THE CORONER'S VERDICT.

Colonist, Volume LVII, Issue 13728, 17 March 1915, Page 2 (Supplement)

THE CORONER'S VERDICT.

(From "The Colonist," March 13.) Yesterday the Coroner CMr. J. S. Evans, S.M.) gave his verdict in connection with the death of Frederick Bloomfield, the victim of the Royal Hotel fire on March 4th. He sau*:— "The circumstances surrounding this unfortunate fatality call for some remarks from me in view of the history of this particular house. For some years reports more or less_ adverse have been made to the Licensing Committee in respect of thus. house though no objections have been l^dgfd against the renewal of the license, lne license has been in existence for some years. The adverse reports have been in regard to the structural arrangements of the house. It is a threestorey building. The passages and stairways were somewhat narraw. lne building was old and the timber dry, consequently the inflammability of the building was increased. Repairs nave from time to time been ordered and carried out. In particular the fare escapes have been under supervision. There was an outside fire escape irom the top storey on to the roof at the back on the level of the second floor, and from there to the ground in the back yard. There were also ropes from all the windows on both storeys. The.se were in good order at the; last meeting of the Licensing Committee, and they were also in good order at the time of the fire. Attached to the report of the inspector of licensed premises at the last annual meeting of the committee was a report from the Department of Public Health, recommending the Licensing Committee to condemn the building as being unsafe. The report of the inspector of "censed premises was as follows: — Tnre&storeyed wooden building, very old, fairly furnished clean, fire escapes provided.' It is not the function of the Licensing Committee to condemn buildings, and they have no power to do so. They might have power under section 103 of the Act to refuse the grant of a license for a building which from structural defects might be dangerous in case oi fire., but their power to refuse the grant of a license is more extensive than their power to refuse the renewal of a license already in existence. The- grounds upon which they may refuse the renewal of a license are set'out in section 109 of the Licensing Act. The section is as follows:—'The objections that may be taken to the renewal of a license may be one or any of the following: " '(a) That the applicant is of bad fame and character, or of drunken habits; or ~ " '(b) That the premises in question are not maintained at the required standard, or are out of,repair, or that the rooms are insufficiently furnished for public accommodation, or that the1

place cf convenience is not kept in a clean and wholesome state; or " '(c) That the house is conducted in an 'improper manner, and drunkenness permitted therein; or " '(d) That any of the conditions upon which the license was granted have not been satisfactorily fulfilled.' "There is no suggestion that any of the grounds set out in subsection (a), (c) or (d) applied to this house or the applicant for the renewal. The standard referred to in subsection (b) is set out in section 76, which is as follows :— " '(1) No publican's license shall be granted in respect of any house in any borough unless such house has a front cr principal entrance separate from and in addition to the entrance to the bar or to the place where liquors not to be drunk on the premises are sold, and contains, for public accommodation, not less than six rooms, besides the billiard-room (if any) and the rooms occupied by the family of the applicant; nor unless such house is furnished with sufficient doors cr facilities for escape therefrom in case of fire, and is provided with_ a place of convenience on the premises for the use of the public, and also, where necessary in the opinion of the Licensing Committee, with stabling sufficient for the accommodation of not less than three horses. " '(2) Nothing in this section shall apply to any house or room or booth situated on a cricket ground, or to any other place set apart for any lawful game or pastime.' "This house contained more than the required accommodation, and was in good repair for the class of house it was. The fire escapes were sufficient and in good order. "It has been laid down by the Court of Appeal, in Penney v. Wairan Licensing Committee, that the Licensing Committee has no power to refuse the renewal of a license under such conditions. The headnote in that case is as follows: —'The required standard mentioned in subsection 2 of the above section at which licensed premises must be maintained is not the standard which a committee for the time being may require, but is the standard prescribed by section 38 of the Licensing Act, 1881. If this standard is maintained the committee cannot refuse to grant a renewal on the ground that the licensed premises are not maintained at the required standard.' "A licensing committee can refuse to renew a license only on the grounds stated in subsections 1 to 4 of section 81 of the Licensing Act, 1881, and subsection 4 does not entitle a committee to append to the grant of a renewal of a license any such condition as that a house which is maintained at the required standard shall be rebuilt. "In view of the law as laid down in the above case the Licensing Committee had no power to refuse a renewal of the license, and if they had a mandamus would lie against them to grant it. "The facts elicited in this case show quite conclusively that the structural defect of the house had nothing to do with the death of this unfortunate man. If he had been awake or wakened when the alarm of fire was given he would have had the best chance of escaping, as his room was immediately at the head of the back fire escapes. This fire escape was not destroyed by fire, though it was charred to some extent. While the fire was at ita height a lead of hose was taken up this escape and played on the room occupied by the deceased. The evidence also shows that everyone in the building simply rushed to save himself, witkvut giving much attention to alarming other persons. One inmate in escaping found a housemaid in a state of collapse at the head of the stairs on the top floor, and assisted her to escape with the help of Constable O'Donnell. There was a fire alarm on each floor, but no one sounded it. No muster was attempted of the boarders who had escaped from the building, and though there was a general rumour that a man \yas still upstairs, the officers of the Fire Brigade were not informed until the fire had a complete hold on the building. There appears to have been a considerable amount of smoke in the building, but no fire for some time. The deceased seems to have been on his feet, and was overcome presumably by smoke. lam well aware that one cannot expect persons in such circumstances to have all their wife alert at a time like that, and I cannot lay criminal negligence to the charge of anyone, but it appears to me from the evidence that there should have been time to give more warning, and there was sufficient reason to apprehend that someone was missing, and to have informed the Fire Brigade officers much earlier than was done. I find that the deceased met his death in a fire in the Royal Hotel on the morning of the 4th day of March, 1915, and that his death was not due to any defect in the fire escapes in the hotel. As a rider I would recommend that properly equipped fire alarm bells should be provided in all hotels capable of being sounded from each floor."