THE CAMBRIDGE FIRES

Waikato Argus, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5222, 4 February 1913, Page 2

THE CAMBRIDGE FIRES

OFFICIAL INQUIRY

AN OPEN VERDICT. An inquiry into the circumstances attending the recent destruction by tire of the Empire street stables, was held in the Cambridge Courthouse, yesterday, before the District Coroner (Mr J. S. Bond), and a jury of six, viz.: Messrs G. Dickinson (foreman), L. M, Morrin, A. E. Capper, A. E. Blackman, J. Richards and H. Bell. The man Brophy, now undergoing a sentence of 14 days’ imprisonment in connection with theft committed at the first fire, was present in custody. Bergt. Hastie represented the police, and conducted the examination of the witnesses. The coroner at the outset stated that it would be unnecessary for the jury to view the scene of 'the fire as they were thoroughly well acquainted with it. Henry Alan Bell deposed that he was a partner in the firm of Messrs Crowther and Bell, livery stablekeepers. Their stables were burnt down in the first fire, and the day following (Jarniary 21st) he made arrangements to take over Mr H. Murrell's livery stables in Empire street, and removed thereto the plant that had been saved from the previous fire. lie valued the plant put into Murrell’s stables at £236. A fire took place in those stables early on the morning of January 22nd, and the whole of the stock on the premises was then burnt. He had had a man named Brophy working for him before the first fire. He did not see Brophy at | all between the first and second 1 fires, and consequently lie had had I no conversation with Brophy as to ! recouping the latter for any lots he ■had sustained in the first fire. There was no unfriendly feeling of the slightest nature between him and Brophy. In answer to a juryman, the witness said Brophy had worked for him for a week prior to the fire. In answer to the Coroner: Brophy was still in his employ at the time of the second fire, but he did not see him on January 21st, and he (Brophy) had no authority to be on the premises. There was no sleeping accommodation there.

Seth Webb pave evidence to the effect that he was the owner of the stables destroyed in the second tire. About 9.30 or 10 p.ra. on January 21 he was at the stables talking to Murrell. A man, whom he did not know at the time, hut whom he now recognised as Brophy, came into the stables and spoke t) them, in course of conversation Brophy said that be had done all the work in salvaging things at the fire in Lake street, and bad lost all he had, but could get no compensation. Witness went away, leaving Btophy with Murrell. The building, which was insured for £l5O. would coat him £SOO to replace. By Sergt, Hastie: If any fire had been smouldering in the office at the time he was there he would have smelt it. He did not think there was anything in the office likely to catch lire easily. Brophy's talk gave him the impression that he thought he had a grievance against Crowther and Bell. He (Brophy) was at the time in a muddled stupid state, although not actually drunk. : Herbert Murrell stated that he sold ins stable business to Crowther and Bell on January 21st, but remained in charga of the stables all that day. The witness then corroborated the evidence given by the previous witness as to a conversation with Brophy. The witness added that Brophy asked him if Crowther and Bell had bought the stables, and witness said “Yes." Brophy also asked him if he (Murrell) was in charge, to which he also replied in the affirmative. Brophy next wanted to knuw if there were any blankets there, and witness replied that there were some in the office, but he did not know to whom they belonged. He made the latter remark as lie did not want Brophy to stop about the premises. H.-ophy also asked if anyone slept tiere, and he (witness) replied “No." Brophy subsequently went away, saying he would go to the billiard-morn. He (Mum 11) could not say that it appeared to him that Brophy had any ill feeling against him, but he seemed to be worried by having lest his things at the lire on the previous evening. He (Murrell) left the stables, which were then secure, at 10.30 p.ra., locking up as usual. He could not form any idea how the tire I started, there being nothing of an inilammable nature in the office. He certainly hud been smoking in the office, but not alter 9 o’clock. Even if a lighted match had been accidentally dropped on the floor of the office he did nut think it would i have caused a lire, j A juryman asked if the witness | knew whether the office door was still ■ lucked when the lire was tirst discovered, and Murrell replied that he did not knuw. Constable McCarthy interposed and stated that the office door was locked when lie arrived there. With the permission of the Coroner, Brophy questioned the witness, and in answer to him Murrell stated that he did not hear all the conversation detailed by Webb. He (Murrell) did not think it possible for any stranger, such as Brophy was, to find bis way into the stables when they were fastened up fur the night. By Hr Capper (a Juryman]: It would have been possible fur anyone standing near the office, as Brophy had been, to have seen that the far side of the stables was not enclosed. Alexander Brownlee farmer, of Te Butte, deposed that on the night of January 21st he was stopping in Cambridge. About 11.30 p.m. he was talking at the corner of Victoria and Empire streets to Constable McCarthy. The man in court (Brophy) came up to them and asked fur same matches, being given a few by him (witness) and also by Constable McCarthy. Btophy had come from the direction of the stables, but after leaving them lie went along

Duke street West by the public school. Brophy did not light any pipe but simply took the matches away. After he left Constable McCarthy, the latter going up Empire street, ho (witness) wont into the Central Hotel, where he was stopping, from the balcony he saw Btophy return anti go up Empire street. He could not say how far up the street Brophy went, hut he thought he must have turned in some entrance, as otherwise he would have seen him further up the street, where there was no obstruction to bis view. It was a clear moonlight night. He also saw Brophy about whilst the lire was in progress. Brophy was not drunk, but was muddled.

By the Coroner; The fireball sounded about 12.30 a.m., and he had last seen Brophy about 11.50 p.m. in answer to Brophy, the witness slated that the moon gave sufficient light for him to be able to identify him (Brophy) us the man he saw returning from Duke street West to Empire street. Georeg H. 01 lard land agent, gave evidence as to fixing (he time of the ringing of the lircbell at 12.28 a.m. on the morning of January 22nd. Keith R, Jones, contractor, of Cambridge, spoke to having seen Brophy in the Empire street billiardroom on the evening of January 21st. In the course of a conversation Brophy remarked that ne had lost his clothes in tho Lake street lire and had claimed £7 from Crowther and Bell, hut the latter had refused to pay. Brophy went on to say, "I will have satisfaction.” Witness Look the latter remark us meaning that he hoped to get compensation, and did not regard (he remark as in the nature of a threat. Brophy leit the billiard-room about 10.45 p.m., and witness left some ten minutes later, and saw Brophy walking up and down the road opposite Murrell’s stables. Questions asked of tha witness by Brophy tended to suggest that as Brophy had lost a bottle of whisky in the billiard-room he was waiting

outside on the road, in the vicinity of the billiard-room in order to see if anyone brought his whisky out. i In the opinion of witness he ' (Brophy) was sober when he left ' the billiard room, although he had ; previously been under the influence i of liquor.

iiugu jacuson, rarraer, said that he was stopping at “Waimarie” boardinghouse on the night of January 21st, and some time about midnight BJineone came to the door and knocked loudly three or four times. | Getting no answer the person outside , started shouting out that the stables | were on fire. Witness then recognis- ' ed the voice as that of Brophy. Brophy’s working mate was stopping at the boardinghouse, and as Brophy wanted him he called to Brophy to go round to the back of the house to find him (his mate). He did not hear the firebeli ring until about five minutes after Brophy had come to the house. Leo. Huckstep, fitter in the employ of the Railway Department, a boarder at “Waimarie” corroborated the evidence of the last witness.

Joseph Peters, blacksmith another boarder at ‘Waimarie,” gave similar evidence. He also mentioned that for some time previous to Brophy coming to the house he had been ! awake, and he was certain that Brophy arrived and shouted out about the fire some minutes before the firebeli rang. Constable McCarthy corroborated the evidence of the witness Brownlee as to Brophy coming to them and asking for matches. He (the constable) was under the impression that Brophy lit bib pipe on getting the matches. The constable stated that, leaving Brownlee at 11.45 p.m., he walked up Empire street past the stables, and he would certainly have seen a fire at the etables had such then been in progress, as after the outbreak of the previous night he was particularly observant. 'When he (the constable) was further up the street he saw Brophy enter the street from the hotel end, and he (Brophy) apparently went down the approach leading to the stables. That was prior to midnight as the clock struck 12 o’clock just as he got home.

Ky the Coroner: He took no notice of the fact that Brophy went towards the stables, as he (witness) knew him to be an employee of Crqwthcr and Bell. Continuing, the witness stated that hearing the firehells he went to the scene of the fire ami found the office and front of the building all ablaze. He could not eay whether th 6 fire had started within or without the building. The office door was locked. He tried to get into the building with a view to rescuing Brophy, whom he then thought might have been sleeping inside, be having seen him previously go towards the stables. The doors were locked and he could not get an entrance. Witness was, however informed that Brophy was all right and was in the street with the cruwd. He later on had an interview with Brophy, who gave him a signed statement (produced) of hi a movements during the preceding day and night. The statement signed by Brophy was read. It set forth that Brophy went to the atablea about 7.5 p.m. on January 21st, and then had a conversation with Murrell. Later on he went to the billiard room end left at closing time, then proceeding to Victoria Square. lie next went down the street and borrowed some matches from two men talking outside the hotel. Ha then returned to Victoria Square and was there when the fire-bell went Hearing the tire-bell be ran down to the fire station, and hearing that the stables were on lire he rushed up to Waimarie boardinghouse to get his fellow stableman to help. He denied that ho had been in the stables after about 7 p.m., and did not to his knowledge ask Murrell about sleeping there. He was sober at nigbt, but had been drinking during the day. Allen Dunstan, stableman, testified to having worked at the Lake street stables with Brophy, and to being called at Waimarie by Brophy to help at the fire. He was certain that Brophy called him before the fire-bell went, as he was getting dressed when the fire-bell rang.

By Brophy: He had never heard him (Brophy) sav anything against Crowther and Bell; on the contrary he (Brophy) had praised them up as two of the best bosses he had ever worked for.

Mr Bell was recalled at the request of Brophy, and he seated that Brophy was one of the best stablemen they had ever had in their employ. He was a honest and a hardwotker and would certainly have no ill motive against himself or his partner. Brophy; "Do vou believe I had anything to ao with the fire? Mr Bell; "Not wilfully.” Sergeant Hastie next proceeded to call William Patrick Brophy, whereupon Mr S. Lewis, who had just previously entered the Court on hia return from a meeting of the Matamata County Council, rose and stated that Brophy had instructed him to appear for him. Under his (Mr Lewis’) advice Brophy would refuse to give evidence. Mr Lewis went on to say it was improper, amazing, and quite contraiy to British principles of justice that a man under the ban of suspicion, as Brophy was, should be called by the prosecution as a witness against himself. Sergeant Hastie pointed out that the occasion was a Coroner’s inquiry, and not a prosecution. Mr Lewis said the object of the enquiry was to get evidence against Brophy, and it would not be fair play or justice to have him crossexamined and hc.kied by the police. The Coroner intimated that he quite agreed that it was not right for Brophy to be called as a witness. The police, he added, had traced Brophy at 11.50 p.m., and had again picked him up at the boardinghouse half an hour later. It was quite clear that Brophy was traced going in the direction where the tire broke out, and by his own admission in calling up his friends to tne (ire he had seen it in its early stage.

The jury then retired and after a few minutes’ absence brought in the following verdict: "The jury agree that the evidence is not sufficient to connect Brophy with the fire, but consider that his movements were auspicious on that night and t..ey therefore return an open verdict."