Inquiry Into the Collapse of Viewfield Chair & Cabinet Works Lochwinnoch

Twenty Five days after the collapse of the Viewfield Chair Works an inquiry opened on the 16th January 1895 in the Court Hall of Lochwinnoch presided over by Sheriff Cowan. Mr George Hart, Paisley, the Procurator-Fiscal, conducted the inquiry. In attendance were Mr Charles Harding the Chief Constable of Renfrewshire, Mr T F Reid, writer, attended on behalf of Mr Johnstone, proprietor who was still confined to bed due to his injuries as well as many members of the public and the Rev Mr Russell.

Sheriff Cowan opened the proceedings by explaining the position of the Court. In every case of accident to the lieges (lieges in this case means relationship of workmen to employer), and especially where death had occurred, an inquiry was always made before the Sheriff by the Procurator-Fiscal. Generally, such an inquiry was conducted in private, however, his Lordship had, from the serious and unfortunate nature of the disaster considered it advisable that the inquiry should be made in public, so that the public should have sufficient information regarding the causes of the disaster. Several persons had applied to be allowed to appear and to cross examine the witnesses which would be adduced (provide evidence) by the crown, and also to lead evidence. On this point he explained that there was no provision in the practice of the country or of the Sheriff Court for any such admission of evidence other than by the Crown. In consultation with Sheriff Cheyne it was agreed that a moderate list of questions could be put for them and that voluntary evidence could be received from witnesses desiring to make their own statements as apart from witnesses adduced by the Crown.

Evidence was then given by Mrs Cooper, wife of the manager. This was followed by Mr R C Houston, coal merchant, whose son, Robert, had been killed. He said he had heard his son and others make remarks about the slimness of the building, but he had heard no definitive statement made.

It was stated that Mrs Goudie, mother of Jonathan Goudie who was killed, was unable to attend through illness and the grandmother with whom Thomas Dick Orr lodged spoke as to the lad’s death.

William Crawford, traveler and designer, stated that the old factory burned down in August 1893. The work of erecting the new factory was commenced September 1893 and the new factory resumed work in May 1894. He described the building pointing out that internally it was open from end to end with partitions separating some of the departments such as the carving from the polishing shop. The works could accommodate 200 to 250 employee’s and at the time of the disaster 52 persons were employed.

He had witnessed the building collapse, saw the walls swinging and the building fall as if it had been subsiding. He explained the building was made from compressed brick and that he had prepared a plan under the supervision of Mr Johnstone. There was no architect or inspector; but the specifications and estimates for the work were prepared by Messrs Duff & Henderson and the contractor for the digger, brick and mason work was Mr Robert Morton of Paisley. Although he had seen several works built along similar lines he had no practical experience of their construction.

In reply to a question from Mr Reid, agent for the proprietor, he said the walls of the work destroyed by fire were 12 inches thick with a space between, tied every fourth or fifth course with header bricks. He added that its original height was 3 storey but was extended 60 feet and two further storeys added with attics. In the machine room there were several buttresses against each wall which extended to the top of the first storey. Arden lime was used in the first two storey’s and Portland cement in the third. There were 15 rods each 9ft long which passed from the roof down to the third storey to keep the wall plates down at places where the roof was fastened on. The only header bricks used were placed at the sides of the windows. The sills of the windows were of stone. Galvanised iron bands covered the three inch cavity gap between the inner and outer walls. Mr Johnstone gave considerable attention to the erection of the building. Unless the bricks were perfect he would not allow them to be put in.

John Stewart, fireman for the works, said that about 8 o’clock he went outside of the works and met William Johnstone who remarked to him “That building will come down”. He said “Nonsense” but on looking again saw the building swaying and in less than a minute it collapsed. He had never heard of any complaints as to the stability of the building.

James Johnstone, wood carver, said the building had been shaking pretty much from about seven in the morning.

Robert Arthur, machine man, who was also in the building at the time of its collapse had heard no complaints about the stability of the building. William A Morrison said he dived under a turning lathe when the crash came and was thus saved from injury. William G Wylie, office boy, also gave evidence.

Constable Grassack said he understood Mr Johnstone personally supervised the erection of the works and he had heard nothing as to their insufficiency. Mr Johnstone’s loss, he believed, would amount to about £4000. Inspector Gordon spoke of taking possession of several pieces of the material with which the building was constructed.

Mr T G Abercrombie, architect, Paisley stated that he, along with Mr Alex Scott, inspector of works, Paisley, visited Viewfield Works on 25th December and thoroughly measured and inspected the works. They prepared a report which was as follows:-

“We first examined the portion of the building which had been blown down and found that the north wall had practically fallen over from the sills of the ground floor, leaving them and the wall below in place. We instructed the masons who accompanied us to cut a portion of this wall out right down to the bottom of the foundations, so that a thorough examination might be made of materials and workmanship. The founds are composed of six courses of common bricks on edge, three feet wide at the bottom course, and then stepped back in the usual manner to set off the wall above, all as described in the schedule. The walls are 12 inches wide, formed of two walls of 4.5 inch brick, with a 3 inch space between.

In addition to this there are pilasters, each of six to nine inches at every second butt. From examination of the fallen material we feel certain that these pilasters were on the ground floor only. No doubt the south wall was similarly treated but the debris with which it was covered prevented examination being made. The outer and inner 4.5 inch brick walls were tied together at every fifth course, or 1ft 4in vertically to about 2 feet horizontally, with light galvanized iron straps. The galvanized iron bands used to bind the two walls together are, in our opinion, extremely weak.

The bricks used throughout the building were of very good quality. The mortor which we found in the foundations was inferior, but this may have been caused to a certain extent by the founds being submerged in wet weather, causing some of the lime to be washed out. In any case we do not consider that this had anything to do with the disaster. The first two storeys are built with Arden lime of good quality. This may also be said of the Portland cement mortar which was used in the third storey. We have gone over the schedule for the building of the brickwork, and consider that the builder fairly interpreted the conditions of the bargain, although, as a practical man, he might have been aware of the danger of carrying these walls to such a height, as they were wholly inadequate for such a building, and more especially when the exposed site was taken into consideration. The building was three storeys in height, with a roof out of all proportion to the strength of the walls.

We feel certain that the builder must have experienced considerable difficulty in erecting these walls when the great height and length are taken into account. It seems to us that the conditions must have been very favourable to enable him to complete his contract without accident to those employed on the building when in the course of erection. The vibration and leverage which would have been caused by the traffic and machinery all tended to slacken the iron ties between the walls. All this in time would have had a ruinous effect on such a building. As we do not consider the building sufficient we would strongly recommend that it should be taken down under the supervision of thoroughly competent men”.

The height of the building, Mr Abercrombie then said, was 48 ft from floor to ridge of ceiling. It was shaped like the letter L, the largest part being 168ft and the shortest 68ft in length. The breadth was 31ft 2in in the larger part and 26ft in the shorter. He thought that in building the founds the place might have been flooded, or the water might have trickled down the cavity of the walls. The cement used was, in his opinion, of good quality. The probable cause of the disaster, he thought, was that the south wall had been driven in by the wind, and that the roof had then toppled over, and caused the fall of the entire building. The walls, he thought, were insufficient, especially taking into consideration the exposed position of the building. The vibration and leverage of the machinery in such a building would, in his opinion, inevitably have brought about a disaster. The average glass in the windows was 15 ounces, but he thought it ought to have been 21 ounces, considering the size of the panes. The galvanized bands were not thick enough for a wall of such a height.

Alexander Scott, clerk of works, Paisley, generally corroborated the statements of Mr Abercromby.

At the request of Mr T F Reid, writer, Mr Donald McLean, curator of the Paisley Observatory, was then examined. He stated that about five minutes past nine o’clock on the morning of the 22nd December the wind was blowing at the rate of 93 mph, giving a pressure of 43lb to the square foot. In fact, the gust which occurred at the time was so violent that the cups of the anemometer at the observatory were blown away. He might also add that the gale which prevailed that morning was one of the most severe which has occurred, according to the observatory records, for the past twenty years.

Mr Reid stated that Mr William Muir, builder, Beith and Mr John Love, builder, Beith, desired to volunteer evidence as to the thickness of the walls of factories and building in the vicinity being of the same thickness; but their examination was not permitted. Mr Johnstone, he stated, also wished to be examined publicly, as soon as he was able, but this the Sheriff also declined to allow.

The Fiscal, however, stated that he had no objection to the written precognitions of these parties being sent to him by Mr Reid.

This concluded the inquiry, the Fiscal explaining that the evidence of the persons still in the hospital would be taken privately.

On Monday January 21st, five days after the inquiry the following article appeared in the Dundee Advertiser.

“A Factory Made For A Glass Case: The employment of amateur architects is not an economical proceeding. To that well known yet neglected truism Mr Johnstone of Lochwinnoch can sadly testify. He resolved to erect a cabinet factory, and decided to dispense with an architect and a building inspector. His traveler, with that presumption which is the most prominent and enduring characteristic of “bagmen” from time immemorial, prepared the plans. The factory would probably have remained as a monument of commercial enterprise if it could have been preserved under a glass case, for any structure of the kind would have been stronger than the building. But the gale of December 22 quickly brought the factory to an end. Four men were killed and fourteen injured. It was necessary, therefore, to hold an inquiry. One of the witnesses was Mr T G Abercrombie, architect, Paisley, who had made an official inspection of the building. He said the walls were carried too high for safety, and sooner or later the vibrations would have caused disaster. The glass used was too light, and the iron ties were not strong enough. It was recommended that what remained of the factory should be removed; but under the circumstances they must be foolhardy men who will undertake the work unless costly precautions are carried out. It is said the loss amounts to £4000, but of course the amount which will have to be paid for compensation will amount to a much larger sum.”