CO537-36 — Page 627

4

:

J

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference:-

TC.O. 532

36

RECORD OFFICE, LONDON OUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLIC REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHICALLY WITH- NOT TO BE

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH

r Shelton Hooper:-

Titness:-

The Chairman:-

Fitness:-

Fitness:-

14847

1***

1784.

for Pearsed)

801

Σ

Page 1987. The Chairman asks "chopped by whom ? It means countersigned, I suppone". I have put in the margin here "not my ́answer - Mr Hewett's remarr". Page 1663. There seems to be some error. Mr Shelton Hooper asks me in connection with backyards, "if fomi water is throw there, it would be legal to turf 198 think the word is "illegal" in both cases. You said, as a matter of fact I remember my agreeing with you, that throwing it on turf would be better than throwing it on concrete, therefore it was illegal. Page 1670. I dont know how I managed to say "I only condemn it or suspect it", because I dont myself condemn it. I would refer that to same gurveyor or man with practical experience of building construction. Should not an K. 0. H. condena concrete, as M. 0. H. ↑ You would refer this to Mr Bryan, sur le says, "I think this ought to be condered", and you would

condamn it.

14.84/

If I were advised by the Sanitary Surveyor, or say the Building Authority, that the concrete was bad, then I would condemn it. I might have meant that, but I certainly dont condemn it on my own initiative, That makes it quite clear, if you accept that reading. Page 1671, in connection with the rats. There is a blank. It should read "you will get rata imported!. Next page, "it would be a diatinot advantage to aŭmhink the rat catcher, bus you cannot abolish the rat oatchip: What I intended to convey was that although it woulé be a great advantage to abolish the rat oatsber, it would be a distinct disadvantage to abolish the rat catching. The principle of rat ostoking is good. Then, la mawer to Me San Chu Pak, I am reportné to