AN OPEN VERDICT

Evening Star, Issue 21290, 20 December 1932, Page 14

AN OPEN VERDICT

MOSGIEL FIRE INQUIRY “ WHOLE AFFAIR A MATTER OF SPECULATION " “ There is insufficient material before me to draw a legitimate inference, and 1 can only return an open verdict, as there is not sufficient evidence to show the cause of the fire,” remarked Mr J. B. Bartholomew,^S.AL, at the coronial inquiry yesterday afternoon into the circumstances surrounding a fire which occurred in Thomas Crozier’s drapery shop at Alosgiel on October 1. His Worship said that the case presented some curious features. The evidence of the City Corporation electrical inspector definitely stated that the electrical installation was not faulty and that the fire could not have originated therefrom. There were no other means of heating and lighting and the fire could only be caused by some entry of tlio promises after they had been closed in the afternoon. Who could have entered the promises? There wore two alternatives—they were either burglariously entered or Crozier or his assistant went back. The close examination conducted by the police showed no evidence of forcible entry. Whoever entered did so by using one of the locks on the front door. But such an entry by a stranger would seem to be futile and objectless. The shop was not ransacked, there was no definite evidence of anything being taken and very little disturbed. Crozier 'alleged that two sports suits were missing, but could not swear as to that. His assistant could be definitely ruled out and the only explanation left was that Crozier went back himself. Crozier at the time of the fire was bankrupt, his position was obscure, and be had no exact knowledge as to that position, and he could expect no direct gain from the fife. The whole affair remained obscure and the origin of the fire could only be said to be a matter of speculation. Thomas Crozier was the last witness at the inquiry and, in evidence, detailed his movements on the day preceding the fire, and explained how he learned of the fire at about 2 a.m., and what he did after arrival at the shop. Asked by Air Young how anyone could have got into the premises on the night in question, witness said he did not know. The shop was securely locked up when he left, and as far as he knew it was still secure when the fire brigade arrived. There were only two keys to the front door, one held by himself and the other by Miss Gibbon. His own key was at home during the afternoon and evening, but he could not remember whether he had it with him at the fire. Referring to insurance, witness said the premises wore insured for £BOO or £BSO in the National Office. He had told the police £950 in the Standard, but that was a mistake. There was an additional £l5O for plateglass and fittings. On the stock there was £750 or £BOO in one office and £2OO in the other office. He was not sure of the exact figures. At the time of the fire he thought ho owed about £2,000, but he was not sure exactly how much. He did not know what his financial position was, but ho had not thought it was very serious. He valued his stock at the time at from £1,400 to £1,600. He owed Messrs Ross and Glendining about £1,600, plus interest. -Asked if he could assist in finding a cause of the fire, witness said he could not. He did not suggest that someone else had set fire to the premises, nor could he suggest any means whereby the fire could have broken out accidentally, and he was prepared to accept the evidence of the police and fire official that there was nothing to show that the shop had been broken into. ' Chief-Detective Young drew attention to the fact that the damaged stock had been assessed at £350, and the balance sold at £SOO, making a total of £BSO for stock valued by witness at from £1,400 to £1,600. The coroner then returned an open verdict.