LIBERTY THEATRE FIRE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 12718, 13 August 1919, Page 2

LIBERTY THEATRE FIRE .

DISCUSSED BY FIRE BOARD. The report of the Superintendent, of the Fire Brigade on the recent fire in the Liberty picture theatre gave rise to a discussion at last night's meeting of the Christchurch Fire Board. The superintendent, in his reporL stated: “ On July 30 a call was received at 2 p.m. for an outbreak of fire in the cinema cabin at the Liberty Theatre, which resulted in a loss of about £3OO before the fire was extinguished. I have submitted a list of requirements to the proprietors for reinstating the cabin and will see that these are duly carried out. I have, however, to take strong exception to the Chief City Inspector (Mr Hardie) interfering with matters such as these which do not come within his jurisdiction. Section 51 of the Fire Brigades Act, 1908, places the responsibility on tire Superintendent to see that sufficient safeguards against fire and means of escape in case of fire are provided for theatres, etc., and I consider it rather presumptuous for the Inspector to go beyond his powers and assume the role of an expert in fire brigade matters. I resigned ray position as Inspector under the City Council by-laws for the sole reason that I did not wish to come into conflict with the Inspector, therefore, I trust that gentleman will in future confine himself to matters pertaining to his men department, which in my opinion will be better for all parties concerned.”

Mr F. Burgoyne said he took strong exception to the tone of the superintendent’s report. It was his duty to work in harmony with the City Inspector and not make himself objectionable. The City Inspector had considered that a certain manhole in the building caused a draught for a fire and recommended that it should lie closed. The Superintendent now agreed that it would be better if the manhole were a fixture, and closed—what was the difference ? Mr H. Holland said it was a great pity that the two officers could not work in harmony, but it seemed that they could not. He considered that the Board should not endorse the Superintendent’s report without obtaining further information on the matter. He moVed that consideration of the report should be deferred until further information had been obtained and that the City Council should be asked for a report on the matter. Mr H. Rusbridge opposed the motion on the ground that it was not desirable to re-open the old controversy between the two officers concerned, fie moved that the Superintendent should be asked to appear before the Board and state his version of the matter before any further action was taken. The Board went into committee at this stage to hear the Superintendent and on resuming it was reported that his report had been adopted.