October 6, 1902.}
Land Investment Agency Co., said that on behalf of his company he desired that the widest publicity should be given to the proceedings.
The enquiry continued.
1
By Mr. Looker-Io Hongkong there ware about half-a-dozen really good contractors, and in sending out invitation for tenders the bast contractors were selected. Witness considered the Loong Cheong firm one of the best in the Colony for the kind of work in question. In his original applicati to Goram ut ia reference to cross walls in the case of a wall exceeding 35 feet in length, witness had in mind cross walls generally, but was told that for the purposes of appeal he must particularise a ca38. His view that these cross walls were not necessary was supported by all the architects in the Colony. Previous to that, the question of cross walls had never been raised, and from the date of the appeal till the date of the present enquiry the clause in the Ordinance had nacer been enforced, although there had been hundreds of opportunities for the Governme it to enfores it had they wished to. If the wall at N. 3 had had a cross wall, it would have had no appreciable effect whatever in holling it uḥ, Eight tie-bolts were pat in No. 3 for th express object of holding this wall up. Tie-bolt‹ were superior to a cross wall for the purpose of holding a wall up. The bolts on the inside wali at No. 30 were in no way displaced, and that wall was built exactly like the outsile wall the simo height and the same thickn
Witness knew
of lots of instances of walls with cross walls collapsing. The fores that pull the wash plates of the bolts through the outer par of the collapsed wall must have bam great, but was not equal to the breaking strain of tho bolts, none of which failed. Witness mentioned this in order to point out that the maus his adopted for holding up the wall were sufficient. The tie-bolts were shown in the plia submitted to the D.P.W. All the strain on the gable end of a Chinese house tendel to thrust it out: it was really a detriment. as regarded an end wall, to put a cross wall in. Thero was no necessity under the Building Ordin ance to insert tie-rods, and up to the time of the opening of the enquiry the section of the Ordinance relating to cross walls had never bon enforced; as far as witness knew, it had never be enforced since the opening of the enquiry. Before commencing work on a house, the plans had to be submitted to the D.P.W., and his permission obtained for the occupation of the house. There was no question of approving plans submitted to the D.P.W. except in so far as seeing that they were in compliance with the Building Ordia- ance, the main object of which was the safety of the public. Previous to this summer, witness considered that collapses in the Colony were rare, and from his experience here he should say that No. 30, Kowloon City Road, was better built than the majority of Chinese houses in Hongkong.
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
weaknesses-cracks-
|---were getting into the external walls on the weather canged by the wet side; the other walls on the block were now standing strong, safe, aud substantial. The back wall on KIL. 1,109 had shown signs of crack- ing and weakening since 18th July and prior to 2nd August. The reasons why witanss thought that the gable will of No. 39 fall fest and upon the gahl, wall of No. 32 were as follows :-(1; Tao romiining pr to 18 left stun ling of the gable wall at No. 3 tea-led outwards, whilst those of No. 3 inclined inwards; (2) there was no brick debris to speak of inside No. 34, what was thera consisting of th mortar and tiles of the roof, and the roof and floor joists, while in No. 32 the ground for was nearly full of brick debris, showing clearly that that wall went inwards; (3) the debris from the wall of No. 3) was mostly in the 15-foot passage
WAY
|
257
circumstance that these houses faced to the west, that block, a fact that he accounted for by the and that their verandahs protected the onter wall from the rain. When witness said on the first day of his examination that he had noticed things wrong hundreds of times in respect of these houses in the course of his inspection, he referred to his numerous visits while the houses were in course of construction; it was excep tional to go on to a "job" without having some fault to find, and he always tried to have the fault rectified. If anything was palpably wrong, he caused it to be rectifled, as was instanced in the pulling down aul rebuilding of the gable wall of the northernmost house on K.I.L.11,108.
the enquiry was adjourned till next Tuesday.
This concluded the day's proceedings, and
THE FIRST STREET CASE.
Au official enquiry into the collapse of the house 56, First Street ou 21th July last was opened on the 1st inst. before Mr. J. H. Kemp, Acting Police Magistrato, and a common jary. Mr. H. L. Dennys, Acting Crowa Soli itor, appeared for the Crowa, and Mr. P. W. Goldring, solicitor, for the lesso and the con-
tractor Tak Kae.
The jury was as follows:-W. F. Must, C. M. dos Remedios and Gustav Rust,
batween the two house, sɔm) of it, witness thought, actually falling into No. 32; and (4) the outer face of the wall at No. 32 left standing, which ineluded the whole of the ground floor, showed evilent signs of having bla struck by a mass of brick-work; the thres windows on the ground floor of No. 32 were smashed inwards, whilst the external wall of No. 30 showed little siga of having boon struck. In addition to all this, there was the almost impossible contingency of Mr. Dennys, in opening the case, stated that the wall of a Chinose house falling inwards. the enquiry was held under th Coroner's If the wall at No. 32 had fallen in Abolition Ordinance, 17 of 1888, Section 6, first, this would uot have aff cted tho as amended by the supplementary Ordinance, wall at No. 30, on the other hand, if the wall at 7 of 1889; and it was an enquiry into the No. 32 had fallen out, the brick debris would death of a person named Wong Fook, who was not have been inside the house. It was possible alleged to have come by his death in cous 'quence for the wall of No. 32 to have collapsed in such of injuries received on 29th July last about 11 a way as not seriously to strike No. 39, but the o'clock in the morning while he was in the evidence t∙nd d against this aud to the theory kitchen of the hoase No. 56, First Stret. Ha that No. 30 full against No. 3. The ground should explain, first of all, that there was a floor walls of bath buildings were still intact, street running up from Queen's Road West, and these at the time of the collapse ward quite soundl.
called Centre) Street, and facing the market There were 110 re isous to place, which Aras on the right hand side of suspect any subsiduce of the fondations of Centre Stret. On the opposite side were two either No. 3 or No. 32; the foundations streets, one in.nediately above the other, one were exceptionally good. In witness's opinion, called First Street and the other Second Street; the wall at No. 3), which collapsed first. so that the houses facing on First Street on as of sufficient thickness for safety and the south side, the hou es facing on Second support; it was built in accordance with the Street on the north side of Second Street, Ordinance and the usual custom of the Colony, and the houses in Centre Street to the That was witness's opinion, despite the fact that the London Building Act of 1891 would have required a thicker wall. His reason for saying so was that the London Ordinance was looking to a house very different from a Chinese house 15 feet wide, and had it been intended to indicate Chinese houses the Ordinance would not have required a thicker wall than did the Houg kong Ordinancs. If the will had been thickor, witness was of opinion that it still would have collapsed, for the reason that it gave way owing to the squeezing out of the mortar on the
|
After the adjournment for lunch, Mr. Looker resumed his cross-examination. Wituoss said that blue brick was considered inferior to red Canton brick, and was therefore only permitted in top stories. As to walls collapsing although supported by cross walls, instances were seen in the back walls of Nos. 50, 52, 54, and 56 of K.I.L. 1,108, where the back walls of the two upper floors fell out. Another instance was the back walls of about five houses in Hungbom, where these back walls fell out and where there were cross walls at intervals of about 14 feet. Further instances could be given, but witness did not consider them necessary. The block of houses on K.I.L. 1,107 had been passed by the P.W.D. by a certificate dated 19th March, 1992. Wit- ness inspected that block of houses a few days before 11th March, and made a thorough examination of it No cracks or weakness.s were then apparent in any of the walls; that was witness's final examination. The buildings at that time appeared thoroughly sound, safe, and substantial. At that tim, too, the mortar in the outside walls appeared to be well set, and in witness's opinion and from his experience it was good mortar. Before the collaps and after the approval of the houses, there were, to witness's knowledge, no weaknesses apparent in the houses on K.I.L. 1,107. Since the collapse signs of weakness wers apparent in the walls of that lot, but were to be seen only in the two gable walls and the back wall. These
|
outer face. If the mortar at the juuction of the ground and first floors squeez xd ont 1-32ad of ад inch. witness proceeded to explain, it would throw the top of the gable will about 7 inches out of plumb, a distance that would be sufficient to let down the ends of the roof joists and cause the collaps that took placo The wall that garo way was covered with two coats of plaster, with the object of keeping out.the wet. Plaster was the ordinary precaution taken in the case of Chinese houses, or any houses, to keep out the wet; joints of brickwork were usually pointed in cement for the same reason. The architects of the Colony usually adopted plaster for keaping wet out of the walls of Chinese honses, aud in the course of witness's 22 years' experience nothing had occurred to lead him to suppose that this was not a sufficient precaution. That precaution hid been universally adopted up to the time of these collapses. Since then, witness had already modiñed his specifications an hid adopted further means for excluding the wet. from external walls. Between 11th March and 18th July, the day of the collapse, witness constantly visited the houses in Kowloon City Road, and in that perio i noticed no indi- cations of cracks. Had there been any, he must have noticed them. The houses on K.I.L. 1,118, which were across the road from K.I. Lots 1,107 and 1,108, were built under the same contract by the same contractor, of similar material and design, and under the same over- seer. As far as witness knew, no cracks had appeared in any of the walls of the houses on
west formed one block.
The enquiry, there- fore, so far as it went into the question of topography at all, was confined to the block of buildings bounded by the streets named. The house No. 56, which was the particular house they had to deal with, and all the rest of the houses in that block of buildings he had just mentioned, were vested in the executors of the late proprietor. The executors had an agent in Hongkong named Pan Chau, who had leased this block of houses to another man. No. 56 used to have on its western side a small lane and next this lane were the houses in Centre Street-the backs of the houses in Centre Street. Over this lane and between No. 56 and the Centre Street houses was what wag known a 3 a riding-floor-a one-story building on top of the lane. That Was No. 58, First Street. In the early part of this year Pau Chau the agent, engaged a contractor, Tak Kee, to pull down the houses in Centre Street, and in doing this the con- tractor pulled down the western wall of No. 8. Before going into the case, he would ask the jury to carefully put out of their minds anything they might possib'y have there in consequence of having read either newspaper-- reports or anything else, with reference to the other collapses that had taken place in the Colony. Each of these cases had to be tried simply and solely on its own merits. In that case it would not be necessary for the jury to go into the question of who built No. 56, First Street or how it was built-whether it was built of good or bad material-except in so far as it was necessary to oo sider these questions as to material when they were considering why the wall fell down. It would be shown that No. 56, First Street was an old building, that was to say, old in Hongkong. It might not be called old in Europe, where buildings stood for hundreds of years, bat in Hongkong it was an old building. It was built, as far as they had been able to ascertain,) and as far as any records in the Government offices showed, before 1873, and the material, ho thought the jury would find, was of very poor quality the bricks were poor, the