to the plaque .
Section 3 of that Ardinance (5 of 1894) protected the Board and Perma- ment Committee from action for any. thing done, bons
fide, under or by vite of the Bye Laws.
The Memorialin scent to
fected and ( as they say!
394
# were in a
inhabited.
fit condition to be again
Ihat assumes that the
7.
a
soon
premises
as cleansed and disinfected
were unconditionally fit for habitation, whereas the Permanent Committe
ta.
appear to have
thought
ht otherwise.
sume that as soon as
any
house was
8.
entitled
any
cnow to re_cu.
cuter
It seems to me that to be
con
sistent the Nemorialists should have.
usted merely to have section 16 pe_
cleansed and disinfected the tenant
at once, but Bye Law 5 of 20th May 1894 shows that a house might be unfit for human habitation although cleaused and disinfected. They say
that but.
the
for Section 16 of Ardinance 15 of 1894 "the owners of the closed houses would
claim aganist " undoubtedly have a
"The members of the Board" for damages they allege to have been sustained in consequence of the Boards illegal action in refusing to allow then to re-occupy the premises after they had been cleared and dissin-
fected
pealed.
9.
But
they
usk much more
and wish ar
- adopting
- official
Ordinance to be 1 passed
the views of the now.
Members of Council expressed when
Ordinance 15 of 1894 was passed.
10.
perty
Att
ere ar
e pro-
- afraid there are
Hong Hong who are apt to ignore the duties (moral at least) attaching to property and who look upon Chinese house property sim.
ought ply as
something turn a certain percentage varying from
two
which
to
re.
7