The Sun.
London, England, 1863-08-29 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATMIDAY EVENING, AUGUST 29, 1863.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT.—CnoyDox, Aug. 28.
(Beforo Baron Bramwell and a Special Jury.)
WOOLLEY Y. roLn.

THE CAMPEEN HOUSE FIE.E.-.-FOURTIL DAY.
This trial was resumed this morning.
Mr. Bovill, Q.C., Serjeant Ballantine, Mr. Mereweather,
Mr. Henry James (specially retained), and Mr. Rosher,
appeared for the plaintiff.
Mr. Lush, Q.C., Mr. Denman, Q.C., and Mr. Garth
were for the defendant.
The case for the company was proceeded with.
The witness Temple was further cross-examined by Mr.
'Bevil'. Ho said that when the final claim was sent in by
Mr. Woolley in the month of Sep'ember, 1862,it was shown
him by Mr. Randall, the solicitor to the Fire Office, but
this was not done until the spring of the present year. He
was aware that at the end of this claim there was a state-
ment by Mr. Woolley referring to him (Temple) as being
able to give further information in reference to the property
and the value of the different articles. He was aware that
'Woolley also stated in the claim that the list had been sub-
mitted to every member of his family, and to all persons
who were likely to be able to give information with regard
to the furniture. Witness did make some written observa-
tions in the margin of the list in relation to the different

items.
Baron Bramwell observed that it would be very material
that those observations should be produced, in order to see
whether they corresponded with his present evidence.
Mr. Bovill said he had not got the paper containing these
observations, and he called for its production.
Mr. Lush said that every one of the papers in the posses-
sion of the Fire-office had been handed over to the solicitor
to the plaintiff. They had no other papers. There was not
the slightest ground for a suggestion that any papers had
been kept back.
Some entries were then read, from which it appeared that
Temple did suggest some alterations in the list of articles.
One of these entries was, "Mr. and Mrs. T. do not believe
those articles were there." This, however, it appeared, was
in the handwriting of Mr. Randall, the solicitor to the Sun
Fire-office.
Some further discussion took place with regard to the
non-production of a document, but Mr. Lush still Persisted
in asserting that everything called for had been produced.
In answer to a question put by the learned Judge,
Temple said that the observations he made at the time
referred to were similar in effect to the evidence he had now
given, except that at the present time he was more positive
that certain articles were not in Campden House at the time
of the fire than he was when he was first questioned. He
said that he did not wish to give an offensive answer whe
he was first questioned as to certain articles being in the
house, but if he had been called upon to give his evidence
upon oath he should have said the same as he did now.
The cross-examination of the witness was then continued,
and he admitted that 'some of the articles he represented
not to have been in the house might probably have been
there,. and he said that the transaction referred to a period
18 months back, and his recollection could not be expected
to be perfect.
Baron Bramwell interposed and asked Mr. Bovill whether,
supposing he should be suddenly asked what furniture was
in any room of his own house, what would be the result ?
Mr. Bovill said he ;should not be able to tell, "or any

other man." (Laughter.)
Cross-examination continued—When he gave the infer.
!nation relating to the purchase of the candles he stated that
they were bought only two or three weeks before the fire.
Witness knew Mr. Clinch, a tradesman at Kensington, but
he would swear that he did not tell him that he was
frying sausages in the greenroom on the night of the fire.
He would swear this positively, and that Mr. Woolley was
not present when he made the statement. Ho might have
said that he believed the fire broke out in tho theatre.
They did have sausages for supper, hut they were cooked
at Mrs. Temple's sister's. They were neither hot nor cold
—a little "each wise." (A laugh) There was a fire in
the room, but it was very low.
Baron Bramwell—Then you ate the sausages nearly cold,
although there was a fire in the room.
Witness—They were not cold.
Cross-examination continued—Witness remembered a

beam in the drawing-room being found on fire. The beam

was under the grate, and there had been a large wood fire
on fire-days on the hearth, and this he believed was the
origin of the fire. He always had a decided opinion as to
the origin of the fire, but he had never mentioned this
opinion till the present time.
Mr, Bovill—l believe at one time you considered you were
likely to die?
WitnesF—Yes.

Mr. Bovill—And at that time you asked Mr. Woolley to
pay your wife and child what he owed you, and confided
them to his care ?
Witness—Yes. I asked him to pay them what he
owed me.
Cross-examination—A. similar fire took place on another
occasion, but it was discovered and put out before any mis-
chief was done. But for the discovery the house would in
all probability have been burned down ; but it would have
taken a good deal of time first. He told the Sun Fire Office
of these fires. They were aware of one of them, because
they had to pay for Ihe damage. It took about 20 minutes
or half an hour to put out one of the fires. They had to re-
move the panelling, and if they had not done this the panel-
ling would very soon have been on fire. One of the beams
had evidently been smouldering for more than an hour at the
time it was discovered to be on fire. Witness never did any
varnishing to the panels himself ; but one of his men was so
employedin February, 1862 ; and when the man had finished
Mr. Woolley and Crozier went on further with it. When he
got out of the house on the night of the fire he knocked at

the first window he came to in Mr. Egg's house, and when

he was let out he found he was very much burned, and he
asked a policeman to get him a cab to tako him to the hos-
pital, and he advised him to go to Mrs. Stevens's. He
heard his wife's voice the moment he got into the house,
and he exclaimed, 0, Maria, how glad lam you are here.'
He did not attempt to go to the back of the house before
this to look after his wife, because at that time he fully be-
lieved she was dead. His wife read the account in the news-
paper which represented that he had exhibited lamentable
want of presence of mind in deserting his wife and child at
a time when they were not in immediate danger, and when
a ready means of escape was at hand. His wife was very
angry with Mr. Woolley for having made this statement,
but witness was in so much suffering at the time that he
did not think at all about it. He remembered having a con-
versation with one of Mr. Teesdale's clerks, but he denied
having said to him that the report was correct, except that
portion which charged him with deserting his wife and child.
He knew this statement was not correct, and also that the
report was incorrect in several other particulars.
Ile-examined—There was not a word of truth in the state-

3:mut that his wife and son were not in immediate danger, as
a portion of the staircase between him and his wife actually
gave way as they were about to pass over it. The beam
that ignited in the drawing room was cut away after the
fire, so that no danger remained from that source, and the
other was cased over with brick and cement. Those fires
took place in 1852, and there was no fire afterwards until
the one in question. He formed an opinion upon the fire im-
mediately after it occurred, but Mr. Randall, the solicitor
to the fire office, first applied to him upon the subject, and
he told him to give Mr. Woolley's solicitor all the informa-
tion in in his power.
By the Jury—He passed Mr. Woolley's windows as he
was going along the leads, but he did not knock at the
window, and it never occurred to him that he and Crozier
might possibly be burned to death. His hands were dread-
fully burned.
By the Judge—The beam did not catch fire by an ordi-
nary fire in the grate, but there had been a great quantity
of shavings and wood burned in the grate.
Baroa Bramwell—Did you suspect anything when you
Went to bed
Witness—There was one remarkable thing, but I should
not like to state it.
Mr. Lush submitted that the witness ought to state what
he alluded to.
MS- Bovill—lf it was a fact that could be contradicted,
ho had no objection to the witness stating what it was
The witness it was something he had been told.
Baron Bramwell said that would not do.
Mrs. Temple deposed that she was the wife of the last
witness. She gave nirailar evidence to that of her husband
as to how the plaintiff
and
to the
were engaged down to
the period of the fire, and
o hanging up of the paper
and the covering of the winavirs&c. She said that Mr.
he
Woolley told her he wanted veilsair the tapestry that
was hanging up at the window, and s
said she could not do
so, and she did not understand such work
, and Mr. Woolley
appeared confused. On the night of the fire she brought
home three cooked pork sausages from her
sister's,
and she
wanted to warm them, but could not do an as the fire was
so low. She met Mr. Woolley and Crozier on the
staircase,
and she exclaimed. " now strange that we should all meet
and then went into Mr. Wcolloy's bedroom to seeif there
an
was any fire, and found that it was burning. she tried
to warm the sausages in a fryingpan, but could not do
owing to the fire being so low. Crozier came into the room
while she was doing so, and asked for some wood. Witness
asked him what he wanted it fcr, and he replied, " He is
going to work late. I think he is going crazy ; be is a per-
fect cure.'" (Laughter.) The witness then said that Cro-
zier told her that Mr.Woolley was going to tit up all night.
She knew th it sometimes Mr. Woolley and Crozier used to
fry steaks and chops in Mr. Woolley's bedroom for supper,
because Crozier had told her eo, and she had found fragments
of meat in the room in the morning. There was no light in
the green-room when she went to bed, and the gas in the
kitchen had been put out when she met Crozier and Mr.
Woolley on the stairs. When she went to bed she was quite
certain there were no clothes or boots in the passage or in
the kitchen, or any where about that spot. She was awoke
by the smashing in of the windows of the bedroom, and she
and her husband both awoke at the same time, and her
husband exclaimed, "Get up, Maria, the house is on fire,
follow me." She went to an adjoining room, and snatched
her son from the bed, and attempted to follow her husband,
but could not, as a portion of the flooring gave way. She
then made her way to another bedroom, and on looking out
of the window she saw Mr. Woolley and Crozier walking
leisurely about with their arms folded. He looked up to the
window,s and said to her " Dont jump down, Mrs. Temple."
She
'was quite sure that she heard no screaming or cries of

murder or fire. After a short delay, she thought in; five
minutes, witness jumped to the ground. She coil!? net stay
any longer , there were flames in the room, and Iv hair was
scorched. When she fell Mr. Woolley took her in his arms
and laid her down on the wet grass, and she re-
aaained there
for a quarter of an hour, when a policeman c Arne and took
her to Mrs. Stevens's. While she was on tAe ground she
heard Mr. Woolley call out—

By Baron Bramwell—The height she j crmped down was
28 or 30 feet, and she alighted on the griu.nd.
Examination continued—lt was not true, as stated in the
newspaper report dictated by Mr. Woolley, that her son
pushed her from the window. She reedved the letter that
had been referred to by Mr. Woolley two or three days
after the fire.

Cross-examined—Witness was outside the door of the
court while her husband was unrler cross-exaraination, but
she did not hear a word of his evidence. The windows over
which she represented the tapestry was place d were the gal-
lery windows. Mr. Woolley was not confus ed at her saying
she would not mend the tapestry ; but at her asking him
what he was about. Her husband was er.gaged in writing
while she was frying or trying to fry the sausages, and she
could not say whether he saw her so engreged or not, but she
should think he did see her. It was not the least use trying
to warm the sausages, because there was not fire enough.
When Crozier said he thought his maker was going crazy,
and that he was a " perfect cure," she thought it was a
joke on his part. When she was awoke the flames were
making a very great noise. The moment Mr. Woolley
picked her up she told him to lay her on the grass.
Re-examined—When the candles were brought to the
house she offered to assist in putting them away, but Mr.
Woolley said Crozier and himself would do so.
By the Jury—She believed that the tapestry did require
to be mended, and that there were holes in it.
Joseph Henry Taylor said—l am a sergeant of police be-
longing to the T division. I was on duty near Campden
House on the night of the fire. The neighbourhood was
very quiet at the time the fire broke out, and it always is so,
particularly on a Sunday morning. I met one of my con-
stables, named Rogers, in Sheffield-terrace, near Campden
House, shortly before 4 o'clock. It wanted 20 minutes to 4.
After I had met him I went on my rounds to visit the men,
and my attention was first called to the fire by seeing a
light, and there seemed to be a large body of fire, This was
about 20 minutes past four. I immediately went to Camp-
den House and found Inspector Bocking there, and police-
men wore stationed in different places. I heard no cries of
44 fire" before I saw the flames, and when I got to the house
the whole building seemed to be one body of flame.
... . .

The witness Temple was here recalled by Mr. Bovill, and
he stated that he lost property to the value of £7O by the
fire. He was insured in the Sun, and half the amount of
his loss had been paid to him. The property was insured in
his own dwelling, and he had no claim for what he had re-
moved to Campden House. The fire office gave him £6O.
That was what he meant by being paid half his claim. He
had assisted in getting up the model and plans, and was
paid £lO on account of the former. He had been working
for the company and assisting to make the plans.
The Jury said they believed it was the usual custom, when
goods were removed for a particular purpose from the
dwelling with which they were insured, and there was no
fraud, for the company generally to pay for them if they
were burnt.

Joshua Rogers, the police constable referred to, proved
that he was on duty on the night of the fire, and he had to
go round Campden House every quarter of an hour. He
said he remembered meet I._ g the sergeant, Taylor, soon after
3 o'clock, near Campden House, and at this time there was
no sign of a fire. There was a gale of wind. He was near
Gloucester-terrace when he first observed smoke coming
from Campden House, apparently from the top of the house,
at the back. He sprung his rattle, and went towards the
house as quickly as he could, and entered the front gate,
which was open, and broke down some wooden fencing, and
then went towards the back of the house, and again sprung
his rattle, and the moment he did so he heard a man's voice
call out "fire." He heard no one call out before he sprung
his rattle. He then went towards the east side of the house,
and he saw a man standing on the lawn with nothing but a
shirt or, and ho was halloing out "fire." He was standing
with his arms folded, and he called out " fire " about three
times. At this time witness did not obsex ve any appearance
of fire in the front of the house, but in about 10 minutes the
whole top of the house was in a regular flame.

Cross-examined—When he saw the man standing in his
shirt halloing fire, he did not go towards him, but turned
back. (A laugh.) His reason for going back was to get
more assistance. He broke down the fencing to get to the
back of the house, where he saw the fire was raging, but
having done so, he did not go on, but turned back. (A
laugh.) He could not say why he did so.
Baron Bramwell said ho thought the man's account was
a very reasonable one. He saw the house was on fire, and
he could not do any good, and went for more assistance.
The Jury said they had the same opinion.:
George \Voolhouse said—l am a milkman in the employ

of Mr. Ridgway, of the Campden Dairy, Bayswater. lwas
going to my work on the morning of the fire, when I smelt
smoke, and walked to Church-lane. near Campden House,
and I saw smoke coming from the top of the house. I im-
mediately ran to the front of the house, and went into the
gate, which ;was open. I then saw the flames creeping
through the first-floor windows, and the glass appeared to
be snapping. I proceeded to the back of the house and saw
two men standing in their shirts. One of them was Mr.
Woolley, and I asked him who was inside, and he said
he thought Mr. Temple and his son. I did not hear any
shouts. (The witness pointed out in the model the win-
dows from which he saw the flames proceeding.) I went up
to the house and found a door open, and I entered the
house, and when I had gone a short distance I kicked
against a heap:of clothes. I picked up a pair of drawers
and a pair of boots, such as are worn by gentlemen. I
threw the things down and was obliged to leave the house
quickly, because the smoke came so strong upon me. I
then went to give an alarm, and as I passed the front of the
house I noticed that the fire had only increased a little at
that part. In about 20 minutes I returned, and the fire then
appeared to have spread all over the house. The fire-
escape arrived ,about this time, and I assisted young
Temple to get down from the window, The fire appeared to
me to break out in different parts of the house. At first it
appeared to be at the back, and then I saw it over the the-
tre, and by the time the engines arrived the whole of the
house was in flames.

Cross-examined-1 could not find any policeman when I
first went to look for one, and I should say that half an hour
elapsed before the fire-escape arrived, and the first engine
did not come until some time after that. I do not know
how the fire office came to know anything about the evidence
I could give. Some one told me that I had better go and
see Mr. Temple, and I did so, and I told him all I knew.
Some gentlemen came to me from Mr. Woolley, but I told
Them I should not say anything unless' was obliged. When
Mr. Randall came to me I did tell him all I knew. Several
people eam3 to sift me in an undermining Way,
and there-
fore I would not tell them anything about it, (A laugh.)
lleY all I knew,
odtidteslal me to
say that
Mr.wtehlla tlittle I knew would not
Wal
hurt any one. I told my master that I was the first at the
butMy I believemaster
n e
fire, and that I had gone into the house and brought out a
pair of boots and some clothes, and threw them down about
20 yards from the house. I saw two naked men standing in
the rain, and yet I did not offer the clothes to either of
them. I picked up the boots and the drawers at the mine
time. The place where I threw them down was 20 yards
from the house. and where the flames could not reach them,
hut the ruins might have fallen upon them.
Mr. Bovill asked the witness whether ho intended the
jury to understand that he represented that on a wet morn-
ing in the month of March Mr. Woolley and Crozier were
deliberately walking about with nothing but their shirts on.
(A laugh.)
The witness said that was what ho saw.

Cross-examination continued—He saw young Temple
standing at the window, but he did not hear Mr. Woolley
tell him not to jump down. The first time he made this
statement to Mr. Randall was about a month before the
trial was to have come off in London. Temple did not tell
me to go to Mr. Randall, but after I had told this story to
Temple some one came to me.

Re-examined—When Mr. Randall first called upon me I
refused to give him any information, and I did not say any-
thing about the matter until my master told me that I
ought to do so. . . _

By Baron Bramwell—l am sure I brought the drawers
and the boots out of the house, and the place where I threw
them down was not far from where Mr. Woolley was stand-
ing, but I cannot say whether he saw what I did.
George Nicholson, a police constable, proved that he was
on duty near Campden House about four o'clock on the
morning of the fire, and he heard no cried nor any alarm of
fire. In a very short time he discovered that Campden
House was on fire, and ho heard a woman scream. When he
got to the house he said it appeared to him as though it was
in flames all over in the space of three or four minutes. He
saw the lad Temple standing on the balcony, and the flames
had nearly reached him when the fire escape arrived. Wit-
ness stopped at the fire until 6 o'clock, and at this time the
whole house was burned down, and nothing was left but the
outside walls.
Cross-examined—The first thing he heard was a cry of
"Fire." Before that he saw no appearance of fire. He
ras not aware that any inquiry had taken place at Scot-
_a_'',(l.;Yard with reference to the alleged misconduct of the
police on this occasion. He believed that Rogers was the
first person
\v"
was at the fire ; at least he told him that
when he
got there be did not see any one but himself. (A.
laugh.)

put by the learned Judge, the
witness said that km . did In answer to a "e o.on
not see Woolhouse at the fire. He
ct
saw nothing of any
clothes or boots lying about near the
house.
Mi,:s Pell said—l live with
ray mother at No. 7, Glou-
cester -terrace. I remember fire at Campden Home. I
was sitting op was out of health. I
heard a rattle spring, but before that:
had not heard any
scream, I looked out and saw that
oto be on
on fire. It seamed to burn very quicidYst. I should expect
a'nen House was
appearedpd
an old house would.
The flames at fir
the ground-floor, and they very quickly show
Ed
the first-floor. The fire seemed to come cd themselves
out of all the
windows almost at once.
Mr. Bovill said he was very sorry this witness had -
brought from Kensington to stat.; what she had done,b.„-en
but
he had nothing to ask her.
Miss Tudor, the daughter of Captain Tudor, Who ale() re.

sides in Gloucester-terrace, gave similar evidence. She also
expressed an opinion that the fire seemed to burn with fear-
ful rapidity.

Captain Tudor was examined and deposed to the same
effect. He said that the flames appeared to spread through
the whole house almost instantaneously, and the whole
house was burned to the ground in a couple of hours. At
first he only saw a large quantity of smoke, and then the
whole house appeared to burst into flames.
General Cotton gave similar evidence, and said that when
he was alarmed by the cry of " Fire " he looked out, and
almost every window in the front of the house presented the
appearance of being brilliantly illuminated with gas.He
said said that this was the only fire he had seen in England, and
therefore he was unable to state whether this fire burned
with greater rapidity than any other.
fire, and he said it appeared A police-constable namdedteOhtilmeyadsetphoestelgdhththate hfteamsaews the
not spread through the ceilings but as though every room
in the house was on fire.
, escape
afewminutes fire-escape
afterproved
four.that A
he
At this
at
timethe firethe
withGw h
ax
v m
nrt
hiseiel
that
w ni a
housestta as entirely alight except three or four windows. He
t a life was in danger, and he therefore saw no more
the house was " well alight," and he directed his
attention
to assist in recovering young Temple.
Swanton, superintendent of the fire brigade at
Watling-street, said that he arrived at the fire at about
twenty minutes to five o'clock, and he at once saw it was
useless to attempt saving Campden House, so all his atten-
tion was directed to the house of Mr. Egg. He had
examined the ruins since, and he saw nothing to induce him
to come to the conclusion that the house was one that would
hdThhele.hrge
et.wereveryoaksotmheeyw
be burned eind dthowenheeuasseil,ya.
o u lmd a burnssi ve
much less freely than deal or pine. He should not expect
a house like this could have been burned down in the short
period it was. It would, in his opinion, be a difficult thing
to cause such a house to be on fire all over in such a short
time, even if every room had been specially prepared for
h
uming. He saw nothing in the appearance of the flues
that would lead him to form the conclusion that they were
the cause of the fire. When a beam was ignited by means
of a
flue it would smoulder for many hours, and he had
known them to do so for weeks.
Cross-examined—He did not remember ever having seen
a fire at such a place as Campden House, which was pecu-
liarly constructed, having a large staircase in the centre and
corridors on each side. He remembered the fire at Sir W.
Watkins Wynn's mansion at Wynnstay. That was a build-
ing of the same description as Campden House, and it was
entirely consumed in a very short time.

Mr. Ellis, a plumber and glazier, living at Kensington,
deposed that about 20 minutes to 2 o'clock on the morning
of the fire he was in Sheffield-place, near Campden House,
when he met Mr.Woolley and Mr. Crozier walking together
towards home. This witness gave a very confused account
as to the precise spot where he represented that he met the
plaintiff and Crozier, but he said he was positive they were
the persons he saw.at the time he mentioned. He said, how-
ever, that what he meant to convey was that they were ahead
of him, and ho did not see them until they turned round.
The witness, in cross-examination, was asked to mark
upon the plan the places where ho was himself, and where
he saw Mr. Woolley and Crozier ; and he accounted for the
form of one of the letters he had made by saying that his
hand shook. He denied that he had had delirium tremens
two or three times, or that he had ever said that when he
came home on, this night he was " ale wed." He remembered
one of Mr. Teesdale's clerks coming to him, but he denied
having said that he saw two people on the night of the fire,
but he did not know who they were, as he only saw their
backs. He swore that ho did not say this in the presence of
Mr. Woolley. Mr. Woolley did call upon him, and inquire
whether he was subpoenaed to prove that he saw him with
Crozier at 2 o'clock on the morning of the fire, and he at
the same tine said that he had better be careful what he
said, for if he swore that he was in bed soon after 11 o'clock
it might be very awkward for him. He did not recollect
whether he said, when he was questioned by Mr. James,
that he did not see the faces of the gentlemen.
The witness answered the questions that were put to him
in such a flippant and unsatisfactory manner that he was
more than once reproved by the learned judge and requested
to conduct himself in a becoming manner.
In answer to a question by the learned judge,
The witness said he would rather not state where he had
been on that night.
Several police. constables were then examined, with a view
to show the different appearances they observed at the fire.
Their evidence, however, did not differ in any material re-
spect from that which had been given by the other wit-
nesses, and they were not cross-examined by the counsel for
the plaintiff, and the learned judge expressed his opinion
that it was quite unnecessary to give any further evidence
upon this head.
Mr. Denman said a gross attack had been made upon the

police by the other side, and suggestions were made that
they had neglected their duty. One object, therefore, that
ha had in view was to show that there were plenty of police
at the spot immediately au alarm was given.
Mr_ Swanton, anperintandent of the Fire Rrigarlo, was
then recalled by the learned judge, who put several ques-
tions to him.
In answer to these questions, he stated that if the staircase
of a house was ignited the fire would run up it very rapidly,
but a good deal would depend as to the course the filmes
would take upon different circumstances. If, for instance,
the doors upon the landings were open, the fire would pro-
bably run into the rooms and set them on fire, and tha
mischief would be increased if any windows were open. He
did not think it was probable, supposing the fire had gone
up the staircase of Campden House, that all the rooms would
have presented the appearance of being lighted up at once
•
in the way that had been described without the ceilings
being burned.
Mr. Randall, the solicitor for the defendant, was then
called to prove that in 1856 Mr. Woolley executed the bill
of sale upon the whole of the furniture in Campden House
to Mr. Edmund Robins to secure a loan of £l,OOO. He also
proved that a second bill of sale was executed to Miss Cope
in 1859 to secure the sum of £8,000; and he stated that he
had examined the schedule of the furniture attached to the
two bills of sale, and that the one executed in 1859 did not
contain so many items as the one of 1856.
Mr. Wynn, cabinetmaker, proved that in 1857, while
Colonel Waugh was occupying Campden House, he, by his
orders, made fifty packing cases for him, and he saw them
filled with antique articles of furniture, paintings, and other
things of that description. Mr. Woolley came in while the
packing was going on, and he ordered it to be stopped, and
said that Colonel Waugh had no right to remove the pro-
perty. On the following day, however, he received a letter
from him authorising the property to be removed, and the
whole of the cases were subsequently taken to Branksea:to
Colonel Waugh's residence. Among the property that was
so removed were two crimson and gilt sofas, and these same
sofas he knew were afterwards sold under Colonel Waugh's
bankruptcy. (These sofas were the articles particularly
alluded to by the witness Temple in his evidence as not
being in Campden House at the time of the fire, although
they were claimed by the plaintiff.)
The following witnesses were then called by Mr. Bovill,
in reply to the defendant's case
Mr. Cross, a surveyor to the Sun Fire office, proved that
in 1855, and again in 1859, he made a survey of Campden
House, and that the insurance ultimately effected upon it
was a special insurance, at a higher rate of premium than
doable hazardous.

Mr. Cope and Mr. Duncombe were recalled, and they
stated positively that the sofas removed by Colonel Waugh
were not the same articles claimed for under the insurance,
and that the latter were in the house when the fire occurred,
and were destroyed.
Mr. G. C. James said that he was a solicitor, but for two
years he had been assisting Messrs. Maples, the solicitors
for the plaintiff, in their business. On May 26, in conse-
quence of something he heard, ho went to the house of the
witness Ellis, accompanied by Mr. Woolley. He told him
that he had heard that ho had stated that he saw Mr.
Woolley and Crozier walking together on the morning of the
fire between 2 and 3 o'clock. Ellis, at first, seemed disin-
clined to say anything but he ultimately said that he had
seen them on that morning. Witness asked him where he
had seen them, and he replied in Sheffield-gardens. He
put some other questions to him, and he said that he only
sass' their backs, and he seemed to be uncertain whether it
really was Mr. Woolley or not,
Cross-excmined—Rebelieved that something was said to
the effect that if Mr. Woolley swore he was in bed soon
after 11 o'clock ou the previous night to the fire, and he
were to represent that he saw him out with Crozier at the
andve awkward thing for him,
make some inquiries of
vitiswedoutldo bgeoa very tainmdehhee
wstaastedad,
Temple to ascertain whether Mr. Woolley really did go to
bed at the time he stated or not.
Mr. Mill, one of the former witnesses, was recalled, and
he stated that he was acquainted with Ellis, and a few days
after the fire he had some conversation with him about it.
he stated that when he came home
During the conversation,
on the night of the fire, he was rather " s lewed."
This concluded the evidence on both sides, and the Court
adjourned until this (Saturday) morning, when Mr. Lush
will sum up the case for the defendant.

ADVERTISEMENT.]—,Avoid medicines: they always a Xgra-
vate chronic complaints, but Du Barry's
Delicious health
Restoring Revalenta Arabica Food, which saves fifty times
its cost in other remedies, invariably cures them, restoring
perfect digestion, strong nerves, sound lungs, healthy
liver,
pure blood, refreshing sleep, functional regularity, and enerr.y
to the most disordered or enfeebled. We extract a few out
of 60,000 Cures :—Cure No. 58,216 of the Marchioness de
Brehan, Paris, of a liver complaint, wasting away fbr seven
years, debility, with a nervous palpitation all over, bad
digestion, constant sleeplessness, the most intolerable nervous
agitation, and dreadfully low spirited.—Cure No. 1,771. Lord
Stuart de Decies, Lord Lieut. of Waterford, of many years'
dyspepsia.—No. 49,832. " Fifty years' indescribable agony
from dyspepsia, nervousness, asthma, cough, constipation,
flatulency, spasms, sickness, and vomiting.—Maria
—Cure No. 46,270. Mr. James Roberts, of Frimley, Surrey, of
thirty years' diseased lungs, r-pitting, of blood, liver derange-
ment, and partial deafuess.—Cure No. 47,121. Miss Elizabeth
Jacobs, of extreme nervousness, indigestion, gatherings, low
spirits, and nervous fancies.—Cure No. 54,816. The Rev. Jas.
'f. Campbell, Fakenham, Norfolk, " of indigestion and torpi-
dity or the liver, which had resiste I all medical treatment."
In tins. 1 lb., 2s. 9d. ; 21b., 4s. 6d ; Sib., lls. ; 121 b., 225. ; 241 b
405.—Barry Du Barry and Co., No. 77, Regent-street, London ;
also Fortnum and Mason ; and all Grocers awl Chemists in ,
every town of the United King(l9m.

witness explained to the jury, and expressed an
opinion that the cause of the accident was the wooden
beam breaking. The metals of the tramway are laid
in the same way as in the railway.
Mr. J. W. Woodford, C.E., deposed that he acted
for Messrs. Peto and Betts. The works were erected
under his superintendence and from his design, and
were properly constructed, and in his judgment, from
practice andiexperience, the timbers were sufficient
to carry the weight of the traveller and an addi-
tional weight of 50 or 60 tons. He had watched the
progress of the work, but did not see it after it was
finished. He has since examined the timbers, and
the iron tie beams, and they appeared to be sound.
The beams are jointed, and the fracture took place
about a foot and a half from the joint; the bolts are
sound, and not bent ; the wood was not rotten in
any part. He could not account for the accident
except it arose from a sudden jar or strain. It would
have been the duty of the workmen laying the
tramway to gauge and level the rails. In his
judgment the tramway was properly constructed,
and he could give no reason for the accident. He
had had great experience in such works, and had
been engaged in the works of the bridge over the
river St. Lawrence, in America.

By Mr. Fowler (a juror)—The traveller was con-
structed to carry from 50 to 60 tons. The trusses
were independent of each other, and were not sup-
ported by others; that was the usual course.
By the Coroner—The traveller was being removed
from one pile of works to be worked on another, the
stage only being for communication.

By Mr-. Fowler juror)—The jar he spoke of
was a sudden weight being put on the lower part.
By Mr. Freshfield —The plans were approved of
by Messrs. Peto and Betts, and were intended to
carry a much heavier weight than the traveller.
W. Rayner, carpenter—Assisted in laying the
metals. They were tested, after being put down,
by the gauge to the wheel, and they appeared to be
correct. He could form no opinion or give any
reason for the breaking of the timber. The timber
broke first, and carried with it the ironwork. The
timber was, in his judgment, quite sound, and the
work was properly done. There were two flanges
to the wheels of the traveller; a railway had only
one. He did not examine the levels of the strutt
except by the eye. There was packing under each
of the beams about three inches thick, but where
the beam broke it was about 41 inches; that is done
to make the level.

The Coroner asked if there were any scientific
person present who could give the jury any idea
how the accident took place, and the cause.
Mr. David Selby Sherman, C.E., then came for-
ward, and said he had examined the plans for the
construction of the works, and they appeared to be
sound in principle. His opinion was that the acci-
dent arose from one of the trusses getting out of
gauge, a circumstance which is not easily foreseen.
It might have arisen from want of proper and due
care on the part of the workmen. The effect of the
strutt getting out of gauge would be to throw the
wheel of the traveller off the rail. So far as he could
judge, the works were properly constructed, and he
could not account for the accident, except from
some negligence in moving the traveller.
By Mr. Fowler (juror)—The trusses were formed
in the usual way, and he did not think it was ne-
cessary to erect tranverse strutts to support the
upper strutts. He thought the strutts were suffi-
cient to carry the weight it was intended they
should bear. They certainly would be stronger
with cross strutts.

In answer to various questions by the Coroner
and the Coroner and the jury, the witness said that
the gauge had got out of order from some deflection
of the ironwork, and that in his judgment, from all
he had seen or heard, the accident arose from cir-
cumstances which could not have been foreseen. _

The Coroner -brieflysuMmedup,and explained
there was no doubt as to the cause of the death, and
the only question was whether the works had been
constructed in a proper manner, and the evidence
was sufficient to show that they had.. If the jury
were of opinion that some greater precautions
should be taken in the erection of the works by
means of cross strutts or other appliances, ho had
no doubt the company would give due weight to
their suggestions.
The Jury retired to consider their verdict, and
after an absence of ten minutes returned a verdict
of " Accidental death," by a majority of twelve,
there being several dissentients.
The Coroner said he was instructed by Mr. Fresh-
field to say that, for the future, when the traveller
was being moved a danger signal would be hoisted.