THE SEACLIFF ASYLUM INQUIRY.

Evening Star, Issue 7449, 18 February 1888, Page 2 (Supplement)

THE SEACLIFF ASYLUM INQUIRY.

At the inquiry on Wednesday, Robert Forrest, architect, said lie was the architect of several buildings in Dunedin that had been erected by Air Gore, andheliadnever had occasion to find fault witli the manner in which he carried out his work. In May, ISB2, and several times afterwards, witness went specially to Seacliff to make measurements of the foundations. Mr Brindley was the only person present with him. He found that the front wall was 3ft hy 3ft under the pillars, ami was continuous. A concrete support of 3ft was sufficient to carry that wall. He could not see how the concrete foundation hail caused the building to crack unless the ground was not of the same nature throughout. If witness was told that some of the piers had cracked, but that the superstructure remained perfectly quiet, ho would think that the earth below had moved and not tiro foundations. If the foundation of the north wall had not settled vertically, witness would attribute the cracks to the ground slipping forward. It might move more quickly in one part than another, but it depended on the strata below. When taking measurements witness never heard anyone say that the building was being scamped. By Mr Lawson : If in tho back wall of the north end of the building there was a peculiar twisting, witness would like to see the walls before giving an opinion as to how it was occasioned. When ho was taking measurements he saw that the ordinary concrete was used, being composed of metal and cement. Nobody pointed out any faults, and he could see nothing at all faulty about the cement. Witness believed tho ground at Seacliff was a kind of slippery formation. Be judged so from what he had heard and from Dr Hector’s report. He had known instances of hills slipping—for instance, Heriot row, Pitt street, Queen street, and Arthur street. The consequence to brick houses was that they cracked and moved. The cracks were erratic and not all in the same direction. If there was a slip at Seacliff it would certainly account for the cracks. Assuming there was a half-inch ot settlement in the ambulatory wall, it would not be likely, in witness’s opinion, to have anything to do with the cracks. By Air Higgin-on : Witness took the quantities from Air Brindley; he did not tike them out for himself. To have the wall stand, it depended just as much upon the nature of the ground beneath tho concrete aa on the concrete itself. Witness saw enough of the concrete to satisfy himself it was of good quality. Hi took the measurements for Air Gore. By Mr Blair: Witness had never had occasion to box concrete in trenches, and would not do so unless the material he was working on needed it. Where footings were marked on the plan boxing would be needed, and therefore, according to the contract plans, boxing wa.s necessaiy. If witness had been tendering for the work lie should have provided for boxing. Witness saw no scamping when he was at Seacliff, and had never had his attention directed to any faulty work. He could not believe that a block would move IGin downhill and another nearly I,'finch uphill. Air Blair ; If plans provided for foundations 4ft Gin deep and footings of Din, and you only went down 3ft witli no footings, would the one way he as good as the other ? Wi ness said there was no necessity to go down if as good hearing power could bo got without. Air Blair; But is not a certaiu clay affected by rains and atmospherical changes, and is there nut a rule in the profession to go to a minimum depth? Witness: It depends upon the nature of the material. By Air Lawson : If witness were an architect, and it came to Ids knowledge that something like this step was to be apprehended, the cutting of an open trend), isolating tho site of the building from the moving mass would be a thing he should suggest. If witness recommended such a thing and the proprietor took no notice of the recommendation, the latter would have to stand the consequences. By Air Blair: If the proprietor drained the ground according to the architect’s plan, the architect would of course be responsible. Air Lawson: If a building were erected on confessedly soft ground, would you consider it a good tiling for a tunnel 3ft or so to be sunk within 12ft of the foundation aud carried on two sides of the building only? Wilncfs : Not if it was moving ground. Air Lawson: If you knew a certain hillside was famed for moving ? Witness : I should prefer to put the tunnel behind. George Cramp, a laborer, examined by Air Gore, deposed that he was working at the Seacliff building for fifteen or sixteen months, and helped to put in a portion of the concrete. Metal and cement were mixed on boards after being measured in boxes. It was then wheeled in a barrow, shot into the trenches, and levelled there. Tho stone packing was put from Tin to Gin apart, and kept well from the edges. He had had a good deal of experience in concrete work, and from what he knew of the Asylum he should say that the concrete put into the foundations there was good. George Watkins, a laborer, who was engaged in the same work as the last witness, gave simil r evidence, with the exception that ho said that sand was added to the concrete. The concrete was veiy good, and Air Brindley was always present at the mixing-board or at the trench. The concret.e was generally put into tiie trenches without boards on either side, aud the boulders were thoroughly cleaned with the hose. Benjamin Butcher, foreman of the bricklayers at the Asylum building, deposed that the material of the concrete was mixed on boards, measured, and put in the trenches. The concrete was mixed up in accordance with the specifications, and witness considered it was of good quality. There was a crack iu the hack wall of the north ambulatory before any brickwork was put on at all. He had worked lor Air Gore for over twenty yeafs, and knew of no buildings built by him in which cracks had appeared. The ground at the north end ot the building was of a very wet nature. The bond of the brickwork at the west corner of block 2 was good. Walter John Gore, who had had charge of tho works at Seacliff, examined by Air James Gore, deposed that he had been at building works from the time he was eleven years old—for twenty years. He had bad sole charge of the Timaru High School, and of the Asylum. The quantities of the concrete were five to one—five of combined shingle and metal to one of cement—and the yacking was placed nine inches apart. Trenches were cut to a line, and the concrete put in. Above the trenches the concrete was put in boxes. The concrete in the bases was done away with, and brick and cement substituted. Air Brindley seemed to think the packing should be a foot apart, but was satisfied with what was done. Some concrete was condemned on tho ground that tho packing was too close. This was at the central part of the south wing. Some of this was taken out, but it was found to be so compact and solid that its removal was stopped. Air Brindley never complained about any other part of the concrete. The concrete wall in tho north ambulatory was cracked before there was any weight or vertical pressure upon it, His opinion was that the crack was caused by a movement of the ground, and that the slip might easily have been defined at that time. There was every indication of this slip affecting the railway platform. To his own knowledge it had gone seaward to the extent of Ift llin. The ground at the Asylum was of a porous nature, not a good solid clay. Somewhat similar clay was used for puddling the reservoir, and the reservoir at first would not hold water. A good deal of trouble was experienced in connec-

tion with the tramway on account of the nature of the ground. He was at Seaclilf when the wall referred to as having a hole in it was built. No rubbish was put in that wall, but he believed that hole represented a temporary drain put in by Mr Brindley. It would not have been worth while for the contractor to fill up such a hole with rubbish instead of with concrete. The water always came through from the back into the tranches of the north ambulatory block. Every care was taken to put in the foundations; they were not slummed in any way. Mr Brindley and witness sot out the foundations together. The plan of the ambulatory pillars produced did not show the foundations as they existed, and it would be impossible upon it to calculate the bearing power of the foundation. No portion of the building was toothed excepting where there was an intention to make an addition to it. When at Seaclilf ho did not notice any settlement in the whole of the building; the floors were all level. He had seen no sign of vertical settlement in the north wing. There were no cracks in the window sills, and if there was vertical settlement it would have shown there first. It was quite possible that the piers had been built from an eighth to a quarter of an inch out, but as piers Nos. 1 and 7 were a dead level he should take that as practically correct. If the foundations had sunk half an inch in 80ft, it would not have caused the cracks that appeared, and there should have been a small crack where none was visible. If there was forty times the concrete in the foundations it would not carry the superstructure if the ground moved. By Mr Lawson ; Witness had never heard Mr Brindley complain that he was not supported by the architect, or that his free action was interfered with. By Mr Blair: Mr Brindley was quite satisfied with the packing being bin apait. Witness was manager in October, 18S2, and would say that Mr Brindley had no cause for stating in his letter to Mr Lawson that the work was scamped, The concrete in the wall of the ambulatory was as broad as the footings in the plan. The footings were put in to Mr Brindley’s satisfaction, and he must have been satisfied with the part where the brickwork overhung the concrete or ho would not have passed it. It was merely a theory that Mr Brindley’s men might have made the hole that was filled with rubbish for the purpose of a temporary drain; he knew nothing about it positively. The whole weight of the clay was not against the back wall when the cracks appeared in it. lie had seen no evidence of vertical settlement. You could see that the floor had been dragged, but there was no fall in it that you could feel as you walked over it. From a considerable distance behind the main building a slip was traceable to the railway station, and the north block was being affected by the slip. By Mr Lawson: Inequalities in a floor might be caused by lateral pressure; in fact, would almost certainly cause the floors to buckle out of level. By Mr Monntfort: The crack in the concrete wall, before weight was put on it, was seen, he believed, early in 188:1. By Mr Gore : A very severe rainfall in May, 18 s 3, did damage to the railway line and flooded the Asylum building. The water had been lying in the foundations, and there was no drainage at the hack of the building at that time. That must have had a tendency to soften the ground and injure the foundations. He had noticed that, though the corridor was in a straight line, no inequality in the whole length of the building was noticeable. By the Chairman : Witness was of opinion that the contract did not imply that the contractor should keep the foundations clear of water. By Mr Blair : The contractors did pride themselves on the building being perfectly level from end to end, but did not take an instrument to test it. By Mr Monntfort : All the damage, with the exception of a slight crack in the ambulatory floor, had occurred since the building had been taken over in January, 1881.

11l our Thursday’s issue the evidence of Mr Gore, jun., and the evidence of Mr Morrison (of Anderson and Morrison) were unfortunately jumbled together. The latter raid that his firm did most of the internal plumbing work at the Asylum—alluding to the soil pipes and all the closets. He had read Dr Grabham’s report upon this work, and denied emphatically that any of the joints wore made with putty. There was not the slightest foundation for the report made by Dr Grabham. By the Chairman : None of the pipes had been pulled out, but some of them bad been repaired. His men had been employed to make repairs, but no extensive repairs had been made. By Mr Gore : Witness had recommended the hot water apparatus being lined with copper, hut that was objected to. He remembered Dr Grabham reporting on the Asylum as to the ceiling in the bath-rooms. The report was not true. The joints in the pipes were not made of putty, but of solder. After the job was finished a carpenter knocked a chisel into one of the pipes, and there being no plumber there he put some cement, not putty, in the hole. That gave rise to the statement that the pipes were joined uith putty. To Mr Skinner : Witness carried out most of the internal plumbing, but had nothing to do with the roof.