CO537-(35-36) — Page 443

932.

Wha carta ext

949

Supposing now, you opened up this 2'4", and then you 1612

found it was perfectly good concrete, dont you think it is a great hardship on the owner if you dug up 3 or

Hemphys

7612

4 holes all over the place.

A.

Two is the most in one place.

7673

Q.

I have known three, in a certain case.

A.

7613

You talk of the hardship to the owners. In such a case, if I opened up and found the material to be absolutely good, I should send to the Secretary to pay it, without

expense to the owner.

That is under the Ordinance ?

7614

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference:-

C.O. 537

he chairman ;-

2614

r Humphreys:

76120

A.

A.

2616 Qu

A.

7617 Q.

and oferidan

A.

<

Shelton Hooper;"

Yes.

Then in other words, there is no other way of testing 7615

the thing, except by digging up a good big square ?

That is so if a man is going to give his honest opinion. Then it is absolutely impossible, even if you have the 766 permission of the Government, or if the Ordinance

allows you to put it back at the expense of the

-

Government it is impossible to make that yard as good

as it was before ?

Certainly, you would never get as perfect a surface, yet still to all intents and purposes, there is no

great hard done.

Or so neat. Either as good or as neat? So that the 7617

test in point of fact has really done harm cases where the concrete has been good ?

A slight degree of harm.

-

in such

When you make a hole, dont you test the thickness of 7618

the concrete ?

1

76.8

A.

Yes.

761920

A

What thickness did you fird ?

I found it the required thickness, but not of good

material.

7624 Q.

You found the material bad ↑

7619

7620

COPYRIGHT

REPRODUCED PHOIC

RECORD OFFICE, LONDON OUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLIC LY WITH NOT TO BE