S
برم
A.
Mr Shelton Hooper:-
18887
Phe Chairman:-
A.
ez
2334.
In Blood Cat
was not in accordance with the Ordinance ? 213
I was not aware of what he was fined for.
Wasnt it a contravention of the section that he (88) was called upon to give effect to?
He simply came to me, with the plan, and said "I have been fined for not carrying out the work, in accordance with the plan".
The application for the prosecution is as follows:-\??2 The canitary Office, 3rd August 1905. Application of the Building Authority for a amonя against Ng Ting Cheung for that he, being owner of No 3 West Street, did on 31st July fail to provide properly constructed hoods and flues to the furnace, and ti canent render the walls of the kitchen on the ground floor, contrary to a notice served by the Building Authority on the 17th June. And the order the «agistrate made on the 11th July,
-
contravening sections 40, 142, and 143,
of the Building Ordinance of 1903. Signed P. T. Lamble. And underneath, "I authorise prosecution. signed rancis Clark. P.C.1.0.*. That was what he man
presumably was fined for. Now, Ate you find, when you visited that property, that, the hoods and flues had been properly constructed, and cament rendering on the walls, in accordance with the plan ↑
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference:-
MGO. 532
37
RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
OUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLIC REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHICALLY WITH COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH - NOT TO BE
A.
Yes.
83 4.
Kr Shelton Hooper:-
A
The Secretary: -
The Chairmant-
And no change, as far as you know, has been made ↑ 1%83
Yes, but I see that the notice he got calling #pwn
him to do it, is dated 15th June.
I know nothing about that.
He was also fined $50 in July. Not the man we know,
but the owner,
-
$50 or six months, and 14 days to
complete the work in. Then it was that he engaged thin
man, Li Yuen.
That is the builder ?
R
Page 490Page 491