FIRE NOT EXPLAINED

Taranaki Daily News, 28 November 1934, Page 7

FIRE NOT EXPLAINED

LONG INQUIRY CLOSED

DAVIDSON WAREHOUSE BLAZE.

CORONER GIVES HIS FINDING.

COMMENT ON THE EVIDENCE.

By Telegraph—Press Association. Christchurch, Last Night.

After 14 days’ evidence the inquiry into the fire which occurred in the warehouse of Davidson, and Company, Ltd., early on the morning of June 8 was concluded to-day. The coroner, Mr. E. D. Mosley, S.M., gave the following finding: “The evidence does not in my opinion satisfactorily explain the cause and origin of this fire.” Mr. Mosley said the conduct of W. Davidson, manager of the company, had been very unsatisfactory, both before and since the fire, and F. Davidson left the inquiry with suspicion attaching to him. He had only himself to blame. Davidson was in the witness’ box for the fifth day to-day. Towards the end of his evidence he said that an insurance adjuster, J. E. Davis, had promised Davidson’s traveller a position at three times the salary he was earning if he would sign a statement that Davidson had left a tap dripping in a large drum of methylated spirits in the centre of the store. Davis was not in the court at the time but was called by the coroner to meet this statement. Davis said he had interviewed the traveller but the rest of the statement was untrue.

The coroner at the end of the evidence said he would not sum up all the evidence but would refer to one or two points. He said it was impossible to listen to the evidence of Davidson without coming to toe conclusion that he made many statements of detail which were absolutely untrue. The coroner said he was prepared to accept the evidence of Wilson, the storeman, and Sherratt, the traveller, corroborated as it was by the evidence of the insurance adjusters, that the value of the stock was about £5OO. “It is now my duty,” said the coroner, “to consider whether I can deem the evidence sufficient to justify my saying the building was wilfully set on fire. In my opinion it has been proved that Davidson was on the premises between midnight and 1 a.m. on the date of the fire. That in itself gives rise to the suspicion that Davidson knew more about the fire than has been brought out in evidence. My difficulty is that whatever I now say may have very grave consequence, and it appears to me I should be very cautious indeed. I must confess I am unable to satisfy myself absolutely as to whether this fire was caused by incendiarism or not. Ido not wish to say much about proof of loss because this will probably be the subject of another proceeding. It is sufficient to say that the proof of loss was very far from correct.”