Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

FAILED TO FIND OPENING

I presume that if you had been wearing a Roberts respirator you would not have felt smoke exhaustion?—No. You know that Officer Burrows said that during his absence the men in Ihe right-of-way had accomplished nothing. Can you account for that?— Yes. Mr Burrows would have no way of knowing what would have been accomplished in the right-of-way unless it was reported to him. Did you tell Mr Burrows after the fire that you had found the entrance you went in to locate? —Not that I remember.

Your first . statement was that you failed to find the cellar entrance, and you made it again In your amended statement in January?—Yes. Yet in fact you say you had found the entrance from the right-of-way?— I found the entrance from the right-of-way to the ground floor of the shop I —not to the cellar. May I take it when you say you failed to find the cellar entrance you failed to find the stairs?—That I failed to find any opening from the ground floor down into the cellar. “Average Fire Risk” Mr C. S. Thomas (for the accident underwriters): You said in evidence that Ballantyne’s building was the same risk as other stores in Christchurch. Would it not be correct to say that Ballantyne’s was a better risk than the average of those stores?— I fail to see that. Were they scrupulously careful in tidiness and different points or housekeening?—Yes: and so are other firms. Are they all?—Most I have been in, and they are fire conscious. You worWt give it to me that Ballantyne’s are better than average; but you, will agree they are on level with average?—Yes. Do you consider that two men like Mr Ballantyne and Mr Falkingham could have gone about 39ft in to the swing doors in the density of smoke you have described, and stayed there without respirators?—lt is not possible. If they did, in fact, do it, then the smoke was not as dense as you described? That must follow? —It would follow. Miss Drake was standing there, and says she saw you and Mr Falkingham pass the doors on the first occasion?— I disagree with that. That is entirely incorrect.

Don’t you think that perhaps your recollection of the smoke may be wrong?—l could be just as easily mis-

taken as anybody else; but. I qualify it with the statement that I am a person used to smoke, and that their impressions and sequences may be wrong. Mr Falkingham says he went in front of you and opened the doors?— If Mr Falkingham went in front of me, I did not see him. Miss Drake and Mr Goodwin corroborate that?—l cannot help you. To that extent, your stories conflict? —Yes. If Mr Falkingham says he opened the door for the first fireman who went in,jit was not me. When did you go on 10 your hands

and knees? —From 15 to 18 feet in. Did it not strike you it would have been wiser to have asked the man for further directions about the cellar? — As I went past him, hte said it was down there and it had something to do with cables. Did not someone say to you. at a point about the doors, “You will find the door about five or six yards down on the right”?—No. Then, again, the person who gave that evidence is incorrect?—l say he is mistaken. Did you ask Mr Falkingham to get respirators, as he says?—No. I would not ask a civilian to do that. But you asked a man to get hoses?—That was when no firemen were available. Mr Falkingham, in fact, got them for you?—No. You are not suggesting that Mr Falkingham imagined that or was lying?—No. I am suggesting he is mistaking that incident for one at a later stage when we were seeking respirators to entei* Goodman’s building. The time came, surely, when the board’s solicitors checked your statement to Mr Campbell, who did not want details? You knew then that the statement was important as the inquiry had begun?—l suppose it would be as important as anybody else’s. I suppose you went through the statement carefully with the solicitor? —I answered his . questions and discussed points with him when he wanted to do so. In that altered statement you made no reference to passing through the door in the right-of-way?—l think I would tell him practically everything, unless he did not ask me. I would not

tell him any more than he asked me. I cannot remember if I made any reference to the statement.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19480226.2.111

Bibliographic details

Press, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 25428, 26 February 1948, Page 8

Word Count
769

FAILED TO FIND OPENING Press, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 25428, 26 February 1948, Page 8

FAILED TO FIND OPENING Press, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 25428, 26 February 1948, Page 8

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert