CAUSE OF FIRES

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 17 June 1924, Page 7

CAUSE OF FIRES

DEFECTIVE ELECTRIC FITTINGS. WORK BY AMATEURS. (BY TELEGRAPH —PRESS ASSOCIATION.) AUCKLAND, June 16. Interesting evidence regarding electrical installations was given at an enquiry before Mr Hunt, S.M., into the recent fire at the City Markets. Mr F. F. Gilmour, electrical inspector for the Underwriters’ Association, after describing the condition of the fittings after the fire, was cross-examin-ed by Mr Ostler (who appeared for every insurance company in the Dominion except the State Department). Mr Ostler: The regulations east the onus on the licensee, in this case the Power Board, to see that the rules of the Underwriters’ Association shall he followed when making an installation? —Yes. “I do not consider it a- wise policy,” continued witness, “that the public should he encouraged to mend fuses on their own installations. It is a job that should he done hv an expert. I have seen home-made fuses of nails, pennies, hairpins, and blades of table knives.”

Mr Ostler (reading from a pamphlet issued by the Power Board): “Every house should have some spare fuse wire, and every housewife should know how to put a new wire in the fuse on the switchboard when the lights fail. Ask our meter-readers to show you how to do it.” Is that good information?—No. In answer to a question by Mr Ostler dealing with the danger of electrocution witness said that the lowest voltage known to have electrocuted a man was 73.8 volts. In 1923 in witness’ own district there were 23 fires from electrical sources, the damage amounting to £42,000.

Mr F. R. Shepherd, chief electrical inspector for New Zealand for the LTnderwriters’ Association, stated that in his opinion the fii*e emanated from an electrical source, caused by defects in the system. Witness had seen other defects, and considered them a grave impropriety on the lineman concerned. The fire would have been avoided had inspections been carried out as laid down in the Public Works Act. An installation should be inspected before being connected with the current, and then inspected _ frequently. A rigid system of licensing of electrical linesmen should also be followed. To Mr Ostler: From 1902 to 1922 the number of fatal accidents from electrical causes was 30, and the numlier of accidents was 31. A large number of those had been caused in household installations.

Mr Shepherd stated, in reply to Mr Ostler, that “the general rules for wiring” were intended, to contain only such requirements and precautions as were generally necessary, and not to instruct untrained persons. The Underwriters’ Association would not be equally to blame with the Power Board in regard to faulty installation being passed. _ The underwriters’ inspectors did not inspect every installation. That would need an army of inspectors, and there was no statutory obligation on underwriters to inspect. In regard to periodical inspection after installation, once in a year might he advisable for a factory, and once in five years might he sufficient in the case of a private house.

Mr Sidney Eldridge Kennings, manager and chief engineer to the electrical department of Messrs A. and T. Burt, said there was a feeling of uneasiness among reputable firms consequent on complaints of faulty wiring, as it placed them under suspicion, and also because the extra cost of supervision must he borne by them if they sought a system of inspection. The Power Board was helping to a certain extent by the issue of through its licensing board. The decision was i*eserved.