“My dear Sir,—I have been in a devil of a fix about the bill, but have at last settled it at the cost of an extra two guineas, for the —— discounter had issued a writ against me. I am very much disgusted at it.”
“My dear Sir,—I have been in a devil of a fix about the bill, but have at last settled it at the cost of an extra two guineas, for the —— discounter had issued a writ against me. I am very much disgusted at it.”
The letter was sent to me, but its envelope was destroyed. The next letter bore the date 25th June, 1855; it was also without address, but witness stated that it had been sent to him, and he had destroyed the envelope. The following is a copy of the letter:—
“Dear Jerry,—I should like to have the bill renewed for two months. Can it be done? Let me know by return. I have scratched Polestar for the Nottinghamshire and Wolverhampton Stakes. I shall be down on Friday or Saturday. Fred. tells me Arabis will win the Northumberland Stakes.”
“Dear Jerry,—I should like to have the bill renewed for two months. Can it be done? Let me know by return. I have scratched Polestar for the Nottinghamshire and Wolverhampton Stakes. I shall be down on Friday or Saturday. Fred. tells me Arabis will win the Northumberland Stakes.”
The memorandum put in and read was signed J. P. Cook, and the following is a copy:—
“Polestar three years, Sirius two years; by way of mortgage to secure £200 advanced upon a bill of exchange for £200, dated 29th August, 1855, payable about three months after date.”
“Polestar three years, Sirius two years; by way of mortgage to secure £200 advanced upon a bill of exchange for £200, dated 29th August, 1855, payable about three months after date.”
Cross-examined by theAttorney-General: I am the person who took Mr. Myatt to Stafford Gaol. I have known Palmer long and intimately, and have been employed a good deal as attorney for him and his family. I cannot recollect that he applied to me in December, 1854, to attest a proposal for insurance on the life of Walter Palmer for £13,000 in the Solicitors’ and General Assurance Office. I will not swear that I was not applied to on the subject. I do not recollect that an application was made to me to attest a proposalfor £13,000 in the Prince of Wales on Walter Palmer’s life, in January, 1855. I know that Walter Palmer had been a bankrupt, but not that he was an uncertificated bankrupt. His bankruptcy took place at least six years ago. He had been in no business since that period to the time of his death. I knew that Walter had an allowance from his mother, and he had also money at various times from his brother William. In the years 1854 and 1855, I lived at Rugeley, sometimes at Palmer’s house, and sometimes at his mother’s. There was no improper intimacy between myself and Palmer’s mother. I slept at her house frequently, perhaps two or three times a week, having my own place of abode at Rugeley.
How long did this habit continue of sleeping two or three times a week at Mrs. Palmer’s house?—Several years.
Had you your own lodgings and chambers at Rugeley?—Yes.
Your own bedroom?—Yes.
How far were your lodgings from Mrs. Palmer’s house?—Nearly a quarter of a mile.
Will you be so good as to explain why, having your own place of abode, and your own bed-room so near to Mrs. Palmer’s, you were still in the habit of sleeping two or three times a week for several years at the house of Mrs. Palmer?—Yes; sometimes there were members of Mrs. Palmer’s family present.
Who were they?—There was Mr. Joseph Palmer, who resides at Liverpool; Mr. Walter Palmer, too; and sometimes William Palmer.
When you went to see the members of Palmer’s family, was it too late when you separated to return to your own lodgings?—We used to stop very late drinking gin and water, smoking, and sometimes afterwards playing at cards.
Then you did not go to your own lodgings?—No.
And this continued several years two or three times a week?—Yes.
Did you ever stay at Mrs. Palmer’s house all night when there were no members of the family visiting?—Yes, frequently.
How often?—As many as two or three times a week.
When there were none of Mrs. Palmer’s sons there?—Yes.
And when the mother was?—Yes.
How often did that happen?—I cannot say. Sometimes two or three times a week.
When there was no one else in the house but the lady?—There were the mother, daughter, and servants.
You might have gone to your own home, then, for there was no one to drink brandy-and-water with, or to smoke with?—I might have done so, but I did not.
Do you mean, then, to swear solemnly that no improper intimacy subsisted between you and Palmer’s mother?—I do [sensation].
Now I will turn to another subject. Do you remember being applied to by Palmer to attest a proposal for an insurance of £10,000 on the life of Walter Palmer in the Universal Life Office?—I do not remember; if you have any document which will show it I shall be able to recollect, perhaps.
Now, do you remember getting a five pound note for attesting the signature of Walter Palmer’s assignment of his policy to his brother?—I do not.
Is that your signature [handing a document to witness]?—It is very similar to it.
Is it not yours?—I do not know [sensation].
Upon your oath, sir, is not that your signature?—Witness hesitating—
Examine the document, and then tell me, on your oath, whether that is not your signature [witness examined the document].
Now you have perused it, tell me, is not that your signature?—Witness (hesitating): I have some doubts whether this is my handwriting [sensation].
Have you read the whole of the document?—I have not.
Then do so. [Witness again perused the whole of the paper.] Now, was that document prepared in your office?—It was not.
Have you ever seen it before?—It is very much like my handwriting.
That is not what I asked you. Upon your oath, have you ever seen that document before?—Witness (with hesitation): It is very much like my handwriting [sensation].
I will have an answer to my question. Upon your oath, sir, is not that your handwriting?—I think it is not in my handwriting. I think it is a very clever imitation of it [sensation].
Will you swear it is not your handwriting?—I will swear it is not my handwriting [renewed sensation].
TheAttorney-General: Will your lordship please to take a note of that answer?
Mr. BaronAlderson: Did you ever make such an attestation as that in your hand?—I do not remember.
TheAttorney-General: Now is that the signature of Walter Palmer (handing a paper to witness)?—I believe it to be.
Is that the signature of Pratt?—I do not know.
Did you not receive that paper from Pratt?—I believe I did not. I think William Palmer gave it me.
Well, did he give it you?—I don’t recollect.
I repeat my question. Did William Palmer give you that document?—Most likely he did.
Did he, I ask again?—It was not signed at the time.
But did he give it you? I will have an answer.—I have no doubt he did.
Well, then, if that document bears the signature of Walter Palmer, and was given to you by William Palmer, cannot you tell whether it bears your own signature or not?—Mr. Attorney—
Don’t “Mr. Attorney” me—answer my question. Upon your oath, is not that your handwriting?—I believe it not to be.
Will you swear it is not?—I believe it not to be. [Great sensation.]
Now, did you apply to the Midland Counties Insurance Office to be appointed agent to the company at Rugeley?—I did.
When was it?—I should like to fetch my documents and papers; I should then be able to answer you accurately.
Oh, never mind the papers. Was it in October, 1855?—I think it was.
Did you send up a proposal for an insurance of £10,000 on the life of Bates?—I did.
Did William Palmer ask you to make that proposal?—Bates and Palmer came together to my office, with a prospectus, and asked me if I knew whether there was an agent for the Midland Counties Office in Rugeley. I told him I never heard of one. He asked me afterwards if I would write to get the appointment, because Bates wanted to raise some money.
Did you send to the Midland Counties Office to get the appointment of agent, in order that you might be enabled to effect this insurance on Bates’s life?—I did.
Did you make the application in order to get the insurance effected?—I did.
Upon the life of Bates for £10,000?—I did. [Sensation.] Bates was at that time superintending William Palmer’s stud and stables. I do not know at what salary. I afterwards went to the widow of Walter Palmer to get her to give up her claim on the policy of her husband. She was then at Liverpool. William Palmer gave me a letter for Pratt to take to her to sign. Mrs. Palmer said she would like to see her solicitor about it. I brought the document back with me because she did not sign it. I had no instructions to leave it.
Did she give any reason for not signing it?
Mr. SergeantSheeobjected to the question.
LordCampbelldecided that it could not be put.
TheAttorney-General: Do you know whether Walter Palmer received anything on executing the assignment of his policy to William Palmer?—I believe he ultimately had something.
Did he not get a bill for £200?—I believe he did, and he also got a house furnished for him.
Was that bill paid?—I do not remember.
Is that document in your handwriting? [document handed in]—It is.
Now, having seen that document with your signature, I ask you whether you were applied to to effect an insurance on the life of Walter Palmer?—I do not recollect.
Not recollect! when your signature is staring you in the face?—No, I do not.
You are an attorney, and accustomed to business transactions?—I am.
Now I ask you again, were you applied to on the subject?—I may have been; it is from my memory I am speaking, and I wish, therefore, to speak as accurately as possible [laughter].
I don’t ask you as to your memory in the abstract, but your memory now that is refreshed by that document. Is that your signature?—Witness (hesitating) I have no doubt it may be.
Look at that document and see whether you were not applied to to effect the insurance I have named?—That is my signature.
I ask you, have you any doubt that in the month of January, 1855, you were called upon to attest another proposal for £13,000 on the life of Walter Palmer?—Witness (with hesitation): I may have signed that paper in blank.
Did you sign this proposal in blank?—I might have done.
But did you, I ask again?—I cannot swear I did or did not. I have some doubt whether I did not sign several of these proposals in blank [sensation].
Upon your oath, do you not know that William Palmer applied to you to effect an insurance for £13,000 on the life of his brother?—I do not remember.
Why this is a very large sum, surely you must remember such a transaction as this?—I may have been applied to on the subject.
Were you applied to to attest another proposal for an insurance with the Universal Life Office?—I cannot say that I was.
Will you swear that when Walter Palmer executed the deed of assignment of his policy to William Palmer, that you were not present? Now, be careful, for you will certainly hear of this on some future day if you are not careful.—I cannot say that I was.
Upon your oath, did you not attest the deed of assignment of Walter to his brother of his interest in a policy of insurance for £13,000?—I cannot say. I believe the signature “Jeremiah Smith” is very much like my handwriting.
I repeat the question?—I cannot say.
Why, did you not receive a cheque for £5 for attesting it?—I think I did receive a cheque for £5.
Did you not see William Palmer write this upon the counterfoil of his cheque-book [cheque-book handed to witness]?—Witness, with hesitation: I cannot positively swear that I did.
Did you not, sir, see him write it?—That is William Palmer’s handwriting [referring to the cheque-book].
Did you not know that you got a five pound cheque for attesting that signature?—I may have got a cheque for £5, but I may not have got it for attesting the signature of the document.
You say you got £200 for Cook—£100 from Mrs. Palmer and £100 from William Palmer?—Yes, and he gave £10 for the recommendation.
To whom?—To William Palmer.
Do you not know that the £200 bill was given for the purpose of enabling William Palmer to make up a sum of £500?—I believe it was not, for Cook received absolutely from me £200.
Did he not have the money from you in order to take up to London to pay Pratt?—No, he took it with him, I think, to Shrewsbury, to the races.
Who was the bill drawn in favour of?—I think William Palmer.
What became of the bill?—I do not know.
Witness: I was not present at the inquest on Cook. I can’t say who saw me when I went to the Talbot Arms and went into Cook’s room. One of the servants gave me a candle—either Bond, Mills, or Lavinia Barnes.
Re-examined by Mr. SerjeantShee: I have known Mrs. Palmer twenty years. I knew her before her husband’s death. I should say she is sixty years of age. William Palmer is not her eldest son. Joseph is the eldest. He resides at Liverpool. He is forty-five or forty-six years of age. I think George is the next son. He lives at Rugeley. He was frequently at his mother’s house. There is another son, a clergyman of the Church of England. He resided with his mother until within the last two years, except when he was at college. There is a daughter. She lives with her mother. There are three servants. Mrs. Palmer’s family does not visit much in the neighbourhood of Rugeley. Her house is a large one. I slept in a room nearest the Old Church.
Mr. SerjeantShee: Is there any pretence for saying you have ever been charged with any improper intimacy with Mrs. Palmer?—Witness: I hope not.
Mr. SerjeantShee: Is there any pretence for saying so?—Witness: There ought not to be.
Mr. SerjeantShee: Is there any truth in the statement or suggestion that you have had any improper intimacy with Mrs. Palmer?—Witness: They might have said so, but there is no reason.
Mr. SerjeantShee: Is there any truth in the statement?—Witness: I should say not.
Mr. SerjeantShee: When did it come to your knowledge that there was a proposal for Walter’s life?—Witness: I never heard of it until the inquest.
The Court then adjourned for about twenty minutes, when the proceedings were resumed.
W. Joseph Saunderswas then called up on his subpœna, but did not appear.
TheAttorney-Generalsaid he should be extremely sorry to commence his reply if there was any chance of witness making his appearance.
Mr. SerjeantSheesaid he should now ask for the production of a letter written by Cook to Palmer on Jan. 4, 1855.
The letter, of which the following is a copy, was then put in and read:—
“Lutterworth, Jan. 4, 1855.“My dear Sir,—I sent up to London on Tuesday to back St. Hubert for £50, and my commission has returned 10s. 1d. I have, therefore, booked 250 to 25 against him, to gain money. There is a small balance of £18 due to you, which I forgot to give you the other day. Tell Will to debit me with it on account of your share of training Pyrrhine. I will also write to him to do so, as there will be a balance due from him to me.Yours faithfully,“J. Parsons Cook.”“W. Palmer, Esq.”
“Lutterworth, Jan. 4, 1855.
“My dear Sir,—I sent up to London on Tuesday to back St. Hubert for £50, and my commission has returned 10s. 1d. I have, therefore, booked 250 to 25 against him, to gain money. There is a small balance of £18 due to you, which I forgot to give you the other day. Tell Will to debit me with it on account of your share of training Pyrrhine. I will also write to him to do so, as there will be a balance due from him to me.
Yours faithfully,“J. Parsons Cook.”“W. Palmer, Esq.”
Mr. SerjeantSheesubmitted that he was entitled to reply on a part of evidence. The course taken by the Attorney-General on getting at the contents of the cheque, the contents of an assignment of the policy on Walter Palmer’s life, and the contents of the proposals to various offices for the insurance, he submitted entitled him to a reply on those points.
TheLord Chief Justice: We are of opinion that you have no right to reply.
Mr.Baron Alderson: That is quite clear.
TheAttorney-Generalsaid he had been taken somewhat by surprise yesterday by the evidence of Dr. Richardson, with respect to angina pectoris. Dr. Richardson adverted to several books and authorities. He had now those books in his possession, and was desirous of putting some questions arising out of that part of the evidence.
The Court decided against the application.
The case for the defence here concluded.
The Attorney-General, at ten minutes before three, commenced his reply, speaking occasionally in so low a tone that the conclusion of many of his sentences was inaudible. He said: May it please your lordships and gentlemen of the jury, the case for the prosecution and the case for the defence are now before you, and it now becomes my duty to address to you such observations upon the whole of the evidence as suggest themselves to my mind. I feel that I have a moral, solemn, and important duty to perform. I wish I could have answered the appeal made to me the other day by my learned friend (Serjeant Shee), and say that I am satisfied with the case which he submitted to you for the defence. But, standing here as the instrument of public justice, I feel that I should be wanting in the duty that I have to perform if I did not ask at your hands for a verdict of guilty against the prisoner. I approach the consideration of the case in, I hope, what I may term a spirit of fairness and moderation. My business is to convince you, if I can, by facts and legitimate arguments, of the prisoner’s guilt; and if I cannot establish it to your satisfaction, no man will rejoice more than I shall in a verdict of acquittal. Gentlemen, in the mass of evidence which has been brought before you, two main questions present themselves prominently for your consideration. Did the deceased man, into whose death we are now inquiring, die a natural death, or was he taken off by the foul means of poison? And if the latter proposition be sanctioned by the evidence, then comes the important—if possible, the still more important—question, whether the prisoner at the bar was the author of the death? I will proceed with the consideration of the subject in the order which I have mentioned. Did John Parsons Cook die by poison? I assert and contend the affirmative of that proposition. The case which is submitted to you on behalf of the Crown is this—that, having been first practised upon by antimony, Cook was at last killed by strychnine. The first question to be considered is—what was the immediate and proximate cause of his death. The witnesses for the prosecution have told you, one and all, that, in their judgment, he died of tetanus, which signifies a convulsive spasmodic action of the muscles of the body. Can there be any doubt that their opinion is correct? Of course it does not follow that, because he died of tetanus, it must be the tetanus of strychnia. That is a matter for after consideration. But, inasmuch as strychnine produces death by tetanus, we must see, in the first place, whether it admits of doubt that he did die of tetanus. I have listened with great attention to every form in which that disease has been brought under your consideration—whether by the positive evidence of witnesses, or whether by reference to the works of scientific writers; and I assert deliberately that no case, either in the human subject or in the animal, has been brought under your notice in which the symptoms of tetanus have been so marked as in this case.
From the moment the paroxysms came on of which the unhappy man died, the symptoms were of the most marked and of the most striking character. Every muscle, says the witness, the medical man who was present at the time—every muscle of his body was convulsed—he expressed the most intense dread of suffocation—he entreats them to lift him up lest he should be suffocated—and every muscle of his body, from the crown of his head to the soles of his feet, was so stricken—the flexibility of the trunk and the limbs was gone—and you could only have raised him up as you would have raised a corpse. In order that he might escape from the dread of suffocation, they turned him over, and then, in the midst of that fearful paroxysm, one mighty spasm seemed to have seized his heart, to have pressed from it the life blood, and the result was—death. And when he died, his body exhibited the most marked symptoms of this fearful disease. He was convulsed from head to foot. You could have rested him on his head and heels—his hands were clasped with a grasp that it required force to overcome, and his feet assumed an arched appearance. Then, if it was a case of tetanus—into which fact I will not waste your time by inquiry—the question arises, was it a case of tetanus produced by strychnia? I will confine myself for a moment to the exhibition of the symptoms as described by the witnesses. Tetanus may proceed from natural causes as well as from the administration of poisons, and while the symptoms last they are the same. But in the course of the symptoms, and before the disease reaches its consummation in the death of the patient, the distinction between the two is marked by characteristics which enable any one conversant with the subject to distinguish between them. We have been told on the highest authority that the distinctions are these—natural tetanus is a disease not of minutes, not of hours, but of days. It takes—say several other witnesses—from three to four days; and will extend to a period of even three weeks beforethe patient dies. Upon that point we have the most abundant and conclusive evidence of Dr. Curling; we have the evidence of Dr. Brodie; we have the evidence of Dr. Daniel, a gentleman who has seen something like twenty-five or thirty cases; we have the evidence of a gentleman who has practised twenty-five years in India, where these cases, arising from cold, are infinitely more frequent; and he gives exactly the same description of the course which this disease invariably takes. Idiopathic or traumatic tetanus is therefore out of the question, upon the evidence which has been given. But traumatic tetanus is out of the question for a very different reason. Traumatic tetanus is brought on by the lesion of some part of the body. But what is there in this case to show that there was anything like lesion at all. We have had several gentlemen called, who have come here with an evident determination to misconceive and misrepresent every fact. We have called before you an eminent physician, who had Cook under his care.
It seems that, in the spring of the year 1855, Cook, having found certain small spots manifest themselves in one or two parts of his body, and having something of an ulcerated tongue and a sore throat, conceived that he was labouring under symptoms of a particular character. He addressed himself to Dr. Savage, who found that the course of medicine he had been pursuing was an erroneous one. He enjoined the discontinuance of mercury. His injunction was obeyed, and the result was that the patient was suffering neither from disease nor wrong treatment. But lest there should be any possibility of mistake, Dr. Savage says that long before the summer advanced every unsatisfactory symptom had entirely gone; there was nothing wrong about him, except that affection of the throat, to which thousands of people are subject. In other respects, the man was better than he had been, and might be said to be convalescent. On the very day that he leaves London to go into the country, a fortnight before the races, his stepfather, who accompanied him to the station, congratulated him upon his healthy and vigorous appearance, and, the young man, conscious of a restored state of health, struck his breast, and said “He was well, very well.” Then he goes to Shrewsbury, and shortly afterwards arose those matters to which I am about to call your attention. I want to know in what part of the evidence there is the slightest pretence for saying that this man had an affection which might bring on traumatic tetanus? It is said that he had exhibited his tongue to witnesses, and applied for a mercurial wash, but it is clear that, although he had at one time adopted that course, he had, under the recommendation of Dr. Savage, got rid of it, and there is no pretence for saying he was suffering under any syphilitic affection of any kind. That fact has been negatived by a man of the highest authority and eminence. It is a pretence for which there was not a shadow of a foundation, and I should shrink from my duty if I did not denounce it as a pretence unworthy of your attention. There was nothing about the man which would warrant, for a single moment, the supposition that there was anything of that character in any part of his body when the tetanus set in. One or two cases of traumatic tetanus have been adduced in the evidence which has been brought forward for the defence. One is the case of a man in the London Hospital, who was brought into that institution one evening, and died the same night. But what are the facts? The facts are, that before he had been brought in he had had a paroxysm early in the morning—that he was suffering from ulcers of the most aggravated description. The symptoms had run their course rapidly, it is true, but the case was not one of minutes, but of hours. Another case has been brought forward in which a toe was amputated, but there we have disease existing some time before death. But then it is suggested that this may be a case of idiopathic tetanus proceeding from—what? They say that Cook was a man of delicate constitution, subject to excitement; that he had something the matter with his chest; that in addition to having something the matter with his chest, he had the diseased condition of throat; and putting all these things together, they say that if the man took cold he might get idiopathic tetanus.
We are here launched into a sea of speculations and possibilities. Dr. Nunneley, who comes here for the purpose of inducing you to believe there was something like idiopathic tetanus, goes through supposed infirmities, and talks about his excitability, his delicacy of chest, his affection of the throat, and he says these things would predispose to idiopathic tetanus if he took colds. But what evidence is there that he did take cold? Not the slightest in the world. There is not the smallest pretence that he ever complained of a cold, or was treated for a cold. I cannot help saying that it seems to me that it is a scandal upon a learned, and distinguished, and liberal profession, that men should come forward to put forth such speculations upon these perverted facts, and draw from them sophistical and unwarrantable conclusions, with a view to deceive you. I have the greatest respect for science. No man can have more. But I cannot repress my indignation and abhorrence when I see it perverted and prostituted for the purposes of a particular case in a court of justice. Dr. Nunneley talked to you about certain excitements being the occasion of idiopathic tetanus. You remember the sorts of excitement of which he spoke. They are unworthy of your notice. They were topics discreditable to be put forward by a witness as worthy of your consideration. But, suppose for a single moment that excitement at the time could produce any such effect, where is the excitement manifested by Cook as leading to the supposed disease? They say that the man, when he wonhis money at Shrewsbury, was for a moment excited. And well he might be. His fortunes depended upon the result of the race, and I will not deny that he was overpowered with emotions of joy. But those emotions subsided, and we have no further trace of them from that time to the moment of his death. The man passed the rest of the day with his friends in ordinary conversation and enjoyment. No trace of emotion was found. He is taken ill. He goes to Rugeley. He is taken ill there again. But is there the slightest symptom of excitement about him, or of depression? Not the least. When he is ill, like most people, he is low spirited. As soon as he gets a little better, he is cheerful and happy. He invites his friends and converses with them. On the night of his death his conversation is cheerful. He is mirthful and happy, little thinking, poor fellow, of the fate that was depending over him. He is cheerful, and talks of the future, but not in language of excitement.
What pretence is there for this idle story about excitement? None whatever. But even if there were excitement or depression—if these things were capable of producing idiopathic tetanus, the character of the disease is so essentially different that it is impossible to mistake the two. What are the cases which they attempt to set up against us? They brought forward a Mary Watson, who, with a gentleman, came all the way from some place in Scotland to tell us that a girl had been ill all day, that she is taken worse at night, that she gets well in a short time, and goes about her business. That is a case which they brought here to be compared with the death agony of this man. These are the sort of cases with which they attempt to meet such a case as is spoken to here. Gentlemen, I venture, upon the evidence which has been brought before you, to assert boldly, that the cases of idiopathic and traumatic tetanus are marked by clear and distinct characteristics distinguishing them from the tetanus of strychnine; and I say that the tetanus which accompanied Cook’s death is not referable to either of these forms of tetanus. You have, upon this point, the evidence of men of the highest competency and most unquestionable integrity, and upon their evidence, I am satisfied, you can come to no other conclusion than that this was not a case of either idiopathic or traumatic tetanus. But, then, various attempts have been made to set up different causes as capable of producing this tetanic disease. And first, we have the theory of general convulsions; and Dr. Nunneley having gone through the beadroll of the supposed infirmities of Cook, says, “Oh, this may have been a case of general convulsions—I have known general convulsions assuming a tetanic character!” I said to him, “Have you ever seen one single case in which death arising from general convulsions accompanied with tetanic symptoms has not ended in the unconsciousness of the patient?” He says, “No, I never heard of such a case, not one; but in some book or other, I am told, there is some such case reported,” and he cites, for that purpose, as an authority for general convulsions being accompanied with tetanic symptoms, Dr. Copland.
Now, Dr. Copland, I apprehend, would stand higher as an authority than the man who quotes him. Dr. Copland might have been called, but was not called, notwithstanding the challenge which I threw out, because it is, unfortunately, easier for the case to gather together from the east and from the west practitioners of more or less celebrity, than to bring to bear on the subject the light of science as treasured in the books of the eminent practitioners whom you have seen. But, I say, as regards general convulsions, the distinction is plain. If they destroy the patient, they destroy consciousness. But here, unquestionably, at the very last moment, until Cook’s heart ceased to beat, his consciousness remained. But then comes another supposed condition from which death in this form is said to have resulted, and that is the cause intended to be set up by a very eminent practitioner, Dr. Partridge. It seems that in thepost-mortemexamination of Cook, when the spinal marrow was investigated, some granules were found, and it is said these may have occasioned tetanic convulsions similar to those found in Cook. He is called to prove that this was a case of what is called arachnitis, arising from granules. I asked him the symptoms which he would find in such a case. I called his attention to what it had evidently not been called before—namely, the symptoms in Cook’s case; and I asked him, in simple terms, whether, looking at these symptoms, he would pledge his reputation, in the face of the medical world, and in the face of this court, that this was a case of arachnitis. He would not do so, and the case of arachnitis went. Then we have a gentleman who comes all the way from Scotland to inform us, as the next proposition, that Cook’s was a case of epileptic convulsions, with tetanic complications. Well, I asked him the question, “Did you ever know of epilepsy, with or without tetanic complications, in which consciousness was not destroyed before the patient died?” His reply was, “No, I cannot say that I ever did, but I have read in some book that such a case has occurred.” “Is there anything to make you think this was epilepsy?—It may have been epilepsy, because I don’t know what else it was.” “But you must admit that epilepsy is characterised generally by loss of consciousness; what difference would the tetanic complications have made?” That he was unable to explain. I remind you of this species of evidence, in which the witnesses have resorted to the most speculative reasoning, and put forward the barest possibilities without the shadow of foundation. But this I undertake to assert,that there is not a single case to which they have spoken from their experience, or as the result of their own knowledge, on which there were the formidable and decisive symptoms of marked tetanus which existed in this case.
Having gone through these three sets of diseases—general convulsions, arachnitis, epilepsy proper, and epilepsy with tetanic complications, I supposed we had pretty nearly exhausted the whole of these scientific theories. But we are destined to have another, and that assumed the formidable name of angina pectoris. It must have struck you when my learned friend opened his case, that he never ventured to assert the nature of the disease to which they refer the death of Cook; and it strikes me as most remarkable that no less than four distinct and separate theories are set up by the witnesses who have been called—general convulsions, arachnitis, epilepsy with tetanic complications, and lastly, angina pectoris. My learned friend had this advantage in not stating to you what his medical witnesses would set up, because I admit that one after another they took me by surprise. The gentleman who was called yesterday, and who talked of angina pectoris, would not have escaped so easily if I had been in possession of the books to which he referred, for I should have been able to expose the ignorance, the presumption, of the assertions he dared to make. I say ignorance and presumption, and what is worse, an intention to deceive. I assert it in the face of the whole medical profession, and I am sure I can prove it. These medical witnesses, one and all, differ in the views they take on the subject; but there is a remarkable coincidence between the views of some of them and the views of those who have been examined on the other side. Dr. Partridge, Dr. Robinson, and Dr. Letheby, the most eminent of the witnesses whom my learned friend has called, agreed with the statements of Dr. Brodie and other witnesses, that in the whole of their experience, and in the whole range of their learning and observations, they know of no known disease to which the symptoms in Cook’s case can be referred. When such men as these agree upon any point, it is impossible to exaggerate its importance. If it be the fact that there is no known disease which can account for such symptoms as those in Cook’s case, and that they are referable to poison alone, can you have any doubt that that poison was strychnia? The symptoms, at all events, from the time the paroxysms set in, are precisely the same. Distinctions are sought to be made by the sophistry of the witnesses for the defence between some of the antecedent symptoms and some of the others. I think I shall show you that these distinctions are imaginary and that there is no foundation for them. I think I may say that the witnesses called for the defence admit this, that, from the time the paroxysms set in, of which Cook died, until the time of his death, the symptoms are precisely similar to that of tetanus by strychnine. But then they say—and this is worthy of most particular attention—there are points of difference which have led them to the conclusion that these symptoms could not have resulted from strychnine.
In the first place, they say that the period which elapsed between the supposed administration of the poison and the first appearance of the symptoms is longer than they have observed in the animals on which they have experimented. The first observation which arises is this: that there is a known difference between animal and human life, in the power with which certain specific things act upon their organisation. It may well be that poison administered to a rabbit will produce its effect in a given time. It by no means follows that it will produce the same effect in the same time on an animal of a different description. Still less does it follow that it will exercise its baneful influence in the same time on a human subject. The whole of the evidence on both sides leads to establish this fact, that not only in individuals of different species, but between individuals of the same species, the same poison and the same influence will produce effects different in degree, different in duration, different in power. But, again, it is perfectly notorious that the rapidity with which the poison begins to work depends mainly upon the mode of its administration. If it is administered in a fluid state, it acts with greater rapidity. If it is given in a solid state, its effects come on more slowly. If it is given in an indurated substance, it will act with still greater tardiness. Then what was the period at which this poison began to act after its administration, assuming it to have been poison? It seems, from Mr. Jones’s statement, that the pills were administered somewhere about eleven o’clock. They were not administered on his first arrival, for the patient, as if with an intuitive sense of the death that awaited him, strongly resisted the attempts to make him take them; and no doubt these remonstrances, and the endeavours to overcome them, occupied some period of time. The pills were at last given. Assuming, which I only do for the sake of argument, that the pills contained strychnine, how soon did they begin to operate? Mr. Jones says he went down to supper, and came back again about twelve o’clock. Upon his return to the room, after a word or two of conversation with Cook, he proceeded to undress and go to bed, and had not been in bed ten minutes before a warning came that another of the paroxysms was to take place. The maid servant puts it still earlier, and it appears that so early as ten minutes before twelve the first alarm was given, which would make the interval little more than a quarter of an hour. When these witnesses tell us that it would take an hour and a half, or two hours, we see here another of those exaggerated determinations to see the facts only in the way that will be the most favourable to the prisoner. I find in some of the experiments that have been made thatthe duration of time, before the poison begins to work, has been little, if anything, less than an hour.
In the case of the girl at Glasgow, it was stated that it was three-quarters of an hour before the pills began to work. There may have been some reason for the pills not taking effect within a certain period after their administration. It would be easy to mix them up with substances difficult of solution, or which might retard their action. I cannot bring myself to believe that, if in all other respects you are perfectly satisfied that the symptoms, the consequences, the effects were analogous, and similar in all respects to those produced by strychnine, it is not because the pills have been taken only a quarter of an hour that you will say strychnine was not administered in this case. But they say the premonitory symptoms were wanting, and they say that in the case of animals, the animal at first manifests some uneasiness, shrinks, and draws itself into itself as it were, and avoids moving; that certain involuntary twitchings about the head come on—and they say there were no premonitory symptoms in Cook’s case. I utterly deny the proposition, I say there were premonitory symptoms of the most marked character. He is lying in his bed; he suddenly starts up in an agony of alarm. What made him do that? Was there nothing premonitory—nothing that warned him the paroxysm was coming on? He jumps up, says “Go and fetch Palmer—fetch me help—I am going to be ill as I was last night.” What was that but a knowledge that the symptoms of the previous night were returning, and a warning of what he might expect unless some relief were obtained? He sits up and prays to have his neck rubbed. What was the feeling about his neck but a premonitory symptom, which was to precede the paroxysms which were to supervene? He begs to have his neck rubbed, and that gives him some comfort. But here they say this could not have been tetanus from strychnia, because animals cannot bear to be touched, for a touch brings on a paroxysm—not only a touch, but a breath of air, a sound, a word, a movement of any one near will bring on a return of the paroxysm.
Now in two cases of death from strychnine we have shown that the patient has endured the rubbing of his limbs, and received satisfaction from that rubbing. We produced a third case. In Mrs. Smyth’s case, when her legs were distorted, she prayed and entreated that she might have them straightened. The lady at Leeds, in the case which Dr. Nunneley himself attended, implored her husband, between the spasms, to rub her legs and arms in order to overcome the rigidity. That case was within his own knowledge; and yet in spite of it, although he detected strychnine in the body of the unhappy woman, he dares to say that Cook’s having tolerated the rubbing between the paroxysms is a proof that he had not taken strychnia. But there is a third case—the case of Clutterbuck. He had taken an overdose of strychnia, and suffered from the re-appearance of tetanus, and his only comfort was to have his legs rubbed. And, therefore, I say that the continued endeavour to persuade a jury that the fact of Cook’s having had his neck rubbed proves that this is not tetanus by strychnia, shows nothing but the dishonesty and insincerity of the witnesses who have so dared to pervert the facts. But they go further, and say that Cook was able to swallow. So he was before the paroxysms came on; but nobody has ever pretended that he could swallow afterwards. He swallowed the pills, and, what is very curious, and illustrates part of the theory, is this—that it was the act of swallowing the pills, a sort of movement in raising his head, which brought on the violent paroxysm in which he died. So far from militating against the supposition that this was a case of strychnine, the fact strongly confirms it. Then they call our attention to the appearances after death, and they say there are circumstances to be found which militate against this being a case of strychnine. They say the limbs became rigid either at the time of death or immediately after, and that ought not to be found in a case of strychnia. Dr. Nunneley says, “I have always found the limbs of animals become flaccid before death, and have not found them become rigid after death.” Now, I can hardly believe that statement.
The very next witness who got into the box told us that he had made two experiments upon cats, and killed them both, and he described them as indurated and contracted when he found them some hours after death. And yet the presence of rigidity in the body immediately after death is put forth by Dr. Nunneley as one of his reasons for saying this is not a death by strychnia, although Dr. Taylor told us that, in the case of one of the cats, the rigidity of the body was so great that he could hold it out by the leg in a horizontal position. Notwithstanding that evidence, Dr. Nunneley has the audacity to say that he does not believe this is a case of strychnine, because there was rigidity of the limbs, because the feet were distorted, and the hands clinched, and the muscles rigid. This shows what you are to think of the honesty of this sort of evidence, in which facts are selected because they make in favour of particular hypotheses of the party advancing them. The next thing that is said is that the heart was empty, and that in the animals operated upon by Dr. Nunneley and Dr. Letheby, the heart was full. I don’t think that applies to all cases. But it is a remarkable fact connected with the history of the poisonthat you never can rely upon the precise form of its symptoms and appearances. There are only certain great, leading, marked, characteristic features. We have here the main, marked, leading, characteristic features; and we have what is more, collateral incidents, similar to the cases in which the administration and the fact of death have been proved beyond all possibility of dispute. Why, in two cases which have been mentioned—that of Mrs. Smyth and the Glasgow girl—the heart was congested and empty. We know that in cases of tetanus death may result from more than one cause. All the muscles of the body are subject to the exciting action of the poison. But no one can tell in what order these muscles may be affected, or where the poisonous influence will put forth. When it arrests the play of the lungs and the breathing of the atmospheric air, the result will be that the heart is full; but if some spasm siezes on the heart, the heart will be empty. You have never any perfect certainty as to the mode in which the symptoms will exhibit themselves. But this is brought forward as a conclusive fact against death by strychnine, and yet these men who make this statement under the sanction of scientific authority, have heard both cases spoken to by the gentlemen who examined the bodies. Then with regard to congestion of the brain, and other vessels, the same observation applies. Instead of being killed by action on the respiratory muscles of the heart, death is the result of a long series of paroxysms, and you expect to find the brain and other vessels congested by that series of convulsive spasms. As death takes place from one or other of these causes, so will the appearances be. There is every reason to believe that the symptoms in this case were symptoms of tetanus in the strongest and most aggravated form. Looking at the symptoms which attended this unhappy man, setting aside the theory of convulsions of epilepsy, of arachnitis, and angina pectoris, and excluding idiopathic and traumatic tetanus—what remains? The tetanus of strychnine, and the tetanus of strychnine alone. And I pray your attention to the cases in which there was no question as to strychnine having been administered in which the symptoms were so similar—the symptoms so analogous—that I think you cannot hesitate to come to the conclusion that this death was death by strychnine.
Several witnesses of the highest eminence, both on the part of the Crown and for the defence, agree that in the whole range of their experience, observation, and knowledge, they have known of no natural disease to which these remarkable symptoms can be attributed. That being so, and there being a known poison, which will produce them, how strong, how cogent, how irresistible is the conclusion that it is that poison, and that poison alone, to which they are to be attributed. On the other hand, the case is not without its difficulties. Strychnia was not found in this body, and we have it no doubt upon strong evidence, that in a great variety of experiments upon the bodies of animals, killed by strychnia, strychnia has been detected by tests which science placed at the disposal of scientific men. If strychnia had been found, of course there would have been no difficulty in the case, and we should have had none of the ingenious theories which medical gentlemen have been called here to propound. The question for your consideration is, whether the absence of its detection leads conclusively to the view that this death was not caused by the administration of strychnia. Now, in the first place, under what circumstances was the examination made by Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees. They told us that the stomach of the man was brought to them for analysation under the most unfavourable circumstances. They state that the contents of the stomach had been lost, and therefore they had no opportunity of experimenting upon them. It is true that they who put the portions of the body into the jar make statements somewhat different. But there appears to have been by accident some spilling of the contents, and there is the most undeniable evidence of considerable bungling in the way in which the stomach had been cut and placed in the jar. It was cut, says Dr. Taylor, from end to end, and it was tied up at both ends. It had been turned among the intestines, and placed amongst a mass of feculent matter, and was in the most unsatisfactory condition for analysation. It is very true that Dr. Nunneley, Mr. Herapath, and Dr. Sotheby say that whatever impurities there may have been, if strychnia had been in the stomach they would have found strychnia there. I should have had every confidence in the testimony of Mr. Herapath if he had not confessed a fact which had come to my knowledge, that he had asserted that this was a case of poisoning, but that they did not go the right way to find it out. I reverence the man who, from a sense of justice and love of truth, will come forward in favour of any man for the purpose of stating what he believes to be true; but I abhor the trafficked testimony which I regret to see men of science sometimes advance. But, assuming all they say to be true, as to the case of detecting strychnine, is it certain that it can be found in all cases? Dr. Taylor says no; and it would be a most mischievous and dangerous proposition to assert that it is necessarily so, for it enables many a guilty man to escape, who, by administering the smallest quantity necessary to destroy life, might prevent its detection in the stomach.
What have these gentlemen done? They have given large doses in the experiments theyhave made for the purposes of this case, in which they have been retained—I use the word “retained,” for it is the proper word—in all these cases, I say, they have given doses large enough to be detected. But the gentlemen who made the experiments in Cook’s case failed in detecting strychnine in two cases out of four in which they had administered it to animals. The conclusion I draw is that there is no positive mode of detection. But this case does not rest here. Alas, I wish it did! I must now draw your attention to one part of the case which has not been met or attempted to be disputed in the slightest degree by my learned friend. My learned friend said that he would contest the case for the prosecution step by step. Alas! we are now upon ground upon which my friend has not even ventured a word in explanation. Was the prisoner at the bar possessed of the poison of strychnia? This is a matter with which it behoved my learned friend to deal, and to exhaust all the means in his power in order to meet this part of the case. The prisoner obtained possession of strychnia on the Monday night. It is true that the evidence of the man who sold the strychnia to Palmer, as I stated at the outset of these proceedings, and I repeat it now, must be received with care and attention. Now Newton said that on the night when Palmer came back from London, he came to him and obtained three grains of that poison, the symptoms and effects of which are precisely similar to those which are stated to have occurred in the case of this poor man. With respect to the evidence of Newton, my learned friend has done no more than repeat the warning which I gave you at the commencement of the case. You have heard the reason assigned by the witness why he did not state the fact of his having sold strychnine to the prisoner on the previous evening, before the coroner, and you will judge of the value of the explanation which he gave. Upon the other hand, there is the consideration, what conceivable motive could this young man have had for now coming forward and deposing to the fact of his having sold this poison to the prisoner, except a sense of truth. My learned friend has very justly and very properly asked for your most attentive consideration to the question of the motives involved in this part of the evidence, before you can come to the conclusion of the prisoner having taken away, with malice and forethought, the life of another.
Hideous though may be the crime of taking away life by poison, it is probably not so horrible to contemplate as the motive of a judicial murder effected by a false witness against a man’s life. Can you suppose that this young man Newton could have the shadow of any such motive in coming forward in a court like this to take away the life of the prisoner at the bar, as, alas! his evidence must do, if you believe him. If you believe the witness that, on the Monday night, for no other conceivable and assignable purpose except the deed of darkness to be committed that night, the prisoner at the bar obtained from him the fatal means and instrument whereby Cook was to be destroyed, it is impossible that you can come to any other conclusion than that the prisoner is guilty of the foul deed with which he stands charged at the bar. My learned friend says that Newton did not speak truth, because, first, he did not make this statement before the coroner; and, secondly, because Newton laid the time of Palmer’s arrival at nine o’clock, whereas he did not arrive until ten o’clock. Now Newton only stated that it was about nine o’clock, and every one knows how easy it is to make a slight mistake as to the hour when there is nothing particular to fix the event on the memory. My learned friend has sought to meet this part of the case. He has produced a witness, all I can say of whom is, that for the sake of the prisoner at the bar, I trust you will not allow him to be affected by anything which that most disreputable witness, Jeremiah Smith, has stated. Now Dr. Bamford said that Palmer told him he had himself seen Cook between nine and ten o’clock, while Smith said that they did not leave the car until past ten o’clock. With respect to the evidence of Smith that he saw Palmer alight from the car, go from thence to the house of Palmer’s mother, I ask you not to believe one single word of it, because I do not myself believe a single word of his evidence. Certainly such a miserable spectacle as that witness in the box, I have never seen surpassed in a court of justice. He is a member of the legal profession, and I blush that such a member is to found upon the rolls. There was not one who heard his evidence who was not satisfied that the man came here to tell a falsehood—not one who was not convinced that he was mixed up in many of the villanies which, if not perpetrated, were, at all events, contemplated, and that he came here to save the life of his companion and friend, and the son of the woman with whom he had that intimacy the nature of which he sought in vain to disguise. I cannot but think that, looking to the whole of this part of the case, you must believe the evidence of Newton, and if you do so believe it, then that evidence is conclusive of the case. But the case does not stop there, because we have the most indisputable evidence that on the following day Palmer purchased more strychnine at the shop of Mr. Hawkins.
You remember the circumstance connected with that purchase, Palmer’s first asking for some prussic acid, and then ordering some strychnine to be put up for him, Newton coming in, and the prisoner calling him out of the shop to speak to him of the most unimportant matters. Why did the prisoner take Newton out of the shop? Evidently because he wished to avoid exciting suspicions which would very naturally be raised in the mind of Newton, from the fact of the prisoner having purchased strychnia on two occasions, and who would very naturallyinquire for what purpose it was that the prisoner wanted nine grains of strychnine. Why did the prisoner go to Hawkins’s shop to purchase the poison? The reason was clear. If he had gone to Thirlby’s, who was his former assistant, he would naturally have asked Palmer for whom the strychnine was intended. Why the prisoner should have gone on two successive days and purchased the poison is one of those mysteries attending this case which I cannot explain. At all events, it is quite clear that he did so. But if there is some difficulty in this part of the case, there is, on the other hand, a still greater difficulty arising from the use to which this poison was to be put. If it was for the purpose of professional use, for the benefit of some patient, where is the patient, and why was he not produced? My learned friend passed over this part of the case in mysterious but significant silence. Account for that six grains of strychnia. Throw a doubt, if you please, on the purchase of the strychnine on the Monday night, but on Tuesday it is unquestionably true that six grains were purchased. If these six grains were required for the use of any patients, why were they not produced, and if for any other purpose why was it not explained?
Has there been the slightest shadow of attempt to show the use to which the poison was applied? Alas! no. Something was said at the outset about dogs which were troublesome in the paddock to the prisoner’s mares and foals, but that was proved to have been in September. And if there had been any recurrence of this annoyance why was it not proved in evidence? If it were used for the purpose of destroying dogs some one must have assisted him in the act. Why were they not called? But not only were these persons not called, they were not even named. I ask you what conclusion you can draw from these circumstances, except this one, that the death of Cook took place with all the symptoms of poison by strychnia—death in all the convulsions and throes which that deadly poison produces in the frame of man.
It is said by my learned friend that Palmer might easily have purchased strychnine at London, and that he would not have purchased it in Rugeley on two occasions, if he had intended to have used it for a criminal purpose. I admit the fact, and feel the full force of the observation; and if he could have shown any proper use to which the poison was applied, the assertion would have been one well worthy of your consideration. But, how do the facts stand with respect to Palmer’s visit to London? He might, it is true, have purchased strychnine there. But, then, on the occasion of his visit he had a great deal to do; he had to catch the train; he had pecuniary difficulties to settle and arrange; and even then it would have required the certificate of one other person in order to have obtained the strychnine, as he was not known in London as a medical practitioner. But what avail all these suppositions, when we have, on the other hand, the strong and unmistakeable evidence that the prisoner did actually purchase the strychnine at Rugeley? Well, then, it has been said that the fact of the prisoner having called in two medical men, was strong presumptive evidence to negate his guilt. It is true that he called in Dr. Bamford, and wrote to Dr. Jones to come and see Cook. Now, as medical men, it is true, that they would be very likely to know the symptoms of death by strychnine. But there is a point in this part of the case which deserves notice. If these symptoms exhibited were not those resulting from strychnia, but were referable to that multiform variety of diseases to which the witnesses have referred, there is no reason why the prisoner should have any credit for sending for these medical gentlemen. It is quite true that he called on old Dr. Bamford. I speak of that gentleman in no terms of disrespect, but still I think I do him no injustice when I say that the vigour of his intellect and the powers of his mind have been impaired, as all human powers are liable to be, by the advance of age. I do not think he was a person likely to make any very shrewd observation as to the cause of the death of Cook; and the best proof of this is to be found in what he did and what he wrote on the subject.
As regards Mr. Jones, these observations do not apply, for he was a man in the possession of the full powers of mind. The prisoner selected Jones, and the result proved how wise he was in making that selection. The death of Cook occurred in the presence of Jones, with all those painful symptoms you have heard described, and yet Jones suspected nothing, and if the prisoner had succeeded in introducing Cook’s body into that “strong oak coffin” which he had made for him, the body would have been consigned to the grave, and nobody would have known anything of these proceedings, while the presence of Jones and Dr. Bamford would have been used to prevent any suspicion. On the other hand, it is not at all improbable that the prisoner might have thought that the best mode of disarming all suspicions would be to take care that some medical men should be called in, and should be present at the time of death. There is nothing to show that the prisoner entertained the most distant notion that Jones would have to sleep in the same room as Cook, and if this had not been the case, they would have found in the morning that Cook had gone through his mortal struggle, and had died there alone and unfriended. Cook would have been found dead next morning, and the old man would have said he died of apoplexy, and the young man that he died of epilepsy; and had any suspicion been awakened, it would have been urged in reply, as it has been by my learned friend, that two medical men were called in by the prisoner previous to his death. But the case does not end here. We have had a great many witnesses who have told us a great deal about strychnia, but none that have said a word about antimony.
On the Wednesday night, at Shrewsbury, when Cook drank a glass of brandy and water, he said that there was something in it which burned his throat, and was afterwards seized with vomiting, which lasted for several hours. On that same night, Mrs. Brooks saw the prisoner shaking something in a glass. It is a remarkable fact, that when Cook drank that brandy and water, he was taken ill a few minutes after. There were, it is true, other persons taken ill at Shrewsbury about the same time; but still you will have to bear in mind that scene of the shaking up of the fluid in the glass in the passage, the fact that Cook was somewhat in liquor, and that in that state he ought not to have been told by the prisoner that he would not drink any more unless he finished his glass. Pass on, however, to Rugeley. You still find that Cook was under the influence of the same symptoms as those which he suffered at Shrewsbury. You have the fact of the prisoner sending him over toast and water and broth, and that no sooner had the poor man taken these things than he is seized with incessant vomitings of the most painful character. Then, too, there was the broth, said to have been sent by Smith from the Albion, which was sent, however, not to the Talbot Inn, but to the prisoner’s kitchen. This broth was taken over to the Talbot by the prisoner himself, and as soon as it was touched by Cook, vomitings followed. There is, too, the fact that the servant at the Talbot, after taking two spoonfuls of the broth, was ill for several hours, and vomited something like twenty times. Then, again, on the Monday, when the prisoner was absent, Cook was found to be better; but upon the Tuesday, when he returned to Rugeley, the vomitings again returned. Now, the important fact is, that antimony was found in the tissues of the poor man’s body, and in his blood; and the presence of the antimony in the blood shows that it must have been taken within the last forty-eight hours before death. The small quantity found does not afford, however, the slightest criterion of the whole quantity administered. A part of the quantity given would be thrown up in the vomiting.
Something has been said about Cook having taken the antimony in “James’s powder,” but not a tittle of evidence has been given that he ever took any of these powders, while the presence of the antimony in the blood proved that it had been administered within, forty-eight hours of death. I believe that you will feel that you have a right to conclude from all the evidence that has been brought before you upon this point, that antimony had been administered to Cook in a mode and in quantities which showed that it could have been given for no legitimate object; and further, that it must have been administered by the prisoner. And from these facts you will see how great is the probability that he must, in that case, have acted with the view of carrying out a fatal resolution previously formed; for it is well known that antimony has often been given in amounts capable of destroying life. But let us take into consideration the conduct of the prisoner in the afterstages of the case, and let us look at what took place on the day of Cook’s death. On the preceding night he had suffered from what was indisputably a most severe attack. Dr. Bamford sees Palmer on the Tuesday morning, and not a word is said to him about that attack. The prisoner manifests an anxiety that he should not see the deceased; he states that Cook is quiet, and is dosing, and that he does not wish to have him disturbed. That might be. But on the other hand it must be remembered that if Dr. Bamford had seen Cook in the morning, Cook would in all probability have made known to him his frightful suffering of the night before, as they must then have formed the subject which was, of all others, the most present to his memory. Dr. Bamford, however, did not see the deceased until seven o’clock on the Tuesday evening, when he was much better. Palmer had then talked of his having suffered from a bilious affection; and it is a remarkable fact that he had more than once represented the illness of Cook as one arising from a bilious attack, both to Dr. Bamford and Dr. Jones, although the patient had exhibited none of the symptoms which ordinarily accompany a bilious constitution. The moment Dr. Jones saw him he made the observation that his “tongue was not that of a bilious patient,” and the answer he got from Palmer was, “Oh, you should have seen him before.” Seen him when before? There was not the slightest ground for supposing that he had been suffering from any bilious complaint, either at Shrewsbury or since his arrival at Rugeley. But not one word did Palmer say to Dr. Jones about the fit of Cook on the night before. Well, the three medical men consulted together, by the bedside of the patient, and then Cook turned round and said, “Mind, I will have no more pills and medicine, to-night,” remembering, as he no doubt did at the time, his illness of the preceding night. No observation was made even then by Palmer as to what had been the nature of Cook’s attack on the night before; but the medical men having withdrawn into the adjoining room or lobby, Palmer immediately proposed that Cook should again take the same pills he had taken on the previous night; but he desired Jones not to say anything to him about what they contained, lest he might object to take them.
It was then arranged that the pills should be made up, and Palmer proposed that they should be compounded by Dr. Bamford, although it was then early in the evening, and he might easily have prepared them on his own premises. He accompanied Dr. Bamford to the surgery of the latter; and after the pills had been made up there, heasked Dr. Bamford to write the address on them, and the address was so written. An interval occurred of an hour or two, during which the prisoner had abundant opportunities of going to his surgery, and doing what he pleased in the way of changing the pills. He returned to the hotel, and before he gave the pills to Cook he took care to call the attention of Jones, who was present at the time, to the remarkable handwriting of an old gentleman like Dr. Bamford, by whom the direction of the medicine had been written. What necessity was there for that? Might it not have been part of a preconceived design to save himself from any subsequent suspicion, by his being able to state that the pills had been prepared by Dr. Bamford? and might it not have been done for the purpose of disarming any immediate suspicion on the part of Dr. Jones himself? Have we not every reason to suppose that it may have been effectual in accomplishing the latter result? Any one of these circumstances could not have been of so decisive a character as to lead you to the conviction of the prisoner’s guilt; but I ask you to consider them as a series of events following one another in close succession; and I then leave it to you to draw from them the conclusion to which you may find they must legitimately lead. I will now pass over for a moment the remainder of the history of the Tuesday night, and I will take you to the circumstances which immediately followed Cook’s death. On the Thursday, Mr. Stevens, the stepfather of the deceased, went over to Rugeley, on receiving intelligence of the sad event. He applied to Palmer for information upon the subject of Cook’s affairs; and in the course of the communications which passed between them, Stevens said, “rich or poor, the poor fellow should be buried.” Palmer then observed that he would undertake to bury him himself, but Mr. Stevens declined, in a decisive manner, to avail himself of that offer. I admit that there may be nothing suspicious in the proposal of Palmer to bury his friend, if it should be taken by itself, but there is this somewhat remarkable circumstance in this part of the case, that when Mr. Stevens had said that he could not have the funeral for a few days, Palmer observed that “the body ought to be put into a coffin immediately;” and when, after an absence of about half an hour, he returned, and was asked by Mr. Stevens for the name of an undertaker to whom he should give directions about the funeral, the prisoner stated, much to the surprise of the gentleman whom he was addressing, that “he had himself ordered a shell and a strong oak coffin.” Why should he have so hurriedly interfered in the business of another man, unless he had made up his mind that the body should be consigned to its last resting place, and removed from the sight of man with the utmost possible rapidity?
You have heard the conversation which took place between Mr. Stevens and the prisoner on the Saturday at the different railway stations at which they met. It appears that at that time Mr. Stevens had made up his mind that apost-mortemexamination of the body of the deceased should take place, in consequence of circumstances which had engendered a suspicion in his mind that the death of his step-son had not been the result of natural disease. He had noticed the strange attitude of the deceased—his clinched hands, and the unusual appearance of his face—and being a man of natural shrewdness and sagacity, he felt a lurking suspicion which he could not unravel, that there must have been foul play in the case. He made known to the prisoner his intention of having the body opened before it was consigned to the grave. It is true that the prisoner did not flinch from that trying ordeal, and that he met with firmness the trying gaze of Mr. Stevens, when the report of thepost-mortemexamination was first mentioned. But finding that there was to be apost-mortemexamination, he was anxious to know who was to perform it. Mr. Stevens would not inform him, but merely stated that it was to take place on the Monday. Then we have on the Sunday that remarkable conversation between the prisoner and Newton, which has been for some time known to the Crown. It is true that Newton did not mention the conversation in the course of his examination before the coroner; but the reason for his silence upon the subject on that occasion may be easily proved. He was called at the inquest solely for the purpose of corroborating the evidence of Roberts with respect to Palmer’s appearance in Dr. Hawkins’s shop on the Tuesday morning; and to that point his evidence before the coroner was confined. He has since deposed that during a conversation with Palmer on the Sunday, the latter suddenly asked him, “What quantity of strychnine would you give if you wanted to kill a dog?” The reply was, “From half-a-grain to a grain.” The prisoner then asked, “Would you expect to find any traces of it in the stomach after death;” Newton answered, “No;” and, on his doing so, he observed the prisoner make a movement conveying an intimation of his delight.
I had at one time thought that my learned friend engaged for the defence would have attempted to show that the prisoner had purchased the strychnia at the commencement of the week for the purpose of destroying dogs; but no evidence whatever has been adduced to establish such a point; and we had no evidence of any kind to show how that strychnia was applied. But my learned friend has contended that the prisoner had no motive for taking away the life of his friend, Cook. Now if I convince you upon unimpeachable evidence that the deathof Cook had bean caused by strychnine, and that that strychnine could only have been administered by the prisoner, then the question of motive must become a mere secondary consideration. It is often difficult to dive into the breast of man, and to ascertain with any certainty the reasons which directed him to any particular course of action; and the inscrutable character of any particular motive ought not to destroy the force of a well-authenticated fact. But motive is unquestionably an important element in a case over which any doubt as to the facts can by any possibility rest. I believe I can perfectly satisfy your minds that in this case the prisoner had a motive, and a very obvious motive, for taking away the life of Cook. He was at the time reduced to a condition of the direst embarrassment. It appears that in the month of November last he owed on bills not less than £19,000, of which £12,500 worth was in the hands of Pratt; and out of that latter sum £5,500 was pressing for immediate payment. By the death of Cook he was enabled to obtain possession of £1,020, due to the latter in the shape of bets; he was enabled to obtain possession of the money which Cook must have had about him on his arrival at Rugeley, and which, according to one of the witnesses, must have amounted to £700 or £800; and he attempted to obtain possession of the £350 which the Messrs. Weatherby were to have received as the amount of the stakes of the Shrewsbury Handicap. The order forwarded by Palmer to the Messrs. Weatherby for the £350, and purporting to bear the signature of Cook, had been sent back by them to the prisoner; and if that signature was not a forgery, why had it not been produced on the part of the defendant?