October 6, 1902. }
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
259
length of No. 56 and nearly up to the roof. It civil engineer was engaged by either witness W 18 witness's opinion that the kitchen or Pau Chan in connection with the work Aoor fell first and knocked out the side wall, because he found on his inspection a lot of
on these houses, the whole of which work wit less himself undertook and performed; broken shoring which mast bara bon caused there was no sub-contracting. He bought all by a falling weight. If the side wall had flea the different kinds of material bimself, and set fist the brickwork would have dispersed bɔ. | his own fokis to work on them. He let out the tween the shorings. Witness kuaw Tak Keg scaffolding to one Sai Shing, No. 50, Firet and considered him to be better than the Street, who put up the hoardings and the average contractor in Hongkong. He had scaffolding over the old buildings. The whole already done several jobs for witness, who did
of the bamboo work he agreed to do for $110, uot think that he of sub-contracting.
was in the habit and it was his budiuess to see that all the adjoin- It was witness's opinioning buildings were properly shorel up and. that sub-contracting was responsible for so protested. That shoring-up Sai Shing received inuch bad work in the colony. Tak Kee, to directions for from witness, who personally witness's knowledgs, had never been involved in superintended the work as it proceeded, any collapsed houses and he had known him as going down every day. The pulling-down a contractor for a number of years. In the of four houses was finished by 24th July. P.W.D., speaking from his experience as a former official there, the inspect ar of buildings Centre Street. On 24th July the ground where these haring to be done first-Nos. 27 to 33, was the officer whose duty it was to look after these four houses had stood was quite clear, old buildings. Witness did not know if any and iu pulling them down the western officor from the P W.D. erer inspected the site wall of No. 53, First Stree', Was also of these houses. When witness was in the demolished; witness could not say exactly when P.W.D., it was not usual to check a plan with that wall was pulled down, but it ws on or be the actual locality, and more often than not the fore 24th July. The effect of pulling down only check upon a pla sent in by an architect the west rn wall of No. 58 would lay in whatever old plans were in possession of be to
t'e expose
western wall the P. W. D., and very often be knew that
of No. 56, because the roof still remained; the wind When he in-plan: submitted to the P. W. D. had ben and rain, however, witness added, would beat inspected by a person who had no knowledge of against the wall. Witness was afraid that the the locility, aud compared with old plans in wall of No. 56 would fall on his fokis, so he the possession of tie Department. Mr. shored it up; t ere was a typhoon signa' up Crisp, witness believed. Was the present about that time. In addition to what he put inspector of buildings.
up against No. 59. Si Shing placed four shor- ing poles against the western wall of No. 56, anlal41 shores at the front and back of the wall.
wis not a
north by First Street, and on the south by Second Street. One of the houses in that block of buildings was No. 56, First Street, At the back of houses Nos 27, 23, 31, and a portion of 33, Centre Street, there was a covered passage-way extending back from First Street the full length of No. 56. Above this coverel way was a story, but witness did not know if it was numbered, nor could he say whether or not it was inhabited. After other evidence as to the location of the houses in question, witness said he was engaged in April or May by Tak Kee to prepare plaus for rebuilding Nos. 27 to 41, Centre Street.
Before propar- ing the plans, witness personally inspected the buildings; the plans were then made under his supervision, and the plan shown him was the duplicate one sant to the P.W.D. un loc Saction 69 of the Building Ordinance; the notice pro- | duced, dited 21st May, was also seat to the P.WD., and bora witness's stamp, underneath which stamp a clerk employed by witness had written Plan only; no supervision." The notice was one regarding the commencoment of wirk on the houses in Centro Stret, aud was acknowledged on 9th July. At the request of the Medical Officer of Health, witness after wards amended the plan sont to the P.W D Witness was of opinion that the house in Centre Street were old ones. spected the site, he did not examine the story overlooking the covered passige-way, and could not say where access to it was to be gained. As to the pulling down of the houses, by the end of June Nos. 27 to 33, Centre Street, were demolished; he could not say who By Mr. Donuys-Tak pulled them down, as he had nothing what- Government contractor, and was not employed ever to do with the process of demolition, which by the Government. Witness employed he did not 800. Witness could not give any him in building houses in Que n's Road date as to when the new houses in Ceatre Central about oig teen mouths ago, and Street were rebuilt; with that also he had in that case, as architect, wituess supervised | nothing whatever ti do. He visited the anl supe intended the work. Hdd not houses on 29th July, after the collapse, at the roma aber any other instance in whic Tak request of the less e of the buildings. Un that Koo had been employed by him as a contructor. occasion he went to the first floor of No. 565. His reason for saying that Tak Kea never First Street, and found that the second floor employed sub-contractors was becaus 119 kitchen had collapsed on to the first floor; the was generally on the work himself; wituess western, wall of the kitchen had fallen out really could not say whether he employed sub- wards as far down as the first for, but the contractors or not. There was some stone. roof was still intact. The reason that the lesse work connected with the rebuilding of the wanted witness to inspect the houses was to houses in Centre Street, and it was customary prepare plans for the reconstruction of a pr in the Colony for the contractor to give the tion of Nos. 52. 54, and 56, First Street. Those stonework to one mia, the carpentering work houses were old, in witoess's opinion. The to another man, and so on. Whilst witness joists of the kitchen wore decayed, tho was in the P.W.D.. it wont have bзe the walls were not level, and the place seamed duty, had such a thing been customary, of the to be siturated with water. The brick-inspector of public buildings to chock plaus work was also old, but witness did not cut into with the localities. Wituess had been in the walls, and could not say whether they were the P.W.D. for about ten years. anl he well built. Ho should say, however, that, had very soldom known of a plan boing judging from the condition of that portion of checked with the locality. The P. W. D. was the western wall of No. 56 left standing, the then, as it was now, underminel, and that wall was badly constructed, and there appeared fact might have accounted for plaus not being to have been very little mortar used. The compared with localities. Had witness known collapse included the whole of that portion that No. 58, First Street, was inhabited, it between the cross wall and the back wall, and would not have made my difference in the from the first floor to the roof. The pulling plan he drew up. I did not know whether down of the western wall of the covered passage- way had the effect of only slightly exposing the western wall of No. 56 to the weather, and did not deprive it of any former support derived from the covered passage-way, as the roof and floor of that passage-way wore shored up where the walls had ben taken down. Ia witness's opinion, there was no necessity to shore up the wall of No 56 because of the rebuilding, and what shoring-up there was was unnecess ry, as the floor and roof were still standing. As far as he knew, no European was looking after the reco struction of the houses in Centre Streat.
1
or not it was Tak K who rebuilt the house.
|
|
not
After the adjournment for lunch, the enquiry was resumed. Witness said the shoring was put up after the wall of No. 53 had been taken down; that was before 24th July, about 5th July. These shores were set in a hole in the g ouud,
At the top of the shores was a plank. The e was no needle going into the wall, but simply the plank. The shorings consisted each of three pol s running up fan wi e, every pole be ng three inches in diameter. A little after eleven o'clock on the forenoon of 29th July witness went to No. 56, but did not go inside; since then he had been inside, although he could not say when. He found that the second for had fallen down on to the first floor, and that the western wall had also collapsed, the dibris lying in the place where No. 58 had been. Witness could not say whether the collapsed wall was a gool one or not. He blamed the man who put u the shorings, because they were rotten. Witness afterwards said it was the kitchen that was rotten. Continuing, he said that when the foundations had been excavated he sent to the P.W.D. for some one to come and sue them; it was Mr. Crisp he asked, a d he came and looked at the foundations. Wit- ness had known Mr. Crisp before. He did not point out to him the shoring against the wall of No. 56; he could not say when Mr. Crisp came, bat when he did come the western wall of No. 58 had fallen down. Witness im- mediately afterwards said it had been taken down and that it did not fall. At a 1y rate, ha said, he did not call the attention of Mr. Crisp or any other European to the shoring against the wall of No. 56. There was no typhoon on 29th July, and the collapse of the kitchen at No. 56 was simply dus to th› boarding and the joists being rotten. Wituess was the only person responsible for the pulling dowa and rebuilding of the houses in Centre Street.
Mr. Deunys-You have told us you were afraid the wall might fall down and hurt your fokis. Did it not occur to you that it waight fall and hurt the people in No. 56 ?—Yes.
Mr. Denys-Did you warn the people in No. 56 ?-No.
Choong Hong said he carried on a contractor's business at 23, Hing Loong Strest, under the firm name of Tak Keo. He knew houses No. 32 to 58, First Stroot, and described them. People wore living in No 58 when he went to work, but they moved ont between 15th and 25th June. No. 53 raa back from First Street to the same depth as No. 56. Witness commenced work on 28th Juae, and built a scaffold to take down the roofs of the houses in Centre Stroot He had already sent in notice to the P.WD.-
-on 3rd June. Pau Chau engaged him to pull down the houses; By Mr. Goldring-Tue joists in all three Pau Chan was the agent for the owner houses, Nos. 52, 5k, and 56, First Street, were in of the houses. The Sanitary Board had closed a rotten condit on. The kitchen on the second these houss, and Pau Chau engaged witness floor was consequently in a weak state, aud likely to pull down and rebuild the houss There
By Mr. Goldring-Witness had been a to o llapse with the slightest extra pressure. were eight houses to be pulled down and rebuilt contractor in Hongkong for between 21 anl In the event of a plan being shown him bearing in Ceatre Street, Nos. 27 to 41, and for that | 22 years, and during that time he hid the words "covered pass ige-way," witness work witness was to be paid $18,400; the beeu continually employed in the erection would naturally infer that there was a story terms w re sat down in writing. Mr. of buildings in the Colony. In that time over that passage-way, if the plin referred to Hazeland was the architect who drew up the he had never had any accidents to any Chinese houses. He considered that the plans for the n w houses, and he knew that buildings he had been engaged upon. collapsed wall and similar walls if pro erly built witness was to pull down and rebuild the Louses. hons sin Centre Street were over 26 years old; should have been able to withstand greater Except for preparing the plans, Mr. Hazıland witness had been in the Colouy for that time. exposure than that to which it was subjecte, had nothing else to do with the work; be sent He inspected the first floor after the collapse, protected as it was by the roof and first floor of the plans to the P.W.D., and also got the and saw no sign of any support for the second the covered passage-way and shored up in what | permit fron the P. W. D. Witness took
floor;
there was a support on the ground floor. appeared to wilness to be a satisfactory Mr. Hazeland to the houses and showed him The kitchen was liable to collapse at any manner. The shoring ran along the whole over the ground. No other architect or moment, in view of the rotten condition of the
The