-440
!
į
i
|
!
!
|
* December 6, 1902.
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND examined the mortar of the collapsed houses by inspected about 24 times by Mr. Crisp, the gut to take the evidence of practical men and sight and touch, and never avalysed it. He had
Government inspector, whos duty it was fo these said it was good. Thero being therefore no theory which satisfied him as to the cause of see that houses were built in compliance with no evidence that the material was not good and collapse, but he thought the driving rain was au the Building Ordinance; and they wore passed there bing very good evidencs that his client important factor in causing it. If the wall had by the P.W D.. which was constituted to carried out the work in accordance with the been built of good material and with good work- | provide that the public safety was ensured. I specifications, he submitted that it would be manship, it would have withstood the rain. The jury would have to decide which of the absolutely impossible for the jury to come to For instance, if cement mortar had been used theories regarding the cause of the e Hlapse the conclusion that ho had been guilty in any throughout the wall, it would have stood, and a was the most probable. The wind-and water
Way of any neglect. coating of far would have been an improvement theory was he submitted, the mest probable. Mr. Bowley said that before e mmen ig the Mr. Looker, in addressing the jury, said the ! In fact it was the only one which titted in with; fow reniarks he intended to make, he should like first thing they had to do was to come to a clear, the 78 or so collapses which eccurred during to explain to the jury that his position was idea of why they were there. The enquiry was these three months. It was apparent that the different from that of his two learned friends; held under the Coroner's Abolition Ordinancextraordinary number of collapses this year, he was there simply to onde your to assist the 17 of 1888, and the primary object was to as-
must have been due to some more or less com s coroner and the jury to elucidate the facts and certain the cause of the death of the people who nou cause. Mr. Leigh, Mr. Chatham and Mr., to come fo an nubiassed and unprejudiced were killed in connection with this collapse. Į Tooker all said they thought there minst have decision thereon. After quoting dervis on the If the jury came to the conclusion, after ¦ been some common element. What call, Office of Corauers, Mr. Bowley sad the jury having decided that these people died by ; it have bon ? 16ould only have been bäd not to try any persou for criminal negli reason of the wall falling upon them, that, one of two things; either wind and water | gene, bu-had-only to bring in a verdict as to the fall of the well was confiiluted to by or else something like an earthquake, Wo! The "wause of death, to which they could add the criminal negligence of anybody, there was know there had been a good many earthquakes in any ridee or recommendation or suggestion no doubt they might add a rider to that effect this part of the world of Life and possibly we they liked. In case of that kind every to their verdict and it would then be the duty might have had one in Hongkong. But the individual
whom any duty lay of the Magistrate, if they did; so, to commit mere probable they was that the collapses
He couldn't say. such person to trial. But he subailted that it
wore caused by the extraordinary number of was not necessary to find anybody guilty or to consecutive days of wind and rain which softened pass any opinion at all; they were there to find, the bricks and the pluster over the bricks. The out what was the cause of death. It was quite result was that a gleat many walls becants yery a misconception to think they wero called there weak and a good many collapsed. Ludeed some to find somebody responsible, whereas the im- thing or other required to be done to ucaily every pressiou received by his clients and be thought. [ house as a result of the typhoon and the rain. by anyone reading the report of the opening | aud they had been told that if there ad heen a speech of the Acting Crown Solicitor, was contit wince of the severe weather ther· would that the chief object of the equiry was to find out whether anybody was criminally negligent or not. Criminal negligence having been made, he said, the touch stone by which to test the action of every one connected with this case, Mr. Looker went on to quote authorities showing what criminal negligence had been laid down to be and what an architect's duties are, dealing also with the questions of the materials used and the super iutendence of buildings. Prosceding to review the evidence. Mr. Looker said it had been suggested that the overseer Auderson was, not a thoroughly capable man. He con tended that having alro.dy been with Messrs. Leighand Orange in that capacity for three years he was as good a man AS could be got. In consider.ng why this wall fell the jury had to put away
from the'r minds the collapse of any other wall or house. This wall was built in accordance with the building laws of the Colony. The cridence went to show, indeed, that it was a good deal better built than the majority of Chinese houses, and there was no zubsidence of the foundations They also had it in evidence, that the bricks and mortar and the plaster! covering the bricks were good The point of course was What caused the co ́la se? Three theories had been put forward to account for this. Mr. Leigh said it was the effect of the wind and raiu. Mr. Togkor said it was the effect of the rain water eaming off the hill-side soaking into the wall and sapping the foundations. Mr. Chatram said it was because the wall was not thick enough. All these gentlemen said that the wind and rain had some. thing to do with it. He did not know that they went so far as to say the rain and wind were the primary cause but all said it was the rain; and wind which combined with bther causes to bring it down. With regard to the question of which wall fell first. Mr. Looker argued that the more likely theory was the oue put forward by Mr. Leigh-that No. 30 fell first, and coming upon No. 32 brought the latter down. Only by that theory could they account for the window jalousies of No. 32 being more smashed than thoss of No. 30. Mr. Haggard's theory that this was caused by the bricks rebounding across the 15 feet lane was less reasonable. Again, the wind was from the W.N.W., so that its whole force must have been blowing on No. 3. This particular house was passed by tho P. W. 1. as complying with the Building Ordinance, so they must come to the conclusion that it was, properly built, of good materials, and built strongly enough. Nothing had been said, he thought, to suggest that if it had not been for the wind and rain this collapse would not have happened. These houses were built by Mr. Leigh, who had had 2 years' experience in building China houses; they were built by one of the best contractors in the Colony; they were
+
!
was individually liable, ¦» Sonicone else has been negligent, and there- fore I n not responsible for any such negligene “ In criminal law, the law they were dealing with in their sent instance, con- tributory negligence was not recoguised at all. If the jury found that there bad been negligenco on the part of anybody, it was for the magistrate to commit that person to trial, and so at that the jury had to fied out was whether a prinia have been many wore collapses. Against | facie caso had been established against anybody. Mr. Tooker's thepry that the rain came off After summarising the facts of the case, the the hill-side, pnetrated th· ground and sapped | Crown Solicitors id the wall that fell had been the foundations of the wall, there was the built for six months and could not therefore be evidence that the foundations were good. Mr. called a “grein wall; it was in what might be Chatham did not agree with him and there was termed its prim. A wall, i had been adduced. no evidence to show that the nudations sub set in three or four months in dry weather, and sided. That being so, and the o being a good; the particular wall in question had had three or ideal of evidence in support of Mr. Leigh's ¦ four months' dry weather befor the rainy theory, he submitted that it was the exeret i season commreneel. There were corlaia respen- olle. Mr. Chatham said the wall was not 'sibilities attached to the erection of a tenement strong enough. He Mr. Looker) asked him - house, and the least of thos was that the house why and he said it was becaus⚫ the provisious should be strong enough to withstand average of the Building Ordinance were defective, climatic conditions, The owners in the case had Well, of course, if that was so it had nothing to engaged comp-font and experienced architects, do with the architects or anybody else ecne-ru- and apparently given them a free hand; the archi in the buikling. It was the duty of the tets put the work into the hinds of experienced Government to so that walls w ro built of sneh, contractors, who in turn had engaged sub- and such a thickness and in such a mauner as to Contractors. Mr. Looker had my e a great ensure the safety of the public This wall and I deal of the fact that the architects in this cash heen certified as having been built in such a visited the works much more frequently than manner and there was no doubt that it was so architects did in England, but, Mr. Bowley He thought the jury would have no difficulty submitted, the circum taures hote wery entirely in comi to the conclusion that if there had different from what they were in England. not been this exessive rainy season with a There a clerk of works would be employed who rain-fall of 84 inches in three months these 74] would be upon the building the whole of the dlapses would not have happened and this wall time, and whose duty it would be to see that would have been standing at the present the workmanship was goed; th› architect visite l moment. It was a pronliar thing about this the house occasionally in order to see that it was enquiry, Mc. Looker said in conclusion, that being built according to the plaus, but the no evidence had been called to show what cerk of works was responsible for the work. actually was the cause of the collapse.
manship. In the case nuder review there was no clerk of works, but a Norwegian sailor was engaged as overseer, and he had to look after 18 houses at the same time. Tha' would give about 300 walls in process ef erection, and the services of one mit as overseer were clearly absolutely insufficient. By appointing au overs er to supervise for him, the architect could not evade responsibility, nor could the contractor by the employment of sub-com- tractors shift responsibility from himself to them. for an expert Luilder who undertook to do certain work could not transfer bis responsibility by sub-contracting. There had been a tendency on the part of what he would cill the defence, continued the Crown Solicitor, to throw responsibility on the inspetor of buildings, but if that offer had not done his work poperly the fact did not excuse anyone from negligenco Again, the Building Or dinanca had come in for a good
deal of criticism, but the Ordinance simply laid down the minimum, dimensions to be employel; there Wa no restriction against making walls of double thickness if circumstances
I
|
&
¦
("
Mr. Wilkinson, after a preliminary statement with refereue to the real object of the enquiry and the authoritat ve definition of criminal negligence," said that as the jury were aware he was appearing in this matter on behalf of the contractor. It did not concern him whether thero had been any breach of duty by anybody else. The legal duty of the contractor was to erect these houses according to the specifica tious which had ben supplied to him by the architect. When he (Mr. Wilkinson) asked Mr. Leigh Dit the coutractor build these houses in acordance with the specifications? Mr. Leigh answered Yes." There was also the evidence of Auders n, the overscor, who confirmed what Mr. Leigh said and stated that the work was carried out in accordance with the specifications, and further went on to say that the materials used were very good. Thes there was the evidence of all the witnesses who were called all of whom stated that so fir as they could say the materials used were very good. Catil Mr. Browne was called there was no suggestion of any kind that any portion of the materials used was inferior. But having regard to the evidence of the Messrs. Hewett one of whom sail the mortar was good and the other very good indeed, he submitted that the jury could very well disregard Mr. Browne's statemout that it was inferior. Mr. Browne had no practical experience with regard to mortar, but simply as an analyst. They had
|
❘
rendered it necessary. In the collapsed wall the misimum dimensions had been adopted. External walls, fr in their being exposed to the weather, required more care to be taken with them and in the present case many reasonable precautions which might have been taken were not taken, with the result that the work hid been scamped, Mr. Boxley concluded by
¡
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.