July 5, 1902.]
to speak once more on behalf of the poor. With regard to the rainfall: there are two important matters to be considered. The first is the weather, f.e., whether the rainfall is large or small : the second is whether the area over which it falls is broad or narrow. The need for more or less water cannot be regulated by the price of the land, whether more or less.
Will you be good enough, of your clemency, to listen to this short parable? If you feed s cow in order that you may have milk to drink, on the days that the cow gives you more milk do you increase the amount of food that you give to the cow? And on the days when the cow gives you less milk, do you ent down its allowance of food, and thus increase its distress?
(Pastor) WONG YUK CH'O.
FIRE INSURANCE,
is
TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY PRESS,
Hongkong, 1st July.
As
Sis, So long as our insurance offices con- tinue the imprudent struggle for business in the Western district of Hongkong (as ill- reputed as Barbican) at rates which are unremunerative, so long will there be little ground for satisfaction in the study of the annual fire report. The rates at present being charged do not even now pay the companies owing to the frequent recurrence of these heavy losses, and it is common knowledge that the leading companies would infinitely prefer better risks at proportionately lower rates. matters stand, the native insurance companies are welcome to all they could take in these congested and badly constructed buildings, but the ratepayers will be wise if they refuse to countenance a scheme which would but involve them in another near approach to water-famine, So long as "the existing lack of interest con- tinues to be shown by the magistrates" in the matter of fire enquiries, so long will there be an ever increasing ratio of the "unknown origin of fire." The Chairman of our local Association has hit the nail on the lead by his statement at the annual meeting: "It almost looks as if those in Chinatown had formed the impression that fire enquiries had been abolished." In face of that, every layman can see that the closing paragraph of the Hongkong Telegraph of 28th ult. is not quite accurate. And so long as the antiquated fire engines (15, 20, 22 and 23 years old things) and the bal water arrange ments are maintained, so long will there be extensive outbreaks of fires. It would be well to point out that under the present circum- stances, the prevention of the spread of fire is of far greater importance than in many other vities, and that means exist by which this risk can be reduced,—Yours, etc.,
J, M. R.
THE CORONATION MEDALS.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY PRESS,'
+1
Hongkong, 3rd July.
the SIE,-May I respectfully suggest to Coronation Celebration Committee that when medals are given to the Chinese children in the various foundling institutions, they might also be given to the British children attending the Kowloon School, the Diocesan Boys' School, the German School, and others. For some reason these were not invited to the recent tea, and I am sure they would, as British children, appreciate the medal. I might also suggest that when the Coronation Celebrations to take place they be invited to a special tea.- Yours, etc.,
PARENT.
In the year 1899 as many as 7.702 labourers emigrated from Hiroshima, which takes the lead among Japanese prefectures in sending out emigrants, while the number already abroad was estimated at 15,160. During that year. the money remitted home by the emigrants amounted to 846,648 yen, while 982 men returned bringing with them savings to the amount of 238,505 yen. Thus the savings of the labourers of Hiroshima remitted to Japan amounted to 1,085,153 yon for that year. "This is the result of investigations made by the authorities of the Hiroshima Kencho. During last year (1901) the savings rémitted to Hiroshima had increased to 1,800,000 yen.
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
SUPREME COURT.
Wednesday, 2nd July.
IN APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
BEFORE THEIR HONOURS W. MEIGH GOODMAN (CHIEF JUSTICE) AND A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE),
MOSES . KNIGHT.
This was a motion for appeal against the decision of Mr. J. H. Kemp, Acting Police Magistrate, in convicting the appellant in May last of having failed to conform with the regulations of the Public Health Ordinance of 1901 with respect to the provision of an open space in connection with the house No. 26. McGregor Street,
Mr. E. H. Sharp, barrister-at-law (instructed by Mr. H. W. Looker, solicitor), appeared for the appellant; and the Hon. Sir Henry Spencer Berkeley, Attorney-General (instructed by Mr. H. L. Dennys, Crown Solicitor), for respondent.
the
Mr. Sharp, in opening the case, said this was a motion that the case which was heard by Mr. Kemp in the Magi tracy in May last be re-heard by the Full Court on the grounds that his decision was erroneous in point of fact and of law. The Puisae Judge said he did not know that a re-hearing in point of fact was applied for; he had not seen the depositions.
The Attorney-General asserted that the point before the Court was simply one of law.
Mr. Sharp replied that while a special case could only be stated on a point of law and not pon a question of fact, his client had given the proper notice that he appealed on the fact also.
The Paisae Judge remarked that they should have copies of the depositions.
The Chief Justice said he had the Magistrate's depositions before him but they were written so illegibly that he could hardly read them; of course that was not the fault of the Magistrate, as they had to be written fast. Copies should have been provided.
Mr. Sharp thought that in that case he could only ask for an adjournment.
Tha Attorney-General asked what was the question of fact that Mr. Sharp desired to put ? Mr. Sharp answered that they put it as a matter of fact that they had complied with the Ordinance. They appealed on the question of law, but further on the question of fact. They said they did not corre under Section 55a of the Ordinance but under 55b, which dealt with houses having frontages to two streets. As a matter of fact, though, if it was held tha the east side was the rear of the building for the purpose of the question of law they would admit that if either side was the rear it was the east side.
The Attorney-General contended that there could not be two backs; he would submit that the kitchen side was the rear.
The Chief Justice thought that if the case was to hinge upon a question of fact the Court should have copies of the depositions or else they would have to adjourn. He might lay it down for future guidance that in such cases copies of the depositions, type-written or at least written legibly, must be farnished.
Mr. Sharp said that appeals on question of faot were heard de novo.
The Puisne Judge remarked that he was going to confine himself to what the Magistrate had in his depositions.
To facilitate matters it was ultimately con- seated to by the Court that Mr. Sharp should read the facts of the case from his copy of the depositions and that their Lord-hips should, as he proceeded, compare it with the originals.
|
The Court thereupon refused to grant re-hearing on the facts.
13-
Mr. Sharp then went on to argue on the point of law. He said the facts of the case were that” in 1896, 17 houses were built on the east side of McGregor Street, Wanchai. The plans were approved beforehand by the Public Works Department as complying with the Build- ing Ordinance, and the buildings were afterwards certified by the Sanitary Board as complying with the then Public Health - Ordinance. No. 26 was in the middle for this row of houses. In 1901 a new Ordinance was
passed, and in August the plans of the three houses situated at the end of the row
were
89.
approved by the Director of Public Works as complying with the Ordinance and showing the required open space. These three bouses were afterwards certified by the Sanitary Board
complying with' the Ordinance.
as
The Puisne Judge said it was possible they made a mistake.
Mr. Sharp, continuing his remarks, said it. was admitted that there was no area or open space which had been made within the building in question.
The Chief Justice supposed it was admitted that it was an existing building and that every existing building should be provided with an open space in a particular way as pointed out by the Ordinance.
Mr. Sharp admitted that they did not pretend to have done that.
The Chief Justice retorte that in that case they had infringed the law."
·
Mr. Sharp declined to take that risw. The question involved was whether a building which portion of a street which measured 500 square abuttel in the rear on an open, unobstructed feet in area was, within the meaning of the Act, provided with an open, unobstructed back-yard Those were their of 50 square feet of area. grounds; he admitted they were to some extent technical but thought they were sufficient. It would be unreasonable to say that a 6-feet lane at the back of this house would allow sufficient ventilation, light, and air for this house, whereas a public street 3) feet wide would not.
The Chief Justice thought it possible that a backyard should be required by law even though Mr. Sharp co tended that it was an absolute there might be a street at the back as well. superfluity, when the Ordin nce sid that a 6 feet lane gave sufficient ventilation, light, and air, to insist on a further open space being addel to a road 30 feet wide.
The Chief Justice pointed out that the Ordinance did not say it was sufficient but that it must be provided. It had to be remembered that the history of recent building legislation of this Colony had been a process of getting con cassions from landlords who were sometimes greedy. By degrees the Government had suc- ceeded in getting, bit by bit, houses made a little more sanitary. It did not follow that, because the law only called for a certain amount at the present time, that the authorities considered the amount sufficient.
Mr. Sharp asked if it was to be said that, bo- cause it was an old house-and old houses were
clearly treated throughout the Ordinance more liberally-a 30-ft. road did not afford a sufficient open space within the intent of the Ordinance though a lane one fifth of that width would suffice in the case of a new house.
The Puisne Judge remarked that they bad to consider not what the Ordinance should have
said, but what it did say.
Mr. Sharp went on to say that, according to a house having two main Section 555, if front ges upon two different streets was more than 5 feet deep it was to be regarded as two domestic buildings. This house was less than 50 feet deep.
The Chief Justice pointed out that a houseD- with two frontages might have two rears.
Mr. Sharp submitted that under Section 55b this was only the case in double-fronted house over 50 feet deep.
+
Mr. Sharp went on to read the depositions, which stated that H. Knight, inspector of nuisances, had on 27th February visited 26, McGregor Street and, finding that no open space had been provided by the owner, had issued a summons against him for not comply.
James Orange, The Chief Justice asked if it was the learned ing with the Ordinance. architect of the house in question and neigh-counsel's argument that if a building -was bouring houses, appe.red as a witness for the 51 feet deep it must have two openings - owner at the Magistracy aud stated that he | in the middle, but that if it was 49 feet there had received a certificate that the hou-es com- need be no opening at all?
Mr. Sharp said that was his contention. In plied with the Public Health Ordinance. The Magistrate found the charge proven and no place did the Ordinance contemplate - the
clearing of a space next to the street. imposed a fine of $1,
14