344
L
the other build ng sad that he did not take the ordinary precaution which avery man who had a dangerous pi-ce of work to perform had cast apon him. If a mio was engaged in a dau gerous operation, it was his bounden daty to take every care to preynt danger to the life of any person who was reanably supposed to be pat in danger by the operation; and he supposed that the accused kuow there were persons inhabiting this house and yet took no steps to shora up the building su foiently. After quoting authorities in precedent on th point of law, the Attorney Gaeril went on to say that he would prov · thich it was the c›ntractor's duty to provide for as safety of the parsɔus coming within tie kop of the operations and that he should hav given the persons living in it notice to leave the house unless he could so his way suficiently to shore up the wall, the support of which he had taken away, in such a manner as to rander it reasonably impr bibe that it would fall. Shores were actully placed, but they were not placed in th - rizut pósition and were insufficient in num er au in mit rial, and an essential part of the wall which ought to have been shored up was not share l. An incompetent man might take down houses for a contractor, but the responsibility was cast by the law upon the contractor.
|
His Lordsbip-Was he doing this without any supervision by an architect?
The Attorney-General-Absolutely. I shall prove that the work was carried out without nay such supervision.
His Lordship - That is to say, there was an architect employed to prepare the plans to pass the Public Works Department?
The Attorney-General-That was for the re-construction. This happened in the pulling
down.
His Lordship-He was the man who under took this on his own responsibility?
The Attorney-Gen ral-Yes. I hall give you evidence to show there were cracks in these walls, plainly visible, which could not bat bring home to the mind of a man who had any know. ledge of the subject that the wall was in danger; and notwithstanding that those persons were allowed to stay in the house.
His Lordship-You mean to show that these cracks existed at such a time that is shoring the wall he ought to have seen and been warned by
them ?
The Attorney-General replied in the affirma- tive. He went on to say that he proposed to put in the deposition of the prisoner before the
coroner.
Mr. Sharp said he made no objection to that being done.
His Lordship accordingly admitted the de- position.
The Attorney General said he desired to pro- pose that the Court should rise and go to see the locus.
His Lordship remarked that he did not approve of such procedu e on ordinary ocoa sions, but in this case he thought he should make an exception,
The Attorney-General said he would take just the medical evidence before the Court rose. Dr. E. A. R. Lang, assistant superintendent of the Government Civil Hospital. gave evidence regarding the nature of the injuries from which the man Wong Fuk died. The immedi te cause of death was fracture of the spinal column, caused by a heavy weight, such as a wall, falling upon the deceased.
The Court then rose and proceeded in rick- shas to First Street to inspect the locus.
were
Messrs. H. P. Too er and E. M. Hazeland sworn and accompanied the party to answer any questions which might be put by his Lordship, it being agreed that no discussion take place and no question be asked except through his Lordship.
Tue Court resumed after luncheon. The prisoner's deposition having been read, evidence was called.
Chan Kai, who was in the house 56, First Street Then the collapse occurr d, was the first witness to be examined. He described how the wall fell upon Wong Fak and the means taken to rescue him from below the débris
By his Lordship-The wall of the kitchen fell first, and then the floor of the room above fell down..
Yen Choong who was in the kite' on when the collapse occurred gave similar evidence.
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
sergant R Adlington give an account of the reagua of the deceased from the débris and described the «ppearance of the house after thy collapse.
II. . f. Haggard, assistant engineer, P.W.D.. put in and proved tracings showing honses in the neighbourhood of the house in whit the collapse happ net. He stated that he inspected No. 56. First Street on 31st July and found that the western wall had fallen out on to the passage-way of Vo. 58 and the site of some new houses in Ceatre Street: the floor of the second story kitchen had fallen down on to the first floor. He was of opinion that the wall fell outwa da.
After other evidence, the Court adjourned.
Tuesday, 29th Oct ber.
IN CRIMINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HON UR W. MEIGH GOODMAN (CHIEF J STICE).
THE FIRST STREET HOUSE COLLAPSE.
P.T. Crisp. iuspector of buildings, únder ex- amination by the Attorney-General, said he had not previously known the accused, nor had he ever been asked by him to inspect this house. On 17th June he got a chit from Mr. Tooker to go down to Centre Street to see if the new He found that the houses had been started.
ew houses bad not been commenced and repo ted accordingly to the office; he did not see No 56, First Street. At that time the old
houses were in the course of demolition.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sharp, K.C.-So far as the P.W D. was concerned, it was his duty to inspéct da gerous buildings. He saw shoring at this place. He supposed he should inspect any shoring that he saw, but if he did so he would never get out of Queen's Road. On this occasion, he did not inspect the shoring, as he had ant time to do so; lie had other work to do, and thought it could stand over until another day. The presence of shoring against a wall old one. Sometimes shoring was put up against did not necessarily mean that the wall was an
a perfectly sou d, new wall.
By His Lordship-Of late he had been assisted in the inspection of buildings by Mr, Haggard, who however, had a good deal of office work to do and really could no1 help very much.
Mr. E. Osborne foreman of the jury)-Will witness tell the jury what qualifications h· has for the position of i spector of buildings?
Witness-I was head draughtsman in Messrs. Gorge Trollope & Sus, one of the largest budding firms in London.
Mr. Osborne-As inspector of dangerous buildings, does the witness not cousider it part down to see that the adjoining houses are pro- of his general duty when a house is being pulled
perly shored up?
Witness-W-ll, of course, it is part of my duty, I admit, but if you saw the number of chits I have every mo ning to attend to you would be surprised how I get through the chit at all withou looking at shoring. I get chits from the police and the Sanitary department, and anonymous letters, and if let these things get behind I would never get through.
Mr. Osborne-But, being on the spot, it would not take very much longer for any one who went down to inspect the building to see that it was properly shored and do the job thoroughly.
His Lordship--What is your salary, Mr. Crisp ?
Witness-8150, with compensation.
His Lordship-That is 150 three-shilling dollars P
Witne-s-Yes.
Mr. Osborne-The
jury would like
to know whether the witness was specially engaged by the Government for the work?
Witness-I shall have been two years in the sery on of the Government next November. I was engaged from Messrs. Tr llope & Sons office to come out to Hongkong for thre years, and they were willing to take me the end of that time.
back at
His Lordship-Were you engaged as in- spector of buildings?
Witness--I was engaged as clerk of the works on a Government building. My agreement says nothing about the inspection of buildings.
|
|
[November 3, 1902,
His Lordship-On what building; does it say on what building?
The Attorney-General-The Supreme Court? (Laughter.)
Wituess-No; they could not tell me what building it was going to be.
The Attorney-General-I think you are sent here and there by your superior officers? On the day in question you were sent down to look at this par.icular job, and you went and did it ?
Witness-Yes
Mr. J. H. Lewis-Does the witness take it that when he has got specific orders to go and do a certain duty he is to do nothing else that might come under h's notice ?
His Lordship-Well, in this ca e all one can say is that it is unfortunate that he did not inspect the shoring, or that his special attention had not been called to it; be went down to see a certain thing and found that that thing had not been begun.
The Attorney tieneral-My point is that Mr. Crisp is an exceedingly busy man. He went to do one thing and did not attempt to do anything else. He did not see the house No.
56, or did not notice it.
Witness-I may state that the shoring was not really up at the time of my visit. They wer. putting it up, but it was not completed. It was in course of construction.
It was utterly useless to inspect it while it was being
built.
Mr. Sharp-That is new. Witness-Yas.
Mr. Sharp Then you saw some of the shor- ing fired and some of it being fix d?
Witness-Yes, from the other end of the
houses.
Mr. harp-But it is a fact that the shoring was actually being put up and that you made no enquiry as to the re son why it was being put
up?
Witness--Had I passed I would very likely have given it a glance.
Mr. Sharp-Your duties are those of build- ing inspector?
Witness-Yos.
diary produced show the inspections which Mr. Sharp-And does this diary of yours
you make as inspector of dangerous walls?
Witness-Yes,
Mr. Sharp-I have been looking through this, and I find that they do not seem to average mor than three per day. Sometimes there are only two, sometimes one, aud never more than six. Surely you are able to keep pace with that bulk of work.
Witne s-The time I spend in travelling has to be counted.
Mr. Sharp-But let that be as it is. Many days there are only two entries, and never more
than six.
besides, and if you add up he time taken up in travelling it gives a full day.
Witness-I have about two hours in the office
His Lordship-You have to go back to the office and report?
Witness-I have to go back and write out the reports.
His Lordship-And before you start you have two hours of office work?
Witness-Sometimes one hour, sometimes one and a half, sometimes two hours.
His Lordship-Then your work is regulated by the chits you receive?
Witnes-Yes; if I have no chits I inspect new buildings; if I have, I leave these alone.
Mr, Osborne-Has the witness ever reported to his superior officers that he had more work than he was able to perform ?
WiLLess-I have on several occasions, The Attorney-General-I understand that you cannot go away and do what you like, but
work is mapped out for you ? your Witness--It is mapped out for me by the chile. If I answer these chits I have done my duty for the day.
that
The Attorney-General-He follows his in- structions and he has done his duty.
1
take
His Lordship-Can you give me any idea of the number of works last year; that is, new houses and the various things y a bad to attend to coming under this definition? it that that means the demolition of houses?
Witness-l could not give you the exact figure; it was some thousands. There were 2,000 new houses being erected.
The Attorney-General-There were 2,860 ! new houses being erected last year.
Page 10Page 11
+