FIRE AT JOEL'S RED LION BREWERY.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 11182, 3 August 1898, Page 4

FIRE AT JOEL'S RED LION BREWERY.

About half-past 6 yesterday morning a fire broke out in the bottling-house connected with Mr Maurice Joel's Red Lion Brewery, the building being completely gutted and its cpntents destroyed. The Fire Brigade, which received the alarm from the indicator at the Great. Northern Hotel, near the Leith bridge, were very promptly on the spot; but it. was evident from the first that the building in which the fire originated could not be saved. The bottling-houße was situated "in George street, the brewery premises extending right through to King street; and immediately on arrival of the brigade Captain Mitchell set to work to try and prevent the destruction of the central tower, which contained hops and plant of considerable value. The tower, it. should be explained, overlooked the bottlirig-house', and was separated from it by a brick wall, and the brigade got a lead of water to play on to the side of the tower facing.the building, from which the flames were seen to be coming. This cut off the fire from the lower storey of the tower, aivl the water being projected on to the \ipper storey had the effect of preventing the flames from entering the latticed windows. These, howeyei-, were broken, and the lattice-work charred;- but beyond such damage the tower was preserved from injury. In the meautime the water had been-/got to play on vo the bottling-house itself, and as soon as the tower had been rendered safe four hoses were brought to bear upon it, the result being that in a .short Space of time the fire was got under control. When, however, the bottling house was entered it was seen that it had been completely gutted and the iron roof destroyed, but the brick walls were left standing. The building was about'4sft in length, being 30ft in width :at one part and 20ft at another. A number of casks of beer were, before the fire, in readiness for the bottlers, while..a great .quantity .of.--bottles,, filled and empty, had been left standing in rows. The bottles were all destroyed, while the casks were very much charred.- Mr Joel estimates that his loss on the xtock will be covered by- J3500. There was an' .insurance of about £4000 on the buildings,. of which sum £700 was on the bottling-house. _ The stock, with the exception of that in the malt-house, was also insured for £3300. The Standard Company is the company with which the insurances were effected, portions of the risks being distributed "amongst other companies. The origin of the fire is unknown: It apparently started somewhere. near where the stove, which was utilised for maintaining an equable. temperature in the building, was placed. Mr Webb, who was in charge of the bottling department, however, states that when heleft the premises at 5 p.m. on Monday the stove fire was out, and that there was no sign of fire when he returned to the premises at 7.30 p.m., on his way up town, while nothing unusual attracted his attention as he passed the brewery on his way back at about half-past 10. The fire, it may be stated, has not interfered with the brewery business, which is being carried on fts usual.

OCEAN BEACH DOMAIN BOARD. ♦■ . — The adjourned meeting of the Ocean.Beach Domain Board was hejd on Tuesday morning, and was attended, by the" Mayor of Dunedin (Mr E..8. Cargill, chairman), Messrs A. C. Begg, H. Gourley,'J. H. Hancock, P. M'Gre^or, C.:'Fi«her and.F. Anderson. • \ ■ ' ' ' ■ The following paper, submitted by Mr Henry Youngman, was read by the secretary (Mr W. B. lay lor):—"In the yew 1862, when I first visited it, the Ocean Beach was in a state as leit by Nature—all sand,quite up to the corner ■where now stands, or stood, part of the Esplanade. A few years later the property was sold, subdivided, and an esplanade formed. Ihe stones' from this-retaining .wall, together with othqra that have since.been carted on to the beach, have,, arid are, causing all the'mischief, or inroad of the tide, from the simple fact (well known to many that study the action of the waves-on any seashore) that stones and sand, cannot' live together where ■ there is any vave action. . I wish to illustrate what I say. [ A person walking on sand makes an impression thereon, winch, is soon re-levelled or totally obliterated after a few waves have passed over it Now, observe the difference.. A/ stone is deppsited on the sandy 'beach anywhere. Immediately., the first wave action strikes the stone ft ring is formed round the stone, and .the'sand | immediately makes a movement; This continued indefinitely round every stone causes the sand to leave, and the stone or stones sink to the bed-rock, which means that, the sft or Cft of difference in the level between high and low tide.is'nlled now with water to that volume, instead of sand as heretofore. When the water | simply flowed on the top. of a feed of sand of that thickness .this sft to 6ft of water rolls in to do further, damage and cut away more of. the foreshore. The sand is always making in this neighbourhood of St. Clair, which I know personally, its evidenced by the fact that the. bathkeeper has had to employ men from time^to time to clean sand out of the bath thrown in by the tide. ' The remedy for this is simple and inexpensive—namely, cart all loose stones out irom the foreshore on to the roads, or "et the stones crushed- for the roads in the vicinity Immediately this is done to the extent, say, of two chains -by three or so, you will see the sand make as slast as Nature—that is, the tidesbring it in: Secondly; 'make it a penal offence against persons that deposit'-stones'on the foreshore.' The sand will agairt make a perfect, bar to further encroachments. It matters nothing by what agency the sand is removed, whether | by. hand, cartage, or the, action.of the waves on boulders or. stones, the effect is the same— namely; ah inroad of the tide in all cases The prctection of the foreshore'near the battery can bo accomplished1 with inexpensive facades of scrub, each 20ft to. 30ft apart',; extending through and past'the tram terminus on the east. I trust, gentlemen, you will try your memories:to verify what I say", you that' have travelled in different parts of. the world—namely, there is no sea beach-in; the.'rworld where sand and stones can live or. exist together where there is tidal-wave.action;; Consequently, remove the ■stones.' ■■-.'- ' '■'■''* ,-■ i Mr youngman's. paper was received, several members expressing ■ their; approval of the theory that the: stones'on the beach had caused the sand to shift.. ..'■. -.• ' ' ~,- .•.'.', ;..'. ,- ~. ; The Secre'taby remarked- that it'had-been said that the'Moeraki-. boulders had caused the ,™ c of, the H.anipdon Beach to become lower Mr Beoo moved that the first clause of the committee's report ,ba .v C onfirmed—namely, that a bank, 10ft widfe at top and 20ft at basei as proposed by -Mr-'Petre, be constructed on the landward side: of the Sandhills, eastward from/the defence reserve." At the previous meeting he (Mr Begg).had further moved that Renders- be called for the work at per chain, : but there .'was now no necessity • for haste in that; direction, as the works already clone by tho Defence department had neutralised immediate danger of the sea breaking in. it his motion was carried it1 would enable the scheme to be put before- the ratepayers. Mr Gourley seconded the motion. • Mr Fisher moved,'as an "amendment—".That the board m' the meantime simply erect a fence, m continuation of that erected by the Defence department, on the. eastward and westward of the Central Battery." He and *r Hancock were'out at the beach on'M6uday, and they saw several places where the tide had come to, : the top of the embankment and lapped over. Theynoticed a number' of sleepers.and other material lying about, arid in order to utilise.these they instructed' Wn to erect a fence in a .line -with the battery. lhere were several reasons why a clay bank shou d : ftot be bui ; lt, v The property alon^vCe &,?*-$? V ■ dldnot Mong t0 «»e board, TlLhv ¥ Pn^H PK>P«ty of the Ocean Beach Railway Company, and it would have to be acquired by the board bofbrethey could pin the wall on it. In the -second place; clay did not resist ,the: attacks,of .the' waves so'wefl ? s I? the, third'place, the. walUo would:-Haveihe effect would^low over t, and instead of having sandhills to the, , B ea\vafd -they would have them ranged along the, paddocks'in St Kilda. At Anderson s,Bay they had an illustration of that. He thought that the-bank proposed by Mr h! %f°^^ c t r ßte, '«t »P»ey.-:™a; further! £ c 9 1* not,thmk,they had power to erect it on the.railway property." '.;..,.■: .'■ • ■'•■.- *-•••• SM.ethmg^hould^e done quickly? V Fr6m^Kit th P CYn J** "V^n^y »* St; Clair arid'along ,^fee Ocean Beach work at once was" imperative! and ,t woul^'be an expensive job to do it pro- £™ 7-i ¥&ih^ hi a.day1 bank' should.be contmued from, where-the: sandbanks ut.present' wire .to Proudfoot's road.'lt'was not along distance, and would make" a complete job'of it. Captain Morrison -yesterday told him.that the sea came over:;ihe battery fence, and-that but for the sandbags St/Kilda- would have been flooded. If it came over, the battery fence it woull come.oyer.'theirs also, unless.they had something-behind it. That was a very' siriiple matter He'did'not think "it was advisable to discuss the project of protecting the St. Clair end at. all, for, until they, got. power tomorrow money, they cpnldV"do ■ nothing with it. That work, .was.-:.. of such . ■ riiagnitude .that £20,000 would not look at it. : If they got power ;to borrow money then they would ha-'u to do. the. bjest they could, and if the money was not .sufficient they would.have to appeal to the Government. ..■'.•■ The'CiiAxairAN said,that there was no necessity for troub,ling,l.about,tho railway line, .as a good deal of'it, was already an effective protection against the sea. . ■''-.!'. . ••.,'-.- ---j<J"r Beog. said the idea, was to have the Imnk inside the railway line. • ''•' .'. -. ..- •,. Mr Hancock secpricled Mr Fisher's amendment pro.forma. -~ ~. ■■ ■, r . . .. ■ Mr M'GfiEOoii said that he woul4 like to pi opojo an arneridment to..the .effect that there1 was not sufficient..information, before the board,-and that they..proceed t'o>make, further inquiries. For hia own part he did not approve of any cf i the plans .suggested, arid'could not support j-thsm as a-whole. '"X' Mr Gouhley said he, would not object to ; acting-.upon- Mr. suggestion but for iths factthat it"kept the business'back.-. ■; . !': -i-Mr Begg.Said'that they had.got to submit -a |: sthenio bef6re. they.' could ' take. ,a poll of the f ratepayers, and before thex/submitted a scheme f,thsy'must adopt one.. ":• '' ■-. > ■-..■■ .;, ji The : CHiraMAS 'said'th^t Mr Petre's report was prepared;at his (Mr. Cargill's) request. He | asked hinj.tb.'report as itq ,the lsast. expeusivo ; an-1 most' effective means, of preventing the ; water of the sea coming .into, the .Flat as it. had j done on a,;previous occasion. He thought the | | clay bank' would.be ari effective and inexpensive way of doing that. If'it were on the out.sido, like the battery; fence) the water might , wash the ,clay., away if, it came up .before the ; ' sand had; time to cbllect. j -Tha Clesk called attention to the provisioria : of the act,Ja_nd saibj.he thought that they, should get th» 'opinion of their ' lfigal adviser before thay proceeded to con struct" any works on lands which wefe not inchidedan- the schedules. j The Chairman : Our. 'function's are confined "to the limits of our own'property, and we have no legal standing outside of that. We have nothing to 'do with the, protection of the Flat. That is not one of tho functions laid down, for ■ us at all. . . '•> •.'•;"'■',- ■ •' j Mr Begg pointed out that Mr Fisher's jj amendment .was not. really an amendment to "his (Mr. Begg's) motion. It did.not affect the question of the board deciding to erect a olaybank. . : ■■• '■• ■ ' . ■ The Chairman said .the amendment did not negative or interfere, with Mr Begg's motion. It was riot, therefore, an ajnendment, but might follow as a substantive motion: ! On Mr !Bogg's. motion being-put it was -lost, j only the mover .'and Mr Gourley voting m its I'favour. ■[ -.• .. . -,",'" ' . j Mr Hancock said if. they.were going to..coni serve the Sandhills they must have a substantial fence erepted to keep the traffic off. -He would move that the work be carried out according ~tp Mjr, Fisher's'motion. ■ If they wore goin? on With the protection of the Sandhills thoy.wanted a scheme. to»put before the public, ■ and it, was necessary that a motion should-be ;moved indicating the direction the board considered the right one. Perhaps two or three miles of fencing altogether would be required. [ ; Th 3 Chaibman said that to open up that • ; question at that stage would be to do so in ihe . absence of any. safeguard in the way of information. Thdy had agreed that a fence on the inside of the Sandhills was tho most effective thin;; to &o. That was a very, important matter for the Domain Board to atterid to. Since Mr Bi2g3 had moved his resolution with reference to St. Clair the circumstances had changed. Tho fact was that the sea had taken away the whole of the Esplanade, arid had even taken away private property. All the land that lay withiii the line of the old wall was in the Borough of Caversham and -outside the Domain Board's jurisdiction.. It was quite clear that | if anything was to be done>in the direction of protecting St. Clair something would have to be devised on a niuch more extensive scale than anything they at present had before them. He had seen some of the people down at St. Clair . that morning, and had' taken the opportunity of disabusing their niinds, of the impression , that they had to look to the Domain Boarcl as j their protectors. Theii- only protectors were \ the Borough Council of Caversham.

, | Mr Hancock asked that the plan of the board's property might be placed upon the ' table, and this wa3 done. i ; The Chairman" said, that all inside the oid , ' wall, now down, and where the houses were . standing was part of Caversham. ' i Mr Begg : Then I don't see what we are nere ' | for. i | Mr Gourley said he did not know about ' rights, but he knew that some protection should 'be given to the Esplanade. He thought • it-was the late Mr Pish who introduced the ' Ocean Beach Domain Act, and it was passed i simply to enable the ratepayers to say how far ' the Sandhills should be beautified and pro- ■ tected. Mr Fish recognised that the Sandhills i were the public property of the citizens of the . city and suburbs.—(Hear, hear.) It was men- ■ tioned at the time that if the Esplanade was i "reinstated and. the Sandhills, and St. 'Clair ■ beautified it would be an inducement to tourists ! to como here. Therefore, he thought they had . no1 right to say what was private property aud ; what was not. The whole of the land, outside ■ the Sandhills, from St. Clair.to Lawyer Head, was private property, and he thought they had a : right ,to ask the ratepayers to protect the Sandhills for the. whole of that distance. He . hoped some action would be taken to give them • power to borrow money, and. that there would be. no more talk about private ...property.' If the i. 'water came through at. St. Clair or at Forbury road, it would do very'little harm'to St. Hilda, but Dunedin would suffer more than airy other i. place. It was the duty of the board to'1 try arid protect the property, irrespective" of who was the owner. Mr Fisher said that Mr Eeynolds's scheme started on the right lines. It was a bit too grand, but, if modified a little, he thought it : would meet all the requirements. He advocated the adoption of this schemo without the carpeting and extras., There waa plenty of material ' in the cliff for the rubble, wall, which could be made at a cost of about £50 a chain. He would move—"That this board approve of Mr Reynolds's scheme in a modified-form, without the esplanade, carpeting, or extras.' The Chairman said that Mr Gourley waa right in a good deal that he had said. .The business of the. board was to make the most they could of the Sandhills property as a place of recreation. It was the domain of Dunedin. The work of conserving that in the manner sug- '■' gested by Mr Fisher would cost £30,000. j Mr Hancock: No. !i The Chairman said he was prepared to take ; the opinion of people who knew something '- about it, and he had made inquiries. They had no power to protect private property. He pre- ■ Burned, however, that there would be no great difficulty in carrying out a protective scheme up to the end of the Sandhills, and having it completed by the Borough Council of Caversham. A scheme might be devised at a very, reasonable cost which would take something of the form of . a, retaining wall outside the reach of the sea, not . in' the sea at.all. They' were to preserves the ■ Sandhills above high-water mark. Mr Reynolds's scheme might be a very good one, but it ■ was to build a thing out on a shifting beach and down below high-water mark, and would just ; go into: a heap, of pie like that other-wall which . '; wts,built at.St...Clair.. ' -: >•-'•■.': : ;j Mr Gourley asked if he1 was to understand .1 that they haduiothing;to do with protecting St. Clair. at-all. j The Chairman :■ Quite so; :We have no. legal j power.' - . . '.-...-■.■ . ■ ■■.', ■•• V . •'■ '-' : ' •j . Mr Gourley: Our domain extends from For- : bury road seaward. .-■ .-■'■•' . The Chairman: No, it goes further;"but only on the other side of Smith's wall. The Secretary: Before you go to the ratei payers for the raising of a loan you will have j to take the opinion of your solicitors in order to see that the purposes for which the loan is intended are within the provisions of the act. The board, if you will permit me to say so, seems to have confined itself to the pro--1 tection of the Flat rather th£h the conservation tion of the Sandhills. .' ' J Mr Hancock said that if the board biiilt the ! wall the Caversham Borough would fill in between. .■■'•■ j The Chairman: This is the property of the ; •Caversham Council. The board's property lies : to the seaward of the wall. . .'. ' i j Mr Hancock :We heard nothing about this j matter .until Jtr Petre's plan was disposed i' of- •• '. '■• ■■' "-■■"' . •. j The Chairman: One thing seems to me/to ; be quite clear, that Mr Hancock is determined ] that Mr Petro's scheme shall riot be given ef- i : feet to at all. Mr Petre is a gentleman of ; high professional reputation, who has-lived for over 20 years in that locality, and he is the most-competent man to advise us that -y?e can get. He is the safest man we can get, and to have Mt Petre's name continually put on the : , side is. not fair. -, ' ■ j .-.. Mr Hancock said that if that was the atti- ! ' tude the chairman was going to take up he1 ■ w.ould second Mr Fisher's motion on condi? : tion. that-it embodied Mr Reynolds's" scheme in;.its .entirety. He.-thought that Mr Reynolds had provided for all changes, arid put his'cosj; down .at £10,000.' At'first sight, when "the-re) port .came, before them, it looked- a, large sum to expend, but. it had been -admitted: by Mr ' Gourley that £10,000 would riot look at it. He was aware that the Public Works department believed it would require £20,000 to protect the ! for-eshore there. They had a complete scheme | . put before them by Mr Reynolds, a gentleman i > whp;had qualified himself to'give an opinipn [ joh work of this kirid—a' rhan ■ who had gradu- j j ated in. the- dfficeof the greatest > "engineer p'f i 1 his^age, Sir■". John Coode, and whp had ha<j ! I to : .deal with such workfor:aiiumber of years."" | i :--Mr.FiSHBR:-moyed-^-"That the board put Mr j ! Eeynolds's scheme.' in its entirety before the i ratepayers."- • '. ' " • . I Mr Hancock seconded the motion.' The mat-i ter, before-them'was so serious, he said, that \ it required immediate attention; and he was \ not prepared to leave the meeting without sup- i porting a scheme which aeerned to' be a reason- j able one. As the scheme seemed complete in ' itself, he saw no reason whatever why it should '{ ■ not be..carried out. If they went from the ! meeting that, day. without deciding on any scheme, he thought it' would be the duty of the ratepayers to call upon "them to resign their positions as members of the board, arid i he hoped they would'do it. j • ■ Mr Anderson sunported the motion. ' ' • ' ■ Mr Begg pointed out that since the engineers had reported to the board the circum- '■■ stances had altered very materially. Tho posi- ' tion of the beach was entirely different from : j what, it was when Mr Reynolds prepared his ;■ report; and he: thought, as a matter of prudence, before adopting a motion like that which had been moved, they should see whether his ; proposal held good under the altered circum- ■ stances. . -. . j The motion .on being put was lost by foitr votes to three-Messrs Fisher, Anderson, and : Hancock voting in support of it, and Messrs Begg, Gourley,. M-'Gregor, and the chairman against-the motion. . : It .was,subsequently resolved, on the motion ■of Mr. M'Gbegor—" That as there is not sum- •' cient .information before the board further con- ' sidoration of the matter be deferred " ' Mr Hancock moved—- That Mr Reynolds's . plan be referred back to him, and that he bo j asked if it will be suitable under the'altered conditions." Mr.. : FIsHER seconded .the- motion. ■■ ' ■ ■""'' « M. r i ®(?, imi' By move& as--an ameridment--Ihat all the-plans be referred "back to the engineers for further consideration and report." Mr. M'Gregor seconded' the" amendment, which-was caried by four votes to three. It was.also decided to ask the engineers to furnish their reports in time for the next meetj mg of. the board orr Friday week. | The bathkeeper (Mr Chisholm) wrote stating that the high tides of Sunday and Monday had damaged the baths house and the bathing boxes, and that if. the matter was not attended to a j few more high tides would wash the house | away.—The matter was referred to Messrs Ean- , cock and Anderson, with power to act.