MILL FIRE SEQUEL

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22403, 27 April 1936, Page 15

MILL FIRE SEQUEL

CLAIM FOE £15,000 ORIGIN OF OUTBREAK EVIDENCE FOR THE COMPANY The hearing of the petition for £15,070 damages brought by the Morningside Timber Company, Limited, against the New Zealand Raifwnya Department. was continued before Mr. Justice Callnn and a special jury in the Supreme Court on Friday. The action has arisen as the result of an extensive fire in the company's premises on December 1, 1934, which, it is alleged, originated from a spark from a railway engine passing the premises, which adjoined the railway line at Morningside. Evidence called on behalf of the suppliant company on Friday dealt with the velocity of the wind on the day of the fire, the precautions taken against fire, and the results of an experiment carried out by a consulting engineer to demonstrate the carrying capacity of sparks or cinders dropped from ashpans. During the day the jury inspected the mill premises, and also the engine from which the spark is alleged to have been emitted. Negligence Alleged The petition, brought under the Crown Suits Act against His Majesty the King, sets out that on December 1, 1934, a railway engine passed the company's property at about 1.47 p.m., and caused a fire in the vicinity of the railway line which spread to the company's property. It is alleged that the fire was caused by the negligence of respondent's servants. This is denied by the respondent. Messrs. Finlay, Stanton, and Mackay are appearing for the suppliant company, and Mr. H. F. O'Leary, K.C., of Wellington, and Mr. Hubble for the Crown. When the Court resumed, the manager of the mill, Maurice Henry Morris, was cross-examined by Mr. O'Learv regarding the presence of grass near the premises, and the precautions taken against fires. He said that the company put on a watchman, installed its own pipes, hoses, and fire extinguishers, and employed a man periodically to cut the grass around the property within its own boundary. Nothing was done in the way of making a definite fire break. The grass in the western corner of the property had been cut about a week before the big fire, although witness did not k\)\v whether it was taken away or left lying about. An aircraftsman from the Hobsonvillo Air Base, Ferdinand Daniebitossi, said the anemometer at the base registered a mean wind velocity of about 15 tn.p.h. just before 2 p.m. on December 2. Fires in District William Laird Wilson, superintendent for the Auckland Metropolitan Fire Board, said that between November 1, 1934, and January 31, 1935, the brigade attended 133 fires attributed to railway engines. Cross-examined by Mr. O'Leary, witness said it was not the brigade's practice to report railway fires to the Railway Department in 1934. He produced a table mentioned at the coronial inquiry showing all fires attended by the brigade from April 1 to December 31, 1934. The total was 431 fires, of which 87 were due to sparks from railway engines, and 102 were put down as cause unknown. Whatever coal was used on railway engines after December 3, grass fires still continued in great numbers, and were a positive worry in the summer of 1934-35. In January, 1935, there were 47 railway fires out of a total of 170 grass fires in the district. In the majority of cases a fire was put down as a railway fire when it was found present after a train had passed in that locality. On his tour of inspection of the Mount Albert district in February, 1935, witness was unable to differentiate between grass fires and fires from grass burned off purposely by railway men. "Showers of Sparks"

Joseph Alexander Petrie, an electric line foreman, the back of whose house adjoins the Morningside railway line, said he saw a train go past shortly after 1 o'clock on the day of the mill fire. There were showers of live sparks coming out of the funnel, and witness was convinced that he should attend to his proposed job of clearing about two yards of grass and gorse from the hedge toward the railway line. When witness reached the hedge there was smoke coming from the spot lie intended to clear, while the dry grass was on fire. While beating this fire out, witness saw two other fires in the grass on each side of the line toward Morningside. Cross-examined by Mr. O'Leary, witness said the shower of sparks landed on both sides of the line. Charred Decking Graham Brook Bell, a consulting engineer, said that he had inspected engine A6Ol to take particulars of its construction. He produced plans ho had prepared, showing details of various parts of the engine. Witness described the tests he had made with the door of the ashpan, and said he thought the movements of an engine in motion would tend to pull open the door, a process that would bo aided by the weight of ash pressing against it. If ashes were spilled out, they would fall on the track below. The clip to the ashpan door was not effective, and did not hold it securely. Witness added that he had examined the overhead bridge at Morningside to the west of the mill property. The decking was burned in numerous places, and was very obviously charred. These burns could only be caused by sparks and ashes falling from the engine. An experiment to demonstrate the carrying capacity of sparks or cinders dropped from ashpans was described by witness, who expressed the opinion that it was quite likely sparks and cinders would come over the wall and drop on to the mil! property in nn incandescent condition.

The hearing was adjourned until today.