Counsel."Oh, I see."
Witness."But not the original Charcot."
Counsel."Which Charcot did you meet?"
Witness."A woman. She was a lady assuming the name of Charcot, claiming to be Madame Charcot."
Counsel."So that when you wrote in this article that you had met Charcot, you intended people to understand that it was the celebrated Professor Charcot, and it was partly true, because there was a woman by the name of Charcot whom you had really met?"
Witness."Precisely."
Counsel(quietly). "That is to say, there was some truth in it?"
Witness."Yes, sir."
Counsel."When in that article you said that Charcot taught you to stand pain, was there any truth in that?"
Witness."No."
Counsel."Did you as a matter of fact learn to stand pain?"
Witness."No."
Counsel."When you said in this article that Charcot began by sticking pins and knives into you little by little, so as to accustom you to standing pain, was that all fiction?"
Witness."Yes, sir."
Counsel."When you wrote that Charcot taught you to reduce your respirations to two a minute, so as to make your body insensible to pain, was that fiction?"
Witness."Purely imagination."
Court(interrupting). "Counsellor, I will not allow you to go further in this line of inquiry. The witness himself says his article was almost entirely fiction, some of it founded upon fact. I will allow you the greatest latitude in a proper way, but not in this direction."
Counsel."Your Honor does not catch the point."
Court."I do not think I do."
Counsel."This prosecution was started by a newspaper article written by the witness, and published in the morningJournal. It is the claim of the defence that the newspaper article was a mixture of fact and fiction, mostly fiction. The witness has already admitted that the history of his life, published but a few months ago, and written and signed by himself and sold as a history of his life, was a mixture of fact and fiction, mostly fiction. Would it not be instructive to the jury to learn from the lips of the witness himself how far he dressed up the pretended history of his own life, that they may draw from it some inference as to how far he has likewise dressed up the article which was the origin of this prosecution?"
Court."I shall grant you the greatest latitude in examination of the witness in regard to the newspaper article which he published in regard to this case, but Iexclude all questions relating to the witness's newspaper history of his own life."
Counsel."Did you not have yourself photographed and published in the newspapers in connection with the history of your life, with your mouth and lips and ears sewed up, while you were insensible to pain?"
Court."Question excluded."
Counsel."Did you not publish a picture of yourself in connection with the pretended history of your life, representing yourself upon a cross, spiked hand and foot, but insensible to pain, in consequence of the instruction you had received from Professor Charcot?"
Court."Question excluded."
Counsel."I offer these pictures and articles in evidence."
Court(roughly). "Excluded."
Counsel."In the article you published in theNew York Journal, wherein you described the occurrences in the present case, which you have just now related upon the witness-stand, did you there have yourself represented as in the position of the insane patient, with a sheet twisted around your neck, and held by the hands of the hospital nurse who was strangling you to death?"
Witness."I wrote the article, but I did not pose for the picture. The picture was posed for by some one else who looked like me."
Counsel(stepping up to the witness and handing him the newspaper article). "Are not these words underyour picture, 'This is how I saw it done, Thomas J. Minnock,' a facsimile of your handwriting?"
Witness."Yes, sir, it is my handwriting."
Counsel."Referring to the history of your life again how many imaginary articles on the subject have you written for the newspapers throughout the country?"
Witness."One."
Counsel."You have put several articles in New York papers, have you not?"
Witness."It was only the original story. It has since been redressed, that's all."
Counsel."Each time you signed the article and sold it to the newspaper for money, did you not?"
Court."Excluded."
Counsel(with a sudden change of manner, and in a loud voice, turning to the audience). "Is the chief of police of Bridgeport, Connecticut, in the court room? (Turning to the witness.) Mr. Minnock, do you know this gentleman?"
Witness."I do."
Counsel."Tell the jury when you first made his acquaintance."
Witness."It was when I was arrested in the Atlantic Hotel, in Bridgeport, Connecticut, with my wife."
Counsel."Was she your wife at the time?"
Witness."Yes, sir."
Counsel."She was but sixteen years old?"
Witness."Seventeen, I guess."
Counsel."You were arrested on the ground that you were trying to drug this sixteen-year-old girl and kidnap her to New York. Do you deny it?"
Witness(doggedly). "I was arrested."
Counsel(sharply). "You know the cause of the arrest to be as I have stated? Answer yes or no!"
Witness(hesitating). "Yes, sir."
Counsel."You were permitted by the prosecuting attorney, F. A. Bartlett, to be discharged without trial on your promise to leave the state, were you not?"
Witness."I don't remember anything of that."
Counsel."Do you deny it?"
Witness."I do."
Counsel."Did you have another young man with you upon that occasion?"
Witness."I did. A college chum."
Counsel."Was he also married to this sixteen-year-old girl?"
Witness(no answer).
Counsel(pointedly at witness). "Was he married to this girl also?"
Witness."Why, no."
Counsel."You say you were married to her. Give me the date of your marriage."
Witness(hesitating). "I don't remember the date."
Counsel."How many years ago was it?"
Witness."I don't remember."
Counsel."How many years ago was it?"
Witness."I couldn't say."
Counsel."What is your best memory as to how many years ago it was?"
Witness."I can't recollect."
Counsel."Try to recollect about when you were married."
Witness."I was married twice, civil marriage and church marriage."
Counsel."I am talking about Miss Sadie Cook. When were you married to Sadie Cook, and where is the marriage recorded?"
Witness."I tell you I don't remember."
Counsel."Try."
Witness."It might be five or six or seven or ten years ago."
Counsel."Then you cannot tell within five years of the time when you were married, and you are now only twenty-five years old?"
Witness."I cannot."
Counsel."Were you married at fifteen years of age?"
Witness."I don't think I was."
Counsel."You know, do you not, that your marriage was several years after this arrest in Bridgeport that I have been speaking to you about?"
Witness."I know nothing of the kind."
Counsel(resolutely). "Do you deny it?"
Witness(hesitating). "Well, no, I do not deny it."
Counsel."I hand you now what purports to be the certificate of your marriage, three years ago. Is the date correct?"
Witness."I never saw it before."
Counsel."Does the certificate correctly state the time and place and circumstances of your marriage?"
Witness."I refuse to answer the question on the ground that it would incriminate my wife."
The theory on which the defence was being made was that the witness, Minnock, had manufactured the story which he had printed in the paper, and later swore to before the grand jury and at the trial. The effort in his cross-examination was to show that he was the kind of man who would manufacture such a story and sell it to the newspapers, and afterward, when compelled to do so, swear to it in court.
Counsel next called the witness's attention to many facts tending to show that he had been an eye-witness to adultery in divorce cases, and on both sides of them, first on one side, then on the other, in the same case, and that he had been at one time a private detective. Men whom he had robbed and blackmailed and cheated at cards were called from the audience, one after another, and he was confronted with questions referring to these charges, all of which he denied in the presence of his accusers. The presiding judge having stated to the counsel in the hearing of the witness that although heallowed the witness to be brought face to face with his alleged accusers, yet he would allow no contradictions of the witness on these collateral matters. Minnock's former defiant demeanor immediately returned.
The next interrogatories put to the witness developed the fact that, feigning insanity, he had allowed himself to be taken to Bellevue with the hope of being transferred to Ward's Island, with the intention of finally being discharged as cured, and then writing sensational newspaper articles regarding what he had seen while an inmate of the public insane asylums; that in Bellevue Hospital he had been detected as a malingerer by one of the attending physicians, Dr. Fitch, and had been taken before a police magistrate where he had stated in open court that he had found everything in Bellevue "far better than he had expected to find it," and that he had "no complaint to make and nothing to criticise."
The witness's mind was then taken from the main subject by questions concerning the various conversations had with the different nurses while in the asylum, all of which conversations he denied. The interrogatories were put in such a way as to admit of a "yes" or "no" answer only. Gradually coming nearer to the point desired to be made, the following questions were asked:—
Counsel."Did the nurse Gordon ask you why you were willing to submit to confinement as an insane patient, and did you reply that you were a newspaper man and under contract with a Sunday paper to writeup the methods of the asylum, but that the paper had repudiated the contract?"
Witness."No."
Counsel."Or words to that effect?"
Witness."No."
Counsel. "I am referring to a time subsequent to your discharge from the asylum, and after you had returned to take away your belongings. Did you, at that time, tell the nurse Gordon that you had expected to be able to write an article for which you could get $140?"
Witness."I did not."
Counsel."Did the nurse say to you, 'You got fooled this time, didn't you?' And did you reply, 'Yes, but I will try to write up something and see if I can't get square with them!'"
Witness."I have no memory of it."
Counsel."Or words to that effect?"
Witness."I did not."
All that preceded had served only as a veiled introduction to the next important question.
Counsel(quietly). "At that time, as a matter of fact, did you know anything you could write about when you got back to theHeraldoffice?"
Witness."I knew there was nothing to write."
Counsel."Did you know at that time, or have any idea, what you would write when you got out?"
Witness."Did I at that time know?Why, I knew there was nothing to write."
Counsel(walking forward and pointing excitedly at the witness). "Although you had seen a man choked to death with a sheet on Wednesday night, you knew on Friday morning that there was nothing you could write about?"
Witness(hesitating). "I didn't know they had killed the man."
Counsel."Although you had seen the patient fall unconscious several times to the floor after having been choked with the sheet twisted around his neck, you knew there was nothing to write about?"
Witness."I knew it was my duty to go and see the charity commissioner and tell him about that."
Counsel."But you were a newspaper reporter in the asylum, for the purpose of writing up an article. Do you want to take back what you said a moment ago—that you knew there was nothing to write about?"
Witness."Certainly not. I did not know the man was dead."
Counsel."Did you not testify that the morning after you had seen the patient choked into unconsciousness, you heard the nurse call up the morgue to inquire if the autopsy had been made?"
Witness(sheepishly.) "Well, the story that I had the contract for with theHeraldwas cancelled."
Counsel."Is it not a fact that within four hours of the time you were finally discharged from the hospital on Saturday afternoon, you read the newspaper account ofthe autopsy, and then immediately wrote your story of having seen this patient strangled to death and offered it for sale to theNew York World?"
Witness."That is right; yes, sir."
Counsel."You say you knew it was your duty to go to the charity commissioner and tell him what you had seen. Did you go to him?"
Witness."No, not after I found out through reading the autopsy that the man was killed."
Counsel."Instead, you went to theWorld, and offered them the story in which you describe the way Hilliard was killed?"
Witness."Yes."
Counsel."And you did this within three or four hours of the time you read the newspaper account of the autopsy?"
Witness."Yes."
Counsel."The editors of theWorldrefused your story unless you would put it in the form of an affidavit, did they not?"
Witness."Yes."
Counsel."Did you put it in the form of an affidavit?"
Witness."Yes."
Counsel."And that was the very night that you were discharged from the hospital?"
Witness."Yes."
Counsel."Every occurrence was then fresh in your mind, was it not?"
Witness(hesitating). "What?"
Counsel."Were the occurrences of the hospital fresh in your mind at the time?"
Witness."Well, not any fresher then than they are now."
Counsel."As fresh as now?"
Witness."Yes, sir."
Counsel(pausing, looking among his papers, selecting one and walking up to the witness, handing it to him). "Take this affidavit, made that Friday night, and sold to theWorld; show me where there is a word in it about Davis having strangled the Frenchman with a sheet, the way you have described it here to-day to this jury."
Witness(refusing paper). "No, I don't think that it is there. It is not necessary for me to look it over."
Counsel(shouting). "Don'tthink! You know that it is not there, do you not?"
Witness(nervously). "Yes, sir; it is not there."
Counsel."Had you forgotten it when you made that affidavit?"
Witness."Yes, sir."
Counsel(loudly). "You had forgotten it, although only three days before you had seen a man strangled in your presence, with a sheet twisted around his throat, and had seen him fall lifeless upon the floor; you had forgotten it when you described the incident and made the affidavit about it to theWorld?"
Witness(hesitating). "I made two affidavits. I believe that is in the second affidavit."
Counsel."Answer my questions, Mr. Minnock. Is there any doubt that you had forgotten it when you made the first affidavit to theWorld?"
Witness."I had forgotten it."
Counsel(abruptly). "When did you recollect?"
Witness."I recollected it when I made the second affidavit before the coroner."
Counsel."And when did you make that?"
Witness."It was a few days afterward, probably the next day or two."
Counsel(looking among his papers, and again walking up to the witness). "Please take the coroner's affidavit and point out to the jury where there is a word about a sheet having been used to strangle this man."
Witness(refusing paper). "Well, it may not be there."
Counsel."Is it there?"
Witness(still refusing paper). "I don't know."
Counsel."Read it, read it carefully."
Witness(reading). "I don't see anything about it."
Counsel."Had you forgotten it at that time as well?"
Witness(in confusion). "I certainly must have."
Counsel."Do you want this jury to believe that, having witnessed this horrible scene which you have described, you immediately forgot it, and on two different occasions when you were narrating under oath what took place in that hospital, you forgot to mention it?"
Witness."It escaped my memory."
Counsel."You have testified as a witness before in this case, have you not?"
Witness."Yes, sir."
Counsel."Before the coroner?"
Witness."Yes, sir."
Counsel."But this sheet incident escaped your memory then?"
Witness."It did not."
Counsel(taking in his hands the stenographer's minutes of the coroner's inquest). "Do you not recollect that you testified for two hours before the coroner without mentioning the sheet incident, and were then excused and were absent from the court for several days before you returned and gave the details of the sheet incident?"
Witness."Yes, sir; that is correct."
Counsel."Why did you not give an account of the sheet incident on the first day of your testimony?"
Witness."Well, it escaped my memory; I forgot it."
Counsel."Do you recollect, before beginning your testimony before the coroner, you asked to look at the affidavit that you had made for theWorld?"
Witness."Yes, I had been sick, and I wanted to refresh my memory."
Counsel."Do you mean that this scene that you have described so glibly to-day had faded out of yourmind then, and you wanted your affidavit to refresh your recollection?"
Witness."No, it had not faded. I merely wanted to refresh my recollection."
Counsel."Was it not rather that you had made up the story in your affidavit, and you wanted the affidavit to refresh your recollection as to the story you had manufactured?"
Witness."No, sir; that is not true."
The purpose of these questions, and the use made of the answers upon the argument, is shown by the following extract from the summing up:—
"My point is this, gentlemen of the jury, and it is an unanswerable one in my judgment, Mr. District Attorney: If Minnock, fresh from the asylum, forgot this sheet incident when he went to sell his first newspaper article to theWorld; if he also forgot it when he went to the coroner two days afterward to make his second affidavit; if he still forgot it two weeks later when, at the inquest, he testified for two hours, without mentioning it, and only first recollected it when he was recalled two days afterward, then there is but one inference to be drawn, and that is,that he never saw it, because he could not forget it if he had ever seen it! And the important feature is this: he was a newspaper reporter; he was there, as the district attorney says, 'to observe what was going on.' He says that he stood by in that part of the room, pretending to take away the dishes inorder to see what was going on. He was sane, the only sane man there. Now if he did not see it, it is because it did not take place, and if it did not take place, the insane men called here as witnesses could not have seen it. Do you see the point? Can you answer it? Let me put it again. It is not in mortal mind to believe that this man could have seen such a transaction as he describes and ever have forgotten it. Forget it when he writes his article the night he leaves the asylum and sells it to the morningWorld! Forget it two days afterward when he makes a second important affidavit! He makes still another statement, and does not mention it, and even testifies at the coroner's inquest two weeks later, and leaves it out. Can the human mind draw any other inference from these facts than that he never saw it—because he could not have forgotten it if he had ever seen it? Ifhenever saw it, it did not take place. He was on the spot, sane, and watching everything that went on,for the very purpose of reporting it. Now if this sheet incident did not take place, the insane mencould nothave seen it. This disposes not only of Minnock, but of all the testimony in the People's case. In order to say by your verdict that that sheet incident took place, you have got to find something that is contrary to all human experience; that is, that this man, Minnock, having seen the horrible strangling with the sheet, as he described, couldpossiblyhave immediately forgotten it."
The contents of the two affidavits made to theWorldand the coroner were next taken up, and the witness was first asked what the occurrence really was as he now remembered it. After his answers, his attention was called to what he said in his affidavits, and upon the differences being made apparent, he was asked whether what he then swore to, or what he now swore to, was the actual fact; and if he was now testifying from what he remembered to have seen, or if he was trying to remember the facts as he made them up in the affidavit.
Counsel."What was the condition of the Frenchman at supper time? Was he as gay and chipper as when you said that he had warmed up after he had been walking around awhile?"
Witness."Yes, sir."
Counsel."But in your affidavit you state that he seemed to be very feeble at supper. Is that true?"
Witness."Well, yes; he did seem to be feeble."
Counsel."But you said a moment ago that he warmed up and was all right at supper time."
Witness."Oh, you just led me into that."
Counsel."Well, I won't lead you into anything more. Tell us how he walked to the table."
Witness."Well, slowly."
Counsel."Do you remember what you said in the affidavit?"
Witness."I certainly do."
Counsel."What did you say?"
Witness."I said he walked in a feeble condition."
Counsel."Are you sure that you said anything in the affidavit about how he walked at all?"
Witness."I am not sure."
Counsel."The sheet incident, which you have described so graphically, occurred at what hour on Wednesday afternoon?"
Witness."About six o'clock."
Counsel."Previous to that time, during the afternoon, had there been any violence shown toward him?"
Witness."Yes; he was shoved down several times by the nurses."
Counsel."You mean they let him fall?"
Witness."Yes, they thought it a very funny thing to let him totter backward, and to fall down. They then picked him up. His knees seemed to be kind of muscle-bound, and he tottered back and fell, and they laughed. This was somewhere around three o'clock in the afternoon."
Counsel."How many times, Mr. Minnock, would you swear that you saw him fall over backward, and after being picked up by the nurse, let fall again?"
Witness."Four or five times during the afternoon."
Counsel."And would he always fall backward?"
Witness."Yes, sir; he repeated the operation of tottering backward. He would totter about five feet, and would lose his balance and would fall over backward."
The witness was led on to describe in detail this processof holding up the patient, and allowing him to fall backward, and then picking him up again, in order to make the contrast more apparent with what he had said on previous occasions and had evidently forgotten.
Counsel."I now read to you from the stenographer's minutes what you said on this subject in your sworn testimony given at the coroner's inquest. You were asked, 'Was there any violence inflicted on Wednesday before dinner time?' And you answered, 'I didn't see any.' You were then asked if, up to dinner time at six o'clock on Wednesday night, there had been any violence; and you answered: 'No, sir; no violence since Tuesday night. There was nothing happened until Wednesday at supper time, somewhere about six o'clock.' Now what have you to say as to these different statements, both given under oath, one given at the coroner's inquest, and the other given here to-day?"
Witness."Well, what I said about violence may have been omitted by the coroner's stenographer."
Counsel."But did you swear to the answers that I have just read to you before the coroner?"
Witness."I may have, and I may not have. I don't know."
Counsel."If you swore before the coroner there was no violence, and nothing happened until Wednesday after supper, did you mean to say it?"
Witness."I don't remember."
Counsel."After hearing read what you swore to atthe coroner's inquest, do you still maintain the truth of what you have sworn to at this trial, as to seeing the nurse let the patient fall backward four or five times, and pick him up and laugh at him?"
Witness."I certainly do."
Counsel."I again read you from the coroner's minutes a question asked you by the coroner himself. Question by the coroner, 'Did you at any time while in the office or the large room of the asylum see Hilliard fall or stumble?' Answer, 'No, sir; I never did.' What have you to say to that?"
Witness."That is correct."
Counsel."Then what becomes of your statement made to the jury but fifteen minutes ago, that you saw him totter and fall backward several times?"
Witness."It was brought out later on before the coroner."
Counsel."Brought out later on! Let me read to you the next question put to you before the coroner. Question, 'Did you atany timesee him try to walk or run away and fall?' Answer, 'No, I never saw him fall.' What have you to say to that?"
Witness."Well, I must have put in about the tottering in my affidavit, and omitted it later before the coroner."
At the beginning of the cross-examination it had been necessary for the counsel to fight with the Court over nearly every question asked; and question after questionwas ruled out. As the examination proceeded, however, the Court began to change its attitude entirely toward the witness. The presiding judge constantly frowned on the witness, kept his eyes riveted upon him, and finally broke out at this juncture: "Let me caution you, Mr. Minnock, once for all, you are here to answer counsel's questions. If you can't answer them, say so; and if you can answer them, do so; and if you have no recollection, say so."
Witness."Well, your Honor, Mr. —— has been cross-examining me very severely about my wife, which he has no right to do."
Court."You have no right to bring that up. He has a perfect right to cross-examine you."
Witness(losing his temper completely). "That man wouldn't dare to ask me those questions outside. He knows that he is under the protection of the court, or I would break his neck."
Court."You are making a poor exhibit of yourself. Answer the questions, sir."
Counsel."You don't seem to have any memory at all about this transaction. Are you testifying from memory as to what you saw, or making up as you go along?"
Witness(no answer).
Counsel."Which is it?"
Witness(doggedly). "I am telling what I saw."
Counsel."Well, listen to this then. You said in your affidavit: 'The blood was all over the floor. It was coveredwith Hilliard's blood, and the scrub woman came Tuesday and Wednesday morning, and washed the blood away.' Is that right?"
Witness."Yes, sir."
Counsel."Why, I understood you to say that you didn't get up Wednesday morning until noon. How could you see the scrub woman wash the blood away?"
Witness."They were at the farther end of the hall. They washed the whole pavilion. I didn't see them Wednesday morning; it was Tuesday morning I saw them scrubbing."
Counsel."You seem to have forgotten that Hilliard, the deceased, did not arrive at the pavilion until Tuesday afternoon at four o'clock. What have you to say to that?"
Witness."Well, there were other people who got beatings besides him."
Counsel."Then that is what you meant to refer to in your affidavit, when speaking of Hilliard's blood upon the floor. You meant beatings of other people?"
Witness."Yes sir—on Tuesday."
The witness was then forced to testify to minor details, which, within the knowledge of the defence, could be contradicted by a dozen disinterested witnesses. Such, for instance, as hearing the nurse Davis call up the morgue, the morning after Hilliard was killed, at least a dozen times on the telephone, and anxiously inquire what hadbeen disclosed by the autopsy; whereas, in fact, there was no direct telephonic communication whatever between the morgue and the insane pavilion; and the morgue attendants were prepared to swear that no one had called them up concerning the Hilliard autopsy, and that there were no inquiries from any source. The witness was next made to testify affirmatively to minor facts that could be, and were afterward, contradicted by Dr. Wildman, by Dr. Moore, by Dr. Fitch, by Justice Hogman, by night nurses Clancy and Gordon, by Mr. Dwyer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Fayne, by Gleason the registrar, by Spencer the electrician, by Jackson the janitor, and by several of the state's own witnesses who were to be called later.
By this time the witness had begun to flounder helplessly. He contradicted himself constantly, became red and pale by turns, hesitated before each answer, at times corrected his answers, at others was silent and made no answer at all. At the expiration of four hours he left the witness-stand a thoroughly discredited, haggard, and wretched object. The court ordered him to return the following day, but he never was seen again at the trial.
A week later, his foster-mother, when called to the witness-chair by the defence, handed to the judge a letter received that morning from her son, who was in Philadelphia (which, however, was not allowed to be shown to the jury) in which he wrote that he had shaken from his feet the dust of New York forever, and would neverreturn; that he felt he had been ruined, and would be arrested for perjury if he came back, and requested money that he might travel far into the West and commence life anew. It was altogether the most tragic incident in the experience of the writer.
It was the cross-examination of a Birmingham attorney, named Jeremiah Smith, by Sir Alexander Cockburn, then Attorney-General and afterward Chief Justice of England, in the celebrated trial of William Palmer for taking the life of John Parsons Cook by poison, that finally turned the tide, in this closely contested case, against the prisoner, and resulted in his conviction and execution. An observer of such long experience as Mr. Justice Stephens said of this cross-examination that "it was something to be heard and seen, but incapable of being described."
William Palmer at the time of his trial was thirty-one years old. He was a physician by profession, but had for several years prior to his trial given up the active practice of medicine and had devoted all his time to the turf. His victim, John Parsons Cook, was also a young man of decent family, originally intended for the profession of the law, but after inheriting some £15,000, also betook himself to the turf. He kept race horses and betted considerably, and in the course of his operationsbecame intimate with Palmer. At the time of his acquaintance with Cook, Palmer had become involved financially through forging the name of his mother, a woman of considerable property, as indorser of his notes. These indorsements amounted to the sum of £13,000. He had effected an insurance upon the life of his wife for £13,000, and the policies of insurance he had given as collateral on the forged notes. Upon the death of his wife he was enabled to pay off the first notes, but shortly issued fresh ones to the amount of £12,500, had them discounted at the rate of sixty per cent, and gave as new collateral, policies of insurance of an equal amount upon his brother's life, which policies had been assigned to himself. Upon his brother's death, there being a year's interim between the death of his wife and brother, the companies in which the insurance had been effected declined to pay, and Palmer found himself confronted with suits upon these forged notes and the exposure of his forgeries.
It was for the supposed intention of getting possession of Cook's money and race horses that he took the life of his intimate companion.
The trial was held in the Central Criminal Court, London, May 14, 1856, Lord Campbell presiding, and has ever since maintained its reputation as being one of the most learned trials in the history of the criminal courts of the world.
H. D. Traill, in theEnglish Illustrated Magazine,gives a most graphic account of the incidents during the cross-examination of Jeremiah Smith.
"'It was the riding that did it,' exclaimed one of the greatest criminals of the century in extorted admiration of the skill with which one of the greatest advocates of the century had brought Justice in a winner by a short head in one of the century's greatest trials. Sir Alexander Cockburn is said to have been more proud of this tribute from the eminent sportsman and poisoner whom he hunted to the gallows post, than of any other of the many triumphs of his brilliant career. And undoubtedly it has all the ring of one of those utterances which come straight from the heart and attest their source by taking shape in the form of words most familiar to the speaker's lips. There is plenty of evidence to the critical attention with which Mr. William Palmer observed the jockeyship of the attorney in driving that terribly exciting race for life.
"There exists, or existed once, a slip of paper about six inches long by an inch broad—just such a slip, in fact, as a man might tear irregularly off the top of a sheet of foolscap, which bears this calm and matter-of-fact legend, more impressive than the most impassioned prose. 'I suppose you think that last witness did harm.' It is one of those notes which Palmer subscribed from time to time and turned over to his counsel to read and, if necessary, reply to. There is no sign of trembling in the hand that wrote it. Yet it was written—this one—justat the close of Sir Alexander Cockburn's memorable cross-examination. It was the conviction of the expert section of the audience that when the attorney-general resumed his seat, the halter was knotted around the neck of the prisoner too firmly to be loosed. There is little doubt that the doomed wretch read as much in the face of his counsel, and that the outward indifference of the hastily penned inquiry which he flung across to them must have caused a silent agony of doubt and dread.
"Palmer, of course, was not as well accustomed to observe the manners of the presiding judge as were the professional spectators of the scene, but if so, he would have drawn the worst possible augury from Lord Campbell's increasing politeness to him after this incident in the trial—a form of demeanor toward a prisoner which always indicated that in that distinguished judge's opinion, his doom was certain.
"Yet the cross-examination of Mr. Smith, important as its consequences are said to have been,might easily be quotedasa very doubtfulillustration of the value of this formidable engine for the extraction, or supposed extraction, of the truth.
"Its effect upon the witness himself left nothing to be desired from the point of view of the operator. No abbreviation, in fact, can give the effect of it. The witness's efforts to gain time, and his distress as the various answers were extorted from him by degrees, may be faintly traced in the report. His face was covered withsweat, and the papers put into his hands shook and rustled. These papers, it must be admitted, were some of them of a sufficiently agitating character. Mr. Smith had had to confess with great reluctance that he had witnessed the assignment of a policy for £13,000 by Walter to William Palmer, who was suspected, and indeed as good as known, to have been guilty of murdering him; he had had to confess that he wrote to an office to effect an insurance for £10,000 on the life of a groom of Palmer's in receipt of £1 a week as wages; he had been compelled to admit the self-impeachment of having tried, after Walter Palmer's death, to get his widow to give up her claim on the policy. The result was that Lord Campbell, in summing up, asked the jury whether they could believe a man who so disgraced himself, in the witness-box. The jury thought they couldn't, and they didn't. The witness, whose evidence was to the effect that Palmer was not at his victim's bedside, but some miles away, at a time when, on the theory of the prosecution, he was substituting poisonous drugs for the medicine supplied to the sick man by the doctor, was disbelieved.Yet it is nevertheless tolerably certain from other evidence of an unimpeachable kind that Jeremiah Smith was speaking the truth."
The text of the cross-examination that follows is taken from the unabridged edition of theTimes'"Report of the Trial of William Palmer," containing the shorthand notes taken from day to day, and published in London in 1856.
Attorney-General."Are you the gentleman who took Mr. Myatt to Stafford Gaol?"
Smith."I am."
Attorney-General."Have you known Palmer long?"
Smith."I have known him long and very intimately, and have been employed a good deal as an attorney by Palmer and his family."
Attorney-General."In December, 1854, did he apply to you to attest a proposal of his brother, Walter Palmer, for £13,000 in the Solicitors and General Insurance Office?"
Smith."I cannot recollect; if you will let me see the document, I will tell you."
Attorney-General."Will you swear that you were not applied to?"
Smith."I will not swear either that I was not applied to for that purpose or that I was. If you will let me see the document, I shall recognize my writing at once."
Attorney-General."In January, 1855, were you applied to by Palmer to attest a proposal of his brother for £13,000 in the Prince of Wales Office?"
Smith."I don't recollect."
Attorney-General."Don't recollect! Why, £13,000 was a large sum for a man like Walter Palmer, wasn't it, who hadn't a shilling in the world?"
Smith."Oh, he had money, because I know that he lived retired and carried on no business."
Attorney-General."Didn't you know that he was an uncertified bankrupt?"
Smith."I know that he had been a bankrupt some years before, but I did not know that he was an uncertified bankrupt. I know that he had an allowance from his mother, but I do not know whether he had money from any other source. I believe that his brother, William [the prisoner], gave him money at different times."
Attorney-General."Where, in the course of 1854 and 1855, were you living—in Rugeley?"
Smith."In 1854 I think I resided partly with William Palmer, and sometimes at his mother's."
Attorney-General."Did you sometimes sleep at his mother's?"
Smith."Yes."
Attorney-General."When you did that, where did you sleep?"
Smith."In a room."
Attorney-General."Did you sleep in his mother's room—on your oath, were you not intimate with her—you know well enough what I mean?"
Smith."I had no other intimacy, Mr. Attorney, than a proper intimacy."
Attorney-General."How often did you sleep at her house, having an establishment of your own at Rugeley?"
Smith."Frequently. Two or three times a week."
Attorney-General."Are you a single or a married man?"
Smith."A single man."
Attorney-General."How long did that practice of sleeping two or three times a week at Mrs. Palmer's continue?"
Smith."For several years."
Attorney-General."Had you your own lodgings at Rugeley at the time?"
Smith."Yes, all the time."
Attorney-General."How far were your lodgings from Mrs. Palmer's house?"
Smith."I should say nearly quarter of a mile."
Attorney-General."Explain how it happened that you, having your own place of abode within a quarter of a mile, slept two or three times a week at Mrs. Palmer's."
Smith."Sometimes her son Joseph or other members of her family were on a visit to her, and I went to see them."
Attorney-General."And when you went to see those members of her family, was it too far for you to return a quarter of a mile in the evening?"
Smith."Why, we used to play a game of cards, and have a glass of gin-and-water, and smoke a pipe perhaps; and then they said, 'It is late—you had better stop all night;' and I did. There was no particular reason why I did not go home that I know of."
Attorney-General."Did that go on for three or four years?"
Smith."Yes; and I sometimes used to stop therewhen there was nobody there at all—when they were all away from home, the mother and all."
Attorney-General."And you have slept there when the sons were not there and the mother was?"
Smith."Yes."
Attorney-General."How often did that happen?"
Smith."Sometimes for two or three nights a week, for some months at a time, and then perhaps I would not go near the house for a month."
Attorney-General."What did you stop for on those nights when the sons were not there; there was no one to smoke and drink with then, and you might have gone home, might you not?"
Smith."Yes; but I did not."
Attorney-General."Do you mean to say, on your oath, that there was nothing but a proper intimacy between you and Mrs. Palmer?"
Smith."I do."
Attorney-General."Now I will turn to another subject. Were you called upon to attest another proposal for £13,000 by Walter Palmer in the Universal Office?"
Smith."I cannot say; if you will let me see the proposal, I shall know."
Attorney-General."I ask you, sir, as an attorney and a man of business, whether you cannot tell me whether you were applied to by William Palmer to attest a proposal for an assurance for £13,000 on the life of Walter Palmer?"
Smith."I say that I do not recollect it. If I could see any document on the subject, I daresay I should remember it."
Attorney-General."Do you remember getting a £5 note for attesting an assignment by Walter Palmer to his brother of such a policy?"
Smith."Perhaps I might. I don't recollect positively."
Attorney-General(handing a document to witness). "Is that your signature?"
Smith."It is very like my signature."
Attorney-General."Have you any doubt about it?"
Smith(after considerable hesitation). "I have some doubt."
Attorney-General."Read the document, and tell me, on your oath, whether it is your signature."
Smith."I have some doubt whether it is mine."
Attorney-General."Read the document, sir. Was it prepared in your office?"
Smith."It was not."
Attorney-General."I will have an answer from you on your oath one way or another. Isn't that your handwriting?"
Smith."I believe that it is not my handwriting. I think that it is a very clever imitation of it."
Attorney-General."Will you swear that it is not?"
Smith."I will. I think that it is a very good imitation of my handwriting."
Baron Alderson."Did you ever make such an attestation?"
Smith."I don't recollect, my Lord."
Attorney-General."Look at the other signature there, 'Walter Palmer,'—is that his signature?"
Smith."I believe that is Walter Palmer's."
Attorney-General."Look at the attestation and the words 'signed, sealed, and delivered'; are they in Mr. Pratt's handwriting?"
Smith."They are."
Attorney-General."Did you receive that from Mr. Pratt?"
Smith."Most likely I did; but I can't swear that I did. It might have been sent to William Palmer."
Attorney-General."Did you receive it from William Palmer?"
Smith."I don't know. Very likely I did."
Attorney-General."Did William Palmer give you that document?"
Smith."I have no doubt he did."
Attorney-General."If that be the document he gave you, and those are the signatures of Walter Palmer and of Pratt, is not the other signature yours?"
Smith."I'll tell you, Mr. Attorney—"
Attorney-General."Don't 'Mr. Attorney' me, sir! Answer my question. Isn't that your handwriting?"
Smith."I believe it not to be."
Attorney-General."Will you swear that it isn't?"
Smith."I believe that it is not."
Attorney-General."Did you apply to the Midland Counties Insurance Office in October, 1855, to be appointed their agent at Rugeley?"
Smith."I think I did."
Attorney-General."Did you send them a proposal on the life of Bates for £10,000—you yourself?"
Smith."I did."
Attorney-General."Did William Palmer apply to you to send that proposal?"
Smith."Bates and Palmer came together to my office with a prospectus, and asked me if I knew whether there was any agent for that company in Rugeley. I told them I had never heard of one, and they then asked me if I would write and get the appointment, because Bates wanted to raise some money."
Attorney-General."Did you send to the Midland Office and get appointed as their agent in Rugeley, in order to effect that £10,000 insurance on Bates's life?"
Smith."I did."
Attorney-General."Was Bates at that time superintending William Palmer's stud and stables?"
Smith."He was."
Attorney-General."At a salary of £1 a week?"
Smith."I can't tell his salary."
Attorney-General."After that did you go to the widowof Walter Palmer to get her to give up her claim on the policy of her husband?"
Smith."I did."
Attorney-General."Where was she at that time?"
Smith."At Liverpool."
Attorney-General."Did you receive a document from Pratt to take to her?"
Smith."William Palmer gave me one which had been directed to him."
Attorney-General."Did the widow refuse?"
Smith."She said she should like her solicitor to see it; and I said, 'By all means.'"
Attorney-General."Of course! Didn't she refuse to do it—didn't you bring it back?"
Smith."I brought it back as I had no instructions to leave it."
Attorney-General."Didn't she say that she understood from her husband that the insurance was for £10,000?"
Mr. Serjeant Sheeobjected to this question. What passed between the widow and witness could be no evidence against the prisoner.
TheAttorney-Generalsaid that the question was intended to affect the credit of the witness, and with that view it was most important.
The court ruled that the question could not be put.
Attorney-General."Do you know that Walter Palmer obtained nothing for making that assignment?"
Smith."I believe that he ultimately did get something for it."
Attorney-General."Don't you know that what he got was a bill for £200?"
Smith."Yes; and he had a house furnished for him."
Attorney-General."Don't you know that he got a bill for £200?"
Smith."Yes."
Attorney-General."And don't you know that that bill was never paid?"
Smith."No, I do not."
Attorney-General."Now, I'll refresh your memory a little with regard to those proposals [handing witness a document]. Look at that, and tell me whether it is in your handwriting."
Smith."It is."
Attorney-General."Refreshing your memory with that, I ask you were you not applied to by William Palmer in December, 1854, to attest a proposal on the life of his brother, Walter, for £13,000 in the Solicitors and General Insurance Office?"
Smith."I might have been."
Attorney-General."Were you or were you not, sir? Look at that document, and say have you any doubt upon the subject?"
Smith."I do not like to speak from memory with reference to such matters."
Attorney-General."No; but not speaking from memoryin an abstract sense, but having your memory refreshed by a perusal of that document, have you any doubt that you were applied to?"
Smith."I have no doubt that I might have been applied to."
Attorney-General."Have you any doubt that in January, 1855, you were called on by William Palmer to attest another proposal for £13,000 on his brother's life in another office? Look at that document and tell me."
Smith."I see the paper, but I don't know; I might have signed it in blank."
Attorney-General."Do you usually sign attestations of this nature in blank?"
Smith."I have some doubt whether I did not sign several of them in blank."
Attorney-General."On your oath, looking at that document, don't you know that William Palmer applied to you to attest that proposal upon his brother's life for £13,000?"
Smith."He did apply to me to attest proposals in some offices."
Attorney-General."Were they for large amounts?"
Smith."One was for £13,000."
Attorney-General."Were you applied to to attest another for the like sum in the Universal Office?"
Smith."I might be."
Attorney-General."They were made much about thesame time, were they not? You did not wait for the answers to come back to the first application before you made the second?"
Smith."I do not know that any answers were returned at all."
Attorney-General."Will you swear that you were not present when Walter Palmer executed the deed assigning the policy upon his life to his brother, William Palmer? Now, be careful, Mr. Smith, for depend upon it you shall hear of this again if you are not."
Smith."I will not swear that I was, I think I was not. I am not quite positive."
(Very few of the answers to these questions of the Attorney-General were given without considerable hesitation, and the witness appeared to labor under a sense of embarrassment which left a decidedly unfavorable impression upon the minds of the audience.)
Attorney-General."Do you know that the £200 bill was given for the purpose of enabling William Palmer to make up a sum of £500?"
Smith."I believe it was not; for Cook received absolutely from me £200. If I am not mistaken, he took it with him to Shrewsbury races—not the last races."
Attorney-General."In whose favor was the bill drawn?"
Smith."I think in favor of William Palmer. I don't know what became of it. I have never seen it since. I cannot state with certainty who saw me on the Monday;but I called at the Talbot Arms, and went into Cook's room. One of the servants gave me a candle. As well as I can remember, the servant who did so was either Bond, Mills, or Lavinia Barnes, I can't say which."