CO129-310 - Acting Governor Major Gen Gascoigne - 1902 [1-4] — Page 235

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

231

to resist the conclusion that the officers

of the Public Works Department cannot be entirely acquitted of negligence in the discharge of their duties in this case, since

they appear to have approved the plans of the proposed alterations to the houses without sufficient examination, and to have failed to

exercise the powers of entry and inspection vested in the Department by section 75 of the Buildings Ordinance.

I would remind you that the Building Overseer whose appointment was asked for in Sir H. Blake's despatch No. 85, of 9th March 1900,

in order to enable the Public Works Department to carry out the provisions of the Building Ordinances, appears to have arrived

in the colony before the alterations in these houses were carried out, so that there was all the more reason why such negligence should

not have occurred. I shall be glad to be informed

Edit History

2026-06-01 07:47:39 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct

Live

View comparison

AI Proofread

231 to resist the conclusion that the officers of the Public Works Department cannot be entirely acquitted of negligence in the discharge of their duties in this case, since they appear to have approved the plans of the proposed alterations to the houses without sufficient examination, and to have failed to exercise the powers of entry and inspection vested in the Department by section 75 of the Buildings Ordinance. 4. I would remind you that the Building Overseer whose appointment was asked for in Sir H. Blake's despatch No. 85, of 9th March 1900, in order to enable the Public Works Department to carry out the provisions of the Building Ordinances, appears to have arrived in the colony before the alterations in these houses were carried out, so that there was all the more reason why such negligence should not have occurred. I shall be glad to be informed

Baseline (Original)

231 } to resist the conclusion that the officers of the Public Works Department cannot be en- tirely acquitted of negligence in the dis- charge of their duties in this case, since they appear to have approved the plans of the proposed alterations to the houses without sufficient examination, and to have failed to exercise the powers of entry and inspection vested in the Department by section 75 of the Buildings Ordinance. 4. I would remind you that the Building Overseer whose appointment was asked for in Sir H.Blake's despatch No.85, of 9th March 1900 in order to enable the Public Works Department to carry out the provisions of the Building Ordinances, appears to have arrived in the colony before the alterations in these houses were carried out, so that there was hp5 all the more reason why such negligence should not have occurred. I shall be glad to be informed

2026-06-01 07:47:39 · Baseline

View content

231

}

to resist the conclusion that the officers

of the Public Works Department cannot be en-

tirely acquitted of negligence in the dis-

charge of their duties in this case, since

they appear to have approved the plans of the

proposed alterations to the houses without

sufficient examination, and to have failed to

exercise the powers of entry and inspection

vested in the Department by section 75 of the

Buildings Ordinance.

I would remind you that the Building

Overseer whose appointment was asked for in

Sir H.Blake's despatch No.85, of 9th March

1900 in order to enable the Public Works

Department to carry out the provisions of the

Building Ordinances, appears to have arrived

in the colony before the alterations in these

houses were carried out, so that there was

hp5

all the more reason why such negligence should

not have occurred. I shall be glad to be

informed

Comments

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

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.