CORONER’S INQUEST

Hokitika Guardian, 5 June 1929, Page 3

CORONER’S INQUEST

INTO CROWN BItEWERY FIRE. TUESDAY, JUNE 4. The Coroner (Mr D. J. Evans) held an enquiry at the Courthouse at 10.30 a.m. Into the outbreak of lire at the Crown Brewery guilding, Upper Gibson Quay, on the morning of April 14th at 2.4 b a.m. AFTERNOON SITTING. The Court adjourned at 12.45 p.rn., land resumed at 2.20 p.m. James Mark, examination continued : He still maintained that he left Anderson, opposite Coyle’s in Fib*herbert street.. That was after he had told him the way outside the hotel, and then had decided to go along part of the way and .then directed him to go straight on. In his estimation it was not correct that he left the Marquis of Lome before 11.20 p.m. He bad stated be left Anderson at about 12.40 a.m. He was nowhere else except on ti.e road home till be arrived there, lie could call his wife and another pores n to state that lie was home when the firebell rang. When the bell rang lie did not arouse anyone in the house, lie just went out. He went to the lire and saw it. That was all l-e knew of it.

To the Coroner—ln regard to his statement to the Sergeant; it was not correct that lie was playing cards at a private house. .His statements to the police as far as lie. was; concerned wore an honest attempt to clear up himovements on that night. He did not know there was a Hire station in Sale Street at the time. - Me dropped his bicycle in the railway line alongside Lhe road.

Robert James Stewart deposed he was a miner residing at the Marquis ot Lome Hotel. The night before the fire -Mark and Anderson came to the hotel about. 11 p.m. and leit about lb minutes later. He heard the clock strike just before they came. When they left-they went out of the from, door. Witness went to .lock up: the back gates and then he saw Mark go up Hampden Street towards Fitzherliert Street-on a bicycle and Anderson walked down towards Fitzherbert Street. The. men left before 11.15 p.m.

Sergt. C. J. King gave eviden e that on 14tli April visited the scene of the fire at 3.15 a.m. The fire at the. Crown Brewery extended , from the ground, about Bto 10 feet-:,up the lyeather hoarding. A hole had burnt through the weather boarding about 4ft by 2ft. Un examination after the-fire was extinguished, found no sign of inflammable material. It was apparent the fire had started from the outside and that some person' had set it going. Noticed the witness Mark was at the scene of the fire on witness’s arrival. On the following Monday afternoon ihterviewed Mark at the Police Station. Told him lie was enquiring into the firo and asked if he was prepared to make a statement of his movements, and Mark agreed to do so, and made the statement produced, and signed it (Statement read). The distance from where Mark lives to the scene of the fire, along the route he described haling’ taken till he joined the reel was about 70 chains. It took about 4 minutes to cycle the distance. Detective H. C, Murch gave evidence that subsequent to enquiries made by the Hokitika police and himself into the fire at the Crown Brewery, he interviewed James Mark on May llth. He pointed out to him that his previous statement as to his movements on the night in question appeared to be untrue, also what he had alleged to have seen from Peck’s corner and lie asked for a true explanation of his movements that night. He typed out the explanation Mark made and Mark-signed-it. (Statement read.) He said that was. a true account of his. movements. In reply to a query by the Coroner as to the reason of the delay in holding tho enquiry, the witness said there was no delay. Enquiry had been proceeding diligently till his report had been completed. This concluded tho evidence.

THE POLICE VIEW. Detective Murch, addressing the Coroner, said the reason for the enquiry was to bring forward the evidence they had gathered, with a view to making known that the police were always working in the interests of the public. In the present case ho pointed out that during their investigations I contradictory statements were made by one witness which were not truthful: There had been a failure to obtain a satisfactory statement from this .witness. The reason of the enquiry I was to let It be known that enquiries j were being made. Every time there jwas a fire there was a thoroughly | e a re'ful investigations, but it was very •difficult to prove K charge, as thq |offender had practically to be caught in the act. The evidence of Mark was of a very unsatisfactory naaure, and did not assist the police to establish bow the fire was caused. In this case there was a reason for the action taken by Constable Best in regard' to this particular witness. This action was taken as the result of previous enquiries into fires that had occurred in the town, but they had no direct evidence to lay a definite charge.

THE CORONER’S REMARKS. J The Coroner stated that it was quite proper that the enquiry had been held. Krom the outset it had been a very suspicious fire. They, bad the evidence of Constable Best and Sergt. King, which fully bore out this contention. The Police were to be congratulated in

following up the clues they had obtained. He thought, however, that it would have been better if it had been ventilated earlier, as- there was a possibility of the facts being clouded by delay. In regard to the evidence of Mark, the statements submitted by him to tlie police were not only contradictory, but they were also improbable. The evidence lie bad given was very unsatisfactory. The other witnesses had given their evidence very clearly and they had fixed the time for Mark’s movements, and were in direct contradiction to those given by Mark himself. His explantions were not satisfactory, and were given with a lightness with intent to deceive- the police. He- bad made statements that were not truthful, with a view to misleading the police in their enquiries. The verdict would be that a fire occurred at the Crown Brewery on 14th April, but there was no evidence to show the actual cause of the outbreak. The usual costs were allowed tho witnesses, with the exception that id costs were allowed the' witness Mark.