WAIROA £77,850 CLAIM

Taranaki Daily News, 24 June 1931, Page 7

WAIROA £77,850 CLAIM

INSURANCE COMPANIES’ CASE earthquake damage detailed. “FUSING OF WIRES CAUSED FIRE."' ■PLAINTIFFS ARGUED “TOO WELL”; By Telegraph.—Pfess Association. Gisborne, Last Night. The hearing of the claim of the Wai-, roa Farmers’ Meat Company for £77,850 insurance, consequent upon the destruction of the works by fire shortly after the earthquake, entered its fifth day today. The evidence for the plaintiffs was concluded and the New Zealand and Eagle and Star Insurance Companies opened their defence. The managing director of the ireez•ing works company, Alfred. Gordon Nolan, continued his evidence thisjporn-, ing. Explaining the early negotiations with representatives of the defendant companies, the New Zealand Insurance* and Eagle, Star and Dominions, Nolan stated that Kirker, representing the Eagle Star, stated that having inspected the works and damage he .had. altered his opinion and “If there was any kick coming it would not be against, him but against the directors." Upon the conclusion of Nolan’s evidence plaintiff’s case was concluded subject to the right to call further evidence on the question of quantum of damages. Open in o’ for the defence, Mr. Rich.’ mond explained that the insurance companics, while always sympathetic and reasonable in dealing with losses, had a duty to their shareholders and the general body of policy-holders. It .was obvious that no criticisifi could be justly levelled against the companies for refusing to cover risks for which no premiums had been paid. The risks attendant upon the earthquake were so great, that they could not be taken into consideration in the ordinary fire cover. In the present case it was a remarkable coincidence that the fire occurred such a short time .after the sei ions earthquake in a place where no known fire danger existed. Plaintiffs gave no reasonable explanation of the origin of the fire, but he submitted that the outbreak Was caused by fusing of the electrical wires between the walls of the chambers, Plaintiffs themselves had eliminated other probable causes. Might it not bo that they proved their case a little too well. From the managing director down to the boys there was a common interest and.it might be that in proving that the fire was not caused by any other means they haff shown it was caused by the earthquake. Defendants had no one to help th6m in their case. Everyone in Wairoa was vitally interested in the success of the action. It was natural, therefore, that the defence was unable to present anything like the number of. witnesses called for the fire by the plaintiffs. Evidence would be given, however, that the damage done by the earthquake was minimised by earlier witnesses and that the effect of the shock had been greater than that described. This was supported by correspondence immediately after the earthquake, particularly in the frantic telegrams sent for the boat to remove the carcases. DAMAGE DESCRIBED. The first witness for the defence was George Henry Lawson, carpenter and bridge-builder, who said that at the time of the earthquake he was in the main street on the town side and he and several others -were thrown down in the street. It was the heaviest earthquake he had ever felt and when he picked himself up he went on his hands and knees to the fence for support. Lawson saw the town end of the bridge fall and a few minutes later he crossed On the foot bridge on the lower side, which had dropped four feet or more. He made his way to the freezing works boarding-house where he was living, and later went down towards the works as far as the fence running towards the river. Lawson could see tlie building nearest to him appeared a “bit broken up.” The gable end seamed to be torn out and the building appeared to have a list of about eighteen inches towards the north. ' The main street of . the town was full of concrete and bricks. Looking at the freezing works from the town side he saw that the gable <Wid appeared to be pulled out and the wall next to the river appeared to be twisted. The list was towards the offices. Lawson’s opinion was that it would have to be re-built. Thomae Brown, butcher’s assistant, said he was working in the works on the day of the earthquake. When the shock came everyone dashed for the open air. Later that day he looked at the works from the river side. . The south-west corner of Q store was visible and he noticed the boards on top were raised out eighteen inches and gradually tapered to normal at a point about a quarter of the way down. On Thursday he went to work again and noticed tlio gable between the fiellmongery and the cooling chamber slightly canted, towards the river. Alexander McConnell, who was working on the cooling floor at the time of the shake, said .they ran out to safety. On : looking at the works he saw the gable between the fellmongery and the cooling floor had a cant of about nine inches. From the river he could see the corner of the freezing block had opened about nine inches, the aperture being not more than a foot in V shape. On the night of the fire he was on the river side and saw a light near the loading-out door. Frederick A. Benton, freezing chamber hand, gave evidence on the lines of the previous witness. In Ins opinion the straining of the boards left an opening of about four feet. William H. Gummcr, architect, Auckland, detailed the result of an examination made at the defendants’ request and. put in plans showing the works, The shioke stack was 21 feet from the boiler house, to which it was connected by a brick flue. Subsequent to the fire the brick floor of the engine-room collapsed. There was comparatively little timber used in the buildings and” therefore little inflammable material. He found the walls of tho boiler-house cracked on the sides. They were typical earthquake cracks. The concrete work was not good. To a certain extent he could separate fire and earthquake damage. The hearing was adjourned till tomorrow.