The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1901-01-15

| The trial of DR.. Charles P. Woodward
at Toms River for arson, charged with
burning his fathers house at New Egypt
on May 10. 1900, occupied three days last
week at Toms River and ended in an ac-
quittal Woodward was defended by
Mark R. Sooy, of Mount Holly. Pro-
secutor Brown was assisted by /. w.
Carmichael.
1t would be impossible to give an INTEL
igent history of this case without some
reference to the peculiar family quarrels
which had long made the Woodward
family conspicuous and notorious.
DR.. Charles E. Woodward, father of the
accused, is well known physician and
surgeon, and several of his sons are also
doctors, including the accused one, DR..
Charles P Woodward.
Some time ago the elder DR.. Woodward
received considerable legacy and his
wife (who died in the fall OF 1900 sued
him for divorce and alimony on the ground
of desertion and non support. She won
the suit. Her husband for a long time
refused to pay the alimony decreed by the
courts. and laid in the county Jail for
weeks efore he gave in. In this quarrel,
the young doctor took the part of the
mother, with whom he lived in the home
stead at New Egypt
After the divorce, last spring, Mrs
Woodward, senior, went to a city hospital
for treatment. While she was gone, her
former husband took advantage of her
absence and set her goods and those of her
son out on the street. After one unsuc-
cessful attempt to burn the house, on the
night of May 10Th the house burned down
and the house of George L. Shinn, ad
joining, was barely saved Mr.. Shinn had
DR.. Charles P. Woodward arrested as he
was the last person in the house before
the fire started. 1t was reported at the
time that Woodward made threats of what
he would do to Shinn, if he was arrested J;
and since then attempts have been made
to burn Mr.. Shinn's store by some evil
disposed person.
At the trial Jacob R. Golf, John H.
Headley, William McCluskey, Theophilus
Clifford and others testified to seeing Dr.
Woodward, Jr., enter the house by the
office window at about $50 on the after
noon of the fire. They variously estimated
that he was in the building from five to
twelve minutes He brought out basket
of glassware, which he gave as an excuse
for going in About 40 minutes after he
went in the fire alarm was sounded. Golf
said that young DR.. Woodward then broke
in the front door, although others remon
strated that it wonld give the fire a
draught.
George L. Shinn told of running up into
the garnet with fire extinguisher. He
found pile of rubbish burning and
started the extinguisher at work. The
extinguisher had about half used itself up
and he thought he would have got the
fire if unmolested, when Woodward seized
him by the shoulders, threw him to his
knees, and caused him to drop the extin
guisher. The latter of course went to
waste. Shinn then left the house to look
after his own. Mr.. Shinn was positive
Woodward's attack was intented.
John Headley saw Woodward cause Mr.
Shinn to drop the extinguisher; and Rev.
B. G. Lippincott, Jr.. saw Woodward
have the extinguisher in the hall on the
second floor, when Woodward said it
would not work.
There was no evidence that Woodward
did anything to save his fathers house,
though it was shown that he worked to
help save the Shinn house
Thomas Delzell testified that Woodward
had told him in the hotel before the fire
that there would be - smoke and
that George Shinn would get the benefit
of it,
Ellis Parker swore that the accused told
him about 35 minutes before the fire
broke out that ''if he (Parker) would stay
in town he would see smoke
Walter Cottrel and Charles Holcomb
testified to hearing DR.. Woodward, ST.,
accuse his son of burning the house The
accused's answer was, ''that's no more
than you did at Hightstown."
The motive for the deed as alleged by
the State was the defendants well known
animosity toward his father and toward
George L. Shinn, whose dwelling adjoined
the Woodward house, and whose store is
next his dwelling.
The defence was a general denial,
Woodward himself taking the stand and
denying altogether much of the evidence
against him. He claimed that he went
into the house for basket of glassware.
Defense also tried to show that it was
possible that the defendants father set
the fire.