My learned friend says that Cook was the best friend of the prisoner, and that Cook was the only person to whom he could look for assistance in his embarrassments. But Cook had no means of assisting him, unless he were to appropriate to his use the money which he had won at Shrewsbury, which was all the property he then possessed; and can any one believe that the deceased would have parted with that money, and would have left himself wholly without any resources for the approaching winter? My learned friend contends that the fact that Palmer had written the letter on the Friday night, in which he asked Fisher to pay £200 to Pratt, on account of a transaction in which both he and Palmer were interested, while £300 more were to be sent upon that night—my learned friend contends that that fact shows that the prisoner and the deceased perfectly understood one another at the time, and goes far to prove the innocence of his client. To my mind, however, that very circumstance affords a very strong argument in favour of the case for the Crown. The only transaction with Pratt, in which Palmer and Cook were both interested, was that relating to the bill for £500, and in which Cook had assigned his horse as a collateral security. It is very easy to see that he must have felt particularly anxious that that claim should at once be settled, and that his horses should come into his own undisputed possession, one of these horses being a very valuable one, namely, Polestar, which had just won the Shrewsbury race. He accordingly, I have no doubt, gave Palmer £300 to be sent up to London on account of that bill; but that sum was never applied by the prisoner to the purpose for which it had been placed in his hands. There is not the slightest foundation for the statement that Cook had entered into an arrangement with Palmer for the purpose of defrauding Fisher of the £200 he had advanced; for there was nothing in his character which could show that he was capable of so infamous an act, and it could not possibly have been his interest that it should take place. I will not ask you to direct your attention to the request addressed by the prisoner to Cheshire, the postmaster, that he should bear his witness to the genuineness of Cook’s signature to the order on the Messrs. Weatherby for the sum of £350. That request was made forty-eight hours after Cook’s death; and if the signature was not a forgery, why was that extraordinary demand made of Cheshire, and why had not the document been since produced? It is impossible to forget that if Cheshire had testified to the genuineness of that document, the prisoner would have been enabled to exercise over him the most fatal control, and that he might then have compelled him to sign another paper, transferring, as the prisoner had sought to do in the course of one of his conversations with Mr. Stevens, to the deceased the liability for £4,000 or £5,000 due on bills to Pratt, and outstanding in his own name.
All these facts show irrefragably, as I contend, that the death of Cook had, in the opinion of the prisoner, become most desirable for his own relief. There is another part of his conduct as tending to throw light on this matter, and that is with reference to Cook’s betting book. On the night when Cook died—ere the breath had hardly parted from that poor man’s body—the prisoner was found there, rummaging his pockets, and searching for his papers. When, subsequently, Stevens asked for the betting book, the prisoner said, “Oh, it’s of no use, for a dead man’s bets are void.” True it is that a dead man’s bets are void, but not when they are paid during his life. Who received the bets? The prisoner at the bar. Who was answerable for them? The prisoner at the bar. Who had an interest in concealing the amount of those debts? The prisoner at the bar. If Stevens had seen that book, he would have seen that Cook was entitled to a sum of £1,020; he would have seen that Fisher was his agent, and from him that Herring, and not Fisher, had calculated his bets. But there is still more yet to be accounted for. When Stevens determined upon having apost-mortemexamination, what was the conduct of the prisonerat the bar? [The learned Attorney-General then proceeded to refer to the arrival of Dr. Harland in the town of Rugeley for the purpose of making the examination, his conversation with Palmer, when the latter said that Cook had died of epileptic fits, and that traces of old disease would be found in the head and heart, none of which were, however, found on the examination of the body; the removal of the jar containing the stomach and intestines of Cook, the slits cut in the covering probably for the purpose of introducing something into the jar, which would neutralise the poison if it were present, the restlessness and uneasiness of the prisoner while the examination was going on, his remonstrating with Dr. Bamford for letting the jars be sent away, and his attempt to bribe the post-boy to upset the chaise and break the jar.]
The conduct of Mr. Stevens, the stepfather of Cook, in resolving to prosecute this inquiry, was such as the gravity and importance of the case proved ought to have protected him from the charge of insolent curiosity brought against him by my learned friend. The hon. and learned gentleman then concluded as follows:—It is for you to say, under these circumstances, whether or not the death of the deceased was caused by the prisoner at the bar. You have indeed had introduced into this case one other element which I cannot help thinking might well have been omitted. You have heard from my learned friend an unusual, I think I may even say an unprecedented, expression of the innocence of his client. I can only say on that point that I believe my learned friend might have abstained from any such statement. What would he think of me, if, imitating his example, I should at this moment declare to you, on my honour, as he did, what is the internal conviction which has followed from my conscientious consideration of this case? My learned friend has, with a full display of his great ability, also adopted another course, which, although sometimes resorted to by members of our profession, involves in my mind a species of insult to the good sense and the good feeling of the jury; he has endeavoured to intimidate you by evoking your own conscientious scruples for the purpose of preventing you from adopting the only honest mode of discharging the great duty you are called upon to perform. My learned friend told you that if your verdict in this case should be Guilty, the innocence of the prisoner will one day or other be made manifest, and you would never cease to regret the verdict you had given. If my learned friend was sincere in that—and I know that he was, for there is no man who is more alive than he is to the claims of truth and honour—but if he said what he believed, all I can state in answer is, that I can only attribute the conviction he has expressed to that strong bias which his mind easily, perhaps, received in directing all his energies to the defence of a man charged with this frightful crime. But I still think he would have done well to have abstained from any assurance of the innocence of the prisoner at the bar. I go further, and say that I think he ought, in justice and in consideration to you, to have abstained from telling you that the voice of the country would not sanction the verdict which you might give. I say nothing of the inconsistency which is involved in such a statement, coming from one who but a short time before complained in eloquent terms of the universal torrent of passion, and of prejudice by which, he said, his client was borne down.
In answer to my learned friend, I have only this to say to you. Pay no regard to the voice of the country, whether it be for condemnation or for acquittal; pay no regard to anything but to the internal voice of your own consciences; trust to the sense of that duty to God and man, which you are about to discharge upon this occasion, seeking no reward except the comforting assurance that when you shall look back at the events of this trial you have discharged, to the best of your ability, and to the utmost of your power, the duty you have been called upon to fulfil. If, on a review of the whole case, comparing the evidence on one side and on the other, and weighing it in the even scales of justice, you can come to the conclusion of the innocence, or even entertain that fair and reasonable doubt of guilt, of which the accused is entitled to the benefit, in God’s name give to him that benefit. But if, on the other hand, all the facts and all the evidence lead your minds with satisfaction to yourselves to the conclusion of his guilt, then—but then only—I ask for a verdict of Guilty at your hands. For the protection of the good, for the repression of the wicked, I then ask for that verdict by which alone—as it seems to me—the safety of society can be secured, and the demands—the imperious demands—of public justice can be satisfied. (The hon. and learned gentleman concluded his address shortly after half-past six o’clock, after having occupied the breathless attention of every one who had heard him during a period of three hours and three quarters).
In answer to my learned friend, I have only this to say to you. Pay no regard to the voice of the country, whether it be for condemnation or for acquittal; pay no regard to anything but to the internal voice of your own consciences; trust to the sense of that duty to God and man, which you are about to discharge upon this occasion, seeking no reward except the comforting assurance that when you shall look back at the events of this trial you have discharged, to the best of your ability, and to the utmost of your power, the duty you have been called upon to fulfil. If, on a review of the whole case, comparing the evidence on one side and on the other, and weighing it in the even scales of justice, you can come to the conclusion of the innocence, or even entertain that fair and reasonable doubt of guilt, of which the accused is entitled to the benefit, in God’s name give to him that benefit. But if, on the other hand, all the facts and all the evidence lead your minds with satisfaction to yourselves to the conclusion of his guilt, then—but then only—I ask for a verdict of Guilty at your hands. For the protection of the good, for the repression of the wicked, I then ask for that verdict by which alone—as it seems to me—the safety of society can be secured, and the demands—the imperious demands—of public justice can be satisfied. (The hon. and learned gentleman concluded his address shortly after half-past six o’clock, after having occupied the breathless attention of every one who had heard him during a period of three hours and three quarters).
Lord Campbell then addressed the jury as follows:—the cause of public justice imperatively requires that the court should now adjourn. I shall feel it my duty, in this important case, to bring before you the whole of the evidence on the one side and on the other, accompanying the reading of it with such remarks as I may think it proper to make. It is impossible to enter on that duty at this hour, and I am, therefore, under the painful necessity of ordering that you be again kept sequestered from your families and friends during another Sabbath.
The court then adjourned at twenty-five minutes to seven o’clock until ten o’clock on Monday.
We may here observe that the prisoner listened with deep attention to the whole of the address of the Attorney-General, and even with, an air of considerable anxiety, although he still preserved his usual perfect self-possession.
The proceedings in this protracted case were resumed this morning at the Old Bailey. The public interest which it has excited from the first appears in no degree to have abated, and the Court was again densely crowded. The prisoner was placed at the bar punctually at 10 o’clock, and we were unable to trace any change in his appearance or demeanour, although he naturally listened with marked attention, in which one might occasionally detect a shade of anxiety, to the summing up of the Lord Chief Justice. Still it must be admitted that he looked as little concerned as any one in Court.
Several persons of distinction were present during portions of the day, and among them we noticed Mr. Gladstone, M.P., General Fox, Mr. Milnes Gaskell, M.P., Mr. C. Forster, M.P., Mr. Oliveira, M.P., Lord G. Lennox, M.P., the Recorder, the Common Serjeant, Alderman Sir R. W. Garden, the Sheriffs, and other gentlemen officially connected with the administration of justice in the city.
Silence having been proclaimed,
TheLord Chief Justice(Campbell) proceeded to sum up the case to the jury; but spoke in so low a tone that some part of his address was not audible in the reporters’ inconvenient box. He said,—Gentlemen of the Jury, we have at length arrived at that stage in this solemn and important case when it becomes the duty of the Judge to explain to you the nature of the charge brought against the prisoner, and the questions and considerations upon which your verdict ought to be given. Gentlemen, I must begin by conjuring you to banish from your minds all that you may have heard before the prisoner was placed in that dock. There is no doubt that a strong prejudice elsewhere did prevail against the prisoner at the bar. In the county of Stafford, where the offence for which he has to answer was alleged to have been committed, that prejudice was so strong that the Court of Queen’s Bench made an order to remove the trial from that county. The prisoner, by his counsel, expressed a wish that the trial might take place at the Central Criminal Court; and to enable that wish to be accomplished an act has been passed by the Legislature, authorising the Court of Queen’s Bench to direct the trial to be held in this Court, so as to secure to the prisoner that he shall have a fair and impartial trial.
Gentlemen, I must not only warn you against being influenced by what you have before heard, but I must also warn you not to be influenced by anything but by the evidence which has been laid before you with respect to the particular charge for which the prisoner is now arraigned. It is necessary that I should so warn you in this case, because the evidence certainly implicates the prisoner in transactions of another description which are very discreditable. It appears that he has forged a great many bills of exchange, and that he had entered upon transactions which were not of a creditable nature. Those transactions, however, must be excluded from your consideration altogether. By the practice in foreign countries it is allowed to raise a probability of the prisoner having committed the crime with which he is charged by proving that he has committed other offences—by showing that he is an immoral man, and that he is not unlikely, therefore, to have committed the offence with which he is charged. That is not the case in this country. You must presume that a man is innocent until his guilt be established, and his guilt can only be established by evidence directly criminating him on the charge for which he is tried. Gentlemen, it gives me great satisfaction that this case has been so fully laid before you. Everything has been done that could have been accomplished for the purpose of assisting the jury in arriving at a right conclusion. The prosecution has been taken up by the Government, so that justice may be duly administered, the Attorney-General, who is the first law officer of the Crown, having conducted it in his capacity of a minister of justice. The prisoner also appears to have had ample means for conducting his defence; witnesses have very properly been brought from all parts of the kingdom to give you the benefit of their information; and he has had the advantage of having his case conducted by one of the most distinguished advocates ofthe English bar. Gentlemen, I must strongly recommend to you to attend to everything that fell from that advocate, so eloquently, so ably, and so impressively. You are to judge, however, of the guilt or innocence of the prisoner from the evidence, and not from the speeches of counsel, however able or eloquent those speeches may be. When a counsel tells you that he believes his client to be innocent, remember that that is analogous to the mere form by which a prisoner pleads “Not Guilty.” It goes for nothing more; and the most inconvenient consequences must follow from regarding it in any other light.
I will now say a few words in order to call to your minds what are the allegations in this case on one side and on the other. On the part of the prosecution it is alleged that the deceased, John Parsons Cook, was first tampered with by antimony, that he was then killed by the poison of strychnia, and that his symptoms were the symptoms of poisoning by strychnia. Then it is alleged that the prisoner at the bar had a motive for making away with the deceased, that he had an opportunity of administering poison, that suspicion could fall upon no one else, and that a few days before the time when the poison is supposed to have been administered he had purchased strychnia at two different places. It is also alleged by the prosecution that his conduct during that transaction, and after it, was that of a guilty and not of an innocent man. The prisoner at the bar, on the other hand, puts forward these allegations—that he had no interest in procuring the death of John Parsons Cook, but, on the contrary, that it was his interest to keep him alive; that the death was not occasioned by strychnia, but by natural disease, and that the symptoms were those of natural disease, and were by no means consistent with, the supposition of death by strychnia. These are the allegations which are urged upon one side and the other, and it is for you to say, upon the evidence, which, of these allegations you believe to be founded on truth.
Gentlemen, you have a most anxious duty to perform. The life of the prisoner is at stake; if he be guilty, it is necessary that he should expiate his crime; if he be innocent, it is requisite that his innocence should be vindicated. If his guilt be proved to you on satisfactory evidence, it is your duty to society and to yourselves to convict him; but unless his guilt be fully sustained by the evidence, it is your duty to acquit him. You must bear in mind that in a case of this sort you cannot expect that witnesses should be called to state that they saw the deadly poison mixed up by the prisoner, and by him openly administered. Circumstantial evidence of the fact is all that can be expected; and if there be a series of circumstances leading to the conclusion of guilt, a verdict of guilty may be satisfactorily pronounced. With respect to the motive, it is of great importance, in cases of this description, that you should consider whether there was any motive for committing the crime with which a prisoner is charged, for if there be no motive, there is an improbability of the offence having been committed. If, on the other hand, there be any motive which can be assigned for the commission of the deed, the adequacy of that motive becomes next a matter of the utmost importance.
The great question which you will have to consider is, whether the symptoms of Cook’s death are consistent with poisoning by strychnia. If they are not, and you believe that the death arose from natural causes, the prisoner is at once entitled to your verdict of Not Guilty. If, on the other hand, you think that the symptoms are consistent with poisoning by strychnia, you have another and important question to decide—namely, whether the evidence which has been adduced is sufficient to convince you that death was effected by strychnia, and, if so, whether such strychnia was administered by the prisoner. In cases of this sort the evidence has often been divided into the medical, and the moral, or circumstantial evidence. They cannot be separated, however, in the minds of a jury, because it is by a combination of those two species of evidence that their verdict ought to be given. In this case you must look at the medical evidence, to see whether the deceased died from strychnia or from natural causes; and you must look to what is called the moral evidence, to consider whether that shows that the prisoner not only had the opportunity, but that he actually availed himself of that opportunity, and administered the poison to the deceased. Now, gentlemen, with these preliminary observations, I will proceed to read over the evidence which has been given in the course of this long trial, praying you most earnestly to weigh that evidence carefully, and to be guided entirely by it in the verdict at which you may arrive. I begin with that part of the case which was first raised by the Attorney-General, with respect to the motive which the prisoner is supposed to have had for taking away the life of John Parsons Cook. Now, I think that that arises out of certain pecuniary transactions which must be fresh in the minds of all of you. It appears that the prisoner had borrowed large sums of money upon bills of exchange, which he drew, and which purported to be accepted by his mother—a lady, it seems, of considerable wealth, residing at Rugeley. Those acceptances were forged, and the lady was not aware of them until a recent period, when they became due, and proceedings were taken upon them. One of those acceptances, for £2,000, was in the hands of a gentleman named Padwick; £1,000 had been paid, and £1,000 remained due to Mr. Padwick upon that bill. A solicitor named Pratt, ofQueen-street, Mayfair, had advanced large sums of money to the prisoner upon similar bills to the amount, I think of £12,500. Several of those bills had been renewed without the knowledge of the mother; but there were two which remained unrenewed—one, for £2,000, became due on the 25th of October, 1855, and another, for £2,000, became due on the 27th of October, 1855. Besides these, Mr. Pratt held one bill for £500, and another for £1,000, which were overdue, but not renewed, and which Pratt held over, charging a very high rate of interest upon them.
In addition to these large sums, which had been advanced by Pratt to the prisoner, it appears that upon similar bills Palmer had contracted a very large debt with an attorney at Birmingham, named Wright, to whom he owed £10,400. It had been stated by Palmer that he should be able to liquidate those bills by the proceeds of a policy of assurance which had been effected on the life of his brother, Walter Palmer. Gentlemen, the law of this country wisely forbids an insurance being effected by one person upon the life of another who has no interest in that life; but, unfortunately, it does not prevent a man from insuring his own life to any amount, however large, and whatever his position may be, and assigning the policy of that insurance to another person. It has been proved in evidence that there had been an insurance for £13,000 effected on the life of Walter Palmer, who was a bankrupt, without any means except such as were furnished to him by his mother; and that the policy had been assigned by Walter Palmer to the prisoner at the bar. It was expected that the £13,000 insured upon the life of his brother would be the means of enabling the prisoner to meet the acceptances to which I have referred, but the directors of the Prince of Wales Insurance-office denied their liability upon that policy, and refused to pay it. Hence arose the most pressing embarrassments; claimants were urging the payment of their accounts, and it was evident that, unless they were immediately paid, the law would be put in force against the prisoner and his mother, and that the system of forgeries which had been so long carried on would be made apparent. Now I begin with the evidence of Mr. John Espin, a solicitor practising in Davies-street, Berkeley-square. [The learned Judge then read the evidence of Mr. Espin with respect to the £2,000 bill held by Mr. Padwick, the dishonouring of the cheque for £1,000, and the final issuing of aca. sa.against the person of the prisoner on the 12th of December.] This, continued the noble Lord, is certainly strong evidence to show the desperate state of the prisoner’s circumstances at that time; but we now come to the evidence of Mr. Thomas Pratt, who had advanced money to the prisoner upon bills of exchange, which bore the forged acceptance of the prisoner’s mother, to the amount of £12,500. [The learned Judge then proceeded to read the whole of the evidence of Mr. Pratt, together with the voluminous correspondence between that gentleman and the prisoner, detailing the entire history of the transactions which had taken place between them from the date of their first acquaintance in November, 1853, down to the period of the apprehension of the prisoner upon the present charge. They will be found reported in their proper place.] With regard to the letter subjoined, and marked “strictly private and confidential,”—
“My dear Sir,—Should any of Cook’s friends call upon you to know what money Cook ever had from you, pray don’t answer that question or any other about money matters until I have seen you.“And oblige yours faithfully,“William Palmer.”
“My dear Sir,—Should any of Cook’s friends call upon you to know what money Cook ever had from you, pray don’t answer that question or any other about money matters until I have seen you.
“And oblige yours faithfully,“William Palmer.”
—the learned Judge observed that the jury would recollect that when that letter was written Mr. Stevens, the stepfather of Cook, was making inquiries of a nature which were certainly very disagreeable to Palmer. [Having first disposed of that portion of the correspondence respecting money due from Palmer to Pratt, and with regard to which Cook, was supposed to have no interest, the learned judge next proceeded to read that branch of the correspondence relating to the assignment of the two racehorses, Polestar and Sirius, and to some other occurrences to which Cook was supposed to have been a party.] With respect to the cheque for £375, sent by Pratt to Palmer for Cook, from which the words “or bearer” had been struck out, his Lordship observed:—Now, it is rather suggested on the part of the prosecution, upon this evidence, that Cook had been defrauded of this money by Palmer, and certainly the endorsement was not in Cook’s handwriting; but, as was very properly argued on the part of Palmer, it is very possible that Cook may have authorized Palmer or some one else to write his name. Cheshire, a clerk in the bank, is then called, and says that the check was carried to Palmer’s account. Now, all this may have happened with the consent of Cook, in pursuance of some agreement between him and Palmer. [His Lordship then read the cross-examination of Pratt, the bill of £500, drawn by Palmer on Cook, and payable on the 2nd of December, and also the evidence of Armshaw, who proved that on the 13th November Palmer was in a state of embarrassment, and that on the 20th he received from him two £50 notes. It is for you, gentlemen, to draw your own inference from this evidence. Having before the races been pressed for money, on the night of the Tuesday on which Cook died he has two £50 notes in his possession. [His Lordship next read the evidence of Spillbury, who on the 22nd of November received a £50 note from Palmer; and of Strawbridge, who proved that on the 19thof November his balance at the bank was only £9 6s.] This evidence certainly shows that the finances of the prisoner were at the lowest ebb, and he had no means of meeting his bills. [His Lordship next read Wright’s evidence as to the large debts due to his brother from Palmer, and the bill of sale given by Palmer, as security, upon the whole of his property; Strawbridge’s evidence as to the forgery of Mrs. Palmer’s name to acceptances; and the further evidence of Mr. Weatherby, particularly calling the attention of the jury to the fact of the cheque purporting to be signed by Cook having been returned to Palmer by Mr. Weatherby, when he refused payment of it.] A great deal, said his Lordship, turns upon the question of whether that cheque was really signed by Cook or not, as, if not, it shows that Palmer was dealing with Cook’s money and appropriating it to his own use.
Mr. SerjeantSheeobserved that Mr. Weatherby expressed an opinion that the cheque was Cook’s.
LordCampbell: Mr. Weatherby said that the body of the cheque was not in Cook’s handwriting, and he had paid no attention to the signature. You, gentlemen, must consider all the evidence with regard to this part of the case. The cheque is not produced, although it was sent back by Mr. Weatherby to Palmer, and notice to produce it has been given. If it had been produced we could have seen whether Cook’s signature was genuine. It is not produced! [His Lordship then read the evidence of Butler, to whom Palmer owed money in respect of bets; and of Bergen, an inspector of police, who had searched Palmer’s house for papers after the inquest.] It might have been expected that the cheque which was returned by Mr. Weatherby to Palmer, who professed to set store upon it, and to have given value for it, and who required Mr. Weatherby not to pay away any money until it had been satisfied, would have been found, but it is not forthcoming. It is for you to draw whatever inference may suggest itself to you from this circumstance. We then come to the arrest of Palmer. Now, as it strikes my mind, the circumstance that Palmer remained in the neighbourhood after suspicion had risen against him is of importance, and ought to be taken into consideration by you, although he may, perhaps, have done so thinking that from the care he had taken nothing could ever be discovered against him. It seems, however, that he was imprisoned on civil process before the verdict of the coroner’s jury rendered him amenable to a criminal charge. Besides the cheque purporting to be signed by Cook, the prisoner also had in his possession a document purporting that certain bills had been accepted by him for Cook, but neither that document nor any such bills have been found. All the papers which were not retained were returned to the prisoner’s brother, and notice has been given to produce them, but neither the bills nor the document are produced. With regard to this witness’s statement, that Field was at Rugeley, I know not how it is connected with the present investigation. If Field was employed ta inquire into the health of Walter Palmer at the time the insurance was effected on his life, and into the circumstances of his death, I know not what he can have to do with the question you are to determine.
This, then, is the conclusion of the evidence upon one branch of the case, and now begins the evidence relating to the health of Cook and the events immediately preceding his death. [His Lordship then read the evidence of Ismael Fisher, observing in the course of it that one of the most mysterious circumstances in the case was that after Cook had stated his suspicion as to Palmer having put something in his brandy he remained constantly in Palmer’s company; he appeared to have entire confidence in Palmer, and during the few remaining days of his life he sent for Palmer whenever he was in distress; in fact, he seemed to be under the influence of Palmer to a very great extent. His Lordship also directed the attention of the jury to the circumstance of the £700 which Cook had intrusted to the care of Fisher having been returned to him on the morning of the day on which he went with Palmer to Rugeley. His Lordship then read Fisher’s statement that he had been in the habit of settling Cook’s account.] And now, he continued, comes the very important letter of the 16th of November. Certainly if Cook induced Fisher to make an advance of £200 on the security of his bets, and then employed another person to collect those bets, there was a fraud on his part. In the letter of the 16th of November Cook says—“It is of great importance, both to Mr. Palmer and myself, that a sum of £500 should be paid to Mr. Pratt, of 5, Queen-street, Mayfair, to-morrow, without fail. £300 has been sent up to-night, and if you will be kind enough to pay the other £200 to-morrow, on the receipt of this, you will greatly oblige me, and I will give it to you on Monday at Tattersall’s.”
Mr. SerjeantShee: There is a postscript, my Lord.
LordCampbell. Yes. “I am much better.” Now, the signature to this letter is undoubtedly genuine, and it shows, first, that Cook at that time intended to be in London on the Monday, and, secondly, that he desired an advance of £200 to pay Pratt. How he came to alter his intention as to going to London, and how Herring came to be employed for him instead of Fisher, you must infer for yourselves. But if he authorised the employment of Herring in order to prevent Fisher from reimbursing himself, he was a party to a fraud. You must infer whether he did so or not. [His Lordship then read the remainder of Fisher’s evidence, and also the evidence of Mr. Jones, the law stationer, of Gibson, and of Mrs. Brook.] This, he said, ends the history of Cook’s illness at Shrewsbury. Taken by itself it amounts tovery little, but in connexion with what follows it deserves your serious consideration. Then with regard to what took place at the Talbot Arms, at Rugeley, where Cook lodged, you have a most important witness—Elizabeth Mills. [His Lordship then read the evidence of Mills, observing that the events of Monday and Tuesday, the 19th and 20th of November, and the symptoms which immediately preceded the death of Cook, formed a most material part of the case.] It has been suggested, continued the learned Judge, by the counsel for the defence, that Elizabeth Mills may have been bribed by Mr. Stevens, the father-in-law of Cook, to give evidence prejudicial to the prisoner; but, in justice both to Mr. Stevens and to Elizabeth Mills, I am bound to declare that not one fact has been adduced to warrant us in believing that there is the slightest foundation for any such statement. It has also been alleged that Mr. Stevens called upon Elizabeth Mills, and read to her an extract from a newspaper, with the view, it is presumed, of influencing her evidence or guiding it in a particular direction; but this, too, is a gratuitous assertion, and, so far from being supported by the evidence, it is distinctly denied. As regards the manner in which Palmer was dressed when he ran over from his own house to the Talbot Arms on the night of Cook’s death, there is no doubt a difference between the testimony of Elizabeth Mills and that of her fellow-servant, Lavinia Barnes, the former asserting that he wore a plaid dressing-gown, and the latter a black coat; but it is for you to decide whether the point is of sufficient significance to justify a suspicion dishonourable to the veracity of either witness. It has been asserted also that there are certain discrepancies between the evidence given by Elizabeth Mills before the coroner and that which she gave in your presence. That you may the more accurately estimate the importance of those differences it is competent for the prisoner’s counsel to require that the depositions shall be read. What say you, brother Shee?
Mr. SerjeantShee: With, your Lordship’s permission, we desire to have them read.
LordCampbell: Then let them be read, by all means.
The Clerk of Arraigns then read the depositions of Elizabeth Mills, as taken before the coroner.
LordCampbell: You have now heard the depositions read, and you will decide for yourselves whether her statements before the coroner are not substantially the same as those which she made before you in the course of her examination. You will have to determine whether there is any material discrepancy between them. Her own explanation of her omission to state before the coroner that she was sick after partaking of the broth prepared for Cook is, that she was not asked the question: but that she was sick the evidence of another witness goes distinctly to prove; and it is for you to say whether, corroborated as it thus is, the testimony of Elizabeth Mills is worthy of being believed, and, if so, what inference should be drawn from it. The next witnesses are Mr. James Gardner, attorney, of Rugeley, and Lavinia Barnes, fellow-servant of Elizabeth Mills, at the Talbot Arms Inn. The learned judge, having read his notes of the evidence of the witnesses in question, observed, the testimony of Lavinia Barnes corroborates that of Mills as to the latter having been seized with illness immediately after she had taken two spoonfuls of the broth. There is some little difference of evidence as to the exact time when Palmer was seen at Rugeley on the Monday night, after his return from London; but you have before you the statements of all the witnesses, and you will decide whether the point is one of essential importance. [The learned judge then read over, without comment, his notes of the evidence given by the witnesses Ann Rowley and Sarah Bond, and then proceeded to recapitulate the facts deposed to by Mr. Jones, surgeon, of Lutterworth.] Your attention, he observed, has been very properly directed to the letter written by the prisoner on Sunday evening to Mr. Jones, summoning the latter to the sick bed of his friend Cook. The learned counsel for the defence interprets that document in a sense highly favourable to the prisoner, and contends that the fact of his having insured the presence of such a witness is conclusive evidence of the prisoner’s innocence. You will say whether you think that it is fairly susceptible of such a construction. It is important, however, to consider at what period of Cook’s illness Jones was sent for, and in what a condition he was when Jones arrived. Palmer’s assertion, in his letter to Jones, was, that Cook had been suffering from diarrhæa; but of this statement we have not the slightest corroboration in the evidence. When Jones, looking at Cook’s tongue, observed that it was not the tongue of a bilious attack, Palmer’s reply was, “You should have seen it before.” What reason could Palmer have had for using these words, when there is not the slightest evidence of Cook’s having suffered from such an illness? It is a matter for your consideration. [The deposition of Jones taken before the coroner having been read at the instance of Mr. Serjeant Shee, the learned Judge remarks,—] It is for you to say whether, in your opinion, this deposition at all varies from the evidence given by Mr. Jones when examined here; I confess that I see no variation and no reason to suppose that Mr. Jones’s evidence is not the evidence of sincerity and of truth.
After observing that the evidence of Dr. Savage [which he read] went to show that down to the hour of the Shrewsbury races and the attack on the Wednesday night, Cook was in perhaps better health than he had enjoyed for along time, the learned Judge called the attentionof the jury to the evidence of Charles Newton, who deposed to having famished three grains of strychnia to Palmer on the Monday night, and to having seen him at the shop of Mr. Hawkins on the Tuesday. Having read the evidence of this witness and his deposition before the coroner, his Lordship said:—This is the evidence of Newton, a most important witness. It certainly might be urged that he did not mention the furnishing of the strychnia to Palmer on the Monday night before the coroner; he did not mention it till the Tuesday morning, when he was coming up to London. That certainly requires consideration at your hands; but then you will observe that in his deposition, which has been read to you, although there is an omission of that, which is always to be borne in mind, there is no contradiction of anything which he has said here. Well, then, you are to consider what is the probability of his inventing this wicked lie,—a most important lie, if lie it be. He had no ill-will towards the prisoner at the bar; he had never quarreled with him, and had nothing to gain by injuring him, much less by betraying him to the scaffold. I cannot see any motive that he could have for inventing a lie to take away the life of the prisoner. No inducement was held out to him by the Crown; he says himself that no inducement was held out to him, and that he at last disclosed this circumstance from a sense of duty. If you believe him his evidence is very strong against the prisoner at the bar; but we will now turn to the next witness, Charles Joseph Roberts, whose evidence is closely connected with that of Newton. [Having read the evidence of Roberts, Mr. Hawkins’s assistant, who stated that on the Tuesday he sold to the prisoner, at his master’s shop, three grains of strychnia, his Lordship continued—], This witness was not cross-examined as to the veracity of his testimony, nor is he contradicted in any way. It is not denied that on this Tuesday morning the prisoner at the bar got six grains of strychnia from Roberts. If you couple that with the statement of Newton—believing that statement—you have evidence of strychnia having been procured by the prisoner on the Monday night before the symptoms of strychnia were exhibited by Cook, and by the evidence of Roberts, undenied and unquestioned, that on the Tuesday six grains of strychnia were supplied to him.
Supposing you should come to the conclusion that the symptoms of Cook were consistent with death by strychnia—if you think that his symptoms are accounted for by merely natural disease, of course the strychnia obtained by the prisoner on the Monday evening and the Tuesday morning would have no effect; but if you should think that the symptoms which Cook exhibited on the Monday and Tuesday nights are consistent with strychnia, then a case is made out on the part of the Crown. After the most anxious consideration, I can suggest no possible solution of the purchase of this strychnia. The learned counsel for the prisoner told us in his speech that there was nothing for which he would not account. He quite properly denied that Newton was to be believed. Disbelieving Newton, you have no evidence of strychnia being obtained on the Monday evening; but, disbelieving Newton and believing Roberts, you have evidence of six grains of strychnia being obtained by the prisoner on the Tuesday morning, and of that you have no explanation. The learned counsel did not favour us with the theory which he had formed in his own mind with respect to that strychnia. There is no evidence,—there is no suggestion how it was applied, what became of it. That must not influence your verdict, unless you come to the conclusion that the symptoms of Cook were consistent with death by strychnia. If you come to that conclusion, I should shrink from my duty, I should be unworthy to sit here, if I did not call your attention to the inference that, if he purchased that strychnia, he purchased it for the purpose of administering it to Cook. [The evidence next read by the learned Judge was that of Mr. Stevens, the stepfather of Cook. Upon this the noble Lord observed.—] The learned counsel for the prisoner, in the discharge of his duty, made a very violent attack upon the character and conduct of Mr. Stevens. It will be for you to say whether you think it deserved that censure. In the conduct of that gentleman I cannot see anything in the slightest degree deserving of blame or reprobation. Mr. Stevens was attached to this young man, who was his stepson, and who had no one else to take care of him; and, whatever the result of this trial may be, I think there were appearances which might well justify suspicion. I know nothing which Mr. Stevens did which he was not perfectly justified in doing. Having been to Rugeley and seen the body of the deceased, he goes to his respectable solicitors in London, who recommend him to a respectable solicitor, Mr. Gardner, at Rugeley.
Under his advice Mr. Stevens acts; a conversation ensues between himself and the prisoner Palmer, but I see nothing in the proceedings which he took at all deserving animadversion. Whether Palmer had any right to complain of what was said about the betting book, and whether Mr. Stevens could be blamed for suspecting that Palmer had taken it, it is for you to say. [Having read the evidence of the woman Keeley, who laid out the body of Cook, and of Dr. Harland, who spoke to the circumstances attending the twopost-mortemexaminations, to the pushing of Mr. Devonshire, who operated, and the removal of the jar on the first occasion, the learned Judge continued—] From that push no inference unfavourable to the prisoner can be drawn, as it might easily be the result of accident. In the removal of the jar, there would be nothing more than in the pushing, were it not coupled with the evidence afterwards given,which may lead to the inference that there was a plan to destroy the jar, and prevent the analysis of its contents. [The learned Chief Justice then read the evidence of Mr. Devonshire, the surgeon, of Rugeley; Dr. Monckton, the physician; of Mr. John Boycott, the clerk to Messrs. Landor, Gardner, and Landor, the Rugeley attorneys; and of James Myatt, the postboy of the Talbot Arms, who swore that Palmer had offered him £10 to upset the fly containing Mr. Stevens and the jar with the contents of the deceased’s stomach. Remarking upon the evidence of this last witness, the Chief Justice said—] In cases of circumstantial evidence you must look to the conduct of the person charged, and you must consider whether that conduct is consistent with innocence or is compatible with guilt. I see no reason to doubt the evidence of that postboy. An attempt was made upon cross-examination to show that the offer of £10 was not made in reference to the jar, but as an inducement to upset Mr. Stevens. It was suggested, you will remember, that Stevens had wantonly provoked Palmer, and that Palmer might be excused, therefore, if he wished him to be upset. I see no ground for supposing that Stevens gave Palmer any such provocation, and, if you believe the postboy, that bribe was offered to him to induce him to upset the jar. That is not, indeed, a decisive proof of guilt, but it is for you to say whether the prisoner did not enter upon that contrivance in order to prevent an opportunity of examining the contents of the jar, which might contain evidence against him. We have next the evidence of Samuel Cheshire, formerly postmaster at Rugeley. [The learned Judge read the evidence, remarking upon the circumstance of Palmer calling upon him to witness a document said to have been signed by Cook, as if he had been present and had seen Cook sign it; upon the remarkable fact of Palmer endeavouring to obtain information from Cheshire as to the contents of the letter from Dr. Taylor to Mr. Gardner; and upon the impropriety of the following letter, addressed by the prisoner to the coroner, Mr. Ward, during the progress of the inquest:—
“My dear Sir,—I am sorry to tell you that I am still confined to my bed. I don’t think it was mentioned at the inquest yesterday that Cook was taken ill on Sunday and Monday night, in the same way as he was on the Tuesday, when he died. The chambermaid at the Crown Hotel (Masters’s) can prove this. I also believe that a man of the name of Fisher is coming down to prove he received some money at Shrewsbury. Now, here he could only pay Smith £10 out of £41 he owed him. Had you not better call Smith to prove this? And, again, whatever Professor Taylor may say to-morrow, he wrote from London last Tuesday night to Gardner to say, ‘We (and Dr. Rees) have this day finished our analysis, and find no traces of either strychnia, prussic acid, or opium.’ What can beat this from a man like Taylor, if he says what he has already said, and Dr. Harland’s evidence? Mind you. I know and saw it in black and white what Taylor said to Gardner; but this is strictly private and confidential, but it is true. As regards his betting-book, I know nothing of it, and it is of no good to any one. I hope the verdict to-morrow will be that he died of natural causes, and thus end it“Ever yours,“W. P.”]
“My dear Sir,—I am sorry to tell you that I am still confined to my bed. I don’t think it was mentioned at the inquest yesterday that Cook was taken ill on Sunday and Monday night, in the same way as he was on the Tuesday, when he died. The chambermaid at the Crown Hotel (Masters’s) can prove this. I also believe that a man of the name of Fisher is coming down to prove he received some money at Shrewsbury. Now, here he could only pay Smith £10 out of £41 he owed him. Had you not better call Smith to prove this? And, again, whatever Professor Taylor may say to-morrow, he wrote from London last Tuesday night to Gardner to say, ‘We (and Dr. Rees) have this day finished our analysis, and find no traces of either strychnia, prussic acid, or opium.’ What can beat this from a man like Taylor, if he says what he has already said, and Dr. Harland’s evidence? Mind you. I know and saw it in black and white what Taylor said to Gardner; but this is strictly private and confidential, but it is true. As regards his betting-book, I know nothing of it, and it is of no good to any one. I hope the verdict to-morrow will be that he died of natural causes, and thus end it
“Ever yours,“W. P.”]
Palmer says in that letter that he had seen it in black and white. Cheshire states that he had not shown him the letter. However that might be, there can be no question that this was a highly improper letter for the prisoner to write; and speaking as the chief coroner of England, and being desirous for the due administration of justice and of the law, I have no hesitation in saying that it was not creditable in Mr. Ward to receive such a letter without a public condemnation of its having been written. You will say, gentlemen, whether the conduct of the prisoner in that respect—suggesting to the coroner the verdict which he should obtain from the jury—is consistent with innocence. The noble and learned lord then read the evidence of Ellis Crisp, the police inspector at Rugeley, who produced a medical book which had been found in the prisoner’s house, and in which the following passage occurred in the prisoner’s handwriting:—“Strychnia kills by causing tetanic fixing of the respiratory muscles;” and remarking that this was a book which was in the possession of the prisoner seven years ago, when he was a student, he said that there was nothing in it which ought to weigh for a moment against the prisoner at the bar. Having read without comment the evidence of Elizabeth Hawkes, the boarding-house keeper, with respect to the sending of game to Ward, of Slack, her porter, and of Herring, who spoke to the directions given him by Palmer as to the disposal of Cook’s bets, his Lordship called the particular attention of the jury to the statement in the evidence of Bates, that the prisoner had told him not to let any one see him deliver the letter to Ward. The next witness, he continued, is Dr. Curling, and now, gentlemen, you will be called upon to come to some conclusion with regard to the evidence of the scientific men respecting the symptoms of the deceased before death, and the appearance of his body after death. You will have to say how far those symptoms and those appearances are to be accounted for by natural disease, and how far they are the symptoms and appearances produced by strychnine. It will be a question of great importance whether, in your judgment, they correspond with natural, that is, with traumatic or idiopathic tetanus, or with any other disease whatever. [His Lordship read the evidence of Dr. Curling, and the examination in chief of Dr Todd, without comment, and directed the Clerk of Arraigns to read the depositions of Dr. Bamford. The depositions were accordingly read, and his Lordship then remarked,—] When this deposition was first given in evidence, Dr. Bamford was too ill to come into court; but he partially recovered, and on a subsequent day he was examined and gave thevivâ voceevidence which I will now read [The learned Lord here read the evidence, observing, with regard to the pills made up by Dr. Bamford, that the prisoner certainly had an opportunity of changing them, if he pleased; that circumstance deserved theirserious consideration.] There is not, he continued, the slightest reason to impute any bad faith to Dr. Bamford, but it is allowed, on all hands, that the old man was mistaken in saying that the death was caused by apoplexy.
All the witnesses on both sides say that, whatever the disease may have been, it was not apoplexy; but he filled up a certificate that it was apoplexy, in compliance with a recent Act of Parliament which renders a certificate of the cause of death necessary. [The cross-examination of Dr. Todd was then read, and his Lordship pointed out that the case of strychnine seen by that witness bore a certain resemblance to Cook’s attack on the Monday night.] The next witness is a gentleman of high reputation and unblemished honour, Sir B. Brodie, one of the most distinguished medical men of the present time. [His Lordship read Sir B. Brodie’s evidence.] That distinguished man tells you, as his solemn opinion, that he never knew a case in which the symptoms he had heard described arose from any disease. He is well acquainted with the various diseases which afflict the human frame, and he knows of no disease answering to the description of the symptoms which preceded Cook’s death. If you agree with him in opinion, the inference is that Cook died from some cause other than disease. [The learned Judge then read the evidence of Dr. Daniel, who agreed with Sir B. Brodie, and of Dr. Solly, who also thought that natural disease would not account for death.]
Mr. SerjeantSheewished to have the cross-examination of this witness read.
LordCampbell: Certainly. I daresay it is very applicable.
Mr. SerjeantSheeread a part of the cross-examination:—