October 17, 1908.]
His Worship said it would not be possible to call further evidence on the point, and adjourned.
His Worship said it had been suggested to him, in connection with the question asked by # juror at the last hearing, that an officer of the Royal Engineers might be asked to inspect the bonding. He also understood that photographs were being taken of the broken ends of the wall. He did not intend, however, to call fresh evidenos or to wait for these photographs,
Mr. Bowley was then asked to address the jury, but intimated that he thought Mr. Gedge should speak first.
His Worship-In a case of this kind no one knows who the evidence is going to tell against, Mr. Bowley-It cannot tell against me. I represent the Crown. I think the opening and subsequent evidence has sufficiently indicated
where the defect lies.
Mr. Gedge-Mr. Bowley is pot here in the position of a Crown Prosecutor, and he ought to fairly, and without biar, put forward his evidence and make his speech on that evidence. Nobody at present is indiotable for anything.
His Worship-I don't know what the practice has been before.
Mr. Bowley-In this case my friend appeared for a party, and after I called all the evidence I wished to, he called further evidence. Surely that puts him in the position of a defendant- If my friend had not called any evidence it would be quite a different position.
Mr. Gedge-I only called evidence with the consent of the coroner. I am not in any way a party to the proceedings.
Mr. Bowley-I am entirely in your Worship's
hands in the matter.
His Worship said he would prefer Mr. Bowley to address the jury.
|
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
978
anyone guilty of manslaughter, or to pass any But it was not necessary to ind opinion whatsoever. The jurors were present to ascertain the cause of death, and were not called upon to find anyone responsible. He submitted that it was not the primary object of this inquiry to find out whether anyone was criminally responsible or criminally negligent. Mr. Gedge referred at length to the law on the subject of criminal or culpable negligence, and said that his client, to be liable this case, would have to be proved gromly negligent, and grossly was a very strong word. When Mr. Tooker issued A certi. feste for this work, he submitted that his clients' Statutory liability came to an end. The duty of an architect was to prepare plans, geti in tenders and superintend construction. Every plan under the Building Ordinance had to be approved by the Surveyor General, and in every case the plans were so approved, so the first duty of the architect was satisfactorily dis- charged. As to the other duties: There was a European foreman on the job, and his duties were to see that the buildings were put up in socordance with the plans and specifications and to me that the walls were properly bonded. It must have been obvious to the jury that the architect could not possibly superintend every detail of construction. All the witnesse for the Crown, in a casual, broadcast way, Denison got into the box and took the trouble said that the bonding was bad; then Mr.
to specify as to what bonding was good and what was bad. Because six bonding brioks were missing the Crown Solicitor wanted to maka out that it
an absolutely
up the houses with bars of iron. Mr. Denison faulty construction and bad building contri® was called to support the theory of the architects, buted to the collapse, and that the architects and the best he could say for this wall was that were responsible for the bad work. If the The inquiry was resumed on the 16th inst.
there were quite a number of cross bonds missing thought they were negligent it was their duty Mr. F. B. L. Bowley, Crown Folicitor, re-show that good mortar was not obtainable in other person negligent, it was their dutylto my so
in portions of it. An attempt was made to to my sơ; if, on the other hand they thought any presented the Crown, and Mr. H. J. Godge Hongkong, but practically all the houses in the (of Messrs. Johnson, Stokes and Master) Colony were built of mortar composed of local conclusion that the fall of the wall was con-
Mr. Gedge mid if the jury came to appeared on behalf of Messrs. Palmer and shell-burned lime and red earth. Several parties tributed to by eriminal negligence, there was Turner, the architects.
were concerned with the building of these houses no doubt they could add a rider to their verdict -the owners, the architects, the contractors | to that effect, and it would then be for his and in a different degree the Building Worship to my, according to the facts disclosed, Authority. The owners, Humphreys' Estate whether he should commit that person for and Finance Co., employed one of the leading | trial. firms of architects in the Colony to put up 28 Chinese houses for them. Apparently they put the whole matter in the hands of their architects, who prepared plans and called tenders, the lowest of which was not accepted. The contract was prepared by Messrs. Palmer and arner, and the work was carried out by them. There was no suggestion that the architects did not have an entirely free hand in the matter, and he submitted that when owners of property em- ployed the best skill they could in a work of anybody else, no blame attached to the owners. this sort, whatever blame might attach to
The contractors had practically vanished; there was no member of the firm left except one old man, who said he had nothing to do with the building of the houses. The sub-contractors who took over the job and finished it had also vanished, so there WE not much use of discussing the liability and responsi bility of the contractors, Bat in this case the architects were peculiarly responsible for the whole business. They had signed the notice of intention to build, and the fact of their signing that notice threw upon them by law the responsibility of seeing that the whole of the provisions of the Building Ordinance were carried out. They were not bound to sign that notice, but they had, and they could not shift the responsibility on to any other the initial responsibility, but they also undertook person whatever. Not only had they undertaken
the supervision of the houses. Of course they bad not done these things gratuitously. They were paid a commission of five per cent, on the con. terms of the contract they were put in almost tract price, which was considerable. Under the absolute control over the contractor. Every thing had to be done to their satisfaction; they could condemn any materials and any bad work; and they could withhold payment to the con- ly built, they might have refused to pay the con- tractor. Finding that these houses were so bad-
tractor anything. In addition to the Statutory responsibility which fell upon them, there was a Common Law responsibility. If negligence were found against any person who undertook His Worship pointed out to the jurors that if of the public, the Common Law threw on any work or sation which tended to the danger they found there had been gross negligencs is was their duty to bring in a verdict socordingly, under which these houses were built was passed to. The first was the cause of death. The him criminal responsibility. The Ordinance They had two things to direct their minde in 1891, and he submitted that in the construc-second was whether anyone was guilty of tion of these houses that law had been broken, Another set of persons the jury had to consider was the Building Authority and his assistants. thing wrong, they could not possibly shield If the architects or contractors had done any.
Buildings or any of his assistants had neglected themselves by saying that the inspector of builders, then there would be nothing more to say beyond that it was a regrettable accident.
their duty. They were not appointed to But a cursory glance at the remains of the
assist the architects in carrying out their flank wall revealed the fact that it was
work, but were in the position of polios, badly bonded in the heart of it. It WLS
Mr. Bowley thought that Mr. Tooker also observed that the wall fell more
committed a grave error of judgment when less in single bricks. These houses were
he parsed these buildings, but his err * practically now they were only six years old, with the error of judgment, mistake or care- of judgment was nothing at all compared and had not had time to deteriorate, but on the lessness of the architects who supervised the contrary the mortar, cement and other materials must have had time to consolidata. Mr. Bowley it was very difficult indeed to find reliable erection of these buildings. It was said that next dealt with the history of these walls, which he characterised as most extraordinary. It was layers. But this blook of 28 houses was worth contractors, reliable foremen and honest brick. not at all a pleasant thing, he said, to have to $74,000. Was not that a suficiently import
not mfe to set on that evidanon withou not here to explain his action in any way, but ant job for an architect to visit as often as ne- the jury could see how Mr. Chatham, his superior sary to insure the work being properly done! in the department, did his best to shield Mr. They were told by Mr. Bird that the mortar was ones might be confined to Mr. Bl Tooker from any blame-very naturally and
never tested. How was it possible to tell the submitted the plan, and must very properly. But the speaker thought the quality of mortar if it was not tested? It was wall should have ind speciali jury would consider that Mr. Tooker took a quite obvious that Mr. Turner did not me that and that ought to have very serious responsibility upon himself when the jury had found what caused the death of was the duty of the foremen
the work had been properly carried out. After | careful of the com be disregarded the report of the Inspector of these persons and what caused the collapse, they mortar was xp to specification, Buildings and the Assistant Engineer that the would have to my whether anything also con- thought the Juzy "would wall should he pulled down. He disregarded tributed to the collapse. He submitted that the the arokitsot," Mr. Bird ( these reports and allowed the architects to atrap
Mr. Bowley said the jury would recognise that this was a case of extreme importance. The collapse occasioned the deaths of six persons, but the small number killed was owing to the way in which it happened. Although only six persons were killed, the collapse possibly endangered the lives of no less than 100 persons. He appeared for the Crown in this matter and took it that it was the first duty of the Crown, as the personification of Government, to protect the lives and limbs of ite subjects. The jury did not require Mr. Denison to prove that the typhoon blew the wall down. It was a matter of common
knowledge, and it had been proved in Court that the July typhoon was of extraordinary violence, and blew from the 8.8.E. The dank wall of this block of houses was in a high degree exposed to the effects of a 8.8.E. gale. If they found, into the history of this wall that it had been on inquiring properly built in accordance with the law, and in accordance with the skill of architects and
or
attack a man in his absence. Mr. Tooker was
||
|
|
rotten fallen without a typhoon. The notion of Mr. wall, and that it would have
Tooker in passing the plan was sufficient proof se to his satisfaction of the buildings, and he submitted that the architect, Mr. Tooker and everyone else had done his duty. If every wall with a orsok in it was pulled down, Hong, kong would soon be demolished. He submitted to the jury that there had been no negliganos by his client.
gros negligence amounting to manslaughter. In order to find manslaughter they had to and that three links existed in a shain.
the second, that the collapse was substantially The first was, that death was due to the collapse;
bad work was due to grom or criminal neglige contributed to by bad work; the third, thes
Negligenes that amounted to manalangi must be gross. The jurors were not thirs actually try any person, or to say whether the was a prima facie case against They were to try to disentangle the liability of the different partners in the firm Messrs. Palmer and Turner, As was liable for the acts of the other partners; of law, he did not think
partne
charge of this work, bat he was now shreat might be civilly. Mr. Tarner was okiedy
turned against him he might have explanation the Colony, and on certain points which to offer. It seemed to his Worship that it Mr. Turner's expl