(9)
as the new. It is not possible to ascertain if a wall complies with section 10 of the Ordinance as amended without opening the wall. There is a provision in the Building Ordinance that black bricks shall not be used in the lower storey without the approval of the Director of Public Works.
When there has been an addition to an old house it has not been the practice to require other than blue bricks in the lowest floor. There was nothing in the plans to show what bricks the walls were built of. Without a personal inspection it is not possible to say whether the building complies with the Ordinance. When I was in the Public Works Department and plans were submitted it was taken for granted that the buildings complied with the Ordinance. I saw the honses after the accident. My opinion of the cause of collapse was that there was a quantity of iron stored on brackets fastened to the party wall between 32 and 34, Cochrane Street. At the present time there are some small brackets on the party wall still standing. Also the place being a blacksmith's shop, hammering away at heavy ma- terial would tend to shake and weaken the wall. If there was a quantity of iron stored in the front verandah of the 1st floor it might have pulled out the front wall and pulled out the party wall. The roof rests on the party wall. If the front wall fell it would probably pall out the party wall as the two would be bonded together and tied together with tie rods. I think that it is more probable that the party wall collapsed first. The remains of the party wall have the appearance in places of two nine-inch walls built together. The ideal bricklaying is that if you put a knife into any joint you strike a brick. The vertical joints are several courses deep. In the remains of the party wall there were several broken bricks and pieces of bricks used. As a rule it is safe to build a new house with old bricks. I have no diploma as an architect or civil engineer. All my experience has been gaine! in the Public Works Department here.
Adjourned until to-morrow, 20th instant, at 10 a.m.
21st September, 1901.
F. A. HAZELAND, Polier Magistrate.
FREDERICK PEARSON Sworu and examined:
I was
I am employed by Mr. Hazeland, Architect, as Clerk of Works and General Assistant. formerly an overseer in the Public Works Department. I was there for 6 years. While in the Public Works Department, I was Inspector of Buildings. I left the Public Works Department in June, 1900. I joined Mr. Hazeland in July, 1900. When I was in the Public Works Department the officials in charge of the Building Ordinance were Mr. Tooker, Mr. Hazeland and myself. The first thing I did last year in connection with No. 32, Cochrane Street. was to examine the walls. I was told by Mr. Hazeland to do this. I keep no
I keep no diary or record of the work I do. I made this examination some time in November last year. I do not remember the date. The instructions Mr. Hazeland gave me were that the owner wanted to put another storey and I was to ascertain if the walls were in accord- ance with the Building Ordinance. Mr. Hazeland did not tell me to cut into the wall nor examine
I
into the foundations. He did not tell me the weight of the additional storey. I found the wall all right. I ascertained the wall was all right by looking at them. I also found the thickness of the wall was in accordance with the Building Ordinance. I measured the thickness of the walls. examined all the walls and could not find any cracks whatever. The houses were occupied at that time. I did not get the tenants to remove any of their property. I could examine the walls without anything being removed. I could see the wall in the blacksmith's shop without anything being re- moved. Against the party wall of the blacksmith's shop there was some sheet iron. I went to the next house and examined the party wall at the same spot on the other side of the party wall.
I did not remove any of the dirt or whitewash from the wall. I did not use a plumb line. I could see with- out a plumb line that the walls were plumb. There was no indication of any crushing. I could not see the whole of the party wall from the ground floor to the coping because the floors were in the way. The inspection of No. 32 took me 20 minutes. I reported the state of the walls to Mr. Hazeland verbally. I afterwards made an inspection of No. 34, three or four weeks later. My inspection of No. 34 was similar to No. 32. I reported No. 34 in the same way. There are certain stipulations in the Building Ordinance with respect to foundations. I could not tell whether the foundations were in accordance with the Building Ordinance. When I was in the Public Works Department, when an architect sent a plan for additions or alterations, the foundations were never shewn. It was never re- quired by the Public Works Department to be shown. I am familiar with section 10 of the Building Ordinance requiring walls to be solid, properly bonded and to be put together with good material. Ï could not tell without opening the wall whether it complied with the section. It has never been re- quired in the case of an old building when alterations or additions are to be made that the bricks of the ground floor are to be rel brick. This wall was blue bricks. In my opinion the collapse was probably caused by the outlet being blocked and the water, owing to the rain, could not get away. The same thing happened to the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank at the Queen's Road entrance. I was Assistant Surveyor for years to the Cape Government Railway Line. I served no apprenticeship. I was