i
2
(9)
448
Mr. D. W. Tratman, Head of the Sanitary Department, was
then called. He told how Xavier and Botelho went ho him about
the matter, and said he asked Mr. Xavier if there was anywhere
he could hide, and the latter thought it could not very well be
done.
He then suggested as an alternative that the amah be on
one of the other floors, and should go into the flat while I was
there to see what I was doing.
The Chairman stated that Mr. Xavier did not mention any
alternative, but said that witness told him to go and hide.
Mr. Tratman then said that complaint had been made about
dumping rubbish in the lane by Mr. Chapman, and that I served ·
dust bin notices on those houses, and the notices had been com-
plied with; and that it was my duty to visit the lane after a
complaint of that sort to see that the nuisance did not re-occur.
Ho also stated that he had seen the partition on the rear veran-
dah of 51, Queen's Road East, top floor, which was contrary to the
law.
Also, there was a bed in the kitchen of the premises, The
inspector's procedure of duty was quite correct. If he found
things on the premises that were not legally allowed, and if he
was of opinion that the tenants would remove them without a
legal notice, the inspector could give them so many days notice,
then re-visit the premises. If his instructions were not carried
out on the second visit he would apply for a legal notice, which
witness would sign. The inspector was quite in order where his
duty was concerned in that respect.
I asked Mr. Tratman if he saw the paper dealing with 53
55, Queen's Road East, re hair factory, in my possession, also
two other papers covered in blood, and he said, Yes.
that accounted for my being in the neighbourhood at the time.
I told him
Mr. Tratman also said it was a report that I received that after-