Litchfield enquirer., 1879-11-27
WHOLE NO. 279O

not inspect the place; then he went into de- | scrption said the house was worth $4 ,60O,
 in good repair, painted outside; barn worth
 $75O, land and buildings, $8,000. The motive l is shown from the first. You can't put any | stronger motive into heart of man than to ob-
 tam money unlawfully; unless it be revenge. | Have we not shown that he had the strongest | motive to have this wind beaten wreck of the | Revolution burnt, and to obtain this enormous | insurance?
 He came up to Morris the Thursday of the l fire. He knew the Glovers were back, Sun day. He dursn't do it, Saturday, it would
 have been too thin. He was about the house for at least ten minutes after Glover left. He
 was sneaking about that place with that tre-
 mendous motive to commit this crime He
 had every opportunity there would have been at dead of night
 In his declaration he says the house took l fire from the stove. We propose to show that this was untrue. Mrs. Glover has told what sort of fire she had there. Had it caught from the chimney, that would have burnt | first. All the testimony shows that the fire
 caught in part of the house not near the chimney. The witness Curtiss says it was | burning at a distance from the chimney, in | the pantry or hall and stairway. That fire had | been smouldering some hour and a half in that pantry and when it finally burst forth that
 place was like furnace.
 Was the conduct of Abbott that of gu inno-
 cent man While the building was burning,
 he was around pointing out defects Tn the old chimney. 1 don't care whether that fireplace | was properly closed up or not. The testimony
 shows that the fire could not have started | there. There was no fire within 16 Or 20 feet | of this fireplace when it was first discovered.
 He couldn't then say about the amount of the | insurance Must look over his papers But
 when he got out of Morris, on hls way to Wa
 terbury, he knew exactly what his insurance
 was, and told the stage driver. And after
 wards he was going around asking if Sidney
 Glover had not got big insurance on his
 property-enough to make it an object to burn | the house! This, from the man who had ac-
 knowledged that his place would be worth as
 much without the house as with it, and had
 then gone and got it insured for $2, 300 And | then hls going to the mason, and talking of re-
 building in two weeks if he could get his insu- rance
 We have shown to you his motive, his op- portunity, his strange conduct before and after | the fire. This crime of arson to get insurance | is going on all over the State. No matter what his standing, man must be convicted on such evidence The burglar must run some risk
 when he takes your property, but the speaking | incendiary, who burns his own house to get the insurance, commits the crime of all others the most dangerous and the most difficult of | detection.
 MIR. KELLoGG's ARGUMENT.
 Hon. s. W. Kellogg then spoke in behalf of | the accused in substance as follows: | It is more than ten years since have had l the pleasure of addressing Litchfield county l jury in criminal case. 1 should not have ap- peared now but to defend neighbor man
 whom have long known as an honest man. | This case has been a marvel from the begin l hot oh | have held man to trial on such flimsy evil dence. have wondered that the States At | torney did not nolle it. In the first place the | State must prove that there has been a crime committed-a matter which the law will not presume even on confession of the prisoner. What proof is there that this fire did not take from that old chimney It is one of those old-fashioned chimney-a Sabbath days jour ney around it-which had not been burned out for no man knows how long. A fire was built of light alder wood. A spark from that l wood probably went through some crevice, perhaps in the old fireplace. The evidence is not inconsistent with this suppostlon. Let us see what these insurance men say themselves ! They attached paper to my clients policy warning the insured to see to their stoves, pipes, and chimneys. They say that their experience shows that most houses burn from these causes.
 call the attention of the court to the in- dictmcnt It hereby charges the accused with burniI 2 house of Sidney Glover's. There is no allegation that the accused burnt his own or his wife's house to defraud an insurance company. We caim therefore, that all the evidence regarding the insurance of the prop erty should be excluded It has never before been attempted on a simple charge of arson to prove that the crime was that of burning building to defraud an insurance company. One coming in here, would have supposed this was the trial of suit on the insurance policy The meanest corporation on earth is fighting insurance company whose agents go around getting policies full of traps
 know the house was Over-insured. The agent admitted that they frequently insure for more than property is worth. They only pay what it is worth in cash at the time of loss This arrangement gets the agent higher com- -. mission, and the company higher premiuml There is another clause which allows the con- pany to rebuild. Read it, and see if the con- pany is not sufficiently secured
 Now as to the conduct of the accused. Bro. Graves and myself hesitated whether we should offer single witness. Why did he allow this policy to run since '76, If he meant to burn that house? Why did he go to the expense of shinglng the roof and other i'm provements Then, if Abbott knew Glover was going away Saturday, to be gone over night, why didn't he burn it thenP Do you believe that Abbott could have gone up that night expecting to burn the house, knowing of Glovers return, and having no reason to suppose that he was going away again? Mrs. Kate French is brought in here against us. The name of Kate used to be very sweet name to me, years ago; but 1 don't think Mrs. French throws any halo of poetry around the name of Kate. Mrs, ,Glover's memory is wonderful, especially when she knows just how the coals looked in that stove, and didn't lock all the doors because she didn't see Ab- bolt around In fact he was in the lot oppo- site looking at his apple trees, and back to Halls in five minutes. Then they went out on the lake; then he came back and went to bed, and there they were when the fire broke out. If he had set the fire when he was up there at seven, it would have broken out long before it did. The house was full of cracks, as they say, and why did it not blaze up at once?
 Then after the fire broke out, Abbott went up and did all he could to save the barn. Why did he not let it burn2 Why had he laid out so much repairing that barn if he meant to burn It? Is there anything inconsis- tent in his not remembering at first just how much he had on the house2 After he was arrested he inquired if Glover's things were not heavily insured, Why might he not think that some one else should be accused as we'll as he?
 l meant to say a word about the over-insu- rance. Some of the witnesses have, it is true, put the value at only $100. All the hest evil dence seems to show that it was worth, with perhaps little repair, $1, 900 for renting. It was originally good house. There was but one prop in the whole cellar, and it was not in such bad repair as it has been attempted to show The witnesses who estimate the value so low must have done it on the idea that it was to be taken down entirely.
 Nnw Unntlnnan [ have caid all Inkon(A say regarding the evidence in this case. want you to remember that the State must {. prove that crime has been committed 1 maintain that no evidence is admissible to prove the insurance on the present indictment. l would ask you to render a verdict without leaving your seats if such practice were the custom in this state. If I were juror would sit firm in my opposition to a verdict of guilty till my chair legs routed of, even