Chapter XVI: Part 16

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, of Queen-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 a _ca. 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.”

--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 19th of 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. Serjeant SHEE observed that Mr. Weatherby expressed an opinion that the cheque was Cook’s.

Lord CAMPBELL: 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. Serjeant SHEE: There is a postscript, my Lord.

Lord CAMPBELL. 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 to very 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. Serjeant SHEE: With, your Lordship’s permission, we desire to have them read.

Lord CAMPBELL: Then let them be read, by all means.

The Clerk of Arraigns then read the depositions of Elizabeth Mills, as taken before the coroner.

Lord CAMPBELL: 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 attention of 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 two _post-mortem_ examinations, 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.”]

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 the _vivâ voce_ evidence 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 their serious 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. Serjeant SHEE wished to have the cross-examination of this witness read.

Lord CAMPBELL: Certainly. I daresay it is very applicable.

Mr. Serjeant SHEE read a part of the cross-examination:--

“Is not the risus sardonicus very common in all forms of violent
convulsions?--No, it is not common. Does it not frequently occur in
all violent convulsions which assume, without being tetanus, a
tetanic form and appearance?--Yes, it does. Are they not a very
numerous class? No, they are not numerous. Is it not very difficult
to distinguish between them and idiopathic tetanus?--In the onset,
but not in the progress. I think you say you have only seen one
case of idiopathic tetanus?--I have only seen one. When you
answered that question of mine you spoke from your reading, and not
from your experience?--I did not know your question applied to
idiopathic tetanus alone. Does epilepsy sometimes occur in the
midst of violent convulsions?--Epilepsy itself is a disease of a
convulsive character. I am aware of that; but you heard the account
that was given by Mr. Jones of the few last moments before Mr. Cook
died? Yes, I did. That he uttered a piercing shriek, fell back and
died; did he not? Yes. Tell me whether that last shriek and the
paroxysm that occurred immediately afterwards--would not that bear
a strong resemblance to epilepsy? In some respects it bears a
resemblance to it. Are all epileptic convulsions--I do not mean
epileptic convulsions designated by scientific men as of the
epileptic character--are they all attended with an utter want of
consciousness?--No, not all. Does not death by convulsions
frequently occur without leaving any trace in the body behind
it?--Death from tetanus, accompanied with convulsions, leave seldom
any trace behind; but death from epilepsy leaves a trace behind it
generally.”

Lord CAMPBELL.--The jury have heard you read it. It is for them to say whether it is important in their view or not. Evidence is next given of various cases of tetanus arising from strychnine; it is for you, gentlemen, to consider how far the symptoms in those cases resemble the symptoms in this case, or how far the symptoms in this case resemble those of ordinary tetanus, idiopathic or traumatic. [The learned judge read his notes of the evidence given by Dr. Robert Corbett, Dr. Watson, Dr. Patterson, and Mary Kelly, witnesses examined to prove the symptoms in the Glasgow case, and then proceeded to call the attention of the jury to the testimony of Caroline Hickson, Mr. Taylor, surgeon, and Charles Bloxham, all of whom were examined with reference to the case of Mrs. Smyth, of Romsey. He then passed on to the Leeds case--that of Mrs. Dove, whose name had transpired so frequently in the course of the trial, that it would be vain to affect any reserve on the subject now. After reading the evidence of Jane Witham and George Morley, the learned judge observed,--] It is beyond all controversy that strychnia was not discovered in the dead body of Cook, but it is important to bear in mind that the witness Morley declares that in cases where the quantity of strychnine administered had been the _minimum_ dose that will destroy life, it is to be expected that the chemist should occasionally fail in detecting traces of the poison after death. That case of Mrs. Dove’s is a very important one, because it is a case in which it is beyond all question that death was caused by strychnine, however administered. It is for you to determine how far the symptoms of this unhappy lady corresponded with or differed from those of Cook. You will remember that she had repeated attacks of convulsions. She recovered from several, but at last a larger dose than usual was given, and death ensued. With regard to the possibility of the poison being decomposed in the blood, that appears to be a vexed question among toxicologists, and Mr. Morley differs on the point from other and, I doubt not, most sincere witnesses.

The great question for your consideration at this part of the inquiry is whether there may not be cases of death by strychnia in which, nevertheless, the strychnia has not--let the cause be what it may--been discovered in the dead body. [The learned Judge then read the evidence of Edward Moore in the Clutterbuck case, where an over-dose of strychnia had been administered; and proceeded as follows:--] I have now to call your attention to the evidence of Dr. Taylor, but before doing so I think it right to intimate that I fear it will be impossible to conclude this case to-night. It is most desirable, however, to finish the evidence for the prosecution this evening. When that is concluded I shall be under the necessity of adjourning the Court, and asking you to attend here again to-morrow, when, God willing, this investigation will certainly close. [The learned Judge then proceeded to read his notes of Dr. Taylor’s evidence, and on arriving at that portion of it in which the witness described the results of his own experiments upon animals observed,--] There is here a most important question for your consideration. Great reliance is placed by the prisoner’s counsel, and very naturally so, upon the fact that no trace of strychnine was detected in the stomach of Cook by Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees, who alone analyzed it and experimented upon it. But, on the other hand, you must bear in mind that we have their own evidence to show that there may be and have been cases of death by strychnine in which the united skill of these two individuals have failed to detect the presence of the strychnine after death.

Both Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees have stated upon their oaths that in two cases where they knew death to have been occasioned by strychnine--the poison having, in fact, been administered with their own hands--they failed to discover the slightest trace of the poison in the dead bodies of the animals on which they had experimented. It is possible that other chemists might have succeeded in detecting strychnine in those animals, and strychnine also in the jar containing the stomach and intestines of Cook; but, however this may be, it is beyond all question that Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees failed to discover the faintest indications of strychnine in the bodies of two animals which they had themselves poisoned with that deadly drug. Whatever may be the nature of the different theories propounded for the explanation of this fact, the fact itself is deposed to on oath; and, if we believe the witnesses, does not admit of doubt. With regard to the letter from Dr. Taylor to Mr. Gardner, stating that neither strychnia, prussic acid, nor opium had been found in the body, his Lordship said this letter was written before Cook’s symptoms had been communicated to Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees; but they had been informed that prussic acid, strychnia, and opium had been bought by Palmer on the Tuesday. They searched for all these poisons, but they found none. The only poison they found in the body was antimony, and therefore they did not, in the absence of symptoms, attribute death to strychnia, as they could not at that time; but they say that it possibly may have been produced by antimony, because the quantity discovered in the body was no test of the quantity which might have been taken into the system.

As to the letter which was written by Professor Taylor to the _Lancet_, the learned Judge remarked: I must say I think it would have been better if Dr. Taylor, trusting to the credit which he had before acquired, had taken no notice of what had been said; but it is for you to say whether, he having, as he says, been misrepresented, and having written this letter to set himself right, that materially detracts from the credit which would otherwise be given to his evidence. Having concluded the reading of Dr. Taylor’s evidence, his lordship said: This is Dr. Taylor’s evidence. I will not comment upon it, because I am sure that you must see its importance with regard to the antimony and the strychnia. For the discovery of strychnia, Dr. Taylor experimented upon the bodies of two animals which he had himself killed with that poison, but in them no strychnia could be found. [The learned Judge next read the evidence of Dr. Rees, in commenting upon which he said: I do not know what interest it could be supposed that Dr. Taylor had to give evidence against the prisoner. He was regularly employed in his profession, and knew nothing about Mr. Palmer until he was called upon by Mr. Stevens, and the jar was given to him. He could have no enmity against the prisoner, and no interest whatever to misrepresent the facts. [Mr. Serjeant SHEE reminded the learned Judge that the experiments upon the two rabbits were not made until after the inquest.] That makes no difference. If the witnesses are the witnesses of truth, there are equally cases where there has been the death of an animal by strychnia, and no strychnia can be found in the animal; if that experiment had been made this morning, the fact would have been the same.

Dr. Taylor has been questioned about some indiscreet letter which he wrote, and some indiscreet conversation which he had with the editor of the _Illustrated Times_. Against Dr. Rees there is not even that imputation, and Dr. Rees concurs with Dr. Taylor that in these experiments the rabbits were killed by strychnia; that they did whatever was in their power, according to their skill and knowledge, to discover the strychnia, as they did with the contents of the jar, and no strychnia could be discovered. As to the antimony, he corroborates the testimony of Dr. Taylor. Antimony is a component of tartar emetic, tartar emetic produces vomiting, and you will judge from the vomiting at Shrewsbury and Rugeley whether antimony may have been administered to Cook at those places. Antimony may not have produced death, but the question of its administration is a part of the case which you must seriously consider. His Lordship then read the evidence of Professor Brande, of Dr. Christison, a man above suspicion, who said that if the quantity of strychnia administered was small he should not expect to find it after death, and of Dr. John Jackson, who spoke to the symptoms of idiopathic and traumatic tetanus as he had observed them in India, which, concluded the evidence on the part of the Crown. Having thus gone through all the evidence for the prosecution, his Lordship intimated that he should defer the remainder of his charge until the following day; and the Court was therefore (at eight o’clock) adjourned till ten o’clock to-morrow (Tuesday) morning.

TWELFTH DAY, MAY 27.

The opening of the Court this morning presented the same extraordinary scene of excitement which was witnessed yesterday. The Court was filled immediately after the opening of the doors, and throughout the day long the Old Bailey was thronged with persons anxious to learn the progress of the summing up, or to obtain admission into the Court.

The prisoner exhibited no marked change in his appearance. Occasionally he listened with attention to Lord Campbell’s charge, and passed notes to his counsel; but for the most part there was much of apparent indifference in his demeanour.

The Lord Chief Justice, Baron Alderson, and Mr. Justice Cresswell, took their seats on the bench at ten o’clock.

His Lordship commenced this morning by observing, that at the adjournment yesterday evening, he had laid before the jury all the evidence for the prosecution, and certainly this evidence presented a serious case against the prisoner. It appeared that in the middle of November last the prisoner was involved in pecuniary difficulties of a most formidable character, and from which he could not have possibly extricated himself without the most extraordinary means. At this period, the prisoner accompanied the deceased to Shrewsbury races, where the deceased won a large sum of money, and where, it was alleged, the prisoner formed the design of getting possession of the deceased’s property. Before and after the death, the prisoner took steps to collect all the money due to the deceased, and resorted to a device for securing the horse Polestar, which also had belonged to the deceased. In fact, had the plans of the prisoner, as developed in the evidence, succeeded, he would have become possessed of all the deceased’s property; and hence it could not be said that he would have derived no benefit from the death of his friend, nor could it be urged that the balance of advantages was in favour of his wishing the deceased to live; hence there was a strong motive for the committal of the crime imputed to the prisoner; and with this knowledge in their possession, it was for the jury to determine whether the symptoms of the deceased justified the conclusion of the scientific evidence for the prosecution--that death was the result of poisoning by strychnine.

It was true that no strychnine had been found in the deceased’s stomach, but in point of law there was no necessity that it should be found to justify the conviction of the prisoner, if there were other and sufficient evidence to satisfy the minds of the jury that such a poison had been administered. Well, now, there were two instances in evidence where, beyond all question, strychnine had been administered, and yet no traces of it could be found after death, while another portion of the evidence went to show that the body could be so prepared by antimony and similar deadly drugs, as entirely to destroy all traces of strychnine after it had run its fatal course. Now, in this case, there was the strongest proof that antimony must have been administered to the deceased immediately before death; and coupling that circumstance with the evidence of the medical men who had described first the symptoms of the deceased, and secondly, the symptoms usually observed in strychnine poisoning, it would be for the jury to say whether the prosecution had succeeded in bringing the charge of murder home to the prisoner. There were individual acts of the prisoner proved in evidence, which the jury might very well consider in arriving at their final conclusion, such as the fact of his having purchased or obtained strychnine from two different persons just previously to the death; the fact of his having attempted to bribe the post-boy to upset the jars, the fact of his having got the post-master to open Dr. Taylor’s letter; and lastly, the fact of his having tampered with the coroner to procure a verdict which would have amounted to an acquittal of the charge which was then, as now, hanging over his head.

These were the main features of the case for the prosecution, and having duly weighed and considered them, it would be for the jury to say whether they brought to their minds an irresistible conviction of the prisoner’s guilt. On the other hand, numerous witnesses had been called for the defence, and it remained for him to go through their evidence with the same care and patience with which he had gone over that of the prosecution. Like the evidence of the prosecution, the evidence for the defence partook of a moral and medical character. Those who had been called to give the latter evidence were men, of high honour, of unsullied integrity, and profound scientific knowledge, and it was only due to them to say, that in coming there they appeared to have been only actuated by a desire to speak the truth, and to assist in the due administration of justice. This evidence his lordship then proceeded to read over, commencing with Dr. Nunneley. Commenting upon that gentleman’s evidence, his lordship observed that Dr. Nunneley seemed to have displayed an interest in the case which was not altogether consistent with the character of a witness. He differed very much from some of the witnesses examined for the prosecution, particularly in reference to rigidity being produced by strychnine after death, and it would be for the jury to determine to which side they attached the most weight in these matters.

The next witness in order was Dr. Herapath, a gentleman who had directed much attention to the operation of poisons. His lordship having read Dr. Herapath’s evidence, observed that it differed from that of the prosecution in a leading particular, inasmuch as it went to affirm that where death was occasioned by strychnine, its traces were always discernible in the body, but on cross-examination the witness admitted that he had before expressed an opinion that Cook died of strychnine, and that Dr. Taylor had not taken the proper means to find it.

Passing to Dr. Letheby’s evidence his lordship remarked, after reading it, that the exceptions which in cross-examination the doctor allowed he had met with in his experience, of the effects and symptoms of strychnine, were sufficient to neutralise the evidence in chief so far as it went to rebut that of the prosecution.

The next witness was Dr. Guy, who spoke to having seen a case of idiopathic tetanus in an omnibus conductor. Remarking upon this evidence, his lordship said it was for the jury to say whether the symptoms in this case sufficiently corresponded with those of the deceased, to bring the two cases into the same class; but it must be observed that there was a difference in the symptoms, while there was strong evidence on record, which went to show that the deceased’s case was neither traumatic nor idiopathic tetanus.

The next evidence was that of Mr. Ross, who instanced a case where a man had died from tetanus induced by ulcers on the body; but his lordship reminded the jury that, in the case of the deceased, there was no evidence whatever that he had suffered from wounds or sores of any kind.

Speaking of the evidence of Dr. Wrightson, who had discovered strychnine in putrefying blood and decomposed matter, and who had given an opinion that strychnine never decomposed, his lordship told the jury that the doctor, who was a man of eminent scientific attainments and unimpeachable honour, had given his evidence with becoming caution. The doctor seemed to think, that the poison, if administered, ought to have been found, and in dealing with this part of the case the jury would have to consider whether it might not have existed in this case, and yet have defied the tests employed to discover it.