The Sun.
London, England, 1863-08-31 00:00:00

plaintiff on the present occasion, or one which, as he should
contend upon all the facts, could be more unfounded. Not
only was Mr. Woolley charged with arson—an offence for
which he was liable to be sentenced to penal servitude for
life—but Crozier was also included, who could not by any
possibility have had the slightest motive or object to com-
mit such a crime. The defendants had evidently 'laced up
the whole history of Mr. Woolley; but, although no doubt
they had spared no expense or trouble, they had been unable
to discover that he had been guilty of one single dishonour-
able act. The worst thing they appear to be desirous to
make out against him was, that he had at one time been a
waiter at Raggett's Hotel, but this was proved to be untrue.
They then endeavoured to make out that he had formed part
of a company of provincial actors, but this also had failed,
and all they were able to make out was that he had played
on the elsge, and that he had taken a benefit at Southampton.
Even if they had proved it, what did it amount to ? Did it
in any way go to show that he had been guilty of the fearful
crime of setting fire to his own house. He asked the jury to
consider what the effect of such a charge as this must neces-
sarily be upon any man possessed of the slightest honourable
feeling. No verdict that they could deliver would entirely
restore that peace of mind which had been so cruelly destroyed.
For more than a quarter of a century Mr. Woolley had been
moving in the highest circles of society, and respected and
honoured by persona with whom it was a pleasure to be ac-
quainted. He was received into the very best society, and
he had obtained the friendship and consideration of persons
of the highest rank. His learned friend had attempted to
make out that he was embarrassed ; but this was not the fact.
The only debt he owed at the time of the fire was to the
witness Temple, and he would have been paid but that it
was considered better for prudential considerations that this
should not be done until this inquiry was terminated. Not
a single person could be found to whom the plaintiff owed a
farthing, and yet the insurance company, to avoid paying
the amount of their insurances, had ventured to make such
a charge against him ; and it appeared to him that it was no
light matter for them to have taken such a course opurnoe
ceeding. With regard to his having spent his wife's fortune
what
upon Campden House, admitting that he had done
not ne
s
was that to the insurance company ?
thehs
com-
plained, and it was evident that her sistSeranoodndhueortborofthiverr:
Captain Cope, made no complaint of
Woolley, but, on the contrary, they were still on
intimate and affectionate terms with him, and
t Ni
they had the
the mst h
highest opinion of his honour and integrity.lr Woolley,
..\T tr th st,andre
introduced .
ing what had been insinuated against . he
could be no doubt that when he was to his late
wife he was moving in good society, and when he married
her he admitted he obtained a fortune of £35,000 with her.
Were the jury, because Mr. Woolley thirty years ago had
belonged to a company of actors, to come to the conclusion
that therefore he was likely to commit a felony such as was
imputed to him ? It appeared to him that the fact of Mr.
Woolley having raised himself to the position he now occu-
pied was more to his credit than otherwise. What was Mr.
Woolley's connexion with the defendants? Why, it appeared
that whenever he desired to insure his property he insured
in the Sun Office, and he said it was worthy of observation
that the factappeared that down to the year 1859 there ac-
tually had been no insurance at all upon the furniture, and
it had been clearly established that the amount of the in-
surance had only been increased at the earnest solicitation
of Miss Cope, who had a mortgage of £13,000 upon the
property, and who felt that she was not sufficiently secured
by the amount of insurance that was already effected.
There was no secrecy when the insurance was effected—the
surveyor to the Sun Fire Office went over the house, and he
consented to take an insurance of £lO,OOO ; and it showed
that the company were pretty mindful of their own interest
by their insisting nixie being paid the doubly hazardous
premium, or 4s. 61. per cent., instead of Is. 6d., and it also
showed that they were at the same time aware that it was a
place very likely to be accidentally burned. He really could
not understand how it was possible the fire office could come
to the conclusion that there was the slightest suspicion that
the plaintiff had wilfully destroyed Campdea House. They
had heard what sort of place it was. It was more than 200
years old—Charles 11. had held many revels there—it was
once the residence of Queen Anne; but when the plaintiff
took it it had been a school, but in 1554 he gave £5,000 for
a lease of the house and grounds for 99 years at a nominal
rent of ss. per annum. After this period it appeared to be
the sole object of his life to renovate the building, and it
could not be doubted that he had spent the whole of his
wife's fortune, £35,000, and £13,000 belonging to her sister, •
in that object. His desire evidently was to make Campden
House one of the most magnificent places the world could
produce, and to a certain extent he succeeded. The defend-
ants, notwithstanding this, would endeavour to induce them
to come to the conclusion that he had wilfully destroyed the
whole work of his life—and with what object? Why, the
amount of the insurance, although large, was really in-
significant compared with the value of the property. The
building itself was insured for £12,000, and it would have
taken more than that sum to rebuild it. What could he
have gained by that? It would not give him one single
sixpence, and under these circumstances he was to make
himself a felon and subject himself to penal servitude
for life. This is what the Sun Fire Office would have
then believed. Could anything more monstrous be con-
ceived ? What would this house have fetched in 18G1, with
five acres of pleasure grounds. They knew what houses of
the ordinary description did fetch in that neighbourhood,
and to talk of burning such a house: If he wanted to
let it, did they doubt that ho could have obtained a very
large rent indeed ? If he had really been so insane as to
destroy such a place, which it hod been th© object of his
whole life to create, surely he would have waited till after
the Exhibition year, and it was for the jury to consider
whether it could possibly be conceived for a single moment
that Mr. Woolley would have destroyed this splendid man-
sion and the whole of its costly contents for the sum of
£29,00 when it was admitted that he had expended £50,000
upon it. Every one knew that the ordinary object men had
in view when they insured their property and destroyed it
was to obtain a profit ; in fact, to obtain considerably more
money than the property insured was worth. But was
that the case here ? On the contrary, if Mr. Woolley had
received every shilling of the £29,000 he would still be an
enormous loser by this unfortunate fire. The learned coun-
sel then referred to the course adopted by the fire-office in
insisting that Mr. Woolley should prepare plans and sur-
veys of the building, which would have cost him £l,OOO,
and the learned lodge himself appeared to be surprised at
their adopting such a course, and said ho could hardly
believe that the company sericusly intended such a thing to
be done. As to the building, then, there was no doubt that
the amount of the insurance upon it was most moderate,
and his learned friend did not appear to dispute this fact.
After they had given him a great deal of trouble to estab-
lish the value of the fittings, they also admitted that they
were insured for a reasonable and proper amount; and his
learned friend was at last compelled to take his stand upon
the item of the furniture. He then commented anon this
portion of the case, and said that with regard to any allega-
tions that there had been a fraudulent claim in respect of the
furniture, even if every article that had been referred to by
the witness Temple had been removed, the value of the fur-
niture that undoubtedly remained was considerably more
more than £5,000, for which the property was insured, and
he also reminded the jury that Mr. 'Woolley stated in his
claim that the prices he had fixed were not made in refe-
rence to the actual cost, but upon the assumption of whet
it would cost to replace the different articles. The learned
counsel, after some further observations with refer-
ence to the conduct of the defendants, said that upon Mr,
Woolley claiming 4s. a volume for 1,000 books, they actu-
ally required that he should give the title of every book
and the price it cost him, and he put it to the jury whether
this was not a moat monstrous thing to ask for, and whether
it was possible to be complied with. He then commented
upon what he said had been described as putting the house
into an extraordinary state of preparation for a fire, by var-
nishing the different rooms, and he argued that every fact
that had been proved showed that Mr. Woolley, and his
sister and brother-in-law also, were merely engaged in doing
what had always been their principal enjoyment, namely,
embellishing and beautifying this house, and that the use
of the varnish was an act of the most innocent character.
He said it appeared to him that all the facts they had had
to contend with were mere shadows, and he must say that
he was utterly at a loss to find those conclusive facts upon
which the directors of the Sun Fire-office felt themselves
justified in defending this action. The learned counsel then
proceeded to comment upon the evidence that had been
given by Temple and his wife, and to the manner in which
they had contradicted each other with regard to the cooking
or the warming of the sausages, and he said it was not at
all improbable that the fire might have been occasioned by
the neglect of those people in leaving a fire or a candle in
the green room, and that one object they had in view was to
screen themselves from blame. He said it was also clear
that both these witnesses were actuated by a strong animus
against Mr. Wcolley, and that their evidence ought not to
be relied upon ; and he called upon the jury to dismiss their
evidence entirely from their consideration. He then referred
to the evidence of the witness Woolhouse, and said that his
evidence with regard to what he alleged he saw when he
first arrived at the fire was clearly false, as that portion of
the building which he represented as the first that was in
flames was actually still standing, and the fireman who had
the charge of the salvage was actually living in it. Having
remarked upon the evidence given by the witness as to the
allegedwas absurd
finding of the clothes, ho submitted that his story
and improbable, and that he was a worthless
fellow whose testimony could not be relied upon; and he
said,
at the same time, that he could not help expressing
his opinion that the Sun Fire Insurance Company ought to
have investigated the story told by this man, and have
ascertained whether he was speaking
he was a man whose testimon
3 the truth, or whether
two respectable
be depended upon,
before they ventured to charge te'v
the crime of arson, for which they
might be
sentenced to
penal servitude for life. The next point upon which his
learned friend seemed to place great importanceout tO' a place
1 theaee
l
evidence given by the witness Ellis. Now, they had heard
the manner in which Ellis had given his testimony, and he
would ask them whether they thought they ought
the slightest reliance upon him. They had seen the manner
in which he had evaded the questions that were put to him,
and they would remember that when he was asked to mark
the places upon the plan where he had represented he had
seen Mr. -Woolley and Crozier, he made the letter N instead
of A, and he said that it was caused by hi • hand shaking.
They could judge from this fact and his own admission at out
his having had delirium tremens what sort of man he w 5.7,