December 29, 1902.]
of these people were due to an accident for which no mau was responsible-due to an act of God, not to an act of man.
;
Mr. Looker next addressed the jury. He Baid his friend Mr. Wilkinson had stated the law, and he thought his views would be upheld by the magistrate. He would only supplement his quotations by saying that it had been held that a culpable mistaka or some degree of culpable negligence cansing death would not support a charge of manslaughter udless the negligence was so great as to be reckless. They were there to enquire into the cause of the deaths of certain people, and while they know that the | actual cause of death was the collapse of the wall of a house in P.aya East, the jury had also to find out whether anyone, by criminal or reckless negligence, contributed to that cause of death. The du'i s of an architect were to; prepare the plans of a building and then to superintend the work.
Was
¦
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
building, and hy submitted that not only the architect but everybody els did their da y. and that the collapss was a pura accid ut an the fault of na one.
|
|
|
|
|
503
bricks in all probability were built into the wall dry. This tended to waken the wall, continued Mr. Bowley, who proceed to detail the precautions that might have bɔon taken to Mr. Looker, ensure the stability of the wal hy said, hal rather orrot in his statement regarding the weather: the excessiva rains did not com nence nutil the wall had been erected for about eighteen months, and at that age it was In conclusion, Mr. at its maximum strength Bowley sub nitted that the typhoon was the cause of the accident, that the typhoon had found out some weak places in the wall, that thy wall was not prop wły bonded and properly constructel and put together in accordanc with the provisions of the Baildiu: Ordinance, and that the in-pctors of the Public Works; D partment, the architects, and the contractor had not ex reisal that amount of supervision it! was their duty to exercis in respect of the bick wall of the house.
Having charge the jury, his Worship put to them the following thre questións-
(1) What was the cruso of the deaths of the consed her in?
Mr. Bowley, who next addroswl the jury. and they were not there to try any specifi· charges against the contractor or the archite* * ash's learned friends might lead the jury to suppose, they had simply to find out the caus of the deaths of the praple an whether to blum; they Wo not anybody waz tied down to answering any specifi question. but to find out the cause of the accidat. There could be no doubt hat th10 deaths were amused by the falling of the hous, and that the house fell at about the tim when the typhoon rachd its of the 2nd August list hud height. That was quite clear; the only thing was to find ont whether there had hin any i defects in th · building which can ribut to i-s He accepted Mr. Wi kinson's d'inition of negligenc•, but what wers th· legal duties of everyone e merruel in the building of these houses? The legal duties of the Pabli: Works Department were tose that the provisions ofd the Building Ordinance wera carried out, of the architects, to se to the supervision of the build ing work, and of the contractor, to see that the buildings were e ectel in such a way that they would ba substantial and comply with the pr visions of the Building Ordinanes. One of the requirom uts of Building ().dinaae › 25 of 1891 was to the effet t'ia a will should begdil across its o atiro thickness au 1 propeily boade i and put together with goal in mortar. · In the case b›f r t e jury the ovidence showed (3) The persons guilty of such criminal that the wills were not solid across the`r outica naglige ven arẻ thì contractor, architects, aud thickness and wer not properly band d. The Public Works Department, biensɔ they did duty to so that the wall wis properly e struet- not ex eis the necessary supervision. el fell upon t'e Public Works Depirtma, the His Worship said he could not accept the architect, and the contractor, and they emidvd.ct as it stred that the jury would haro to not get out of that duly, Thy architect put in names
A Juror -Whom shall we blime in the Public did
Works Department?
[
fall. In the present cas? the plaus were approved by the Public Works ¡ Department as being in accordance with the provisions of the Building Ordinane, so that the first duty of the architect was satisfactorily discharged. As'o the other duty, that of superin- tending the work of constructi in, it was perfoctly | obvious that any architect, however anxious and willing to do so, could not, pos ibly saporin- | tend every detail of the construction. It was laid down by acepted authorities that it was impossible for him to do so; by Hu'son, for instance, the leading autho ity on the du ies of architects and engineer, and the jury. Mr. Looker thought, would agree that an architect could not be expected t› lễ on tho works all day and look after everything-to superintend the laying of every course of brickwork and the mixing of every fresh lot of mo far. The primary cause of the collapse of ecurse, was the wind, but was it assisted in any way by defects in the materials used or in the work of construc tion The orig nal plan had to n deriated i from in order that the houses, when erected, should comply with the requirements of a new sanitary Ordinance, but even when so altered the plan fulfilled the conditions laid down by the Building O.diuance and in no way affected the stability of the building. Not only that, but the certificate granted by the Public Works Department, after the houses had been inspect- ed, showed that they were all right. The bricks might have been bad, bat everybody had said they were good; the mortar might hava been bad, but practically everybody had siid it
good The bonding might have been lad, but the wall had fallen, and there was nobody to pira actual evidenes as to what it was like before the collapse contractor. They except the
been, had told that the bricks were of various sizes, and that that necessitated a certain amount of bad bonding. No doubt there was a certain amount of bad bonding, but so there was als in every The house in the Colony put ap by Chinese, bonding, Mr. Looker submitted, was of the ordinary descript on of bonding found in every Chinese house in the Colony, and as with the bonding, so ako with the bricks and mortar. The only other possible factor in the collaps, apart from the weather, was th thi kues of the wall. The Ordinance said that a wall of the dimensions of that which collapsed should I be 22 inches thick; in this case the wall was 21 inches thick-two inches thicker than the Ordinanca prescribed. Therefore the jury would have to take it that the wall was of a proper and safe thicknes, are:ding to the experience of that time. The wall at the other end of the block was exactly similar in every way, as were many others now standing in the Colony, despite the many typhoons to whi h they had been expos d; the first montioned wall, that at the opposite end of the block, had withstood at le st two typ'oons, apparently without suffering in any way. In these cir cumstances there must hare boen some. thing in
the present collapse that had not been accounted for and which was nobody's fault. The explanation, Mr. Looker thought, was to be found in the extraordinarily severe weather-that the wind and rain got on this newly built wall and blow it down, and if there had been a continuance of the wind and rain there was no doubt that many more would have been blown down. Tho action of the Public Works Department in passing the play was sufficient proof of the satisfactoriness of the
|
费
}
|
|
(2) Were the deaths of the decease the result of criminal negligence? anl
(3) If yea, what person or persons are guil y of such criminal negligence?
The jury rotired, an lo i returning int › Court gave the following answers to the questions:-
(1) The raus? of the deaths of the deceased was the coll ipsa of house. No. 45, Praya East; (2) Th› deaths of the dorsal were tha resu of criminal negligence;
;
His Worship-Yon must dete mine that for yourselves. I cannot advise yon.
Mr. Lakr submittel that the verdict was incompl·te. As it stood, it bold theat the deals werd caused by the collaps of the house for want of supervisiou, but it failed to bring it definitely down to something to fix the criminal negligence,
.:
Mr. Bowley contended that the jury had answered the thres questions put to them by his Worship, and there they must leave it.
came
Mr. Looker then drew attention to the fact that when the jury first
in they brought a vo:dict of criminal negligence against three partios, and e submitted that they could not now go back on that verdict and leave out the Public Works Department
His Worship-I think the jury are enti∙led to amend their verdict in that way.
11-t absolv himself from respon sibility by appointing an oversr wh hal practically no experi vuce in building work, an i who thonght that mortar was e impos.l of two
of vel earth The The jury again ra ired. and when they had piris of lime and one question really cums to this -Dil th Public reutered and resumod their s ats the foreman Works D-parim sat, the architect, and the e m- intimated that they found the contractor, tractor Legent their daty? All the evidnes | Mau Wo, and the architects, Messrs Leigh & He ¦ called in the ease, Paving tha of a formal | Orange, guilty of criminal negl gence.
ensi leratim, was, with the | added We cannot lay the blami on any parti naturo out of
en'ar person in th Public Works Department, exception of that of the last witness, Mr. Hewitt, giren by interested witness's with a but we cɔasiler they did not do their duty. bias in favor of the buildings. They h come there, no doubt to try to show to the jury what they thought about the houses, but through it all they had, as b·fure statel, a natural prjudice in favour of the buil·lit es. The Public Works Department approved of the plans in the first instance, although the
Director of then
Public Builling Mr. Ormsby, might have exercised his diseco'jan in the c s3 of a wall exceeding 31 fot in length and stipulated for its ad ition d thicku »s« 02 Lio | building of cross wall, The plaas pisse 1, the | work on the hous's started." an1 the Public Works D partnent inspected it during its
when and
fiuis blessed the progress houses by issuing a certificate to the effect that they had
built in accord ince The usual with the Building Ordiuaare, requisition was sent in that the houses should
· be inspected. Mr. Crisp was detübel to carry out the inspection, which, as had ben seu from his evid nc, was a very cisud 0 12, did not take the plans with him, a d thought. as a matter of fact, that he had ney r seen the plans; the walls were covered with plaster, and as he took nous of the plast r off his e suld not. tell whether the bonding was properly dose or
On that inspection the Publi; Works |
c. rtificate. Tuo Dapartment granted the architect was charged with the supervision of the building work. Mr. Looker hvi said it was impossible for the architect to super ut nd d tail of the building work, which at heme would be looked after by a qualified clerk of works. In this case there was no el k of work‹, and while Mr. Bowley did not holl that it w.s the daty of the architect to superinteud every detail of the work, a person charged with the general supervision of a wall in curs of erection could say who he. t'e wall as a whole was or was not sitisfactorily and properly built. It had been adduced that the bouding of the wall was bad, and in addiliga to that thero was a certain amount of evidence that some of the
|
not.
overy
ban
He
|
|
The jury were for the third time directed to retire and name in full the two partners in the firm of Messrs. Leigh and Orange as being guilty of criminal negligence, and this they did,
His Worship theu formally committed to trial at the next Criminal essions Mau Wo, Robert Kennaway Leigh, and James Oringǝ.
Mr. Leigh, who was in Court, was allowed to giva his pɔrsonal recognisances that he would appour for trial, and the same course followed in the case of Mr. Orange. the contractor was fixed at $5,009.
WAS
Bail for
A memorial tablet hrs been placed in the hall of the British Consulate-General, Shanghai, bearing the following legend: In Memory Colborne Baber, H BM's of Edward Consul at Swatow. A distinguished explorer whose travels added greatly to the know- ladge of Western Chin and won for him the honour of the Royal Medal of the R G.S. in 1883. Born 30th April, 1843. Died 16th June, 1890, at Bhamo where he was employd as Advisor of Chineso Affairs to the Government of Burmah. This tablet has beзn plead hoře by some of his many friends in H,B. M.'s couular service in China."
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.