Page 334
Inland Lot 1523 were not of sufficient size to carry off the abnormal flow of water, I would point out that Section 63 of Ordinance 15 of 1889 required the owner of that lot to make provision at his own cost for the escape of any waters, the flow of which was interfered with by his operations.
The landslips are evidently due in the first place to the want of, and afterwards to the insufficiency of, support for the bank and I presume the lessee can be held responsible for this. No power was contained in Ordinance 15 of 1889 under which the lessee could be compelled to construct a retaining wall.
If the Government undertake to reconstruct the wall, I presume it will be as an act of grace or because it is considered expedient in the interests of the public.
The estimated cost of reconstructing the portions of the wall which have failed and of strengthening those portions which still remain is $7,000. Mr. Ormiston, on behalf of the Mercantile Bank of India, has suggested that Government should defray two-thirds of the cost of the work but, if any such liability is undertaken by Government, possibly half the cost would be a sufficient contribution.
Mr. Wei Yuk has given me to understand that he would be prepared to refund any sum the Government may contribute when he is in a position to afford to do so. He has recently been seriously embarrassed financially on account of being called upon to make good the defalcations of a friend for whom he had become security. I am unable to say whether there is any likelihood of Mr. Wei Yuk finding himself in a position to refund any amount which the Government may expend in connection with the work.
(sd.) W. Chatham,
D.P.W.
26th. February, 1907.
Page 335
£££.
Ilaw enthater art to maqalloo art beauso el T .coef emut
Inad betroaqua erit to noltron s of babretxe Ens Jitud yidanoeT
bro flow snt taimdenoost of babenoong Huy low .TH.Jeow redtrut
mtự of radtei a bearerbbs I ୨୦୧୮ (Tisundet „bus eft no
-
ent vot IIaw ert bustxo of rit guides en saofors I dotry to
qalbnetxe bna galtatriler to frow est load and to disnel TES
[s ort to +
amit Juoda butaiqmoɔ new [Law out
.31ibeth mÉS to ruolon Art of batnotbul gated
-ximed add duode bertuoso ¡llub ́al brint A
muid to moltoq dedi yavs baltiso atɗT 2001,tam MA to p
us .i berjul de vo gatorné est no grid at be lata laeoro [[øw
alle 10 .mobŝo pe BY DAS molllorob sti oteti istunn ed
700 ut etter a becaerbbs I notesoo0
99 18:10Q89xton to treat sut es,bus
new [Im « te moltoq begersb scð gritadenter ant
mafy X Y W
on fps 24***
bestod÷UA
lavad b 18 "euse" .enzaek vd betico, ab roderet qad
{
& art talt mattinoo no asiq At to bevonggo I .etootIdorA
animent we no entd v beletri-auoro osis OT:
-elim99 .baturou PVE
emor to moldo +
[Law
Juo baisteo 28¢ froud bm babbs atten
402 40 ceosɑ at botnang baw nota-
eat. Yog belotestet wit evo is fred it no els mario
or do tebrer Jus : novoð - Jærit notavrosan ert of Joeld a
vo putnika mahdimme tot to enrerettige stad no? Whhilɗienoqeby
nobbo,mdando tiuit To
•A+OM ©r+ xo be~wvago di fubuel Meurot བ 、 "T
*OTO KIRW
•
to anotarog odd eric atdi bun 020 ,"re"re i qel
:i bedated-
t
I Hobiv to wan ። Tettel a edonw rent I
JAIZ I
Y
20
ཟླ
to un to."
THE to site et et oly mensof wit of,seofone
sang modded a bus beri vo^t I gfyr att sɛofons
(intă alb:I to dusɗ all geotel ant
334
Inland Lot 1523 were not of sufficient size to carry off the
abnormal flow of water, I would point out that Section 63 of
Ordinance 15 of 1889 required the owner of that lot to make
provision at his own cost for the escape of any waters, the
flow of which was interfered with by his operations.
The landslips are evidently due in the
first place to the want of, and afterwards to the insufficiency
of, support for the bank and I presume the lessee can be held
responsible fotthis. No power was contained in Ordinance 15 of
1889 under which the lessee could be compelled to construct a
retaining wall.
If the Government undertake to reconstruct
the wall, I presume it will be as an act of grace or because
it is considered expedient in the interests of the public.
The estimated cost of reconstructing the
portions of the wall which have failed and of strengthening
those portions which still remain is $7,000. Kr. Ormiston, on
behalf of the Mercantile Bank of India, has suggested that
Government should defray two-thirds of the cost of the work
but, if any such liability is undertaken by Government, possibly
half the cost would be a sufficient contribution.
verbally
Mr. Wei Yuk has given me to understand that
he would be prepared to,refund any sum the Government may
contribute when he is in a position to afford to do so. He has
recently been seriously embarrassed financially on account of being called upon to make good the defalcations of a friend for whom he had become security. I am unable to say whether there is any likelihood of Mr. Wei Yuk finding himself in a position to refund any amount which the Government may expend in con-
-nection with the work.
(sd.) W.Chatham,
D.P.W.
sevo scotrok daxi¶ and
26th. February,
1907.
*uaris ata 4.0 of Bramm
evous biel derminsteroð to wteffen wf* taft relief e1modelmo LIVI
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.