SEVENTH DAY,May 21.

“If you are quite settled on your return from Doncaster, do pray think about your three bills, so shortly coming due. If I do not get a positive appointment from the office to pay, which I do not expect, you must be prepared to meet them as agreed. You told me your mother was coming up this month, and would settle them.”

About a week afterwards I wrote to him [This letter had no date, but bore a postmark, Sept. 24]:—

“You are aware there are three bills, of £2,000 each, accepted by your mother, Mrs. Sarah Palmer, falling due in a day or two. Now, as the £13,000 cannot be received from the Prince of Wales Insurance Office for three months, it will be necessary that those bills should be renewed; I will therefore thank you to send me up three new acceptances to meet those coming due, and which, when they fall due, I presume the money will be ready to meet, which will amount to £1,500 more than your mother has given acceptances for.”

On the 2nd of October I wrote:—

“This, you will observe, quite alters arrangements, and I therefore must request that you make preparations for meeting the two bills due at the end of this month.... In any event, bear in mind that you must be prepared to cover your mother’s acceptances for the £4,000, due at the end of the month.”

On the 6th of October I wrote to him another letter, containing this passage:—

“I have your note acknowledging receipt by your mother of the £2,000 acceptance, due the 2d October. Why not let her acknowledge it herself? You must really not fail to come up at once, if it be for the purpose of arranging for the payment of the two bills at the end of the month. Remember, I can make no terms for their renewal, and they must be paid.”

I had received from Palmer a letter, dated October 5, acknowledging, on the part of his mother, the receipt of a bill of exchange for £2,000. On the 10th I wrote to Palmer a letter, from which the following is an extract:—

“However, not to repeat what I said in my last, but with the view of pressing on you the remembrance that the two bills due at the end of this month, the 26th and 27th, must be met, I say no more. The £2,000 acceptance of your mother, due the 29th of September, I sent her yesterday. It was renewed by the second of the three sent me up.”

On the 18th of October I wrote to Palmer as follows:—

“I send copies of two letters I have received. As regards the first, it shows how important it is that you or your mother should prepare for payment of the £4,000 due in a few days. I cannot now obtain delay on the same ground I did the others, for then I could have no ground for supposing the claim would not be admitted.”

On the 27th of October, Palmer called and paid me £250. This was on account of the bills due on the 25th and 27th of that month. He said he would remit another sum of an equal amount before the following Wednesday, and would pay the remainder of the principal by instalments as shortly as possible. In reply to a letter of mine of the 27th of October, I received the following letter from him, dated the 28th of October:—

“I will send you the £250 from Worcester on Tuesday, as arranged. For goodness’ sake do not think of writs; only let me know that such steps are going to be taken and I will get you the money, even if I pay £1,000 for it; only give me a fair chance, and you shall be paid the whole of the money.”

On the 31st of October I wrote to Palmer:—

“The £250 in registered letter duly received to day. With it I have been enabled to obtain consent to the following:—That, with the exception of issuing the writs against your mother, no proceeding as to service shall be made until the morning of Saturday, the 10th, when you are to send up the £1,000 or £1,500. You will be debited with a month’s interest on the whole of £4,000 out of the money sent up. I impress upon you the necessity of your being punctual as to the bills. You will not forget also the £1,500 due on the 9th of November.”

On the 6th of November I issued writs against Palmer and his mother for £4,000. I sent them to Mr. Crabbe, a solicitor at Rugeley. On the 10th of November Palmer called on me. I had received a letter from him on the 9th of November:—

“I will be with you on Saturday next, at half-past one.”

He did call on me, and paid me £300, which, with the two sums I had before received, made up £800. £200 was deducted for interest, leaving £600. He was to endeavour to let me have a further remittance, but nothing positive was said. It is possible that writs were mentioned, but I have no recollection of it. No doubt he knew of them. [A letter of November 13 from Pratt to Palmer was then read, in which, after giving some explanations with respect to the “Prince of Wales” policy, Pratt said:—“I count most positively on seeing you on Saturday; do, for both our sakes, try to make up the amount to £1,000, for without it I shall be unable to renew the £1,500 due on the 9th.”]

On the 16th of November Palmer wrote to me:—

“I am obliged to come to Tattersall’s on Monday to the settling, so that I shall not call and see you before Monday, but a friend of mine will call and leave you £200, to-morrow, and I will give you the remainder on Monday.”

On the Saturday (Nov. 17) some one came from Palmer, and gave me a cheque of a Mr. Fisher for £200. On the 19th Mr. Palmer wrote to me:—

“All being well, I shall be with you to-morrow (Monday), but cannot say what time now. Fisher left the £200 for me.”

On Monday, the 19th, which was the settling day at Tattersall’s, Palmer called on me after 3 o’clock. This paper (produced) was then drawn up, and he signed it:—

“You will place the £50 which I have just paid you and the £450 you will receive by Mr. Herring—together £500, and the £200 you received on Saturday towards payment of my mother’s acceptance for £2,000, due on the 25th of October, making paid to this day the sum of £1,300.”

He paid me £50 at the time, and said I should receive the £450 through the post, by Mr. Herring. I afterwards received a cheque from him for that amount, which was paid through my bankers. On the 21st of November Palmer wrote to me:—

“Ever since I saw you I have been fully engaged with Cook, and not able to leave home. I am sorry to say, after all, he died this day. So you had better write to Saunders; but, mind you, I must have Polestar, if it can be so arranged; and should any one call upon you to know what money or moneys Cook ever had from you, don’t answer the question till I have seen you.”“I will send you the £75 to-morrow, and as soon as I have been to Manchester you shall hear about other moneys. I sat up two full nights with Cook, and am very much tired out.”

“I will send you the £75 to-morrow, and as soon as I have been to Manchester you shall hear about other moneys. I sat up two full nights with Cook, and am very much tired out.”

On the 22nd of November I wrote to Palmer:

“I have your note and am greatly disappointed at the non-receipt of the money as promised, and at the vague assurances as to any money. I can understand ’tis true, that your being detained by the illness of your friend has been the cause of not sending up the larger amount, but the smaller sum you ought to have sent. If anything unpleasant occurs you must thank yourself.“The death of Mr. Cook will now compel you to look about as to the payment of the bill for £500, on the 2nd of December.“I have written Saunders, informing him of my claim, and requesting to know, by return, what claim he has for keep and training. I send down copy of bill of sale to Crubble, to see it enforced.”

“The death of Mr. Cook will now compel you to look about as to the payment of the bill for £500, on the 2nd of December.

“I have written Saunders, informing him of my claim, and requesting to know, by return, what claim he has for keep and training. I send down copy of bill of sale to Crubble, to see it enforced.”

On the 23rd of November I received a note from Palmer, saying that Messrs. Weatherby, of 6, Old Burlington-street, would forward a cheque for £75 in the morning. On the 24th I received another note, saying that he would come up either that day or Monday. I saw him on the 24th, when he signed the following paper:—

“I have paid you this day £100. £75 you will pay for renewal of £1,500, due on the 9th of November, for one month, and £25 on account of the £2,000, due the 25th of October, making £1,325 paid on that account.”

I had received a cheque for £75 on Messrs. Weatherby, but they refused to pay it. On the 26th of November Palmer wrote to me:—

“(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.”

“(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.”

There was a bill of sale on Polestar and another horse of Cook’s, called Sirius. I did not know Cook. I never saw him. The bill of sale was executed at the beginning of September. The prisoner had transacted the loan. [The bill of sale was read.] On the 26th of August Palmer wrote to me on the subject:—

“Now, I want, and must have it from somewhere, £1,000 clear by next Saturday without fail, and you can raise it on the policy (viz. the policy for £13,000 on the life of W. Palmer) if you like, and it must be had at a much less rate of interest than I have hitherto had, because the security is so very good; and if you cannot manage it, you must let me have the policy, because you have plenty of security for your money.”

On the 30th of August he again wrote:—

“I have undertaken to get the enclosed bill cashed for Mr. Cook. You had the £200 bill of his. He is a very good and responsible man. Will you do it? I will put my name to the bill.”

In this letter was enclosed Cook’s acceptance for £500. On the 6th of September Palmer wrote:—

“I received the cheque for the £100, and will thank you to let me have the £315 by return of post, if possible; if not, send it me (certain) by Monday night’s post, to the post-office, Doncaster. I now return you Cook’s papers, signed, &c., and he wants the money on Saturday, if he can have it, but I have not promised it for Saturday. I told him he should have it on Tuesday morning, at Doncaster; so please enclose it with mine, in cash, in a registered letter, and he must pay for it being registered. Do not let it be later than Monday night’s post to Doncaster.”

On the 9th of September he wrote:—

“You must send me, for Mr. Cook, by Monday night’s post (to the Post Office, Doncaster), £385, instead of £375, and the wine warrant, so that I can hand it to him with the £375, and that will be allowing you £50 for the discount, &c. I shall then get £10, and I expect I shall have to take to the wine, and give him the money; but I shall not do so if you do not send £385, and be good enough to enclose my £315 with it, in cash, in a registered letter, and direct it to me to the Post Office, Doncaster.”

I accordingly wrote to Palmer at the Post-office, Doncaster, enclosing £300 in notes, and a cheque for £375. I struck out the words “or bearer,” so that it was payable to order. In the letter I said:—

“You know by this time that if I do what I can to accommodate you, there is a limit to my means to do so, and more particularly as in this instance you have been the means of shutting up a supply I could generally go to. I think also you had little reason to allude to the £10 difference after the trouble, correspondence, &c., I had with respect to a second insurance you know of, which, although it did not come off, arose not from any lack of industry on my part. I have no reply as yet from the Prince of Wales. When shall I see you about the three £2,000 bills coming due at the end of this month? I speak in time, in order that you may be prepared in case anything untoward happens with the Prince of Wales. I am obliged to send a check for Cook, as I have not received the money, which I shall do, no doubt, to-morrow.”

The check for £375 and the wine-warrant was the consideration for Cook’s bill of sale for £500. The other £300 had nothing to do with Cook’s transactions. [A letter fromPalmer was then read, acknowledging the receipt of the previous letter, with the enclosures.] I had one other transaction with Cook before this. It related to an acceptance of Cook’s for £200, which was paid. I had no other pecuniary transactions whatever with him. The date of that first transaction was the end of April or the beginning of May, 1855. The bill was drawn by Palmer on Cook, and was paid by Cook.

Mr. Stevens was here recalled, and having examined the endorsement on the check for £375, said—This endorsement is not in the handwriting of Cook. I never saw him write his name otherwise than “J. Parsons Cook,” whereas this is written “J. P. Cook.”

Mr. Strawbridge was shown some acceptances purporting to be by Mrs. Sarah Palmer, and said that none of them were in Mrs. Palmer’s handwriting.

William Cheshire, who had been a clerk in the bank at Rugeley, in September last, proved that Palmer had an account there, and that the check already in evidence had been received by him, and carried to Palmer’s credit.

Cross-examined: I did not know Cook; he never had any transactions with us.

Mr.Prattwas then cross-examined by Mr. SerjeantShee: Previous to May, 1855, I knew nothing at all about Cook. I then held a sum of £310 due to Palmer, and he wished me to add £190 to it, and to pay £500 to a Mr. Sargent. I declined to do that without further security. He proposed the security of Cook’s acceptances, and represented Cook to be a gentleman of respectability and substance. On his representation I agreed to accept a bill drawn by him on Cook for £200, and to make the advance. He thus got the £500. I wrote to Cook about the first transaction. I also wrote to him before his death, on the 13th of November, reminding him that £500 was due on December 2. I sent the letter to him at Lutterworth.

Re-examined: The first £200 bill was due on the 29th of June, but was not then paid. I wrote about it, and Cook came up on the 2nd of July and paid it. I did not see him.John Armshaw, examined by Mr.Welsby: I am an attorney, practising at Rugeley. About the 13th of November I was employed to apply to Palmer for payment of a debt of about £60, due to some mercers and drapers at Rugeley. On the 19th of November I sent up to London instructions for a writ. On the next morning (the 20th), I went to Palmer’s house. He gave me two £50 notes, and said he hoped he should not be put to the cost of the writ. One was a Bank of England, the other a local note. I took them to my employer to get the receipt and change, and to settle about the costs.John Wallbank, examined by Mr.Welsby: I am a butcher at Rugeley. On the Monday in Shrewsbury race week, Palmer’s man came to me and fetched me to Palmer’s house. Palmer said, “I want you to lend me £25.” I said, “Doctor, I’m very short of money, but I’ll try if I can get it.” He said, “Do, that’s a good fellow; I’ll give it you again on Saturday morning, as I shall then have received some money at Shrewsbury.” On the Saturday I met him in the street, went to his house with him, and he paid me the money.Cross-examined by Mr. SerjeantShee: Palmer had lent me money sometimes when I had asked him. His mother lived in the town, in a large house near the church. He was in the habit of going there.John Spillbury, examined by Mr.Bodkin: I am a farmer, near Stafford, and have had dealings with Palmer. In November last he owed me £46 2s. On the 22nd of November (Thursday), I called on him and he paid me that amount. He gave me a Bank of England note for £50. I called casually. I had not applied to him for the money. That was the first transaction I had with him.Mr.Strawbridge, examined by theAttorney-General, said: On the 19th of November Palmer had an account at the bank, and there was a balance of £9. 6s.in his favour. Nothing was paid to his account after that. The 10th of October was the last date on which anything was paid to the account. The amount then paid was £50.Herbert Wright, examined by Mr.E. James: I am a solicitor, in partnership with my brother, at Birmingham. I have known Palmer since July, 1851. In November, 1855, he owed my brother £10,400. We had a bill of sale upon his property. [It was produced and read. It recited that Palmer was indebted to Edwin Wright in the sum of £6,500, on account of bills of exchange accepted by Sarah Palmer and endorsed by Palmer to Wright, and as security for that amount, and a further sum of £2,300, which had been advanced to him, a power of sale, subject to redemption, was given by Palmer over the whole of his property, including his horses.] All the advances were made upon bills, together with other collateral security. All the bills are here. [The bills purporting to be accepted by Palmer’s mother were produced; also an acceptance of Palmer’s for £1,600.] In the early part of November I was pressing Palmer for payment. Many of the bills were overdue. Palmer always said the money would be paid after the Cambridgeshire races at Newmarket. I put the bill of sale in force in December, after the verdict of the coroner’s jury was returned. I was present when the property was taken. I found no papers in the house.Cross-examined by Mr. SergeantShee: A sheriff’s officer effected the seizure, and an auctioneer followed him.

Re-examined: The first £200 bill was due on the 29th of June, but was not then paid. I wrote about it, and Cook came up on the 2nd of July and paid it. I did not see him.

John Armshaw, examined by Mr.Welsby: I am an attorney, practising at Rugeley. About the 13th of November I was employed to apply to Palmer for payment of a debt of about £60, due to some mercers and drapers at Rugeley. On the 19th of November I sent up to London instructions for a writ. On the next morning (the 20th), I went to Palmer’s house. He gave me two £50 notes, and said he hoped he should not be put to the cost of the writ. One was a Bank of England, the other a local note. I took them to my employer to get the receipt and change, and to settle about the costs.

John Wallbank, examined by Mr.Welsby: I am a butcher at Rugeley. On the Monday in Shrewsbury race week, Palmer’s man came to me and fetched me to Palmer’s house. Palmer said, “I want you to lend me £25.” I said, “Doctor, I’m very short of money, but I’ll try if I can get it.” He said, “Do, that’s a good fellow; I’ll give it you again on Saturday morning, as I shall then have received some money at Shrewsbury.” On the Saturday I met him in the street, went to his house with him, and he paid me the money.

Cross-examined by Mr. SerjeantShee: Palmer had lent me money sometimes when I had asked him. His mother lived in the town, in a large house near the church. He was in the habit of going there.

John Spillbury, examined by Mr.Bodkin: I am a farmer, near Stafford, and have had dealings with Palmer. In November last he owed me £46 2s. On the 22nd of November (Thursday), I called on him and he paid me that amount. He gave me a Bank of England note for £50. I called casually. I had not applied to him for the money. That was the first transaction I had with him.

Mr.Strawbridge, examined by theAttorney-General, said: On the 19th of November Palmer had an account at the bank, and there was a balance of £9. 6s.in his favour. Nothing was paid to his account after that. The 10th of October was the last date on which anything was paid to the account. The amount then paid was £50.

Herbert Wright, examined by Mr.E. James: I am a solicitor, in partnership with my brother, at Birmingham. I have known Palmer since July, 1851. In November, 1855, he owed my brother £10,400. We had a bill of sale upon his property. [It was produced and read. It recited that Palmer was indebted to Edwin Wright in the sum of £6,500, on account of bills of exchange accepted by Sarah Palmer and endorsed by Palmer to Wright, and as security for that amount, and a further sum of £2,300, which had been advanced to him, a power of sale, subject to redemption, was given by Palmer over the whole of his property, including his horses.] All the advances were made upon bills, together with other collateral security. All the bills are here. [The bills purporting to be accepted by Palmer’s mother were produced; also an acceptance of Palmer’s for £1,600.] In the early part of November I was pressing Palmer for payment. Many of the bills were overdue. Palmer always said the money would be paid after the Cambridgeshire races at Newmarket. I put the bill of sale in force in December, after the verdict of the coroner’s jury was returned. I was present when the property was taken. I found no papers in the house.

Cross-examined by Mr. SergeantShee: A sheriff’s officer effected the seizure, and an auctioneer followed him.

Should you have objected to give Palmer more time for payment if you had been asked?—I hardly know; probably I should not. I was not hostile to him. I never accommodated Cook. I had offered to do so, but the transaction never assumed completion. (A laugh.)

Re-examined by theAttorney-General: These bills were discounted at 60 per cent. per annum, and would have been renewed probably at the same rate of interest.

Mr.Strawbridgeproved that the acceptances produced by the last witness were not in the handwriting of Mrs. Palmer.

Cross-examined: They are a bad imitation of her hand.

TheAttorney-Generalsaid that Mr. Weatherby was the only remaining witness for the prosecution, and, as he was not now in court, he hoped their Lordships would allow him to be examined in the morning, before his learned friend opened the defence.

Mr. SergeantSheeasked the Court to permit the witness Mills to be recalled, in order that he might examine her as to where she was now residing.

TheAttorney-General: She was cross-examined upon that point.

LordCampbell: We are of opinion that there is no ground for recalling her.

Mr. SergeantSheeasked permission to put some further questions to Dr. Devonshire with regard to his having been pushed by Palmer during thepost-mortemexamination.

LordCampbell: By all means.

Mr. JusticeCresswellobserved that he did not think it was a circumstance to which much importance could be attached; he had not taken a note of it.

Mr. BaronAldersonexpressed a similar opinion. There was nothing extraordinary in a person who was interested in the examination being anxious to see all that was going on.

Mr. SergeantShee, after that intimation of their Lordships’ opinion, would not press his request.

LordCampbellhoped that the jury would have an opportunity given them of breathing the fresh air that fine evening.

The Court adjourned at half-past 3 o’clock until 10 o’clock Wednesday morning.

The court was even more crowded this morning than it has been since the commencement of the trial. By nine o’clock every available seat was occupied, and a great number of persons waited in the passages leading to the various entrances during the whole day, without being able to obtain admission. Among the distinguished persons who were present we noticed the Lord Chief Baron, the Earl of Denbigh, Lord G. Lennox, Mr. Monckton Milnes, Mr. L. Gower, Mr. G. O. Higgins, Mr. Forster, and several other members of the House of Commons.

The learned Judges, Lord Campbell, Mr. Baron Alderson, and Mr. Justice Cresswell, entered the court at about ten o’clock, accompanied by the Sheriffs, Sir R. W. Carden, and other Aldermen.

The prisoner was immediately placed at the bar. He listened with great attention to the address of his learned counsel, and maintained the same calmness and self-possession that he had exhibited since the first day of the proceedings.

Counsel for the Crown—the Attorney-General, Mr. E. James, Q. C., Mr. Welsby, Mr. Bodkin, and Mr. Huddleston; for the prisoner—Mr. Serjeant Shee, Mr. Grove. Q. C., Mr. Gray, and Mr. Kenealy.

Charles Weatherby, examined by Mr.Welsby, said: On the 21st of November I received a letter from Palmer, enclosing a cheque for £350. I produce that letter:—

“Rugeley, Nov. 20, 1855.“Gentlemen,—I will thank you to send me a cheque for the amount of the enclosed order. Mr. Cook has been confined here to his bed for the last three days with a bilious attack, which has prevented him from being in town.“Yours respectfully,“Wm. Palmer.”

“Rugeley, Nov. 20, 1855.

“Gentlemen,—I will thank you to send me a cheque for the amount of the enclosed order. Mr. Cook has been confined here to his bed for the last three days with a bilious attack, which has prevented him from being in town.

“Yours respectfully,“Wm. Palmer.”

On the morning of the 23rd I received another letter from him, which I also produce. In this letter Palmer requested Messrs. Weatherby to send a cheque for £75 to Mr. Pratt,and a cheque for £100 to Mr. Earwaker, and deduct the same from Cook’s draft. On the 23rd I sent a letter to Palmer, of which I produce a copy:—

“Nov. 23, 1855.“Sir,—We return Mr. Cook’s cheque, not having funds enough to meet it. When Mr. Frail called to-day to settle the Shrewsbury Stake account, he informed us that he had paid Mr. Cook his winnings there. We could not comply with your request as to paying part of the money even if we had had sufficient in hand to pay you the sums you mention, which we have not. Be so good as to acknowledge the receipt of the cheque.”

“Nov. 23, 1855.

“Sir,—We return Mr. Cook’s cheque, not having funds enough to meet it. When Mr. Frail called to-day to settle the Shrewsbury Stake account, he informed us that he had paid Mr. Cook his winnings there. We could not comply with your request as to paying part of the money even if we had had sufficient in hand to pay you the sums you mention, which we have not. Be so good as to acknowledge the receipt of the cheque.”

On the 24th the following notice, signed by Palmer, was left at my office:—

“Nov. 24, 1855.“Gentlemen,—I hereby request you will not part with any moneys in your hands, or which may come into your hands, on account of John Parsons Cook, to any person until payment by you to me or my order of the cheque or draft in my favour, given by the said John Parsons Cook for the sum of £350, sent to you by me, and acknowledged in your letter received by me at Rugeley on Wednesday morning, the 20th of this month of November.“Yours, &c.“Wm. Palmer.”“Messrs. Weatherby, 6, Old Burlington-street.”

“Nov. 24, 1855.

“Gentlemen,—I hereby request you will not part with any moneys in your hands, or which may come into your hands, on account of John Parsons Cook, to any person until payment by you to me or my order of the cheque or draft in my favour, given by the said John Parsons Cook for the sum of £350, sent to you by me, and acknowledged in your letter received by me at Rugeley on Wednesday morning, the 20th of this month of November.

“Yours, &c.“Wm. Palmer.”“Messrs. Weatherby, 6, Old Burlington-street.”

On the 23rd I sent a letter to Cook at Rugeley, which was subsequently returned to me through the dead-letter office.

Cross-examined by Mr. SerjeantShee: The cheque for £350 was, as far as I recollect, signed by Cook.

TheAttorney-General: Was it signed J. P. Cook, or J. Parsons Cook?—I did not observe.

By LordCampbell: I observed that the body of the cheque was not in Cook’s handwriting, but that the signature was.

Mr. SerjeantShee: When that cheque of Cook’s was presented, you had not funds in hands to meet it?—No.

Were funds afterwards sent up by Mr. Frail, the clerk of the course at Shrewsbury?—They were to have been, but were not eventually.

In the ordinary course of things, ought they to have been in your hands on the day you received the cheque?—I can’t positively say. Clerks of the course pay at different times. But Cook might reasonably have supposed that they would be in hand, as it was then a week after he had won the race. I informed Palmer, when I did not pay his cheque, of my reasons for not doing so.

Mr.F. Butlerexamined by theAttorney-General: I attend races, and bet. I was at Shrewsbury races, and had an account to settle with Palmer. I had to receive £700 odd from him in respect of bets made at the Liverpool races. I had no money to receive in respect of the Shrewsbury races. I endeavoured to get my money at Shrewsbury, and I got £40. I asked him for money several times, and he said he had none, but had some to receive. He did not say how much. He gave me a cheque for £250 upon the Rugeley bank, which was not paid. I know Cook’s horse Polestar. After she had won the race at Shrewsbury she was worth about £700. She was worth more after than before she won.

Cross-examined by Mr.Grove: I won £210 on Polestar for Palmer, and kept it on account.

Mr.Stevensproved that Polestar was sold at Tattersall’s on the 10th of March, by auction, and fetched 720 guineas.

TheAttorney-General: That is the case for the prosecution.

Mr. SerjeantSheethen rose to open the defence. He said: In rising to perform the task which it now becomes my duty to discharge, I feel, gentlemen of the jury, an almost overwhelming sense of responsibility. Once only has it before fallen to my lot to defend a fellow-creature charged with a capital offence. You can well understand that to take a leading part in a trial of this kind is sufficient to disturb the calmest temper, and try the clearest judgment, even if the effort only last for one day. But how much more trying is it to stand for six long days under the shade, as it were, of the scaffold, conscious that the least error in judgment may consign my client to an ignominious death and public indignation! It is useless for me to conceal that which all your endeavours to keep your minds free from prejudice cannot wholly efface from your recollection. You perfectly well know that for six long months, under the sanction and upon the authority of science, an opinion has almost universally prevailed that the blood of John Parsons Cook has risen from the ground to bear witness against the prisoner; you know that a conviction of the guilt of the prisoner has impressed itself upon the whole population, and that by the whole population has been raised, in a delirium of horror and indignation, the cry of blood for blood. You cannot have entered upon the discharge of your duty—which, as I have well observed, you have most conscientiously endeavoured to perform—without, to a great extent, sharing in that conviction. Before you knew that you would have to sit in that box to pass judgment between the prisoner and the Crown, you might with perfect propriety, after reading the evidence taken before the coroner’s jury, have formed an opinion with regard to the guilt or innocence of the prisoner. The very circumstances under which we meet in this place are of a character to excite in me mingled feelings of encouragement and alarm. Those whose duty it is to watch over the safety of the Queen’s subjects felt so much apprehension lest the course of justice should be disturbed by the popular prejudice which had been excited against the prisoner—they were so much alarmed that an unjust verdict might, in the midst of that prejudice, be passed against him, that an extraordinary measure of precaution was taken, not only by Her Majesty’s Government, but also by the Legislature. An act of Parliament, which originated in that branch of the Legislature to which the noble and learned lord who presides here belongs, and was sanctioned by him, was passed to prevent the possibility of an injustice being done through an adherence to the ordinary forms of law in the case of William Palmer. The Crown, also, under the advice of its responsible Ministers, resolved that this prosecution should not be left in private hands, but that its own law officer, my learned friend the Attorney-General, should take upon himself the responsibility of conducting it. And my learned friend, when that duty was intrusted to him, did what I must say will for ever redound to his honour—he resolved that, in a case in which so much prejudice had been excited, all the evidence which it was intended to press against the prisoner should, as soon as he received it, be communicated to the prisoner’s counsel.

I must therefore tell my unhappy client that everything which the constituted authorities of the land—everything which the Legislature and the Law Officers of the Crown could do to secure a fair and impartial trial has been done, and if that unhappily an injustice should on either side be committed, the whole responsibility will rest upon my Lords and upon the jury. A most able man was selected by the prisoner as his counsel not many weeks ago, but, unfortunately, was prevented by illness from discharging that office. I have endeavoured, to the best of my ability, to supply his place; but I cannot deny that I labour under a deep feeling of responsibility, although the national effort, so to speak, which has been made to insure a fair trial is a great cause of encouragement to me. I am moved by the task that is before me, but I am not dismayed. I have this further cause for not being altogether overcome in discussing the mass of evidence which has been laid before you. When the papers in the case came into my hands, I had formed no opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the prisoner. My mind was perfectly free to form what I trust will prove to be a right judgment upon the case, and—I say it in all sincerity—having read these papers, I commenced his defence with an entire conviction of his innocence. I believe that truer words were never pronounced than the words he uttered when he said “Not Guilty” to this charge, and if I fail in establishing his innocence to your satisfaction, I shall have very great misgivings that my failure is attributable only to my own inability to do justice to his case, and not to any weakness in the case itself. I will prove to you the sincerity with which I declare my conviction of the prisoner’s innocence by meeting the case for the prosecution foot to foot, and grappling with every difficulty which has been suggested by my learned friend. You will see that I shall avoid no point which has been raised. Iwill deal fairly with you, and I know that I shall have your patient attention to an address which must, I fear, unavoidably be a long one, but in which no observation will be introduced which does not necessarily and properly belong to the case.

The proposition which my learned friend undertakes to establish entirely by circumstantial evidence, may be shortly stated. It is, that the prisoner, having in the second week in November made up his mind that it was his interest to get rid of John Parsons Cook, deliberately prepared his body for the reception of a deadly poison by the slower poison of antimony, and that he afterwards despatched him by the deadly poison of strychnine. Now, no jury will convict a man of the crime thus charged unless it be made clear, in the first place, that he had some motive for its commission,—some strong reason for desiring the death of the deceased; in the second place, that the symptoms before death, and the appearances of the body after death, are consistent with the theory that he died by poison: and, in the third place, that they are inconsistent with the theory that death proceeded from natural causes. Under these three heads I shall discuss the large mass of evidence which has been laid before you; and I must, by adhering to that order, exhaust the whole subject, and leave myself no chance of evading any difficulty without immediate detection. Before, however, I proceed to grapple in these close quarters with the case for the Crown, allow me to restore to its proper place in the discussion, a fact which, although it was by no means concealed by my learned friend in that address by which he at once seized upon your judgments, appeared to me to be thrown too much into the shade—the fact, I mean, that strychnine was not found in the body of the unfortunate deceased. If he died of the poison of strychnine—if he died within a few hours, or within a quarter of an hour or twenty minutes of the administration of a strong dose—if thepost-mortemexamination took place within six days of the death, there is not the least reason to suppose that between the time of the injection of the poison and the paroxysms of death, there was any dilution of it, or any ejection of it by vomiting. Never, therefore, unless chemical analysis is altogether a failure in the detection of strychnine, were circumstances more favourable for its discovery. But, beyond all question, strychnine was not found. Whatever we may think of the judgment and experience of Dr. Taylor, we have no reason to doubt that he is a very skilful chemist; we have no reason to believe—in fact, we know to the contrary—that he and Dr. Rees did not do all that the science of chemical analysis could enable men to do to detect the poison. They had a distinct intimation from the executor and near relative of the deceased, that he, for some cause or another, had reason to suspect that poison had been administered. They undertook an analysis of the stomach (which, without now going into details upon that point, was not on the whole in an unfavourable condition) with a firm expectation that if it was there it would be found, and without any doubt as to the efficiency of their tests. Then, in December, they say,—

“We do not find strychnine, prussic acid, or any trace of opium. From the contents having been drained away” (not drained out of the jar, you know) “it is now impossible to say whether any strychnine had or had not been given just before death, but it is quite possible for tartar emetic to destroy life if given in repeated doses; and, so far as we can at present form an opinion, in the absence of any natural cause of death, the deceased may have died from the effects of antimony in this or some other form.”

But they afterwards attended the inquest, and having heard the evidence of Mills, of Mr. Jones, of Lutterworth, and of Roberts (who spoke to the purchase of strychnine on the morning of the death), they came to the conclusion that the pills administered to Cook on the Monday and the Tuesday night contained strychnine. Dr. Taylor came to that conclusion, notwithstanding his written opinion that Cook might have been poisoned by antimony, and notwithstanding the fact that no trace of strychnine was found in the body. I call your attention now to this circumstance in order to claim for it its proper place in the discussion. The gentlemen who have come to the conclusion that strychnine may have been in the body, although it was not found, have arrived at that conclusion from experiments of a very partial kind indeed; they contend that when strychnine has once done its fatal work and become absorbed into the system it ceases to be the thing it was when taken into the system; it becomes decomposed, its elements are separated from each other, and therefore are no longer capable of responding to the tests which would certainly detect its presence if undecomposed. That is their case. They account for its not being found, and for their belief that it destroyed Cook, by that hypothesis. Now, it is only an hypothesis. No authority for it can be drawn from experiments, and it is supported by the opinion of no eminent toxicologists but themselves. It is only fair to them, and to Dr. Taylor in particular, to say that Dr. Taylor does propound that theory in his book. It is, however, only a theory of his own; he does not support it by the authority of any distinguished toxicologist, and when we recollect that his knowledge of the matter—good, humane man!—consists in having poisoned five rabbits twenty-five years ago, and five others since this question was raised, it cannot have much weight. But I will call before you a number of gentlemen of high eminence in their profession as analytical chemists, who will state their utter renunciation of that theory. I will call Dr. Nunneley, a fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons and a professor of chemistry, who attended the case at Leeds, which has been described to you, andDr. Williams, professor ofmateria medicaat the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, for eighteen years surgeon to the City of Dublin Hospital. Dr. Letheby, one of the ablest and most distinguished men of science in this great city, professor of chemistry and toxicology in the Medical College of the London Hospital, and medical officer of the City of London, will tell you that he rejects the theory as a heresy unworthy the belief of scientific men. Dr. Nicholas Parker, of the College of Physicians of London, and professor of medicine, Dr. Robinson, of the College of Physicians, and Mr. Rogers, professor of chemistry, concur with Dr. Letheby.

Lastly, I will call Mr. William Herapath, of Bristol, probably the most eminent chemical analyst in this country, who also utterly rejects the theory. All of those gentlemen contend that if not only half a grain of strychnine, but even 1-50th part or less has once entered into the human frame, it can and must be discovered by the tests known to chymists. They will tell you this, not as the result of a few experiments, for ever regretted, upon five rabbits, but from a large experience as to the operation of the poison upon the inferior animals, created, as you know, for the benefit of mankind, and many of them from their experience as to its effects upon the human system. I will satisfy you from their evidence, that if you admit the correctness of the tests which were used, the only safe conclusion at which you can arrive is that strychnine not having been found in the body, it could never have been there. They all agree, too, that no degree of putrefaction or fermentation in the human system could so decompose strychnine that it should no longer possess those qualities which cause it, in its undecomposed state to respond to chemical tests. I will now apply myself to a question which in my judgment is of equal, if not greater, importance—the question whether, in the second week of November, 1855, the prisoner had a motive for the commission of this murder—a strong reason for desiring that Cook should die. I never will believe that unless it were made clear that it was his interest to destroy Cook, you would come to the conclusion that he had committed such a crime. It seems to me abundantly clear upon the evidence that not only was it not the interest of Palmer that Cook should die, but that the death of Cook was the very worst calamity that could befall him, and that he could not possibly be ignorant that it would be followed by his own ruin. That it was followed by his immediate ruin we know. We know that at the time when it is said he commenced to plot Cook’s death he was in a condition of the greatest embarrassment—an embarrassment which in its extreme intensity had come upon him but recently—an embarrassment, too, in some degree mitigated by the circumstance that the acceptances he is said to have forged were those of his mother—a lady of large fortune living in the town. My learned friend’s hypothesis is, that not until he was in a state of the greatest embarrassment did he wish to destroy Cook. My learned friend stated to you “That, being in desperate circumstances, with ruin, disgrace, and punishment staring him in the face, which could only be averted by means of money, he took advantage of his intimacy with Cook, when Cook had become the winner of a considerable sum, to destroy him, in order to obtain possession of his money.” Let us test this theory. Let us relieve our minds for a moment from the anxiety we must always feel when the life of a fellow-creature is at stake, and, looking at it as a mere matter of business, let us ask ourselves whether in the second week of November Palmer had any motive to commit this crime.

When a long correspondence is read to a jury, who are without the same means of testing its importance as the judge or the counsel, they frequently do not attach that weight to it which it deserves. But I watched the correspondence which was read to you yesterday with an anxiety which no words can express, because I firmly believed that in it the innocence of the prisoner lay concealed; that it proved not only that the prisoner had no motive to kill Cook, but that Cook’s death was ruin to him. Allow me to call your attention to the relation in which these men stood to each other. They had been intimate as racing friends for two or three years; they had had many transactions together; they were jointly interested in at least one racehorse, Pyrrhine; they generally stayed at the same hotels; they were seen together upon almost all the race courses in the kingdom; they were known to be connected in adventures upon the same horses at the same races; and although, Cook being dead, the mouth of the prisoner being sealed, and transactions of this kind not being recorded in regular books, it is impossible to give you positive evidence as to their relations to one another, it is abundantly clear that they were very closely connected. In August, 1855, money was wanted either by Cook or Palmer, and Palmer applied to Pratt for it. He seems to have wanted £200, to make up a larger sum, having already £190 in Pratt’s hands; and he offered as security for the advance his friend Mr. Cook, whom he described as a gentleman of respectability and substance. We do not know the exact state of Cook’s affairs at that time. Such a fortune as he had might have been thrown down in a week with the life he was leading; but a young man who is reckless as to the mode in which he employs his money and has only £13,000 may for a year or two pass before the world for a man of considerable means. It is not every one who will go to Doctors’ Commons to ascertain the precise amount of the property he has inherited. Mr. Cook, of Lutterworth, kept his racehorses, lived expensively, was known to have inherited a fortune, and was altogether a person whose friendship was of considerable importance to a man like Palmer. Recollect that I am not now defending Palmer against the crime of forgery, nor am I defending him against the imputation of reckless improvidence inobtaining money at an enormous discount. But as early as May, 1855, Palmer and Cook were thus circumstanced. What was their position in November?

The evidence ofPratt, and the correspondence which he proved, can leave no doubt on our minds upon that subject. Among a mass of bills, amounting altogether to £11,500, there were two, of £2,000 each, due the last week in October, two others, amounting to £1,500, having become due some time before, but being held over from month to month upon payment by Palmer, who was liable for them, of what was called interest at the rate of 60 per cent. These three sums—£2,000, £2,000, and £1,500—were the embarrassments which were pressing upon him in the second week in November, and, be it observed, they were pressed upon him by a man who, although he would, doubtless, have been glad to get his principal, would also, upon anything like security, have been very well pleased to continue to receive interest. How can capital, if well secured, be better employed than in returning 40 or 60 per cent.? In this state of things Palmer, in answer to an urgent demand for money, came up to town on the 27th of October. Pratt then insisted that if Palmer could not pay one of the £2,000 bills which had just become due he should pay instalments, in addition to the enormous interest charged upon it, and it was agreed that £250 should be paid down, £250 upon the 31st of October, and a further sum of £300 as soon afterwards as possible, making a total payment on account of that bill of £800, to “quiet” Pratt or his client, and to induce him to let the bill stand over. On the ninth of November the £300 was paid, and then a letter was written, to which I beg your particular attention. On the thirteenth of November, the day that Polestar won the race, Pratt wrote to Palmer that the case (“Palmer v. the Prince of Wales Insurance Company”) had been laid before Sir F. Kelly, that in the opinion of several secretaries of insurance offices the company had not a leg to stand upon, and that the mere fact of the enormous premium would go a great way to get a verdict. The letter concluded—“I count most positively on seeing you on Saturday. Do, for both our sakes, try and make up the amount to £1,000, for without it I shall be unable to renew the £1,500 due on the ninth.” Pratt had threatened to issue a writ against Palmer’s mother. Palmer had almost gone upon his knees to beg him not to do so, and this letter really meant, “Unless you give me £200 more and make up £1,000, a writ shall be served upon your mother.” That letter is written on the thirteenth of November. Palmer gets it at Rugeley, whither he had gone from the racecourse on the day that Polestar won. What does he do? He instantly returns to Shrewsbury, gets there on Wednesday, sees Cook. They say he doses him. We will see how probable that is presently. Cook goes to bed in a state I will not describe, gets up next morning much more sensible than he went to bed, goes upon the racecourse, returns with Palmer to Rugeley on the Thursday, goes to bed, gets up next morning still uncomfortable, but able to go and dine with Palmer on that day (Friday). On that day, the sixteenth of November, Palmer writes to Pratt—

Back to Index Next