FIRE INQUIRY

Evening Post, Volume CXVIII, Issue 31, 6 August 1934, Page 10

FIRE INQUIRY

VIVIAN STREET BLAZE

EVIDENCE OF PETROL

FIN-DING- OF TINS

Indications that benzine or some similar inflammable liquid was used to set fire to a building in Vivian Street on the afternoon of Sunday, June 17, were described by witnesses in the Magistrate's .Court today daring the coiu'so.-of a Coronial inquiry, into the circumstances of the fire. Tha brigade received an alarm shortly after 3 p.m. on the afternoon in question, and when I they arrived they found that the flames had a good hold on the interior and rear of the premises, which were situated next to the Tradss Hal'. Denso smoke necessitated the use of breathing apparatus by the "lremeii, and it Was some time before the outbreak was suppressed. Th6 building was oesupied by P. G. Brazier, and in front of it were two shops. 'Investigations subsequently made by detectives andp Fir© Brigade officers led to,a.decision by Mr. E. Page, S.M., that today's inquiry should be held. Mr. Page presided, Detective-Sergeant L. Revell represented tho detectives and fire brigadesmen, and Mr. Stewart Hardy appeared for Brazier. Donald Thomas Bel!, the son of the caretaker of the Trades Hall, said that ho lived at, tho Trades Hall, and on the afternoon of Sunday, June 17, he saw some smoke rising tip beside the hall and told his father, to summon the Fire Brigade. He returned to the roof of the Trades Hall and saw a man getting out of .a back window of the building which, was on fire. ' . • . Eoy Girling-Butclior, chief inspector of explosives and fire brigades, said that on his first visit to the premises he examined four tins which had been found. There was. a full-sized fourgallon petrol tin on tho landing halfway up tho stairway containing a petroleum liquid which did not appear to.be- highly volatile and which he then assumed to be either kerosene or a mixture, of .. kerosene and petrol. It would light-with some difficulty; A PETROLEUM MIXTURE. In reply to the' Magistrate, the witness said that the lid of the tin (produced) was partly lifted. The tin was nearly full, apparently containing water beneath tho petroleum mixture. There were three other tins (produced). He was informed by the deputy-super-intendent of the brigade that ■ one of the tins was found on the stairway. It contained only a few fragments of charcoal, but there was evidence that it had been exposed to fire. There was evidence that the tin had been knocked about, possibly by the high-pressure stream of water. T.hc two other tins had not been concerned in the fire. One was empty and the other contained a small quantity of liquid of the nature of petrol. Both appeared to have been varnish tins. It was doubtful whether one had had petrol in it, but tho 6thcr had. Witness examined the upstairs rooms. The bedroom at the back of the building showed evidence of a very fierce fire. The ceiling was practically destroyed -and tho woodwork of the walls was heavily charred. The same conditions obtained in the bedroom adjoining, in the front of tho building. The stairway between the two sets of bedrooms was much less damaged,.particularly at the front end. Tho bedroom at the front on the cast, side was damaged practically to the same extent. A significant feature of tho fire in that room was that tho woodwork on the door was.heavily charred on the inside, but on the Outer, or passage side, it was very little damaged. He was informed by the Fire Brigade officers that tho door was closed when they entered the building. This could be accounted for by tho assumption ; that -fires started independently in three rooms, or. at-any rate in tho eastern room and the two .western rooms. He examined the fourth room and found it was very'little damaged, and only by smoke. He did not know whether the room was occupied at the time of the outbreak. . ; In reply to Mr. Hardy, witness said that there was no sign of firo in the sitting-room where the tins were found. Apart from smoke there was no damage on the ground floor except on' the stairway. The door at the back of the shop had hot been burnt. ' ■ "DELIBERATELY STARTED." In reply to Mr. Revell, witness said that the indications were that the fire was deliberately started aid it appeared' to have been started practically simultaneously in the three rooms referred to. •Joseph Crecke, deputy superintendent of the Wellington Fire Brigade,, said that the call to the fire was received at 3.18 p.m., and the brigadesmen Threat the fire after 77scc.' Four engines attended, and he was in charge. The place was heavily charged with smoke throughout, but the fire itself was in' the rear of the building on the upper floor. It was a wood and brick building with an iron roof. Witness entered from the front and found that, except for some fire on the stairway, there was no fire downstairs. Tho seat of the fire was immediately above the- stairway in the three bedrooms. He smelt benaine before- he arrived on the scene, having.smelt it in Tory Street. The brigade's classification of the damage to the- three rooms was that the rooms, with their contents, were severely damaged by fire, which meant that-they were; practically burnt out. BURNING TINS. ~ "On my entry to the dining-room;on Hie ground floor," said the witness, MI came across these two varnish tins, and both appeared to be burning, one more especially. They were just inside the dining-room adjoining the staircase. I gave instructions to have them smothered, find 'in'.'carrying out that order, both' tins were knocked, over, starting another fire in the dining-room. At the foot of the stairs a third tin was picked up, and on the landing was a fourth tin. I tested the big tin with my finger, anrl was satisfied it contained kerosene. I think the tin was very nearly full. I have no doubt that a certain amount of water got into it from our hoses.", .Witness'said that lie examined the doors of tho bedrooms upstairs, and found that tho passage was only slightly burned, and the door of the eastern room, which was closed, was badly charred on the inside. The fire did not spread" from orio room to another. Judging by experience, an accidental firo would take considerable time to pass on to adjoining rooms, leaving him to conclude that tho firo started simultaneouslyin three rooms. He bad had 34 years' experience, and was almost certain, that tho fire, was deliberately caused.: In the first place an ordinary accidental firo in a private residence' could be dealt with with one lead of hose, and would probably take about. 500 gallons of water. This particular lire, which ho ha.d no doubt was assisted by other means, proved to be of a very stubborn nature, calling for two extra leads of hose anrl about 4000 gallons of water. During the first five minutes •of the brigade's operations water took no effect. . I

The second reason was that the fire started in all three rooms at practically the same time, continued the witness. Thirdly, the. whole of the premises were

heavily charged with fumes of benzine and kerosene. The front bedroom was very poorly furnished, with just a bed. He did not know whether there was a wardrobe. One of the back bedrooms was also poorly furnished, as wero the kitchen, etc., and bathroom at the back. • .... To Mr. Hardy, witness said he did not see any furniture in the hallway upstairs. Tho firo had started to spread air over the top floor, but though the walls of the hallway were damaged, they were not damaged to' the same extent as on the inside. No damage was done- by fire in tho dining-room as the result of the tins capsizing. John Philp, station officer at-the Central Fire Station, said that he arrived at the fire with Mr. Crecke and went through the side door next to the Trades Hall. He corroborated the evidence given by the previous witness. INSURANCES ON BUILDING. Dudley Reginald Hoggard, a solicitor acting for Mrs. Christina 'Agnes Hall, the owner of the premises, said that the property was originally insured for £2500. It was an old dwelling house to, which was added a concrete front, converting- the place into two shops with residential quarters. In August, 1932, the insurance was reduced to £2000, and placed with Lloyds. A year later it was reduced to £1500. '■ Mrs. ■ Hall's equity in the building was difficult- to estimate, but was about £2500. The amount of the insurance was less .than the mortgage value of the building. Mrs. Hall's reason for reducing the insurance was because she could not afford to pay the higher premiums. Mrs. Hall had nothing to gain from the- fire hut would lose by it, and if the building had been totally destroyed sho would have been-in a serious position. There were two tenants at the time of the fire. One, Brazier, had the shop next to the Trades Hall and all the living accommodation, and the other, Barnsley, had* the shop only. Brazier was paying' £2 2s Cd per week and Barnsley 7s .Gd. ' Barnsley had been in the building since June, and Brazier had hail the shop since January. The latter took the rest of the accommodation in February. He paid his rent, up to April^ but then received an injury to his' hand, and, except for 10s, paid no rent till, the fire. The arrears had accumulated to, £16 10s. A TENANT'S EVIDENCE. Herbert Edward Barnsley said that he had known Brazier for about three years, and some time ago Brazier asked him to make out a return for his (Brazier's) boot-repairing business. He was in the building at the time of the outbreak. He took . out an . insurance policy for £75 with Lloyd's, two da3 rs before the fire. He had no idea how the outbreak occurred. He.had never heard it suggested that the place should go up in smoke, but had heard since the fire that the outbreak was deliberate. Hi's property had suffered from water, but not fire. Ho took most of his belongings out while the fire was in progress. He had to take a writ against the insurance company to get his claim settled. They paid £10 2s 6d. It had cost him about £30 up to: the present. The first he knew of the fire was when two men came in tho office door and asked him if he knew that the building was on fire.- It was only a coincidence that he insured his property two days before the fire. In reply to Mr. Hardy, witness said he did not know whether Brazier was home at the time of the fire, but about an' hour a£ter the outbreak he saw Brazier talking to a constable in the street. Witness told Mr. Page that he estimated it would'cost him about £175 to replace- what he had lost. No one suggested to him that he should insure. At this stage all witnesses were ordered out of the court. BRAZIER IN THE BOX. Phillip Gordon Brazier said that ho was a single man, "somewhere around 26 years of age." He was carrying ott the business of boot-repairing in the promises. At tho time of the fire he was "something like"sev€ii or eight weeks behind in his rent. Ho was not. in the building at the time of the fire, having left his place between 2 p.m. niid 2.30 p.m. for the' Wayside Club. If the police said he left about 3 0 'clock they were making a mistake. It could not have been more than five to ten .minutes after 2.30 when he left. He thought it was just before 2.30. He saw the Town Hall clock from Cuba Street just after 2.30' p.m. So far as he knew there. were three men in the building. They were McNeil, McEwan, and Edwards. There might have been others upstairs. He spoke to Edwards about twenty, minutes before he left. The witness mentioned others to whom ho had spoken. He could not .remember what conversation he had with McNeil."Isn't it natural that I should know 1 was in the-Wayside. Club," said the witness, "when I have had all the detectives in town asking me where I was and why I was?" . ■ ■ Mr. Kevell:- I suppose .it is. Now, was this conversation with McNeil so important that you can't remember it! I just can't remember it. PEOPLE WHO LEFT. Mr. Revell: Do we1 know McNeil ?~ How should I know? I don't know 'your business. .' : . After Mr. Revell had mentioned several men who .were in the building, witnoss said that a man named Smith, an ex-firebrigadesman, was not there, having left on the previous day. Smith took some ,of his .belongings away ou tho day of the fire. A Miss Bose, who was witness's housekeeper for a time, left on-tho daybefore the-fire. There was a Mrs; Laurentine at the place, but he thought she left on the Thursday. There was another man named Allan Rao who left 'on'Friday or Saturday. Mr. Revell: Quite a few people left just before the fire?—Two or three. There was Rae Smith- — - x •Hang it all, Smith was there only two. or three days. . ' ■-/Who",did-'you have .your staff: .insured with? —Well, they, call themselves Lloyd's.' ' '' ■Why do you doubt they :are Lloyd's? —From my knowledge Lloyd's don't handle business the, way these people do. ••••■• Have you .ever ■ had business with them-before1?—No; and never want to again. . . Have, you had some trouble with them?—Some trouble! I have had quite a lot of trouble. What was the extent,of your policy? —You mean, how much did I have the dump insured for? The witness said that the furniture and effects wereinsured for £170 and the stock of the bootshop for £30. . Mr. Revoll: What do you reckon your effects were worth?—*l- could replace them for the amount I had them insured for. Witness said .that ho strongly disagreed with the insurance assessor's list of values. Having a look at the list, wituess said: ■ "It's wrong for a kickoff.- I should know what, is in .my own house.". Tho witness was not so definite when shown' a signature, on a declaration made before a Justice of the Peace, and ask6d'- to recognise it1 as his own. "It might be,, but I dis.tnist anything that you chaps arc dealing with,"'he said. ' Continuing his evidence; fhii afternoon, Brazier said that the total value of his goods was about £150, in addition to which he hr.d about. £30 worth of poods stored. He denied that, his goods were over-insured. Mr. Kevell: What do you suggest became of the receipts?—They.wore either >jurnf, lost, or'stolen. (Proceeding.). ■ .