CO129-310 - Acting Governor Major Gen Gascoigne - 1902 [1-4] — Page 226

CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案 All AI Reviewed

The work was carried out by a Chinese contractor, for a building owner who was a blacksmith, and was completed about the middle of February 1901. In the case of new buildings, a certificate must be issued before they can be occupied, but there is no such requirement in the case of buildings which have merely been altered or added to, provided the extent of such operations is not so great as to bring them within the definition of "new buildings" as contained in the Ordinance.

Hence, no certificate was required in the case of the houses now under consideration.

The ground floor of No. 1232 was occupied by a blacksmith who carried out his business there, and No. 1234 by a building contractor who stored a quantity of timber in the cockloft or intermediate floor upon the upper floors of both walls. The buildings were used as dwellings.

The collapse recurred on the night of the 14th August 1901, at about 10:45, an hour at which most of the occupants would be indoors, and the disaster was aggravated by an outbreak of fire at No. 1232.

Page 2


sec 53 of was amended by 25 / 1891

sec 14 of 72.

as amended

no ce contained in the Ordinance.

The 72.

od 25 / 1891

was reordered and rewritten to:

Sec 53 of Ordinance 72 as amended by Ordinance 25/1891

and the final output is

The work was carried out by a Chinese contractor, for a building owner who was a blacksmith, and was completed about the middle of February 1901. In the case of new buildings, a certificate must be issued before they can be occupied, but there is no such requirement in the case of buildings which have merely been altered or added to, provided the extent of such operations is not so great as to bring them within the definition of "new buildings" as contained in the Ordinance.

Hence, no certificate was required in the case of the houses now under consideration.

The ground floor of No. 1232 was occupied by a blacksmith who carried out his business there, and No. 1234 by a building contractor who stored a quantity of timber in the cockloft or intermediate floor upon the upper floors of both walls. The buildings were used as dwellings.

The collapse recurred on the night of the 14th August 1901, at about 10:45, an hour at which most of the occupants would be indoors, and the disaster was aggravated by an outbreak of fire at No. 1232.

Sec 53 of Ordinance 72 as amended by Ordinance 25/1891

Edit History

2026-06-01 07:46:40 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct
Live
View comparison
AI Proofread
The work was carried out by a Chinese contractor, for a building owner who was a blacksmith, and was completed about the middle of February 1901. In the case of new buildings, a certificate must be issued before they can be occupied, but there is no such requirement in the case of buildings which have merely been altered or added to, provided the extent of such operations is not so great as to bring them within the definition of "new buildings" as contained in the Ordinance. Hence, no certificate was required in the case of the houses now under consideration. The ground floor of No. 1232 was occupied by a blacksmith who carried out his business there, and No. 1234 by a building contractor who stored a quantity of timber in the cockloft or intermediate floor upon the upper floors of both walls. The buildings were used as dwellings. The collapse recurred on the night of the 14th August 1901, at about 10:45, an hour at which most of the occupants would be indoors, and the disaster was aggravated by an outbreak of fire at No. 1232. Page 2 sec 53 of was amended by 25 / 1891 sec 14 of 72. as amended no ce contained in the Ordinance. The 72. od 25 / 1891 was reordered and rewritten to: Sec 53 of Ordinance 72 as amended by Ordinance 25/1891 and the final output is The work was carried out by a Chinese contractor, for a building owner who was a blacksmith, and was completed about the middle of February 1901. In the case of new buildings, a certificate must be issued before they can be occupied, but there is no such requirement in the case of buildings which have merely been altered or added to, provided the extent of such operations is not so great as to bring them within the definition of "new buildings" as contained in the Ordinance. Hence, no certificate was required in the case of the houses now under consideration. The ground floor of No. 1232 was occupied by a blacksmith who carried out his business there, and No. 1234 by a building contractor who stored a quantity of timber in the cockloft or intermediate floor upon the upper floors of both walls. The buildings were used as dwellings. The collapse recurred on the night of the 14th August 1901, at about 10:45, an hour at which most of the occupants would be indoors, and the disaster was aggravated by an outbreak of fire at No. 1232. Sec 53 of Ordinance 72 as amended by Ordinance 25/1891
Baseline (Original)
الاروند 2. * A 222 sec 53 of was carried out by a chinese bon the Ocover who was a -tractor, for completed a bhemaman, & was about the middle of February 19ot In the ea si new building certificate must be issued befor they can be occupied, but there is no such requirement in the case of buildings which have merclyban W 15 of 1889 altered or added to, provided the I see also extent of such operations is not 20 great as to bring them within the by definition of "new beuditings" us The 72. asmended sec 14 of od 25 / 1891 no ce contained in the Ordinance. Hince certificate f was required in the the houses now under. consideration. The ground floor of 11832 was inspeed this Blacksmith whe carried out his business there and of 1234 by a building contractor who stated a quantity of timber in cockloft t or intermediate floor a upon supported into the side or laus parte extend in upper floors of booty walls. The be exfered as dwellings. the collapse recurred on the night of the 14 10:46 فر August 1901 aben an hour at which most of the occupants would be indoors, and the disaster was Lay aggravated outbreak of firbeu 1232 2. ca u Tet
2026-06-01 07:46:40 · Baseline
View content

الاروند

2.

*

A

222

sec 53 of

was carried out by a chinese bon

the Ocover who was a

-tractor, for

completed

a bhemaman, & was about the middle of February 19ot In the ea si

new building

certificate must be issued befor they can be occupied, but there is no such requirement in the case of buildings which have merclyban W 15 of 1889 altered or added to, provided the I see also extent of such operations is not 20 great as to bring them within the by definition of "new beuditings" us

The 72.

asmended

sec 14 of

od 25 / 1891

no ce

contained in the Ordinance. Hince

certificate

f

was required in the the houses now under.

consideration.

The ground floor of 11832 was inspeed this Blacksmith whe

carried out his business there and of 1234 by a building contractor who stated a quantity of timber in

cockloft

t or intermediate floor

a

upon

supported into the side or

laus

parte

extend in

upper floors of booty walls. The be exfered as dwellings.

the collapse recurred on the night of the 14

10:46

فر

August 1901 aben an hour at which most

of the occupants would be indoors,

and the disaster was

Lay

aggravated

outbreak of firbeu 1232

2.

ca u Tet

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.