Copyright USGenNet Inc., 2016
                           All Rights Reserved
                        USGenNet Data Repository

        Please read USGenNet Copyright Statement on this page:
                <http://www.us-data.org/fineprint.html>

Transcribed and submitted by Linda Talbott
for the USGenNet Data Repository http://www.us-data.org/
===========================================================================
Formatted by USGenNet Data Repository Chief Archivist, Linda Talbott
All of the above information must remain when copied or downloaded.
===========================================================================
Burning of the Newhall House
Published by Bleyer Bros.
Cramer, Aikens & Cramer, Printers - 1883

     [59]              BURNING OF THE NEWHALL HOUSE

                               THE INQUEST

     The inquest on the dead was begun on the 23d of January, in
  the juiy-rooni of the Municipal Court, City Hall, before the
  following jurors: Robert Davies, builder; J. B. Thompson, con-
  tractor; Daniel Waite, clergyman; T. J. Franey, railroad employe;
  J. C. Corrigan, merchant; John O'Connell, contractor. John M.
  Clark, District Attorney, conducted the examination of witnesses.
  The inquiry continued until the afternoon of February ], when
  the District Attorney charged the jury and they retired. The
  sifting process and argument on the testimony educed at the exam-
  ination occupied the attention of the jury, at daily sittings, until
  February 5th, when a verdict containing the following findings
  was rendered:
     That the Newhall House was set on fire by a person or persons unknown;
  that only one night watchman was employed in the hotel, and that he, hav-
  ing other duties to perform, was unable to attend to his proper duties,
  which should have received the attention of two or three men; that the
  night watchman and night clerk, obeying previous instructions of the
  proprietors, lost valuable time in useless attempts to extinguish the
  fire, and neglected to arouse the inmates, and that when they did attempt
  to arouse those in the hotel the corridors were so filled with stifling
  smoke that the employes were obliged to seek their own safety; that the
  proprietors were guilty of culpable negligence in not havino; employed a
  sufficient number of watchmen to guard the house against fire and awake
  the inmates in time to save all the lives possible; that, notwithstanding
  the facts that the Newhall House was easy of egress and devoid of intri-
  cate passages, that it had outside escape ladders on the northeast and
  southeast corners, and a bridge near the southwest corner leading across
  the alley to the opposite building, an inside servants' stairway from the
  fifth story to the basement, and two large open stairways in the front
  corridors leading from the office floor to the sixth story, with an open
  ladder to the roof, the owners of the Newhall House, knowing that many
  fires had taken place at various times in the hotel, are guilty of
  culpable negligence in not having provided more outside escapes in case
  of fire; that the Fire Department did their duty as well as could be
  expected, but could have done much more had the ladder trucks been fully
  manned and equipped with the best extension ladders and the men well
  drilled to handle them; and that the telegraph poles and wires caused
  serious obstruction to the Fire Department by preventing them from using
  their ladders in a speedy and etficient manner at the time they were so
  much needed.

===========================================================================
If you've reached this file through a SEARCH, you can access more
of our growing collection of FREE online information by going to
the following URL: http://www.us-data.org/
===========================================================================