|
|
Raglan
Nov 1, 2014 13:09:06 GMT 12
Post by NZBC on Nov 1, 2014 13:09:06 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Raglan
Nov 1, 2014 13:12:08 GMT 12
Post by NZBC on Nov 1, 2014 13:12:08 GMT 12
FIRE AT RAGLAN PUBLIC HALL DESTROYED (By Teleukai'h Special to the Waikaio Times). RAGLAN, This Day. Wong Letn & Co., for whom the Public Hall was recently converted into a general store, were burnt out at daylight this morning. Geo Gun, a partner in the lirrn, was awakened by Mr McQueen, who saw smoke issuing from tin building, which soon afterwards was all abl ize. The stock was destroyed, but the papers and books in Mr Langloy's ollice, which was part of the building, were }{ot nut. The insurances are on the st'ck, and .£250 on the building (which is Mr Kyugdon's property), both in the State oiiice. paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&d=WT19060315.2.11&cl=search&srpos=5&e=-------100--1----0wong+raglan--&st=1 |
|
|
|
Raglan
Nov 1, 2014 13:14:21 GMT 12
Post by NZBC on Nov 1, 2014 13:14:21 GMT 12
THE RAGLAN FIRE. THE INQUIRY An inquiry was held at the Courthouse, Raglan, on Friday morning, beforo .Mr J N. P'gler (acting-coroner) and a jury of six, Messrs P. W. Greei, Middleman, Gilmour, Hressey, Cox and Dr. Saunders, into the circumstances surrounding the burning of the store at the junction of Bow and Green-streets, Raglan, occupied by Wong Lem and Co. Mr Green was elected foreman. The first witness, Mr A. R. Langley, land agent, resident at Raglan, sworn, stated he was agent for the proprietor of the store which Wong Lem aad Co. had undertaken on verbal agreement to purchase and had been in possession of since the beginning of December last. Witness occupied a room in the front portion of the building, which was formerly known as the Public Hall. The whole of the building had been re-lined since Wong Lem and Co. agreed to take it. It had also been ceiled and other minor improvements made in the way of doors, windows, new verandah, fittings and chimney. Before the fire the buildiug was valued at about £330. Remembered Wednesday, 14th March, when he valued Wong Lem and Co.'s stock for insurance in State Office at £843 from invoice. Wong Lem and Co. had £2OO insurance on their original stock of £320, and increased it from £2OO up to £6OO. Wong Lem asked for £SOO increase, but be would only grant the firm £4OO. The insurance was applied for a fortnight beforehand, but being busy, the matter was not fixed up at that time. There was an insurance of £250 on the building in the State Office and an insurance of £25 on his own private effects. The building was to be bought for £-410 and this sum was to be paid on the day of the fire. Witness was a considerable loser by the fire and if, the building was to be replaced it would cost £SOO. Went home satisfied on night of 14th that everything was safe. First witness knew of fire was being woke up next mirniug by W. Taylor, who told him the place was burning. He cime in and found the store destroyed but someone had saved his books. No one seemed to know how the fire had originated and witness could form no idea then or since. The new owners were miking certain improvements and witness did not notice anything particular in regard to the chimney. By Coroner: Building belonged to Mrs Langley, his wife. In the back store (marked E on plan) grain, chaff, and fungus was stored. Did not think inflammable matter was stored there. The cases of kerosene and benzine were saved There was nothing stored that by heat would cause combustion. By Foreman: Did not think goods repiesented on invoice were on wharf and had no reason to suppose that the stock on the wharf was included in the invoices. Expected the head of the firm (Wong Lem) to pay for the building on arrival of steamer on day of fire. Wong Lem's manager showed no undue hurry to get the insurance completed. The risk was the same after chimney was put in as before. Albert Steadmnn, bricklayer, resident at Raglan, deposed to building the chimney in store. Hearth was not built up from ground. Had no special instructions re building chimney. Tiimmer" arches were used in chimney to save rats getting in, as used in the Harbour View Hotel and other buildings. The hearth wae not built on the floor, and chimney was safely built as regards fire. William McQueen, carpenter at Raglan, remembered the morning of the tire at Wong Lem and Co.'s store. Got up at about 3 o'clock on morning of 15th whan he went down to the wharf to unload a punt and finished about 5.30. Then went to his own house to prepare a cup of tea, and went to the Chin itnan's store to get a tin of milk, which he obtained from W. Goo Gun. Whoa he got home he heard a cry of fire and returned to Goo Gen's place and saw smoke coming out of chimney, and thought the building was on fire. Woke others up. No fire was noticeable when he went for milk. W. Goo Gun was not dressed when he came tj the door. Saw no one on the street except Mr Graham, who was coming out of his own place. Never heard any one say they would burn the Chinamen's place down. Could throw no light on origin of fire. By Coroner: Went in building to get Mr Langley's books out. Various other questions were asked this witness, who stated that it was not ten minutes between the tinn he got the tin of milk from the store until he heard the cries of fire. S. L. Graham, baker, residing at Raglan, gave evidence as to hearing peculiar noise on morning 15th inst, and noticed smoke coming out of the" Chinimen's chimney, and saw that the store was on fire, which ho ran towards. Witness then detailed what he did at the store in getting out goods and saving Mr Langley's effects. By police: The flames appeared to be in the far end of the place. There was no sign of fire outside. Noticed no smell of burning kerosene and had no idea how building got on fire. A little smoke was coming up from under the eaves. It was clear daylight when he first saw the fire. Alfred Rendell, carpenter, residing at Hamilton, said he was sleeping in side room off main building, in the occupation of Wong Lem and Co. On the night of fire, heard McQueen coming to the door, which woke him. Soon after he jumped out of bed and saw a big flare by the partition door. The flames seemed to be coming from store room. Witness then came round and roused the constable. By police: When he came home the previous evening, had been in shop in company with Goo Gun co do something to his bike Finally, he wont to bed about 12.30 p.m. Believed he went through the buildiug to get a pair of pyjamas. Did not get up himself or bear Willie Goo Gun get up. Some days before Goo Gun told him he had i-1,000 worth of stock, and that he he thought he ought to have more insurance on than he had. Did not think Goo Gun was anxious for Wong Lem to come up. Goo Gun said that if Wong Lem kicked him out, he would start in opposition to him. Goo Gun must have gone into the store to obtain a tin of milk and must have, in his opinion, seen the glare which was coming underneath the partition doors. By Foreman: The smoke was very strong and dense. By juryman Had seen Goo Gun playing cards. The Chinaman was a teetotaller. At Christmas time the Chinaman made a number of presents. Goo Gun did not go to bed after serving McQueen. From witness' knowledge Goo Gun would not do b fraudulent action. Thomas William Goo Gun, storekeeper, deposed that he was a member of the firm of Wong Lem and Co., and had carried on business in Radian since November 31st last in the building known as the Public Hall, rented from Mr Langley at £1 week. Mr Langley afterwards offered to bell the premises for £llO. Wong Lem then consented to buy it. The firm paid towards rent of building but no money towards its purchase, but had B p«nt about £K) in improvements ourside what Mr Langley did. In November bought about £350 worth of stock and put £2OO of insurance on samo through Mr Langley as agent' Valued stock at time of tire at over £Bl3, Had slept in buildiug all the time. On the night of the fire went to bed late after tl e hotel closed. Hoy Donaldson and another (name unknown) and himself had supper at the counter. 'I here was no fire in the fire-place that night, as he had his meals at the hotel. He put the lamp out before going to sleep. It was daylight when he was called up to get a tin of milk for Mc- Queen and he did not take a light into the store. Sawj smoke in store and scored and gave McQueen the milk, then saw that Rendell was asleep and thought someone else was lighting a fire. Went to bedroom and got a blanket and tried to put the fire out, but did not succeed. Then went outside and called out fire," takm" about £4 out of the till on the way. By Coroner: There might have been smoking in the store, but none of the persona who had supper there were in tbe/'V end room. Knew nothing about fire until went for McQueen's mi k. Was on friendly terms with his partner Wong Lem. Had said to Kondell that if Wong Lem was cross with him he would start another store. Witness thought that someone had set fire to the placo but could not say who it was. By Foremau Everything was burning in back room when witness went to the door. Was a partner in firm. Everything was on equal shares as regards profit and he drew wages when he wanted money. Always kept back-door looked at night. Had never had a fire in any buainess he had been connected with before. 'I bought he had not lost a penny in gambling in Raglan. Was not drunk that night, never drank anything stronger than lemon squash or port wine. Saved over 20 caser, of kerosene and benzine from the fire. The firm intended starting business here again. Some of the first stock was taken out of other businesses of Wong Lem at Hawera. Was equally interested in the Hawera business. By police: Witness said he would lose money by this fire but could not yet Bay how much. He had expected Wong Lorn to come up by steamer. There was nothing he wanted to hide from Wong Lem. Did not know value of his book debts and did not set the store on fire. Constable McCarthy, stationed at Raglan, then gave evidence as to being apprised of the fire. Whc: he went over could see so fire on outside of building. Helped to clear Mr Langley's office. In course of conversation the insurance adjuster informed him that the firm of Wong Lem would loose about £2OO. Was unable to throw any light on the origin of the fire. After a brief retirement the jury returned the following verdict, That the store occupied by Wong Lem and Co. and its contents were destroyed by a fire whioh Started in or under the back room of the building, but there is nothing in the evidence to show how the fire originated. paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&cl=search&d=WT19060326.2.12&srpos=6&e=-------100--1----0wong+raglan-- |
|
