THE HIKUTAIA FIRE.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIX, Issue 5246, 2 March 1928, Page 2

THE HIKUTAIA FIRE.

INQUIRY INTO CIRCUMSTANCES.

AN UNKNOWN INCENDIARY

An inquiry into the circumstances surrounding a fire which occurred in a seven-roomed dwellinghouse at Hikutaia On January 6 last, and owned by Mr James Handley, Paeroa, was held before Mr F. E. Flatt, district coroner, at the Courthouse, Paeroa, on Wednesday.

The inquiry was conducted by Sergeant D. L. Calwell. Mr C. E. Hankins, public fire adjuster, Auckland, was present on behalf of the Standard Fire Insurance Office, and Mr E. J. Clendon appeared for Mr James Handley.

At the commencement of the proceedings Mr Clendon asked for suppression of publication of the evidence. The police and 1 Mr Hankins objected, and the coroner said that he was not prepared to accede to Mr Clendon’s request. The first witness was a youth named Eddie Beattie, who had been employed by Handles' since last Christmas. He bached in the house with Bert Handley. On the morning of the day the Are occurred something went wrong with the milking machine, and in consequence of a message sent Mr Handley arrived on the farm about 8 a.m. After the milking was finished they returned to the house, and alter lighting a fire in the kitchen range had breakfast. At 11-30 o’clock he and Bert Handley went down to the back of the farm, Handley, senr., following later.

At this stage all witnesses were ordered out of Court.

Continuing, witness said that as far as he could remember Handley left them at the shed and returned towards the house, saying he was going to get his (horse shod. About half an hour liter Handley jointed them at the. windmill and thev did some work on the farm. Some time during the afternoon, when returning to the house they saw that it was burned down. He and Bert Handley were then together, Mr Handley being s°me distance away. The party had not seen the house on fire during the afternoon. He was. not at the ruins when Handley arrived, but ihe saw him there shortly afterwards. He remembered Handley asking if the fire had been alight when they left tlie house, in the morning, but he did not know. He and Bert Handley slept next to the kitchen. There was a fireplace in the room, but he had never known of a fire ‘having been lighted in it. The only thing he had taken out of the house in the morning was a billy-can, but Bert Handley took out some plates, cups, and food to the washhouse and also took the bedding out of the room and hung it on a lence. Witness, said that he had never s.een Bert Handley do'such an act before. He had a suit and other wearing apparel in the room, Clothes which he knew were in the house .when they left were seen in tlie wash-house after the house was burned'. On the Tuesday after Christmas, in the evening, the three of them left the house in a gig. had gone as far as the Nad when witness said he looked back and saw smoke issuing from the house. They turned back, and he and Bert Handley entered by the back door and discovered a fire irf a cupboard in the kitchen. The lining of the wall was burning, but it was extinguished with .water. While this was being done Handley was tying up his horse, after which he walked round to the kitchen window to see where the fire was. So far as witness knew there had been no fire lighted in the kitchen that day ; neither had he or Bert Handley slept in the house. On a Sunday following a fire broke out in the house while he and Bert Handley were down' at the milkingshed. On looking towards the house he saw a man’ outside. .On going to tlie house he found the front room on the right-hand side on fire. The wallpaper was burnt from the floor up to the ceiling in one corner, and on the opposite -side, near the fireplace, the wallpaper at a distance of about sft from the floor was. burned. The larger outbreak was still burning when he •entered the room. At the same time in one of the middle rooms on the other side of the house there was a paper that appeared as if a match had .‘been put on it, as it was ‘scorched’. It looked as if it had been’ freshly burned, and he had never seen the paper on the floor before. He put the fire out and returned to the shed and reported the occurrence to Bert Hand-, ley. Next day Handley, senr., was told of the occurrence. The man he saw near the house was a stranger, but he knew he worked at the Hikutaia cheese factory.

To Mr Clendon witness said, that two Maoris were employed on the farm -before he and Bert Handley went there in December. The Maoris had also been living in the house for several months. A man had come from Paeroa with Handley to attend to the engine on the day the house was destroyed, and on arrival Handley had gone straight to the milking-shed. On returning to the house for breakfast Bert Handley lighted the fire, and as it was in a stove it should 1 have been quite safe to leave it. The three of them went out of the house together, and he could not say if Handley had gone back again. Several jobs were done on the farm before they returned in the afternoon. The property was bounded on the north side by the river, and willow trees obscured a view of the house from where they had been working most of the day, and none of them suspected a fire. It was not until he and Bert Handley had crossed the bridge that tihe fire was observed. , They whistled to Handley, but he apparently did not hear, so they rode on and found the house totally destroyed. He could not in any way account for the origin of the fire. So far as he knew the fire in the range was'dead out by the time the three of them left the. house. About ten minutes elapsed before Handley joined ihim and Bert Handley after the house was demolished, and Handley asked him if the fire had been left burning in the range. The day before

the fire some bread and! two cups were

stolen from the house. It was to save further stuff being stolen that the crockery and food had been put in. the wash-house. Being a fine day was no doubt the .reason why the bedding had been hung on the fence to air. He did not take any particular stock, of where his clothes were, and it was quite possible that he would have, s<me clothes in the wash-house and. also in the dwelling, and the samej| applied to Bert Handley. They both® smoked cigarettes, but Handley, senr.,l was a non-smoker. The first fire was ’ the one in the cupboard, but he had no idea what caused it. There were plenty of rats about the house, and matches had to be left about by the Maoris. On the ooccasK'n of the second fire he and-Bert Handley were < at the milking- hed when they noticed some peoplie round the house, and he went to investigate. After covering about half the distance he saw smoke issuing from the house. The men said that they had seen the tire and had come to see what was, wrong. If a match had been put to the wallpaper when he and Bert Handley left the house it would easily have been burned down in the time, but the fire did not appear to have been burning long and there „ was little damage done. Handley had not been at the farm that day. It occurred to him that the paper had been lighted only a short while before he arrived from the shed. He did mot know if Handley had any enemies, who wished to do him an injury. Handley ’had instructed them to be careful of fire in the house. To Sergeant Calwell witness said he did not know the Maoris named Richards who had previously worked for Handley, and could not say if they had visited the place after their engagement was terminated. On the morning of the fire he distinctly remembered Handley saying he wanted to get his mare shod and adding that it was too late as the blacksmith would be away at dinner. To the Coroner witness said that Handley could not see the house from where he was when witness whistled to’ him. The wash-house was about 20 yards from the house. , Albert (Bert) Handley, the other , hand employed by his father on tlie farm, said that the kitchen and one ,of the bedrooms were the only rooms of the house used. The ‘°nly furniture in the kitchen was a table, stool, and a couple of boxes, and in the bedroom was an iron bedstead with a wire and kapok mattress. There were eight rooms in the house, including the bathroom. The other rooms were unfurnished. Witness corroborated the evidence already given concerning what took place on the morning of the fire. He used wood on the fire in the range and made sure it was out before they left the house. He did' nPt remember his father saying anything about getting the horse shod. When he reached the scene of the conflagration Constable McOlinchy was there, and they were talking together when his father came up from the back of the . farm. His reason for putting the 1 food and crockery in the wash-house (which could not be locked up) was because some stuff had been stolen from the kitchen the day before and ihe thought a change of location advisable. It was his usual practice to air the bedding on fine days. He detailed the clothing he possessed at the time of the fire,, and said he was certain that the articles found in the wash-house had' been left in the bedroom when he went to work. To Mr Clendon witness said that lie could thrown no light on the origin of the fire. He knew the Richards Bros., who were Maoris, and they had left his father at rather short notice, which necesitated Beattie and himself undertaking the milking. The stove was in good order, but he could not swear that the range was closed up when they left the house that morning, although it was customary to see that everything was safe. There was no indication of fire when the three of them left the house that morning. He and Beattie had picked up a number of loose matches which had been left about by the Maoris. He c°uld make no suggestion as to what caused the two previous fires. He had not received instructions about being careful witli fire, but his father mentioned Something about throwing cigarette butts.

To the Coroner witness said that they did not have parties at the house and there were never any Natives about the house. He had' no idea how his clothes canid to.be found in the wash-house after the fire. He did. not know of any disagreement between his father and the Natives who had been working on the farm.

Arthur B. Capper, tablet porter, Hikutaia, said that on January 6, between 12.30 and 1 p.m., he saw Handley’s house, which was about half a mile from the station, on fire. He went across at once, .and when. lie arrived the house was a mass of flames and it was not possible to tell where the fire originated. There were several persons present when he arrived,, but there was no sign of Handley or any of his men. The house was totally destroyed within naif an hour. He* noticed a bicycle and other goods ire the wash-house. To Mr Clendon witness said that’l when he arrived on the scene some people were standing in the paddock near the burning house, but he could not say that they were there early enough to save some things from the fire. It was imposs : ble to suggest in what portion of the building the fire .originated. Ronald Frank Avery, an employee of the Hikutaia cheese factory, that lie was present at the second fire, on New Year’s Day. Beattie showed him where the first fire occurred and remarked, “We don’t care, the place is insured.” On the day the (house was destroyed he saw the blaze from the factory. To Mr Clendon witness said, that lie was about four chains away from the house when his attention was drawn to the fire on the Sunday. Tlie fire had then only just started, but it took Beattie about ten minutes to comefrom the shed. He did not take any notes of the conversation between

himself and. Beattie, but was trusting to his memory-' . Benjamin Gwilliauij motor mccn.ap.ic y Paeroa, detailed his visit to the farm to attend to an oil engine. To Mr Clendon witness said that Handley called at his employer’s garage at about 8 a.m. l Beattie, recalled by Mr Clendon, ad- * mitted telling Avery on the occasion of the fire on the Sunday that the f was insured. 'ft To the Coroner witness said that he _Jlid not know how the quest’on of in- - durance had cropped up, but he knew he had said that the place was insured. He was not sure if he said “I don’t care, the place is insured.” Handley had never spoken to him about insurance. He did not say I don’t care,” but might have sa’d “She f is insured.”

Herbert Pratt, builder, Hikutaia, evidence of examining tne chimneys of the house after it had been burned down. He had found the flue of the stove and the chimney in a dirty condition. There were cracks in the chimney which, if existing before the fire, would have been a source of danger while a fire was in the range. In his opinion some of the cracks were in the chimney before the fire. The other chimneys and fireplaces were in good order. > To Mr Clendon witness said it was quite probable that the cause of the fire was a defective chimney. In h’s opinion it would- cost from 5'250 to £2BO a room to build a kauri house

such as the one burned down. To Mr Hankins witness said that in all probability a house. 30ft by 35ft would cost £lOOO or over to build in kauri. To the Coroner witness, said he was quite convinced that .the spaces caused by mortar having fallen out between the bricks were sufficient tc (have caused a fire. George Albert Avery, farmer, Hikutaia, said that as a trustee he held one of the mortgages on the farm occupied by Handley, the (house being included in the mortgage. At the time of the fire the mortgage stood at £3OOO, and as fftr as he knew the interest w'as regularly paid by Mr Handley. He had lived in the house for , a good many years, and his estimate ? of its value at the time it was destroyed was from £9OO to £lOOO. To Mr Clend°n witness said that the farm was, one of 112 acres bf first- . class land, situated hear the railway station, saleyards, and main highway. He remembered Handley buying it at £45 an acre and selling it’ for £B5 an acre. When Handley took over the farm the mortgage was a. big one, but Handley had considerably reduced the amount. ■ He understood that Handley was in a fairly substantial .way of business.

To Mr Hankins 'witness said that Cameron, who bought from Handley, was op l the farm for five years', but left it because he could not make a. do of it. Handley resumed the property at the end of that time. Arthur Robert Robinson, farmer, Hikutaia, said he was also a trustee of the estate. There was no bad feeling between the trustees and Handley, To Mr Clendon witness said that the property would carry 50 cows all the year round. Rangi Richards, labotirer, Thames, gave evidence as to his employment by Handley, and said that since leaving on December 23 she had not visited the farm. There had been' no dispute or row; between them. James Handley, farmer, Paeroa, and owner of the property subject of the inquiry, detailed how on January 6, In response to a telephone message from his son Albert, he had driven to the farm, arriving there about 9 a m. After having breakfast witness, his ’ son, and Beattie left the house together, the two boys going down towards’the back of the farm while lie attended to his horse. He then followed tihe boys. The house could not be seen from where they were working. .Whne the boys arrived on the bridge on. the return journey he left them and went away to look at some cattle. He heard' the boys call out something, but did not catch what was.said. When he arrived back the house was razed ( t'o the ground. As far as 'he knew there was no unauthorised person about the house that day. Witness referred to the fire at the house at Christmas time and corroborated the evidence given by his son arid Beattie relating to the incident. He knew nothing about the

fire in the cupboard until the boys p. told him. To Mr Hankina witness detailed at length the various improvements and additions he had effected prior to the fire, and the value of them. Referring to a statement •made to Mr Hankins subsequent to the fire, witness said he remembered doing so quite well, and admitted that although he owned a valuable property and had experienced two fires previously, he had not thought it necessary to make a statement to the police or tell Mr Hankins anything about the two previous fires. To Mr Clendon witness said that he 'did not consider the smouldering in the cupboard or the wallpaper in the Trent room of much consequence, and

: lie ihad made no claim in respect to , those items. He thought ten shillings would have covered the two fires. Everything asked by Mr Hankins had ' been answered to the best of nis knowledge. Mr Hankins had taken his own notes which were not read over to witness. It was desirable to have a good substantial building on the property, because it materially enhanced the value of the fam. The house was insured for £950, and before the policy was taken out the agent for the insurance company inspected the house. said he had had a good deal to do with buildings, and estimated • 'that it would cost from £l3OO to £l4OO to replace the house. Even allowing for getting £9so' insurance he would he a loser by about £500; The farm to-day without the house was worth £5O an acre. He bought the farm from the late Charles Avery during the war period and paid £45 an acre for it, £lOOO being paid in cash and £3900 left over as a mortgage. Later he sold to Cameron for £B5 an acre, £l5OO being paid in cash and the balance being left on a second mortgage. Cameron held the place for five years,

when it fell back to witness, in August, 1927. Since then £9oo' had been paid off the mortgage to the trustees. He could throw no light on the cause of any of the fires. The destruction of the dwelling represented a serious •loss. Witness swore that f°r two and a half hours prior to the fire he and tlie boys were not within a mile of the house.

To the Coroner witness said he was quite sure they all left the house together on the morning of the fire. The loss of the house meant that a sharemilker and his wife could not be put on and also meant a depreciation of about £lO an acre. Under the mortgage there was no provision for the mortgagee to re-erect a -house in case of fire. The house had been insured with the Standard Company for about 18 months.

Charles Edward Hankins, fire adjuster, Auckland, said that he had been employed by the Standard Company to adjust a claim regarding the destruction by fire of the -house in question. He had interviewed Handley \who had given all information quite freely.

Constable McClinchy gave evidence of having visited the farm bn the day the house was burned, and of obtaining a statement from Handley. Police Sergeant Cahvell detailed measurements taken on the property after the house had been destroyed. This concluded the evidence.

In addressing the Court Mr Clendon pointed out that the> scope of the inquiry was to; ascertain the cause and origin of the fire. The evidence of a large number of witnesses had been taken, and there was nothing tangible in the’ evidence to enlighten the Court as to the cause of the fire. It all showed that Handley, his son, and Beattie were not near the conflagration. He submitted that there were no facts adduced that would 'lead to a definite conclusion as to the cause and origin of the fire. In order that the coroner might satisfy himself on several points the Court was adjourned for 15 minutes. On resuming the conbner said that the evidence did not in any way indicate that Handley was connected with the fire. This opinion he had formed on the evidence of Handley, junr., Beattie, and Constable McClinchy as to the removal of clothing. He was also bound to take into consideration that the house had been on fire on two previous occasions. There were three courses open to the Court culpable negligence and the blame sheeted home to one or more persons, or accidental, or an open verdict. The evidence did not connect Handley, senr., Handley, junr., or Beattie with the fire, but he Was bound to find on the evidence that the house had been deliberately burned down by some person or persons unknown.