H.—7

164

building, consequently it must be due to irregular settlement in soft ground. I 'will not follow the whole of the evidence in this case. You have the plans before you, which show the bearings of the foundations; you have Mr. Hay's reports and evidence, and you have seen the matter for yourselves. I will, however, refer to Mr. Eeid's evidence, which was given last. Mr. Lawson repeats over and over again the statement made by Mr. Hay, that he only found a depression of -|-in. in the ambulatory. Mr. Hay has shown that the Jin. is sufliciont to account for the damage. At the same time, we have no evidence whatever that there is not more than a depression of iin., because we have no evidence, first, that the building was correctly set out; and, secondly, that it was built to the pegs or levels given by the Inspector. Mr. Lawson has over and over again defied us to produce evidence of settlement beyond this Jin. ; hut, if wo assume, as he is assuming, that Mr. Brindley's levels were absolutely correct in the first instance, and that they were correctly worked to, we have a settlement of 4-Jin. between the west end of No. 2 block and the central portion of the ambulatory. Mr. Beid, in his evidence, has distinctly told us that a settlement has taken place, and shows clearly how it took place. There is one very remarkable fact in his evidence : he shows that in cutting away the doors, those on the one side of the centre of the ambulatory had to be cut the one way, and those on the other side to be cut the opposite way; thus showing that the building was settling in the centre more than in any other place. I think this point is absolutely clear. The plan that I submitted—the plan showing the first cracks at the back part of the building, and which cracks have not now enlarged—also shows dislocations and cracks that can be directly attributed to vertical settlement. And, even if we had no other evidence to rely upon, the thrust at each end of the ambulatory is amply sufficient to show that the colonnade has sunk vertically. Another strong point is the cracks that have appeared in the cellar-partition walls of the ambulatory. There is a distinct cleft here between the cross-walls and back-walls, and this crack widens upwards —the walls have separated to a considerable extent. We can only account for this by assuming that the back wall has gone uphill away from the cross-walls, or that the cross-walls have gone away from the back wall. We may disregard the first explanation, so are forced to fall back on the second one, and assume that the front and central walls of the ambulatory have gone away from the back one. If the movement were due to a thrust from behind, this result could not possibly have occurred. Instead of separating, as they have done, the walls would have been pressed together. As stated in my opening remarks, it is quite possible that the settlement may be aggravated by overflow from, the rain-water pipes. We have seen that the gratings will only take in a mere fraction of what comes down the pipes, and the balance must necessarily have found its way into the foundations. I believe there has been a small settlement at the new High School, which can be traced to a similar cause. From the evidence produced I claim that my previous conclusion is correct, that the damage to the building is not in consequence of a general movement of the hillside towards the sea, nor from the slips that have occurred in the neighbourhood, bat that it is due to irregular settlement on soft ground. My fourth conclusion was that, instead of being widened over the soft ground, the foundations were actually reduced to a very serious extent, thereby increasing the risk of settlement and damage. This has been the subject of ocular demonstration. The foundations have been bared, and you have seen them for yourselves. The foundations have been reduced to a very serious extent; and no one will or can deny that this increases the risk of settlement and damage. Now, these reductions in this ground were not done without warning. Dr. Hector, in his reports, warned the Architect that the ground was bad. Mr. Brindley wanted drains put in because the ground was bad ; and he also wanted the packing left out of the concrete for the same reason. Yet the Architect (Mr. Lawson) took no steps whatever to increase the width of the foundations as any responsible professional man under the circumstances ought to have done. He did not even put dry stone behind the wall to help the drainage. The foundations were thrown down haphazard ; and it would simply have been a marvel if what has happened had not happened. Not only were the foundations altered from the original drawings, but the foundations have been altered from the altered drawing. Mr. Brindley, in his evidence, tells us that he made an off-set of Gin. on the top of the wall, intending it to be carried right down. We have seen that in many places there is practically no offset whatever ; that the wall is to all intents and purposes carried down plumb ; and in no case did we get either the contract-section or the altered section. That is what I have to say in support of my contention that, instead of being widened over the soft ground, the foundations were actually reduced to a very serious extent, thereby increasing the risk of settlement and damage. Instead of using snow-shoes in the soft ground the building has been placed on stilts. I have now come to my fifth and last conclusion : that the foundations throughout the damaged portions of the building are all defective ; that they are much smaller than shown on the contract-drawings, and that the work and material are both faulty in the extreme. I have already shown that the foundations are defective, by the plans put in, the evidence given, and the statement I have just made. The foundations are not only smaller than shown on the contract, but smaller than shown on the altered plans furnished by Mr. Brindley. The evidence as to faulty work is also clear. The correspondence shows that the stone-packing was put in contrary to the Inspector's wishes, and, in fact, in defiance of his orders. Mr. James Donald gave evidence as to the way in which the boulders were " chucked in," and Mr. Brindley stated that he was quite prepared to find that stones had been put in in " nests." Mr. Lawson remarked that this was a very improper statement for the witness to make, and Mr. Gore characterised it as "scandalous." Mr. Brindley, however, said that he would stick to it, and added, " If it was done as it was done when I was there—put in in front of me—what may have been done in other cases when I was not there? " Mr. Brindley further told us distinctly, that were it not that he had given hostages to fortune, he would have thrown up his situation altogether, so much was he disgusted with the way things were going on. The only point in connection with the defective foundations about which there can be any doubt, is the small " notch " which was found in the centre-wall of the ambulatory. About this, the evidence is somewhat conflicting ; but the point is unimportant. Mr. Brindley's recollection of it is that the "notch" had been cut under his direction ; but the foreman who put in all the drains swears that he did not cut it. The