258
·
He
|
|
as
'
|
(October 6, 1902.
admitted to the Hospital on 29th July. On arrival the man was in a state of collapse from injuries received. Witness first saw him in the ward. The only external w.unds on his body were a few scratches. He was able to speak, but very feebly. He died at 65 a.m on 30th Jaly. A post-mortem examination showed that death was dus to fracture of the spinal cord. Theo injuries were quite consistent with a heavy weight having fallen on his body.
"
Chan Kai, sh omaker, stated that on 29th July ho was living on th· first floor of 56, First Street. On the morning of that day three fokis were living there also. The deceased man Wong Fook wis his ́tsuaut. About 11 o'clock in the morning witness was standing at the deor of the room and Wong Fook was at the water-tap with a basin in his hand, when the collapse occurred. The kitchen wall came down and the second-floor kitchen also fell down. The cook, In Cheung, was also in the kitchen. The wall fell on top of them. In Cheung eventually got out. He was not seriously hurt. Wong Fook was among the debris calling out Save life." His fokis fried to get him out bat were not successful natil police assistance arri- red. He was discoloured and could only just speak. He was taken in an ambulance to the Government ivil Hospital. On the morning of the collapse there were wind and raiu, of middling severity. The wall fell down because it had no support after the houses next door had been pulled down. Witness had lived in the house for about two years. In the first-floor kitchen there was no pillar or brick pier running from the floor to the ceiling. The houses next door were begun to be pullel down about one month before the collapse. Next to No. 16, First Street there was a lane in First Street. Bofure they pulled down the next door houses there was a floor in the lane; that was No. 53, First Street. That floor went back about as far on First Street as No. 56 did. People were living in No. 58 at the time they began to pull down the houses.
THE HONGKONG. WEEKLY PRESS AND mortar was poor, the wall was badly built, badly the words, " 'passage-way to be turned into bonded, and not such a wall as would be ex-
lane." He called the attention of the pected to withstand any very bad weather. jury to that because it might be that thought also that the jury would find that there they would find that had that plan more was evidence that the were old cracks in that strictly complied with the wording of the wall before it fell down and that they had been Ordinauce, and shown, as he thought he was plastered over, but he would not go very much justified in saying it should have shown, into the question of the material used in the No. 56,. the officer in the P.W.D. who building, for it would not be necessary for them received the notice and the plan would pro- to enquire into the conduct of the people who bably have gone down to th spot and would built it. The only question in the case was have seen that the dwelling-house No 58 First whether anybody had beu guilty of cul Street was going to be pulled down, and ho pable negligence in the
way โค had would have seen that the pulling.down of No. performed his duties with respect to those 58 must more or less affect No. 56, and probably houses in Ceutre Street. It would be the duty | he would have required certain precautions to of the jury with respect to that, to consider be taken with reference to No. 56. The plau, how far the pulling down of those houss in as he had put it to them, threw the officer off | Centre Street was responsible for the collaps his guard altogether. It was perfectly stran | of this wall. It woull be for them to say that there was a line on the eastern side of the | whether the architect, the contractor, or any lane which que would reasonab y, looking at the body else had culpably neglected his duty with plan, supposo to be a house. That was No. 55. respect to the way in which he had pulled down But there was nothing whatever to suggest those other buildings in Contre Street and the that No. 58 was a house or was inhabitel. In adjoining house, 58, First Street, which ong place it was called a covered passage-way. really almost formed a part of theso build-
and in another it was called a passage-way, to ings: the west wall of No. 58 .formed the ba turned into a lane. The wording of the back wall of these buildings; it would be for | Ordinance with reference to these plans, in the jury to say whether anyone had so culpably Section 69, Ordinance 15 of 1889, was neglected his duty as to make him guilty in law follows:-Sach plans shall show the of the offence of manslaughter. There would position and lovels of the surrounding grounds be little doubt in their minds, he thought, after and buildings." Now, he thought the jury they had heard the evidence, that this western would be told by the officer of the P.W.D. that wall of 56, First Street fell down in consequence he did not cons.der that the plan showed the of what was done to the Centre Street houses surrounding ground and buildings. It should and the adjoining house No. 58; but of course
have shown No. 58, First Street. After that the mere fact that the wall fell down in couse- plan was sent in, certain requirements were re- quence of that would not by itself render qired, chiefly, he believed, with reference to anybody guilty of negligence, or what might the sanitary laws, by the Medical Officer of be called gross or culpable negligence, and it Health; but, at any rate, finally the notice and would be for them after hearing, the evidence plan were acknowledged by the DP.W. or that he would bring forward-And he would officer representing him. Upon the 3rd Ju..e, bring forward as much as be possibly could-to that was to say, while these plans were still say whether any one was guilty or was not under consideration by the D.P.W., in answer guilty of manslaughter.. Ma slaughter had to application, a permit was granted to Tak Kee, been defined by Sir James Fit james Stephen contractor, to erect a scaffolding and hoarding as "unlawful homicide without m lice afore- on the Crown lot adjoining Nos. 27 to 41, Centro thought," and that, he thought, was about as >treet. That permit having been granted, he good a definition as they could work upon. thought the jury might reasonably conclude, It Was not · of course suggested for and he thought it would be shown, that Tak moment that anybody intended this western Kee then proceeded to pull down those old wall of No. 56 to fall down, but if a
houses standing in Centre Street. The houses, passage, con- tractor or anybody else did his work in he believed, had been closed by the Sanitary a careless, negligent way-if ho neglected his Board, and the owner appeared to have come to duty by not taking tho precautions which some arrangement with the lessee, that he the law threw upon him, although ho had no would pull down and rebuild these houses, no malice aforethought whatever, no intention of rent being charge while they were being pulled killing anybody or injuring property-if the down and rebuilt. At any rate somewhere immediate result of his action was that some- about 3rd June or shortly afterwards Tak body was killed, he was liable to be tried for the Kee proceeded to pull down those old houses, crime of manslaughter; and if after enquiring and in doing so he pulled down the west fully into the matter, they considered that any- wall of No. 58, First Street, pulled off body had been grossly n gligent, and that the half the roof of No. 58, and at the same consequence of that gross neglect was the death time exposed the wall on the other side of this man Wong Fook, then it woull be of No 58, which really was the western wall of their duty to find a verdict against that No. 56, to the wind and weather. On 29th person, and it would be his Worship's duty July, at eleven o'clock in the morning, the de. to commit that person for trial at the Supreme ceased, Wong Fook, was in the kitchen on the Court. To go into what might be called the first floor of No. 56. He had a basin or some- After other evidence of a similar kind, history of the matter, it was very shortly thing of that kind in his hand, and was going
Lance-Sergeant Adlington went into the box. this. Upon 21st May, 1902, Mr. Hazeland, to the water-tap to fill it with water. The cook He stated that on 29th July, while stationed at at the request of Pau Chau, the agent of of No. 56 was also in the kitchen. Suddenly, No. 7 Police Station, he was called to No. 56, these houses in Centre Street, who happened to without any warning of any sort, the kitchen First Street. He turned out all the available be the owner also of No. 56, First Street, seut wall of No. 56 fell outwards, and the men. On arrival at the scene of the accident in notice to the D.P.W., saying that he was second-floor kitchen fell down and caught this they got Wong Fook from among the débris going to reconstruct the houses 27 to 41, man Wong Fook and also the cook in the debris. and sent him to the Hospital. He noticed Centre Street, and with that notice he sent in a The cook was fortunately taken out alive, and
some supports on the western side of the build. plan. Mr. Hazeland's stamp was on the plan not seriously hurt, though very much frightening. and application, but Mr. Hazelaud put oot only ed and shaken; Wong Fook was killed. He did his stamp on, but also these words " Plan only; not die immediately; he was taken out alive and no supervision," which, of course, he took it, removed to the Government Civil Hospital, would be said to mean that all his duty was where he was attended to by Dr. Lang, who finished when he sent in the plan to the D.P.W.: would tell the jury that the man was suffering that if that plan was according to the require. from an injury to his spine, and that on the ments of the Ordinance, Mr. Hazeland had following morning he did. He did not think nothing further to do with it. That first that the jury would have any doubt whatever notice was dated 24th May, and to it was as to the cause of death: that this man died attached a 'plan with reference to which from the second-door kitchen and a portion of it might be that the jury thong t there this wall falling upon him; but it was not
Whether something irregular.
that sufficient for them to find that he died through irregularity had much to do with the case now being hit by this wall. They had to
go into before them was another question, but in that the whole question and find out what caused the plan, at the back of houses No. 27 to 33, Centre wall to fall, and if in the course of that enjairy Street, was shown a. covered passare-way. they came to the conclusion that anybody had Now, there was no notice on the face of that culpably neglected his duty. it would be for plan to show that there was a house there, 58, them to find a verdict against that person. First Street, or that people were living in it. That plan was afterwards amended, and instead of the words "covered passage-way," were the
was
A
Dr. E. A. R. Ronald, assistant superintendent of the Government Civil Hospital, was the first witness. He deposed that Wong Fook was
|
By Mr. Goldring-There was a pillar on the ground floor leading to the ceiling but none on t..e first floor. When the houses were pulled down he noticed pine-pole supports put under the floor extending the whole length of the At the time of the collapse Wong Fook was at the entrance to the kitchen. The wall fell upon him, falling awards from No. 58. The floor of the kitc in remained but the floor above fell through. The wall and the floor fell about together.
the
Chun On, shoemaker, who lived in the house at the time of the accident, gavo evidence of a corroborative nature. He did not se actual collapse but heard the noise of it and wanted to jump from the verandab as he was very much frightened. He saw from the front room, where he was at the time, that the kitchen was down and the dust was flying about thick. He did not jump down, however. There was no pillar from the door to the ceiling in the first- floor kitchen.
were
By Mr. Goldring-These supports broken off at the level of the first floor; part of the wall had fallen outwards upon the founda- tions of a building in course of construction.
A Chinese constable gave formal evidence. H. E. Y. Haggard, assistant engineer in the P.W.D., having proved a plan showing the neighbourhood of First, Second and Centre Streets.
The case being resumed on the 2nd inst., E. M. Hazeland, civil engineer and architect, said he had been practising in the Colony as such for about two years and a half; before that he was assistant engineer in the P. W. D. While in the P. W. Ď. it was part of his duty to look after work connected with the Building Ordinance. He was acquainted with the block of buildings bounded on the east by Eastern Street, on the west by Centre Street, on the