FIRE IN FACTORY STORE

Press, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 27094, 18 July 1953, Page 8

FIRE IN FACTORY STORE

Charge Of Setting Materials i Alight

PRODUCTION MANAGER TO STAND TRIAL

When the case for the prosecution had been completed in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, Claude Wilford Barrow, production manager of Baronet Textiles, Ltd., pleaded not guilty to a charge that on May 5 he wilfully set fire to shirting materials and paper so situated that he knew the premises at 92 Manchester street were likely to catch fire. Mr E. A. Lee, S.M., committed Barrow to the Supreme Court for trial and allowed him bail in his own recognisance of £2OO and one surety of £209 on condition that he reports twice a week to the police.

to have set fire to the store to. collect insurance. The insurance on the store was much greater than the value of the stock held, but that was not a significant point.

Reduction in Salary ‘‘l next saw the accused on May 26,” said Detective-Sergeant Tate. “I had in the meantime made certain inquiries and I asked him if it was not true that the sales position of the company had dropped seriously and that the bank had, through Mr Kirby, approached him about his salary. He admitted this and said his salary before the fire had been £47 a week net, but that he had agreed to a reduction to £3O a week, gross.” Barrow had then given another written statement in which he said the company was having some difficulty with sales, but advance orders were good. His own personal finances were good.

Detective-Sergeant G. W. Alty prosecuted, and Mr K. A. Gough appeared for Barrow. Mr C. S. Thomas held a watching brief for Redfern’s, Ltd., leaseholders of the premises, who had sub-let to Earonet Textiles, Ltd. Mr J. G. Leggat similarly represented an insurance company. The hearing began on Thursday. Mr Gough submitted yesterday that there was no case to answer and the charge should be dismissed. The Magistrate held that there was a prima facie case. The first witness yesterday was Robert Eric Free, a public accountant and secretary of the Eliza White board of management, administrators of the White estate, owners of the building in which the fire occurred. He said that Redferns, Ltd., leased premises in the block and had sub-let the store to Baronet Textiles, Ltd. The block containing the People’s Palace and the store was insured in two policies for a total of £33,000. For rating purposes the value of the premises was £18,240. The first and second floors of the People’s Palace, under which the store was situated, contained between 80 and 90 bedrooms. Cost of Stock in Store An insurance adjustor, Alfred Edwin Smith, said in evidence that he had been notified of the fire in the textile store and had arrived about 4.30 p.m. The fire brigade was then still in charge and some pieces of timber were still smouldering. He met the accused and. after some preliminary investigations, asked him if he had been in the store about 3 p.m. that afternoon. Barrow said he had not visited the store about that time but that one of his staff members might have been there. Barrow promised to make inquiries, but gave no further information on the point, said the witness. The landed cost of the stock in the store at the time of the fire was about £24.000 and the replacement value would be between £16,000 and £17,000. said Smith. He estimated the amount of damage to be between 70 and 80 per cent. There had been considerable damage caused by fire, smoke, and Water, witness said. Detective-Sergeant Archie Brian Tate said he first met. the accused on the morning of May 11. “I spoke .to him in general terms about the fire. Mr Kirby, Barrow’s co-director, 1 was present during the discussion.” Barrow said that only two keys to the store existed, said Detective-Ser-geant Tate. Hemmingson, the storeman. had one, and the other Barrow kept in his desk drawer. “He also pointed out that the partition between Redfern’s premises and his company’s store was very flimsy and light could be seen through various cracks,” the witness said. “He said he could not suggest how the fire had started.

Concluding his evidence, Detective Sergeant Tate said he had walked at a brisk pace several of the routes indicated in Barrow’s statement. To go from the store by way of Colombo street to the Wellington Woollen Company had taken smin 35sec; from the Baronet Textiles factory to the woollen company’s office, 2min 30sec; from the factory to the Prince of Wales Hotel, 2min ssec. Counsel’s Submissions

“There is not sufficient evidence to commit the accused for trial,” said Mr Gough in his submission to the Court. ‘‘The police case seems to be based on the accused’s financial troubles and the fact that he was on the premises on the day of the fire. The company is more than solvent and the accused has no debts he cannot pay.

‘‘lt is submitted-that his statement has not been disproved. There is nothing remarkable in that he could not telephone the brigade because the staff of Redferns tried also when they noticed the fire. The accused does not have to show how the fire started to prove his innocence, indeed he does not have to prove his innocence. This is not a fire inquiry—it is a criminal charge with the onus of proof heavily on the Crown,” Mr Gough concluded. ‘‘There is in my view a prima facie case to answer, and the accused will be committed for trial at the next session of the Supreme Court,” said the Magistrate.

“In further discussions with the accused he told me he had been in the store about 2.50 p.m. on May 5 when he was joined by Kirby. They had remained there until about 3.10 pjn., when they left almost together.” Samples of Materials

The accused said he then returned to his office, had afternoon tea, which was always served in his office about 3.15 p.m., and then left the building to visit the manager of the Wellington Woollen Company, with whom he discussed business matters, said the witness. He said he was there when he was told of the fire. He hurried to the store and arrived in time to see the firemen smashing in the front door.

“At 9 a.m. the next day I called for the accused at his office and we went to the store in Ashgrove terrace, where, with his help, I obtained samples of most of the materials which had been in the fire,” said the detective sergeant. “I next saw the accused or. May Is, when at my request he called on me. We had another discussion, in which he again said he left his office after having afternoon tea and went to the Wellington Woollen Company’s office. “I then told him that I had reason to believe that a man answering to his description had been seen near the door of 92 Manchester street some time after 3 p.m. on the day of the fire,” said Detective-Sergeant Tate. “The accused «aid nothing for some moments and then became agitated. He said: T might as well tell you the truth—it has been worrying hell out of me since the fire.’ ” Barrow then told him that he returned to the store after having afternoon tea, opened the door, and saw the room full of smoke and a red glow in the far corner, said the witness. “He told me he then shut the door and went back to his office and tried to telephone the fire brigade. He said he could not get through and while he was trying he heard the brigade. ‘I panicked then, and told them in the office I was going round to Wellington Woollens and left straight away,’ Barrow had told him,” the witness said. Barrow said he had walked by way of Colombo street, and when he got as far as the Prince of Wales Hotel he heard the brigade pull up at the store, said witness. Barrow said he kept walking toward Wellington Woollens and met the manager. He could not remember what he said or what he spoke about. He said he was with the manager when one of the men came and told him of the fire. He then went to the store. “I warned the accused that what he was saying might incriminate him, and I told him he was not obliged to make a statement or to make any explanation in writing. I then asked him if he wished to give an explanation in writing. He replied that he wished to make a statement, and I took it down,” Detective-Sergeant Tate saidStatement Read Detective-Sergeant Tate then read to the Court the statement he said Barrow had given him. In this Barrow said the store held goods valued at more than £24,000. He said he had been in the store for about 5 or 10 minutes when his co-director, Kirby, arrived to discuss business. Neither of them climbed on top of any stacks of material that day. They had been smoking, but were not careless with matches or cigarette butts. had left the store a short time after Kirby. He had not left the door open. A few minutes after he had tea he returned to the store which was full of smoke and giving off a terrific amount of heat. He returned to his office, tried to telephone the brigade and then, hearing fire engines coming, became frightened and left his office. He told no-one that he discovered the fire and could not explain why he took the course he did. In the statement Barrow denied setting fire to the goods, said Detec-tive-Sergeant Tate. He mentioned electrical fittings on the wall of the store. It would not be in his interests