FIRE ENQUIRY

Press, Volume LXX, Issue 21324, 17 November 1934, Page 7

FIRE ENQUIRY

ELEVENTH DAY OF HEARING E VII)ENCE AS TO STOCK AND BOOKS / The coroner and counsel have combined of the length of the enquiry IP the lire of June 8 in the ware--1,1 of Davidson and Company, Ltd., Tlichfield street. Yesterday, the Seventh day of the enquiry, a special ■ c \ niD „ SC sdion was held in an attempt the hearing to a conclusion. S,e enquiry is being held before Mr D Mosley, coroner. Chief-Detec-tive Dunlop is representing the police, w. J. Sim appears for W. Davidson and Mr C. S. Thomas for the ruardian Assurance Company, Ltd. I tJ Davidson, who was in the wit■l) 4 ' e-s box all the previous afternoon, f " a' in gave evidence yesterday. 1 Davidson said he motored down to 1 ~ e flrc with two of his daughters. He 1 „ d n ot used the car between that I time and when he returned from the I « ce The position in which the two il w itnesses swore they saw his car after 1 midnight was one in which he often 1 le ft his car. Witness knew both the 1 men w ho gave evidence about the car I and they knew his car quite well, but he thought that their evidence was incorrect. "I will say I was home with my car by midnight," he said. Witness said he arrived at the fire about 2.45. He did not go far into '• the store. It was too smoky. He saw little flame, but the place was full of smoke. At the time he had no idea where the seat of the fire was. It was impossible for witness to form any opinion as to the seat of the fire even after the fire. He left the fire about 4 a.m. A Fierce Fire Witness said he did not agree with the superintendent of the fire brigade that the fire was not particularly fierce. Witness considered the fire was fierce. He returned to the premises at 10 a.m. and walked over the store. About 90 per cent, of the stock had been damaged by fire. Smoke had damaged considerably more stock. He noticed on that examination that about half of the roof of the store had collapsed. He examined the floor in the south-west corner of the warehouse and noticed that the floor had been burned through in several places. He considered that no proof that the fire had started there. All the packing cases were stacked in the south-west corner, and the fire ,vould burn longest there. The supposed seat of the fire was some 20 feet away from where the turpentine was stored. The turpentine was stored in fixtures where there were also paper bags. The superintendent said that it was his opinion that the fire started in the south-west corner. Witness was prepared to pit his opinion against that of the superintendent. There was a cellar in that corner, but little stock stored there. There might have been some cheese, which, however, was not badly damaged. When he examined the store after the . fire he could not trace all the stock. A large quantity of stock had been destroyed, leaving no trace. He did not agree with his traveller and his storeman when they said that no stock ! had been totally destroyed. The store- ; man's statement that a generous estimate of the stock totally destroyed would be £ 100, was ridiculous. Other Witnesses' Evidence Witness declared: "I don't value Mr Wilson's evidence in this matter. Mr Wilson was influenced." The chief-detective: Well, if Mr Wil- > son was influenced, was Mr Sherratt, the traveller, influenced? Witness: No. I consider he was inexperienced. The chief-detective: Whom do you suggest influenced Mr Wilson to the extent that he was biased against you? Witness: I would answer if I was not liable for damages. Mr Sim: You are not liable for anything you say in the box. Witness: Well, it is my firm opinion that Mr Wilson was greatly influenced to give evidence in favour of the assurance companies. The chief-detective: On. what facts do you base that? Witness: On the fact that Wilson received a guinea a day, and worked in close conjunction with Mr Grave. He told me he was taking Mr Grave into partnership with him. Witness said that no person could give exact quantities of lines of stock in the warehouse on the night before the fire. The chief-detective: Did vou tell Mr Smith that £IOOO worth of stock had gone up in smoke? Witness: I don't remember. The chief-detective: Do you rememhei- making a sworn declaration before a lustice of the peace? Witness: I do. The chief-detective: And was that declaration true? Witness: To the best of my knowledge. ! The Declaration The chief-detective: Did you not declare the total stock destroyed leaving no trace to be valued at £995 9s 3d? witness: I did. The chief-detective: And was that Correct? Witness: I believe it to be true. The coroner: And do you still believe it to be true? Witness: I do. Witness said he based his claim on the figures of Mr Fee. At no time or Place did he base his claim on the ■February sheet. The coroner: Witness, in face of all the evidence, do you still persist in saying that practically £IOOO worth 01 goods vanished? Witness: Yes, sir. The coroner: In all seriousness? Witness: Yes, I do, sir. The coroner: It is half the total stock of the company gone up in smoke. You still persist in it? Witness: I do. The coroner: Well, enumerate some <« the lines that vanished. Witness: There was some nut paste. s( The chief-detective: Totally deWitness: Some of it. Some was sent «> the auction room. The coroner: But it left traces. I vant you to name lines that left no 'faces. The chief-detective: Can you tell us °* any l mes that have been totally Witness: Paper racks. tJ*u c hief-detective: Have those been totally destroyed? Witness: There was some iron left. Mr Thomas: Excuse me, sir, but the Paper racks were sent to auction and "ought back by Mr Wilson for Davidson. Witness: That is not true. Wilson 1 ,j° iv three Paper racks at the auc|l, i' n , but there were many destroyed * •"! tne fire. ~o T . h e coroner: Witness seems a little pnv * ed - Ho doesn't seem to differentiate between partially and totally destroyed lines. Practical Demonstration cl P B, e phief-detective: Allow mo to demonstrate to the witness, sir. ?hoil e chief-detective then took two frn ! S paper atKl holdi "fi them in Tho 0f llle witr »ess set them on fire, tho iiu e he allowed to burn to ash, to, °ther he stamped out when it half burned. inHi t* is totall y destroyed," lie said to l £ g the ash on the floor. t [ cin-f . Sl . m: ll has I( = ft traces. You ' Th L ally uest roy anything. idflnr*. c • ef -detective: But you can's Thle^t. 1 * as a special line of stock, identif Piece of paper you can t(-rt!«^ r an adjournment the chief-de-l2 a S ain «sked Davidson if ho ■t 'stroyed enumcrate J'nes totally de-

Witness: It would take about two hours to go through this list. The chief-detective: You say in your statement, "To the best of my belief." 1 nt you 1o SE >y definitely. Witness: Well, to the best of my belief ...

The coroner: It is no good saying to the best of your belief. You are on ,, oatn now.. If you can't say on oath that certain lines were totally destroyed, say so, and then add that, to the best of your belief certain lines named were destroyed. Now can you definitely say on oath that certain lines were totally destroyed? Davidson: Y( s, I can. ~T h, e chief-detective: What were they?

Davidson: On page two of the statement, 351b of cheap tea. Then witness gave further stock, two poxes of easter eggs, rice soap, nougat. He said that he found it difficult to remember all this. Mr Thomas said that the nougat was auctioned. Mr Sim: That shows that you are asking too much of Mr Davidson to ask him to remember all this. Mr Thomas Protests Mr Thomas: I submit, sir, that with a man of Mr Davidson's undoubted ability this demonstrating with lighted paper is an absolute farce. Yes, sir, it is absolutely a farce to treat this man, well known for his business ability, as a semi-fool. The chief-detective asked Davidson if the figures he referred to previously were as he then claimed, actually MiFee's, or were they his own? Davidson said they were taken by Fee. The chief-detective: But were they your figures? Witness: 1 think I can produce a paper with Fee's figures in his own writing. The coroner: But were they your figures? Davidson: Fee took them. The coroner: Don't wander, Mr Davidson. Did you supply those figures? Witness: Yes. Witness said he did not suggest to Wilson, the storeman, how much stock was in the store at the time. He did not ask Wilson to say Mennie's stock book was destroyed in the fire. If Mr Wilson was prepared to. swear that, witness would still deny it. He was convinced Wilson was working with Grave. Witness said he was in the office but, not in the store after 7 o'clock on the night of the fire. Ho thought he told the police he had gone into the store to see that the double doors were locked. The chief-detective: But you told the police that Sherratt was the last in the store? Witness: I thought the police referred to the staff. Witness was asked whether he thought the fire deliberate or accidental. He replied that he did not know the cause of the fire. Two assurance policies of £SOO and £llsO on stock, with £IOO on office furniture, were taken out in January and June, 1931. Davidson said he felt the assurance was justifiable and that the stock exceeded by £2OO or £3OO the amount of assurance cover. Traceable Lines Witness said he did not remember Mr Grave telling him that the amount of salvaged goods and goods traceable in the store was approximately £SOO. The chief-dteect.ive: Assuming he did tell you that, it would mean that nearly £ISOO had gone up in smoke? Witness: Not as much as that. The chief-detective: Then there was not £2OOO worth of stock in the warehouse? Witness said he never had agreed with Mr Grave's figures. Witness was questioned at length on stock figures, the chief-detective producing a list of stock. According to Mr Grave's figures the value of traceable goods after the fire was £154 10s. but witness said that was only portion of the goods traceable. The chief-detective: Do you agree that that represents the total? Davidson: Certainly not; by a long, long way. The stock has been taken three times, and the last two stocktakings have proved that that list is far from correct by some hundreds of pounds. The Re-entry Book Questioned about the store re-entry order book and price books, which Sherratt claimed to have placed in the office after the fire, witness said he saw Sherratt bring some books into I the office but he could not tell what 1 they were. He saw Shea-alt's price I book in the office, but he himself never had it. Witness said that there was never a store re-entry book. The chief-detective: But you refer to one in this letter. You say that the store re-entry book was destroyed in the fire. Davidson: I had to assume that what books were not produced after the fire were destroyed. The coroner: But surely that is an admission that there was a store re- j entry book? i Witness said he had not removed from the office books placed there by Sherratt. For a moment the proceedings were held up while the clerk examined his typewriter. "A screw loose," he explained to the coroner. "More than one screw will be loose j before the end," Mr Mosley replied. j "I was just going to say." said the chief-detective, "that it will not only be the machine that will have a screw loc*e by the time this enquiry is through." Mr Davidson denied that Mennie's stock book was also kept in the office as affirmed by Sherratt and Wilson. He said that the book was often left in the store. The instructions were that the book should go out to the store on Thursday, and the orders be made up on Friday. The orders were usually posted on Saturday. His daughter took the order book into the store on such occasions. Evidence Contradicted The chief-detective: We have very definite evidence from Wilson that that book was taken into the store on Saturdays for orders. Is that true? Witness: No. The chief-detective: Would it be correct that Wilson usually posted up that book? —Yes. Wilson said that on the second Saturday before the fire you posted up that book?— That is not true. I did tell Wilson on that day not to post up the book because we had plenty of confectionery on hand and did not need his assistance. We have the evidence of Wilson and Sherratt that on that Saturday they saw you taking stock, and Mr Sherratt said to Mr Wilson how unusual it was. Is that correct?— No. If they said that they must have been lying?—lt was untrue. On the Saturday before the fire did you take the book from Mr Wilson and tell him not to bother?— Yes. And why did you do that?— Because we had an excessive stock. Mr Wilson said you took the book back into the office?—l may have done that. , „ Would there have been any cause to take the book into the store again before the fire?—On the Thursday. The coroner: But I suppose you still had an excessive stock? Witness. We had a weeks sale, sir. The coroner: Oh! The chief-detective: How long diet Mennie's stocktaking take?— About an hour. , The coroner: Then why did the book go in to the store on Thursday? Witness: The stocktaking should have been done on Friday. The chief-detective: But even that does not explain why the book went into the store on Thursday." The chief-detective put it to witness that he had the book on the Saturday before the fire, had put it in the office, and that there had been no occasion for the book to be in the store after that. Witness said he would usually but could not say that he did. pi:' the book in the office. The book had on occasions been left in the store the whole week.

Delayed Claim Witness said the assurance claim was delayed until July 16 because he was waiting for Mr Fee's figures. The chief-detective: But why wait for Mr Fee's figures when you claimed you knew you had lost £2OOO worth of stock?*—Because a wholesaler cannot gauge a £2OOO stock within a margin of £2OO or £3OO. Working on the February stock sheet and the records of purchases and sales between February and the time of the fire, witness agreed that goods in store at the time of the fire were worth £2113 14s 6d. Deducting the salvaged stock the goods left in the store after the fire should be valued at £2017 19s. That was shown in the statement as actual loss by fire not showing any profit or advantage. Witness said that without the credit book he could not show how much stock was returned to the store. The chief-detective: When Wilson says that goods listed on February 28 were not in the store at that time, would that be true?—l don't agree with him. Is it true or untrue?—l suppose if he doesn't agree with me it is untrue. Claim for Biscuits The chief-detective asked about a claim for 10 tins of Aulsebrook's biscuits. Was it not correct that the tins were entered upon the stock sheet, although they had previously been returned and charged to Aulsebrook and Company. Witness agreed that this was so. The chief-detective: Then why did you claim for 10 tins of biscuits that were not in the store at the time of the fire, but were in fact at Aulsebrook and Company?— Because although they were returned and charged I had not received notice of credit from Aulsebrook and Company. The coroner: But, Mr Davidson, you can't do that kind of thing! Mr Sim: I claim, sir, that that explains the attitude of my client. His are vague ideas of business. The chief-detective: Isn't your claim based on your stock sheet?— No. At least it was not intended that way. It was based on Mr Fee's figures. Mr Fee says you supplied the figures?— That is wrong. They were Mr Fee's figures. I only supplied him with accounts and assisted him. Mr Davidson, Mr Tee tells me you have never seen his figures?—He is wrong I can produce his figures. Mr Sim submitted that in Mr Fee's report he had said that he (Mr Fee) had arrived at the conclusions assisted by the books and information supplied by Davidson. The coroner: Ah, from information supplied by Mr Davidson. That is clear. , , , . Mr Sim: But Mr Fee states he himself arrived at the conclusions. The coroner: If I gave you two lots of figures, Mr Sim, say, £2OOO and £SO, then you could arrive at the conclusion of £2050. That's the position in a nutshell. Mr Sim: I submit that is not so, sir. Mr Fee was an experienced accountant and he spent weeks on it. Witness said that the office books at the time of Mr Fee's examination were not correct and in order He thought they would ! c substantially correct. Counsel's Dilemma Mr Sim- Mr Davidson was anxious, sir, that I should not convey to the city that he was a muddler. /Laughter ) But you can sec, sir, that the way he kept his books was far irom usual. , ~,:, The chief-detective examined w tness on a question of some sacks claimed for yet transferred to W. Davidson at Amberley. . Witness said he did not claim loi the sacks. The coroner: Did you not claim on purchases between February and the time of the fire?— Yes. Coroner: And aren't the sacks included in that?-Yes. But the sacks were' not sold. The chief-detective said that the invoice for the sacks was mutilated before being handed to Mr Fee. the accountant. Davidson did not know who cut the bottom off the invoice and he agreed that the mutilation of the invoice would tend to mislead the accountant. Witness said that the goods from Mcßae's stores went to the V\ cbt Coast—some of them direct and some through Davidson and Company s The chief-detective: But Mr Galvin swears that goods purchased in February and March, were forwarded direct to the West Coast from Mcßae * Manufacturing Company? Witness: That is correct but out store supplied certain stock to McRae's to help them to make up the ° r Tne coroner then read but Galvin's evidence and asked Davidson if it was not true that Mcßae s stock bought bv Davidson and Company for the West Coast never entered Davidson and Company's store. ffrhief detective: Well, does not responding entry of f les j, D °f in fact swell your statement of claim and swell your purchases. Witness: I suppose it does. The coroner (to the clerk;. lake that down. "I suppose it docs T ,. nm - S The. chieWetective and Mr Ul WUneTs said that fcertain order of HaUonTgoods was returned to Oswald M Smith's before the inc. tic iwu Jaken no note nor written out an. invoices to record the return. He had ot nformed Mr Fee, If e accountant of the return of the He had fried to convince Sherratt that some of Hattons goods were in the store at the time of the fire. The chief-detective: Do you ie member pointing out a box of HatEn's to Sherratt after the ArcJ-I do And do you remember fahenatts answer when you told him to remember the box was there before the Are'?— I don't remember. The coroner: Well, Sherratt said he told you that the box had not been here before the fire, and I must take his evidence as true, because you can't contradict it. The chief-detective said that tne storeman was very definite instating that not a scrap of Hatton's stock was in the warehouse at the time of replied that he was equally certain that the storeman was wrong. Wilson was not in a position to know whether goods were bought straight out or consigned. Questioned about the two bedsteads claimed for, witness said he did not know whether there- was one or two bedsteads in the store at the time of the fire. He claimed for two as there were "two in the warehouse at the time of stocktaking and he did not know that one had been removed. Altered Books Witness explained the alterations in the books. When Mr Fee returned the books, witness thought the investigation had been completed, and he could alter the books as he liked. Mr Thomas: And so he was increasing his claim! Mr Sim: Decreasing it. Mr Thomas: No, increasing it. Mr Sim: But he was recording sales, so he was decreasing the claim. Mr Thomas: Not at all. He was not disclosing the sales. He just said he thought the investigations were completed. The coroner: That is correct. Witness, in explaining an altered invoice for one ton of honey ordered by Miss Macdonald, the invoice being altered to read 44 tins of biscuits for the ABC Store, said that Miss Macdonald had overstocked in honey, and so. instead of making out a fresh invoice, he had written the ABC Stores order over the old one. The chief-detective: I put it „to you in all seriousness that Miss Macdonald took delivery of the honey within a day or two of the invoice being made out? Witness: I don't deny it. Miss Macdonald's evidence was then read, indicating that the honey had

been delivered two days after the original invoice had been made out. _ Witness was questioned about an invoice made out to Kirkpatrick, of the Kash and Karry Store. He explained that the order was changed from cheese to tea. The chief-detective: Is it true that the day before this enquiry you rang Kirkpatrick and asked him to come into your office?—l don't remember. On the day he came in to see'you didn't you go to Kaiapoi to see him?— No. My information is that he was in your office for two hours on the day before this enquiry commenced? —No, he wasn't. Missing Invoices Witness was asked to explain why certain invoices, dealing with orders by Kirkpatrick, were missing from the book. He said he could not remember whether he had torn them out. Mr Thomas: But you don't tear pages out of your records? Mr Sim: But this was back in August. 1933. Mr Thomas: Not at all. It was in February, 1934. Mr Sim. to witness: Well, did you tear the invoices out of the book? Witness: I don't remember. The coroner: But only you and your daughter had access to the book. Do you suggest she tore them out? Witness: No, sir. ] The coroner: Well now, did you? j Witness: I may have. ! Mr Thomas: I maintain that the true explanation is that the invoices were originally dated August and changed to February. Mr Sim: Well, that would decrease his claim. Mr Thomas: You have it wrong. He did not change the dates until after he had thought the examination by Mr Fee was completed. He made the changes to account for shortages in tea and biscuits, I submit. At 10 p.m. the enquiry was adjourned until 9.30 a.m. on Monday.