MYSTERIOUS FIRES

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1536, 7 August 1901, Page 36

MYSTERIOUS FIRES

EXTRAORDINARY AFFAIR AT KHAN BALL AH.

SOME PECULIAR EVIDENCE.

The district coroner, Mr James Ashoroft, held an inquiry on Monday into two mysterious fires which "occurred at the house of John Rumgay, of Kandailah, on 11th July. Inspector Pender was present, Mr A. R. Atkinson appeared on behalf of Mr Rumgay, and Mr Skerrett watched the case on behalf of Miss Vickers, who had

been mentioned in connection with the occurrence, by the owner of the house. After the jury had viewed the scene of the fire, the taking of evidence was proceeded with.

John Rumgay deposed that the house in question was built for him by Mr Rountree, The contract price was £255. The total cost was about £290. Paid £3OO for the place with the four rooms. There was an original mortgage of £2OO on the house. That was paid off and a new mortgage arranged on tho completed house with the Advances to Settlers Office) of £3OO. First stayed in the house on April 3rd. Had not yet yet completed settlement with the contractor. A sum of about £7 remained to be paid yet. By tne 23rd April, though, £2OO had been paid. Since then be had paid abo"t £-15 to the sub-contractors. Besides those sums a number of accounts for ‘‘extras’’ had been settled. The firt insurance on the house (in April) was £IOO, to the best of witness’s knowledge. It was with the Phoenix Insurance Company. On the 2nd April a builders’ risk for £l5O, taken out by Rountree, expired. There ivas only a policy of £IOO on the house until after the first fire. Afterwards the manager of the Phoenix Assurance Company told him that the Wellington Building and Investment Society had (as mortgagees) renewed the builder’s risk taken out by Rountree. Witness did not know of this previous to the first fire. There was nothing on the furniture then. The fire occurred on Easter Mon day morning, April Bth. Afterwards made proposals to the Phoenix for an increase of insurance to £250, but the office would not accept the risk. Subse - quently the Norwich Union took a risk of £l5O, after witness had bad certain specified alterations made. Later still witness insured with the Australian Alliance for £IOO on the house, and a similar sum on the furniture. Witness arranged with the Alliance Office to take over the risk of the Phoenix Office. That made £350 on the house and £IOO on the furniture. Mr Skerrett: then the place was very fully insured. Witness: I reckon I had good cause

to fully insure. Continuing, witness said the total value of the place was about £390. The first fire occurred at about 3.30 on the morning of April Bth. Witniesss wife awakened him, saying, “We’re all on fire!” They were sleeping in the front room. The place was full of smoke, the flames being in the kitchen. Threw water upon the chimney from the out. side of the kitchen. The flames seemed to diminish somewhat. With his wife he carried water to the roof by means of a ladder, and threw the fluid on the roof His wife then called him down and showad him that the strength of the fire was in the roof of the between the weatherboards and the wall. Tore about gjy of the dado boards off and poured water between the dado and the weatherboarding. By that time the weatherboarding was burnt through. Just then (4 o’clock) he succeeded in getting the fire out. Had the place thengone he would have heen entitled to £2SU» hut he did not know it at the time. To the best of his knowledge he would only have got £l5O. He thought the Phoenix Company would have said nothing about its risk in that case. . Mr Skerrett: You seem to have a great idea of business honesty. Mr Atkinson thought Mr Skerrett should defer his remarks until he was addressing the jury. A juryman here explained that the fire occurred at a point opposite to the fireplace. } Examination continued : There was nothing apparent which could have caused a fire. Made ah inspection just as the day was breaking. Three days later the floor was taken up by the police. There was a saucer found under the floor which might have contained some inflammable substance. Smelt the saucer, but could not smell anything on it distinctly. The saucer could have been placed with ease from outside where it was found. Had a suspicion as to what was the cause of th© fire. That suspicion had now gone to the wind. It had been investigated *>y the police, who found there was no adequate motive adduced and nothing to give reasonable colour. Detective Nixon suggested that it might have been an accidental fire, and that it probably originated from inside. There had been no fire in the kitchen that day—not since half past five on the previous evening. Examined by Mr Atkinson: The second fire happened on Thursday morning, the 11th of July. Witness and his wife awoke and smelt something burning. It would be about 2 o’clock. When witness , cot up his wife was carrying a piece of flaming paper from the hole near which the previous fire had occurred. He saw her carry it to the bathroom. Witness carried a bucket of* water in from the

lapsed, saying, “They’re determined to do it.” Witness poured several buckets of water into the hole from the outside. Did not look in the hole after the fire was extinguished. Subsequently rang up the nightwatchman at Lambton quay, Wellington, and asked that the house of a man in Wellington might be watched, in order to see if that person returned home that morning. He was told that nothing could he done in that direction. With Constable Hutton he went to examine the vicinity of the house at daylight. There were very distinct foot, marks on the grass. They led the house. Traced them for 7o yards. They commenced three yards from the front gate and finished about 20 yards from the house. Thence no footprints would show, because of the nature of the ground. The footprints were very small. The Coroner : As these footsteps have since been acknowledged we need not go further into that. Examination continued : There was no one else sleeping in the house that night but witness and his wife. The previous night Miss Vickers had called to see them. She had been invited. Witness had lived in Khandallah from January, 1900. Had never visited the house of the Vickers’s since lie had left them on being married except on the night of the first fire. Miss Vickers had called to see them frequently; Mrs Vickers about once or twice. Had received, he should think, about four letters from Miss Vickers since the date of the first fire. The main reason of her writing them was a love affair of her own. Could not produce the letters; he had burnt them all. ‘He had burnt them because he was asked to do so by the Writer. He did not reply to any of the letters. They made distinct references to Mrs Rumgay. After an interchange of words between counsel, the Coroner said the questions to be put to witness by his counsel must be such as to lead to the elucidation of material evidence. It was not to be supposed that love affairs — whether real or imagined—could b® brought into the case without being material to it. Mr Atkinson said it was not contended that the letters concerned a love affair of Rumgay’s. Mr Skerrett heatedly protested against the cowardly insinuations of Rumgay. Examination continued : The letters contained several remarks about Mrs Rumgay. One remark was: “I think you were wise in not allowing your wife to visit at Khandallah. One party who called at our house said ‘Mrs Rumgay told her she was the youngest of the family, and she was as old as the hills.’” The “she” referred to was Mrs Rumgay. Mr Skerrett ventured that there was little of a love-letter about that. He had never (received such a one. It would he hard to .tell it unless it was labelled.

Another letter, said the witness, complained that witness had no time for her. It was shortly after bis marriage on the 13th of March last that the letters in question written. On the eveni g before the fire witness went home with Miss Vickers about 10 o’clock. He walked straight across from the dining-room door to the big gate. They were on the metal all the way. Left her outside her home with her hand on the gate. Miss Vickers was on friendly terms with his wife. Had no enemies in th e neighbourhood until the present. What he had done had made him enemies enough. He had no reason to suspect that the fire was caused through malice.

To Inspector Pender: All the interior doors of his house were left open after the first fire. The outer doors were all locked. Had only a small pup on the premises. Material which was taken from the hole by Constable Hutton after the second fire smelt strongly of kerosane.

To the jury: It was suggested that the fire had happened accidentally. Witness was not perfectly satisfied with the theory. Was certain he could see a reflection in his bedroom on the night of the second fire. That was caused by the blazing fire, which had ignited a paper which had fallen over the hole. This was carried by his wife.

Cross-examined by Mr Skerrett: If the fire commenced from the inside on the first occasion, it must have been either accidental, or else caused by someone inside the house, seeing that all the doors were locked, or else someone had a key. Did not know that the experts who examined the place said the fire had started from the inside. Could not say if there was any reason to suppose from marks on the door that his house had been broken into. Did not know that the reason why Mr Simpson (had refused to renew the policy was because he had made up his mind that the fire was started inside. At first susnected a iran of having set fire to tho house. That man had several quari 3,’s witn him over specifications. That was his only reason—because he was the only enemy witness had. Was not going to make any statements about Miss Vickers—the evidenoe was there to speak for itself. Had been treated with every kindness by Mr and Mrs Vickers, and he was very sorry for the position he had been placed in. Did not know that Mis s Vickers was ooming to visit his wife until he arrived home from Wellington. The letters from Miss Vickers were always addressed "Dear Mr Rumgay/’ Did not show them t 0 his wife. Did not mention them to his wife

Should say that Miss Vickers had visited his house ten times. Would not call the letters love-letters by any means. Mr Skerrett: Why did you connect Miss Vickers with the fire by reason of the letters? —I refuse to answer that question. Witness said he allowed people to draw their own inferences. Considered himself amply justified in making the insinuation against Miss Vickers in the evidence which had been already adduced. Changed his opinion from the case of a man to the case of a woman when he found in the torch which had set fire to his house a thread and needle which had been used to sew up the torch. Thought a man would have used a piece of string. Was there any other Eve in the world who could have used a needle? I’m thinking!

. Well?—lt’s of such importance that it bewilders me!

Perhaps you will prefer to leave it that way!—Ye s ; I think I would! Mr Rumgay proceeded to say to Mr Skerrett that when he discovered the fire his wife was in bed. She preceded him to the fire, but he was with her very soon. After the second fir e all witness’s fire insurance policies were camcelled. That was why he had called for th e inquest. His jrife was not dissatisfied with the old part of the building. It was not a sore point between th e m. Witness saw Mr Vickers about a week after the fire. Told him that something would occur which would cause him and Mrs Vickers the greatest Did not tell him what it was. If he had spoken Mr Vickers might have met him with a libel action. Did not say that h e had prayed the whole day long so that he might overcome his spirit of revenge. Had tcld him that he had prayed to be guided aright in his action. Next day he was waited on by Mr Vickers, who said he did not understand what witness meant. Reiterated that witness would b e in a position to cause him pain. W T hat was taking place now was what he then referred to. He had a very urgent wish to see Miss Vickers next night. He believed that if lie saw her the matter might be cleared up. It would not have been a more decent thing to have seen the girl first and to have made his insinuations afterwards. Burnt each letter as he received it. He could not suggest that the letters contained anything more loving than the phrase about missing ms pathyTo Mr Atkinson: Had his suspicions before the police visited the place. Florence Vickers, examined by the Coroner, said she was the lady referred to by the previous witness. Knew nothing whatever as to the causes of the first or second fires at Rumgay’s house. Absolutely denied having been in any way concerned in them. She had not the slightest ill-will to either Rumgay or his wife. Wrote c.nce to Rumgay—not four times, sh e . was sure. Certainly did not say anything about Mrs Rumgay in the letter. Wrote asking him to return something she fancied he had taken accidentally. Got home from her visit to Rumgay’s on the night of the fire at about ten o’clock. She did not come through the inner gate. If that was oP e n it might have been left so by someone who took a short cut througil her parents’ place. That was frequently dene. Heard someone go through the place at about twelve o’clock that night. When she heard of the five she thought perhaps that was the person who did it. Witness went in at the back. Heard the man who was suspected of being the cause of the fire mentioned by the Rumgays. The footsteps on the grass were undoubtedly those of witness. When she heard of footmarks spoken of witness at once took her slioes along and suggested that she might have caused the marks when she was going to the house. To Mr Atkinson: It was between the two fires that witness wrote to Rumgay. He did not answer it, but he explained that he did not have the article she had written for. There was nothing in the letter about “want of sympathy/’ Had told Rumgay verbally that she missed him. Mrs Rumgay told witness about the fire (next morning) as a great secret. She mentioned the name of a neighbour as a suspect. Did not in any way accuse witness. Told Mrs Rumgay witness generally walked on the grass bacause she had. a sore foot. Witness mentioned the name of a certain resident’s daughter after Mrs Rumgay had said a neighbour was suspected. The foreman of the jury brought up the point that the name of the contractor had been so freely bandied about in the case that the jury thought it desirable the contractor should be represented bv counsel. . „ , Ifc was decided to inform the contractor that if he desired to be represented he could arrange to be so represented at the adjourned hearing in the evening. Mr Atkinson said he would be sorry to think there was the slightest uspicion against the contractor. H> was not suspected. Examination continued : ac* quiesced in a supposition that the footmarks might have been those of a boy. Afterwards witness remembered that she had been at the house on the night before, and suggested that the footprints might have been hers. Because Mrs Rumgay had told her as a secret about the fire witness did not tell the detectives that she knew about the fire. Harriet Rumgay deposed that she was the wife of John Rumgay. She knew her husband had had disputes with the.

contractor for erecting their house, but did not know the nature of them. Re-

membered the first fire

Was awakened

about half past 3 a.m. on that occasion by a crackling sound. Awakened her husband. The fire was in the kitchen. With her husband, she assisted to put out the fire. No suspicion occurred to her mind of anyone in particular, but she told her husband the house looked as if it had been set on fire. Did not know that she could accuse anybody for the first fire, although she certainly thought that the one who caused the first fire also caused the second. Her husband discovered the second fire. He jumped out of bed saying, ‘'There is a light somewhere/ He had raised false alarms similarly before, and so she felt

annoyed. To" Mr Atkinson : Saw Miss Vickers at about 9 o’clock on the night before the second fire. She left about ten o’clock. Next day witness saw Miss Vickers Witness told the latter about the fire, but told her she was not to speak to anyone —not even her mother;;— until the constables had seen into it. Showed Miss Vickers the kitchen, and indicated the spot where the fire had been. Had not the slightest suspicion of her. Apart from anything her husband said, she would not have connected Miss Vickers with the case. Was very indignant with the police for bringing Miss Vickers’s name into the case. Witness’s opinion was altered afterwards, for when Miss Vickers came she shook her head and screwed up her mouth. _ W’tness only wondered why she did it. Subsequently witness was told by her husband that Miss Vickers was suspected. To Mr Skerrett: Her husband’s suspicions about the first fire were reported to the police. Detective Nixon did point out to witness what he called proofs that the fire had been originated from inside. Witness thought a great deal of Miss Vickers until lately. Mr Skerrett: I put it to you now. You are a woman, and as such know how much a woman is affected by such charges —whether true or false-as have been made against Miss \ickers in connection with this case?—l have had experience myself of Khandallah talk, and I know what it is? Mr Skerrett: Do you think it just, or proper, or decent, that these charges should be made against this young woman ?—■X*' decline t*o answer tnat question-

Constable Hutton, constable in charge of the Johnsonville station, deposed that on the morning of the 11th of July he inspected a hoi© in the outer wall of Rumo-ay’s house. It was charred at the edges. Took out of the hole subsequently a lot of material. There were portions of a newspaper lying round. It bore a Westport telegram, dated July 7th. The rags were smeared with fat and kerosene, and were sewn together so as it would hold a small piece of candle. Presumably the package had been much larger. It had burned down. At Rumgay’s request, witness did not show the package to Mrs Rumgay. Had no doubt that the fire came from the package. The fire had mounted to the dado, and had burnt a small portion of the floor. Had the fire not been dis*» covered soon after it would have soon, had the whole house in flames. After a few words with Rumgay the latter asked him if he would arrest Miss Vickers. He said, “My God! what shall I do! Supposing you get evidence, will you arrest Miss Vickers?” Witness said, “Yes.” Witness subsequently question, ed Miss Vickers. She explained that the footsteps which led to the house must have been made by her when she went to the house at about 9 o’clock. She

explained how the footsteps had come to be where they were. Miss Vickers’s account of the footsteps which led from her parents’ place (a suggestion that they were made by someone else who had passed through) was feasible, as judged by tbe indications. There were two footsteps inside the outer gate. They appeared to he small, but they were indistinct. Could give the jury no further light as to who might (have caused tho fire. Behind the back shed of the track leading to Ahern’s it was only fair to say that he found larger footsteps. Rumgay, though, had said he had gone over that track to alarm Mrs Ahern and her son. The account given Jby Rumgay of the first fire was, in witness’s opinion, straightforward. The witness went qn to say that the first fire, in his opinion, must have been started from the inside. Knew his opinion was in contradiction with that of Rumgay, but he spoke of what he believed to be fact, and he was going to keep to that opinion. There was nothing outside to suggest that the first fire had been started there. The s auoer which had been found there did not smell of kerosene or any other inflammable material.

To Mr Atkinson: Suggested that the fire might have been started by a live coal. Mr Atkinson: The edges recede, though. The diameter at the top is narrower than at the bottom. Did you ever see that happen in a real event?—. It might have happened. The fire might : have burned through in a small hole, ! and then spread itself. ■ „ . , j To a juror : It was because he found i footsteps leading from Mr Vickers’s house to Rumgay’s that he began to inj vestigate there. There were only footI steps one way—up to Rumgay’s house, j William Rountree said that to the best : of his knowledge he was in bis house on ‘ the night 0 f file fire. On the morning after the fire. h^utluaJhand

floor where the fire was supposed to have happened at Rumgay’s house. His hand was not blackened at' all. As a matter of fact, the grass was quite green at the spot. By the bevel of the charring he was sure that the fire had started from the inside. Had not seen the house since the second fireBy Mr Atkinson: Did you ever know a fire lit on top of a plain wooden surface to burn away more at the bottom than it did in the first place ?—lt frequently happened &o. Two fire brigadesmen who were on the jury told the Coroner that in their opinion the fire had undoubtedly started in the house. G. H. Nixon, a detective, deposed that he was of opinion that th© first fire had started inside the house. He investigated the tracks. After Miss Vickerses explanation he was perfectly satisfied. To Mr Atkinson : Got his instructions at 9 o’clock in the morning. Did not get out until th© afternoon. He was engaged at the Court. R. R. Percival, of the Survey Department staff, deposed that he had known both Mr and Mrs Vickers for about twenty years. Also knew Rumgay. Knew the gate at Vickerß’s place which had been mentioned. It was a greatlyused thoroughfare. Had known Miss Vickers intimately for many years. Did not think, it at all likely she would be guilty of being jealous of Rumgay. She would, he thought, have better taste. To Mr Rountree: Rumgay told wit" ness whom he suspected. The Coroner said that however unsatisfactory the result might be, he could see nothing to be gained by further delaying the matter. It was undoubted that there was a connection between the first and second fire. The evidence seemed to establish olearly that the first fire occurred from inside the house. How it could have started was not elucidated. He could not see that the amount of insurances on the building could have supplied a strong motive for incendiarism. - At any event, there was no evidence. Whatever evidence there might have been in the footsteps as against Miss Vickers had been explained satisfactorily, he thought. He himself could not see that the evidence pointed with any certainty to .anyone. The jury retired shortly after nine o’clock, and considered its decision for an hour, and then returned th© following verdict:—“That the fire which occurred on the Bth of April and that of the 11th ©f July were both wilfully caused by some person or persons to the jury unknown, and that the first fire was started inside the house.”

The following rider was added: “With respect to the first fire, th© whole of the jury unanimously agree that the contractor is in no way to blame; also that there is not the slightest evidence to prove Miss Vickers’s connection with the second fire, and that the jury express their sympathy with her and her family, and she leave s this Court without the slightest stain on her character. The jury also expresses its admiration for th© able way in which Detective Nixon and Constable Hutton conducted the case.”