NO ORDER TO LEAVE

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 22572, 27 February 1948, Page 6

NO ORDER TO LEAVE

SHOP PREMISES THOUGHT TO BE EMPTY WHY HOSE NOT USED (P.A ) CHRISTCHURCH. Feb. 2G. The whole of yesterday was taken up with the examination and cross-exam-ination of Officer C. E. W. Stevenson who was in charge of the first engine to reach the fire. When the commission resumed after lunch Mr. G G. G. Watson, for the Crown, said: When you came into the street from the alley did you hear or see anything of the plight of the girls in the millinery rooms? Witness: No. “Did anyone draw your attention to it?—No. . , “At any time you were in Colombo street did you receive any requests from anybody for the rescue of the people in the building?—No. No Such Instructions “Did you give any instructions for the purpose of entering the building for a search? —No. “From the time you got into Colombo street was it possible for firemen to get into ‘he rpper floors of the building?—! don't ,hmk so. It may have been. It is hard 'o say. “When did yon discover Hie existence of the tire escape between Pratt's and Goodman's buildings?—! never discovered it the whole time I was there." The chairman. Sir Harold Johnston: But you saw it when you made an inspection some years ago? ‘ Witness: Yes, but I did not remember it at the fire. Mr. Watson: Did you at any time take steps to evacuate the building? Witness: No. I would have assumed that the evacuation would have taken place. “By whom?—By the occupiers themselves. “In your opinion is there a further duty on fire brigade officers to evacuate a building on arrival at a fire? —I would say it depended on the circumstances. If an officer had reason to believe that people were in a building and in a position of danger it would be his first consideration, but in daytime in a building such as this I think he would credit ocople with enough sense to go out of the building at the first sign of fire, and he would more or less expect them to go out. Duty To Investigate “You don’t think in the circumstances of this lire that there was any duty or obligation on any officer in charge to investigate or evacuate? —I would not put it that way. if the officer in charge had reason to believe that people in a portion of the building were in danger he would naturally order them out. “Suppose an increasing volume of smoke was showing, don’t you think it was the duty of the officer in Colombo street to investigate the evacuation of the upper floors?—The officer would be investigating the building and if he came across people in that portion he would naturally order them' to get out. There were three other officers in Colombo street besides Officer Burrows “At any stage did you have any instructions from Officer Burrows?—No. Hr. T. P. Cleary, for Ballantyne’s: Were you one of the firemen to whom Mr. Falkingham says he gave directions to the cellar when he was inside the doors on the second occasion?—No. “Did you hear them?—No. "Do you agree that if you had heard them you would have found them helpful?—Yes. , , “I presume that if ' - ou had been wearing a Roberts respirator you would not have felt smoke exhaustion? —No, “You know that Officer Burrows said that during his absence the men in the right-of-way 2had accomplished nothing. Can you account for that? —Yes, Mr. Burrows would have no way of knowing what would have been accomplished in the right-of-way unless it was reported to him. “Not That I Remember” “Did you tell Mr. Burrows after the fire that you had found the entrance you went in to locate? —Not that I remember. “Your first statement was that you failed to find the cellar entrance and you made it again in your amended statement in January?—Yes. “Yet in fact you say you had found the entrance from the right-of-way?—-I found the entrance from the right-of-way to the ground floor of the shop, not to the cellar. “May I take it when you say you failed to find the cellar entrance you failed to find the stairs?—That I failed to find any opening frorn the ground floor down into the cellar.” Mr. C. S. Thomas, for the underwriters: You said in evidence that Ballantyne’s building was the same risk as other stores in Christchurch? Would it not be correct to say that Ballantyne's was a better risk than the average of those stores? Witness: I fail to see that they were scrupulously careful in tidiness and different points of house-keeping. “Yes, and so are other firms.—Most J have been in, and they are fire conscious. „ . _ . “You won’t give it to me that Bailantyne's are better than the average, but you will agree they are on a level with the average?—Yes. “Did Not Seem Advisable” “Did it ever strike you that it might be advisable to tell your hose man to turn the hose in to cool the smoke, etc., in the area you were watching?— No, it did not seem advisable to me. “We are told that Mr. Burrows put a lead into the first floor to cool the smoke and the resulting combustion. Do you think it would have been as well to have put it on to the ground floor when you got there?—l don’t think it would have made a great deal of difference. “Why?—Sooner or later the hot gases would have to escape from the area. “Unless they were cooled down. Why did you not turn on the hose instead of leaving it inactive? —In my judgment it did not require it. . “Did it strike you to go in and put a hole in the floor and nut your hose through that?—That could be done if you could not find the entrance to the Ce “ But you did not find it?—Not up to that time. -