SUSPICIOUS FIRE

Dominion, Volume 27, Issue 266, 7 August 1934, Page 10

SUSPICIOUS FIRE

Several Independent Outbreaks CORONER’S INQUIRY Close Examination of Occupants Assertions that the fire on the afternoon of Sunday, June 17, which damaged the building 122 and 122 a Vivian Street, used as shops and a dwelling, was almost certainly to have been started deliberately were made by several witnesses at an inquiry into the fire yesterday. The coroner, Mr. E. Page, S.M., after hearing a number of witnesses, including occupants of the building, closely examined by the police, indicated that he. would announce his finding at 10 a.m. on Thursday. Detective-Sergeant Revell conducted the inquiry, and Mr. Stewart Hardy appeared for P. G. Brazier, one of the occupants of the building. Donald Thomas Beil, son of the caretaker of the Trades Hall, where he lives, said that about 3.15 p.m. he noticed the fire from the roof of the hall and had the brigade called. On returning to the roof he saw a man get out the back window. Roy Girling-Butcher, Chief Inspector of Fire Brigades, who visited the burnt premises about 8 o’clock on the same day, said there was a four-gallon petrol tin on the landing halfway up the stairs. It contained a petroleum liquid which he assumed to be either kerosene or a mixture of kerosene and petrol. It would ignite with difficulty. The tin was nearly full, but he thought water was below the oil. He was informed that the brigade found another tin containing fragments of charcoal on the stairs. It had been burnt. Another tin he saw contained petrol, and yet another was empty. Indications Fire was Lit. The bedroom at the back of the building showed evidence of a very fierce fire, as did the bedroom adjoining it in front, but the stairway between was much less damaged. A third bedroom in front was damaged to practically the same extent as the others, and the significant feature about the lastmentioned room was that the woodwork inside the door was charred, but the woodwork outside was little damaged. The brigade had found the door closed, which supported the assumption that the fires had started independently in each room. The indications were that the fire was started deliberately. Smell of Benzine. Joseph Creeke, deputy-superinten-dent of the Fire Brigade; said that on the brigade’s arrival the building was full of smoke. There was a little fire on the stairway but none downstairs. The seat of the fire was above the stairs and in the bedrooms. They could' smell benzine in Tory Street before they arrived as well as In the building. He found two of the tins the previous witness had referred to in the dining-room close to the stairs. They were burning. His 34 years’ experience was that an accidental fire burned in one room a considerable time before it passed to another. Witness was almost certain the Are was deliberately caused. An ordinary accidental fire in a private residence could be dealt with with one lead of about 500 gallons of water; this fire, which he had no doubt had been assisted, proved very stubborn and called for two extra leads and about 4000 gallons would be used. The water had no effect on the fire until the rooms were burned out. Another reason for his conclusion was that the fire started in all the three rooms at about the same time, and a third was that the whole building was charged with the fumes of benzine and kerosene. The place had been poorly furnished. Witness replied to Mr. Hardy that possibly some furniture in the passage had been burned. John Philp, station officer at the Central Fire Station, gave evidence along lines similar to the evidence of Creeke. Insurance On Building. Dudley Reginald Hoggard, solicitor for Mrs. C. A. Hall, the owner of the premises, and her late husband, gave details of the value of the building and its insurance. When the Are occurred the amount of the insurance was less than the mortgage value of the building. She stood to lose by a Are which either damaged the building or destroyed it. hffiere were two tenants. Brazier had a shop and the living accommodation, and Barnsley a shop only. Brazier was paying £2/2/6 and Barnsley 7/6. Brazier was £l6 10/- in arrears. Herbert Edward Barnsley, accountant, said he was in the building the day of the Are. Witness had £75 insurance, taken out two days before the fire. He could not say how the fire occurred. Before the Are he had never heard it suggested that the building should be burned. Only water damaged his office. The settlement was £lO/2/6, less deductions. The fire had cost him £3O. It was a coincidence and for business reasons that he had happened to insure two days before the Philip Gordon Brazier, single, aged 26. said that when the Are broke out, as far as he could remember, he was at the Wayside Club, having left his place between 2 and 2.30. When he left three men were in the building—McNeil, McEwan and Edwards. Witness gave the names of a number of men who were staying there. Two or three men and women had left a few days before the fire. The amount of the insurance was £2OO, the policy being taken out a month before the fire. In addition to his own property, which was worth between £l7O and £l<d, he had txxo barbers’ chairs. a showcase and a roll of linoleum stored for somebody else. He could replace the property for the amount of the insurance.

Disappearance of Receipts.

Brazier said he paid the previous occupant £7O for the furniture, but he could not produce a receipt for any of the money. Neither had he receipts tor his purchases at shops and an auction room for household goods. Mr. Revell: And you can show receipts for none? Can you say what happened to them? . Witness: They were either destroyed, stolen or burnt. There is definite evidence the fire did not extend to your shop.—“ About 4000 •mllons of water went through it. Water has a habit of washing things away.” • Who would steal them? —“The police or the insurance company.” Why would the insurance company steal them? —“To give themselves a loopk°And why would the police steal-them? “They showed themselves exceptionally biased as far as I am concerned.” So you say the police would steal your receipts to put one across you?—“I certainly do.” JVitness pointed out that he had pot

“had the run of the place” after the fire. There was a guard over it until Tuesday. He denied that he was “pushed” for rent. After further questioning by Mr. Revell he admitted that he paid the insurance premium a month before the fire, although he owed eight weeks’ rent at the time of the fire. Witness said it was an impossibility for the tins to be found as other witnesses had said. A tin of inflammables eould not have been on the stairs during the fire. Witness’s Enemies. Mr. Re yell: Now, these gentlemen have asserted the fire was caused deliberately. Will you contradict them? Witness: No. Have you any idea who caused it?— “No." Have you anv enemies? —“Numerous. Who are they?—“Mostly the police and their agents.” Who would set fire to the place to get one on to you?—“I don’t know.” The McNeil staying in the house, who was the last person witness had spoken to before leaving on the day of the fire, was the same man who had been wanted in the Supreme Court to prove an alibi for a man named Crosson. Witness could not suggest anybody to whose interest it would be to burn the building. He emphatically denied he was £5O overinsured. At the request of Mr. Hardy, Brazier gave the reason for the departure of each person who left before the fire. One wanted a healthier place for her sick child, another had been there only while looking for work, and a third was being “chased by a detective with a bluey.” Daniel McEwan, wharf labourer, sai-i he occupied one of Brazier’s upstairs rooms and was in bed with an injured foot when the fire occurred. About half an hour before the fire ho saw Brazier and McNeill in another room. It was witness who had to get out of the window. Man Who Left About TJiree. Thomas Alexander McNeil said the conversation between himself and Brazier before the latter left was of no note, and he could not remember what it was abom. Witness Iftft about 3 o'clock for a wall:. He did not know who remained still m the house. There were no tins on the stairs when he walked down them. He could not suggest an explanation for the fire. Mr. Page: Did you set Are to it? Witness: No. Sidney Frederick Ray, fire assessor, employed by Lloyds in connection with the fire, considered the goods considerably over-insured. Witness told Mr. Hardy (hat he had assessed the damage to contents at £3O. Another assessor employed bv himself and one employed by Brazier both set, it at twice that, but between times additional items were thought of. The amount was finally fixed at £6O. Alan Kersley Gray, irene.ral manager ot Bennie S. Cohen (N.Z.) Ltd., described fho procedure of his office in accepting 1 W. R. Murray said that the Dominion Analyst bad found that two ot the tins discovered contained benzine The one found on the stairs had. five or six parts of water to one of benzine, tne water being apparently from the Auctioneers from whom Brazier bad sum he had made purchases did not remember the transactions or remember him.