Ballantyne's Power Found to be Defective

Grey River Argus, 4 June 1948, Page 3

Ballantyne's Power Found to be Defective

CHRISTCHURCH, June 3.

The disclosure that an inspection of the electrical installation at Ballantyne's in September, 1940, had revealed over 100 defects, resulted in a close cross-examination, at the fire inquiry, of Mr J. C. Forsyth, engineer of the Municipal Electricity Department, by Mr R. A. Young (for the Crown).

Mr Young said that the discovery might well have altered the whole course of the inquiry by the Royal Commission.

Mr Forsyth said, under cross-ex amination, that he did not think the discovery of such a number of defects in a single installation constituted a record, nor a hazard to life, thougn the latter consideration would depend on circumstances whether they did constitute a hazard. There were probably numerous installations in Christchurch that would have to be disconnected. It appeared that tne inspection at Ballantynes in 1937 nad not been made until one month after the installation had been connected up. To Mr W. R. Lascelles (re-examin-ing for the City Council), Mr Forsyth said that it was undesirable to have wires running across the front of buildings. Owners objected to the disfigurement caused by such wires. The point of entry for wires at Ballantynes was perfectly safe. If the minor defects, such those which had been disclosed in the inspection of Ballantynes constituted a hazard, it would probablv be necessary to disconnect many installations In the city.

The chairman (Sir Harold Johnston K.C.): Assuming that the fire occurred at the point of contact between the cable and the bearer in the cellar as a result of fault current, would the floor joists be the first combustible material encountered?

.Witness: It would depend on where the gases from the cable ignited. The chairman: Assuming the theory of Mr Salvesen to be correct can you form an opinion where the fire started?

Witness: “It is possible it would started at the bearer if the arcing occurred there among combustible gases. (Proceding).

Electricity Department Witnesses Heard

Edmund Charles Gee. Inspector for •the M.E.D. for twenty-four years, until last year, said that he re-tested Ballantyne’s installation in 1940. If, during his inspection, he had seen anything which, in his opinion, caused risk or danger to life or property, he would have disconnected it immediately. The records showed that he had described the cable and that he had indicated that he had inpected the cable. To Mr T. A. Gresson (for Ballantvnes), witness said that, although the main cable was inspected, he had not tested it. . . After he had told Mr W. H. Mathison (for the Fixe Brigades’ Union) ihat he had inspected many installations of the size of Ballantynes, Mr Gee said that he. had found defects in many, some being far worse than the defects he found in Ballantynes.

To Mr E. S. Bowie (for Thompson and Dorreen, electrical engineers), witness said that, if defective joints in the conductor had been there in 1940, he felt sure he would have seen them, and if he had he would have reported on them. Six M.E.D. employees who had carried out work on mains near Ballantynes, gave evidence. Each said he had not noticed joints in Eallam tyne’s conductors, and said he hau done no work on Ballantyne’s installation.