Chapter XI: Aconite: Aconitia or Aconitine (2)

[28] “From his childhood upward,” says his brother, “no man was
gentler of heart—his charity was inexhaustible; his kindliness
to all who were in distress well known. To him the wanderer
resorted in his afflictions; by him the poor and houseless
were fed and comforted. I write in the face of the public,
with my character as a gentleman and a clergyman at stake, and
I avow only facts that cannot be denied. His liberality was a
proverb; his frank sincerity, his courage, his faithful loyalty
to his friends, his temperance, his performance of the duties
of religion, his social relations in the character of father,
husband, and son, won for him the love and confidence of all
who approached him; and though it is true that in one fatal
instance he violated the laws of his country, and subjected
himself to a severe penalty for an infringement of its
commercial code, yet, this excepted, his was in all respects
the very opposite of that cool, calculating, cowardly, crafty
temper, which is essential to the poisoner, and we know cannot
co-exist with those qualities which my brother possessed from
his earliest years down even to the day when your lordship sent
him to his death.” Letter to Lord Campbell, pp. 4, 5.

[29] The excuse put forward for this was his wish to raise
money for Bate. The prisoner’s brother complains, in his letter
to Lord Campbell, pp. 29, 30, and with justice, that though the
evidence of the negotiation for this insurance was afterwards
excluded as irrelevant, the statement was allowed to be made
by the Attorney-General without a comment, which Lord Campbell
must have known would prejudice the case against the prisoner.
This exclusion of the evidence of a statement which has been
allowed to pass unchallenged is nearly as useless as the formal
warning not to pay any attention to some evidence that has
been wrongly admitted—the prejudice has been raised, and the
mischief already done. But for the result of this trial, he
would have been tried for the murder of his wife, whose body
had been exhumed and analysed.

[30] As the probability of Cook’s state of health predisposing
him to epileptic attacks was made part of the prisoner’s case,
the evidence of his regular medical attendant is subjoined:—

_Dr. Henry Savage_, physician, of 7, Gloucester-place,
_examined by the Attorney-General_.—I knew John Parsons Cook.
He had been in the habit of consulting me professionally during
the last four years. He was a man not of robust constitution;
but his general health was good. He came to me in May,
1855, but I saw him about November of the year before, and
early in the spring of 1855. In the spring of 1855 the old
affair—indigestion—was one cause of his visiting me, and he had
some spots upon his body, about which he was uneasy. He had
also two shallow ulcers on his tongue, which corresponded with
two bad teeth. He said that he had been under a mild mercurial
course, and he imagined that those spots were very syphilitic.
I thought they were not, and I recommended the discontinuance
of mercury. I gave him quinine as a tonic, and an aperient
composed of cream of tartar, magnesia, and sulphur. I never
at any time gave him antimony. Under the treatment which I
prescribed the sores gradually disappeared, and they were quite
well by the end of May. I saw him, however, frequently in June,
as he still felt some little anxiety about the accuracy of my
opinion. If any little spot made its appearance he came to me,
and I also was anxious on the subject, as my opinion differed
from that of another medical man in London. Every time he came
to me I examined him carefully. There were no indications
of a syphilitic character about the sores, and there was no
ulceration of the throat, but one of the tonsils was slightly
enlarged and tender. I saw him last alive, and carefully
examined him, either on the 3rd or 5th of November. There was
in my judgment no venereal taint about him at the time.

_Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Shee._—I do not think that
the deceased was fond of taking mercury before I advised him
against it; but he was timid on the subject of his throat, and
was apt to take the advice of anyone. No; I don’t think that he
would take quack medicines. I don’t think he was so foolish as
that.

_Mr. Stevens_, his stepfather, who saw him at the Euston
Station on the 5th of November, when starting for Rugeley,
said, “he looked better than he had seen him for a long time.
‘You don’t look,’ he said to him, ‘like an invalid’; and Cook,
striking his chest, said he was quite well, and should be all
right if he was happy.” In point of appearance he was not a
robust man; his complexion was pale, and he had sore throat in
the previous winter for some months.

For the defence, _Foster_, a farmer, said he considered him of
a weak constitution, because he had bilious headaches, the last
a year and a half back, but admitted that he hunted three days
a week.

_John Sargeant_, a betting man, who met him at the races which
he attended, said:—I had an opportunity of seeing the state
of his throat before he died. I was with him at the Liverpool
meeting the week previous to the Shrewsbury races; we slept
in adjoining rooms. One morning he called me into his room
and drew my attention to his throat, which was much inflamed.
There were ulcers upon it, and the tongue was so swollen, that
I said I was surprised at the state of his mouth. He said he
had been in that state for weeks and months, “And now,” he
said, “I don’t take notice of it.” He had shown me his throat
before this at almost every meeting we attended. He took
some gingerbread and cayenne on the platform at Liverpool,
and told me afterwards it nearly killed him. (It came out
afterwards that the cayenne nut was a trick nut.) The witness
had also known Palmer supply Cook with blackwash before his
death. He had never seen Cook’s throat dressed by anybody, and
was surprised to see him eat and drink so well. He saw the
blackwash applied (externally) at the Warwick Spring Meeting in
1855. With reference to another point, this witness spoke to
Cook being unable to pay him more than £10 out of £25 at the
Liverpool meeting, and promising the balance at Shrewsbury.

[31] On the part of the prisoner, a saddler at Rugeley, of
the name of _Myalt_, whom Fisher spoke of as being in the
room with Cook and Palmer, was called to give an entirely
different account of this suspicious incident. “I saw Cook,”
said this witness, “in Palmer’s company on Wednesday, about
twelve o’clock. I had not dined with Palmer, but at my house
at Rugeley, and got back to Shrewsbury between eight and nine,
and went to Palmer’s room to see if he was in. The first person
I saw was Cook at the room door, who said, ‘What brought you
here?’ I told him, ‘to see how they were getting on.’ Palmer,
I found, had gone out, and I went into the town, and was away
about an hour. “When I returned Palmer was not there, so I
waited in his room till he returned, about a couple of hours.
He came in with Cook, who was the worse for liquor—not very
drunk—rather. They asked me to take some brandy and water; it
was produced directly afterwards—the brandy in a decanter,
the water might be on the table. I did not leave the room at
all, from the time Cook and Palmer came in till they all went
to bed. I did not see anything put into the brandy and water;
nothing could be without my seeing it. Palmer and I left
together, and slept that night in the same room. Cook said
something about its being bad. He drank part of it off, and
then gave it to some one to taste. He proposed to have some
more, but Palmer said he would not unless Cook drank his out.
Nothing more happened that night. Next morning Palmer asked me
to call Cook. I went into his room, and he told me how ill he
had been in the night, and obliged to send for a doctor. He
asked me what had been put into the brandy and water, and I
told him I did not know of anything. He asked me to send for
the doctor—Palmer. I did so. The witness did not remember Mrs.
Brooks coming, or Palmer being called out of the room. He swore
that Cook did not say ‘it burns my throat.’ Did not remember
Fisher saying that it was no good his tasting it, as there
was nothing in the glass. He told Mr. Gardner and Mr. Stevens
before the inquest what he now said, but they had not subpœnaed
him.

[32] “Lord Campbell did not even read this portion of the
witness’s evidence to the jury. Whatever its value might
be, and it had some in the prisoner’s favour, they were not
reminded of it, and can hardly be expected to have remembered
it after a twelve days’ trial.” Letter to Lord Campbell, p. 24.

[33] Some questions on this point were put to Mr. Gardner, the
solicitor for the prosecution, but were stopped as too general.

[34] Mills, in her cross-examination, said that Palmer “had on
a plaid dressing-gown, but could not say whether he had on a
cap or not.”

[35] Lord Campbell had omitted from his notes this
contradiction of the statement of Mills and others that
the body was arched, and when Mr. Serjeant Shee called his
attention to it, made no comment on it to the jury.—_Evidence
of Mary Keeling._

[36] But see the evidence of Mr. Partridge, Mr. Rogers, and
Mr. Pemberton as to the state of the exhumed corpse, and the
probable effect of the granules.—_Evidence of scientific
witnesses for the defence_, _post_, pp. 170-4.

[37] A _Mr. Devonshire_, a late assistant of Dr. Monckton’s,
who was present at the _post-mortem_, was also called to
confirm the previous witnesses. He also proved the extraction
of the liver, kidneys, spleen, and some blood, and their safe
delivery through a clerk (Boycott) to the attorneys at Rugeley
to Dr. Taylor for analysis.

[38] Mr. Curling agreed with Dr. Watson, _Principles and
Practice of Physic_, in the cases of “the sticking of a fish
bone in the fauces, the stroke of a whip-lash under the eye
leaving the skin unbroken, the cutting of a corn, the biting of
the finger by a sparrow, the blow of a stick on the neck, the
insertion of a seton, the extraction of a tooth, the injection
of a hydrocele, and the operation of cupping,” but not with
“the percussion of the air caused by a musket-shot.” He also
explained that the supposed case of tetanus produced at once
where a negro servant cut his thumb with a dish, rested on the
authority of an old cyclopædia, and that his judgment was more
mature and his experience greater than when, twenty-two years
of age, he wrote the treatise in which he had quoted this case.
(It was only in Rees’ Cyclopædia.)

[39] _Dr. Todd_, in reply to Lord Campbell, defined idiopathic
tetanus to be “that form of the disease which is produced
without any external wound, apparently from internal
causes—from a constitutional cause.”

[40] Evidence of _Dr. Robert Corbett_, physician, of Glasgow,
at the time medical clerk at the Glasgow Infirmary; _Dr.
Watson_, surgeon to the infirmary; _Dr. J. Patterson_, of the
infirmary laboratory; and _Mary Kelly_, patient.

[41] This is a test for brucia and not for strychnia. See p.
285.

[42] See _Ptomaine’s_ or _Cadaveric Poisons_. Chemical
introduction, _ante_, p. 12, and Chapter V., p. 278.

[43] “Mr. Mayhew called on me with another gentleman with
an introduction from Professor Faraday. I received him as I
would Professor Faraday, and entered into conversation with
him about these cases. He represented, as I understood, that
he was connected with some insurance company, and wished for
information about a number of cases of poisoning that had
occurred during many years. After we had conversed about an
hour, he asked if there was any objection to the publication
of the details. Still believing him to be connected with an
insurance office, I replied that, so far as the correction of
error was concerned, I had no objection to anything appearing.
On that evening he went away without telling me he was
connected with the _Illustrated Times_, or any other paper. It
was not until Thursday that I knew that. It was the greatest
deception that ever was practised on a scientific man.”—_Dr.
Taylor’s evidence._ In his charge, Lord Campbell said, “I must
say I think it would have been better if Dr. Taylor, trusting
to the credit he had before acquired, had taken no notice of
what had been said; but it is for you to say, whether, he
having been misrepresented, and having written this letter to
the _Lancet_ to set himself right, materially detracted from
the credit which would otherwise be given to his evidence.” It
was these statements in the _Illustrated Times_, copied into
other papers, that led Dove to resort to strychnia to poison
his wife.—_See his case, post._

[44] On the value of experiments on animals, see Chemical
Introduction, _ante_, p. 6.

[45] “A mixture of sugar and bile, or a substance called
pyroxanthine—the product of a distillation of wood—will produce
the purple and red tint.”—_Taylor’s evidence._ But see Chapter
V.

[46] _Curarine._ See Chapter V.

[47] On this point see Chapter V.

[48] This suggestion of negligence on the part of the operator,
Mr. Devonshire, and the comments on it by the Attorney-General,
having subjected him to several attacks both in the Central
Criminal Court and in the _papers_, he gave the following
explanation in a letter to the _Morning News_, dated May 29:—

“It was agreed in consultation at Mr. Freer’s, at Rugeley,
that the stomach and intestines should be opened, and, with
their contents, enclosed in a jar. It was further agreed that
the spinal cord should not be opened if its upper portion and
the brain should prove to be in a healthy condition. At the
examination I was assisted by Mr. Newton, a young gentleman
who had, unfortunately, never witnessed a _post-mortem_. He
punctured the stomach, and about a teaspoonful of its contents
was lost. Afterwards, when Dr. Harland and I were examining
the lining membrane, Mr. Newton suddenly turned the stomach
inside out; an additional half teaspoonful was thus lost, the
remainder falling into the jar. This accounts for Dr. Taylor
finding the mucous membrane in contact with the intestines.
With the exception of this casual puncture I maintain the
_post-mortem_ was skilfully performed.”—_Letter to Lord
Campbell._ Appendix, p. xxiv.

[49] The extract from Orfila is: “In a dog who for four entire
months had taken no emetic, having taken three grammes in ten
days (that is, about forty-five grains), but had not taken any
for four months, the metal was found accumulated in the bones;
the liver also contained a great deal, and the other tissues
but little.”

[50] The letter referred mainly to the case of the prisoner’s
wife. Mr. Serjeant Shee wished only the concluding paragraph to
he read, but the Attorney-General insisted on the whole. It was
dated only Jan., published in the _Lancet_ of February 2, was
headed “_Audi alteram partem_,” and was as follows:—

“SIR,—I have great pleasure in replying to the inquiries
in your leading article of January 19. (1) I stated that I
had never known antimonial powder, when given in medicinal
doses (_i.e._, from five to eight grains a dose) to produce
vomiting or purging. I am aware that experience differs on
this point—that some have found the substance inert, and
others very active. From some recent experiments on antimonial
preparations, I think it not unlikely that the powder sometimes
contains arseniate of lime. Dr. Pereira mentions that in
the case of a dose of half a teaspoonful it on one occasion
produced violent vomiting, purging, and sweating; while in
still larger doses (120 grains to a dose), prescribed by Dr.
Elliotson, it occasioned in some instances only nausea. I
have never met with any case in which serious symptoms could
be referred to its operation; and in the case of Ann Palmer
(the wife) this medical preparation would not account for the
antimony found in her body. (2) My statement as to the cause
of death was that the deceased died from the effects of tartar
emetic, and from no other cause; that is the opinion which Dr.
Rees and myself formed from the result of our examination, and
from the description under which the deceased laboured during
the eight days before her death. It is an opinion now equally
shared by the two medical attendants of the deceased. We are
quite prepared to maintain this at the trial.” The letter then
went on to describe the state of Ann Palmer’s body, though not
exhumed until eighteen months after death, and contrasted it
with that of the brother, and concluded with the passage given
in the text. Its effect could not be but prejudicial to the
prisoner.

[51] In this case, stated by Dr. Christison, the patient had
been affected with some complaint for four weeks, and began to
take strychnia; in three hours there was stupor and loss of
speech, and at length violent tetanic convulsions, and death in
three hours and three-quarters.

[52] Probably a mistake of the reporter, as I cannot find any
clue to the meaning of this word.—C. G. S.

[53] An instance of the indestructibility of strychnia was
communicated by Mr. F. Crace Calvert, F.C.S., to the London
journals subsequently to the trial. In 1849 several hounds
of a pack in Cheshire were poisoned and one brought to his
laboratory, from which, by the usual process, strychnia
was obtained. “As the master of the hounds attached great
importance to the case, he requested me,” writes Mr. Calvert,
“to obtain a sufficient amount of poison from the stomachs of
some other of the dead dogs, that I might not only be convinced
of the presence of the poison, but might also bring some of
the extracted strychnia into court. To enable me to do so,
several dogs were disinterred and brought to my laboratory,
and the space of time from the date of death to that when I
submitted them to analysis was at least three weeks, and I
still perfectly succeeded in extracting strychnia from their
stomachs and exhibiting it in the state of crystallised
hydrochlorate.”—_Appendix to Letter to Lord Campbell_, p.
xxix. Another correspondent to the _Times_ called attention to
the practice in Mexico of killing a worn-out mule with _nux
vomica_, leaving its carcase to be eaten by the wolves, which
are thus killed, and that the Turkey buzzards who feed on the
dead wolves also die of the poison.—_Ib._ p. xxv.

[54] See Chapter V.

[55] An error. See Chapter V.

[56] The table of cases of poisoning by strychnia, with their
symptoms and results of the _post-mortem_, given by Mr. Woodman
and Dr. Tidy, shows that the state of the heart varies. In
six cases it was contracted and empty, in some others the
right side only was empty, and in one both sides were filled
with blood.—_Handy Book of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology._
London. 1877.

[57] In a letter to the _Times_ of June 4, Mr. Herapath says:
“I learnt on my return here (Bristol) that Mr. Yates had
visited Bristol with an anonymous letter in his hand (since
acknowledged to have been written by the magistrates’ clerk,
Keynsham), and questioned several gentlemen whom I am in the
habit of meeting, as to whether they heard me say ‘that I had
no doubt strychnia was in Cook’s body, but that Dr. Taylor
could not find it,’ and ‘that a word from me would hang the
man.’ They all said they had heard me speak of the case, but
not in such terms. The mayor said that ‘he could not say
the exact terms, but the impression on his mind was, that I
thought strychnia was there, but that Dr. Taylor could not find
it.’”—_Letter to Lord Campbell_, Appendix, p. xxxi.

[58] “The controversy,” as to the non-discovery of strychnia
by Dr. Taylor, says Mr. Justice Stephen, “was foreign to the
merits of the case, inasmuch as the evidence given for the
prisoner tended to prove, not that there was no strychnia in
Cook’s body, but that Dr. Taylor ought to have found it if it
was there. In other words it was relevant, not so much to the
guilt or innocence of the prisoner, as to whether Mr. Herapath
and Dr. Nunneley were better analytical chemists than Dr.
Taylor. The evidence could not be even considered relevant to
the shaking of Dr. Taylor’s credit, for no part of the case
rested on his evidence except the discovery of the antimony,
as to which he was corroborated by Mr. Brande, and not
contradicted by the prisoner’s witnesses.” (One does not see
how this could have been accomplished, as they were not present
at the analysis.) “His opinion as to the nature of Cook’s
symptoms was shared by many other medical witnesses of the
highest eminence, whose credit was altogether unimpeached. The
prisoner’s counsel was placed in a curious difficulty by this
state of the question. They had to attack, and did attack Dr.
Taylor’s credit vigorously, for the purpose of rebutting his
conclusion that Cook might have been poisoned by strychnia: yet
they had to maintain his credit as a skilful analyst. For if
they destroyed it, the fact that he did not discover strychnia
went for nothing. This dilemma was fatal. To admit his skill
was to admit their client’s guilt; to deny it, was to destroy
the value of nearly all their own evidence. The only possible
way was to admit his skill and deny his good faith; but this
too was useless for the reason just assigned.”—_History of
Criminal Law in England._ Vol. III., 418.

[59] Roberts, Theory and Practice of Medicine, 1877, Vol. II.,
23, gives the following symptoms of angina pectoris:—“Abrupt
suddenness—intense præcordial pain—oppression and constriction
of the chest—suffocation, no cyanosis—tenderness of chest
rare—face pale, sweat—expression of intense anxiety—pulse
mostly feeble, flickering occasionally—vomiting and eructation.
Conscious at first, but, if prolonged, may be syncope.
Spasmodic movements, and even general convulsions may be
observed. Usually several brief paroxysms with intermissions.
Tendency to rave under slight exciting causes.” Dr. Bristow,
Theory and Practice of Medicine, agrees with this, and adds,
“After death various lesions—most important _the calcification
of the coronary vessels_—fatty and other degenerations of
the muscular tissue of the heart. In other cases the heart
perfectly healthy.”

[60] In the _Appendix_, p. xxi., to the _letter to Lord
Campbell_, is a letter from a Mr. Lacy, a hatter of Nottingham,
dated June 2, to the _Morning News_, giving a very unfavourable
account of the earlier years of this witness. He appears to
have got out of the way after the trial, and to have evaded the
search made for him by the prisoner’s friends.

[61] In _cross-examination_, after admitting that he attested
the proposal to the _Prince of Wales_ office for £13,000 on
Walter Palmer’s life, and saying that he did not recollect
attesting another proposal on the same life to the _Universal_,
the proposal to that office was put into his hand, and he was
asked if the “Jeremiah Smith” attesting it was his signature.
“It is very like my signature,” he said, “but I have a doubt
of it.” (After a pause) “I believe it is not my handwriting; I
swear it is not. I think it a very good imitation. I did not
receive the document from Pratt; I might from W. Palmer. I
don’t recollect.” (After some hesitation) “No doubt he did give
it to me. I got it before it was signed.”

_Attorney-General._—“Do you now say it is not your signature?”

_Witness._—“I do.” (He then admitted getting appointed agent to
the Midland County office in order to get a policy for £10,000
on Bate’s life.)

_Attorney-General._—“I will refresh your memory with regard to
these proposals. Look at that, and tell me whether it is your
handwriting?”

_Witness._—“Yes.”

_Attorney-General._—“Now, refreshing your memory with that
document, were you applied to in December, 1854, to attest a
proposal of Walter Palmer to the _Solicitors’ and General_
office for £13,000?”

_Witness._—“That is my signature, certainly.”

_Attorney-General_ repeats the question.

_Witness._—“I don’t recollect.”

_Attorney-General._—“What, with your signature staring you in
the face?”

_Witness._—“I might have been a witness to it. I am speaking
from memory.”

_Attorney-General._—“Have you any doubt, after looking at that
document?”

_Witness._—“I have no doubt.”

_Attorney-General._—“At last we have got at it from you. Now
look to that document, and see if another month afterwards—in
January, 1855—you were asked to attest another proposal for
£13,000 to the _Prince of Wales_ office?”

_Witness_ (hesitating).—“That is my signature. (A pause.)
Perhaps if I saw the paper I could answer.”

_Attorney-General._—“There is the paper.”

_Witness_ (after a pause).—“I might have signed it in blank. I
have some doubt whether I did not sign some of these in blank.
The body of the papers is in the handwriting of William Palmer.”

_Attorney-General._—“Upon your oath, don’t you believe that
William Palmer applied to you to attest the proposal on his
brother’s life for £13,000?”

_Witness._—“He did apply to me.”

_Attorney-General._—“Was it not to attest the proposal for
£13,000 on his brother’s life?” _Witness._—“One of them was for
£13,000. I don’t think I was present when Walter Palmer signed
the assignment. I believe Jeremiah Smith’s (another witness of
that name) handwriting is very like mine.”

After much fencing with the question, the witness saying he
might or he might not have attested Walter Palmer’s signature
to a deed of assignment, the _Attorney-General_ put a cheque
for £5 into the witness’s hand, and asked him if it was William
Palmer’s signature to it.

_Answer._—“It is.”

_Question._—“Did you take that piece of paper to the bank and
get £5 for it, and that for attesting the signature of Walter
Palmer to the deed of assignment?”

_Answer._—“I may have got the £5 at the bank; but upon my
honour I do not know what for. (Laughter.) Cook, with reference
to the £200 bill, gave Palmer £10 for the accommodation, and he
took the money to Shrewsbury races. I cannot say who saw me on
the Monday night when I went up to Cook’s room at the ‘Talbot
Arms.’ I did not notice. I believe that either the chambermaid,
the waitress, or the cook saw me go into the hotel. I don’t
know who drove the fly to Stafford.”

This witness was also severely cross-examined as to his
relations with Mrs. Palmer, replying with the same caution as
to their impropriety, and could not get further than “that
there ought not to be any truth” in the imputation.

Mr. Justice Stephen, who was present at the trial, gives the
following graphic sketch of the demeanour of this witness:—“No
abbreviation can give the effect of this cross-examination. The
witness’s efforts to gain time, and his distress as the various
answers were extorted from him by degrees, may be faintly
traced in the report. His face was covered with sweat, and the
papers put into his hands shook and rattled.”—_Hist. Criminal
Law of England._ Vol. III., p. 399, note. “And yet, after
all,” as the learned judge adds, “he was right as to the time
according to the inspector at Euston. If Smith spoke the truth,
Newton could not have seen Palmer at all that night, and Mills,
if at all, must have seen him in Smith’s company. Mills never
mentioned Smith” (and was never asked by the defence if he came
with Palmer), “and Smith would not swear that she or anyone
else had seen him at the ‘Talbot’ that night.”

[62] Smith (not Jeremiah, subsequently examined, pp. 185-6),
when called for the defence, said that he sent the soup to Cook
by Rowley, but not to Palmer’s on the way.

[63] Palmer’s brother, in the letter to Lord Campbell, states
that Sanders, the trainer, if called (who had been examined
before the coroner), could have proved that Cook excused his
not giving him more than £10 when he came to see him, on the
plea “_that he had given all his money to Palmer to take with
him to London to settle his affairs_,” and that he was in
court at the trial, and when not called by the prosecution,
was sent out of the way to prevent his being called for the
defence.—_Letter to Lord Campbell_, pp. 18, 19.

He was called on his subpœna at the close of the evidence
for the defence (tenth day), and when he did not answer, the
Attorney-General said, “I should be deeply grieved if it could
be possibly thought that the absence of any witness could in
any way prejudice the prisoner’s case, and if my learned friend
makes any application on that ground it shall not be resisted
by me.” _No application was made._

[64] It was an acknowledgment that certain bills, of which the
dates and amounts were set out, were all for Cook’s benefit,
and signed either J.P. or I.P. Cook. Cheshire was under
Palmer’s influence, and a few days after opened Dr. Taylor’s
letter to Mr. Gardner with the account of the results of the
analytical examination, and disclosed them to Palmer, for which
he was prosecuted and punished.

[65] Whilst Palmer was in Stafford jail, inquests were held on
the bodies of his wife and his brother Walter. In the first
case there was no manner of doubt that she had been gradually
dosed to death by antimony. In that of the brother, the
analysis failed to detect any poison, a fact probably accounted
for by the length of time that had elapsed since the death and
the action of the lead coffin, if prussic acid was the poison
used. In both cases, however, verdicts of wilful murder against
Palmer were returned. On the 21st of January Palmer was brought
up from jail as a witness in an action on one of the £2000
bills purported to be signed by his mother, the signature of
which was denied by her; clerks in banks and others who knew
her handwriting well also agreeing that it was a forgery. At
last Palmer was produced in custody. He entered in a perfectly
cool and collected manner, nodded familiarly to his friends in
the crowded court, and gave the following evidence in a low,
yet firm and distinct voice, without a sign of trepidation:—

_Mr. Edwin James_ (putting the disputed bill into his
hand).—“Is the signature of William Palmer, as drawer of this
bill, in your handwriting?”

_Palmer._—“Yes.”

_Mr. James._—“And did you apply to Mr. Padwick to advance you
money on it?”

_Palmer._—“I did.”

_Mr. James._—“Who wrote Sarah Palmer’s acceptance on it?”

_Palmer._—“Anne Palmer.”

_Question._—“Who is she?”

_Palmer._—“She is dead.”

_Question_.—“Do you mean your wife?”

_Palmer._—“Yes.”

_Question._—“Did you see her write it?”

_Palmer._—“Yes.”

The action was, of course, at once abandoned, and no further
proceedings taken on the other bills bearing the mother’s name.

[66] See Lord Campbell’s correction of this.—_Judge’s charge,
post._

[67] _Ante_, pp. 185 and 186, note.

[68] See the suggestion of Dr. Guy, that the death was probably
due to morphia, and the remarks thereon in Chapter V., _post_.

[69] On this point, which was also put very strongly by Lord
Campbell in his charge, the prisoner’s brother, in his letter
to that judge, accuses the prosecution of cunningly keeping
back a witness of the name of Cockayne, who had been examined
before the coroner and whose deposition was before the Court,
who would have explained the use for which the strychnia was
bought. “Had he been, as he ought to have been called, he
would have proved that he kept a gun loaded in the stable, by
order of my brother, to shoot the dogs that worried his brood
mares, and that he also threatened to poison them, and that
the strychnia was purchased for that object, and that he had
missed dogs since then, which had been in the habit of prowling
about the pastures and hunting the mares.” He also accounts
for the non-production of poisoned dogs, by the “medical fact
that they go away to die in secret, concealed and quiet places,
where they die undiscovered, and would be mortally attacked in
so short a time that they could not get to their own home.” He
further accuses them of sending this witness, and Sanders the
trainer, who would have proved that Cook told him he had given
Palmer all his money, out of the way, so that the prisoner’s
solicitor could not call them for the defence.—_Letter to Lord
Campbell_, pp. 17, 19. But see _ante_, p. 188, note.

[70] See _ante_, p. 216, note, on the evidence of a witness,
Cockayne, who was called before the coroner.

[71] The prisoner’s brother, on the contrary, says that he
distinctly, in a most solemn interview, declared his “perfect
guiltlessness of blood.” The same writer unfortunately lessens
the value of his other statements by a coarse attack on Lord
Campbell as a worthy successor of Jeffries, and imputes to him
and Baron Alderson a deliberate intention to force the jury
to a conviction. As I had not the advantage of being present
at the trial, I can only say nothing of this appears in any
of the reports of the trial which I have collated, and whilst
on the contrary we now have the evidence of an experienced
criminal lawyer, who saw and heard all. Still, however, remains
the great difficulty that strychnia, as every analytical
chemist will testify, ought to have been found, if it had been
given, though the failure to discover it does not conclusively
negative the probability of it having been administered. Dr.
Guy has suggested that morphia might have been the cause,
introduced into the pills, a point of which would seem to be
made in Serjeant Shee’s speech, and which would account for
Palmer’s statement that Cook was not killed by strychnia, and
with his wish for a further examination of the body by Mr.
Herapath.—_Hist. of Crim. Law of England._ Vol. III., pp.
423-4. See on this point Chapter V.

[72] For the report of this trial I have relied on the
apparently verbatim report in the _Times_ (probably from the
pen of the late Mr. Campbell Forster), collated with that
in the Annual Register of 1856, and with the Summary by Mr.
Justice Stephen based on the notes of the presiding judge.

[73] Mrs. Mary Wood. Mr. Overend objected to this witness being
asked as to her opinion of Dove’s state of mind, on the ground
that she was not a skilled witness. The objection was allowed
by Mr. Baron Bramwell, but on the suggestion of the judge, not
persevered in by the prosecution.

[74] Charles Harrison.

[75] These strong expressions were not supported by any
specific proof worth reporting. Mr. H. admitted he used to flog
him, but added, “I flogged him till I was satisfied there was
a want of reason, but not after.” He admitted that he flogged
him slightly (perhaps a stroke or two) the day before he
left.—_Stephens’ Summary_. Vol. III., p. 430.

[76] He used to point loaded fire-arms at his servants, and
threaten to shoot unoffending persons: tell strange stories of
being followed by robbers: wander about his fields without an
object.

[77] Evidence of his nurse, Mrs. Wood, Mr. Highley, Mr. C.
Harrison, Mr. Lord, and the servants at Whitwell Farm (James
Shaw, Mary Peek, Robert and William Tomlinson, Emma Spence,
and Emma and Fanny Wilson) called for the defence, and
cross-examination of Elizabeth Fisher, who had been his servant
at Normanton and Leeds, Mrs. Thornhill, charwoman, generally
employed at the house at Leeds, and Mary Hicks.

[78] In his second confession he fixes the date of this as
Sunday, February 24, and that he took then about ten grains.

[79] On the Monday he wrote the following letter to his
mother:—“My dear Mother,—I am sorry to tell you that my wife
is very ill indeed. She came down as I thought this morning
much better, took a nice breakfast for her, and then she
commenced to play (the piano). After that she told Mrs. Fisher
(who is with us) that she would help her to make the beds,
but instead of that she was seized in her limbs and could not
stand, neither could she take anything. I went to Mr. Morley,
and I am sure I did not expect to see her alive when I came
back; but thank God she was alive, and that was all; she was
entirely prostrated. Mother has been to see her. If you would
like to see her you had better come by London for three and
sixpence. Harriet would like to see her, but she thinks of the
expense. My dear wife’s love to you and all at home, and accept
the same from your affectionate son, WILLIAM DOVE. P.S.—I hope
Mary will not make fun of this small bit of paper; it would
be over-heavy if I had not torn it off.” [This was one of
the letters referred to by Baron Bramwell as disproof of his
imputed idiotcy.]

[80] This witness and Mr. Morley, the surgeon, were called in
Palmer’s trial to state the symptoms observed in the course of
Mrs. Dove’s illness and death, without mentioning her name,
and Mr. Morley also related the results of the analytical
examination of her body in conjunction with Mr. Nunneley, who
was called on behalf of Palmer, and maintained that if it had
been given, strychnia must have been found by analysis six days
after death (pp. 124-8).

[81] “He told me,” said Harrison, “that he was afflicted
by devils, but that I had more power over them, and could
send them to frighten his wife from her bed to sleep with
him—believed they were in his house, and attributed thunder
and lightning to them. I attributed this to _delirium
tremens_. Told me he had sold his soul to the devil. I did
not encourage him to think I could rule devils; it was his
own fancy. I told him I would cast his nativity, but when I
saw the state of his mind I did not finish it.”—_Harrison’s
evidence—cross-examination._ But see Dove’s account of Harrison
in his confession, _post_.

[82] In this case Baron Alderson also decided that if the
witnesses were called by the defence, the person calling them
made them his own witnesses, 2 C. & K. p. 520. Baron Parke,
Justice Cresswell, and Lord Campbell agreed with this. See _R._
v. _Cassidy_, F. &. F. p. 79.

[83] To the schoolmaster at Abeford—conjuring tricks!

[84] Should not this be “at _some_ times.”

[85] “That would be _moral_ insanity.”—_Judge’s Notes—Stephen._

[86] I cannot find in the reports to what particular act this
question refers.

[87] “The suggestion of Dr. Williams,” says Judge Stephen,
“that Dove had allowed his mind to dwell on his wife’s death
till at last he became the victim of an uncontrollable
propensity to kill her, if correct, would not prove that his
act was not voluntary. It is setting and keeping the mind in
motion towards an object plainly conceived that constitutes the
mental part of an act. Every act becomes irrevocable before it
is consummated. If a man, for example, strikes another, he may
repent while his arm is falling; but there is a point at which
he can no more deprive his arm of the impetus with which he has
animated it, than he can divert from its course a bullet which
has been fired from a rifle. Suppose he deals with his mind in
this manner at an earlier stage of the proceeding, and so fills
himself with a passionate, intense longing for the forbidden
object or result, that he becomes, as it were, a mere machine
in his own hands. Is not the case precisely similar, and does
not the action continue to be voluntary and wilful, although
the act of volition which made it irrevocable preceded its
completion by a longer interval than usual?

“It must, however, be remembered, that the proof that
Dove’s propensity was uncontrollable was very defective. An
uncontrollable propensity, which accidental difficulties or the
fear of detection constantly control and divert for a time, is
an inconceivable state of mind. Is there the smallest reason
to suppose that, if Mrs. Dove had met with a fatal accident,
and had been lying in bed dying before her husband gave her
any poison, his uncontrollable propensity to kill her would
have induced him to give her poison nevertheless? If not, the
propensity was like any other wicked feeling. It was certainly
uncontrolled, and it may probably have been strong, but that is
different to uncontrollable.”—_History of the Criminal Law of
England_, by Mr. Justice Stephen. Vol. III., p. 435-6.

[88] Baron Bramwell especially called attention to the letter
of the prisoner to his mother of the 25th of February,
describing his wife’s first attack (see _ante_, note p. 237),
and that to the Witchman, Harrison, asking him, in replying
about his nativity, to “write in milk, or lemon, or anything
else that would not show till put to the fire.”

[89] This was proved at the trial by the Fishers.

[90] Mr. Morley’s pupil had shown it to him; proved at the
trial.

[91] That would be February the 23rd, when Fisher’s mother come
to Dove’s to take her daughter’s place, and the first attack
was when Mrs. Dove fell whilst helping to make the beds on
the following Monday. Throughout his statement Dove is very
confused as to dates. The tasting by Mrs. Witham was several
days after this.

[92] Mrs. Witham states (see her evidence) that she gave her
medicine at 3.30 P.M., and she seemed better for it.

[93] In his comments on this extraordinary case, Mr. Justice
Stephen—after noting Dove’s predisposition to madness in his
infancy; the fact that the symptoms of the disease exhibited
themselves at frequent intervals, yet never reached such a
pitch as to induce his friends to treat him as a madman; the
prurience with which he dwelt on the prospect of his wife’s
death; the forming of the design of putting her to death, and
the deliberate contrivance and precaution with which he carried
it out—says:—“In this state of things can he be said to have
known, in the wider sense of the words, that his act was wrong?
He obviously knew that it was wrong in the sense that people
generally consider it so; but was he capable of thinking,
like an ordinary man, of the reasons why murder is wrong, and
of applying these reasons to his conduct? There was evidence
both ways. His irrationality, however, was occasional, and he
appears to have acted rationally enough as a rule, and to have
transacted all the common affairs of life. Did, then, this act
belong to the rational or irrational part of his conduct? Every
circumstance connected with it referred it to the former. It
was a continued series of deliberate and repeated attempts,
fully completed at last.”—_History of the Criminal Law._ Vol.
III., pp. 435-6.

[94] This is probably an error of the reporter—rigid(?)

[95] The pills were produced at the inquest, and seen there by
Dr. Lees, but not submitted for analysis, either to him or Dr.
Bernays.

[96] In this the presence of strychnia was very distinct.

[97] The important evidence of this witness is given very
briefly on the report of the trial. From the notes of the
analyses made at the time in the laboratory I have been enabled
to give it in greater detail.

[98] Morphia gives with nitric acid a deep orange unchanged by
stannous chloride.

[99] See also case of Agnes Sennett, p. 121.

[100] A striking case of cure by chloroform is given in the
_London Med. Gazette_ for 1850, p. 187, quoted from the _Boston
Med. Journal_, July, 1850.

[101] Palmer administered to Cook so few pills, that unless
these consisted of solid morphia, which is impossible, they
could not much affect the above conclusion.

[102] The words “causing to be administered” were struck out on
the objection of Mr. Young that “they were not covered by the
major part of the indictment, and not material in any way.”

[103] This was distinctly denied by Miss Giubilei, who had been
a pupil teacher at the school.

[104] Mr. Minnoch, on the contrary, said, “She accepted me on
the 28th of January, and then she and I arranged it on the 12th
of March. From the 28th of January to the end of March there
was nothing to suggest to my mind a doubt as to the engagement
continuing. I had no idea she was engaged to any other. _When
the marriage was fixed in March it was to take place on the
18th of June._”

[105] “But surely,” said the Lord Justice Clerk, “had such been
the case, she would never have wished to be ‘clasped to the
heart,’ as she expresses it in her letter, of a man whom she
had to inform that she was engaged to another, and that all
relations must be broken off between them.”

[106] On this latter matter and the identification of the
envelopes for the respective letters much time was occupied.
In his charge the Lord Justice Clark said, that “though the
procedure adopted had been loose and slovenly, it did not
appear that the panel had suffered any prejudice from the
want of any of them. As to each letter being in its proper
envelope, in the first part of the correspondence, it did not
much signify whether such were the case; because there was no
doubt that those passionate letters written by the prisoner,
declaring such strong love for L’Angelier, and some of them
expressed in very licentious terms, were written by her at some
time or other.”

[107] “Arsenious oil applied to scalp to cure vermin caused
death on 10th day.”—Taylor, I., 254. “A solution to cure
itch caused death in two years.” _Cours de Med._, Leq.,
p. 121. “Arsenious acid and gum to the head, caused death
in 36 hours.”—_American Journal of Med. Science_, July,
1851. “When used as a face powder it caused poisoning
symptoms.”—Christison, p. 329. “Arsenical soap applied to
scrotum and axillæ produced violent pains in stomach, vomiting,
purging, but patient recovered in fourteen days.”—_Med. Times
and Gazette_, December 10, 1853. And see other similar cases in
list in “Woodman and Tidy.”

[108] See Chapter VII.

[109] Referring to the evidence of Dr. Penny, the Dean, in his
speech for the defence, said: “Here comes again another point
on which the evidence for the Crown is very defective, to say
the least of it. They knew very well when they were examining
the contents of this poor man’s stomach, and his intestines
generally, what was the arsenic that the prisoner had bought.
They knew from her own candid statement that she bought it
partly at _Murdoch’s_ and partly at _Currie’s_. If that arsenic
had been swallowed by the deceased, the colouring-matter could
have been detected in the stomach—there was one means of
connecting the prisoner with this poison which was found in
L’Angelier’s stomach, and a very obvious means. It may be very
well for Professor Penny and Dr. Christison to say now that
their attention was not directed to this matter. Whose fault
was this?—the whole thing was in the hand of the authorities.
They kept it to themselves—they dealt with it exclusively—and
they present this lame and impotent conclusion.”

[110] 14 Vict. c. 13, sec. 3: “Before the sale, the arsenic
shall be mixed with soot or indigo in the proportion of one
ounce of soot or half an ounce of indigo, at least, to one
pound of arsenic, except in cases where, according to the
representation of the purchaser, such mixture would render it
unfit for his purpose, when it may be sold in quantities of not
less than ten pounds.”

[111] In the _Edinburgh Monthly Journal_ of Dec., 1857,
Professor Christison gives the details of a case—not of
suicide—in which 90 to 100 grains were found, and the party
lived seven hours. In the case of _R._ v. _Dodds_, Lincoln
Assizes, December, 1860, 150 grains were found; in that of
_R._ v. _Hewitt_, or _Holt_, Chester Winter Assizes, 1863,
154 grains were found eleven weeks after death. Professor
Christison’s letter will be found in Appendix B., p. 358.

[112] In _Woodman and Tidy_ the following Table, showing the
solubility of arsenic, is given:—

┌────────────────────────────────┬───────────┬───────────┬───────────┐
│ │Transparent│ Opaque │Crystalline│
│ │ Form. │ Form. │ Acid. │
├────────────────────────────────┼───────────┼───────────┼───────────┤
│(1) 1,000 grains of distilled │ │ │ │
│ cold water, after standing │ 1·74 gr. │ 1·16 gr. │ 2·0 gr. │
│ 24 hours─dissolved │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│(2) 1,000 grains of boiling │ │ │ │
│ water, poured on the acid, │ 10·12 gr. │ 5·4 gr. │ 15·0 gr. │
│ and allowedto stand─24 │ │ │ │
│ hours─dissolved │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│(3) 1,000 grains of water, │ │ │ │
│ boiled for one hour, the │ │ │ │
│ quantity being kept uniform │ │ │ │
│ by the addition of boiling │ 64·5 gr. │ 76·5 gr. │ 87·0 gr. │
│ water from time to time, │ │ │ │
│ and filtered │ │ │ │
│ immediately─dissolved │ │ │ │
└────────────────────────────────┴───────────┴───────────┴───────────┘

[113] As proof that L’Angelier’s first illness could not have
been on the night of the 19th and morning of the 20th, the
Dean referred to the fact that “on the 21st he ordered of his
butcher the largest piece of beef to be found in his pass-book
(7lbs.), and had fresh herrings in such a quantity as to alarm
his landlady, and a still more alarming quantity and variety
of vegetables.” “There’s a dinner for a sick person!” He also
said, “I give my learned friend the option of being impaled
on one of the horns of the dilemma—I care not which. He was
ill from arsenical poisoning on the morning of the 20th, or he
was not. If he was, he received arsenic from other hands than
the prisoner’s. If he was not, the foundation of the case was
shaken.”

[114] “What is the evidence of Mrs. Jenkins on this point?
She says he was in his usual condition on the 21st, when he
made that celebrated dinner, and she thought he was making
himself ill, and on that 21st he told her he should not leave
the house all the following day—the Sunday. He had, therefore,
I maintain, no appointment to keep, else he would never have
made that statement. On the 22nd Mrs. Jenkins says she had no
recollection of his going out. When he did go out at night, and
came in late, what was his habit? Mrs. Jenkins says he never
got into the house on those occasions except in one of two
ways—either he asked her for a check key, and got one, or Thuau
opened the door for him. He did not ask for a key that night,
and Thuau says he certainly did not let him in.”—_Speech of the
Dean of Faculty for the defence._