Sessional_Paper_1901 — Page 708

(17)

matter which not only concerned the tenants; it concerned the man in the street, who supposed that the Public Works Department in this Colony protected him against houses falling upon him. The Ordinance said that “the Director of Public Works shall inspect a building during alterations." It was the duty, Mr. Bowley submitted, of the official in charge to refuse to sign these permits until he had satisfied himself on all points. It was no excuse in law because a man had no time to do a certain duty, that that duty should remain undone. If he had no time to inspect the building, it was in his power to refuse to sign the permit, or he might have referred the matter to the Government and thrown the responsibility on it. Instead of that, these plans were signed without any inspection being made by anyone. It was not as if this was a new thing. Houses had been falling down in the Colony in recent years in a most extraordinary way, and notice had been taken of the fact in the public newspapers and elsewhere. That was enough to put anyone on their guard to be more careful. He submitted that the persons to blame in the matter of the collapse were: In the first place, the architect on whose professional knowledge the owner relied, who gave it as his opinion, without making any examination at all, that the houses were fit and good; secondly, the official responsible in the Public Works Departinent, who, without making any examination whatever, passed the plans; and thirdly, the head of the Department, who had allowed the staff in charge of the duties of the Building Ordinance to dwindle down gradually, although the work was increasing, until it consisted of Mr. Crisp. He had actually taken away the assistant engineer in charge of building work and appointed nobody save one overseer, who had just come out to the Colony and hardly knew the streets. In this way an Ordinance which had been very carefully framed had been allowed to dwindle down to a mere farce. Mr. Bowley, in conclusion, asked his Worship to bring in a verdict, in addition to his previous finding, that the deaths of these people were due to the adding of a new storey to the rotten party wall, and that the architect who recommended the addition and the Department which sanctioned it were guilty of gross negligence.

FINDING.

The evidence on this Inquiry does not disclose what was the immediate cause of the collapse of No. 32 and No. 34, Cochrane Street, on the night of the 14th of August, 1901.

The following conditions and circumstances, in my opinion, probably contributed to the said col- lapse:---

(1.) The existence of a blacksmith shop on the ground floor of No. 32, Cochrane Street. It

was proved in evidence that vibration has a tendency to weaken the walls of a house. (2.) On the ground floor of No. 34, Cochrane Street, was a cockloft used by the tenant, who

was a contractor, for storing beams and planks.

(3.) The defective construction of the party wall between No. 32 and No. 34, Cochrane Street. It was proved in evidence that the said party wall was badly bonded and that the heart of the said wall was hollow and filled in with small pieces of bricks.

(4.) The existence of an extra storey which was put on each of the said houses six or seven

months prior to the said collapse.

(5.) That the showery weather prior to the collapse-hot one hour and then a heavy shower- would have caused considerable contraction and expansion of the material, and acting on the old walls would have considerably tended to the collapse.

(6.) That there was a deviation by the owners from the approved plans while altering the said two houses. The principal deviation being the building of an arch instead of a wall and the total absence of internal cross walls.

Putting myself in the position of a Coroner's jury, I make the following suggestions or riders:- (a.) That the existence of blacksmith's shops under tenement buildings be prohibited. (b.) That all cocklofts used for storing heavy material be also prohibited.

(c) That all buildings or work under the Building Ordinance be carried out under the

superintendence of a European Architect.

(d.) That the provisions of section 72 of the Building Ordinance, which casts upon the Director of Public Works the responsibility and duty of approving only of such alterations and additions to old work or buildings as will render the building with the said alterations and additions absolutely safe (except in cases where the whole of such work or buildings including the old portion of the structure when completed complies with the provisions of the Ordinance) be carried strictly into effect.

(c.) That the provisions of section 75 of the Building Ordinance, which casts upon the Director of Public Works or officers deputed by him the imperative duty of entering, inspecting and surveying every building work during its progress, for securing the due observance. of the provisions of this Ordinance be carried strictly into effect.

(f) That the staff of the Public Works Department at present employed to carry out the provisions of the Building Ordinance is insufficient and ought to be increased without delay.

F. A. HAZELAND,

Police Magistrate dischurying the duties of Coroner.

25th September, 1901.