Page
· November 9, 1908.]
THE BUILDING COLLAPSE AT SAUKIWAN.
THE SUPERVISOR OF THE BUILDING
CONVICTED. :
At the Supreme Court on Friday, October 30th, in Criminal » Jurisdiction, before Sir Francis Piggott (Chief Justice) the hearing was concluded of the charge of manslaughter against Chung I, the Attorney-General (Hon Mr. W. Rees Davies, K.C.). instructed by Mr. F. B. L. Bowley, Crown Solicitor, appearing for the Crown.
Mr. N. G. Nolan, Police Court interpreter, was called to prove that he interpreted the evidence of the defendant.
CHINA OVERLAND TRÅDE REPORT.
The Attorney-General--He was not what you may call an ordinary 'gaffer." He actually did all the stone work kimseif.
837
The
ment could do what it liked, but that not so. It was bɔand by duty just as much -as any other person in this Colony. And if it Prisoner then made a s'atement in which chose to make Ordinances providing duties for he said he was neither the contractor nor the ita departments, and did not supply any depart- builder of these houses. The houses had been ment with proper officers to carry out those in existence for the last five or six years and duties, then there was negligenes on the part the Public Works Department called and consequently liable and it would be perfectly during the progress of the work the overseer of of the Government and certain officials would be inspected them. Defendant was told he was possible to bring home a verdict of manslaughter the successor to Mr. Crisp If there against any of them for neglecting to perform was anything wrong the inspector should their duties. In this case it was perfectly instead of that have checked it there sad then, bat obvious that the Ordinance passed In 1899 be allowed the work to provided for something which was essentially go on until completion. No complaint necessary for the safety of the public, that The jurors were:-J. Witchell (foreman) completion the landlord sant an application to buildings in course of construction.
was made about bad materials, and after
Was to say, the proper supervision of N. F. 8. Harms, E. 8. Ford. F. H. Hickman, the Public Works Department for a permit to jurors had heard one of the Public Works J. E. Danielsen, W. Nicholls and F. Tallow him to let the houses. Chapple.
One of the officers say that Chinese work required a great day inspected witnesses who gave evidence on the previous deal of supervision. The Government thought
them and certified thai
so too when they put a clause in the Ordinance they were built in A perfect and saying that there was to be supervision, and the sound condition, and upon this recom learned Attorney-General 'frankly admitted in mendation to the Public Works Depart his opening that there was no supervision. ment a permit was issued to the landlord. Therefore, as his Lordship said at the opening, There was big typhoon two years ago and the he should not have been surprised if the buildings withstood that. He was not the con Coroner's jury had brought in a verdict of tractor and made no profits exoapt a few dollars manslaughter against certain (then) officials of every now and then giv n to him by the landlord. the Government. As the learned Attorney- It was very unfair of the Pablio Works De-General pointed out, there may have been partment to say now that the buildings were constructed of bid materials. It cost the land lord several thousands of dollars to areat these houses, and they collapse three months ago. The landlord made no couplaint, saying it was su "act of God" and could not be helped. It was very unfair to prosecute him for negligence; the Public Works Department ought to have been prosecuted. He would again repeat that he was not the contractor, and leave the case to his Lordship and the gentlemen of the jury to decide fairly and impartially.
His Lordship Was the defendant summoned to attend the inquiry, or did he attend volun. tarily ?
The Attorney-General-He was sent for to attend.
His Lordship-It seems an extraordinary way of getting facts out of the prisoner.
The Attorney-General-Apparently he was cautioned by the Magistrate, not at the begina ing of the evidence, but before he made his statement.
His Lordship-It amounts to this: You've only got to call the prisoner and get his evidence. The Attorney-General-He was not compelled to give evidence. (To the witness)-Daring the course of the evidence, did you hear the Coroner osution him ?—I can't remember.
The Attorney General-It appears ou the depositions about half way through the evidence. His Lordship-That is a little late in the day. The Attorney-General (to witness)-Was the evidence at the end read over to defendant
And did he in your presence put his mark to it P---Yes.
The Attorney-General-With reference to the Ordinance regarding construction work, I would point out to your Lordship that it is a penal one, and provides a penalty. "It is Ordinance 25 of 1891.
1
His Lordship-The penalty would be for breach of the provisions of the Building
Ordinance.
The Attorney-General-Yes. I only men. tioned this because I understood your Lordship to say yesterday that it was not a peual statute. As regards the question of responsibility of officials of the Public Works Department, I would merely submit to your Lordship that whatever the deficiency, and however culpable they may have been in their action, that does not exempt the defendant.
His Lordship I quite agree, but the point on which I should have liked a little information is this: the man does not seem to have been the contractor, but I suppose that when a man undertakes a duty, whether for payment or reward, or not, he must comply with the require ments of the Statute.
defendant's
The Attorney-General—The statement goes to show that he was entirely responsible through the whole thing. He was responsible for the work.
His Lordship-For the supervision of he work. He was not the builder nor the con- tractor. He was supervising.
The Attorney-General-I understood he actually built the stone work himself, and a witness a lled yesterda said so.
.
His Lordship-No, he said he did not know
who-built the stone work.
The Attorney General-The defendant is a stone mason,
His Lordship-I don't think you can put the case higher than a man who is supervising the work. I don't see any evidence that he under
took to build. ·
The Attorney-General-If there is no re- sponsibility on him it will be on nobody.
His Lordship, in summing up, pointed out to manslaughter. A good deal had been said about the jury the difference between murder sad
&
|
breach of statute. If a statute laid down certain duties on the persons to whom it applied and if those duties were not performed, then of penalties were provided la the statute did not think he could lay down such those penalties must be enforced. Bat he
broad proposition se this: that the failure of performance of the duties laid on a persun by statute, which led to death, was manslaughter. The building of a house was perfectly lawful, but if it was built negligently and death ensued, that would be manslaughter. With regard to the defendant, his Lordship did not think it would be fair to put it that be was the builder. He built the stonework, but the collapse was of both stonework and brickwork. There was no evidence before the jury to show whether the stonework" brought the brickwork down, or whether the brickwork brought the stonework entitled to the benefit of that doubt, which would down. Therefore he thought the prisoner was
not put him in the place of the builder of the bad work which onsed the collaps. The evidence given by the two officials of the Public Works seemed to him to be rather a criticism which Department regarding the stonework
would be offered on a prosecution under the altogether legitimate to infer from that that the Building Aot. He was not sure whether it was
collapse was caused by bad workmanship in the seemed not to bave taken up the contract in lower part of the baildings. The defendant
the ordinary way of business, but to have done thought it clear that if a person undertooks it to oblige a clansman. Oq consideration he daty, whether voluntarily or not, and negligently performed that duty, and it lead to death, that fell within the principle of manslaughter, There was one part of the case which he was bound to allude to in, the public interest: that
His Lordship I think there would be res ponsibility on a person who undertakes to supervise, but I don't think you can put defendant's 0284 2s a case of buildings. It is the case of a supervisor, and the negligence ́would be in supervising.
|
related to the duties of the Public Works it, because it was sometime ago. The sins of Department. He would not hesitate to criticise omission of that department in those days hid been attempted to be covered by subsequent re-organisation and better organisation in the department. What he had to say was not at all directed to the present Government which existed at the time these houses were but to the Governmet in the abstract built A great many popular fancies (? fallacies) were current with regard to the duties of Government. Some people thought a Govern-
negligence on the part of the Government, but that would not excuse negligence on the part of the contractor. It was obvious that if there had been proper supervision as the Ordinance required, this wall would not have been built in the bad way it was said to have been built, and would not have collapsed, and the 17 anfor- innate people killed would probably have been living at the present day. The supervision after completion was lamentably deficient. The only way in which a certificate should have been given was by opening the walls, and the officers of the department were prohibited from doing this Therefore the certificate granted amounted to nothing at all, but it would not exouse the prisoner if be bad, in fact, been negligeat. In considering the question of negligence bis Lordship told the jury to banish from their minds the fact that the Coroner's jury had brought in a verdict of manslaughter against the prisoner. One point that would help the jury to come to a crnolusion was tho state of the bricks. His Lordship did not anderstand how brickwork,
as bad as thin had been made out to be, could have withstood such & vary bad typhoon as the typhoon of 1906. The typhoon of 1908 was very severe, and perhaps the jury would take that into consideration in dealing with the question of negligence. In this case, such as we get in this Colony for a consider- if the houses had withstood wind and westher
justified in saying that perhaps other osuses! able space of time, the jury would be certainly
have contributed to the collapse. The essential over which the contractor had no control, might
part of this crime was that the collapse shou'd be directly attributable to negligence. Than came the question of bonding : if there was no bonding there could not be a doubt that the work was done negligently. In t is caND
an intervening cause, • down, and the jury would have to be satisfied be vy typhoon, which brought the buildings
to whether they were reasonably and sufficiently strong to withstand supervised by this man that they were not so negligently
ordinary weather, and that therefore negligence directly connected with the collapse of the wall could, in spite of the intervening causes, be and the death of these unfortunate people. The question of bonding and mortar was expressly dealt with in the statute, and the duty laid on the contractor by the statute was to see that the law was properly carried out. His Lordship informed the jury that if they were of opinion this work, and no assumed the duty of seeing that the prisoner undertook the supervision of that the Ordinance was complied with, and if they were of opinion that he was negligent in the performance of that duty of supervision, and that no intervening cause for which “hé could not be hsi i responsible caused the collarines of the buildings, then they were bound to and him guilty of manslaughter.
there WAS
The jury retired, returning into Court 87 minutes later, when the foreman announced that they were unanimous in finding the prisoner
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.