|
Post by NZBC on Dec 26, 2011 13:42:43 GMT 12
A fire broke out near Onehunga yesterday afternoon in the premises of Ming Quong, a Chinese market gardener. The Onehunga Fire Brigade turned out, but a the fire was outside the burough boundary they did not proceed to the scene. A spark from a lire fell on a quantity of hay which was stored in a two-storied shed, and in an instant the whole shed was in flames. The building and its contents were completely destroyed. The premises were owned Mr P. Donovan, and the destroyed building was insured in the imperial Office fo £50. The contents of the shed were insured by Ming Quong for £400 in North German. The carts and tools which are usually stored in the shed were away, so that the loss was not heavy. Auckland Star, Volume XXIX, Issue 81, 6 April 1898, Page 4
|
|
|
Post by NZBC on Dec 26, 2011 13:44:33 GMT 12
FIRE INQUIRY.
DESTKUCTION OF" MING QUONG'S
PREMISES
An inquest was commenced to-day at the Metropolitan Hotel, before Mr Jno. Bollard, M.H.E., coroner, and a jury of six, for the purpose of investigating a fire which took place on Ming Quong's premises at Onelvunga on the Ist March last. Mr J. D. Webster was chosen foreman of the jury, the other members empannelled being Messrs M. Foley, H. Fletcher, J. Harvie, McClellan, and P. McCailum. Detective Grace "cmduicted the inquiry for the police, and Mr C. Whitaker appeared for Ming Quong. Mr C. J. Parr appeared to watch the proceedings on behalf of the Sun Insurance Company and the Norwich Union Insurance Company. After the jury were sworn, the coroner and the jury went out in a brake to view the scene of the fire, and evidence was taken at 2 p.m. The fire broke out on March Ist in an outbuilding in the Epsom road belonging to Ming Quong, Chinese market gardner, and resulted in the total destruction of the building and its contents, a quantity of silks and groceries, valued by the owner at £1,950. The Chinaman stated at the time that they were awakened by stones being thrown on the roof of their dwelling, and on going out saw three boys running away, and Ihe building enveloped in flames. There were policies in the Sun and Norwich Union offices of £1,520 on the stock, and £80 on the building, but the owner stated that his loss amounted to £400 over this amount. The matter was carefully investigated by the police, and it was found that there were many suspicious items surroundin the outbreak, and an inquiry was ordered by the authorities. Since the fire enquiries have been instituted by the police, with the result that over twenty witnesses have been summoned for this inquest. ,The first witness called was Francis H. Pickering, General Manager for New Zealand of the Sun Fire Insurance Company, who stated that Ming Quong had three policies in the Sun Office on his stock for a total amount of £1,210, and a policy on the building for £80. The stock consisted chiefly of Chinese merchandise. Ming Quong supplied witness with a statement showing the amount of stock lost, a sworn declaration attached by Ming Quong stating that his proof of loss was a time one, and that he had not been the cause of that loss. A companion of Ming Quong's, named Jjee Yen, told witness that he was disturbed by larrikins throwing stones on the roof about 8 p.m., after they had retired to bed. He had run out; side and there saw four lads about six years of age running away from the place. He chased them but they got away. As he went back to his sleeping place he saw the shed on fire through a window on the north side. Witness on hearing this statement thought it was a case of larrikinism, and he informed the police.
Ming: Quong also gave witness a statement of sales oul of his stock, but witness did not know how long the stock dated back. The claim included an item: 'Salvage stock stored in the house,' amounting to £60 12/2. Witness did not pay Ming Quong's claim for insurance.
To Mr Parr: Ming Quong- represented the1 total amount of stock in the building at the time of the fire as £1834 3/6. He arrived at that amount by deducting sales (£628 2/10) from the gross amount of his original stock, which was represented as 2462 6/4. His proof of loss thus amount(/l to £1834-376. The claim was lodged at the Sun Office about March 11th. Subsequently another claim was substituted. In Ming Quong's first claim 120 worth of crackers, 700 bags of rice, and £200 worth of seed had been claimed. When looking over the debris witness said to Ming Quong: 'Where are the crackers?' The Chinaman replied: 'Crackers a mistake.' Witness asked him: 'What about the rice?, and he replied that the rice was a mistake also. Ming Quong said he would make out a fresh claim, and on April 15 Ming Quong's, solicitors wrote forwarding a statement of claim, sales of stock, list of stock and account books.
The amount of stock destroyed in the fire according to the amended claim was £576 lls 2d.
Mr Whitaker: Did not Ming Quong on his own account offer to send in the amended claim? Certainly he did.
Did he not tell you he thought his invoices had been destroyed in the fire, but that he had. since found them?
No; He told me on the first occasion that they had been destroyed. That was just after the fire. Did he not say the first claim had been made out from memory?
J.NO. In answer to further questions by Mr Whitaker, witness said Ming Quong had never told him he had found the invoices. Ming Quong said he was at the circus in Auckland when the fire took place.
>To Detective Grace: The police were inquiring for a considerable time, and quantities of goods supposed to be burned were found in his house before Ming Quong sent in his amended claim.
To a Juryman: Ming Quong had had a previous fire in the beginning of 189 S. He was insured then in the North German office. Some time afterwards the Sun acquired the North German business, and when the question of Ming Quong's insurance came up witness went out to see the place himself. He found the stock in a building he did not approve of, and Ming Quong agreed to put up his stock in a new building, which he did. The new building was burned.
The case is proceeding Auckland Star, Volume XXX, Issue 103, 3 May 1899, Page 5
|
|
|
Post by NZBC on Dec 26, 2011 13:45:54 GMT 12
DETECTIVE KENNEDY'S EVI-
DENCE. H. P. Kennedy, constable d6iog de>
tective duty at Auckland, said that on the 2nd March last, about 12.45 p.m., he went to Mr Pickering at the Sun Insurance office. Ming Quong, Ah Yen, and another Chinaman were at the office. Mr Pickering told wit- ness that the Chinamen had told him about four larrikins on the night of the fire. Witness questioned Ah len about them. Ah Yen said he was woke up by the larrikins throwing stones on tlie roof. Ah Yen told him j that he chased the larrikins past the j end of the store about 100 yards. He said two of them ran towards the road, and two towards the paddock opposite to the road. At 3 p.m. wit- j ness and Detective Bailey visited the. I scene of thd fire. Ming Quong, the interpreter, Ah Tong, and Mr Picker-* ing were also present. Witness ask- I ed Ming Quong what was the total amount of goods destroyed. Ming Quong replied £2,400 worth, but he had sold £300 or £400 worth just; previous to the fire, which brought j it down to £1,900 worth of goods destroyed by the fire. Witness spoke to Ah' Yen again to get a description! of the boys. He replied that he could riot give a description, as they j were too far away from him. Witness did not believe what Ah Yen told bim about the boys, because he did not think the boys would wait until the fire broke out before they ran away. On the 21st March witness again visited Ming Quong's place with Detectives Maddern and Mc- Mahon. Witness had a copy of Ming Quong's sworn proof of loss with him, 'which witness got from Mr Jacka. Witness said he asked Ming Quong as to. the first item on the list, 204 bundles of dried ginger, each 481bs, £224 8/ value. Ming Quong said it was a mistake. He bad put down too much. Witness then questioned him on all the items on the list. Every article Ming Quong said was a mistake that he put a pencil in front of. The. item 501bs of Chinese seaweed, he said, was a mistake, value £8 15/. Ming Quong said it was a mistake altogether and it should not have been put in. After going through all the articles Ming Quong said he was going to put in a new 'claim, reducing the present one by £500 or £600. The detectives then searched the house, and quarters under search wara-rnt, interpreted to the Chinese. An item 130 packets Chinese tobacco value 16 5/, witness could give no explanation of. In the list of salvage stock he made no mention of 12 dozen silk handkerchiefs value £15 10/. He also made no mention of 88 bottles of medicine value £8 8/, found in the front room, also he made no mention of 1G bags of rice in a box at the men's quarters at the Costley Home. The inquiry was then adjourned until 10 a.m. on Monday.
Mr Bollard, the coroner,, cautioned the jury not to talk about the case'to the outside public. Auckland Star, Volume XXX, Issue 106, 6 May 1899, Page 2
|
|
|
Post by NZBC on Dec 26, 2011 13:47:12 GMT 12
FIRE AT MING QUONG'S.
TO-DAY'S PROCEEDINGS,
The Inquiry to investigate the. circumstances of the fire nt Ming Duong's store, near Onehungu, on Ist jiarch last, was resumed this morning at the Metropolitan Hotel before Mr John Bollard (coroner) and a Jury of cix Mr Webster being foreman ot the ■jury Chief Detective Grace conducted the ease for the police, and Mr A. E. Whltnker appeared on behalf oi! Ming Quong. H7ETHER EVIDENCE BY DETEC- TTVE KENNEDY.- Detective Kennedy resumed his evidence in the forenoon. He. said he aeain visited the scene of the fire on tie 23rd March, 1599. He had two men- with hini "to turn over the debris, and had the different articles put out in heaps. He took a list, allowing a large amount for breakages, and put eyery vestige of a tin or a jar, or a Oifferent article by itself. Witness enumerated the different articles he found. He saw no sign of salt, candles writing pens, tobacco, biscuit tins, dates, silk goods, Chinese shoes, leather from the leather boxes that were burned, ham or bacon, picks, oilcoats, vinegar bottles, or gin bottles, salt e o-o-s, or horse covers. Witness then produced a> list with a full calculation of the things he found in the debris. Witness further said that since the inquest commenced Ming Quong gave ■witness the original sales book (pro-. duced). Witness produced a copy of a first proof of loss with the items that Ming Quong said were mistakes ticked off. He also put in a list of Ming Quong's importations since hi 3 fire in July last. He also put in 3fihg Quong's invoices, with English translation by three interpreters. To Mr Parr: Ming Quong1 told witness the bottom of the window in the store, was abr^ut 6ft from the ground. There was a barbed wire fence running round the store and the men's quarters. There were about 47 errors in the first proof of loss put in by Ming Quong and admitted tobe so by Ming Quong. £54 worth of goods claimed by Ming Quong in the first claim were found by witness in Ming Quong's dwellinghouse and the men's quarters. The items which he valued at £60 2/G to Mr Pickering and said •were in his house were valued by him -to'witness at £34 14/10 on the 21st. March, 1899.
To Mr Whitaker: The fire was on the Ist March last, and witness went with his search warrant on the 21st. Between these dates Ming Quong might have removed some of the goods witness found in his house if he had wished. Bet%ve-en the Ist and 21st March some of the debris of the fire might have, been removed. To Mr Parr: Witness cautioned Ming Quong on the 2nd March not to touch the debris. The goods alleged by Ming Quong to be' in his house were taken from the sales account signed by Ming Quong. To Mr Foley, a juror: The fire at the store was the second Ming Quong had within ten months and.one day. "in answer to further questions by Mi- Foley witness said he had charge of the case. He believed that Ming Quong was an importing merchant. About 32 bags of chaff and feed was the salvage from Ming Quong's fire on sth Aril, 189 S. All the g-oods imported by Ming Quong came through the Customs. The first consignment after the first fire on July 20, 188, by the s.s. Mararoa. When he went to examine the debris of the fire Defective Bailey,'Mr Pickering, and aninterpreter were with witness. Ming Quong went with witness when the dwelling house was searched. Ming Huong pointed out witness everything and concealed nothing that was in JuS house. Witness asked.him if he ia&any more goods in any other place. Quong did not speak about the goods at he house adjoining the Costlcly Home until witness asked him about.them. He Avas concealing the goods in witness' opinion. Ming' Quong said the cost of erection of the store was £110.
To a juryman: Witness saw maize in the debris of the fire, also flour' and, bean seeds: MING QUONG RECALLED. Chief Detective Grace then re-called Ming Qudng. The witness said he kept two sales books in his business.. He wrote in one book as the goods were sold; the other contained the Wholesale prices. He "could not find the pocket-book he promised to bring to the inquest. The sales pu in the sales account corresponded with the sale's in the retail book, and the sales in. the wholesale book-corresponded with the sales in the second claim. The wholesale book that witness gave to Mr Whitaker was written up after tlie fire. He copied it from the original book; The goods Were the same, but the prices were different. The Vakie of the goods witness sent to his brother at Fiji was £87 9/6. He sent the goods to his brother fof a debt he owed him. 'He still owed his brother money. Witness also owed a firm iirChin.l a little over £180. His brother sent some goods from Fiji to China. Witness admitted receiving a letter from his brother in Fiji between the 11th and 15th March last. There was nothing mentioned, he said, about money being remitted in the letter (produced). In further examination witness said .the £60 sent' in the letter was a loan from ids brother. He sent a lot of potatoes to Fiji, and his brother got the money for them. He was still indebted to his brother to the amount of £250./' He said this in face of the letter from his brother (produced). To Mr Parr: He last saw the pocket book after he made out the second claim. It was,not burned in the fire. There was only twp or three items in it. He last saw it in the drawer in office. He was afraid the children had mislaid it. it was the only book missing since the fire. When a lot of goods were being sold he generally entered them first in the pocket book, and then from the pocke book into toe sales book. The books! begin in the same month but not the same day. '"The plan showing the relative posi-. tions of the store and men's quarters was put in by Mr R. Ballantyne, of the Land and Survey Department, and certified to as correct. The inquiry will probably conclude this evening. Auckland Star, Volume XXX, Issue 107, 8 May 1899, Page 5
|
|
|
Post by NZBC on Dec 26, 2011 13:49:17 GMT 12
FIRE AT MING QUONG'S.
TO-DAY'S PROCEEDINGS
SUMMING UP BY THE CORONER,
I The inquest proceedings to investi- i gate the origin of the fire at Ming Quong's store near Onehunga oh the j Ist March last were resumed at 10 o'clock this morning before Mr J. Bollard (coroner) and jury. The forej noon was occupied in Constable Jones, the clerk, reading over the evidence and the examination of papers and documents by the jury. At one o'clock Mr Bollard summed up the whole of the evidence to the jury. He first complimented them on The prompt manner in which they had returned to their duties after the various aeljournments, and also on.the attention they had given a long and wearisome case. He pointed out the jury were empanelled for the purpose of considering the origin of the fire. He asked them to put aside from their mind anything they had heard of the case outside oi" the room, and to come to a verdict on the evidence given_before them. There were four points for the jury to decide, viz.: 1. Was Ming Quong's store wilfully set on fire "on the Ist of March last, and if so, by whom? Was the store wilfully burned down by some person or persons unknown? 3. Was the store burned down by accident? 4. Is there any evidence to show the origin of the fire, or how the fire occurred? Passing on, the Coroner said the jury had to look through the evidence for motive. The suggestion of the police was that Ming Quong was l.rgely interested and would be benefited greatly by the insurance money, and that he made a false declaration fei the purpose of defrauding the insurance companies. The epiestion of making- a false declaration, added the Coroner, could form no part of the verdict unless they connected Ming Quong with the fire. It could only be dealt with by the jury as a rider. In discussing the question of motive, the Coroner said the jury had it in evidence that at the time Ming Quong effected the insurance he declared the value of his goods at £2,400. It was not clear whether the goods sent to Napier and Fiji were included in this amount, but the evidence went to show their value was not. Ming Quong first said that he had lost £1,37_ 18/8, but afterwards he qualified this when the detectives commenced to make inquiries. However it was only fair to Ming Quong to say that he made up the claim hurriedly and from memory. Ming Quong explained that his wife in going through the, drawers in the dwelling house had found certain papers and invoices, and he stated to the detectives that he would send in a fresh statement of claim. Well, he did not send in the second claim until the 15th of April, and then he had to be written to for it. It appeared, from the evidence that the claim was in the hands of Ming Quong's solicitor, and this was given as the cause of the delay. The amended claim sent in amounted to £870 11/2. The Coroner then pointed out that when Ming Quang sent in his first claim he said thatrhe l_ad,£6o worth of goods in his dwelling-house, but the detectives founet on search warrants goods only to the extent of £34 odd, instead of £60. Of. course the jury would have to draw their own conclusion about this. The police also stated they found certain goods, unaccounted for, at the men's quarters, and at the gardens on Dr. Campbell's olive estate. With regard to the theory put forth by the Chinese that boys caused the fire, the police held no boys were about. Lee Yen had stated in evidence there were boys outside the store Avhen he got out of bed, and that eidenvce was supported by another Chinese witness, who said he saw the boys. Whether the boys were there, it was for the jury to say. He would point out that the witness Brown, who was first on the scene of the fire and roused the Chinamen, saw no boys about. It was not easy to reconcile his statement with that of Lee Yen's. The Coroner then referred to the evidence of Page and Mills, carters, who took goods from the store to Queen-street Wharf three days before the store was burned down. Page said that two or three loads would have cleared the store. If the jury believed the evidence of the cai*ters there were but little goods in the store. Ming Quong had told Ms domestic servant (Mary McDonald) that he would lose £400 over his insurance, but that did not tally with any statement that Ming Quong had made. When Ming Quong was first called he said that he owed his brother £70, but when re-examined he said he owed £250 to his brother in Fiji, and nothing to his brother in China. The suggestion put forth by the police, the Coroner pointed out, was Ming Quong had insured his stock at £1520, ancl that he Avould largely benefit by the burning of the store, and that was his lihotive for burning down the store and making a false declaration to the insurance companies. With regard to Ming Quong's case Mr Bollard said no evidence had really been given to shake Ming Quong's amended claim for £S7G 11/3. The only evidence against that was the evidence of the carters. Ming Quong had stated the store was full up on the night of the fire; but ho had brought no evidence of replacing goods between the time the carters took goods from the store on 25th February and the fire on the Ist March. Mr Bollard concluded by stating that the jury would require to take into consideration the goods found in the dwelling-house and Chinamen's house when considering their verdict. THE JURY RETIRE. At a quarter to two the jury retired to consider their verdict. At 3.30 the jury were still considering their verdict. Auckland Star, Volume XXX, Issue 108, 9 May 1899, Page 8
|
|
|
Post by NZBC on Dec 26, 2011 13:50:05 GMT 12
AUCKLAND NEWS.
[Per Press Association.] j AUCKLAND, May 6. The inquiry into the fire at Ming Quong's store near Onehuflga, is still proceeding. The theory put forth for the fire by the Chinese is that it was due to larrikins, who were chased away by some of their number at the time of the fire. The police discredit this. Star , Issue 6483, 8 May 1899, Page 3
|
|
|
Post by NZBC on Dec 26, 2011 13:50:48 GMT 12
SUSPICIOUS FIRE.
Auckland, Saturday. The inquiry into the fire at Ming Quong's store, near Onehunga, is still proceeding. The theory put forth for the fire by the Chinese is that it was due to larrikins who were chased away by some of their cumber. At the time of the fire the police discredited this. Detective Kennedy gave some evidence in this direction this morning. Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXXIV, Issue 11218, 8 May 1899, Page 3
|
|
|
Post by NZBC on Dec 26, 2011 13:51:28 GMT 12
Auckland News.
(By Telegraph—Own Correspondent.)
Auckland, May 9. At the inquest concerning the recent fire at Ming Quong's store, the jury returned a verdict that there was no evidence to show that the store was wilfully burned, or as to. how the fie originated. Thames Star, Volume xxx, Issue 9359, 10 May 1899, Page 1
AUCKLAND NEWS.
[Per Press Association.] AUCKLAND. May 9. The inquest into the origin of the fire at Ming Quong's storej burned down on March 1, terminated to-day. The following was the verdict The jury is of opinion tsat there is no evidence to show 'that 'the store was wilfully burnt, or as to how the fire originated." The following rider was added: "The jury is of opinion that the amended claim as put in is correct, and as regards the first claim the great excitement under which Ming Quong was suffering at times makes it sufficient reason for the mistake made in the claim. The jury further considers that the agents of the insurance companies interested' are deserving of censure for taking such a large sum of insurance risk without having first made a thorough inspection of the building and contents." Star , Issue 6485, 10 May 1899, Page 4
|
|
|
Post by NZBC on Dec 26, 2011 13:52:20 GMT 12
TO-DAY'S PROCEEDINGS.
EXPLANATION ON BEHALF OF IN-
SURANCE COMPANIES,
Mr C. J. Parr at the opening of the enquiry to-day said: Mr Coroner and Gentlemen, —It is my duty to correct a misapprehension that has arisen through certain suggestions made during this enquiry. It has been suggested that this is an enquiry instigated by the insurance companies. Permit me to say that this is not the case. This is the usual coroner's inquest, held at the request of the police. I am here merely to watch the interests of the companies, and to put such questions to the witnesses as I may think fit, I wish to disabuse the minds of the jury as to the suggestion that the insurance companies are responsible for this enquiry. They are Dot. Mr Coroner: I may say that the only persons I know in the enquiry are the police. It is at their request that I hold this enquiry. It is quite as a matter of courtesy that I allow- Ming Quong and the insurance companies to be represented. As they are both largely iritersted, I think it only right that they should be .allowed to be present and ask questions. The hearing .of evidence was then resumed. Ah Queen deposed that die was a Chinese gardener, and was in the employ of Wong Quong at Epsom at the time of the^fire, and lived and slept ■with the other employees on Ming Quiong's property. He remembered the night the store and contents were burned. It was a Wednesday night. He was then lying on the bed in the hut, but not asleep. He went to bed at nine fm. Ten people slept in the same hut. Some went to bed before witness, some after. He was outside the hut about 9.30, and then saw no sig-n of fire about the store. After he Vent back to bed Lee Yen^went outside, and remained out for three-quarters of an hour. When Lee Yen returned he went to bed. Some time after some Europeans sang out 'John! Fire! None of the Chinese got up at that time. A little while after stones were thrown on the roof. No one took any notice. Someone then kncked at the tank. This caused four Chinese to get up. Witness got up and they all saw the fire in the store. A lot of Europeans were there, but he saw no beys ab'vut. They returned and got their traps. About 15 minutes after the roof of the store fell in. Witness heard Ming Quong was in town. Witness was employed as carter, gardener, and ploughman. He was in the store occasionally before the fire. On the Tuesday before the fire he carted some stuff from the ctore for Ming Quong. He did not know what the packages contained. He took them to the wharf, opposite the weigh bridge. Ming Quong told hiri to leave them there. Witness took the goods out cf the store. At that time all the goods could be put in one corner of the store. He did not know how many cartloads there were. Wbat goods were in the store •would
fill about half the building up to the roof. There was no loft. He.noticed maize and -wheat in the store,-but he did not notice any chaff. The rice, about 100 bag's., was in the far end of the store, About a week before the tire one chest of ten and about 20 bags of rice were taken from the store to' the men's hut. About two or three weeks liefore the five vice was .carted from the store to the house at the Costley Home. .Ming Quong's relatives removed goods; from the store to .Ming Quong's house about two weeks before the lire. He saw no Chinese tobacco in the store, but he beard Ming Quong ask the employees if they wanted to buy any. Witness said he was awake from the time Lee Yen returned until the alarm of fire was given. The only alarm he heard was When Hie Europeans sang out and the stones were thrown. It was not usual for such large quantities as 18 t r 20 bags of rice to be carted to the house at the Costley .Home. Employees working there had only .one meal a day. No one slept there. In further examination witness said he saw no Chinese fuse in the store. He did not know where Ming Quong kept his silk goods. When he asked employees to buy them he brought the goods from his' dwelling-house. Witness was questioned about meeting Minq- Quong two Mondays ago in Wyndham street. 'He said Ming Quong asked witness did he. bring the detective to arrest Hoo Shleng? Witness replied 'No,' that he left his hat in the house at Ihe Costley Home ground, and that he went to get it, Minq- Quoiuj- told witness that he would trust him, as they had been good friends for ten years. Ming Quong further said, 'Don't listen to anyone what they fell you; you can't 'get the reward,' and added, 'If you are going to get a reward'the insurance man will have .to write you out a paper.' Ming Quong also said it would have to be advertised in the paper before he could get if, and 'yo.u will only get 10/ a. day.' He also said 'If you get C 2 or it would be no use to you; it would do you no good i 1o put me in gaol. You will only ruin me, that is all.' He also said the in- j suranee. was not much. To Mr Parr: When Ming Quoiig said the insurance' was not much he also said, 'If 1. had set fire to fhe store j I would only get the European's j money, which' is not much.' Witness said he fold Ming Quong that he would not go against him. When he carted the Fiji goods to the wharf he also got other goods at Mr George's to take to the steamer. The conversation took place in front of Thos. Quoi's house in Wyndham street. Ming Quong .asked him'to go into the hotel and have a drink,' which he did. In further cross-examination by Mr Parr witness said he did not know what Lee Yen was doing during the thi-ee-qiiarters Of an hour he was outside the hut on the night of the fire. To Mr Wbitaker: He was not now in Ming Quong's employ. He left two or three weeks ago. He was very friendly with Ming Quong. He had no conversation with anyone about the ease. He was at Quoi's place last Sunday and they spoke about the case. He tol.d Quoi'to interpret his evidence to the detective and to tell him what he was prepared to say. He was not offered £150 to give evidence in the case. He had conversed with Ah Chee about the fire. It was the custom of Ming Quong's employees, to take in turn the horses from the stable to the paddock after they had their feed. It was Lee Yen's turn on the night of the fire. To the Coroner: The cause of the fire was not discussed among .the employees on the night of the fire. Mary McDonald, domestic servant, in the employ of Ming Quong, was examined by Chief Detective Grace. She remembered the night the. store was burned down. She was in the dwelling-house with Mrs Ming Quong some 150 yards distant from the store. When she first saw the fire at halfpast ten the store was in flames. Ming Quong came home about 12 p.m. The store and all contents were then burned. Witness and Ming Quong sat up and wrote out the things in the store in a book. Ming Quong put down the value of each article and it was added up by him. Witness, in further evidence, said she was working on the books from one in the morning until nearly nine as Ming Quong wanted to get them ready early next. day. Ming Quong said that he Avould give her a present for the work. He also told witness that he had lost £400 over the insurance by the fire. The enquiry is not likely, to conclude for some days. Proceeding. Auckland Star, Volume XXX, Issue 105, 5 May 1899, Page 2
|
|
|
Post by NZBC on Dec 26, 2011 13:55:02 GMT 12
DESTRUCTIVE FIRE.
[United Pre« Association.] AUCKLAND. This Day. Ming Quong's wholesale store at Ep^om has been burned down. It was insured for £1600, 3nd the value of the goods is elated at XT9OO, insured in tbe Sun, Norwich Union, and other offices. The origin of the fire is unknown. The store and stock were bO feet trom the workmen's dwelling. It is alleged that ihe Chinese have recently been annoyed by larrikins. The delectives are investigating the matter. Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XXXIII, Issue 53, 3 March 1899, Page 3
|
|
|
Post by NZBC on Dec 26, 2011 13:57:16 GMT 12
LORD RANFURLY IN AUCKLAND.
[UNITED PRESS -ASSOCIATION.] Auckland, August 27. At Epsom yesterday, when driving from Onehunga to Auckland, the governor made a brief scop at Epsom i to receive a presentation from the Chinese residing there. They had arranged, a large bouquet with a few words of welcome. On the approach j of His Excellency they all stopped work, and Chinese men, women and i children took part m the proceedings. The presentation was formally done by Ming Quong, and afterwards a general shaking of hands took place. Marlborough Express, Volume XXXII, Issue 192, 28 August 1897, Page 2
|
|
|
Post by NZBC on Dec 26, 2011 13:58:47 GMT 12
FIRE AT MING QUONG'S.
INQUEST PROCEEDINGS
The inquest for the purpose of investigating a fire which took place at Ming Quong's store, near Onehunga, on Ist March last was continued this morning at the Metropolitan Hotel.
Fred Page, examined yesterday afternoon, said he was a carter employed by Cunningham and Co., of Onehunga. He said that on 25th Feb. last he took a load of goods from Ming Quong's store to the s.s. Te Anau at the wharf at Auckland. Th_Ve was not a great cleal in the. store. It was all over the store. About two good loads would take it all away.
To Mr Whitaker: He was quite sure there was no loft in the store. There was a small cart load taken after witness, and that would be about two good loads left. His load was eighty bags—two tons of rice.
To the Jury: He saw the cases the other carter had to take away. He thought they would weigh loewt. He did not know what was in the cases. He had taken two tons of rice and four or five boxes from Ming Quong's store about a week previously. lie had eighty bags in that load and four or five boxes, 561b in each.
Henry Mills., carter, employed by- Mr A. Barnes, Onehunga, deposed that on 23th Feb. he Hook a load of goods from Ming Quong's store to the Auckland wharf. He carried part of the goods out of the store. He did not think that there were more than two or three loads of goods in Ming Quong's store then. Being the iirst thne he had been in a Chinaman's store for a long time he had a good look round it. To Mr Parr: There were twenty loads of goods in the store. To the Foreman of the Jury: He took his load' the same day as the witness Page took his. There, was nothing to prevent him seeing.all over the store. SOME IMPORTANT EVIDENCE. Kenelm Noel Hawtrey Brown, clerk at the Public Trust Office, said be lived at Onehunga. On the night of the Ist March, at about 10.30 p.m., lie passed Ming Quong's store on his way home from Auckland. He saw a glow of fire through the window in the north end about five minutes before he came to it. When he got close to the. store he, could see there was a fire. When he got opposite the house he saw a horseman who sang out 'Fire!' He saw no Chinamen about the.store. He thought the horseman stayed about the road in front of th'} store. He went about 100 yards towards the Royal Oak'and then returned to the fire again. He then called out 'Fire!' Witness left his bike at the gate and went to the back of. the house and called 'Fire!' He was round by the men's quarters making a noise. He saw no boys about on the Auckland side or the Royal Oak side. After the alarm the Chinamen came out from their quarters. The whole interior was then in a blaze and the fire and smoke coming out of the window in the north end. When witness came up' to the store first 'he heard no disturbance or stone throwing. Europeans then commenced arriving one by one. Except witness and perhaps the horseman no one was present when witness got to the store, THE FIRST PERSON ON THE SCENE OF THE FIRE. To Mr Parr His first view of the fire was through the window: at the north end of the store. When he got there none of the Chinamen in the men's quarters were up. Witness further said he thought he was the first person on the scene of the fire. Witness also said it was three or four minutes after he arrived before the first Chinamen came out of the men's quarters. The building collaps.ed about twenty or thiry minutes after he first saw it. He did not see Chinamen chase any boys or larrikins away. To Mr Whitaker: He was very excited. He thought it was good moonlight. He had no difficulty in seeing his way. He left, the fire about ten or fifteen mimttes after the store collapsed. The debris was still burning. To a Juryman: There may have been men at the back of the hut and in the paddock that he could not. see. There was ho chance to save any goods from the fire. The fire must have spread
through the whole building before i^ broke out.
John Hicks, labourer, living at Onehunga, said that on the night of the Ist March last, a little after 10 p.m., he was outside the Koyal Oak Hotel, on the Epsom Road,' for, about half an hour, with two young men. Some one gave the alarm of fire, and he found it was at Ming Quong's store. The store is about 200 yards from the corner of the road, near the hotel. Prom the time he was standing at the hotel until the alarm of fire was given he heard no row.at all. After the alarm was given witness and the young- men went to tjie store. The fire was just coming through the sides. It had a fair hold. There was a European present on horseback, and a man on a bicycle came up. The man on horseback gave the alarm.
To Mr Whitaker: Another man might have been at the fire before witness besides the horseman; for all he knew there might have been three or four persons there before witness.
To the Foreman: When witness went there the two Sinclair., were with him. They could not see the fire coming out of, the store until they were within 20 yards of it. Chee. Poy, labourer, who slept in the men's hut on the night of the fire, also gave evidence. He said he did not know what caused the fire. Since he left Ming Quong's he had not spoken to him about the fire. Foo Wing, labourer in Ming Quong's employ on the night of the fire, said some of the men tried to break into the store and put out the fire with water, but they could not get in the place, which was locked, and the key was away. He saw boys run across the paddock where the cows were. In saying that he was telling the truth and speaking facts. The boys were chased towards the.straw stack. Witness and the other Chinamen have had no conversation since the fire as to what evidence they would give at the inquest. Br Mr Parr: He was still in Ming Quong's employ, and had been in his employ off and on for many years. The witness in further cross-examination said he was a cousin of Ming Quong's. At this stage Mr Whitaker said that he proposed calling several Chinese witnesses, but he would not do so, as their evidence would only corroborate that of two previous witnesses. Auckland Star, Volume XXX, Issue 106, 6 May 1899, Page 2
|
|
|
Post by NZBC on Dec 26, 2011 14:02:12 GMT 12
INQUEST PROCEEDINGS.
The. inquest for th e purpose of investigating a fire which took place on March Ist last at Ming Quong's store, near Onehunga, was continued yester. day afternoon before Mr -John Bollard (Coroner) and a jury. It was close upon five o'clock before the adjournment until Friday took place. The witness Ming Quong, in further cross-examination by Air Parr, on behalf of the Sun and Norwich Union Insurance Companies, said he had never put in an amended claim to the Norwich Union Company. Mr Pickering had to write to witness before he sent him the amended claim. He had .been two or three times to Ah Tong's house before he visited there on the night of the fire. Ming Quong was then' examined by his' solicitor, Mr A. E. Whitalcer. He said the fire was on the Ist March, and the police, waited until now when he had sent in his amended claim before they held the. inquest. When he got home from the circus be asked some Of his employees how the fire took place, and that was the first he heard of it. He made the first claim out from memory. He did not make it out from the invoices as lie thought they were burned. Directly he saw Mr Pickering and Mr Jacka he told them there was a mistake, and he would send in a fresh claim. He did ■this before they asked him. The morning after the fire he told Mr Pickering about the goods in his house and the goods that were sent to Napier. Mr Pickering entered it in his book.. The goods sent to Carr, Johnston and Co. appeared in his sale book as having gone to them. Each window iv the store had six bars across it. Chief Detective Grace re-examiiied ■the witness, who said he sent thirtythree dozen silk handkerchiefs and three and a half silk turbans to Fiji. He got about sixteen and a half dozen back. They were consigned back to witness as a box of tea. lie got a draw'baek on the. q-oods he sent away. He told Mr C. 11. S. McKinney to refund the money back to the Customs, He had not claimed for the handkerchiefs or the Chinese books that came in the boxes against the insurance company. What he put in the claim was burned. He imported 101 dozen handkerchiefs, and in his first claim claimed for 100 dozen, but deducted these in the sales. He sent about sixteen or seventeen dozen handkerchiefs to Napjer. He sold about eight dozen in town, some to Court Bros., and he had twelve and a half dozen in his dwellinghouse. He gave over a dozen for presents. The sales book does not show who purchased the goods. To the Coroner: He.found the invoices about three days after the fire. He did not then send in the amended claim as he was .frightened and wanted to have everything correct before he sent it in. He found the invoices in the first week in March, and did not send in the amended claim until the lath April. He was also waiting for a letter from his •brother to see if some tobacco had not gone to Fiji. In answer to Mr Webster, a juryman, witness said boys _ould g*et, under the store. The floor was about two feet seven '.inches from the ground, and any person could get underneath. To a Juryman: About January I had my last goods from China —over ,£2OO worth; To another Juryman: I .had no flax or cotton in tlie store, and no kerosene. The whole of the depositions of* Ming Quong were read over and translated into Chinese, and the inquiry adjourned until Friday. Auckland Star, Volume XXX, Issue 105, 5 May 1899, Page 2
|
|
|
Post by NZBC on Dec 26, 2011 14:03:44 GMT 12
TO-DAY'S INQUEST PROCEEDINGS.
The inquest for the purpose of investigating a fire which took place on Ming Quong's premises near Onehunga on the Ist March last was resumed this morningl before Mr J. Bollard, M.H.tt. Mr A. E. Whitaker api peared on behalf of Ming Quong, l and Mr. C. J. Parr watched the pro| ceedings on behalf of the Sun and Norwich Union Fire Insurance Com' panics. Win. Ah Tong acted as in! terpreter. Chief Detective Grace con| ducted the case for the police. MING QUONG'S EVIDENCE. Ming Quong was the first witness j examined. He said that he was- a Chinese merchant, living near Onehunga, and his store was burned down on Ist March, 1899, when he was in Auckland. He had left his store for the circus that evening a little after 5 p.m. He locked the store up himself and thought all was secure. The store consisted of one large room and a bit of a loft. It was built of wood and covered with iron, with windows at each end. The-store was about 2ft Gin from the ground on piles. He kept the keys of the store after it was locked, and when he returned home he found it was burned down. He did not use fire or lights for any purpose in the store that afternoon. Next day he reported the fire to Mr Pickering-, I agent for the Sun Insurance Co. Witness called at Ah Tong's house a little after 6 p.m. for the purpose of asking Mr Ah Tong to go to the circus with him and his two children. Mrs Ah Tong said, to witness: 'Why did Mrs Ming Quong not come as she promised to call for me to go to the circus?' Witness replied that his I fifth daughter was ill and Mrs Ming I Quong could not come. He stayed at the house for a few minutes and I then left for the circus vwith Mrs Ah Tong and children. He was at the circus until after 10 p.m., and then he drove Mrs Tong back home again and stayed at her place until about 11 p.m." Witness had known Mrs Tong for a few months. He had never taken her to any place of amusement before. There was only one key to the lock of the store. All I of the goods in the store were destroyed. At the time of the lire he valued the stock at a little over 1000—pretty near £2000, All was destroyed. Witness said he put in a claim to the Sun Office shortly after the fire. He made a declaration before a barrister. He did not know what the declaration meant when he signed it or what it contained. He did not know any of the declaration. He understood some of it now when the interpreter read it to him. Pretty near the whole of the claim was wrong. Witness kept a stock book, which he took to the .store when he sent some goods to Napier and Fiji about a week before the fire, and it was burned in the fire. Previously he kept the stock book at his dwelling house. He did not enter the ff oods sent' to Napier and Fiji in the stock book but in the sales book, which was copieidf rom a Chinese book. Witness said he did not remember how long before the fire he took stock. He had another book of sales where he put down anything that was sold. Witness said that at the time of the fire he was not being pressed by his creditors. He had a few little bills to meet at the beginning of the month. His liabilities at the present time were about £700 here and a little over £180 in China. He owed over £100 for rent at the time of the fire. This amount was included in the 700. In witness' second claim he claimed having lost 5001b of tobacco dust. He bought this from Mr Walsh, of Wyndham street, in small quantities—3oolb at one time. He got some in 1897 and some last year. He had been to Mr Walsh since the fire to get a copy of the invoice. The tobacco dust was used for killing grubs on cabbages. He had the whole of the 5001t> at the time of the fire. He thought it about a year since his last purchase from Mr Walsh.
In further cross examination witness said he did not understand English to write it, but he knew the Chinese names of the English groceries. Mary McDonald sat up with him to make up the book. He had £876 of poods, in his store on the night of the fire. It was quite full; packed tight.
Mr Parr: Was the store full a fortnight before the fire? Witness: Pretty full.
Witness further said afc the time of the fire there was in the .store a long way more than 15 loads of goods. There were over 20 cart loads. Any witness who states there was only three or four loads in the store tells lies. He had no chaff in the store,
but he told Mr Pickering he had £60 worth of goods in the house. The police found £89 2/6 worth, and^he signed a statement accordingly. The wine and tea were put in the dwelling house before the new store was built. The cigars and silks were samples. A Chinese named How Shleng had not carted goods from witness" house since tk? lire, lie had carted potatoes fron.. i. c -shed to town.
The inquiry is 'likely to last for three or four days' mure. Some ten witnesses have yet to be examined. Auckland Star, Volume XXX, Issue 104, 4 May 1899, Page 2
|
|
|
Post by NZBC on Dec 26, 2011 14:05:01 GMT 12
CONTINUATION OF THE ENQUIRY.
Tiic erquiry in connection ylt-li ifirc aI: Ming Quong's store ,ri'»ar L'psom, rr. Marcli Ist, was eonunjed Safter we went to press yesterday. Chief-Detective Grace lippeared for the police; Mr A. 3']. Whitaker for Ming- Quong, and Mr C. ,J. Parr for the insurance companies affected —Sun and Norwich. Union. The enquiry is ibemg held before Mr Bollard, Coroner, and a jury of six. Thomas S. Jacka, agent for the Nor"wich Union Insurance Company, said Ming Quong had a policy for £400 in Iris "office, £310 of which was on the stock in the store. Ming Quong supplied the office with a statement of claim for £310 insurance. The statement showed the amount of goods destroyed as £1,875 18/8. The claim ■was not paid. Ming Quong never sent in an amended claim, nor gave any notice of his intention of doing so.
To Mr Parr: The total insurance on the stock in the different companies ■was £1,520. Ming Quong had not officially notified witness that the statement of claim was incorrect, but witness was present when Ming told Mr ..Pickering that the claim for rice was incorrect.
Lee Yen deposed through the rnedi■nm of an interpreter that he was sleeping in a hut near the store on the night of the fire. Over ten employees were sleeping in the hut. They were awakened by the noise of stones thrown on the roof. They took no notice of the first 'round,' but when a second came witness called out to •the rest, of the men to get up and •chase the larrikins. He went out with some of the others, and saw boys run•ning away. They did not chase the boys far, as they ran too fast. Com.ing back towards the store, they saw that it was on fire. Witness namedsome of the men who were with him, tout said he could not remember the rest, as he was so excited when he saw the fire. He did not know in what part of the store he saw the fire. He saw the flames come through the roofingl and a side window of the store, -fend as there was no chance of saving the building he went to save his things irom the men's hut. Witness was outside the hut just before he went to ted; it was a long time before he Jieard the stones thrown. He was not .out a short time before the fire was "discovered. To Mr Parr: Witness was Ming i (jQuong's foreman. He was in Ming's j when the previous fire occur- Vied, but was not at the place at the time of the- fire. He had been employed off and on by Ming for several i 1 years. I What wer these four interesting youths doing about at that time of night? j Lee Yen did not know what they ■were doing. Directly they came out "she boys ran away. Does he think the boys were trying 4;o set fire to the store? Lee did not know. Does he know how the store came jto be burned down? No, he did not. He did not notice any sign of fire when he was..chasing the boys. When he got back the fire iad got a complete hold of the buildring. He did not chase the boys very tfar. DoeS he know that the- police have '"been quite unable to find any trace <)f these four boys? No. To Mr Whitaker: Witness went to "bed that-night a little after nine, and was riot out till he went to chase the boys. He was not related to Ming Quong, and had not seen him on the «day of the fire. Charles Hannigan, engineer, said he *was passing Ming Quong's store about half-past ten on the night of the fire, coming from Onehunga. He saw a small speck of fire before he came up to the store, and when he came •up /the fire was burning brightly through the window at the northern end. He did not notice any boys about He could not say that he saw any Chinamen about. He saw a moving object of some kind towards the northern end of the building, but lost sight of that object. He shouted 'Fire' three times, and went back to the hotel to inform the people there. When he gave the alarm somebody, whom he believed was n Chinaman., came out, The people from the hotel, about 175 yards away, came back with witness -£o the fire immediately. At this stage the enquiry was adjourned till ten a.m. to-day. He was quite sure the stock book was burned. He sent in a claim for |£1834 3/6. It was the wrong claim. ;,He wrote it 1 from memory after the jßtock book was burned. When he ,wrote the stock down in a book from memory he was a- bit excited. The ibook (he produced) was the book he made from memory. He made the .book out on the night of the fire. His 'servant. Mary McDonald, assisted him, as he did not know how to spell the words. Witness said he saved his sales book, but he did not enter in it rthe goods he sent to Napier and Fiji. He had them entered in a pocket ■book. The book (produced) was a copy of the sales book from the Chinese book. The book (produced) is the
stock book made out from memory. fThe other book was a true copy of the original Chinese book, but he had Hot entered it in the goods sent to Napier and Fiji. The goods stored at Carr, Johnston and Co.'s were entered in it. The goods were left at Carr, Johnston's as samples, but they were Hot sold. Some of the items in his pocket book may not be entered in either books or the original Chinese book. He had left his pocket book at 2iome. He took the two books to Mr [Pickering the morning after the fire. •He told him that he had no time to ienter the goods sent to Napier in the sales book. He thought about £90 ;worth were sent. Witness said he also told Mr Pickering the amount of gobds Ihe had sent to Fiji and he put it in
jfche sales book. He told Mr Pickering that the books (produced) were the "books he used in trade and not copies. He was- excited at*the time and forgot ,to tell him they were copies. He did not remember if he told Mr Pickering that his stock book was burned, but he told him that his papers (invoices) .were burned. He was sure of that. Witness here said at the time lie had Sa feeling as ii he were 'half mad.' 'Witness in further evidence said about three days after sending in the first claim Mrs Ming Quong found a roll of crumpled up papers in the bedroom chest-of-drawers, which witness discovered were invoices. When he had gone through half of the invoices Mr Pickering and Mr Jacka arrived. He asked them to come into the house, but they refused. Mr Pickering asked witness about the crackers and where he kept them. He found out after, looking at .the invoices
that he had made a mistake about the crackers and told Mr Pickering so, and that he had only got five bundles of crackers from China. He got some other person to write out his later statement of claim for the fire. There was no lire used in or near the store on the evening of the tire. The day before the fire a lire was lit by a Mrs Johnson about 200 yards from the store. It was burning for two days. Witness said he had no Chinese fuse, only cracker fuse, in his store. Me knew gan henge, but had none in his store. Detective Grace: How many bags of rice diet you get through the Customs since the previous fire in April, 1898? Witness: 651 bags. At a rough estimate, 1 sold half of this. Detective Grace: Well, you put in a claim for insurance in the first statement for 700 bags? Witness: It was a mistake. Detective Grace: Could you say what amcjnt of goods you shifted to your house near the Costley Home before the fire? Witness: IS bags of rice. CEOSS-EXAMIXED BY ME PAEE. In answer to .Mr Parr, witness said he had had two fires. This was in April last year. He did not know the cause of the first fh*e. He was not at home. He then had about £300 worth of stock. He got a little over that amount from the North German Insurance Company. With regard to the recent fire, witness said he had put in two claims. The first being a mistake, he had put in another, compiled by a solicitor. The second claim, witness said, was quite correct. It was copied from the. invoices. The claim represented that witness had in his store goods to the value of £87C 11/2 on the night of the fire. Witness was cross-examined why he answered a question put that morning by Detective Grace to the effect thivt he had nearly £2000 worth of stock in his store on the night the store was destroyed. Witness said he discovered from the invoices there was only .£BOO worfli. His memory was at fault to the extent of about 1000 over the value of his stock. Auckland Star, Volume XXX, Issue 104, 4 May 1899, Page 2
|
|