Chapter VIII: Part 8

HENRY AUGUSTUS DEANE, examined by Mr. JAMES: I am an attorney, and a member of the firm of Chubb, Deane, and Chubb, Gray’s-inn. I attended the inquest on the body of Walter Palmer, but not that on the body of Cook. On the 24th of December I saw Palmer’s papers at Stafford. They were in the custody of the last witness. The papers were in a black bag, which was unsealed in my presence. Bergen, Mr. Hatton, the chief-constable, and myself were the persons present. I carefully examined all the papers, for the purpose of selecting those which it was necessary should be kept. I returned a considerable number of immaterial papers to George Palmer. Among the papers I found no check upon Messrs. Weatherby, purporting to be signed by the deceased Cook, nor any paper like that which the witness Cheshire stated that Palmer asked him to attest--an acknowledgment purporting to be signed by Cook that bills to the amount of some thousands had been accepted by Palmer for Cook’s benefit. I saw George Palmer, the solicitor, after the papers which I had selected were returned to him.

Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant SHEE: I know Field, the detective officer. We were solicitors to the Prince of Wales Insurance-office. It was in our employment that Field went to Rugeley. He was at Rugeley only a part of one day. He was at Stafford for three or four days altogether. He did not see the prisoner Palmer. His visit had been preceded by that of another officer, named Simpson. Simpson went from Stafford to Rugeley with myself and Field. He told me he had seen Palmer. I think he went into Staffordshire in the first week in October.

Re-examined by Mr. JAMES.--Field was sent down to make inquiries as to the habits of life of Mr. Walter Palmer, of whose death the office had shortly before received notice, and also to inquire into the circumstances of a person named Bates, with reference to a proposal for an insurance of £25,000 upon his life.

JOHN ESPIN, examined by MR. JAMES.--I am a solicitor practising in Davies-street, Berkeley-square. I am solicitor to Mr. Padwick. I produce a bill for £2,000 which was placed in my hands to enforce payment from the prisoner.

MR. STRAWBRIDGE, manager of the bank at Rugeley, was called and proved that the drawing and endorsement of this bill--a bill at three months for £2,000, drawn by William Palmer, and purporting to be accepted by Sarah Palmer--were in the handwriting of the prisoner, and that the acceptance was not in that of his mother.

JOHN ESPIN continued.--This bill would be due on the 6th of October, 1854. £1,000 had been paid off it. Judgment was signed on the 12th of December, and I had then had the bill only a day or two. The execution was issued on the 12th of December. I have here a letter from William Palmer addressed to Mr. Padwick on the 12th of November, and enclosing a cheque, and requesting that it should not be presented until the 28th of November. I produce the cheque for £1,000 enclosed in this letter of the 12th. The cheque is dated the 28th. That cheque was not paid. I produce another cheque, dated the 8th of December, 1855, payable to Mr. Padwick or bearer, for the sum of £600. [Mr. Strawbridge proved that the signature to this cheque was in the handwriting of the prisoner.] That was not paid. It was received a few days after the check for £1,000 was dishonoured. £1,000 still remained due. We issued a ca. sa. against the prisoner’s person. Upon that Palmer was arrested.

Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant SHEE.--I believe all the documents were placed in my hands together about the 12th of December.

WILLIAM BAMFORD, examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am a surgeon and apothecary at Rugeley, in Staffordshire. I first saw the deceased, John Parsons Cook, on Saturday, the 17th of November. Palmer, the prisoner, asked me to visit him. Palmer said that Cook had been dining with him the day before, and had taken too much champagne. I went with Palmer to see Cook. I asked if he had taken too much wine the day before, and he assured me that he took but two glasses. I found no appearance of bile about Cook, but there was constant vomiting. I prescribed for him a saline effervescing draught, and a six-ounce mixture. I never saw Cook take any of the pills which I had prescribed. After I had prepared the pills on the Monday evening I took them to the Talbot Arms, and gave them to a servant maid, who took them upstairs. On the Saturday, Sunday, and Monday, I prepared the same pills. I saw Palmer on the Tuesday morning. I was going to see Cook when he met me. I asked him if he had seen Cook the night before. He said that he saw him between nine and ten o’clock, and was with him for half an hour. He requested that I would not disturb Cook, and I went home without seeing him. Between twelve and one o’clock Palmer met me again. I was going to see Cook, and Palmer begged I would not go, because he was still and quiet, and he did not wish him to be disturbed. At seven o’clock in the evening Palmer came to my house, and requested me to go and see Cook again. I went and saw him. Having seen Cook, I left the room with Jones and Palmer. Palmer said he rather wished Cook to have his pills again, and that he would walk up with me for them. He did so, and stood by while I prepared them in my surgery. I had strychnia in a cupboard in my own private room. I put the pills in a box, and addressed it, “Night pills. John Parsons Cook, Esq.” I wrote that direction on all the four nights. On the Tuesday night Palmer requested that I would put on a direction. After that I did not again see Cook alive. Palmer took away the pills between seven and eight o’clock. I had wrapped the box up in paper, and had sealed it. There was no impression of a seal upon it. The direction was upon a separate paper, which I placed under the box, and between it and the outside paper. Nothing was written on the box or on the outside paper. It was as near as could be twenty minutes past twelve at midnight when I saw Cook dead. I understood he was alive when they came to me, and I could not have been more than five or ten minutes in going up. I found the body stretched out, resting on the heels and the back of the head, as straight as possible, and stiff. The arms were extended down each side of the body, and the hands were clinched. I filled up the certificate, and gave it as my opinion that he died from apoplexy. Palmer asked me to fill up the certificate. I had forms of certificates in my possession. When Palmer asked me to fill up the certificate I told him that, as Cook was his patient, it was his place to fill up the certificate. He said he had much rather I did it, and I did so. I was present at the _post-mortem_ examination. After it was over, Palmer said, “We ought not to have let that jar go.” That was all he said.

Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant SHEE: My house is about 200 yards from that of the prisoner.

THOMAS PRATT, examined by Mr. JAMES: I am a solicitor, and practise in Queen-street, Mayfair. I know the prisoner Palmer. My acquaintance with him commenced at the end of November, 1853. I obtained for him a loan of £1,000. That was repaid. In October, 1854. I was employed by him to make a claim for two policies upon the life of Ann Palmer. I received, upon the prisoner’s account, £5,000 from the Sun office, and £3,000 from the Norwich Union. The money was applied in payment of, I think, three bills, amounting to £3,500 or £4,000, which were due, and of loans obtained after I had made the claims upon the policies. There was £1,500 not so applied. That was paid to Palmer, or applied to other purposes under his direction. In April, 1855, Palmer applied to me for a loan of £2,000. He did not state the purpose for which he required the loan. I obtained it upon a bill for £2,000 drawn by himself, and purporting to be accepted by Sarah Palmer. On the 28th of November of that year there were eight bills held by clients of mine or by myself. [These bills were produced and read; the total amount for which they were drawn was £12,500.] Two bills, dated July 22 and July 24, for £2,000 each, were the only bills which were overdue in November, 1855. Two bills, for £500 and £1,000 were held over from month to month. [These were bills dated June 5 and August 2, 1854.] The interest was paid monthly. With two exceptions, these bills were discounted at the rate of 60 per cent. On the 9th of November the interest for holding over the two bills, dated in 1854, was due. I remember the death of Walter Palmer. That occurred in August, 1855. I was instructed by William Palmer to claim from the Prince of Wales insurance office £13,000 due upon a policy upon his life. The Sarah Palmer by whom these bills purport to be accepted is the mother of the prisoner. While holding these bills I from time to time addressed letters to her. I wrote to Palmer as follows:--

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

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

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

On the 2nd of October I wrote:--

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Ever since I saw you I have been fully engaged with Cook, and not
able to leave home. I am sorry to say, after all, he died this day.
So you had better write to Saunders; but, mind you, I must have
Polestar, if it can be so arranged; and should any one call upon
you to know what money or moneys Cook ever had from you, don’t
answer the question till I have seen you.”

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

On the 22nd of November I wrote to Palmer:

“I have your note and am greatly disappointed at the non-receipt of
the money as promised, and at the vague assurances as to any money.
I can understand ’tis true, that your being detained by the illness
of your friend has been the cause of not sending up the larger
amount, but the smaller sum you ought to have sent. If anything
unpleasant occurs you must thank yourself.

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

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

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

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

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

“(Strictly private and confidential.)

“My dear Sir,--Should any of Cook’s friends call upon you to know
what money Cook ever had from you, pray don’t answer that question
or any other about money matters until I have seen you.

“And oblige, yours faithfully,

“WILLIAM PALMER.”

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

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

On the 30th of August he again wrote:--

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

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

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

On the 9th of September he wrote:--

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: She was cross-examined upon that point.

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

Mr. Sergeant SHEE asked permission to put some further questions to Dr. Devonshire with regard to his having been pushed by Palmer during the _post-mortem_ examination.

Lord CAMPBELL: By all means.

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

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

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

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

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

SEVENTH DAY, MAY 21.

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

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

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

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

CHARLES WEATHERBY, examined by Mr. WELSBY, said: On the 21st of November I received a letter from Palmer, enclosing a cheque for £350. I produce that letter:--

“Rugeley, Nov. 20, 1855.

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

“Yours respectfully,

“WM. PALMER.”

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

“Nov. 23, 1855.

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

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

“Nov. 24, 1855.

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

“Yours, &c.

“WM. PALMER.”

“Messrs. Weatherby, 6, Old Burlington-street.”

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

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

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Was it signed J. P. Cook, or J. Parsons Cook?--I did not observe.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: That is the case for the prosecution.

THE DEFENCE.

(_Seventh Day Continued._)

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

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

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

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

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

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