Litchfield enquirer., 1879-11-27

pleasure in knowing that the best presentation possible has been made of a bad case. The first matter is the corpus de6ct.-the body of the offence-Is it proved in this case?
 This house was built in or near Revolution ary times. a great old building, painted red, with chimney stack like a fortress in iis midst It had been decaying for years when it finally came into the hands of the accused. It was a mere shell, not tenautable tIll shingied in 1877. Tine jessamine vines could slip through its cracks and twine round the furn- ture-
 There was no fire built in the coal stove from Saturday morning till Sunday evening, when Mrs Glover got tel. Then it went en- Sirely out, so that there were not coals enough to warm the washing water. About nine the house was atire. Could any spark have fired that building? There is no possibility of it. The fire could not have come from the chim- ney. Abbott, to be sure, walked around and suggested holes in the chimney. None was found When first, seen the fire was 15 feet away from the fireplace where they say it caught. The fire was ten feet below, in the lower story. Did that fire originate in that fireplace and go ten feet down, and 15 feet away. to break out? It is proved. beyond reasonable doubt, that the fire did not origi nate with the chimney. This establishes the taCf tlat the Ire was the WOrk or an lncenUld "; it proves the corpus dekictj.
 Who had a motive to commit this crime. David Abbott is the husband of the owner of this property. He is the person to get this house insured. In the be inning he asks the agent if he must go up to inspect the property. The agent says, No" Then he sits down and makes the following statement of the value of the property: he says the house is worth S4. 800: barn, S750; the whole- property, SS,OOO. He had bought the whole place for 800; had offered to sell it for $1, 100 little while before. He insures it for 1000 per cent more than he paid for it, or offered it for. The gentleman asks me to read paper which he says would have scared my eyeballs. prefer to read another paper that would have scared his eyeballs hadrh he read and commented upon it. Here is the statement of loss to which Abbott made oath Is it not to be pre- stunned that a man who swears to paper knows what he swears to. He swears the house was worth $4 900, when he bought the whole property for $900! My friend says he could not get more than the property was woEth, and yet here is Abbott swearing that it was worth S1, 300 more than it was insured for. But Dr. Miner thought it worth $900. An old clam boat turned over, with it's bottom up towards the sun, would be worth $900 to Dr. Miner if he owned it. Call the house, worth S200, if you please Abbott swore it was worth twenty times that In order to make it sure he should get his B, 300, he swOre to this most extraordinary statement. David Abbott had motive to burn this house and he falsified about it's value under oath, because he burnt it
 Was Abbott in a situation to do this crime. He came up the Thursday before the fire. For the four days before the fire he was hov- ering around that building. They say the whole thing is so contemptible that they do not take the trouble to explain his wherea- bouts. 1 can't explain them because was not there. When the Glovers went away, Sunday night, Abbott was there. Where was he? God and one other person only knows? The silcnces that hang over this case are more significant than any evidence asregards David AbbOtt's whereabouts on that evening. How long was he at the house after the Glovers left? His child first saw him up the road towards the old house.. Has it not occurred to you that of all these Halls, SO brim full of nti6i, but one pretends to fix the time when he returned. All this question of tune is left uncertain. 1 say it IS fair presumption that it was 15 or 20 minutes before Abbott came down from that building. Remember he had hSd all Saturday to prepare his kindlings for firing. The fire was set away from the chim- ney, away from the chamber, in the hall or stairway. There was a smell of fire lying in a current acrossth road, andt he Keelers found it. There was scarcely any wind at all and the smell had slowly worked it's way down across the road in current. They saw the light in the northwest window. It was 20 minutes then before it burst out. How long had it been smouldering before it could have lighted up those windows? 1 cannot tell you; but it was an old fire.
 Having shown that hisman was in condition to light it; having shown bow great was his motive; having shown how he lied about it ; l do not think it is necessary to trouble you about the proof of his guilt beyond reasona- ble doubt. There is no contradiction of this evidence.
 Immediately after the fire, Abbott was in- quiring, What do they think about me?" Why should he, if innocent Can you believe that after the mOnstrOus lies he had told the agent, he could have forgotten the amount for which the house was insured, as he pretended, that night? This man was walking about the house and cautioning the tenant about ashes This is one of those anchors to the wndward which weigh nothing
 1 was once present when Chief Justice Church, then on the bench said that if six good men put as witnesses put a mans char acter below par all the testimony in the coun- try could not bring it up again, We brought in nine men who swore that this mans charac- ter for honesty was below par.
 
 hour had expired.
 NB. GRAVES ARGUMENT.
 This is case of great importance to my client. If convicted, he will be deprived of liberty for seven years. The first inquiry is whether there was an incendary fire. Let us examine the evidence. The testimony of MT. keeler seems to me of the most important character. He smelt smoke when he drove by that night. and when he had driven by, he looked back and saw the bright light in the windows up stairs It was only in the upper and attic windows that Keeler saw it. Other witnesses testify to the fires coming from the roof. All this shows that the fire started up stairs. Is it not possible that spark from that stove might have lighted at the foot of the old freboard and have finally, after long Smouldering, started up into flame? The evi- dence certainly indicates an accidental rather than an incendiary fire. If the fire started frem spark. as we say, 1t would be slow, and shoulder for hours before breaking out. Otherwise it would blaze up at once.
 Much comment has been made upon the conduct of Mir. Abbott. After having insured, the first thing he did was to instruct his tenant Mr. French to make a brick ash bin. Then he new silled the barn, from one end to another. then put new roof on the house; then he re- shingled the barn and got a sill for the ell. What was his conduct after going up there Thursday "prowing around there," says the Watertown Agricultural Company, by its attorney, my friend G. H. Hollister. He was acting as any owner would naturally act. He entirely neglected the favorable opportunity on Saturday night, though fully aware of it. After he left MT. Glover, he went over and trimmed the trees in his orchard as Mrs. Emmeline Hall testifes The Insurance con- pany theory is that he was in the kitchen towering around barrel of shavings, at the very time Mrs. Hall saw him trimmIng the trees. Just as the Keeler team and the Glover team had passed, almost together, the little girl saw her father and Robert Hall looked up and saw him too, coming down from the orchard where he had been trimming those apple trees.
 Was there anything strange in Abbott's con- duct at the fire? Did he not make every effort to save the barn he is accused of having wished to burn for the insurance? The sworn statement of Abbott is in the handwriting of