THE CHRISTCHURCH FIRE

Otago Witness, Issue 2915, 26 January 1910, Page 17

THE CHRISTCHURCH FIRE

CURIOUS COMPLICATIONS. CHBISTCHURCH, January 18. The inquiry into the fire at the Cafe Cecil buildings in the early morning of January 4 was resumed to-day before Mr .bishop, S.M., ajid a jury of six. In his evidence, George Neugeschwinder, proprietor of the Cafe Cecil, said je valued the stock and fittings at from £I3OO to £ISOO. The furniture was insured at £7OO and the stock at £IOO. He had been doing well in business, but before the fire had received notice to leave. He had a 10 years' lease of the ]Dremises, and no rea.son had been given lor the notice to quit. The lease, he was told, was an invalid one. He was [giving up business in those premises in consequence of the notice to quit. Christiana Meatus, dentist's assistant, employed by H. D. Wh.itehou.se, in Hereford street, said she was sleeping on the premises on the night of January 3, and her room overlooked the Cafe Cecil buildings. At 2 a.m. she was awakened by a fire in the buildings, and rang up the brigade. About August last an attempt had been made to burn down the building now occupied by Whitehouse, which, she understood, was part of the same estate as the Cafe buildings. William Collie, partner in the Cafe Cecil business, said that the lease was from J. Grace, of Wellington. The rent was £2O lis 8d per month, and the rent was always paid in advance. The business was very profitable, and he had had a substantial bank credit. On January 1 he left for Masgiel, and heard of the fire while he was in Dunedin. No motor spirits or kerosene were kept in his premises. „_ Alfred Faux, lift man at the Cafe, stated that he was employed by the owner of the building, and had been in his present position for about 14 months. Nobody slept on the premises on the night of January 3. He turned all the lights out after leaving Neugeschwinder's bicycle in the lift, according to custom. He slammed the door when he left the building, and as far as, he knew . Neugeschwinder was the only person remaining on the premises. He knew nothing about the tin of benzine and the boots found on the premises. Eva Hamilton, dentist's assistant, in the employ of Mr Goyen, said he left shortly before Christmas on a holiday trip to Dunedin. She was last in the building on December 30 to let in two men who were doing some cleaning work. The men left in the afternoon, and she then locked up, leaving everything safe and intact. She did not return until January 4, after the fire, and found that some of the furniture had been removed from one room to another. She knew nothing of the tin of motor spirits or the box nor the knives found on the premises after the fire. The articles were not there when she left on December 30. The holes in the door and in the walls of Goyen's room were also :nnde after she had left on the 30th. Superintendent Erck, of the Christchurch Fire Brigade, said when the brigade arrived the outer door was found to be locked, and was forced open. The fire was in the outer waiting room of the premises occupied by King and Goyen, and was between some articles of furniture which had been soaked with petrol or benzine. A bicycle lamp, still alight, was found in one of the rooms, also a tin of motor spirits and an empty box in which the tin lrad been carried. Holes had been bored through the waiting room door to allow the door to be opened. In his opinion a deliberate attempt had been made to set fire to the building. Leslie V. Goyen. dentist, stated that on December 23 last he went to Dunedin for a holiday. He returned on January 4. He had no knowledge of the origin of the fire. His furniture and instruments were insured for £2OO, but their value was well over £3OO. Eichard Jaanei. King, dentist, said he left Christchurch before Christmas, and returned on January 4. His furniture and instruments were insured for £3OO, and he valued tbein.at.about £SOO. Herman Lewis .of Wellington, stated that in August. 1906.. be had agreed to advance F. J. Grace £BOOO at 6 per cent. on the- building and other properties. Grace left New Zealand last year, and he had previously entered into agreements i -"-ith Collie and Co. and Goyen for leases of their rooms. Grace collected the rents and apportioned the rates, and when, Grace left he (witness), as mortgagee in '

possession, had collected the rents. He had never foreclosed, for he had hoped to get hid money back, but he would have to do something before long. He had had to pay ground rent and other expenses, and the total indebtedness to him was about £13,000. The ground rent was £1250 a year, and insurance £330. As it stood at present, the security was not a good one. He had pur-chased the goodwill of the lease from C. C. Sommers, and had paid Sommers £ISOO in cash and £2OOO worth of Empire Hotel shares. The shares were then at par, but now had fallen in value. There was also ground rent to pay. At present the revenue from the building was just about meeting the expenses. The lift had been improperly used, and was giving a lot of trouble, and in consequence of breaches of the lease he had decided to give Collie and Co. notice to quit. He did not think he had told anybody he was losing £IOOO a year on the building. He could not say what his- exact loss was. The person who had control of the building (Sommers) had no interest in the property, and never had. After the fire companies who had insurances cancelled the policies, but he had since made arrangements for reinsuring the property. He did not know why the policies had been cancelled. The building was now insured for £4OOO with the Ocean Accident Company, but there was a condition that no more than £3500 t insurance should be placed on the property. If the building should be destroyed it would have to be re-erected according to the lease. The building could not be rebuilt for the amount'of-the insurance money. The rentals received for the building at present totalled £1650 a year. According to the lease a new building was to be i erected in the event of fire. It would have to be of the value of not less than £4OOO. Henry Harris, son of Maurice Harris, said that his father had in 1901 bought j the lease of the property held by John '. Lewis from Gorton's estate. He then re- i let the property to Sommers, who in 1906 re-let to F. J. Grace, of Wellington. Sommers's original lease was for 38 years. F. J. Grace bought through Herman Lewis. The ground rent payable by Her- j man Lewis for the Hereford street and the High street properties totalled £I7OO a year. The Cafe Cecil building had been insured for £7OOO, and had cost from £BOOO to £9OOO to erect. He could only account for the cancelling of the policies by the reason that there had been three outbreaks of fire in the building. If the building were destroyed Grace would be the man who would have to rebuild. The Magistrate: Can you suggest any reason why it should be profitable to burn this olace down? Witness : "Nobodv interested in the property would benefit if the building were destroyed. Some of the tenants might benefit if the place had been burnt down while the insurances were off. Maurice Harris would be called on to rebuild. Edward John Hicks, jeweller, said he rentod a shoo in the Cafe Cecil building originally from Grace, but afterwards received notice to pay the rent to the agent of Herman Lewis, as mortgagee. He paid £2B a month for the premises, but he had so far failed to get the lease signed, and for the last four months had not paid his rent with the object of inducimr the owner to sign, the lease. He did not know whv th-; lease had not been ?ipTied. His stock was insured for £3OOO. but he had received no notice that the policy was to be cancelled. Charles C. Knmmers said he fi'-st stn.rted business in 1880 on the site of the nresent Cafe Cecil building. He afterwn.rds our** chased the lease of the property, which included the building fronting on Hereford street, from Maurice Harris. He | naid nothing for the lea-s°. which he sold . to Herman Lewis in 1906 for £ISOO in cash and £9OOO worth of Empire Hotel shares. Wellington. Before selling to Lewis he had sold the lease for and bought it back again for £I7OO. The transfer of the lease was inade out to F. •T. Gi'ace. He renurrbased lease of the Hereford street block from Lewis i in 1908, W which he paid w»rlh of Empire Hotel shares: and h* the nropertv until Mav. 1909. He had no keys belonging to the Cafe Cecil buildinV, On the night of the fire he was at home in bed. He could give no reason why an attempt should be made to burn the building down. Evidence regarding insurances j was given bv the clerks in the offices that . held th* risks >n the bui.ldi.ni?- On* j stated that the insurance monevs would ' have been paid to Broughton's trustees

and Maurice Harris. In some cases it was stated that the policies had been cancelled either the first or second day after the j fire. One clerk stated that his office cani celled the policy on account of the risk of incendiarism. ! Detective said that last August a fire took place in Hereford street on premises part of the same property, and there was also a fire in the right-of-way leading from the Hei'eford street building, j Detective Bishop : You remember some 12 or 18 months ago receiving word that an attempt was likely to be made to burn ' down the building?—Yes. Warning came from a firm of solicitors in Wellington. And the building was watched for a considerable period by the police!—Yes. And no attempt was made?—No. Continuing, witness said a close watch had been kept on the building since the . last attempt. I In reply to the magistrate, the detective said that since the inquiry was first adjourned every effort had been made by the police to probe the matter, but up to the present without result. The information from Wellington was followed up, and the reason given by the solicitors was that difficulty was being experienced in properly running the building, and they were afraid that it might be burnt down before the insurances were secured. Herman Lewis said that Mr Dalziel, of Findlay, Dalziel, and Co.. Wellington, had told him there was a difficulty in getting the place- covered, and he was afraid some dissatisfied party might set fire to the building. Lewis added there had been a good deal of local jealousy over the building, because it had been put up by a Wellington architect and a Wellington builder. Cor.stable Carney said he was on the High street beat on the night of the fire. He tried the doors of the building at midnight, and found them locked. He visited the premises at frequent intervals afterwards, and saw nobody about. At tbout 2.20 a.m. he noticed a light ir a window. This concluded the evidence. The Magistrate said it seemed to him a matter of very great regret that so reckless and impudent an attempt to destroy a building and the property of a number of people should not have been sheeted home to some person or -persons. As it was. there was- no evidence of any person having sufficient interest in the property to burn the place down. He would direct the jury's mention to one point—namely, that the act must have been perpetrated by somebody who had habitual access to the piece. pointed to that. The outside doors were untouched, and must have been entered by some person having complete access to the building. That narrowed it down to a, certain extent, but beyond that it seemed to him it was impossible to go. He therefore regretted, and the jury would regret with him, the negative nature of the inquiry. Still, such inquiries were always useful, however negative the result might be, because they showed the people that any act of fireraising would' be subjected to the closest and most searching inquiry. He did not think the jury would attach very much importance to the suggestion thrown out by Herman Lewis that ever since the building was put up attempts had been made to burn it down for business reasons. Herman Lewis : No. The Magistrate : If I didn't understand that from you I don't understand English. I don't want to suggest anything not strictly fair or just, and if I misunderstood you I am perfectly willing to put it right. Herman Lewis : Three attempts to burn the building down seems very strange, doesn't it? The Magistrate: You suggest that local people wanted to burn down this place because it was owned and erected by people outside Christchurch ? The jury then retired, and after a short retirement returned a verdict that there had been a deliberate to burn down tfie High 'Street Chambers by some person or persons unknown. A rider was added commending the practical action of Miss Mearn* in so promptly giving the alarm to the fire brigade. - 4