CORRECTION.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXII, Issue 7625, 24 December 1886, Page 3

CORRECTION.

Snt, — A paragraph appearing _ in the Hkrald on Wednesday morning, referring to two very pious gentlemen who claimed £500 for damage by the late lire, and were only awarded £26, requires an explanation. In the first place, we may sny that we brought one of the agents in on Saturday after the fire, just to see the state of the place, the whole shop swimming with water. He admitted the gravity of the affair by .advising us . not to do any business that evening, and that they would be round the first thing on Monday morning to arrange the matter. In the meantime the great heat of the building, and the current of air caused by all the windows being broken, dried up the place wonderfully, so that on Monday, when the valuator was called in, having been thoroughly drilled beforehand by the insurance agents, he commenced' to bounce about, saying, " There's no water here," " There's no appearance of water there," and so on. In the second place, we never made a claim for £500 when the agents came in on Monday. They asked us had we made up our loss. We said " No,' 1 as being -prohibited from touching? the stuff, we had no means of making it up. They then asked us what did we think our loss would amount to, and being pressed to name a sum, we .said, it might amount to £500 ; and we are still of opinion that £500 would not cover it. The most valuable portion of our stock got terribly knocked about in removal and in the efforts to save the building, which had already caught Tire. A great deal of water came pouring down upon us from the upper floors till some of the stuff in the shop' was actually swimming through it. In conclusion, we want to say a few words as to (he basis upon which our loss was assessed, and we think it is well the insuring public should know what they are paying their money for. Wo shall endeavor to give you their own words (and indeed they seem to have gone to a deal of trouble to ram it into the assessor's head), for they took off his hat and' said, "Supposing that hat costs 10s, and they sell it at 15s, that hat may be damaged to the extent of 5s in the sale of it. Don't allow them anything,

thoy will still be able to get 10s for it." Those are the assessor's own words, and upon this principle the damago was counted up on our stock. If that is fair or just, then we have yet to learn what justice means, and so with the goods removed, although tossed about like' hay, it was said, "Oh, you'll bo at no loss, you'll get cost for it, and so we shall allow you nothing." No loss, forsooth ! If those goods are to be sold at cost, who pays the expenses: rent, taxes, insurance, etc. ? We could bear our loss by the recent fire uncomplainingly ; but, to add insult to injury, and to endeavor to blacken our character before the public, is very hard to bear. By inserting this letter you will greatly oblige, . Magill and Campbell.