WAREHOUSE FIRE INQUIRY

Evening Star, Issue 21889, 28 November 1934, Page 2

WAREHOUSE FIRE INQUIRY

VERACITY OF WITNESS CHALLENGED ORIGIN Of OUTBREAK UNCERTAIN [Per United Press Association.] , CHRISTCHURCH, November 27. After fourteen days of evidence the inquiry into the fire which occurred in the warehouse of Davidson and Co.Ltd. early on the morning of June 3 was Concluded to-day. The coroner, Mr E. D, Mosley, S.M.V brought in the following finding;— “ The evidence does not, in my opinion,': satisfactorily explain the cause and origin of this fire.”- Mr Mosley said the conduct of W. Davidson, manager of the company, had been very unsatisfactory both before and since the fire, and if Davidson left the inquiry with suspicion attached to him be had only himself to blame. ■ Davidson-was in the witness box for the fifth day to-day. Towards the end of his evidence he said that an insurance adjuster, Mr J. E. Davis, had promised Davidson’s traveller a position at three times the salary he was earning if he would sign a statement that Davidson had left a tap dripping in a large drum of methylated_ spirit in the centre of the store. Davis was not in court at the time, but Was . called by, the coroner to meet this statement. Davis said ha had interviewed th®. traveller, hut the rest of the statement was untrue.

The Coroner, at the end of the evidence, said he would not sum up all the evidence, but would refer to one or two points. He said it was impos. sible to listen to the evidence of Davidson without coming- to the conclusion that he had made many statements pn details which were absolutely untrue. The coroner said he was prepared to accept the evidence of Wilson, tho storeman, and Sherratt. the traveller, corroborated as it was by the evidence of the insurance adjusters, that the value of the stock was about £SOO.

“It is now my duty,” said the Cow oner, “ to consider whether I can deem the evidence sufficient to justify my, saying that the building was wilfully set on fire. In my opinion it has been proved that Davidson was on the premises between midnight and 1 a.m. on the date of the fire. That in itself gives rise to the suspicion that Davidson knew more about the fire than had been brought out in evidence.' My, difficulty is that whatever I now say may have very grave consequences, and it appears to me that I should be very cautious indeed. I must confess lam unable to satisfy myself absolutely, whether or not this fire was caused by incendiarism. I do not wish to say much about the proof of loss because this will probably be the subject of another proceeding. It is sufficient to say that the proof of loss was very far from correct.”