THE LATE FIRE AT GRANGE FARM

Dunstan Times, Issue 639, 17 July 1874, Page 3

THE LATE FIRE AT GRANGE FARM

* An inquiryjinta the latoJSra of sta :’<s at Grange Farm, the property of Mr Thom is Oliver, was heldjon Monday last, the I3cu mst., at the Geelong Hotel, [Alexandra, beforejWilliam Beresfurd, Esq., J.P., and a jury of twelve, Mr G. K. M‘Donald being appointo I foreman. Mr his eotor Moore conducted the inquiry ; Mr P. J. Wilson, as agent for the A ietoria Insurance Company, was pre'ent on behalf of Chappie watched the procecdingo on behalf of Mr Oliver, JwhoVas absent. The Coroner and Jury having visited the scone of conflagration, the following evidence was taken. Tom-Osborne, sworn, said : I am living with Mr Thomas Oliver, at Como Villa, which is about half a mile from Grange Farm. Remember the morning of the Bth instant, when the «ere burned. About 10 a.m. [ was siting in the kitchen, having lunch, when I observed a smoke rising trom thejdireotion of the Stack-yard on Grange Farm. lat ones Van to a rise, about one hundred and fifty yards, and saw the stacks Mere on tire. 1 then mounted my horse, nd rode tr Alexandra, where I telegraphed to Mr Oliver, at the Texiot. ?Mr Oliver was on lus way m Dunedin, 'having left home at 5 o’clock that morning. Received a reply—tolegra.n produced—“ Get what assistanceyoh cap, and do your best.” About 12 o’clock at noon, on my return from A'exaodra, I went to the stack-yard on Grange Farm, and found the three stacks all over the and the barn and shedburnt to the ground. Did not use an effort to preserve anything, seeing 1 could do.nn good. On my wav to Alexandra I passed within two hundred yards of lire stack-yard. The shed and one stack were then on fire. The shed is open-raided, with a thatched root ' mshts and scrub. lu my opinion, iii« Are originated in the shed, as, when going so Alexandra, the smoke and flla.ues were proceeding from it to the slacks. Mrs Paget, whose house 1 passed, directed my attention to the fire, Asked her if she wanted any tire-wood Sail this in a jocular raoo.i, ami as intimating that I knew it. On the evening previous to the fire 1 and Mr Oliver were in the shed, getting out some of the bay and vetches. A man named Noble was also in the shed. After loading a uare, 1 wont with it to Alena ; rv Nobre went away abrut .Lo-same time. I'eic Mr Oliver going for Ids horse, which was in the paddock. In abcut twenty iniu-.0-s after leaving) and while rising a nil 1 , I saw Mr Oliver riding towards a .‘am. This was between 2 and 3 p.m. I smoke, bat did net on that afiei noon. Mr Giver prohibits smoking in the neighbe.h >od of Lbe stacks at all times. Tn‘re are two holes in the shed, one lined irith a ca»* and the ...her wi a box. Tn-y are used for filling sacks in. They were i'leii wi.h rubbish. The sqiv"e bole oid a lot m pieces of pa[ and nags hi il, and was covered wish bay and vetches in a depth or about to ce .eec. 1 did mu go to the fire on first seeing it, Ihinkhig it my duty to let Air Oliver know of the lire. There was a dam of waver in front ot Como Villa, auda, race mini ng 'nnu it vO withi i twenty yards of the Stack-yard. 'l l‘. - was no wate, in the race at t ie ti .m, and L did not uni. the water on thinking it would lie

useless, as it wo. Id take an hour for the wa.er to reach the stacks. On the night before the lire 1 went to bed about 9 o’clock Mr Oliver came home about 11 o’clock. I was awakened by the noise he made. Mr Oliver did not go to bed, and being unable to sleep, I got up about i o’clock, and remained up till 5 o’clock in the morning, when Mr Oliver, who was going to Dunedin, went away to meet the coach at Alexandra Punt. I was left in charge of the property, being instructed if anything happened I was to write, if it was particular 1 was to telegraph. Mr Oliver gave mo this instruction on the evening previous to his leaving, when we were in the shed. On the morning of his leaving he he Maid 1 was not to leave the place. . 1 am the brother-in-law to Mr Oliver. He intenks leaving the place, and has instructed Mr Ohapple to sell by auction the whole of his property.

By Jurors : I did not make an effort to save anything, thinking it would bo wiser to°lct Mr Oliver know of the lire. I never heard Mr Oliver make any remarks as to the probability of the stacks being burnt. During harvesting and whde tiro stacks were being built it was said by the men that the stacks would be burnt. Mr Oliver ridiculed the idea. Did not know until after the lire that the stacks were insured.

John Cole Chappie, sworn, said : Am an auctioneer. Know Mi Oliver ;he resides at Como Villa, and is the owner of Grange Farm, where the three stacks were bunit on Wednesday last. la the latter end of 1573 I sold the Grange Farm by auction on account of Mr C. Goltz for 501. , Mr Oliver being the purchaser. AV hat I sold was the farm of fifty-five acres, with growing crops, fences, stone house, stable, and barn. I was through the crop when it was being cut. Some of it Was very good ; the other indifferent. Can form no idea of the value of the crop, as I did uot look at it with the view of valuing it. On the Monday previous to the fire Air Oliver gave me instructions to sell the wdiole of his property. The stacks ware included.

George Willis Browu deposed : He had seen the stacks from a distance, and supposed they belonged to Mr Oliver. Remember having a conversation with Mr Chappie about the stacks ou the evening after they were burned. Mr Chappie said he thought they were insured. Bid not say I bud known for tiie laso ih ee months that a match was to be put to them.

J. C, Chappie, recP'ed ; Remembered mieliug the last witness in Taibort-street, Alexandra, on the eveuing after the lire,

ami iimarUing to him that it was a sad tiling about the tiro. He said : “ was told three months since that a match was to he set to it-” Asked him who told him. He replied : “ 1 sha’nt tell you,” and passed on. He appeared to be perfectly sober at the time.

William Noblo sworn said—l saw the fire from where 1 was working, and went to it, with a view of putting it out. |Wlieu I got there, the barn and stack* were all on fire ; the hay and vetches left in the ahel the afternoon before were burnt to ashes. From that fact i believe the tiro started in the shed. I think there was about eighteen to twenty tons of hay in one stack, five or six tons of oats and wheat in another, and about four tons of oaten hay in the other.

By the Jury :—I think if Osborne had turned the water on when he first saw the fire, a good deal could have been saved. After I had been to the fire, I saw Osborne going to Alexandra, be said he was going to Alexandra—he said he was going to telegraph to Oliver. Had heaskedi’or assistance, a good deal might have been saved. 1 do not think anyone set lire to the stacks through spite. 1 dc not think that the fire could have arisen accidentally. Mr Osborne here said he had just received a telegram to the effect that Mr Oli. ver was on his way from Dunedin, and asked for an adjournment. John Patterson deposed—l asisted to reap the last crop on Grange Farm, which consisted of grass, clover, and oats and wheat. There was about forty acres ;it was a good crop in parts, some was inferior. 1 built the stacks ; they were burned on Wednesday imvj'ng last. One contained front twenty-tiva t, cii-ty tons of hay, the second, iron seven to eight toi s of oats and wheat; the third from five io six tons of oat'-a aav. Water could have been htoaght to hear on the stacks in about three quan.ms ef an bone. Whilst building the slacks, Mrs Oliver asked me to advise Oliver to ;et them insured, as she did not. chink tk- u safe. The inquiry was then adjournei till Monday theaLu instant.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S CO CUT, CROMWELL, o Friday, JCiA 10. (Before W. L. him.wnu, ts.p, R.M.) Talboys, as SecretKry for the- I >hn Bull Goid-mining Uoi.iuany, v. John Alves. T’uia was an actio • hr night ov M ■ William Talboys, as Secretary of ihe ,loim Hull Gxild -mi ■ • iug C.jnprnx, to ,Ju, -nm <"■ SSL 10s. .vom Mr ,1 ~.. i Alv is, of Dunedin, ff non-pvraeui o' .-alls, ’’’ho case war partly beard on the las. Coma dav, but was. on the in i iea io ■ of Mr Cowan, who appeared ‘or Ibe plaintiff, adjourned, to enable him to produce authorities 1.0 show that the iic.-on bad been p'operly brought, Ine Chart being of opinion Cr.it no sec. eta y con id rue for an umncoipo'ated company, and tiro a uni suit Would maf probabiiii ybe ■ m orr •. 100 de.eudant did net apnea-' on either oc.-a-wou, no>- did any poi-vni o,i id- ben.of. Mr Cowan s: id that he would freely admit toe snbillions ;> issued ,xaa oregmar, but he had not be n cm,.sidled in tlic matter uu,.i' huiv the issue of the summons. He sabrnl ted tbaj the Bench had power to iimrod by suns anting add'dimal phOni'Ts, ami he won d tte. ef.ne apply to have the names of all the part ie;a in the John Bull Go',l minihg Company added as plan, tiffs, and his nn.hoiity for ashing ibis firstly under Section 80 of the Resident Magistrates Act of 1807, whi-'b gave express Statutory powers io the Resident Magistrate to “ amend any defects that roiglis seem necessary for the purpose of cieterminiuin the existing suit tue .eai question lit eontinve.sy,” and as the Resilient Magist)ale's Act was hut a lao simile of the i ui.nty Com t Act of England, he thought ttio decisions of the Courts of Westminster would be entitled to some respect. It was clearly established in Mills and Scott's Law Reports, Common Law Senes. Section 31, Bart 13, that it was not necessary to appoint any special party to sue. (Mr Cowan read the case at length, by which it appeared that an inspector had been authoiised by the Company to sue a certain person, but had taken the summons out in his own name instead cf in that of the Company. The Judge of the County Court, without the consent of the defendant, amended the summons, by striking out the name of the inspector and substituting that of “the local authority,” and gave judgment for the amount claimed. On appeal, it was held that the amendment was not a substitution of one plaintiff for another, but the amendment of the description of the plaintiff was rightly made. He (.Mr Cowan) would say that defendant (Alves) could not urge that he would be prejudiced by the amendment, as he well knew who constituted the John Bull Gold-minihg Company, and he (Mr Cowan) respectfully submitted that Section go of the Resident Magistrate’s Act (without being supported by the most eminent Judges, in the case of “Lord Bolingbrook v. Townsend”) was sufficient to warrant the amendment, as a more omission was but a mere irregularity “Pcaisou v. Pearson, 10 W. Pi.,” 110 CLanc.

ilia Worship : I will grant the amendment. But there is another difficulty. Mr Alvoi is a partner, and! you have not shown me that any dissolution occuired, or that a statement of accounts had been entered into and a sum fixed and agreed upon ; and until you do that you are virtually out of Court.

Mr Cowan : True ; but that is not necessary. In culinary partnerships such must be shown ; but I have proved to your Worship that Mr Alves has received dividends from this very Company, that the

other members have paid th.ir calls, and the position he occupies as a shareholder is very different to that of an ordinary partnership. I find that in the case of “Trewen v. Bourne,” 6, M. and W. 401 ; “ Steigenbergcr v. Carr,” 3 M. and G., 191, that the shareholders in an ordinary mining company, [conducted by managers or other agents, are personally liable on the contracts made for the supply of the mines, and that working mines are a species of trade, possess! ngftho : qualities of an ordinary partnership. A defendant may be charged as partner on proof of an admission of hisjintercat either before or after the debt was incurred, without proving a deed ot co partnership or any strict legal interest in the mine, or that he acted as a partner : “ Ralph v. Harvey,” X L.8., 845; “Owen v. Van Us ter, 16C.8., 313, and 20 L.J.O. P. Cl. And a mining- concern carried on by an unregistered company is very different from an ordinary trading partnership, the usual legal presumptions not applying: “Ricketts v. Bennett,” 4 G. 8., liSo ; “Brown v. Bycis,” 16 .Vl. and W., 252, and a numbeijof other cases. 1 would also refer the Court to the case of “Owen v. Van Uster, 10 G. 8., 30, 20 L.JOn the ruling of these cases I submit that lam not bound to show that there was a dissolution, or an ascertained amount, before 1 am entitled to sue, for if such were the case serious results would accrue to mining speculators, as it amounted merely to this : A owes the company a large sum of in o'i.ey in of calls—the other' shareholders have paid up. A. receives all the dividends, but won’t pay the calls, because they can’t sue him until a dissolution happens or a statement of accounts occurs, at which statement he takes very good care not to be present. To my mind that is the only phase of the case, and it certainly appears to me a strange anomaly that Mr Alves is entitled to derive all the profit and be secured against loss, hi other words, ho is to receivea'l ike dividends and pay no calls. I therefore ask for a judgment. llis Worship': This isan important case, and I reserve judgment yiiuii the next Court day. Ah Cheung v. Koch.—Summons for witness expenses. Defendant had paid Ids. and costs into Court. for that amount only. Sung \uu v. Kock.—Similar case, resulting in a like decision, hi‘Mo an v. Goodman.- Meat suppliedTu 1371. Mr Cowan for defendant, After hearing tuo evidence the Bench gave judgment for the amount claimed and costs, and, on the application of Mr Cowan, granted defendant’timo to pay. Pearce v. Smith.—Claim -# 3Sf.,jfor meat supplied. Settled out of,. Court. Mr Cowan for plaintiff ; Mr J._F. Wilson for defendant. The Court then adjourned.