DUNOLLIE FIRE LOSS

Greymouth Evening Star, 17 February 1930, Page 2

DUNOLLIE FIRE LOSS

ALLEGED FALSE DECLARATION. The destruction of a house and contents by fire at Dunollie, on Chistmas Eve last, had an unpleasant sequel at the Greymouth Court to-day for the owner, ‘William Farrell, who was charged that, at Dunollie on December 31 1929. lie did make a declaration that would amount to perjury if made on oath or affirmation in a judicial proceeding. Accused was represented by Mr AV? J. Joyce. It was alleged that Jarrell had claimed for certain articles from the Northern Assurance Co., alleging falsely that they had been destroyed by the hre. These articles included a gramophone and records valued at £B, sofa £3, Morris chair £3/10/-, arm-chair £2, violin £2, wardrobe £6. An eight-day clock and a bedroom set were also mentioned. The furniture was insured for £lOO. and was valued in the declaration made by accused at £133. Detective Murch, who prosecuted, stated that the charge was laid under section 133 of the Crimes Act.

Henry Thomas Harrison Greve, fire loss adjuster, of Christchurch, stated that he was also a Justice of the Peace. He was employed by the Northern Assurance Co. to adjust fire loss respecting the house and contents at Dunollie, the property of the accused, which were destroyed by fire on December 24, 1929. He arrived at Dunollie on December 31, and went with accused to the scene of the fire. Witness measured the area covered by the building destroyed and made a casual examination. They proceeded to the house occupied by accused, and Farrell then produced a list with a few items on it, but it was of t very little value in ascertaining the contents of the house at the time of the fire. Witness then produced the official declaration form, and requested an itemised statement of the furniture and effects destroyed. Accused and his Ayife -dictated the items they alleged were contained in the house destroyed. Witness gave instructions that salvaged aiticles were not to be included in the list. When the list was completed, witness again asked accused whether he had included any items that were saved, and he replied in the negative, lhe list of items produced in Court was that signed by accused, as being correct. Farrell stated the nearest Justice of the Peace was at Runanga, ami witness, therefore, as a Justice of the Peace, read over the declaration to accused, and saw the latter sign it. Farrell claimed that a gramophone and records valued at £8 were lost m the fire, so witness thoroughly examined the debris, but could find no trace ol any mechanical parts of a gramophone. Constable Houston was present during the examination. He found the remains of a double-bed wire mattress in the debris of the front bedroom, and the remains of one double and one single-bed wire mattress in the debris of the second bedroom. Accused claimed that he had lost two doublebeds in the second room, anti one double-bed in the front room. Witness questioned the neighbours, and then again inspected the debris, with Constable Houston. Meanwhile, accused arrived, and witness told him there was no evidence of the gramophone, and asked Farrell to point put where it stood. Accused replied: “Go and look for it yourself ” He told accused that it would be in his interest to give witness every assistance. Farrell did not give any help, but murmured something and went on to his garden. Witness met accused later the same day, and told him that he had been advised that he had saved certain articles, which he had included in his declaration of loss. The articles included a sofa, a Morris chair, two aimchairs, and a violin. Farrell stated that he did not know where they were, and that he did not know what was in the house in which he was then living. He agreed to let witness inspect the house, and took him into the front room. After some hesitation, accused’s wife pointed to a sofa in the room as that saved from the fire; she also pointed to a violin case, but said it did not belong to them. When witness asked to be shown the Morris chair, accused said: “Get out of this, you ——,or I will have you arrested. You see the condition in which my wife is, and,, as a married man, if yon had any sympathy for her you would not be asking her these questions.” Witness replied that accused was the one who had shown lack of sympathy, in calling his wife in, as accused was the insurer, and witness wanted to deal only with him. However, he had requested witness to leave the house, and he jvould leave it as courteously as he had entered it. He asked accused to go to the site of the lire, to substantiate his claim for the Joss of the gramophone. On the way there, accused further abused witness. He told Jarrell that he was not used to that sort of languafe, but if it pleased accused it would do witness no harm. He .was not allowed to see the contents of any other room at the house occupied by the accused. When they reached the site of the fire, accused pointed to a. place that was once the front room, as being the location of a gramophone, but there was no trace of it in the debris. Accused gave slight assistance in the search.

To Mr Joyce: He first examined the site six days after the fire. The house was totally destroyed. Constable Houston, of Dunollie, said he ascertained that accused was at Grey mouth when the fire occurred, and that his wife was the last person in the house. Witness interviewed her on the following day, and examined some effects in a neighbour’s house, named Ellery. There was one Morris chair, one arm-chair, one drawer containing a. camera and clothing, a sewing machine, a basket of clothing, and a small table. He examined the debris the morning after the fire, and saw two double-bed and one single-bed wire mattresses. In company with Greve, witness later made a careful examination, but found no trace of a gramophone. The roofing iron was then in the same position, covering Hie debris, as it was on the morning after the fire. Witness corroborated Greve’s evidence. Witness had lived alongside accused for over five years, and knew that Farrell did not possess a gramophone. He saw accused carry a sofa away from the garden after the fire. ’ To Mr Joyce. He had been m accused’s house about twelve months ago. Part of it was poorly furnished, but he was never in the front room. Mrs Elna Pattinson, a neighbour of Farrell’s for seven years, stated that she was in accused’s house about six weeks before the fire. She described the furniture in the various rooms, but said there was no proper wardrobe, just a board and a curtain. There was no gramophone. On the morning after the fire, accused told her that he was near-

buying a gramophone, but met some friends, so did not get it. There, was a violin in the house. . Io Air Joyce: She jvas not bit particularly friendly terms with the Farrell s ; they were just ordinary neighShe “used to go over for a .yarn. Airs Jarrell rarely visited witness’s house. On the night of the fire, she saw Air Ellery saving furniture from the house, and taking it to his own. place. '1 o Detective Alurch : It did not take a woman long to find out what was in another woman’s house. (Proceeding.)