CHRISTCHURCH FIRE ENQUIRY.

Taranaki Daily News, 4 May 1916, Page 5

CHRISTCHURCH FIRE ENQUIRY.

remarkable evidence.

AN OPEN VERDICT

By Telegraph.—Press Association.

Christchurch, Last Night.

Tlie en(]v.ivy in the recent warehouse lire on the promises of James Murphy, Ltd., in Lichfield Street was continued to-day, before Mr. I[ \Y. Bishop, distric' coroner. The witness Robins, a Rua sian Jwv, stated that he arived in We! lmylc:! two or three months ago, and for some time was employed by Mrs. Siegel, a dressmaker, in Wellington. • On the morning of March he saw Hollander in Siegel's shop, and he left to "shout" in company with a man named Kalia, an Austrian Jew. Hollander returned to the shop during the afternoon. Mrs. Siege] was called away, and he remained in company with Hollander, who asked him what he was doing for a living. Witness said, "Travelling for Mrs. Siegel." Hollander asked him ■if he wanted to make a few hundred pounds, saying that he would put the position in front of him. Hollander told him that he belonged to Christchnrch, and had a warehouse, factory, and shop. He also said that business was very quiet, stock was running out, and it was very hard to live. He asked witness to come down to Christchurch, and he would show him an easy way to burn down the place, which was insured for nearly £OOOO. Hollander said witness would be required to go to the warehouse one evening, shut up the windows and shutters, plug the keyhole with putty, and turn on the gas, he would return later and remove the putty, and at the same time drop a lighted match through the keyhole, and the place would then blaze up.

Witness told Hollander that he had surprised him by such a proposition, and said that lie was earning his living in a straight, and fair way. Hollander replied that'Jie (witness) was a "mug." Hollander thftn asked him to say nothing about it, siaying that witness only saved him money, as he would do it himself. Hollander offered him £2OO to set fire to tlie warehouse. After the conversation Mrs. Siegel appcard and nothing more was said.

Morris.Hollander, costume-maker, gaid that he was a Jew, born at Tulcha, in the Black Sea country of Roumania. At the age of 18 lie went to London where he got employment, subsequently going to Paris to learn the tailoring business. He afterwards went back to London, finally coming to New Zealand where he had been ten years. He recently entered into partnership with James Murphy in the business carried on as James Murphy, Ltd. Witness was a shareholder director, and he also had his own business to look after. On March 20th last he was in Wellington and was introduced to Robins. Some conversation ensued about the cost of running a Ford car, and Robins then hurriedly left the shop. Witness remained, and lie had never seen Robins before or since tho episode. Witness was not in financial difficulties. Since the fire the business has been set going again by the , necessary additional bank overdraft. The £7OOO required to finance the business was secured by his own personal securities. He had never received any profit from the buiness of J. Murphy, Ltd., since its commencement, as all profits had gone to capital, etc., or wore invested in material. He denied ever having offered anybody £2OO to burn down the premises, and did not know anything about Robins personally. He could give absolutely no reason why Robins made tho statements about him in the witnessbox. He could not be sure of the present insurances on the business of Jarnea Murphy, Ltd., but thought they were about £4700. When Hollander's evidence was completed, tlie Coroner said that it was obvious that further evidence would elicit no further information on the subject. It was quite evident that Hollander knew nothing about the details of the .business of Murphy, Ltd., and therefore he (the Coroner), must assume that Hollander had no connection in planning the fire. In regard to Robins' evidence, the matter would i\)st very unsatisfactorily, for search as he would he could not find any motive for the statements made by that witness. On the other hand it was extremely difficult to believe that Hollander was such a consummate idiot to go to a perfect stranger and make a proposition to him of such, far-reaching consequences. Robins had £iven evidence with every appearance of truth. It was a difficult problem, and one he was not called upon to solve. The solution rested with those interested, and no doubt many would endeavour to reach it. As far as Murphy was concerned lie had given his evidence in a straightforward manner, quite beyond suspicion.

, The coroner said he would be compelled to find an open verdict, which was judicially unsatisfactory, though other points lie had in view were perhaps not so. He recorded a verdict that on April 1 a fire occurred on the premises occupied by James Murphy, Ltd., whereby tliey were destroyed, and that there is no evidence to show how the fire started.