FIRE ENQUIRY

Press, Volume LXX, Issue 21308, 30 October 1934, Page 9

FIRE ENQUIRY

STOCK ALLEGED TO BE DESTROYED ADJUSTER'S EVIDENCE The enquiry into the origin of the fire at the warehouse of Davidson and Company, Ltd.. 168 Lichfield street, of June 8, was continued yesterday before Mr E. D. Mosley. coroner. It was the third day of the hearing, and it is understood that much evidence has still to be given. Chief-Detective Dunlop represented the police, Mr Sim represented Mr W. Davidson, and Mr Thomas the Guardian Assurance Company. A. E. Smith, adjuster for the Guardian Assurance Company, in continuing his evidence, said that when lists had been completed they showed that £995 of stock had been totally destroyed, leaving no trace. Davidson could give no account of the missing stock. A declaration was then sworn to by Davidson stating that stocktaking on February 28, 1934, showed stock valued at £l9lß 18s 6d. Between March and June £1042 worth of stock was bought by Davidson and Company, while £955 0s 2d worth was sold. Altogether at the time of the fire there was £2113 14s 6d worth of stock in the warehouse. The statement said that the estimate submitted to Mr Grave was grossly incorrect, that visible and traceable stock after the fire was £1132 0s 3d, while the total stock destroyed was £2127 9s 6d, the difference representing stock totally destroyed and leaving no trace. Witness said that the fire was such that very little stock could have been totally destroyed. Near the south-west corner, where apparently the fire originated, he saw a barrel scorched, but not destroyed. The majority of the packing cases were badly scorched. The fixtures containing the main lines of confectionery were scorched, while the confectionery was partly burnt, but none, as far as he could see, was totally destroyed. He saw a fairly large number of drinking straws, some of the bundles being discoloured by smoke and some partly burned. Effect of Fire In the north-west corner of the store the lead fittings to the handbasin were not melted. A few bottles in the store were cracked, and some not broken. Some paper bags could be seen with the edges burnt, but there was no indication of any quantity being totally destroyed. In some cases the damage by fire was very slight. Mr Davidson did not give him an accurate description of stock, which Mr Davidson alleged was totally destroyed. There was no trace of any stock in the southern end of the warehouse, excepting one or two odd lines pickled onions and some empty jars. If there had been any general merchandise there he would have noticed it unless it had been butter or candles. The coroner: Wouldn't you have found trace even of butter or candles? Witness: A remarkable thing was that in my investigations I found a box of wax matches practically intact. Davidson had valued his confectionery at 7s 6d a box. Davidson said that a further 150 boxes over and above those on the list given to Mr Grave had been destroyed near the confectionery fixtures. He claimed that the confectionery on the floor in front of the fixtures was some of this stocjs. traceable. Davidson estimated that there was an additional loss of £125 worth of confectionery not in its original containers. The chief-detective: Was there any trace of containers on the floor? Witness: No. The confectionery on the floor in front of the confectionery fixtures consisted of that which had been spilt out of the boxes remaining in the confectionery fixtures and ■which had been broken mainly by water. . ~ Witness said that if the confectionery on the floor was as he believed, the claim of £125 could not have been made. A line of stock Davidson valued at £2B 10s was valued by Mr Grave at £5. Witness said that the line was chocolate full of weevils —totally unfit for consumption and practically without value. Davidson, he said, showed him a letter to Garland and Company, Auckland, in which Davidson and Company asked for a credit for £25 for "wormy confectionery" provided an additional £SO worth of stock was purchased. A letter from Garland and Company adopted the suggestion. The coroner: Garland and Company's letter refuses Davidson's offer as they would not accept such goods after a fire. Ownership Questioned Davidson claimed for a vinegar cask which he stated was the property of Davidson and Company. The cask was in the south-western corner. There was no other cask in the vicinity. Mr Smith did not notice any name on the cask. Davidson claimed also for 1000 K.K.K. tea cartons, but Mr Hogan, of Ferry road, told witness that the cartons were not Davidson's but his. Davidson put in an additional claim for jars of confectionery near the east wall, valuing the contents at 10s a jar. Witness was satisfied that the majority of the jars were empty while three or four had not more than two or three pounds of confectionery. ' A. claim of £7 8s 9d was made for stationery stocked near the east wall. There was no great heat near where the writing blocks were stored. Enquiries had led witness to value the •tationary at £3. Witness went through Davidson's and Mr Grave's lists, and, noticing the discrepancy in the quantities, decided to take stock himself. The day .following the making of the declaration he went to the store and there saw Davidson, who said. 'Suppose I refuse to let you in?' Witness replied that Davidson could please himself. The stocktaking was then carried out, Davidson accompanying him round the warehouse. After the inspection a fresh list was prepared, including some items even Davidson had omitted. During the examination every biscuit tin was opened and he found that many tins claimed by Davidson as being full were only partly filled, and in some cases practically empty. It was evident that these tins had not been emptied by being spilled during the fire. Witness, allowing Davidson's estimate at 7s 6d a box for unidentified stock, estimated the loss of unidentified stock at £706 10s sd, including the goods sent to auction. If trade discount allowed Davidson had been deducted, it was apparent, taking into consideration that he had over-counted the boxes of confectionery, that the net value would not exceed £6OO. This left a difference of some £ 1400, covering stock totally destroyed, leaving no trace. Altered Books Witness found in the firm's books dealing with transactions from February to June, 1334. that certain invoices were missing. Others were altered. Alterations in dates had the eftect of increasing the amount of the sales. Witness, in his advising capacity to the Guardian Assurance Company, advised the company to repudiate Davidson and Company's claim. To Mr Sim he said that he had not previously adjusted any wholesale confectionery loss. He had with him Mr Wilson, storeman for nearly 12 months for Davidson and Company, (who had 40 years' experience in grocery to assist in valuation. At no time was Mr Wilson asked to adjust. During the cross-examination, Mr •tei said that he should assume that •ertain confectionery had been swept »Qn» the shelf by the hose water.

The coroner: Mr Sim, we havo to dispense with speculation and clown to concrete facts, otheiwise i cannot give a finding. Mr Sim: I maintain, Sir, that a certain amount of speculation nm. i. enter into such a case. The coroner: Oh, no! Mr Sim: The insurance estimates are to a certain extent speculations. The coroner: Well, I will have to discount those estimates that are purely speculative. Mr Grave's estimate of visible stock, overall and auction stock, came to £435 10s, and witness's to £706 10s sd. but witness's estimate did not allow for trade discounts. Witness agreed to give to Davidson a copy of the third assessed list which hau previously been withheld. Transactions With Davidson and Company Frederick Flemming, a grocer, of 810 Colombo street, said lie had few dealings with Davidson and Company. Hebought one crate of cheese from the firm in February. In April he ordered a 401b cheese, but an 801b cheese was supplied. 'The cheese was returned. Davidson, sen., look the cheese away in his car. There was also a ha'.fcheese returned. The delivery docket was also returned. No invoice was received with the cheese. An invoice of April 30 showed that the cheese had been returned. He received no credit note, and did not pay for the cheese. The erasure on the invoice showed "Returned later." Owen Thomas Chinnery, a clerk employed by Aulsebrook and Company, Ltd., produced an invoice giving credit to Davidson and Company for return of empty biscuit tins. In January, 156 empty tins and 10 full tins of biscuits were returned from Davidson and Company. The biscuits were unfit for consumption. To Mr Thomas: The 10 tins of biscuits could not weigh 1311b. Douglas John Ayson, a railway clerk, gave evidence of a consignment of lime which Davidson sampled, saying it was unsuitable. A letter from Davidson was produced authorising the distribution of all the lime to two customers. The lime wrs delivered and the charges paid by Davidson. No subsequent consignments of lime had come for Mr Davidson. Charles William Winchester, secretary of the Canterbury iN.Z.) Seed Company said that in April his company had received orders from Davidson and Company for 500 sacks. The instructions were to send them to W. Davidson. Amberley. A duplicate produced showed the instruction "per rail to W. Davidson, Amberley," was cut off. Witness produced an exact duplicate of the original invoice from which the defaced duplicate had been taken. The court was adjourned until 9.U) o'clock this morning.