CO129-451 - Public Offices - 1918 — Page 135

בי,

incurred in the roofing material sufflied ($158-1-2

vide 21247) less the £60 already recovered

9.72. Word 2/12/18

Mr. Wood.

to.

Om mistake.

The shipment

was insured for £155

swe

our letter has

are willing to pay for the Mar, Iraurencetus the difference between this aunt, and the sam

already paid by the contractors.

been amended accordingly.

premium payalle has also been conected.

A Collins

An

ena

in stating

the ant

of

the exha

1 as profond

9.72.5.

5/12/18

At once

Asa

5.12

Hong Kong Rly.129.

ALL DONMUNICATIOND

TO BE ADDRESSED TO THE

GROWN AGENTO FOR THE GOLONIES,

THE ABOVE REFERENCE AND THE

DATE OF THIS LETTER BEING QUOTED.

TELEGRAMS,"GROWN, LONDON"

TELEPHONE 7730 VIDTORIA.

sir,

zł

REC?

57246

REC: 27-NOY $32

4, MILLBANK,

WESTMINSTER,

LONDON, S.W.

27th November 1918.

Hong Kong Rly.Regn.No.1:9, Ind.No.173 (115) Goo I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter o.

51920/1918 dated 7th November enclosing a copy of a despatch from the Governor of Hong Kong regarding the roofing material supplied by the Horseley Company under the above indent.

This was

. The material specified by the Colonial Goverment for roofing the locomotive running shed was "lammit" a corrugated asbestos sheeting of German manufacture. Owing to the war, this material was unobtainable and the Consulting Engineers, Messrs. Sir John Wolfe Barry, Lyster, & Partners, approved a similar sheeting of British manufacture. inspected as it formed one item of the much larger contract for a steel shed which was under inspection. The material being a proprietary article made by a special process, the sheets could not be inspected during manufacture. They were found correct so far as could be judged from external examination and their dimensions and packing were examined and approved. Te do not consider that the inspection can be held responsible for the unsatisfactory condition of the sheets on "rrival.

3. The Governor's suggestion that the action of the Crown Agents' inspector appears to constitute an effective bar to further action inst the Company does not correctly represent the situation. process of inerection does not release a contractor from his obligation to do his work in accordance with the contract, and when it is established that he has not done so the fact that his work has been inspected and passed does not protect him from the consequences. bar to further etion in the present case is that the sheets were delivered f.o.b. steamer in this country in good condition and it cannot be shown that they were inferiorto sample.

The

The

4. The breakages occurred in transit. Our experience is that in -ractically all cases where large asbestos sheets, corrugated, or otherwise, have been eup-lied, considerable breakage has occurred. Owing to the known nature of material of this class the shippers specifically protect themselves against any risk of damage in course of transit; and the insurance companies charge such high rates that it is

enerally considered best for Colonial Goverments to insure f.p.a. and themselves to take the risk of breskaŋe. This is what we did in the case of these sheets.

5. The matter might be settled in this instance by placing the Colony in the same position as though the sheets now under discussion had been insured with average. That is to say, we. al debit the Colony with the additional premium, amounting to ... which would have had to be paid to cover the sheets against the risk of breakage; and eredit the Colony from the Marine Insurance Fund with one 260 which

polom. £95, the balance of the insured value.

I have the honour to be,

Under Secretary of State,

Colonial Office.

Your obedient

Sir,

Servant,

Phecies

for Grown Agents,

ais

D.