FIRE ENQUIRIES

Hokitika Guardian, 27 May 1931, Page 7

FIRE ENQUIRIES

INTERESTING POINT. EVIDENCE OF FOUL PLAY. WELLINGTON, Ma y 25. An announcement by the chairman of the 'Wellington File Board, Air N. W. Nelson, at a meeting in respect to the judgment in the Birkett garage fire' inquiry, gave rise to an interesting discussion on 'inquiries into fires generally. Mr F. Meadowcroft asked how it was that there was a full inquiry into one garage fire in Wellington and not into another. It seemed to him that all should be treated alike. The brigade superintendent, Air J. Creeke, stated that in the one case the brigade was on the scene early and saw quite enough to justify his request for aiv inquiry, but in the other the whole building had fallen in, and there was nothing in evidence to induce any suspicion of arson. “How do th e insurance companies fee] about it?” asked Mr Meadowcroft. “I don’t know,” said Air Nelson; “w& had nothing in it. AH I know is that the company concerned has paid out.” Mr G. Edwards; It is a point as to whether in the case of a«y fire involving a loss of, say, £2OOO, £3OOO, or £4OOO, an inquiry should not automatically follow. “These inquiries run into money,” said the chairman, “and we cannot ask for them without soma evidence of a suspicious origin,” “They would have this effect,’’ said Air Edwards, “that they would be a deterrent, as those contemplating arson would know that an inquiry would be held.” “If there were any evidence it would be the same for the big as for the little fellow as far as the board is concerned,” said the chairman. “Whenever I see evidence of foul play,” said the superintendent, “T call the’ attention of the police, to it, and hand it over to them.”