NEGLIGENCE DENIED

Evening Post, Volume CXXX, Issue 100, 24 October 1940, Page 7

NEGLIGENCE DENIED

LLOYDS HOTEL FIRE

COURT HEARING ADJOURNED

EVIDENCE COMPLETED

Denials of the allegations of. breaches i of duty made against Robert Stuart Wilson, proprietor of Lloyds Hotel,, by Olive Gwynne, mother of Kathleen Olive Matthews, a young waitress who died in a fire at the hotel in February last, were elaborated by Mr. E. j Parry, counsel for Wilson, in explain-! ing the case for the defendant in the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon. Mrs. Gwynne claimed £928 3s damages from Wilson. At the end of the cvi- j dence for the defendant the Court adjourned for legal addresses, the date f of completion of the case not being fixed. The case was heard by the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers), having been removed from the jury of twelve which began to hear it with the Judge. Dr. O. C. Mazengarb appeared for the plaintiff. Outlining the case for the defendant, Mr. Parry said his first submission was that there was no evidence tending to show any negligence or breach of duty by Wilson in connection with the outbreak of fire. Admittedly there had been no definite evidence to show how the fire originated and the defendant was in no better position than the plaintiff in regard to that, except that he would call as a witness the person who first saw the fire and" gave the alarm. Counsel emphasised that the building was entirely in accordance with the city bylaws when it was built, and that any alterations made in the building while the defendant was occupying it were made lawfully. It would not be contended that the building was as up to date in its construction and in safety devices as a modern building, but there had been no evidence to suggest that there was anything dangerous or defective about it, and there had been not One word of evidence called to support the many wild allegations which had been made by various persons since the fire, wherein they had sweepingly denounced the construction of the building and made insinuations in connection with the origin of the fire. Thirdly, submitted counsel, there was no evidence of any lack of care on the part of Mr. Wilson in connection with either the part of the hotel in which he housed the girl, Or the efforts to get her out at the time of the fire. Dr. Mazengarb had suggested that there was something negligent in housing the girl on the top floor. There were at least three or four bedrooms on that.floor, in.addition to the room occupied by Miss Matthews, and the suggestion that she was put up in an attic where she would be entirely by hex-self was not an accurate statement of the position. There seemed also to Mr. Parry to be insinuations made by the other side that due steps were not taken by the defendant to rescue the girl when the fire broke out. It would be shown, that everything was done by Mr. Wilson and by guests to try to get her down, even after the fire brigade arrived. ' . Fourthly, said Mr. Parry, he sub-mitted-that when the evidence for. the defence had been heard the Court would; be satisfied that there was no negligence by Mr. Wilson concerning the window of the girl's bedroom. Mr. Wilson would say that two days before the fire he took some guests up to the room opposite the girl's, from which the window frame was alleged to have been taken, and that there was then nothing wrong with the window. Concerning the window in the girl's room Mr. Wilson could only say that he had no knowledge of that window being nailed by anybody at any time. Regarding the amount of damages if the plaintiff was entitled to succeed, Mr, Parry submitted that o\ser and above the actual out-of-pocket expenses caused by the girl's death the plaintiff had proved no. case at all, and had no reasonable moral or legal claim to pecuniary advantage if the girl had lived. ALARM BY AIR FORCE MAN. Robert Jenkins, a ground engineer in the Royal New Zealand Air Force, said that on the night of the fire he was a guest at the hotel. He returned to it at approximately 3.50 a.m. and being unable to get in. by the front door went to the back of the building. Looking through the kitchen door he noticed that the room in the vicinity of the furnace was ablaze. He smashed the glass in the j door, unlocked it, and entered the kitchen with the idea of extinguishing the fire if possible. On getting closer he saw that that would not be possible and immediately went out and looked for a fire alarm, which he could not find, so he telephoned the fire

brigade from a near'oy restaurant. When he entered the kitchen the fire was burning above and at the back of the furnace. Nothing was then burning on the floor. The witness said he directed the brigade to the rear of the building. He entered the building with the idea of finding Miss Matthews, but could get no higher than the fourth or fifth tloor. He told some firemen where the girl was. That would be about ten minutes after giving the alarm. To Dr. Mazengarb the witness said that the fire was blazing fiercely immediately above the boiler. He did not know whether the material around the boiler was asbestos. There appeared to be quite a lot of stuff coming down the chute. Muriel Ethel Smith, a nm'se, of Christchurch, said she was a guest at the hotel on the night of the fire. She left her room when awakened and saw Mr. Wilson addressing the guests. He said there was a girl on the top floor and she went upstairs but heat and smoke prevented her from reaching the top floor. She saw no firemen until she was coming downstairs again. MANAGER'S ACTIONS. Valentine Donald, who was employed at the hotel as manager at the time of the fire, described what happened at the first alarm on February 10. A roaring could be heard in the chimney and while the firemen were upstairs stuff could be heard coming down the chimney. It seemed to him that the chimney was on fire. The roaring then stopped. After the fire brigade left the last people in the kitchen were Sergeant Gracey, witness, and Mr. Wilson. They left together, witness going last and locking the door after him. No one would have been in the kitchen after they left. He had the key. The witness said he had no knowledge of any windows being nailed. He had not inspected them. The rooms had i been occupied and he had had no) complaints. The room opposite that of Miss Matthews from which it was ' alleged half the window had been removed had been occupied two or three days before the fire. Cross-examined by Dr. Mazengarb, the witness said he did not remember complaints made by fire brigade officers in August, 1939, about storage on the top floor. He knew nothing about the. fire brigade being told that that floor was for storage only. The guest book was burned in the fire so there was no record of those in the hotel about the time of the fire. He could not name any guests who slept on the top floor before the fire. There were 76 bedrooms in the- building apart from the top floor, and they could take about 100 guests. The witness said he stoked the fire in the furnace. He did not know anything about the chimney being cleaned. The kitchen refuse was burned in the furnace, but coke was burned in it at night. Any stoking that caused the chimney to roar would be done by him. He had known the chimney to "blow out" on several occasions before. He remembered a porter being twice singed on the arm as he was putting coke on it. Hot gas was what deemed to blow out. The ash bins were kept next to the staircase in the kitchen, but he would not say they were full at the time of the fire. Before he went to bed he cleaned out the furnace and put the refuse into the metal bins, which had lids. They could have held quite a lot more. The hotel was nothing like full that night, said the witness. William George Satchell, a civil servant, said he was living at the hotel at the time of the fire. He heard mention of Miss Matthews and at the same time heard . Mr. Wilson calling outside that there was a girl on the top floor. With Mr. Donald he went upstairs to get Miss Matthews, but the flames stopped them between the third and fourth floors. He then told two firemen about the girl, and tried to reach the fire escape on the second floor, but the smoke was too much for him. EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT. The defendant Wilson said he first went into the hotel about two years ago. He and his sister were running it in partnership. When he took over the hotel he had some alterations made and the dumb-waiter chute was cut off at the ceiling of the kitchen. He did not obtain a City Council permit, but the builders would have" to. The. hole in the kitchen floor was there for the dumb-waiter wheel. The back staircase was blocked before he bought the hotel. On the night of the fire, continued the defendant, when the brigade came at the earlier alarm the chimney was "like a Chinese fountain," emitting sparks. After the brigade left the defendant went to the kitchen, where Mr. Donald was with Sergeant Gracey. He had a look round the fire, found everything in order, and'went upstairs. The chimney was never swept in his time in the hotel, said the defendant. He could not get a chimney sweep to do the work and neither could the fire brigade, as no one seemed to like to tackle it. It was a brick chimney. Later in the night, he continued, the fire woke him. He rushed to the switchboard and switched on all the passage, landing, and stairway lights. The alarms having been set going by Mr. Donald were ringing as he came from his room. The defendant said he "just rushed around, endeavouring to get people out of the hotel." He asked everyone he met whether Miss Matthews was out. He was trying to account for the different guests. He told a fireman there was a girl in the end room on the top floor. He later asked a policeman or a fireman if they had found the girl and the man replied, "Oh, yes. She's all right." There were between 40 and 50 guests in the hotel that night, and there was some confusion. There were seven bedrooms on the top floor, as well as the room at the end where the mattresses were, stored. The previous Saturday the top floor was fully occupied. There were between 50 and 60 guests in the hotel on an average during the week. In that week two young men had occupied the room opposite that occupied by Miss Matthews. He took them to the room and noticed nothing wrong with the window. To the best of his knowledge everything was in order j on the top floor, except in the mattress room. Labour Department, building, and electrical inspectors had visited the hotel. He knew nothing about the window being nailed. The defendant said he remembered Mrs. Gwynne's visit to the hotel. He | had the girl called down and after a short interview Mrs. Gwynne left. The ■ girl received only £4 in wages while at the hotel and she bought clothing in that time. Cross-examined by Dr. Mazengarb, the defendant said he could remember firemen making inspections of the hotel before the fire, but to his knowledge they did not complain about the storage of furniture on the top floor. He did not tell them in August that the top floor was used only for the storage of furniture. His sister did not tell him that the fire brigade had made inquiries regarding a complaint that access was blocked to the fire escape on the third floor by bedding and washstands. Mary Melba Donald, sister of the defendant, said that Miss Matthews bought two uniforms and hats in the first week of her employment at the hotel. The total cost would be about 235. She also bought a pair of shoes for 355. To Dr. Mazengarb the witness said she did not remember the fire brigade complaining about the blocking of the access to the fire escape on the third floor, or about the state of the top floor. She remembered firemen's visits but no complaint*.