260
joists aud flooring, Witness thought the giving- way of the eastern wall of No. 56 caused the collapse. He put up the shoring because of the typhoon signal, but in any case it would have been necessary to use shoring. The shoring poles were three inches in diameter at their thin end, and six inches at their thick end. On the day and night prior to the collaps it had been raining heavily.
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
His Worship-Answer the questions, Witness had never measured plans; it was simply impossible for one man to do it. Thers was an engineer above him now, and witness had either to assist him or the engineer hal to assist witness The two of them had to do the whole of the Colony; ten to fourteen m n might be able to get through the work-measure all the I pln, and check everything. Winess had not inspected the house in First Stret since the collapse; that was Mr. Haggard's business, Witness did not see any shorings at or notice the condition of No. 58. First Street; there were shurings, but he could not say exactly where, He kept a written record of all his visits, and could tell the date of his first Witness visit by looking up his book could not say how long it took the P. V.D., to answer a notice regarding com- mencement of work-it might be a week, certainly more than a day. The fact of there being shoring did not necessarily mean that a building was in danger of collapsing. In view of the shoring he saw when he visited Centre Streef, it was natural to suppose some building was in danger, and he should have lookel at them and reported to tho P.W.D., but he had no time to do so, owing to th undermauned condition of the P.W D.
Ip Sau Chi, alias Ip Tuk, sud ho leased a block of houses looking on First Streit, Second ¦ Street, and Centre Street to a man named Pau Chan, and amongst those houses were Nos, 27 to 41, Centre Street and Nos. 50 to 58. First Street. He did not know when the houses in First Street were built. Pau Chau was the The agent for the owners of the houses. houses in Contre Street were closed by order of the Sanitary Board on 15th April last. | Pau Chau made arrangements to have them pulled down and rebuilt. The reut of all the houses was 82-5 per month, which wit ness paid, along with the taxes. Pau Chau engaged Tak Kee to pull down and rebuild the old houses in Centre Street, and Tak Kee in turn engaged Mr. Hazeland as architect. Witness did not see Mr. Hazeland at the house, nor any other European. On 29th July, at I p.m. witness was informed of the collapse, and immediately went to view No. 56. He found that the western wall had fallen, both inwards and outwards, on the first fl-or kitch u. Witness saw the house on 20th July, but did not then notice the western wall, so that he could not say whether or not it was shored up. Ating I visit. that time the western wall of No. 58 had already been taken down; there were a lot of pine poles about, bat witness did not know if they were the shoring of No. 58. As to the collapse, witness was of opinion that it was caused by the heavy rains loosening the joists of the kitchen. The roof was still standing.
Mr. Dennys-And do you say that, with the roof still standing, unsupported on its western side, the rain penetrated to the floor underneath? -I don't mean the rein only; I mean the water used in the house.
to
that effect
P. C. Crisp, inspector of buildings, P.W.D., said he had never seen the contractor Tak Kee before, and he had never asked witness to go and inspect the houses in the vicinity of the collapse; witness had never spoken to the man, or had any communication with Lim. It was correct, as Mr. Hazeland, in giving his ev d- ence, had said, that it was witness's duty to inspect all the o'd buildings in the Colony, but he did not remeber having inspected No. 56. First Street; he did not think he bad, as he had no memo, in his book HA was acquainted with the locality of First, Second, and Centre Streets. The first time this year, within his memory, that witness went down to inspect in Centre Street, they were pulling down the old houses, which were nearly level with the ground. He went down to inspect thinking they had started the new houses. It was at the end of May or the be ginning of June, witness thought, that he went down to Centre Street, in pursuance of in- structions from Mr. Tooker. He could not give the exact date, witness said, on being pressed by Mr. Dennys, but he had it in his memo. book. There was nothing particular to see on the job when he got there, aud he simply had a look round and went away. He could not say whether or not No. 58, First Street was inhabited at that time; he did not look at the adjoining buildings, but he saw shoring, although he could not say exactly where it was. He had visited the houses in Centre Street since then four or five times.
some
|
By Mr. Goldring-Witness, in inspectlug the old buildings in the Colony, did not take them in rotation, as it were; he always fouud a bundle of chits on his desk, and attended to them. He would not usually go to a particular house unless he were specially asked, but some- times paid such a visit. It was possible that a house could go uninspected for years and years, unless attention were drawn to it, such as by the collapse of the kitchen. Lots of houses could be built without inspection, and were so built. In that case the P.W.D. did not know anything about the material used, and sometimes not even the measurements.
Witness--As to mortar, anybody knows they have no proper mortar in the Colony. For one thing, they have no lime,
Mr. Dennys-If it was your duty to iuspact these shored-up buildings, should you not have done it when you were on the building? -I suppose ought to have done so, but you might as well say I should inspect every other build-
Mr. Dennys-Yon havo told ray friend that you considered it was your duty to inspect all old buildings, You were down there on the ground and saw the shorings why didn't yn then inspect the building?—I had other work
|
(October 6, 1902.
he visited the place. The collapsed wall had not been solidly built; the bricks were "black,' of indifferent quality, badly bonde, with big mortar joints, and the mortar was more like. powder than mortar. The remains of some brok n' shoring-poles were to be seen, and although, in the position in which they had been placed, the / ba of som use, they would not would have male the wall safe; there should have been extra shoring. If witness's attention had been drawn beforehand to the condition of the wall, he would probably have served a notice to have it pulled down. Portions of the roof, door were still standing front wall, and
at No. 53 at the time of witness's visit on the 4th July; the new buildings in Centro Street were then, he thought, up to the first floor- It was Mr. Crisp's business to inspect the build- After the collapse, iugs in Centre Street. witness examined the shoring round No. 56 -on the 3 h and the poles seemed to be a fair siz‹. The joists in No. 56 were rotten-not very rot- ten. but pretty bad; unless the wall bulged, however, and left the ends of the joists on the corbelling, the joists were not sufficiently bad to cause the accident, In all old houses the timbers were more or less rotten.
By Mr. Goldring-Witues did not think that a covered passage-way on a plau nccessar ly meant that there was a house over that passage. way; the passage-way in the present instance was only 6 feet wide, All tat was done with plans sent to the P.W.D. w s to se that they Wit- compl ed with the Building Ord.nance. ness knew most of the sites in the Colony, but did not know their measurements by heart. The P.W.D. was undermanned at present, and if everyth ng that Mr. Gollring suggested was done, they would never get through the work. As matte s stood, those in the Department ware practically in the hands of anyone who sent in Mr. Dunys-Have you received any instruc-a plan. Regarding the collapsed wall, there
were indications in the portion that tions, written or verbal, that you are in charge
not sound. All three of alt these builings in the Colony-any state- mained that it was ment in writing from your superior officers in houses, No.'s 52, 54, and 56, were in a similar the Department saying you are in charge of all condition. the buildings in the Colony? You have said you are.-It is an understood thing. I am inspector of buildings, and an inspector of buildings always inspects houses.
to do.
Mr. Dennys-Ia ordinary circumstances, you only inspect these buildings when you are ordero 17-Yes, when I get a chit. But I inspect buildings when I am not ordered to do so; I am supposed to do it.
Mr. Dennys--Do you consider it your duty, without r ceiving instructious from anybody. to inspect all these buildings-Yes, I do, and other people think so as well. My superiors think so.
re-
By Mr. Donnys-Anyone could send in a plau to the P.W.D, and if it conformed with the Ordinance it would probably be passed. It was not necessary to know the archi ect.
The enquiry was resumed at 2.15 o'clock on Friday afternoon.
1873.
Was 011
H. P. Took r, executive enginee.", P.W.D., was the first witness examined by air. Dennys. He said he kuew No. 56, First Street; it was an old three-story house, and on the west side was No. 58, First Street; witness did not know what sort of a houss it was, never having seen it. He H. E Y. Haggard, recalled, said he was an had found in the books of the P, W.D. reference
to these two houses; the first one assistant engineer in the P. W. D., and was at present carrying out the duties of an inspector acknowledgment of a notice dated 21st October, of buildings. He was first in Mr. Danby's
That notice mentioned among other office when he c me to the Colony, and joined houses Nos. 50 to 58 (even, numbers), First f the then the P. W. D. in February, 1902. Whilst Street, and bore the initials witness was in London he was assistant district Surveyor-General. There was nothing regard- surveyor for East Hampstead, under the ing the houses before 1873, and as matter of duties as fact witness did not know when they were built. London County Council. His inspector of bui dings in Hongkong consisted In 1874, in January, there was a se oud notice of going through all plans sent in and referring regarding the houses. He concluded from those them to Mr. To.ker, executive engineer, if any- notices that the houses were built prior to 1873, thing was wrong with any of them; he bad also under the old Building Ordinance of 1856, to inspect buildings, and do other things. Mr. Witness first visited No, 56, First St eet on Tooker finally passed the plans. Looking 22nd Augu-t last, and found that the west wall at the plan shown him, there was nothing to near the kitchen end had fallen down, eviden ly I be second floor of No. indicate that there was a house over the covered collapsing outwards. passage-way between Centre Street and No. 56, 56 båd fallen down into the first floor, but the Lie looked at the re- First Street. Witness did not inspect the site roof was still standing. after receiving the plans, from which be under-maining portion of the west wall, and found it stood that 27 to 41, Centre Str.et were to be in a very b d condition. It had not been solidly pulled down. He did not understand however, built, as required by the Ordinanco. Blue : ricks that the plans included the pulling down of the had been used in its construction, but although west wall of No. 59, First Street, or that No they were fairly sound they were not solidly 2 cavity in the contro 56, First Street would be affected by the pull-put together, there being
Witness did not con- of the wall. There was very little mortar, and ing down of these walls. sider that the plan produced showed the posi- that of an indifferent nature. The adjacent tion and 1.vels of the surrounding ground and laue was covered with debris, and the house buildings, as provided for by Section 69 of the above it, No. 54, was practically collapsed. A Ordinance. The plan was afterwards amended, little remained, and that was attached to No. but even then there was nothing to put witness 56. Witness had never previously inspected His opinion as to upon enquiry as to No. 58, First Street. He did | No. 56, or been inside t. not inspect the old buildings in Centre Street the collapse was that the wall fell because it was before they were pulled down, or give special in such a bad condition that it could not instructions with reference to No. 56, First port itself. It had also been exposed to the Streut. He first visited No. 56 on 39th July; he had weather by the palling-down of No. 58, First heard of the collapse on the afternoon of the 9th. Street, which operation deprived the collapsed Witness described the collapse as he saw it when wall of support. The front wall of No. 58
|
sup-
!
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.