Page
September 23, 1901.)
40
Bo-
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
one.
do so.
The
243.
Director of Public Works to dispense with examined. In reply to questions by Mr. story, and witness told him he would let him know about it. To ascertain if they were them. He also saw on the plan a chimney to Bowley, he said the work on the two houses was the four cookhouses and a chimney stack on the one job, and witness did it all himself, besides strong enough, witness sent Mr. Pearson to He look at them and see if they were sound. Ho top of the house. Witness did not build the buying material and engaging workmen. chimney or the stack, because he thought they also superintended the work persoually, and did | did not tell him to cut into them to see if they not employ a foreman. He had no detailed were usoless. On the top of the roof of the
were sound, nor did he tell him to exsmine the cookhouse on the top floor, witness put a small drawings of the alterations simply the two foundations. Mr. Pearson, reported that the house, a few feet high, to lead on to the roof. plans already mentioned. As to the construc- walls were sound and good, and witness, so far As it was only a few feet high, witness did not tion of the verandahs, he followed the style of as he remembered, informed, the owner to that trouble to get the permission of the Director of the old rerat duhs. In the plan shown him (C) effect. The latter then gave witness instruc Public Works. In the cookhouse of the ground. the party wall went up to a point in the centre. tions to prepare plans for the alterations, į floor, No. 34, witness had not seen a recess in and to put up the addition, witness had to take including those to the cookhouse. Witness the party wall dividing it from No. 36. In off the copiug of the old wall. When the wall | had the house measured, the work being done respect of No. 32, witness admitted making was rebuilt, the junction between the old wall by Mr. Stuart, his draughtsman, who also similar deviations from the plans. In order to and the new was on a slope, the new bricks drew up the plans, under witness's supervi- Insion. The plan produced (B) was the build the additional story, it was necessary to fitting into the old bricks alternately.
at No. 32, raise the party walls; thres walls had to bricklaying work the bricks were not placed original plan of alterations ba so raised, and the coping had
which be sent to the P.W.D. He subsequently to be exactly on top of others, end to end, but in such a way that the joints alternated. taken off the tops of the old walls first.
received a permit (D) from the P.W.D., Plan C, tween one and two feet of these old walls had In baying 1000 bricks, one got 700 whole witness thought, was also prepared in his office to be taken off before witness started to build. qricks and 300 half-bricks. When witness took and sent to the P.W.D. Witness never inspect- He saw the old walls before the additions were off the coping of the party wall, he found whole ed the houses himself. After witness handed built on top of them. These old walls were bricks and half-bricks. The old wall was pro-back plan D and permit D to the owner, he had built of what is called in English "blue bricks." perly made so that every joint was covered by nothing more to do with the business. As far
a brick at least, so far as witness saw. Witness examined the old walls carefully, and
as witness remembered, the same course was found them built mostly of solid bricks, a lot new wall built on top was better than the old followed in regard to No. 31. If a wall was of small pieces of brick were used for filling up. Asked to explain how, if the old wall was really bad, witness told Mr. Bowley, it could In witness's opinion, the party walls were properly made, the new one could be better, be told from the outward appearance, but it strong enough to bear the additional weight. witness said new material was always better was possible for a wall to be externally good
than old.
As to foundations, When he built the new wall he used and yet hollow in the inside. He did not, however, call an architect to in-
The Government did that; it was the prudent course to examine them spect them, nor did any Government inspector the old bricks. see them when the walls were uncovered. Before witness had seen it done at the Naval Yard. before putting on extra weight. Witness did the alterations the roof was a pitched roof, | He thought it was safe to put the additional not calculate the extra weight that was to be ho would not put on these walls, and he could not say off- the ridge running across the house. The old story on the old wall, or
He had never calculated hand what the pressure would be on the party wall was thus higher in the centre than have dared to do it.
the material he at both ends. Witness did not pull down the the weight of
was pat lowest part of the party wall. Mr. Pearson Witness made a careful examination had been in the building trade for 25 years, top of the party wall until it was level; that ting up. statement applied to the three party walls To of the lower part of the wall, but he did and was an overseer under the Building Or. dinance in the P. W. D. for a number of years. make the "corbelling" (projections for support.not go the length of turning the tenants out to ing the joists) for the new floor, holes were cut
He could see without doing that that He had had no training, however, as a practionl in the old wall and bricks put in, these being the wall was safe; for instance, the wall of the engineer or an architect. Witness had carried out_the_provisions of the Buildings Ordinance allowed to project. The roof was covered with Court was safe. Canton tiles. Witness did not intend to sell His Worship-I hope so.
for the P. W. D. for seven or eight years, with
the houses. The alterations were completed
Witness said that in places he scraped off the Mr. Pearson as his overseer, which position he at the end of last Chinese Year-about the whitewash to examine the wall, and in the had filled for four or five years. Witness had 8th of February. Witness collected his own blacksmith's shop he cut a hole to see if the always worked under the supervision of Mr. rents, and visited each floor avery mouth. On wall was solid." He took out three bricks in Tooker whilst the former was in the Colony. the day of the collapse witness went to both length and four in breadth, and did it on his With regard to Mr. Stuart, his sole duties houses to collect rents. It was about 4 p.m., own responsibility. This was on the 22nd or were to measure. Witness believed that originally there were two cross walls in each house and the blacksmith was working. Witness did 23rd of December. Witness did not show the not then notice any brackets driven into the hole to anybody, and he did not äll it up until (Nos. 32 and 34), with a yard between. It was not always the custom, in preparing walls, and on the verandah of the first floor, the alterations were completed. The hole was
made outside the kitchen door of house No. a plan, to show the old work as well as No. 32, he only saw some tables and stools.
When witness was carrying out He only looked from the street, however. 32, in the party wall separating the two the new. When he went there that afternoon witness houses, near the street, and about two the provisions of the Buildings Ordinance, saw no indication of an impending collapse in three feet from the ground. It was nine he would have passed such a plan where the nature of cracks or anything else to inches deep. No other holes were made, and the alterations were small, but not if they were large. The new cross walls were in almost indicate that the building was in danger. witness judged the condition of the three
the same position exactly as the old ones, so a Witness had to put brackets in the froat party walls by the hole made in the first. wall for the support of the verandah, and in order to insert the corbelling for the joists, fresh plan was not required. The length of he took down the wall sufficiently far to enable the old wall was cut into and new bricks put in. the party wall between the cross wall and the the brackets to be built in, then he built the The owner of the houses called frequently to front wall was 36 ft. 4 in. The Ordinance pro- wall up again. There were three brackets for inspect the work, and told witness to go accord- vided that no such party wall should exceed the top verandah. Witness did not remembering to the plan, and to use good material. 35 ft., but in this case the approval of the how far he cut down the back wall-in con- The small house on the roof above the top Director of Public Works was obtained, thus the nection with the building of the additional floor. cookhouse was built by witness, and was seven fulfilling the condition attached to
Poon Wo, contractor, 3, Sing Won Street, feet high. It was built of brick, and there was Ordinance. In the plan of No. 32 the height said he had no partners, and that he had been one on each house. The owner told him to of the wall was taken from the "footing,” a contractor for eleven or twelve years. Hebuild these erections, and he also gave directions six inches below the level of the floor. originally had been an apprentice bricklayer.
The proper way to ascertain the position Chan Chun Cheung employed him last year to
of the footing was to make a hole in the floor. make some alterations in houses Nos. 32 and
ing. In making alterations to a building, it was the case that the old portions should comply 34, Cochrane Street. They agreed on a price
with the Building Ordinance as well as the -$2,350-and before agreeing on that witness
now. One of the provisions of the Ordinance, saw the plane. Witness understood an English plan. The one shown him was that of No. 32.
Section 10, was that a wail should be solid across its entire thickness, but without opening the The alterations marked there were the building of a new cross wall, including foundations, the
wall it would be impossible to ascertain whether or not that provision had been carried out. It taking down of the old roof and the rais.
was also a provision of the Ordinance, in the ing of the party wall, the putting in of
same Section, that black bricks should not be beams on the third floor, the building up
used in the lower storeys without the approval of the front wall, the building in of brackets with cement, the construction of two
of the Director of Fublic Works. There was nothing in the plans to show what bricks the new door-frames in the front wall, and the laying of a new roof. The roof was to be
party walls were built of, and without a personal inspection it was impossible to my whether the covered with flat Canton tiles. Witness, detailed other alterations marked on the plan.
builder had complied with the Ordinance or not. When witness was employed in the P.W.D., he The cross wall on the ground story of No. 32 was 14 inches in the plan, but witness built it
took it for granted, when an architect submitted 18 inches. Shown the plan for No. 34, witness
plans, that he had complied with the provisions of the Buildings Ordinance. Witness had said there was a difference between it and that
seen houses 32 and 34, and in his opinion the of No. 32. In the latter plan the internal Mr. E. M. Hazelaud, civil engineer, who has
cause of the collapse was that a quantity of iron cross wall was shown to have one arch on the already given evidence in the enquiry, said he
was stored on brackets fastened to the party ground floor and two windows on each of the did not previously state that he had anything to
It was wall between the two houses. A portion of the upper floors, whilst in the plan for No. 34 there do with the alterations at No. 30.
correct that the owner of Nos. 32 and 34 wall was still standing, and some of the was an arch on each floor.
came to witness and asked if the walls of brackets were yet to be seen. In addition, the Nos. 32 were strong enough to hold another hammering of heavy material in the blacksmith's
The Court at this point adjourned till 2-15, and on resuming the witness was further
|
or
not to build the internal cross-wall, as the bricks were useless. The owner further told witness to build an arch instead of a cross-wall, the arch on the ground floor of each house. The chimney to the cockhouses in No. 32 was not omitted, but was built by witness; none, however, was built in No. 34. The chimney Wit stack was not built in No. 32 or No. 34. ness did not build a latrine on the roof of No. 34, and he could not say who did. When witness was calculating the price, he made no reduction on account of the arches that were to be substituted for the brick walls, as it cost as much to build an arch on account of the extra labour.
His Worship-That is reasoning I cannot follow.
Mr. Bowley-It requires extra skill, your Worship.
Witness, in answer to a final question, said he did not remember seeing any Government official inspect the alterations.
|
|
|
|