit floor beam have brokrcH-? — ^'WtdtgRaFji " JTIiarcl "q u estio a-to "UiiMteiu- what would have liappened OF what would not. (^. It is a matter of opinion I au» askh.g you now; I am not asking you to swear to any fact, but your opinion, considering 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 ? (). Well, give your answer that way? A. I should say that the car would have passed over it with safety. Q. To what do you attribute the difference in the condition of the wood in 20 floor beams No. 3 and No. 7 at the hangers ? ^4. As I said before, it is' due to the increased opportunity for decay furnished by the hole which had been bored in the Q. There are the same holes in the other beams that there are in this ? A. No. (2. Outside of this hole ? yl. Yes. (I. The same holes are in this beam as were in the others? A. The condi- tions were the same in the two beams, with the exception of this. Q. That exception being the one hole made by Mr. Cox ? And is it to this hole you attribute the difference in the condition of the beams ? ^. I attribute 30 the difference in the condition of the beams to that hole. Q,. The one bored by Mr. Cox? A. Yes. Q. Now, Mr. Warner, just one other thing I want to ask you about. How far below the surface of the floor were the bottom chords — those iron chords. You might explain to the jury what they are? A. This is known as the bottom chord, which is made up of two and sometimes three bars. Q. How large are the iron bars ? .l. In that case they are 2 b}' \ inch up to .3 by ^, I believe, and they have an eye in each end and a pin goes through connecting them, so they are very much like a bicy cle chain — the links ar e_yeiT long, they are connected at each point with the verticals— with the diagonals. 40 '~t}. They run along thcjre the same as parallel to the floor? A. Yes. Q. How far would this floor of the bridge have to drop down before —we will say the Gorge end, in case of the floor beam breaking ? Say that the floor dropped down ; how far would that floor have to drop before the ends of the flooring — I am speaking now as the floor was originally before it was cut — before th e ends of the floor would rest upo n those bottom chords ? A. \i would drop abour'ri Inches. ' ~~ -*—————. ■ 127 Q. If the floor ran right across as it is there — as it Avas in the old bridge, what would be the effect or would there he any effect at all on this flooring dropping down on the floor beam and breaking as it did in '92 and striking the bottom chords ? /l,J[t. would give a slight measure of suppgrt; it would simply , act as a thin sheathing and give a certain slight measure of supporl. QT W RTcF^ivoulCgive way^first, suppose you went on continuing the strain — the floor or the chords? A. O h. undoubtedly th e floor . Q. Whatever the support miglit be, it would be greater than what would be required, because the floor would break before the chords? .1. I should fancy 10 so, yes. Q. Ill fact, at the panel point. I mean by that, say at 3, the strength of these iron chords on either side of that woidd be as great as the strength of the floor beam itself ? .1. Yes, that is the panel point. Q. The weakness of the chord would be where it was on the point and for some little distance on either side, the strength of those chords would sup- port the floor or anything else that came on, it would be at least as great? A. Yes. Q. Wou ld that floor running across this w ay be of any use in preventing a tramcar or whatever load happened to be on the bridge at the time, from going 20 through, in case of one of those floor beams breaking, if it ran right across the full length as it was, originally? A. It mjc ^ht have supplied that sm all access of strength neces sary to carry it across, anJ a gain it miglit not, knowing nothing of the physiCarc6nditiauii-at-*he-tiS^. ' Q. BSnt would unquestionably add some strength ? .1. It would unquestionably add some strength. Q. And the test of what that strength would be would be just the same as the test of what'these 8-inch planks would bear? ^1. Yes. Q.. Anideiice of A!r. E. H. Warner, taken at the trial of I'attoi'son !'. Victoria, on ttic 20tli May, 1897. £xamicatioD — continued. Ill sion, by reason of that rotten floor beam at point, this accident was caused : Yes. Q. You are clear about that point? .1. Yes. Q. And you say the life of wood is from 4 to 7 10 is my impression. Q. This beam hiul been put in, you know, in lcS85 ? examiuation. years? ^1. No, 1 said 7 to A. Yes. ii rrRsaspsaasiwM i 1 M. •1 /' RECORD. In the // j Supreme Court of British Columbia. No. 27. Plaintiff's // Case. / Evidence ofMr. E. H. Warner, taken at the trial of Patterson v. Victoria, on tlie 20th May, 1897. Cross- examination — continued. ■•*' ^ ^W 128 Q. This uccident hnppcued in .1896? A. Yes. Q. Th at WHS 1 1 y C'tra ? A. Yet;. Q. So in tbe^ordinai^' coiirsc^pt' time that beam would have been rotten any- way? ..1. TT.sTiouTcTnavc licen ~ " XI. Talven oiifc? .!. taken out several years before. Q. And it should have been rotten too, as it-.wuiLrotteii':' A^ Yea.— (2- These hangers y(;ii have spoken about, Mr. Warner, the} are square pieces of iron, aren't they? .1. Yes. Q,. Put into round holes? A. Yes. Q. Bored with a lar<^e auger? .1. Yes. lo Q. The result ot which is, water can get down into those holes ? A. Yes. Q. Comparing that with the stirru^ iron, the piece that is put round outside of the beam, which is the more likely to rot first, the stirrup hangers or with yoke hangers? A. Well, that would depend on what they have underneath them; it they have complete closure, say round iron, it acts as a well, why of course the chances for rot are greater. (I. Hut they have a square piece of iron put into a round hole? A. I am speaking of complete closure at the bottom, so that the water stands round the bow ; 1 say in that case the chances ibr rot are much greater than if there is a 20 chance for the water to go into the hole and out again. Q. Well, that is only a question ot* degree— whether they are tight at the bottom or not? .1. It is a question of degree. Q. But as comparing them with the stirrup hungers ? .1. Oh, the chances for rot are less with an outside stirrup. Q. Than it is with the yoke hanger ? A. Yes. Yes. d- Yes. This was a yoke hanger that had be en in there for 11 years? A. And the water could get down this yoke hanger into this beam? A. 30 Q- You speak of this floor beam at 3 being in an e.Kceedingly rotten condi- tion? A. Yes. Q. You also say that it broke just at the yoke hanger? A. Yes. Q. That is just where the holes were bored through and this square piece of iron put in it for the yoke hanger? A. Yes. Q. Tliat you would infer, I take it, was the rotten part ? ^1. Yes, it was absolutely rotten — there is nothing else you can call ir. Q. That is the only part you looked at — just where it broke open ? -1. The only part I looked at was the broken end, and in addition I looked at the other end. Q. You looked- yoke hangers went through ? A. Yes that is the far end. These two holes represent where the I. Yes. 40 iS ' Q. And here (indicating) is where it broke? Q,. This piece came ofl'? A. Yes. Q. In addition to these two yoke hangers that went through, there were two more side rods — later al sway braces? A. Lateralrods. Q. And for what purpose; where they there ? A. To retain the floor beams in their proper position. Ii29 30 40 i^. 'In prctviiit swu^'itij,'? .1. Vt'8. (,>. And tlii-y went tliri)ii;;li them — tooL' out ii ccrt.iiii wvcw I'roin tlii-' flnoi- boiini also ? A. Yt!s. ~ il. And idliiwiii^ ii (icrtiiiii opportunity For nioislmc to lie llicfcV .1. \\is. Q. All oC whicli would iicci'k'nitu the (It'ciiy ? J. Yes. Q. Tlu'V iit they are fastencid into tho tioor boaiu simply, or arc; they part of the lowiT cliord of tlic ])ri(]Lr(f ? A. This tiaiiijcr whicji oouKslicre is I ir mi'aii> lit '"by which ir is attached to the pin at tiie lower panel point. (>. And they l'o thronh, y(!s, lln.y would. It would loosen them here; thcv wvjuld f;dl down, havinu' nothini,' at that eml, (2- I'erhaps 1 have not mado myself (de:ir. The hanger goes through iuM'e (indieatiiig) and is hung '>\. a ])in luire with a plate underneath, and this beam is held up thai way. Tinsr lie rods come and go through the centri;? .1. I under- stand : what vou mean is by re; nn of the lateral rod eoniing throuyh here, that it might rcsTon tho hanger, and still reinalii, if everything else was rotted awaV? ^'M)h, yesTitniight hap pen. (I. It Is not likely to, or the whole sti'ucture would go down ? .1. Very likely, as it did. (J. .\s if did. Willi all the.>u opportunities i'or decay, you do not mean to tell Us that this little auger hole up here caused this tx-am to rot? .1. IJeasonjjjg byanuJi .u'' v it-^nmst. (>. What is the size ot tin so auger hohss? J. I don't mnemlier- (,'. You were down there ami measured them ? ^1. Inch and *3 ths, I think. (2- And ihi-y went down for a distance of KJ inches? .1. Yes, IS inches. (J. 'I'hose' were only Ih inches at the end? .1. At that point it was outside 30 of that hanger. (i,. Then tliat is 1^ iiu-hes. Then there were two holes there of IS inches and they were how mueh diameter? 1 .')-Sths? A.. 1 o-Sths. (>. .Vnd wiiat was the size of this hole for the hiteral sway? .1. I don't reniemln.r; probably the largest one 1} in. Q. Anil there wert' two holes? A. I can tell you closely what that one wa.s. Let me see. No. '■), it was prob.ably a 1 in. hole. (,>. They had been in tliere irom 1885, those krgc holes in which the water could get in, tlu;re was just a sipiare piece; of iron put in each one of those hoh'S and these sway rods passed through here — the centre? A, Yes. 40 (,'. That luid iv tendency to bore out u large portion of the sectional area of this wood r A. It did reduce the area. (\>. Then you mean to say this harmless little hole of about -J inch is what caused the rut r .1. I mean to .say this: Having the same reduction of area in the other end of the beam, that the diiference in the condition of the beam (J. was entirely attributable to this little auger hole? Mr. Davis: I submit that my learned Iriend has no right to interrupt the witness in the middle of an answer. d • i;i:('()iti». /-) i/ii- )Siij)ie>iir Court of I'.ridxh Columbia. N'o. 27. I'liiintitlV C'a-D. Kvidenco of Mr K. II. Winner, t.ikcii at tliu trill! ot I'.'ltti'ivnil /•. Vifioriii, 1)11 till' 20tii May, 1«U7. ( 'I'liSS- (ixaniiiiatiuii — continued. i:3o ti HKCOItl). In the Snprrme Court iif British Columbia No. 27. I'lnintill'ti Caio. Evidcnco ol' Mr. E. II. Wiiriipr, taken lit tilt! triiil ()( rattcrsoii I-. Victoi'ia, on the 20tli Mny,18!y7. Cross- examinaiioti — cnntiiiiiii/. I nm Court.: The trouhlc greatly arlsos from your all beiti^ bunched up together. I .lo not sec how it cnn \w. avoided, but then it lends (o some irr(!;i;ulurity. (Witness returns to box, and Mr. havis Jisks that th»i answer be linished without interruption.) ('ourt: There is some diflieulty in eross-exuminin}j e.xperts; as you are very well aware, tluiy are very apt to stick very closely to the particrular lini-s whicii they have adopted, I do not .say they do .so intentionally, but tliey ilo not (piito answer the (|ue8tion, sometimes. .Ml'. Davis: I'ut this is a rjuestion Ik; was answcriiiLT. Court: As far us that is eoneorn(Ml, tlu! mischief is done. I will watch it, 10 and you will have an o[)portunity of clearln<^ it u[) in re-e.\ami nation. (To Witness): 1)(. you want to add anytiiiii^- to that, Mr. Warner? Y(»u have heard the answer r(!ad. J)o you think yourself you want to add anythiui,' to that? .1. Yes, 1 would like, iny I^ord, to tinish the remark. 1 wish to say this: Here was a beam, and bored at both ends; one has an e.xtra hole in it; the end in \vTiicTi there is an extra hole is completely rotten at the (.>ther end. Twenty feet u\ui.y the beam is simply rotten round the hole — the lateral rod hole-* and the lum;{Cl'. holes — and it is a natural iideronce then that the damage must be attributabht to th(! increased borinj;. Court : Presupposing' in other respects the condition of the two beams was 20 precisely identicid? A. I beg your pardon, my fiOrd; not two beams — the one beam. Court: Well, presupposin,<( the two ends were in other respects proeiscly in the same condition ? ^fr. Tiiylor (to Witness) : Were they? A. Must of necessity. Q. What did you mean a moment ago wht;n you said it woidd depend upon how rapidly it would rot, the wood aroimd those hangers, whether th(!y were tight at the bottom, or loose? A. I tneanttliis: If you have a hole completely through the wood and then close it at tlu; bottom, any water that enter.H there will rtJiuain tuitil it has evaporated. If, howevc^r, there is a way for the water to .^0 go into this hole and through, then it does not depend upon evjipor ition for re- lieving it of water. This condition you have in this beam: you have bored an auger hole in the bottom, allowing that acenmulation of water and decay that has ensued. In the other case you bore holes completely through the beam, ami the decay hiis not been so rapid. (,'. You attribute that entirely to the auger hole, do you? .1. I see no other reason. , ' (I. liCt me see if I can give you one. You say that the plate on the bottom of it may be tight or loose? A. Yes, so far as hohling water is concerned. () So according to whether is tight or loose, it will rot rapidly or slowly, is to not that so? A. Yes. (I. Did you examine these plates before the accident ? A. No, I could not; No one ever examined it. Q^ You canno t saygiaaLafhettu-r the plates that were upon this ruUen beam '') wei Hi tiylit? J. ..Or -loose; no, I eanuot. Ij. Either a t_o_ne end or the other ? A. No. ' (),. I'.ut you do say that had'T5rol?e"rlght at the junction of the yoke hangers? A. Yes. •m "^ ■■ nn 131 Q. And Jis^it tunicd up, ^ou examijitid the Ludsy .1. Yes. (^. It was not Tjroliiiirat tlu! iiufnr lioU' ? A. I don't know uu\ tiling iilxnit an nujrvv l.olc. ^2. You don't know wlicfliir thcru was an nw^m' liolo tlnjiL? .1. Siiii|ily from the cvidc'iice subniitti-d. (^. i'> ut you t!xam iii(:(l it mid you did not find tlit; au;4»'r liolc r J. I • As ;i matter of fact it is an opinion you are giving now — not evidence ? A. It may have begun after .seven years. (2- At any rate, you found the rot as fiir in on one side as you did on the other? .1. Yes. Q. And you did not find any break in this little auger hole, if there was one tliere ? .1. 1 don't know, as I say, anvthing about an auger hole, because I didn't find it. The chances are, however, from the condition in which that stringer was, you could have kiiockid siv inches off the rotten end of it, and wiped out the auger hole completely ; it may have done so. Q. It would have been in a verv I ad state to have done that much, wouldn't 40 it? -'■ You do not understand what I mean (J. See it 1 do, now. When this beam broke apart at the yoke hanger, it. was so rotten tliat you could have knocked off six inches on either side, and have done away with the auger holer .1. ^hiy have done that. Q. l)id you hear Mr. Cox sav that the au^cr hole was 8 inches over there ? A. ICA. Q. You could hardly have wiped that out r *1. No, I am completely innocent of any auger hole. '^^' " -> KKCi )UD, /h Ihe iSupirm* C'dUft of Jiritish Cntumhia. No. ay. I'lalutiH"8 (!aac. Kviddici! of Mr. K. II. Wiirncr, taken at tint rial of I'atd'rdOii V. Virtoria, on ilic aoili Muv, \mi. Cro3.s- L-xaiii iiiitiuii •continued. J jj •fik \i I Ik ■ c it i r »i>' 4 H / /(I Mr CfJinI tij' Lhhkh Columhiii. No. 27. PliiiiitiU's Case. Evidence of Mr. i:. II. Wai'iMT, t^iktn at tlie trial of Patterson v. Victoriii, (in the i'Otti Miiv, )8'J7. Cris:'- cxaniinatiiiii —continwd. 10 13-2 Mr. Davis : I understaiid mv learnotl Iricnd to make tlii> .stiitoment that this aiiffor hole was 8 inchus frotu tlio hjinj^crs ; if ho made that statorncut, ho is in error, Jitid it is jiiy at he did .say. .Mr. Taylor (to witness): Sapposiiiif it were 8 inches and i*^ broke at this V )k ^ iiaii;ier, yon iiai'dly rliiid. And yor don't know whether or not they were ? Y">u have already 'explained alxnit the cpaestion of whether these plates were tight or not at th" bottom of this beam ? A. V.'hat do you mean by similar conditions? I assume that Hie general r;)n(litions woie the same. (), lint you say the condition of the plate makes a diflference wlu^ther 't holds moisture ? '. Yes. il. lint you do not know the condition? .1. Hut I know this: it is very 30 rarely a gib plate will hold the w.ater and make a well on any auger hole. It might do so. [ don't know whether it did or not in this (misc. (I. Can you state now, as a matter of fact, whether or not there was an auger hole at all in that end that was rotten ? .1. My dear fir, ! told you J know notning jibout an auger hole. 'i. Will you Teil me sonnsthing aijout (his factor of snf(!iy ot t? What do vou mean? J. J mean that the uitimati' sti'en you say a lactor ol safety of 4, do you mean 40 tons migli' pass safely over it? J. It means 40 tons is the extreme limit. Q. Would [);i.ss safely ? A. Weil, 1 should not say sali'l}-; tlu' ultimate strength of that iron used was .iO. OOO lbs., j belie-ve. That means that a sipiarc inch of iron woid.l sustain a loaiT^jt a tension that would br'^ak at 50,000 lbs.; hence, for safety, the bridge would not be loadc.'d (o a gi'eater extent than oue- foiuth of that, or 12,o00 lbs. per scjuare inels of iron. 133 20 30 10 Q. To brino' this down into evcrvdny laii,c;iia<^'c, Iiavo I this corrcctlv iVoiii you ? When you spt;ak of the factor of snfcty, yon ni<';iii the iiuiiiltrr of tons ihut could sitfciy |)!iss over it? A. Y('s. (I, Vou sjx'ak of iv bridge with ;i icrliiin currviii;:,' cnpficily, and a fad'ir ol' safety of !■. That means four tinn-^ that anioinit nii'_dit |)ass ovi r it y .1. Yes; tha t it wou Ul hi' -a k at lonr times the other uuionnt. ,. — " Q. Anythia;^"Icss"\voul(I not break it? I. 'I'liat is~ft. Q. In yoiM' opinion what nniidi(r of tons miglit havi- passed over this span, assuming all the materials to be' in |)i'ii',.ct condition — the iron and the 10 woodwork ? .1 As a re^jidar thing, \oii mean to s:\y — the dailv U'^r ol the hndge r span l). Yes V .1. Fr om 10 tons to 12 to ns Ijdioidd say would ecrtitinly bejlie Vhat woidd have been the limit that \-on tiiiid< would saf(,'ly go over this what would von permit, saw under special circumstance-? I. Wjth t-s pcciitlj)reea utioiis, I might pass once an im:- ' ~ (J. \ on woVii4^_^ju^jucuiu Jjy siiVj^distnlMite the '20 trnxi-iuidy and evenly over tjiiiJQlcc .i>t tlui iloor? -4. Yes, T mean to say by such an airaiigeinent as niat. I do not mean l»y strengthetiing th(! truss, but to provide for the breaking through of the fl oor or somethiti^of_that sort, wt;^, if that was done, a load might be safely passeci. (I. Yon itavc! hoard the ■witnesses hen- today as to the position of tiiis ear, the number of passengers in it approximalcK , and the numbcir of vehicles on the ;{0 bridge. I )o yo" think it was safe,^ luider the most lavoUL'alde cundilluiis, to. permit that load to l»e on tJfaf span — something over '20 tons, I think Mr. Yorko said? "tT' Nil, It was not. (j. Having <'nce permitted a load of that v/ei^hl upon tin bridge, would it be sale to repeat it again ? -1 • ^.Vituil. 134 (I (U\CA:'f A. Vcs. Q. IJiit would not, thut stretch tlic iron l)C'yoiif] its clastic limit of recovery ? A. It ini^r'it <"■ it iiii^jlit not. (J. \\'onl(ln't it liMvc thfit cfFcct froiri wli.-it you have just told me? A. No; [ ciin't s!iv tliiit it would. (J. \V I'll, if tlic iron could oidy stretch so Jis to carry 40 tons, that is the tensile str(,'n;i;t,li of it r ,1. Yes. (,'. You say its elastic limit is one-half —that woidd be 20 tons? A. Yes. (i- It you put 39 tons on it it would stretch the iron beyond its clastic limit? 10 ^1. ^'es, that is true — you are right. ','. So a dose of that kind repeatecl on the bridiK; would have a very bad effect on it — the wcif!;ht, rather? .1. Yes. (J. it would be stretchinji it beyond its ehisti'^ limit? A. Yo. i^. What do you .say was the original earrying capacity of one span of this bridge? .J^.Xoj. to 12 toies (,). .\nd that had a factor of safely of 4, did you say? A. I think 5 it., ine iron Q. How much did you put it atV A. Four — no. a factor of safety of o was the l(>"'est ; froMi ;') to a.U That was for a 12-ton load. '20 i). 1 want to know, lirst of all, if you know what the factor of safety ealltul for in the s[»ecifications was in thi: — in this bridge? .1. Yes." "^ • Cl. What was that tirst? .4. It ran, for the irmi, up as h igh as 7. <>. And of the wood ? A. Anecification called in this particular structure for weldless iron ? A. Yes. Q. Was the iron originally i)ut in welded or weldless ? A. Welded. (I. I suppose a perfect welding is as good as w(;ldleas iron? A. Yes. Q. Assuming it is a perfect weld? A. Yes. (i. If not perfect, of (ujurse it is not so good ? A. No. (Adjourned till 10 a.m., May 21, lbt»7.j wm Second Duy. 'ilst May, 1S07. E. H. Warner. Called. Cross-examination b;i Mi*. Taylor con'inued. Mr. Taylor: You just hoard the last ([ucstions rcud, Mr. WuriuT, in which you said a perfect weld was as good as weldlcss iron, aiul th<; iin|i(i'l((;f not so good. The eyebars in this bridge, as originally constructril were nil welded ? A. Yes. Q. And the specifications called lor iron that was not welded? I. ^'es. Q. So in that respect, it did not comply with the specifications? A. In that 10 respect^ it. did not, _^ Q. You found a broken eynbar, ''ortly, yotu' strain sh^-^t i« ««iEaiMMl \ii upon first-class msit'-rial, and if there happe.is to be some that is not tin*>^wis, it wakes a difTerence in the reliance to b(! placed on the strain sheet? A. ' >n the bridge, not on the stniin sheet. ','. The strain sheet is suj>posed (<• be; a represeiitatioi. of tlie I>ri«lge? J. If you mean the bridge when you say " train sheet.'" Q. Thai is what J inedii. I don i w int to quarrel about term.-; I simply want to un'iu, on 111.' L'Lst .Miiy, l.m. < 'ross- oxainiiiiitiuii — ciiHtinued. / ■-» 11 II R":<'OI!D In the Suprcma Cdlirf. of lirilish Voltimhiii. No. 27. I'laiutirs Case. Kvidcnci' 111 Mr. K. II. Wariu'r. t:ikcii nt tlir ii'inl III' I'litlC'IMill (. Victoria, on tiu^ 2 1st Mny, 18!(7. Cross - oxiimiiiiitiuii — eonliiiiirtl. VM) .sI.'iikI.'iiiI. would li:; YO a very soriuus cH'fct on flu; uliiiiuitc strain on Uuj_bndgc? '''• It. >vo'il(l luivt ;iii. clfc^tTjy. AVhiitovcr m !Vt:|;ii|i4, <,>. n'liiit is tlio effect on abrulgo such as tliis wjis (Icsiirncd for — higliway Iriidic - oi |»c;rti.ittiii;^ trniiioiir.s to run over it? .1. Well, you arc increasing the load (or wliicli it was designed. tand, a higher (actor of saCety fo:- :i railway bi'idge than (or .m ordinary highway l>iidge? .1. Yes — no, it is just the reverse. '.'. \ lower (actor ot salety lor the railway bridge? .1. Yi:s, that is the ordinary i'aiiwa\' liridgc possc^sses a lower ("actor ol' sat'efy than ;'.''t oi' .a highwa\' liridge. eople looking into the (Jorge, for instance. /,'. An uncertain weiirlit ? ,1. The ui'.certain(\ . U- I** gt;l at this matter clearly -woidd you coiisiru ^..iL-. bridirc; of this kind foi- this tram traflic [)assing over it? .1. You mean !)y "this kind" that bridge': 40 (I. Ves'r A. \ w mdd not. Q. For the })ni^f)ose^for which it was used- for tram traflic, ^OJU^? Was it not licuuy enough? A. It was not hea vy enough foi ' tram traflic. __^ """ "^ll. And the tact that origlTially IFwu \ liot -bcixvy cijcjugli for iT,~'aw(I uie tram traffic put upon ir you have, already told us would nave a tendcucy^ti'' «Tiatn? it to pieces quicker? A. Yes. Q^-And as a result of that, the lile of the bridge would bo shorter ? ^ 137 A. Tho lift? of the bridge would bo shorter, or perh;i[)s better, it would require more repair — better inspection. Q. Shake to pieces quicker ; we won't quarrel about the Irrui I use. Has there been any material increase in the last few yvAxra in the W('i;j:lit of tranicars ? A. A very material increase. In fact, in lSi)0 was the bci^inning of the develop- ment of the commercial side of electric raihravs ; it has been goirit^ for the [)ast three o • four years. The first idea in applying electric jiower to railways was simply to take the old style street cars. Q. Tiiat was a light car ? .1. That was a light car, put on motors and iosimpi}' increase the weight by two or three tons, but since 1S!)0 (J. Excuse me — ^^just while you are on that — that woidd make a ear al).)tit how much P — putting a motor on the ordinary form of horse car ? .1. Perhaps eight or ten tons. Q. You mean the new car ? A. A car and load of eight or ten tons. (,). Tliat is to say, that the old fashioned ear and motor loaded would weigh from eight to ten tons? A. I should say so. Q. And the new fashioned car? A. They run as high as 22 tons, the latest development of street railway equipment, it is very heavy — so much so tliat they are using 7011). to 80 lb. rails to carry them, and that is a rail fully as large as for 20 the ordinary rnilway carriage traffic. (J. The tendency is to inci't;ase the weight of the eai's and, of coih-se, the amount of passengers the cars can carry ? .1. Yes, increasing the loa I is the general tendency. (J. That has occurred, you know, in this instance, do you not, from the investigation you have made ? They had originally light cars V .4. Tliey had originally liglit cars, but the one that nearly I)i'oke through in 1892 was the same that broke through last year ; that is a larger car. Q. They put on a larger car and that i)rok(> through in 1^!)2 ? .1. Yes. Q. And then a larger car still went through r No, \ understand it was the 30 same ear that went througli in 1892 and 1 [■!)() Q. That is what 1 understand you to answer. At any rate, the effect of ;his extra heavy err was ro bre.ak the bridge? .1. Yes. (,>. I w(Milrl like to put this as straight as 1 can, in order to gut a short and concis(! answi r. Do you think that bridge, as con-trnotftl tlure, leaving out for the inonicnt the question of repair — was it a safe b, , I.,,; to carry the weight that was on it this day? .1. No; it was not designed for that tratHc. (,K And it was not safe for that traffic ? .1. Well, the fact that for 7 or 8 years it eMrried tiiat traffic I J. \)'u\ it carry that traffic ? A. I can't say that it carried that traffic safely. 4o <2. Von know, as a result of your investigation, that this was a public lioliday and crowds ot [)eo[)le were ci'ossing ovc" for tlu review ? .1. Yes. Q. It was an unusually heavy load? A. Yes. Q. dust for a moment, to go back to what you testified to \H;fcre ; without going into your technical figures, what was Uie safe carrying capacity of the span ? iiow much weight would you put v>n it safely and carry it over - 1. Well, tiK- diinens-ioiiM shoAV that the HKconi). Ill In the Supreme Court of Ihithh Cuhimbia. No. 27. I'lniiilifTs (;asc. Kvidcicp of l\y. v.. H. Wurnor, tiiki'n at tlie triiil of Patterson V. Victoria, on tho 21st May, 1897. Cros^i- c.\an\inatiou — cuntinucd. \\ web members woidd have carried 2') tons with a factor of .«*ufety uf ];)» -. i. y In the Supreme i 'owl nf hritixh Ciilumhitt. No. 27. PlaiutitTs Case. £}vidcncc of Mr. E. II. Warner, taken at the trial of Patterson V. Victoiia, on the 2lKt May, 1897. Crosa- examinntiuii — conliiiuficl. //. 138 Q. Does thftt include the floor ? A. A weight of 20 tons. Q, That would be one-half of the eniire weight thftt could be put upon it? J. Yes. ^2 Forty tons, then, would break it down? ^'1. Twenty tons broke it down. Q. T wenty tons w ) oh a factor of safety of 2 means 40 tons would be the breaking strain ? X" Yes. Q- If Jill,.tlifijaiaLtviuLs%:ei:c.ucvv and first-class? A. Yes. Q. That weight of 20 tons would stretch the iron to \ts elastic limit ? A. Probably. 10 (}. What would be the effect, of stretching to that limit once all the 20_tons, and then putting another weight of 20 tons on after that? A. The effect-ctLit would be sim pl y an - additional damage to the bridge, ind perhaps its destruction. Q. In other words, after the iron has once been stretched to its elastic limit it is not so good r .1. No. Q. The factor ot .safety is reduced ? A. That is true. Q. And the oftener you put on that weight the weaker the iron becomes? A. That is true. Yes. Q. So that the factor of safety is constantly getting less according to liow20 you are constantly stretching it up to its elastic limit or not, in the bridge? A. Yes. Q. Then the number of times that this weight had been put upon it would keep continuously reducing its strength? A. Yes. Q. The fiigtor of safety, calculated the way you say, is based on the assump- tion that the weight is evenly distributed over the floor of the bridge ? A. P art of St. Q. This car track, as the result of your investigation, you found to be about two t'virds to one side? Thi' car truck was not in the centre of the bridge ? A, It was not in the centre of the bridge. 30 Q,. It was about two-thirds of the way on one side? A, Yes. Q. The Gorge side ? .1. Yes. Q. I understood that it broke on the Gorge side? A. It broke on the Gorge side. (2. It was even closer ihan that, I remember. The near car rail was about a foot from the chords, or two feet. Give us first the rail nearest to the Gorge? J. Well, I can measure it in a moment. My recollection is that it is 5 ft. and 4 in. to the centre of the track, that was broad gauge— 4 ft. 8|. That would make it about 2 ft. It is about 2 ft. from the ceutie of the trucks; that is my recol- lection of it. I would prefer to measure it there, if you don't mind. 40 Q. How fai'- was the nearest rail of the track from the hoijger ? A. It is about 2.G in. from tiie hanger. — ' (J. That is the rail nearest the Gorge? A. That is the rail nearest the Gorge. This is the rail on tiie plate. Q. You might measure then, Mr. Warner, while you are there. Take the outer rail of the car and measure over tiie other hanger? A. That would be about 11 or 12 i'wt. The total distance between the two is 20 feet; that is a little over 2 feet. It v/ould be api)roximately 13 feet from that rail. 139 r Q. The bridge, of course, was supported on each side at the hangers — that i s the floor? A. Yes. Q. And that sidewalk running out there was also supported by the hangers? .1. Yes. Q. Was that in the original specifications? A. I believe not. I have heard that the Q. Y'^ou have seen the specifications? A, Well, I du not recollect that point. Q. That was an addition, putting the sidewalk there afterwards. Tlmt 10 would be an increase of weight added to the floor, whatever the sidewalk weighed r .1. Yes. Q. On encii side; and that would reduce the carrying capacity by just tliat much? A. Yes. Q. I think you calculated before, Mr. Warner, if you remember, v/hat thr.t sidewalk weighed. Just see by your notes, if you did? A. I think not. My recollection is I calculated the total dead weight, 850 feet. Q. IIow much would diat be in tons on the whole span? A. It is an increase of about 50 y^, in the dead load over jvht\t,.tiiQ.J>riginal specilications called "foTT ' - ~ 20 Q. You sp>d r. r^i.-t^n car was based on this assumption — that the floor weighed 5 tons. That is, tiic floor without those sidewalks on each side there ? A. Yes. Q. And you calculated the whole thing at 45 and subtracted 5 for the weight of the floor and then put on a 20-ton car, and you iiad a factor of safety of 2 ? That is, it would take 40 tons to break it down? A. Yes. Q. And that factor of safety was still further reduced by the addition of this floor? In other words, so much weiglit added to this floor? A. Yes, any addition of that sort. (,'. du*\ see if you <'alculated what those weighed— the addition of sidewalks? 30 .1. 1 am satisfied that I did not. 1 have not a mcmorundum of it. Q. Do you remember how wide they were? .1. I believe they are 5 feet. Q. That would be another space of 10 feet added to the width of the floor? A. i have the total dead weight of the span, 840 — thiit includes the sidewalks. Q, What does that amount to, in tons? .1. That is 15,7jO lbs. Q. That is 7,} tons, isn't it?— a little over? A. Yes. Q. Instead of being 5 tons weight, there were 7^ tons total dead weight of the floor? .1. The total dead weight of the span was 7 tons approximately to ihe panel. 40 (J. Then instead of subtracting 5 at 45, you subtract 7,] ? A. You tnistake me; this 7^- tons is not the weight of the sidewalk alone. Q. And the floor also? A. It is the weight of the sidewalk and the entire floor system, including floor beams, stringers and everything. Q. That is what I understand; but you subtract that amount then from the 45? .1. From wliat 45 ? Q. You spoke of a 20-ton car on that, having a factor of safety of 2 ; that is, it Avould take 40 tons to break it down? A. Yes. a T 2 RKcoun. (, fn the Sii/iriinr Court of Jirilish Columbia No727. rinintiirs Ciise. Evulcnco of /, Mr. K. H. Wanior, taken nt tho trial of P.itterson r. Victoria, on the 21st May. 1897. Cross- examination — continued III II' /! // // RK'.'OIJD. In thr. Siiprime ('tiirl iif lirkish Columhia. No. 27. l'liiiiitiH".s Case. Evidence of Mr. E. 11. Warner, taken at the trial ut I'attcrson ».'. Victoria, on the £l.-it May. 1897. Cross- esamiuutiuii — Cdutinund. 11 140 Q. And I uiulor.stood you to urrivo at that calculatio'i hy siiyiii;i that the floor wci/ijhcd 5 tons; tfiat you jirocecdud on that assumption, niakiiiff 4') tons in all would bo supported hy tho truss before it would bniak ? A. I cannot say where, you got your idea of 5 tons. My c.ilculations were based on that 7} tons of dead wei;fht, and then in addition a car of various weii^hts — cars of diil'erent weijjhts; this •_'() ton car is in addition to tho dead wei;;ht of tlic; brid;:;e. Q. Tlien a team of horses or several teams of horses upon that, with sonic vehicles and passengers, woidd greatly increase the danger, then, of collapse? A. Yes. Q. You know, as a result of your investigation, that there were some teams 10 on there? .1. Yes. Q. You attended at the inquest and heard a greater portion of the evidence adduced, and the weight was put at an estimate there of 22 tons ; there was one two-siated veiiicle with four pa.-;.sengcr.=;, and another vehicle with fiv(,' passengers, each with a hor.-e ? A. I don'r r(!member it, but undoubtedly you are ri'.i;ht. (I That Would make it over 22 tons, including the car at 20, and the weight of the passengers was calculated on some table ot weights you produced ? A. I suppose so. Q. Either you or another expert, and you agreed with it or did not disagree with it, and you do not now say that a weight of 22 tons would be such a 20 weight that the bridi^c coidd iHit stand? A. Why, certainly, it shows that it fell. Q. According to your cuUulation, if the material were good it could not have stood the weight? A. It wo uld be Imjhly hazar dous to atte inpt to put a _ ^vjy^t of .that sort on_it. "~ ~" Q- So, as a jnatter of fact, it was too much weight for a design of that sort anyhow? A. Undoubtedly. iit these top chords — were they continuous or jointed? A. No^jhey^were jointed be tween ea ch twq^o f the uprights. ^jrTTity TTTTttctTuveFT' v1 . Yes. 30 Q. i s that as good a design as a continuous bar? A. No, not as good. (J. It IS more apt to giv(' way? A. I'erhaps, yes. Q. Til other words--, these ends abutted on to one another, and upon any disarrangement of the stnn;ture they will either go out or jome in? *i. Yes. Q. And it they did, the w'lulu structure would go? ^1. Yes, , (,'. 'l"h( y ai'e held by com ressibjl? .1. Yes. (i. And the lower chords , iiilislon [ A. Nevertheless, that is tiie conv en- tional forni of building thf)se h ghwa}' liridgua. Q. Not u rai'iu ay bridge? .1, No. Q. Will you calculate fbr me the dilferenee in strain of those hangers by 4o reason ui the fact that tiu; ear was away on the side of the bridge? A. Would not this answer the same pui'ijose? t have the regulation 12 ton car, with aO ft. vheel base. (I Ts it a VI ry elaborate thing to do to calculate that? .1. It is not elaborate; the total weight is 2U,()0U lbs. It is simply a question of proportion; of the 20,(j()(l lbs., I l,(Ui(l lbs., or appro.xiiuately two-thirds, go to the hanger nearest it— approximately, 141 (J. So, of the total wci^^lit there was about two-thirds of it restiii-; V .1. On one hanger. Q. N(.'aivst tlie car rai! '.' A. Yes. IJ. Now, this 20 tojis yon spoke about was not based on an assumption of that kind, was it? It was l)ased upon a fairly even distribution over? .1. No, it was based on that assumption. Court (to "Witness) : Uased on the existimr state of things? A. Ikscd on the existing st;it(! of things. l'"or instance, thei-e are two trusses in there; suppose one riilces two-thirds and the other one-third, on the 20-ton basis I calculated the 10 strain on the truss. Mr. Taylor: That would increase the strain very materially on the hanger? A. Just to that extent, yes. (2. And this lini|.)fr ij . subject ed to shock when thc*e loads move over it? -l. It is snbjcct to the o rdinary s hock, of a wheel passing on a rail; yes, there is a shock at tile joints. i^. That lias u tendency to weaken the iron in time? .1. If it is sufficiently great, yes. T}. \V(juld not the shock of a load such as tiiis, away beyond the capa_city of the truss, have a tendency to shock if? A. Ohj yes. 20 Q Here is a question that has occiirrcMl tome: I would like to have you explain it. You have seen tliese cars go along the street ? They go bumping and bobbing up and down ? A. Yes. (l Supposing they bobbed up a little— would not that increase the shock? A. Clearly. (}. And that going up in that way a little — buin^in double it ? A. Xot double it, it wo nld intrc g'se it. " il Very__materially ? A. Yes. Q. When (lid you first find out about this floor beam being bored? .!. Yesterday, for the first time I heard it in evidence 30 Q. You originally came over to Victoria out of curiosity to see this bridge, I understand ? A. Ao. Q. Or as an e.ngiiieer ? .1. I went to Victoria on business, leaving Seattle the night that the accident iiappened ; I went out to look at the wreck, siiii[>ly, as thousands of others had done. Q- At any rate, being an engineer, T suppose your attention was particularly attracted to it, and you examined it particularly? .1. Yes. Q. Snbse([nently you had a talk with tin government ofllicials and you examined it for them? .1. Yes, for them. Q. In conjunction with i\Ir. Lockwood, who is an engineer on behalf of the 40 Bridge Co.? .(. He was at the time. Q. You went down specifically then to exiunine for the purpose of ascer- taining the cause of the accident? A. For the government. l^. Yon t(H)k your notebook with you ? .1. Yes. '^. And how long a time did you spend there? A. To the best of my recollection, 8 davs. (}. And taking notes of all the ])oiiivs you saw? A. Yes. Q. And the results of tiiat investigation }ou put down in a note-book? A. Yes. Y^on are referring to this notebook ? These are a copy. ItKCOUD. In Ihi- Sitpremr Cimrl of liiitinh ( 'olinnbia. No. 27. i'laiiititrH Ciuo. Kvidi'iu'c of Mr. K. II. WllllUT, tiikcii lit tlio iriiii of l'atti'1'.soii c. Virtoria, on tliu 2 tut May, l«i)7. Cros.s- exniiiiimtiou — cuntinued. >k? .1. Yes. Q. And what you testified to yesterdtiy you practically rend out of tlint note- book? A, Certainly. Thnt is n memorfindiuii mnde nt the time. Q. You critically exatnined every beam and piece of iron, monsured them up, and examined their condition ? .1. Yew. Q. And the result of your investi<^ati()n was embodied in a book of many pa;Lfes, rou;xhly ? .1. The pages cover — 7 or H pa^es. Q. Pretty elaborate notes? A. The}' were read yesterday; ihuy are complete. Q. As a result. They are complete? ,1. They are ii complete iiecount of lo the wreckage as we found it. Q. And you of course took thnt necount for the purpose of testifying? A. Yes. Q. At the inquest, on behalf of the Government ? A. Yes. (J. And you did testify there ? A. Yes. Q. And you assigned the cause of the break in the bridge nt that time? A. Yes. Q. Do you remember what it was you nssigned, then V .1. To the brvjnking of the floor beam I asjiigncd the cnuse of the disaster — to the extreme rottenness of the floor beam. 20 Q. It is only fair to road you this — p. 248 of your testimony Ijel'ore the coroner: " There is a broken hanger which Mr. I.ockwood said he w.is not able to loc.'ite definitely, but it was somewhere in the middle of the bridge. That broken stringer which mny have come on 4 or 5 was very pitchy iiiid a very serious knot. Hut th e c^'stion of j)recedence in bruqliiiig, that is whytluir.Jthe hanger or a good ])eam failed — whetTier the rotten part of the floor beam of the old floor gave way, or whether the stringer gave way, it is impossil)li; to deter- mine now." ^l. Pardon me; the question asked me was to determine which failed first, the hanger, the stringer, or the fluor beam. T had previously test'.fied that the extreme rottenn'jss of the floor beam was tlie cause; that I could not. nor 30 did 1 believe anyone could, assign the order of precedence of the breukiu:;: of an} one of those three parts. Q. That is what 1 understood. It is difficult to assign the order of prcc^ dence? A. Clearly impoaaibk^ Q. As a matter of fact, even in the best condition they could not have supported this load of 22 tons that was on it ? I V>"lieve also you_iuaUfii d to this effect (see if I have the substance of your eviden 'e) : That the truLli of the matter was, there had been absolutely no maintenance of the bridge, anil tha,t. that was really the cause of it? It had been allowed to get into a sh ockin gly bad condition of repair, and now the heavy weights put u])on it were the cause of the 40 disaster? ^1. I put it even stronger than that, if I recollect right. I .said itjjvas the most criminal piece of maintenance I had ever heard of. Q. In other words, no maintenance ? .1. The bridge was not maintained. Q._SiS> we start on that assumption that the bridge was not 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 maintained at all and got into a bad state of repair, and it was absolutely impossible to hold up this load? A. They had even gone further than that. 143 Q. See if that Is right ? .1. Yes. I was going to sny they Imd even gono further than that; they had split up the floor into three pieces after the accident of 18i>2, and still further lessened the chance of its carrying any load that might come on it. Q. Did you say at the inquest that had any effect u[)on it? .1. What? Q. Splitting up this floor? .1. 'Flint question was not raised, if I ren>ember; that is ray recollection. Q. Well, T will set! whether it was. Court : Of course, it is for you to say ; but how is that material? You might 10 ask him now. I'ut it to him now, how fur it affects his opinion. Mr. Taylor (to witness): How far is that material to the stability of the structure ? Here is what you said : — .4. Shall I answer your question first? Q. Well, I will ask you: V. 2')2: "You don't like that style of bridge with the floors like that, do you? J. There is no objection to it. Q. Isn't it more liable to accident l)y having a floor like that than another bridge would be ? .1. I think not, providing you take care in your connection. The stability of all truss bridges, in fact, most structures, depends upon the proper iidjustnicnt of its various members." A. Pardon me ; that remark applies to the style of the floor beams being suspended from hangers as this 20 one was. (^. Was that what was asked you ? A. Yes ; that was the subject under discussion. Q. Now, was it— the floor was the question? .1. My dear sir, if you read those questions. Q. What material difference does it make ? ,1. In my opinion it made this difference : in 1892 it was p robably that extra strength given by the plank floorinjj^ which carried the car oilt of danger. TJ. You do not think that the bridge was in any better condition i n 18! )L' than it was in 1896? .1. It was undoubte dly in better conditio n. : That is, I 80 should fancy it was ; simply a^qu"esTron"^{^ge. Q. That truss gains iiothing of 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 ? .1. Yes. (i. So that the floor might break down on one side and fall away like a trap door from the truss, or it might briuk mi both sides and the truss remain intact? A. If you break it in the middle as you did in two places, it would fall like that. If it 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 40 Q. Hmy f ar did the planking go over these chord bars? .1. I doii'j^ remember; it weiif over the chord bars, I believe. Q. Do you know whether it went over at all ? ^1. Yes, I know that it did go over. Q. Are you quite sure ? .1. I am positive in this way — that in examining the present span, the duplicate s[)an of that Q. It is only fair to say to you you never saw it ? A. The original, no. I am speaking from the duplicate span. liKl'uHl). In Iht Suprenu Court of liritls'h ' ( 'olumbia. No. 27. I'liiiiititrH t 'iWi'. Kviileiico of Mr. K. II. Wiinior, taken at the tl'ilkl of I'attursoD I'. Victoria, (III tlio 2l8t May, 1897. Cross- oxnininiition — continued. II, ^. -r-*, ►ii I'/Vf^ik.. ® f IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) /. / L-^r fA 1.0 I.I 1.25 1112 iio 1.4 1^ IM M 1.6 V ^? % %r^ -> #^. ...j^^ Photographic Sciences Corporation #> iV «^ c1>^ \ \ 4^^ ,0 <^ 6"^ 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, NY. 14580 (716) 872-4503 ^^^' ^.„ Vd V" f 4r '% 10 "^^ m ^ KKCORD. In the Supreme Court (it r British, I) BShimbia. ,.^ Plaintiff's' ,y . Case. . A' V\.'- Evidence of Mr. E. H. Warner, taken at tiiu trial of Patterson V. Victoria, on the 21st ■ May, 1897. Cross- examination — continued. 10 St riiigc' i's — ^joists, by 10? .1. Ten / 144 Q. Here is a representation of it iis ori A. Ye? represei ley go (Referring to exhibit " U.") Q. And tliey are attached to the lower chord of the bridge ? A. braces ? No, they are attached to the floor beam. .0' 1 1 ^„»>|! I fifl i u ■i i 'I; ^ /j RECORD. / the Supreme Court of British Columbia. No. 27. Plaintiff's Case. Evidence of Mr. E. H. Warner, taken at the trial ot Patterson r. Vict&ria, on the 21 St May, 1897. Cross- examination — continued. 146 Q. Wouldn't it be a much better way to attach them to the cliord ? A. It might be. ^ThatTs'a^convehliofial method of sway-bracing; it has been in irse""ftjr— -^ a great many years. Q. You would not put them that way, though, in a bridge to carry tramcars? A. I can hardly say what I would do; I can simply say it is an ordinary con- ventional form ; there is a bettor form, it is true. Q. What is the better form? A. Tliere is a variety of ways. Shall I go Q. Just shortly ? A. You can fasten them to the cliord, if you wish — to the pin connection. 10 Q. And that would have a better effect than fastening them into the floor beams simply r A. Yes. Q- So that part of the design could be improved on ? A. Yes. Q. Material^ly ? A. Yes. ^2- These (Ifagoiial sway braces were part of the triangulntion of the bridge —of the truss? A. No. Q. Tliey were not ? What were vou referring to just now, Avhen you said "Yes, Mr. Cassidy ? " (Witness having caught at uiiderrone remark by Mr. Cassidy.) A. Mr. Cassidy asked if it were. not better they should be part of the truss, and I said certainly that would be the better way. Now, I say, this is not 20 part of theTruss. I presume you were r('ferrin^• to the present structure. Q. They are not part of the triangulation ? A. They are not part of the triangulation of the truss. Q. Explain what you mean by triangulation ? A. I don't know Avhat you mean by triangulation. I am trying to answer your questions as you mean them. What }ou mean is the laterals. Are they part of the truss ? — they are not part of the truss. Q. Was it part of the scheme — of the original design of the triangulation — though you don't know what that means? A. No; I don't know what it means in connection with the bridge at all. 30 Q. Well, that is one for you — I don't either. Ordinarily, in building these bridges, you have the material that goes in them inspected ? A. Yes. Q. How is tliat usually done? A. In large structures the material is inspected at the works ; there are engineers who make a business of doing that. ^ <2- That is, ordinarily, the contractor who lias to get the iron — to f in-nish it — he has a man at the works where the iron is turned out? A. If it is large enough to do it — yes. (2. How is it in cases of smaller contracts? A, Take it on trust, — the name of the manufacturer; the Albion Iron Works, for instance, was supposed to be all right 40 Q. You know, as the result of hearing the testimony and your investigation in this case, that is what was done here? ^1. Yes. Q. The material was not inspected ; it Avas taken on trust originally; so if there were any defects in it, it might have got in without notice? ,1. Yes; any serious defects would be noticed by the bridge inspector for the government, provided they had an inspector. Q. Here is another question that was asked. I think it was by the coroner ^IM V» 1 10 30 40 147 or else by ^Ir. Cassidy, p. 268 : — " Now, Mr, Wilson asked you a series of ques- tions directed to the point, of the first member that gave way, and he asked you whether it was likely that it occurred, the car passing from Victoria to Ksquimalt, that it would have reached point 3, and point 3 given way before the hanger at point 5_g,ive wuy from a tension strain, and the car passing over it, or consiuei'ing wTuiryouliave said already us to the absence of diminution of diameter, whether it occurred from a sudden shock? A. It is impossible to have been suddenly broken ; that is the op'..ui;n I formed." Witness: That is undoubtedly correct. ^0 Q. "And you noiTced enoiigh. to indicate that it had been pulled apart from a heavy tension strain, or in other words that it had' been insufficient for the purpOJe'brsiistaiiiing the strain which went over it at that point 5?" — to which you answered " Yes." A. Yes, T see no reason to change an}' of that. Q. You still adhere to that? .4. Yes. (2. So it was insufficient to support the weight that went over it at 5 ? A. Yes. Q. It would have given way, an3'way ? I will read you another question or two — a question I asked you on tlie same page: "You were asked whether you approved of the design of this bridge, and you said ' for some purposes, yes,' and 20 then you defined that jjurpose to be a highway bridge ; do you approve of the designJJQi: a rail wa}' bridge ? A. For what traffic? Q. CaHing this train line a railway? .4. For limited loads, yes; for limited loads I would consider it safe. Q. And you place that limit at 10 tons? ^4. Yes. Q. And for anything over that, you would not approve of the design for a railway line ? ^4. Ijjaiuld-«et deem it wise to r un any tliing (}. You know perfectly well what I mean — would you approve of tlie design for a railroad bridge carrying a load of ten ton cars or over ? .4, I say that the limit would be 10 tons, if you were Q. Then may I take it that you would not approve of it as a railway bridge. A. If I were building a railway bridge, I would adopt another type." Q. You put it 3^ at 10 tons p A. I expect that evidence is correct; that is my opinion. ^2»-^aLLQ tons was the safe limit? A. Yes. (}• And you s ay yourself you know, as the result of your investigation, they have 20 or 211oiTs ? '/I. Yes. Q. So by no possibility could that structure have sustained ? A. It did sustain it once, and it passed over barely by the skin of the teeth, and the second time that the application of that heavy load was made it failed. Q. The application of the first heavy load you speak of, it would not be able to stand that again? A. It evidently did not stand it again. Q. But the application of that heavy load of about twice as much as could *0 be safely [)ut on it rendered that structure much weaker ? A. It failed under the load. Q. But while it could stand one load, it could not stand two? A. I will not limit it to two; it would not be wise to impose that load often. ' Q. But the more often it was imposed, the weaker the structure would get? A. Yes; it was imposed once, and it stood it in a way; the second time it failed. d U 2 RECORD. In iht Hupreme Court of British Columbia. No. 27. Plaiiititt's Case. livitlonce of 3Ir. E. H. Warner, taken at the trial of Patterson t Victoria, o] tlio 21 St May, 1897. Cross- examination — continued. ] .j, i i 1 i: i i i i if: ;l RECORD. In the Supreme Court of British Columbia. No. 27. Plaintiff's Case. \ Evidence of Mr. E. 11. Warner, taken at the trial of Patterson v. Victoria, on the 21st May, 1897. Re-examin- ation. M lljf :^ V^ 5' ^ V y\ 11 // (( v^4 11. Redirect h'l) "Mv. Davis. • ''^^ "^ Q. My learned friend read to you a few lines irom your evidence at tho inquest, and he stopped very short. I am going to read tlie next three line.; (p. 248) : " There is no question at all, that simply from viewing the condition of the timber it is natural to suppose that the floor beam at No. 3, if the car were able to get any weight on it, would break." That is correct? Witness: That is correct. Q. Coming to the capacity of the bridge, which my learned fiiend, it seems to me, has left not quite as clear as it migiit have been origimdly. The capacity of that bridge, as built, was 1,000 lbs. per lineal foot of live weight? A. 10 Yes. Q. And what is meant by that Is that it_jsjjuilt to carry a tho.usand pounds per lineal Joot, eutijaJ-yjipfirt from the structure itself, gf dead weight? A. That is what it moans, exactly. Q. And the only addition to the dead weight, after the bridge was first designed, were thejiidewalks ? A, Yes. Q. And the weight of the sidewalks is this 2-13 lbs. vou put in ? A. Yes. Q. That is the original dead weight 600 lbs. ? A Yes. Q. So the only amount to be deducted from the figures as shown by the 20 original strain sheet would be this 243 lbs. per lineal foot ? ^4 . Yes. Q. The factor of safety of the bridge as designed was 5 ? A. Yes. (}. The length of that panel is something over 18 feet ? A. Eighteen feet 9 inches. (}. That would, roughly speaking, be 1 9,000 lbs. of the regular weight less 19 times 240 for the extra weight of the sidewalks, which is about 4,700 lbs.; that would leave about 15,000 lbs. to the panel, with a factor of safety of 5, would be 7r),000 lbs. ? .4. Yes. Q. That is making all allowances for dead weight that are to be made ? A. Yes. ^ — • -^ -• - 30 "*(}. When you were speaking of the factor of safety of 2, you arrived at that 2, did you not — — Objected to by Mr. Taylor, as leading. Mr. Davis (to Witness) : How did you arrive at the factor of safety of 2 ? A. By taking the calculated weight, and calculating the strain, and comparing it with the area of the different members. . Q. In making that calculation where do you place the tram line on the bridge? .1. As it is shown. Q. That is what reduces, in other words, t lie factor of safety to 2? A. Yes. ' " ~ ■ 40 Q. It was o, but when you reduce it to 2, you are making allowance for double the weight or more being on, on account of that tram line being so near one end ? A. Yes. Q. In what part of the bridge would it reduce that factor of safety to 2? Would it be in the floor or the truss ? A. It would be in the truss — in the web members; that is, the diagonals. Q. Look at your notes with reference to that, Mr. Warner ? A. " Factor \^' >o fimm^ 149 of safety of 2 in tlie floor beiim ;" the web members — I was mistaken when f said I'ECOUD. that. 7 "7/ (). So tlie reduction of the factor of safety on this account — thi s reduction Supreme wouh l ht^ m th^'- ^h jjll! be.'ims and not in the hangers? ^1. Yes. Court of Q. What is it under those same circumstances in the hangers? .1. lMve_and Hn/tsfi. three-fourths. " Odnmbia. (J.. So that with the load as it was — Avith the tramline as it was, the fuctof of No. 27. safety of the floor b eams AJifluJtLfco 2, but the factor of safe^_,of the hi!,ng(U's wouhl riiijntifTs be5j, ? .1. Five and three-fourths, yes. ^^°: 10 "'*^^. Under those circumstances, which would in all human probability l>reak Kvid.Mice of first? J. The weakest part. ^f'- K- H. Q. Which is the floor beams? J. Yes. . nkenTtthe Q. And that is assuming that the floor beams are as they were originally ? ,',,;jji ^f A. Yes, assuming good material fibre strain, 1,350 for Douglas fir. Patterson r. (2. If the floor beams have ]:)een decayed, by weakening your factor of Victoria, on safety, it would be reduced so much more ? A. It would be reduced so much l}l° ^l*L- •" May, 1897. more. ~ Rc-uxamiu- Q. Would the iron be subject to the same deterioration in the same time ? ation A, No. — continued. 20 Q. You told ray learned friend that you did not notice this augei' hole in the / beam? .1. I did not. Q. Would it follow from that at all. that it was not there ? A. No. / 30 40 Re-cross-examined by Mr. Cassidy. Re-cross- cxamiiiatioii. Q. Speaking of what you say in regard to the hangers — a hanger is a part of the floor system, is it not? ^1.. Yes. Court : I think w-e have had all that, jMr. Cassidy. Mr. Cassidy: I just want to ask him about this difference ot 5f and the floor beam. Court: Well, I cannot allow any extended examination. If you have any 30 she ' point you wish to bring out, do so. Mr. Cassidy (to Witness) : The incidence of the weight caused by tlie tram line being put close to one side of the bridge would be equally heavy on ( the hanger which holds up the floor beam, and the floor beam at that point? .1.. Yes. j Q. Why do you say then that it reduced the factor of safety in the floor beam, and does not reduce the factor of safety similarly in the hanger? A. What is the difference, do you remember, Mr. Cassidy? That is, the relative / difference. ' Q. It was two-thirds of the weight on one side of the bridge, and one-third 40 on the other? A. I don't mean that. Q. What I want to make out is, the hanger is part of the floor system, and holds up the floor beam. The additional strain on the hanger where it holds the floor beam would be equal to the additional strain on the floor beam at that point? A. Yes. Q. Why do you not then reduce the factor of safety of that hanger similarly ^ KECOllD. In the Supreme Court of British Columbia. No. 27. Plaintiff's Case. Evidcncn of Mr. K. II. Warner, taken at tlic trial of rattorson v. Victoria, on the 21st May, 1897. Ro-cross- cxp,miijation —cohtinued. No. 28. riaintiff's Case. Evidence of Mr. J. B. C. Lockwooil, taken at tlic trial of Patterson v. Victoria, on the 21st May, 1897. Examination. 150 to the factor of safe^y of the flooi* beam, by reason of the additional weight ? A. If you will permit me a moment, I will find out what that difference is. Q. I am on the question of principle; do you make a distinction? A. Do I? Q. Yes; you told my friend by putting the traracar over on one side it reduced the factor of safety of the floor beam to 2. but the factor of safety of the hanger was 5f ? A. Yes; well what is tiic relative difference ? Court (to Witness) : You see what counsel means ? A. I see what he is trying to get at. Q. Crive ytmr explanation in your own way: Why do you make allowance 10 in one case and not in the other ? Answer that in your own way ? A. What I would like to do is to see whether that does exist. If he says they are not relatively reduced, T say I do not know— I have not the details. Mr. Cassidy : You said already to my learned friend that by putting the car track to one side it reduced the factor of safety of the floor beam, but not of the hanger? A. I did not say that, sir. Q. I took it down ? A. I did not intend to say that — that the factor of stifety of the hanger was not reduced. Q. Similarly to the floor beam ? A. Yes, it should be. Mr. Davis : We are really only talking about a misunderstanding, because 20 Jhe original factor of the hanger was 1 1 ; the original factor of safety of the floor ceam is something over 4 ; he reduces both of them equally. / Court : In fact, the witness is so clear that I am astonished I can understand so much about it. No. 28. J. B. C. Lockwood. Called and sworn. Examined by Mr. Davis. Q. What is your name? A. James B. C. Lockwood. Q, Where do you live, Mr. Lockwood ? A. Seattle. Q. What is your business ? A. Civil engineer. 30 Q. With whom are you engaged at the present tirae? A. The San Francisco Bridge Co. Q. That is the company, I believe, that built the bridge in question? A. Y'es, sir. Q. How long have you been employed by them? A. Since 1889. Q. What is your position ? A. Manager of the Seattle office. Q. What experience have you had in bridge work? A. I followed it con- stantly for 12 years. . Q,. Hay that been your sole business? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you make an exainination of the wreckage of the span that went down, of this bridge, after the accident? ..1. I did. 40 Q. How long after? A. Beginning on the 29th day of May and extending for a week at intervals for about a week; possibly a little more. Q. Before I go into the evidence of this, Mr. Lockwood, I would ask you to go over and explain a few general matters to the jury. Show what that is ? I ^^^^^I^^u* 30 40 151 am referring to exhibit 3 of " II " in this suit? -1. That is a general drawing showing an elevation of the bridge as it was originally built ; also as it appeared at the time of the accident. Q. Which was the Victoria end ? .1. It docs not seem to be marked for the Victoria end, but apparently that (indicating) is the Victoria end. (I'oint marked "V.") There is first a short length of trestle beginning at the Victoria end, and then there comes a 120 ft. si)an, and then a 1.jO ft. span, Avhich is the span that failed at the time of the accident, and then another l.'JU ft. span, and then another 120 ft. deck span, and then from there on, a little more of the trestle 10 work. Q. And this first span that failed; this is the same view really that we have in exhibit " 11 " ? A. It is the same view that we have in exhibit " It," except in " R " the truss is showing the other end too ; that is, from the other side of the truss. Q. l)Ut it is here the Victoriii end, and that drawing is the Esquimalt end. We have had reference to a number of terras during the course of the examination. I will ask you with reference to those that are material. The floor beams — which are those? A. The floor beams are these members just underneath the truss square shown — small square members; they are nutnbered on exhibit "11 " 20 Ij 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. Seven in this s|)an that tailed. Q. These, as I understand, were duplicate spans ? A. These were duplicate spans. Q. Exactly the same in every respect? A. Yes, sir. Q. These are wood or iron? — which? A. There were 52 wooden posts. Q. They run up from the five corresponding floor beams? A. Yes, above the corresponding floor beams ; they run up from the bottom chord to the top chord. Q. And No. 1 and No. 7 have what kind of vertical ? A. They have two iron bars extending from the floor beam to the top chord, instead of vertical 30 wooden posts, and these two are called hip verticals. Q. Where are the bottom chords of the bridge, and what are they r A. The bottom chords are shown on this plan horizontally above the floor beams, and just beneath the floor planking; three pieces which constitute the main bottom part of the bridge and carry the load which is placed on the bridge. Q. While we are at that point, you mentioned, the floor distance, or at any rate the floor extent in the span which fell — does not that extend over the bottom chords ? .1. At the time of the accident ? Q. Yes ? A. It did, yes. Q. What is the size of those bottom chords which are of iron? A. They 40 vary ; at the ejatl « i th e-epan on each side of the bridge, there are two pieces, 2 inches,l>y lr^iuch ; the next panels are 3 by_l.. Q. That would be between 2 and 3 ? A. That would be between 2 and 3 ; there are two pieces — 3 by 1, and between 3 and 4 there are 4 pieces — 2 of them 3 by f and 2 of them 3 by |ths. Q. Where are what was referred to by Mr. Wilmot as possibl}' supporting the floor in 1892, as the lateral rods? A. The lateral rods are shown on this plan just underneath the bottom chords, and shown by small lines from one floor beam to the next. RKCOHD. In the Supreme (■'oiirl of British Columbia, No. 28. rinintiff's Case. Evklenco of m. J. 15. C. Lock\voo(I, taken at the trial of I'atieMOii V. Victoiia, on the 21st :\[ay, 1897. Kxainiimtion — continued. ,4.1 ^^Vr ri /i I , HKCORD. In the Churl iif Brili^h Columltd. No. 28. Plaintifl"ti Case. Evidence of Mr. J. H. ( '. Lockwood, taken nt the trial of I'attcri-oii V. Victon.i, (111 tlic 21 St May, 1807. Examination — continued. in i,. I ;* h 152 (}. Do liny of tlieso drawings show those rods ? A. Yes, this drawing shows it very much bettor. Q. That is 4 of exhibit " H "? A. We here have the bottom lateral rods showing very plainly — these blue lines nuniing from one floor to the next one ; that is the Victoria end (marked V). This shows the floor beams more phiiiily — shows tlie bottom chord in detail, the bottom chord pins, vortical posts, hip verticals, very plainly. I). While we are looking at the general construction of that plan, you might give a general idea — not too minutely so as to confuse u.s, but a general idea of the principle upon which that s])an is built, with a view to showing wliat would 10 be tlie (ifl'ect of a floor beam breaking on tiio bridge ? A. The i)fincipal part of any bridge span consists of the trusses. In this particular bridge there aro two trusses; this drawing represents one truss, and it is a side elevation, and the other truss is supposed to be immediately behind this one, and is exactly similar to the tirst one. Q. By the truss you mean ? .1. liy the truss, 1 mean this elevation wliich is marked on the plan " elevation " ; the truss consists of the top chord or this timber — these pieces of timber. Q. Those are all timber on the top ? .1. Yes, sir ; the bottom chord which is all of iron and which is shown here just beneath the floor, and what are known 20 as th e web mem bers, which ar c all of th e jjitjces in between tli.e to[) and the bottom ch ords. Lhe web members are divided again into what you might call tAvo different kinds which are th e tiiybc r members. Avliich are the vertical posts at 1, 2. M, 4, 5 and 0, and the iron or tension members, which consist oT"th. How did you find No. 4? ^1. Thu is a new beam, and it had been 10 chouped some on one end, and one end had some mud on it where it had evidently Ix^en in the bottom of the Ijuy; It was in good condition. (I. Iiroken in any way ? .1. No. (4- How did you find iminber o? ,1. No. /) \v.:s ti new beam; it was bored i'or hungers, one Ij inch hanger still in place; one end of the l)eam had mud on it; it was located at .') tis the liiteral rods and the direction in which they lay; it W!is in good condition. (I. Was there any other new floor beam which was bored for htingera ? A. No, not an} of them. (,>. This was the only new beam in which the hangers were put btick in the 20 same way its they were originidly ? A. Yes. (i. How did you find G? .1. IJeam was in good condition except it had been sawn neiU'ly in two at the centre — seems to be sound. The lateral lods place it as being 0. Q. Is that one of the original beams, or ? A. No, that was 11 new beam. Q. In what condition did you find 7 ? A. Xq^ was an old ptiinted beam; laterals .-ire still in place; find two of the verticals apparently good; one vertical on the other end broken ; beam is rotten at thojian ger late ral bolts. Q. This was one of the original beams? .1. 'Ims was one of the old beams 30 that was originally put in the bridge. Q. How did that compare, so far as its soundness or unsoundness is con- cerned, with No, o? A, It was not as rotten as .N o. o. Q. What, if any, of the stringers did you find broken? .1. I found thre e brok en sj riiigers — one coming from each end of the span, that is a piece of the striij^r which went on to the adjoining span at either end, and another Tjroken stringer coming from some intermediate place in the span which fell. " Q. Where did you locate the first stringer you mentioned? A. Twojujokcn ones — one from either end ot the span by adjoining on the iiext adjacent span, and th(rthlrd stringer from some intermediate place in the bridge — I. could not tell. 40 ().. !?o the two that you sj)oke of first wcsre connected with the three beams miming to it? A. Oh, no ; not a*; all; they were clear at the end of this span which fell — of the span, not the panjl. The other one I could not locate defiiiitely. Q. How close can you eome ? A. The end of this broken stringer must have been over floor beam 2 or 4 or G. (),, Are you able to give i\ny opinion as to either, or arc tluy all about equidly probable? A. Well, it is very likely located over 2 or 4. 155 Q. Was tliLTc at thi! i)lacf whon; tliis stringer broko — was tlicn; aii}' pc'cu- liurity about the wood? .1. Yes, there wns a large knot in the strhi'^er. Q. What one of the hangers was brolccn?"' 7f. T loiinrl one uroken yoke h anger and one cracked yoke hanger. — — — (I. ('ould you Ic-ate where \\\v. broken yoke hniigi^r was r .1. 'rhc broken yo ke Im ngct' was still in place; in beam No. 5. — -- - Tl, And could you locate the cnieked one? .1. No; the cracked (aie had been taken out of the floor beam, i^nd coidd not L ' u^ated Q. Whciii you speaTv of being cracked -not bro';' i sufficiently for th(! pin to ]0go through? .1. It wns not separated — only cracked about half way acrohs the inoli and a (juarter iron. (I. So that could not have had aiiythin;' ) do with the fall of the bridge ? A. Not a^ all. (l. 1 suppose the presumption would be it wus broken during the collapse of the bridge ? A. Yes, sir. Q,. ("ould it be possible for a bi'idge like that to give way and fall without breaking more or less of the ii'onwork? .1, 1 thiidi not. Q. Which was the weakest portion of that span — tht! woodwork or ironwork? A. The woodwork had the smallest factor of safety. 20 (i- The difl'erence being what? .1. As originally constructed, the; floor — some parts of tiie floor system had a factor of safety of approximately 1, and the least factor of safety in the ironwork was 5. (I Where was that factor of safety applied in the u'omyprk ? A. T'he^ smalles t factor , was in the main diagonals extending from the hips to points 3 and h. il. ('ould they have had anything to do with the original breaking of the bridge ? .1. They did not have anything to do with it. Q. What was th(; factor of safety of the hangers ? A. As originally built, the factor of safety of the iiangers was 11. 30 Q, From your examination of the woodwork of the bridge after the span fell, which was the weakest part of the woodwork? A. The rotten floor beam. Q. That is at No. ;j ? ,1. Yes, sir. i). So that the woodwork was the weakest portion of the bridge, speaking generally as between it and the ironwork, and floor beam No. 3 was the weakest portion of the woodwork ? A. Undoubtedly. Q. You have heard the evidence as to where the car was at the time the ])ridge broke, have you net? .^4. Yes, sir. Q. In fact, you have heard all the evidence that has been given? .1. I 40 have, yes. Q. Including Mr. Cox's evidence with reference to the boring of that hole. What kind of way, in the first place, is that of_testing floor beams? A. A very poor way. """ (). What do you complain about, in it? A.. It gives an additional cause for decay and deterioration of the beams. Q. Is there any neccssit)' for using as large an auger ? A. None. id would the size of the auger have anything to do with the damage l!K(!ORn. In in,- Sitprciui Ciiurl of Uriliih Columbia. X.(. 28. riairililT'.s V,a.tii. Kvidciicc of Ml-. .1. II. C. Ijiickwoiid, tiikon lit till) tiiiil of PllttCIHOIl c. Victoria, (ill tlic 21st Miiy, 18117. Kx'iiiiinatioii — iiin/inuc. l*v.\cept. that tluire wag^u. pjatc undeiLiti^ — ^i—Y cs,-«ir:'-'""' (^. "Still, that plate would not close it ? A. It would not. (2- And if t hat beam .waa.,b.Qrji;d alter having been in for seven years, as Mr ■ ind was found to be sound at that time — won' ^ 10 y any ii1 . "I t l! * r 158 RECORD, would make the bridge woakcr for tram traffic or not, and explain why yon think so? A. Th e floor cut in that w ay 1 think would not make the floor a ny weake r, until the floor be am or sornetmns: of that kind ^ave Avny. ""ininything of that kmd happened, if the planking ran clear across in one lengtli it w ould be a great In the Supreme Court of British Columbia. No. 28. Plaiutiff's Case. Jvidence of Ir. J. B. C. Lockwooil, taken at the trial of Patterson 1). Victoria, on the 21st May, 1897. Examination —continued. ^' ^ -.1:1 *%«*< M f! ! safeguard — a great help towards preventing a serious accident. Q. Explaia how 'r' A. Suppose a floor beam gave wiy, we now have no sup- port under this floor beam. If that floor beam gave wj.y the weight of the car at this ])oint on the track would depress the floor beam, ""'j ._|tf|i^i; fl^^j floor planking got do\j^j;i]jiflUt (I inches.jJia^ids of tlie plank would rest on the iron bottom chord which AVouTtTsupport a very large weight. If the planking went 10 down considerably, or if the planking should break, the floor planking would go down further and these stringers which you see here, would rest on the bottom Li teral r ods which you Avill remember are connected with the floor beam over here at the hanger, and which wnnhl n^^|j jippfsaiirjlv go dow n l)y tti e floor beam breaking-. The lateral rods are connected in between the stu'rups and they cQidd not get out until the stirrup would break. 11 a floor beam should break and go down, the plank would go down until the ends rested on the bottom chord ; that might go down still further and the stringers hold on the lateral rods; these two things together would form a very substantial su[)port, and might, in (;ase of an accident haj^pcning when a tramcar is on there, carry \\\v. tramcai- safely over to jjo the next floor beam and prevent a serious accident. Q. If that floor were cut away in the way it wii.s cut, how would it aft'ect the point ^^ou have just been speaking of? ,1. In case the floor wei-e cut in three pieces and Ave had a 10 by 12 stringer under each rail, in. cas e of an accident, the floor beam would deflect the floor going over it, and wlien the stringers roach the bottom lateral rods that Avould cause some support;;;JLLuu«. sti-in ^ei i 's wou l d ht rlE/'''tT''y the load. These lojlg-jatiingers reaching from one flSorbeam to the second floor beam would also form a sup[)ort for tlic tramcar. Now, if t he sJt Uiugers were strong enougli to carry the loaded tramcar, of jyiuvse it could r un ac ross and probably reach tlu> next floor beam in "Isafety. Th at is . 30 if the Stringers and the lateral roHT together were strong enough, the traincar might run on to the next floor beam in safety ; but if the tv>^o together were nut strong enough to carry the load, the planking being cut in three pieces would ■ form no support whatever ; it would simply buckle down, and the Avhole hing fall through ; that is, under the new system. Q. It would be deprived entirely of the support to be gained by the planking resting on the bottom chords ? A. Exactly. i}. You have heard evidence with reference to the accident that hapi)ened in 18!) 2 ? A. Yes, sir. Q. On which occasion, although a floor beam broke, the car was carried 10 safely over. Now, in what respect, if any, was the bridge in 189G less able to carry the tram over, assuming the floor beam to iiave broken, than it was in 18i)2'^ A. it was less able from the fact that the floor plaidvs were cut in three pieces, instead of being in one piece as originally. Q. That is, jojar as the suppQi'ltQ be. derived, and which was derived in 1892 from the lateral chords, there was no ditt'erence ? — from th e late ral rods ? A. Practically no difl\;rence. """' " ' W'Z 159 Q.. They wtii-e still the same. S o far as tlie stnngers wore ci)iic(a-nccl,^if tlu TO was jmxilifle.rcncc, those larger stniigors, I suppose would make it stronger? A. M oKclavoui'fible, certainly. Q. But the one thing that was not there was this flooring? .1. Yes, sir. Q- The bridge was built for ordinary traffic — not tram traffic ? A. Tcs. ().. Vou might just state the capacity of the bridge and the factors. You have heard what Mr. Warner said as to the capacity of the bridge ? A. Yes. Q,. And the factor of safety? .1. Yos ; T think I agree practically with 10 what Mr. Warner says. Q. And what is the ordinary life of this timber — these floor beams ? -1. The ordinar y Ufe j jf floor beams \yould bo probably 8 or 10 years '^ it miglit be longer undercertain favourable conditions. Q. Something was said by Mr. Warner about welded "eyebars in connection with that broken hang;n'. Just describe what an eyebar is ? A. An eyebar is a flat piece of iron. To take an illustration avc will say a bar 3 inche?-' wide and 1 inch thick ; at each end of the bar it is enlariied to — instead of beii.'i' 3 inches wide it would be say 9 inches or it may be 10 inches wide, may be 7 inches wide, and would be circular in form at the end — in the centre of this enlargement —at 20 the end — there would be a hole bored there, 3 inches in diameter, for a round bolt or pin to go through. Q. Was there any eyebar in coimection with these hangers ? -^^1. No, sir. Q,. My learned friend questioned Mr. Warner about welded eycbars in cc.imection with the broken hanger. Q. Mr. Taylor: No ; you misunderstood me, f asked him if he found some broken eyebars in the ruins and he said yes. Mr. Davis (ti) witness): Where would these eyebars be? .1. The broken one ? (2- Yes? J. There was onyj^rojcen eyebar extending from the E squim nlt 30 e nd of the span to floorjicaui, 2 ; I believe that was the only broken eyebar in the bridge. It would be from to 2. II. Can yon show what part that eyebar did by referring to the plan ? .1. It is part of the bottom chord, I, can place it. This (indicating) is considered the Ivsipiinialt end of the bridge ; this eyebar extends from the pier to floor beam No. 2 ; and it is connected on to this pin at floor beam No. 2. Q. What was it for, and where was it broken ? A. It is one of the main me mber s of the bottom chord of the bridge and it has to suppoi't'oiie'oT'tTie main parts of the truss which carries the entire load — it carries :{- of thfi£i}tij;c^Joad 40 which comes on the truss ; it was broken near floor beam 2. "T wiIl"oxplain that each of the trusses had two of these bars extending from to floor beam 2 ; there were two trusses, and each truss had two bars ; that is, there were four bars at each end of the pier, eacl\JJ.inoktJii. >Yide,a.nd 1 iucU thick... -> >——»», il. There wei'c four aiiJ this was one of the four? .1. Yes, and two on each side. f,'. Could you form any idea how it was broken ? .1. Well. I am satisfip'i it RECORD. In the SiqircmK Court of British Columbia. No. 28. Plaintiff's Case. Kvidnnce ol" Mr. J. B. C, I^ockwood, taiicn at the trial of I'attei'soii V. Victoria, on tlie 21st May, 1897. Examination — continued. was brok' v;hen the bridge fell. 160 iiSi RECORD. j ./n the ^^ Supreme Court of British Columbia. No. 28. I / Plaintiff's / i Case. (,>. \\, any rate, could it have had anythinfi; to do witli the original collapse? A. It WHS not the proximate cause o[' the accident, — no. Mr. Taylor : When you speak ol' two on each side of the span? A. Cer- tainly ; two ])ieces for -^ach truss, as 1 stated. Mr. Davis : Wjis the twin bai", ii' 1 might so call it, at th:it side broken ? A. It was not. Q. It' the breaking of that one was the cause of the accident, could that one have bc(.'n broken too P -I. No. Crosft-crai/imed by Mr. Taylor. Q. In making this calculation of yours, Mr. Lockwood, as to the carrying lo capacity or the strain sheet, on the car being how far to one side — two-thirds ? A. Thrce-fiiiarters; it is 15 feet; the centre of the track is -5 ft. from tiie centre of one truss, ar.d 1.5 from the centre of the other. Q. Is that the way you figured it P .1. Yes. sir. M *'"'l807 // ^^' ^^^'^^ *^^^* bring your factor of safety on the hanger 5 and a fraction? ^1. Cross- /' ^< Evidence of Mr, J. B. C Lockwood, taken at tlie trial of FatteroOii V. Victoria, es, 3ir. examination. // A -the tensile strenofth of Q. On Avh^c basis do you calculate your in u at that- the iron? A.. Fifty thousand pounds to the square inch. (},. That iron would have 50,000 lbs. to the sc^!ia.re_mch, tcnsih^ strength? A. SuppQS£iJ»,yeS, sir. ' 20 Q. i)Ut hjid j tP A. A\''ell, that is a thing no one can answer. Q. Is that a very high percentage to put in a bridge of that character? A. No, sir; it is the ordinary strength of refined iron. Q. Was that refined iron? A. SupjiuaiiiLlp be. (J. 1 know — supposed to be ; the trouble is there is too much " supposed to be " about this bridge. If it had all been critically examined, we would not probably have had the accident? A, To the best of my belief, it was refined iron. I examined the iron. Q. You remember it struck you it vraa all weldlcss iron at first, after cxaminhig it for about a week ? A. Yes, T discovered afterwards the bars were 80 all welded. Q. You were of that opinion until I called your attention to that at tlu; inquest? .1. Yes. Q. Did you make any further examination at the time? A. Of what. (J,. Of the iron, more than to see whether those eyebars were welded P A. Not that I remember of now. 1 think I did on that trip. I think T made an examination of one or two of the breaks. (J,. Don't you remember you went down aiter, to see whether your opinion as to the iron being weldless was correct, and you came back and said it was a mistake — it was welded — this eyebar you explained before luncheon, that forms 40 an eye? ^.1. Yes. (,>. And this piece is welded on to the long piece? A. Yes, sir. In looking at a weld, can you tell whether it is a perfect or imperfect A. Not always. Could you tell at all until you broke it apart? A. Well, you can form Q. weld P Q. or pass your j udgment on it. ! « 11^ 161 20 L'C 30 III! id rm Q. But can you really tell? That is another case of supposing? absolutely. s— — — (^r-Tou stated bi^forc, you could not tell without breaking, is that right ? A. You carLuat-t«*H> absolutely. Q. That iij aja£iJtib,gr s u p positionP ^ Yes, sir. Q. Now, let us get aa\vn to thc^cight. I think you put the weight that might be passed over that at!) tons? A. 1 put the panel load that the bridge was figured for at about !) tons. (,). 1 will try and make this short, Mr. Lockwood, and will just show you 10 what you said b((fore, a'ld see if you adliere to it still. (P. 'Jl of inquest.) " A bridge of that description and capacity, is that a bridge suitable tor all kinds of traffic ? A. No; it is suitable for traffic not greatly in excess of the weight it was figured for ; the same ;is {iny bridge. (^>. AVhat weight was it figured for? A. One thousand pounds per lineal loot that was figiu-ed, not to exceed ;-iU,000 lbs.; the strain sheet shows r.ot to exceed '28,000 lbs, (jn any one piuiel; that Indludes the weight of the floor itself, which weighed about i) tons. (^. Fourteen tons — tliat would be aboutJ JLttMis? ^1. Yes, on each -panel; that is the M'eight the bridge was figured for, as shown by the strain sheet. Q. That would In- bl- tons on thejiiuiels r ^1. Yes; that includes the weight of the floor of tlie"nT'i(1ge 20 itselfPsuT)tracting the weight of tlie fhor, whicii is 5 tons, would leave a .^.-ife load foi- th'; bridge, atjJi^jjii-ed,. of about 'J tons per paucItI..^Wjt''iess : Yes. (/. You still stick to that ? .1. Yes, sir. Q. You had figured in th.it five tons the sidewalk ? .4. Yes; as I rem('nil)cr it 1 had. "" Q. Let us get it accurate, because Mr. AYarner said he figured the sidcwfdk at 7 J tons; the floor proper of the truss, and then tliere would be the sidewalk? A. No - that tous w ould not iuchide the sidewalk. - ... - . ., (i. bb' wnutcver the weight of the sidewalk in addition to the weight of the floor would be subtractial.fi'om. this 9 tons? A. Yes, sir. 30 Q. You hoard hitn this morning put the total weight at 7?, tons, and vou ]iut ♦^'"' weight of the floor at .'), that would leave 2-^ for the sidewalk? .1. That js right; that is approximate. (}■ You figured it together, didn't you, the two of you? A. A great niaiiy things we went over together. Q You compared your figures carefully together? So that would hv 2.\ tons off til e !)?"~'":'t'. ThiTfls rfglit. Q. That would leave 5 J tons ? A. Six and a half tonsi- ' (i. Would be about the safe load to go on it; that was about the weight of '"~°^ " went, over, wasn't it ? .1. I don't know. investiiration? A. We did .1. N(jt UF.CORD. th e or 40 Q ?P not iuvestitrate the orimnal car. Q. >ut did you see any )f tht ml eori2:inal cars tnere the 1. I saw some sm all car,< *"ive ton cars? .1. As I remember it, they were approximately 10 tons — the car and the load. (2- \_ loaded car wo'il i^i l^f ftT»r>|^t 10 tons ; then that wouldbe too inurli_t.o let CO overjTH X Well, it would be a little more thanTTie'panei load the biidgo was originally figured for. d Y hi the Sii/)reme Court of British Ciilumbia, No. 28. JMaiutifl's Case. Evidence oi" Mr. J. B. C. I.ockwood, tnken at tliu trial of Paltorsoii V. Victoria, on the 21st M.1)-, 1897. ClOSS- t'xaiiiiiiatioii. — continufd. .Jfty^ 162 P , 1 t IBs t < ; 1 '^ H RF.COIil). A* /he Siipreiiw Cuurt of British Columbia, No. 28. PlaiiitiflF'.s Case. Evidence of Mr. J. B. ('. Lockwood, taken at tlic\ i trial of I / Patterson u Victoria, oif • the 21st / ' May, im. Cross- examinntiiin — cantiwifil. I 1/ II I <.i. Listen to this answer then also: (P. 1)6 of iii(]uest) : " What would you consider the outside limit which 3'ou could allow on that bridge " ? A. Well, a single lead — you mean u single load? 'I Yes, either a tmmcar of a dray. If you had authority over that bridge, where would you draw the line? A. Well, I should say if a man came along and wanted to take a load twice the amount, to cross the bridge — 18 tons — if he used extra precautions I might allow him to get it across. And if he wanted to run a load like that every day, I should say no. And if the load was much larger than that I should say he had better not take it across at all. 10 (I. Then there is a subtraction of 2^ tons from the sidewalk in considering that ? . 1. [ believe not. (). So that would reduce that 18 tons by 2| ? A. Possibly. Q. So about 1-)| would be the limit? As the result of your investigation, you I'ouiid this car and passengers 20 tons, and also ascertained there were two vehicles on the span at the time ? .1. Some teams and some people. ll. Is not this the (act, to make it short, that there was one vehicle, one of these buggies that sit back to back — a gladstone — with 4 passengers in ? A. 1 don't know. Q. You did not follow the evidence on that point? .1. No. 20 Q,. P)Ut at any rate, with a carrying capacity of only 1\ tons there, and the outside limit loj, surely the answer to the whole of that is, if you have 20 or 22 tons, it could not stand it? A. You want to remember that not all of that 22 tons was on one panel ; it was all on one span, but not on one panel. (),. You wx'.re, aaked in t^i esc. questions on the bridge, what would you permit to pass safc^Jg; over the bridge? .1. Yes, sir, that is right; as a sing le load. """^ Q. And oft repeated that would weaken the bridjre ? A. It might under certain conditions. (). Is not that the fair inference of all you say? .'1. Well, you must 30 i-emembvir (2. Did you not say at that inquest the priniiU'jf .uause of the breakiag.,was that it was overloaded? — the bridge, or whatever ymrt you choose to call it, ^v'us overloaded? .1. At the time of the aecidetit, I said. Q. It was too heavy — the traffic ? .1.1 said the traffic was heavi er than the brid^ ''iiSyi'i have been subjected to; tliere is no question about tliat. 1 cannot ~~~ remember exactly tlie words, but there is no question the traffic was tie/mer than the bridge should have been subjected to: Q A juryman asked you this: '• I would like to ask you Mr. Lockwood — you have examined all of that ironwork and you have examined the broken parts; 40 as 1 matter of fact, you have formed an opinion s.s to the cause of the bridge giving way. Will you let us know what it is? A. Yes, sir; I con sidgX. t hat tju ; p44mary_iisUJlSii.3.Vft5LtWi>. Jieavy a-ti-aliic, with the bridge — tluit is, the bridge was" loaded heavier than it should be." That is pericctly obviaus it was ? A. There is no ((uestton aboift that — heavier traffic tiian the bridge should have been sub- jected to. *■ '" 163 10 20 ray ,'ilS mn rts ; 40 was Q. It was too light a bridge for the work, and there was want ol' repair ; that is about the sum and substance of it? A. Well, that is what it comes to, certainly. Q. I think at that time you assigped as the cause; of tiie break -the primary cause— the broi. trial of 1'atter.sou r. Victoria, on tiie 21 St May, 1897. Cross- oxaminatioii. — conliiined. fm '>■ t '41 I -■'^^ i f : -*«(, •'■( KKCORD. In the Suprcmr Court of British Columbia. No. 28. PIaiutirt"'s Case. Evidence oi Mr. J. B. C. Lockwood, taken at the trial of Patterson r. Victoria, on tlie 21st May, 1897. Cross- csaminatiun — cunii}nt(:(L A. Approximately, the elastic limit of the iron? A. You .should never load iron 10 i,f '■•; 164 safety means the load which you figure the bridge for, ordinurlly ; you should not strain tlie members beyond that factor of saiety. At the same time, you can strain them beyond to a certain extent, without any great danger. (i. Do you mean to tell me a bridge with a carrying capacity of 10 tons figured with a factor of safety of 5, whi(di would nuian 50 tons V A. Ten tons ])er panel. (^. Vou could put 50 tons upon it without any danger? .1. Certainly not; AO is the estimated breaking load; that is taking the factor of safety at 5 and the safe load at 10. Q. That 50 would break it? A. Certaiidy, Q. And the elastic limit of iron is a half? Q. So if you stretch it ui) to 2") you reach J. Yes. ^>. l)evond that it would not be safe to jro ? beyond the elastic limit. Q. You put one load then of 95 tons on it on that basis you would liavc reached the elastic limit of \ mr iron ? A. Yes, sir. Q. If you follow that with a load of 30 tons, you would liave got beyond the elastic limit of the iron— isn't that a fact? ,1. i want to ([ualify my answer in regard to the 25 tons. 20 Q. ("an j-ou not answer me yes or no to that? .1. 1 don't care to, at present. Yon pin me down to the question of supposing 25 tons on one panel of the bridge. That [)liicing might strain to the elastic limit otdy apart or members of the 'loor system; it might not strain any other members in the truss anywhere near the elastic limit. Q. ((Question repeated). That assumes a basis of 10 tons plus a factor of 5, or 50 tons. Half of that factor would reach the elastic limit of the iron? ,1. It might some pieces of iron in the truss, not necessarily all of them; in fact, it was not all of them. Q- But you do not consider that the truss and bridge are stronger than its 30 .weakest part, do you? A. Certaiidy, the truss as a whole is no stronger than its weakest i)art or member. Q. But, having stretched some portions of the iron up to their elastic limit of 25 ? A. You miglit not stretch any limit of the iron at 25 tons. Q. Is not that the limit you placed on it yourself ? A. I said probably there are certain pieces in the bridge which Avould 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 lujt understand my question? A. No, 1 don't say that at all. Q. Then do try to answer it, because; I am not trying to catch you. A. You are askhig me questions which, if I answer you directly, are misleading. Q. Surely you do not pro])oseto answer me indirectly ? A. No; but I hav«! to qualify my answers in order to make it clear. Q. I have not got an answer. 1 say, on the supposition ol the carrying capacity of 10 with a factor of safety of 5, or 5(1 tons .1. On each panel ? Q, The elastic limit of the iron, you have told me already, is about 4^. If 40 165 10 20 40 you put ou II load oC 25 tons, woukl you stretch the u'oii to its elastic limit? You said yes to that? A. Under certain conditions. Q. By puttin;;; wei;,'ht on it ?' .1. li' you put a wei<,dit of 'i.") tons on each panel of the l)rid tons, because vou won't stick to tliat? .1. Yon load the t"'^'''' »' "'« .... I ... ' " trial of entu'c bnd^fe, (.'crtauily. ^'. If you load one part, that is strained; and it is not the saui<; thing? .1. No, sir; not, by any means ; that is when; the whole ditfienlty lies; that is the reason I do not answer your (piestinns to suit you. (^^. Docs a weight on the brid_...•--' ..-.- .- ,. , which would be 105,000 lbs. I). You think that one of these spans would carry 105,000 lbs? A. 1 see that is one-half — I made a mistake. Perhaps I had better put it this 40 way (2. You hake(l vou r .4. I thou''ht I did. III tilir li'"'l'i pirxir, jiiii w 1'ij Ivy uxit-U^uL -lUi: atruiii in the IruBigsjrotn iv single pmic l loiid wl iich you CdlUlpi--,^'^^; timt is, yoii ciinuot ^ot the Htri iiii in all the braces of thu ti'.usiiiujuuM ))nit*4-4«ad. (,>. I tliiiii\ I huv(! bucii quite frank with you and have told you what 1 wanted — 1 will have to <(o over it upain: What wciijzlit eaii safely hrr |uiwsed over by a < ar over tiiat bridi^e — that span — that went down? A. Ordinary traffic,! should say should not exceed 1(» tonSj^or aii ordinary car. (i. You told iis"aT"ITie inquest D UiX\>, and iiualititid that a short time Evidence! oC takiiiw off tiie wei";ht of the aj^'o by tons, Teaviiiir <>.'/ ear weii:ht that you 10 taiscii at tlui trial of Pattei-iiOii r. Victoria, on the 21st May, !8'J7. Cross to consider sale? .1. Lilun't re- I said the safe load per panel; we Mr. .1. 15. C. would allow to go over that br id^^cTo^i-nniar i 1 v Locitwooil, member that I said that; 1 dou't'tliink I did." Avere not tnlkuig about the ear at that time. i^. W'e will take the car: What wciiirlit cur would you permit to pass over that panel and consider safe? A. I should consider the bridue was safe for aj^p roximatiily a 10 t on ear. ' ' l)o you consider in that the 2^ tons weight of the sidewalk ? .1. Taking ;o n S' ! i. ' 1 '■■■ '.'t'l • ' examination the spiui ju.st as it stood, considering everything in uood condition. — contiivwd- U- The span as it stood ; that is, all tiu; material good — that l(2^ty"^ would be a safe load ? .1. Well, yes ; a 10 ton car could have been passed over it. -jO Qi And an excess of that woidd have been an unsafe load? J. It does not necessarily follow, but it would have been bad to allow a niiieli heavier loud over it. (^). And repeated ly aHywin p|.-u, li(^;ivif;r load to go over it wou ld in , t, t'.rl'er(i to a greater extent ^yifh the bridge? .1. If the load was large euougli, certainly. (J. Say, a load t wice thi( t( ti'"^-^'" ^ Yes, it might, evidently. . 'i'he original factor of safety r A. 7. '>. That is one of the most important members of the truss, isn't it? .1. AY ell, it is just as any hanger. ■^ECOUI). //( Me iSiipri me Ciiitrl nj lirilisii Ciiliimliid. No. 28. PliiintilV'H Evitlniico ol Mr. .1. I!. C. liOukwiKid, t liicn at tin trial of Piittersoii ?'. . , Victoi'ia, on I [AiJM tho 2 1 St / ^*^/ Miiy, I8'.)7. ('ross- o.Kaniiimtioii • — cunliniiml. 4U ^^^^a M-^^ ijL^ Uduaj^ 168 RKCOIID. In the Huprcmn Courl of British Cnliimbin, No. 28. Plnintill's Case. Kvidcncc of Mr, .1. H. J. I^ockwood, taken nt tlin ti'ini of rattorsoii V. Victoria, on tllG 21bt May, 1897. Cross- cxaminntiyii — cunliima (). It. is inoro hn|)ortaiit'r .1. Not at nil. II. is tlici'c any (iUM»i'-uui mtu'i- qC tlu! Jriis.s tjiut is of uipn; importance? ..). Y(s, OIK! of tliu iniiiii inciuberd oi.tlju.ltUSs would he inofi! important. "Q, \\\\\\\s do you mean l)y main members? J. TIk; Itottom chord. (>. And tliu ton chord ? .1. Yis. "" ,U (,>. Now. ttrPTo[>_ci l ord y ou say was b utted uud.- jo i |4ed n ^ at each one of those uprights — 1 to 7, tUore V .1. Yes, sir. Q. Ton examined that criti'jally ? — \'. Was hutted over each one of those. Mr. Warner was sli;^htly in error 10 when he mentioned that top chord cxtendi'd over two of these;? A. If he said that, he was mistaken. I don't thiid< lie said it, because he (X'rtain'y understands a truss. (>. There was r.o way of tasteninjt; those together tlitn-c, was tliire? ,1. They were liist in the cast iron blocks (^. Weri! they iaslened toijether in the original design ? .1. Xo, only from what iasti'iiing tlnsy i^^ot ny restin;; ii^ the lUi^le blocks. - II. Th'oy wrere hi'hl in,i;uui.j>w»ww)n there ? .-I. Ye.s. Q. It' tVii. y'T iTT p^i i f T.f lin.i , tlu . wtinli. structur.! would go jto^ither — buckh; like a j ackk nite't' .1. If they got out of line liir enough, the; bridge would 20 collapsej ' (I, Do }ou consider those as good as a continuous bar up there V A. Yes, sir. (>. Would a contir mom j bar do that? .1. If it got far enough out of line, certainly it would collapse under a load. il. Wouldn' t it have to go further than those butted pieces? ^1. It Li- And they are more likely to get out of line — those; butted ])ieces, than the other? .1. 1 don't tliiid< so. Ci. Why not? y1. Why is it? 30 Q. You see, I am asking you ? You don't think so? A. No, sir. I). Do you say that it might not have been caused to collapse by the hang»;r breaking at 4 — .')? A. I think not. (). Is that what you said before? .1. That is what I said now. Q. I find another rtferetice here to what you said at that time: (P. 127 of Inquest): '" You found a broken hanger at 5 ? .."l. Either 5 or 4. Q. Might that not hav(; been the first thing to go and carry away the floor ahead of it? A. It might, yes, sir. If the broken hanger was 4 or .'j, the probabilities arc that the hanger broke first." (}. You do not adhere to that opinion now? A. There an- other oualifications placed in there. 40 I). None are placed on that answer? .1. J don't think the hanger broke first. Q. You do not adhere to that original opinion of yours ? A. No, sir. Q. That was given at the conclusion of a Aveek's examination, was it not ? A. Yes, sir. Q. In which you took copious notes ? A. Yes. Q. And from which you testified? A. Yes, sir. 40 109 Q. Immediately follo\viii■*! No. 28. I'liiiiitirs / C'lise. Kvidoiico of Mr. J. H. C. I.ockwood, tukon lit the trial of I'littersou I'. Victoria, ou tiio 2lat May, 1897. Cross- examinutiou — cantinucd. \ (, ; a u y ill i'/i 1 issi* 1 BR 1 W^; 1 ft 1 B| j 1 Hi in V 170 In the Supreme Cowl of British Col-imhia. No. 28, Plaintift's Case. Evidence of Mr. J. r>. C. Lockwood tnkcii nt tho trial of Patterson v. Victoria, on tlie 21st May, 1897. Cross- examination — continued. don't went 20 good tion. At the time I testified before tlie coroner's jury I was under the impres- sion that the car dropped in the water at some place about 5, .and all the photographs I saw about that time showed the people and ail the wreckage in that vicinity — that is, very much nearer Victoria end than the Esquimalt end. Now, if as a matter of fact fiu'ther evidence goes to show — and I think it does — that the car Avas nearer to the Esquinialt end, I am satisfied in ni}' mind that the accident occurred near the Esquimalt end of the span, past the centre of the bridge. Q. You heard what i\Ir. Biggar said about the car pitchinc: forward? A. Yes. ' ^ 10 Q. And the car was running that way? A. Yes, slowly. Q. Would not that have a tendency, the bridge giving way, to pitch it still further forward? A. Not very much; the bridge floor would slope both ways towards the point where the accident occurred. The car w ould not !j:o ah ead very much after the bridge, com menced to col lapse. Q. Do you remember the testimony of the bridge going down at the Esquimalt end first? — it dropped off the pier? A. I remember hearing some remarks ot that kind. Q. Passengers on the car said that? .1. I don't remember that, no; I remember any [)assengcrs on the car said that the front end of the span down first. Q. No, no. Did you hear all the testimony thei'c ? A. No. Q. Did you hear the first part or the last part? A. I wtis in there a deo.l, oflP and on, up to the time I testified, and afterwards I left. Q. What would be the effect ofjuiy inequality of the mils of the track there? A. Cause a j^ir every time the car wen,t past. Q. And the effect of that jar might be to do what ? A. It would be more se^'^ere oii any truss member that is subjected to it. — — — — , Q. !Mi«rlit it be (loii ,bled ':' A. It might be. Q. Under certain circumstances. How long would it take you to calculate 30 from the measurements of that iron you mentioned there, the actual factor of safety in those hangers — while you are in the box, now ? A. The actual factor of safety ? You can only calculate theoretically; you cannot tell what actual strain will break a hanger J can figure it theoretically in about a minute. Q. Mr. AVarner put it, I think, at about 5|-? A. AYhich was that? Q. The hanger — put 18 tons on the hanger? A. On the hanger or on the bridge ? Q. Eighteen tons where it would be when it passed over the hanger ? A. An 18-ton car with a 14-ft. wheel base. Q. Thirteen, two and a quarter, that was the wheel base ? A. 1 figured it 40 for a 14-ft. wheel base, a 20-ton car, inch and a quarter square iron. I have it already figured, right here. Q. And you make it? ^1. 5|-. Q. You do not make it 2'7 ? A. No, sir. : Q. Tiiere is just one thing further I wish to call your attention to. 'is a result of your examinatir>n last time. (P. 277 of Inquest): You were asked "What do you deduce from that ? A. AYell, I am inclined to tliink :is the result 171 10 fiteso of 3tor rain the 1(1 it 40 e it IS a iked suit of those thiii;^.tliat. the Lauger at 3 or .at 4 broke lirat; that is. about what it simmers down to ? " A^itness : Ves, sir. Q. " Do you think that was broken and that the hanj^ers at 4 or 5, remained " good, that the gaugin g of that beam would ca ] )si^e t) ie wliole bridge ? A. I " think not."' AVhat do you say to that ? " It is i)li]jnly. shown by tl_\e position " of the car in the water that the whole \yeight of the car had not reached 3. P " A. "I "think so,^ Q. So that it is more bkely to have gone at this 4 or 5 ? .1. I " think so. Q. There is only one broken floor beam ? A. Yei,~sir. Q- That " was at 3 ? .1. Yes, sir. Q. Do y ou tliink that was broken and the han gers 10 " at 4 or 5 remain ed good? — that the sagging of that bi^'uin^'puld capsize " the wliole briajjcT" A. 1 thinlc^ not." Do you still ad hci^e to_ Lhat? ^l. Yes, sir. — — -~ ' _. Q. You examined that han^^er at 5 ? A. Yes. Q. And as a result of that 3()U foinid it broke from what kind of shock or a strain ? A. Yon cannot tell hardly, from that. There was no reduction of area that I could see. Q, Do you remember this question: "If tVir. ^'^]]gp]' i\^ •'* "^' ^ f,s the case may be, wherever it happened to be broken iirst. 1 "•"'■• "_jiT"" '^ pillTlv ^'■"^■1" strain brth^jjiL-going over it. It broke from the shoc k of th e lotul^— tligjixuea- 20 sive loajl That is to say, it would be a' m'rcly tensile strahi? A. Yes." Wit- ness : I agree with that. HKCOUD. In the Supreme Court of British Columbia. No. 28./ Plaintiff Case Eviiicnce ^h: J Lockwocfd talvRii at tfic trial of Patterson v. N'ictoria, on tlie -2 1st May, 1897. Cross- cxamiuatio: — cominiiJd. :!!■ i catioi; (2"." And you were asked this further question: " It ^v ould be fromlhcappli- ion i. )[ w ji.ght , at all events ?" A. Yes, sir. 7' ( "fLXjC*-'^'^ '■l. Now, there was more weight on that than it could carry safely? .1. It.,^,- ' ^j i was not strained anywhere near its elastic limit; it still had a factor of safety /'(^^t''tt'"^'v'^^^**7| of 5f. . . , , , Q. P)Ut it was brokenjb}:' a pull, apparently — by a weight on it ^ A. \ es. / / Q. Ydrr'^^nrnuTliere to that? — that is correct? A. Ye>. ' (). I think you have already told us that tiie floor beam at 7 Avas also very 30 rotten ? ^1. It v/as quite rotten at the ends, yes. Q. Do your notes show any boring in that rotten floor beam? A. ^In, fijri ' Q, All yoji know about that is the statement? A. The evidence I hetu'd here. Q. Of Cox, who said he bored it ? yl. Yes. Q. Ijut you do not base your whole theory on that fact, do you ? — about it /// giving away there — the rotten floor beam? ^1. Well, I, attribute the primary cause j\\ of the accuient— that is, the accident happening just at tlli4..Jiiau to that hole //' being bored. Q. You don't know whether it was, or not bored? A. I have heard jthe 40 testimony here. —>.«—■ I's ■ 1^ ' B :r i w- Redirect by ]\Ir. Davis. Q. The i'act of your not noticing ;uiy trace i)f it, it would not follow, one way or the other, as to Avhether the hole was there, Mr. Lockwood ? A. The hole might not have been there at the time I saw it, tlie wood wtis very rotten; it was sheered right out. Re- examination. d z 2 H RECORD. In the Supreme Court of British Columbia. No. 28. Plaintiff's Case. Evidence of Mr. J. B. C. Lockwood, taken r.t the trial of Patterson v. Victoria, on the 21st May, 1897. /Re- examination — cojitinued, * Sic. 20 172 Q. And so broken up you could not tell ? A. Yes, sii- ; it mifrht have been there and I not notice it, and it mi^-Iit have been sheared out entirely. Q. My learned friend has referred to certain evidence taken before the Commission, and, very naturally, he did not refer to all. Ho asked you with Fvifereiice to the breakiu^^ of the hanger, and referred to some evidence that you ag."eed with Mr. Warner that it was broken by a shock. (P. 277.) " Sup pose the_cju'jvas_stitul in-between :3 and 4 and liroko the rotten beam at 3, would the reaction, the concussion, or anything, break the hanger at ~5^ ^1. No, sir; I think not. it nught break the hanger at 4; that would be very possii)le." "Coroner: It might break in '.le general collapse of the bridge? A. It 10 rnighv break in the general collapse of the bi'idge at 5, buit not i'rom the shock of the breaking beam." Is that correct P A. That is right; in fact, any iron might have been broken at that time. Q. A juror then asks this: "Yon nssm-ne froi j] that tl iiii-4 ^r .IJiivl brnknn because tlie weight i.-'^ the car had not reaglied 34J.s.jthi)Ji it? -1. Yes, sir." Now, was that the reason wliy the expression of opinion as to the hanger at that time, and you give your opinion as to the broken beam, now ?* A. Yes. Q. Based on the position of the car? ^1. I base.H^-bettu bet^diii. atiy-placc ? A. No, sir, with the exception of e regular holes. "" " Q. Where the hangers went? A. Yes, sir. Q. But 1 am referring to the same ieam 3 you v\-ere unable to find ? J.I could not find it, sir. (J. That is the broken beam? -I. That is supposed to bo the broken beam. Q. Did you search ? .1. I did, from the bridge to Deadman's Island. Q. Did j'ou make inquiries? 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, iu fact, all, I think? A. I have heard a pare of it. ^^ Q. Have you heard the evidence with reference to the beam beuig bored — Cox's evidence ? A. I have. (/. And the evidence as to the strain sheet — of the wood being weaker than the iron and with a lower factor ? A. Yes. l^. You have heard the evidence of tiie condition of beam 3? .1. I have. 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 20 40 nan 175 it does hero, (referring to model) cut in three pieces — up here, and here, and here, llECORD. again ? Would that have any effect on the cliance 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. ,] ust describe shortly how it would strengthen, the state of the timber, after the floor-beam was broken? A. By 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 you take the plank this length, supported underneath as it is by the stringers and then on the floor-beams, it will have a 10 greater resistance than if you cut it in three parts. The reason is, when \'0u Evidence of cut this you make this so much shorter; this being where the car is it is shorter B. W. still, and more liable to cfivc; wa}'. lly being cut so, it would not have the J'i'''»''''y> resistance; consequently, the shorter tlu; pieces, the less the resistance, and the ^li.^l^^\ ° more liability to let the car down. ratterson v. Court: Like a short or a long plank on thin ice? A. The same thing, Victurii;, on /?» Ihe Supreme Court of British Columbia. No. -29. Plaintiff's Case. your Lordshi] the 21st Examination coutmued. ]Mr. Davis: You heard it described how the ends of the plankino; if it fell i.*^' . ]' SIX mches would rest on the lower chord.'' A. 1 did. Q. Would that be, or would it not be a material factor? A. It would 20 while the plank is in full length, but if the plank is short, it would certainly fall down. Q. What would be the necessaiy 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 watei\ Q,. What would be Lhc result ? A. The water would cause rot. (),. Evidence has been given that that end was more rotten than the other end, and also that that beam was more rotten at the end than the No. 7 b'jam. To what cause would you attribute that dilferenee? .4. I attiibute the cause to the 30 boring of the beiun and allowing the water to follow the fibre. Q. Now% ^Ir. ]\Iurray, have you heaid the evidence of Mr. Lockwood and Mr. Warner ? A. Partly. Q. All the material parts. As a [jractical bridge man, although not an engineer, having heard the jtatement that the factor of safety of the iron was some three times greater than that of the woodwork, which part, in the iirst place, would be more a[)t to give way — the iron or the woodwork ? A. I would rather not go into it for the reason — that is an engineer's standpoint, it is not from construction standpoint; the constructor is su[)poscJ to follow the plans and specifications given to him. 40 Q. The rotten condition of that beam as comjiared with the beam No. 7, ji and the rotten condition of the Gorge cinl of that beam as compared Avith the // other end, you attribute to the boring of this auger hole ? .1. 1 do. // Cross-examined by Mr. Taylor. Q. In this original design, if a floor beam gave Avay here (indicating)^jjip Cross- ends ojjthese planks, if they >ve rc long enough , would come down on the lower *-'^'ii"''i'it>'-'ii- ft* _ _._ h 1 1 1 ! 1: r chon A. Yes. ^ Kl 'ii RECORD. In the Hupreme Court of British Oolumbia. No. 29. Plaintiff's Case. Evidence of B. W. Murray, 176 Q. You see these are all jointed here — at least they all rest on tliC floor btam ? A. Yes. Q. And they arc not fastened together, are they, In the orig jital. design ? A. I beUov^-uot. Q. You believe not ? A. I am not sure. (^l So that if a floor-beam gave away there, the whole thing would buckle in together tliere, w(Hildn't it ? A. The Aviiolc thing would buckle in together; it would come down as far as the chords. (}. You mean Jpjay that these planks just nailed to t:hese joists here would stop it — two light nails ? A. There is no man can tell, I think it would be a 10 Patterson v. Victoria, on the 21st May, 1897. Cross- examination — continued. great factor in sto[)])ing. (}. You think the nails in the planks would hold the planking? A. No, it is taken at the not the nails; the planking Avould come down on the chord. '"*' °^ Q. There is nothing 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 width 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^stpngcr is over three beams, that is half way over two beams and over the'StKer one, if you broke the 20 beam in the centi'e and the joint was over the beam that gave way, it would cause the car to go^down, and tip over. Q. And^f i+^were not^it-WQuld hAve a teniiency Jo_stjren^then. i^ A. Yes, \ypuld .liayx.A,toJudcuG^tQ^ . Q. Yo^ ^Q n gt know in wh.T.t coudijdon..jthey__}yeA'.e thexe ? A. I do not. Q. That seems to me common sense, Mr. Murray, that must be so. Court : It must necessarily be a source of strength or weakness, according to the place of the break. Mr. Taylor : And no one knows where that was. Court: That is another question. , 30 Mr. Taylor: When you speak of a joint you mean A. I mean where the joints abut on the floor-beam. Q. And no two abut on the same one ? A. And no two abut oa the same one, no, sir. Re- examination. Pe-examined by T\Ir. Davis. Q. Now, Mr. Murray, as a matter of fact, that floor with the joist underneath '■ after coming down and striking the choi'd, cannot go very much farther ; that is, tin, re would only be a distance of six or 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. 40 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 stringer come on that broken beam on one side, it must come on that ? A. Yes, sir. Q. It necessarily must come on one ? A. Yes. 177 30 Q. And there Avas nothing else to support it when the beam gave way '^ - 1. There was nothing else 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 Avay ? A. Well, if it went clown it would certainly let the car go down. There would be a joint on either one stringer or the other; on one side or the other there would be a joint ? Q. But it would make a ditt'erence which side it was on ? .1. Oh, yes. Witness stands aside. ———--.«.. No. 30. 10 Robert Balfour called and siconi. Examined by Mr. Davis, Second Day of Trial. Q. What is your name? .1. Robert Balfour. Q. Where do you live, Mr. Balfour? .1. At Langley. Q. What is your business? A. Bridge builder. Q, How many years' experience have you had in bridge-building? A. Twenty-three or four years. Q. Just tell the jury some of the work you have been engnged on in the last ten years or so? A. Well, the principal work I have been engaged on in the 20 last ten years 1 expect has been in connection with the construction of the Canadian Pacific through the mountain sections. Q. You built the bridges through the mountain sections of the C.P.R.? A. 1 superintended the construction of the bridges. (}. You also built bridges, I believe, on the Calgary and Edmonton branches? A. Yes. Through the South Saskatchewan; the Red Deer and Bow Kivei'. Q You have been in Court, have you not, during this trial, from the time it commenced ? J. J have. Q. You have heard all the evidence? A. I have. 30 Q. iNow, 1 want to ask 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 inade by the City in the flooring of that bridge. It was originally like that model, it was then changed as you have heard described; it Avas cut into three 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. ^4. 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 bo no assistance from the planking when it was cut; after it was cut the 40 floor planking gave no assistance to carry it over the broken floor beam, which 1 consider that planking does to a certain extent. Q. How woidd 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 panel poiut, where the chord has sufficient strength to withstand the pressure. d 2 a RKCORD. In the Supreme Court of nritisii Columbia. No. 30. Plaintiff's Case. Evidence of H. Balfour, taken at the trial of Patterson v, Victoria, on the 21st May, 1897. Examination. 1 if 178 RECORD. Ih the Suprcmi' Court of Britixh Columhia. No. 30. Plaintift-s Case. Evidence of R. Balfour, taken nt tho trial of Patterson v. Victori.1, on the 2 let May, 1897. Examination — continued. Q. The chord at the panel point. And how would it compare with the floor beam? A. The chord at the panel point originally had to carry the floor beam; consequently it was as strong. Q. The chord, at any rate, would sustain tlie floor beam? A. It certainly would at the panel 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 superintendent of bridges on the C.P.R. and other places, have you had occasion to test floor beams in bridges? A. Oh, yes. Q. AVhat method do you use to do it? -1. By aounding it with a hammer, 10 or shoving a scratch awl into it, or shoving a knife into it. (}. Hid you ever bore a hole like that (indicating)? A. T never did. Q. What effect do you think a hole like that woidd have, being there four years? A. It would be injurious, in this climate, at all events. Q. Well, would thot injury be slight or very material, or what? ^1. Well, it is a recept.iclc 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 beam was an old beam, practically speaking, in this climate, when it was bored, I consii f^r fou r years Avould be ample time to produce further rot by collecting 20 the moisture. " ^- Q. Now, you heard tho evidence that the factor of safety in that bridge is higher in the iron than in the woodwork ? A. Yes, I did. Q,. And you have also heard the evidence that this floor beam was the weakest portion of the woodwork ? 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 that evidence, and also having heard where the car was at the time that the bridge collaj)sed. which was just QXjeiLjO.QQl' 30 beam^, what in 5'our opinion was a portion of the bridge which first gave way ? .^Tain of the oj)inion 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. Mr. Taylor: Do not lead him. I ask your Lordship if you think that is quite right. Court: Mr. Davis will be governed, as far as he can, by the rules of evidence. The way I look upon expert evidence, there is little harm in leading. Experts come in like so many paid advocates, practically, on one side or the other, and know practically what questions will bci put, and what the effect will be. I 40 do not see any harm of leading, particularl)'. 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 tho same time as a floor-beam No. 7 ? ^. I have, yes, Q. That it was more rotten than floor-beam number 7, that the Gorge end, where this auger hole had been bored four years before, was more rotten 179 IS thiin the other end. Now, to what would you attribute the difference betwoen RECORD, that beam and the other beam, and the difFerenea between that end of that beam and the other one ? that is the difference in the rotten condition of tiie wood ? A. I attribute it to the hole beinu: bored — this test hole being bored in this ])arlicid>ir beam and the same test hole not having been bored in the other particular beam — the other beam. In the Supreme Court of j^ liritish ' Columbia. Crosti-exainincd by Mr. Cassidy. Q. Mr. Balfour, you understand from that model there that the joists reach only from one lioor-beam to another? .1. I understand. 10 Q. Yes, and that tliey are not fastened together in any way at the ends ? A. I understand. Q. Now, the breaking of u floor-beam, then — of any floor-ljeam, would let all the joists down, would it not, at once ? .1. If they were not spiked — if the flooring was not spiked to them. Q. I sec. If the flooring were not spiked down on the top of them, it would let them all down at once; thcainiiiatiut). I Si M )i 'J if i [ if ■ "''**<^., EECORD. Jn t/ie Court I if British Columbia, No. SO. Plaintitt's Case. Evidence; of R. Ralfour, taken at the trial of Pattcraon f. Victoria., on the 21 i; May, 1897. Cross- examination — contiimed. 180 except ill 90 far ns they are held up b}' the nails, that the floorinjT might be caught by the bottom chord, and held up in that way ? ^1. Well, that would be one I'loiueut of bU[)port to the floor, one particular means of support. Q. You are a bridge engineer and e.\pcrt are you not? .1. I am a bridge builder. Q. You are a bridge builder. Now hojy_jat_wpuld. the bottom chords be from the figuring ? How far would the floor have to fall in order to strike it ? A. 1 uiiderstauiL&u^t^ies. Q. N'ow the bottomjjioals, or chord links of a bridge are a part of the truss; they are tension members are they not? A. They are. jq Q. And part of the truss. They are intended only for teisile strain? -1. That is the intention of them. Q. To counteract the compression of the upper part of the bridge. That is their purpose. They are not jiittuded for o sheering strain. They arc not intended to sustain a blow from ttie top ? .:!. No, that is not the purpose_t[iey are put there tor. (). They arc not intended for that ^ A. No. Q. If you dislocate or break away a bottom chord, the bridge collapses does it not ? It is like cutting the string of a bow ? ^1. Yes, if you disconnect the bottom chord. 20 Q. Yes, that is so ; if you break one of these chord links ? A. Not one alone, for there are more than one together. Q. 1 mean the whole thing; in some places there are three and other places more? A. They are put in in pairs I believe. ' Q. And how many chord links would pass this broken beam? A. 1 have not seen the plans yet. Q. Now, between 2 and 3, could you tell from this how many bottom chords (indicating on a plan)? .1. Two pieces. Q. And between 3 and 4 how many ? That is to say, there are two parallel chord links at each side between 2 and 3; that is what you mean? A. That is .,„ what I mean. Q. And between 3 and 4 how many ? A. Tt is not marked on here although it would appear to be 4. Q. It Avould appear to be 4. To break away those chord links, that is to say any pair of them, or any number of the parallels between the posts >vould 1k> just like cutting the string of a bow would it not? A. It would, yes. Q. Now the bottom laterals similarly — the bottom laterals are for the l)urpose of maintaining the perpendicularity of the chord, are they not ? There are two cord members at each side of the bridge? The top chords J. Yes, .10 Q. How are they kept in perpendicular? yl. Which girders, the truss? Q. Yes. .1. There was some braces between the verticals or the posts. Q. That is sway braces, and the laterals, and both the top Jatei'als and the bottom laterals are similarly a part of the truss ? .1. Yes, I should judge so; they are part of the bridge at all events. Q. With out those laterals the truss could not be kcpt_iu_piii'pendicular ? ^1. Without ttelaterals? ~" — ' 10 20 30 ■to Quite those think 181 Q. Without the top laterals? .1. It would not be likely to veiimiii so. Q. No, it would not be likely to renuiin in perpendicular. Now wliiit do you say of a system of construction tliiit lias t hose bottom laLd'al^liiatencid into a floor beam siiBply, Insleatl of bciii];; liistene(T~to the bottom chord links — lower links? .1. That is a matter of detail. 1 expect the best prai:tice is to fasten it direct to the . Along about o or 4 in the afternoon. Then what if any directions did Mr. Cox give to you ? 20 Mr. Taylor: I submit that is not evidence yom* Lordship. Court : What did he do in conse(|uence of directions given ? Mr. Davis: Q. What did you do then when you finished boring the Esquimalt spati, Avhat did you do under Mr. Cox's instructions? .1. I*ut the planks down over the sidewalk. Q. Put the planks down over the sidewalk in which span? A. On the Esquinialt. Q. On the Esquimalt span. To do that y-Mt would have to leave him of course ? A. Yes, sir. Q. What was he going to do while you were domg ib.at? A. He was going 80 to finish the boring sir. (). lie was going to finish the boring, and wht-re ? As you went away to put the planks down on the Esquimalt span, where did he go on with the boring? A. lie started right to bore on towards the Victoria side. Q. On towards the Victoria side. And at which end of tjie_sjiaui^ T^it would be the side towards the Gorge, or the other side that he went on to bore? A. We bored it on bo th sid es. ' --•- -■ — ~ - ,i^""f"1rnriiv_ Tint the Victoria side I am s[)eaking of, now that he went to bore when you went on putting the planking down.' J. On the (Jorge side. (),. When you Avere putting planking down, about what time was it? /l. 40 Pretty near quitting time, about 5 o'clock. Q. And did you help Mr. Cox do anything then when you came back ? A, ut the plank down close over the hangers that he had bored. Q. That he bad bored ? A. Yes, sir. Q. That is on the Victoria span? A. Yes, sir. Q,. On the Gorge side I presume? A. Yes, sir. Q. Where he had bored. How many of those did you helphim toput down? . 1 cannot say sir, not the number. 183 10 (}. About how many ? .1. I sliould think about .'5 or 1, ooiiiothing like that. i),. How mivny cnn you be suro of? .1. Probably ."». Q. Yes. And you helped hirn to put down .'i or '\—'.\ you fwd as you said, pretty sure of— ;5 at least, and then what i!id you do ? ,1. Then I went home. Q. You went home. Then what was done with the result of the borin«f? .1. That was taken into the office, the City Hall sir. (},. Yes. There is one other question wiiich I ])robal)ly liuvc a ri^^ht to ask, 10 and there is some (piestion made about it, and this witness will he a, man that can ^ive direct evidence about it, and I ask your Lordsliip to usk liiiti; and that is whether or not the ori;j;inal plankin<» aci'oss the bridge — ol' cunrso 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. (}. How is that Mr. Athcrly r .1. Tt\ gy ran across the chords. (,'. They ran across the chords? A. Yes/nncI butted against the side- walk. ^ — '"^ REf^ORD. In the Supreme C'liiirt of Ihitiih Ciilumbta, No. 31. PlaintiU'a Case. Evidt'iicc of S. Athcily, tnkun at the trial of Patterson t: Victoria, on thu 22n(l May, 1897. Examination — cnntinued.i 20 Cross-examined by Mr. Taylor. 20 Q, How do you remember so well the circumstances in connection with this? A. Of the boring sir? Q.. Yes. A. It was only just the one day's work. Q. .Fust the one day's work was all the boring that was ever done there ? A. That was all I done sir. Q. All that you did. Did you never work more than one day there? A. Well T put in a plank occasionally when one got broke, or anything. Q. How long were you in the employ of the city? A. About 17 or 18 months at that time, sir. Q. j\\\(\. during that time you were working on sidewalks and bridges ? A. 30 And bridges. Q,. During the whole of that period? .4. Yes, sir, Q. Did you have a conversation with Mr. Cox before you came in jiere to-day? ^'1. Not at all, sir. Q. Did not have anything ? .1. Not to do with the work. Q. Not to do with the work? Well you knew what you were going to say when you went in the box ? A. Not at all, sir. Q. Had no idea at all ? A. I had an idea, what 1 had to tell was Avhat I knew; what I did, sir. Q. You knew that it was .about this boring ? .1. Yes, sir. 40 Mr. Davis: He had consultation with solicitors. Mr. Taylor: That is quite proper. Q. You had none with anybody else at all ? .1. No, sir. (I. And you speak of taking up the sidewalk, Mr Atherly to do the boring? A. Yes, sir. Q. That is right, is it? A. Yes. Cross- examination, mm RKCOKD. In the Supreme Court of British Columbia. No. 31. PlaintiiTs Case. Evidence of S. Atlierly, taken at the trial of Patterson t:, Victoria, on till' 22n(l May, 1897. Cross- cxamiuation — continxwd. 184 Q. You bored underneath the sidewalk ? A. Bored underneath the planks, the planks were raised. Q. You borod underneath the planks of the sidewalk ? A. Yes, sir. Q. That would mean you bored on the outside of the hangers ? A. Just on the Q. The sidewalk is outside of the lower chord, is it not? A. Yes. Q. And yoji bored outside of the lower chords under the sidewalk ? yl. I think it was somewhere close to the hangers where they were bored. il. Yes, but at any rate it was on the sidewalk side? A. On the sidewalk side. 10 Q. Yes. I suppose the reason for that v.'as not to interfere with people driving over the bridge? A. Yes, sir. (I. And that Is where it was bored, the beams that you did bore? A. Yes, the beams that was bored, the onefi that I bored were bored there. (2- And the ones you refer to now, by Mr. Cox, were bored in the same place, weren't they? A. I suppose they were, 1 cannot be certiiiu exactly to an inch or two. (). What do you mean by not being certain to an inch or two ? A. Thn*^^ is as to where they were bored. Q. But they were bcred under the sidewalk? A. They were bored undergo the sidewalk. Q. Conkl you say how far a,vvii.y.JLkey,wert!-. from the, cliords, how. Jiir away from the choi'ds? A. T 'c6iilE.uo. Wha("Ts that? A. They were bored as close to the iron work, where Ihe hanger iron was — as close as we could. / (I. TIow far away would you put it from that? A. Abaufc 4 or finches. / (2- 4 or 5 inches away from that. Did you observo the bored hole at all? /No, sir; there was a paper that I put the shavings there in, and when ] handed 30 'in the auger, I handed in the paper, and that was sent into the office. Q,. Did you say there was a paper in which you put the shavings? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you put the shavings in the paper? A. Yes. Q. Did yim do that, or Mr. Cox ? ^l As I emptied the auger, sir. Q. As you emptied the auger, you 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 tlrj hanger holes? A, Not at all. I). I do not suppose you could be sure of the size of the auger now ? A . 40 No, sir, I could not tell the size of the auger. I}. In fact, it is a matter of indistinct recollection with }ou now entirely after 80 long a time ? A. I know about the boring, that is all. (,). Yes, you are perfectly certain it was under the sidewalk ? A. Yes. Witness stands aside. 185 10 nger .1. 40 .■liter Defendant's Case. No. 32 RECORD. Francis M. forke, called ami aicorn. Examined by Mr. Taylor. Second Day of Trial. Q. You have already been examined, not in this action, but the other one? The Court: Q. Mr. Yorkc gave evidence in this case, surely ; did you not, Mr. Yorke? A. Yes. Mr. Taylor: Q. Did yuu see this broken floor-beam, Air. Yorke, that has 10 been referred to ? A. Yes, sir: Q. And did not find any auger hole in it? A. No, sir. Q. Did you cxamiue it at all carefully ? ^1. I examined, it, yes. ,. Q. There was onl}- the one broken floor-beam? A. That is all. Q. Did yOn see the two ])ieccs o'" the floor-beam, the whole of it, in other words, was all the beam tliei'e? A No, sir, I did not see the two jjicces of it. Q. Did you see the whole beam? A. No, sir, not the whole beam. I did at once see the wliole beam on the wreck, but when I (sxamined it — when we went to examine it, we only Ibund one piece of it. Q. Did you examine it at all at the first time ? A. The first, no. 20 Q,. To see if there were auger holes or not? A, No. Q. You could not tell ? Juror : Q. Was the piece tiiai you examined the one that the auger hole would have been in ? A. Well Q. The upper end, towards the Gorge? A. Yes; yes, it would be the long end, the upper end towards the Gorge. ]\Ir. Taylor: Q. There was no auger hole in that? A. No, tli.eia4-.w«»« 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 Avas broken ? .4. I don't know 3 J which side it broke, sir, I cannot tell you, it was the long end that I saw. Juror : I}. If it broke under the railway the short end would be the one that had the auger hole in it. Air. Davis: Q. Mr. Yorkc 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 i. Yes, it was the long end. Witness stands aside. In the Supreme Court of British Columbia. No. 32. Defendant's Case. Further Evidence of F. M. Yorke, taken at the trial of Patterson v. Vic.oria, oil the 21st May, 1897. Examination. saw? Mr. Yorke, being recdled on behalf of Defendant, testified. Examined Im/ Mr. Taylor. Second Day of Trial. 40 Q- You are still under oath. You v/cnt up to view this wreckage including this broken beam did you not? ^l. Yes. Q. Lying in the harbour in A'ictoria? A. Up the Gorge, yes, sir, towards Deadman's Island. d 2 b Further Examination. I, , m ft. H i'1 lECORD. In the Supreme Court of British Colui-nbia. h . No. 32. Defeudant's Case. Further Evidenoo of F. M. Yorke, taken iit the trial of Patterson v. Victoria, on the '2l8t May, 1897. Further Examination — continued. Cross- examination. "*-y^.^,^ II 186 Q. Did you go to the wreckage? A. Yes — the provincial constables had it in a boom there. (}. Did you attempt to fetch it away? A. Tried to; I sent up some of the men for it. Q. Would they give it to you ? A. No, sir. Q. And that is the reason why you did not bring it ? A. Yes, and that is the reason why we did not put it in the scow with th 2 balance of the wreckage, Q. Yes; it v/as in charge of the provincial constables. How far was that truck from the pier. The truck of that car ? A. The trucks of the car ? I have 10 got the marks; I think they Avere somewhere under 20 — they were under -55 feet, between 20 and 30 feet from the lower cylinder of the bridge. (^K Tliat would be from the cj'linder over there beyond the point 1, the Esqui- malt end ? A. From the Esquimalt end on the south side; that is the Victoria side; the harbour side. Q. Yes; on this design there, number 7 is the Victoria end of it and number 1 is the Esquimalt end. Can you see the figures from where you are ? A. 7 at this end, yes. Qi This end is the Victoria end and the other end is the Esquimalt end? A. Yes. 20 Q. And you say that truck was found between 20 and ."0 feet ? A. No, the trucks were less — yes, between 20 and 30 feet. (}. Between 20 and 30 feet from the pier on the Esquimalt end? ^1. The lower pier. There ai'o two piers there, 'i'hc lower pier. Q. That is the pier on the soutli side ? A. Yes. Q. It was found between 20 and 30 feti from the ])ier on the south side? A. Yes, on the south side. Q. That would be from the pier that is beyond point 1 — it would be zero ? A. Yes. And they were laying that way, almost across the bridge (nidicating). 30 (}. Almost across the bridge? .t. Yes. The Court: (}. Did you notice any broken ends? .( As far as we can ascertaii> the Siv^shcs burnt it up, sir. Mr. Taylor: Q. You v/ere ordered to get it for the city? A. Yes; and we could not get it. Cross-examined hi/ ]\Ir. Davis. Q. Where was the other piece of the floor-beam when a-ou saw the first end? A. When we were wrecking tlie bridge we did not think anything about it, Ave were trying to get the bodies. The wood floated, and it was easier to c'am. And he was interested in examining this — where the beam liad been ^ .red, or if it had been bored, and I took part in the examination, altaough I did Oct go there for that purpose myself. But I remember it very well, because he was vci-y insistent about trying to find out whether it was bored or whether it was not. Q. Yes. Did you see the ■s^'hck bcuut?.— .1. I saw- the two portions of it. Q. You saw the two portion,; of it. \Vere you able to say from your 30 examination wdiether the two portions vepi-L'sjiited tho beam? A. AMiy, yes. Q. Well, that is to jay whether they woidd have been capable of having been put together again in their orij^uial form? A. Oh, no. You could see that the one piece belonged to the other. '^ Vou could sec that the one piece belonged to the other ? A. Yes, and you could see likewise the mark of the suspciider on it. Q. And the mark of the fracture? .1. Yes; and no doubt the beam was rotten. Q. No doubt the beam was rotten. What I want to get at is thisi.»\Vas there any ot"_jijji„lH:am nuijiiijug ? A. I do not think so . There were the two 40 piec'Cs'lDrnu' beam. -■ Q. ^Vas there any boring hi ,thu beam sucii.aa,ha3..b££tLa4i^cii ol, outside of the boring for the hangers and the lateral rods ? ^1. No^ I do uot believe tlie re was; my conviction is that there was not. ■'--rf ♦ 2 B ii RECORD. / In the Supreme Court of British Columhia. No. 33. Defeiulaot's Case. Evidence of H. P. Beli, taken at the trial of F'attersioi! v. Victoria, on tiie 21st May, 1897. Examination. m .* V''' RECORD. In the Supreme Court of British Columbia. No. 33. Defendant's Case. Evidence of H. P. Bell, taken nt the trial of Patterson v. Victoria, ou the 21st May, 1897. Exoniiuatipu — jcoiiimied. /. to assisting him to find that out ? Jl III 188 Q. You were looking for that express thing ? -4. I did not go there for that purpose at all. Q. But you know what Mr. Wilmot was trying to find out ? A, Yes, I knew what Mr. Wilmot was trying to find out. Q. And your examination was directed A. Yes. Q,. And what conclusion did • ^\- come to? .4. I came to the conclusion that thei'e was no hole bored there. Q. That there was no bole bored , Now, a ;;ood deal of evidence has been given here, Mr. Bell, about the ai .ition in the floor from its original 10 condition. You have heard the evidence which has been given by the other witnesses ? A. Yes. Q. I need not go over it to you. It is the cutting of the flooritig at the point of the tramwajf tracks, and the substitution of stringers 10 X 12 for the joists at that poini — you heard the whole of the evidence ? .4. Yes. Q. Well, do you agree that that was a weakening of the floor system of the bridge ? A. No, I do not. On the cbntraiy, I believe it strcugtheucd it. Q. Well, will you give Tlie juiy your reasons for that conclusion? ^1. Yes; I do not think it is safe to run 2'' ton cars on a bridge without a pair of stringers in it. 20 (2- You think, in other words, that the running of 20 ton cars over a three inch floorintj, supported by three inch joists on end, is unsafe? .1. Yes, so fur apart as there, I do not think it is a good construction. No doubt you could put joists into a floor close enough together to run cars on it but it is not a good method of building a bridge — although it could be done. Q. Well, what is the reason why that would not be a good method of con- struction for the pui'pose of running cars over the bridge r' A. Beca use it is like settin g a piece of pa per on ed^e^to rmi lyion joists^ j^oujrantjt. stringer for a good loa.d*.. — -^ Q. It is like setting a piece of paper on edge? A, Yes. 80 Q. That is so much for a joist ? A. Yes. Q. Now, what would be the effect of running the heavy cars on flat rails over a floor like that, with regard to the oscillation and undulation and so on ? A. 1 do not think it is a thing that any practical engineer Avoidd adopt, knowing that he had a 20 ton car to run on the bridge. (). What result would it ])roduce ? ^l. it i)in)di^ic(^S;JiiiiufciuLt-that it is like running a heavy weight on the floor of a tenenieut building, the joists ; and it is not an engineering construction for the purpose at all. It is a construction^ that no practical man would think of putting ih the bridge to carry heavy loads. ('2. Well, now, assuming that one of the floor beams broke, which construe- 40 tion would be the more likely to save the break-down of the bridge? -I. I do not understand that question exactly. Q. Assuming that one of the beams broke. It has been suggested that if one of the floor beams broke under the old floor, that the floor itself might carry that C!ir along to the next floor beam, thus saving a disaster, and that that is a great improvement over the new plan of laying the long heavy stringers, with the cutting of the floor. W hat do you say with regard to that? A. Oh, I say 189 20 80 svy RKCOUD. In the Supreme Court of British Columbia. No. 33. Defencliiut's Case. that thejajjatem of putting stringers in the bridge is the best. I would not think myself of taking the responsibility of designing such a floor at all or having any- thing to do with it. Q,. When you say such a floor what floor do you refer to? A. I mean a floor without stringens. Q. You mean a floor Avithout stringers? A. Yes, for a heavy weight. Q. Now, taking the old floor system and assuming that a floor beam broke, 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, 10 Mr. Cassidy. _ .... Evidence of Q. Well, here we have this floor you see constructed in this way (indicating) II. \\ Be!l, and the joists are simply laid. In evidence it is shewn that these three inch joists *"^'^" "* *'^® are simply laid on the top of the floor beams? A. Yes. i>''!l, Q. That they are not joined togethei' ac the end in any way, and that all the victoria, joists meet along each floor beam? A. Yes. on the 21st Q. That is to say that each joist only goes from one floor beam to the other? ^^'ly. 1897. A Voa Examination Q. That the floor is nailed down on the top of these joists? A. Yes. Q. Now, you break ^a floor beam away here, what would be the result H—X-^ 20 Well, I suppose the whole thing would come down. Q. The whole thing would come down? .1. Yes. Q. Now, taking the case of the stringers — the heavy stringers 10 x 12, what would be the rut naturally Mr. Cassidy would like your opinion In the Supreme Court of British Columbia, No. 33. Defendant's Case. Evidence of H. P. Bel!, taken at the trial of Patterson v, Victoria, on the 2l8t May, 1897. Examination — continued. if ho thinks it is goin;^ to be favourable to hira? A. You see, my Lord, I had a dispute with the city about my account ; I made a report which was never received. Q. I do not want to ask you what your report was, Mr. Bell, at all. You were called as a Avitness there? A. Yes. Q. And you were referring to the examination which you made anterior to giving evidence? A. Yes. (3. You were paid $750? ^. Yes. Court : You need not go into that. Mr. Bell has put himself into the 10 position of being called as a witness. I must rule he must answer these ques- tions? A. Very well. Q. What is your answer to the question? A. Ask it again, please. Q. T say from your examination of the wreckage, from hearing all the evi- dence given at the inquest, coujjled 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 precipitated the disaster? In other word.s, 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 tlie disaster; although I might say it is very doubtful too, it is a very difficult subject. But [ I'.avi- a conviction 20 on my mind as to whi ch I think wa s the most likely to eaubc the disaster. I think the hip-verticals. ~ """ A. I want to explain to swear what member have Q. ^ou think the hip-verticals ? ..^4. Yes. Q. You made an examination of the hip-verticals? myself. What I meant to convey is this; if you ask me failed first I Av ajilt;- J. cannot say that. ^. Y^ou saw the hip verticals? A. Yes. Q. Now, what condition were they in? A. Well, they were broken. Q. Well, did you make an examination of the breaks? A. Yes, I looked at the breaks. 30 Q. Now, you have heard it given in evidence here to-day that the giving way of the floor beam at 3 ? A. Yes. Q. was the admitted cause of the accident. You heard that P A. Yes. Q. Do you agree with that ? A. No, I do not. Q. Will you state your reasons? A. Yes. I 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 40 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 there could be to pull the whole bearings off the pier. That is my conviction of what destroyed it. Q, When you say position of the car what do you refer to "i A. 1 refer to the fact of the point where the trucks were shown to mc to have got out by the diver. And also to the position in which the rails were broken. The rails were 193 V 30 broken east 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. Q. What do you mean by eastward ? A. I will indicate it (g'oin^' to the model). The trucks were pointed out to me to be about there (indicating on plan). I think it is likely that they went up Court : lietween 1 and 2. Mr. Davis: What .Mr. BfiU is practically giving evidence of there is the position of the trucks. Now, I submit, if they wish to show that the car was not 10 where we have proved it, or that the trucks were in a certain fix, the only way to prove that is by some Court : This is on the as?, mption that it is there, that is all. It is i)ut hypothetically. Mr. Cassidy : I simply ask him what he meant by the position of tlie car. Q. Assuming Mr. JjcII, that the lowest — this is west here, isn't it? A. Yes. Q. I point between 1 and 2. .1. Yes. Q. And, assuming that the truck nearest to 1 was a few feet — four or live feet nearer 1 — from 2 in the direction of 1 — assurain.g that to be the position of the 20 truck in the water ? A. Yes. Q. Where would you put the ca?* at the time of the break? ^1. AYhcre would I put the car at the time of the break? Q. Yes? A. I suppose the trucks dropped from under the car; I don't know where the car went to. Q. No, no, do you forui any connection as to what the position of the car would be at the time of the break of the bridge, and the truck in question ; you see ? A. Yes. I said that before, I think it is very likely that the trucks had gone as far as 1 and come back again some feet. Q. Gone as far as 1 and come back again ? A. Yes, that is quite 30 possible. Q. Why ? A. Because the rails were broken cast of where the car was found. Q. Because the rails were broken east. That is to say nearer the Victoria end? ^l. Yes; and the rails are continuous over the other span. Q. And the rails are continuous over the other span. I see. Did you examine the rails to see where the point of breakage took place in them ? A. Well yes, I did. Q. "^Vhereabouts, stretching the rail out again in its original position, where would the break be? A. One was broken in the Victoria end of the span, and jQ the other was broken somewhere about halfway across, I cannot tell exactly; it was certainly broken east of where the trucks were found. . r-- Q. Certainly broken east of where the trucks Avere found ? A. Yes. Q. That is to say that the rails were found fastened, as it were — taking from the top of the Esquimalt pier — the rails were ound showing that they ran complete nearer the Victoria side of the bridge than the centre ? A. They ran somewhere near the centre, one of them, and the other one is broken right off at the Victoria end. d 2 c RECORD. In the Supreme Court of British Columbia. No. 33. Defondant'H Caac. Kvidence of II. P. Bell, taken at thu trial of Patterson v. Victoria, on tlio 21st May, 18'J7. Examtnatiou — continued. 194 I RECORD. In the Supreme Court of British Columbia. No. 33. Defendant's Case. fevidcnco of P. Boll, akun at the trial uf Patterson v. Victoria, ou the 21 St May, 1897. Examination —continued. Cross- examination Q. But they, botli of them ? A. The breuk in both was east of where the truck was found. (). The break in both of them Avas east of th(; centi'e? A. No, I said one of thein was broken about the centre. I don't know wliether it was on the cast or west side of the centre, and the other was l)rokcn at the Victoria si(U; of the bridge. (>. That would be towards 7 ? -I. Yes (referring to P^xhibit II). (.1. Well, what did that indicate to you as to where the original break took place? A. I have said before that I think that is what caused the accident, but ns to which part was broken in the bridge lir.st I do not pretend to 10 know it. Q. That is to say you think the hip- vertical gave way? A, I think that was the main factor in causing the accident. l>ur, if you ask me what part of tlie bridge broke first I cannot tell you. and I believe no man living could tell you. Crosfi-examined by Mr. Davis. Q. i\ow, floor beam No, 3, when you found it, Mr, 15ell, you examined it I think you said? ^1. Yes. Mr. Cassidy : One moment, Mr. Davis, please. Q. Did you form any opinion a.^ to whether floor beam 3 had broken and 20 dropped or not? A. Yes, I did form an opinion. Q. AVhat Avas it? A. In fact, 1 made inquiries to find out. Court: Whetlier it bioke or dropped; surely if there Avas atiy question of that kind it is beyond (juestion ? A. I think it did not drop. Mr. Davis: You thiidv it did not drop? A. I think it did not. ij. Drop? A. No. In fact, I asked Captain Grant Mr. Cassidy : Never mind ; you cannot give us evidence about that. I asked you Avliether you formed any opinion — well, you say that the floor beam did not drop at all V A. I think it did not. Q. How do you thiidc it was broken? A. 1 think it Avas brokon off' Avhen it 80 fell in the Avater. I think the splash in the water broke it I'ight off. Mr. Davis : Q. You think, then, that this l)eam Avas broken off' by striking the Avater, the splash in the Avater ? A. Yes. i). Well, if the Avater could break this floor beam, don't you think a 20 ton car could? A. Well, you know that — no, I do not think that question — it does not seem to me to bear so much on the fact, because the i'orce of water striking the sidew.alk from that height Avould be very great. I could r.ot tell Avhich Avas the greater force. I would have to get into that calcuhition various other thiiigs before I could determine that. (I. I just ask you that question, and if you cannot say at present ? 40 A. I haven't calculated for ansAvering that. Q. If you think the l)eam Avas in such a condition that a fall of 1)0 feet Avould break it striking the Avater, don't you think that a 20 ton car Avould break it ? .1, Oh, yes, a 20 ton car might do it, too, But my opinion is the other Avay. Q. What else do you base your opinion on than Avhat you have stated — I 195 -•— n* have not asked you for anything }et — what do you base your opinion on ? .1.1 said 1 based it on tlie l)rc'aking of the liip-vertical, and on looking into which part of the bridge had the lowest factor of sul'oty. (2- Which portion had the lowest portion* of safety ? A. I think the hip- verticals. (i. You thiidc the hi[)-vcrticals. What did you get that from? A. I get it from fi and 2. I ask you why that is the reason. Why should you say that because the tramcar rail was broken east of 2, that therefore the car must have passed 2 ? .4. I did not give that as the '—continued, principal reason for the position of the trucks. Q. Not as the princi[)al reason? A. I gave that as a reason for the position of the car having been further ahead and riui back. 20 Q. Now, I ask you why was the ear furthei ahead ? A. Because the rails would naturally hang down towards the eastern side, and the trucks would not go through until the track was burst completely. Q. Yes. Would not the track — I think you said the rails were not broken on the Esquimalt span. Is that correct ? A. Yes. Q. They were broken east of point 2. Now, that span could not collapse ^without the rails breaking, could it ? That is a necessary result of tiie span collapsing, the breaking of the rails ? ^1. Yes. Q. Do you mean to tell me you could tell where these rails would break, no matter where the car was ? A. They AVere seen wliere they were broken. 3^ Q. But assuming no one knew where they were broken at all, would you tell me that the place where the car was on the bridge would show where the rails would necessarily break? A. No. Q. The t»vo are in no way connected together necessarily ? A, No, not in that way. Q. Now, is there any other reason why you think the car was between and 2 ? A. Yes, from the position where the trucks were found. Q. Where were they found ? A. Between and 2. Q. They were found between and 2 ? A. Yes, between 1 and 2. Q. They would naturally go a little forward, wouldn't they, in falling? 40 The car was in motion, you know, when the bridge broke ? A. Go forward? Q. Yes. A. Well, that is doubtful, I think. I think they would go pretty straii>ht down. Q. The Esquimalt end of the bridge broke first, on your own statement, and was pulled off the pier; it went down first, then, didn't it? A. I think so, yes A. Q. And the car was already moving at the time the first break took place? Yes. 200 10 20 30 i^. Thut is tlio first fact wc know? .1. Yes. (). The second liict nu your stiitument is that the end towards \vhi( h the car was tnivcdliri'i^ lowered lirst? A. Yes. ^^K Which would necessarily, would it not, . You said something yesterday about the car having gone forward and run back V A. Yes. Q. That is the bottom of the arm there? .1. I said that the car might have gone up to the hip-vertical 1, and come back a few feet, I thought. 20 Q. Do you mean befori; it went down, or after it went down? .1. I mean befor(! it went down. (^>. Hefore it went down. lUit if the forward end was pulled off the pier, that end would be lower? ,1. Well, after it came off, yes. After it came oft' coni[)letely. Q. And that end was what lowered first. You heard Mr. AVilson's evidence, the street inspector? .1. Yes, The first thing that would take place would be deflection at the 37^ it- point. (,>. Wait a moment; you heard from a number of witnesses that that end of the bridge was the first to siidc ? A. Yes. 30 (). Mr. Wilson said that his horse had his front feet on to the other span, and it was dragged back and coidd not get up; and you will remember that he stated that the car was something in the neighbourhood of fifty feet behind liim at that time? .(. 1 do not remember that. Q. You don't remember that? ^-1. However, I do not dispute that. i^>. Did you hear his evidence in the Gordon case? ^4. No, I did not. If I don't sit very close up to a man I caimot hear him. Q. I ^ee. I3ut at any rate you know from his evidence that you heard at the inquest that he was considerably ahead of the car ? A. Yes. Q Now, Mr. Bell, you said with reference to the floor that the specifications 4oshowt.(l that it could not possibly be more than an inch on the chords at some places? A. Yes; I believe that is wrong, I noticed that myself. According to the specifications it would be so, but according to the way the bridge was actually built, T believe it was not so. Q. So then 1 need not go into that? .1. No, it was a mistake on both sides. Q. Yes. Now, assuming that the floor did extend over, I understood you to say A. According^ to the specifications that would have been the fact, but accordiiig to the way the bridge was'buitt it ■WTtsTrot'ni'act; ~~" UECORD. In thr Sii/neme f.'tiurt iif lirilish Columbia. Xo. :)3. iJutoiuluiit'is C.18C. Hvideiiti! of J I. P. Bell, tiikuu at the trial of I'attcisoii V. Victoria, on tho 22'id May, ls!i7. Cross- oxaiiiinatioii — coiitinuciL /, 'I I! ii 210 llKCOIil). In the Stipremc Court itj' litilhh Columhia. No. 3:5. DclcndiiiitV Case. K»idence of H. P. bell, taken at \\w trial of Patterson r. Victoriii, oil the 22m< oiik? A. Well, I have forgotten now, what is in that book for oak, 1 e.uuiot tell. Tell me what it is. (,'. T am not asking for that? ..'I. I can tell you no iigures. (i I don't want figures, but only a relative statement. You must know Avhich is stronger, fir or oak? .1. I su[)pose good oak is stronger. f^. We will take oak as being the same then. It will bo fair if I tiike oak. Firis not so hard. Now, you know what that table is? It is for the purpose of getting at the strength. .1. .No, it is no use whatever for that. 20 Q' What is it for 'r .1. It is for distributed loads; but it is not f(jr con- centrations. Q. Do you mean to say that that table is for getting at a load which is equally distributtd over the whole of the timber ? ^1. You can get a distributed load over it, but you cannot, derive concentrations out of that table. (J. Do you tell me that this is for the purpose merely of getting at a load which is laid evenly ovcsr say a fifteen foot stringer ? A. Yes, or else a centre- bearing load, which is efjual to one half. (J. Can you tell me what sort of a load could be equally distributed over a 30 long length ? Did you ever hear of that ? .1. I have heard — (^. Would it be much use to have a table like that ? A. Y'es, it is, I often use it myself, but not for that purpose. (2- It is page 18(), edition of 181);i Now, after all, I think we can take your evidence, Mr. I>ell, and go on still. Y'ou say it is for a uniforndy distributed load ? ^1 . Or a centre bearing. (.). A case like this for a steamer would be a more severe strain, would it not? -.1. More severe than distributed, yes. (2- So that if I am taking a table which gives a uniformly distributed weight, I am taking a favourable table for your |)ur[)ose ? A, Yes. 4Q (,K So that we can goon with this table ? A. Yes. (,). Just look at the table th'jre ; so that you will see I am not mis- leading. Look it over. A. I do not need to look it over, I know it. Q. It is given for a factor of safety of 4, the same as you mentioned those stringers have. They would have a factor of safety of 4, with 20 tons on ? A. Yes. Q. Now, oak. This table is given for white pine. A. Yes. Q. In order to get oak the amount must be increased by one-third; you d ' 2 E 2 ItKCOlMJ. Ill ilif Siiprumc. Court of Itrilish ( 'iilumb ^ No. a;j. UufiMulunt's Cast'. Kvidciioo of II. r. Roll, taken at liic trial of Patterson v. Victoria, on tlin 22iui May, 1 81)7. Cross- cxuiniiiatioii — loiitiuneii. li 212 ■ V PKCOKI). In the Supreme Court of : A British 'Columbia. N No. 33. \^ Defmidsiiit's V ^Ividence of ^V; II. P. Bell, taken at th« -. trial of Patterson » Victoria, on the 22ni1 Maj, 1897. Cioss- examinntif.i — cnntinvid. IW*. Re- cxamiiiatiMi. I I I 1' . know the table, I am reading you that so wc Avill tnkc what is given in this table, and (lien we have to increase ic by one-third ? A. Yes. Q,. Now, that is, of course, for an inch broad; that is one inch ? .1. Yes. (}.. Now, these stringers — 1 will give you the benefit of their being only 18 feet lontr, aiul assunu: that they are supported b}' both floor beiiins ? A. X^CH. (l. Jn other wcrds — now 12 \\\., 18 ft. would be (!70 pounds to the inch? A. Tes. ','. Now, in order to get oak, which would be fir, you would tidd one-third to tliat; that would be something like "220 or 225, which would make about 895 10 — we will say roughly 1)00 pounds to the inch; that is right? A. ^'^es. I). Now, to get a lO-inch stringer, you would multiply tiiat bj 10. That would bf DjOOii pounds. .1. Yes. (> 9,000 pc'.inds then would be the '.'eight, then, tiiat one stiinger would support, and twice that would be two stringers which would b(! lS,y, if there lis iuiy diHen'Uce between you anil the book, one. is in error, and this book must 20 Ibe the one : A I say 1 do not think that book is right for that case. Q. That is all. I. But if you care, I could put in a calculation iipon thf.t point, which will show that there will be a factor of safety oi" 4 ; J have uo objection to )>ut it m. Re-exami led bi/ Mr. Taylor. (2- When you speak tibout that ho-ik being a, rong, do you mean the calcu- lations o' the assumptions.' A. T do not think the book is right at all in assunip- tinns theie, because there are no exjjeriments there to iind out the valm of ])ouglas iir. i^. That book eontnins a formtda. for calculating r .1. Yes, it is ■; very safe 30 table; iinyone who nsew it \v'ould lie very m\U'\\ on the side of safety. (2. ^Vheu you sji.uik of assuniptii^nson which the ealculati!!:;:; hav;; been made by Mr. AVarncr and Mr. Lockwood and the assumptions o \vhi<;!i you made; yours as to the liictor of safety, what do you mean hy that, exaciiy, .^Ir. Hell? .1. Well, Lhe factor of safety must be calculated with rcfc'reuce to some ultimate tcn.sile str !ngth of the mateiial if you are talking about tensile strengths a. ich as bars and links. (i. Do I mulerstand you to .ay that their figi'res are \vrong, based on their data? A. Their figures are right, oased on their data, and my figures are right, l)i!jec! on mine. I dispute thciir assumptions. 40 Q. You di:cr loot, three-tenths ol the 1,000 pounds per foot, and o"l of the shewn panel loud was borne by the noilh truss; with the result that the factor of safety of the north truss was much lower than those on the (n-iginal strain sheet; the ultimate teiisihi strength of the 'mm being taken as 35,000 pounds per square inch for welded liidvs, and ^^1,250 pounds ])er square inch for bottom hangers and 10 hip-verticals. Q. 1 understand from that, ther, that you put the quality of the iron somewhat different from .^)0,0()0 pounds per scpiare inch tensile strength. .1. Yes. Q. Youput itijiXJi4-iU J. Yes ^>. iVow, (Tm )ou say anything about the reason for (hat before''* l)ivis asked you a c[uestion her. , 1. I do not reineml)er ;',I)out Mr. lilt if 1 gavc- (2- I will just show you, Mr. Jiel!. Page 4(52. Mr. Davis asked you this question: "The iron generally?" — he asked you if you were not asked this 20 before at the inquest — '"the iron generally you consider a good (piality? .1. I suppose it is as good as is generally put in bridges," and he stopped there. I will read you the balance of the evidence that you gave to that question, which !ny learned friend did not read to you: — " But tlicre 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 tln-ough so mar.y different operations it is hard to tell what they may do when they are su!)jectea ijnds to the s(|uare inch ? J. Yes. (2. Anil for that reason you say that tliat strain-sheet could not be fairly taken at 50,000 pounds to tlie s([uare inch? A. Yes, I say that r)0,0o0 poiuids would be too nuieh. I believe. ij. That is, it is too nuich to fairly taki; at the time of the original construc- tion of the bridge ? A. Yes, even then too much. (,K Even then ? A, Yes. You see, you should understand that b(!eause if fi>ose were j)roperly-made weldless links, made in a good shop, j>roperly-maile, 40 upset links An interrui»tion here occurred at re(|ucst of juiy. Ml. Taylor: (I. Xow. vou say that the fact thai, welds were in this iron Tnad(! the basis (jI 50,01)0 pounds to tlie s([Uare inch unreliable for the calculat'.oii wr.ulv. upon it 'r .1. It gave too high a value of ultimate strength. O. Would the fact that the bridge had been subjected to heavy loads at any period alfect the ultimate tensile strciigtli of the iron!- .1. It would. Q. JJeneficially or otherwise ^ .1. It would be detrimental to it. UKCOUD. In thf: Supreme Court of lirilinh Columbia. No. ;t3. Dcfeiulaiit's Case. lOvidcnce of II. P. Bell, t:ikeii at tho trial of Patterson v. Victoria, on the 22n(I May, 18'.)7. I!c- uxainiiiatiou — continued. •*^i ll RECORD. In he Supreme Court of Brithh Columbia. No. 33. Defendaiit's Case. Evidcacc of H. P. Bell, taken at the trial of Pattersou t*. Victoria, "n the 22nu May, 1897. Ke- examinatioii —contimud. 214 Q. Well, do you think that 35,000 pounds to tho sfiuare inch would fairly represent the tensile strenjrth, originally or at the time of the accider.t? A. Oh, I think originally, I can give you a reason lor that. When 1 have been building bridge.s myself I have torn the rods in two v ith a wheel Avrench where they have been welded. And I would not from my own experience [)Ut ajiy higher value on them. Because I have hud to .send the rods back to the shop to be re-weldcd. (,>. 'I'hen, do \ understand that the effect oi a weld is to render a strain-sheet unroliabit! to the extent of any detects in the weld r J. Yes. (2. i'o the extent of any defects in the weld ? J. Yes. 10 Q. Now, can you tell from looking at it, ordinarily, what percentage of weakness it would cause by the weld r .1. No, you oanuf^t tell. But you can see that one bad weld would bring down a whole bridge. Q,. And you cannot tell from looking at it what the character of the weld is? ,1. iVo. Q. So that the fact that it is welded might vary that strain-sheet anything from 5 to 80 per cent. ? A. Oh, yes. But one would not expect to lind such a tremendous difference as that. Q. \o, but it renders the whole .strain-sheot uncertain and unreliable? A. Certainly. Yes. 20 Q. Now, that original calculation of the strain-sheet was based on an evenly distributed load, also, v-:- ,. not on both chords? .1. Yes, it was based on a load j)er foot ruii, and a panel . J derived from it. Q. Yes, that is to say, evenly distributed on the floor? .1. Yes, it was distributed eijually on both trusses. Q. Jt was distribiited equally on both trusses. 'J'hat, of course, was 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, ves. 80 Oh, yes, very much. Very much. Of course that has been given in evidence Q. Materially:- .!. Q. Aery much ? A . already (,'. It is on the same principle as carrying a i)ail of water over a stick ? .^1. The same exacth . f/. If you put the pail ovci- to one side, the man at that side carries the most of the water? .(. Thac is the true principle. (I. The greater strain is on the njan that has the pail nearest to him ? A. Yes, the n):m that has the pail nearest has the most of the load. (I. Now, I did not quite understand what you meant when you spoke about in the Ciir going forward and back there; that you formed an o[)inion of that kind from the position of the rails after the accident. What did you mean exactly by that? A. Well, I meant this, that it is very likely that the car load had arrived as far forward as the hip-vertical. (,'. Ves, I understand that. That is as to about 1 ? A. Yes. (l- And you think it went back ? A. Yes. Q. In what position were the car rails after tiie accident? A. Thoy hung down. 215 ¥• 10 20 30 Q. They hung down ? Woiild you mind taking a little slip ol' papor and indicating roughly to the jury'r .i. Yes, 1 can, as I remembor it; (taking paper). Q. Just draw it shortly ; it will onl) take a second ? A. (iMakiiig skt'tt-U) 7\s well as I remember it was like thai. Q. Kindly bring this illvistration over here to the jury ? .1. One break was here (indicating point which was markcni 1 ). This is the east end (indicating) and this is the west end (marking tlu; same). And this is another break some- where about the centre. Here is one break and here is the other (indiciiting). 10 Now, I don't know where the end of this went that corresponded to liere (indicating); it might have gone away in the water. The bottom end of that went 1 dotft know where. (}. ilu- jiortion >narkcd at the west end i(?prcsents the pier marcst Hsqui- mault r .1. ^'es. Q,. And there were rails iiaiigiiii;- over tin; to[) of that p'er inl,i) tiie water? A. Yes. (). Two rails were there? A. Two rails, }es sir. (I. How were those rails fastened above, on the floor or stringer r .1. They were lish-plated to the rails on the next span. 20 il. The ear could not go 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. (I. Yes. Well, now, was the rail upon the Gorge side, — that would be on the north side — was that longei- or shorter from the pier? \)\k\ it extend eastward beyond the pier farther than the Sinith rail, or was the converse the case ? .1. Oh, this one that was broken, that break I believe is on the north side. Q. 'i'liiit v.ould be the (Jorge sid(!? .1. Yes. il. TIh', I'aii on tli(; (Jorge side? A. 'Wv. rail on the Gorge side is l)roken up :{0 on to]) of the pier. (j. l»roken on top of the i)ier? .1. Ves. (),. AVhich pier? Uroken on the eastern on the Victoria piei-r A. Yes. (2. On to]* of the Victoriii pier? -1. \():^, tiie north rail broken on the Victoria [)ier. Q. So that !hat rail on the Gorge side remained intact, from tlu; pier on the Es(|uimalt end lo a distance of about iiow much? 1. Oh, somewhere b'low this break. (,'. It broke, then, very close to the pier ? .1. ^'cs. (). On the N'ictoria end? .1. ^'es. 40 ','. How about the rail on the south side of the Victoria side? I. It broke .somewlii're about the centre. (). That is somewhere between three and four ? A. Yes; or it, migiit have b((Mi a little east of that; 1 think probably a little. The diagram made by the witness was put in, marked " A 1." -^^Illir. (>. Now, .Mr. I Jell, you said you examined this broken beam ? .1. Yes. (I. I>o you think it was ])ossiI)le there could havt! been an auger hole withiti 5 or (J or S inches of the hanger holes on top of the beam, without you seeintr it? .1. Might 1 look for a moment again. RECORD. //( the Supreme Court of British Columbia. No. 33. Defendant's Case. Kvidence of H. P. Hell, taken at tho trial of Patterson v, N'ictoria, on tlie 22nd May, 1897. Re- examiuatiou —continued. i! i 216 RECORD. In the Supreme Court of British Columbia. No. 33. Defendant's Case. Evidence of H. P. Jicll, taken at the trial of Patterson f. Victoria, on tiie 22nd May, 1897. Re- examination — continued. 'Vt. (). Yos. A. (Witness looks at trodol) 1 did not sec that hole bored. (,>,. This is the model U (marked oxliihit U); it re[)resents a .section of the floor l)L'ivui ; these two larf^e holes represent the original hanofer holes; this small starting hole here, the auger hole, is where Mr. Cox says relatively he bored. Mr. Oavis : My friend is wrong there. Mr. Taylor : The red point is where he said lie bored ;- he fixes no distance from the hanger except this red point. Coni'h : ICxcept relatively as shown there. Mr. Taylor : lie does not do that. This starting point here represents the 10 si/(!; the red point represents where Mr. Cox says he bored, and that is the po-sition here, Mr. Bell. .Now, I ask you as a result of your examination, would it have been po.ssible to have had an auger hole approximately that close to - the hanger holes on the Gorge side, without you having seen it? A. No, I do not think so. 1 think if he had bored a hole that size 1 ViTouid have found it out. (}. How much time did you spend there looking for that hole ? .1. Oh, we were a long time there. (2. 1 mean to say looking for this auger hole ? .1. We might have been twenty minutes. 20 l^K You might have been twenty minutes looking for it? A. Mr. Wilmot was very anxious about it and I looked. I did not go there for that particular purpose. ^'. But he was there for that purpose? .1. In fact 1 wanted to go away. (). You wanted to go away r Why did you want to go away ? A. 1 wanted to go and do other things: I was busy. (t. 1 don't know whether you said tliat you saw the section of the hanger hole in the broken beam? A. Yes, I did. I saw part of a section ol' a hole. (i. \)o you know whether that was in the long side or the short side of 30 the beam, the long length or the short length r A. I thiid< it was the long length. (L You think it was the lonji length ? .1. Yes. (I. Now. what weight, with the car going over that span, the sidewalk side of that hanger ? .1. What weight? l>. Yes? A. Eighteen tons. (). On the sidewalk side ? .^1. On the hanger on the -north side. . I was just asking yon how you saw it? .1. I .saw it — it was dropping there. (,>. Do you mean to .say it was olT the [)ier ? -1. Well, it was; th(! part — of courses when it was settling on these big stringer.s that was new--tliat had been put unde:' the rail track, it, was one of them that was breaking that mad;; the 20 noise. It didn't go altogether, on account of the rail track being on top of that, and it had to . The car was proceeding to Esquiraalt, and you say it had got somewhere about half-way over when you heard the crack ? A. Yes, sir. (,>. In what condition was this end of the span which would be the north- west? A. The north-west — yes, sir. Q, What condition was that in at that time? Was it on the pier, or off? A. Well, 1 could not tell you that; but it must have been off, because I see it settling there, and it could not settle without it was off the pier. d 2 G RKt'OIin, /n ihr Supreme ( 'iiiirt of Ihitinh C'dliimbi'a, No. ;t6. I 'ufiindaiit'H Case. iCvidenco ut' W. Grnnt. (iiken ut tlio trial of I'lUtorsoii ('. Victoi'irt, on the 27t!. May, 1H!)7. Kxaiiiiiiatioii --ciiiitinucf/. I // •! i •\ REC01?D. In the Suprone Court tij llri/ish Cohimbia. No. 3r Defendant V Case. Evidence of W. Giant, taken at llie trial of Pattcroon v. Victoria, oi' the I27tli Miy, 18^:7. E.vuailniiiion — cunliuiiiil. 226 Q. Whev ft did it settle? A. On th(Miorth-vvest ''orncr. fl. And you say tliut did what ? yl. It wae ciiiiting up tho Gorgo as it iell. Q. Which was canting up thy Gorge? .f. The pier — v'.ic span. li. What do yi)ii mean — it was in that position (illustrating) ? A. Yes, it tell in that position — canting that way — not so iiuich as that, but con- siderable. Q. Which appeared to you to be the lowest part of this side — the Gorge side? .1. It was, till the end where you point to there gave way —just the corner here Avas the lov.Ci-t — the north-west corner. It) Q. Until the north-east corner gave way ? .1. Yes, sir. (I. Did you observe an^ythir^g fall away from the floor ? — for instftiu^c, these — rej)resenting the floor beams? .1. Yes, sir. Q. Did any of those fall away from the floor as it wai? coming down? .1. No, that J am positive of ; there was nothing fell from the bottom of the span ; thei-e was nothing dropping down or fell that way, because I was right luider it, it hll intact; it went down that way — cvciything. There was nothing gave way underneath, because T could sec that particularly. It might have sagged in the pier — the span, but there was nothing fell through it — nothing t; copped down. 20 Q. Von saw this lloor beam of the bridge yesterday ? A. Yes, I was asked to go . 'ook 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 tiistif'cd here already ? A. I believe he has. Q. Do }ou know how many old floor beams there were in this sjian that gave wixy ? A. No, I do not. Q,. Do you ktto'v which floor bcr.ru this was that you saw ? .1. I was told it was No. 7, liut I don't know. Q. D, was; an old beam, was it*^ .1. It ap[»earcd to be; it liad been .w painted over. ^,'. Did. it have a hangor thrcigli it? A. Yes, it had a hanger through it. Q. Were hangers through there, over this beam bored tiirough or rimud th. outside? A. Have you got a beam there? Q I)itl this one you saw have hanger holes or .stirrup irotis? A. No, sir — holes ihrougb. i^. Did you find a plug in it? .1. Yes, sir; there was a small plug — r] or ;^ in. hole. (,'. Did you measure the hole? .1. No, sir I did not. (2. What was the diiuneter yuu diiiv tin; depth of the hole. It inifjjht have been pretty near throii^di, or half w!i\ . If I had thought I miylit have inoiisiavd it. I could easily have tloiu' it hy putting somethiufr in. (,>. Was it put in securely r J. ■ >h, yes. Q. No water could get in? ,1. it was put in pretty tight. (I. Had it been an old plug? A. 'J'hat I could not tell; the plug looked all sound and good. I don't know how long it was put in. 10 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. Miu'ray went specially there to look at it with you? .1. No; 1 come there just us he was coming away, utid Ave both went there together. ~~ Q. He drew your attention to it? .1. No; T was .st'iit there to have ajoijc at it. Q. A\'lio by ? A. Mr. Wilniot, tne city engineer. (),. And lie was there wIilmi you got there r -l. Mr. Murray was there. Q. And he thought it was a knot-hole? ,1. Yes, sir. Q. Now, you gav(! evidenct! before the ini|U('St, I believe;? .1. Yes, sir. oy (,K I suppose you reniend)er just as will then as vou do now as to what took jtlaee as tar as the ear and the accident were eoncerned ? .1. Oh, well, I suppose. It is some little time ago, nearly a year. I was(|uite 'xeited overittiien. (^>. You rememb. ;r<'d it jusl as well tlien as now? .1. I sdonld. (.). l>ut not'.ing has ha[)pem!d since to call ? .1. No. <>. You were asked there (p. 12()) by the coroner : " You .said j list now Oaptain, tiiar you would not, be sure, vou though! the ear was just about the centre of the bridge? .1. It was more than tlu; centre when I looked lirst, it was about the centre, but it was going slowly all the time, and teamM were driving all the time." .1. Ap|)arently, yes. 30 Q. "When you looked tirbt it was about the centre? .1. Yes, (J. You looked round, and it was in the centi-e when you saw it? .1. It was jdjout the centre of the Arm, or, perliMp-; a lillli' beyond it. It might have been a little bejDud tiie centre; the trestle work that Avas there was between me and the car, and I could not .see everything so plainly." A, No, I could not see nothing on the bridge, only over th> rail, and see the teams and the car. i). I suppose, ','aptain, it was this: You were not hjoking for what (;nused the accident or wliere the car was, you were an.xious to .-^ave the people? .1. Yes, very anxious. t,K That was > our .sole object — not anything as io what the cause was, or 40 where it oecurred, or anything like th;it? .1. (^nite true. (}. You were asked again (p. 125): " If the tii-st floor-beam from the Esqui- malt end bad broken off, it vould have; drop])ed out and you could not see from tlu! position you w< re in whi'ther that was the beam or not? A. I could not say; a person would not take such a very particular notice, because f looked fur my boats — I was h oking to get the boats there." .1. Yes. Q,. Is that answer right? .1. I suppose I must have said it, or it would not have been there. d 2 o 2 lil'X'OUD. In the Supreme Ciinrl of Jliilixh Columbia, No. 3(5. 1 )0lOIIll,lllt'3 l''.viile'UT ot \< . Uraiit, taken al tliu t i' i a l ed inor(>. (J. You iieard a crackling noise ? A. Y , .sir. Q And you placed that at a stringer? .1, Yes, placed that at a stringer breaking at the enda. 10 229 Q. You would not heai" a rotten bciim bi'cnk at that distanoo if it was very IvKC'OIlD, rotten r .1. No, I should not thuik \ would. (^. And the r(!ason you heard the stringer break was because it was a liii'<;;o, sound piece of wood. That crack came before the cjud came oft'r .1. I can't tell that; naturally it wcjuld buckle down v,ith the rail over it. In the Sttprcinc Ciiiirt III' llritis/i Cnhnnhiii, Re-<1ircct by Mr. Taylor. (^. Do you mean to say a strinj^'er would have to break before or iu'tiM' the end came ofFr J. If the strinj^er was on very solid and nailed on to the bridrje and two spans, of course; it had to break before that would <^o 10 clear. (,>. After the span wont, that is what you mean. Mr. Davis : l»efore. Mr. Taylor (to witness) : Which do you tnean ? .lust thiidc for a moment. Take it coolly. Would a strinj^er have to break before the s[)an canu; olf, or as a rcsjdt i)f the span cominj^ off r .1. Well, you can take it eitlur wjiy you like, lien- would be a strinfjer underneath that rail and it was bolted to both parts — tile otluM- is over that joint — and it has to give way before that would go down. i^K Is it jointed? .1. No ; one is jointed and one had to break, and that -*o would have to break before it came down. V. Would it r .1. It did, and would. i^K Supposing the span went over at the end of the pier, would that stringer break necessarily after that, if not broken before r .1. When it sli]»ped clear, it would have to break to let it down ; it would all go together. I). Can you say whether the stringer broke before or after if slipjied oft" the j)ier '.- .1. Common sense would tell a person how that would g', f can't express it, but anyone can tell that one heavy span had to give way somewhere. 30 i>. ^'ou sny you could not see the car through the trestle work. You mean, looking up from the floor tniderneath ? .1. Yes. ^^K And you could see underneath but not the top ? .1. Yes. Mr. Davis: The witness said common sense would tell which it was, but he did not say which it was. No. 36. D(!foii(laiit'H ( 'llSll. Kvliloiico of W. (Ii-aiit, tnkon at ttin trial of Patterson v. Victoria, oil tlic :27tli May, 1«!I7. l!o I'xaiuiimtioii. mi Witness: 1 leavi," it to yoiu- Lordsliio how c^}y I tell which broke first, an4 • away fro.u them. a ' ' Cotu't: That is a thorough answer; that will Ijid. r(.,. 230 RECORD. In the Supreme Court of British Columbia. No. 37. Judge's Charge to the Jury. •Sic. No. ;^7. Third Day. October 14th, 1897. .Siuiic counsel present as before. Jury culled. Judge's Charge. Mr. Foreman and GentUiaien : This is an action brought by Mrs. Lang on belirilC of horsi'lf Mr. (Jassidy : If your Lordsliip will piirdon mv for interrupting you one niomoiit,. We are leaving our matters of law as in the previous Patterson ciise till motion for judgment, but there is one thing — there is a very considerable lo variance JH^twoen the evidence, and what 1 Coiirt : What are you asking ? Mr, (Jassidy: I want to ])ut it to your Lordship that apart from all tlie points taken previously in the Patterson case, we would ask your Lordsliip t^ withdraw this case from the jury; that assuming an action lies iigainst the corporation, that this was their corporate acr, and Court: Yes well, I decline to do that. T have already held, rightly or wrongh, that tlie Plaintiff is entithjd to go to tiie jury — Ik; cannot be non- suited airainst his will, and although that is before tiie Full Coiu't, I suppose, as part of my judgment, the decision has not yet been given, and until 1 am told 20 I am wrong by tlie Appellate (Jourt, I must Mflbore to it. (To jury): This is an action brought by Mrs. Lang on behalf of herselt and children tbi' darviages sustained hy them in the loss of t!ie support which of course they formerly had from the husband and lather who was killed in the unfortunate accident which has been referred to during the jji'ogress of this case. Now, you will remember, gcntkuKMi, thi', right of action is merely for the pceiuiiiiry loss which has been sustained ; you are not to give damages by way of punishment for sentimental reasons, and when tou remeraber that the real J)(iFendants in this ease are the ratepayers of the (^ity of Victoria — who of course it* not suggested themselves actively partici[)ated in the neglect, the nets, or the omissions whiel; broughr aliont 30 this disaster, you will haidly be tempted to exceed the limits which the law prescribes, upon which these damages alone maj' be proptirly awarded. In the way in which the evidence hiis been put in — th.-it is, to a hirge extiiiit, the evidence simply that was given IteFore in the ciisc 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, yt yea sh )uld not allow yourselves to w. influenced by any eoncbision which the juiy in tint case may have arrived at upon any of the questions which will be left to you, and which will be the same as vverc! left to the jiu-y in that case. Youv duty is to make up your minds for .10 yourselves atid not permit yourselves to be ^.wayed in eith<'r direction by the opinion the former jury may have held upon any of these questions. Another thing I wish to press upon you very strongly, gc-itlemcn, and I do hope you will pay great attention to it, and that is, you ought to arrive at a clear 'joiiclusion upon each of the questions. And it is very dangerous — especially in a matter of this kind, where the law is somewhat uncertain — 231 ■T* I to compromise upon one question, because some of you may think tlmt tlie particular answer to that particuhir (piestiuu is not material in view of some previous answer you have given to a l.trnier question. Now, please, do not do that, because I tell you, in all seiiousness, you cannot be certain of tht; result if you act in any such manner. The only safe way for you to decide ujion tliesi; questions is to treat each question as if it was the only oiu^ submitted, and as if the rights of these pai ties depended upon ihe partieular answer to the particular (piestion, no nuitter what the previous answer you Iiavt; given may i)e. [ You have heard a good deal from counsel on both sides as to the law Inapplicable to this case;, and you have; been told that I will direct you with reference to the law; but both counsel have agreed in stating to yon as law by which the IMaintiff would be bound, tliat the 1 )efendants are not liable in law — whatever mond nisponsibility may attach to anyone for t!ie death of the deceased — unless you find iq)on the evidence 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 arrangcjnent with tlie Defendants, or in connection with the boring alleged to have been (l)ne in the beam, the breaking of which as having been contribntv'd to bv the Defendants in this way, is claimed by tli(^ I'laintilT to have been the ))roxiinate or immediate cause of the accident. 20 Now, while I do not, for I cannot, say that in my o])inion this is eitiier an accurate or a complete statement of the law concludinL; the parties, 1 do not think it is for me to differ from counsel as to a question upon which they ,tre so happily, though to me so unexpectedly, united, j If the case was to be left to you genei dly, that is, to lind simply for the Plamtiffs or t\\v. 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 counsel could not, of course, complain if I were content to let it remain as they have left it. I Jut in tlie way in which the case is to be submitted to you because of some uncertainty which unfortunately does exist as to what tl«j law ali'ecting 3* it I'eally is, that is, by putting to you certain (juestions bearing npoi. the facts, it would he idle for me to trouble yon with any statement of the law wliieh could only be useful in the cireumstauces, if coining from the counsel it throws light upon their diltVrent contentions as to the respective positions of the parties upon the facts. I shall, thei'cfbre, say nothing more with regai'd to the law than i •" the parties will have the full benefit upon motion lor judgment or in a[)peal of any principle of law which may be found to apply to this case, whether to the advan- tage of the one side oi- the other, and that you need not concern yourselves fiu'ther with the law. 10 Now, as to the (pjestions, the most convenient way will be for me, though in a general way, to mad out each (piestion to you, and then brietly state to you wliat the material facts are with which you must ileal in arriving at the answer. I do not propose to offer any opinion whatever of my own upon any of these (piestions. 'Ihe lirsr, (piestion Vi\ "Did I he Corporation after tin: extension of the city limits, control and manage the bridge as if owner thereof V" Now, you see, gentlemen, this ipiestion avoids the legal <|Uestio« of whcither the city ut the question for you is whetiier in the way in which the city and the tramway compnny ac;ted, the use of the bridge by the tramway company for these larger cars was Jiot with the permission of the city r And you will remember, Avith reference to this questioii, that after Mr. AVest had written the lett( r which he did write in 189i, and in a report by the city engineer, .Mr. Wilmot, about the unsafe condition of the bii''!'!', the cit} did undertake to stop the use of this bridge for a short time by the to company, and dia make an arj,angen)ent with them by which the company laid down a different kind of floor; and afterwards the city removed the bar which they had put up and allowed the tramway company to go on and use the bridge in this w.ay. It will be for you to s.ay whether tliere can be the least doubt then as to what your answer to that (juestion ought to be. The next (piestion is: " Would the Corporation, if exercising ordinary care, have become aware of the actual condition of th(! bridge in time to have prevented 233 20 such use by the company before the accident ? " The facts bearing upon this question RECOllD, are shortly these : that the bri(];,'e was never designed for any such traflic at all; that the plans and specifications of the bridge were lying, as the evidence shows, in the oflice at -lanies I'.ay, and that the slightest examination of those plans and specifications would liavt' shown that the use of the bridge bv ears ol' this size was dangerous, and could only result in a longer or shorter time; in a calamity such as In th* Siiprnnr Court (>/ British Columbia. occurred. You have the letter which was read, of a practical man (you can take it to your room, I shall not trouble you with it), in which he points out in 18'.>1, the danger; you have the long time which tiie council allowed to elapse in May of 10 that year when the letter was written — May, 189l*, when Mr, Wilmot made his report as to certain rcipairs, and still there is inaction on the part of the council for about a month, when Mr. ^\'ilnlot writes the letter read out l»y Mr. Macdonell, calling attention to the liict that his report had not been acted upon, and uidess something was done, some such disaster would happen. It does se(un, in view of the known life of a bridge of this kind being oidy 7 or lU years, if the city had taken any reasonable steps to ascertain what tin e;>nd'tion of the bridge was, that they must h.ave known of tlu^ actual condinon oi the bridge, and that any such repairs as tlu-y were making were whoUv inadoipuite to remove the danger wliich did exist in the use by the comj)any of the bridge for the purposes of tratlic with 20 cars weighing 10 tons. Tt will be f( i" von i<- say whether the ansAver to that question will give you any ditficulty. The next (picstion is: "Did the corporation, befo;e permitting tramcars to pass over the bridge, make any enquiry whether it was of sufficient strength for safe use for that purpose ? " Well, there is no contest about it, and no suggestion that ever they did. The next (juest' >n is: "Could such knowledge have been easily acquired by the corjjoration r ' ill they had to do was to go over to James Bay, where they knew the jdaus ^, .>, and they would hav(> ascertained that fact, or it would seem as if an}' bridge engineer of »U"dinary capacity could have told ttietti, but it 80 is for you to say what you tidnk the answer should be. The next (pu'stion: "Had the (\'r|>oratiou, at the time of the accident, suffered the bridge to fall into such disrepair as by reason (hereof to become dangerous for such use by the compjuiy ? " T do not know there is any such serious contest about tliat question, or that the answer to that should give you any trouble. It seems to be conceded on all sides that the ordinary life of a bridge c)f that kind is from 7 to 10 years, and that time had elapsed before the accident. And in view of Mr. West's letter calling their attention to it, and Mr. AVilmot'ri report saying what was really required was the replacement of the beams 1))' iron beams instead of wood, which the council did not do, you probably 40 will tind no diMiculty in making up your minds about that. The other questions are those about which the real contest has taken place between tlu ])arties, and it will be necessary for me to refer — which I shall do as briefly as [lossible — to the evidence of the different witnesses be .ring upon these questions. The first of these, ajid the next after those 1 have already read, is : " Did the chnnges made in the bridge by the Corporation and, under an arrange- ment with it, by the company, materially reduce the strength of the bridge to support a traincar pa5;sing over it ? " Those changes were, if you remember, d 2 H No. 37. .Iiidge's Charge to tliu Jury — continued. 'WW RECORD. In the Supreme Court of British Columbia, No. 37. Jndgo's Charge to tho Jury — continued. It., p. 127, I. 18 R, p. 1 13, I. 25 234 that tho compntiy Avould put in stringers, which I think it wns conceded on both sides did not wruken the hridp^c — that portion of tiie chanfjc ; but there was this lurtlicr dilhirenco — tlint, whereas, before this time tlie floor iiad extended from the one chord to the other in one place, the tramway company divided it up into three pieces, the object being, of course, that there wouhl be one on either side! of the track, and one between the rails, and a good deal of evidence was given and yon licard a good deal of argument on both sides as to the effect of that elijinge. It was contended for the city that in a bridge of this kind the stipport which eotdd possibly be fiu-nished by a floor even in one piece was necessarily of so trifling a character tliat it could not properly eater into your jq 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 floor supported by these chords was all in one piece, and it was pointed out that at the time of the former accident, which took place bcfon; this change from one piece into three pieces, the tramcar had actually been held up because of that floor. Now, this is what Mr. Warner s:iid about it in his examination in chief, |). 17, which you can follow there, if you like: " \Voidd tiiat floor running across this way be of any use in preventing a tramcar or whatever load happened to bo on the bridge at the time, from going through, in case of one of those floor beams lueaking, if it ran right across the 20 full length as it was originally? A. It might have snp[)lie(l that small access of strength necessary to carry it across, and again, it might not, knowing nothing of the physical conilitions at the time. " (j>. But it, would uiKpiestionably add some strength!' A. It would un- questionably add some strength. " Q, And the test of what that strengih would bo will be just the same as the test oi Avhat these o-in. planks would bear? -1. Yes. " Q. .\nd that is to bo consideri d from the standpoiiit of the planks riumitig diagonally that way across these stringers, and reaching as they would, as you see them herv, wotdd that give additional strength, that is distribute the 30 weight? .1. Yes. " (,'. So as to curry it away from tho broken floor-beam? -1. Yes, it would. '" >>. Supposing that floor is cut — this is one piece now, (indicating), this is a second j)iece, and this a tliird pieee. In the case of the floor-beam breaking as it broke in 18i)(i and 181)2, would there be ':he same (ihances aftir that fl<>(,r was cut of the car getting off as it (lii| »i IBU2, as lliere would be it it ran right across? .1. Certaiidy not " Then at p. 'i7, in cross-examination— F am just snowh.g ydll uneny lioW this witness look' d at it: 40 " (>. What material difference does it make? .1. In my opinion it makes this difference: in IHUi* it was probably that extra strength given by the plank flooring which carried the ear out of danger. " (). Yon do not think that i\w. briclge was in any better condition in 1892 than it was in lS!)(j ? A. It was inidonlitedly in better condition. That is, I should fancy it was; simply a ipiestion of age. " ^^>, That truss gains notliing of any strenath or integrity by the floor? A. The truss itself does not. 235 " (,'. The floor is simply a wci^^ht thiit the truss has to carry ? -1. Yes. " Q. So tlmt the floor mi<^!it break down on one side, fall away like a trap- door from tile truss, or it luij^lit hrciik on both sides and tlic truss rrmaiu intact? A. If'yun break it in the middle as you did iu two places, it would fall like tliat. ' If it was continuous as it was in the first ])lace, and the Hoor broke as it did, it Avouldfallon to the cliord bars ; the floor — the planking would rest on the chord bar like that, and " And then he is inti'iru[)ted. Then ^Ir. Wihnot — his evidence was referred to bv the witness — it was reallv so, that at the time of the formiir accident when the 10 floor Avas all m one |/icce the ear had been kept up — prevented i^oini; tlu-ouith. There is the evidence ot JMunay, j)p. 217, 'JIH : — " (j>. First of ;dl, in nd'erence to that floorinn^, would the flooriiiLj put down the way it A\as fin.illy put by tlie city — that is, instead of running ri^ht across as it docs here (referrin^^ to model) cut in three ])ieces — up here, and hv.vc, nnd here again, would that have any effect on the chance of the bridge in case a floor beam broke, going through (jr not going through? A. I say it would make it; much weaker ; it would have the effect (J. .lust describe shortly how it would strengthen the state of the timber after the floor was broken? .1. liy the planks going right through and the rail biing on t(ip — of course, it is usually a flat rail, 20 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 Avill 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 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." And there is IJallour, pp. 225 and 226 : — " Q. Now, I want to ask you, first of all, just putting it shortly — becaus(! I do not want to go through it at any great length again — the effect of the change 80 that was made by the city in the flooring of that l)ridge. It was originally like that model; it wa;i then changed as you have heard described; it was cut into three pieces, so that — what would be the effect to your mind of that? J. It certaiidy destrojed 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 fi-om tin; plunking when it Wiis cut; after it was cut the floor planking gave no assistance to carry it over the broken floor beam, which I consitler that planking does to a certain extent. •' l^>. And how would it be if the flooring fell so as to get a support from the bottom chords, that is, as it was ori^iinally — would that be of any assistance 40 to it ? I. It would be of considerable assistance, especially at the panel point where the chord has sufHcient strength to withstand the pressure." Then there is the evidence of 1)(;11, pp. 2.')1, 252: — " Q. Now, it is suggested that if the Hoor beam gave way and let the plaiddng of the floor down, that tlie support of the chord link to the floor would be a source of safety as tending to carry that car along to the next floor beam; Avhat do you say with regard to that? .1. I think it would be a very unsafe source of safety." d 2 H 2 HKCORD. In the Supreme Court of liritisb Columbia. No. 37. Jiulgo'a Ohixrgo to tlio Jury — cunlinucil. K, p. 174, I. 46 R., p. 177, I. 30 n., p. 190, I. a I 236 tif; RKCORD. In the Supreme Court of Britith Columbia. No. 87. Jadge's Charge to the Jary — 'Continued, R, p. 191, 1.13. R, p. 24, I. 84 You soe, he dooH not agree wltli the other witnesses. '• Q. Just explain yourself? .1. I mean to say I think the car ini^'ht break right through the floor. " Q. You think the car might break riglit through the floor ? .1. It is not a thing that anyone would depend on." And then on tiie next {)age he goes so far as to say — he ri'|)eats that: — "No one would lake the responsibility of that at all. In [)i'u(:tice 't is a peHeet absurdity " that there woidd be any strength afl^orded by the planking b'iiiL' in one piece. Now, gentlenum, I do not think I have given you all tin; references for jq what these witnesses have said; but what I think, after ;arefully reading over the evidence as I did last night, is sufficient from each witness to show you what his (jpinion w.as, and of course it is lor you to decide. The next (|uestion is: " Was a hole bored by Cox, the city carpenter, in beam number three as described by him?" W(!ll, now, that, of course, is the main (inestion of all upon the ground which both eonnscd have deliberately elected to fight this battle. It has been conceded on both sides — \ do not say whether rightly or wrongly — that, except u[)on a favourable answer to that qucistion, the Plaintiff" caiuiot succeed. (To Counsel): Mr. Macdonell, whero arc those portions now you wish me to read to the jury ? They bear upon this 20 particular question, do they not? (Handed to (x)urt.) The portions Mr. Taylor has requested me to read about it are these, commencing at p. 12: — ^' Q. All the beams you found rotten? .1. Yes; every one of them. " (i. And you concluded you would not bore any more on the Victoria span, because all you bored on the other spa!> were rotten? A. No; not at all, we did not have time." I had better go on — " Q. Did you tell them that you did not examine but the three? A. They were satisfied. " (2. Did you tell them that you had not examined but the three? .1. Cer- so tainly ; there is the span. " (J. Who did you tell? A. My borings proved they were not all bored. There were only nine parcels handed in to the engineer. " l^K Did you tell anybody ^vhat beams you had bored ? A. Yes. " Q. Who? A. The engineer. "(2- The specific beams you had bored? -1. Yes. " Q. Did you tell what beams you had bored? -4. He kuew perfectly well. " Q. Did you tell him? A. Yes. "(^. When? A. The next da}-, when I took the borings. I said there is 40 nine, and there is all the borings. "V- Did you tell him ? J. lie had sense. Yes; I did tell him. "V. What did you say to him ? .1. I said are we to bore any more beams, and he said he didn't think it was necessary. "(,<. Why not? J. IJecause every one we had bored was rotten. " Q. Because every one you had bored was rotten ? .1. Yes. " Q. Then it is a fact that all the beams you bored were rotten ? A. Every one. 237 i IS 40 'W^. Everyone? They were [)retty badly rotten, too, weren't tlu'y ? .1. I believe tliey w(;re." P. T), line 8> :— '' (J. That was soniethiiii^ tliiit you bored out of the beam ? .1. Ves. ^'(J. And they were n^tten ? A. Yes. *U^>. Every one of them ? A. Yes. ^'(J. Very badly rotten ? .1. Yes; jtretty bad." The next is |)a. And then you bored three of the beams on the N'ictoria side ontlietop'r A. Yes. ^' (J. And found them absolutelv rotten ? A. Yes." Mr. Cassidy : Page "iO, my Eord, beginning at 3. (^Jourt: " You knew they had not b(;en removed?" — these beams — he is speaking now at the time of his ri'[)ort that the bridge was sound — " J. Do you suppose ibr u miinite that I sliould say: Here, .\[r. NVilmot, there are two beams in that bridge, and you have not removed them, and you ought to i-emove 80 them. "^> You knew they were rotten, did you not ? A. Yes; and he knew they were rotten. " (J. You knew they were absolutely rotten at that time? -I. I did. 'Wj>. Padly rotten ? A. Yes; badly rotten. " (J. Then I say how did you report them to bo sound to the eity in 1895 ? A. I did not report anything sound." Mr, Cassidy: Page 27, my Lord, at I. Court: " (j>. And yet you reported the whole bridge sound r ^1. Yes. " (J. Without examining it, and notwithstanding that you knew in 1895 these 80 beams were absolutely rotten ? .1. Yes. " C^. Ineluding this number three beam that gave way? A. Yes. " Ij. 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 r Mr. Mac 'n. -11: Yes, my Lord. Court: " ^'. Why didn't you put a plug in it then to stop the water 'r A. They were i U pluj;ged up that I bored. " Q. Th' \- w re all ])lngged up that you bored — yes; but do j'OU say it was .Q any use plugging them that way, whieh would let water in r It was according to instructions? A. Plugged with the oakum; that is all I know. " Q. l^ut you tell me that it Avas no good ? A. A good soldier does what he is told, you know. " Q. You were told to go and plug it afterwai'ds ? A. Not afterwards. It was plugged first, and not atterwardj. " 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. IIow does it get through a ship." UKCORD. In tha Siii>tenu ( 'niirt iif Itiith'h Columbia. N... 37. <'liar;;c to till! .Iiiry — cnnfiniiril. Mf.. 11. 'jr., 1. i;i M{„ 1). 30, I. 10 I!., I). 80, 1. 31 K., p. 31, 1. 5 R., p. 38, 1. 16 w IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 7 / .// O 4j (? 7, 1.0 I.I 1.25 1.4 IM IM M 1.6 Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. I4S80 (716) 872-4503 &?< 238 In the Supreme Court of British Columbia. No. 37. Judge's Charge to the Jury —continued. R., p. 18G, 1. 1. E., p. 39, 1. 17 A. Yes- -the provincial con- Tried to; I sent up some of RECORD. Now, p. 268, Yorke's— Mr. Taylor : That is Yorke's. Court : What line do you want ? Mr. Taylor: Beginninfj at, say line 8. Court : " Q. Did you go to the wreckage ? stables had it in a boom there. "■ Q.. Did you attempt to fetch it away? A. the men for it. '• Q. Would they give it to you ? A. No, sir. " Q. And that is the reason Avhy you did not bring it? A. Yes, and 10 that is the reason why we did not put it in the scow with the balance of the wreckage." ]\lr. 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 yon do not know whether it was rotten underneath or not ? A. I cannot say. " Q. You bored into it 7 inches or thereabouts? A. Thereabouts. " Q. Wlien you say it was rotten, you mean traces of rot in that 7 inches ? A. Dry rot. ' 20 '''Q. Dry rot— traces of it? A. Yes. " Q. It might have stood ibr a year or two in tliat way ? A. Yes, it might, and perhaps more. " (,>. But being plugged with oakum would allow the v/ater to get in and increase the rot? ^1. Yes. '•^ Q,. Very materially would it increase the rot'^ A. Fifty per cent. " Q. The oakum being in there would increase the rot 50 per cent. Are you sure that Mr. Wilmot saw the borings of those beams? A, He must have seen it; he stood there in front of me, and the Mayor, both of them. •' Q. At the time you were boring ? A. Yes. Atherly handed it to him in 3a his hand." Now, gentlemen, I am not reading anything more; you can refer at the end of the case to any further questions. Mr. Taylor: Your Lordship, there is the question of Atherly's, p. 277, at the l)ottom — the question next to the last. R., p. 184. Court : " In iact, it is a matter of indistinct recollection with you now, 1.42 entirely, after so long a time? ,1. I know about the boring — that is all. " And you are perfectly certain it was under the sidewalk? A. Yes." Now, gentlemen, it may perhaps have occurred to you when there is a long examination of a witness, no matter how intelligent he may be, and more 4f> especially when lie is not perhaps of more than average intelligence, it would be comparatively easy afterwards to i)ick upon onu: side or the other — particular passages in the evidence to make it seem very contradictory and very absurd, and although I have acceded to the reque.-tof counsel to read over these portions 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 'vnuiiii ^ 239 20 30 20 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 us what he relies upon, or the pieces pointed out by the Defendants. Yon 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. Wilniot himself, in his exiimiiuition in the other action, which is in evidence before you, is questioned as to Cox's character. He says at once that Cox bears a good character. His evidence is here — I need not trouble you with readintj out the portions I refar to. When it is sugf^ested to him that Cox has such a character as to induce him — Wilmot — to ^^ believe he would be guilty of perjury, he says at once, no. That is the only reference I intend to make as to the character of Cox, if you consider— which I do not know — it was seriously attacked on the part of the Defendants. You have Mr. Wilrnot's sworn testimony as to that — he believes Cox to be of good character, and he does not think Cox would mis-state anything purposely ; that he had or could have any interest in mis-stating anything^ I do not think 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 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, 1 suppose he would I'cport upon that. But I confess, I was somewhat puzzled at the elaborate attention which this supposed extraordinary feature as related to Cox — I say I was puzzled by the great attention it received on both sides. You observed when Mr. Wilmot, the city engineer, Avanted a particular examination made, he 30 gave written instructions for it, and boring was done, which involves taking up 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 endeavoured to make him out to be, it is rather a dangerous point to urge, because he had been in the employ of the city for a great length of time, and id will be for you to say whether tlie 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. Cox, however, does say in his evidence, and so far as I can see, whatever inconsistencies and contradictions he may have indulged 40 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 entirely of fact to you — whether this boring took place or not P You must remember, you must take his evidence as a whole — not any particular portions; and it will be for you to say in spite of any argu- ments you have heard from Air. Macdonell, in contradiction of that on the one side and Mr. Taylor on the other, whether that does shake his credit as to the one point which, after all, is the onl}'- one you have to consider — was that beam bored RECORD. i In the Supreme ' Court of British Columbia. No. 37. ,1, j Judge's ^\'>y , Charge to Mj'' | the Jury ■)'' { — continued. :B | ('!* Hi 240 m 111 RECORD. II li, i In (he Supreme Court of British Colimilia. No. 37. Judge's Charge to tlie .Jury — continued. R., p. 181-4' R., p. 70^ R., p. 120, 137 R., p. 121, 1.31 R., p. 131, 1.34 or not ? The other portions of the evidence bearing on that are these : The evidence of Atherly, at p. 271.^ That evidence is short, and I direct your attention to it as relating to this point, if you have any doubt about it, in which Atherly who, it seems, was assisting Cox at this time, corroborates the fact of the boring having taken place. It is short evidence, you will have no trouble reading it, but it is too long to make it possible to read it to you now. There is the evidence of Mr. Wilmot,'^ the city engineer, taken on examination for discovery. His recollection was fresh. His evidence, wliich you can refer to, leaves no doubt that ho understood at that time that the boring had taken place. If you remember, the boring was done under his instructions, the shavings were 10 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 occupy your tune unnecessarily, but I read it carefully last niglit, and you will have the evidence. He says he understood the boring had been done according to his instructions, and this beam amongst others, had been bored. Then the evidenc:e to the contrary consists of the state- ments 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 you on that point is whether the beam having been broken at that rotten place where it evidently was rotten, 20 whether the portion being shorn off —as the expression is — was not shorn to such an extent as to carry away the surrounding portions, so that the auger hole would not be perceptible there. An inch and a quarter auger hole in rotten wood just wheie the hole is, might — but, of course, it is lor you to say — easily not be ascertainable, because, being among the breakage — the part being shorn — it disappeared. I direct you to the evidence of Mr. Warner on that point, pp. 9, 10 and 23. " 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. 30 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 Avas 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. The other one. No. 3, was broken at the Gorge end, where Mr. Cox said he bored — is that correct? A. Yes." 40 That shows the breaking was done where the auger hole was said to be, and it is for you to say whether, under those circumstances, it might not have dis- appeared, being rotten. And the other side 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 1 say, anything about an auger hole, because I didn't find it. The chances are, however, from 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." '^ !.l. 241 30 40 No. 1 exiimiued it, yes. A. No, sir." Then Mr. Lockwood too, on page 4i)' : — " Q. What about 3 ? A. Tlircc was an old boaiii and uas broken off — sheared oif 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 olf right at the hanger. You could see one of the hanger holes still in the (ind of the beam, on one of the ends. '■ Q. What condition was number three in? A. Very rotten. " Q. How was the end Avhere it had been sheared off as compared with the 10 other end? A. It was much more rotten." And page 71 : — " (^. 'J'lie fact of your not noticing any trace of it, ii would not follow one way or the other, as to whether the hole was there, Mr. Lockwood? .1. The hole might not have been then; at the time I saAV it, the \\'ood w;is very rotten: it was sheared right out. '" Q. And so broken up you could not tell? .1. Yes, sir; it might have been there and I not notice it, and it niight have been sheared out entirely." Then Yorke, page 2'67 : — " (J. Did you see this broken floor beam, Mr. Yorke, that has been referred 20 to? A. Yes, sir. '• Q. Did you find any auger h.oles in it? A '• Q. Did you examine it at all carefully ? A. " Q. And did not find any auger hole in it ? 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 upen that question. Then there is Mr. Gore's evidence, pp. o25 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 sub- tracted from its entire length ? .1. Well, perhaps nothing but what might have 30 been sheared away from it when the hanger pulled through it." Tiien again : — " 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 heard of it before. " Q. Did you look for it? .1. I did not look for it, because ■ never heard of it." I'hen there is Mr. Bell's evidence, 244: — '• (2. Y' ju saw the two portions of it. Were you aide to say from your examination whether the two portions represented the beam ? A. Why, yes. 40 " 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 ? .1. Yes ; and you could see likewise the mark of the suspender on it. " Q. And the mark of the fracture ? -t. Yes ; and no doubt the beam was rotten." d 2 I KliCORD. In the Supreme Court of liritish ('olumbia. No. 37. Jtulgo'a Cliiirge to the Jury — continued. i:., p. 154', 1. 1 R., p. 171, I. 42 K., p. 1.8 185, R., p. 219, 1. ID R, p. 220, 1. 9 R., p. 187, 1. 29 I J 242 In the Supreme Court of British Columbia. No. 37. Judge's Charge to the Jury — continued. R, p. 188, 1.7' R., p. 216, 1.12 R., p. 218, 1.19 RECORD. Page 245' :— " Q. And what concluHion did you cotne to? J. I came to the conclusion that thei'o was no hole bored there." Mr. Taylor : I ini^dit ask your lordshij) if you think it would be rij^ht Court: No; please do not interrupt nu-. As I said before, I read over this evidence last night, and it took a long time, becau.se you, gentlemen (to jury), might be afraid, having a great mass of evidence before you and not being familial' with it, to hunt for such portions as were material ; and I made a note of the portions of the evidence to which 1 wished to direct attention ; but [ am by no means saying that is all, but am only making sufficient references to enable 10 you to get the opinion of the witnesses. And I again ask you in all earnestness 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 been possible to h.ave had an auger hole approximately that close to the hanger holt on the Gorge side, without your having seen it." Mr. Bell says: "No; I do not think so. I think if he had bored a hole of that size 1 would have found it out."' Then page 323 :— . " A Juror: AVould the length of the two pieces be the length of the whole 20 beam r A. If they had been taken up and put together, I believe they would. "C^. But you do not know it; you did not measure? A. No; I do not know it; I did not put them together. " Q,. 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:— R., p. 198, " Q- Do you mean to say it was impossible for an auger hole to have been I. 14 there " — being cross-examined by Mr. Davis — "and you have not found it ? A. I would not say it was impossible, but I went specially to see if it had been bored." ' 30 Now that, of course, both parties have deliberately 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 you will agree — are entitled to this — that you should read over all the evidence. You have heard what the counsel have said — there are some other portions of the evidence they think material, it is not necessary to remind you, as counsel do not, of your sworn duty, but it would be your sworn 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 40 yours — is the 11th: — " Did the boring of such hole cause the beam to become rotten." And I can only say, as I did with reference to some earlier question, that that is not a matter seriously disputed. We all know as a matter of conunon sense !i boring of that kind, left without plugging it up, would causo the beam to become rotten. Using the language of Mr. VV^arner at p. 14, that is what would happen. 243 30 id 40 " Q. What would be the neccssar}' result of such a hole as that, remaininfi^, in the way the evidence has shown, for four years, especially in a wot climate? A. It would increase the deterioration — the rottenness." That brinofs me to the last question, and when I s])oke of the seriousness of the other questions, of 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 beam 3 — which was caused by the borin. Do you remeinl)er what it was you assigned then ? .1. To the breaking of the floor-beam I assigned the cause of the disaster — to the extreme rottenness of the floor-beam. "(2. It is only fair to read you this (p. 248 of your testimony before the coroner). There is a broken hanger which Mr. Lockwood 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 very pitchy and a very serious 10 knot. But the question of })recedence 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 p A. Pardon me, the question asked me was to 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 Jiot, nor did not believe, anyone could assign the order of precedence of the breaking of any one of these three parts. " (^. That is what T understood. It is difficult to assign the order of prece- dence ? .1. Clearly impossible. " Q. As a matter of fact, even in the best condition they could not have supported this load of 22 tons that was on it. I believe also you testified to this efleet : — see if I have the substance of your evidence: 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 con- dition of repair, and now the heavy weights put upon it were the cause of the disaster ? .1. I put it even stronger than that, if I recollect right. I said it was the most criminal piece of maintenance I had ever heard of." Lockwood's, p. 51 : '■' Q. From your examination of the woodwork of the bridge after the span 30 fell, which Avrs the weakest part of that woodwork? J. The rotten floor beam. " q. That is No. 3 ? A. Yes, sir. ' Q. So that the woodwork was the weakest portion the bridge, speaking generally as between it and the ironwork, and floor beam No. 3 was the weakest portion of the woodwork P A. Undoubtedly. " Q. You have heard the evidence as to Avhere the car was at the time the bridge broke, have you not? A. Yes, sir." Page 53 : " 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 wood- "10 work and the woodwork was the weakest jiortion of the bridge. You have also heard where the car was. From all the evidence that you have heard, and from your examination of the bridge, and from other data which you have been able to obtain Avith i-eference to this matter, what in your opinion was the first thing to break in that bridge P A. Floor-beam No. 3. " Q. ^t would follow from that, 1 presume, that you mean that +he breaking of the floor-beam No. 3 was the substantial cause of t!ie fall of the bridge P .1. Was the proximate cause. 245 20 30 " Q. And the breaking of floor-beiiin ness? .1. Yes. " Q. Yon have shown that the Xo. 3 was due, of course, to rotten- liECOUD. 10 rottenness in fiuor-beam Xo. 3 at that end where it sheared off was <:;reater than at the other end, and also fijroater than the rottenness of tloor-beam No. 7, which hud biien in the same time? .1. Yes, sir. *' Q. Bearing all those matters in mind, what was the cause of tliis beam breaking at the particular time at whicii it broke r A. The fact that it had been bored in 1892. " (^;. In the way that has been described r .1. Yes, sir." And page 68 also contains anotiier reference to Mr. Lockwood's (widencc upon this point : — "What was the other reason? .1. I have secured additional evidence in regard to the accident and where the car was at the lime of the accident, and where the car was in the water after the accident occurred. If [ remember rightly, 1 based my theory of the hanger breaking first on the location of the car; and I said at the time, if I remember rightly, that floor beam did not fall first, because the car had not reiiched -5. Xow, the testimony before the coroner's jnvy all went to show — at least, most of it, practically all that I heard — that the car had not reached the centre of the span, and if the car had not reached the centre 20 of the span floor beam 3 could not have been the cause of the 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. But you do not base your whole theory on that fact, do you — about it giving way there — the rotten floor beam ? .1. Well, I attribute the pi-imary cause of the accident — that is, the accident happening just at this time — to that hole being bored." Of course, he does not know himself whether it was or not, as he says: "I have heard the testimony here." Now Mr. Wilmot is questioned as to his 30 view of the primary cause of the accident. You will find reference to that in page 2.') : — " 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 as to what caused the destruction of the bridge." Then Mr. Bell, at pp. 255 and 25fi, who was an expert called for the Defendants : — " Q,. I say, from your examination of the wreckage, from hearing all the 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 ,Q and precipitated the disaster P In other words, what was the direct cause of the accident? A. I camiot tell you the member of the bridge that first gave way but I have a conviction of what members caused the disaster, although 1 may say it is ver}'- doubtfid too; it is a very difficult subject. But 1 have a conviction on my mind as to which 1 think was the most likely to cause the disaster; I think the 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 : — //» //tr Court of liritish Columbia. No. 37. Judge's Oharge to iho Jury — continued. I!., p. 16!), I. 10 R., p. 171, 1. 35 R., p. 76, 1. 31 R., p. 192, 1. 14 I I)' 'M RECORD. In the Suprtmr Court of British Columbia. No. 87. Judgo'3 Charge to the Jury —continued. U„ p. 192, I. 35' R., p. 195, 1. 12 246 '"^/. Do you agree with tlmt P A. No; 1 do not. " Q. Will you state yoiii' reasons? A. Yes ; I tliiiik tliat from the jjositlon of the eur trucks it is fair to iissumo tluit the breaking of the liip-vertieals at the Esfjuinialt end pulled the bearings right off the pier. When the hip erticals broke oiu! of them was broken about the nut ; there Is u washer plate on top of the liidis. The links are 'Al\ feet in length. The weight of the load is trans- ferred from the top to the bottom ehord by means of this washer plate. There Avould be force enough there, even by calculating the least friction there could be, to ])ull the whole bearings oft' the pier. That is my conviction of what destroyed it." 10 And page 259 : — " That is to say, you think the hip-vertical gave way? A. \ think that was the main factor in causing the accident ; but if you ask me what purl of the bridge broke lirst, I carmot tell you, and I believe no man living could tell you." Now, gentlemen, that fniishes 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 experts of th(! capacity of a bridge of this kind, and what would naturally be ex[)ected to happen, as i-egards what gave way and what was the inunediate cause of the 20 disaster in the way in Avhich this accident occurred. They had the advantage 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 happened. 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 you to say Avhether you take their opinions and act on them or not. A good deal of evidence has been given as to how far tlie tram had got at the time of the accident. I dare say you, gentlemen, can form a pretty good 30 opinion for yourselves, apart from 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 that the first sound was like a falling or breaking tree, the suggestion being that it Avas owing possibly to this beam giving way first, which was of wood, and not the hip-vertical, which, of course, is not of wood. Now, gentlemen, as regards the amoimt 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 being required to purchase an 40 annuity for hte 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 contemplated 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, which, if Dr. Lang 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 247 10 it rnfiy rlecrense. Then there is the chance of defttli or of iUncss or some acci- dent, (>n the other hand, there is the chance, of course, that n <;(!iitl(;tnan in Dr. Lanji's position might have lar;j;(Iy increased liis practice, ,\.ll I can tell you is, as 1 cautiotied you before, that tliis is purely a (piestioti of what is a fair sum, not in the natiu'e of punishment, not because of any sentimental consider- ations, no matter what sympathy you naturally would have; for .^Il•s. Lan Defendant (Appellant) "^^^ B ^ It Tyrwhitt Drake, Registrar. mM RECORD. In the Full Court. No. 42. Order allowing Appeal to the Full Oonrt. 256 No. 42. In the Supreme Court of British Columbia. In the Full Court. Between Martha Maria Lang administratrix of the estate and effects of John Lang deceased and (Plaintiff) Respontlent (Defendant) AppcUa7it. 10 The Corporation of the City of Victoria Present: The Honourable Theodore Davie, Chief Justice Tiifc Honourable Mr Justice Walkem. The Honourable Mr. Justice Drake. Friday, the 25th day of February, 1898. Upon the application of the above-named (Defendant) Appellant to this Court upon Wednesday the 16th day of February 1898, upon hearing read the order of the Full Court dated the 11th day of February 1898 giving the said Appellent leave subject to all just objections to move before the Full Court on that day the appeal of the said Ajopellant to this Court under the Appellant's notice of appeal dated 22nd November 1897 from the judafment and order pro- nounced by the Honourable Mr. Justice McCoU on the 6th day of November 1897 20 that judgment bn entered for the Plaintiff for $20,000 and costs upon the findings of the jury and upon reading the admission of service of the said order by the Plaintiffs solicitor endorsed thereon and upon hearing Mr. Robert Cassidy of counsel for the said Appellant and no one appearing for the said (Plaintiff) Respondent it was ordered that the said application should stand for judgment and the same coming before this Court this day <'or judgment this Court doth order that the said appeal of the (Defendant) Appellant from the said order for judgment for the Plaintiff stand inscribed for hearing before the said Full Court and that the said appeal be heard notwithstanding that the said order for judgment so pronounced by the said Hon. Mr, Justice McColl has not 30 been entered or otherwise perfected by the Plaintiff. Costs of this application to be costs in the cause to the party finally successful therein. And it is further ordered that this Court do stand adjourned until Wednesday the second day of March 1898 at the Court House Bastion Square Victoria B.C. at the hour of eleven o'clock in the forenoon or so soon thereafter as counsel can be heard for the hearing of the said Defendant's appeal from the said order for judgment for the Plaintiff under the said Defendant's notice of appeal dated 22nd November, 1897. By the Court H. Tyrwhitt Drake Registrar. 40 !l( I •257 10 In the Full Cowt No. 43. Reasons for No. 43. RECORD. Lang V. Corporation of Victoria. Reasons for Judgment of Drake J. Th's case is identical with the Patterson case. It arises out of the same accident and the same questions were submitted to the jury and they gave very nearly identical answers. The Defendant has appealed upon similar grounds £)"j,|"^j ° and has further moved for a new trial. I am bound by the decision in the Patterson case and this appeal must be dismissed. jQ As to the application for a new trial I fail to see that the Defendant has made out any case. They allege that the evidence ot Cox substantially differs from the evidence he gave in the Patterson case, in fact, he was not subject to cross-examination in that case, but the jury have had the benefit of hearing his original evidence and his cross-examination and as the value or weight to be attached to any witness's evidence is essentially a matter for the jury this Court cannot grant a new trial on such a ground as this. There must be something substantially wrong in the verdict arrived at; it must be unreasonable and one that reasonable men could not have arrived at from the evidence adduced. J see no such ground here and the application must be dismissed with costs. 20 ^I- W- Tyiiw.'.iiTT Drake J. January 1898. Walkem and Irving JJ. concurring. 40 {Defendants) Appellants No. 44. In the Supreme Court of British Columbia. In the Full Court. Before the Honourable Mr. Justice Walkem The Honourable Mr. Justice Drake The Honourable Mr. Justice Irvin Between 30 The Corporation of the City of Victoria and Martha Maria Lang the administratrix of the estate and effects of John Lang deceased .... {Plaintiff) Respondent Friday the 1st day of April, 1898. Upon motion made on behalf of the above i amed Defendants herein by way of appeal from the judgment or order of his Lordship the Honourable Mr. Justice McCoU pronounced on Saturday the 6th day of November 1897 that judgment be entered for the Plaintiff against the Defendants for !?20,000 and costs upon the findings of the jury and that judgment should be entered for the Defendant 40 corporation or why there should not be a new trial in tlic action coming on to be heard before this Court sitting jis a Full Court on the 14th and 15th days of March 1898; upon reading the pleadings and proceedings at the trial the Defen- d 2 L No. 44. Order dismissing Defendants' appeal, aad motion for a new trial. I?' I RECORD. In the Full Court. 258 diuits' notice of appcfil and motion for a new trial and upon hearing Mr. W. J. Taylor and Mr. Robert Cassidy of counsel for the Defendants ( Appellants) and Mr. E. V. Davis Q.C. and Mr. D. G. Macdonell of counsel for the l^laintiff (Respondent) the Court did order that the said appeal and motion should stand for judgment and the said appeal and motion coming on for judgment this day. This Court doth order that the said appeal and motion for a new trial be and the same is hereby dismissed with costs to be taxed and paid by the Defendants to the P'aintiff. By the Court B. H. Tyrwhitt Drake, Registrar. 10 No. 45. Order permitting Appeal to the Privy Cooncil. 20 No. 45. In the Supreme Court of British Columbia. In the Full Court. Between Martha Maria Lang, administratrix of the goods and chattels of John Lang deceased ...... {Plaintiff) Respondent and The Corporation of the City of Victoria . . . {Defendants) Appellants. Present: — The Honourable Mr. Justice Walkem The Honourable Mr. Justice Drake The Honoui'able Mr. Justice Irving. Monday, the 4th day of April, 1898. Upon the application of the above-named Defendants (Appellants) this day made unto this Honourable Court that the said Defendants shall have leave to appeal to Her Majesty her heirs and successors in her or their Privy Council from the judgment of this Court pronouticed herein the 1st day of April 1898 dismissing the appeal of the Defendants from the judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice McCoU delivered herein on the 6th day of November 1897 for the Plaintiff for 820,000 and costs and that tl.e said appeal be admitted upon reading the notice 30 of said application and admission of service endorsed thereon by Plaintiff's solicitor and upon hearing Mr. Cassidy of counsel for the Defendants and no one appearing for the Plaintiff Tiiis Court doth order that the said Defendants do have leave to appeal to Her Majesty her heirs and successors in her or their Privy Council from the said judgment of this Court pronounced the 1st day of April 1898 and it is further ordered that the said Defendants do pay unto this Court the sum of $1,500.00 (the equivalent of £300 sterling) as security to the satisfaction of the Registrar of this Court for the due prosecution of their said appeal to Her Majesty her heirs and successors in her or their Privy Council and the payment of all such costs as may be awarded by Her Majesty her heirs 40 and successors in her or their Privy Council to the Plaintiff in accordance with the direction to that effect contained in the rule of this Court, dated the 259 4th day of November 1897 and then (but not otherwise) the said appeal shall RECORD, be forthwith admitted and the Defendants shall immediately thereupon be at 7 7, liberty without any further order from this Court to prefer and prosecute their said piill Court appeal to Her Majesty her heirs and successors in her or their Privy Council in such manner and under such rules as are or may be observed in appeals made to Her Majesty from Her Majesty's colonics and plantations abroad. 15y the Court, Harvey Combe Deputy Registrar 10 No. 46. In the Supreme Court of British Columbia. In the Full Court. •I I' No. 46. Certificate of B«gi8trar. Martha Maria Lang Between and The Corporation of the City of Victoria . Plaintiff . Defendant. I, the undersigned Registrar of tlie Supreme Court of British Columbia hereby certify that the foregoing printed and type-written document from page 1 to page 330 (inclusive) is a true and exact copy of all evidence, proceedings, aojudgments, decrees and orders had or made in the case of Martha Maria Lano- v. the Corporation of the City of Victoria and also of the written reasons given^'by the judges of the Court appealed from. Dated this 15th day of June, 1898. B. H. Tyrwhitt Drake, Registrar of the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Scftl. Hi',* i |n t^t f rii)5 Cottntil. ^1 No. 66 of 1898. On Appeal from British Columbia. BETWEEN THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF VICTORIA . . Appellant, AND MARTHA MARIA LANG . . Respondent. U" hi RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS. !' hXi ll t], .1. 7 HUBBARD & WHEELER, 13 aud 14, Abchurch Laue, E.G., for Appellant, S. V. BLAKE, 17, Victoria Street, S.W., for Respondent ^1 lumbia. Appellant, Respondent. DINGS. E.G., ?■ Appellant, r Respondent |n i\t Iri&j €0111101 Nos. 55 and 56 of 1898. ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. BETWEEN THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF VICTORIA Appellant, AND MARION ROSE PATTERSON (Administratrix of the goods and chattels of James Patterson, deceased) . Respondent. AND BETWEEN THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF VICTORIA Appellant, AND MARTHA MARIA LANG (Administratrix of the estate and effects of John Lang, deceased) . . . Respondent. EXHIBIT BOOK. INDEX. PART I. Being the Exhibits in Chronological Ordeb. No. DESCBIPTION OF DOCUMENT. Date. Exhibit Mark. Page. 1 a h Street Railway By-law, 1888, No. 168, being a reprint from British Columbia Gazette Street Railway Guarantee By-law No. J 74, being a reprint from British Columbia Gazette .... eth June, 1889 . 20th June, 1889 . W X 1 8 A I t h' V & S. INDEX. i No. DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT. Date. Exhibit Mark. Page. 3 Tramway Amendment By-law, 1889, No. 180, being a reprint from British Columbia Gazette .... Ist August, 1889 . Y 10 4 By-law No. 124, for extension of City limitfl, being a reprint from British Columbia Gazette .... 11th December, 1890 . Not marked. 11 6 Proclamation of the Lieutenant-Governor, extending City limits, being n reprint from British Columbia Gazette . 8th January, 1891 B 13 6 Letter, Deputy Commissioner Lands and Works to City Clerk 9th May, 1891 , I 14 7 Letter, T. P. West to City Engineer 3l8t May, 1891 . V 16 8 Private Bill Notice, being a reprint from British Columbia Gazette 21st January, 1892 Z 16 9 Estimates By-law, 1892, No. 1G2, and Schedule thereto .... 20th May, 1892 . Not marked. 16 10 Wards By-law, 1892, No. 103, being a reprint from British Columbia Gazette 10th June, 1892 . E 23 11 Letter of E. A. Wilmot, City Engineer, to City 15th June, 1892 . M 25 12 Letter, E. A. Wilmot to City . 29th June, 1892 . 26 13 Letter, E. A. Wilmot to Corporation 20th July, 1892 . D 26 14 Resolution of the City Council 20th June, 1892 . C 26 15 Report, E. A. Wilmc^ to City. 29th July, 1892 . N 27 IG Annual Report of the City for 1892 2nd January, 1893 P 27 17 Annual Report of the City for 1895 2nd January, 1896 Q 28 18 Street Railway Regulations By-law No. 205. Gazetted .... 3rd September, 1896 . P 30 19 Point EUice Bridge TrafEc Regulations, 1890, No. 200. Gazetted. 19th November, 1896 . G 32 20 Evidence of E. A. Wilmot, taken on Com- mission, in the action of Patterson v. Victoria (see pages 19-28 of Patterson Record, and pages 70-78 of Lang Record) 3rd March, 1897 . L 34 21 Notice to produce 14th May, 1897 . J 34 INDEX. tti e. No. 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 DESORIPTION OF DOCUMENT. Date. JSIotico to produce . • Examination of E. A. Wilmot, for discovery, in Lang t-. Victoria (see Record, pages 82-101) * Examination of Jolin Cox, for discovery, in Lang ». Victoria (see Record, pugos 20-10) Map8, Plans, Models, &c. Map of the City of Victoria (see IBook of Plans) Specification for Point EUicn Bridjro . Strain Sheet (see Book of Plans) Elevation of Bridge (see Book of Plans) . Plan of 150 foot truss (see Book of Plans) Plan of section of Bridge, drawn to scale (see Book of Plans) . (This Exhibit was marked R in the Patter- son case, and B in the Lang case.) Pencil sketch by Witness Mcintosh Sketch by Witness Atherly of broken rails ...... Wooden Model of Floor (transmitted to Registrar, hut not reproduced) *End3 of floor beam No. 7, containing hanger irons and lateral rods (trans- mitted to Registrar, but not repro- 17th May, 1897 . 26th July, 1897 . 26th August, 1897 duced) Exhibit Murk. K A III H2 F3 H4 B&R S Al T • These Exhibits were put in, in the action of Lang v. Victoria only. Page. 34 35 35 35 30 39 39 39 40 40 40 40 41 r fi Li if 1^ ' ■ ■..-?■,, p'- A 2 *^1: nk ii.il •-^ -^vi..^ IV IND&X. PART II. Being the Exhibits in Alphabetical Osdeb. Exhibit Mark. DESCRIPTION OP DOCUMENT. Date. Page. A Map of the City of Victoria 35 B Proclamation of the Lieut.-Goveriior, extending the City limits, being a reprint from British Columbia Gazette 8th January, 1891 13 B Plan of section of Bridge, drawn to scale (see " R " below, Book of Plans) ..... 40 C Resolution of the City Council .... 20th June, 1892 . 26 D Letter, E. A. AVilmot to the Corporation 20th July, 1892 . 26 E Wards By-law, 1892, No. 163, being a reprint from the British Columbia Gazette .... 16th June, 1892 . 23 F Street Railway Regulations By-law, No. 265. Gazetted 3rd September, 1896 . 30 G Point EUice Bridge Traffic Regulations, 1896, By-law No. 266. Gazetted .... 19th November, 1896 . 32 H (1) Specification for Point EUico Bridge 36 (2) Strain sheet (see Book of Plans) 39 (3) Elevation of Bridge (see Book of Plans) . 39 (4) Plan of 150 foot truss (see Book of Plans) • • • • 39 I Letter, Deputy Commissioner Lands and Works to City Clerk 9th May, 1891 . 14 J Notice to produce 14th May, 1897 . 34 K Notice to produce 17th May, 1897 . 34 L Evidence of E. A. Wilmot, taken on Commission, in the action of Patterson v. Victoria (see pages 19-28 of Patterson Record, and pages 70-78 of Lang Record) 3rd March, 1897 . 34 M Letter from E. A. Wilmot, the City Engineer, to City 15th June, 1892 . 25 N Letter from E. A. Wilmot to City 29th July, 1892 . 27 Report, E. A. Wilmot to City .... 29th June, 1892 . 26 P Annual Report of the City for 1892 2nd January, 1.893 27 Q Annual Report of the City for 189-5 2nd January, 1896 28 R Plan of section of Bridge, drawn to scale (also referred to as Exhibit B in Lang v. Victoria) {see Book of Plans) ...... 40 S Pencil Sketch by Witness Mcintosh 40 INDEX. Page. 35 13 40 26 26 23 30 32 36 39 3d 39 14 34 34 34 25 27 26 27 28 40 40 Exhibit Mark, DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT. V W X y z Al Date. Wooden Model of Floor (transmitted to Registrar, but not reproduced) Letter from T. P. West to City Engineer Street Railway By-law, 1888, No. 168, being reprint from the British Columbia Gazette Street Railway Guarantee By-law No. 174, being reprint from British Columbia Gazette . Tramway Amendment By-law, 1889, No. 186, being i-eprint from British Columbia Gazette . Private Bill Notice, being reprint from British Columbia Gazette Sketch made in Court, by Witness Atherly, of broken rails ....... By-law No. 124, .'or extension of City limits, being reprint from British Columbia Gazette . Estimates By-law, 1892, No. 162, and Schedule thereto .... 31st May, 1891 . 6th June, 1889 . 20th June, 1889 . 1st August, 1889 . 21st January, 1892 11th December, 1890 20th May, 1892 . Page. 41 15 1 8 10 15 40 11 16 The following Additional Exhibits were put in, in the Action of Lang v. Victoria. Exhibit Mark. DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT. 1 2 3 Date. Page. Examination of John Cox, for discovery, in Lang f . Victoria (see Record, pages 20-40) Examination of E. A. Wilmot, for discovery, in Lang V. Victoria (see Record, pages 82-101) Ends of floor beam No. 7, including hanger irons and lateral rods (transmitted to Registrar, but not reproduced) ...... 26th August, 1897 26th July, 1897 . 35 85 •;o ttiS %ii SsJ |n t^{ Irib Cfiotil Nos. 55 and 56 of 1898. ON APPEAL PKOM THE SUPEEME COURT OF BEITISH COLUMBIA. BETWEEN THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF VICTORIA Appellant, AND MARION ROSE PATTERSON (Administratrix of the goods and chattels of James Patterson, deceased) . Respondent. AND BETWEEN THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF VICTORIA Appellant, ARO MARTHA MARIA LANG (Administratrix of the estate and efifects of John Lang, deceased) . . . Responde. t. EXHIBITS. No. 1. Exhibit W The British Columbia Gazette. No. 168. By-law respecting Street Railways. [June 6th 1889.] Whereas, by certain articles of agreement bearing date the twentieth day of November, 1888, certain powers and privileges were granted by the Cor- poration of the City of Victoria to J. Douglas Warren, Andrew Gray, Thomas Shotbolt, Joseph Hunter, and David William Higgins, and which said agreement jQ is in the words and figures following : — Memorandum of agreement made and entered into this 20th day of November, between the Corporation of the City of Victoria (hereinafter called the Corpora- tion) of the first part, and J. Douglas Warren, Andrew Gray, Thomas Shotbolt, h B EXHIBITS. No. 1. Exhibit W. Street Rail- way By-law, 1888, No. 168, being a reprint from British Columbia Gazette, 6th Jure, 1889. EXHIBITS. No. 1. Exhibit W. Street Rail- way By-law. 1888, No. ' 168, being a reprint from British Colambia Gazette, 6th June, 1889 — continued. 'j ^ Joseph Hunter, and David William Higgins (hereinafter called the parties of the second part). Whereas the parties of the second part are desirou.s of forming a company for the purpose of conntructing, completing, and maintaining a proposed line of tramways, or street cars, in the said City of Victoria, and for making, doing, and building all the acts, deeds, works, and things necessary for the construction completion, and maintenance of such proposed line, and for that purpose have requested the corporation to grant them certain rights, powers, and privileges and to permit them, to make, do, and perform and build certain acts, deeds, things, and works which the corporation have agreed to do. Now these presents 10 witness that in consideration of the premises and of the covenants hereinafter contained, the corporation hereby covenant with the parties of the second part, and the parties of the second part hereby for themselves, jointly and severally, covenant Avith the corporation as follows; — 1. That it shall be lawful for the parties of the second part to lay a single or double line of rails in the centre of the streets n-entioned in the schedule hereto, lor the purpose of a tramway or a line of street cars, and for that purpose to enter into and upon said streets, and to do all necessary excavations and alterations upon and to grade said streets. 2. That it shall be lawful for the parties of the second part to erect poles 20 and to lay overhead wires along all or any of the said streets and roails of the municipality of the City of Victoria, for the supply of electricity for lighting and motor purposes, and for any other electrical purpose, and for the purpose of the erection ol such poles and the laying of such wires, to enter upon any such streets and roads, and to make such excavations, and to do such acts and things as may be necessary. '6. That it shall be lawful for the parties of the second part to run cars along and over any streets in the said schedule mentioned, and along and over any street or streets in which the parties of the second part may at any time have power to lay a line of tramAvay, and also that it shall be lawful for the 30 parries ol the second part to propel and run such cars either by electricity, gas, compressed air, or horse power. 4. That the parties of the second part shall have power to extend the said single or double tracks, and to erect poles lor lighting, .and motor and other electrical ])urposes, along any of the said streets or such other streets as may be deemed necessary from time to time, and for that purpose shall have power to make excavations upon and have the power of grading such streets, and all other rights and powers necessary for such extension. 5. That the parties of the second part shall have power to lay sidings along any of the said streets, and to take up and replace the said tracks, or any part 40 thereof, and to repair the same, and for thes-: purposes, or any of them, to enter upon the snid streets and to excavate and do any other act or thing necessary. 6. That the parties of the second part shall have the rights and powers necessary, and it shall be lawful for them to allow their cars and horses (^if the , same be used) to stand upon the said streets at certain points or places which shall be chosen by the parties of the second part as "stations," for such length ' f time as the parlies of the second part shall deetii fit. 3 7. That the parties of the second part shall have all other powers and rights necessar}' for the purpose of constructing such lines or trades, and of repairing, altering, and maintaining same, and for the purpose of erecting the said poles and of laying the said wires, and of repairing, altering, and maintaining same, all power and rights necessary for the erection of such buildings, and the construc- tion, alteration, maintenance, and repair of all or any other works necessary for the purpose of such tramway, and the transaction of any electrical business, and all powers and rights necessary for the purpose of running and conducting an efficient line of street cars or tramways. 10 8. That the parties of the second pai't shall (if they intend to construct the said tramways or lines) commence the construction of the said tracks or trar-way lines not later than the 1st day of October, 1889, and shall complete and have thoroughly equipped and in running order, for the carriage of passengers, fnur miles of such track or tramway lines by the 1st day of July, 1S90. 9. That the parties of the second part shall and will at all timco during the construction of said tracks and tramway lines, or the erection of such poles and the laying of such wires, and during any repair or alteration of the same, take due and proper precautions for the safety of foot and other passengers, and of horses and carriages passing along the said street", or any of them, on which such 20 construction, alteration, or repair is being performed. 10. That after the construction of such tracks or tramway lines, or after the completion of any repair, addition, or alteration to the same, and also after the erection of such poles and the laying of such wires, or any alteration, repair, or addition thereto, the parties of the second part shall and will repair and amend the said streets and leave them in as good a condition as they shall be in at the time of the commencement of such construction, alteration, repair, or amend- ment, so far as the same is compatible with the construction of such tracks or tramway lines, or the erection of snch poles and the laying of such wires ; such work ot reparation and amendment of the said streets to be done to the approval 80 of the city surveyor or some other competent person to be approved of by the corporation. 11. That the parties of the second part shall not, whilst they are running any cars over the said streets under the powers hereinbefore given them, charge more than a maximum fare of five cents per head for a single trip over their said lines, or any of them. 12. That the powers, permissions, authorities, rights, and privileges herein- before contained, or granted by the corporation to the parties of the second part for the term of fifty years from tlie time of the passing of any by-law authorising the execution of this contract, and that the obligations hereinbefore 40 imposed upon the parties of the second part, shall be binding upon them so long as they shall run the said tramways or cars under the powers hereinbefore given them. 13. That if the pax'ties of the second part shall, under the powers herein- before contained, commence the construction of said tracks or tramway lines, and shall not have four miles of the same thoroughly equipped and in running order for the carriage of passengers by the first day of July, 1890, it shall be lawful for the corporation to enter into and upon and take possession of all tracks and rails h B 2 EXHIBITS. No. 1. Exhibit W. Street Rail- way By-law, 1888, No. 168, being a reprint from British Columbia Gazette, 6th June, 1889 — continued. 4 if ■;i EXHIBITS. No. 1. Exhibit W. Street Rail- way By-law, 1888, No, 168, being a reprint from British Golnmbia Gazette, 6th June, 1889 — continued. laid, and all poles erected and Avires laid, by the parties of tiie second part, and thereupon the title of the parties of the second part to such tracks and rails, poles and wires, shall absolutely determine and cease, and the same shall become forfeited to the corjioration absolutely, any rule of law or equity to the contrary notwithstandiufT. But that upon the corporation exercising this last power, all the liabilities of the parties of the second part under this contract shall cease and the contract shall henceforth be null and void, and any by-law to be made touching this agreement may be repealed. 14. That nothing in this present contract contained shall be deemed to confer or be construed as conferring any exclusive privileges, rights, or powers on 10 or to the parties of the second part. 15. That all works necessary for constructing and laying down the several railway tracks shall be made in a substantial manner and according to the best modern practice, and under the supervision of the city surveyor, or such other officer as the council shall appoint for that purpose. 16. If horses are used the roadway between and within at least eighteen inches from and outside of each rail shall be paved or macadamized an>^ kept con- stantly in repair by the said parties of the second part, who shall als ; be bound to construct and keep in good repair crossings of a similar nature to those at present or that may be adopted by the corporation over the streets traversed by 20 said railway, at the intersection of every such railway track and crossings, whether at cross streets or otherwise. 17. The tracks shall conform to the grade of the said streets on which they are laid, as furnished by the city surveyor, or such other officer as aforesaid, and shall not in any way change or alter the same. 18. The location of the line of street railway in any of the streets shall not be made until the plans thereof, showing the position of the rails and other works in each street, shall have been submitted to and approved of by the city surveyor, or such other officer as aforesaid. 19. The city authorities shall have the right to take up the streets traversed 30 by the rails, either for the purpose of altering the grades thereof, constructing or repairing drains, or for laying down, removing, or repairing water or gas pipes, or electrical conduits of any kind, and for all other purposes within the province and privileges of the corporation, without being liable for any compensation or damage that may be occasioned to the working of the railway or to the works herein contemplated. 20. The rail to be employed by the said railway shall be the flat rail, such as is now generally used for the present system of electrical or horse-car railways. 21. Each car employed on the said railway shall be numbered. 4() 22. The cars shall run over the whole of the streets mentioned in the hereto on which the said tracks are laid, at least 15 hours in summer hours in winter on each dav, and at intervals of not less than 30 scheduL and 15 minutes 23. 24 The speed of the cars shall never exceed ten miles an hour. The conductor or other person in charge of each car shall announce to the passengers the names of the streets as the cars reach them. 40 25. The cars shall be used exclusively for the carriage of passengers. 26. The parties of the second part shall bo liable lor all daniagci arising out of the construction or operation of the works herein conteniplateil. 27. If the said parties of the second part neglect to ket'p the tracks, or roadway between same or crossings, between and on each side of the rails in good condition, or to have the necessary repairs made therein as yforesaid, the city surveyor, or other proper officer, shall give notice thereof requiring such repairs to be made forthwith, and if not made Avithin a reasonable time the said city surveyor, or other officer as aforesaid, may cause the repairs to be made and the 10 amount so expended by the corporation may be recovered against the said parties of the second part in any Court of competent jurisdiction. 28. That before breaking up, opening, or interfering with any of the said streets for the purpose of constructing the said railway, the said parties of the second part Avill give, or cause to be given, to the said corporation at least 30 days' notice of their intention, and that no more than 2,500 feet of the said streets shall be broken up or opened at any one time, and that when the work thereon shall have been commenced the same shall be proceeded with steadily and without intermission, and as rapidly as the same can be carried on, due regard being had to the proper and efficient construction of the same. 20 29. That during the construction of the said railways due and proper care shall be taken to leave sufficient space and crossings so that the traffic and travel on the said streets, and other streets intersecting same, shall not be uimecessarily impeded, and lights burning or watchmen provided and kept by the said parties of the second part, when and where required, to prevent accidents to the public. 30. That the tracks of said street railway, or railways, shall not exceed five feet in width and shall be flush with the street, so as to offer as little obstruction as possible to vehicles crossing the same, and that it shall and may be lawful to and for all and every persori and persons whomsoever to travel upon and use the 30 said tracks with their vehicles, loaded or empty, when and so often as tliey may please, provided they do not impede or interfere with the cars of the said parties of the second part running thereon, and subject at all times to the right of the said parties of the second part (their executors, administrators and assigns) to keep the said tracks with the said cars when meeting or overtaking any other vehicle thereon. 31. That the said parties of the second part shall and will at all times emplo}'- careful, sober, and civil agents, conductors, or drivers, to take charge of the cars upon the said railways, and that the said parties of the second j)art, and their agents, conductors, and drivers, shall and will from time to time, and at 40 all times during the continuance of this franchise and the exercise of the rights and privileges hereby conferred, operate the said railways and cause the same to be worked under such regulations as the Council of the City of Victoria may deem necessary and requisite for the protection of the persons and property of the public; and provided that such regulations shall not inlringe on the privi- leges irranted to the said parties of the second part hereby. ■V2. That the wire along which the trolleys run shall be at a distance of not less than eighteen feet above the street. EXHIBITS. Nor~i. Exhibit W. . Street Rail- way By-law, 1888, No. 168, being a reprint from British Columbia Gazette, 6th June, 1889 — continued. EXHIBITS. No. 1. Exhibit W. Street Rail- way By-law, 1888, No. 168, beiag a reprint from British Columbia Gazette, 6tli June, 1889 —continued. 33. That the parties of the second part, in addition to the powers herein- before expressed, mny lav, construct, and operate a single line of street railway over and alonp; any bridrje in the said city, the tracks of such railway on any bridge to be flush with the floorin^r of the same : Provided, however, that the said parties of the second part shall furnish and lay, at their own expense, a new flooring over the whole of any bridge so crossed ; and provided also, that the location of any such bridge lino, and the work done therein, and the material provided therefor, shall be to the satisfaction of the city surveyor, or such other officer as aforesaid. 34. That the poles used for supporting the electrical conduits shall not be 10 inferior in appearance to those, on the day of the date hereof, used in Govern- ment Street, in the City of Victoria, by the Telephone Company. In witness whereof the parties of the second part have hereto set their hands and seals, and the corporation has caused the corporate seal of the City of Victoria to be hereto affixed. Signed, sealed, and delivered in the presence of — (R. Sinclair) (Signed) (11. Sinclair) (D. \V. Hiorgins) (D. W. Higgnis) (Wm, Hammond) >> J. D. Warren, Andrew Gray, Thos. Shotbolt, Joseph Hunter, D. W. HiGGINS. 20 h r ", -I '! i' ■ ^ Schedule. Fort Street to City Boundary line, east. Yates Street to Fort Street Boundary line, east. Johnson Street (part). Pandora Street (all). Cook, North Park, and Pioneer Streets. Douglas Street to Northern Boundary of City limits. Hillside Avenue. Store, Discovery, and Constance Streets. Rock Bay Bridge to Work Street. Bridge Street. Government Street and James Bay Bridge. Belleville, St. Lawrence, Menzies, and Erie Streets to Outer Wharf. Simcoe Street to Beacon Hill Park. 30 hi y e (V le i\ jr )elO 1- ir of 20 30 Be it therefore enacted by the Municipftl Council of the City of Victoria, as follows : — 1. That the said aL Douglas Warren, Andrew Gray, D. W. Higgins, .Joseph Hunter, and Thomas Shotbolt have since assigned all their right, title and interest in and to the said charter or franchise, through the Honourable John Herbert Turner as trustee, to a company incorporated and known as the " National Electric Tramway and Lighting Company, Limited Liability." And whereas the said National Electric Tramway and Lighting Company, Limited Liability, is desirous of prosecuting to completion the works contem- plated and provided for by the said charter, or franchise, and have applied to the Corporation of the City of Victoria for aid, in order that the said works may be 20 speedily constructed and put in operation; And whereas it is expedient to grant the prayer of the said company for such aid by a guarantee of interest at the rate of five (5) per cent, per annum for a period of twenty years on the sum of forty thousand dollars ($40,000) lor a part of the undertaking contemplated by said company, namely, for the purpose of constructing and equipping a street tramway or railway ; And whereas it will require the sum of two thousand dollars ($2,000) to be raised annually by special rate for the payment of said interest, in the event of the said corporation being called upon to pay same. And whereas the amount of the whole I'atable property of the said Corpora- 80 tion of the City of Victoria, according to the last revised assessment roll, being for the year 1888, was $5,758,445, irrespective of any future increase of the ratable property of the municipality, and of any iioome in the nature of tolls, interest, or dividends from the work, or from any stock, shares, or interest in the work upon which the money so to be raised, or any part thereof, is intended to be invested, and also irrespective of any income from the temporary investment of the sinking fund or any part thereof; And whereas for paying the said interest (in case as aforesaid) it will require an equal annual special rate of one twenty-eighth of one per cent, on the dollar; 40 And whereas it is intended to reduce the general rate so that the said special rate shall not increase the total rate of taxation ; Therefore, be it enacted by the Mayor and Aldermen of the Corporation of the City of Victoria, as follows : — 1. That the Corporation of the City of Victoria shall guarantee interest at the rate of five per cent, per annum, on the bond of the said National Electric 9 Trftinway and Lighting Compftny, Limited Liability, to the amount of forty thousand dollars ($40,000) for a period of twenty years from the date of said guarantee, in manner following, namely : — 2. When it shall have been shown to the satisfiction of the Corporation of the City of Victoria that lil'tcen thousand dollars (^l^.OOO) of the capital stock of the said company has been paid up by the subscribers thereto and btmu fide expended in and towards tho construction of a street railway in said city by said coiii|)any, according to their charter, the said corjioration sliall guarantee interest at the rate of five per cent, per annum on a first issue of bonds of the said 10 company to the amount of the fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000), the interest so guaranteed to be paid half-yearly. S. When it shall have been shown to the sntisfaction of the said corporation that a further sum of fifteen thousand dollars ($15.0ii0) of the capital stock of the said company has been paid up by the share-holders thereof, and a sum of at least forty-five Miousand dollars ($45,000) has bec-n bond fi'le expended in and towards the consiruction of a street railway in said city by the said company, the said corporation shall further guarantee interest at the rate of live per centum per annum on a further issue of bonds of said company to the amount of filteen thousand dollars ($1.5,000) tor a period of twonty years from the date of such 20 guarantee, tlie inttrest so guaranteed to be ])ayable half-yearly. 4, When it shall have been shown to the satisfaction of the said corporation that a further sum often thousand dollars ($10,000) of the capital stock of the said company has been paid up bv the shareholders thereof, and that a sum of at lea>t seventy thousand dollars ($70,000) has been bona fide expended by the company in and towards the construction of a street railway aforesaid, the said corporation shall further guarantee interest at the rate of live per centum per aniunn on a further and final issue by the said company of bonds to the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for a period of twenty years from the date of such gnarantet', the interest so guaranteed to be payable half-yearly, the proceeds 30 of this last issiu; of bonds to be expended as aforesaid. i\ The liability of the said corporation shall not extend beyond the guarantee of iiitere>t at th ; rate of five per centum per annum as aforesaid. (5. 'I'he guaranlee is subject to the conditions that the said corporation shall have the right to appoint one or more auditors to examine the hooks of the said coni])any, and shall have the further right to a representative on the board of d rhetors ot the said company during the whole period of the continuance of this guaraiitee, such representative to be nominated by tlie t^aid corporation. 7. Any sum or sums of money so paid by the said corporation under its 40 guarantee or guarantees as aforesaid shall be a first charge upon all the propert}' and undertaking of the said eom[iany, subject to the said bonds, anil shall be a part of the consideriition for this guarantee, and shall be payable and paid to the said corporation by the said company before any dividend shall have been paid to the shareholders thereof. 8. The acceptance by said company of the benefits of this guarantee shall be conclii>ive evidence of the assent of said com[)anv to the foregoing clause of this by-law. A ■ C EXHIBITS. No. 2. Exhibit X. Siri'Ot I{iii:way Guarantee By-law No. 174, being a rcpiiiit Irum l)iiti. are considered the trunk roads referred to. 1 beg to call attention to the condition of the bridges over the large ravine on the Gorge and Burnside Roads. Both structures should be replaced by new ones at an early date. I have the honour to be Sir, ^ Your obedient serva;.i, (Sgd.) W S. Go.iV., W. J. Dowler, C.M.C. Dept. Comr. of Lands uud V\^oi Victoria, B.C. ^J'-^.rks. m 20 40 15 No. 7. Exhibit V. ,, „ T , ^. T. Victoria, B.C., Miiy 31st, 1891. Ma P. Leach, City Enormeer: Dear Sir,— Havin^ir occasion to walk over Point Ellice bridge yesterday and seeing It so much out of line I avaited the coining of a tram car; and the vibra- tion winch It caused was something terrible, to the two through spans, a set about examining the spans but found nothing (in my mind) to give sufficient cause, although spans are in poor adjustment by undue screwing in places. I was 10 about going away when I thought to take a look underneath the bridge, there I seen at once -.hat was wrong; centre piers of said spans are leanint the names of those persons who were within the extended limits, as contemplated by section 267 of the Municipal Act; to divide the municipality into wards prior to assessment ; to extend the by-laws of the corporation to the said extended limits; to deal with the assessment roll, 1891; to repeal the "Victoria Muiicipal Ordinance, 1867," and the "Victoria Municipal Amend- ment Ordinance, i869." Wellington J. Dowler, January 21, 1892. City Clerk. No. 8. Exhibit Z. Private Bill Notice, being a reprint from British Columbia Gazette, 21st Jan., 1892. 1^ I m I': 'I EXHIBITS. No. 9. Estimates Bv-law, 1892, No. 162, and Schedule ^ tbeieto, 20th May, 1892. 16 No. 9. [No exhibit mark.] (162) A By-law Respecting the Expenditure of" the Municipal Revenue for the year 1892. Whereas the Council have caused an estimate of the expenditure required for the service of the ; . • i f opy of which is hereunto annexed : Be it therefore en.a y the Council of the Corporation of the City of Victoria as follows : — Sec. 1. It shiill be lawful to pay out of corporate funds from time to time 10 the amounts which become due for services mentioned in the statement lettered A in the schedule hereto annexed. Sec. 2. It shall be lawful to pay out of corporate funds to each officer of the corporation a sum of money not exceeding each month the simi mentioned as allowable to each officer, as per detailed statement lettered B in the schedule hereto annexed, provided that the sum paid for each month's services is not in excess of the monthly sums named in the sai;l statement (unless the Council of the Corporation oth^Twise authorise) and provided, that before making the pay- ments the auditor has marked his initirJs against the total amount of the voucher, to certify to its correctness. 20 Sec. '^. It shall be lawful to pay out of corporate funds such sums of money as may be authorisi-d from time to time by resolution of the Council of the Corporation, for the services mentioned in the statement lettered C. D. G. in the schedule hereto annexed, provided, that before making the payment the auditor has marked his initials against the total amount of the voucher, to certify to its correctness, and that the Council have authorised the payment, and thsit the sums paid and authorised are not in the aggregate in excess of the sum a[)propriated by the Council for the service. Sec. 4. It shall be lawlul to pay out of corporate funds from time to time such sums of money as are payable to the representatives of the Corporation 30 mentioned in the schedule hereto annexed and lettered E. Provided that the sums so paid each month do not exceed in the aggregate the total amounts authorised by sub-sections GG and 67 of section 104 of the Municipal Act, 1892, and that the auditor has marked his initials against the total amount of the voucher to certify to its correctness. See. 0. It shall be lawful to pay out of corporate funds such sums of money as muy be authorised from time to time by the Council of the Corporation, for the services mentioned in the detailed statements lettered F and II, in the schedule hereto annexed, provided, that before making the payment the auditor has marked his initials against the total amount of the voucher to certify to *^ its correctness, and that the Council have authorised the payment, and that the sums paid and authorised are not in the aggregate in excess of the sum appro[)riated by the Council for the service. Sec. 6. All money paid for the purposes of the Corporation out of Municipal Revenue ibr the current year, or out of mcneys borrowed under authority of the Annual Loan By-Law, 1892, are hereby confirmed. 20 40 M 17 ^nd totL '^^^ °®°''' '*^^'^. *^^ ^"*^^*°"' ^^^«^^^d to in this by-law, shall mean Courld/ t^Wrb"ein^' "^ "^^"'^ '" ^'^ *^""°'"^ '^^" ^'^^ ^^"'^'P^^ has bin emlt^ci^ ml^'Tf"^ 'v P"'' *^"* °^ ^^''P'^''^*^ ^""'^'^ *« '-^"y person who nas Deen employed upon the city water works or upon the streets brid^rpo buddings or sidewulksof the dty, and who has Kft tiie .Lnl, y of t rc^^^^n^Sfon' areto renoi^tnlf r '^'\Z"^'' comnnssioner; but the finance co.nmittee 10 after ^ payments to the Council at its fir.t recjular n.eeting there- 1892/''' ^' '^^'' ''^'■^''''' °"''^' ^' "^^""^ ^°' ""^^ P"''P"^^^ ^« ^h« " Estimates By-law, Passed the Municipal Council the eighteenth day of Mnv ISO) Reconsidered and finally passed the Council the twentieth' day of Maj-, EXniBITS. Ko. 9. Kstiiii.ittis B}'-law, 1892, Xo. 1 (i2, and Suhediild tliuift'i, 20th iMav. 18;l2 — continued. <>f 1892 z.s. Wellington J. Dowler, C.M.C. Robert Beavex, Mayor. 1892. ,,p,,. , ,,, Sc-hednlotoBv-lauMfio. Estimate. 20 Estimates of Revenues and Receipts of ti.e City of Victoria, B.C., for the year ending 31st Decerr.bir, 1892. [For details see oru/ina/.'] Q„. „,, . Estimates of Expenditure. bummary of the estnnated expenditure of ihe year ending .31st December, 1892. Page. S US .^ SERVICE. 30 3 5 8 10 10 II 11 11 A B C D E F G H 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Amount. City debt Civic salaries . City institutions m:nntenance Education ^lunicipr.l council Buiidin,,»'s and surveys Streets, bridges -.nd'sidewalks Miscellaneous expenditure Total 9 7, 2 S3 98 75,377 50 80,5(i2 UO 25,500 00 3,800 00 7,2.^.0 00 25,000 00 $335,233 48 D EXHIBITS. NoTg. Estimates By-law, 1892, No. 1G2, and Sclicdule thereto, 20th May, 1892 — continued. 18 Schedule. Estimates of Expenditure of the Corporation of the City of Victoria, from January 1st to 31st December, 1892. 1.— City Debt. To be voted per Statement (A) . . $97,283.98 Page. No. of Vote. A :, Estimated for Service ending 3l8t Dec, 1892. Total. 4 5 5 1 2 3 Interest . . . . Sinking fund ..... Brokerage and exchange . $67,843 73 28,140 25 1,300 00 $97,283 98 . ■ 10 >1 wv i'^ Sorvine. Details. Vote No. 1. — Interest. 12 months' interest on Waterworks Loan of 1874, payable 1st April and 1st Oct., $92,500.00 at 7 per cent. ....... 12 months' interest on Waterworks Loan of 1875, payable 20th May and 20th November, $50,000.00 at 7 per cent 12 months' interest on Waterworks Loan of 1877, payable 2nd January and 2nd July, $20,000.00 at 8 per cent. ...... 12 months' interest on Waterworks Loan of 1886, payable 1st April and 1st October, $75,000 at 5 per cent. ...... 12 months' interest on Waterworks Loan of 1888, payable 25th February and 25th August, $.'0,000.00 at 5 per cent 12 months' interest on Waterworks Loan of 1889, payable 1st August, $6u,000.00 at 5 per cent. 12 months' interest on Waterworks Loan of 1889, payable 1st August, $70,000.00 at 5 per cent. To be Voted. 6,475 00 3,500 00 1,600 00 3,750 00 1,000 00 3,000 00 3,500 00 Total. 80 19 Service. To bo Voted. Total. 10 20 30 12 12 12 10 12 12 12 12 12 12 20 12 80 12 12 12 12 40 months' interest on Corporation Loan of 1878 payable 20th June and 20th December, $20,000 at 7 per cent. • . . . . months' interest on Public Lighting Loan of 1885, payable 21st April and 21st October, $16,000 at 6 per cent months' interest on Drainage Loan of 1885,' payable 1st April and 1st October, $5,000 at 6 per cent months' interest on Streets and Bridge Loan of 188(J, payable 1st April and 1st October, $50,000 at 5 per cent months' interest on Johnson Street Sewer" Loan of 1888, payable 25th February and 25th August, SoO.OoO at 5 per cent. ' . months' interest on Streets, Bridges and Cemetery Loan of 1880, payable 28th June, $45,000 at 5 per cent months' interest on Pleasure Grounds Loan of 1889, payable 1st August, $25,000 at 5 per ceiit ^ months' intorest on Fire Department Loan of 1889, payable jst August, $15,(j00 at 5 per cent. • . , . . mouths' interest on City ITull Addition Loan of 1890, payable 18th March, $^5,000 at 5 per months' interest on Cemetery Loan of "l89o' payable 18th March, $12,500 at 5 per cent. . months' niterest on Flour Jlill Bonus of 1891, payable 1st of January and 1st July, $10,000 at 5 per cent months' interest on Sewerage Loan of 1890 payable 20th May and 2( th November, £61,600 at 4 per cent., £2,464 84.85 per £ . months' interest on Public Market Site Loan of 18SH), payable 24th June and 24th December, $45,000 at 4-^ per cent months' interest on I'ublic Market Bu'ildin'^ Loan of 18!)a payable 24fh June and 24th December, $55,000 at 4.^ per cent. 1,400 00 960 00 300 00 2,500 00 1,600 00 2,250 00 1,250 00 750 00 1,750 00 625 00 500 00 11,950 40 2,025 00 2.470 00 EXHIBITS. No. 9. Estirantcs ' By-law, 1892, No. 1G2, and 8cliedulo thereto, 20th May, 1892 — coiUinued. D 2 20 1 '"i. ■r^. i» EXHIBITS. Estimates By-law, 1892, No. 162, and Scliedale thereto, 20th Mtty, 1892 — continued. Service. To be Voted. 12 months' interest on Crematory Loan of 1890, payable 24th December, $10,000 at 5 per cent. 12 months' interest on Agricultural Association Loan of 1891, payable 2;^rcl June and 23rd December, $25,0(iO at 5 per cent, . 8 month.s' interest on Loan City of Victoria Act, 1892, §220,000 at 5 per cent. Interest under Annual Loan By-Law, 1892 . 6 months' interest on advance on Market Bonds by Messrs. li. Ward & Co., $85,000 at 4 per cent. Total. Vote No. 2.- -Sinking Funds. Annual payment on $100,000 Waterworks Loan of 1874 . . . . $50,000 Waterworks Loan, 1875 $20,000 „ ., 1877 $75.UOO „ „ 1886 $iO,000 „ „ 1888 $70,000 „ „ 1889 $60,u00 „ „ 18K9 $20,000 Corporation Loan, 1878 $1(5,000 Public Lighting Loan 1J<85 $5.0i'0 Drainage Loan, 1885 $50,000 Streets and Bridge Loan 1886 . $30,000 Johnson Street Sewer Loan, 1888 . $45,000 Streets, Bridges and Cemetery Loan, 1889 $25,000 Pleasure Grounds Loan, 18S9 . $15,000 Fire Department Loan 1889 . $35,000 City Hall Addition Lo.-in, 1890 . $12,500 Cemetery Loan, 1890 $10,000 Flour Mill Bonus Loan 1891 . i> 3,335 00 2,795 00 610 00 L557 00 266 00 1,42S 00 1,225 00 830 00 696 00 186 00 444 00 398 00 919 00 510 00 306 00 735 67 262 75 10 67,283 98 80 40 \ 10 20 21 Service. Annual payment on .$300,000 Sewerage Loan, 1890 » » $45,000 Public Market Site Loan, 1890 . . . . » » $55,000 Public Market Buiklincr Loan, 1890 . „ $10,000 Crematory Loan, 1890 „ $25,000 Agricultural Associa- tion Loan, 1891 . Semi-annual payment on Loan City of Victoria Act 10 1892 ....... 1 Amount of interest to accrue from the investment of all Sinking Funds Vote No. .3. — Brokerage and Exchr.nge. ^Brokerage on Market Bonds, 1 percent, on $85,000 20 Bank of British North America, London, paying coupons Exchange on draft for interest remittances . Total To bo Voted. .371 78 2,659 65 398 90 487 62 21011 686 00 2,308 00 4,614 77 850 00 100 00 350 00 Total. 28,140 25 1,300 00 $97,283 98 EXHIBITS. No. 9, Kstimates By-law, 1892, No. 1C2, and Subednle thereto, 20th Jlay, 1892 — continued. 30 IL — Civic Salaries. To be voted per Statement (B) . [^For details see original.] . $75,377.50. 40 30 II L — City Institutions — (Maintenance). To be voted per Statemep . C . . . .$80,562.00. [For details see original.] EXHIBITS. No. 9. Estimatoii By-law, 1892, No, 1G2, and Schedule thereto, 20th May, 1892 — continued. 22 IV. — Pxlucation. To be voted per Stntcment D . . . \_For details sec original.'] V. — Municipal Council. To be voted per Statement E [For details see original.^ $25,.'j00.00. . 11)3,800.00. ti VI. — Buildings and Surveys. To be voted per Statement F , . , [For details see original.'] . $7,250.00. VII. — Streets, Bridges and Sidewalks. To be voted by Statement G . . . . $25,000.00. 10 No. of Vote. G Estimate for service ending 31 Dec, 1892. Total. 1 1 39 For all purposes i 1 $25,000 00 $25,000 00 VIII. — Miscellaneous Expenditure. To be voted per Statement H . . . . $20,460.00. [For details see original.'] f 23 No. 10. Exhibit K. The British Columbiii Gnzette. [Juno 16th 1892.] (103.) A By-law To repeal the " Wards By-Law, 18!)0," to divide the City of Victoria into Wards, and to define their boundaries. Whereas, under and by virtue of section 18 of the "City of Victoria Act, 1892," it is enacted that it shall be lawful for the Council, prior to levying an 10 assessment ibr the year 1892, to divide the municipality into wards in such a manner as the Council shall determine, und to define the boundaries of such wards in a by-law to be passed for that purpose; Be it therefore enacted by the Miuiicipal Council of the Corporation of the City of Victoria as follows: — (1.) The "AVards By-Law, 1890," is hereby repealed. (2.) The ^lunicipality of the Corporation of the City of Victoria shall be divided into three wards, namely, North Ward, Central Ward and South Ward. (3.) The said North Ward shall consist of that portion of land lying within the said nnniicipality contained within the following boundaries: commencing 20 at the Avater'.s edge of Victoria Harbour, where it is intersected by the southern boundary of lot loO; thence easterly along the said southern boundary of lot 130 to the centre of Store Street; thence southerly along the centre of Store Street to Cormorant Street ; thence easterly along the centre of Cormorant Street to Government; thence southerly along the centre of Government Street to Pandora Aveime; thence along the centre of Pandora Avenue and North Pandora Sti'eet easterly to Harrison Street, and along the north boimdaries of Blocks 35, 34 and 32a, and across Blocks 81, 30 and 29, following the north line of Section 74 easterly to Cadboro I'ay Road ; thence along the centre of Oak Bay Avenue easterly to the eastern limits or boundary of the City; thence following 20 the eastern boundary of the city as laid down in the City of Victoria Act, 1892, northerly and the north boundaries westerb '<■ the Victoria Arm; thence along the shore of the Victoria Arm and Victoria Harbour, southerly, to the place of beginning. Alio all that portion of the City known as Victoria West, and more particu- larly described as follows: Commencing at a point where the centre of Arm Street intersects the southern shore of the Victoria Arm; thence southerly along the centre of Arm Street to the centre of the Craigflower Road; thence easterly along the centre of Craigflower Road to the centre of Morgan Road; thence southerly along the centre of ^lorgan lioad to the north-west corner of section 32 ; 40 thence along the western boundary line of Section 32 to the shore of Victoria Harbour; thence along the shore lines of Victoria Harbour and Victoria Arm, and the Straits of Juan de Fuca (including all wharves, jetties and buildings along the said shore lines and also including Point EUice Bridge) to the point of conunencemcnt. (4.) The said Central Ward shall consist of that portion of land within the said municipality contained within the following boundaries, namely: dirn- menci'ig at the water's edge of the Victoria Harbour, where intersected by the EXHIBITS. No. 10. Exhibit E. Wiirds liy- Inw, 1892, No. 163, being a I'i'priiil from British (Columbia Uiizctto, Kith Juno, 1892. 24 -lit' f'l m -2, to the centre of Oak liay Avenue ; thence westerly along the centre of Oak Bay Avenue to 10 Cadboro Bay Road, and along the northern boundary of Section 74 across Blocks 29, 30 and 31, and along the northern boundary of Blocks 32a, 34 and 35 to North l^andora Street; thence following the centre of North Pandora Street and Pandora Avenue westerly to Government Street; thence along the centre of Government Street nortlierly to the centre of Cormorant Srre' thence Avesterly along the centre of Cormorant Street to Store Street; th along the centre of Store Street northerly to where it is intersected by the s boundary of Lot 130; thence westerly along the said south boundary of Lot 130 to the water's edge of Victoria Harbour, and following along the shore of the Victoria Harbour southerly to the place of begitming. 20 (5.) The said south ward shall consist of that port'on of land Avithin the said municipality contained within the following boundaries, namely : Com- mencing at the water's edge of the Victoria Harbour where intersected by the north boundary of the Customs House property ; thence along the said north boundary of the Customs House property easterly to the centre of Wharf Street; thence northerly along the centre of Wharf Street to the centre of Fort Street ; thence easterly along the centre of Fort Street to the north-n'est corner of Block 24 of the Fairfield estate; thence following the north line of Blocks 24, 25, 42, 43, GO, 61 and 7G, of the aforesaid estate, and along the south of the boundary of section 74 to and along the north boundary of seittion C8 to the eastern limits 30 or boundary of the City ; thence southerly, following the easterly limits of the City as laid down in the " City of Victoria Act, 1892," to the shore of Foul Bay, Straits of Juan de Fuca; thence follownig the shores of Foul Bay, Uoss Bay, and of the said Straits of Juan de Fuca westerly, and the shore of Victoria Harbour easterly and nortlurly to the place of beginning. (6.) This by-law may be cited as the " Wards By-Law, 1892." Passed the Municipal Council the 7th day of June, 1892. Reconsidered and finally passed the Council the 8th day of June, 1892. Returned by the mayor in an amended form, under authority of section 22 of the Municipal Act, 1892, for reconsideration by the Council, 28th June, 1892. 40 Reconsidered and passed in the amended form by the Council, 28th June, 1892. Robert Beavent, > L.S. 5 "Wellington J. Dowler, Mayor. CMC. 25 Notice. p.. The above is a true copy of a hyhw passed by the Municipal Council of the City of Victoria on the 28th day of Juno, 18i)/, and all pe -sons a c he robv required to take notice that anyone desirous of applvinc. to have sich Lhw or any part thereof quashed, must make his applliaiion" for t^t Tr osj o the Supreme Court.wuhm one month next after thi publication of thi K v hi he British Columbia Gazette, or he will be too lato ti be heard on that behalf. Wellington J. Dowler, C.M.O. KXHIBIT8. No. 10. Kxhibit E. Wards By- law, 1892, No. 1(J3, being a reprint from Hritish Columbia Gazette, 1 6tli Jnne, 1892 — continued. 10 • No. 11. Exhibit M. Report of Mr. VVilmot of loth June, 1892. h;= w u- .u at it, 9^y ^^*'^'' Victoria, B.C., 16th June, 1892. Wis Worship the Mayor and Board of Aldermen : Gentlemen,-! have the honour to report that on Thursday last one of the floorbeams of Point Elhce Br dge was broken off; the cause whs a heavily loaded tramcar and the rotten condition of the beam. ^ The broken beam was taken out, and a sound piece of timber of similar dimensions, viz : 33" x 12" x 16", substituted the' work of repairin^^ was 20 completed on Monday last. On examination it was found that iight of The remaininc: floor beams were more or less affected by wet and dry rot, most of them to such an extent as to render the bridge unsafe for loaded traincars or heavy ivaggon trathc. I would strongly recommend that the impaired floor beams be replaced as soon as practicable. Ir.n beams would be the most endurable, and I consider cheapest in the long run, approximate cost $1,500.00 (fifteen hundred dollars) serviceable for say titty or seventy-hve years. Wood floor beams would cost, approximately, $560.00 (five hundred and sixty dollars) serviceable for say six to eleven years. I have the honour to be, Gentlemen, Your obedient servant, (Sgd.) E. A. WiLMOT. No. 11, Exhibit M. Letter of E. A. Wilraot City Engi- neer, to City, I5th Jane, 1892. EXHIBITS. No. 12. Exhibit 0. Letter, E.A.WUmot to City, 29i>i Jane, 1892. m No. 12. Exhibit 0. Report of Mr. Wilmot of 29th June, 1892. Victoria, B.C., June 29, 1892. To His Worship the Mayor and Board of Aldermen : Gentlemen : I beoj to call your attentioh to the fact that tram cars and heavily loaded wagons still cross Point Ellice Bridge, although that structure was reported unsafe for such traffic at a meeting of the council of the 15th inst., and a notice to the same effect published in one of the daily newspapers. If the bvidge is not closed at once a serious accident is liable to occur at any lo moment as the bridge is in a decidedly dangerous condition. I have the honour to be, Gentlemen, Your obedient servant, (Sgd.) E. A. Wilmot, City Engineer. No. 13. Exhibit D. Letter, E. A. 'Wilmot to corporation, 20tii July, 1892. /ffll''*? No. U. j^jll^j ^ Exhibit C. 11 BeaolDtion of the Citj* Council, iwd[y 20th Jnne, .'""^ 1892. ! S * July ? No. 13. Exhibit D. July 20th, 1892. To -lis Worship the Mayor and Board of Aldermen : 30 Gentlemen : — As the old planking v/hich formed the flooring of Point Ellice bridge has been taken up, and as it is not suitable for corporation works, and would entail considerable expense to have it removed and stored, I respectfully suggest that it be sold by the corporation at the bridge. Approximate quantity about 15,000 feet, B.M. I have the honour to be Your obedient servant, (Sd.) E. A. Wilmot, City Surveyor. No. 14. Exhibit C. Meeting of Council. Held 30th June,* 1892. E. A. Wilmot, Oity Surveyor — Suggesting that the timbers removed from Point Ellice Bridge during repairs be sold to the highest tender therefor. Approximate quantity, 15,000 feet, B.M. Moved by Aid. Styles and seconded by Aid. McKilUcan that the communica- tion bo received, the recommendation therein contained be carried out and that tenders be called for the lumber. Carried. 30 ,h i 27 No. 15. EXHIBITS. 30 Exhibit N. No. 15. City Hall, Victoria, B.C., 29th July, 1892. S'^'^rt'^X His Worship the Mayor, and Board of Aldermen : WUmo't to Gentlemen, — I have the honour to report that the work of repairing Point city, ElHce Bridge was completed on Friday the 22nd inst. 29th July, The work that was done consisted of replacing nine cross floor beams ^8^2. . 33 feet x 12" x 16", renewing the whole of the floor planking, putting in some new posts under the trestle approach, scraping and painting the cylinder piers 10 between high and low water where they were encrusted with barnicles, «&;c., and tightening up all the rods. Besides the above, six of the cylinder piers were sounded, which was done by boring into them with an auger, the timbers inside the cylinders were found to be perfectly sound but the material composing the concrete around the piles, inside the cylinders was in a loose state. As the floor joists of the bridge as originally constructed were not suffi- ciently strong, or stiff enough to be safely used for tramcar traffic. The offer of the Tramway Company to put in, at their own expense, longi- tudinal stringers 10 x 12 under each rail for the whole length of the bridge was 20 accepted. These stringers besides strengthening the bridge, prevent, on account of their rigidity, the undulating moticr. that was formerly produced by the passage of the tram cars, and which subjected the bridge to an unnecessarily severe strain. When the repairs were first undertaken it was contemplated only to renew right cross floor beams, but after the planking was removed it was found to be in such a worn condition that it was deemed more economical to renew it than place it back again. The total cost of repairs and renewals amounts to about $1,620 exclusive of 80 the work done by the Tramway Company. I have tb': honour to be, Gentlemen, Your obedient servant, (Sd) E. A. WiLMOT, City Surveyor. 40 No. 16. Exhibit P. Annual Report of the Corporation for the voar 1892. [E.nracl from Annual Report of the City for 1892 (page 81).] Report of the Street Committee. • « * « • Repairing Bridges. • « » * « No. 16. Exhibit P. Annnal Report of the City for 1892, 2nd Jan., 189S. h E 2 RECORD. No. 16. Exhibit P. Annual Report of the City tor 18!)2, 2nd Jan., 1893 —contitmed. No. 17. Exhibit Q. Annnal Report of the City for 1895, 2Dd Jan., 1896. 28 Point EUice Bridge. The dangerous condition of this bridge was cl omonstrated by the breaking of one of the cross beams under the weight of a heavy loaded tramcar, when what might have been a serious accident was narrowly escaped. A thorough examination of the bridge was made, the result of which wias that eight other floor beams were found to be unsafe. The work of repairing the bridge consisted of replacing cross floor beams, renewing the whole of the planking, and putting in some new posts under the trestle approach. The tramway company put in at their own expense longi- tudinal stringers 10 x 12 under each rail for the whole length of the bridge. 10 : . No. 17. Exhibit Q. Annual Report of the Corporation for the year 1895. [Extracts from Annual Report of the Ciiy for 1895. Pages 143-4.] Report of Street Committee. Victoria, B.C. • ' ' '• January 2nd, 1896. To His Worship the Mayor and Board of Aldermen. Gentlemen, We have the honour to submit our annual report of the expenditure on 20 streets, bridges and sidewalks for the year 1895 divided into the following statements : A. Showing cost of box and vitrified pipe drains laid on the several streets in each ward. B. Showing amount and cost of material and labour on new sidewalks and general re[)airs by day work in all wards, also location and cost of new sidewalks laid by contract in each ward. C. Expenditure on repairs to bridges by day work and erection of Gorge Road Bridge by contract, also cost of street sprinkling. D. Showing ward distributions of labour and material on streets, bridges, 30 and sidewalks — general accounts being divided into each ward by percentage. In conclusion we would strongly recommend to the incoming council of 1896 the urgency of a continuance of the work already commenced by us, namely the macadamising of the main thoroughfare leading to the outer wharf, also Douglas Street to the city limits. Your committee have the honour to be gentlemen Your obedient servants Wm. Humphrey A. J. McLellan John Hall *0 29 Statentent A. [JPbr details see original.l Statement B. [For deta'>'h see original.'] 10 Statement C. Bridge work planking and rebuilding. Point EUice Bridge replanking. Labour Lumber Hardware Hauling [^For further details see originaLI \Page UO of RepwUl $101.25 189.15 40.00 2.50 $332.90 Statement D. [For details '•ee original,^ EXHIBITS. No. 17. Exhibit Q. Annual Report of the City for 1895, 2nd Jan., 1896 •"Continued. [Extract from pages \%2-'6 of Annual Reportl Report of City Carpenter. a* Victoria, B.C. January 2nd 1896. E. A. Wilmot, City Engineer. Sir, In compliance with your request I beg to subm' herewith the following report relative to sidewalks, water tanks and bridg. • * « « • Report on bridges in Victoria 1895. Hill Side Avenue Bridge. — In good condition. Bridge on Landsdowne Road. — In good condition. 30 Bridge on King's Road near Third Street.— Good. First and second bridges on George Road. — In good order. Beta Street Bridge. — In good condition. Delta Street Bridge — In bad condition ; under work bad. Bridge on north end of Bridge Street. — In good order. Point Eilice Bridge -In good condition. EXHIBITS. No. 17. Exhibit Q. Annnal Report of tlic City for 1895, Snd Jan., 1896 — continued. Rock Bay Bridge. — This bridge was examined by city carpenter on December iJ8th. Went underneath in a boat and examined the piles and found those in south end of the bridge in good condition 'ith no signs of any worms. In north end found some barnacles around the piles but nothing in a bad state. The Swing Bridge is a little out of order but not dangerous. This was previously mentioned to the engineer. The bridge generally is in good condition. Three bridges at Ross J3ay examined on December 27th :*nd found in good condition. James Bay Bridge was examined on December 26th. Went underneath in a 10 boat through the piers and found the timber work in good condition. The floor 01 the bridge is not very good and will have to be attended to before it becomes dangerous. The City landing at foot of Yates Street in good order. This is to certify that the above-mentioned bridges are all in general good order and have been kept so during the past year ending 1895. John Cox, City Carpenter. No. 18. Exhibit F. Street Railway Begalations By-law No. 265, Gazetted, 3rd Sept., 1896. i^i^ No. 18. Exhibit F (265) 20 Regulations for the Working of Street Railways in the City of Victoria. Whereas the Council of the City of Victoria deem it necessary and requisite for the protection of the persons and property ot the public that the regulations hereinafter contained shall be made for operating street railways in the City of Victoria : Therefore the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the City of Victoria enacts as follows : 1. No car weighing with its passengers more; than eight and one-half tons shall be allowed to cross the James Bay Bridge or the Rock Bay Bridge, and no such car shall be permitted or suffei'ed to carry over either of the said bridges 80 more than 30 passengers at any one time. 2. No car shall be propelled at a higher rate of speed than four miles an hour when crossing any bridge or trestle work, and when on a bridge or trestle work no car shall approach closer to any other cur than 200 feet. 3. Should there be any foot passengers on any crossing before the car approaches the same, the car shall be stopped so as to pernr such passengers to cross. 4. Each car is to be supplied with a gong, which shall be sounded by the motorneer or the driver when the car approaches to within fifty feet of each crossing. -iO 5. The cars shall not be wilfully driven against any person or animal whilsi being upon or crossing any of the streets of the city. 6. No passenger shall be allowed to ride or travel on the roof of any car. :>i,j: ' 31 7. No Cur shall carry more passengers tlian the same can conveniently accommodate, and the number of passenpjers each car can accommodate shall be previously fixed and determined by the city engineer or surveyor, and indicated upon a card posted inside, and painted in plain figures on the letter board outside of each car. 8. The route through which each car has to run shall be conspicuously marked, affixed or indicated in letters on the outside of the car. 9. After sunset the cars shall be provided with coloured signal lights, on the front and rear of the roof, and the route shall be indicated in letters on such 10 lights. 10. Smoking shall only be allowed on the front platform of closed cars, and the rear seat and platform of open care. 11. No car shall be allowed to stop on or over a crossing, or in front of any intersecting streets, except to avoid a collision, or prevent danger to persons in the streets, or for other unavoidable reasons, and no cars shall be left or remain in the streets at any time, unless waiting for passengers. 12. When it shall be necessary to stop at the intersection of streets to receive or leave passengers, the car shall be stopped s as to leave the rear platform slightly over the last crossing. 20 13. Conductors or motorneers, or drivers shall bring the cars to a stop when passengers get on and oflP cars : Provided however, that the cars shall only be required to stop at public crossings, or intersections of public streets, or at such other regular stopping places as may be from time to time fixed by the company. 14. There shall be a conductor as well as a driver or motorneer on each car, except on such portions of the lines as may be hereafter determined by the corporation. 15. The cars shall be properly lighted. 16. The Consolidated Railway Company shall keep all its car tracks free 30 from ice and snow, and shall remove such ice and snow to any place that the city engineer or surveyor shall direct. The corporation may, at its option, remove the whole, or such part of any ice and snow from curb to curb, as it may see tit, from any street or part of a street, in which cars are running, including the snow from the roofs of houses, thrown or fallen into the streets, and that removed from the sidewalks into the streets, and the company shall pay one third of the cost thereof. 17. When necessary, in case of fire, the chief or person in charge of the fire department, or brigade, shall have the right to cut or pull down any wires of the company which obstruct the operations of the firemen, or to direct that they shall 40 be so cut or pulled down, and also to require the company to stop the running of its cars to or near to the building or buildings which may be on fire, and the corporation shall not be liable for any loss or damage thus caused. 18. The said company shall run its cars over the whole of the streets mentioned in the schedule to the agreement in the Act respecting the Victoria Electric Railway and Lighting Company, Limited, 57 Victoria chapter 63, Statutes of British Columbia, on which tracks are now laid, or may hereafter be laid, to the present city boundary lines on said streets. EXHIBITS. No,~18. Exhibit F. Street Railway Regalations By-law No. 265, Gazetted 8rd Sept., 1896 — continued. 32 EXHIBITS. No. 18. Exhibit F. Street Railway RegnlatioDS By-law No. 265, Gazetted Srd Sept., 1896 — continued. 19. On or before the 31st of March, 1897, the said company shall provide, to the satisfaction of the city engineer or surveyor, all its cars run on any of the said streets, with a guard, protector, or fender upon the front end of each car, which guard, protector, or fender shall extend at its foremost point as near to the road bed as shall be practicable, and shall be so constructed and adjusted that any person or object struck by any such car while in motion may be either raised from the ground by the said guard, protector, or fender, and carried along by the said car until the same can be stopped or be pushed from the track. 20. No person, when not in danger of injury, shall voluntarily get up on any such guard, protector, or fender attached to any car, as hereinbefore provided, 10 whether such car be standing still or in motion. 21. The said company, its successors and assigns, and its officials and servants shall conform to and fully carry out all the regulations and rules herein contained. 22. The said company, its successors and assigns, and its servants and officials shall conform to all such further and other regulations as the said council shall from time to time deem requisite or necessary to enact for the protection of the persons, or property of the public. 23. In case the said company shall fail at any time to comply with or contravene any of the conditions or obligations imposed upon it by these regula- tions, the said company shall be liable to and incur a penalty not exceeding 20 $50.00 (fifty dollars) for each and every such contravention of any of the said conditions or obligations, and the enforcement of this section shall devolve upon the members of the police force of the City. 24. These regulations may be cited as the " Street Railway Regulations By-law." Passed the Municipal Council the 2l8t day of August, 1896. Reconsidered, adopted and finally passed the council the 24th day of August, 1896. ©Robert Beaven, Wellington J. Dowler. Mayor, C.M.C. Gazette, Sept. 3rd, 1896. . - < 30 No. 19. Exhibit G. Point Ellice Bridge Traffic Regnlations, 1896, No. 266. Gazetted 19th Nov., 1896. No. 19. :; Exhibit G . '' ■ J (266) Regulations for the working of street railways on and across the wooden pile bridge at or near Point Ellice, in the City of Victoria, and for controlling the vehicular traffic on and across the said bridge. Whereas it is deemed necessary and requisite for the protection of the persons and property of the public that the regulations hereinafter contained shall be 40 made. 33 Therefore the Municipal Council of the Corpuratiou of the City of Victoria enacts as follows: — 1. No car weighing with its passengers more than eisht and one-half tons shall be allowed to be on or to cross the woodi^n ])ile l)ri(lge over the waters of the Victoria Arm at or near Point Elliee, in the City of Victoria, and no such car shall be permitted or suffered to contain or to carry over the said bridge more than thirty passengers at any one time. 2. No car shall be propelled at a higher rate of speed than four miles an hour Avhen crossing the said bridge, and when on the said bridge no car shall 10 approach closer to any other car than two hundri-d feet. 3. Each car shull be supplied with a gong, which shall be sounded by the motorneer or the driver when the ear npproaelies to widiin one hnndred feet of the said bridge, and also when approaching within eighty feet of the truss of the said bridge. 4. Two white posts shnll be erected by the Corporation of the City of Victoria under the superintendence of the city engineer, at a point on the said bridge (one on each side) about eighty feet west of the said truss, and two other white posts shall be erected by the said corporation, under smh superintendence as aforesaid, at a point on the said bridge (one on each side) about eighty feet east 20 of the said truss. 5. No car shall be propelled beyond either pair of white posts towards the said truss when any vehicle or team slifdl he appi'onching irom the opposite direction and be between the two pair of white posts. In all such cases such car shall be stopped until such vehicle or tenni shall have passed the said e:ir. 6> No vehicle or team shall be driven or taken beyond either pair of white posts when any car shall be approaching Irom tlie opposite direction and be between the two pairs of white posts, or waiting at or niiir the two other posts for a vehicle or team to pass. In all such cases such vehiele or team shall be stopped tuitil such car shall have passed the said vehicle or team. 30 7. No person shall ride or drive on or over the said bridge at a rate or pace faster thnn a walk. 8. If an}' person or company shall fail at any time to comply with or shall contravene any of these regulation, the said jiei'son or company shall be li d)le to and incur a penalty not exceeding S'O (liity dollars) lor I'aeh and eviiy non- compliance or contravention of any of these regulations or obligations, or in the event of non-pa)inent of anv such penalrv by any person ordered to pay the same, imprisoninent for any term not e\eeeilin'.>- one month. \). These regtdations may be cited as the '• Point Elliee Bridge Traffic Regulations, IS'JO." 40 Passed the Municipal Council the '2th day of November, 18!)6. Keconsid.rcd, adopted and finaily })assL'd the Comuil the 16th day of November, ISUG. KoBEiiT Beavkn, "Wellington J. Dowler, Mayor. Ls- 5 C.M.C. Gazette, November IDth, IrtDfi. EXI1IRIT8. No 19. Kxiiibit U. roiiit Kllice Itriiino TiaUIc K"(;i.lntion8, IhUG, No. I'GG. GiizeUrd 19tli Nor., 189G — conlinued. h 34 EXHIBITS. No. 20. Exhi'iit L. Kvidcnco of E. A. XN'ilmot, iu the action of Paiterson v. Victfirin, 3t(\ March, 1897. No. 21. Exhibit J. Kotice to produce, 14th May, 18J7. No 22. Exhibit K. Noiicu to prod ice, 17th .May, 1.8U7. No. 20. Exhibit L. Evidence of Mr. E. A. Wilmot before the Registrar on March 3rd, 1897. (See Victoria v. Patterson [Record pages 19-28 and Victoria v. Lang] Record pages 70-78.) No. 21. Exhibit J. Notice to Produce— 14th May, 1897. In the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Between 10 Marion R. Patterson, the administratrix of the goods and chattels of James T. Patterson, deceased . . . Plaintiff, and The Municipal Corporation of the City of Victoria . . Defendants. Tahe notice that you are hereby required to produce and show to the Court on the ti'ial of this action all correspondence between the City of Victoria and the Government of the Province of British Columbia in reference to the City taking over all trunk roads from the Province and all papers in connection with a Royal Commission, which papers and documents are referred to in the evidence of Frank Richards, given in the case of Gordon v. Victoria, on this 14th day of 20 May, 1897. Dated the 14th day of May, 1897. D. G. Macdonell, Of Rogers' Block, Hastings Street, Vancouver, B.C. Solicitor for the Plaintiff. To the above-named Defendants and to C. D. Mason. Esq., their solicitor. No. 22.^ Exhibit K. Notice to Produce— I? th May, 1897. 80 In the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Between Marion R. Patterson, the administratrix of the goods and chattels of James T. Patterson, deceased .... Tlainliff, and The JIunicipal Corporation of the City of Victoria . . . Defendants. Take notice that you are hereby required to produce and show to the Court on the trial of this action the Mayor's report, 28th January, 1891, resolutions and minutes of the Municipal Council of the City of Victoria for the year 1891 and ]S})2, all letters from W. S. Gore and Mr. Wilmot, city engineer, to the 40 Municipal Council of the City of Victoria, more especially those dated 13th May, 1891, June, 1892, and July, 1892, and all letters and instructions from the Municipal Corporation of the City of Victoria to the said Wilmot, more especially 35 those dated June and July, 1892, find nil b\e-la\vs of the said Corporation, more EXniRITS. . especially those dated 20th June, 1881), numbers 174 and 163. - Dated the 17th day ot May, 1897. 1). (1. Macdoxk.ll, Of Rogers' Block, Ilastin^us Street, Vancouver. B.C., Solicitor for the Plaintiff. To the above-named Defendants and to C. D. Mason, Esq., their solicitor. No. 22. Kxliibit K. ,, Not cu to pri'iiiR'c, ,"' I7ili Shiv, 18',)7 — continued ' 10 A'o. 23. Exhibit 2. [This exhibit was pat in^ in the action of Law] v. Victoria onlt/.] No. 23. KxiMiiiiiation <•! K. A. ^^'il not, for «lUc.ivcry, ia Lrtlij; t'. Victoria, Examination of E. A. "VVilmot, the city oiipfiiuer, before tlie Registrar, 2(iiii .July, on the 26th July, 1897 \_see pages 82-101 of iJecord in Victoria v. Lang.] *" No. 24. Exhibit 1. [_This exhibit was put in, in the action of Lany v. Victoria onlt,:} Examination of John Cox, the; city carpenter, before the Registrar [^see pages 20-40 of Record in Victoria r. Lang.l No. 24. KMiiiiiiinlion - o! J.iliii Cox, liii" discovery, ill Lull;; V. Vii'toii.1, 2() h Aug., I«'J7. SO No. 25. Exhibit A. Map of the City of Victoria. [See Book of Plans.] No. 25. Kxliibit A. .M-i|) nt' tlie Pi y of V.ctoria. F 2 36 ExniniTs. No. 26. Exhibit ill. i^[H>ciK('Htiun fo/ I'o-.iit Rllico Bridge. .^1 m '■ " ••" "•■ No. 20. Exhibit 11 No. 1. Specifications for n combination iron bridixe to bo built at Point Ellice on the road between I'lsciuirnanlt and Victoria, according to phms and specifications submitted by the .San Francisco Bridridge. The special dimensions in general and in detail are shown upon accom-20 panying strain sheets. All truss members in tension are constructed of iron, and wood is only used when in compression or under bi-nding strains. Wrought iron is used not only for tensile members but for all connections, except where in case of fracture of a casting, the safety of the bridge is in no way affected. Quidity of Material. All iron used in main members, shall be tough, fibrous rolled iron of an average ultimate resistance of 5G,000 lbs. per square inch, and showing a fibrous texture. All cast iron shall be of best quality gray iron, free from cinder, sand, blow 30 holes, or other imperfections. Timber shall be first quality, sound Douglas fir, free from large, loose or unsound knots or other imperft-ctions. All material in general shall be of best quality for its purpose. Workmanship and Connection. The chord bars shall be weldless, die forged eye bars. The holes for pins shall be bored truly, with no more than ^^ inch play, and all members for the same i)an('l must be of the same length within -^}^ inch. The beam hangers are square yokes bent around the pin to a perfect fit. The pins are all turned truly to gauge, and to fit pin holes in chord bars with not more than 3^2^ inch play, they are provided with wrought iron nuts. 3V The castings arc to bo of style shown on accompanying details, and of strength sufficient to resist any pressure that may come upon them. Whenever a pin passes through a casting of wrought iron connection, the latter must be machine bored to fit around pin. The shoes and bed plates are all to be of wrought iron. Expansion and Contraction. To provide for the expansion and contraction of bridge caused by variation in temperature, under one end of each bridge shall be placed wrought iron, machine turned expansion rollers. 10 At this end of bridge the bottom of shoes and top of bed plate shall be placed. The bed plates shall have an angle iron rivetted along their sides to prevent motion of the rollers at right angles to the line of the bridge. Lateral Sway Bracing. The lateral rods, both top and bottom, shall run diagonally across the bridge, two to each panel. Vertical Sway Bracing. In the 160 feet span the vertical posts shall be sway braced, as shown on plan, with iron sway rods crossing each other and connected to the top pins with bent eyes. All lateral and intermediate brace beams shall reach 20 horizontally across the bridge, and be connected lo pins by means of wrought iron angle nuts not less than ^ inch thick. In the 120 foot spans the vertical posts shall be sway braced as shown on plans. The rods shall pass horizontally across the bridge, and cast iron frames shall be provided for the sway braces, which shall be bolted at intersection with f inch screw bolts. Choi'd Covering. To prevent water from lodging on the top chord or joints of top chord or batter posts, these members for their entire length shall be covered with sheets of No. 26 galvanised iron, laid continuously and lapping not less than three inches at joints. They shall be firmly nailed with galvanised nails. To prevent decay, 80 galvanised iron shall also be inserted at intersection of vertical sway braces of the 120-ft. spans. Screw Ends. All screw ends shall have United States standard threads, and all screw ends of main truss members, viz., counter rods, lateral rods and stirrups, shall be enlarged by upsetting so that the area of a section through the root of the thread is at least equal to full section of the rod. Floor of Entii'e Bridge. The road planking is to be laid diagonally and firmly spiked to joists with 6 inch spike. 40 A hub plank, sheep guard and felloe guard is to extend full length of bridge on each side. h F 3 EXniBITS. No. 26. Exhibit HI. Specification for Point Kllioo Bridge — continued. EXHIBITS. No. 20. Exhibit HI. Specification for Point Ellico Bridge •^continued. 38 Tlio inside lines Bhnll pass one another, to have full bearing on caps and floor beams, and to be spiked to same and to eaeh other with G inch cut spikes. To prevent joists from worpin^ there shall bo spiked in tho centre of each panel and between bents a 2 inch by 8 inch plank, projecting on either side to afford also a support to the rail posts. The rail posts shall be bolted to the out- side line of joists with two ^ inch screw bolts. Foundations. All piers are of the style known as Cushing's patent cylinder pier, having a pile foundation. The j)iles in the three centre piers shall consist of clusters of 10 inch by 10 10 inch best Douj-las fir timbers, nine to each cluster. The piles under the end piers shall be of 10 inch by 10 inch timbers, four to each cluster. All piles shall be driven to a firm, anrl stable foundation with a hammer weighing not less than 2,00(' pounds. Before being driven the piles shall be properly banded and shod if fv and necessary. The outside line of joists shall abut against one another and be drift bolted to floor beains and caps with ^ inch bolts. The cylinders for piers numbers 2, 3 and 4 are about 4 feet in diameter (plates 12 feet long), spaced 20 feet, centre to centre, filled with concrete and 20 constructed as hereinafter specified. The cylinders for piers Nos. 1 and 6 are about 2^ feet in diameter, and let into the ground 2 feet. Construction of Tubes, Sheets of \ inch boiler iron shall be bent to a true circle lapping 2^ inches at longitudinal seam with ^ inch boiler rivets, spaced 6 inches apart. Sections thus made are again joined together by being lapped 2\ inches over one another and rivetted together with f inch boiler rivets with a pitch of 6 inches, until enough sections have thus been united to form the full length of the cylinder. Concrete Filling. The interstices between the cylinder and piles, and the entire top of the 80 cylinders and piles for a depth of not less than 2 feet shall be filled with concrete, made in the following manner : Broken rock or coarse gravel in sizes not less than 1 cubic inch or more than 27 cubic inches are thoroughly permeated with the thin cement mortar, composed of four parts of clean, sharp sand, and one part of best English Portland cement well grouted. Cappin All tubes shall be capped by means oi a. \ inch flag of boiler iron bolted to a 2 X 2 inch angle securely rivetted to the top of the tubes, and shoes and rollers shall rest directly thereon, with no intervening timber. 39 TntormediaU! Brnciii". All piers except tlic end ones shall he webbed topondmt AND BETWEEN THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF VICTORIA AppeUata, AND LANG ... . . . . . Bupon^t, EXHIBIT BOOK. • • > -A. I HUBBARD & WHEELER, 13 and 14, Abchurch Lane, B.C., for the Appellant, S. V. BLAKE, 17, Victoria Street, S.W., for the BespondenL Court of F , AppeUantj . Bei^ndmt . Appellant^ . Beapondent, K. Appellant. lespondenL 1