Chairman:-
23.182
A.
2.56.
the P. W. D. and the Board.
744
23/82
Did On Kee aver take up that contract at all, or did he simply fail to come up to the adratch?
No, he took it, but the work was done unsatisfact- orily, and it was reported by the M. 0. H. It was Dr Pearse who draw attention to it. (quotes minata by Dr Pears, to the effect that the lime washing contractor was not doing the work satisfactorily). And further complaints were attached, and it was presented confidentially before the Board. Than the Board suggested that an officer of the F. W. D. might go into this matter with the M. 0. H., and report, and they did. They sent an officer called Mr Kasters, and their report was that the work was not done satisfactorily, and then the matter was considered amain by the Board, and the outcome of it was that it was advised that Sam Iu's contract be acospted. On Xas was reported to the Government for not fulfilling his
contract,
and was told 'hat it was for the public intereats that the contract should be cancelled. That
was done, and the matter waa nuhsiderūd again, and the
result was that San Iú got it.
Mr Shelton Hounar:-
Was there any penalty imposed on On Kee?
A.
The Chairman:-
84
A.
23/3
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
_| | | | | | | |
Reference:-
LGO. 537
37
RER RODUCED COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH - NOT TO DE
RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
OUT DENIM ZUVORPHICALLY WITH
PUBLIC
I dont know whether he was subject to a penalty. Sume contractors are, but I dont think he was, which
is another thing. Some contractors are penalised $25 a
day.
I think you might put that book in as evidence. I 751846
dunt think we have had that before. Which C. S. 0. de
you refer tu ?
1422 of 1903. The book belongs to the Sanitary Board
office.
Witness withdraws.