FIRE BRIGADES ACT.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXIX, Issue 143, 9 August 1911, Page 8

FIRE BRIGADES ACT.

A PALMERSTON PROS KCTTIOX. At the Palmerston Magistrate’? Cam t oil Monday, Air H. it. \\ ooa (Mr Cooper) was charged with that iio being tlio occupier ot the Zcalaudia Hall did use such building for a pu'olio performance, namely, a picture show, without providing the same to the satisfaction of the Miccnntondout of the Palmer Am Noith I‘iro Brigade, with siilliciant safeguards against fire, namely, a (1 roman in uniform, contrary to the statute provided.

Mr Cooke appeared for the complainant, Superintendent Warner, and

set out the details of the case which wore bristly that tlio complainant, m iris capacity of tiro superintendent required defendant, in the interests of ilia public safety, to station a hromau in the Zoalandia Hall to tar lee cun’go of the tiro appliances provided in the case of an outbreak of. tiro.

Evidence was given by Supeiintendent Warner to the effect that he had served notice on the defendant to station a fireman in uniform in the Zealandia Hall and the defendant had refused, stating that be was a fireman and that lie had charge ot the tire appliances at tlio hall. Letters that had passed between the parties on tlio subject wore produced and read in Court. Jn further evidence witness stated that no fireman was stationed in the Hail though they wore at both the Opera House and Fullers’. The same procedure was observed, lie said, practically all over the Dominion.

Cross-examined, witness said lie was

appointed in January, 1909, and the Act was then in force. He made this request in December, 1910. Notice had not been sent before because he wished to allow Hayward’s plenty of time to comply with the regulations and also to put the wdiole matter before the annual meeting of bis Hoard, in June, 1911. Since .December there had not bepn a competent fireman -.t tlio hall to his satisfaction. Defendant had submitted three mimes in that month as competent tire attendants. They wore himself and Messrs Fabling and Turner. Since then witness had not complained of the- tiro service at the hall to the Borcugn Council, but had to his own Hoard. Witness admitted that he had not disapproved of the service at the hall, but ho had written in February, 1911, forwarding a copy of the Borough bylaws ocinting out the duties of a competent lire attendant and which lie considered wes not being carried out at the hall. The fact of a man being in uniform show* i authority, and enabled the attendant to take control of the appliances. Witness denied that ho had ever fold defendant that a fireman in uniform was not necessary. Tlio hail was particularly well-fitted with fire escapes; the audience could get out in a minute and a half. Whilst a hose could not be used while the crowd, was escaping a .chemical extinguisher could.

Re-examined by Mr Cm ko, witness

said that lie could have laid the information against the defendant in December, but be had wished defendant to come quietly into line with the rest of the picture houses in town.

No further evidence was called for the prosecution. < Mr Cooper, for the' defence, said that in his opinion the fact of a man being in uniform or not did not affect his (.efficiency as a fireman. He also said that the inference from the delay of the Superintendent on the subject was that lie was fully satisfied with the stops taken at the hull fur the protection of the public. / 'The escapes, as the Superintendent admitted, wore perfect, and it was a matter for the Court as to whether the Superintendent’s requirements were a further safeguard against tiro. Defendant, in his evidence, said that since August, J 909, there had been competent fire attendants at the hall, himself and Mr Fabling. Witness said that ho had had experience in both Wanganui and Marlon brigades. Witness said that in one of his conversations with him ihe Superintendent had stated most positively that a mam,in uniform was not necessary but subsequently ,he followed this up with a request for a man in uniform, hi -his opinion a uniform was not necessary, and an incentive to panic; a man in mufti would create much less notice than a man in uniform, and lie just as efficient

Witness, cross-examined, said 'that he was quite aware that under the Aet the Superintendent was judge of what was required at a public place of amusement, but witness considered tiiat ho had a hotter knowledge of what was duo to ensure the safety of the public than the Superintendent. the S.M. thought that the defendant should comply with the request of the! Superintendent; ho quite agreed that it was both necessary and acitisaide that a man should be there in ni ifoun. so that the public would know he was there, and the S.M. further said that the fireman should Juno no ether dunes to perform. He was prepared to gc that length in a natter like tins. Defendant was con-vict?-1 and fined 10s and costs.