✔
December 15, 1902.]
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
BUILDINGS.
SECOND STREET.
467
mortar attached. Had the work been well built, there should have been more mortar. There was nothing special about the quility of the bricks one way or another. Witness con-
constructed and the house shut up at the time of the typhoon, it would not havo collapse ! in the way it did. He did not think that the dimensions prescribed by the Building Ordi- uance for walls of that sort were sufficient; additional precautions might be taken by building piers at the end walls and by putting tie-rods at the roof and floor levels.
On the 5th inst., before Mr. F. Asidered that if the wall had been properly
and a
common jury, an official enquiry was opened into the circumstances att uding the fatal house collapse at Nos. 10 and 12, Second Street, on the 2nd August last, when four Chine e met their deaths. Mr. F. B. L Bowley, Crown Solicitor, appeared on behalf of the Government.
The jury of three was made up as follows:- Messrs. C. W. Richa'ds, C. P. Piutos, and J. H. Oxberry.
|
In Cheong, one of the two contractors, said $8,100 was the contract price for making the alterations to the ten houses in Third and Second Streets, and his profit lay in the month- ly wages he was to receive; he did not estimate how much those wages were to be. During the alterations to No. 10, the house had to be pulled down to the level of the first floor, and the old bricks, according to the terms of the contract, were used again. The younger brother of wit- n ss's partner, who was 26 or 27. superintended the work. Personally, witness did not examine the mortar used in No. 10, and could not say whether it was good or bad. The work, however, was carried ont in accordance with the plan deposited. He visited the house twice with Mr. Gibbs-once before the alterations and ouco after the collapse. Mr. Gibbs measured the place
By a juror-Witness actually saw Mr Gibbs measure the building.
H. P Tooker, executive engineer, Public Works Department, said
the plan sent in by Messrs. Denison and Ram complied with the provsions of tho Building Ordinance, and he made no amendinent or alteration in it. F.
& Co., who had very extensive works immediately | ENQUIRIES INTO COLLAPSES OF of No. 10 and also that they had very little north of the farm. These works were for various purposes, principally just now for the making of concrete. At the period in question the works were in coursз of construction, and for their construction defendant's contracts ran in the year 1900 and for the first half of 1901. | Hazeland Panchard & Lowther required stone which might be divided into two classes-building | stone and stone broken up for the purpose of making concrete. A large amount of work was done by the defendant under the contracts. For example two long trenches were cut, about 4 feet deep and 50 feet wide, prac tically the whole length of Lot 1.049 and these were filled up with concrete for the purpose of making strong foundations for the drying-beds for to immense blocks of con- creto. Practically the whole of the lot, too, was surfaced to a depth of about 9 inches thick, also with concrete. Part of a bungalow also remained to be built, and for all these purposes as well as for building a railway embankment large quantities of stone wero used. At the end of his 1930 1 age de- fendant bid for the farm again, presumably for the purpose of carrying out his con- tracts, but the plaintiff over-bid him. They would prove that after 1st January, defendant, notwithstanding the expiry of his loase, went on employing practically the same number of men and did not stop work. He continued to quarry fresh stone, especially along the northern side of the farm, which side was the most convenient to the works. On 1st January, the plaintiff remonstrated with the defendant's foreman. On the 2nd, plaintiff actually forcibly stopped the defendant's work. people. Next day, however, they had resumed work, and plaintiff then found it necessary to take other steps to stop them. The poaching went on until the 12th, when the plaintiff complained to the P.W.D. Still it continued, and on the 25th plantiff again went to P.W.D. and lodged a complaint. On the 26th Mr. King, the land bailiff, was sent down to inspect the place, and made the first of a series of visits to the farm. On the following day the defendant ceased blasting, although be continued to work off building stone in other ways. On 7th February a survey was made of the stone alleged to have been removed by the defendant. On 8th February plaintiff summoned the defondant at the Police Court; the case was heard on the 12th, and on the 13th the defendant ceased work ing this large building stone. However, the of ber poaching, which had been carried on to a very much greater extent, of granite for concrete,con- tinued, and the evidence of the P.W.D. official would be that plaintiff made repeated complaints to them. On 2nd March plaintiff commenced proceedings in the Summary Court, but owing to the value of the stone being altogether too great for that Court, the proceedings had to be withdrawn. Then the present action was begun. On 11th March Mr. King paid his second visit, and in company with Mr. Gray of the P.W.D. ins ected the place, and again on the 16th when he found practically the same poaching going On the 17th Mr. King sent for the defendant and warned him; two days later ho visited the scene with Mr. Gray and found the situation unchanged. Then preceedings were again taken at the Police Court, and the eff ct of these proceedings seemed to have been that the poaching stopped on the 21st. The plaintiff claimed that a large quantity of stone was wrongfully taken away from the quarry to the works by the defendant. Evidence was taken, and the Court afterwards adjourned.
on.
The following journalistic delegates arrived at Haiphong from France last week, to proceed to the Hanoi Exposition:-Mr. C. Halais, Independence Belge; Mr. Mille, Temps; Mr. Berthelot, Gironde and Petite Geronde; Mr. de Noirfontains, Soleil Illustré du Dimanche Mr. Gandolpho, Liberté and Gaulois; Mr. de Bernis, Gazette de F ance; Mr. Degay, Lanterne and Petite Républiqu; Mr. Cré, et, Nouvelle Revue; Mr Seailles, European and Revue des Sciences; Mr. &amson, Dépêche Coloniale; and Me. Saillant of the Presse. They were met at Haiphong by Mr. Lafrique, on behalf of the Commissioner-General of the Exposition.
In his opening address. Mr. Bowley said the real question the jury would hava to consider was whether anybody Was to blame for the full of the houses. No. 12. Second Street consisted of ono story only, and tho ad joining hous, No. 10, of three stories; and it would be shown that the external wall of No 10 fell on to No. 12 and carried it down into Wai On Lane, over which it was built. The accident happened between 5 and 6 pm. on 2nd August, when eleven people were in No. 12, and it was assumed that two of the victims. who were not residents, were sheltering them selves from the heavy rain falling at the time. Of the eleven people mentioned, ten were preci- pitated into the lane, the eleventh, who was in the kitchen, which did not come down, cscaping. Two were killed and the remainder more or less injured but not seriously. The lead body of one, a boy of 12, was found by the police, and one woman who was taken cut alive died on the way to the hospital. At the time of the collapse a typhoon was passing the Colony. The wind began to rise in the afternoon, and at the time of the ac ilent, according to the Observato: y report, was blowing at 49 miles an hour. During the samo period much rain als fell. But, coatinued Mr. Bowley, it would be shown that the force of the wind was not typhoon force and that the rain was not (xoessive. The history of the wall at No. 10 which collapsed was as follows: -The house was an old one. built in the sixties, and was originally of two stories. The year before last the owner, a hinaman, had, under the sanitary laws, to open a backyard to the house, and he decided at the sain time to increase the height of the house and make it a three-story one.
ngly he arranged with two contractors, both Chinese and working in partnership as builders, to carry out the alterations. One of these c ntractors went to Messrs. Denison & Ram, architects, and instructed them to prepare plans. Messrs. Denison and Ram, the Crown Solicitor thought the jury would find, were not consulted in any way as to the advisability of making the alterations or as to the stability of the house. All they had to do was to prepare the plans in accordance with the Building O dinance and submit them for approval to the Public Works Department. Messrs. Denison and Ram did that, and there their connection with the matter ended. On 14th November, Mr. Tooker, engineer in charge of work under the Building Ordinanc, issued a permit for the work to be done, and it was taken in hand by the coutractors. Mr. Crisp, inspector of buildings, arrived in the Colony on 9th November, 1900, and he would tell the jury that ho bad not sufficient time to inspect the house during the process of reconstruction. Asa matter of fact, it would be shown that the work was carried out by the coutractors without supervision or inspection by any European
whatsoever.
Accord-
|
|
did not inspect the alterations during their progress; Mr. Crisp, under Section 75 of tie Building rdinance of 1889, was the officer deputed to act on behalf of the Surveyor General. Witness could not say whether any. body from the P.W.D. inspectel the work during its progress. He inspected the scene of the collapse on 22nd Augus“, and came to the conclusion that No. 10 fell first and on to the roof of No. 12, causing it also to collapse. The portion of No. 10 left standing was water- soaked by the rain that had fallen between the period of the collapse and witness's visit, but a careful (xamination showed the bricks and mortar to be good. The bondin of the brickwork also good. so far as he could see. He examined, further, the ground floor of No. 10, and considered that it was sufficiently strong to support the additional structure put upon it; there were no signs of the sinking of the foundations or of the party wall between Nos. 10 and 12. T. ere was no- thing toshow that the work had not been carried outin accordance with the plans. He attributed the collapse to the bad weather, and thought that the wind had got inside the house, which had been subjected to a series of typhoons up to 2nd Angust. The wind getting inside the house had forced the wall out.
was
On the 8th inst., the official enquiry was concluded.
Frederick George, Acting Director of the Observatory, was called to prove the nature of the weather on the day of the cllapse, accord- ing to the returns made at the Obsevatory. In answer to Mr. Bowley, he said the average velocity of the wind between 5 and 6 p.m. on 2nd August was 43 miles an hour, and between 5.3) and 6.30 p.m., 49 miles an hour. That was not typhoon force; it was what witness would will a fresh gale. he minimum velocity that could be called typhoon forco was 80 mil's aa bour, There were no typhoon gusts between 5 p.m. and 6 30 p m. on 2nd August, and the direction of the wind was north-west by west.
As
Evidence of a formal nature having been called, Laurence (iibbs, civil engineer in the firm of Denison, Ram and Gibbs, was PX. amined. He said that in October, 1900, the firm was instructed to prepare p'ans for alterations to some houses in Second and Third Tam Kit Kee, the second of the contractors, Streets, including No. 10, Second Street. said that until two years ago, when he left his Witness did not inspect this house before he employment as a Government foreman of roads, prepared the plans; he was not instructed to he had had no experience of building work. inspect it. A Chinese clerk was sent to measure t the alteration and reconstruction of the ten the work. On 8th August, on the instructions houses in Second and Third Streets, he personally f Iu Cheong, building contractor, he went and was unacquainted with such work, but his partner,
how the pl ce inspec'ed No. 10 to see
In Cheong, knew ab: at it. In Cheong bought could be rebuilt, bat be formed no opinion the materials, or at least most of them; witness from that visit as to whether the work bought very little. In Cheong also did most of had been carried out according to the plans. the supervising, although witness inspected the He noticed a lot of bricks on the ground floor work sometimes. He did not examine the