VIVIAN STREET FIRE

Evening Post, Volume CXVIII, Issue 32, 7 August 1934, Page 10

VIVIAN STREET FIRE

CORONIAL INQUIRY

OCCUPANTS QUESTIONED

INSURANCE VALUES

After hearing the cvidenco produced at tho corohial inquiry at tho Magistrate's Court yesterday into the fire which occurred in a Vivian Street building on the afternoon of June 17, Mr. E. Pago, S.M., stated that he would take time to consider his decision, which would bo.delivered on Thursday morning. ■ ' ■ , ; The police and Fire Brigade officials had reason to suspect that the fire was deliberately caused, and at the inquiry evidence- was produced to show that tins containing petrol were found in tho building and that the fire started in three separate rooms. One of the tenants was also questioned at length regarding the amount for which . his belongings were insured and also as to particulars of' purchases which he claimed to ' have made. Detective-Sergeant L. Eevoll conducted tho proceedings ou behalf of tho police and the Tire Brigade, and Mr. Stewart Hardy appeared for P. G. Brazier, one of the tenants. Brazier was in the witness-box when "Tho Post" went to Press, and his examination was continued in regard to tho receipts for ■ household: articles which .lie claimed to havo bought. Brazier had said.that the receipts were either lost, burnt, or stolen. Mr. Eevell: It has been established that the firo did not go near your shop. —I did not say they .were in tho shop. About 4000 gallons of water went through the place, and water has a habit' of washing things away. Otherwiso the receipts were probably stolen. And who would'you suggest would steal them?— Either the police or the insurance company. What would tho insui-anco company want them for?— They apparently want anything they can get as a premium and are not keen on paying out. And the police "—The police have proved themselves exceptionally biased in the past, and they would steal to put it across me. I definitely had the receipts. Continuing, Brazier said that he went into the downstairs portion of the premises on the*l Sunday night, but. it was impossible to sco anything. There was a police guard over the place, and he had to have an argument with a constable before *he could see whether his pup was alive. Witness said that with the place full, he was getting about £5a week from his boarders, and an average of £2 to £3 from his shop: His rent got in arrears beforo tho fire because ho had an injured hand, but if he-had been pressed for the money he could havo paid it within 24 hours. He had other calls on his money. He admitted taking out an insurance policy when he was four weeks in arrears with his rent. "NOT A FIRE EXPERT." ■ Mr. Eevell: Do 'you agree that the fire started in three different rooms?— I am not a fire,expert. I know nothing about fires and am hardly likely' to contradict anybody. I inspected tho rooms and the stairs, and am not prepared to deny that the insides of the doors were inoro badly charred than the outsides. ,'.-.-■ "I will say it is ■ impossible," said tho witness when asked if he would 4euy that tins with inflammable contents were found on the stairs. The big tin either could not havo been on the-stairs or could not have contained benzino. "But the facts have gone further than your common sense this time," continued Mr. Eevell, "for the tin was found there." , At Mr. Eevell's invitation Brazier dipped a finger into tho tin and said that it appeared to be petrol. He would not like to hold a match over it. ' • Mr. Bevell: Yet a fire has passed over it.-:—lt is absurd. Brazier said lie would not contradict tho evidence that the firo was deliberately started. He had numerous enemies, mostly the police and. their agents, but ho could suggest no one who might havo set the place on fire to injure him. . . Questioned regarding McNeil, witness said that McNeil was a friend of his. Ho was tho man who was wanted to givo evidence against Crossan in tho Supremo Court and could not be found. "Had I taken the trouble I presume I could have found him," continued Brazier, who said that McNeil was in the court building and had been, at his home, about *25 miles out of Dannevirkc. "STOOD TO GAIN NOTHING." Ho' could think of no one who would set the place on fire, or who stood to gain by the fire. He certainly stood to gain nothing; all he could get was the replacement of what ho bad lost. In tracing the significant features of tho case Mr. Eevell said: "You insured that place approximately one month prior to the fire?" "Yes," replied witness. . ' ' . • You could not pay your rent, yet you could pay insurance?—-I could have paid my rent. . ' . . , Just prior to the fire several of your friends left?— That is not so; some were still there. You bought tho stock in the shop from Crossan for £12 and insured it for £30.—That's not right. There wero two barber's chairs there. You know, you have no right to insure other people's, property?— How was Ito know that, I'm not-a walking encyclopaedia? . Brazier, I have heard you.called many things, but I have never heard you called a fool. —I did not know I could not. In fact I still, think the insurance company is dodging paymont. You wore in the building just beforo the fire?—No, at least three-quarters of an hour before. You remember looking at tho Town Hall clock in Cuba Street?— Yes, I suppose it was automatic. ; Brazier said that ho could not remember any of tho carriers who shifted goods into his place. At the conclusion of bis evidence be said that in future, when 'he knew there was going to be a firej he would keep the receipts. Ho would havo kept them in this instance if he had known he would require them. ■ Mr. Eevell: It would have been helpful. .■'."- . : . ■■ ; Asked by Mr. Hardy why tho people left tho bouse before the fire, Brazier said that Mrs. Laurentine had a child who had just come out of hospital and she did not consider the place healthy; Bay's chief reason was that he was being "chased with a 'bluey' "; Smith pnlycamo in to tho place till ho got a job; aud tho housekeeper "threw her hand in because I suggested she should got up before 12 o'clock." Ho could not go back to the premises because tho rent had been "bumped up" to about double what ho had been paying for it, and also he had not been allowed enough to refurnish it. Ee-cxamined by Mr. Eevell, he said that one of the tins produced had been

in his shop to hold finishing ink. Ho had only one bottle with benzine in it.

To Mr. Page, Brazier'said that he could give no explanation regarding the big tin. ■ < Daniel McEwan, a wharf labourer, said that ho occupied one of the upstairs rooms. About half an hour before tho fire ho saw Brazier and McNeil in McNeil's room. He was in his room when he heard a peculiar noise, as of something crashing and a tinkle of glass, and then saw flames coming under the door. He escaped out of,the window.

Thomas Alexander McNeil, an unemployed slaughterman, said that ho shared the room next to McEwan's with two other men. On the afternoon of the fire Brazier was in his room between 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. He could not remember what they were talking about. Ho left,shortly before 3 o'clock to go for a. walk, and so far as he knew there was then lio dno in the place. There were definitely no tins on the stairs when he walked down them. Ho could throw no light oil the occurrence.

ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGE. ; . Sidney Frederick Ray, a fire: assessor employed by Lloyd's to assess th.c damage done by the fire, said that there was no question of Mrs. Hall's integrity. After-the fire he compiled a list of Brazier's effects, having Brazier's assistance in doing so. He would describe tho goods as of poor quality. He assessed the value of the goods damaged at £60, allowing £15 for salvage. His own opinion was that ■the value of, the loss was £28. Tho property was over-insured by 'about £100. He had asked Brazier about the tins found on the premises,l and Brazier could give no explanation as to liow they got there. He threw out a suggestion, however, that .they:'had been placed there after, the lire by the police. In regard to Barnsley's evidence, witness said that no "writ had been issued against Lloyd's.'■ The cost .of renovating the building .was £395. Brazier's claim had been agreed' upon at £60, and Barnsley's at. £10 12s Gd. Cross-examined by .-Mr. Hardy, the witness admitted - that the assessments of both tho other assessors,, one of whom was appointed by himself and the other by Brazier, were, double 'Iris esti; mate. This was largely • owing to the fact that extra items were recalled by Brazier after the.first assessment. ■:-

Alan K. Gray, director and general manager of Bonnie S. Cohen and Son (N.Z.), Ltd., insurance- brokers' representing Lloyd's, gave evidence as to the procedure adopted whei* his, company issued a policy. .■•■■■■

D.oteetive W. K. Murray said ■that Detective Robinson and. himself had interviewed the occupants, including the boarders, of the house after, the fire.., They had come to the conclusion that the lire was deliberately started in more than one place. The- building was poorly furnished. The- Government Analyst had reported, that two of the tins found contained benzine. The large tin contained five parts of water to one of benzine. The auctioneers from Whom Brazier had claimed .to have pur•chased goods had no knowledge of him or of alleged.transactions.

This concluded the evidence.