The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1887-10-29 00:00:00

THE RECENT FIRE AT VHITELEY S.

The inquest, adjourned from the 17th of August,
touching the death of John Hampden Gill, Robert
Hyde, Harry Mongridge, and James Johns, who lost
tpwh
Dr.
si r
tDbl
Danford
vnuerf son
re ng
Tr
rove,
wasfia
gr,e :urn
etts
huMem fir.
au Wn
odhnai
yt eiecoybn'osdoalpy.
rr,
oe
bomime f s
oe
of
ef,
the Westbourne-park Chapel. Dr. Mills Roche (soli-
&tor) appeared for Mr. Whiteley; Superintendent
Palmer watched the case on behalf of the Metropoli-
tan Fire Brigade; and Inspectors Jones and Abbe.
line (of the Criminal Investigation Department) on
behalf of the police. Detective Inspector Abbeline
stated that he had examined over 100 persons and
anonymous communications, and there was not one
atom of evidence to throw the least suspicion upon
any one with regard to the origin of the fire.
Mr, Charles Robert Walker, CE., stated that he had
special knowledge as to iron girders. He had examined
the premises where the fire occurred, and had made
a written report. That report, which he read, gave
particulars of the general construction of the premises,
and especially of the inn and brickwork of the build-
ings. He reported that there was no allowance for
the expansion of the girders, and his inspection
showed that there had occurred a great expansion.
Such expansion as he had seen would only occur when
the iron was submitted to great heat. He had no
desire to find fault with the building, in which the
ordinary rules of construction had been observed. If
there was no explosion he could conceive of no other
reason for the fall of the wall than the expansion of
the iron girders. Mr. William B. Lewis, C.E.,
agreed with Mr. Walker that the building
in question was constructed in the usual way,
except where special provision was made, as in
the case of furnaces ; but he could not agree
that the expansion of the" girders had much to do
with the throwing down of the wall. Mr. F. Went-
worth Shiel, CE., who had large experience of iron
construction, said the wall fell owing to an ordinary
law of nature by which materials expanded by be-
coming heated. He did not agree with Mr. Walker's
opinion that the iron girders expanded; but even if
they did, an expansion to the extent of two inches
would not have the effect of pushing down the wall.
Mr. T. Cbatfeild Clarke, CE., judging from the
plans and what he had heard, said he should have
constructed the building in the same way as Mr.
Saunders, the architect, had done. Toe wall gave
way from the effects of heat, and the girders were
no appreciable factor in its falling. Mr. H. E. Wallis,
C.E., was of opinion that there would have been an
expansion of the girders of three or four inches, which
Would push cut the walls. In his last building he
had made provision for the expansion of girders,
which he considered should be either free or protected.
Mr. Saunders (the architect) stated that it was not a
fact that the girders were sandwiched in timber. He
wasastill of opinion that there was some kind of ex-
plosion, not of dynamite or gun-cotton, but of steam,
gas, or heated air, which drove the walls out as des-
eribed.—The Coroner, in his address to the jury, said
that although there had been expressions of opinion
that the fire had been wilfully caused, there had been
no evidence to show how the fire originated, or
whether, as had been-suggested—there was more than
one fire. There was no explosion in the ordinary
sense, although there might have been an explosion
due to an expansion of the atmosphere. The wall
seemed to fall very suddenly, and although there was
a difference of opinion as to whether the expansion of
the ironwork caused the fall of the wall, no doubt it
would be affected by the expansion. The jury, after
consulting for half an hour, returned with the
following verdict and rider: " Tbat Robert
Hyde, John Hampden, Gill, Harry Mongridge, and
James Johnc, died from the effects of fracture of the
skull and other injuries reccived by the fall of a wall
in Douglas-place, at the time when M. r. William
Whiteley's premises were on fire; and the jury f.urther
say that although there is no sufficient evidence to
show how or by what means the fire originated, they
are of opinion that it was the work of an Incendiary
or incendiaries. The jury are further unanimously of
opinion: 1. That the present state of the law with re-
gard to fires is most unsatisfactory, inasmuch as it
would have allowed the fire at Mr. Whitcley's pre-
mises to have passed without any official inquiry but
for the deaths resulting therefrom. 2. That pro-
vision should be made by law for an official
inquiry into the origin and circumstances
fires. 3. That such an inquiry would tend to diminish
the frequency of fires by snaking felony more easy of
detection, and by drawing public censure, if not
punishment, upon persons in cases of fire resulting
from carelessness or want of precaution. 4. That's()
information and statistics that would ro!ult from fire
inquiries would expose faulty and inferior work, and
thus; tend to improvement in ,the construction of
buil lings." The jury also, with one dissentient, were
of opinion—" That the serious danger which may
ironwork
is from unscientific construction where
is largely used calls for immediate attention, with the
view of such an amendment of the Building Act as
will secure the requisite supervision."