RAILWAY HOTEL FIRE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17037, 10 May 1923, Page 6

RAILWAY HOTEL FIRE.

INQUEST ON O’DONNELL. Death’ ’From suffocation and shoefe, following extensive burns sustained while he was endeavouring to escape from a fire, was th© verdict returned by t-h© District Coroner, Mr H. Y. Widdowson, S.M., yesterday in connection with the death of Finn Roy O’Donnell, thirty-three years of age, who failed te make his escape from the Railway Hotel when it was burned last Sunday. The inquest was resumed yesterday, the first witness being Charles Clarence "Warner, superintendent of the Christchurch. Fire Brigade, who stated that the brigade was called at 4.19 a.m. on Sunday, May 6, to the Railway Hotel. At the time the call was received th# brigade was already out at s. fire —in North Richmond This left only on© motor, with one officar and eight men. to turn out to the Railway Hotel. Thi3 motor reached the fire at 4.21 a.m. When witness arrived at th© fire, about 4-40, he was assured by the proprietor of the hotel that everyone was out of th© place. The fire had a good hold when the first motor arrived. To the Coroner: The fire was right through the building. As soon as ix was possible to enter the building witness went to the staircase and found ou a landing, about six feet from th© top of the stairs, th© deceased lying face downward on his hands and knees. Th© body was considerably burned. Witness gave instructions to the firemen to get some bedding and cover up tii© body, and : then handed it over to th© police. The fire eec-apes were quit© adequate. There was a light wind blowing—this wo.uld tend to keep the smoke down till the windows were broken. Constable A. J. Chichester stated that he reached th© fir© at 5.5 a.m. Ho was informed by Superintendent Warner that a body had been found upstairs and went up and there sawdeceased on the landing, outside room 5. He had a sheet and blanket over his h&ad. He was dead and had been badly burned. Ivy Pringle, wife of the licensee of the Railway Hotel, gave evidence to the effect that deceased came to the hotel on Saturday, between 8 and 9 p.m., and paid for a bed and breakfast. There was no sign of liquor on him. "Witness booked deceased for room -5 upstairs. There was a fire escape fvora this room—a rope, one: There was no balcony fir© escape, except at the end of the building. This was accessible from the landing. The notice ‘•Fir© Escape ’’ was printed over the door of the bathroom, which gave access to this escape. Witness did not se© deceased again after she had given him his room. There were four other boarders in the house. The total number of occupants was sixteen. Witness vas awakened at about 4 a.m. by the cook, who called out that the place v. as on tire. Thick smoke was then rolling down th© passage. There t\as no time to dress and witness and her family had to escape 7ti their night attire. When she got outside the building she called out that there was someone in room 5. She said this because she saw the three other boarder* come down the fire escape and one of them said “We're all h?re.'; Whitely (’. Couch, a hoarder in the hotel at the time of the fire, and nephew of tire previous witness, gar© evidence that wa© quite sober when he came to the hotel on th© urdiy evening. At 10 p.m. witnes# went round the premises and there via then no sign of fire. The only fire in the place was in the family sitting room—in the south-east corner of the building. The hot *1 was lit hv electricity. Witness saw deceased in bed. with his door open. So far as witness knew deceased purchased no liquor. In witness's opinion the fire was due T o the. fusing of electric wire* in the r-cil-mp. of the kitchen as these wires had caused trouble a da;- or two previous io th© fire. It had been intended to cal 1 in an electrician to attend to them. Andrew Pringle, licensee of the hotcL said that deceased was not served with any liquor Witness remained in th© hotel after the fire til! he heard that everyone was out. His son. he understood. was driven back by the smoke arid got out over the kitchen roof. Witness did not hear his wife say there was a man in room 5. Tlip rope fir© escape in deceased's room was in good order —it was in plain view It was not correct that one rope escape broke when a. girl tried to use it. Witness had ascertained that th© girl had not used the rope at all hut had jumped straight out on in a lean-to roof, hurtin; herself somewhat-. The Coroner said that the cans© of the fire was conjectural Deceased used the rope escape, hut probably dazed by the smoke. The licensee had done everything he could. The verdict would be in accordance with the evid< nee of Dr Crook© (taken previous Iv) that- deceased met his death from suffocation and shock following extensive burns sustained while deceased wa* endeavouring to escape from the fir*.