November 3, 1902.]
Wituess--Yes; and I dare say there were about 3,000 hou es being altered.
F. T. H. Hewett, R.E.. give technical evidence, he having visited the scene of the collape in the beginuing of September. He was of opinion that the wall of the first-floor kitchen fell out first and that in consequence of this wall falling out the floor of the upper kitchen fell down.
By His Lordship-If he had been contractor for the taking down of those huses, he would certainly have put in a different class of shoring and possibly in different positions.
This closed the evidence for the Crown. Mr. Sharp, in opening the ca-e for the defence, said he proposed to tell the jury very shorily what was their explanation of the way in which the collapse occurred, reserving until afterwards any further remarks or argument But at the outset he would ask the jury to carefully distinguish between this case ni the recent long series of collapses of new buildings in the Colony. This case had been geuer lly spoken of and regarded, he thought, as one of bat series of collapses which naturally the g neral public had not taken the trouble to distinguish between; and it had been generally thought that this was the first of the series of collapses which had come before the Court and unusual attention had therefore been drawn to it.
::e submitted that this case was entirely different from practically all the other cases in the series of collapses which had occurred during the past wet season. These were practically all cases of collapses of new buildings, e mpleted or in course of erec ion; and for the condition of such buildings occasion- ing collapse-of course the weather was, he supposed, the immediate accelerating cause-LO doubt the contractor was primarily responsible. If the work or material was prima facie defective, the contractor in these cases was no doubt responsible. But this wall was an old wall. For the condition of that wall and the material of which it was built, it was not pre- tended that the defendant was in any way responsible. He had nothing to do with the d fects in that wall. He wa not responsible for them being there and had nothing to do with them in any way unless they were such defects as he ought reasonably to hare dis- covered ou
an ordinary external inspection of the wall. That was to say, if the defects in this wall had led to the collapse, the defendant was in no way responsible whatever in the matter, unless it could be shown beyoud all reasonable doubt that it was his wok that he was doing next door that caused it. The only connection between this case and the series of collapses of new buildings this year was that they hap. ened about the same time. That of course was due to the phenomenal weather we had had for two and a half months before the collapse, and it was extremely unfor- tunate for the defendant that the accident happened when it did—that was to say, when those other collapses occurred-because, as he had said, it had drawn an amount of attention to this case, which there was no question at all would not otherwise have been drawn .o it. A.s to the facts, they were largely in agreement with the facts which had been laid before the Court. but they took the story oue step farther back, as shown by the evidence of people both inside and outside the house, who saw all that occurred, what portion of the wall went first, and in what direction it went. The defence accepted the evidence that had been given, except that of one or two people who were in the house. But in carrying the story one step farther back and showing why that happened which did happen, their evidence would be entirely opposed to the theory of the pros cution. That was the theory evolved by men who visited the site after the collapse and, finding the debris outside in the lane, assumed, in the absene of any other evidence, that the wall had collapsed outwards and that the debriz had fallen immediately into the position in which it was found, Two of the witne ses call- ed by the Crown as having been in the house when the collapse occurred were not in a position to see the whole wall that ollapsed. Of course at the Coroner's enquiry no evidence was called by the defence at all, because at that time n body was charged,
The Attorney-General-Of course they were at liberty to give evidence.
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
Mr Sarp replied that the Chinese were not given to rushing into Court. The story of the defence was that the second story portion of the wall fell first. They had the evidence of a good many witnesses, most of them entirely cisinterested, and that would show that this part fell first. The top part of the wall fell inwards, that was towards the east, and not outwards, as had been assumed. It fell
in and all that followed was a consequence of that. Practically that gave the jury the whole explanation. The weight of this portion of the wall was some four or five tons. It fell on the floor which admit'edly was not in a very souud con lition. It drove that floor into a position diagonally across the kitch-u below, the lower end being towards the west; the brick work tumbled after it and as it got into that sloping position it was quite clear- in fact one witness said he actua ly saw it- that the brick work which had fallen upon the sloping floor went in an avalanche down that floor aud knocked up against the wall of the first-floor kitchen, which gave way and let the debris shoot out into the lane and spread a little bit over the adjoining site. If there bad been a brick pier under this floor it was quite likely that the floor would have withstood the weifht of the falting debris. Witnesses would be called who were on the top floor of the house
when the coll pso occurred and on the neigh- bouring site of the Centre Street houses which had been demolished, who were in a position to see from the out-ide the whole of this wall simultaneously and to say which part fall first That being so, he thought it would be made perfectly clear by expert evidence that the collapse could not by any possibility have been caused by the removal of the support. The collapse was pr duced at the time that the support was taken away, but the wall fell in the opposite direction to that in which it was shor-d up to prevent falling, and besides this portion of the wall was clearly external and always had been external. So there was no question of the exposure of au internal wall.
Lei Tak, painter, was the first witness called for the defence. On the date of the collapse he was living on the second floor of 56, rirst Street. He was sitting in the passage a short distance from the kitchen when he got the first int ma'ion of the collapse: he heard a noise. There was nobody in the kitchen. The noise proceeded from the direction of the kitchen. He stood up and then saw brick and mortar dropping down on to the kitchen floor. great quant ty fell. These came from the western wall. Owing to the weight of the falling material the floor of the kitchen fell down. He could see the western wall of the kitchen wall. The debris from the upper kitchen knocked against the wall and the force knocked that wall out into the lane. He after- wards ran down into the street.
A
Cross-examined-The reason he did not give evidence before the Coroner was that he was not asked by anyone to do so. He came for ward now because Mr. Sharp asked him. The w
of this kitchen did not fall inwards because the lower portion bulged out
Chang Kew, mother of the last witness, gave evidence of a corroborative kind.
Li Tsua, plumber, deposed that he was, at the time of the collapse, on the site of the Coutre Street houses looking at some old pipes he wanted to buy. While standing there he heard a noise coming from the direction of 56, First Street, and ou looking up at the wall he saw the wall of the second floor fall inward into the kitchen. The floor of the top-floor kitchen dropped down in a sloping direction and the brick which weat down together with this floor shot out into the lane. The bottom part of the wall came outwards.
Cross-examined-He had not attended the Coroner's enquiry because he did not know the Cofoner required his attendance; he bad his own business to atten to, and he was never synt for. Tung Kwan, scaffolding contractor, 49, irst Street, said that the scaffolding work in connec- tion with the new houses in Centre Street was done by his firm. Witness supervised the sreption of the shoring. Subs-quently, defen- dant came to the shop and said that the typhoon si.hal was up and he wanted the sharing at No 56 to be mace safe.
Lai Yum, accountant with the scaffolding
345
firm, said that the original contract price was fixed at $110; the extra sho ing cost $40, and was to be placed against the western wall of No. 56. Cross-examined-The reason he did not attend the enquiry was that he did not know it was going on.
The mistress of the scaffolding firm corro- borated.
the firm of Leigh & Orange, said he had had J. Orange, civil engineer and architect, of
experience of the Colony since 1883. He had visited the scene of the collapse several times since it h ppened. He fonad that the whole of the west wall of the first and second floors had gone.
¦
He considered that the shores placed against the wall were sufficient to replace the support that had been removed, judging from the external app arance of the wall. This wall
was not a well built wall; it was practically in two parts, with a hollow space between; it was not properly bouded. These defects could not have been observed from an external examination. Apart from those defects the wall should have stood; the thickness was quite adequate for the height. He noticed nothing unusual in the way of or icks in the wall. A house might have a crack and yet be perfectly strong. There was no dis ur bauce in the western wall attributable to the operations in Centre Strest, The foundations ad not been affected. His explanation of how the thing occurred was that the wall was weakened by the phenomenal wind and rain in June and July, At any time, under these circumstances, a sudden gast of wind might Cause the western wall to fall inward; the weight of the wall falling in on to the floor would cause the floor to fall, and the western part, re- ceiving the greater part of the debris, would fall first; and the descending debris would force ont the first-floor kitchen and shoot it into the lane. That was bis theory, and it seemed reasonable looking at the present position of the wall. The western wall of the second floor kitchen--- the portion which fell first-had to all
appear- ance always been an external wall. If the wall had fallen outward, he did not see how the floor would not have st od in the same way as the ro f had done. He believed that several old houses had collapsed during the past wet season. On the day previous to the collapse there was & rainfall o 3.235 in., accompanied by a westerly wiud of 19.2 miles average force. The shoring up of a dangerous wall was work of a kind that Chinese contractors were well accustomed to, and work which they did uncommonly well.
Cross-examined-The rain driven by the wind on to this wall would soften and weaken. the bricks and mortar. If after the collapse the bricks and mortar were found to be hard that would be against the wind-and-rain theory. He could not say why one portion of the wall should fall, as the result of the wind and rain, more than another,
The Attorney-General-Are you not rather intereste t in this wind-and-rain theory?
Witness-o, indeed.
The Attorney-General-Did you not have a whole set of your houses collapse?
Witness-No.
an
The Attorney-General-Is not there enquiry going on just now with regard to the collapse of your houses in Kowloon City Road?
Witness-It was not a set of houses, but one wall in a block of houses,
The Atto ney General-You were the archi- tects for 30, Kowloon City Road ?
Witness-Yes.
The Attorney-General-And there was # collapse
on 18th July? Witness-I cannot speak as to the date. The Attorney-General You were the architect P
Witness Our firm was.
The Attorney-General-I want to know whether
your firm is interested in supporting the wind-and-, ain theory? This house in Kowloon
ity Rod fell and killed tea people?
Witness Yes.
The Attorney-General-And did not another of your houses on the Praya fall in August and kill some other people?
Witne. 8- -Yes.
The Attorney-General - Are you not prepared to suggest that the wind and rain brought them down?
Witness-I am not prepared to put forward any theory.