THE LATE FIRE IN THAMES STREET.

Oamaru Mail, Volume IV, Issue 1148, 19 December 1879, Page 2

THE LATE FIRE IN THAMES STREET.

e The following is the conclusion of our report of the inquiry held, yesterday into the circumstances attending the late fire at Mr. P. R. Russell's shop in Thamesstreet : Edward Armstrong, a wheelwright employed by Messrs Reid and Gray, deposed that he knew Mr. Russell. On the night of the 13th instant he met him in the Queen's Hotel, a little before 11 o'clock. They left the hotel together, and went into Mr. Russell's shop on the way home. Russell opened the door and went in first. There was no light. Russell asked him for a match, which witness gave him. Russell lighted the gas, and went to fasten the back door. There was some fire in the grate, and Russell piled it up saying he thought it would be all right, and that there would be no danger. He (witness) saw Russell all the time he was in the shop, but not while he was at the back. He did not see what Russell did with the match when he lighted the gas. They left together and went as far as the White Hart Hotel, where they separated. He had just got into Reed-street when he heard the fire bell. It was five, or, at most, ten, minutes after he left Russell, and from twenty minutes to half-an-hour after he and Russell had left the latter's shop, that he heard the fire bell. To Mr. Newton : He had not been in the shop since the fire. He knew that part of the shop at the end of the counter, and could see it from where he stood in the shop. Russell would have had time to return to the shop between the time of their parting and when he heard the bell ring. He did not see anything burning when in the shop, nor was there any smell of fire. He was in the shop five or ten minutes. It was about half-past eleven when they parted. Russell had asked him the time when passing the Commercial Hotel, and witness took out his watch and it was then 25 minutes past 11, and it would not have taken more than five minutes to walk to where they parted. To Mr. O'Meagher : He did not see Russell fasten the back door, but heard him do so. He did not make any,remark. Russell was about two minutes in the

shop. He did not say what he went into the shop for. Thomas Arthur Clowes, local agent for the Victoria Insurance Company, stated that Mr. Russell made a proposal for insurance to him, and witness went through the usual form of asking questions, as to the construction of the building, &c. The proposal was for L 250. After witness had written down the replies to the questions, Russell signed the document. Russell had stated the value of the stock at L6OO. The proposal was declined,

because it was found that there were policies in two other offices, and witness did not think the stock worth the money. Russell had said that there was a largo amount of stock in his business in a small compass, and that Mr. Hodge would bear him out in this.

George Raven, saddler, residing at Duntroon, stated that he had, at the request of the Inspector of Police, valued the stock in Mr. Russell's shop. He had carefully gone over the various articles in the shop. He may have emitted one or two small things, but the valuation was as nearly correct as it could be made in the time he had to do it. The total value of the stock was L 196 6s 4d, and tools L2l. To Mr. Newton : He gave the whole-s-lie value of the goods without damage. He took about eight hours to make the valuation. He did not think the time too much to value a saddler's stock. To the Foreman : I took Dunedin value as the standard.

To Inspector Thompson : I had a constable to assist me in counting the things. Some argument then took place as to whether the inquiry should be adjourned. Inspector Thompson, in reply to questions, mentioned that the evidence he had to adduce was to the effect that Russell knew where Mr. Smith kept his bottles, that Russell had promised to meet Greenfield and transfer liis policy. Mr. West would fully contradict the statement of Russell, and would say that Russell had stated that his stock was worth L6OO. Mr. Dennison would state that Mr. Russell had applied for an insurance of L 250, and evidence would be given to show that the refuse that had been produced had been found on the premises. Mr. Newton said he was prepared, on behalf of his client (Mr. Russell), to admit all the statements which Inspector Thompson had said would be made in the evidence yet to be produced, and was willing to take that evidence as already given, if that would expedite matters. He said there seemed to be a disposition on the part of Insurance Companies to get out of the payment of losses entailed by their acceptance of policies. Mr. O'Meagher, who appeared for the Underwriters' .Association, said he was perfectly sure that none of the Companies desired in this case to do more than elicit the truth in connection with the fire. He did not think it necessary to go any further with the enquiry. The object of the inquiry seemed to be to connect the occupier of the premises with the origin of the fire. There did not appear to be the slightest prospect of doing this. The foreman (Mr. Headland) said so far as they could see the evidence to be given was not of a material nature. With regard to the insurances, it had not been shown that they at any time amounted to more than L4OO. At the same time they had heard enough to convince them that the inquiry was necessary. The Coroner remarked that it might be as well for the jury to consult together for a few minutes, and decide whether they thought any further evidence was necessary, or whether they had heard sufficient to warrant them in coming to a decision.

The foreman said he thought the jury might be prepared to come to a verdict without delay. The Coroner said there was just one matter that the jury should consider. No matter if all the insurance policies had been handed over to the bank it would have made no difference. Mr. Russell was only indebted to the bank to the extent of L 195, and if the bank had held all the policies, there would still have remained a good balance to go to some one. The jury then deliberated as to whether further evidence was necessary, and came to the decision that it was unnecessary to proceed any further. They therefore returned a verdict to the effect that there was no evidence to show how the fire originated.