Q. Was that the chain you were accustomed to use for the purpose? A. Yes, sir. Q. How were those chains selected; who bought them? A. I could not tell that; part of the chains there were made on the grounds by our own blacksmiths. Q. Was this chain made on the gound? A. I could not tell. Q. Did any one tell you that this was not a safe chain to use upon so large a stone? A. Not that I am aware; I have no recollection of anybody telling me that. Q. Mr. Van Leuven heard some one say to you something about this chain not being a proper chain for such a stone? A. I have been blamed more for being over cautious than not being cautious enough, of using too heavy chains. Q. Did you see the broken link afterward? A. I could not say. Q. Do you remember whether it was defective or not? A. That I could not say; I have a general impression about it; I may have looked it over, but could not say from memory. Q. Did you say that you had used this chain; a chain of that size; for stone as heavy, frequently before? A. Yes, sir; it was our customary chain; a chain we had in the derrick for that express purpose. Q. You had a heavier chain? A. We had three; sometimes four sizes of chain; we had chain we put on ten ton stone. Q. How heavy was this? A. I could not say. Q. The testimony is, that it was twelve or thirteen tons? A. I don't think it; I could not state the size of the stone now, for I don't remember. Q. Who directed as to what chain was to be used for the different stone; who was the man that passed upon that? A. There was seldom a question of that kind raised unless they got an extra heavy stone; ordinarily the men used their own judgment. Q. Did you direct particularly at this time what chain was to be ased? A. I could not say; my impression is that the men used their own judgment. Q. There were chains lying there of a larger size if they thought best? A. Yes, sir; we had three sizes of chains. Q. How large a chain did you use on twelve ton stones? A. We would have used our heavy chain; the link, I think, is one and threefourth inches; whoever gave the information about that stone, I think, is in error; under ordinary circumstances a stone from one to four, five or six tons, there was no question as regards the chain; I should think that seven-eighths inch was the size, and that we would consider that plenty for an ordinary stone; if we had got a stone that run ten, eleven or twelve, which was very large, it was customary to use the large chain. Q. Who decided that? A. Not always the men knew; if they chose to do it they could do so. Cross-examination by Mr. FISHER: Q. You don't remember what kind of a stone this was? A. I do not. Q. What do the large corner stones run - about? A. They run from six to eight tons; some of them nine; we had stone running ten; when you say corner stones it is pretty broad; some of the corner stones on the bottom run twenty-one to twenty-two tons, and I believe pretty near twenty-three. Q. This was near the bottom, was it not? A. I think not; I think this went in the second story, calculating the time. Q. If it had weighed six tons you would not have used this chain? A. I have lifted six ton with that chain if it was not frosty weather. Q. If it had weighed eight or nine you would have used heavier chain? A. Yes, sir. Q. There was no frost that caused the chain to break at this time? A. No, sir. Q. Is that cast-iron or wrought-iron [showing witness broken link]? A. It is wrought-iron. Q. You are acquainted with iron, are you not? A. In some measure, having handled it more or less. Q. Does that look like defective iron where it broke? A. No, sir; I could tell better if it was a fresh break. Dr. HENRY MARSH, called for the State, sworn. Direct-examination by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Q. Mr. Hotaling has a claim for injury on the Capitol in April, 1873; I wish you would state what the extent of his injury was? A. I found it was fracture of the bone, about the middle of the left arm, and fracture of the shoulder blade - the lower part of it; I attended him from April, 1873, to May 23, 1873; he resided at 398 Hudson avenue. Q. What condition was he in after you got through attending him? A. He had good use of his arm; there might have been a little stiffness in his shoulder blade with the joint; the other part was good perfectly correct. Q. Did you set the arm? A. Yes, sir; I attended it all through; I have not seen him since then. Q. If a man had his arm so injured that he was unable to use it except for dressing and feeding himself, and the other arm was as good as ever, and he was at work with it as a laboring man, would the muscles of the hand attached to the arm he did not use show a great difference from the hand he did use? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was his arm out of line when he got well? A. No, sir; I don't think it was. By the TREASURER: Q. If the nerves of the arm had been injured by the accident would it have shown at the time you left off treating it? A. Yes, it would; but if he has had any trouble with the nerves at all it has not been from the fracture but from the bruise of the shoulder blade. Q. It would have been developed by that time? A. Yes, sir. By Mr. FISHER: Q. Is the axis of the arm liable to be changed? A. That takes place sometimes with this accident of the shoulder blade or where the shoulder is out of joint. Q. It might occur from this broken shoulder blade? A. It might occar from that; these injuries of the shoulder joint are very uncertain; you cannot tell always what the sequel will be. Q. If this axis is changed, you regard it as a permanent injury? A. Yes, sir. Q. If the axis was changed so as to prevent the use of his arm, would the hand show a difference susceptible to the eye? A. Yes, certainly; the hand would be somewhat smaller; that might be larger at times because he held the hand down and the blood flowed down. [After an examination of the injured arm and shoulder the doctor resumed his testimony]. Q. Please state as to what you ascertained with reference to the arin? A. I can see if he brings it round from right to left; there is an imperfect motion that is seated between the shoulder blade and the os humeri or upper bone of the shoulder. Q. And this is the result of that fracture? A. Yes, sir. By the TREASURER: Q. Is the man permanently disabled? A. That is a very important question; it is rather difficult to answer; it has been so since 1873, and from what I have heard here I am afraid it has been disaled; after the settlement of this case you can tell better. By Mr. FISHER: Q. You regard that arm as being crooked? A. It seems crooked; Jes, sir. Q. Will it ever come straight?. A. I don't think it would; he Possibly may never get the natural motion of it or he may get a litSe better motion; but I cannot swear positively to that; I am not willing to. IX. At a meeting of the State Board of Audit, held at the office of the Charles S. Fairchild, Attorney-General. (No. 7.) In the claim of WILLIAM LOCKMAN and CAREY DEVERY against THE STATE OF NEW YORK. Cim for extra work on quarantine buildings, New York bay. Amount claimed, $14,985.88. Thomas Fetherston and Carey Devery having been sworn and examel, on the part of the claimants, and Theodore C. Vermilye, Esq., counsel for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, for the State, having been heard, this claim is, on motion of claimant's counsel, set down for further hearing at the February session of this board. At a meeting of the State Board of Audit, held at the office of the Secretary of State, the February term, in the year 1877. Present John Bigelow, Secretary of State; Frederic P. Olcott, Comptroller; Charles N. Ross, Treasurer, Board. Charles S. Fairchild, Attorney-General. (No. 7.) In the claim of WILLIAM LOCKMAN and CAREY DEVERY against THE STATE OF NEW YORK. Claim for extra work on quarantine buildings, New York bay. Amount claimed, $14,985.88. Theodore C. Vermilye, Esq., counsel for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, for the State, having been heard, this claim is submitted for decision. On motion, it is ordered that the claim of William Lockman and Cary Devery for extra work on quarantine buildings, New York bay, be disallowed. STATE BOARD OF AUDIT. In the matter of the claim of WILLIAM LOCKMAN and CAREY DEVERY. Statement of Claim. Theodore C. Vermilye, counsel for claimant. To the State Board of Audit, Albany, New York: The undersigned, William Lockman and Carey Devery, composing the firm of Lockman & Devery, of the county of Richmond, carpenters and builders, respectfully present to this honorable board the following, their claim against the State of New York, viz. : That on the 27th day of June, 1872, and on the 9th of October, 1872, the commissioners of quarrantine, under and by virtue of the act entitled, "An act in relation to quarantine in the port of New York, and providing for the construction of the permanent quarantine establishment," passed April 21, 1866, made and entered into two certain agreements with your petitioners, in and by the terms of which your petitioners were to furnish the materials for and build and erect three certain buildings and other improvements on West Bank, in the lower bay of New York, to be used for quarantine purposes, and upon the completion of said buildings and improvements, the said quarantine commissioners bound themselves, as such commissioners and not as individuals, to pay to your claimants the sums or prices in said several agreements set forth, to wit: $115,100, as by reference to said agreements, copies of which are hereto annexed, marked A and B, will more fully and at large appear, and to which these claimants pray leave to refer, and make a part of this their statement. And these claimants further aver, that in like manner it was subsequently agreed orally, by and between these claimants and the said board of commissioners, that the said claimants should perform such other work and furnish such other materials as said board of commissioners might require and which were not mentioned in said agreements or either of them, and being in addition to those mentioned therein in the erection and completion of said buildings, and that said board of commissioners should pay for said labor and materials what the same were reasonably worth. That in the performance of said contracts, both written and oral, these claimants furnished vast quantities of material and performed labor, by themselves and sub-contractor, and finished said buildings and improvements, and completed the same according to the terms. of said several agreements, both written and oral, and to the full satisfaction of said commissioners and of the health officer of the port of New York. That these claimants have received from said board of commissioners and from the health officer of the port of New York, in all, the sum of $116,412. and there still remains due to these claimants the sum of $22,802.94, under said agreements, for materials furnished and work and labor performed by them; a bill of particulars of which is hereto annexed, marked C, and to which these claimant's pray leave to refer. And these claimants further show that under and in pursuance of said several agreements, these claimants were obliged to and did employ one Thomas Fetherston, a mason and builder, to perform the mason work required, and who also furnished the materials therefor. That on account of the failure of the State officers to pay these claimants the amount due them, the said Fetherston, on or about the 7th day of March, 1875, commenced an action in the Supreme Court of New York against these claimants, the commissioners of quarantine and the health officer of the port of New York, to recover the amount dae him; that such proceedings were thereupon had in said action; that on the 12th day of February, 1876, said Thomas Fetherston, after a trial before the referee appointed in said action, recovered a judgment against these claimants for the sum of $14,985.88, and that aid judgment still remains unpaid, and these claimants are unable. to pay the same, unless they receive from the State of New York the aim which they now present. Copies of the report of the referee in said action, and a certified copy of the judgment therein, are also hereto annexed, marked, D and E, and to which these claimants pray leave to refer. And said claimants expect to prove the facts and averments hereinbefore stated, by the former and present quarantine commissoners and the records of their office; the engineer and superintendent in charge of the work, Charles H. Haswell, Esq.; the health officer of the port, Dr. S. O. Vanderpoel, and these claimants and the sub-contractor. |