RANFURLY HOTEL FIRE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22246, 26 April 1934, Page 15

RANFURLY HOTEL FIRE

FALSE DECLARATIONS ALLEGED MAN AND WIFE CHARGED The trial of Alexander Robert Spence, hotelkeeper of Ranfurly, and his wife, Margaret Spence, who are charged in connection with allegations of making false declarations in regard to insurance matters, was commenced in the Supreme Court on Tuesday afternoon before h:s Honor Mr Justice Kennedy. Alexander Robert Spence was charged with, at Ranfurly, on November 22, 1933, making a declaration before a justice ot the peace that would amount to perjury if made on oath in a judicial proceeding, such declaration being made by him before Thomas Mitchell with reference 'to a claim for £IOOO from the Royal Exchange Assurance Corporation. The accused was arraigned on a second charge in the same terms, except that the declaration was signed before J. B. Brugh, J.P., a week later. Margaret Spence was charged with, at Dunedin, on November 29, 1933, making a declaration before a justice of the peace that would amount to perjury if made on oath in a judicial proceeding, such declaration being made by her before J. B. Brugh with reference to a claim for £IOOO from the Royal Exchange Assurance Corporation. Alexander Robert Spence and Margaret Spence were charged with, at Dunedin on November 29, 1933, with intent to defraud, they did attempt to obtain a gum of £IOOO from the Royal Exchange Assurance Corporation. Mr H. S. Adams was the Acting Crown Prosecutor, and Mr A. C. Hanlon, K.C., with Mr J. G. Warrington, appeared, for the two accused, who pleaded not guilty. Mr Adams ordered 21 of the men called for the jury to stand aside and Mr Hanlon challenged six of them.

His Honor gave the two accused permission to sit in the dock. On the floor of the court there were a number of articles of furniture —table, mattress, chairs, quilt, picture, and other goods. The Acting Crown Prosecutor in reply to his Honor, said he thought the case would occupy two full days. His Honor accordingly discharged the waiting jurors until Friday morning. Placing the facts before the jury, Air Adams said the case had to do with lire insurance. The two accused ran the Ranfurly Hotel at Ranfurly, the , hotel being the property of the male accused. It was an old wooden building, built in 1898. In, the building was a private sitting room, used by the licensee and his wife. A good deal.would be heard of that sitting room, because much of the evidence would have to do with the furniture contained in it. It would be stated that furniture was removed from that room to the accused’s farm — furniture which wag described by the accused as having been destroyed by tire. In the indictment there w'ere foiiy distinct counts. There were two against the male accused of having made false declarations, one at Ranfurly on November 22 of last year, the day following the fire, and one at Dunedin on November 29, and there was one count Against his wife of having made a false declaration. Then there w r as a count against both accused of false pretences by endeavouring to secure from the Royal Exchange Assurance Company the sum of £IOOO, the amount of the insurance policy on the furniture and contents of the hotel. The building was completely destroyed by the fire, which broke out on November 21 after the inmates hf the place had retired to bed. The fire insurance covered the hotel and its contents, a storeroom, and a maids’ room outside. The total . insurances on the contents came to £I6OO, made up , as follows:—Liquor £BS, goods in store £6OO, furniture £750, a special piano, £75, another piano £25, and other articles. Mr Adams said he would like to draw-atten-tion to the fact that no loss was incurred in respect to the outside store, whiph was insured for £6OO, so that when this figure was taken away from the £I6OO it would be seen that the total loss figure became £IOOO. Therefore the . accused , were charged with endeavouring to obtain £IOOO in insurance. Counsel narrated at some length facts which had relation to the indictments and to the declarations made by the two accused. The Crown, he said, would prove that false declarations were made and false pretences practised. It was contended (1) that it was untrue to say, as the male accused had said in his declaration on the day following the fire, that it was impossible to save anything out of the building;' (2) it was untrue to say, as the male accused had said in his declaration eight days after the fire, that the articles mentioned in the declaration were destroyed by fire. As. a matter of fact, some of the articles referred to were in the court, (3) it was untrue to say, as the female accused had said in her declaration, that nothing had been removed from the hoteb except certain things which she mentioned.- (4) Finally, it was untrue to say, as the male accused • said in his declaration, that apart from three small fires in the hotel he had never had any previous fires. With reference to the alienation by the male accused that he had never had previous fires, counsel said that evidence would be given that he had had a~ fire at Waiparu, where he owned a farpa. The dwelling house was destroyed, and a sum of £515 was paid out by the insurance company, and £l9O was paid direct to the male accused ag insurance on the ture. As to the allegation that nothing had been saved, and that it was ''OP o®' 0 ®' sible to save anything from the, hotel, evidence would be given to show that a considerable quantity of goods was saved. An allegation by the female accused was that nothing had been removed from the building, but evidence would be given to show that on at least two occasions furniture was removed from the hotel, to tue farm. On the first occasion a married couple was being installed on the Ihcm, and some furniture was sent from the hotel to the farm, together with furniture that belonged to the married couple. Other furniture was removed on Kovembcr b, 1933, only a fortnight before the fire, and it was impossible that the two accused could have forgotten about it. Counsel added that evidence would also be called to show that articles of furniture tor which claims were made on the insurance company were actually removed before the fire and sent by rail to the farm- 1 11 dealing with the case the jury should remember it was not a question whether the Spences ought to receive £IO9O from the company. That had nothing to do with the guilt or innocence ot the accused. It was a matter in which the insurance company was not concerned. I he insurance company was not represented, the only parties before the court were the King and the prisoners in the dock, and the fluty of the jury was to deal with the evidence and decide upon it as between the Crown and the accused. The sole question was whether the two accused poisons made declarations which were untrue. Evidence was then called for the prosecution. . James Royston Callender, manager or the Royal Exchange Assurance Corporation, gave evidence as to the policies held by the company over the hotel contents, etc. Witness first learned of the fire through an account ir* ho .newspaper. In reply to -Mr Hanlon, witness said that if a party made a false declaration under a policy he would forfeit everything under the policy. James Stuart Little, public accountant, Dunedin, said be also carried on the occupation of a fire officer, acting for various companies in Dunedin. On November -2 last be received instructions from the Royal Exchange Insurance Corporation and other companies to investigate a fire at the Ranfurly Hotel. He reached Ranfurly in the afternoon, and took a statement from the two accused. The same evening that statement was declared before Mr Mitchell, a justice of the peace. ' In the statement the accused said: During the evening most of the time was occupied by the playing of cards in the kitchen. A fire had been kept burning; it was always kept burning.” Also: ‘ It was impossible to save anything out ot the building. In a short time the whole building was enveloped in flames. Dealing with previous fires the male accused said in his statement: “ There have been three small fires in the hotel in the last seven years. They were discovered befoie much damage was done. Other than these fires I have never had a previous fire. 1 have never had any insurance declined or cancelled by any insurance com'pany.” At a later date accused and bis wife called at witness’s office in Dunedin. Claim forms were prepared, and attached was a schedule showing the furniture, etc., destroyed in the fire. The female accused also made a statement bearing on the fire. The documents were signed by the

tivo accused and declared before Mr Brugh, J.P. When witness was in Ranfurly, Mrs Spence stated that some odd articles had been sent to the farm at Waiparu. Witness told them that it would be wise for them to state exactly what had been sent so that no suggestions could be made about the matter later. They then incorporated a list of the articles that had been sent to the farm. On February 14 witness went to Waiparu with Detective Jeuvey. The detective asked the accused if the two easy chairs had been purchased at Watt’s, and they said “Yes,” adding that they were not the chairs for which claims had been made. They were told that the easy chairs claimed for were described as having been purchased at Watt’s. The accused replied that if that were so it was a mistake. They were next asked about a table, and they said if that was claimed for it was a mistake. They also said that if a “ Sleepwell ” mattress was described in the claim form, it was a mistake. Mrs Spence said that if anything was included in the list that ought not to be there its value would be deducted from the claim on the insurance company. To Mr Hanlon: Witness said that some of the documents were completed in triplicate. The two accused had to sign their names about 90 times. When the accused were signing the documents at Ranfurly he did not know whether they had their spuctaclea or not. On his visit to Ranfurly there was nothing to suggest that there was anything suspicious about the fire. He agreed that it could have been caused by a defective chimney. Evidence with respect to the declaration by Spence at Ranfurly was given by Thomas Mitchell, a justice of the peace, and Job® Barnett Brugh also gave evidence with respect to declarations made by both accused in Dunedin. The latter said that before the signatures were made lie asked Mr and Mrs Spence it they understood the contents of the document, and they said they did. Alexander Bedel Watt, furniture manufacturer, Princes street, Dunedin, said the accused had from time to time bought furniture from his firm. He identified two easy chairs as articles sold to the accused in 1931. He had examined a carpet produced, but could not say definitely whether he had sold it to the accused. Haddon George Smith, public accountant and fire loss adjustor, said that in February, 1933, he examined a house destroyed by fire at Waiparu, owned by A. R. Spence, and leased by Spence’s sons. The furniture was insured with the Union Assurance Society. He recommended that the company pay £l9O. Harold Francis Coombs, statioumaster at Ranfurly, gave evidence with respect is> the consignment of furniture from Ranfurly. The consignment was made on November 0, 1933. Ivy Angelina M'Donald, housemaidwaitress, said she was employed at the Ranfurly Hotel at the time of the fire. She remembered some furniture being removed from the hotel a few weeks before the fire, including a wardrobe and a mattress. There was a “ Sleepwell ’’mattress in the house. She last saw it about the the same time as the furniture went awayShe recognised the two chairs and the table in the court. She had seen them in the hotel. She saw several things saved at the time of the fire, including a mattress, bedding, and other things. To Mr Warrington: The furniture was removed quite openly from the hotel. It was placed on a lorry at the door. Mrs Spence shifted the furniture about a lot, and liked to make the best of what furniture there was. The carpet in court witness had not seen before. The bedding was saved from witness’s room, which ■was detached from the hotel. The building burnt very quickly. Moira Hayes, waitress, said she was .employed at the Ranfurly Hotel prior to the fire. The evening before the fire she was playing cards in the kitchen from S to 10 p.m. Mr and Mrs Spence were in the kitchen,* but she could not remember whether it was during that time. Bedding was saved from witness’s bedroom during the fire; it was a detached room. She stated that she saw furniture taken away before the fire. She remembered a carpet in the private sitting room. It was taken up and cleaned, and then left in the laundry at the back of the hotel. Some pictures were taken down in the dining room and others put in their place. Some cups, a present from the old staff, were taken away to Mrs Spence's new home at Waiparu. Other articles removed were two silver vases, a clock, a silver coffee jug, and a copper kettle. Mrs Spence had an eiderdown, goldenbrown colour, and as far as witness knew it went to the farm. The two easy chairs in court she had seen in the hotel. There was also a table like the one in the court. Half a chest of tea was taken to the farm one Sunday while she was off. On December 27 last witness went to the farm at Waiparu with Detective Jenvey and others. She saw eiderdowns which had been at the hotel and the clock and pictures from the dining room. The chairs in court were also there, as well as a chest of tea, copper kettle, and the crockery out of the dining room. To Mr Warrington: The goods sent to the farm were openly removed from the hotel. There was no secret about them. Corinna Godwin said she was cook at the Ranfurly Hotel until the night of the fire. She was there for five months. The evening before the fire she spent in the kitchen playing cards. She did not see Mr or Mrs Spence in the kitchen. When the fire broke out she was wakened by Mrs Spence. Witness went round to Mrs Spence’s room, and found her trying to save the mattress on her bed. Witness said to her: “ Why not get your clothes? ” ..Witness saved her own personal belongings, also two drawers of a duchesse in Mr s Spence’s room. Later she saw MrS Spence putting a mattress out of the back door. Witness spent the rest of the night at Mrs Pringle’s. She saw there some goods saved from the hotel. At this stage the court adjourned until 10 a.m. to-day.