CO537-(36-37) — Page 587

E

:

A.

Mr Fung wa Chun:-

19574

24181

They must use it for drinking purposes, or washing. 308

you know these is a nullah ir. Pokfulam Road. Have you (1574

ever seen people carrying buckets of water from there?

A.

A great many.

72.

A.

They use that water for drinking purposes ↑

Certainly.

19575

The Chainɛan:- 76

Now Mr Ho, you spoke just now with regard to the drain

and you said if the drains were choked, it was the fault

of the tenant, and that the landlord should not to

summoned, but the tenant. You remember that ?

A.

Yes.

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference:-

GO. 537

37

NOT TO BE

COPYRIGHT PRIN CALLY!

REPRODUCED

LY WITH

OUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLIC

RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

A.

? ૨.

A.

74

Q.

}

14577

Supposing there is a house with three or four families

living there, and the drain is choked, it would be very

hard to say what tenant was responsible for the choking.

How could you serve a notice on the tenaht. Dont you

think in those circumstances it very much better that

the notice should be served on the landlord. It might

be a man on the top floor 'had been peeling potatoes,

and his refusa had choked the drain at the bottom, abe

you summon the tenant on the ground floor, hookuse the

drain is choked, and it is not his fault at all . It

is the fault in this case of the man on the top floor.

If you will prosecute the man on the ground floor, he

will tell the man on the other floor.

It seems to me that that proposition would create a 19.578

good deal of friction. If you only have one family

living in one house, then make the tenant responsible.

But the landlord does not live in it, and he does not

put the things in the drain.

No, but if he has three or four tenants - I dont see 19579

that your proposal to make the tenants responsible

would work if there were three or four families

living in a house. In most Chinese houses, you have