Ballantyne’s Fire- New Development At Resumption Of Inquiry

Greymouth Evening Star, 6 April 1948, Page 5

Ballantyne’s FireNew Development At Resumption Of Inquiry

zp A x CHRISTCHURCH, This Day. 1 ’ When the Royal Commission inquiring into Ballantyne’s fire resumed Voting? this morning Mr RA. Young the Crown raid that since the Commission adjourned for Eastei there had been an important development regarding the supply of electric power to Ballantyne’s premises, and, in the circumstances, he Jell that lull dirclosure should be made and evidence tendered immediately. Mr Young said the Crown experts felt the fire was not caused by the electric cable.

Disclosures had been macle within the last day or two, and investigations had been completed last night, said Mr Young. Though there were lour mams outside'the building, power was conveyed in by eight conductors. Durin<y the recess the question had arisen about the damage caused to sevenstranded wires. Experts weie puzzled as to how the wires had been fractured and after carrying out tests they had concluded that a break below a bolt was almost certainly caused by electricity. It was discovered that electricity must have flowed along the conduit pipe to the sevenstrand wires. Break In Power Cable

When one of the conductors was examined it was found that the lie of the strands had been altered. A break in the cable, which had been adequately repaired was found. The experts then found a further break that must have been inside the conduit pipe The joint had been made in a most amateurish way. .No insulation had been put around, the conductor, except ordinary friction Young said that it was felt that this was not only a flagrant breach of the regulations, but also violation of commonsense principles in making such a repair. The whole length of cable should have been replaced. The illegal joint was not' properly insulated At some time a break had occurred in this cable and had been repaired in a negligent and unskilled manner.

Experts felt that if the break and subsequent bad workmanship had caused the fire, there would have been evidence in the street end- of the pipe, but the closest examination had failed to disclose it. The experts considered that at some time before the fire the break had occurred in the conduit just inside the bellmouth. After detailing the effects such a break would have, Mr Young said that the Crown experts felt that, despite these disclosures, the fire was not caused by the cable. Explanation Required The Crown felt that an explanation was called for from the company that installed the cable and from Ballantyne’s in case one of its electricians did not work or arranged with some else to do it, said Mr Young. The Municipal Electricity Department was under an obligation to say whether a permit had been issued for the work to be done, whether, if the permit was granted, a subsequent inspection was made, and whether any of its employees had done the job. Called to prove Mr Young’s statement, Stewart Maxton Nicol, testing engineer, State Hydro-electric Department, detailed examinations made by him of the electrical installations. To Mr W. R. Lascelles (for the City Council), he said that he had concluded that the fire did not start in either the entrance mains, the service fuses, cable-or main switchboard. (Proceeding).