:
ما
1591.
Fr Pearce. End
13554 4.
A.
And you have always acted on that
605 13557
As far as I can remember.
Mr Shelton Rooper:-
45
A.
A.
Supposing just the cement surface of a building wRE|3,555~
destroyed, should you think it was a Sanitary
Inspector's duty to take up the concrete, to ascertain
its oondition ?
Not unless he were ordered to do so.
Should you order him to do so, if you only saw the 13536
cement surface broken ↑
Not of necessity.
You must have some prima facie evidence to make you 13557
believe that the concrete is defective ?
A.
TO.
14.
59
A.
A.
Well, what would prompt you to go further ?
Perhaps dampness.
Is that notprima facie evidence ?
13558
13559
No, you may have dampness, without the concrete
being pervious. You may have dampness from above, or say for example, there had been plague rats in the neighbourhood, I might say it would be a good thing to
have this floor opened up, to see whether it required
•
•
бо
60 13.5 And you think that that would be sufficient justificat-
ion ?
A.
That would be sufficient justification, because if
6190
A.
Ir Fung Wa Ohunt-
6.
A
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference:-
། ། །་། ། །། www.C.O. 537
the concrete was found good, it would be no expense to
the owner.
That is rather fishing for defects ↑
duty
That is the beauty of the Sanitary official.
13561
Is the law always administered, so as to treat all 13562
Glasses with equal justice ?
I dont think it always as been administered in the
way I should like to see it administered.
Tell us some instances, in w ́ch similar cases have 13563
36
RECORD OFFICE, LONDON REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHICALLY WITH-
OUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLIC
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH - NOT TO BE
Page 430Page 431
1
ما