Document 74 p7
| 173 | ||||
| To prove that Witness in his original Estimate given to | } | |||
| Mr Errington computed the Expence of building the Bridge | } | |||
| at 7,600£- wch will confirm Donkin’s Evidence that he | } | |||
| valued the old Materials at 1900£- as follows- | } | |||
| Old Materials 1900£ | } | |||
| Money to be paid by} | } | |||
| the County } 5700 | } | |||
| 7600 | } | |||
| That the Bridge was built under the inspection and direction | } | |||
| of Witness-and in every Respect where Circumstances would | } | |||
| admit was built conformable to the plan and Articles, and where | } | |||
| any Variation’s were made it was owing to Discoveries which | } Mr Smeaton | |||
| in the prosecution of the Work made such Variations necessary | } | |||
| -that the Bridge was built and finished in the most- | } | |||
| compleat manner to conform to the Articles and plan-that | } | |||
| the Failure was not owing to any Defect in the Building- | } | |||
| – that a permanent Bridge cannot in Judgment of Witness | } | |||
| be built according to Articles and plan- | } | |||
| That Witness made an Estimate of the Cost of rebuilding the | } | |||
| Bridge |
} | |||
| the upstanding part and fallen Materials-that such Sum | } | |||
| wou’d put the Bridge into the state it was in before it fell | } | |||
| but that it wou’d be liable to be thrown down by a Flood | } | |||
| similar to that in March 1782-call | } | |||
| To prove that Witness was employed as Foreman in building | } | |||
| the Bridge – that it was built in a good and workmanlike | } | |||
| manner under the Directions of Mr Smeaton – that it was in a | } | |||
| perfect State before the Flood – that its Failure was owing to | } | |||
| the irresistable Impetuosity of the Flood – that he |
} | |||
| Office he still holds – that in 1783 he together with Johnson | } | |||
| and Richley made an Estimate of the Cost of reinstating the | } Robt Thompson | |||
| Bridge – that such Estimate he believes to be correct and was | } | |||
| made according to the best of his Judgement – that he wou’d | } | |||
| undertake to |
} | |||
| wou’d not undertake to support it for any Sum – that he | } | |||
| believes a |
} | |||
| the Articles and plan wou’d be liable to the same Accident as | } | |||
| the former One – that he has viewed the Bridge materials lately | } | |||
| and they are mainly in the same State and of the same Value as when he made the Estimate | ||||
| That the old Materials received by the Dft was not worth | } | |||
| more than 1000£ & |
} | |||
| |
||||
| To prove that he has for many Years been employed in | } | |||
| Bridge Building, and often so employed by the County of | } | |||
| Northumberland in the County Bridges – that he |
} | |||
| with Thompson and Richley made the Estimate in 1783. that | } | |||
| such estimate was according to the best of his Judgmt – that | } Wm. Johnson | |||
| he wou’d undertaken to reinstate according to that Estimate, but | } | |||
| not to uphold – believes any Bridge built according to the Articles | } | |||
| & plan wou’d be liable to the same Accident as the former One, |
} | |||
| – that he has viewed the bridge & materials lately and they are nearly | ||||
| in the same State and of the same Value as when he made the Estimate – call | } | |||
| 6) | ||||
Note: Draft proofs of evidence, John Smeaton, Robert Thompson, William Johnson
Abbreviations are underlined like this Wm. and the expansion may be seen by moving the cursor over it.
| An entry outlined like this has a note which may be seen by hovering over it. |
Transcribed by CTW and KS