474
MR. F. H. MAY AND THE FIRE BRIGADE
CHARGE AGAINST FIREMEN DISMISSED.
At the Police Court on the 15th December, before Hon. Commander W. C. H. Hastings, Angus McAuley, assistant foreman in the Fire Brigade, David McHardy, fireman, and Donald Makenzie, fireman, were summoned that they unlawfully did and without reasonable excuse absent themselves from duty at a fire in the city of Victoria on the 8th December, 1896, contrary to section 5 of Fire Brigade Regulations made under Ordinance 4 of 1868."
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
STE
the
Sergean
Is it not a fact that leave from the police had always been treated by previous Superintendents -Captain Hastings and Mr. Lethbridgeas | fre leave from all duties Oh no, has not been so recognised P-It has always the alarmtwas
Can you give us an instance where it assistant foreman Grahan been recognised that unless the men get special Hall, Zetlar leave from fires they must always attend them. McKenzie has been so decided or held I do not know
Is there any case you can remember where it alarm of
sistant that any case has been brought up.
and Möhta leave has been reprimanded or punished for nót|| May 1
Not a case in which a man having police | By Mr having turned ont to a fire which occurred during the leave P-Not to my knowledge.
Who laid down the rule? Where is it in
.
1.
Mr. H. L. Dennys (Crown Solicitor) pro- secuted and Mr. J. J. Francis, Q.C., repre-writing or print or anywhere? It is in the sented the defendants, the first of whom Fire Brigade regulations. is a sergeant and the other two constables in the Hongkong Police Force.
1
Mr. Dennys-Your Worship, the defendants are charged under Ordinance 4 of 1868, section 5, and under regulation No. 5 made thereunder on the 8th December, 1882. On the 8th Decem- ber, at about 8:30 or 8:40, there was a fire at 18, New Street. The alarm was sounded and the defendants, who are members of the Fire Brigade, fail to attend. The matter is considered
■ serious one by the Government, because unless there is a reasonable excase which absolutely justifies them their absence on an dccasion of this sort may result in very serious loss. On this particular occasion a house was gutted and three people lost their lives. Of course I do not say that they lost their lives in consequence of the non-attendance of these men, but it is very necessary in the opinion of the Government that firemen should attend unless they have a reasonable excuse in accordance with the regulation. I see the de- fendants are represented by counsel. I do not know whether he denies the charge or whether he is prepared to admit it.
Mr. Francis-I will have the case. heard in the usual way, please.
Evidence was then called.
Mr. J. M. Corcoran, Acting Assistant Super- intendent of the Fire Brigade and Acting Deputy Superintendent of Police, said-On the 8th December there was an alarm of fire. I received the telegram at 8.40. I attended the fire, which was at 18, New Street. McAuley is assistant foreman and McHardy and Mc Kenzie are firemen. They were not at the fire. I am not aware that they had permission to be absent.
Mr. Francis objected to Mr. Dennys asking about the result of the fire, and Mr. Dennys did not proceed with the question.
Witness, containing said-The fire was out shortly after eleven o'clock, when the roll was called. I spoke to McAnley the next day, and he told me that he was suffering from a Scold and the doctor had told him not to get wet.
The other two went before the Superintendent,
but I do not remember that they gave a reason. They were asked the reason. They said they had been to a banquet. I think McAuley, also said he had been there, but I am not sure.
By Mr. Francis-The roll was called after the fire. That is the general rule. The defen- dants were brought before the Superintendent on the 10th and put on the charge sheet on the 11th. I was practically complainant.
Mr. Francis-Was Mr. May present at the fore?
Witness-No.
Did the alarm ring up here ?—Yes. Did you report to the Superintendent when
the fire broke out ?—No.
*De you know as a matter of fact that Mr. May was in his house that evening ?-I believe
he was
Before the Superintendent you were in the position of complainant --Yes.
And you were present during the whole of the proceedings before him ?—Yes.
Do you remember McHardy stating as his defence that he was on leave from the police ? He was on leave.
VALIT
اث
Did he not say so Yes, I believe he mentioned
that
Did he not also state that such leave from the police had always been treated as leave from les, Fire Brigade included P-I do not
him saying that. None of them----
Mr. Francis here produced MoHardy's leave, which was from 8 a.m. on the 8th to 8 a.m. on the 9th, and continued-Did not McAuley on the morning of the 9th, after saying he was suffering from a cold, get leave on that ground ?—Yes.
Did not Mr. May, the Superintendent of Police, proceed to fine these men a month's pay ?-He told them they would forfeit & month's pay.
in the May the copy. Th
McHardy had
he would have no obligation to s
By the Magistra from fire. I have ne have known men getti Mr. Wodehouse's ti duty was in some Superintendent of the
Hon. FH. May-1 dent of Police and Supe Brigade. Defendants Did they deny his right to inflict any fine or Brigade. They did not forfeiture on them under the regulations Pthe 8th inst. They They did not, but called his attention to the 9th as being absent C. 8. O.
Did they not point out that under the regula tions he had no power to fine them ?The regulations were brought.
But did you not hear Mr. May say that if they did not submit to the fine they would be sent before the Magistrate -He said, "If you do not like to be tried by me you can go before the Police Magistrate."
"Who can fine you $25?"-I do not know he said that.
He may have said it ?—Yes.
And did he not say that if they were convicted before the Magistrate they would be turned out of the Fire Brigade F-He said he would take the Fire Brigade work from them and deal with
them.
How many of the European police are members of the Fire Brigade ?—About 22.
They volunteer for that work Yes; they apply for it.
And the men declined to submit to such an exorbitant fine ?They preferred to go before the Magistrate.
Answer yes or no and add anything you please afterwards. Did not McAuley say he was willing to submit to a fine of $1 or $2, but that a month's pay was too much ?-He said the Superintendent could fine him $1.
do not know that he added any more.
And was quite willing to submit to that?-I
Did you ever read the regulation under which this complaint is made "On the alarm being sounded the firemen and officers who
have not been told off for special duty will has- ten to the engine house for duty and assist to take the engines to the fire?" That is rule 5 of the last regulations.-I have read it.
Was Mr. May on special duty that night that you are aware of -Not that I am aware of.
Re-examined by Mr. Dennys-The assistant foremen get $12 a month and the firemen $9 a month. A month's pay meant $12 or $9. Mr. May told the men he had no power to fine them, but if they liked to submit to a fine he would deal with them. He pointed out that the Ma- gistrate could impose a fine of $25 instead of $12. I produce a book with the scale of fines from the C.S.O. It was after looking at this list that Mr. May said he had no power to fine them unless they liked to submit.
By his Worship-McAuley has been in the Fire Brigade a considerable time. He thas never to my knowledge been absent before. The second defendant joined the Brigade in 1893 and the third has been in the Brigade about twelve months. I am not aware that they have been, absent before. No men were on leave from the Fire Brigade that night. There were four men absent altogether the defendants and an assistant foreman, named. Graham.
saw the defendants.
seeing some friends.' I . were at a banquet?"!
I did not know what the time. The other defendants gave. answer.
Mr. Dennys Has any member of t Brigade a right to be absent from a fire special permission ?
Mr. Francis I object to the question. That is a question of law and not faot. -
Mr. Dennys Mr. May is giving his opinion. Mr. Francis Mr. May's opinion is not worth having on that point.
Mr. Dennys (to witness)———
given a general order that men without getting special permission
Witness No, never,
«You Ever
Mr. Francia. He has been about months at the head of the Fire Brigade !
Mr. Dennys-Have members of Foros who are also : members Brigade ever applied to you to be absent
their duties P
Witness Yes. These are the first men that have not done so, as fat as I know.
Mr. Donnys What is the rule about your attendance at fires P. If the Deputy Superin- tendent is at a fire I do not generally a The rule I have instituted [Mr. Franci have instituted the rule!]is that when the Deputy Superintendent is there I do not
Mr. Dennys The other being at hand in the event of anything arising at the police
Witness Yes. I have not instituted that rule without the knowledge of the Gove I have been corresponding with them on subject.
the Government on the subject been before or Mr. Francis-Has your correspondence with
since the 8th December ?
Witness Before
Are you aware the ± fact you areg an
that the G authority on points of
der has no right to make any this Ordinance except by an order in Co
The Governor has made is nothing in the Ordinance Superintendent to atter
Are not you an offoer P...] Does not rule 5 shall turn out P for the contingen absence
Yes, if he is but not to your house
You were that
Connoil when cognised by
His Worship Why was Graham not charged? Di Witness He was dealt with by the Super- and intendent of the Fire Brigade, *
moni
Page 10Page 11
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.