CO537-36 — Page 430

:

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