The Union Hotel Fire.

Pahiatua Herald, Volume II, Issue 140, 25 April 1894, Page 3

The Union Hotel Fire.

Coroner’s Inquiry

The inquiry im - tuj causes which led to the deetru .i.,n by fir© of the Union Hotel was resumed at four o'clock on

Munday evening, before MrT. Hutchison,

District Coroner, and a jury of six. coo sisting of Messrs J. Vile (f reman), Makeman, D. Crewe, J. Gregory, Artni-

tage and J. D. Wilson. Owing, however, to Mr Gregory sudden'y taking senou* y ill the jurymen were discharged and m - mediately reinstated, Mr A. Stewart ie

placing Mr Gregory. Mr Gully, of Wellington, app*vr*d o.i behalf of the Insurance Companies interested. and applied to have Mrs East wood re examined.

Mrs Eastwood's previous evidence whs read over to her and again sworn to. In" addition she deposed that she frequent‘y had charge of the bar. but could not lei.

what the takings averaged. Some of the boxes and portmanteaux had not been unpacked since her arrival in the town.

She had no idea of the quantity of stock in the bar or store. There w.ia draught whisky and clmii p.tgne in the store ; also a lot of groceries. When witness recollected the cash-box it was tjo late to re cover it.

J. O. Eastwood, besides confirming his former evidence, gaxe the following additional testimony. He declined to c.-swer anv % qtiestion regarding the sto k. aa he lied an action pend ng against some inauram-e companies. For retail purposes he had £275 worth of stock outside the bar when Malco m went out. That in the bar waa worth about £9O. '1 he principal items in the store were 15 or lti i gallons draught and four or five rases of case whisky, two and a half cases champagne and oth< r stock ; also £.O worth of ! store*. He had no more aiock in when the fire occurred than when Malcolm went out. Declined to say where he bought the stock ; he bought it privately. Hnd bought £OO worth of stock since taking over the hotel from Malco ui. Had never stated to Mr Hooper, of Musterton, that there was only XlO worth of goods in the hotel when he took it over. During his period of possession he had taken out no policies. Found out there was a policy of £l5O oil the stock. He had tried to sell out, but refused one offer as he did not intend to sacrifice. Went to Kumeroa to see the hotel there as he wanted to take another p'ace. lie had not had notice that his license was likely to be refused. When he sold to Malcolm he was not in formed that the issue of a license to him would <c opposed. Me bad never stated to am one in I'ahiatua that he had burned the place down. He denied having made a statement to that effect to Mr Seymour. Was not pressed for rent before the fire. He t<Hik about £45 per week generally. £35 of which was taken over the bar.

Robert Skit ton also continued his previous evidence, and added that he had never noticed any champagne in the stock. The stork was what he would call a amail

Wil’inni Dalrxmple deposed that on tho morning of the tiro at about half past one o’clock he saw- Robinson, the cook. King in a diunken state against a fence about a quarter of a mile from the Union Hotel. After going to bed he was aroused by the alarm of tire, and on going towards tho burning building passed Robinson lying against Mr Reese’s front fence. Saw him later at the fire, about a quarter to four o dock. Thought Robinson wis too drunk to be at the firo before that time.

Robert Seymour deposvd that he was licensee of the Club Hotel. On the Tues day or Wednesday previous to the Union Hotel fire Eastwood was in tho Club Hotel. lie said he had been to Master!on on business iu connection with the hotel, and added, ** They are trying to ruin me, but I will ruin some of them. I will put a match to the whole show.” Witness gathered that he meant the hotel Told him that he was very foolish to talk like that as people might hear him, and in the event of an accident he might hear more about it. Mrs Seymour also told him he was a fool to talk like ’hat. To the Coroner : Eastwood was excited and slightly under the influence of liquor. To jurymen : This took place about 3 o'clock in the afternoon. There were people on the other side of the partition, but they were strangers to him.

At this stage the inquiry was adjourned until noon of Tuesday, On resuming, W. 11. Granger re signed the deposition taken at the previous enquiry.

Emma Seymour, wife of Mr Robert Seymour, licensee of the Club Hotel, deposed that she remembered the fire at the Union Hotel, and knew Mr Eastwood, the licensee. Saw him in ths Club Hotel the week previous to the fire. Heard him mention the Union Hotel, but could not very well hear what he w as saying." Heard him say something About a in itch, and told him he was very foolish. Heard him say he had had some trouble ; people had triad to do him harm, and he would try to harm them. He might have beeu referring IZ Ine nolel, Lut witness was not certain.

S. MoVay s evidence was also read and re-sworn.

Constable Cooper g ive evidence to the effect that the license of the hotel was held by Eastwood, and temporarily transferred to Malcolm. Eastwood was previously told by the licensing bench that he need not expect to get s permanent transfer. aud that he had better try to get rid of his interest in the hotel before the next quarterly meeting. At this meeting a permanent transfer to Eastwood was granted on condition that he first signed a temporary transfer to Malcolm. After tho.fire Eastwood's .application for a license waa refused by the Bench.

This concluded the evidence, and His Worship then proceeded to review- the evidence, daring the course of which he animadverted iif>on the carelessness shown in the management of the hotel. The bulk of the evidence was directed to show that there was a inotivo for the destruction of the hotel. But evidence of motive was of little value unless there was evidence of fact also.

The jury then retired, and after an hours' deliberation, the foreman returned to ask His Worship a question. The rest of the jurymen came in immediately afterwards. and in reply to tho foreman the coroner said he could take a verdict of four. The jury again retired, and not having returned at 5 p.in. were then sent for by the Coroner.

As they were unable to agree the jury men were then discharged.