FIRES IN NAPIER

Otago Witness, Issue 4033, 30 June 1931, Page 32

FIRES IN NAPIER

SEQUEL TO BIG EARTHQUAKE MR J. S. BARTON’S VERDICT. NAPIER, June 23. “ I find by a clear preponderance of evidence that there is no proof of the destructive outbreaks of the original fire within the burnt-out area, except in three eheniists’ shops,” stated Mr J. S. Barton, in his verdict in connection with the fire winch followed the earthquake in Napier on February 3 Mr Barton’s verdict was as follows: — “The said fire was caused by the conditions following the earthquake comprising the damaged buildings, scattered stock-in-trade, and the broken light, heat, and power reticulation. Fire followed the earthquake which took place at about 10.50 on the morning of the day in question, and the evidence is that it broke out within a few minutes after the earth quake. The conditions were favourable to the spread of a fire, in that it was a hot, fine day, following a dry spell of weather. At the time of the outbreak of fire the wind was westerly or offshore, but within half an hour to an hour after the earthquake it had changed to an easterly or south-easterly wind, and the change was favourable to the spread of the fire. It is proved that the first alarm of,fire was from the chemists’ shop occupied by the United Friendly Societies Dispensary in Emerson street, and the fire that originated there gutted these premises, but was confined to them. Subsequent calls came within a few’ minutes from two other chemists’ shops—namely, those of R. Henderson and A. Hobson respectively. each of which is situated in Hastings- street. From these shops the fire Spread into the adjoining buildings, and was then carried by the easterly wind otfer the chief business area, spreading by contact and bv sparks carried by the wind. The water pressure was comparatively weak from the . beginning, and gradually grew less, till it failed altogether within’ an hour after the earthquake, and the fire then spread unchecked over the greater part of the area. 'Hie probabilities of a further independent contemporaneous outbreak of fire in that area cannot be overlooked, but, although the fullest possible preliminary inquiries were made by the police, the only evidence of such at the inquest was of an incipient outbreak at the back of the business premises of F. Thorp (which outbreak was immediately suppressed by Mr

Thorp), and the conflicting testimony as to the observation of outbreaks at two other places. I find, by a clear preponderance of evidence, that there is no proof of destructive outbreaks of the original fire within the burnt-out area except in the three chemists’ shops named above.”