Page
"
November 12, 1908.)
By Captain Beetham-The firemen had been there a long time. Some of them make the ship their home.
They know everything about the ship ?-Yes. Did they help you at all P-Yes, but the thing happened so quickly that little could be done.
The Court then adjourned for tiffin. On resuming, Robert Thornburn, second board the Hankow,
engineer on was called. He said he had been eighte n
months on the ship. He was in the engine room when the fire alarm was given and he acted on the orders of the first engineer to switch on the electric light but the smoke and flames mide it impossible to enter the dynamo room.
He escaped through the stoke hole to the upper deck and went on shore, the ship being in flames. He assisted the firemen on the wharf with the hose. Witness stated there were no fire stations on board, neither had he seen any firs drill
out.
was
Thomas Nesbitt, third engineer, said he had been on the Hankow about three years. He was in his bunk when he was awakened by an unnaual noise; and, ou going out, learned that fire bad broken
This about three o'clock. He returned to his room to save his papers, but the second mate told him it was impossible. The whole of the ship was on fire and he made his way to the wharf.
Do you know of any fire arrangements ?-- Yes, there are discharges below.
As long as there is steam up ?--`
Yes. Have you ever seen a printed boat list which would couvey to you what boat you would go to in the event of the ship being abandoned ?— Not on that ship.
e
Captain Branch, re-called, said there were no printed boat list on board the Hankow. thought the second officer, who said there was, had confused the Hankow with some other ship. There was nothing unusual in carrying store braid or matting on the passenger deck. It had been done for years.
There was no special precaution in carrying such matting except to stack it up and prevent passengers getting on top of it.
Captain Mattock-Have you any idea how
the fire started ?- ka.
As far as you know there was only one fire?
-Yes.
Lient. Butterworth-Is smoking allowed on that deck on which the matting is carried?. It is impossible to prevent it.
The finding of the Court was, after a brief deliberation, read as follows: We find that the
British steamship Haukow, of which Benjamin Branch is the master, left Canton on the 13th of October at 6 p.m. and after an uneventful passage made fast to her proper pier. The Hakow's cargo consisted of raw silk and straw matting. The straw mat ing was stowed amid- ships on the passenger deck aft. The Hankow carried on this trip7 Europeans as passengers, 950 Chinese and 61 crew. That at 3 a.m. the ship was made fast alongside her pier and then certain passengers went on shore, although the greater part of them were remaining on board as is customary, until daylight." That 3.7 a.m. the alarm was first given of fire at amongst some straw matting stowed aft on the passenger deck. Strenuous efforts then made by the
were to get at it and put it out, using buckets officers pending the arrival of the fire hose driven off the main boiler but without success owing to the tremendous amount of smoke which found its
master
and
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
arrangements
in some conspicuous part of each vessel in these river steamers and the fire should be exercised and logged once a week, 80 that in the event of fire some successful effort might be made to cope with it on board. 'bis, in the opinion of the Court, oin only be done by constant practice with the crew and would take some fifteen minutes weekly if properly organised. We deplore and regret the immense amount of life lost, but after searching inquiry we consider that everything was done and offic.rs under the circumstances. There- that could be done to sava life by the master fore the Court absolvek the master and officers from all blame. J
way into the engine room making it impossible for any one to remain down there. That the vessel was well found in fire appliances, pumps etc., which were constantly exercised for washing decks. That the master and officers did all in their power to save life and property but owing to the rapidity of the fire and the fierceness of the flames without much success. That the Fire Brigade turned out smartly and rendered every assistance supported by a naval pump ander Lieut. Anderson of H.M.S. Flora. That we, the court, are of strong opinion, as a precau- tionary measure, that all cargoes of light texture. such a straw braid or matting, when carried should be so stowed under hatches or blocked off or screened off in such a way as to be impossible of access by any passengers. Also we consider that the ordinary fire arrangements and boat stations should be hang up on a printed form
Thursday, November 8th. BEFORE LIEUT. C. BECKWITH, R.N., (MARINE MAGISTRATE).
INCOMPETENCY AND NEGLIGENCE.
Mr.. F. Gibson proceeded against Ng Hi, master of the stem launch Yan Wo on charges of incompetency and negligence in navigating his vessel in the waters of the Colony on the 6th instant.
Witness
Prosecutor stated that on November 6th he was working at the E and H buoys with a diver down in the water. The regulation red flags of the diving junk were flying. During the course of the day defondant's launch passed inside the red flag four times at a high rate of speed causing such a wash as to endanger the lives of the men who were working below. shouted and waved to the lunch, but no notice was taken. Defendant appeared to think it was a good jest to see the diving lighters in violent motion. Witness had constantly complained to the arbour Master about the discegard shown to his orders re steamboats under way when seeing the red flag,
Defendant denied passing anywhere near the red flag, but after bearing further evidence his Worship considered the case clearly proved, and taking into consideration the number of accidents that have occurred lately to divers owing to the negligent and wilful disregard of considered the defendant to be guilty of gross instructions by the coxswains of launches, he incompetency in the performance of his daty, and suspended his certificate for six months
|
Similar charges were preferred against Li Muk, master of the steam launch Fun Sun, and Cheung Shing, master of the launch Lee Sang.
|
- 325
but they deposited no plan. On April 10th the Building Authority served notice on the ground that they were contravening section defendant to remove these partitions on the 180 of the Building Ordinance which referred May 5th that notice was withdrawn and Messrs. to open space at the rear of buildings. On Palmer and Turner submitted certain plans showing the iron partitions on the floor of each building. They ware submitted for the Building Authority's approval, but have not served calling on the defendant to remove the been approved. On June 29th a notice was
iron partitions 83 contravening section 230, but that notice your Worship held was A nullity, but convicted the defendant of a breach of the Ordinance and fined him $100 under section 259.
Mr. Slade stated that when his Worship convicted the defendant they were dealing with section 239.
An argument followed regarding the section ander which the fine was formerly impose I, and in his Worship's decision wis corrected. all parties eventually agreeing, a lerical error
Mr. Bowley, continuing, estated that on September 8th a notice was served calling on defendant to remove the partitions as con. travening section 222, buț no notice was taken of that order. The machinery for dealing with such a nuisance was laid down in socion 23), wherein it was stated that whenever the existence of a nuisance was brought to the attention of the Building Authority an officer should issue a notics specifying it, aud the manner and time it should be abated. For neglect to comply with such a notice a person could be summoned before a magistrate. l'he speaker was present to apply for an order direct- ing the defendant to sbate a nuisanc The defendant had been previously convicted of contravention of the Ordinance. The pre- 31st July, whereas the vious conviction W.18 delivered on the in the present summons
offence ohirged September 8th. Therefors Mr. Bowley sub- was committal on mitted that the plea of res judicuta bad no power whatsoever in the case, and he under- stond all the facts were admitted.
Mr. Blade stated that all the facts were
the defendants guilty, suspended the certificatement, and one
On the evidenc adduced his Worship fund of the former for one month, and that of the latter coxswain for four months.
POLICE COURT.
Friday, November 2nd.
BEFORE MR. F. A. HAZELAND (FIRST POLICE MAGISTRATE).
ILLEGAL PARTITION WALLS.
The Building Authority proceeded against Hill Street, for unlawfully neglecting to Fang Chan-yuen, the owner of four houses in comply with the requirements of a tics requiring him to remove the whole of the iron contravention of the requirements of section partition walls which had been erected in 222 of the Public Ordinance, 1903.
ealth and Buildings
prosecuted, and Mr. M. W. Slade, instructed Mr. F. B. L. Bowley, Crown Solicitor, by Mr. Steavenson (of Messrs. Deacon. Looker and Deacon) appeared for defendant.
previously convicted of this offence.
Mr. Slade pleaded that defendant had been
Mr. Bowley stated that the defendant in this caso was charged with failing to comply with Ordinance requiring him to remove a partition a notice served upon him under the Building from certain houses in Hill Street of which he was the owner. Hutchins observed that certain iron partitions On March 20th Building Inspector had been erected without notice of intention having been deposited with the Building to put them up having been lodged, or plans Authority with respect to them. On March 29th Messrs. Palmer and Turner filed the usual notice of intention to erect iron
partitions which had already been erected,
absolutely admitted, but the learned Crown Solicitor had, with much ingenuity, slurred that nobody should be twice convicted for the over the points of law. The rule of law was
same act. If an act was committed which could be dealt with under various Acts of Parliament or various sections of various Acts of Parlia
was selected for prooeding against & person, that person could not after- warls be proceeded aga nat under another section or another Act of Parliament, A man who ba committed an offence and is punished, cannot again be convicted in & criminal court in relation to those fats. The authorities were clear beyond doubt. The act complained of in this case, and for which the Crown Solicitor was asking for the penalty that several thousand dollars worth of work should be pulled dowo, was having erected these bail 1- ings without having obtained the provided Worship that this was a proceeding something consent. It must be perfectly clear to his remarkably analagous to spite on the part of the Building Authority, because, if there bad been any single section of the Ordinanca which those partitioas had contravened, there would have been a building notice served relating to the contravention of that section. If his Building Authority in a higher court for a client chose to take an action against the mandamus to simpel him to approve those plans, he would be obliged to do so. They were absolutely legal, but he would not approve them because the building was erected without his approval. For that offence the defendant was fined $100, and now the Crown Solicitor appeared again and asked his Worship to order precisely the same offence. It was not a case of man to pull down thos, buildings for
act done in not complying with the Ordinance. continuing a nuisance. The nuisance was the The buildings did not continue to break in their erection, and in that only, and counsel the law. The breach of the law was committed submitted that the matter could not be dealt with in any other way by the Court. Mr. Slade then proceeded to quote authorities in support of his contention after which,
the