CO537-36 — Page 686

1

71

18.

A

860 -15:271

#e to what st

15271 Q.

A.

In so far a:

the law, ar:

Certainly,

T in cla puildings.

rcht about by the uncertainty of Sructions or regulations.

so, and the Officer is liable to

72 Q.

Fpear to be a mistake, when it is

make what would nothing of the kind,

- when at the time he was acting

absolutely conscientiously.

One Inspector might pass a floor and another might go 15.272 in and not pass it ?

A.

Yes, certainly.

73 Q.

A.

۶۶

15273

Coming back to the question which you answered earlier. would you recommend that the law be so altered as to

have a definite - for new buildings, a definite

specification for concrete floors?

Yes, and that specification cement.

You are a little previcus, when you thin, it would 15274

meet the case if that specification was a mixed one of

lime and cement.

I think that wuld be pore or 1

an alteration is to be made.

ungetisfactory if

75 an

hự ↑

15.275-

%

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference:-

TETICO. 537

36

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

A.

7680

77

A.

A.

76 Q.

There would be such risk of the contractor overdoing the lime and undericing the cement, unless he was carefully under supervision.

Does that apply if you specify cement and they 1190 15.276 inferior material ?

The danger is equally as great.

And yet you would recommend that, although it would

cost so much more, than having a mixed floor ?

My opinion is if you are going to make an alteration,

go ta for the good thing and be done with it. Let us

have no more trouble.

But would that overcome the trouble ?