Fire Enquiry.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLI, Issue 8198, 26 January 1906, Page 2

Fire Enquiry.

+ An enquiry into the circumstances surrounding the recent fire that destroyed the premises lately occupied by Mr Geo. Hall, in Featherston-street, was held at the Princess Hotel yesterday before Captain Mowlem, coronor, and the following jury :—Percy Kobert, T. O'Reilly, Jas. Pinkerton v 'foreman), H. Johnson, P. T. Peacock and F. J. Nattson. | Mr Harden represented Mr Hall, and 1 the following evidence was adduced: — 1 J. F. Manning, bailiff of the S.M. I Court, said he had visited the house in November for the purpose of taking I legal action. He seized certain horses, drays and harness. The furniture, with the exception of a Bewing machine, was not seized. Witness thought there was ] no more furniture in the house than was I needed. There was a piano under bailI ment to Messrs Leary and Dixon. There were several articles of furniture which witness considered only of value to the family. Witness did not see anything to represent a value of £180, the amount of the bills of sale over the furniture and horses. | Mrs Ada Brand, residing next door to j the house destroyed, said the five started in the end of the house nearest the town and close to the chimney on the first floor. The upstairs portion of the house was not occupied. All the furniture in the house was downstairs. Witness was in the house at 8.30 p.m. on the night of tha fire and there was no fire in any of j the fire-places then. j By a juror - When witness was aroused at the time of the fire she saw that the Halls were all partly dressed. Had seen a piano in the house, but it was not there on the night of the fire. By Mr Harden —Miss Hall and Mr Mills, who was staying at the house, were to be married the day the fire occurrcd and everyone at the house was preparing for it. By Sergt. Stagpoole—They were all very lightly clad when they got out of the house. The bedsteads in the house were wooden and were burnt. J. F. Manning, recalled by Mr Harden, gave details with regard to his instructions when executing the bills of sale. The furniture was not seized and no inventory was taken of it. Wm, Parker-Smith, local agent for the Commercial Union Insurance Company said his company held a risk over everything in the house, including the piano and sewing machine, for jE'2OO. The j policy was taken out while Mr Hall i lived in Fitzroy-street, over twelve months ago. The removal to Feather-ston-strect was endorsed on the policy. Witness saw the furniture when the risk was taken out and was satisfied of the value of the goods. When the removal was endorsed on the policy Hall said the furniture was just the same as when the policy was taken out. The proof of claim had been put in by Hall and witness had sent it to Wellington. By a juror—The last premium was paid in December, some weeks after the removal from Fitzroy-street. The risk had not been verified when the policy had been renewed. No claim was made on account of the piano. Hall told witness the fire was not so serious as it might have been, because the piano ancl sewing machine were not in the house. Saving them reduced the risk from £*200 to £'150. Hall made the statement voluntarily. By Mr Harden—Neither he nor his company had made any complaint nor asked for any inquiry. He was satisfled as to Mr Hall's bona fides. Constable Mcßae described the appearance of the building after the fire. I He said that the chimneys were in a j very defective state. In several places ] where the woodwork was connected with j the bricks a good-sized stick could be poked into the holes, and clay had evi- ] dently been used instead of cement. The | fire appeared to have found its way through these holes. The furniture that had been saved was in an outhouse. Mr Hall told him that the fire started about 2.80 a.m. in the ceiling of a room near his bedroom. George Hall, contractor, said he removed to the Featherston-street house six weeks before the fire. On the night preceding the fire he got home at 9.30 p.m. The last to come in was witness' son, who came home at 11 p.m. The rest were then in bed. About 1.30 a.m. witness was aroused by his wife, who saw the glare of the fire. Witness got up and found that the fire was above the ceiling of the sitting room. • It had a good hold on all the upper portion of the house. Witness considered the lire originated through a defective chimney. Witness had asked Mr Smith to inspect the furniture whenremoving Vto Featherstcn street, but lie said iS was net necessary. Witness, when taking out the risk, had asked for a £100 policy, but after taking an inventory he said to Mr Smith, "I think I should lmve more than .£IOO on this." f He said " Yes, I think you ought to have 1 .£-200." He said the piano, sewing „ | machine, and one or two things would !" 1 run. into £100 without the rest of the furniture. Witness did not hold the policy ; it was held by Mr Harden, and he deposited it for the removal to be endorsed upon it. Witness had not seen > j the policy for six months, and at the J time of the fire was not aware [ the removal had been noted on

the policy. Replying to witness on the morning of the fire, Mr Smith said it was not necessary for him to go and see the fire. Witness told him ! the fire had made a clean sweep, only a few things haying been saved. He added the sewing machine and pram had Been saved, they not being on the premises at the time of the fire. If the policy was paid witness would receive what was left after the bill of sale over the furniture had been satisfied. His wife made up the proof of loss and it j was sent in through Mr Harden to i the insurance company. Witness valued the goods destroyed at more than the insurance. The furniture itself he valued at £50. Witness remembered telling the S.M. when appearing on a judgment summons that he was not worth £10 himself. He considered the bills of sale took precedence of his own claim upon the furniture. None had been sold but several articles of furniture had been added since the risk was taken out. By Mr Harden: He valued the furniture in daily use at .£SO. There was one [ room full of stuff that had not been unpacked or used at that house. After a short retirement the jury returned a verdict that there was no evidence to show how the fire originated, and added a rider that it would be in the public interest if insurance agents were to use more care in accepting fire risks.