



Produced by Chuck Greif and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images available at The Internet Archive)











                        THE MOST EXTRAORDINARY

                                 TRIAL

                                  OF

                            WILLIAM PALMER,

                                FOR THE

                          RUGELEY POISONINGS,

                       WHICH LASTED TWELVE DAYS.

                            [Illustration]

                                LONDON:
          W. M. CLARK, 16 & 17, WARWICK LANE, PATERNOSTER ROW
                     AND SOLD BY ALL BOOKSELLERS.




        COUNSEL FOR THE CROWN.


          The ATTORNEY-GENERAL,
          Mr. JAMES, Q.C.,
          Mr. BODKIN,
          Mr. WELSBY, and
          Mr. HUDDLESTON.


        COUNSEL FOR THE PRISONER.

          Mr. Serjeant SHEE,
          Mr. GROVE, Q.C.,
          Mr. GRAY, and
          Mr. KINNEALY.


        The following Gentlemen were sworn on

        THE JURY.

          THOMAS KNIGHT, of Leytonstone.
          RICHD. DUMBRELL, Fore Street.
          WM. MAVOR, Park Street.
          WM. NEWMAN, Coleshill Street.
          GEORGE MILLER, Duke Street, Grosvenor Square.
          GEORGE OAKSHOTT, Ham Lane, West Ham.
          CHARLES BATES, Borough Road.
          WM. ECCLESTONE, HAM LANE.
          SAMUEL MULLETT, Great Portland Street.
          JOHN OVER, Grosvenor Road, Pimlico.
          WM. NASH, Conduit Street.
          WM. FLETCHER, Fore Street.


The prisoner, WILLIAM PALMER, Surgeon, of Rugeley, aged 31, was indicted
for having at Rugeley, county of Stafford, on November 21st, 1855,
feloniously, wilfully, and with malice aforethought, committed murder on
the person of JOHN PARSONS COOK.




                                MEMOIR

                                  OF

                            WILLIAM PALMER.


William Palmer is a member of a wealthy family, and is thirty-one years
of age. He was educated for the medical profession, was a pupil at St.
Bartholemew’s Hospital, London, received the diploma of the Royal
College of Surgeons in 1846, and shortly afterwards settled at Rugeley,
his native place. He seems, however, to have paid more attention to the
“turf,” and what are commonly called sporting pursuits, than to his
profession, and to have confined his practice to his own family and
friends.

His name appears in the “London and Provincial Medical Directory” of
1851, and again in 1855, as that of one of the persons who had neglected
to inform the editor of that work of the nature of their qualifications.
He married, in 1847, Anne, the natural daughter of Col. William Brookes
and Mary Thornton, his housekeeper. Col. Brookes, who, after quitting
the East India service, took up his residence at Stafford, died in 1834,
leaving considerable property, and more than one natural child.

To Anne Thornton he bequeathed, by a will dated July 27, 1833, nine
houses at Stafford, besides land, and the interest of 20,000 sicca
rupees, for herself and her children, and appointed Dr. Edward Knight, a
physician of Stafford, and Mr. Dawson, her guardians and trustees. To
Mary Thornton, the mother of Anne, the colonel bequeathed certain
property, which was to pass to her daughter at the decease of the
mother. Mary Thornton departed this life--it is said, while a guest at
Mr. Palmer’s house,--in 1848 or 1849.

Now, although the will of Colonel Brookes would seem clear enough to
anyone who was ignorant of law, and although, in the present state of
the law, as we are informed, it would be sufficient, yet it was
discovered by the legal fraternity, some years since, that the language
conveying the bequest to Anne Thornton was not sufficiently forcible to
convey it to her absolutely, but only to give her a life interest in it,
insomuch as, at her decease, it was liable to be claimed by the
heir-at-law to Colonel Brookes.

Under these circumstances, there was nothing unnatural or unusual in the
idea that Palmer should insure his wife’s life, in order to protect
himself from the inevitable loss which must ensue in case of her
decease; and since her property consisted of seventeen acres of land,
valued at between £300 and £400 per acre, besides nine houses, and the
interest of the sicca rupees--probably altogether worth at least £400
per annum, upon which he had borrowed largely from his mother--there
could be no doubt of his having such an interest in his wife’s life as
would justify insurance.

Accordingly, in January, 1854, he insured her life for £3,000 in the
Norwich Union, and in March in the Sun for £5,000; there was also an
insurance in the Scottish Equitable for £5,000. Mrs. Palmer died on
September 29, 1854, leaving only one surviving child, a boy of seven
years; and, as if to justify the husband in effecting an insurance, an
action was brought within a month by Colonel Brookes’s heir-at-law, to
obtain possession of Mrs. Palmer’s property.

Palmer brought up the life policies on the Sun and Norwich Union on the
16th of October, 1854, and employed Mr. Pratt, the solicitor, to obtain
the money from the offices. Mr. Pratt, who seems to have acted with
entire _bona fides_, and the caution usual among lawyers, required to be
furnished with evidence of the husband’s pecuniary interest in his
wife’s life, took counsel’s opinion on every step, and obtained the
£8,000 from the offices on the 6th of February, 1855; strangely enough,
the £5,000 from the Scottish Equitable was paid through a banker unknown
to Pratt.

Great excitement prevailed in reference to the trial, and large bodies
of persons who could have no possible chance of admission crowded the
avenues of the court. Day after day notices have appeared in the papers,
that only those who had obtained tickets of admission from the Sheriffs
would be admitted; and the under-sheriffs very wisely adhered to that
determination. In consequence of their very excellent arrangements, the
Court was at no time inconveniently crowded. At ten o’clock the judges
appointed to try the case entered the Court, and took their seats on the
bench. They were Lord Campbell, the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen’s
Bench, Mr. Baron Alderson, and Mr. Justice Cresswell.




                        TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMER

                                  FOR

                        THE RUGELEY POISONINGS.




CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT, MAY 14, 1856.


The long-deferred trial of William Palmer, which, owing to the necessity
of passing a special act of Parliament to enable it to take place in
this court, has been delayed for a period of several months since the
finding of a true bill by the Grand Jury of Staffordshire, commenced
to-day at the Old Bailey; and, notwithstanding the interval which has
elapsed since this extraordinary case was first brought under the notice
of the public, the intense interest and excitement which it then
occasioned seem in no degree to have abated. Indeed, if the applications
for admission to the court which were made so soon as the trial was
appointed, and the eager endeavours of large crowds to gain an entrance
to-day, may be regarded as a criterion of the public anxiety upon the
progress and issue of the trial, the interest would seem to have
augmented rather than diminished.

At a very early hour every entrance to the court was besieged by persons
of respectable appearance, who were favoured with cards giving them a
right of entrance. Without such cards no admittance could on any
pretence be obtained, and even the fortunate holders of them found that
they had many difficulties to overcome, and many stern janitors to
encounter, before an entrance to the much-coveted precincts could be
obtained. On the whole, however, the arrangements of the Under-Sheriffs
Stone and Ross were excellent, and, although there may be individual
cases of complaint, as there always will be when delicate and important
functions have to be performed with firmness, it is but justice to
testify to the general completeness and propriety of the regulations
which the Sheriffs had laid down.

Among the distinguished persons who were present at the opening of the
Court were the Earl of Derby, Earl Grey, the Marquis of Anglesea, Lord
Lucan, Lord Denbigh, Prince Edward of Saxe Weimar, Lord W. Lennox, Lord
G. G. Lennox, and Lord H. Lennox. The Lord Advocate of Scotland sat by
the side of the Attorney-General during the trial.

At five minutes to ten o’clock the learned Judges, Lord Chief Justice
Campbell, Mr. Baron Alderson, and Mr. Justice Cresswell, accompanied by
the Lord Mayor, and Aldermen Sir G. Carroll, Humphrey, Sir R. W. Carden,
Finnis, Sir F. G. Moon, and Sidney, Mr. Sheriff Kennedy, Mr. Sheriff
Rose, Mr. Under-Sheriff Stone, and Mr. Under-Sheriff Rose, took their
seats on the bench.

The prisoner, William Palmer, was immediately placed in the dock; and to
the indictment which charged him with the wilful murder of John Parsons
Cook, who died at Rugeley upon the 21st of November last, he pleaded, in
a clear, low, but perfectly audible and distinct tone, “Not guilty.” The
prisoner is described in the calendar as “William Palmer, 31, surgeon,
of superior degree of instruction.” In appearance Palmer is much older,
and, although there are no marks of care about his face, there are the
set expression and rounded frame which belong to the man of forty or
forty-five. His countenance is clear and open, the forehead high, the
complexion ruddy, and the general impression which one would form from
his appearance would be rather favourable than otherwise, although his
features are of a common and somewhat mean cast. There is certainly
nothing to indicate to the ordinary observer the presence either of
ferocity or cunning, and one would expect to find in him more of the
boon companion than the subtle adversary. His manner was remarkably calm
and collected throughout the whole of the day. It was altogether devoid
of bravado, but was respectful and attentive, and was calculated to
create a favourable impression. He frequently conversed with Mr. Smith,
his professional adviser, and remained standing until the close of the
speech for the prosecution, when at his request his counsel asked that
he might be permitted to sit--an application which was at once acceded
to by Lord Campbell.

The counsel engaged in the case were:--The Attorney-General, Mr. E.
James, Q.C., Mr. Bodkin, Mr. Welsby, and Mr. Huddleston, for the Crown;
and Mr. Serjeant Shee, Mr. Grove, Q.C., Mr. Gray, and Mr. Kenealy, for
the prisoner.

A most respectable jury having been empanelled, and all the witnesses,
with the exception of the medical men, having been ordered out of court,


THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

proceeded, amid breathless silence, to open the case on the part of the
prosecution. He said: Gentlemen of the jury, the duty you are called
upon to discharge is the most solemn which a man can by possibility have
to perform--it is to sit in judgment and to decide an issue on which
depends the life of a fellow human being who stands charged with the
highest crime for which a man can be arraigned before a worldly
tribunal. I am sure that I need not ask your most anxious and earnest
attention to such a case; but there is one thing I feel it incumbent on
me to urge upon you. The peculiar circumstances of this case have given
it a profound and painful interest throughout the whole country. There
is scarcely a man, perhaps, who has not come to some conclusion on the
issue which you are now to decide. All the details have been seized on
with eager avidity, and there is, perhaps, no one who is not more or
less acquainted with those details. Standing here as a minister of
justice; with no interest and no desire save that justice shall be done
impartially, I feel it incumbent on me to warn you not to allow any
preconceived opinion to operate on your judgment this day. Your
duty--your bounden duty--is to try this case according to the evidence
which shall be brought before you, and according to that alone. You must
discard from your minds anything that you may have read or heard, or any
opinion that you may have formed. If the evidence shall satisfy you of
the prisoner’s guilt, you will discharge your duty to society, to your
consciences, and to the oaths which you have taken, by fearlessly
pronouncing your verdict accordingly; but if the evidence fail to
produce a reasonable conviction of guilt in your minds, God forbid that
the scale of justice should be inclined against the prisoner by anything
of prejudice or preconceived opinion. My duty, gentlemen, will be a
simple one. It will be to lay before you the facts on which the
prosecution is based, and in doing so I must ask for your most patient
attention. They are of a somewhat complicated character, and they range
over a considerable period of time, so that it will be necessary not
merely to look to circumstances which are immediately connected with the
accusation, but to go back to matters of an antecedent date. I may
safely say, however, that, in my conscience, I believe there is not a
fact to which I am about to ask your patient attention which has not an
immediate and most important bearing on this case. The prisoner at the
bar, William Palmer, was by profession a medical practitioner, and he
carried on that profession in the town of Rugeley, in Staffordshire, for
several years. In later years, however, he became addicted to turf
pursuits, which gradually drew off his attention and weaned him from his
profession. Within the last two or three years he made over his business
to a person named Thirlby, formerly his assistant, who now carries it
on. In the course of his pursuits connected with the turf, Palmer became
intimate with the man whose death forms the subject of this inquiry--Mr.
John Parsons Cook.

Now, Mr. Cook was a young man of decent family, who originally had been
intended for the profession of the law. He was articled to a solicitor;
but after a time, inheriting some property, to the extent, I think, of
some £12,000 or £15,000, he abandoned the laborious profession of the
law, and betook himself also to the turf. He kept racehorses and betted
considerably; and in the course of his operations he became much
connected and familiarly intimate with the prisoner William Palmer. It
is for the murder of that Mr. John Parsons Cook that the prisoner stands
indicted to-day, the charge against him being that he took away that
man’s life by poison. It will be necessary to show you the circumstances
in which the prisoner Palmer was then placed, and the position in which
he stood relatively to the deceased Cook. It will be impossible
thoroughly to understand this case in all its bearings without those
circumstances being laid before you, and it will be necessary,
therefore, that I should go into them particularly. The case which, on
the part of the prosecution, I have to urge against Palmer is
this--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. Out of the circumstances of Palmer at
that time arose, as we say, the motive which induced him to commit this
crime. If I show you upon evidence which can leave no reasonable doubt
in your minds that he committed that crime, motives become a matter of
secondary importance. Nevertheless, in inquiries of this kind, it is
natural and right to look to see what may have been the motives by which
a man has been induced to commit the crime charged against him; and if
we find strong motives, the more readily shall we be led to believe in
the probability of the crime having been committed; but if we find an
absence of motive the probability is the other way. In this case, the
motive will be matter for serious consideration; and inasmuch as the
circumstances out of which we say that the motive arose come first in
order of time, I will deal with them before I come to that which is the
more immediate subject matter of our inquiry. It seems to me that it
would be most convenient that I should follow the chronological order of
events, and I will therefore pursue that course. It appears that as
early as the year 1853 Palmer had got into difficulties, and that he
began to raise money upon bills. In 1854 his circumstances became worse,
and he was at that time indebted to different persons in a large sum of
money. He then had recourse to an expedient which it is important that I
should bring before you; but, as it will become necessary for me to
detail to you transactions involving fraud, and, what is worse, forgery,
I wish to make a few observations to you before I detail those
transactions.

Although I am anxious, where I feel it to be absolutely necessary for
the elucidation of the truth, that those circumstances should be brought
before you, I wish that they should not have more than their fair and
legitimate weight. You must not allow them to prejudice your minds
against the prisoner with reference to that which is the real matter of
inquiry. I cannot avoid bringing them forward; but I would anxiously
caution you and pray you not to allow any prejudice by reason of those
transactions to operate against the prisoner; for, though a man may be
guilty of fraud and forgery, it does not follow, therefore, that he is
guilty of murder.

Among the bills on which Palmer raised money in 1853 was one for £2,000,
which he had discounted by a person named Padwick. That bill bore the
acceptance of Sarah Palmer, the mother of the prisoner. She was, and is,
a woman of considerable property, and her acceptance being believed to
be genuine, was a security upon which money could readily be raised. The
prisoner forged that acceptance, and that was, if not the first, at all
events one of the earliest transactions of that nature by means of which
for a long period of time money was obtained by him upon bills, with his
mother’s acceptance forged by him. This shows how, when things came to a
climax and he found himself involved in a position of great peril and
emergency, he had recourse to a desperate expedient to avoid the
consequences which seemed inevitably to press upon him. He owed in 1854
a very large sum of money. On the 29th of September in that year his
wife died. He had effected an insurance upon her life for £13,000, and
the proceeds of that insurance were realised, and by means of them he
discharged some of his most pressing liabilities. In dealing with a
portion of these liabilities he employed a gentleman named Pratt, a
solicitor in London, who was in the habit of discounting bills. Mr.
Pratt received from him £8,000, and Mr. Wright, a solicitor of
Birmingham, received £5,000; and with those two sums £13,000 of debt was
disposed of; but that still left Palmer with considerable liabilities,
and among other things, the bill of £2,000, which was discounted by
Padwick, remained unpaid. In the course of the same year he effected an
insurance on his brother’s life, and upon the strength of that policy
Palmer proceeded to issue fresh bills, which were discounted by Pratt at
the rate of 60 per cent., who kept the policy as collateral security.
The bills which were discounted in the course of that year amounted in
the whole to £12,500. I find that there were two bills discounted as
early as June, 1854, which were held over from month to month. In March,
1855, two bills were discounted for £2,000 each, with the proceeds of
which Palmer bought two race-horses, called Nettle and Chicken. Those
bills were renewed in June, and one became due on the 28th of September,
and the other on the 2nd of October, when they were again renewed. The
result of the bill proceedings of the year was that in November, when
the Shrewsbury races took place, there were in Pratt’s hands one bill
for £2,000, due the 25th of October; another for £2,000, due the 27th of
October; two for the joint sum of £1,500, due on the 9th of November;
one for £1,000, due on the 30th of September; one for £2,000, due on the
1st January; one for £2,000, due on the 5th of January; and another for
£2,000, due on the 15th of January; making altogether £12,500. £1,000 of
this sum, however, he had contrived to pay off, so that there was due in
November, 1855, no less than £11,500, upon bills, every one of which
bore the forged acceptance of the prisoner’s mother.

Under these circumstances, a pressure naturally arose--the pressure of
£11,500 of liabilities, with not a shilling in the world to meet them,
and the still greater pressure resulting from a consciousness that the
moment when he could no longer go on and his mother was resorted to for
payment, the fact of those forgeries would at once become manifest, and
would bring upon him the peril of the law for the crime of forgery. The
prisoner’s brother died in August, 1855. His life had been insured, and
the policy for £13,000 had been assigned to the prisoner, who, of
course, expected that the proceeds of that insurance would pay off his
liabilities; but the office in which the insurance was effected declined
to pay, and consequently there was no assistance to be derived from that
source. Now, in these transactions to which I have referred, the
deceased John Parsons Cook had been to a certain extent concerned. It
seems that in May, 1855, Palmer was pressed to pay £500 to a person
named Serjeant. He had at that time in the hands of Palmer a balance
upon bill transactions of £310 to his credit, and he wanted Pratt to
advance the £190 necessary to make up £500. Pratt declined to do that,
except upon security; upon which Palmer offered him the acceptance of
Cook, representing him to be a man of substance. Accordingly the
acceptance of Cook for £200 was sent up, and upon that Pratt advanced
the money. When that bill for £200 became due, Palmer failed to provide
for it, and Cook had to meet it himself. In August of the same year, an
occurrence took place to which I must call your particular attention.
Palmer wrote to Pratt to say that he must have £1,000 by a day named.
Pratt declined to advance it without security; upon which Palmer offered
the security of Cook’s acceptance for £500. Pratt still declined to
advance the money without some more tangible security. Now Palmer
represented this as a transaction in which Cook required the money, and
it may be that such was the fact. I have no means of ascertaining how
that was; but I will give him the credit of supposing it to be true.
Pratt still declining to advance the money, Palmer proposed an
assignment by Cook of two racehorses, one called Polestar, which won the
Shrewsbury races, and another called Sirius. That assignment was
afterwards executed by Cook in favour of Pratt, and Cook, therefore, was
clearly entitled to the money which was raised upon that security, which
realised £375 in cash, and a wine warrant for £65. Palmer contrived,
however, that the money and wine warrant should be sent to him, and not
to Cook. Mr. Pratt sent down his cheque to Palmer in the country on a
stamp as the Act of Parliament required, and he availed himself of the
opportunity now offered by law of striking out the word “bearer” and
writing “order,” the effect of which was to necessitate the endorsement
of Cook on the back of the cheque.

It was not intended by Palmer that those proceeds should fall into
Cook’s hands, and accordingly he forged the name of John Parsons Cook on
the back of that cheque. Cook never received the money, and you will see
that, within ten days from the period when he came to his end, the bill
in respect to that transaction, which was at three months, would have
fallen due, when it must have become apparent that Palmer received the
money; and that, in order to obtain it, he had forged the endorsement of
Cook. I wish these were the only transactions in which Cook had been at
all mixed up with the prisoner Palmer; but there is another to which it
is necessary to refer. In September, 1855, Palmer’s brother having died,
and the proceeds of the insurance not having been realised, Palmer
induced a person named Bates to propose his life for insurance. Palmer
had succeeded in raising money upon previous policies, and I have no
doubt that he persuaded Cook to assist him in that transaction, so that,
by representing Bates as a man of wealth and substance, they might get a
policy on his life, by which policy, deposited as a collateral security,
they might obtain advances of money. Bates had been somewhat better off
in the world, but he had fallen into decay, and he had accepted
employment from Palmer as a sort of hanger-on in his stables. He was a
healthy young man; and, being in the company of Palmer and Cook at
Rugeley on the 5th of September, Palmer asked him to insure his life,
and produced the form of proposal to the office. Bates declined, but
Palmer pressed him, and Cook interposed and said, “You had better do it;
it will be for your benefit, and you’ll be quite safe with Palmer.” At
length they succeeded in persuading him to sign the proposal for no less
a sum than £25,000, Cook attesting the proposal, which Palmer filled in,
Palmer being referred to as medical attendant, and his former assistant,
Thirlby, as general referee. That proposal was sent up to the Solicitors
and General Insurance Office, and in the ensuing month--that office not
being disposed to effect the insurance--they sent up another for £10,000
to the Midland Office--on that same life. That proposal also failed, and
no money, therefore, could be obtained from that source. All these
circumstances are important, because they show the desperate straits in
which the prisoner at that time found himself.

The learned counsel then read a series of letters from Mr. Pratt to the
prisoner, all pressing upon the prisoner the importance of his meeting
the numerous bills which Pratt held, bearing the acceptance of Mrs.
Sarah Palmer; and these letters appeared to become more urgent when the
writer found that the insurance office refused to pay the £13,000 upon
the policy effected on the life of the prisoner’s brother, and which
Pratt held as collateral security. The letters were dated at intervals
between the 10th of September and the 18th of October, 1855.

On the 6th of November, two writs were issued by Pratt for £4,000, one
against Palmer and the other against his mother; and Pratt wrote on the
same day to say that he had sent the writs to Mr. Crabbe, but that they
were not to be served until he sent further instructions, and he
strongly urged Palmer to make immediate arrangements for meeting them,
and also to arrange for the bills for £1,500 due on the 9th of November.
Between the 10th and the 13th of November, Palmer succeeded in paying
£600; but on that day Pratt again wrote to him, urging him to raise
£1,000, at all events, to meet the bills due on the 9th. That being the
state of things at that time, we now come to the events connected with
Shrewsbury Races. Cook was the owner of a mare called Polestar, which
was entered for the Shrewsbury Handicap. She had been advantageously
weighted, and Cook, believing that the mare would win, betted largely
upon the event. The race was run upon the 13th of November--the very day
on which that last letter was written by Pratt, which would reach Palmer
on the 14th. The result of the race was that Polestar won, and that Cook
was entitled, in the first place, to the stakes, which amounted to £424,
_minus_ certain deductions, which left a net sum of £381 19s. His bets
had also been successful, and he won, upon the whole, a total sum of
£2,050. He had won also in the previous week, at Worcester, and I shall
show that at Shrewsbury he had in his pocket, besides the stakes and
the money which he would be entitled to receive at Tattersall’s, between
£700 and £800. The stakes he would receive through Mr. Weatherby, a
great racing agent in London, with whom he kept an account, and upon
whom he would draw; and, the race being run on a Tuesday, he would be
entitled on the ensuing Monday to receive his bets at Tattersall’s,
which amounted to £1,020.

Within a week from that time Mr. Cook died, and the important inquiry
which we have now to make is how he came by his death--whether by
natural causes or by the hand of man? and if the latter, by whose hand?
It is important, in the first place, that I should show you what was his
state of health when he went down to Shrewsbury. He was a young man, but
twenty-eight when he died. He was slightly disposed to a pulmonary
complaint, and, although delicate in that respect, he was in all other
respects a hale and hearty young man. He had been in the habit, from
time to time, especially with reference to his chest, of consulting a
physician in London--Dr. Savage, who saw him a fortnight before his
death. For four years he had occasionally consulted Dr. Savage, being at
that time a little anxious about the state of his throat, in which there
happened to be one or two slight eruptions. He had been taking mercury
for these eruptions, having mistaken the character of the complaint. Dr.
Savage at once saw that he had made a mistake, and desired him to
discontinue the use of mercury, substituting for it a course of tonics.
Mr. Cook’s health immediately began to improve; but, inasmuch as the new
course of treatment might have involved serious consequences in case Dr.
Savage had been mistaken in the diagnosis of the disease, he asked Cook
to look in upon him from time to time, and Cook had, as recently as
within a fortnight of his death, gone to call upon Dr. Savage. Dr.
Savage then examined his throat and whole system carefully, and he will
be prepared to tell you that at that time he had nothing on earth the
matter with him except a certain degree of thickening of the tonsils, or
some of the glands of the throat, to which anyone is liable, and there
was no symptom whatever of ulcerated sore-throat or anything of the
sort. Having then seen Dr. Savage, he went down to Shrewsbury Races, and
his horse won. After that he was somewhat excited, as a man might
naturally be under the circumstances of having won a considerable sum of
money, and he asked several friends to dine with him to celebrate the
event. They dined together at the Raven, the hotel where he was staying,
and had two or three bottles of wine, but there was no excess of any
sort, and no foundation for saying that Cook was the worse for liquor.
Indeed he was not addicted to excesses, but was, on the contrary, an
abstemious man on all occasions. He went to bed that night, and there
was nothing the matter with him. He got up the next day, and went again
on the course, as usual.

That night, Wednesday, the 14th November, a remarkable incident
happened, to which I beg to draw your attention. A friend of his, a Mr.
Fisher, and a Mr. Herring, were at Shrewsbury Races, and Fisher, who,
besides being a sporting man, was an agent for receiving winnings, and
who received Cook’s bets at the settling day at Tattersall’s, occupied
the room next to that occupied by Cook. Late in the evening Fisher went
into a room in which he found Palmer and Cook drinking brandy-and-water.
Cook gave him something to drink, and said to Palmer, “You’ll have some
more, won’t you?” Palmer replied, “Not unless you finish your glass.”
Cook said, “I’ll soon do that;” and he finished it at a gulp, leaving
only about a teaspoonful at the bottom of the glass. He had hardly
swallowed it, when he exclaimed, “Good God! there’s something in it, it
burns my throat.” Palmer immediately took up the glass, and drinking
what remained, said, “Nonsense, there’s nothing in it;” and then pushing
the glass to Fisher and another person who had come in, said, “Cook
fancies there is something in the brandy-and-water--there’s nothing in
it--taste it.” On which one of them replied, “How can we taste it?
you’ve drank it all.” Cook suddenly rose and left the room, and called
Fisher out, saying that he was taken seriously ill. He was seized with
most violent vomiting, and became so bad that after a little while it
was necessary to take him to bed. He vomited there again and again in
the most violent way, and as the sickness continued after the lapse of a
couple of hours a medical man was sent for. He came and proposed an
emetic and other means for making the sick man eject what he had taken.
After that, medicine was given him--at first some stimulant of a
comforting nature, and then a pill as a purgative dose. After two or
three hours he became more tranquil, and about 2 o’clock he fell asleep
and slept till next morning. Such was the state of the man’s feelings
all that time that I cannot tell what passed; but he gave Fisher the
money which he had about him, desiring him to take care of it, and Mr.
Fisher will tell you that that money amounted to between £800 and £900
in notes.

The next morning, having passed a quiet night, as I have said, and
feeling better, he went out on the course; and he saw Fisher, who gave
him back his notes. That was the Thursday. He still looked very ill, and
felt very ill; but the vomiting had ceased. On that day Palmer’s horse,
the Chicken, ran at Shrewsbury. He had backed his mare heavily, but she
lost. When Palmer went to Shrewsbury he had no money, and was obliged to
borrow £25 to take him there. His horse lost, and he lost bets upon the
race. He and Cook then left Shrewsbury, and returned to Rugeley, Cook
going to the Talbot Arms Hotel, directly opposite the prisoner’s house.
There is an incident however, connected with the occurrence at
Shrewsbury, which I must mention. About 11 o’clock that night, a Mrs.
Brooks, who betted on commission and had an establishment of jockeys,
went to speak to the deceased upon some racing business, and in the
lobby she saw Palmer holding up a tumbler to the light; and, having
looked at it through the gas, he withdrew to an outer room and presently
returned with the glass in his hand, and went into the room where Cook
was, and in which room he drank the brandy and water from which I
suppose you will infer that the sickness came on. I do not charge that
by anything which caused that sickness Cook’s death was occasioned; but
I shall show you that throughout the ensuing days at Rugeley he
constantly received things from the prisoner, and that during those days
that sickness was continued. I shall show you that after he died
antimony was found in the tissues of his body and in his blood--antimony
administered in the form of tartar emetic, which, if continued to be
applied, will maintain sickness.

It was not that, however, of which this man died. The charge is, that
having been prepared by antimony, he was killed by strychnine. You have,
no doubt, heard of the vegetable product known as nux vomica. In that
nut or bean there resides a subtle and fatal poison which is capable of
being extracted from it by the skill of the operative chemist, and of
which the most minute quantity is fatal to animal life. From half to a
quarter of a grain will destroy life--you may imagine, therefore, how
minute is the dose. In the human organization the nervous system may be
divided into two main parts--the nerves of sensation, by which a
consciousness of all external sensations is conveyed to the brain; and
the nerves of motion, which are, as it were, the agents between the
intellectual power of man and the physical action which arises from his
organization. Those are the two main branches having their origin in the
immediate vicinity of the seat of man’s intellectual existence. They are
entirely distinct in their allocations, and one set of nerves may be
affected while the other is left undisturbed. You may paralyse the
nerves of sensation and may leave the nerves which act upon the
voluntary muscles of movement wholly unaffected; or you may reverse that
state of things, and may affect the nerves and muscles of volition,
leaving the nerves of sensation wholly unaffected. Strychnine affects
the nerves which act on the voluntary muscles, and it leaves wholly
unaffected the nerves on which human consciousness depends; and it is
important to bear this in mind--some poisons produce a total absence of
consciousness, but the poison to which I refer affects the voluntary
action of the muscles of the body, and leaves unimpaired the power of
consciousness. Now, the way in which strychnine acting upon the
voluntary muscles is fatal to life is, that it produces the most intense
excitement of all those muscles, violent convulsions take place--spasms
which affect the whole body and which end in rigidity--all the muscles
become fixed, and the respiratory muscles in which the lungs have play
are fixed with an immovable rigidity, respiration consequently is
suspended, and death ensues. These symptoms are known to medical men
under the term of tetanus. There are other forms of tetanus which
produce death, and which arise from other causes than the taking of
strychnine, but there is a wide difference between the various forms of
the same disease, which prevents the possibility of mistake.

The learned counsel then explained the different symptoms which
characterise traumatic tetanus and idiopathic tetanus, which latter is
of comparatively rare occurrence in this country; but, as this is a
matter which will be hereafter dwelt upon with great detail in the
medical testimony, it is unnecessary to burden our report with it at any
length here:--(He then continued.) I have reason to believe that an
attempt will be made to confound those different classes of disease, and
it will be necessary therefore for the jury to watch with great
minuteness the medical evidence upon this point. It will show that both
in traumatic and idiopathic tetanus the disease commences with the
milder symptoms, which gradually progress towards the development and
final completion of the attack. When once the disease has commenced, it
continues without intermission, although, as in every other form of
malady, the paroxysms will be from time to time more or less intense. In
the case of tetanus from strychnine it is not so. It commences with
paroxysms which may subside for a time, but are renewed again; and,
whereas other forms of tetanus almost always last during a certain
number of hours or days, when we deal with strychnine we deal with cases
not of hours but of minutes--in which we have no beginning of the
disease, and then a gradual development to the climax; but in which the
paroxysms commence with all their power at the very first, and
terminate, after a few short minutes of fearful agony and struggles, in
the dissolution of the victim. Palmer was a medical man, and it is clear
that the effect of strychnine had not escaped his attention; for I have
a book before me which was found in his house after his arrest, called
_Manual for Students Preparing for Examination at Apothecaries’ Hall_;
and on the first page, in his handwriting, I observe this remark,
“Strychnine kills by causing tetanic fixing of the respiratory muscles.”
I don’t wish to attach more importance to that circumstance than it
deserves, because nothing is more natural than that, in a book of this
kind belonging to a professional man, such notes should be made; but I
refer to it to show that the effect of poison on human life had come
within his notice.

I now revert to what took place after the arrival of these people at
Rugeley. They arrived on the night of Thursday, the 15th of November,
between ten and eleven o’clock, when Mr. Cook took some refreshment and
went to bed. He rose next morning and went out, and dined that day with
Palmer. He returned to the inn about ten o’clock that evening, perfectly
well and sober, and went to bed. The next morning, at an early hour,
Palmer was with him, and from that time throughout the whole of Saturday
and Sunday he was constantly in attendance on him. He ordered him coffee
on Saturday morning. It was brought in by the chambermaid, Elizabeth
Mills, and given to the prisoner, who had an opportunity of tampering
with it before giving it to Cook. Immediately after taking it the same
symptoms set in which had occurred at Shrewsbury. Throughout the whole
of that day and the next, the prisoner constantly administered various
things to Cook, who continued to be tormented with that incessant and
troublesome sickness. Again, toast-and-water was brought over from the
prisoner’s house, instead of being made at the inn, as it might have
been, and again the sickness ensued. It seems also that Palmer desired a
woman named Roney to procure some broth for Cook from the Albion. She
obtained it and gave it to Palmer to warm, and when Palmer had done so
he told her to take it to the Talbot for Mr. Cook, and to say that Mr.
Smith had sent it--there being a Mr. Jeremiah Smith, an intimate friend
of Cook. Cook tried to swallow a spoonful of the broth, but it
immediately made him sick, and he brought it off his stomach. The broth
was then taken down stairs, and after a little while the prisoner came
across and asked if Mr. Cook had had his broth. He was told, “No; that
he had tried to take it, but that it had made him sick, and that he
could not retain it on his stomach.” Palmer said that he must take it,
and desired that the broth should be brought upstairs. Cook tried to
take it again, but again he began to vomit and throw the whole off his
stomach. It was then taken down stairs, and a woman at the inn, thinking
that it looked nice, took a couple of tablespoonfuls of it; within half
an hour she also was taken severely ill. Vomiting came on, and continued
almost incessantly for five or six hours. She was obliged to go to bed,
and she had exactly the same symptoms which manifested themselves in
Cook’s person after he drank the brandy and water at Shrewsbury. On that
Saturday, about three o’clock, Dr. Bamford, a medical man at Rugeley,
was called in, and Palmer told him that Cook had a bilious attack--that
he had dined with him on the day before, and had drunk too freely of
champagne, which had disordered his stomach.

Now, I shall show to you, by the evidence of medical men, both at
Shrewsbury and Rugeley, that although Palmer had on one or two occasions
represented Cook as suffering under bilious diarrhœa, there was not,
during the continuance of the violent vomiting which I have mentioned, a
single bilious symptom of any sort whatever. Dr. Bamford visited him at
half-past 3, and when he found Mr. Cook suffering from violent vomiting,
and the stomach in so irritable a state that it would not retain a
tablespoonful of anything, he naturally tried to see what the symptoms
were which could lead him to form a notion as to the cause of that state
of things. He found to his surprise that the pulse of the patient was
perfectly natural--that his tongue was quite clean, his skin quite
moist, and that there was not the slightest trace of fever, or, in
short, of any of those symptoms which might be expected in the case of a
bilious man. Having heard from Palmer that he ascribed his illness to an
excess of wine on the previous day, he informed Cook of it, and Cook
then said, “Well, I suppose I must have taken too much, but it’s very
odd, for I only took three glasses.” The representation, therefore, made
by Palmer, that Cook had taken an excess of champagne, was not correct.
Coffee was brought up to Cook at 4 o’clock when Palmer was there, and he
vomited immediately. At 6 some barley-water was taken to him when Palmer
was not there, and the barley-water did not produce vomiting. At 8 some
arrowroot was given him, Palmer was present, and vomiting took place
again. These may, no doubt, be mere coincidences, but they are facts,
which, of whatever interpretation they may be susceptible, are well
deserving of attention, that during the whole of that Saturday Palmer
was continually in and out of the house in which Cook was sojourning;
that he gave him a variety of things, and that whenever he gave him
anything sickness invariably ensued. That evening Dr. Bamford called
again, and finding that the sickness still continued he prepared for the
patient two pills containing half a grain of calomel, half a grain of
morphia, and four grains of rhubarb.

On the following day, Sunday, between 7 and 8 o’clock in the morning,
Dr. Bamford is again summoned to Cook’s bedside, and finds the sickness
still recurring, but fails to detect any symptoms of bile. He visited
him repeatedly in the course of that day, and on leaving him in the
evening found, that though the sickness continued, the tongue was clean,
and there was not the slightest indication of bile or fever. And so
Sunday ended. On Monday, the 19th, Palmer left Rugeley for London--on
what business I shall presently explain. Before starting, however, he
called in the morning to see Cook, and ordered him a cup of coffee. He
took it up himself, and after drinking it Cook, as usual, vomited. After
that Palmer took his departure. Presently Dr. Bamford called, and,
finding Cook still suffering from sickness of the stomach, gave him some
medicine. Whether from the effect of that medicine, or from whatever
other cause, I know not; but it is admitted that from that time a great
improvement was observed in Cook. Palmer was not present, and during the
whole of the day Cook was better. Between 12 and 1 o’clock he is visited
by Dr. Bamford, who, perceiving the improvement, advised him to get up.
He does so, washes, dresses, recovers his spirits, and sits up for
several hours. Two of his jockies and his trainer called to see him,
are admitted to his room, enter into conversation with him, and perceive
that he is in a state of comparative ease and comfort, and so he
continued till a late hour. I will now interrupt for a moment the
consecutive narration of what passed afterwards at Rugeley to follow
Palmer through the events in which he was concerned in London. He had
written to a person named Herring to meet him at Beaufort-buildings,
where a boarding-house was kept by a lady named Hawks. Herring was a man
on the turf, and had been to Shrewsbury Races. Immediately on seeing
Palmer he inquired after Cook’s health. “Oh,” said Palmer, “he is all
right; his medical man has given him a dose of calomel and recommended
him not to come out, and what I want to see you about is the settling of
his accounts.” Monday, it appears, was settling-day at Tattersall’s, and
it was necessary that all accounts should be squared. Cook’s usual agent
for effecting that arrangement was a person named Fisher, and it seems
not a little singular that Cook should not have told Palmer why Fisher
should not have been employed on this as on all similar occasions.

On this point, however, Palmer offered no explanation. He was himself a
defaulter, and could not show at Tattersall’s. He produced a piece of
paper which he said contained a list of the sums which Cook was entitled
to receive, and he mentioned the names of the different persons who were
indebted to Cook, and the amounts for which they were respectively
liable. Herring held out his hand to take the paper, but Palmer said,
“No, I will keep this document; here is another piece of paper, write
down what I read to you, and what I have here I will retain, as it will
be a check against you.” He then dictated the names of the various
persons, with the sums for which they were liable. Herring observed that
it amounted to £1,020. “Very well,” said Palmer, “pay yourself £6,
Shelly, £30, and if you see Bull, tell him Cook will pay him on Thursday
or Friday. And now,” he added, “how much do you make the balance?”
Herring replied that he made it £984. Palmer replied that the tot was
right, and then went on to say, “I will give you £16, which will make it
£1,000. Pay yourself the £200 that I owe you for my bill; pay Padwick
£350, and Pratt £450.” So we have it here established, beyond all
controversy, that Palmer did not hesitate to apply Cook’s money to the
payment of his own debts. With regard to the debt due to Mr. Padwick, I
am assured that it represents moneys won by that gentleman, partly from
Cook, and partly from Palmer, but that Mr. Padwick held Palmer to be the
responsible party, and looked to him for payment. The debt to Pratt was
Palmer’s own affair. Such is the state of things as regards the
disposition of the money. Palmer desired Herring to send cheques to
Pratt and Padwick at once, and without waiting to draw the money from
Tattersall’s. To this Herring objected, observing that it would be most
injudicious to send the cheques before he was sure of getting the money.
“Ah, well,” said Palmer, “never mind--it is all right; but come what
will, Pratt must be paid, for his claim is on account of a bill of sale
for a mare.” Finding it impossible to overcome Herring’s objection to
send the cheques until he had got the money at Tattersall’s, Palmer then
proceeded to settle some small betting transactions between himself and
that gentleman amounting to £5, or thereabouts. He pulled out a £50
note, and Herring, not having full change, gave him a cheque for £20.
They then parted, Palmer directing him to send down word of his
proceedings either to him (Palmer) or to Cook. With this injunction
Herring complied, and I shall prove in the course of the trial that the
letters he wrote to Cook were intercepted by the postmaster at Rugeley.
Not having received as much as he expected at Tattersall’s, Herring was
unable to pay Padwick the £350; but it is not disputed that he paid £450
to Pratt.

On the same day, Palmer went himself to the latter gentleman, and paid
him other moneys, consisting of £30 in notes, and the cheque for £20
which he had received from Herring, and a memorandum was drawn, and to
which I shall hereafter have occasion to call attention. So much for
Palmer’s proceedings in London. On the evening of that same day (Monday)
he returned home. Arriving at Rugeley about nine o’clock at night, he at
once proceeded to visit Cook, at the Talbot Arms; and from that time
till ten or eleven o’clock he was continually in and out of Cook’s room.
In the course of the evening he went to a man named Newton, assistant to
a surgeon named Salt, and applied for three grains of strychnine, which
Newton, knowing Palmer to be a medical practitioner, did not hesitate to
give him. Dr. Bamford had sent on this day the same kind of pills that
he had sent on Saturday and Sunday. I believe it was the doctor’s habit
to take the pills himself to the Talbot Arms, and intrust them to the
care of the housekeeper, who carried them upstairs; but it was Palmer’s
practice to come in afterwards, and evening after evening, to administer
medicine to the patient. There is no doubt that Cook took pills on
Monday night. Whether he took the pills prepared for him by Dr. Bamford,
and similar to those which he had taken on Saturday and Sunday, or
whether Palmer substituted for Dr. Bamford’s pills some of his own
concoction, consisting in some measure of strychnine, I must leave for
the jury to determine. Certain it is, that when he left Cook at eleven
o’clock at night, the latter was still comparatively well and
comfortable, and cheerful as in the morning. But he was not long to
continue so. About twelve o’clock the female servants in the lower part
of the house were alarmed by violent screams, proceeding from Cook’s
room. They rushed up, and found him in great agony, shrieking
dreadfully, shouting “Murder!” and calling on Christ to save his soul.
He was in intense pain. The eyes were starting out of his head. He was
flinging his arms wildly about him, and his whole body was convulsed. He
was perfectly conscious, however, and desired that Palmer should be sent
for without delay. One of the women ran to fetch him, and he attended in
a few minutes. He found Cook still screaming, gasping for breath, and
hardly able to speak. He ran back again to procure some medicine; and on
his return Cook exclaimed, “Oh dear, doctor, I shall die!” “No, my lad,
you shall not,” replied Palmer; and he then gave him some more medicine.
The sick man vomited almost immediately, but there was no appearance of
the pills in the utensil.

Shortly afterwards he became more calm, and called on the women to rub
his limbs. They did so, and found them cold and rigid. Presently the
symptoms became still more tranquil, and he grew better; but the medical
men will depose that the tetanus that afflicted him was that occasioned
by strychnine. His frame, exhausted by the terrible agony it had
endured, now fell gradually into repose; nature asserted her claim to
rest, and he began to dose. So matters remained till the morrow, Tuesday
the 20th, the day of his death. On the morning of that day, Cook was
found comparatively comfortable, though still retaining a vivid
impression of the horrors he had suffered the night before. He was quite
collected, and conversed rationally with the chambermaid. Palmer meeting
Dr. Bamford that same day, told him that he did not want to have Cook
disturbed, for that he was now at his ease, though he had had a fit the
night before. This same morning, between the hours of eleven and twelve
o’clock, there occurred a very remarkable incident. About that time
Palmer went to the shop of a certain Mr. Hawkings, a druggist, at
Rugeley. He had not dealt with him for two years before, it being his
practice during that period to purchase such drugs as he required from
Mr. Thirlby, a former assistant of Mr. Hawkings, who had set up in
business for himself. But on this day Palmer went to Mr. Hawkings’s
shop, and, producing a bottle, informed the assistant that he wanted two
drachms of prussic acid. While it was being prepared for him, Mr.
Newton, the same man from whom he had on a former occasion obtained
strychnine, came into the shop, whereupon Palmer seized him by the arm,
and observing that he had something particular to say to him, hurried
him into the street, where he kept talking to him on a matter of the
smallest possible importance, relating to the precise period at which
his employer’s son meant to repair to a farm he had taken in the
country. They continued to converse on this trivial topic until a
gentleman named Brassington (or Grassington) came up, whereupon Mr.
Newton turned aside to say a few words to him. Palmer, relieved by this
accident, went back into the shop, and asked, in addition, for six
grains of strychnine and a certain quantity of Batley’s liquor of opium.
He obtained them, paid for them, and went away. Presently Mr. Newton
returned, and being struck with the fact of Palmer’s dealing with
Hawkings, asked out of passing curiosity what he had come for, and was
informed.

And here I must mention a fact of some importance respecting Mr. Newton.
When examined before the coroner, that gentleman only deposed to one
purchase of strychnine by Palmer at Mr. Salt’s surgery, and it was only
as recently as yesterday that with many expressions of contrition for
not having been more explicit, he communicated to the Crown the fact
that Palmer had also bought strychnine on Monday night. It is for you,
gentlemen, to decide the amount of credit to be attached to this
evidence; but you will bear in mind that whatever you may think of Mr.
Newton’s testimony, that of Mr. Roberts, on whom there is no taint or
shadow of suspicion, is decisive with respect to the purchases which the
prisoner made on Tuesday at the shop of Mr. Hawkings. I now resume the
story of Tuesday’s proceedings with the observation that Cook was
entitled to receive the stakes he had won at Shrewsbury. On that day
Palmer sent for Mr. Cheshire, the postmaster of Rugeley. He owed
Cheshire £7 odd, and the latter, supposing that he was about to be paid,
came with a stamped receipt in his hand. Palmer produced a paper, and
remarking “that Cook was too ill to write himself,” told Cheshire to
draw a cheque on Weatherby’s in his (Palmer’s) favour for £350. Cheshire
thereupon filled up a piece of paper purporting to be the body of a
cheque, addressed in the manner indicated to the Messrs. Weatherby, and
concluding with the words, “and place the same to my account.” Palmer
then took the document away, for the purpose, as he averred, of getting
Cook’s signature to it. What became of it I do not undertake to assert;
but of this there is no question, that by that night’s post Palmer sent
up to Weatherby’s a cheque which was returned dishonoured. Whether it
was genuine, or like so many other papers with which Palmer had to do,
forged, is a question which you will have to determine. And now,
returning to Cook, it may be observed that in the course of that morning
coffee and broth were sent him by Palmer, and, as usual, vomiting ensued
and continued through the whole of the afternoon.

And now a new person makes his appearance on the stage. You must know
that on Sunday, Palmer wrote to Mr. W. H. Jones, a surgeon, of
Lutterworth, desiring him to come over to see Cook. Cook was a personal
friend of Mr. Jones, and had occasionally been in the habit of residing
at his house. It is deserving of remark that Palmer, in his letter to
Jones, describes Cook as “suffering from a severe bilious attack
accompanied with diarrhœa,” adding, “it is desirable for you to come
and see him as soon as possible.” Whether this communication is to be
interpreted in a sense favourable to the prisoner, or whether it is to
be taken as indicating a deep design to give colour to the idea that
Cook died a natural death, it is at least certain that the statement
that Cook had been “suffering from a bilious attack attended with
diarrhœa,” was utterly untrue. Mr. Jones being himself unwell, did
not come to Rugeley till Tuesday. He arrived at about three o’clock on
that day, and immediately proceeded to see his sick friend. Palmer came
in at the same moment, and they both examined the patient. Mr. Jones
paid particular attention to the state of his tongue; remarked, “That is
not the tongue of bilious fever.”

About seven o’clock that same evening Dr. Bamford called, and found the
patient pretty well. Subsequently the three medical men (Palmer,
Bamford, and Jones) held a consultation, but before leaving the bedroom
for that purpose, Cook beckoned to Palmer, and said, “Mind, I will have
no more pills or medicine to-night.” They then withdrew and consulted.
Palmer insisted on his taking pills, but added, “Let us not tell him
what they contain, as he fears the same results that have already given
him such pain.” It was agreed that Dr. Bamford should make up the pills,
which were to be composed of the same ingredients as those that had been
administered on the three preceding evenings. The doctor repaired to his
surgery, and made them up accordingly. He was followed by Palmer, who
asked him to write the directions how they were to be taken. Dr.
Bamford, though unable to understand the necessity of his doing so,
under the circumstances, complied with Palmer’s request, and wrote on
the box that the pills were to be taken at “bed-time.” Palmer then took
them away, and gave either those pills or some others to Cook that
night. It is remarkable, however, that half or three-quarters of an hour
elapsed from the time he left Dr. Bamford’s surgery until he brought the
pills to Cook. When, at length, he came, he produced two pills, but
before giving them to Cook he took especial care to call Mr. Jones’s
attention to the directions on the lid, observing that the writing was
singularly distinct and vigorous for a man upwards of eighty. If the
prisoner be guilty, it is a natural presumption that he made this
observation with the view of identifying the pill-box as having come
from Dr. Bamford, and so averting suspicion from himself. This was about
half-past ten at night. The pills were then offered to Cook, who
strongly objected to take them, remarking that they had made him ill the
night before. Palmer insisted, and the sick man at last consented to
take them. He vomited immediately after, but did not bring up the pills.
Jones then went down and took his supper, and he will tell you that up
to the period when the pills were administered, Cook had been easy and
cheerful, and presented no symptom of the approach of disease, much less
of death. It was arranged that Jones should sleep in the same room with
Cook, and he did so; but he had not been more than fifteen or twenty
minutes in bed when he was aroused by a sudden exclamation, and a
frightful scream from Cook, who, starting up, said, “Send for the doctor
immediately; I am going to be ill, as I was last night.” The chambermaid
ran across the road, and rang the bell of Palmer’s house, and in a
moment Palmer was at the window. He was told that Cook was again ill. In
two minutes he was by the bedside of the sick man, and, strangely,
volunteered the observation, “I never dressed so quickly in my life.” It
is for you, gentlemen, to say whether you think he had time to dress at
all. Cook was found in the same condition, and with the same symptoms as
the night before, gasping for breath, screaming violently, his body
convulsed with cramps and spasms, and his neck rigid. Jones raised him
and rubbed his neck. When Palmer entered the room, Cook asked him for
the same remedy that had relieved him the night before. “I will run back
and fetch it,” said Palmer, and he darted out of the room. In the
passage he met two female servants, who remarked that Cook was as “bad”
as he had been last night. “He is not within fifty times as bad as he
was last night; and what a game is this to be at every night!” was
Palmer’s reply. In a few minutes he returned with two pills, which he
told Jones were ammonia, though I am assured that it is a drug that
requires much time in the preparation, and can with difficulty be made
into pills. The sick man swallowed these pills, but brought them up
again immediately.

And now ensued a terrible scene. He was instantly seized with violent
convulsions; by degrees his body began to stiffen out; then suffocation
commenced. Agonised with pain, he repeatedly entreated to be raised.
They tried to raise him, but it was not possible. The body had become
rigid as iron, and it could not be done. He then said, “Pray, turn me
over.” They did turn him over on the right side. He gasped for breath,
but could utter no more. In a few moments all was tranquil--the tide of
life was ebbing fast. Jones leant over him to listen to the action of
the heart. Gradually the pulse ceased--all was over--he was dead.
(Sensation.) I will show you that his was a death referable in its
symptoms to the tetanus produced by strychnine, and not to any other
possible form of tetanus. Scarcely was the breath out of his body when
Palmer begins to think of what is to be done. He engages two women to
lay out the corpse, and these women, on entering the room, find him
searching the pockets of a coat which, no doubt, belonged to Cook, and
hunting under the pillows and bolsters. They saw some letters in the
mantel-shelf, which, in all probability, had been taken out of the dead
man’s pocket; and, what is very remarkable is, that from that day to
this, nothing has been seen or heard either of the betting-book or of
any of the papers connected with Cook’s money affairs. On a subsequent
day (Thursday) he returned, and, on the pretence of looking for some
books, and a paper knife, rummaged again through the documents of the
deceased. On the 25th of November he sent for Cheshire, and, producing a
paper purporting to bear the signature of Cook, asked him to attest it.
Cheshire glanced over it. It was a document in which Cook acknowledged
that certain bills, to the amount of £4,000 or thereabouts, were bills
that had been negotiated for his (Cook’s) benefit, and in respect of
which Palmer had received no consideration. Such was the paper to which,
forty-eight hours after the death of the man whose name it bore, Palmer
did not hesitate to ask Cheshire to be an attesting witness. Cheshire,
though unfortunately for himself, too much the slave of Palmer,
peremptorily refused to comply with this request; whereupon Palmer
carelessly observed, “It is of no consequence; I dare say the signature
will not be disputed, but it occurred to me that it would look more
regular if it were attested.”

On Friday Mr. Stevens, Cook’s father-in-law, came down to Rugeley, and,
after viewing the body of his relative, to whom he had been tenderly
attached, asked Palmer about his affairs. Palmer assured him that he
held a paper drawn up by a lawyer, and signed by Cook, stating that, in
respect of £4,000 worth of bills, he (Cook) was alone liable, and that
Palmer had a claim to that amount against his estate. Mr. Stevens
expressed his amazement, and replied that there would not be 4,000
shillings for the holders of the bills. Subsequently Palmer displayed an
eager officiousness in the matter of the funeral, taking upon himself to
order a shell and an oak coffin without any directions to that effect
from the relatives of the deceased, who were anxious to have the
arrangements in their own hands. Mr. Stevens ordered dinner at the hotel
for Bamford, Jones, and himself, and, finding Palmer still hanging about
him, thought it but civil to extend the invitation to him. Accordingly
they all sat down together. After dinner, Mr. Stevens asked Jones to
step upstairs and bring down all books and papers belonging to Cook.
Jones left the room to do so, and Palmer followed him. They were absent
about ten minutes, and on their return Jones observed that they were
unable to find the betting-book or any of the papers belonging to the
deceased. Palmer added, “The betting-book would be of no use to you if
you found it, for the bets are void by his death.” Mr. Stevens replied,
“The book must be found;” and then Palmer, changing his tone, said, “Oh,
I dare say it will turn up.” Mr. Stevens then rang the bell, and told
the housekeeper to take charge of whatever books and papers had belonged
to Cook, and to be sure not to allow any one to meddle with them until
he came back from London, which he would soon do, with his solicitor. He
then departed, but, returning to Rugeley after a brief interval,
declared his intention to have a _post mortem_ examination. Palmer
volunteered to nominate the surgeons who should conduct it, but Mr.
Stevens refused to employ any one whom he should recommend. On Sunday,
the 26th, Palmer called on Dr. Bamford, and asked him for a certificate
attesting the cause of Cook’s death. The doctor expressed his surprise,
and observed, “Why, he was your patient?” But Palmer importuned him, and
Bamford taking the pen filled up the certificate, and entered the cause
of death as “apoplexy.” Dr. Bamford is upwards of 80, and I hope that it
is to some infirmity connected with his great age that this most
unjustifiable act is to be attributed. However, he shall be produced in
court, and he will tell you that apoplexy has never been known to
produce tetanus. In the course of the day Palmer sent for Newton, and
after they had had some brandy-and-water, asked him how much strychnine
he would use to kill a dog. Newton replied, “from half-a-grain to a
grain.” “And how much,” inquired Palmer, “would be found in the tissues
and intestines after death?” “None at all,” was Newton’s reply; but that
is a point on which I will produce important evidence.

The _post mortem_ examination took place the next day, and on that
occasion Palmer assured the medical men, of whom there were many
present, that Cook had had epileptic fits on Monday and Tuesday, and
that they would find old disease in the heart and head. He added that
the poor fellow was “full of disease,” and had “all kinds of
complaints.” These statements were completely disproved by the _post
mortem_ examinations. At the first of them, conducted by Dr. Devonshire,
the liver, lungs, and kidneys were all found healthy. It was said that
there were some slight indications of congestion of the kidneys, whether
due to decomposition or to what other cause was not certain; but it was
admitted on all hands that they did not impair the general health of the
system, or at all account for death. The stomach and intestines were
examined, and they exhibited a few white spots at the large end of the
stomach, but these marks were wholly insufficient to explain the cause
of dissolution. Dr. Bamford contended that there was some slight
congestion of the brain, but all the other medical men concurred in
thinking that there was none at all. In the ensuing month of January the
body was exhumed with a view to more accurate examination, and the body
was then found to be in a perfectly normal and healthy condition. Palmer
seemed rejoiced at the discovery, and, turning to Dr. Bamford,
exclaimed, “Doctor, they won’t hang us yet!” The stomach and intestines
were taken out and placed in a jar, and it was observed that Palmer
pushed against the medical man who was engaged in the operation, and the
jar was in danger of being upset. It escaped, however, and was covered
with skins, tied down, and sealed. Presently one of the medical men
turned round, and finding that the jar had disappeared, asked what had
become of it. It was found at a distance, near a different door from
that through which people usually passed in and out, and Palmer
exclaimed, “It’s all right. It was I who removed it. I thought it would
be more convenient for you to have it here, that you might lay your
hands readily on it as you went out.” When the jar was recovered it was
found that two slits had been cut in the skins with a knife. The slits,
however, were clean, so that, whatever his object may have been in
making the incisions, it is certain that nothing was taken out of the
jar. He goes to Dr. Bamford, and remonstrates against the removal of the
jars. He says, “I do not think we ought to allow them to be taken away.”
Now, if he had been an ignorant person, not familiar with the course
likely to be pursued by medical men under such circumstances, there
might be some excuse for this; but it is for you to ask yourselves
whether Palmer, himself a medical man, knowing that the contents of the
jars were to be submitted to an analysis, might not have relied with
confidence on the honour and integrity of the profession to which he
belonged. You must say whether his anxiety to prevent the removal of the
jars was not a sign of a guilty conscience. Dr. Bamford was a most
respectable physician, and his character and position were well known to
Palmer.

But the case does not stop here. The jar was delivered to Mr. Boycott,
the clerk to Mr. Gardner, the solicitor. Palmer, finding that it was to
be sent to London for chymical analysis, was extremely anxious that it
should not reach its destination. It was going to be conveyed by Mr.
Boycott to the Stafford station in a fly, driven by a post-boy. Palmer
goes to this post-boy, and asks him whether it is the fact that he is
going to drive Boycott to Stafford? He is answered in the affirmative.
He then asks, “Are the jars there?” He is told that they are. He says,
“They have no business to take them; one does not know what they may put
in them. Can’t you manage to upset the fly and break them? I will give
you £10, and make it all right for you.” The man said, “I shall do no
such thing. I must go and look after my fly.” That man will be called
before you, and he will have no interest to state anything but the
truth. I have now gone through the painful history, yet there are some
points of minor importance which I ought not altogether to pass over, as
nothing connected with the conduct of a man conscious that an imputation
of this kind rests upon him can be immaterial. After the _post mortem_
examination it was thought right to hold a coroner’s inquest. On two or
three occasions in the course of that inquiry, Palmer sent presents to
the coroner. The stomach of the deceased and its contents were sent to
Dr. Taylor, and Dr. Rees, at Guy’s Hospital, who were known to be in
communication with Mr. Gardner. A letter was sent by Dr. Taylor to Mr.
Gardner, stating the result of the investigation; that letter was
betrayed to Palmer by the postmaster, Cheshire, and Palmer then wrote to
the coroner, telling him that Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees had failed in
finding traces of poison, and asking him to take a certain course with
respect to the evidence. Why should he have done this if there had not
been a feeling of uneasiness upon his mind? These matters must not be
wholly overlooked, although I will not ask you to give them any undue
importance. I should have told you, in addition, that the prisoner had
no money prior to Shrewsbury races, while afterwards he was flush of
cash. Sums of £100 and £150 were paid by him into the bank at Rugeley,
two or three persons received sums of £10 each, and he seemed, in fact,
to be giving away money right and left. I think I shall be able to show
that he had something like £400 in his possession. Now, Cook had £700 or
£800 when he left Shrewsbury on the Thursday morning. None is found. It
may be that Cook, who, whatever his faults, was a kind-hearted creature,
compassionating Palmer’s condition, and influenced by his
representations, assisted him with money. That I do not know. I do not
wish to strain the point too far, but one cannot imagine that Cook, who
had no money but what he took with him to Shrewsbury, should have given
Palmer everything and left himself destitute.

The case then stands thus:--Here is a man overwhelmed with pecuniary
difficulties, obliged to resort to the desperate expedient of forging
acceptances to raise money, hoping to meet them by the proceeds of the
insurances he had effected upon a life. Disappointed in that expectation
by the board; told by the gentleman through whom the bills had been
discounted, “You must trifle with me no longer--if you cannot find
money, writs will be served on you;” Cook’s name forged to an
endorsement for £375; ruin staring him in the face--you, gentlemen, must
say whether he had not sufficient inducement to commit the crime. He
seems to have had a further object. No sooner is the breath out of the
dead man’s body than he says to Jones, “I had a claim of £3,000 or
£4,000 against him on account of bills.” Besides, he believed that Cook
had more property than it turns out he really had. The valuable mare,
Pole Star, belonged to him when the assignment had been paid off, and
Palmer would have been glad to obtain possession of her. The fact, too,
that Cook was mixed up in the insurance of Bates may lead one to surmise
that he was in possession of secrets relating to the desperate
expedients to which this man has resorted to obtain money. I will leave
you to say whether this combination of motives may not have led to the
crime with which he is charged. This you will only have to consider,
supposing the case to be balanced between probabilities; but if you
believe the evidence that will be given as to what took place on the
Monday and the Tuesday--if you believe the paroxysms of the Monday, the
mortal agony of the Tuesday--I shall show that things were administered,
on both those days, by the hand of Palmer, by a degree of evidence
almost amounting to certainty.

The body was submitted to a careful analysis, and I am bound to say that
no trace of strychnine was found. But I am told that, although the
presence of strychnine may be detected by certain tests, and although
indications of its presence lead irresistibly to the conclusion that it
has been administered, the converse of that proposition does not hold.
Sometimes it is found, at other times it is not. It depends upon
circumstances. A most minute dose will destroy life, from half to
three-quarters of a grain will lay the strongest man prostrate. But in
order to produce that fatal effect it must be absorbed into the system,
and the absorption takes place in a greater or less period according to
the manner in which the poison is presented to the surfaces with which
it comes in contact. If it is in a fluid form it is rapidly taken up and
soon produces the effect; if not, it requires to be absorbed, and the
effects are a longer time in showing themselves. But in either case
there is a difficulty in discovering its presence. If it acts only on
the nervous system through the circulation, an almost infinitesimal dose
will be present. And, as it is a vegetable poison, the tests which alone
can be employed are infinitely more delicate and difficult than those
which are applied to other poisons. It is unlike a mineral poison, which
can soon be detected and reproduced. If the dose has been a large one
death ensues before the whole has been absorbed, and a portion is left
in the intestines; but if a _minimum_ dose has been administered a
different consequence follows, and the whole is absorbed. Practical
experience bears out the theory that I am enunciating. Experiments have
been tried which show that where the same amount of poison has been
administered to animals of the same species death will ensue in the same
number of minutes, accompanied by precisely the same kinds of symptoms;
while in the analysis afterwards made, the presence of poison will be
detected in one case and not in another. It has been repeated over and
over again that the scientific men employed in this case had come to the
conclusion that the presence of strychnine cannot be detected by any
tests known to science. They have been grievously misunderstood. They
never made any such assertion. What they have asserted is this--the
detection of its presence, where its administration is a matter of
certainty, is a matter of the greatest uncertainty. It would, indeed, be
a fatal thing to sanction the notion that strychnine, administered for
the purpose of taking away life, cannot afterwards be detected!
Lamentable enough is the uncertainty of detection! Happily, Providence,
which has placed this fatal agent at the disposition of man, has marked
its effects with characteristic symptoms distinguishable from those of
all other agents by the eye of science.

It will be for you to say whether the testimony that will be laid before
you with regard to those symptoms does not lead your mind to the
conclusion that the deceased came to his death by poison administered to
him by the prisoner. There is a circumstance which throws great light
upon this part of the case. Some days before his death the man was
constantly vomiting. The analysis made of his body failed to produce
evidence of the presence of strychnine, but did not fail to produce
evidence of the presence of antimony. Now, antimony was not administered
by the medical men, and unless taken in a considerable quantity it
produces no effect and is perfectly soluble. It is an irritant, which
produces exactly the symptoms which were produced in this case. The man
was sick for a week, and antimony was found in his body afterwards. For
what purpose can it have been administered? It may be that the original
intention was to destroy him by means of antimony--it may be that the
only object was to bring about an appearance of disease so as to account
for death. One is lost in speculation. But the question is whether you
have any doubt that strychnine was administered on the Monday, and still
more on the Tuesday when death ensued? And if you are satisfied with the
evidence that will be adduced on that point, you must then determine
whether it was not administered by the prisoner’s hand. I shall produce
testimony before you in proof of the statements I have made, which I am
afraid must occupy some considerable portion of your time; but in such
an inquiry time cannot be wasted, and I am sure you will give it your
most patient attention. I have the satisfaction of knowing that the
prisoner will be defended by one of the most eloquent and able men who
ever adorned the bar of this country or any other forum, and that
everything will be done for him that can be done. If in the end all
should fail in satisfying you of his guilt, in God’s name let not the
innocent suffer! If, on the other hand, the facts that will be presented
to you should lead you to the conclusion that he is guilty, the best
interests of society demand his conviction.

The opening address of the Attorney-General occupied upwards of four
hours in its delivery. At its conclusion (at a quarter past 2 o’clock)
the jury retired for a short time for refreshment, and upon their return
the following witnesses were called in support of the prosecution:--

ISMAEL FISHER, examined by Mr. E. JAMES: I am a wine merchant at 4
Victoria-street, City. I am in the habit of attending races and betting.
I knew John Parsons Cook. I had known him for about two years before his
death. I was at Shrewsbury races in November, 1855. I remember the
Shrewsbury Handicap. It was won by the mare called Polestar, the
property of Cook. It took place on Tuesday, November the 13th. I saw
Cook upon the course. He looked as well as he had looked at any time
since I had known him. I was stopping at the Raven Hotel at Shrewsbury.
I know Palmer (the prisoner) very well. I have known him rather more
than two years. Cook and Palmer were stopping at the same hotel, and
occupied a room separated from mine only by a wooden partition. It was a
sitting room, and they occupied it jointly. On the Wednesday night,
between 11 and 12 o’clock, I went into the sitting-room. I found there
Cook, Palmer, and Mr. Myatt, a saddler at Rugeley, a friend of Palmer’s.
They had grog before them. I was asked to sit down by Cook, and I sat
down. Cook asked Palmer to have some more brandy-and-water. Palmer said,
“I will not have any more till you have drunk yours.” Cook said, “Then I
will drink mine.” He took up his glass and drank the grog off
immediately. He said within a minute afterwards, “There is something in
it; it burns my throat dreadfully.” Palmer then got up, took the glass,
sipped up what was left in it, and said, “There is nothing in it.” There
was not more than a teaspoonful in the glass when he emptied it. In the
mean time Mr. Read had come in. Palmer handed the glass to Read and to
me, and asked if we thought there was anything in it. We both said the
glass was so empty that we could not recognise anything. I said I
thought there was rather a strong scent upon it, but I could not say it
arose from anything but brandy.

Lord CAMPBELL: Did you put your lips to it?

WITNESS: I did not. It was completely drained. Within ten minutes I
retired. Cook had left the room, and then came back and called me from
it. We went to my own sitting room. He there told me he was very ill and
very sick, and asked me to take his money.

Mr. E. JAMES: Did he state what he was suffering from?

Mr. Serjeant SHEE objected to this question.

Lord CAMPBELL: Surely his statement of the effect produced on him by
what he had just swallowed is admissible.

Witness: He said he was very sick, and he thought “that d---- Palmer”
had dosed him. He handed me over some money, between £700 and £800, in
bank notes, to take care of. He did not sleep in the same room with
Palmer. He was seized with vomiting after he had given me the money, and
left the room. He afterwards came back to my room, and again complained
of what he had been suffering. He asked me to go to his bedroom. I went
with him. Mr. Jones, a law-stationer, went with me. He then vomited
again violently, and was so ill that I sent for a doctor--Mr. Gibson,
who came about half-past twelve or a quarter to one. I remained with
Cook till two o’clock. I sent for Mr. Gibson a second time, and he sent
some medicine, which Cook took. After seeing the doctor and taking the
medicine he became more composed. Mr. Jones and I gave him the medicine.
Next morning, about ten o’clock, I saw Palmer. I found him in my
sitting-room when I came down stairs; he said, “Cook has been stating
that I gave him something in his brandy. I never play such tricks with
people. But I can tell you what he was. He was d----d drunk.” I should
say Cook was certainly not drunk.

Lord CAMPBELL: Was he affected by liquor?

Witness: Not at all approaching drunkenness, my lord. Cook came into my
bedroom before I was up the same morning. He was much better, but still
looked ill. I gave him back his money. About three o’clock on that day
(Thursday) I saw Cook on the race-course. He looked very ill. I had
always settled Cook’s bets for him when he did not settle them himself.
I saw his betting-book in his hand. It was dark in colour, and about
half the size of this. (The witness here produced a small black
pocketbook). On the 17th of November (Saturday), by Cook’s request, I
paid Pratt £200. His account, in the ordinary course, would have been
settled at Tattersall’s on Monday, the 19th. I advanced the £200 to pay
Pratt. I knew that Cook had won at Shrewsbury, and I should have been
entitled to deduct that £200 from his winnings, if I had settled his
account at Tattersall’s. I did not settle that account, and I have not
been paid my advance.

Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant SHEE.--I had known Cook about two years,
and Palmer longer. They were a good deal connected in racing
transactions.

Do you know that they were partners?--I don’t remember settling any
transactions in which they were jointly interested, and I don’t know
that they owned horses jointly. They appeared very intimate and were
much together, generally staying at the same hotels. I was not at the
Worcester meeting. I don’t know whether Palmer won at Shrewsbury as well
as Cook. The races began on the Tuesday about 2 o’clock. Polestar ran
about an hour afterwards, but I cannot tell the exact time. I saw Cook
on the course after the race, and he appeared much elated. Polestar won
easily. In the evening, when I went into the sitting-room, there was a
candle on the table. A glass was ordered for me when I sat down. I don’t
remember drinking anything, but I cannot swear that I did not. I am a
good judge of brandy by the smell. I said there was nothing particular
in the smell, but the glass was so completely drained, that there was
very little to smell. I counted the money Cook gave me. I had been at
the Unicorn that evening quite an hour before. I dined at the Raven
about 6 o’clock. I did not see Cook after the race on the Wednesday,
till I saw him at the Unicorn, between 9 and 10 o’clock in the evening.
I merely looked into the room. I saw Sandars, the trainer, Cook, Palmer,
and a lady. I can’t say whether they were drinking.

Did it happen that a good many people were ill on that Wednesday at
Shrewsbury--I mean people connected with the races? No. I don’t know
that there were. On the Wednesday it was damp underfoot, but I forget
whether it rained. I saw Cook several times on the course. On the
Thursday the weather was cold and damp. I don’t know that Cook and
Palmer breakfasted together on the Thursday morning. On the 17th of
November I received a letter from Cook. [The letter was read. It was
dated, “Rugeley, Nov. the 16th,” and in it Cook said it was of very
great importance to Palmer and to himself that £500 should be paid to
Pratt on the next day, that £300 should be sent, and he would be greatly
obliged if Fisher would pay the other £200 immediately on receipt of the
letter, promising to give it him back on the following Monday at
Tattersall’s. He added that he was much better.]

Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I never intended to say that Cook
and Palmer were partners.

Did you notice any change of feeling on the part of Cook towards
Palmer?--He never had any great respect for Palmer, but I did notice a
change in him. It was a handicap race that Polestar won. Palmer had a
horse called Chicken, which ran on the Thursday and lost. He had betted
upon the race. Cook was not more elated at winning than people usually
are. I am not sure that I drank any brandy-and-water while I was staying
at the Raven.

Thomas Jones, examined by Mr. WELSBY, said: I am a law stationer in
Carey-street, London. I was at Shrewsbury races last November, and I
lodged at the Raven. I arrived there on a Monday night. I supped with
Cook, Herring, Fisher and Gravatt. Cook appeared well. I saw him on the
Tuesday and Wednesday, and he then also seemed quite well. Fisher and I
went to the Raven between eleven and twelve o’clock on Wednesday night.
Read was there, and he invited Cook into my room. Palmer was also there.
After the party broke up, Fisher came and told me something about Cook,
in consequence of which I went with him to Cook’s bedroom. He complained
of something burning at his throat and of vomiting. Some medicine was
brought,--pills and a draught. Cook refused to take the pills. I then
went to the doctor’s and got some liquid medicine, and gave him a small
quantity in a wineglass. He was in bed. About a quarter of an hour
afterwards he took the pills also, and I left him. Between six and seven
o’clock next morning I saw him again. He said he felt easier and better.
He looked pale.

This witness was not cross-examined.

George Read, examined by Mr. BODKIN: I live in Victoria-street, near
Farringdon-market. I keep a house frequented by sporting characters. I
am acquainted with Palmer. I saw him at Shrewsbury races on Tuesday, as
well as Cook. He appeared to be in his usual health. I saw him also the
next day, and he was apparently in the same health. I stayed at the
Raven. On the Wednesday night I went between eleven and twelve into the
room in which were Palmer and Cook. There was more than one gentleman in
the room. I had some brandy-and-water there. I saw that Cook was in pain
almost immediately after I entered. He said to us there is something in
the brandy-and-water. Palmer handed me the glass after it had been
emptied. I said, “What is the use of examining a glass which is empty?”
I believe Cook left the room. I did not see him again. I saw him on the
following morning at eleven o’clock. He was in his sitting-room. He said
in my hearing that he was very ill.

Cross-examined: On Tuesday he was as well as usual. He never looked a
strong man, but one having delicate health. He was not in the habit of
complaining of ill-health.

By the COURT: I had some of the brandy-and-water, and it did not make me
ill.

Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL: My brandy was taken from another
decanter, which was sent for when I went in. Cook appeared to be a
delicate man, but I never knew anything to be the matter with him. He
frequented races everywhere. I never knew him prevented by illness from
going to races.

WILLIAM SCAIFE GIBSON: I am assistant to Mr. Heathcote, surgeon, of
Shrewsbury. On the 14th of November last I was sent for, and went to the
Railway Hotel, Shrewsbury, between twelve and one o’clock at night. I
saw Mr Cook there. He was in his bedroom, but not in bed. He complained
of pain in his stomach, and heat in his throat. He also said he thought
he had been poisoned. I felt his pulse and looked at his tongue, which
was perfectly clean. He appeared much distended about the abdomen. I
recommended an emetic. He said that he could make himself sick with warm
water. I sent the waitress for some. She brought about a pint. I
recommended him to use a feather. He said he could do it with the handle
of a toothbrush. He drank all the warm water. Having used the toothbrush
he was sick. I examined the vomit; it was perfectly clear. I then told
him I would send him some medicine. I sent him two pills and a draught.
The pills were a compound rhubarb pill and a three-grain calomel pill.
They were ordered to be taken immediately, and the draught, which was
sennica--a compound of senna, magnesia, and aromatic spirit--was to be
taken twenty minutes afterwards. It was what is called a black draught.
Half an hour afterwards I gave to Jones, for Cook, an anodyne draught. I
did not see Cook afterwards.

Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant SHEE: Did you form any opinion as to what
was the matter with Cook?--I treated it as a case of poisoning.

Did you observe anything in the vomit which led you to believe he had
been poisoned?--Nothing at all.

Did he appear to have been drinking?--He appeared to be a little
excited, but he was quite sensible what he was doing and saying.

By “excited” do you mean to say he was tipsy?--No; but his brain had
been stimulated with brandy-and-water. The idea of having taken poison
would have some effect upon it.

In your judgment, was what you had prescribed a good thing, supposing
Cook had taken poison?--According to the symptoms, I should say it was.

Would it not have been better to get the poison up at once, if
possible?--He threw up the warm water.

Lord CAMPBELL: Did that cleanse the stomach?--Yes.

Cross-examination continued: Yet you thought calomel necessary?--Yes; on
account of the distended state of the bowels.

Did you see anything like bile in the basin?--There was some on the edge
of the basin, but it must have been thrown up before he took the warm
water.

Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The piece of bile was about the
size of a pea? The water thrown up was perfectly clean. Cook’s tongue
was quite clean.

Is that usual in the case of a bilious attack?--If the stomach had been
wrong any length of time the tongue would have been discoloured.

ELIZABETH MILLS examined by Mr. JAMES: In November last I was
chambermaid at the Talbot Arms, Rugeley. I had been so about two years.
I knew the prisoner Palmer, who was in the habit of coming to the Talbot
Arms. I also knew Cook, the deceased. On Thursday, the 15th of November,
he came to the Talbot Arms. He came between nine and ten o’clock at
night. The prisoner was with him. They came in a fly. Cook went to bed
at half-past ten o’clock. When Cook arrived he said he had been poorly,
and was poorly then. I don’t remember seeing Palmer after he got out of
the fly. About twelve o’clock on the following day I took Cook some hot
water, and he went out about one o’clock. He then appeared poorly. He
said he felt no worse, but was not well. He returned about ten o’clock
in the evening. In about half an hour he went to bed. I asked him if he
felt any worse than when he went out in the morning. He said he did not.
He said that he had been dining with Palmer. He was perfectly sober. He
asked me for an extra piece of candle to read by. I saw no more of him
that night. On Saturday morning, about eight o’clock, I saw Palmer at
the Talbot Arms. I do not know whether Cook had sent for him. Palmer
ordered from me a cup of coffee for Cook. I gave it to Cook in the
bedroom. I believe Palmer was then in the room. I left the coffee in
Cook’s hands, but did not see him drink it. Afterwards I went upstairs,
and found the coffee in the chamber utensil. That might be an hour, or
it might be a couple of hours after I had taken up the coffee. The
utensil was on the table by the side of the bed. I do not remember that
I spoke to Palmer, nor he to me, about this. I did not see any toast and
water in the bed-room; but a jug, not belonging to the inn, was about
ten o’clock in the evening sent down for some fresh toast-and-water. The
waitress, Lavinia Barnes, brought it down. I am sure the jug, which was
brought down from Cook’s room, did not belong to the Talbot Arms. I saw
Palmer go in and out of Cook’s room, perhaps, four or five times on that
Saturday. I heard Palmer tell Cook that he would send him over some
broth. I saw some broth in the kitchen, which some person had brought
there ready made. After Barnes had taken some broth up, ten minutes or a
quarter of an hour after the broth came over, I met Palmer going
upstairs towards Cook’s room. He asked if Mr. Cook had had his broth? I
told him I was not aware that any had come for him. While I was
speaking, Lavinia Barnes came out of the commercial-room, and said she
had taken the broth up to Cook when it came, but that he refused to take
it, saying it would not stay on his stomach. Palmer said that I must go
and fetch the broth; he (Cook) must have it. I fetched the broth and
took it into Cook’s room. Palmer was there. I cannot say whether it was
to him or Cook that I gave the broth, but I left it there. I am sure
that this was some of the broth which had been sent in. Some time
afterwards (about an hour or two), I went up to Cook’s room again, and
found that the broth had been vomited. About six o’clock in the evening,
some barley-water was made for Cook. I took it up to him. I cannot say
whether Palmer was with him. I cannot say whether or not that
barley-water stayed upon Cook’s stomach. At eight o’clock in the evening
some arrowroot was made in the kitchen. I took it up to Cook. I cannot
say whether Palmer was there, nor can I remember whether the arrowroot
remained on Cook’s stomach.

On Saturday, about three o’clock in the afternoon, I saw Mr. Bamford,
the surgeon. On Sunday morning I went to Mr. Cook’s room, about seven or
eight o’clock. Mr. Smith, called “Jerry Smith,” slept in Mr. Cook’s room
during Saturday night. He is a friend of the prisoner Palmer. I asked
Cook if he was any worse? He said he felt pretty comfortable, and had
slept well since twelve o’clock. On Sunday more broth, a large
breakfast-cup full, was brought over for Cook. That was between twelve
and one o’clock. I believe Charles Horley brought it. I took some of
that broth up to Cook’s room in the same cup in which it was brought. It
was hot. I tasted it. I drank about two tablespoonfuls. In about
half-an-hour or an hour I was sick. I vomited violently during the whole
afternoon till about 5 o’clock. I was obliged to go to bed. I vomited a
great many times. During the morning I had felt perfectly well, and had
not taken anything that could disagree with me. It was before dinner
that I took the broth. I went down to work again about a quarter before
6 o’clock. On the Sunday evening I saw Mr. Cook; he did not appear to be
any worse. He seemed to be in good spirits. The illness seemed to be
confined to vomitings after taking food. On Sunday night I saw Cook last
about 10 o’clock. On Monday morning I saw him between 7 and 8 o’clock,
when I took up to him a cup of coffee. I did not remain to see him drink
it. He did not vomit it. Palmer was coming down stairs, as though from
Cook’s room, about 7 o’clock. To my knowledge Palmer was not there, on
Monday. Cook got up about 1 o’clock, and appeared to be a great deal
better. He shaved, washed, and dressed himself. He said he felt better,
only exceedingly weak. He dressed as if he was going out. Ashmall the
jockey, and his brother, and Saunders the trainer, came to see him. As
soon as he got up I gave him some arrowroot, which remained on his
stomach. He sat up until about 4 o’clock, when he returned to bed.
Between 9 and 10 o’clock at night I saw Palmer. He was sitting down in
Cook’s room. I saw Cook about half-past 10 o’clock, and not again until
about a quarter before 12 o’clock. On the Monday night, about 8 o’clock,
a pill-box wrapped in white paper was brought from Mr. Bamford’s. It was
given to me by Miss Bond, the housekeeper, to take up to Cook’s room. I
took it up and placed the box on the dressing-table. That was before
Palmer came. When I saw Palmer he was sitting by the fire in Cook’s
room. I went to bed between 10 and 11 o’clock. About eight or ten
minutes before 12 o’clock the waitress, Lavinia Barnes, called me up.
While I was dressing I twice heard screams from Cook’s room. My room is
above, but not immediately over Cook’s. I went down to Cook’s room. As
soon as I entered the room I saw him sitting up in bed. He desired me to
fetch Palmer directly. I told him Palmer was sent for, and walked to his
bedside. I found the pillow upon the floor. There was one mould candle
burning in the room. I picked up the pillow, and asked Cook if he would
lay his head down. He was sitting up, beating the bedclothes with both
his hands and arms, which were stretched out. When I asked him to lay
his head down, he said, “I can’t lie down; I shall be suffocated if I
lie down. Oh, fetch Mr. Palmer!” The last words he said very loud. I did
not observe his legs, but there was a sort of jumping or jerking about
his head and neck, and his body. Sometimes he would throw back his head
upon the pillow, and then raise it up again. He had much difficulty in
breathing. The balls of his eyes projected very much. He screamed again
three or four times while I was in the room. He was moving and knocking
about all the time. Twice he called aloud, “Murder!” He asked me to rub
one hand. I found it stiff. It was the left hand.

By the COURT.--It was stretched out. It did not move. The hand was about
half shut. All the upper part seemed to be stiff.

Examination resumed.--I did not rub it long. As soon as he thought I had
rubbed it sufficiently he thanked me, and I left off. Palmer was there
while I was rubbing the hand. While I was rubbing it the arm and also
the body seemed to twitch. Cook was perfectly conscious. When Palmer
came in he recognized him. He was throwing himself about the bed, and
said to Palmer, “Oh, doctor, I shall die.” Palmer replied, “Oh, my lad,
you won’t!” Palmer just looked at Cook, and then left the room, asking
me to stay by the bedside. In about two or three minutes he returned. He
brought with him some pills. He gave Cook a draught in a wineglass, but
I cannot say whether he brought that with him. He first gave the pills,
and then the draught. Cook said the pills stuck in his throat, and he
could not swallow them. Palmer desired me to give him a teaspoonful of
toast-and-water, and I did so. His body was still jerking and jumping.
When I put the spoon to his mouth he snapped at it and got it fast
between his teeth, and seemed to bite it very hard. In snapping at the
spoon he threw forward his head and neck. He swallowed the
toast-and-water, and with it the pills. Palmer then handed him a draught
in a wineglass, which was about three parts full. It was a dark, thick,
heavy-looking liquid. Cook drank this. He snapped at the glass as he had
done at the spoon. He seemed as though he could not exactly control
himself. He swallowed the draught, but vomited it immediately into the
chamber utensil. I supported his forehead. The vomit smelt like opium.
Palmer said he hoped either that the pills had stayed on his stomach or
had not returned. He searched for the pills in the vomit with a quill.
He said, “I can’t find the pills,” and he then desired me to take the
utensil away, and pour the contents out carefully to see if I could find
the pills. I did so, and brought back the utensil, and told him I could
not see the pills at all. Cook afterwards seemed to be more easy. That
was about half an hour or more after I had first gone into the room.
During the whole of that time he appeared to be quite conscious. When
Cook was lying more quiet he desired Palmer to come and feel how his
heart beat, or something of that sort. Palmer went to the bedside, and
pressed his hand, I cannot say whether to the heart or to the side of
the face, but he said it was all right. I left Cook about 3 o’clock in
the morning. He was not asleep, but appeared to be dozing. Palmer was
sitting in the easy chair, and I believe he was asleep. I went into the
next room and laid down. About 6 o’clock I saw Cook again. I asked if
Palmer had gone, and Cook said he left at a quarter before 5 o’clock. I
asked if he felt any worse, and he said, no, he had been no worse since
I left him. I said, “You were asleep when I left.” He replied, “No, I
heard you go.” He asked me if I had ever seen any one suffer such agony
as he did last night? I said, no, I never had. He said he should think I
should not like to see any one like it again. I said, “What do you think
was the cause of all that agony?” He said, “The pills which Palmer gave
me at half-past 10.” I do not think anything more was said. I asked him
if he would take anything, and he said, “No.”

I do not remember seeing Palmer on that day (Tuesday) until he was sent
for. On that morning Cook seemed quite composed and quiet, but his eyes
looked wild. There was no motion about the body. About twelve o’clock at
noon he rang his bell, and desired me to send the “boots” over to Palmer
to ask if he might have a cup of coffee. Boots returned and said he
might, and Palmer would be over immediately. I took the coffee up to
Cook a little after twelve o’clock. Palmer was then in Cook’s room. I
gave the coffee to Palmer. He tasted it to see whether it was too
strong, and I left the room. Mr. Jones arrived by the three o’clock
train from Lutterworth. I saw him in Cook’s room. About four o’clock I
took Cook another cup of coffee. I cannot say whether Palmer was there.
Afterwards I saw Palmer. He opened the bed-room door and gave me the
chamber utensil, saying that Cook had vomited the coffee. There was
coffee in the utensil. I saw Cook several times before I went to bed. He
appeared to be in very good spirits, and talked about getting up next
morning. He said he would have the barber sent for to shave him. I
believe I gave him some arrowroot. I did not see him later than
half-past ten. Palmer was with him when I last saw him. I gave Palmer
some toast-and-water for Cook at the door. Palmer then said to Cook,
“Can this good girl do anything more for you to-night?” Cook said, “No;
I shall want nothing more till morning.” He spoke in a composed and
cheerful manner. I remained in the kitchen all night, to see how Cook
went on, and did not go to sleep. About ten minutes before twelve
o’clock the bell of Cook’s room was rung violently. Jones was sleeping
in a second bed in the same room. On hearing the bell I went up to
Cook’s room. Cook was sitting up. I think Jones was supporting him, with
his arms round his shoulders. Cook said, “Oh, Mary, fetch Mr. Palmer
directly.” I went to Palmer’s, and rang the surgery bell. As soon as I
had rung I stepped off the steps to look at Palmer’s bed-room window,
where I expected him to appear, and he was there. He did not lift up the
sash, but opened a small casement and spoke to me. I could not see
whether he was dressed, but I heard and knew his voice. I asked him to
come over to Mr. Cook directly, as he was much the same as he had been
the night before. I don’t remember what he replied. I went back to the
hotel, and in two or three minutes Palmer came. I was then in the
bed-room. Jones was there supporting Cook. Palmer said he had never
dressed so quickly in his life.

The question which elicited this answer was, “Did Palmer make any remark
about his dress?” After the answer had been given,

Mr. Serjeant SHEE objected to the form in which the question had been
put.

Lord CAMPBELL: It seems to me that the examination is conducted with
perfect fairness. No leading question, nor any one which could be
considered doubtful, has been put to the witness.

Examination continued: I left the room, but remained on the landing.
After I had been waiting there a short time (about a minute or two)
Palmer came out. I said, “He is much the same as last night.” Palmer
said, “Oh, he is not so ill by a fiftieth part.” He then went down
stairs as though going to his own house. He was absent but a very short
time, and then returned to Cook’s room. I also went in. I believe Cook
said, “Turn me over on my right side.” I was then outside, but the door
was open. I do not think that I was in the room at the time he died. I
went in just before, but came out again. Jones was there at the time,
and had his right arm under Cook’s head. Palmer was then feeling Cook’s
pulse, and said to Jones, “His pulse is gone.” Jones pressed the side
of his face to Cook’s heart, lifted up his hands, but did not speak.
Palmer asked me to fetch Mr. Bamford, and I went for him. Cook’s death
occurred about three-quarters of an hour after I had been called up. Mr.
Bamford came over. I did not return to Cook’s room. When Mr. Bamford
came down stairs he said, “He is dead: he was dead when I arrived.”
After Mr. Bamford had gone I went up to the landing, and sat upon the
stairs. I had sat there about ten minutes when Jones came out of the
room, and said, “Mr. Palmer wants you,” or “Will you go into the room?”
I went into the room where Cook was lying dead. Palmer was there. I said
to him, “It is not possible that Mr. Cook is dead?” He said, “Oh yes, he
is dead.” He asked me who I thought would come and lay him out. I
mentioned two women whom I thought Palmer knew. He said, “Those are just
the women.” I said, “Shall I fetch them?” and he said, “Yes.” I had seen
a betting-book in Cook’s room. It was a dark book, with gold bands round
the edges. It was not a very large book, rather more long than square,
and had a clasp at one end. I saw Cook have this book when he stopped at
Talbot Arms, as he went to the Liverpool races, some months before.
There was a case at the one side containing a pencil. I saw the book in
Cook’s room on Monday night. I took it off the dressing-table and gave
it to him in bed. He asked me to give him the book, pen, and ink, and
some paper. I gave him all. That was between seven and eight o’clock. He
took a postage stamp from a pocket at one end of the book. I replaced
the book on the frame of the looking-glass on the dressing-table. Palmer
was in the room after that time. To my knowledge I never saw the book
afterwards. I afterwards searched the room for it, but could not find
it. When I went into the room after Cook’s death, the clothes he had
worn were lying on a chair. I saw Palmer searching the pockets of the
coat. That was about ten minutes after the death. When I went into the
room Palmer had in his hand, searching the pockets, the coat which I had
seen Cook wear. Palmer also searched under the pillow and bolster. I saw
two or three letters lying upon the chimney-piece. I never saw them
again, but I was not much in the room afterwards. I had not seen the
letters before Cook’s death.

The examination in chief of this witness being concluded, the Court
adjourned, at twenty minutes past six o’clock, till next morning, when
it met at ten o’clock.




SECOND DAY, MAY 15.


Among the distinguished persons present were the Earl of Derby, Earl
Grey, Lord W. Lennox, Lord G. G. Lennox, Lord H. Lennox, &c.

The learned judges, Lord Chief Justice Campbell and Mr. Baron Alderson,
accompanied by the Recorder, the Sheriffs, the Under-Sheriffs, and
several members of the Court of Aldermen, took their seats on the bench
at 10 o’clock.

The prisoner was then placed at the bar. The expression of his
countenance was sadder and more subdued than on the preceding day. He
maintained his usual tranquillity of demeanour, seldom changing his
position, and gazing steadfastly at the witnesses.

The same counsel were again in attendance:--The Attorney-General, Mr. E.
James, Q.C., Mr. Bodkin, Mr. Welsby, and Mr. Huddleston, for the Crown;
and Mr. Serjeant Shee, Mr. Grove, Q.C., Mr. Gray, and Mr. Kenealy, for
the prisoner.

The Jury, who had been all night at the London Coffee-house, were
conducted into court by the officer who had them in charge.

Elizabeth Mills, who was under examination the previous evening, was
again placed in the witness-box. She deposed as follows:--I had been
engaged at the Talbot Arms for about three years previous to Cook’s
death. Cook first came to that inn in the month of May, 1855, and was
off and on for some months. I never heard him complain of any illness
during that time except of an affection in his throat. I heard him
complain of a sore throat two or three months before his death. He said
it resulted from cold. He took a gargle for it. I believe he had it from
Mr. Thirlby. I did not observe any sores about his mouth. I never heard
him complain of a difficulty in swallowing. I have seen him with a
“loaded” tongue occasionally, but I never heard him complain of a sore
tongue, nor have I heard of caustic being applied to his tongue. It was
a month, if not more, before his death that I heard him say he had a
sore throat. I never knew him to take medicine before his last illness.
He had a slight cough through cold, but never to my knowledge a violent
one. He had not been ailing just before he went to Shrewsbury. On his
return from Shrewsbury he complained of being poorly. I left my
situation at Christmas, and went to my home in the Potteries. Since then
I have been in another situation, which I left in February. I have seen
Mr. Stevens, Mr. Cook’s father-in-law, since I have been in London. I
cannot say how many times I have seen him, but it is not more than six
or seven times. Sometimes we conversed together in a private room. He
only came to see whether I liked the place or whether I liked London. We
used to converse together about Mr. Cook’s death. I have talked to him
about Mr. Cook’s death at Rugeley. I cannot remember anything else that
we talked about except the death. He has never given me a farthing of
money or promised to get me a place. I saw Mr. Stevens last Tuesday at
Dolly’s Hotel, where I had been in service. Lavinia Barnes was with us.
She was the waitress at the Talbot Arms when Mr. Cook died. Two other
persons were present, Mr. Hatton, the chief officer of Rugeley, and Mr.
Gardner, an attorney at the same place. Mr. Cook’s death may have been
mentioned at this meeting. Other things were talked of which I do not
wish to mention.

Serjeant SHEE: But you must mention them.

Witness: I cannot remember what they were. I don’t know whether we
talked about the trial. They did not ask me what I could prove. My
deposition was not read over to me, and Mr. Stevens did not talk to me
about the symptoms that were exhibited by Mr. Cook before his death. I
had seen Mr. Hatton a few times before. I once saw him at Dolly’s. He
merely dined there. I cannot remember whether he spoke to me about
Cook’s death. He might have done so. I cannot remember whether he did or
not. I know he asked me how I did. (A laugh.) I saw Mr. Gardner once at
Dolly’s, and once in the street, and I swear these were the only
occasions I ever saw him. I never went with him to a solicitor’s office.
At present I am living with my mother at Rugeley. Before that I had been
living among my friends. I know a man named Dutton. He is a friend of
mine. I have been staying at his house. His mother lives in the same
house. He is a labouring man. I used to sleep with Dutton’s mother. I
swear that I slept with his mother. I have also been staying with a
cousin of mine in the Potteries. I left Dolly’s of my own accord,
because I did not like the place. I can read, and I read the newspapers.
I have heard of the case of a person named Dove, who was supposed to
have murdered his wife at Leeds. I merely heard that it was another
strychnine case, but the symptoms of strychnine were not mentioned. I
will swear that I mentioned “twitching” to the coroner. If I did not use
the exact word, I said something to the same effect. I will swear that I
have used the word “twitching” before I came to London. The words
“twitching” and “jerking” were not first suggested to me. I did not say
anything about the broth having made me sick before the coroner, because
it did not occur to me. I did tell the coroner that I tasted the broth,
and that I did not observe anything particular about it. I was examined
several times, and I was questioned particularly upon the subject of the
broth, and I said on one occasion that I thought the broth was very
good. I did not at the time think it was the broth that had caused the
sickness. I was so ill that I was obliged to go to bed; but I could not
at all account for it. I only took two table-spoonfuls, and the sickness
came on in about half an hour. I never knew of Mr. Cook taking coffee in
bed before those occasions. If I have said that Mr. Palmer ordered
coffee for Cook, I have no doubt that it is correct. I cannot remember
so well to day as I did yesterday. I cannot remember whether I told the
coroner that I had not seen Mr. Palmer when I gave the deceased the
coffee. I don’t remember whether I said anything before the coroner
about seeing a box of pills in the deceased’s bedroom on the Monday
night, and that Palmer was in the room at the time. Perhaps I was not
asked the question. I did nothing but answer questions that were put to
me. I am sure that Palmer was in the room on that night. I remember that
he brought a jar of jelly, and I opened it. I swear that the deceased
told me that the pills Palmer had given him had made him ill. I did not
say this before the coroner. I was asked some questions by Dr. Collier
with regard to what I had stated to the coroner, and I said that my
evidence had been altered, as some things had occurred to me since, and
I had made another statement to a gentleman. I gave this additional
statement to a gentleman at Dolly’s. I don’t know who the gentleman was.
I did not ask him, and he did not tell me. He did not ask me many
questions. He put a few to me and wrote down my answers. He mentioned
Mr. Stevens’ name. Mr. Stevens was there.

Serjeant SHEE: Why did not you tell me that?--Because you did not ask
me. (A laugh.)

Cross-examination continued: I did not tell the coroner that Mr. Cook
was beating the bedclothes on the Monday night. I did say that he
sometimes threw his head back, and then would raise himself up again,
and I believe I also said that he could hardly speak for shortness of
breath. I did not say that he called “Murder!” twice, and I do not
remember saying that he “twitched” while I was rubbing his hands. I did
not say anything about toast-and-water being given to Mr. Cook, by order
of Palmer, in a spoon; or that he snapped at the spoon and bit it so
hard that it was difficult to get it out of his mouth.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE here interposed and intimated his opinion that it
would be a fairer course to read the witness’s depositions.

The other judges concurred.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, he should have interposed, but it was his
intention to adduce evidence to show the manner in which the case was
conducted by the coroner, and that he was expostulated with upon
omitting to put proper questions, and also omitting to take down the
answers that were given.

Cross-examination continued: I should have answered all those questions
if they had been put to me. I was not purposely recalled to state the
symptoms of the deceased in the presence of Dr. Taylor. When the
prisoner came to the Talbot on the Tuesday night he had a plaid
dressing-gown on, but I cannot say whether he had a cap or not. I did
not observe that the prisoner appeared at all confused at the time he
was examining the clothes and the bed of the deceased.

A model of the prisoner’s house and of the hotel was here produced. The
deposition of the witness was put in and read, for the purpose of
showing that the statements made by her in her examination on Wednesday
were omitted when she was examined by the coroner.

The witness was re-examined by Mr. E. JAMES: I was examined on a great
many different days by the coroner. I was not asked to describe all the
symptoms I saw. The coroner himself put the questions to me, and his
clerk took down the answers. I merely answered the questions, and I was
not told to describe all I saw. The coroner asked me if the broth had
any effect upon me; and I said, “Not that I was aware of.” I don’t know
what brought the sickness to my mind afterwards, but I think that some
one else in the house brought the fact to my memory. I certainly did
vomit after I took the broth, and was obliged to go to bed. I am quite
sure the deceased told me that it was the pills Palmer had given him
that had made him ill. When Mr. Collier came to me he said that he was
for the Crown, and he then asked me questions about the inquest and the
death of Mr. Cook. I answered all the questions he put to me, and he
took them down in writing and carried the statement away with him. Two
other persons waited outside the house. I am engaged to be married to
one of the Duttons.

Serjeant SHEE: Did not Dr. Collier tell you that he was neither for the
Crown nor for the defence, but for the truth?

Witness: No; what he said was that he was for the Crown; but what he
desired above all things was to know the truth, and that he asked me to
tell him without fear, favour, or affection.

Mr. GARDNER, examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am a member of the firm
of Gardner and Co., of Rugeley. I acted in this matter for the firm of
Cookson and Co., the solicitors of Mr. Stevens, the father-in-law of
Cook. I attended the inquest on the body of Cook, and occasionally put
questions to the witnesses. Mr. Ward, an attorney, was the coroner. He
put questions to the witnesses, and his clerk took down the answers. The
inquest lasted five days, and several times upon each day I expostulated
with the coroner on account of his omitting to put questions.

Mr. Serjeant SHEE submitted that what was said by the coroner was no
evidence against the prisoner.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It is not intended as evidence against the
prisoner, but to rebut the effect of evidence that you have put in. I
will ask--had you occasion to expostulate with the coroner as to the
omission of his clerk to take down the answers of witnesses?

Mr. Serjeant SHEE: I object to the question being put in that form.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Did you observe that the clerk omitted to take
down the answers of Elizabeth Mills?--Not in reference to that
particular case.

Mr. Baron ALDERSON: Her account of the matter is that the questions were
not put.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Did Dr. Taylor object that questions were not put
which ought to have been put?--I do not recollect it.

Lord CAMPBELL: It is not suggested, as I understand, that the coroner
refused to correct any mistakes that were made.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am prepared to show that there was such
misconduct on the part of the coroner as led to expostulation.

Mr. Serjeant SHEE: Don’t state that unless you are going to prove it.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It is suggested that a witness has given evidence
here which she did not give before the coroner; my object is to show,
first, that questions were not put to her which might and ought to have
been put; secondly, that her answers to other questions were not taken
down.

Lord CAMPBELL held that the evidence was not admissible.

Witness, cross-examined by Serjeant SHEE: The jury put a great many
questions.

Re-examined: The jury made very strong observations as to the necessity
of putting questions.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Did they assign any reason for interfering when
they put questions?

Mr. Serjeant SHEE objected to this question, on the ground that it did
not arise out of his cross-examination.

Lord CAMPBELL: My learned brethren think that evidence upon this point
is not admissible.

Mr. Justice CRESSWELL said the depositions which had been put in did not
show that any questions had been put by the jurymen. If they had
contained such questions they would have shown the motive of the jury in
putting them. But the Court was left totally in the dark as to whether
questions had been put by the coroner or any other person. For anything
that appeared to the contrary, the witnesses might have made a voluntary
statement, without any questions at all being put to them. No foundation
was laid, therefore, for the Attorney-General’s question.

Mr. Baron ALDERSON concurred.

Mrs. ANN BROOKS, examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I live at Manchester.
I am in the habit of attending races. I was at Shrewsbury Races in
November, 1855. I saw Palmer there. On the 14th (Wednesday), about eight
o’clock in the evening, I met him in the street, and asked him whether
he thought his horse Chicken would win? He desired me, if I heard
anything further about a horse belonging to Lord Derby, which was also
to run, to call and tell him on the following day. I went to the Raven
to see him at half-past ten o’clock on the Thursday evening. Some
friends waited for me in the road. I went upstairs, and asked a servant
to tell Palmer that I wished to speak to him. The servant said he was
there. At the top of the stairs there are two passages, one facing the
other, to the left. I saw Palmer standing by a small table in the
passage. He had a tumbler-glass in his hand, in which there appeared to
be a small quantity of water. I did not see him put anything into it.
There was a light between him and me, and he held it up to the light. He
said to me, “I will be with you presently.” He saw me the moment I got
to the top of the stairs. He stood at the table a minute or two longer
with the glass in his hand, holding it up to the light once or twice,
and now and then shaking it. I made an observation about the fineness of
the weather. The door of a sitting-room, which I supposed was
unoccupied, was partially open, and he went into it, taking the glass
with him. In two or three minutes he came out again with the glass. What
was in the glass was still the colour of water. He then carried it into
his own sitting-room, the door of which was shut. He afterwards came
out, and brought me a glass with brandy-and-water in it. It might have
been the same glass. I had some of the brandy-and-water. It produced no
unpleasant consequences. We had some conversation about the races. In
the course of it he said he should back his own horse, Chicken. I was
present at the race, when Chicken ran and lost.

Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant SHEE.--I am married. Brooks is the name
of my husband. He never goes with me to races. I live with him. I don’t
attend many races in the course of a year. My husband has a high
appointment, and does not sanction my going to races. A great number of
racing men were ill at Shrewsbury on the Wednesday. There was a wonder
as to what had caused their illness, and something was said about the
water being poisoned. People were affected by sickness and purging. I
knew some persons who were so affected. The passage in which I saw
Palmer holding the glass led to a good many rooms. I think it was
lighted by gas. I supposed that he was mixing some cooling drink.

Re-examined: I was not examined before the Coroner. The brandy-and-water
which Palmer gave me was cold. I had been on friendly terms with him. I
had known him a number of years as a racing man.

LAVINIA BARNES, examined by Mr. E. JAMES: In November, 1855, I was a
waitress at the Talbot Arms. I knew Palmer and Cook. Cook called there
on the 12th (Monday) as he was going to the races. He did not complain
of illness. I saw him when he returned on the 15th. On the Friday he
came between nine and ten o’clock in the evening, after dining with
Palmer. He spoke to me. He was sober. On the Saturday I saw him twice.
Some broth was sent over and taken up to him by me. He could not take
it; he was too sick. I carried it down and put it into the kitchen. I
afterwards saw Palmer, and told him Cook was too sick to take it. Palmer
said he must have it. Elizabeth Mills afterwards took it up again. She
was taken ill with violent vomiting on the Sunday, between twelve and
one o’clock. She went to bed, and did not come down stairs till four or
five o’clock. I saw some broth on that day in the kitchen. It was in a
“sick-cup,” with two handles, not belonging to the house. I did not see
it brought. The cup went back to Palmer’s. On the Monday morning,
between seven and eight o’clock, I saw Palmer. He told Mills he was
going to London. I also saw Cook during the day. Sandars came to see
him, and I took him up some brandy-and-water. I slept that night in the
next room to Cook’s. Palmer came between eight and nine o’clock in the
evening, and went up-stairs, but I did not see whether he went into
Cook’s room. About twelve o’clock I was in the kitchen, when Cook’s bell
rang violently. I went up-stairs. Cook was very ill, and asked me to
send for Palmer. He screamed out “Murder!” He exclaimed that he was in
violent pain--that he was suffocating. His eyes were wild-looking,
standing a great way out of his head. He was beating the bed with his
arms. He cried out, “Christ, have mercy on my soul!” I never saw a
person in such a state. Having called up Mills, I left to send “Boots”
for Palmer. Palmer came, and I again went into the room. Cook was then
more composed. He said, “Oh, doctor, I shall die.” Palmer replied,
“Don’t be alarmed, my lad.” I saw Cook drink a darkish mixture out of a
glass. I don’t know who gave it to him. I both saw and heard him snap at
the glass. He brought up the draft. I left him between twelve and one
o’clock, when he was much more composed. On the Tuesday he seemed a
little better. At night, a little before twelve o’clock, the bell rang
again. I was in the kitchen. Mills went up stairs. I followed her, and
heard Cook screaming, but did not go into the room. I stood outside the
door and saw Palmer come. He had been fetched. I said as he passed me:
“Mr. Cook is ill again.” He said, “Oh, is he?” and went into the room.
He was dressed in his usual manner, and wore a black coat and a cap. I
remained on the landing when Palmer came out. As he went down stairs,
Mills asked him how Cook was? He said to her and to me, “He is not so
bad by fifty parts as he was last night.” I heard Cook ask to be turned
over before I went in, while Palmer was there. I went in after Palmer
had left, but I came out before Cook died.

After he died on the Tuesday I went into the room and found Palmer with
a coat in his hand. He was clearing out the pockets of the coat and
looking under the bolster. I said, “Oh! Mr. Cook can’t be dead!” Palmer
said, “He is. I knew he would be,” and then left the room. I saw him on
the Thursday following. He came into the body of the hall, and asked for
the key of Mr. Cook’s bedroom, in which the body was lying. The key was
in the bar. He said he wanted some books and papers and a paperknife,
for they were to go back to the stationer’s, or else he would have to
pay for them. I went with him into the room. He then requested me to go
to Miss Bond for some books. I went downstairs and fetched the books.
When I returned he was still in the room looking for the paperknife on
the top of the chest of drawers among books, papers, and clothes. He
said, “I can’t find the knife anywhere.” Miss Bond, the housekeeper,
afterwards came up, and I left. On the Friday, between 3 and 4 o’clock,
I saw Mr. Jones with Palmer. Jones said he thought Palmer knew where the
betting-book was. Palmer asked me to go and look for it, and said it was
sure to be found, but it was not worth anything to any one but Cook.
Mills and I went up to look for it, but we could not find it. We
searched everywhere, in the bed and all round the room, but not in the
drawers. We went down and told Palmer and Jones that we could not find
it. Palmer said, “Oh, it will be found somewhere. I’ll go with you and
look myself.” He did not go with us, but left the house. I did not see
him come out of the room on the Thursday. There was no reason for our
not looking in the drawers. Some people were in the room at the time
nailing the coffin.

Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant SHEE.--Cook had some coffee on the
Saturday between 12 and 1. I did not pay any particular attention to the
time when Palmer went up on the Monday. I am not sure it was before
half-past 9, but I am sure it was before 10. I don’t remember whether
Cook touched the glass from which he drank the mixture. I think some one
else was holding it. There was some of Cook’s linen in several of the
drawers. There was a portmanteau containing other things besides those
in the drawers. There were dress clothes, an overcoat, and morning
clothes. The door was locked on the night of the death. The women were
sent for to lay out the corpse before it was light. The undertaker went
on the following morning, and the door was locked after they left. They
came again on the Thursday night, had the key, and went up by
themselves. The body was put into the coffin the day Stevens was there.
The women were in the room with the undertakers when I looked for the
book.

Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL.--The chamber-maid and I were in and
out of the room while the women were laying out the body, but they were
sometimes left alone. I saw nothing of the book at that time. I had seen
it before in Cook’s hand, but I don’t remember seeing it in the room.

ANN ROWLEY, examined by Mr. WELSBY.--I live at Rugeley, and have
frequently been employed as charwoman by Palmer. On the Saturday before
Cook died Palmer sent me to Mr. Robinson’s, at the Albion Inn, for a
little broth for Cook. I fetched the broth, took it to Palmer’s house,
and put it to the fire in the back kitchen to warm. After doing so, I
went about my work in other parts of the house. When the broth was hot,
Palmer brought it to me in the kitchen, and poured it into a cup. He
told me to take it to the Talbot arms for Cook, to ask if he would take
a little bread or toast with it, and to say that Smith had sent it.

By Lord CAMPBELL.--He did not say why I was to say that.

Examination resumed.--There is a Mr. Jeremiah Smith in Rugeley. He is
called “Jerry Smith.” He is a friend of Palmer’s. I took the broth to
the Talbot Arms, and gave it to Lavinia Barnes.

Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant SHEE.--Mr. Smith was in the habit of
putting up at the Albion. He was friendly with Cook. Cook was to have
dined with Smith that day, but was not able to go. Mrs. Robinson, the
landlady of the Albion, made the broth, but I don’t know by whose
orders.

By Lord CAMPBELL.--The broth was at the fire in Palmer’s kitchen about
five minutes.

CHARLES HORLEY, examined by Mr. BODKIN.--I am a gardener living at
Rugeley, and was occasionally employed by the prisoner in his garden. On
the Sunday before Cook died, Palmer asked me to take some broth to Cook.
That was at Palmer’s house, where I was in the habit of going. It was
between 12 and 1 o’clock. He gave me the broth in a small cup with a
cover over it, and told me to take it to the Talbot Arms for Cook. I did
so. I cannot say whether or not the broth was hot. I gave it to one of
the servant girls at the Talbot Arms, but which I cannot say.

The witness was not cross-examined.

SARAH BOND, examined by Mr. HUDDLESTON: In November last I was
housekeeper at the Talbot Arms. I knew Cook. He stayed at the Talbot
Arms. I remember his going to Shrewsbury races on the 12th of November.
He returned on the Thursday. I heard him say that he was very poorly. I
did not see him on the Friday or Saturday. On Sunday I saw him about
eight o’clock in the evening. He was in bed. He said that he had been
very poorly, but was better. Very soon afterwards I saw Palmer. I asked
him what he thought of Cook, and he replied that he was better. On
Saturday night Smith had slept in the room with Cook. On the Sunday
evening I asked Palmer if Cook would not want somebody with him that
night, and Palmer replied that he was so much better, that it would not
be necessary that any one should be with him. I asked if Daniel Jenkins,
the boots, should sleep in the room. Palmer said, that Cook was so much
better he had much rather he did not. On the Monday morning, a little
before seven o’clock, I saw Palmer again. He came into the kitchen to
me. I asked him how Cook was. He said he was better, and requested me to
make him a cup of coffee. He did not say anything about its strength. He
remained in the kitchen, and I made the coffee and gave it to him. He
told me that he was going to London, and that he had written for Mr.
Jones to come to see Cook. On the Monday night, hearing from the
waitress that Cook was ill, I went up to his room between eleven and
twelve o’clock. When I went into the room Cook was alone. He was sitting
up in bed, resting on his elbow. He seemed disappointed, and said he did
not want to see me, but Palmer. I went out on to the landing, and soon
afterwards Palmer came. Palmer went into the room. I could not see what
was done in the room. Palmer came out, went away for a few minutes, and
then returned. After he came back, I heard that Cook had vomited. Cook
said, he thought he should die. Palmer cheered him up, and said, that he
would do all he could to prevent it. When Palmer came out of the room
again, I asked him if Cook had any relatives, and he said that he had
only a step-father. I saw Cook again between three and four o’clock on
Tuesday. That was when Mr. Jones came. A little after six o’clock I took
some jelly up to Cook. He seemed very anxious for it, and said that he
thought he should die. I thought he seemed better. I did not see him
again alive. Between eight and nine o’clock on Wednesday morning, I
locked the door of the room in which Cook’s body lay. About nine o’clock
I gave the key to Mr. Tolly the barber, when he came to shave the
corpse. On Thursday I gave it to Lavinia Barnes. After that I went up to
the room and met Palmer coming out of it. After I came out the door was
locked, and I had the key. On Friday, when Mr. Stevens came, I gave the
key to the undertaker.

Cross-examined by Mr. GROVE: The passengers by the express train from
London arrived at Rugeley about ten o’clock in the evening. They come by
fly from Stafford.

WILLIAM HENRY JONES, examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am a surgeon,
living at Lutterworth. I have been in practice fifteen years. I was
acquainted with Cook, who from time to time resided at my house. I had
been on terms of intimacy with him nearly five years. He was
twenty-eight years of age when he died, and unmarried. He was originally
educated for the law, but of late years had devoted himself to
agriculture and the turf. The last year or two he had no farm. He kept
race-horses and betted. I had known Palmer about twelve months. Lately
Cook considered my house at Lutterworth as his home. I have attended him
professionally. His health was generally good, but he was not very
robust. He was a man of active habits. He both hunted and played
cricket. In November last he invited me to go to Shrewsbury to see his
horse run, and I went. I spent Tuesday, the 13th, with him there. That
was the day on which Polestar ran and won. I dined with Cook and other
friends at the Raven Hotel, where he was staying. The horse having won,
there was a little extra champagne drunk. We dined between six and seven
o’clock, and the party broke up between eight and nine. Cook afterwards
accompanied me round the town. We went to Mr. Fraill’s, who is clerk of
the course. I saw Cook produce his betting-book to Whitehouse, the
jockey. He calculated his winnings on Polestar. There were figures in
the book. Cook made a statement as to his winnings.

Mr. Serjeant SHEE objected to this statement being given in evidence,
and the Attorney-General, therefore, did not ask any questions as to its
purport.

Examination resumed: I left the Raven Hotel at ten o’clock. Cook was
then at the door. He was not at all the worse for liquor. He was in his
usual health. On the following Monday I received a letter from Palmer.

This letter, which was put in and read, was as follows:--

“My dear Sir,--Mr. Cook was taken ill at Shrewsbury, and obliged to call
in a medical man. Since then he has been confined to his bed here with a
very severe bilious attack, combined with diarrhœa. I think it
desirable for you to come and see him as soon as possible.

“Nov. 18, 1855.

WILLIAM PALMER.”

Examination resumed: On that day (Monday) I was very unwell. On the next
day I went to Rugeley. I arrived at the Talbot Arms about half-past
three o’clock in the afternoon, and immediately went up to Cook’s room.
He said that he was very comfortable, but he had been very ill at
Shrewsbury. He did not detail the symptoms, but said that he was obliged
to call in a medical man. Palmer came in. I examined Cook in Palmer’s
presence. He had a natural pulse. I looked at his tongue, which was
clean. I said it was hardly the tongue of a bilious diarrhœa attack.
Palmer replied--“You should have seen it before.” I did not then
prescribe for Cook. In the course of the afternoon I visited him several
times. He changed for the better. His spirits and pulse both improved. I
gave him, at his request, some toast-and-water, and he vomited. There
was no diarrhœa. The toast-and-water was in the room. Mr. Bamford
came in the evening about seven o’clock. Palmer had told me that Mr.
Bamford had been called in. Mr. Bamford expressed his opinion that Cook
was going on very satisfactorily. We were talking about what he was to
have, and Cook objected to the pills of the previous night. Palmer was
there all the time. Cook said the pills made him ill. I do not remember
to whom he addressed this observation. We three (Palmer, Bamford, and
myself) went out upon the landing. Palmer proposed that Mr. Bamford
should make up some morphine pills as before, at the same time
requesting me not to mention to Cook what they contained, as he objected
to the morphine so much. Mr. Bamford agreed to this, and he went away. I
went back to Cook’s room, and Palmer went with me. During the evening I
was several times in Cook’s room. He seemed very comfortable all the
evening. There was no more vomiting nor any diarrhœa, but there was a
natural motion of the bowels. I observed no bilious symptoms about Cook.

By Lord CAMPBELL: Did he appear to have recently suffered from a bilious
attack?--No.

Examination resumed: Palmer and I went to his house about eight o’clock.
I remained there about half-an-hour, and then returned to Cook. I next
saw Palmer in Cook’s room at nearly eleven o’clock. He had brought with
him a box of pills. He opened the paper, on which the direction was
written in my presence. That paper was round the box. He called my
attention to the paper, saying, “What an excellent handwriting for an
old man!” I did not read the direction, but looked at the writing, which
was very good. Palmer proposed to Cook that he should take the pills.
Cook protested very much against it, because they had made him so ill
the previous night. Palmer repeated the request several times, and at
last Cook complied with it, and took the pills. The moment he took them
he vomited into the utensil. Palmer and myself (at Palmer’s request)
searched in it for the pills, to see whether they were returned. We
found nothing but toast-and-water. I do not know when Cook had drank the
toast-and-water, but it was standing by the bedside all the evening. The
vomiting could not have been caused by the contents of the pills, nor by
the act of swallowing. After vomiting, Cook laid down and appeared
quiet. Before Palmer came, Cook had got up and sat in a chair. His
spirits were very good; he was laughing and joking, talking of what he
should do with himself during the winter. After he had taken the pills I
went downstairs to my supper, and returned to his room at nearly twelve
o’clock. His room was double-bedded, and it had been arranged that I
should sleep in it that night. I talked to Cook for a few minutes, and
then went to bed. When I last talked to him he was rather sleepy, but
quite as well as he had been during the evening. There was nothing about
him to excite any apprehensions. I had been in bed about ten minutes,
and had not gone to sleep, when he suddenly started up in bed, and
called out, “Doctor, get up, I am going to be ill! Ring the bell, and
send for Palmer.” I rang the bell. The chambermaid came, and Cook called
out to her, “Fetch Mr. Palmer.” He asked me to give him something; I
declined, and said, “Palmer will be here directly.” Cook was then
sitting up in bed. The room was rather dark, and I did not observe
anything particular in his countenance. He asked me to rub the back of
his neck. I did so. I supported him with my arm. There was a stiffness
about the muscles of his neck.

Palmer came very soon (two or three minutes at the utmost) after the
chambermaid went for him. He said, “I never dressed so quickly in my
life.” I did not observe how he was dressed. He gave Cook two pills,
which he told me were ammonia pills. Cook swallowed them. Directly he
did so he uttered loud screams, threw himself back in the bed, and was
dreadfully convulsed. That could not have been the result of the action
of the pills last taken. Cook said, “Raise me up! I shall be
suffocated.” That was at the commencement of the convulsions, which
lasted five or ten minutes. The convulsions affected every muscle of the
body, and were accompanied by stiffening of the limbs. I endeavoured to
raise Cook, with the assistance of Palmer, but found it quite
impossible, owing to the rigidity of the limbs. When Cook found we could
not raise him up, he asked me to turn him over. He was then quite
sensible. I turned him on to his side. I listened to the action of his
heart. I found that it gradually weakened, and asked Palmer to fetch
some spirits of ammonia, to be used as a stimulant. Palmer went to his
house and fetched the bottle. He was away a very short time. When he
returned the pulsations of the heart were gradually ceasing, and life
was almost extinct. Cook died very quietly a very short time afterwards.
From the time he called to me to that of his death there elapsed about
ten minutes or a quarter of an hour. He died of tetanus, which is a
spasmodic affection of the muscles of the whole body. It causes death by
stopping the action of the heart. The sense of suffocation is caused by
the contraction of the respiratory muscles. The room was so dark that I
could not observe what was the outward appearance of Cook’s body after
death. When he threw himself back in bed he clinched his hands, and they
remained clinched after death. When I was rubbing his neck, his head and
neck were unnaturally bent back by the spasmodic action of the muscles.
After death his body was so twisted or bowed that if I had placed it
upon the back it would have rested upon the head and the feet.

By Lord CAMPBELL: When did you first observe that twisting or
bowing?--When Cook threw himself back in bed.

Examination resumed: The jaw was effected by the spasmodic action.
Palmer remained half-an-hour or an hour after Cook’s death. I suggested
that we should have some women to lay Cook out. I left the room to speak
to the housekeeper about this. Seeing two maids on the landing, I sent
them into the room where Palmer was with Cook’s body. I went downstairs
and spoke to the housekeeper, and then returned to the bedroom. When I
went back, Palmer had Cook’s coat in his hand. He said to me, “You, as
his nearest friend, had better take possession of his effects.” I took
Cook’s watch and his purse, containing five sovereigns and five
shillings, which was all I could find. I saw no betting-book, nor any
papers or letters belonging to Cook. I found no bank notes.

Before Palmer left, did he say anything to you on the subject of affairs
between himself and Cook?--He did. Soon after Cook’s death, he said, “It
is a bad thing for me that Mr. Cook is dead, as I am responsible for
£3,000 or £4,000, and I hope Mr. Cook’s friends will not let me lose it.
If they do not assist me, all my horses will be seized.” He said nothing
about securities or papers. I was present when Mr. Stevens, Cook’s
stepfather, came. Palmer said that if Mr. Stevens did not bury Cook he
should. I do not recollect that there was any question about burying
him. Mr. Stevens, Palmer, Mr. Bamford, and myself, dined together. After
dinner, Mr. Stevens, in Palmer’s presence, asked me to go and look for
Cook’s betting-book. I went to look for it, and Palmer followed me. The
night that Cook died the betting-book was mentioned.

What was said about it?--Palmer said that it would be of use to no one.

What led to this?--My taking possession of the effects.

Did you make any observation about the book?--I cannot recollect.

Did you find it?--No.

Did you make any remark?--No particular remark.

Did Palmer know what you were looking for?--Yes.

How?--I said, “Where is the betting-book?” Upon that he said, “It is of
no use to anyone.”

You are sure he said that?--Yes. When I went to look for the book, at
Mr. Stevens’ request, Palmer followed me. I looked for the book for two
or three minutes, but did not find it. I told the maidservants that I
could not find it. Palmer returned with me to the dining-room, and I
told Mr. Stevens that I could not find the book.

By Lord CAMPBELL: When Palmer, Mr. Bamford, and myself, held the
consultation on the landing on the Tuesday night, nothing was said about
the spasms of the night before.

Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant SHEE: I am a regular medical
practitioner, and have for 15 years practised medicine as a means of
gaining a living. I am a licentiate of the Apothecaries Company, and
have endeavoured, both as a young man and since, to qualify myself for
my profession. When I saw Cook his throat was slightly ulcerated, but he
could swallow very well, although with a little pain. I know that he had
applied caustic to his tongue, but he had ceased to do so for two
months. He did not after that continue to complain of pain in his throat
or tongue. I saw him frequently during the races, and never heard him
express any apprehension about spots which appeared upon his body,
although he did express apprehensions of secondary symptoms resulting
from syphilis. I am not aware that at the time he died he was suffering
from the venereal disease, but I know that he had it about a twelvemonth
ago. He had been reduced in circumstances some time before he died, but
he was redeeming them. I do not know that he was frequently in want of
small sums of money. I believe that he owned a mare, in conjunction with
Palmer, named Pyrrhine, which was under the care of Sandars, the
trainer. The race which Polestar won was a matter of very great
importance to the deceased. He was much excited at the race, and more
particularly so after it. Deceased was a very temperate man, and did not
exceed in wine on the evening of the race. The next I heard of him was
through the letter from Palmer. Palmer knew perfectly well who I was,
and that I was in practice as a surgeon at Lutterworth. When I saw
deceased he objected to take morphia pills, because they had made him
ill the night before. He did not say that Dr. Savage had forbidden him
to take the morphia, but he said that he had been directed not to take
mercury or opium. The effect of morphia would be to soothe and to cause
slight constipation. When I saw him and he roused up a little, he said,
“Palmer, give me the remedy you gave me last night.” I rubbed the
deceased’s neck for about five minutes. He died very quietly. I had seen
cases of tetanus before. I think I mentioned tetanus at the inquest. I
am sure if you refer to my depositions, you will find that I mentioned
tetanus and convulsions both. (The depositions were referred to, and
there was no mention of tetanus in them.) Witness continued, however, “I
am sure that I mentioned tetanus.”

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I must set this right. I have here the original
deposition, and I find that the matter stands thus:--“There were strong
symptoms of”--then there is the word “compression” struck out; and then
there is the word “tetinus” also struck out--it is evident that the
clerk did not know the meaning of what he was writing--and then the
words “violent convulsions” are added; so that the sentence stands,
“There were strong symptoms of violent convulsions.”

By Mr. Serjeant SHEE: I also said before the coroner that I could not
tell the cause of death, and that I imagined at the time that it was
from over excitement.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said, that the learned counsel must not read
detached portions of the depositions--the whole must be read. (The
depositions were accordingly read by the Clerk of the Arraigns.)

Cross-examination continued: I do not recollect that I ever said that
deceased died of epilepsy. Dr. Bamford said that he died in an
apoplectic fit, and I said that I thought he did not. I said that I
thought it was more like an epileptic than an apoplectic fit. I do not
know Mr. Pratt, but I took a letter from him to Cook. Cook did not open
it, but said, “I know the contents of it--let it be till to-morrow
morning.” I have seen Palmer’s racing establishment at Rugeley. I saw a
number of mares in foal, and others in the paddock, and some very
valuable horses. The stables were good, and the establishment appeared
to be a large and expensive one.

Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am not a good judge of the value
of racing horses, but I understand other horses very well. I have only
seen one case of tetanus, and that case resulted from a wound. The
patient in that case lasted three days before death ensued. I am
satisfied that the death of Mr. Cook did not arise from epilepsy. In
epilepsy consciousness is lost, but there is no rigidity or convulsive
spasm of the muscles. The symptoms are quite different. I am equally
certain that death was not the result of apoplexy.

LAVINIA BARNES was recalled, at the instance of Mr. Serjeant SHEE, and
in answer to the learned Serjeant, she said: On Monday morning Mr. Cook
said to me that he had been very ill on Sunday night, just before twelve
o’clock, and that he had rung the bell for some one to come to him; but
he thought that they had all gone to bed.

ELIZABETH MILLS, recalled by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, and examined on the
same point: I remember on Monday morning asking Mr. Cook how he was, and
he said that he had been disturbed in the night, adding, “I was just mad
for two minutes.” I said, “Why did you not ring the bell?” and he
replied, “I thought you would be all fast asleep, and would not hear me.
The illness passed away, and I managed to get over it without.” He also
said that he thought he had been disturbed by the noise of a quarrel in
the street.

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 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
any one. No; I don’t think that he would take quack medicines. I don’t
think he was so foolish as that.

CHARLES NEWTON, called and examined by Mr. JAMES, Q.C.--I am assistant
to Mr. Salt, a surgeon at Rugeley. I know the prisoner, William Palmer.
I remember Monday, the 19th of November. I saw Palmer that evening at
Mr. Salt’s surgery about nine o’clock. I was alone when he came there.
He asked me for three grains of strychnine, and I weighed it accurately
and gave it to him, enclosed in a piece of paper. He said nothing
further, but “Good night,” and took it away with him. I knew him to be a
medical man, and gave it him,--made no charge for it. The whole
transaction did not occupy more than two or three minutes. I again saw
Palmer on the following day, between eleven and twelve o’clock. He was
then at the shop of Mr. Hawkins, a druggist. He asked me how I was, and
put his hand upon my shoulder, and said he wished to speak with me.
Accordingly I went out into the street with him, and he then asked me
when Mr. Edwin Salt was going to his farm. The farm in question was at a
place about fourteen miles distant from Rugeley. Palmer had nothing
whatever to do with that farm; but Mr. Salt’s going there was a rumour
of the town. While we were talking, a Mr. Brassington came up and spoke
to me, and during our conversation Palmer went into Hawkins’ shop again.
Palmer came out of the shop a second time, while I was still talking to
Brassington. I am not sure whether Palmer spoke to me at that time; but
he went past me in the direction of his own house, which is about 200
yards from Hawkins’. I then went into Hawkins’ shop, where I saw
Roberts, Mr. Hawkins’ apprentice, and I had some conversation with him
about Palmer. I knew a man named Thirlby, who had been an assistant and
a partner of Palmer. Palmer usually dealt with Thirlby for his drugs--in
fact, Thirlby dispensed Palmer’s medicine. On Sunday, the 25th of
November, about seven o’clock in the evening, I was sent for and went to
Palmer’s house. I found Palmer, when I got there, in his kitchen. He was
sitting by the fire, reading. He asked me how I was, and to have some
brandy-and-water. No one else was present. He asked me what was the dose
of strychnine to give to kill a dog? I told him a grain. He asked me
what would be the appearance of the stomach after death? I told him that
there would be no inflammation, and that I did not think it could be
found. Upon that he snapped his finger and thumb in a quiet way, and
exclaimed, as if communing with himself, “That’s all right.”
(Sensation.) He made some other remarks of a commonplace character,
which I do not recollect. I was with him altogether about five minutes.

On the following day, Monday, the 26th of November, I heard that a _post
mortem_ examination was to take place. I went to Dr. Bamford’s house,
intending to accompany him to the _post mortem_, and I found Palmer
there in the study. That was about ten o’clock in the day. Palmer asked
me what I wanted? I told him that I had come to attend the _post
mortem_. He asked whether I thought Mr. Salt was going; and I replied
that he was engaged, and could not go. I took the necessary instruments
with me, and went down to the Talbot Arms. Dr. Harland, and Mr. Frere, a
surgeon, practising at Rugeley, were both there. They went away,
however, for a short time, and left Palmer and me together in the
entrance to the hall at the Talbot Arms. He spoke to me. He said--“It
will be a dirty job; I will go and have some brandy.” I went with him to
his house, which was just opposite. He gave me two wine glasses of neat
brandy, and he took the same quantity himself. He said, “You’ll find
this fellow suffering from a diseased throat--he has had syphilis, and
has taken a great deal of mercury.” I afterwards went over with Palmer
to the _post mortem_, and found the other doctors there. During the
_post mortem_, Palmer stood near to Dr. Bamford, against the fire. I was
examined before the coroner, and did not state before that functionary
that I had given Palmer three grains of strychnine on the night of the
19th of November. The first person that I told of it was Cheshire, the
postmaster.

Mr. Sergeant SHEE objected to anything that this witness had said to
Cheshire being admitted as evidence against the prisoner.

The COURT ruled in favour of the objection.

Cross-examined by Mr. GROVE, Q.C.: It might have been a week or two or
three days after I gave Palmer the strychnine that I first mentioned the
occurrence to any one. I think I may undertake to say that it was not a
fortnight afterwards. Subsequently to the inquest I was examined for the
purpose of giving evidence on the part of the Crown. I cannot say how
long after the inquest that was. When I was first examined on behalf of
the Crown, I did not mention the three grains of strychnine, but I did
mention the conversation about the poisoning of the dog. That was not
the first time that I had mentioned that conversation; for I had
mentioned it before to Mr. Salt; but I cannot tell how long before. I
was examined twice for the purpose of the prosecution by the Crown. I
did not mention Cook’s suffering from sore throat at the inquest, but I
did mention the conversation which took place at Hawkins’s shop. At that
time I knew it had been alleged that Palmer had purchased strychnine at
Hawkins’s, and I presumed that my evidence was required with reference
to that point. I first stated on Tuesday last, for the purposes of this
prosecution, the fact of my having given Palmer three grains of
strychnine. I cannot say whether in that examination I said that Palmer
said, “You will find this ‘poor’ fellow suffering from a diseased
throat.” I don’t know whether I said “poor fellow” or “rich fellow.”

Do you not know that there is a difference in the expression “fellow”
and “poor fellow?”--I know that there is a difference between poor and
rich. It is impossible to recollect all that I said upon every occasion.

Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I did not mention the circumstance
of my having given the strychnine to Palmer, because Mr. Salt, my
employer, and Palmer were not friends, and I thought it would displease
Mr. Salt if he knew that I had let Palmer have anything. I first
mentioned it to Boycott, the clerk of Mr. Gardner, the solicitor, at the
Rugeley station, where I and a number of other witnesses were assembled
for the purpose of coming to London. As soon as I arrived in London,
Boycott took me to Mr. Gardner’s. I communicated to him what I had to
say; and I was then taken to the Solicitor of the Treasury, and I made
the same statement to him.

Mr. Serjeant SHEE: Have you not given another reason for not mentioning
the occurrence about the three grains of strychnine before--that reason
being that you were afraid you could be indicted for perjury?--No, I did
not give that as a reason, but I stated to a gentleman that a young man
at Wolverhampton had been threatened to be indicted for perjury by
George Palmer because he had said at the inquest upon Walter Palmer that
he had sold the prisoner prussic acid, and he had not entered it in the
book and could not prove it. I stated at the same time that George
Palmer said he could be transported for it. I did not enter the gift of
the three grains of strychnine from Mr. Salt’s surgery in a book. The
inquest upon Walter Palmer did not take place till five or six weeks
after the inquest upon Cook.

The COURT then adjourned at twenty-five minutes past six o’clock until
the next day, the jury being conducted, as on the previous evening, to
the London Coffeehouse in charge of the officers of the Court.




THIRD DAY, MAY 16.


The court was quite as full at the commencement of the proceedings this
morning as it had been on either of the preceding days. The Earl of
Derby, Earl Grey, and other noble lords were again present.

The jury took their seats shortly before ten o’clock. The learned
judges, Lord Chief Justice Campbell, Mr. Baron Alderson, and Mr. Justice
Cresswell, soon afterwards entered the court, accompanied by the
Recorder and Sheriffs, and the prisoner was then placed at the bar. He
appeared rather more anxious than on the two previous days, but was
still calm and collected, and paid the greatest attention to the
evidence.

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

The next witness for the prosecution was CHARLES JOSEPH ROBERTS,
examined by Mr. E. JAMES: In November last I was apprentice to Mr.
Hawkins, a druggist, at Rugeley. I know Palmer. On Tuesday, November the
20th, between eleven and twelve in the day, he came into Mr. Hawkins’s
shop. He first asked for two drachms of prussic acid, for which he had
brought a bottle. I was putting it up when Newton, the assistant of
Salt, came in. Palmer told him he wanted to speak to him, and they went
out of the shop together. I then saw Brassington, the cooper, take
Newton away from Palmer, and enter into conversation with him. Palmer
then came back into the shop and asked me for six grains of strychnine
and two drachms of Batley’s solution of opium (commonly called Batley’s
sedative). I had put up the prussic acid, which was lying upon the
counter. He stood at the counter when he ordered the things, and while I
was preparing them behind the counter he stood at the shop door, with
his back to me, looking into the street. I was about five minutes
preparing them. He stood at the door till they were ready, when I
delivered them to him--the prussic acid in the bottle he had brought,
the strychnine in a paper, and the opium in a bottle. He paid me for
them and took them away. No one else was in the shop from the time when
Palmer and Newton went out till I delivered the things to him. When
Palmer had left, Newton came in, and we had some conversation. I had at
that time been six years in Mr. Hawkins’s employment. Palmer had not
bought any drugs at the shop for about two years. I know Thirlby,
Palmer’s assistant. He had started a shop about two years before.

By Lord CAMPBELL: Thirlby was carrying on business as a druggist at the
time.

Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant SHEE.--I did not make entries of any of
these things in the books.

Re-examined: When articles are paid for across the counter I am not in
the habit of making entries of them in the books.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated that Dr. Bamford was seriously ill, and
unable to attend, but his depositions would be read.

Mr. William STEVENS, examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I have been a
merchant in the city, but am now out of business. Was stepfather to the
deceased Mr. Cook. I married his father’s widow 15 (or 18) years ago,
and have known him intimately ever since. I was made executor to his
grandfather’s will. I was always on friendly terms with him, and
constantly had the care of him. He had property worth altogether about
£12,000. He was articled to a solicitor at Worthing, in Sussex, but he
did not follow the profession. He had been connected with the turf about
three or four years--perhaps not so much. I did everything in my power
to withdraw him from that pursuit.

Lord CAMPBELL: But you still remained on friendly terms?

Witness: On affectionate terms. The last time I saw him alive was at the
station at Euston-square, about two o’clock on the afternoon of the 5th
of November. I think he told me he was going to Rugeley, but I am not
quite sure; he looked better than I had seen him for a very long time. I
was so gratified that I said, “My boy, you look very well now; you don’t
look anything of an invalid.” He said he was quite well, and struck
himself on the chest. I think he added he would be quite right if he was
happy. In point of appearance he was not a robust man. His complexion
was pale. During the previous winter he had had a sore throat for some
months. I first heard of his death on the evening of Wednesday, November
21. Mr. Jones, of Lutterworth, called at my house and informed me of it.
The next day I went down to Lutterworth with Mr. Jones for the purpose
of searching for the will and papers. The day after I went to Rugeley. I
arrived between twelve and one. I asked to see the body when I got to
the inn. I met Palmer in the passage. I had seen him once before, and
Mr. Jones introduced me to him. He followed us upstairs to see the body,
and removed the sheet from it to rather below the waist. I was much
struck with its appearance. I first noticed the tightness of the muscles
across the face. There did not appear to me to be any emaciation or
disease. We all went down stairs to one of the sitting-rooms. In a short
time I said to Palmer, “I hear from Mr. Jones that you know something of
my son’s affairs. Can you tell me anything about them?” He replied,
“Yes; there are £4,000 worth of bills out of his, and I am sorry to say
my name is to them; but I have got a paper drawn up by a lawyer, and
signed by him, to show that I never had any money from them.” I
expressed great surprise at this, and said, “I fear there won’t be 4000
shillings to pay you.” “But,” I asked, “had he no horses, no property?”
Palmer replied, “Yes, he has some horses, but they are mortgaged.” I
said, “Has he no sporting bets, nor anything of that sort?” He mentioned
one debt of £300. I would rather not state the name of the person who
owed it. It is a relation of his, not a sporting gentleman. (The witness
wrote down the name and handed it to the counsel on both sides and the
Judges).

Lord CAMPBELL: The name is immaterial.

Palmer said he did not know of any other debt. I said I thought his
sporting creditors would have to take his sporting effects, as I should
have nothing to do with them. I added, “Well, whether he has left
anything or not, poor fellow, he must be buried.” Palmer immediately
said, “Oh! I’ll bury him myself, if that’s all.” I said, “I certainly
can’t think of your doing that; I shall do it.” Cook’s brother-in-law,
who had come to meet me, was then present, and expressed a great wish to
bury him. I said, “No; as his executor, I shall take care of that. I
cannot have the funeral immediately, as I intend to bury him in London,
in his mother’s grave. I shall be sorry to inconvenience the people here
at the inn, but I will get it done as soon as possible.” Palmer said,
“Oh! that’s of no consequence, but the body ought to be fastened up at
once.” He repeated that observation--“So long as the body is fastened
up, it is of no consequence.” While I was talking to Cook’s
brother-in-law, Palmer and Jones left the room. They returned in about
half an hour. I then asked Palmer for the name of some respectable
undertaker in Rugeley, that I might at once order a coffin and give
directions. He said, “I have been and done that. I have ordered a shell
and strong oak coffin.” I expressed my surprise. I said, “I did not
give you any authority to do so, but I must see the undertaker to let
him have my instructions.” I think he told me the name of the
undertaker. I ordered dinner for myself, my son-in-law, and Jones, and I
asked Palmer to come in. We all dined together at the inn, about 3. I
was going back to London that afternoon. After dinner, Palmer being
still present, I desired Mr. Jones to be so good as to go upstairs and
get me Mr. Cook’s betting-book, or pocket-book, or books or papers that
might be there. I had seen him with a betting-book--a small one with
clasps. Mr. Jones then left the room, and Palmer followed him. They were
away 10 minutes. Mr. Jones said, on their return, “I am very sorry to
say I can’t find any betting-book or papers.” I exclaimed, “No
betting-book, Mr. Jones?” Turning towards Palmer, I said, “How is this?”
Palmer said, “Oh, it is of no manner of use if you find it.” I said, “No
use, Sir! I am the best judge of that.” He replied, “It is of no use.” I
said, “I am told it is of use. I understand my son won a great deal of
money at Shrewsbury, and I ought to know something about it.” He
replied, “It is of no use, I assure you. When a man dies his bets are
done with. Besides, Cook received the greater part of his money on the
course at Shrewsbury.” I said, “Very well, the book ought to be found,
and must be found.” Palmer then said, in a quieter tone, “It will no
doubt be found.” I again said, “Sir, it shall be found.”

I then went to the door, and calling to the housekeeper, I desired that
everything in the bedroom should be locked up, and nothing touched until
I returned or sent some one. Before leaving I went up stairs to take a
last look at the body. Some servants were in the room, turning over the
bed-clothes, and also the undertaker. I had given him instructions
before dinner to place the body in the coffin. He was standing by the
side of the shell. The body was in it, uncovered. I knelt down by the
side of the shell, and, taking the right hand of the corpse I found it
clinched. I looked across the body and saw that the left hand was
clinched in the same manner. I returned to town and communicated next
morning with my solicitor, who gave me a letter to Mr. Gardner of
Rugeley. I returned to Rugeley, where I arrived at eight o’clock next
evening (Saturday). I started from Euston square at two o’clock, and on
the platform I met Palmer. He said he had received a telegraphic message
summoning him to London after I had left Rugeley. I asked him where
Cook’s horses were kept. He told me at Eddisford, near Rugeley, and said
he would drive me out there if I wished. When I got to Wolverton, where
the train stops, I saw him again in the refreshment room. I said, “Mr.
Palmer, this is a very melancholy thing, the death of my poor son
happening so suddenly; I think for the sake of his brother and sister,
who are somewhat delicate, it might be desirable for his medical friends
to know what his complaints were.” Cook had a sister and half-brother.
Palmer replied, “That can be done very well.” The bell then rang, and we
went to our seats. He travelled in a different carriage till we reached
Rugby, where I saw him again in the refreshment-room. I said, “Mr.
Palmer, as I live at a distance I think I ought to ask a solicitor at
Rugeley to look after my interest.” He said, “Oh, yes, you might do
that.” “Do you know any solicitor?” I said, “No.” I then got some
refreshment, and went back to my carriage; I found Palmer sitting there.
I had no conversation with him before we reached Rugeley, but continued
talking to a lady and gentleman with whom I had been conversing since I
left town.

After we arrived at Rugeley, Palmer said, “Do you know any solicitor,
here?” I said, “No, I don’t, I am a perfect stranger.” He said, “I know
them all intimately, and I can introduce you to one. When I get home I
must have a cup of coffee, and I will then come over, and take you all
about.” I thanked him, as I had done once or twice before, and said I
wouldn’t trouble him. He repeated his offer. Altering my tone and
manner, I said, “Mr. Palmer, if I should call in a solicitor to give me
advice, I suppose you will have no objection to answer any question he
may put to you.” I altered my tone purposely; I looked steadily at him,
but, although the moon was shining, I could not see his features
distinctly. He said, with a spasmodic convulsion of the throat, which
was perfectly apparent, “Oh no, certainly not.” At Wolverton, I had
purposely mentioned my desire that there should be a _post-mortem_
examination, and I ought to say that he was quite calm when I mentioned
it. After I asked him that question there was a pause for three or four
minutes. He then again proposed to come over to me after he had had his
coffee, and I again begged he would not trouble himself. I went to Mr.
Gardner, and then came back to the inn. Palmer came to me, and began to
talk about the bills. He said, “It’s a very unpleasant affair for me.” I
said, “I think it right to tell you, that since I saw you I have had
rather a different account of Mr. Cook’s affairs.” He said, “Oh, indeed!
I hope, at any rate, they will be settled pleasantly.” I said, “His
affairs can only be settled in a Court of Chancery.” He asked me what
friends Mr. Cook visited in the neighbourhood of London. I said,
“Several.” The next day (Sunday) I saw him again, between five and six
in the evening. He said, “You were talking of going to Eddisford. If I
were you, I would not take a solicitor with me there.” I said, “Why not?
I shall use my own judgment.” Later in the evening he came again to my
room, holding a piece of paper, as if he wished to give it to me. I went
on with my writing, and said, “Pray, who is Mr. Smith?” He repeated,
“Mr. Smith!” two or three times, and I said, “I mean a Mr. Smith who sat
up with my son one night.” He said, “He is a solicitor in the town.” I
asked if he was in practice. He replied, “Yes.” I said, “I ask you the
question because, as the betting-book is lost, I should wish to know who
has been with the young man.” After a pause, I said, “Did you attend my
son in a medical capacity?” He said, “Oh, dear, no.” I said, “I ask you,
because I am determined to have his body examined; and if you had
attended him professionally I suppose the gentleman I shall call in
would think it proper that you should be present.” He asked who was to
perform the examination. I said, “I cannot say. I shall not know myself
until to-morrow. I think it right to tell you of it; but, whether you
are present at it or not is a matter of indifference to me.”

On the Friday, when Palmer gave orders for the shell, did you perceive
any sign of decomposition in the body, or anything which would render
its immediate enclosure necessary?--On the contrary, the body did not
look to me like a dead body. I was surprised at its appearance.

Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant SHEE: The last time Cook stayed at my
house was in January or February last year, for about a month. He then
had a sore throat. I do not remember that it was continually sore. He
had not the least difficulty in swallowing. I did not notice any ulcers
about his face. In the spring he complained of being an invalid, and
said his medical friends told him that if he was not better in the
winter he ought to go to a warm climate. No communication was made to me
about insuring his life. I was dissatisfied about the loss of the
betting-book. I desired that everything belonging to the deceased might
be locked up. When I returned to Rugeley with Palmer, I went to seek for
Mr. Gardner. I saw him on the following (Sunday) morning. I have once
been in communication with the policeofficer Field. That was a fortnight
or three weeks after my son’s death. Field called upon me. I never
applied to him.

By Mr. Baron ALDERSON: I never called upon Mr. Bamford, but he dined
with me at the Talbot Arms.

MARY KEELEY, examined by Mr. WELSBY: I am a widow, living at Rugeley. On
the morning of Wednesday, the 21st of November last, I was sent for to
lay out Cook’s body. My sister-in-law went with me. That was about one
o’clock in the morning. The body was still warm, but the hands and arms
were cold. The body was lying on the back. The arms were crossed upon
the chest. The head lay a little turned on one side. The body was very
stiff indeed. I have laid out many corpses. I never saw one so stiff
before. We had difficulty in straightening the arms. We could not keep
them straight down to the body. I passed a piece of tape under the back
and tied it round the wrists, to fasten the arms down. The right foot
turned, on one side, outwards. We were obliged to tie both the feet
together. The eyes were open. We were a considerable time before we
could close them, because the eyelids were very stiff. The hands were
closed, and were very stiff. Palmer was upstairs with us. He lighted me
while I took two rings off Cook’s fingers. That was off one hand. The
fingers were very stiff, and I had difficulty in getting off the rings.
I got them off, and when I had done so the hand closed again. I did not
see anything of a betting-book, nor any small book like a pocketbook.

Cross-examined by Mr. GROVE: It is not usual to tie the hands of a
corpse. I have never before used tape to tie the arms; I have used it to
tie the ankles together, and also for the toes. I have never seen it
used for the arms. It is usual to lay the arms by the sides. If the body
gets stiff the arms remain as they were at the time of death. If the
eyes are closed at the time of death there is no difficulty in keeping
them closed. It is a common thing to put penny pieces upon them to keep
them closed. That is to prevent the eyelid drawing back. The jaw is
generally tied up shortly after death.

Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I cannot say how many bodies I have
laid out, but I have laid out a great many, of all ages. I never knew of
the arms being tied before this instance. It is usual to lay the arms by
the sides within a few minutes after death. I was called up at half-past
twelve. It was half-past one when I went upstairs to the room where Cook
lay. Sometimes the feet of corpses get twisted out; it is then that they
are tied. That occurs within about half-an-hour after death. I have
never known the eyelid so stiff as in this case. I have put penny pieces
on the eyes. In those cases the lids were stiff, but not so stiff as in
this instance.

JOHN THOMAS HARLAND, examined by Mr. BODKIN: I am a physician residing
at Stafford. On the 26th of November last I went from Stafford to
Rugeley, to be present at a _post-mortem_ examination. I arrived at
Rugeley at ten o’clock in the morning. I called at the house of Mr.
Bamford, surgeon. As I went there Palmer joined me in the street. He
came from the back of his own house. I had frequently seen him and had
spoken to him before. He said, “I am glad that you are come to make a
_post-mortem_ examination. Some one might have been sent whom I did not
know.” I said, “What is this case? I hear there is a suspicion of
poisoning.” He said, “Oh, no; I think not. He had an epileptic fit on
Monday and Tuesday last, and you will find old disease in the heart and
in the head.” We then went together to Mr. Bamford’s. I had brought no
instruments with me, having only been requested to be present at the
examination. Palmer said that he had instruments, and offered to fetch
them and lend them to me. He (Palmer) said there was a very queer old
man who seemed to suspect him of something, but he did not know what he
meant or what he wanted. He also said, “He seems to suspect that I have
got the betting-book. Cook had no betting-book that would be of use to
anyone.” Mr. Bamford and I then went to the house of Mr. Frere, who is a
surgeon at Rugeley. Palmer did not go with us. Thence we went to the
Talbot Arms, where the _post-mortem_ examination was proceeded with. Mr.
Devonshire operated, and Mr. Newton assisted him. There were in the
room, besides, Mr. Bamford, Palmer, myself, and several other persons. I
stood near Mr. Devonshire. The body was very stiff.

By LORD CAMPBELL: It was much stiffer than bodies usually are five or
six days after death.

Examination resumed: The muscles were very highly developed. By that I
mean that they were strongly contracted and thrown out. I examined the
hands. They were stiff, and were firmly closed. The abdominal viscera
were first examined.

At the suggestion of LORD CAMPBELL, the witness read a report which he
prepared on the day on which this _post-mortem_ examination took place,
November 26th, 1855, and transmitted to Mr. Stevens, the step-father of
the deceased. This report described the state of the various internal
organs as being perfectly healthy and natural. The material statements
were all repeated in the subsequent examination of the witness. After
reading the report,

The witness continued: The abdominal viscera were in a perfectly healthy
state. They were taken out of the body. We examined the liver. It was
healthy. The lungs were healthy, but contained a good deal of blood. Not
more than would be accounted for by gravitation after death. We examined
the head. The brain was quite healthy. There was no extravasation of
blood, and no serum. There was nothing which, in my judgment, could
cause pressure. The heart was contracted, and contained no blood. That
was the result not of disease, but of spasmodic action. At the larger
end of the stomach there were numerous small yellowish-white spots,
about the size of mustard seeds. They would not at all account for
death. I doubt whether they would have any effect upon the health. I
think they were mucous follicles. The kidneys were full of blood, which
had gravitated there. They had no appearance of disease. The blood was
in a fluid state. That is not usual. It is found so in some cases of
sudden death, which are of rare occurrence. The lower part of the spinal
cord was not very closely examined. We examined the upper part of that
cord. It presented a perfectly natural appearance. On a subsequent day,
I think the 25th of January, it was thought right to exhume the body,
that the spinal cord might be more carefully examined. I was present at
that examination. The lower part of the spinal cord was then minutely
examined. A report was made of that examination.

This report was put in, and was read by the witness. It described
minutely the appearance and condition of the spinal cord and its
envelopes, and concluded with this statement:--“There is nothing in the
condition of the spinal cord or its envelopes to account for death;
nothing but the most normal and healthy state, allowance being made for
the lapse of time since the death of the deceased.”

Examination resumed: I am still of opinion that there was nothing in the
appearance of the spine to account for the death of the deceased, and
nothing of an unusual kind which might not be referred to changes after
death. When the stomach and the intestines were removed from the body on
the occasion of the first examination they were separately emptied into
a jar, and were afterwards placed in it. Mr. Devonshire and Mr. Newton
removed them from the body. They were the only two who operated. At that
time the prisoner was standing on the right of Mr. Newton. While Mr.
Devonshire was opening the stomach a push was given by Palmer which sent
Mr. Newton against Mr. Devonshire, and shook some of the contents of the
stomach into the body. I thought a joke was passing among them, and
said, “Don’t do that.”

By Lord CAMPBELL.--Might not Palmer have been impelled by some one
outside him?--There was no one who could have impelled him.

What did you observe Palmer do?--I saw Mr. Newton and Mr. Devonshire
pushed together, and Palmer was over them. He was smiling at the time.

Examination continued: After this interruption the opening of the
stomach was pursued. The stomach contained about three ounces of a
brownish fluid. There was nothing particular in that. Palmer was looking
on, and said, “They won’t hang us yet.” He said that to Mr. Bamford in a
loud whisper. That remark was made upon his own observation of the
stomach. The stomach, after being emptied, was put into the jar. The
intestines were then examined, but nothing particular was found in them.
They were contracted and very small. The viscera, with their contents,
as taken from the body, were placed in the jar, which was then covered
over with two bladders, which were tied and sealed. I tied and sealed
them. After I had done so I placed the jar upon the table by the body.
Palmer was then moving about the room. In a few minutes I missed the jar
from where I had placed it. During that time my attention had been
withdrawn by the examination. On missing the jar I called out, “Where’s
the jar?” and Palmer, from the other end of the room, said, “It is
here; I thought it would be more convenient for you to take away.” There
was a door at the end of the room where he was. He was within a yard or
two of that door, and about 24 feet from the table on which the body was
lying. [Before making this last statement the witness referred to a plan
of the room which was put in by the Attorney-General.] The door near
which Palmer was standing was not the one by which he had entered the
room. I called to Palmer, “Will you bring it here?” I went from the
table and met Palmer half way coming with the jar. The jar had, since I
last saw it, been cut through both bladders. The cut was hardly an inch
long. It had been done with a sharp instrument. I examined the cut. The
edges were quite clean. No part of the contents of the jar could have
passed through it. Finding this cut, I said, “Here is a cut; who has
done this?” Palmer, and Mr. Devonshire, and Mr. Newton all said that
they had not done it, and nothing more was said about it. When I was
about to remove the jar from the room, the prisoner asked me what I was
going to do with it. I said I should take it to Mr. Frere’s. He said, “I
had rather you would take it to Stafford than take it there.” I made no
answer that I remember. I took it to Mr. Frere’s house. After doing so,
I returned to the Talbot Arms. I left the jar in Mr. Frere’s hall, tied
and sealed. Immediately upon finding the slit in the cover, I cut the
strings and altered the bladders, so that the slits were not over the
top of the jar. I resealed them. After going to Mr. Frere’s I went to
the Talbot Arms. I went into the yard to order my carriage, and while I
was waiting for it the prisoner came across to me. He asked me what I
had done with the jar. I told him that I had left it at Mr. Frere’s. He
inquired what would be done with it, and I said it would go either to
Birmingham or London that night for examination. I do not recollect that
he made any reply. When I re-covered the jar, I tied each cover
separately, and sealed it with my own seal. During the first
_post-mortem_ examination there were several Rugeley persons present,
but I believe no one on behalf of the prisoner. At the second
examination there was some one there on behalf of Palmer.

Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant SHEE: In the course of the _post-mortem_
examination Palmer said, “They won’t hang us yet.” I am not sure whether
that observation was addressed to Dr. Bamford, or whether he prefaced it
by the word “Doctor.” I think that he first said it to Dr. Bamford in a
loud whisper, and afterwards repeated it to several persons. I had said
to him that I had heard that there was a suspicion of poisoning. I made
notes in pencil at the time of the _post-mortem_, and I wrote a more
formal report from those notes as soon as I got home. The original
pencil notes are destroyed. I sent the fair copy to Mr. Stevens, Cook’s
father-in-law, the same evening. They were not produced before the
coroner. At the base of the tongue of the deceased I observed some
enlarged mucous follicles; they were not pustules containing matter, but
enlarged mucous follicles of long standing. There were a good many of
them, but I do not suppose that they would occasion much inconvenience.
They might cause some degree of pain, but I think that it would be
slight. I do not believe that they were enlarged glands. I should not
say that deceased’s lungs were diseased, though they were not in their
normal state. The lungs were full of blood and the heart empty. I had no
lens at the _post-mortem_, but I made an examination which was
satisfactory to me, without one. The brain was carefully taken out; the
membranes and external parts were first examined, and thin slices of
about a quarter of an inch in thickness were taken off and subjected to
separate examination. I think by that means we should have discovered
disease if any had existed; and if there had been any indication of
disease, I should have examined it more carefully. I examined the spinal
cord as far down as possible, and if there had been any appearance of
disease I should have opened the canal. There was no appearance of
disease, however. We opened down to the first vertebra. If we had found
a softening of the spinal cord, I do not think that it would have been
sufficient to have caused Cook’s death; certainly not. A softening of
the spinal cord would not produce tetanus--it might produce paralysis. I
do not think, as a medical man investigating the cause of death, that it
was necessary carefully to examine the spinal cord. I do not know who
suggested that there should be an examination of the spinal cord two
months after death. There were some appearances of decomposition when we
examined the spinal cord, but I do not think that there was sufficient
to interfere with our examination. I examined the body to ascertain if
there was any trace of venereal disease. I did find certain indications
of that description, and the marks of an old excoriation, which were
cicatriced over.

Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL: There were no indications of wounds
or sores such as could by possibility produce _tetanus_. There was no
disease of the lungs to account for death. The heart was healthy, and
its emptiness I attribute to spasmodic action. The heart being empty, of
course death ensued. The convulsive spasmodic action of the muscles of
the body, which was deposed to yesterday by Mr. Jones, would, in my
judgment, occasion the emptiness of the heart. There was nothing
whatever in the brain to indicate the presence of any disease of any
sort; but if there had been, I never heard or read of any disease of the
brain ever producing tetanus. There was no relaxation of the spinal
cord which would account for the symptoms accompanying Mr. Cook’s death,
as they have been described. In fact, there was no relaxation of the
spinal cord at all, and there is no disease of the spinal cord with
which I am acquainted, that would produce tetanus.

Mr. CHARLES JAMES DEVONSHIRE, undergraduate of University of London,
late assistant to Dr. Monckton, examined by Mr. HUDDLESTON: I made the
first _post-mortem_ examination of the body of Mr. Cook in November
last. The body was pale and stiff; the hands were clinched, and the
mouth was contorted. I opened the body. The liver was very healthy. The
heart also seemed healthy, but it was perfectly empty. The lungs
contained a considerable quantity of dark fluid blood. The blood was
perfectly fluid. The brain was healthy throughout. I examined the
_medulla oblongata_, and about a quarter or half an inch of the spinal
cord. It was perfectly sound. I took out the stomach, and opened it with
a pair of scissors. I put the contents in a jar, which was taken to Mr.
Frere’s, the surgeon. I obtained the jar from Mr. Frere’s on Monday, in
the same state as it was before, and I gave it Mr. Boycott, clerk to Mr.
Gardner, the attorney. I examined the body again on the 29th, and took
out the liver, kidneys, spleen, and some blood. I put them in a stone
jar, which I covered with washleather and brown paper, and sealed up. I
delivered that jar also to Boycott. Palmer said at the examination that
we should find syphilis upon the deceased. I therefore examined the
parts carefully, and found no indications of the sort. I also took out
the throat. The _papillæ_ were slightly enlarged, but they were natural,
and one of the tonsils was shrunk.

Cross-examined by Mr. GROVE, Q.C.--Tetanic convulsions are considered to
proceed from derangement of the spine, and from complaints that affect
the spine. These derangements are not always capable of being detected
by examination. In examining the body of a person supposed to have died
from tetanus, the spinal cord would be the first organ looked to. About
half an inch of the spinal cord, exterior to the aperture of the
cranium, was examined on the first occasion. I was not present when the
granules were discovered on the second examination. The learned counsel
was proceeding to cross-examine this witness upon some minute points of
a scientific nature, when

Baron ALDERSON, interposing, said,--When you have all the medical men in
London here, you had better not examine an undergraduate of the
University of London upon such points, I should think.

Dr. MONCKTON, examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am a physician in
practice, and reside at Rugeley. On the 28th of January I made a
_post-mortem_ examination of the spinal cord and marrow of the deceased,
J. P. Cook. I found the muscles of the trunk in a state of laxity, which
I should attribute to the decay of the body which had set in; but that
laxity would not be at all inconsistent, in my opinion, with a great
rigidity of those muscles at the time of death. The muscles of the arms
and legs were in a state of rigidity, but they were not more rigid than
usual in dead bodies. The muscles of the arms had partially flexed the
fingers of the hand. The feet were turned inwards to a much greater
extent than usual. I carefully examined the spinal cord. The body was
then in such a condition as to enable me to make a satisfactory
examination of it; and if prior to death there had been any disease of a
normal character on the spinal cord and marrow, I should have had no
difficulty in detecting it. There was no disease. I discovered certain
granules upon it. It is difficult to account for their origin, but they
are frequently found in persons of advanced age. I never knew them to
occasion sudden death. I agree entirely with the evidence which has been
given by Dr. Harland.

This witness was not cross-examined.

Mr. JOHN BOYCOTT, examined by Mr. WELSBY: I am clerk to Messrs. Landor,
Gardner, and Landor, attorneys at Rugeley. On the 26th of last November,
I received a jar from Mr. Devonshire, covered with leather and brown
paper, and sealed up. I took it to London, and delivered it on the next
day to Dr. Taylor, at Guy’s Hospital. On a subsequent day I received
another jar, similarly secured, from Mr. Devonshire, and I also brought
that to London and delivered it to Dr. Taylor. I was not present at the
inquest on Cook’s body, and did not fetch Newton to be examined there.
On Tuesday last, when at the Rugeley station, previous to my departure
for London, Newton came and made a communication to me. He knew that Mr.
Gardner was not there; and when we reached London I took him to Mr.
Gardner, and heard him make the same communication to Mr. Gardner which
he had made before to me.

This witness was not cross-examined.

JAMES MYATT, examined by Mr. JAMES: In November last I was postboy at
the Talbot Arms at Rugeley. I know Palmer, the prisoner, and I remember
Monday, the 26th of November last. I was ordered on that night, a little
after five o’clock, to take Mr. Stevens to the Stafford station in a
fly. Before I started I went home to get my tea, and on returning from
my tea to the Talbot Arms I met the prisoner. He asked me if I was going
to drive Mr. Stevens to Stafford. I told him I was.

What did he say to you then?--He asked me if I would upset them.

“Them?” Had anything been said about a jar?--He said he supposed I was
going to take the jar.

What did you say then?--I said I believed I was.

What did he say after that?--He said, “Do you think you could upset
them?”

What answer did you make?--I told him “No.”

Did he say anything more?--He said, “If you could, there’s a £10 note
for you.” (Sensation.)

What did you say to that?--I told him I could not. I then said, “I must
go, the horses are in the fly ready for us to start.” I do not recollect
that he said anything more about the jar. I said, that if I didn’t go,
somebody else would go. He told me not to be in a hurry, for if anybody
else went he would pay me. I saw him again next morning, when I was
going to breakfast. He asked me then who went with the fly. I told him
Mr. Stevens, and, I believed, one of Mr. Gardner’s clerks.

Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant SHEE: Were not the words that Palmer
used, “I wouldn’t mind giving £10 to break Stevens’s neck.” I don’t
recollect the words “break his neck.”

Well, “upset him.” Did he say, “I wouldn’t mind giving £10 to upset
him?”--Yes; I believe those were the words. I do not know that Palmer
appeared to have been drinking. I don’t recollect that he had. I can’t
say that he used any epithet, applied to Stevens: he said it was a
humbugging concern altogether, or something of that. I don’t recollect
that he said Stevens was a troublesome fellow, and very inquisitive. I
don’t remember anything more than I have said. I do not know whether
there was more than one jar.

SAMUEL CHESHIRE, formerly postmaster at Rugeley, who has been sentenced
to two years’ imprisonment for tampering with letters in connexion with
this affair, was brought up in custody, and examined by Mr. JAMES. He is
an extremely respectable looking man, above the middle age, and was
dressed in black. He deposed as follows:--I was for upward of eight
years postmaster at Rugeley. I come now from Newgate, where I am under
sentence for having “read” a letter. [The question was “opened” a
letter.] I “confessed” to having done so. [The question was, “Did you
plead guilty to that charge?”] I knew the prisoner William Palmer very
well--we were schoolfellows together; and I have been three or four
times in my life at races with him. I never made a bet but once in my
life; but I was very intimate with Palmer. I accompanied him to
Shrewsbury Races in November, 1855. I returned to Rugeley on Tuesday,
the 13th, the same day on which Polestar won the handicap. On Saturday,
the 17th, I went to see Mr. Cook, who was in bed at the Talbot Arms, at
Rugeley. I lived at the post-office, which was 300 or 400 yards from
Palmer’s house. On the Tuesday evening, the 20th, I received a message
from Palmer, asking me to go over to him, and to take a receipt stamp
with me. In consequence of that message, I went to Palmer’s house, and
took a receipt stamp, as requested. When I reached Palmer’s, I found him
in his sitting-room. He said that he wanted me to write out a cheque,
and he produced a copy, from which he said I was to write. I copied the
document which he produced. He said that it related to money which Mr.
Cook owed him; and he asked me to write it, because, he said, Cook was
too ill to do it, and Weatherby would know his (Palmer’s) handwriting.
He said that when I had written it he would take it over to Mr. Cook to
sign. I then wrote as he requested me, and I left the paper with Palmer.

Mr. WEATHERBY was here called, in order to trace this document. In
answer to Mr. JAMES, he said: I am secretary to the Jockey Club, and my
establishment is at Birmingham. I keep a sort of banking account, and
receive stakes for gentlemen who own racers and bet. I knew the
deceased, John Parsons Cook, who had an account of that nature with me.
I knew Palmer slightly; he had no such account with me. On the 21st of
November I received a cheque or order upon our house for £350. It came
by post. I sent it back two days afterwards--on Friday, the 23rd. I sent
it back by post to Palmer, the prisoner, at Rugeley.

BOYCOTT was recalled, and proved that he had served notices upon the
prisoner, and upon Mr. Smith, his attorney, to produce the “cheque or
order” referred to; and that it had not been produced in pursuance of
those notices.

Prisoner’s counsel did not now produce it.

Examination of Samuel Cheshire continued: As far as I can remember, what
I wrote was, “Pay to Mr. William Palmer the sum of £350, and place it to
my account.” I do not remember whether I put any date to it. I left it
with Palmer, and went away. That was on Tuesday. On the Thursday or
Friday following Palmer sent again for me. I do not remember what day it
was, but it was after I had heard of the death of Mr. Cook at the Talbot
Arms. I went to Palmer in the evening, between six and seven o’clock, in
consequence of his having sent for me. When I arrived I found him in the
kitchen, and he immediately went out, and shortly after returned with a
quarto sheet of paper in his hand. He gave me a pen, and asked me to
sign something. I asked what it was, and he replied, “You know that Cook
and I have had dealings together; and this is a document which he gave
me some days ago, and I want you to witness it.” I said, “What is it
about?” He said, “Some business that I have joined him in, and which was
all for Mr. Cook’s benefit; and this is the document stating so.” I just
cast my eye over the paper. It was a quarto post paper of a yellow
description. I looked at the writing, and I believed that it was Mr.
Palmer’s. When he asked me to sign it I told him that I could not, as I
might perhaps be called upon to give evidence on the matter at some
future day. I told him that I had not seen Mr. Cook sign it, and I also
said that I thought the Post-office authorities would not approve my
mixing myself up in a matter which might occasion my absence from my
duties to give evidence. In fact, I did not give any exact reasons for
refusing to sign it. Palmer said it did not much matter, as he dared say
they would not object to Mr. Cook’s signature. I left the paper with
Palmer, and went away. I believe there was a stamp upon it. I did not
read it all, but I cast my eye down it. [Notices had also been served
upon the prisoner and his attorney to produce this document, but it had
not been produced.]

Witness continued: I remember the effect of it--it was that certain
bills--the dates and amounts of which were quoted, although I cannot
recollect them now--were all for Mr. Cook’s benefit and not for Mr.
Palmer’s. Those were not the exact words, but that was the purport of
them. I know that the amounts were large, although I do not remember
them all. I remember, however, that one was for £1,000 and another for
£500. There was a signature to that document. It was either “I. P.” or
“J. P. Cook.” I don’t think the word “Parsons” was written, but either
“I. P.” or “J. P. Cook.” Palmer was in the habit of calling at the
post-office for letters addressed to his mother, who resided at Rugeley.
I cannot remember that during the months of October and November, 1855,
I gave him any letters addressed to his mother; nor can I say whether in
those months I gave him any letters addressed to Mr. Cook; but Cook has
taken Palmer’s letters, and Palmer has taken Cook’s letters. I remember
the inquest upon Cook. I saw Palmer frequently while that inquest was
going on. He came down to me on the Sunday evening previous to the 5th
of December--the date to which the inquest was adjourned--and asked me
if I saw or heard of anything fresh to let him know. I guessed what he
wanted, and thought that he wanted to tempt me to open a letter. I
therefore told him that I could not open a letter. He said that he did
not want me to do anything to injure myself. I believe that was all that
passed on that occasion. The letter for reading which I am now under
sentence of punishment was from Dr. Alfred Taylor, of London, to Mr.
Gardner, the solicitor of Rugeley. I read part of the letter, and told
Palmer as much as I remembered of it. This took place on the morning of
the 5th of December. I told Palmer that the letter mentioned that no
traces of strychnine were to be found. I can’t call to mind what else I
told him. He said he knew there would be no traces of poison, for he was
perfectly innocent. The letter I hold in hand, signed “W. P.” and
addressed to “W. Ward, Esq., Coroner,” I believe to be in the prisoner’s
handwriting.

Captain HATTON, examined by Mr. JAMES: I am chief constable of Stafford.
The letter now produced I obtained from the coroner.

The Clerk of Arraigns read the letter in question. It bore no date, and
was to the following effect:--

     “My dear Sir,--I am sorry to tell you that I am still confined to
     my bed. I don’t think it was mentioned at the inquest yesterday
     that Cook was taken ill on Sunday and Monday night, in the same way
     as he was on the Tuesday, when he died. The chambermaid at the
     Crown Hotel (Masters’s) can prove this. I also believe that a man
     by the name of Fisher is coming down to prove he received some
     money at Shrewsbury. Now, here he could only pay Smith £10 out of
     £41 he owed him. Had you not better call Smith to prove this? And
     again, whatever Professor Taylor may say to-morrow, he wrote from
     London last Tuesday night to Gardner to say, ‘We (and Dr. Rees)
     have this day finished our analysis, and find no traces of either
     strychnia, prussic acid, or opium.’ What can beat this from a man
     like Taylor, if he says what he has already said, and Dr. Harland’s
     evidence? Mind you, I know and saw it in black and white what
     Taylor said to Gardner; but this is strictly private and
     confidential, but it is true. As regards his betting-book, I know
     nothing of it, and it is of no good to any one. I hope the verdict
     to-morrow will be that he died of natural causes, and thus end it.

“Ever yours,

“W.P.”



The witness Cheshire was then cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant SHEE: I
knew Cook very well. I did not know his handwriting. I have seen it, but
am not sufficiently familiar with it to be able to identify it. I have
seen him write. When I refused to sign the document which Palmer
presented to me for signature he observed, “Oh, it is no matter, I
daresay they will not call in question Mr. Cook’s signature.” What
Palmer asked me was, “whether I had seen or heard anything?” I said that
I had seen something, but that it would be wrong for me to tell him
what. He then inquired what I had seen. I think the phrase he used in
speaking of his own innocence was that he was “as innocent as a baby.” I
remember having been told by Palmer, the Saturday before Cook died, that
the latter was very ill. On that day I saw Cook. He was ill and in bed.
I saw Palmer about midday of Wednesday, the second day of the Shrewsbury
races. I saw him at Rugeley on that day.

To Mr. JAMES: The duration of the journey from Stafford to Shrewsbury is
upwards of an hour.

ELLIS CRISP, examined by Mr. JAMES: I am inspector of police at Rugeley.
On the 17th of December I assisted in searching the prisoner’s house.
There was a sale of his furniture, &c., on the 5th of January. The book
now produced I found in his house, and took it away. It was being sold,
and I took it away. (A laugh.)

Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant SHEE: It was brought out at the sale with
a lot of other books. There were several medical books in the house.
There was no attempt to conceal the volume I seized.

The Clerk of Arraigns read from the book referred to this sentence,
proved by the witness Boycott to be in Palmer’s writing--“Strychnia
kills by causing tetanic fixing of the respiratory muscles.”

J. BURDON, examined by Mr. JAMES: This manuscript book I found in the
prisoner’s house on the 16th or 17th of December. I am an inspector of
police in Staffordshire.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL read an extract from the book in question. It
related to strychnine, and alluded to the mode of its operation.

Lord CAMPBELL: That may be merely a passage extracted from an article on
“Strychnine” in some encyclopædia.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: No doubt it may. I put it in for what it is worth.

ELIZABETH HAWKES, examined by Mr. HUDDLESTON: I keep a boarding-house at
7, Beaufort-buildings, Strand. I know Palmer. He was at my house on the
1st December last. He asked my porter to buy some game and fish for him.
I purchased some fowls for him on the 1st of December. They consisted of
a turkey and a brace of pheasants. The porter purchased the fish. I
packed these things up in a hamper. I had no conversation with Palmer
about these things. I bought them by Palmer’s order, conveyed through
the porter. I sent them somewhere. I directed them myself, and gave them
to the porter, who carried them to the railway station. I have never
been paid for them. Palmer came to my house on the evening of that day,
but I did not see him. The direction on the hamper was “W. W. Ward,
Esq., Stoke-upon-Trent, Staffordshire.”

GEORGE HERRING, examined by Mr. WELSBY: I live near New Cross, and am
independent. I knew Cook, and met him at the Shrewsbury races last
November. I put up at the Raven. He appeared in his usual health. I saw
him between six and seven on Wednesday, the second day of the races. I
had a private room, with Mr. Fisher, Mr. Reed, and Mr. T. Jones. It was
next the room occupied by Cook and Palmer. On Thursday (the following
day) I saw Cook. I do not know that at that time he had any money with
him, but I saw him with Bank of England and provincial bank notes on
Wednesday. He unfolded them on his knees in twos and threes. There was a
considerable number of notes. He showed me at Shrewsbury his
betting-book. It contained entries of bets made on the Shrewsbury races.
On Monday, the 19th of November, I received a letter from Palmer. I have
it here.

The Clerk of Arraigns read the letter, of which the following is a
copy:--

     Dear Sir,--I shall feel much obliged if you will give me a call at
     7, Beaufort-buildings, Strand, on Monday, about half-past two.

“I am, dear Sir, very truly yours,

“W. PALMER.”



Examination continued: I received this letter on Monday, and called at
Beaufort-buildings that same day, at half-past two exactly. I found
Palmer there. He asked me what I would take? I declined to take
anything. I then asked him how Mr. Cook was? He said, “He’s all right;
his physician gave him a dose of calomel, and advised him not to come
out, it being a damp day.” I don’t know which term he used, “damp” or
“wet.” He then went on to say, in the same sentence, “What I want to see
you about is settling his account.” While he was speaking he took out
half a sheet of note paper from his pocket, and it was open when he had
finished the sentence. He held it up, and said, “This is it.” I rose to
take it. He said, “You had better take its contents down; this will be a
check against you.” At the same time he pointed to some paper lying on
the table. I wrote on that paper from his dictation. I have here the
paper which I so wrote. [The witness read the document in question,
which contained instructions as to certain payments he should pay out of
moneys to be received by him at Tattersall’s, on account of the
Shrewsbury races.] Palmer then said, that I had better write out a
cheque for Pratt and Padwick--for the former £450, and for the latter
£350, and send them at once. I told him I had only one form of cheque in
my pocket. He said I could easily fill up a draught on half a sheet of
paper. I refused to comply with his request, as I had not as yet
received the money. He replied that it would be all right, for that Cook
would not deceive me. He wished me particularly to pay Mr. Pratt the
£450. His words, as nearly as I can remember them were, “You must pay
Pratt, as it is for a bill of sale on the mare.” I don’t know whether he
said “a bill of sale,” or “a joint bill of sale.” He told me he was
going to see both Pratt and Padwick, to tell them that I would send on
the money. Previous to his saying this, I told him that if he would give
me the address of Pratt and Padwick, I would call on them, after I had
got the money from Tattersall’s, and give it to them. He then asked me
what was between us. There was only a few pounds between us, and after
we had had some conversation on the point he took out of his pocket a
£50 Bank of England note. He required £29 out of the note; and I was not
able to give it; but he said that if I gave him a cheque it would answer
as well. I gave him a cheque for £20, and nine sovereigns.

When I was going away I do not remember that he said anything about my
paying the money to Pratt and Padwick. He said on parting, “When you
have settled this account write down word to either me or Cook.” I
turned round and said, “I shall certainly write to Mr. Cook.” I said so
because I thought I was settling Mr. Cook’s account. He said, “It don’t
much matter which you write to.” I said, “If I address ‘Mr. Cook,
Rugeley, Stafford,’ it will be correct, will it not?” He said, “Yes.”
After leaving Beaufort Buildings I went to Tattersall’s. I then received
all the money I expected, except £110 from Mr. Morris, who paid me £90
instead of £200. I sent from Tattersall’s a cheque for £450 to Mr.
Pratt. I posted a letter to Cook from Tattersall’s, and directed it to
Rugeley. On Tuesday the 20th, next day, I received a telegraphic
message. I have not got it here. I gave it to Captain Hatton, at the
coroner’s inquest at Rugeley. In consequence of receiving that message I
wrote again to Cook that day. I addressed my letter as before, but I
believe the letter was not posted till the Wednesday. I had three bills
of exchange with me. I know Palmer’s handwriting, but never saw him
write. I cannot prove his writing; but I knew Cook’s writing, and I
believe the drawing of two and the accepting of the three bills to be in
his writing. I got them from Fisher, and gave him cash for them. [The
witness Boycott was recalled, and identified the signatures on the bills
as those of Palmer and Cook.] Examination continued: The bills are each
for £200. One of them was payable in a month, and when it fell due, on
October 18, Cook paid the £100 on account. He paid me the remaining £100
at Shrewsbury, but I cannot tell with certainty on what day. I did not
pay the £350 to Mr. Padwick. I hold another bill for £500. [Thomas
Strawbridge, manager of the bank at Rugeley, identified the drawing and
endorsing as in the handwriting of Palmer. The acceptance, purporting to
be in the writing of Mrs. Sarah Palmer, he did not believe to have been
written by her.] Examination continued: I am sure that the endorsement
on the £500 bill is in Cook’s writing. I got the bill from Mr. Fisher. I
paid £200 on account of it to Palmer, and £275 to Mr. Fisher. The
balance was discount. It was not paid at maturity. I have taken
proceedings against Palmer to recover the amount.

Cross-examined by Mr. GROVE: Several people were ill at Shrewsbury on
the second day of the races. They suffered from a kind of diarrhœa. I
was one of those so affected. I had my meals at the Raven, where I put
up, as also had my companions. They were not ill, but a gentleman who
dined with us one day at the inn was. Palmer did not dine with me any
day at the Raven. I saw Cook several times on the racecourse. The ground
was wet. I remonstrated with him on Thursday for standing on it. That
was after he had been taken ill on Wednesday. I was with Palmer for
about an hour at Beaufort-buildings.

Frederick SLACK, examined by Mr. HUDDLESTON: I am the porter at Mrs.
Hawkes’s boarding-house at Beaufort-buildings. On the 1st of December I
saw Palmer there, and he gave me the direction to put on a hamper
containing game. It was “W. W. Ward, Esq., Stoke-upon-Trent,
Staffordshire.” He told me to buy a turkey, a brace of pheasants, a
codfish, and a barrel of oysters; and to buy them wherever I pleased. He
said he did not wish the gentleman for whom they were intended to know
from whom they came. I saw him write the direction in the coffee-room. I
got the hamper and put all the things in it. I sewed it up and took it
to the railway. Mrs. Hawkes bought the fowl, and I the other articles.

It being now within five minutes of 6 o’clock the Court intimated its
intention not to proceed further with the case that evening.

Lord CAMPBELL suggested that some facility of breathing fresh air should
be afforded to the jury before the sitting of the Court on the following
morning. Were it not that he made it a practice to take a walk early in
the morning in Kensington-gardens, he should himself find it impossible
to endure the fatigue of so arduous a trial. An omnibus, or a couple of
them, ought to be engaged for the accommodation of the jury that they,
too, might enjoy similar recreation.

Mr. Baron ALDERSON: Why should they not take a walk in the
Temple-gardens? There could be no more tranquil spot. (A laugh.)

The Sheriffs intimated that they would attend to the recommendations of
the learned judges.

The Court then adjourned at 6 o’clock until 10 o’clock Monday.




FOURTH DAY, MAY 17.


The court was densely crowded, and there was no abatement of the
interest which has from the commencement been excited by these
proceedings. Among the distinguished persons present were Earl Grey and
Mr. Dallas, the American Minister.

The jury, who, in accordance with the suggestions made by the learned
judges on the previous day, had during the morning been conducted to
the Middle Temple-gardens by the officer who had them in charge, and
allowed to walk there for some time, entered the court about ten
o’clock, and almost immediately afterwards the learned judges--Lord
Chief Justice Campbell, Mr. Baron Alderson, and Mr. Justice Cresswell,
accompanied by the Recorder, the Common Serjeant, the Sheriffs, and
Under-Sheriffs, and several members of the Court of Aldermen, took their
seats upon the bench. The prisoner was then placed at the bar. There was
no change in the expression of his countenance, and during the day he
maintained his usual tranquillity of demeanour.

The same counsel were again in attendance:--The Attorney-General, Mr. E.
James, Q.C., Mr. Bodkin, Mr. Welsby, and Mr. Huddleston for the Crown;
Mr. Serjeant Shee, Mr. Grove, Q.C., Mr. Gray, and Mr. Kenealy for the
prisoner.

GEORGE BATES, examined by Mr. JAMES.--I was brought up a farmer, but am
now out of business. I have known Palmer eight or nine years. In
September, October, and November last I looked after his stud, and saw
that the boys who had the care of the horses did their duty. I had no
fixed salary, but used to receive money occasionally; some weeks I
received two sovereigns, and some only one. I lodged in Rugeley. The
rent I paid was 6_s._ 6_d._ per week. I am a single man. I knew the
deceased Cook. I have no doubt that I saw him at Palmer’s house in
September. I cannot fix the date. I dined with him at Palmer’s.

By Lord CAMPBELL: I sat at table with them.

Examination continued: After dinner something was said of an insurance
of my life. Either Cook or Palmer, which I cannot say, commenced the
conversation.

Mr. Serjeant SHEE objected to the reception of any evidence with regard
to the proposal of the insurance of the witness’s life.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that his object was to show the position of
Cook’s affairs at this time.

Lord CAMPBELL, after consultation with the other Judges, said: I doubted
whether this would be relevant and proper evidence to receive upon this
trial, and upon consultation the other Judges agree with me that it is
too remote.

The examination of the witness with regard to the insurance was,
therefore, not pursued.

Witness: I remember the death of Cook, and the inquest. I know Mr.
William Webb Ward, the coroner. On the morning of the 8th of December,
while the inquest was being held, I saw Palmer. He gave me this letter,
and told me to go to Stafford and give it to Mr. Ward. [The letter
referred to was that addressed to Mr. Ward, which was on the previous
day put in and read.] That was between nine and ten o’clock. He also
gave me a letter to a man named France, a dealer in game at Stafford.
Palmer said that there would be a package of game from France, which I
was to direct and send to Mr. Ward. I got a basket of game from France
upon the order which the prisoner had given me. I directed it “Webb
Ward, coroner (or solicitor), Stafford,” and sent it to Mr. Ward. I
directed it myself. I gave a man 3d. to take the game, but I delivered
the note to Mr. Ward myself. I found him at the Dolphin Inn, Stafford.
He was in the smoking-room. I told him I wanted to speak to him. He
called me out into the yard or passage, and there I gave him the note.
There were other people in the smoking-room. I had had no directions
from the prisoner as to how I was to deliver the note. When I returned
to Rugeley that night I saw the prisoner. I told him that I had
delivered the letters which I took to Stafford, and had sent a boy with
the game. I remember Thursday, the 13th of December. On that day I was
sent for to the prisoner’s house, early in the morning. About midday I
went to Palmer’s house. I found him in bed. He said that he wanted me to
go to Stafford to take Webb Ward a letter, and to take care that no one
saw me give it to him. On the Saturday previously I had taken Palmer
some money. On the Thursday Palmer told me to go to Ben, and tell him he
wanted a £5 note. I understood Ben to be Mr. Thirlby, his assistant.
Palmer added, “Tell him that I have no small change.” I believe he asked
me to look in a drawer under the dressing-glass, and said, “Tell me the
amount of that bill.” I looked in the drawer, and found there a £50 Bank
of England bill. I left the bill there. This was before he gave me the
letter for Ward. After seeing the bill, I went to Thirlby’s for the £5.
I got from Thirlby a £5 note of a local bank, and took it to Palmer. I
then went down stairs, leaving Palmer in bed, with the writing materials
on the bottom of it. I remained downstairs, in the yard or kitchen,
about half an hour. When I went upstairs Palmer again asked me the
amount of the bill which was in the drawer. I just looked at it, and
thought it was the same bill I had left there. He then gave me the
letter, which was sealed, and I took it to Stafford. I followed Mr. Ward
through the room at the railway station, and gave it to him in the road.
Mr. Ward did not open or read the letter, but crumpled it up in his hand
and put it into his pocket. I believe I told him from whom I had brought
it. Having delivered the letter, I returned to Rugeley. I saw the
prisoner, and told him that I had given Ward the letter. He said
nothing.

Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant SHEE: Palmer had four brood mares, and
four yearlings and a three-year-old. I can’t tell their value. I heard
that one of these horses sold for 800 guineas. I can’t say whether the
mares were in foal in November, but I suppose some were. Palmer’s
stables were at the back of his house, and the paddocks which were near
them covered about twenty acres of ground, and were fenced with a
hawthorn-hedge. I remember a mare, called the Duchess of Kent, being
there. We supposed she slipped her foal, but we could not find it. I am
not aware that Goldfinder’s dam slipped her foal. I once saw the turf
cut up with horses’ feet, and attributed it to the mares galloping
about. I never saw any dogs “run” them. I have seen a gun at the
paddocks. I cannot say whether it belonged to Palmer. I never examined
it. I do not know Inspector Field by sight. I have seen a person whom I
was told was Field. He came to me at the latter end of September, or
beginning of October or November. I cannot say whether he saw Palmer. He
was a stranger to me. I do not know that he put up anywhere. (A laugh.)
I did not see him more than once. I do not know Field. On Thursday,
December 13, I saw Gillott, who is a sheriff’s officer, in Palmer’s
yard.

Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It was after the hay harvest that I
saw the turf in the paddock cut up. I should say that it was in the
latter end of September. I cannot say how long it was before Cook’s
death.

THOMAS BLIZARD CURLING, examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am a member
of the College of Surgeons, and Surgeon to the London Hospital. I have
particularly turned my attention to the subject of tetanus, and have
published a work upon that subject. Tetanus means a spasmodic affection
of the voluntary muscles. Of true tetanus there are only two
descriptions--idiopathic and traumatic. There are other diseases in
which we see contractions of the muscles, but we should not call them
tetanus. Idiopathic tetanus is apparently self-generated; traumatic
proceeds from a wound or sore. Idiopathic tetanus arises from exposure
to damp or cold, or from the irritation of worms in the alimentary
canal. It is not a disease of frequent occurrence. I have never seen a
case of idiopathic tetanus, although I have been surgeon to the London
Hospital for twenty-two years. Cases of traumatic tetanus are much more
frequent. Speaking quite within compass, I have seen fifty such cases. I
believe 100 would be nearer the mark. The disease first manifests itself
by stiffness about the jaws and back of the neck. Rigidity of the
muscles of the abdomen afterwards sets in. A dragging pain at the pit of
the stomach is an almost constant attendant. In many instances the
muscles of the back are extensively affected. These symptoms, though
continuous, are liable to aggravations into paroxysms. As the disease
goes on, these paroxysms become more frequent and severe. When they
occur the body is drawn backwards; in some instances, though less
frequently, it is bent forward. A difficulty in swallowing is a very
common symptom, and also a difficulty of breathing during the paroxysms.
The disease may, if fatal, end in two ways. The patient may die somewhat
suddenly from suffocation, owing to the closure of the opening of the
windpipe; or he may be worn out by the severe and painful spasms, the
muscles may relax, and the patient gradually sink and die. The disease
is generally fatal. The locking of the jaw is an almost constant symptom
attending traumatic tetanus--I may say a constant symptom. It is not
always strongly marked, but generally so. It is an early symptom.
Another symptom is a peculiar expression of the countenance.

By LORD CAMPBELL: I believe this is not peculiar to traumatic tetanus,
but my observation is taken from such cases.

Examination resumed: There is a contraction of the eyelids, a raising of
the angles of the mouth, and contraction of the brow. In traumatic
tetanus the lower extremities are sometimes affected, and sometimes, but
somewhat rarely, the upper ones. When the muscles of the extremities are
affected, the time at which that occurs varies. If there is no wounds in
the arms or legs, the extremities are generally not affected until late
in the progress of the disease. I never knew or read of traumatic
tetanus being produced by a sore throat or by a chancre. In my opinion,
a syphilitic sore would not produce tetanus. I know of no instance in
which a syphilitic sore has led to tetanus. I think it a very unlikely
cause. The time in which traumatic tetanus causes death varies from
twenty-four hours to three or four days, or longer. The shortest period
that ever came to my knowledge was eight to ten hours. The disease, when
once commenced, is continuous.

Did you ever know a case in which, a man was attacked one day, had
twenty-four hours’ respite, and was then attacked the next day?--Never.
I should say that such a case could not occur.

You have heard the account given by Mr. Jones of the death of the
deceased,--were the symptoms there consistent with any forms of
traumatic tetanus that has ever come under your observation?--No.

What distinguishes it from such cases?--The sudden onset of the disease.
In all cases which have come under my notice, the disease was preceded
by the milder symptoms of tetanus, gradually proceeding to the complete
development.

Were the symptoms described by the woman Mills as being presented on the
Monday night those of tetanus?--No; not of the tetanus of disease.

Assuming tetanus to be synonymous with convulsive or spasmodic action of
the muscles, was there in that sense tetanus on the Monday night?--No
doubt there was spasmodic action of the muscles.

There was not, in your opinion, either idiopathic or traumatic
tetanus?--No.

Why are you of that opinion? The sudden onset of the spasms and their
rapid subsidence are consistent with neither of the two forms of
tetanus.

Is there not what is called hysteric tetanus?--Yes. It is rather
hysteria combined with spasms, but it is sometimes called hysteric
tetanus. I have known no instance of its proving fatal, or of it
occurring to a man. Some poisons will produce tetanus. Nux vomica,
acting through its poisons strychnia and bruchsia, poisons of a cognate
character, produces that effect. I never saw a case of human life
destroyed by strychnine.

Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant SHEE: Irritation of the spinal cord or of
the nerves proceeding to it might produce tetanus.

Do you agree with the opinion of Dr. Webster, in his lectures on the
Principles and Practice of Physic, that in four cases out of five the
disease begins with lockjaw?--I do.

Do you agree with Dr. Watson that all the symptoms of tetanic
convulsions may arise from causes so slight as these;--the sticking of a
fish-bone in the fauces, the air caused by a musket-shot, 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 favourite sparrow, the blow of a
stick on the neck, the insertion of a seton, the extraction of a tooth,
the injection of an hydrocele, and the operation of cutting?--Excepting
the percussion of the air from a musketball, I think that all these
causes may produce the symptoms referred to.

Do you remember reading of a case which occurred at Edinburgh, in which
a <DW64> servant lacerated his thumb by the fracture of a china dish, and
was instantly, while the guests were at dinner, seized with tetanus?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, interposing before the witness replied: I have
taken some pains to ascertain what that case is, and where it is got
from.

Cross-examination continued; Could traumatic tetanus occur within so
short a time as a quarter of an hour after the reception of an
injury?--I know of no well-authenticated instance of the kind.

Did you inquire into this case which is mentioned in your own
treatise--“A <DW64> having scratched his thumb with a piece of broken
china, was seized with tetanus, and in a quarter of an hour after this
he was dead?”--I referred to authority as far as I could, but I did not
find any reference to it except in Cyclopædias. When I wrote that book I
was a young man 22 years of age. I have maturer judgment and greater
experience now.

You say that no case of idiopathic tetanus has come under your
notice?--None.

I dare say you will tell us that such cases are not so likely to come to
the hospital as those of a wound ending in traumatic tetanus; they would
more likely, in the first instance, to come under the notice of a
physician than that of a surgeon?--Certainly.

By Lord CAMPBELL: I have read of cases of idiopathic tetanus in this
country.

Mr. Serjeant SHEE: We shall be able to show that there have been such
cases.

Cross-examination continued: Do you not know that very lately there was
a case in the London Hospital, a case in which tetanus came on so
rapidly and so unaccountably, that it was referred to strychnine, and it
was thought necessary to examine the stomach of the patient?--I know
that such an opinion was entertained before the history of the case was
investigated. I have heard that no strychnine was found. In that case
old syphilitic sores were discovered.

By Lord CAMPBELL: I did not see the patient, who was under the care of
the house-surgeons, who are now in court.

Cross-examination continued: Might not the irritation of a syphilitic
sore, by wet, cold, drink, mercury, and mental excitement, lead to
tetanic symptoms?--I do not think that that is very likely. The
irritation which is likely to produce tetanus is the sore being exposed
to friction, to which syphilitic sores in the throat are not exposed. I
should class tetanus arising from the irritation of a sore as
“traumatic.” Cases very rarely occur which it is difficult to class as
either “traumatic” or “idiopathic.” I should class tetanus arising from
irritation of the intestines as “idiopathic.” The character of the
spasms of epilepsy is not tetanic.

Not of the spasms; but are not the contractions of epilepsy sometimes
continuous, so that the body may be twisted into various forms, and
remain rigidly in them?--Not continuously.

For five or ten minutes together?--I think not.

Does it not frequently happen that general convulsions, no cause or
trace of which in the form of disease or lesion is to be found in the
body after death, occur in the most violent and <DW46> way, so as to
exhibit appearances of tetanic convulsions?--No instance of the kind has
come under my observation.

Do you agree with this opinion of Dr. Copeland, expressed in his
_Dictionary of Practical Medicine_, under the head “General
Convulsions.” “The abnormal contraction of the muscles is in some cases
of the most violent and <DW46> nature, and frequently of some
continuance, the relaxations being of brief duration, or scarcely
observable, and in others nearly or altogether approaching to
tetanic?”--I would rather speak from my own observation. I have not
observed anything of the kind.

Does it not happen that a patient dies of convulsions, <DW46> in the
sense of their being tumultuous and alternating, and chronic in the
sense of exhibiting continuous rigidity, yet after death no disease is
found?--It does not often happen to adults.

Does it sometimes?--I do not know, nor have I read of such a case. I
have no hesitation in saying that people may die from tetanus and other
diseases without the appearance of morbid symptoms after death.

Are not convulsions not, strictly speaking, tetanic, constantly
preserved by retching, distention of the stomach, flatulence of the
stomach and bowels, and other dyspeptic symptoms?--Such cases do not
come under my observation as a hospital surgeon. I think it is very
probable that general convulsions are accompanied by yelling. I don’t
know that they frequently terminate fatally, and that the proximate
cause of death is spasm of the respiratory muscles, inducing asphyxia.

Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL: These convulsions are easily
distinguished from tetanus, because in them there is an entire loss of
consciousness.

Is it one of the characteristic features of tetanus that the
consciousness is not affected?--It is.

Dr. TODD, examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am physician at King’s
College Hospital, and have held that office about twenty years. I have
also lectured on physiology and anatomy, on tetanus and the diseases of
the nervous system, and have published my lectures. I agree with the
last witness in his distinction between idiopathic and traumatic
tetanus. I have seen two cases of what appeared to me to be idiopathic
tetanus, but such cases are rare in this country.

By Lord CAMPBELL: I define idiopathic tetanus to be that form of the
disease which is produced without any external wound, apparently from
internal causes--from a constitutional cause.

Examination resumed: In my opinion, the term “tetanus” ought not to be
applied to disease produced by poisons; but I should call the symptoms
tetanic, in order to distinguish the character of the convulsions. I
have observed cases of traumatic tetanus. Except that in all such cases
there is some lesion, the symptoms are precisely the same as those of
idiopathic tetanus. The disease begins with stiffness about the jaw. The
symptoms gradually develop themselves and extend to the muscles of the
trunk.

When the disease has begun is there any intermission?--There are
remissions, but they are not complete; only diminutions of the severity
of the symptoms--not a total subsidence. The patient does not express
himself as completely well, quite comfortable. I speak from my own
experience.

What is the usual period that elapses between the commencement and the
termination of the disease?--The cases may be divided into two classes.
Acute cases will terminate in three or four days, chronic cases will go
on as long as from nineteen to twenty-two or twenty-three days, and
perhaps longer. I do not think that I have known a case in which death
occurred within four days. Cases are reported in which it occurred in a
shorter period. In tetanus the extremities are affected, but not so much
as the trunk. Their affection is a late symptom. The locking of the jaw
is an early one. Sometimes the convulsions of epilepsy assume somewhat
of a tetanic character, but they are essentially distinct from tetanus.
In epilepsy the patient always loses consciousness. Apoplexy never
produces tetanic convulsions. Perhaps I might be allowed to say that
when there is effusion of blood upon the brain, and a portion of the
brain is involved, the muscles may be thrown into short tetanic
convulsions. In such case the consciousness would be destroyed. Having
heard described the symptoms attending the death of the deceased, and
the _post-mortem_ examination, I am of opinion that in this case there
was neither apoplexy nor epilepsy.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that, as Dr. Bamford was so unwell that it was
doubtful whether he would be able to appear as a witness, he proposed to
put in his deposition, in order to found upon it a question to the
witness now under examination.

Dr. TODD and Dr. TWEEDIE deposed that they had seen Dr. Bamford on the
previous day, and that he was then suffering from a severe attack of
English cholera. He was too unwell to be able to attend and give
evidence.

The COURT ruled that the depositions taken before the coroner might be
read; and they were accordingly read by the Clerk of Arraigns. They were
to the following effect:--

“I attended the late Mr. Cook at the request of Mr. William Palmer. I
first saw him about three o’clock on Saturday, the 17th of November,
when he was suffering from violent vomiting, the stomach being in that
irritable state that it would not contain a teaspoonful of milk. There
was perfect moisture of the skin, and he was quite sensible. I
prescribed medicine for him, and Mr. Palmer went up to my house and
waited till I had made it up, and then took it away. I prescribed a
saline medicine, to be taken in an effervescing state. Between seven and
eight o’clock in the evening Mr. Palmer again requested me to visit Mr.
Cook. The sickness still continued, everything being ejected which he
took into his stomach. I gave him two pills as a slight opiate. Mr.
Palmer took the pills from my house. I did not accompany him, nor do I
know what became of the pills. On the following morning (Sunday) Mr.
Palmer again called, and asked me to accompany him. Mr. Cook’s sickness
still continued. I remained about ten minutes. Everything he took that
morning was ejected from his stomach. Everything he threw up was as
clear as water, except some coffee which he had taken. Mr Palmer had
administered some pills before I saw Mr. Cook on Saturday, which had
purged him several times. Between six and seven o’clock in the evening I
again visited the deceased, accompanied by Mr. Palmer. The sickness
still continued. I went on Monday morning, between eight and nine
o’clock, and changed his medicine. I sent him a draught which relieved
him from the sickness, and gave him ease. I did not see him again until
Tuesday night, when Mr. Palmer called for me. I examined Mr. Cook in the
presence of Mr. Jones and Mr. Palmer, and I observed a change in him. He
was irritable and troubled in mind. His pulse was firm, but tremulous,
and between 80 and 90. He threw himself down on the bed and turned his
face away. He said he would have no more pills nor take any more
medicine.”

“After they had left the room Mr. Palmer asked me to make two more pills
similar to those on the previous night, which I did, and he then asked
me to write the directions on a slip of paper; and I gave the pills to
Mr. Palmer. The effervescing mixture contained twenty grains of
carbonate of potash, two drachms of compound tincture of cardamine, and
two drachms of simple syrup, together with fifteen grains of tartaric
acid for each powder. I never gave Mr. Cook a grain of antimony. I did
not see the preparations after they were taken away by Mr. Palmer. Mr.
Cook did not say he had taken the pills which he had prepared, but he
expressed a wish on Sunday and Monday nights to have the pills. His skin
was moist, and there was not the least fever about him. When I saw the
deceased on Monday he did not say that he had been ill on the Sunday
night, but Mr. Palmer told me he had been ill. I considered death to
have been the result of congestion of the brain when the _post-mortem_
examination was made, and I do not see any reason to alter that opinion.
I have attended other patients for Mr. Palmer. I attended Mrs. Palmer
some days before her decease; also two children, and a gentleman from
London, who was on a visit at Mr. Palmer’s house, and who did not live
many hours after I was called in. The whole of those patients died. Mr.
Palmer first made an application to me for a certificate of Mr. Cook’s
death on the following Sunday morning, when I objected, saying, “He is
your patient.” I cannot remember his reply; but he wished me to fill up
the certificate, and I did so. We had no conversation at that time as to
the cause of death--nothing more than the opinion I have expressed. Mr.
Palmer said he was of the same opinion as myself with respect to the
death of the deceased. I never knew apoplexy produce rigidity of the
limbs. Drowsiness is a prelude to apoplexy. I attributed the sickness of
the first two days to a disordered stomach. Mr. Cook never sent for me
himself.”

The examination of Dr. TODD by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL was then proceeded
with, as follows: Having heard the deposition of Dr. Bamford read, I do
not believe that the deceased died from apoplexy, or from epilepsy. I
never knew tetanus arise either from syphilitic sores or from sore
throat. There are poisons which will produce tetanic convulsions. The
principal of those poisons are nux vomica, strychnine, and bruccia. I
have never seen human life destroyed by strychnine, but I have seen
animals destroyed by it frequently. The poison is usually given in a
largish dose in those cases, so as to put an end to the sufferings and
destroy life as soon as possible. I should not like to give a human
subject a quarter of a grain. I think that it is not unlikely that half
a grain might destroy life; and I believe that a grain certainly would.
I think that half a grain would kill a cat. The symptoms which would
ensue upon the administration of strychnine, when given in solution--and
I believe that poisons of that nature act more rapidly in a state of
solution than in any other form--would develope themselves in ten
minutes after it was taken, if the dose were a large one; if not so
large, they might be half an hour, or an hour before they appeared.
Those symptoms would be tetanic convulsions of the muscles--more
especially those of the spine and neck; the head and back would be bent
back, and the trunk would be bowed in a marked manner; the extremities,
also, would be stiffened and jerked out. The stiffness, once set in,
would never entirely disappear; but fresh paroxysms would set in, and
the jerking rigidity would re-appear; and death would probably ensue in
a quarter of an hour or so. The difference between tetanus produced by
strychnine and other tetanus is very marked. In the former case the
duration of the symptoms is very short, and, instead of being continuous
in their development, they will subside if the dose has not been strong
enough to produce death, and will be renewed in fresh paroxysms;
whereas, in other descriptions of tetanus, the symptoms commence in a
mild form, and become stronger and more violent as the disease
progresses. The difficulty experienced in breathing is common alike to
tetanus, properly so called, and to tetanic convulsions occasioned by
strychnine, arising from the pressure upon the respiratory muscles. I
think it is remarkable that the deceased was able to swallow, and that
there was no fixing of the jaw, which would have been the case with
tetanus proper, resulting either from a wound, or from disease. From
all the evidence I have heard, I think that the symptoms which presented
themselves in the case of Mr. Cook arose from tetanus produced by
strychnine.

Cross examined by Mr. GROVE, Q.C.--There are cases sloping into each
other, as it were, of every grade and degree, from mild convulsions to
violent tetantic spasms. I have published some lectures upon diseases of
the brain, and I adhere to the opinion there expressed that the state of
a person suffering from tetanus is identical with that which strychnine
is capable of producing. In a pathological point of view, an examination
of the spinal cord shortly after death, in investigating supposed deaths
from strychnine, is important. The signs of decomposition, however,
could be easily distinguished from the evidences of disease which
existed previously to death; but it would be difficult to distinguish in
such a case whether mere softening resulted from decomposition or from
pre-existing disease. There is nothing in the _post-mortem_ examination
which leads me to think that deceased died from tetanus proper. I think
that granules upon the spinal cord, such as I have heard described,
would not be likely to cause tetanus. I have not heard of cases treated
by Mr. Travers. In animals to which strychnine has been administered I
cannot say that I have observed what you call an intolerance of touch;
but by touching them the spasms are apt to be excited. That sensibility
to touch continues as long as the operation of the poison continues. I
have examined the interior of animals that have been killed by
strychnine; but I have not observed in such cases that the right side of
the heart was usually full of blood. It is some years since I made such
an examination; but I am able, nevertheless, to speak positively as to
the state of the heart. It was usually empty on both sides. I do not
agree with Dr. Taylor, or other authorities, in the opinion that in
cases of tetanus animals died asphyxiated. If they did, we should
invariably have the right side of the heart full of blood, which is not
the case. I think that the term asphyxiated, or suffocated, is often
very loosely used. I know from my reading that morphia sometimes
produces convulsions; but I believe that they would be of an epileptic
character. I think that the symptoms from morphia would be longer
deferred in making their appearance than from strychnine; but I cannot
speak positively on the point. Morphia, like strychnine, is a vegetable
poison. I have not observed in animals the jaw fixed after the
administration of strychnine.

Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL.--Whatever may be the true theory as
to the emptiness of the heart after strychnine, I should say that the
heart is more ordinarily empty than filled after tetanus. I think that
the heart would be more contracted after strychnine than in ordinary
tetanus. I do not believe that a medical practitioner would have any
difficulty in distinguishing between ordinary convulsions and tetanic
convulsions. I have heard the evidence of the gentlemen who made the
_post-mortem_ examination, and I apprehend that there was nothing to
prevent the discovery of disease in the spinal cord, had any existed
previously to death.

Sir BENJAMIN BRODIE, examined by Mr. JAMES, Q.C.: I have been for many
years senior surgeon to St. George’s Hospital, and have had considerable
experience as a surgeon. In the course of my practice I have had under
my care many cases of death from tetanus. Death from idiopathic tetanus
is, according to my experience, very rare in this country. The ordinary
tetanus in this country is traumatic tetanus. I have heard the symptoms
which accompanied the death of Mr. Cook, and I am of opinion that so far
as there was a general contraction of the muscles they resembled those
of traumatic tetanus; but as to the course those symptoms took, they
were entirely different. I have attended to the detailed description of
the attack suffered by Mr. Cook on the Monday night, its ceasing on
Tuesday, and its renewal on Tuesday night. The symptoms of traumatic
tetanus always begin, so far as I have seen, very gradually, the
stiffness of the lower jaw being, I believe, invariably, the symptom
first complained of--at least, so it has been in my experience. The
contraction of the muscles of the back is always a later
symptom--generally much later. The muscles of the extremities are
affected in a much less degree than those of the neck and trunk, except
in some cases where the injury has been in a limb, and an early symptom
has been spasmodic contraction of the muscles of that limb. I do not
myself recollect a case of ordinary tetanus in which occurred that
contraction in the muscles of the hand which I understand was stated to
have taken place in this instance. Again, ordinary tetanus rarely runs
its course in less than two or three days, and often is protracted to a
much longer period. I knew one case only in which the disease was said
to have terminated in so short a time as 12 hours; but probably in that
case the early symptoms had been overlooked. Again, I never knew the
symptoms of ordinary tetanus to last for a few minutes, then subside,
and then come on again after 24 hours. I think that these are the
principal points of difference which I perceived between the symptoms of
ordinary tetanus and those which I have heard described in this case. I
have not witnessed tetanic convulsions from strychnine on animal life. I
do not believe that death in the case of Mr. Cook arose from what we
ordinarily call tetanus--either idiopathic or traumatic. I never knew
tetanus result from sore throat, or from a chancre, or from any other
form of syphilitic disease. The symptoms were not the result either of
apoplexy or of epilepsy. Perhaps I had better say at once that I never
saw a case in which the symptoms that I have heard described here arose
from any disease. (Sensation.) When I say that, of course I refer not to
particular symptoms, but to the general course which the symptoms took.

Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant SHEE: I believe I remember one case in
the physicians’ ward of St. George’s Hospital, which was shown to me as
a case of idiopathic tetanus, but I doubted whether it was tetanus at
all. It was a slight case, and I do not remember the particulars.

Considering how rare cases of tetanus are, do you think that the
description given by a chambermaid and a provincial medical man, who had
never seen but one case, is sufficient to enable you to form an opinion
as to the nature of the case?--I must say I thought that the description
was very clearly given.

Supposing that they differed in their description, which would you rely
upon--the medical man or the chambermaid?

Baron ALDERSON: This is hardly a question to put to a medical witness,
although it may be a very proper observation for you to make.

Cross-examination continued: I never knew syphilitic poison produce
tetanic convulsions, except in cases where there was disease of the
bones of the head.

[Sir Benjamin Brodie gave his evidence with great clearness--slowly,
audibly, and distinctly,--matters in which other medical witnesses would
do well to emulate so distinguished an example.]

Dr. DANIELL, examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I was for many years
surgeon to the Bristol Hospital, but have been out of practice for some
time. In the course of a long practice I should think that I have seen
at least thirty cases of tetanus. Two of those were certainly cases of
idiopathic tetanus: one of them terminated fatally, the other did not. I
quite agree with the other medical witnesses, that idiopathic tetanus is
of very rare occurrence in this country. The only difference in the
symptoms between idiopathic and traumatic tetanus that I perceived was,
that the former were more modified--not so severe--in their character. I
was not able to trace these two cases of idiopathic tetanus to any
particular cause. I have heard the description given of the symptoms
which accompanied the attack upon Mr. Cook before his death, and it
appears to me that the circumstances of that attack are assuredly
distinguishable from those which came under my experience in dealing
with cases of tetanus. The evidence of Sir B. Brodie quite expresses my
opinion with respect to the difference of the symptoms between ordinary
tetanus and tetanic convulsions produced by strychnine. Tetanus begins
with uneasiness in the lower jaw, followed by spasms of the muscles of
the trunk, and most frequently extending to the muscles of the limbs.
Lock-jaw is almost invariably a symptom of those cases of tetanus--of
traumatic tetanus especially. I do not recollect that clinching of the
hands is a usual symptom of ordinary tetanus, nor do I remember any
twisting of the foot. I do not believe that any of the cases which came
under my experience endured for a shorter time than from thirty to forty
hours. I never knew a case of syphilitic sore producing tetanus. The
symptoms, as they have been described, certainly cannot be referable to
apoplexy or epilepsy. I never heard of such a thing. In all the cases of
tetanus which came under my observation consciousness has been retained
to the last, throughout the whole disease. The symptoms have never set
in in their full power from the commencement, but have invariably
commenced in a milder form, and have then gone on increasing, being
continuous in their character, and without intermission. In my judgment
the symptoms in the case of Mr. Cook could not be referred either to
idiopathic or traumatic tetanus.

Cross-examined by Mr. GROVE, Q.C.: I have not read Dr. Curling’s or Dr.
Copeland’s books on the subject of tetanus; nor have I of late studied
much the reported cases. I am not aware that excitement or irritation
from vomiting has ever been given as the cause of tetanus. The main
symptoms of tetanus are, in my opinion, always very similar, although
the inferior symptoms may vary simply. I cannot undertake to say that
the convulsions of tetanus arise from the spine. I do not like the term
“asphyxia;” but I think that death from tetanic convulsions may probably
arise from suffocation. It is many years since I saw a _post mortem_
upon a case of tetanus. I cannot say whether, in the case of death from
suffocation, the heart would be full of blood or the reverse. An
examination of the spinal cord or marrow never, so far as I know,
afforded evidence of the cause to which the tetanus was to be
attributed.

Mr. SAMUEL SOLLY, surgeon of St. Thomas’s Hospital, examined by Mr.
WELSBY: I have been connected with St. Thomas’s Hospital, as lecturer
and surgeon, for 28 years, and during that time I have seen many cases
of tetanus. I have had six or seven under my own care, and I may have
seen ten or fifteen more. Of those cases it was doubtful in one whether
the disease was idiopathic or traumatic--the wound was so slight and
the symptoms so obscure, that it was difficult to decide which it was.
The others were all decidedly traumatic cases. The shortest period that
I recollect during which the disease lasted before it terminated in
death, was 30 hours. The disease was always progressive in its
character. I have heard the description given by the witnesses of Mr.
Cook’s attacks, and they differ essentially from those cases which I
have seen. In my experience of tetanus there has always been a marked
expression of the countenance as the first symptom. It is a sort of
grin, and so peculiar, that having once seen it you can never mistake
it. In the symptoms that I heard detailed with regard to Mr. Cook, there
were violent convulsions on Monday night, and on Tuesday the individual
was entirely free from any discomfort about the face or jaw; whereas, in
the cases under my notice, the disease was always continuous, and the
fixedness of the jaw was the last symptom to disappear. In my judgment,
the symptoms detailed in Mr. Cook’s case are referable neither to
apoplexy, epilepsy, nor to any disease that I have ever witnessed.

Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant SHEE: The sort of grin which I have
described is known as _risus sardonicus_. It is not common to all
convulsions. Epilepsy is a disease of a convulsive character. I heard
the account given by Mr. Jones of the last few minutes of Mr. Cook’s
death--that he uttered a piercing shriek, and died after five or six
minutes quietly. That last shriek and the paroxysm which accompanied it
bear in some respects a resemblance to epilepsy. All convulsions which
may be designated as of an epileptic character are not attended with an
utter want of consciousness. Death from tetanus accompanied with
convulsions seldom leaves any trace behind it; but death from
convulsions arising from epilepsy does leave its trace in the shape of a
slight effusion of blood on the brain, and a congestion of the vessels.

Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The convulsions of epilepsy are
accompanied by a variety of symptoms. When a patient dies of epilepsy he
dies perfectly unconscious and comatose. I never saw any case of
convulsive disease at all like this. There are cases of convulsive
disease which are similar to tetanus in their onset, but not in their
progress. For example, laceration of the brain, a sudden injury to the
spinal cord, and the irritation from teething in infants, will produce
convulsions resulting in death; but there would be wanting the marked
expression of the face which I have described, which I have never missed
in cases of tetanus.

Mr. HENRY LEE, surgeon to King’s College, and to the Lock Hospital,
examined by Mr. BODKIN: The Lock Hospital is exclusively devoted to
cases of a syphilitic character, and at present I see probably as many
as 3,000 of those cases in the course of a year. I have never known an
instance of that disease terminating in tetanus.

By the COURT: I have never seen or read of a case either of primary or
secondary symptoms resulting in tetanus.

This witness was not cross-examined.

Dr. HENRY CORBETT, physician of Glasgow, examined by Mr. JAMES, Q.C.: In
September, 1845, I was medical clerk at the Glasgow Infirmary, and I
remember a patient, named Agnes Sennett, _alias_ Agnes French, who died
there on the 27th of September, 1845. It was stated that she had taken
strychnine pills, which had been prepared for another patient in the
ward, and the symptoms which accompanied her death were those of
strychnine. The pills were for a paralytic patient. I saw her when she
was under the influence of the poison, and I had seen her the day before
that perfectly well. She had been admitted for a skin disease of the
head. When I saw her after she had taken the poison she was in bed. The
symptoms were these: There was a strong retraction of the mouth; the
face was much suffused and red; the pupils of the eye were dilated; the
head was bent back; the spine was curved; and the muscles were rigid and
hard like a board; the arms were stretched out; the hands were clinched;
and there were severe paroxysms recurring every few seconds. She died in
about an hour and a-quarter after taking the pills. When I was called
first the paroxysms did not last so long; but they increased in
severity. According to the prescription there should have been a quarter
of a grain of strychnine in each pill, and this woman had taken three.
The paralytic patient was to have taken a pill each night, or one each
night and morning, I forget which.

Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant SHEE: The retraction of the mouth was
continuous, but it was worse at times. I do not think that I observed it
after death. The hands were not clinched after death--they were
“semi-bent.” She died an hour-and-a-quarter after taking the medicine.
The symptoms appeared about twenty minutes after. I tried to make her
vomit with a feather, but failed. She only vomited partially after I had
given her an emetic.

Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL: There was spasmodic action and
grinding of the teeth. She could open her mouth and swallow. There was
no lock-jaw or ordinary tetanus.

By Mr. Serjeant SHEE: I do not recollect that touching her sent her into
paroxysms.

Dr. WATSON, examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am a surgeon at the
Glasgow Infirmary. I remember the case of Agnes Sennett. I was called in
about a quarter of an hour after she was taken ill. She was in violent
convulsions, and her arms were stretched out and rigid. The muscles of
the body were also rigid; they were kept quiet by rigidity. She did not
breathe, the muscles being kept still by tetanic rigidity. That paroxysm
subsided, and fresh paroxysms came on after a short interval. She died
in about half an hour. She seemed perfectly conscious. I don’t
recollect the state of her hands. Her body was opened. The heart was
found distended and stiff. The cavities of the heart were empty. My
father published an account of the case.

Cross-examined by Mr. GROVE: The spinal cord was quite healthy.

Dr. J. PATTERSON, examined by Mr. WELSBY: In 1845 I was engaged in the
laboratory of the Infirmary at Glasgow. I dispensed the prescriptions. I
made up a prescription for a paralytic patient named M’Intyre. It
consisted of pills which contained strychnine. There were four pills,
and one grain of strychnine in the four.

Baron ALDERSON: Was there any noise made about their being taken by a
wrong person?--Yes.

MARY KELLY, examined by Mr. BODKIN: In September, 1845, I was a patient
in the Glasgow Infirmary; a paralytic patient was in the same ward, and
I attended to her. There was also a patient named French or Sennett who
was suffering from a sore head. She died. I was turning a wheel near the
paralytic patient on the afternoon of the day Sennett died, for the
purpose of applying something to her skin. There were some pills which
she was to take near her. The paralytic woman took one and swallowed it
according to the orders that had been given, and then handed the box to
the girl with a sore head. The girl swallowed two of the pills, and then
went and sat by the ward fire. She was taken ill in about three-quarters
of an hour. She fell back on the floor, and I went for the nurse. We
took her to bed and sent for the doctor. We were obliged to cut her
clothes off, because she never moved. She was like a poker. I was by her
side when she died. She never spoke after she fell down.

Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant SHEE: It was three quarters of an hour
from the time she took the pills till she was taken to the bed.

CAROLINE HICKSON, examined by Mr. E. JAMES: In October, 1848, I was
nurse and lady’s maid in the family of Mr. Sarjantson Smyth. The family
were then residing about two miles from Romsey. On the 30th of October
Mrs. Smyth was unwell. We dealt with Mr. Jones, a druggist in Romsey. A
prescription had been sent to him to be made up for Mrs Smyth. The
medicine was brought back about six o’clock in the afternoon. It was a
mixture in a bottle. My mistress took about half a wineglass of it the
following morning, at five or ten minutes past seven o’clock. I left the
room when I had given it her. Five or ten minutes afterwards I was
alarmed by the ringing of her bell. I went into her room, and found her
out of bed leaning upon a chair, in her night-dress. I thought she had
fainted. She appeared to suffer from what I thought were spasms. I ran
and sent the coachman for Mr. Taylor, the surgeon, and returned to her.
Some of the other servants were there assisting her. She was lying on
the floor. She screamed loudly, and her teeth were clinched. She asked
to have her arms and legs held straight. I took hold of her arms and
legs, which were very much drawn up. She still screamed, and was in
great agony. She requested that water should be thrown over her, and I
threw some. Her feet were turned inwards. I put a bottle of hot water to
her feet, but that did not relax them. Shortly before she died she said
she felt easier. The last words she uttered were--“Turn me over.” We did
turn her over on the floor. She died a very few minutes after she had
spoken those words. She died very quietly. She was quite conscious, and
knew me during the whole time. About an hour and a quarter elapsed from
the time I gave her the medicine till she died.

Cross-examined by Mr. GROVE: She could not sit up from the time I went
up to her till she died. It was when she was in a paroxysm that I
endeavoured to straighten her limbs. The effect of cold water was to
throw her into a paroxysm. It was a continually recurring attack,
lasting about an hour or an hour and a quarter. Her teeth were clinched
during the whole time.

Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The fit came on five or ten minutes
after I gave her the medicine. She was stiff all the time till within a
few minutes after death. She was conscious all the while.

Mr. FRANCIS TAYLOR, examined by Mr. WELSBY: I am a surgeon and
apothecary at Romsey. I attended Mrs. Sarjantson Smyth in 1848. I was
summoned to her house one morning soon after eight, and when I arrived I
found her dead. The body was on the floor, near the bed. The hands were
very much bent. The feet were contracted, and turned inwards. The soles
of the feet were hollowed up, and the toes contracted, apparently from
recent spasmodic action. The inner edge of each foot was turned up.
There was a remarkable rigidity about the limbs.

By Lord CAMPBELL: The body was warm.

Examination continued: The eyelids were almost adherent to the eyeballs.
The druggist who made up the prescription was named Jones. I made a
_post-mortem_ examination three days after the death. The contraction of
the feet continued, but it had gone off somewhat from the rest of the
body. I found no trace of disease in the body. The heart was contracted
and perfectly empty, as were all the large arteries leading from it. I
analysed the medicine she had taken with another medical man. It
contained a large quantity of strychnine. It originally contained nine
grains, and she had taken one-third--three grains. I made a very casual
examination of the stomach and bowels, as we had plenty of proof that
poison had been taken without making use of tests.

Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant SHEE: In cases of death from ordinary
causes the body is much distorted. It does not generally, I should
think, remain in the same position after death.

If the body is not laid out immediately, is it not stiffened by the
_rigor mortis_?--Probably it is. The ancles were tied by a bandage to
keep them together. I commenced to open the body at the thorax and
abdomen. The head was also opened.

CHARLES BLOCKSOME, examined by Mr. HUDDLESTON: I was apprentice to Mr.
Jones, the chymist, at Romsey, in 1848. My master made a mistake in
preparing a prescription for Mrs. Smyth. The mistake was the
substitution of strychnine for salacite (bark of willow). He destroyed
himself afterwards.

JANE WITHAM, examined by Mr. E. JAMES: In March last I was in attendance
upon a lady who died. (The learned counsel told the witness she had
better not mention the lady’s name.) She took some medicine. After she
took it she became ill. She complained first of her back. Her head was
thrown back, her body stretched out, and I observed twichings. Her eyes
were drawn aside and staring. I put my hand upon her limbs, which did
not at all relax. She first complained of being ill in that way on
Monday, the 25th of February, and died on Saturday, the 1st of March.
She had attacks on the Monday, on the Wednesday, on the Thursday, on the
Friday (a very slight one), and at a quarter-past eight o’clock on the
Saturday morning. She died about twenty minutes to eleven that night.
Between the attacks she was composed. She principally complained of
prickings in the legs and twichings in the muscles and in the hands,
which she said she could compare to nothing else than a galvanic shock.
She wished her husband to rub her legs and arms. She was dead when Dr.
Morley came.

Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant SHEE: On the Saturday night she could not
bear to have her legs touched when the spasms were strong upon her. Her
limbs were rigidly extended when she asked to be rubbed. That was in the
interval between the spasms. Touching her then brought on the spasms.
Her body was stiff immediately after death, but I did not stay long in
the house. On the Saturday she was sensible from half-an-hour to an
hour, from a quarter past eight till after nine. I suppose she was
insensible the remainder of the time. She did not speak.

Re-examined by Mr. E. JAMES: On the Saturday before she died the
symptoms were the same as on the other days--not more violent.

Mr. MORLEY, examined by Mr. WELSBY: I am a surgeon. I attended on the
lady to whom the last witness has alluded for about two months before
her death. On the Monday before she died she was in bed apparently
comfortable, when I observed (as I stood by her side) several slight
convulsive twitchings of her arms. I supposed they arose from hysteria,
and ordered medicine in consequence. The same symptoms were repeated on
the following Wednesday or Thursday. I saw her on Saturday, the day she
died. She was apparently better, and quite composed in the middle of the
day. She complained of an attack she had had in the night. She spoke of
pain and spasms in the back and neck, and of shocks. I and another
medical man were sent for hastily on the Saturday night. We were met by
the announcement that the lady was dead. On the Monday I accompanied
another medical gentleman to the _post-mortem_ examination. We found no
disease in any part of the body which would account for death. There was
no emaciation, wound, or sore. There was a peculiar expression of
anxiety about the countenance. The hands were bent and the fingers
curved. The feet were strongly arched. We carefully examined the stomach
and its contents to see if we could find poison. We applied several
tests--nitric acid, chloride of sulphuric acid, bi-chloride of potash in
a liquid state, and also in a solid state. They are the best tests to
detect the presence of strychnine. In each case we found appearances
characteristic of strychnine. We administered the strychnine taken from
the stomach to animals by inoculation. We gave it to a few mice, a few
rabbits, and a guinea pig, having first separated it by chemical
analysis. We observed in each of the animals more or less of the effects
produced by strychnine--namely, general uneasiness, difficult breathing,
convulsions of a tetanic kind, muscular rigidity, arching backwards of
the head and neck, violent stretching out of the legs. These symptoms
appeared in some of the animals in four or five minutes; in others in
less than an hour. The guinea-pig suffered but slightly at first and was
left, and found dead the next day. The symptoms were strongly marked in
the rabbits. After death there was an interval of flaccidity, after
which rigidity commenced, more than if it had been occasioned by the
usual _rigor mortis_. I afterwards made numerous experiments on animals
with exactly similar results, the poison being administered in a fluid
form.

Cross-examined by Mr. GROVE: I did not see the patient during a severe
attack. I have observed in animals that spasms are brought on by touch.
That is a very marked symptom. The spasm is like a galvanic shock. The
patient was not at all insensible during the time I saw her, and she was
able to swallow, but I did not see her during a severe attack. After
death we found the lungs very much congested. There was a small quantity
of bloody serum in the pericardium. The muscles of the whole body were
dark and soft. There was a decided quantity of effusion in the brain.
There was also a quantity of serum tinged with blood in the membranes of
the spinal cord. The membranes of the spinal marrow were congested to a
considerable extent. We opened the head first, and there was a good deal
of blood flowing out. Part of the blood may have flowed from the heart.
That might partially empty the heart, and would make it uncertain
whether the heart was full or empty at the time of death. I have often
examined the hearts of animals poisoned by strychnine. The right side of
the heart is generally full. In some cases I think that the symptoms did
not appear for an hour after the administration of the poison. I have
made the experiments in conjunction with Mr. Nunneley. We have made
experiments upon frogs, but they are different in many respects from
warm-blooded animals. I have in almost all cases found the strychnine
where it was known to have been administered. In one case it was
doubtful. We were sure the strychnine had been administered in that
case, but we doubted whether it had reached the stomach. There were
appearances which might lead one to infer the presence of strychnine,
but they were not satisfactory. I have detected strychnine in the
stomach nearly two months after death, when decomposition has proceeded
to a considerable extent.

Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL: From half a grain to a grain has
been administered to cats, rabbits, and dogs. From one to two grains is
quite sufficient to kill a dog.

How does the strychnine act? Is it taken up by the absorbents and
carried into the system?--I think it acts upon the nerves, but a part
may be taken into the blood and act through the blood. We generally
examined the stomach of the animals when the poison had been
administered internally. Sometimes we examined the skin. The poison
found in the stomach would be in excess of that absorbed into the
system.

Are you, then, of opinion that, a portion of the poison being taken into
the system and a portion being left in the stomach, the portion taken
into the system would produce tetanic symptoms and death?

Mr. Serjeant SHEE objected to a question which suggested a theory.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: What would be the operation of that portion of the
poison which is taken into the system?--It would destroy life.

Mr. Baron ALDERSON: And yet leave an excess in the stomach?--That is my
opinion.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Would the excess remaining in the stomach produce
no effect?--I am not sure that strychnine could lie in the stomach
without acting prejudicially.

Suppose that a _minimum_ quantity is administered, which, being absorbed
into the system, destroys life, should you expect to find any in the
stomach?--I should expect sometimes to fail in discovering it.

If death resulted from a series of _minimum_ doses spread over several
days, would the appearance of the body be different from that of one
whose death had been caused by one dose?--I should connect the
appearance of the body with the final struggle of the last day.

Would you expect a different set of phenomena in cases where death had
taken place after a brief struggle, and in cases where the struggle had
been protracted?--Certainly. At the _post-mortem_ examination of which I
have spoken we found fluid blood in the veins.

Mr. Serjeant SHEE: Is it your theory that in the action of poisoning the
poison becomes absorbed, and ceases to exist as poison?--I have thought
much upon that question, and have not formed a decided opinion, but I am
inclined to think that it is so. A part may be absorbed and a part
remain in the stomach unchanged.

Mr. Serjeant SHEE: What chemical reason can you give for your opinion
that strychnine, after having effected the operation of poisoning,
ceases to be strychnine in the blood?--My opinion rests upon the general
principle that, in acting upon living bodies, organic substances--such
as food and medicine--are generally changed in their composition.

Mr. Serjeant SHEE: What are the component parts of strychnine?

Mr. Baron ALDERSON: You will find that in any cyclopœdia, Brother
SHEE.

Mr. Serjeant SHEE: Have you any reason to believe that strychnine can be
decomposed by any sort of putrefying or fermenting process?

Witness: I doubt whether it can.

Mr. EDWARD D. MOORE, examined by Mr. HUDDLESTON: About fifteen years ago
I was in practice as a surgeon, and I attended, with Dr. Chambers, a
gentleman named Clutterbuck, who was suffering from paralysis. We had
been giving him small doses of strychnine when he went to Brighton. On
his return he told us that he had been taking larger doses of
strychnine, and we, in consequence, gave him a stronger dose. I made up
three draughts, confining a quarter of a grain each. He took one in my
presence. I remained with him a little time, and left him, as he said he
felt quite comfortable. About three-quarters of an hour afterwards I was
summoned to him. I found him stiffened in every limb, and the head drawn
back. He was desirous that we should move and turn him, and rub him. We
tried to give him ammonia, in a spoon, and he snapped at the spoon. He
was suffering, I should say, more than three hours. Sedatives were given
him. He survived the attack. He was conscious all the time.

Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant SHEE: The spasms ceased in about three
hours, but the rigidity of the muscles remained till the next day. His
hands and feet were at first drawn back, and he was much easier when we
clinched them forwards. His paralysis was better after the attack.

Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Strychnine stimulates the nerves
which act upon the voluntary muscles, and therefore acts beneficially in
cases of paralysis.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL intimated that the next witness to be called was
Dr. Taylor, and, as it was a quarter after five, the trial was adjourned
until Monday, at nine o’clock.

Lord CAMPBELL, before the jury left the box, exhorted them not to form
any opinion upon the case until they had heard both sides. They should
even abstain from conversing about it among themselves.

Mr. Serjeant SHEE said that medical witnesses would be called for the
defence.

His LORDSHIP also expressed a hope that, if the jury were taken out upon
the following day (Sunday), they would not be allowed to go to any place
of public resort, and mentioned an instance in which a jury, under
similar circumstances, had been conducted to Epping Forest.

The Court then rose, and the jury were conveyed to the London
Coffee-house.




FIFTH DAY, MAY 19.


The Court was again crowded long before the commencement of the
proceedings this morning. The Earl of Denbigh and Lord Lyttleton were
among the gentlemen who occupied seats upon the bench.

The jury came into Court shortly before ten o’clock, and were soon
followed by Lord Campbell and Mr. Justice Cresswell, accompanied by the
Recorder, the Sheriffs and Under-Sheriffs, &c. Mr. Baron Alderson did
not take his seat until about two o’clock.

The prisoner was immediately placed at the bar. There was no alteration
perceptible in his countenance or demeanour, and he took notes of
several parts of Dr. Taylor’s evidence.

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

Dr. ALFRED SWAYNE TAYLOR, examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am a
fellow of the College of Physicians, lecturer on medical jurisprudence
at Guy’s hospital, and the author of the well-known treatise on poisons
and on medical jurisprudence. I have made the poison called strychnia
the subject of my attention. It is the produce of the nux vomica, which
also contains brucia, a poison of an analogous character. Brucia is
variously estimated at from one-sixth to one-twelfth the strength of
strychnia. Most varieties of impure strychnia that are sold contain more
or less brucia. Unless, therefore, you are certain as to the purity of
the article, you may be misled as to its strength. I have performed a
variety of experiments with strychnia on animal life. I have never
witnessed its action on a human subject. I have tried its effects upon
animal life--upon rabbits--in ten or twelve instances. The symptoms are,
on the whole, very uniform. The quantity I have given has varied from
half a grain to two grains. Half a grain is sufficient to destroy a
rabbit. I have given it both in a solid and a liquid state. When given
in a fluid state, it produces its effects in a very few minutes; when in
a solid state, as a sort of pill or bolus, in about six to eleven
minutes. The time varies according to the strength of the dose, and also
to the strength of the animal.

In what way does it operate, in your opinion?--It is first absorbed into
the blood, then circulated through the body, and especially acts on the
spinal cord, from which proceed the nerves acting on the voluntary
muscles.

Supposing the poison to have been absorbed, what time would you give for
the circulating process?--The circulation of the blood through the whole
system is considered to take place about once in four minutes. The
circulation in animals is quicker. The absorption of the poison by
rabbits is therefore quicker. The time would also depend on the
stomach,--whether it contained much food or not,--whether the poison
came into immediate contact with the inner surface of the stomach.

In your opinion, does the poison act immediately on the nervous system,
or must it first be absorbed? It must first be absorbed.

The symptoms, you say, are uniform. Will you describe them?--The animal,
for about five or six minutes, does not appear to suffer, but moves
about gently; when the poison begins to act it suddenly falls on its
side, there is a trembling, a quivering motion, of the whole of the
muscles of the body, arising from the poison producing violent and
involuntary contraction. There is then a sudden paroxysm or fit, the
fore legs and the hind legs are stretched out, the head and the tail are
drawn back in the form of a bow, the jaws are spasmodically closed, the
eyes are prominent; after a short time there is a slight remission of
the symptoms, and the animal appears to lie quiet, but the slightest
noise or touch reproduces another convulsive paroxysm; sometimes there
is a scream, or a sort of shriek, as if the animal suffered from pain;
the heart beats violently during the fit, and after a succession of
these fits the animal dies quietly. Sometimes, however, the animal dies
during a spasm, and I only know that death has occurred from holding my
hand over the heart. The appearances after death differ. In some
instances the rigidity continues. In one case, the muscles were so
strongly contracted for a week afterwards, that it was possible to hold
the body by its hind legs stretched out horizontally. In an animal
killed the other day the body was flaccid at the time of death, but
became rigid about five minutes afterwards. I have opened the bodies of
animals thus destroyed.

Could you detect any injury in the stomach?--No. I have found in some
cases congestion of the membranes of the spinal cord to a greater extent
than would be accounted for by the gravitation of the blood. In other
cases I have found no departure from the ordinary state of the spinal
cord and the brain. I ascribe congestion to the succession of fits
before death. In a majority of instances, three out of five, I found no
change in the abnormal condition of the spine. In all cases the heart
has been congested, especially the right side. I saw a case of ordinary
tetanus in the human subject years ago, but I have not had much
experience of such cases. I saw one case last Thursday week at St.
Bartholomew’s Hospital. The patient recovered.

You have heard the descriptions given by the witnesses of the symptoms
and appearances which accompanied Cook’s attacks?--I have.

Were those symptoms and appearances the same as those you have observed
in the animals to which you administered strychnine?--They were. Death
has taken place in the animals more rapidly when the poison has been
administered in a fluid than in a solid form. They have died at various
periods after the administration of the poison. The experiments I have
performed lately have been entirely in reference to solid strychnine. In
the first case the symptoms began in seven minutes, and the animal died
(including those seven) in thirteen minutes. In the second case the
symptoms appeared in nine minutes, and the animal died in seventeen. In
the third case the symptoms appeared in ten minutes, and the animal died
in eighteen. In the fourth case the symptoms appeared in five minutes,
and death took place in twenty-two. In the fifth case the symptoms
appeared in twelve minutes, and death occurred in twenty-three. If the
poison were taken by the human subject in pills it would take a longer
time to act, because the structure of the pill must be broken up in
order to bring the poison in contact with the mucous membrane of the
stomach. I have administered it to rabbits in pills.

Would poison given in pills take a longer period to operate on a human
subject than on a rabbit?--I do not think we can draw any inference from
a comparison of the rapidity of death in a human subject and in a
rabbit. The circulation and absorption are different in the two cases.
There is also a difference between one human subject and another. The
strength of the dose, too, would make a difference, as a large dose
would produce a more rapid effect than a small one. I have experimented
upon the intestines of animals, in order to reproduce the strychnia. The
process consists in putting the stomach and its contents in alcohol,
with a small quantity of acid, which dissolves the strychnia, and
produces sulphate of strychnia in the stomach. The liquid is then
filtered, gently evaporated, and an alkali added--carbonate of potash,
which, mixed with a small quantity of sulphuric acid, precipitates the
strychnia. Tests are applied to the strychnia, or supposed strychnia,
when extracted. Strychnia has a peculiar strongly bitter taste. It is
not soluble in water, but it is in acids and in alcohol. The colouring
tests are applied to the dry residue after evaporation. Change of colour
is produced by a mixture of sulphuric acid and bi-chromate of potash. It
produces a blue colour, changing to violet and purple, and passing to
red; but colouring tests are very fallacious, with this exception--when
we have strychnine separated in its crystallised state we can recognise
the crystals by their form and their chemical properties, and, above
all, by the production of tetanic symptoms and death when administered
through a wound in the skin of animals.

Are there other vegetable substances from which, if these colouring
tests were applied, similar colours would be obtained?--There are a
variety of mixtures which produce similar colours. One of them has also
a bitter taste like strychnia. Vegetable poisons are more difficult of
detection, by chemical process, than mineral poisons; the tests are far
more fallacious. I have endeavoured to discover the presence of
strychnine in animals I have poisoned in four cases, assisted by Dr.
Rees. I have applied the process which I first described. I have then
applied the tests of colouring and of taste.

Were you able to satisfy yourself of the presence of strychnia?--In one
case I discovered some by the colour test. In a second case there was a
bitter taste, but no other indication of strychnia. In the other two
cases there were no indications at all of strychnia. In the case where
it was discovered by a colour test two grains had been administered; and
in the second case where there was a bitter taste, one grain. In one of
the cases where we failed to detect it one grain, and in the other half
a grain had been given.

How do you account for the absence of any indication of strychnia in
cases where you know it was administered?--It is absorbed into the
blood, and is no longer in the stomach. It is in a great part changed in
the blood.

How do you account for its presence when administered in large
doses?--There is a retention of some in excess of what is required for
the destruction of life.

Supposing a _minimum_ dose, which will destroy life, has been given,
could you find any?--No. It is taken up by absorption, and is no longer
discoverable in the stomach. The smallest quantity by which I have
destroyed the life of an animal is half a grain. There is no process
with which I am acquainted by which it can be discovered in the tissues.
As far as I know, a small quantity cannot be discovered.

Suppose half a grain to be absorbed into the blood, what proportion does
it bear to the total quantity of blood circulated in the
system?--Assuming the system to contain the lowest quantity of blood,
25lbs., it would be 1-50th of a grain to a pound of blood. A physician
once died from a dose of half a grain in twenty minutes. I believe it
undergoes some partial change in the blood, which increases the
difficulty of discovering it. I never heard of its being separated from
the tissues in a crystallised state. The crystals are peculiar in form,
but there are other organic crystallised substances like them, so that a
chemist will not rely on the form only. After the _post-mortem_
examination of Cook a portion of the stomach was sent to me. It was
delivered to me by Mr. Boycott, in a brown stone jar, covered with
bladder, tied, and sealed. The jar contained the stomach and the
intestines. I have experimented upon them with a view to ascertain if
there was any poison present.

What poisons did you seek for in the first instance?--Various,--prussic
acid, oxalic acid, morphia, strychnia, veratria, tobacco poison,
hemlock, arsenic, antimony, mercury, and other mineral poisons.

Did you find any of them?--We only found small traces of antimony.

Were the parts upon which you had to operate in your search for
strychnia in a favourable condition?--The most unfavourable that could
possibly be. The stomach had been completely cut from end to end, all
the contents were gone, and the fine mucous surface, on which any
poison, if present, would have been found, was lying in contact with the
outside of the intestines--all thrown together. The inside of the
stomach was lying in the mass of intestinal feculent matter.

That was the fault or misfortune of the person who dissected?--I presume
it was; but it seemed to have been shaken about in every possible way in
the journey to London. The contents of the intestines were there, but
not the contents of the stomach, in which and on the mucous membrane I
should have expected to find poison. By my own request other portions of
the body were sent up to me,--namely, the spleen, the two kidneys, and a
small bottle of blood. They were delivered to me by Mr. Boycott. We had
no idea whence the blood had been taken. We analysed all. We searched in
the liver and one of the kidneys for mineral poison. Each part of the
liver, one kidney, and the spleen, all yielded antimony. The quantity
was less in proportion in the spleen than in the other parts. It was
reproduced, or brought out, by boiling the animal substance in a mixture
of hydrochloric acid and water. Gall and copper-water were also
introduced, and the antimony was found deposited on the copper. We
applied various tests to it--those of Professor Brandt, of Dr. Rees, and
others. I detected some antimony in the blood. It is impossible to say
with precision how recently it had been administered; but I should say
within some days. The longest period at which antimony can be found in
the blood after death is eight days; the earliest period at which it has
been found after death, within my own knowledge is eighteen hours. A boy
died within eighteen hours after taking it, and it was found in the
liver. Antimony is usually given in the form of tartar emetic; it acts
as an irritant, and produces vomiting. If given in repeated doses a
portion would find its way into the blood and the system beyond what was
ejected. If it continued to be given after it had produced certain
symptoms it would destroy life. It may, however, be given with impunity.
I heard the account given by the female servants of the frequent
vomiting of Mr. Cook, both at Rugeley and at Shrewsbury, and also the
evidence of Mr. Gibson and Mr. Jones as to the predominant symptoms in
his case. Vomitings produced by antimony would cause those symptoms. If
given in small quantities sufficient to cause vomiting it would not
affect the colour of the liquid in which it was mixed, whether brandy,
wine, broth, or water. It is impossible to form an exact judgment as to
the time when the antimony was administered, but it must have been
within two or three weeks, at the outside before death. There was no
evidence that any had been given within some hours of death. It might
leave a sensation in the throat--a choking sensation--if a large
quantity was taken at once. I found no trace of mercury during the
analysis. If a few grains had been taken recently before death I should
have expected to find some trace. If a man had taken mercury for a
syphilitic affection within two or three weeks I should have expected to
find it. It is very slow in passing out of the body. As small a quantity
as three or four grains might leave some trace. I recollect a case in
which three grains of calomel were given three or four hours before
death, and traces of mercury were found. Half a grain three or four days
before death, if favourably given, and not vomited, would, I should
expect, leave a trace. One grain would certainly do so. I heard the
evidence as to the death of Mrs. Smyth, Agnes French, and the other lady
mentioned, and also as to the attack of Clutterbuck.

From your own experience in reference to strychnine, do you coincide in
opinion with the other witnesses, that the deaths in those cases were
caused by strychnine?--Yes.

Did the symptoms in Cook’s case appear to be of a similar character to
the symptoms in those cases?--They did.

As a professor of medical science, do you know any cause in the range of
human disease except strychnine to which the symptoms in Cook’s case can
be referred?--I do not.

Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant SHEE: I mean by the word “trace” a very
small quantity, which can hardly be estimated by weight. I do not apply
it in the sense of an imponderable quantity. In chemical language it is
frequently used in that sense. An infinitesimal quantity would be called
“a trace.” The quantity of antimony that we discovered in all parts of
the body would make up about half a grain. We did not ascertain that
there was that quantity, but I will undertake to say that we extracted
as much as half a grain. That quantity would not be sufficient to cause
death. Only arsenic or antimony could have been deposited, under the
circumstances, on the copper, and no sublimate of arsenic was obtained.
[The witness, in reply to a further question, detailed the elaborate
test which he had applied to the deposit, in order to ascertain that it
consisted of antimony.]

Would a mistake in any one of the processes you have described, or a
defect in any of the materials you used, defeat the object of the
test?--It would, but all the materials I used were pure. Such an
accident could not have happened without my having some intimation of it
in the course of the process. I should think antimony would operate more
quickly upon animals than upon men. I am acquainted with the works of
Orfila. He stood in the highest rank of analytical chemists.

Did not Orfila find antimony in a dog four months after injection?--Yes;
but the animal had taken about 45 grains.

Mr. Serjeant SHEE called the attention of the witness to a passage in
Orfila’s work in reference to that case, to the effect that the antimony
was found accumulating in the bones, the liver contained a great deal,
and the tissues a very little.

Witness: Yes; when antimony has been long in the body it passes into the
bones; but I think you will find that these are not Orfila’s
experiments. Orfila is quoting the experiments of another person.

But is not that the case with nearly all the experiments referred to in
your own book?--No; I cannot say that.

Mr. Serjeant SHEE again referred to a case in _Orfila_, in which
forty-five grains were given to a dog, and three and a-half months after
death a quantity was found in the fat, and some in the liver, bones, and
tissues.

Witness: That shows that antimony gets into the bones and flesh, but I
never knew a case in which forty-five grains had been given, and I have
given no opinion upon such a case.

A pretty good dose is required to poison a person, I suppose?--That
depends on the mode in which it is given. A dog has been poisoned with
six grains. The dog died in the case you mentioned. When antimony is
administered, as it was in that case, the liver becomes fatty and
gristled. Cook’s liver presented no appearance of the sort. I should
infer that the antimony we found in Cook’s body was given much more
recently than in the experiments you have described. We cannot say
positively how long it takes to get out of the body, but I have known
three grains cleared out in twenty-four hours. I was first applied to in
this case on Thursday the 27th of November, by Mr. Stevens, who was
introduced to me by Mr. Warrington, Professor of Chemistry. Either then
or subsequently he mentioned Mr. Gardner. I had not known Mr. Gardner
before. I had never before been concerned in cases of this kind at
Rugeley.

Mr. Serjeant SHEE read the letter written by Dr. Taylor to Mr.
Gardner:--

“Chemical Laboratory, Guy’s Hospital, Dec. 4, 1855.

“Re J. P. Cook, Esq., deceased.

     “Dear Sir,--Dr. Rees and I have completed the analysis to-day. We
     have sketched a report, which will be ready to-morrow or next day.

     “As I am going to Durham Assizes on the part of the Crown, in the
     case of Reg. v. Wooler, the report will be in the hands of Dr.
     Rees, No. 26, Albemarle-street. It will be most desirable that Mr.
     Stevens should call on Dr. Rees, read the report with him, and put
     such questions as may occur.

     “In reply to your letter received here this morning, I beg to say
     that we wish a statement of all the medicines prescribed for
     deceased (until his death) to be drawn up and sent to Dr. Rees.

     “We do not find strychnine, prussic acid, or any trace of opium.
     From the contents having been drained away, 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.

     “We are, dear Sir, yours faithfully,

“ALFRED S. TAYLOR.

“G. OWEN REES.”



Was that your opinion at the time?--It was. We could infer nothing else.

Have you not said that the quantity of antimony you found was not
sufficient to account for death?--Certainly. If a man takes antimony he
first vomits, and then a part of the antimony goes out of the body; some
may escape from the bowels. A great deal passes at once into the blood
by absorption, and is carried out by the urine.

Can you say upon your oath that from the traces in Cook’s body you were
justified in stating your opinion that death was caused by
antimony?--Yes perfectly and distinctly. That which is found in a dead
body is not the slightest criterion as to what the man took when he was
alive.

When you gave your opinion that Cook died from the effects of antimony
had you any reason to think that an undue quantity had been
administered?--I could not tell. People may die from large or small
quantities; the quantity found in the body was no criterion as to how
much he had taken.

May not the injudicious use of a quack medicine containing antimony, the
injudicious use of James’s powders, account for the antimony you found
in the body?--Yes; the injudicious use of any antimonial medicine would
account for it.

Or even their judicious use?--It might.

With that knowledge, upon being consulted with regard to Cook, you gave
it as your opinion that he died from the poison of antimony?--You
pervert my meaning entirely. I said that antimony in the form of tartar
emetic might occasion vomiting and other symptoms of irritation, and
that in large doses it would cause death, preceded by convulsions. [The
witness was proceeding to read his report upon the case, but was stopped
by the Court.] I was told that the deceased was in good health seven or
eight days before his death, and that he had been taken very sick and
ill, and had died in convulsions. No further particulars being given us,
we were left to suppose that he had not died a natural death. There was
no natural cause to account for death, and finding antimony existing
throughout the body, we thought it might have been caused by antimony.
An analysis cannot be made effectually without information.

You think it necessary before you can rely upon an analysis to have
received a long statement of the symptoms before death?--A short
statement will do.

You allow your judgment to be influenced by the statement of a person
who knows nothing of his own knowledge?--I do not allow my judgment to
be influenced in any way; I judge by the result.

Do you mean to state that what Mr. Stevens told you did not assist you
in arriving at the conclusion you state in writing?--I stated it as a
possible case, not as a certainty. If we had found a very large quantity
of tartar emetic in the stomach, we should have come to the conclusion
that the man had died from it; as we found only a small quantity, we
said he might have died from it. I attended the inquest on the body of
Mr. Cook. I think I first attended on the 14th of December. Some of the
evidence was read over to me. I think that Dr. Harland was the first
witness I heard examined. I heard Mr. Bamford examined, and also Lavinia
Barnes. I cannot say as to Newton. I heard Jones. I had experimented
some years ago on five of the rabbits I have mentioned; that is about
twenty-three years ago. That is the only knowledge of my own that I had
of the effect of strychnia upon animal life. I have a great objection to
the sacrifice of life. No toxicologist will sacrifice the lives of a
hundred rabbits to establish facts which he knows to be already well
established. I experimented upon the last rabbits since the inquest.

Do you not think that is a very slight experiment?--You must add to
experiment the study of poisons and cases.

Do not you think that a rabbit is a very unfair animal to select?--No.

Would not a dog be much better?--Dogs are very dangerous to handle. (A
laugh.)

Do you mean to give that answer?--Dogs and cats bear a greater analogy
to man because they vomit, while rabbits do not, but rabbits are much
more manageable.

Mr. Serjeant SHEE: I will take your answer that you are afraid of dogs.

Witness: After the experiments I have tried with dogs and cats, I have
no inclination to go on.

Do you admit that as to the action of the respiratory organs they would
be better than rabbits?--I do not.

As to the effect of the poison would they not?--I think a rabbit is
quite as good as any animal. The poison is retained and its operation is
shown. At the inquest I saw Mr. Gardner. I suggested questions to the
coroner. Some of them he put to the witnesses, and others they answered
upon my suggestion of them. Ten days before the inquest Mr. Gardner
informed me, in his letter, that strychnia, Batley’s solution, and
prussic acid had been purchased on the Tuesday; that is why I used the
expressions to which you have referred. We did not allow that
information to have any influence upon our report.

At the request of Mr. Serjeant SHEE, the deposition of this witness
taken at the coroner’s inquest was read by the Clerk of Arraigns.

Cross-examination continued: Having given my evidence I returned to
town, and soon afterwards heard that the prisoner had been committed on
a charge of wilful murder.

And that his life depended in a great degree upon you?--No; I simply
gave an opinion as to the poison, not as to the prisoner’s case. I knew
that I should probably be examined as a witness upon this trial.

Do you think it your duty to abstain from all public discussion of the
question which might influence the public mind?--Yes.

Did you write a letter to the _Lancet_?--Yes, to contradict several
misstatements of my evidence which had been made.

This letter, which appeared in the _Lancet_ of February 2, 1856, was put
in by Mr. Serjeant Shee and read by the Cleric of Arraigns. The
principal part of the letter referred to the case of Mrs. Ann Palmer;
the concluding paragraph, for which Mr. Serjeant Shee stated that he
desired it should be read, was as follows:--

     “During the quarter of a century which I have now specially devoted
     to toxicological inquiries, I have never met with any cases like
     these suspected cases of poisoning at Rugeley. The mode in which
     they will affect the person accused is of minor importance compared
     with their probable influence on society. I have no hesitation in
     saying that the future security of life in this country will mainly
     depend on the judge, the jury, and the counsel who may have to
     dispose of the charges of murder which have arisen out of these
     investigations.”

Cross-examination continued: That is my opinion now. It had been stated
that if strychnia caused death it could always be found, which I deny.
It had also been circulated in every newspaper that a person could not
be killed by tartar emetic, which I deny, and which might have led to
the destruction of hundreds of lives. I entertain no prejudice against
the prisoner. What I meant was that if these statements which I have
seen in medical and other periodicals were to have their way, there was
not a life in the country which was safe.

Do you adhere to your opinion that “the mode in which they will affect
the person accused,” that is, lead him to the scaffold, “is of minor
importance, compared with their probable influence on society?”--I have
never suggested that they should lead him to the scaffold. I hope that,
if innocent, he will be acquitted.

What do you mean by “the mode in which they will affect the person
accused being of minor importance?”--The lives of 16,000,000 of people
are, in my opinion, of greater importance than that of one man.

That is your opinion?--Yes. As you appear to put that as an objection to
my evidence, allow me to state that in two dead bodies I find antimony.
In one case death occurred suddenly, and in the other the body was
saturated with antimony, which I never found before in the examination
of 300 bodies. I say these were circumstances which demanded
explanation.

You adhere to the opinion that, as a medical man and a member of an
honourable profession, you were right in publishing this letter before
the trial of the person accused?--I think I had a right to state that
opinion in answer to the comments which had been made upon my evidence.

Had any comments been made by the prisoner?--No.

Or by any of his family?--Mr. Smith, the solicitor for the defence,
circulated in every paper statements of “Dr. Taylor’s inaccuracy.” I had
no wish or motive to charge the prisoner with this crime. My duty
concerns the lives of all.

Do you know Mr. Augustus Mayhew, the editor of the _Illustrated
Times_?--I have seen him once or twice.

Did you allow pictures of yourself and Dr. Rees to be taken for
publication?--Be so good as to call them caricatures. No; I did not.

Mr. Serjeant SHEE: There may be a difference of opinion as to that. I
think it is very like.

Did you receive Mr. Mayhew at your house?--He came to me with a letter
of introduction from Professor Faraday. I never received him in my
laboratory.

Did you know that he called in order that you might afford him
information for an article in the _Illustrated Times_?--I swear solemnly
I did not. The publication of that article was the most disgraceful
thing I ever knew. I had never seen him before, nor did I know that he
was the editor of the _Illustrated Times_.

“On your oath?--On my oath. It was the greatest deception that was ever
practised on a scientific man. It was disgraceful. He called on me in
company with another gentleman, with a letter from Professor Faraday. I
received him as I should Professor Faraday, and entered into
conversation with him about these cases. He represented, as I
understood, that he was connected with an insurance company, and wished
for information about a number of cases of poisoning which had occurred
during many years. After we had conversed about an hour he asked if
there was any objection to the publication of these details. Still
believing him to be connected with an insurance-office, I replied that,
so far as the correction of error was concerned, I should have no
objection to anything appearing. On that evening he went away without
telling me that he was the editor of the _Illustrated Times_, or
connected with any other paper. I did not know that until he called upon
me on Thursday morning, and showed me the article in print. I
remonstrated verbally with him. He only showed me part of a slip. I told
him I objected to its publication, and struck out all that I saw
regarding these cases. He afterwards put the article into the shape in
which it appeared. I could not prevent his publishing the results of our
conversation on points not connected with these cases.”

You did permit him to publish part of the slip?--Nothing connected with
the Rugeley cases.

Did he show you the slip of “Our interview with Dr. A. Taylor?”--I do
not remember seeing that. I will swear that, to the best of judgment and
belief, he did not. He showed me a slip containing part of what appeared
in that article. I struck out all which referred to the Rugeley cases. I
thought I had been deceived. A person came with a letter of introduction
from a scientific man and extracted information from me.

Why did you not tell your servant to show him the door?--Until we had
had the conversation I did not know anything about the deception. It was
not until the Thursday morning that I knew he was connected with a
paper. He told me it was an illustrated paper.

Did you correct what he showed you?--I struck out some portions.

And allowed the rest to be published?--I said I had nothing to do with
it, but I objected to its publication.

Peremptorily?--No; I said, “I do not like this mode of putting the
matter. I cannot, however, interfere with what you put into your
journal.”

Did you not protest as a gentleman, a man of honour, and a medical man
that it was wrong and objectionable to do it?--I told him that I
objected to the parts which referred to the Rugeley cases. It was most
dishonourable.

Did you not know that in the month of February an interview with Dr.
Taylor on the subject of poison must be taken to apply to those
cases?--I did not think anything about it. I thought it was a great
cheat to extract from me that information. Mr. Mayhew was with me about
twenty minutes or half an hour on the Thursday morning. I remonstrated
with him. I was not angry with him in the sense of quarrelling.

Did you allow him to publish this--“Dr. Taylor here requested us to
state that, although the practice of secret poisoning appeared to be on
the increase, it should be remembered that by analysis the chemist could
always detect the presence of poison in the body?”--I did not request
him to state anything of the kind. I do not remember whether that was on
the slip. Had I seen it, I should have struck it out. I remember seeing
on the slip, “And that when analysis fails, as in cases where small
doses of strychnia had been administered, physiology and pathology would
invariably suffice to establish the cause of death.” I did not strike
that out. I did not think of it circulating among the class of persons
from whom jurors would be selected. I think the public ought to know
that chemical analyses are not the only tests on which they can rely. I
don’t remember the passage--“Murder by poison could be detected as
readily as murder in any other form, while the difficulty of detecting
and convicting the murderer was felt in other cases as well as in those
where poison was employed.” The article has been very much altered. It
was a disgraceful thing. I have not seen Mr. Mayhew since. Seeing in
_The Times_ an advertisement, stating that this information had been
given by me, I wrote to him demanding its withdrawal, and that demand
was complied with. That was on the Thursday or Friday.

Did you say to a gentleman named Cook Evans, that you would give them
strychnia enough before they had done, or words to that effect?--No; I
do not know the person.

Or to any one?--No. I never used any expression so vulgar and improper.
You have been greatly misinstructed.

Or, “He will have strychnia enough before I have done with him?”--It is
utterly false. The person who suggested that question to you, Mr.
Johnson, has been guilty of other falsehoods. In the letter to Sir
George Grey, and on other occasions, he has misrepresented my statements
and evidence.

What did you do with the medical report to which you referred?--It was a
private letter from Dr. Harland to Mr. Stevens.

Mr. Justice CRESSWELL: It was memoranda made by Dr. Harland at the time.

Cross-examination continued: Cook’s symptoms were quite in accordance
with an ordinary case of poisoning by strychnia.

Can you tell me of any case in which a patient, after being seized with
tetanic symptoms, sat up in bed and talked?--It was after he sat up that
Cook was seized with those symptoms.

Can you refer to a case in which a person who had taken strychnia beat
the bed with his or her arms?--It is exactly what I should expect to
arise from a sense of suffocation.

Do you know any case in which the symptoms of poisoning by strychnia
commenced with this beating of the bed-clothes?--There have been only
about fifteen cases, and in none of those was the patient seized in bed.
Beating of the bed-clothes is a symptom which may be exhibited by a
person suffering from a sense of suffocation, whether caused by
strychnia or other causes. A case has been communicated to me by a
friend, in which the patient shook as though he had the ague.

Mr. Serjeant SHEE objected to this last answer, but as the learned
Serjeant had been questioning the witness as to the results of his
reading,

The COURT ruled that the evidence was admissible.

Cross-examination continued: I have known of no case of poisoning by
strychnia in which the patient screamed before he was seized. That is
common in ordinary convulsions. In cases of poisoning by strychnia the
patient screams when the spasms set in; the pain is very severe. I
cannot refer to a case in which the patient has spoken freely after the
paroxysms had commenced.

Can you refer me to any case in an authentic publication in which the
access of the strychnia paroxysm has been delayed so long after the
ingestion of the poison, as in the case of Cook on the Tuesday
night?--Yes, longer. In my book on medical jurisprudence, page 185 of
the 5th edition, it is stated that in a case communicated to the
_Lancet_, August 31, 1850, by Mr. Bennett, a grain and a half of
strychnia, taken by mistake, destroyed the life of a healthy young
female in an hour and a-half. None of the symptoms appeared for an hour.
There is a case in which the period which elapsed was two hours and
a-half. It was not a fatal case, but that does not affect the question.
A grain and a-half is a full, but not a very considerable dose. In my
book on poisons there is no case in which the paroxysms commenced more
than half an hour after the ingestion of the poison. That book is eight
years old, and since 1848 cases have occurred. There is a mention of one
in which three hours elapsed before the paroxysms occurred.

Mr. Serjeant SHEE then referred to this case, and called attention to
the fact that the only statement as to time was that in three hours the
patient lost his speech, and at length was seized with violent tetanic
convulsions.

Cross-examination continued: I know of no other fatal case in which the
interval was so long. In that case there was disease of the brain.
Referring to the _Lancet_, I find that in the case to which I referred,
as communicated by Dr. Bennett, the strychnia was dissolved in cinnamon
water. Being dissolved, one would have expected it to have a more speedy
action. The time in which a patient would recover would depend entirely
upon the dose of strychnia which had been taken. I do not remember any
case in which a patient recovered in three or four hours, but such cases
must have occurred. There is one mentioned in my book on medical
jurisprudence. The patient had taken nux vomica, but its powers depend
upon strychnia. In that case the violence of the paroxysms gradually
subsided, and the next day, although feeble and exhausted, the patient
was able to walk home. The time of the recovery is a point which is not
usually stated by medical men. I cannot mention any case in which there
was a repetition of the paroxysms after so long an interval as that from
Monday to Tuesday night, which occurred in Cook’s case. I do not think
that the attack on Tuesday night was the result of anything which had
been administered to him on the Monday night. In the cases of four out
of five rabbits, the spasms were continued at the time of death and
after death. In the other the animal was flaccid at the time of death.

Are you acquainted with this opinion of Dr. Christison, that in these
cases rigidity does not come on at the time of death, but comes on
shortly afterwards?--Dr. Christison speaks from his experience, and I
from mine.

Did you hear that Dr. Bamford said, that when he arrived he found the
body of Cook quite straight in bed?--Yes.

Can that have been a case of ophisthotonos?--It may have been.

Are not the colour tests of strychnia so uncertain and fallacious that
they cannot be depended upon?--Yes, unless you first get the strychnia
in a visible and tangible form.

Is it not impossible to get it so from the stomach?--It is not
impossible; it depends upon the quantity which remains there.

You do not agree that the fiftieth part of a grain might be
discovered?--I think not.

Nor even half a grain?--That might be. It would depend upon the quantity
of food in the stomach with which it was mixed.

Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL: In case of death from strychnia the
heart is sometimes found empty after death. That is the case of human
subjects. There are three such cases on record. I think that emptiness
results from spasmodic affection of the heart. I know of no reason why
that should rather occur in the case of man than in that of a small
animal like a rabbit. The heart is generally more filled when the
paroxysms are more frequent. When the paroxysm is short and violent, and
causes death in a few moments, I should expect to find the heart empty.
The rigidity after death always affects the same muscles--those of the
limbs and back. In the case of the rabbit, in which the rigidity was
relaxed at the time of death, it returned while the body was warm. In
ordinary death it only appears when the body is cold, or nearly so. I
never knew a case of tetanus in which the rigidity lasted two months
after death; but such a fact would give me the impression that there
were very violent spasms. It would indicate great violence of the spasms
from which the person died. The time which elapses between the taking of
strychnia and the commencement of the paroxysms depends on the
constitution and strength of the individual. A feeling of suffocation is
one of the earliest symptoms of poisoning by strychnia, and that would
lead the patient to beat the bed-clothes. I have no doubt that the
substances I used for the analysis were pure. I had tested them. The
fact that in three distinct processes each gave the same result, was
strong confirmation of each. I have no doubt that what we found was
antimony. The quantity found does not enable me to say how much was
taken. It might be the residue of either large or small doses. Sickness
would throw off some portion of the antimony, which had been
administered. We did not analyse the bones and tissues.

Why did you suggest questions to the coroner?--He did not put questions
which enabled me to form an opinion. I think that arose rather from want
of knowledge than from intention. There was an omission to take down the
answers. I made no observation upon that subject. At the time I wrote to
Mr. Gardner I had not learnt the symptoms which attended the attack and
death of Cook. I had only the information that he was well seven days
before he died, and had died in convulsions. I had no information which
could lead me to suppose that strychnia had been the cause of death,
except that Palmer had purchased strychnia. Failing to find opium,
prussic acid, or strychnia, I referred to antimony, as the only
substance found in the body. Before writing to the _Lancet_, I had been
made the subject of a great many attacks. What I said as to the
possibility or impossibility of discovering strychnia after death had
been misrepresented. In various newspapers it had been represented that
I had said that strychnia could never be detected--that it was destroyed
by putrefaction. What I said was, that when absorbed into the blood it
could not be separated as strychnia. I wrote the letter for my own
vindication.

Dr. G. O. REES, examined by Mr. E. JAMES, Q.C., said: I am Lecturer on
Materia Medica at Guy’s Hospital, and I assisted Dr. Taylor in making
the _post-mortem_ examination referred to by that gentleman; and he has
most correctly stated the result. I was present during the whole time,
and at the discovery of the antimony. I am of opinion that it may have
been administered within a few days, or a few hours, of Mr. Cook’s
death. All the tests we employed failed to discover the presence of
strychnia. The stomach was in a most unfavourable state for examination;
it was cut open, and turned inside out; its mucous surface was lying
upon the intestines, and the contents of the stomach, if there had been
any, must have been thrown among the intestines, and mixed with them.
These circumstances were very unfavourable to the hope of discovering
strychnia. I agree with Dr. Taylor as to the manner in which strychnia
acts upon the human frame, and I am of opinion that it may be taken,
either by accident or design, sufficient to destroy life, and no trace
of it be found after death. I was present at the experiments made by Dr.
Taylor upon the animals, and at the endeavour to detect it in the
stomachs afterwards. We failed to do so in three cases out of four. The
symptoms accompanying the death of the animals were very similar to
those described in the case of Mr. Cook. I have heard the cases that
have been mentioned in this Court, and the symptoms in every one of them
are analogous to those in the case of Mr. Cook.

Cross-examined by Mr. GROVE, Q.C.: I did not see either of the animals
reject any portion of the poison; but I heard that in one case the
animal did reject a portion. I have no facts to state upon which I
formed the opinion that the poison acts by absorption.

Professor BRANDE, examined by Mr. WELSBY: I am Professor of Chemistry at
the Royal Institution. I was not present at the analysis of the liver,
spleen, &c., of the deceased; but the report of Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees
was sent to me for my inspection afterwards. I was present at one of the
analyses. We examined in the first place the action of copper upon a
very weak solution of antimony, and we ascertained that there was no
action until the solution was slightly acidified by muriatic acid and
heated. The antimony was then deposited, and I am enabled to state
positively that the deposit was antimony.

By the ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The experiment I refer to was made for the
purpose of testing the accuracy of the test that had already been
applied, and it was perfectly satisfactory.

Professor CHRISTISON said: I am a Fellow of the Royal College of
Physicians, and Professor of Materia Medica to the University of
Edinburgh; I am also the author of a work on the subject of poisons, and
I have directed a good deal of attention to strychnia. In my opinion,
it acts by absorption into the blood, and through that upon the nervous
system. I have seen its effects on a human subject, but not a fatal
case. I have seen it tried upon pigs, rabbits, cats, and one wild boar.
(A laugh.) I first directed my attention to this poison in 1820, in
Paris. It had been discovered two years before in Paris. In most of my
experiments upon animals I gave very small doses--a sixth of a grain;
but I once administered a grain. I cannot say how small a dose would
cause the death of an animal by administration into the stomach. I
generally applied it by injection through an incision in the cavity of
the chest. A sixth part of a grain so administered killed a dog in two
minutes. I once administered to a rabbit, through the stomach, a dose of
a grain. I saw Dr. Taylor administer three-quarters of a grain to a
rabbit, and it was all swallowed, except a very small quantity. The
symptoms are nearly the same in rabbits, cats, and dogs. The first is a
slight tremor and unwillingness to move; then frequently the animal
jerks its head back slightly; soon after that all the symptoms of
tetanus come on, which have been so often described by the previous
witnesses. When the poison is administered by the stomach, death
generally takes place between a period of five minutes and
five-and-twenty minutes after the symptoms first make their appearance.
I have frequently opened the bodies of animals thus killed, and have
never been able to trace any effect of the poison upon the stomach or
intestines, or upon the spinal cord or brain, that I could attribute
satisfactorily to the poison. The heart of the animal generally
contained blood in all the cases in which I have been concerned. In the
case of the wild boar the poison was injected into the chest. A third of
a grain was all that was used, and in ten minutes the symptoms began to
show themselves. If strychnia was administered in the form of a pill, it
might be mixed with other ingredients that would protract the period of
its operation. This would be the case if it were mixed with resinous
materials, or any materials that were difficult of digestion, and such
materials would be within the knowledge of any medical men, and they are
frequently used for the purpose of making ordinary pills. Absorption in
such a case would not commence until the pill was broken down by the
process of digestion.

In the present state of our knowledge of the subject, I do not think it
is possible to fix the precise time when the operation of the poison
commences on a human subject. In the case of an animal we take care that
it is fasting, and we mix the poison with ingredients that are readily
soluble, and every circumstance favourable for the development of the
poison. I have seen many cases of tetanus arising from wounds and other
causes. The general symptoms of the disorder very nearly resemble each
other, and in all the natural forms of tetanus the symptoms begin and
advance much more slowly, and they prove fatal much more slowly, and
there is no intermission in certain forms of natural tetanus. In tetanus
from strychnia there are short intermissions. I have heard the evidence
of what took place at the Talbot Arms on the Monday and Tuesday, and the
result of my experience induces me to come to the conclusion that the
symptoms exhibited by the deceased were only attributable to strychnia,
or the four poisons containing it. [The witness gave the technical names
of the poisons he referred to.] There is no natural disease of any
description that I am acquainted with to which I could refer these
symptoms. In cases of tetanus consciousness remains to the very last
moment. When death takes place in a human subject by spasm it tends to
empty the heart of blood. When death is the consequence of the
administration of strychnia, if the quantity is small, I should not
expect to find any trace in the body after death. If there was an excess
of quantity more than was required to cause the death by absorption, I
should expect to find that excess in the stomach. The colour tests for
the detection of the presence of strychnia are uncertain. Vegetable
poisons are more difficult of detection than mineral ones, and there is
one poison with which I am acquainted for which no known test has been
discovered. The stomach of the deceased was sent in a very
unsatisfactory state for examination, and there must have been a
considerable quantity of strychnia in the stomach to have enabled any
one to detect its presence under such circumstances.

Cross-examined.--The experiments I refer to were made many years ago. In
one instance I tried one of the colour tests in the case of a man who
was poisoned by strychnia, but I failed to discover the presence of the
poison in the stomach. I tried the test for the development of the
violet colour by means of sulphuric acid and oxide of lead. From my own
observation I should say that animals destroyed by strychnia die of
asphyxia, but in my work, which has been referred to, it will be seen
that I have left the question open.

Some further questions were put to the witness by the learned counsel
for the prisoner, in reference to opinions expressed by him in his work,
and he explained that this work was written twelve years ago, and that
the experience he had since obtained had modified some of the opinions
he then entertained.

Cross-examination continued.--I have not noticed that in cases where a
patient is suffering from strychnia the slightest touch appears to bring
on the paroxysm. It is so remarkably in the case of animals, unless you
touch them very gently indeed. Strychnia has a most intensely bitter
taste. It is said, on the authority of a French chemist, that a grain
will give a taste to more than a gallon of water. If resinous substances
were used in the formation of a pill it does not follow that they would
necessarily be found in the stomach; they might be passed off.

By the ATTORNEY-GENERAL: One of the cases referred to in the work that
has been referred to was that of a game-keeper, who was found dead; his
head was thrown back, his hands were clinched, and his limbs were rigid.
A paper containing strychnia was found in his pocket, and upon a
_post-mortem_ examination there were indications which, under the
circumstances, satisfied him of the existence of strychnia. There was a
substance in the body of an intense bitter, which was tested by the
colour test, and it succeeded in one instance, but failed in another. I
have no doubt that colour-tests are not to be relied on.

The trial was then again adjourned at six o’clock, until the following
(Tuesday) morning, at ten o’clock. The jury were taken, as on the former
occasions, to the London Coffee-house, in the charge of the officers of
the court.




SIXTH DAY, MAY 20.


The trial of William Palmer on the charge of poisoning John Parsons Cook
was resumed this morning. The court was quite as much crowded as during
the previous days. Among the gentlemen upon the bench were Mr. Horsman,
M.P., Sir J. Ramsden, M.P., and Sir John Wilson, Governor of Chelsea
Hospital.

The learned Judges, Lord Chief Justice Campbell, Mr. Baron Alderson, and
Mr. Justice Cresswell, accompanied by the Recorder, the Sheriffs,
Under-Sheriffs, and several members of the Court of Aldermen, came into
court shortly before 10 o’clock, and took their seats upon the bench.

The prisoner was immediately placed in the dock. His appearance and
demeanour were in no respect changed.

JOHN JACKSON, examined by Mr. JAMES: I am a member of the College of
Physicians. I have recently returned from India, where I have practised
for twenty-five years. During that practice I have had my attention
directed to cases of idiopathic and traumatic tetanus. In England
idiopathic tetanus appears to be rare. In India it is comparatively
frequent. The proportion of cases of idiopathic to traumatic tetanus is
about one-third. I have seen not less than forty cases in the hospital
at Calcutta. That disease is not considered to be so fatal as traumatic
tetanus, but I have found that it is equally so. It is commonly found in
children--both native and European. It takes place about the third day
after birth. It will also be occasioned by cold in the climate of India.
In infants there is a more marked symptom of lockjaw than in traumatic
tetanus. In adults there is no difference between the symptoms of the
two diseases. I have always seen idiopathic tetanus preceded by
premonitory symptoms. Those are a peculiar expression of the countenance
and stiffness in the muscles of the throat and of the jaw. The period
which usually elapses between the attack of idiopathic tetanus and the
fatal termination of the disease is in infants forty-eight hours; in
adults, if the disease arises from cold, it is longer, and may continue
many days, going through the same grades as the traumatic form of the
disease. I have not heard the evidence of the attacks of the deceased
Cook.

Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant SHEE: In idiopathic tetanus the patient
is always uncomfortable for some time before the attack. The appetite is
not much affected. He complains more of the muscles of his neck. He may
within twelve hours of a serious attack preserve his relish for food. I
never heard a patient complain of want of appetite. I have known cases
of idiopathic tetanus in which the first paroxysm occurred in bed. I
have known this disease occur to women after confinement or miscarriage.
Sometimes one of the premonitory symptoms is a difficulty in swallowing.

Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL: In an infant not more than six
hours will elapse between the premonitory symptoms and the commencement
of the tetanic paroxysm; in an adult the interval will be from twelve to
twenty-four, sometimes more than that. The interval from the
commencement of the tetanic convulsions to death will vary from three to
ten days. Sometimes death may occur in two days, but that is an early
termination. When the disease sets in the course of the symptoms is
alike in both forms of tetanus. Both forms are much more common in India
than in England. The symptoms in India are the same as in England. I
have never seen a case in which the disease ended in death in twenty
minutes or half an hour.

DANIEL SCULLY BERGEN, examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am the chief
superintendent of police in Stafford. I attended the coroner’s inquest
on the body of Cook. After the verdict had been returned, I, on the
night of Saturday, December 15, searched the house of the prisoner
Palmer. I found a quantity of papers, the greater portion in the surgery
and drawing-room, but some in Palmer’s bedroom. I put them all into the
drawing-room, locked the door, and put the key into my pocket. On the
following day (Sunday) I endeavoured to make a selection of them in the
presence of Mr. George Palmer, the prisoner’s brother, an attorney at
Rugeley. Assisted by Inspector Crisp and Mr. Woollaston, I went through
all the papers. Eventually, on the Tuesday morning, I gave up the idea
of selection, and tied up all the papers, took them away in a black
leather bag, and conveyed them to Stafford, where I delivered them to
Mr. Hatton, the chief constable. Some days afterwards, I believe on the
24th December, the bag was opened in my presence, and the papers were
gone through minutely by Mr. Deane, solicitor, acting for the
prosecution. He classified them, and they were again tied up. Mr. Deane
copied a portion of them, but he kept none. They were all left at the
office of the chief constable. When I examined the papers I saw what
they were. I did not find a cheque on Messrs. Weatherby, purporting to
bear the signature of Cook, nor any paper purporting to bear his
signature respecting bills of exchange. Some of the papers were
afterwards returned to Mr. George Palmer. Mr. Deane selected a large
number of letters and documents, private accounts, private letters,
which were delivered to Inspector Crisp, with instructions to give them
to Mr. George Palmer. William Palmer was arrested on the night of the
15th December.

Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant SHEE: The inquest was held at the Talbot
Arms. It continued several days. The first meeting was merely to
empannel the jury. The inquest lasted more than a fortnight. The
prisoner was arrested by the sheriff on a civil process a day or two
before the verdict was delivered. From the commencement of the inquest
until that time he was at his house at Rugeley. He was never present at
the inquest, nor did any one act professionally for him. Some time
before the death of Cook I heard of an Inspector Field, who I believe is
not now a police-officer, being at Rugeley. I know that there are such
persons as the Duttons, but do not know anything about them, or their
mother.

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.

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

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

     “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.”

The person who ordinarily settled Cook’s accounts was a person named
Fisher, a wine-merchant in Shoe-lane, who was called first in this case;
and on that very day (the day on which Cook dined with Palmer), Cook
writes to him:--

     “It is of great importance, both to Mr. Palmer and myself, that a
     sum of £500 should be paid to a Mr. Pratt, of 5, Queen-street,
     May-fair, to-morrow, without fail. £300 has been sent up to-night,
     and, if you will be kind enough to pay the other £200 to-morrow, on
     the receipt of this, you will greatly oblige me, and I will give it
     to you on Monday at Tattersall’s.”

There is a postscript, which I will read, but upon which I will at
present make no observation--“I am much better.” What is the fair
inference from these letters? I submit that the inference is, that at
that date Cook was making himself very useful to Palmer. Pratt was
pressing for an additional sum of £200. Palmer communicated his
difficulty to Cook, who at once wrote to his agent to pay the £200. More
than this,--the £300 referred to in the letter as having been paid
“to-night” [The Attorney-General.--“The other day”] means one of these
things--it either means the £300 which had been sent up on the 9th of
November (and if it did, then Cook knew all about it--probably had an
interest in Palmer’s transactions with Pratt); or it was a false
representation, put forward merely for the purpose of putting a good
face upon the matter to Fisher; or it means that on that day £300 had
somehow or other come to their hands, and had been by Cook made
applicable to the convenience of Palmer. Whichever way you take it it
proves to demonstration that Palmer and Cook were playing into each
other’s hands with respect to that heavy encumbrance upon Palmer, and
that Palmer could rely upon Cook as his fast friend in any such
difficulties. Although, when we take the sum total of £11,500, his
difficulties sound large, yet the difficulty of the day was nothing like
that, because, in the reckless spendthrift way in which they were
living, putting on bills from month to month, and paying an enormous
interest per annum, the actual outlay upon the day of putting on was not
considerable. I submit that this letter shows that on the day on which
it is said that Palmer was poisoning Cook, the 16th of November, Cook
was acting towards him in a most friendly manner, was acquainted with
his circumstances, and willing to relieve his embarrassments, and
actually did devote a portion of his earnings to Palmer’s purposes. I
will, however, make this plainer. Part of the case of my learned friend
is that Palmer, leaving Cook ill in bed at Rugeley, ran up to town on
the Monday, and intending to despatch Cook that night, obtained
possession of his Shrewsbury winnings by telling Herring, who was not
Cook’s usual agent, that he was authorized by Cook to settle his
Shrewsbury transactions at Tattersall’s. On the Monday, as on the
Tuesday, Cook, though generally indisposed, was during the greater part
of the day quite well. He got up and saw his trainer and two jockeys.
The theory of the case for the prosecution is that he was quite well,
because Palmer was not there to dose him. You will see how grossly and
contemptibly absurd that is presently. Being well on Monday and Tuesday,
do not you think that, had not Cook known that Palmer did not intend to
go to his regular agent, Fisher, he would have been very much surprised
that he on Tuesday morning received no letter from that gentleman,
informing him of the settlement of his transactions? And could Palmer,
as a man of business, have relied upon an absence of such surprise and
alarm on the part of Cook?

We have the evidence of Fisher, that he, at Cook’s request, contained in
the letter of the 17th November, advanced the £200, which he would, had
he settled Cook’s affairs, have been entitled to deduct from the money
he would have received at Tattersall’s on the Monday. He did not settle
those affairs, and the money has never been paid. That explains the
whole transaction. Cook and Palmer understood each other perfectly well.
It was the interest of both of them that Palmer should be relieved from
the pressure of Pratt. Accordingly, Cook said, “This settlement shall
not go through Fisher’s hands. We have got him to pay the £200 to Pratt,
but it shall not be repaid to him on Monday. I will let Palmer go to
London and settle the whole thing through Herring.” That was done, and
accordingly Fisher has never been paid. There is a letter to which I
will particularly call your attention. It is one sent by Palmer to Pratt
on the 19th November, 1855:--“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” [That is the £200 which
Fisher paid to Pratt at the express request of Cook,] “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.” Taking that letter with the one
which Cook wrote to Fisher on Friday, the 16th, can you doubt that on
that day Cook was a most convenient friend to Palmer, who could not by
possibility do without him? It does not end there. Cook died at 1
o’clock on the morning of Wednesday the 21st of November. If we want to
know what influence that death had upon Palmer, we must take it from the
letters. On the 22d of November--and I am sure you will make some
allowance for a day having elapsed from the death of Cook--Palmer writes
to Pratt, “Ever since I saw you I have been fully engaged with Cook and
not able to leave home.” Unless he murdered Cook, that is the truest
sentence that ever was penned. He watched the bedside of his friend. He
was with him night and day. He attended him as a brother. He called his
friends around him. He did all that the most affectionate solicitude
could do for a friend, unless he was plotting his death.

     “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.”

And did he not? Was it not true? It may not be true that he sat up the
whole of the nights, but he was ready to be called if Cook should be
ill. Elizabeth Mills says, that after the first serious paroxysm on the
Monday night she left Palmer in the arm-chair, sleeping by the side of
the man whom the prosecution say he had attempted to murder. No;
murderers do not sleep by their victims. What was Pratt’s answer to
Palmer’s letter? I will read it, that you may see what quick ruin Cook’s
death brought upon Palmer. That answer, dated November 22, is as
follows:--

     “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 2d December.”

     “I have written to 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.”

So that the first effect of Cook’s death was, in the opinion of Pratt,
who knew all about it, to saddle Palmer with the sum of £500. Now I will
undertake to satisfy you that the transactions out of which that bill
for £500 arose were transactions for Cook’s benefit, and in which Palmer
lent his name to accommodate Cook, upon whose death he became primarily
and alone responsible for the bill. Let me state the view which my
learned friend (the Attorney-General) takes of that transaction,
because I intend to meet his case foot by foot, and I shall, I hope
convince him that, if he had had the option, he would never have taken
up this case--the Crown would never have appeared in it. The universal
feeling in the country was, however, such as to render it impossible
that the case should not be tried, after the verdict of wilful murder
had been obtained upon the evidence of Dr. Taylor; and the Crown felt
that it would be neglecting its solemn duty to protect every one of the
Queen’s subjects, if it did not take care that a man against whom there
was so much prejudice--a man leading the life which Palmer has led,
disgraced, as it is said, by forgeries to a large amount, and a gambler
by profession--should have a fair trial. There was no way of securing
that, as my learned friend at once saw, no possibility of the prisoner’s
being saved, except by giving to the counsel who defended him all the
information which my learned friend himself possessed. The view which my
learned friend takes of the £500 transaction, the theory on which he
thinks it probable that Palmer plotted the death of Cook, is this:--

     “Pratt still declining to advance the money, Palmer proposed an
     assignment by Cook of two race horses, one called Polestar, which
     won the Shrewsbury Races, and another called Sirius. That
     assignment was afterwards executed by Cook in favour of Pratt, and
     Cook, therefore, was clearly entitled to the money which was raised
     upon that security, which realised £375 in cash, and a wine warrant
     for £65. Palmer contrived, however, that the money and the wine
     warrant should be sent to him, and not to Cook. Mr. Pratt sent down
     his check to Palmer in the country on a stamp, as the act of
     parliament required, and he availed himself of the opportunity now
     afforded by law of striking out the word ‘bearer’ and writing
     ‘order,’ the effect of which was to necessitate the endorsement of
     Cook on the back of the cheque. It was not intended by Palmer that
     those proceeds should fall into Cook’s hands, and accordingly he
     forged the name of John Parsons Cook on the back of that cheque.
     Cook never received the money, and you will see that, within ten
     days from that period when he came to his end, the bill in respect
     of that transaction, which was at three months, would have fallen
     due, when it must have become apparent that Palmer received the
     money, and that, in order to obtain it, he had forged the
     endorsement of Cook.”

That is the view which the prosecution take of the case, and I think I
shall be able to satisfy you that it cannot possibly be the correct one.
We know from Pratt exactly what took place. Palmer wrote to him
saying,--

     “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.”

So that it was represented to Pratt as a transaction for the
accommodation of Cook. Pratt’s answer to that is:--

     “If Mr. Cook chooses to give me security, I have no objection; but
     he must execute a bill of sale on his two horses, Polestar and
     Sirius; more, he must execute a power of attorney, and his
     signature to both must be witnessed by some solicitor in the
     country, so that I may be quite sure that it is a really valid
     security. If Cook will do that I will give him £375 in money, and a
     wine warrant for £65; which, charging £10 for expenses, and £50 for
     discount, will make £500.”

There can be no doubt that Cook attached great value to Sirius and
Polestar, which mare was, probably, then booked for the engagements in
which she won so much money at Shrewsbury; and it is to the last degree
improbable that he would have executed this bill of sale, with a power
of attorney to enable the mortgagee or assignee to enforce it at once
effectually, and yet have received no money. Would he, if such had been
the case, have remained quiet to the day of his death, and never have
written to Pratt to say that although he had sent him the required
documents he had never received the money? Cook was as much in want of
money as Palmer was, and would he thus have thrown away his money? Is it
credible that if Palmer had misappropriated the cheque he could for
three months have kept Cook in ignorance of the transaction? Is it not
probable that Cook’s name was written on the cheque with his full
knowledge and consent? It is not suggested that there was any attempt to
imitate his handwriting. Is it not more probable that Cook, who, I will
prove to you from the letter, wanted ready money, and who would probably
be put to inconvenience by receiving only a cheque, which he would not
get cashed for a day or two, took the ready money--£315, which Pratt
sent at the same time to Palmer--and that Palmer took the cheque? On the
6th of September Palmer wrote to Pratt:--

     “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.”

So that Palmer asked that it should be sent like his own, Cook,
according to the letter, wanting it in cash. Pratt replied to Palmer,
acknowledging the receipt of the documents, and promising that he would
send him his money to Doncaster on the Monday, and would endeavour to
let Cook have his at the same time. On the 9th of September Palmer wrote
to Pratt:--

     “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 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.”

In these letters there is an intimation that Cook wanted the money on
the Saturday. He was inconvenienced by only getting a cheque upon
London, which he could not immediately change; and, therefore, Palmer
gave him the money and took the cheque. It is remarkable that, when we
look to the banking account of Palmer at Rugeley, we find that the £375
is paid in by somebody to his account, but that the £315 is not paid in
to his account at all. The bill was accepted for Cook’s accommodation,
Cook gave security for it, and he never, during the three months which
elapsed before his death, complained to Pratt that he had not received
the money for it. I submit that the fair version of the transaction is
that which is given in a letter from Palmer--that Palmer let Cook have
the cash, and himself took the cheque, having Cook’s authority to put
his name at the back of it. How else can you account for the silence of
Cook, and for the fact that the £375 is paid into the Rugeley Bank, but
there is no trace of the £315? This being so, the result of Cook’s death
was to make Palmer liable for the £500 bill, on the back of which he had
put his name. Therefore, I submit to you, that on the second motive
suggested by my learned friend (the Attorney-General), the case has
entirely failed. In addition to this, however, we find from these
letters the difficulties which the death of Cook brought upon Palmer. We
find the disappointment of Pratt that he could send no more money, the
bill for £500, the danger of losing Polestar, which Palmer very much
wanted to have, and which Pratt would, unless paid the £500, bring to
the hammer in order to realise his security; and we find that inquiries
were at once apprehended from Cook’s friends as to the moneys which
Pratt had paid to Cook, and the probable value which the latter had
received for the endorsements and acceptances which he had given. There
is another, although not so strong a reason, why it is improbable that
Palmer should have desired the death of Cook. Mr. Weatherby has told us
to day that, although it frequently happens that the moneys won at a
race are sent up by the clerk of the course in a week after the race,
yet that does not always happen. On Tuesday, November the 20th, on the
night of which day he died, Cook, who was then perfectly sensible,
perfectly comfortable and happy, and enjoying the society of his friend
Mr. Jones, gave to Palmer a cheque for £350 upon Weatherby’s. If Palmer
killed Cook, and it happened that Fraill had not sent up the money so as
to be there by Wednesday morning, Weatherby’s would not pay the cheque,
nor would they have cashed it if they had received information that Cook
had died during the night. It actually happened that the cheque when
presented was not paid, because Fraill did not send up the money. Was it
probable that Palmer, having got from Cook a cheque for £380, would have
run the risk of losing his money by destroying him the same night?

It is suggested that he obtained this cheque fraudulently, and then,
lest Cook should detect the fraud, destroyed him. That was not likely to
answer his purpose. He might be certain that directly the breath was out
of Cook’s body, Jones would go to Mr. Stevens; that Stevens and
Bradford, Cook’s brother-in-law, would go down to Rugeley; that the
death being sudden there would most likely be a _post-mortem_
examination; and that, instead of settling for the £500 bill and the
£350 cheque with Cook, he would have to settle with hard men of
business, men who cared nothing for him, who would probably look upon
him as a “leg” upon the turf, and would regard neither his feelings nor
his interests, but would let him go to ruin any way he might, not
stirring a finger to save him. Is it probable that a shrewd intelligent
man of business would make such a choice as that. More than this, we
know that at that very time Herring held one bill for £500, and three
for £200 each, to which there were the names of both Palmer and Cook,
and for all of which, either in the whole or in part, Cook must, unless
he rushed to his own ruin, provide. If Palmer put Cook to death, he
immediately became solely liable, not only for these bills, but for
that, as security, for which the bill of sale was executed on Sirius and
Polestar, which would not be so easily renewed as those for the large
sums on which the enormous usury was paid. That bill would very likely
soon find its way to his mother, and that it should do so would not suit
Palmer, for his mother is a respectable and serious person, who,
although she loved her son, did not like and gave no encouragement to
his gambling; nor did that excellent and most honourable man who stands
by him--his brother, who was estranged from him for a length of time,
until this calamity came upon him, simply because he disapproved the
gambling by which he lived. Cook being dead, there was, therefore, no
one to save Palmer from ruin, for in all this voluminous evidence there
is not the smallest trace that there was any one else in the world who
would lend Palmer his name or would assist him to obtain money. If it
be, as it is stated, a fact that he forged the name of his mother, is
not that conclusive evidence that he had no other resource but the
goodnature--the easiness, perhaps the folly of Cook? Is it then credible
that under such circumstances he would have desired to bring upon
himself not merely the creditors and executors of Cook, but their
solicitors--men who, in the discharge of their duty to their clients,
can have no sympathy for any one, and with whom no arrangement is
possible? I have, therefore, I hope, shown you that Palmer had an
interest in the life of Cook. But, more than that, was it safe for him
that Cook should die? Palmer was a man who had a shrewd knowledge of the
world and a knowledge of his profession, and, among other things, of
chemistry. My learned friends have put in a book which was found in his
house, and among other notes one in which there is this, “Strychnia
kills by causing tetanic fixing of the respiratory muscles.” In the same
book there are many other notes.

Lord CAMPBELL: The Attorney-General stated that he did not place much
reliance upon that note.

Mr. Serjeant SHEE: My learned friend did not press this note, but he
thought it was evidence which ought to be before you (the jury). I use
it to satisfy you that Palmer had studied his profession sufficiently to
know, and knew perfectly well, that if strychnine were administered it
would in all probability kill the victim in horrible convulsions, in a
very short time, and in a way so striking as to be the talk of a small
neighbourhood like Rugeley for a month or more--time enough to alarm
everybody and provoke inquiry into the circumstances of the death, which
must certainly, in all probability, end in the detection of guilt. If
that is so, was he at that time so circumstanced as to render it safe
for him to run the risk of such suspicions? His brother, Walter Palmer,
had died in the month of August; and, unless his mother forgave him, or
recognized the acceptance, his only hope of extraction from his
difficulties lay in getting from the Prince of Wales office the money
due to him as assignee of the policy on his brother’s life. That his
chance of getting that money was good is shown by the fact that he
refused the offer of the office to return the premium, and that it was
upon it that Pratt had obtained the discounts, and had resolved, under
the direction of Palmer, to put it in suit. It was really the only
unpledged property which he had, and how he was situated with regard to
it appears from the letters and from the evidence. The Insurance
company, annoyed at being called upon to pay so large a sum, were
determined to do all they could to resist it. They accordingly sent
Inspector Field and his man to Stafford to make inquiries. They could
not do this without talking, and this had been going on for some time.
[To show that this had been the case the learned Serjeant read the
deposition of the witness Deane, who was examined yesterday.] So that
just before the death of Cook, Palmer knew himself to be the subject of
what he appeared from his actions to consider a most unfounded and
unwarrantable suspicion. He put the policy into the hands of an attorney
to enforce payment of the sum due upon it. The office met the claim by
insinuations and inquiries which were of a nature to destroy his
character and to bring upon his head the suspicion of a murder. The
pressure by Pratt upon Palmer to meet the £2,000 bills did not commence
until the office disputed the payment of that policy. All went as smooth
as possible as long as Pratt held what he believed to be a good
security, but when they began to dispute that, Pratt writes to Palmer
and tells him that the state of things is changed. After saying that
nothing can be done towards compelling the office to pay until the 24th,
he says in his letter of the 2d of October:--

     “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.”

There was the pinch. The office would not pay, and bills for £4,000 were
coming due. If anything occurred to increase the suspicions of the
office--which was very very unwilling to pay--all chance of the £13,000
was lost. That £13,000 is sure to be paid unless that man (pointing to
the prisoner) is convicted of murder. As sure as he is saved, and saved
I believe he will be, that £13,000 will be paid. There is no defence--no
pretence of a defence. The premium taken was an enormous one, and that
£13,000 is good for him and will pay all his creditors. This
correspondence of which my learned friend must have taken a view
different from any which I can take, but which I am sure he would have
put in, whatever had been his view of it--this correspondence saves the
prisoner if there is common sense in man. Here is another letter from
Pratt to Palmer, dated October the sixth:--

     “I have your note, acknowledging receipt by your mother of the
     £2,000 acceptance, due on the 2nd 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 will of course hold the
     policy for so much as it is worth, but in the present position of
     the affair, no one except your mother, who is liable upon the
     bills, can look upon it as a security. [That was because Simpson
     and Field were down there making inquiries.] Do not neglect
     attending to this, for under a recent act bills of exchange are now
     recovered in a few days. You know and can appreciate my conduct in
     avoiding all trouble and annoyance to your mother; but to that
     there is a limit. I cannot by any representation be a party to
     inducing any body to believe that security exists where there is
     doubt upon the point. P. S. I cast no doubt upon the capability of
     the office to pay, but in the nature of things, with so large an
     amount in question, it is not to be surprised at, if, they think
     they have grounds of objection, they should temporize by delay.”

Does not this show that on the sixth of October suspicions were hanging
over Palmer’s head, which would come down with irresistible momentum and
crush him if there were a suspicion of another violent and sudden death?
Do you think that a man who had written in his manual what were the
effects of strychnine would risk such a scene as that poison would
develope in the presence of the dearest and best friend of Cook--a man
whom he could not influence--and a medical man, who loved Cook so well
as to sleep in the same room with him, that he might be ready to attend
him in case he needed assistance? Is that common sense? Are you going to
enforce such a theory as that which Dr. A. Taylor propounded as to the
effects which strychnine produces upon rabbits? Impossible--perfectly
impossible! I will prove the position in which Palmer stood still more
clearly. On the 10th of October Pratt, in a letter addressed to him,
says:--

     “I may add that I hear they (the insurance company) have been
     making inquiries in every direction.” To be sure, they had. Field
     the detective officer had been at Stafford, where he could make
     inquiries as well as at Rugeley.

     “But on what they ground their dissatisfaction is as yet a mystery.
     In any event no step can be taken to compel payment until after the
     4th of December.”

It is plain that suspicions were then rife, or that attempts were made
to excite suspicions against him with regard to the death of Walter
Palmer. On the 18th of October Pratt enclosed to Palmer a letter from
the solicitor of the company, stating that the directors had determined
upon declining to pay the amount claimed; but that, although the facts
disclosed in the course of their inquiries would have warranted their
retention of the premiums which had been paid, they were prepared to
refund them to any one who might be shown to be legally entitled to
them. Palmer determined that the money should be paid; and a case was
laid before Sir Fitzroy Kelly. If anything happened to Cook by foul play
he had no more chance of receiving this £13,000 than of obtaining
£130,000. From all this I infer, not only that Palmer had no interest in
Cook’s death, but that he had a direct pecuniary interest in his living.
I think it is impossible that I should be so much mistaken as that a
considerable portion of what I have advanced should not be worthy of
your attention, and I therefore submit to you, to the Court, and to my
learned friend, that the case as to this supposed motive for the crime
has failed. We now proceed to the facts of the case, and in considering
them it will be necessary to group them without entire reference to
dates. I will first inquire whether the symptoms with which Cook was
attacked and the appearances presented by his body after death were
consistent with the theory of his having died by strychnia poison, and
inconsistent with that of his having died from some other natural cause.
It is under this head that I shall discuss, I hope not unduly, the
medical evidence in this case, and present to you such observations as
occur to me on the witnesses who have been called to support the view
which the Crown takes of the effect of that medical testimony. Cook died
at one o’clock in the morning of Wednesday, November 21, in the presence
of Jones. It was no sooner light than Jones posted to town and saw his
stepfather, Mr. Stevens. Mr. Stevens went down to Rugeley and was
introduced to Palmer. Palmer went with him to the Talbot Arms, and
uncovered the corpse--a bold thing to do if he had murdered him. The
body was so little emaciated or affected by disease that Stevens
wondered he could be dead; but he observed some little rigidity about
the muscles. Stevens’s suspicions were roused; he asked Palmer to
dinner, questioned him about the betting-book, got angry that it was not
produced, dissembled with Palmer, cross-examined him, went up to town,
met him at Euston-square, again at Wolverton, at Rugby, and at Rugeley.
At last he gave him to understand that he suspected him and intended to
probe the whole matter to the bottom. He resolved to have a
_post-mortem_ examination, and that examination took place.

The appearances presented by the body after death were such as might
have been anticipated by those who were acquainted with his course of
life, his general health, his pursuits, and, not to say anything hard of
him, his vices, and the drinking, racing company which he kept. His
father had died at thirty years of age, his mother about the same age, a
few years after her second marriage; his sister was dead; and he himself
was affected with a pulmonary disorder. Cook had been suffering for a
long time from a sore throat, and bore about him all the signs and
indications of having led a licentious life. Indeed, he appears to have
been about as dissipated a young man as can be well imagined. I do not
mean to say that he was utterly depraved, or that he was lost to all
sense of honour and propriety; but it does not admit of doubt that his
manner of living was wild, riotous, and extravagant. His complaints
indicated his excesses, and he was avowedly addicted to pursuits the
reverse of commendable. When his body was opened there was evidence of a
soreness of the tongue. I do not go to the length of saying that there
was anything to lead to the inference that there was an actual sore at
the time of death, but there were follicles and symptoms, if not of a
recent, certainly of a not very remote ulcer. The inside of the mouth
had been ulcerated, and the skin taken off on both sides. There is
abundant evidence to show that Cook was himself of opinion that these
symptoms were syphilitic. He could scarcely be persuaded to obey the
instructions of Dr. Savage, the respectable and very competent physician
whom he consulted, and, though it is admitted that he was not “fool
enough to go to quack doctors,” it is very certain that he was weak
enough to follow the counsels of every medical man who would venture to
give him advice when coincided with his own opinion that mercury was the
best thing for his complaint. The spots which are the fatal
characteristics of his dreadful malady had already made their appearance
on his body, and he was haunted by the apprehension that some day, as he
was running about the race-course, his face would be suddenly covered
over with copper blotches, which would leave no doubt on the minds of
those who saw them as to the true nature of his disease. Many a man
similarly affected has retrieved his position, redeemed his character
and become a virtuous member of society.

Far be it from me, then, to say one word that would press with undue
severity on the memory of the dead; but no false delicacy shall deter me
from the discharge of my duty, and I make these remarks not in an unkind
or censorious spirit, but for the sake of truth, and because the state
of Cook’s health is a most important element in this inquiry. It is
certain that it was his own opinion that he was suffering from virulent
syphilis, and in this opinion the medical men who originally attended
him did not hesitate to concur. That he did not correct his habits is
evident from the fact, that within a recent period of his death he had
again become diseased. When his body was opened on the second
examination, there were found between the delicate membrane which the
spinal marrow covers, and is called the arachnoid, and embedded to some
extent in the next covering, not so delicate, termed the _dogma mater_,
granules about one inch in extent; and I will satisfy you, upon the
evidence of witnesses whose authority will not be questioned, that if
the body had been opened in the dead-house of any hospital in this
metropolis, those granules would have been regarded as symptoms
affording conclusive explanation of the cause of death. Such, then, was
the condition of Cook’s health--a condition but partially and
imperfectly revealed by the first _post-mortem_ examination. That
examination was not conducted with the same minuteness and precision
that circumstances rendered necessary on a subsequent occasion, and the
syphilitic disease was neither ascertained nor suspected. The stomach
was taken out, and you have heard the suggestion, which, were it not
that the Court has ruled it to be of no significance, I should have been
prepared to disprove that Palmer attempted to interfere with the
operation by shoving against the medical man engaged in it. The
inference sought to be deduced was, that some of the stomach escaped
from the jar: but we have the evidence of Dr. Devonshire himself that
such was not the fact. None of it did escape, and it was sent up in its
entirety to London, there to be analysed by Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees.
Those gentlemen examined it with the knowledge that, owing to the report
of Palmer having purchased a fatal drug from Mr. Roberts on the day of
the death, there was a suspicion of foul play. Mr. Stevens talked of the
fact to Dr. Taylor; and, with the consciousness of it on his mind, that
gentleman wrote a letter, attributing the death to antimony. [Dr. Taylor
intimated dissent.]

Well, if the letter is not to be so understood, it is at all events
susceptible of this interpretation--that the death may have been caused
by antimony. Dr. Taylor attends the coroner’s inquest, which, in all
probability, is held in consequence of his own letter. He hears the
evidence of Jones, Roberts, and Mills, and it is but natural to presume
that these are the witnesses whose testimony has the greatest influence
on his opinion. He forms his judgment on the evidence of chambermaids,
waitresses, and housekeepers, and contrary to the opinion of the medical
man who attended Cook in his last illness (for be it remembered he had
no encouragement from Mr. Jones, the surgeon, of Lutterworth, a man of
age and character to form a sound decision on the case); he comes boldly
and at once to the conclusion that his original notion about antimony
having been the cause of death was a mistake, and then he has the
incredible imprudence--an imprudence which has necessitated this trial,
or at all events rendered it necessary that it should take place in this
form and place--to declare upon his oath to the coroner’s jury that he
believes that the pills given to Cook on Monday and Tuesday contained
strychnine, and that Cook was consequently poisoned. That evidence of
his is carried on the wings of the press into every house in the United
Kingdom. It becomes known throughout the length and breadth of the land
that Dr. Taylor, a man who has devoted his life to science, a man of the
highest personal character, and who stands well with his medical
friends, has declared--not as a conjectural opinion, mark you, nor as a
reserved opinion delivered in a private room to a few men whose
discretion might be relied on--but, that in the public room of a public
inn, in a little village, where everything that occurs is known, he has
declared upon his solemn oath that it is his belief that Cook died
because pills containing strychnine were administered to him on the
nights of Monday and Tuesday. He had himself failed to discover the
faintest traces of strychnine, yet, at the coroner’s inquest he had the
hardihood to declare his conviction that the pills contained strychnine,
and that Cook died of them. His evidence is neither consistent with
itself nor with the opinion of Mr. Jones. He takes upon him to pronounce
positively, in the face of the world, that Cook’s disease was nothing
else than tetanus, and tetanus, too, of the kind that can be produced by
poison only, and that poison strychnine.

Such was Dr. Taylor’s testimony; and on such testimony the coroner’s
jury returned their verdict. But, merciful heaven! in what position are
we placed for the safety of our own lives and those of our families, if,
on evidence such as this, men are to be put on their trial for foul
murder as often as a sudden death occurs in any household! If science is
to be allowed to come and dogmatise in our courts--and not science that
is successful in its operations or exact in its nature, but science that
is baffled by its own tests, and bears upon its forehead the motto, “A
little learning is a dangerous thing”--if, I say, science such as this
is to be suffered to dogmatise in our courts, and to utter judgments
which its own processes fail to vindicate, life is no longer secure, and
there is thrown upon judges and jurymen a weight of responsibility too
grievous for human nature to endure. If Dr. Taylor had detected the
poison by his own tests, he, with his long experience in toxicological
studies, would have been an excellent witness for the Crown; but he has
not found the poison, and not having seen the patient, and knowing
nothing of his death-bed symptoms beyond what he gathered from the
evidence of an ignorant servant girl, and of Mr. Jones, whose testimony
does not show that he agrees with him in opinion, Dr. Taylor thinks
himself justified in declaring upon his oath in a public court that the
pills contained strychnine, and that Cook was poisoned. If verdicts are
to be moulded on testimony such as this, what medical practitioner is
safe? On what ground does Dr. Taylor vindicate his opinion? He does not
appear to have ever seen one solitary case of strychnine in the human
subject, yet, with the full knowledge that the consequences of his
assertion might be disastrous to the prisoner at the bar, he has the
audacity to assert that the pills, which for anything he knows to the
contrary were the same that Dr. Bamford prepared, contained strychnine,
and that Cook was poisoned by it. I have quoted the sentiment, “a little
learning is a dangerous thing,” and assuredly to no science is that
maxim so applicable as to the medical. Of all God’s works there is no
other which so eloquently attests our entire dependence on Him, and our
own nothingness, as that mortal coil in which we live, and breathe, and
have our being. We are struck with amazement as we contemplate it. We
feel, we see, we hear; yet the instant we attempt to give a reason for
these sensations our path is crossed by the mystery of creation, and all
we know is that God created man--that he is our Omnipotent Maker and we
the work of His hands. Yet we fancy that we can penetrate all mysteries,
and there are no bounds to our arrogance. There has been much talk in
this inquiry of the two kinds of tetanus--idiopathic and traumatic. Dr.
Todd, urged by the Court to explain the former, described it as
“constitutional.” Perhaps “self-generating” would have done as well, but
let that pass. But how is our knowledge advanced by translating
“idiopathic” as constitutional? It is easy to give an English
translation of that Greek compound, but the thing is to explain what the
translation means. What is the meaning of the phrase “constitutional
tetanus?”

Lord CAMPBELL: Tetanus not occasioned by external injury.

Mr. Serjeant SHEE: Just so, my lord, or in other words, tetanus not
referable to any known cause. But, in truth, idiopathic means in a
general sense “unaccountable.” Not that constitutional tetanus is always
and invariably so, but that cases of tetanus do continually occur of
which you can only suspect the cause, and attribute it by hypothesis to
a “cold,” or some other vague accident. In such cases you say that the
disease is idiopathic, and not traumatic. The Crown will have it that
Cook’s was the tetanus of poison, but it is almost an assumption to say
that it was tetanus at all. That he died of convulsions, or immediately
after them, is certain, and that they were convulsions similar to those
from which he suffered on the preceding night, is beyond all doubt. But
what pretence is there for positively asserting that they were tetanus
at all? The evidence of Mr. Jones, fairly interpreted, cannot be
construed otherwise than as intimating an impression that they were
convulsions which partook of the tetanic character. That might be, and
yet the malady might not be tetanus. It is bad reasoning--most defective
logic--to argue without positive proof of the fact that the disease was
tetanus, and no other tetanus in the world than that produced by poison.
Following in the trail dragged for them by the toxicologists, the Crown
have thought proper to impute the death of this man to the poison of
strychnine. It is for them to prove the fact. We contest it; but it by
no means follows that we should be bound to explain the death on other
grounds. If we can satisfy you that this man was assailed by any one of
the numerous kinds of convulsions to which humanity is liable, and that
he was asphyxiated or deprived of life when writhing in some sudden
spasm or paroxysm, we shall have done all that can in fairness be
demanded of us, unless, indeed, the Crown shall be prepared to prove
that Cook’s symptoms were irreconcilable with any other doctrine than
that of death by strychnine. This they have not done and cannot do. I
propose to call your attention to the statements of the witnesses Mills
and Jones, with respect to the symptoms which they observed in Cook on
the evenings of Monday and Tuesday; and having done so, I will submit to
your candid judgment whether those symptoms may not be more naturally
accounted for by attributing them to convulsions which are not tetanic
at all, and most assuredly not tetanic in the distinctive character of
strychnine, but which may rather be classed under those ordinary
convulsions by means of which it constantly pleases Providence to strike
men down without leaving upon their bodies the faintest indications from
which the cause of death may be inferred. You have it upon the authority
of medical men of the highest distinction, that it sometimes occurs that
men in the prime of life and in the full vigour of health, are smitten
to death by convulsions that leave no trace upon the body of the
sufferer. The statements Mills and Jones are such as to render it
entirely unnecessary to resort to the hypothesis of any kind of tetanus,
much less to that of strychnine, in accounting for the death of Cook.
Regard being had to the delicate state of his health, and to the
continually recurring derangement of his constitution, it is far safer
to conclude that he died of ordinary convulsions than of any description
of tetanus, whether traumatic, idiopathic, or that produced by poison.
Nor must we omit to inquire into the state of his mind. He went to
Shrewsbury races in the imminent peril of returning from thence a ruined
man. His father-in-law, Mr. Stevens, assured Palmer that there would not
be four thousand shillings for those who had claims on his estate. From
the necessity he was under of raising money at an enormous discount, we
may easily infer that he was in desperate difficulties; and that, unless
some sudden success on the turf should retrieve his fortunes, his case
was hopeless. His health shattered, his mind distracted, he had long
been cherishing the hope that “Polestar” would win, and so put him in
possession of a sum, amounting in stakes and winnings, to something like
a thousand guineas. The mare, it is true, was hardly his own, she had
been mortgaged, and if she should lose, she would become the property of
another person.

Picture to yourself what must have been the condition, mental and
bodily, of that young man when he rose from his bed on the morning of
the races. It is scarcely possible that as he went down to breakfast
this thought must not have crossed his mind, “My fate is trembling in
the balance: this is the crisis of my destiny; unless my horse shall win
and give me one chance more of recovering myself, to-night I am a
beggar.” With these feelings he repairs to the race-course. Another race
is run before Polestar is brought out. His impatience is extreme. He
looks on in a state of agonising excitement. Will the minutes never fly?
At last arrives the decisive moment. The time has come for his race. The
flag is dropped; the horses start; his mare wins easily, and he, her
master, has won a thousand guineas! For three minutes he is not able to
speak, so intense is his emotion. Slowly he recovers his utterance, and
then how rapturous is his joy! He is saved, he is saved! Another chance
to retrieve his position, one chance more to recover his character! As
yet, at all events, he will not be a disgrace to his family and his
friends. Conceive him to be, with all his faults an honourable young
man, and you may easily imagine what his ecstacy must have been. He
loves the memory of his dead mother--he still reverences the name of his
father--he is jealous of his sister’s honour, and it may be that he
cherishes silently in his heart the thought of some other being dearer
still than all, to whom the story of his ruin would bring bitter
anguish. But he is not ruined; he will meet his engagements like an
honourable man. There is now no danger of his being an outcast, an
adventurer, a black-leg. He will live to redeem his position, and to
give joy to those who love him. With such thoughts in his heart, he
returns to his inn in a state of indescribable elation, and with a
revulsion from despair that must have convulsed--though not in the sense
of illness--every fibre of his frame. His first idea is to entertain his
friends, and he does so. The evidence does not prove that he drank to
excess, but he gave a champagne dinner, and we all know that is a
luxurious entertainment, at which there is no stint and not much
self-respect. That evening he did not spend in the society of Palmer;
indeed, it is not clear in whose company he spent it. But we find him on
the evening of Wednesday at the “Unicorn,” with Saunders, his trainer,
and a lady. On Thursday he walks upon the course, and Herring
remonstrates with him for doing so, as the day is damp and misty, and
the ground wet. That night he is seized with illness, and he continues
ailing until his death at Rugeley.

Arrived at Rugeley, it is but natural to suppose that a reaction of
feeling may have set in. Then the dark side of the picture may have
presented itself to his imagination. The chilling thought may have come
upon him that his winnings were already forestalled, and would scarcely
suffice to save him from destruction. It is when suffering from a
weakened body, and an irritated and excited mind, he is attacked with a
sickness which clings to his system, leaves him without any rest,
incapacitates him from taking food, distracts his nerves, and places him
in imminent danger of falling a victim to any sudden attack of
convulsions to which he may have a predisposition. He relished no
society so much as that of Palmer, whose residence was immediately
opposite the Talbot Arms Inn, where he was lying on his sick bed. For
two nights he had been taking opiate pills, prescribed by Dr. Bamford.
On Sunday night, at twelve o’clock, he started as from a dream in a
state of the utmost excitement and alarm. He admitted afterwards that
for two minutes he was mad, but he could not ascribe it to anything
unless to his having been awakened by a squabble in the street. But do
no such things happen to people of sound constitutions and regular
habits? Do no such people awaken in agony and delirium because there is
a noise under their windows? No, these are the afflictions of the
dissipated and the anxious, whose bodies are shattered, and whose minds
are distracted. Next day, Monday, he was pretty well, but not so well as
to mount his horse, or to take a walk in the fields. He could converse
with his trainer and jockey, but he took no substantial food, and drank
not a drop of brandy-and-water. You will bear in mind that Palmer was
not with him that day. In the middle of the night he was seized with an
attack similar in character to that of the night preceding, but
manifestly much milder, for he retained his consciousness throughout
it, and was not mad for a moment. The evidence of Elizabeth Mills is
conclusive on the point. [The learned Serjeant read some passages from
the deposition of the witness in question.] At three o’clock on the
following day (Tuesday) Mr. Jones, the surgeon, of Lutterworth, arrived,
and spent a considerable time--probably from three to seven o’clock--in
his company. They had abundant opportunity for conversing
confidentially, and they were likely to have done so, for they were very
intimate, and Jones appears to have been on more familiar terms with
Cook than was any other person, not even excepting Mr. Stevens. Nothing
occurred, in the entire and unbounded confidence which must have existed
between Mr. Cook and Mr. Jones, to raise any suspicions in the mind of
Mr. Jones; and at the consultation which took place between seven and
eight o’clock on Tuesday evening, between Jones, Palmer, and Bamford, as
to what the medicine for that evening should be, the fit of the Monday
night was not mentioned. That is a remarkable fact. The Crown may say
that it is remarkable, inasmuch as Palmer knew it, and said not a word
about it; but I think that it shows that the fit was so little serious
in the opinion of Cook that he did not think it worth mentioning to his
intimate friend Jones. If Cook had not given to Elizabeth Mills a rather
exaggerated description of what had occurred, would he not have said to
Mr. Jones, when he came from Lutterworth to see him, “You can’t judge of
my condition from my appearance now, for I was in a state of perfect
madness over night, and in fact, I thought that I was going to die?”
Evidently he would have said something of that sort, and if he had, Mr.
Jones would have mentioned it at the consultation.

My inference, then, is that the first statement which was made by
Elizabeth Mills was the correct statement of what occurred. Palmer, in
the presence of Jones, administered two pills to Mr. Cook, which it is
supposed poisoned him--which contained a substance which sometimes does
its deadly work in a quarter of an hour--which has done it in less, and
which rarely exceeds half an hour; and we are asked to believe that, in
spite of Cook’s objecting in the presence of his friend to take the
pills, Palmer positively forced them down his throat at the imminent
peril of the man falling down in a few minutes in convulsions evidently
tetanic. As in the course of the examination of Mr. Jones the word
“tetanus” was used, it is right that I should say a word upon that
subject. The word “tetanus” is not in his deposition; but I tell you
what is in it, and it is one of the most remarkable features in this
case, because it shows how people, when they get a theory into their
heads, will fag that theory,--how they will stretch it to the very
utmost, and make it fit into the exact place in which they wish to put
it. We have it now in the evidence of Dr. Taylor that at the inquest he
sat next to Mr. Deane, the attorney’s clerk, and suggested the questions
which it was necessary in his judgment to put in order to elicit the
truth as to the symptoms of Mr. Cook’s disease. Now, fancy Dr. Taylor,
who had had a letter telling him that there was a suspicion of
strychnine, and who had all but made up his mind at that time to state
positively upon oath his opinion that the pills given on Monday and
Tuesday nights contained strychnine; fancy----

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL.--I am sorry that my learned friend should be
misled upon a matter of fact; but I am told that Dr. Taylor was not
present when Mr. Jones was examined.

Mr. SHEE continued: Then the observation which I was about to make does
not apply; and all I can say is, that Mr. Jones had probably in his
mind’s eye, when he gave that evidence, a recollection of what he had
seen on the Tuesday night. He could not have seen very accurately,
however, for he said that there was only one candle in the room, and
that he had not light enough to see the patient’s face, and that he
could not tell whether there was much change in the countenance of the
deceased--a very important fact, when the doctors all say that Cook’s
disease cannot have been traumatic tetanus, because there is always a
peculiar expression of the countenance in those cases, which was not
observable in Cook. However, Mr. Jones, who is a competent professional
man, gave his evidence, and it is quite clear that the notion of tetanus
must have entered into his mind, because I find in the depositions that
the coroner’s clerk first put down “tetinus;” and the probability, I
think, is that that disease did occur to Mr. Jones at the time, and that
he used the word, because the clerk never could have invented it. Then
“tetinus” is struck out; then the word “convulsions” is written, and
also struck out; and, as the sentence stands, it is, “There were strong
symptoms of violent convulsions.” What is the fair inference from that?
Why, that the man who saw Cook in the paroxysm did not think himself
justified in saying that it was a tetanic convulsion at all, though it
was very like tetanus. Now, I will just call your attention to the
features of general convulsions, as described in cross-examination by
the medical witnesses, in order to show that the convulsions of which
Cook died were not tetanic, properly speaking, but were of that strong
and irregular kind which cannot be classed under the head of tetanus,
either traumatic or idiopathic, but under the head of general
convulsions. I propose upon this part of the case to read an extract
from the work of Dr. Copland, which will enable you to judge whether
Cook’s complaint bears a greater resemblance to general convulsions than
to traumatic tetanus or strychnine tetanus. Before doing so, however, I
would observe that the only persons who can be supposed to know anything
of tetanus not traumatic are physicians, and that not one of that most
honourable class of men (who see the attacks of patients in their beds,
and not in the hospital), has been called by the Crown, with the
exception of Dr. Todd, who is a most respectable man, and who gave his
evidence in such a way as to command the respect of everyone; but even
his practice appears to be not so much that of a physician as of a
surgeon. I am instructed that I shall be able to show, by the most
eminent men in the profession, that the description which I am about to
read from Dr. Copland’s book, the _Dictionary of Practical Medicine_, is
the true description of general convulsions. In that book I find the
following, under the head of “Convulsions:”--

     “Definition.--Violent and involuntary contractions of a part or of
     the whole of the body, sometimes with rigidity and tension (tonic
     convulsions), but more frequently with tumultuous agitations,
     consisting of alternating shocks (clonic convulsions), that come on
     suddenly, either in recurring or in distant paroxysms, and after
     irregular and uncertain intervals.”

The article then goes on:--

     “If we take the character of the spasm in respect of permanency,
     rigidity, relaxation, and recurrence as a basis of arrangement of
     all the diseases attended by abnormal action of voluntary muscles,
     we shall have every grade, passing imperceptibly from the most
     acute form of tetanus through cramp, epilepsy, eclampsia,
     convulsions, &c., down to the most atonic states of chorea and
     tremor.”

As to the premonitory symptoms, it says:--

     “The premonitory signs of general convulsions are (_inter alia_),
     vertigo and dizziness, irritability of temper, flushings, or
     alternate flushing and paleness of the face, nausea, retching or
     vomiting, or pain and distension of stomach and left hypochondrium,
     unusual flatulence of the stomach and bowels, or other dyspeptic
     symptoms.”

In further describing these convulsions, the article says:--

     “In many instances the general sensibility and consciousness are
     but very slightly impaired, particularly in the more simple cases,
     and when the proximate cause is not seated in the encephalon; but
     in proportion as this part is affected, primarily or consecutively,
     and the neck and face tumid and livid, the cerebral functions are
     obscured, and the convulsions attended by stupor, delirium, &c., or
     rapidly pass into, or are followed by, these states.”

Then, it adds:--

     “The paroxysm may cease in a few moments or minutes, or continue
     for some or even many hours. It generally subsides rapidly, the
     patient experiencing, at its termination, fatigue, headache, or
     stupor; but he is usually restored in a short time to the same
     state as before the seizure, which is liable to recur in a person
     once affected, but at uncertain intervals. After repeated attacks
     the fit sometimes becomes periodic (the _convulsio recurrens_ of
     authors.)”

And, in detailing the origin of these convulsions, it says:--

     “The most common causes are (_inter alia_), all emotions of the
     mind which excite the nervous power, and determine the blood to the
     head, as joy, anger, religious enthusiasm, excessive desire, &c.,
     or those which greatly depress the nervous influence, as well as
     diminish and derange the actions of the heart, as fear, terror,
     anxiety, sadness, distressing intelligence, frightful dreams,
     &c.--the syphilitic poison and repulsion of gout or rheumatism.”

Do you believe, if Dr. Taylor had read that before the inquest, that he
would have dared to say that the man died from strychnine? Is there one
single symptom in the statement made in the depositions by Elizabeth
Mills and Mr. Jones which may not be classed under one of the varieties
of convulsions which Dr. Copland describes? It is not for me to suggest
a theory; but the gentlemen whom I shall call before you--men of the
highest eminence in their profession, and not mere hospital surgeons,
who have seen nothing of this nature but traumatic tetanus--will tell
you that Mr. Cook’s symptoms were those of general convulsions, and not
of tetanus. My belief is--and I hope you will confirm it by your
verdict--that Mr. Cook’s complaint was not tetanus at all, although it
may well have been--according to the descriptions to which I shall call
your attention--some form of traumatic or idiopathic tetanus, there
being no broad, general distinction or certain confine between
idiopathic, or self-generating tetanus, and many forms of convulsions.
The tetanic form of convulsions is pretty much the same thing as
idiopathic tetanus; and when we are told by medical witnesses that they
never saw a case of idiopathic tetanus, my answer to that is that they
must have had a very limited experience. It is not a disease of very
frequent occurrence, it is true; but there are gentlemen here who have
seen cases of idiopathic tetanus, and they are by no means of that rare
occurrence which has been represented to you by the witnesses for the
prosecution. There is one gentleman here, of very large practice at
Leeds, whom I shall call before you, who attended at the bedside of Mrs.
Dove, who has himself seen four cases of idiopathic tetanus. Traumatic
tetanus very frequently occurs in hospitals--in fact, it often
supervenes upon the operations of the surgeon; but the persons to give
you correct information upon idiopathic tetanus are the general
practitioners who enjoy the confidence of families, and who have the
opportunity of visiting at their dwellings, both rich and poor, when
they are attacked by any of those convulsive diseases or fits which
heads of families and brothers and sisters are so careful not to
disclose to the world at large. Dr. Watson is a general practitioner,
and he says in his _Lectures on the Principles and Practice of Physic_,
that most cases of tetanus may be traced to one of two causes--which
are, exposure to the cold or sudden alternations of temperature, and
bodily injury. “It has been known to arise,” he says, “from causes so
slight as these,--the sticking of a fishbone in the fauces, the air
caused by a musket shot, 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 tame 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.” He goes on to say that when the disease
arises from exposure to the cold or damp it comes on earlier than on
other occasions--often in a few hours--so that if the exposure takes
place in the night, the complaint may begin to manifest itself next
morning. He also says that, although tetanus may be occasioned by a
wound, independently of exposure to cold, or by exposure to cold without
bodily injury, there is good reason for thinking that in many instances
one of the causes would fail to produce it where both together would
call it forth.

Dr. Watson adds that, although the pathology of tetanus is obscure, we
may fairly come to the conclusion that the symptoms are the result of
some peculiar condition of the spinal cord, produced and kept up by
irritation of the substance, and that the brain is not involved in the
disease; the modern French writers upon the disease hold that it is an
inflammable complaint, and that it consists essentially of inflammation
of the spinal marrow. Now, who shall say that those symptoms which were
spoken to on the day of the inquest by Elizabeth Mills and Mr. Jones may
not be ranged under one of those forms of tetanus? Idiopathic tetanus is
so like general convulsions that in many cases it cannot be
distinguished from them; and to such an extent is this so that Dr.
Copland states that convulsions frequently assume a tetanic appearance.
It is true that traumatic tetanus begins in four cases out of five by a
seizure of the lower jaw; but then in the fifth case it does not so
commence; and Sir B. Brodie mentions two instances in which it began in
the limb which was wounded. Now, having gone so far, and having
endeavoured to satisfy you that the symptoms which were spoken to by
those two witnesses in their depositions may be, as I am told and
instructed that they are, rather referable to a violent description of
general convulsions than to any form of tetanus, let us proceed to
inquire whether or not the symptoms are consistent with what we know of
tetanus produced by strychnine; because, if you shall be satisfied, upon
full investigation, that they are not consistent with the symptoms,
which are the unquestionable result of strychnia tetanus, then the
hypothesis of the Crown entirely fails and John Parsons Cook can’t have
died of strychnine poison. Whether that be so or not will depend in a
great degree, as it strikes me--although, of course, that will be for
you to decide upon what you think of the evidence of Elizabeth Mills;
but, before I go to that evidence, I will call your attention to the
description of strychnia tetanus as given by two very eminent gentlemen,
Dr. Taylor and Dr. Christison, who were called for the Crown the other
day; and, if you find from their description that strychnia tetanus is a
different thing from the picture first given of the attack and paroxysms
by Elizabeth Mills and Mr. Jones, you will, I think, have great
difficulty in determining that Mr. Cook died from strychnine.

Let us first take Dr. Taylor’s description of strychnia tetanus. I am
not sure whether he stated that he had ever seen a case of strychnia
tetanus in a human subject; but we must be just to Dr. Taylor. He has
had large and extensive reading on the subject on which he writes, and
it is not to be supposed that he has set down in his book what he has
not found established upon respectable authority. Therefore, although we
have it secondhand in the book, we must suppose that Dr. Taylor knows
something of the subject. In his work upon strychnia poisoning, Dr.
Taylor says, “that in from five to twenty minutes after the poison has
been swallowed the patient is suddenly seized with tetanic symptoms
affecting the whole of the muscular system, the body becoming rigid, the
limbs stretched out, and the jaws so fixed that considerable difficulty
is experienced in introducing anything into the mouth.” But, according
to the statement of the witnesses, Mr. Cook was sitting up in bed,
beating the bedclothes, talking, frequently telling the people about him
to go for Palmer, asking for “the remedy,” and ready to swallow whatever
was given him. There was no “considerable difficulty in introducing
anything into the mouth,” and the paroxysm, instead of beginning within
“from five to twenty minutes after the poison was supposed to have been
swallowed” did not begin for an hour and a half afterwards. Dr. Taylor
further on states, “After several such attacks, increasing in severity,
the patient dies asphyxiated.” Now I submit, although there are some of
these systems in this case, as there will be in every case of violent
convulsions, that this is not a description of the case of John Parsons
Cook.

The other medical authority to whom I said I should refer is Dr.
Christison. He says that the symptoms produced by strychnine are very
uncommon and striking--the animal begins to tremble, and is seized with
stiffness and a starting of the limbs. Those symptoms increase, till at
length the animal is attacked by general spasms. The fit is then
succeeded by an interval of calm, during which the senses are impaired
or are unnaturally acute; but another paroxysm soon sets in, and then
another and another, until at last a fit occurs more violent than any
that had preceded it, and the animal perishes suffocated. Now, who can
say that that description at all tallies with the account of Mr. Cook’s
symptoms? I know exactly what Dr. Christison means by this description,
because I have had the advantage of having had several experiments
performed in my presence by Dr. Letheby, which enable me to understand
it. One of these experiments was this:--A dog had a grain of strychnine
put into his mouth, and for about 20 or 25 minutes he remained
perfectly well. Suddenly he fell down upon his side, and his legs were
stretched out in a most violent way. He was as stiff as it was possible
to be. In that state the dog remained, with an occasional jerk, for two
or three minutes. In a short time he recovered and got up, but he
appeared to be dizzy and uncomfortable, and was afraid to move. If you
touched him he shrunk and twitched, and after another minute down he
went again. He got up again and fell down again, and at last he had a
tremendous struggle, and then he died. That is what Dr. Christison means
by his description. If the dose had not been sufficient to kill the dog
it would have been longer in producing an effect; the paroxysms would
have occurred at more distant intervals, and they would have been less
and less severe until the animal recovered. But if the dose be strong
enough to kill, the interval between the paroxysms is short, and at last
one occurs which is strong enough to kill. Just before the animal dies
the limbs become as supple and free as it is possible to conceive the
limbs of an animal to be. Whichever way you put the limbs of the animal
after it is quite dead, the rigor mortis comes on after a time, and they
remain in any position in which they are placed. I saw an experiment
performed also upon two rabbits. The symptoms were substantially the
same; the limbs of both of them were quite flaccid immediately upon
death; and during the intervals between the paroxysms the animals
shuddered and were extremely “touchy.” Now, gentlemen, I will give you
my reasons for saying that, according to their own principle, as adduced
in evidence by the Crown.

Mr. Cook’s death cannot have resulted from strychnia poison. I object to
the theory of it having resulted from strychnia poison--first, on the
ground that no case can be found in the books, in which, while the
paroxysms lasted, the patient had so much command over the muscles of
animal life and voluntary motion as Mr. Cook had upon Monday and Tuesday
night. The evidence is, that he was sitting up in his bed beating the
bedclothes, calling out, and that, so far from being afraid of people
touching him, he actually asked to have his neck rubbed; and it was
rubbed. I now come to the next reason why we say that death in this case
did not result from strychnine poison; and I assert that there is no
authentic case of tetanus from strychnine in which the paroxysm was
delayed so long after the ingestion of the poison as it was in Mr.
Cook’s case. Dr. Taylor says, in page 74 of his book, that from five to
twenty minutes after the poison has been swallowed the tetanic symptoms
commence; and then, in support of this statement, he proceeds to cite a
number of cases. One young lady was “instantly deprived of the power of
walking, and fell down.” In the next case, which was that of a girl,
“tetanic symptoms came on in half an hour.” The next is a German case,
taken from the _Lancet_, and there a young man, aged 17, was “attacked
in about a quarter of an hour.” Then there is the case of Dr. Warner,
who took half a grain of sulphate of strychnine, and died in fifteen
minutes. Then there is the case of a young woman who took two or three
drachms of _nux vomica_, and died in between thirty and forty minutes.
Another case is given by Dr. Watson in his book, which he himself
observed in the Middlesex Hospital, where strychnine pills, intended for
paralytic patients, were taken by mistake. One-twelfth of a grain was
intended to be administered every six hours; but unluckily a whole grain
was given at one time, about 7 o’clock in the evening, and in half an
hour it began to exhibit its effects. Dr. Watson says, that “any attempt
at movement--even touching the patient by another person--brought on a
recurrence of the symptoms.” It is clear, then, from all these cases,
that the interval which elapsed between the supposed ingestion of the
poison and the commencement of the paroxysm was much too long--three
times too long to warrant the supposition that strychnia poison had been
taken in this case. Thirdly, I submit--and I shall prove--that there is
no case in which the recovery from a paroxysm of strychnine poison has
been so rapid as it was in Cook’s case upon Monday night, or in which a
patient has endured so long an interval of repose or exemption from its
symptoms afterwards. In this case of Mr. Cook, according to the theory
of the Crown, the paroxysms would not have been repeated at all if a
second dose had not been given. There was an end of it when Elizabeth
Mills left Palmer sleeping by the side of his friend in an arm-chair;
how easy would it have been then, if he had been so disposed, to
administer another dose, and to have hurried into Elizabeth Mill’s room,
and called out that Cook was in another fit?

Dr. Taylor says in his book, that the patient is suddenly seized with
spasms affecting the whole system, and that after several such attacks,
increasing in severity, the patient dies asphyxiated. Dr. Christison
holds precisely the same language; but I submit that here there is a
broad distinction between the case of Cook and that which these
gentlemen state to be the distinguishing feature of the disease. I now
come to the _post-mortem_ examination. Dr. Letheby was good enough to
dig up from his garden, in order that I might see it, an animal which
had been killed by strychnine, with a view to this inquiry, a month
before, and to examine the heart before me. The heart of that animal was
quite full. The heart also of the dog that was killed in my presence was
quite full, and so were the hearts of both the rabbits that I saw
killed. Now, I am told by a gentleman, whom I shall call before you, who
is not afraid of dogs--and remember that this is rather a matter for
experiment than of theory,--I am told that the result of an enormously
large proportion of such examinations--and, indeed, of all of them if
they be properly conducted--is, that the heart is invariably full. At
the same time, I am told that if the examiners do the thing clumsily,
they may contrive to get an empty heart. If there be any doubt in your
minds, however, as to the heart being full in these cases, I hope that
some morning you will desire that a reasonable number of animals should
be brought into one of the yards here, and that you will see them die by
strychnine, and examine their hearts, and form an opinion for
yourselves. I have now discussed what may be said to be the theory of
these matters; but I have not yet met the strong point which was made by
the Crown of the evidence of Elizabeth Mills. I, upon all occasions, am
most reluctant to attack a witness who is examined upon his or her oath,
and particularly if he be in a humble position of life. I am very
reluctant to impute perjury to such a person; and I think that a man who
has been as long in the profession as I have been must, in most cases,
be put a little to his wits’ end when he rushes upon the assumption that
a person whose statements have, after a considerable lapse of time,
materially varied, is therefore necessarily, deliberately perjured.

The truth is, we know perfectly well that if a considerable interval of
time occurs between the first story and the second story, and if the
intelligent and respectable persons who are anxious to investigate the
truth, but who still have a strong moral conviction--upon imperfect
information--of the guilt of an accused person, will talk to witnesses
and say, “Was there anything of this kind?” or “anything of that kind?”
the witnesses at last catch hold of the phrase or term which has been so
often used to them, and having in that way adopted it, they fancy that
they may tell it in court. This might have been the case with Elizabeth
Mills; and let me point out to you what occurs to me to be the right
opinion that you should form of that witness. I submit to you that in
this case of life and death--or, indeed, in any case involving a
question of real importance to liberty or to property--that young
woman’s evidence would not be relied on. In the ordinary administration
of justice in the civil courts, if a person has upon material points
told two different stories juries are rarely willing to believe that
person; and in criminal cases the learned judges, without altogether
rejecting the evidence, point out to the jury the discrepancies which
have taken place, and submit whether, under all the circumstances, it
would be safe to rely upon the testimony last given, differing from the
statement which was made when the impression was fresh upon the
witness’s mind. It cannot be said in this case that Elizabeth Mills was
not fully and fairly examined. I submit that my learned friend the
Attorney-General really made a false point--the most unfortunate in the
course of the prosecution--in attacking, upon this ground, the coroner,
Mr. Ward. Just place yourselves, gentlemen, for a moment in the position
of the coroner; and, to enable you the better to do so, just recollect
what has passed in the course of this trial in this court; recollect, if
you can, how many questions have been put by my learned friends and by
me on account of which it has been necessary for counsel to interpose
and to ask the learned judges whether the question was a proper one. Our
rules of examination are strict, but they are most beneficial, because
they exclude from the minds of the jury that loose and general sort of
information which, in country towns especially, is the subject of
pot-house stories and market gossip, and substitute for it the evidence
of actual facts which have been seen and are deposed to by the
witnesses. Imagine the coroner in a large room at a tavern, just under
the bed-room where poor Cook died--a crowd of excited villagers in the
room, all full of suspicion produced by the inquiries of the Prince of
Wales Insurance-office about Walter Palmer--and Inspector Field there,
and Inspector Simpson--and all impressed with the belief that whatever
the London doctor said must be true, and that if Dr. Alfred Swayne
Taylor had made up his mind that it was poison, poison it was. The whole
town was in a state of uproar and excitement. Every question that
occurred to everybody must be put before the coroner--“Didn’t you hear
so and so?” “Didn’t somebody tell you that some one had said so and so?”
and so on. How is it possible under such circumstances to conduct an
inquiry with the dignity and decorum that are observed in the superior
courts?

There was a celebrated trial some years ago in France, in which I
remember to have taken great interest, of the ministers of King Charles
X. Upon that occasion one witness actually proved that he had read all
the pamphlets that had been published on the subject, and he came
forward to state what, upon the whole, was the result which those
pamphlets had made upon his mind. It is true that that was in
revolutionary times, but it shows to what an extent the introduction of
a loose system of questioning may go. I don’t say that Dr. Taylor
suggested any but proper questions, but you must consider the
difficulties under which the coroner had to labour, and I am told that
he is an exceedingly good lawyer and a most respectable man. Dr. Taylor
said that the coroner’s omission to ask questions arose, in his opinion,
rather from want of knowledge than from intention. Of course the coroner
would not be likely to know the proper questions to put in such a case,
but when he did know them he seems to have put them. He was right in
refusing to put irrelevant questions to gratify an inquisitive juryman;
we are ourselves constantly being rebuked by the learned judges, and
told to adhere to the rules, and not to put questions which are
irrelevant. I have now pointed out such discrepancies in the evidence
given by Mills before the coroner and before you as will, I think, make
it clear to you that you cannot rely upon her testimony. Since she first
gave her evidence she has had the means of knowing what is the case on
the part of the Crown. I do not mean to say she has been tutored by the
Crown; I believe that my learned friend would not have called her if he
thought she had; but she has had an opportunity of discovering by
interviews with several different people that the case for the
prosecution is, that Palmer having first prepared the body of Cook for
deadly poison by the poison of antimony, afterwards despatched him with
the deadly poison of strychnine. Their case is, that there was an
administration of something which had the effect of producing retching,
nausea, and irritation of the stomach. Those symptoms are therefore
attributed to the persevering intention of the prisoner to reduce Cook
to such a state of weakness that, when once ingestion of the poison
occurred, he was sure to be carried off. In her evidence before the
coroner she was asked whether she had tasted the broth? She said she
had, and she thought it very good. She did not then say anything about
the ill effects the broth had produced; but she has since learnt that it
is part of the case of those out of whose hands the Crown has taken the
prosecution, and that it is the theory of Dr. Taylor that all this
retching and vomiting was the result of a constant dosing with
antimonial poison. She has probably been frequently asked whether she
was not sick after drinking the broth; perhaps she may have been sick on
some Sunday or another, and she has persuaded herself--for I do not wish
to impute perjury to her--that she was made sick by the two
table-spoonfuls of broth which she drank.

Is it not to the last degree incredible that a shrewd, intelligent man
like Palmer should have exposed himself to such a chance of detection as
sending broth which he had poisoned from his house, to stand by the
kitchen fire of the Talbot Arms, when, sure as fate, the cook would
taste it? Did you ever know a cook who would not taste broth sent by
another person and said to be particularly good? It is not in the nature
of things. A cook is a taster, she tastes everything, and Palmer must
have known that as sure as ever he sent into the kitchen broth
containing antimony the cook would take it and be ill. Her statement is
not credible and cannot be relied on. Then she said in her evidence
before the coroner that on Saturday Cook had coffee and vomited directly
he swallowed it, and that up to the time she gave him the coffee she had
not seen Palmer. She was not then aware that the theory of the gradual
preparation of the body by antimony was to fit into the theory of death
from strychnine, but by the time she came here she had become acquainted
with that part of the case. My learned friend stated that, “Palmer
ordered him coffee on Saturday morning; it was brought in by the
chambermaid Elizabeth Mills, and given to the prisoner, who had an
opportunity of tampering with it before giving it to Cook.” There is all
the difference between this statement of my learned friend and that
first made by Mills before the coroner. But the young woman did not go
quite so far as that. She went however to this extent:--“Palmer came
over at 8 o’clock and ordered a cup of coffee for Cook. I gave it to
him. I believe Palmer was in the bedroom at the time. I did not see him
drink it. I observed afterwards that the coffee had been vomited.” Her
statement was not so strong as that of my learned friend, but a great
deal stronger than the one she made before the coroner. The two
statements are essentially different, and the difference between them
consists in this--the one supports the theory suggested by the
prosecution, the other is totally inconsistent with it. Can you rely on
a woman who makes such alterations in her testimony? That is not all.
The case suggested for the Crown now is, that Cook expressed reluctance
to take the pills ordered for him, and that his reluctance was overruled
by Palmer. Mills’s first statement was that Cook said the pills made him
ill. Here she said that the pills which Palmer gave him made him ill.
Before the coroner, too, she did not say that Palmer was in the bedroom
between 9 and 10 on Monday night, as she has stated here. She makes him
more about the bedside of the man, she gives him a greater opportunity
of administering pills and medicine, she shows an _animus_, the result,
according to the most charitable construction that can be put upon it,
of a persuasion that Palmer must be guilty, but still an _animus_ which
shows that she is not to be relied on. How easily may persons in her
condition make mistakes without intending to deceive! It is the just
punishment of all falsehood that when a lie has once been told it cannot
be retracted without humiliation, and when once this young woman had
been induced to vary her statement in a material particular she had not
the moral courage to set herself right.

But the particulars I have mentioned are nothing to those to which I
will now call your attention. I impeach her testimony on the ground that
she here gesticulated and gave her evidence in such a manner that if it
had been natural and she had adopted it at the inquest it must have
attracted the attention of Dr. Taylor. The remarkable contortions into
which she put her hands, her mouth, and her neck would, if they had been
observed at the inquest, have been reduced to verbal expression, and
recorded in the depositions. I am told by Dr. Nunneley, Dr. Robinson,
and other gentlemen, that the symptoms she described are inconsistent
with any known disease. There was an extraordinary grouping of symptoms,
some of them quite consistent with tetanus produced by strychnine
administered under peculiar circumstances, others quite inconsistent
with it. Now, in the last week in February a frightful case of
strychnine occurred in Leeds. A person having the means of access to the
bedside of a patient, was supposed to have administered small doses, day
by day, and after keeping her for some time in a state of irritation, to
have at last killed her. The person who attended the patient spoke of
her symptoms for about a week before her death, and said she had
“twitchings” in the legs, that she was alarmed at being touched in the
intervals between the spasms. I will now call your attention to the
evidence of Mills. She states:--“Cook said, ‘I can’t lie down; I shall
be suffocated if I lie down. Oh, fetch Mr. Palmer!’ The last words he
said very loud. I did not observe his legs, but there was a sort of
jumping or jerking about his head and neck and the body. Sometimes he
would throw back his head upon the pillow, and then raise it up again.
He had much difficulty in breathing. The balls of his eyes projected
very much. He screamed again three or four times while I was in the
room. He was moving and knocking about all the time. He asked me to rub
his hands. I did rub them, and he thanked me. I noticed him ‘twitch.’ I
gave him toast-and-water. His body was still jerking and jumping. When I
put the spoon to his mouth, he snapped at it and got it fast between his
teeth, and seemed to bite it very hard. In snapping at the spoon he
threw forward his head and neck. He swallowed the toast-and-water, and
with it the pills. Palmer then handed him a draught in a wineglass. Cook
drank this. He snapped at the glass as he had done at the spoon. He
seemed as though he could not exactly control himself.”

The expressions she used, particularly the word “twitching,” are
remarkable. It may well be that when this case became public she may
have had her attention called to it, and then had questions put to her
with regard to the symptoms of Cook which induced her to alter the
evidence she had before given. I cannot otherwise account for the
remarkable variance in her evidence. From the time she left the Talbot
Arms till she came here she seems to have been a person of remarkable
importance. She went to Dolly’s, where Stevens visited her five or six
times. What for? Stevens was unquestionably--and within proper limits he
is not to be blamed for it--indignant at the circumstances of Cook’s
death. He is not in the same condition of life as Mills. Why did he call
on her? Why did he converse with her in a private room? He came, she
said, to inquire after her health and see how she liked London. Mr.
Gardner also saw her in the street, but he only asked her how she was
and talked of other things. I do not say that these gentlemen went to
her with the deliberate intention of inducing her to say what was false;
but they did go with the deliberate intention of stimulating her memory
upon points as to which they thought it required stimulating. Mr.
Hatton, the police officer of Rugeley, also saw her a few times. They
could have gone to her for no purpose but that of taking her evidence. I
may mention a circumstance which shows how differently minor matters may
be stated by witnesses who do not wish to assert what is false. When
Palmer went into the bedroom after being called up, he remarked, “I do
not think I ever dressed so quickly in my life,” and it is suggested
that he never went to bed, but waited up for the commencement of the
paroxysm. Mills answered the question I put to her upon that point
pretty fairly; she said, “He came in his dressing-gown, and I do not
recollect that there was anything like a day shirt about his neck.” On
the other hand, Lavinia Barnes, who gave her evidence in a most
respectable manner, said that he was quite dressed; that he wore his
usual dress. People get talking about what they have witnessed, the real
image of what occurred becomes confused or altogether obliterated from
their minds, and they at last unconsciously tell a story which is very
different from the truth. Mills was examined three times before the
coroner, and if that officer acted improperly on those occasions it was
quite competent for the Crown to bring him here and give him an
opportunity of vindicating himself, but he ought not to be blamed upon
the evidence of a witness like her. In the course of her examination,
however, there came out a fact which is worthy of remark. Is there not
something extraordinary in the periodicity of the attacks she described
in their recurrence on three nights nearly at the same hour? There are
numerous cases in the books in which attacks of this kind occurred at
the same distance of time after the patient had gone to bed.

Without going into unnecessary details, I will now state what I intend
to prove upon this part of the case. I shall call a great number of most
respectable medical practitioners and surgeons in general practice, with
a large experience in great cities, who will support the theory that
these fits of Cook were probably not tetanus at all, but violent
convulsions, the result of a weak habit of body, increased by a careless
mode of life--by at least a sufficient amount of disease to render
violent mineral poisons, in their opinion, desirable, and by habits
which led to a chronic ulceration of the tonsils and difficulty in
swallowing. They will prove that men with constitutions weakened by
indulgence have often, under the influence of strong mental excitement
and violent emotion of any kind, been suddenly thrown into such a state
of convulsion that symptoms have been exhibited in the voluntary muscles
of violent disease, and that persons suffering from those symptoms have
constantly died asphyxiated or of exhaustion, leaving no trace whatever
as to the cause of death. In addition, I will call several gentlemen who
will speak to experiments they have made upon animals, and who will be
ready to show you those experiments in any yard belonging to this
building, if my lords should think fit. They will tell you, on the
authority of Orfila, that no degree of putrescence will decompose
strychnine, and that if it is in the body they would be sure to find it
even now.

Lord CAMPBELL said that the Court could not see the experiments made,
but witnesses might be called to prove them.

Mr. Serjeant SHEE: I have now done with that branch of the case, and
will proceed to the last matter to which I propose to direct your
attention. I propose to discuss whether the circumstantial evidence is
inexplicable on the supposition of the prisoner’s innocence; and, if I
show you that in all its broad and salient features it is not so, I am
sure that you will be only too happy to acquit him, recollecting that
you represent the country, which is uninformed upon the case, which has
no opportunity of hearing the witnesses on either side.

Lord CAMPBELL: In the language of the law “which country you are.”

Mr. Serjeant SHEE: Which country you are. You are responsible not to
render this kingdom liable to the charge of having, in a paroxysm of
prejudice propagated by a professional man with no knowledge of his own
upon the matter, condemned an innocent person. In discussing the
circumstantial evidence, I will avoid no point that seems at all
difficult; but, not to waste time, I will not, after the intimation
which I have received from the bench, trouble you with such matters as
the pushing against Dr. Devonshire during the _post-mortem_ examination
or the cutting of a slit in the cover of the jar, which might be done
accidentally with any of the sharp instruments which were being used, or
the putting it at the further end of the room.

Lord CAMPBELL: What was said referred only to the pushing.

Mr. Serjeant SHEE: I take leave to suggest that in an examination in the
town of Rugeley, where Palmer was perfectly well known, the fact of
there having been a little apparent shoving, which may for the moment
have disturbed the operator, is not to be allowed to have weight against
the prisoner, especially as Mr. Devonshire said nothing was lost. The
matter was one in which all present took considerable interest, and a
little leaning over might easily have produced the effect which was
spoken to. Then, as to the removal of the jar. It was not taken out of
the room. It could not have been taken away without its removal being
observed, and it would have been to the last degree foolish for any
guilty person to attempt to remove it. That a man who knew himself to be
innocent should be very unwilling that the jar should be removed out of
the hands of persons upon whom he could rely for honest dealing is very
probable. Palmer knew that there were some persons who did not want to
pay him £13,000, and who had for a long time been doing all they could
to undermine his character, and to impute to him most wicked conduct
with regard to the death of a relation--suspicions in which none of his
relatives had joined. It is clear from his observation, “Well, doctor,
they won’t hang us yet,” that he knew that it was intended to ground a
suspicion or a complaint upon the _post-mortem_ examination, and it was
exceedingly natural that he should like to have the jar kept in safe
custody, even in the crowded room. All his conduct is consistent with
this explanation. To Dr. Harland, with whom he does not appear to have
been particularly intimate, he says, “I am very glad you are come,
because there is no knowing who might have done it.” That is the conduct
of a respectable man, who knew that his conduct would bear investigation
if it were properly conducted.

I dare say there are in Rugeley many excellent and very serious people
to whom the prisoner’s habits of life, his running about to races, and
so on, would not much recommend him, and who he had reason to know
entertained prejudices against him. As to his objection to the jar being
taken to Mr. Frere’s, there had, I believe, been some slight difference,
arising out of Thirlby (Palmer’s assistant) having come to him from Mr.
Frere. I do not do Mr. Frere the injustice to think that this slight
dispute would have led him to put anything into the jar, but it may
account for Palmer’s caution. Let us now come to the more prominent
features of Palmer’s conduct, upon which, in accordance with his
instructions, my learned friend principally relied. I will first call
your attention to the evidence of Myatt, the postboy at the Talbot Arms.
Mr. Stevens had come down from London, and had acted towards Palmer in
such a way as would have induced some men to kick him. Assuming Palmer
to be innocent, Stevens’ conduct was most provoking. He dissembled with
Palmer, cross-questioned him, pretended to take his advice, scolded him
in a harsh tone of voice, almost insulted him, threatened a
_post-mortem_ examination, and acted throughout under the impression
that some one had been guilty of foul play towards Cook, which ought to
be brought to light and punished. Stevens had been there during the
whole of the _post-mortem_ examination--a gloomy, miserable day it must
have been, poring over the remains of that poor dead man; the jar was
ready, and the fly was at the door to take himself and Boycott to
Stafford, in order that this jar might be sent to London, out of
Palmer’s ken and notice; so that if there was anybody base enough to do
it, either in support of a theory, or to maintain a reputation--God
forbid that I should suggest that to the prejudice of Dr. Taylor! I do
not mean to do so--but if there was anybody capable of acting so great a
wickedness, it might be done; and it was but a reasonable concern that
Palmer should be anxious that it should stop at Dr. Harland’s. He did
not like its going with Stevens to London. Stevens had been
particularly troublesome; he had been vexatious and annoying to the last
degree. The fly was ready, when Palmer met Myatt, the postboy, and
learned that he was going to drive Mr. Stevens to Stafford.

According to Myatt’s evidence, Palmer then asked him if he would upset
“them.” That word was first used in this court to designate the jars;
but as there was at that time but one jar, it must have been intended to
apply to Mr. Stevens and his companion. Palmer’s conduct to Stevens had
been most exemplary, and he must have been irritated to the last degree
to find that he was suspected of stealing a paltry betting-book, which
was of no use to anyone, and of having played foully and falsely with
the life of his friend, the deceased. That he was much annoyed was
proved by his observation to Dr. Harland in the morning--“There has been
a queer old fellow down here making inquiries, who seems to suspect that
everything is wrong. He thinks I have stolen a betting-book, which
everyone who knows anything knows can be of no use to anyone now that
poor Cook is dead.” This shows that Palmer’s mind was impressed with a
sense that Stevens had illtreated him. He, no doubt, said to himself,
“He (Stevens) has encouraged and brought back suspicions which have
well-nigh destroyed me already, and which, if he proceeds in this course
of bringing another charge against me, will probably render it
impossible to get the sum which would be sufficient to release me from
my embarrassments.” In this state of mind Palmer met the postboy who was
ready to drive Mr. Stevens to Stafford. What occurred then was thus
described by Myatt:--“He said he supposed I was going to take the
jars.--What did you say then, or what did he say?--I said I believed I
was.--After you said you believed you were, what did he say?--He says,
‘Do you think you could upset them?’--What answer did you make?--I told
him ‘No.’--Did he say anything more?--He said, if I could, there was a
£10 note for me.--What did you say to that?--I told him I should
not.--Did he say any more to you?--I told him that I must go, for the
horse was in the fly waiting for me to start.”

In cross-examination he was asked--“Were not these the words Palmer
used,--‘I should not mind giving £10 to break Mr. Stevens’s neck?’--I do
not recollect him saying ‘to break his neck.’--Were they not words to
that effect, ‘I should not mind giving him £10 to break his neck?’--I do
not recollect that.--Then ‘£10 to upset him?’--Yes.--Those were the
words, were they?--Them were the words, to the best of my recollection.
Did he appear to have been drinking at the time?--I cannot say.--When he
said ‘to upset him,’ did he use any epithet; did he describe him in any
way, such as ‘upset the fellow?’--He did not describe him in any
way.----Did he say anything about him at the time?--He did say
something about it; ‘it was a humbugging concern,’ or something to that
effect.--That he was a humbugging concern, was that it?--No.--That ‘it
was a humbugging concern,’ or something to that effect?--Yes.”

I submit to you that, after this evidence, you can only regard this
expression about “upsetting them,” in its milder and more innocent
sense, as a strong expression used by a man vexed and irritated by the
suspicious and inquisitive manner which Stevens had from the first
exhibited. That this is the correct view of the matter is confirmed by
the fact that at the time of the inquest nothing was known of this, and
Myatt was not called. Myatt was engaged at the Talbot Arms, and must
frequently have conversed about the death of Cook and the _post-mortem_
examination with servants and other persons about that inn. Had any
serious weight been attached to this offer of Palmer, it would have
excited attention, and would have been given in evidence before the
coroner. On the other hand, it is to the last degree improbable that a
medical man, knowing that he had given a large dose of strychnine, with
the violent properties of which he was well acquainted, should have
supposed that by the accidental spilling of a jar--the liver, spleen,
and some of the tissues remaining behind--he could possibly escape
detection. I will next call your attention to the evidence of Charles
Newton, who swore that he saw Palmer at Mr. Salt’s surgery at 9 o’clock
on Monday night, when he gave him three grains of strychnine in a piece
of paper. He did not bring this to the knowledge of the Crown until the
night before this trial commenced. He was examined before the coroner,
but although then called to corroborate the statement of Roberts as to
the presence of Palmer at Hawkins’s shop, where he was said to have
purchased strychnine, he then said nothing about the purchase on the
Monday night. A man who so conducts himself, who when first sworn omits
a considerable portion of what he tells three weeks afterwards, and
again comes forward at the last moment and tells more than enough in his
opinion to drive home the guilt to the person who is accused, that man
is not to be believed upon his oath. There are other circumstances which
render Newton’s statement in the highest degree improbable. That Palmer
should once in a way purchase strychnine in Rugeley is not to be
wondered at. It is sold to kill vermin, to kill dogs. And whatever the
evidence as to the galloping of the mares and their dropping their
foals, it shows that Palmer had occasion for it, and for other purposes.
But that, having bought enough for all ordinary purposes, he should go
and buy more the next day, and should purchase it at the shop of a
tradesman with whom he had dealt for two years, is in the highest degree
incredible. Nobody would believe it. Nobody can or ought to believe it.
But observe this also. Palmer had been to London on the Monday, and in
London there is no difficulty in procuring strychnine. It is sold to any
one who, by writing down the technical description of what he wants,
shows that he has had a medical education. Why did he not get it in
London? And if he could not get it in London, why did he not get it at
Stafford, or at any of the other places to which he had been? If he had
bought it for this guilty purpose, would he not, as a wary man, have
taken care that when his house was searched there should be found in it
the paper containing the exact quantity of strychnine which he had
purchased? What could have been easier to do than that? Newton’s story,
therefore, cannot be believed, but, in addition, I will show that
Palmer, who is stated by Herring to have been in London at a quarter
past 3 o’clock, could not have been in Rugeley at the time at which
Newton says he was at Mr. Salt’s.

Palmer attended the _post-mortem_ examination; and is it credible that
he, a skilful medical man, who studied in a London hospital, and made a
note upon one of his books of the effect of strychnine, would ask that
stupid sort of fellow Newton anything about its action upon a dog; and
would, when the answer was given, snap his fingers and say, “It is all
right, then, it cannot be found.” No one will believe it for a moment.
The _animus_ of Newton is shown by his omitting the word “poor,” and
representing Palmer as having said, “You will find this fellow suffering
from a disease of the throat; he has had syphilis;” and then, when
cross-examined upon the subject by my learned friend Mr. Grove,
replying, “I don’t know whether he said poor or rich,” as if that had
anything to do with the question. I will now take you back to what
occurred at Shrewsbury. The case for the Crown is that as early as
Wednesday, the 14th November, the scheme of poisoning Cook begun to be
executed at Shrewsbury. It is suggested that Cook was dosed with
something that was put into his brandy-and-water. You will remember that
I read to you a letter from Cook to Fisher, dated the 16th of November,
to which there is this postscript--“I am better.” That must have
referred to his illness at Shrewsbury. It is the postscript to a letter
in which he speaks of the object he has in view, which is of great
importance to himself and Palmer. Is his writing in that tone consistent
with his having a belief that Palmer had drugged him with poison for the
purpose of destroying his life at Shrewsbury? What did Palmer say about
it?--“Cook says I have put something in his glass. I don’t play such
tricks.” He treated it as though it had never been understood to be more
than the expression of a man who, if not actually drunk, was very nearly
so. Palmer did not arrive at the Raven until after the dinner hour. We
have no evidence how Cook fared there; but we shall be able to prove
that he went from there to the Unicorn, where he arrived pretty flush,
and where he sat drinking brandy-and-water with Saunders the trainer and
a lady. Seven or eight glasses of brandy-and-water did this good young
man drink, and the result was that his unfortunate syphilitic throat was
in a very dreadful state, if not of actual laceration, at least of
soreness and irritation. [The learned Serjeant here read to the jury a
long extract from an article which had appeared in some newspaper, which
he did not mention, in which the occurrences at Shrewsbury were
described in a style which seemed intended to be humourous, and in which
Cook’s sickness was attributed to his having taken too much brandy upon
champagne, in order to “restore his British solidity.” The learned
Serjeant said that this entirely concurred with his own view of the
case. He then continued.]

Cook’s own conduct afterwards proved that his illness was owing to his
having drunk too much. He got up in the morning, breakfasted with
Palmer, was good friends with him, and went with him to Rugeley. At
Rugeley they received Pratt’s letter of the 13th, in consequence of
which Palmer wrote to Pratt to say that some one would call upon him and
pay him £200, and Cook wrote to Fisher and asked him to call on Pratt
and pay this money. Does that look as though he thought there had been
an attempt to poison him? Mrs. Brooks, who gave her evidence in a most
creditable manner, proved that there was much sickness among the
strangers who were at Shrewsbury; and the rest of her evidence did not
tell much against Palmer, who might, after Cook’s complaint, very
naturally have been looking at the tumbler to see if anything had been
put into it. Cook got worse, and at last had the good sense to put his
money into Fisher’s hands and go to bed. He was still very sick, and a
doctor was sent for, who recommended an emetic. Cook made himself sick
by drinking warm water and putting the handle of a toothbrush down his
throat. He took a pill and a black draught, went to sleep, and next
morning was quite well. This is really too ludicrous to receive a
moment’s consideration. A person named Myatt was in the room at the
Raven all the evening. He has been put into the box, but I shall call
him, and you will hear his account. Palmer and Cook having got back to
Rugeley the history of the slow poisoning continues. They went there
together, and probably talked on the way of their difficulties and the
mode of getting out of them, and of the small way that the winnings at
Shrewsbury would go to effect that object, both seeing ruin staring them
in the face unless the Prince of Wales Insurance-office could be made to
pay the money which was due, and they could meanwhile remain free from
all suspicion of insolvency or any sort of misconduct. When they got to
Rugeley they provided for the temporary difficulty by sending £200 to
Pratt. They were then evidently on friendly terms, Cook’s winnings being
at Palmer’s service, and probably both effecting their objects, because,
as it would appear from what Palmer said, Cook had some interest in the
bills which were outstanding. Probably his name might not be upon them,
but as they were engaged in these racing transactions, were joint owners
of one horse and had the same trainer, they were very probably equally
interested in these bills--were in fact what I remember to have once
heard a nobleman well known upon the turf call “confederates.” The
frequency of Palmer’s visits to Cook during the illness of the latter at
Rugeley affords no ground of suspicion against the prisoner. On the
contrary, it tells in his favour. Cook had no friend in the town but
Palmer, with whom he may almost be said to have been on a visit; for
though he did not sleep in Palmer’s house Palmer was in continual
attendance on him, and, owing to the close proximity of his own
residence, was enabled to bring him many little delicacies not easily
attainable at an inn. Had he neglected the sick man, and only visited
him occasionally, the inference of the Crown would probably have been
that he was a black-hearted scoundrel, who only looked in now and then
to give him his poison; but as he was zealously and laboriously
attentive to him the conclusion is that he must have murdered him!

It is said that Palmer was guilty of a falsehood in representing Cook as
suffering from diarrhœa; but that is to put a very violent and a very
uncharitable construction on his words, for you will remember that
Bamford swore to Cook having told him that his bowels had been affected
twice or three times on Sunday. But, leaving these minor points, I come
to one which in this case of circumstantial evidence is of the very last
importance, and should be deemed decisive of the prisoner’s innocence.
The supposition of the Crown is, that Palmer intended to dose Cook with
antimony--to keep his stomach in continual irritation by vomiting, in
order that he might the more surely despatch him with strychnine; and
that during Sunday, the day on which he insisted on his taking the
broth, Cook was under the influence of this insidious treatment. Now,
supposing this to be true, and assuming it to be the fact that Palmer
was indeed bent upon destroying Cook by this singular process, is it not
manifest that there is one man who of all the men in the world would
have been the very last whom he would have selected to be a witness of
his proceedings? That man is a surgeon in the prime of life, a man
intimately acquainted with Cook, and very much attached to him--Mr.
Jones, of Lutterworth. Yet this is the very man to whom, when he is
about to set out for London, Palmer writes a letter informing him that
Cook is ill, and urging him to come over and see him without delay. I
entreat of you to appreciate the full importance of that fact. The more
you think of it the more profound will become your conviction that it
affords evidence irrefragable of Palmer’s innocence. The imputation is
that Palmer meant to kill Cook to possess himself of his winnings. Who
was with Cook when the race was won? Who was by his side on the
Shrewsbury racecourse for the three minutes that he was speechless? Who
saw him take out his pocketbook and count up his winnings? Who but
Jones?--Jones, who was his bosom friend, his companion, his confidant,
and who knew to the last farthing the amount of his gains. Jones was of
all men living the most likely to be the recipient of Cook’s confidence,
and the man who was bound by every consideration of honour, friendship,
and affection to protect him, to vindicate his cause, and to avenge his
death. Yet this was the man for whom Palmer sent, that he might converse
with Cook, receive his confidences, minister to him in his illness, and
even sleep in the same room with him!

How, if Palmer is the murderer they represent him, are you to account
for his summoning Jones to the bedside of the sick man? If Cook really
suspected--which we are assured he did--that Palmer was poisoning him,
Jones was the man to whom he would most willingly have unbosomed
himself, and in whose faithful ear he would have most eagerly
disburdened the perilous stuff that weighed upon his own brain. Palmer
and Jones were both medical men; and it is not improbable that, in the
course of his studies, the latter may have noted in his classbook the
very passages respecting the operation of strychnine which also
attracted the attention of the former. Is it conceivable that if Palmer
meant to slay Cook with poison in the dead of the night he would have
previously ensured the presence, in his victim’s bed-room, of a medical
witness, who would know from the symptoms that the man was not dying a
natural death? He brings a medical man into the room, and makes him lie
within a few inches of the sick man’s bed, that he may hear his terrific
shrieks, and witness those agonising convulsions which indicate the
fatal potency of poison! Can you believe it? He might have despatched
him by means that would have defied detection, for Cook was taking
morphia medicinally, and a grain or two more would have silently thrown
him into an eternal sleep. But, instead of doing so, he sends to
Lutterworth for Jones. You have been told that this was done to cover
appearances. Done to cover appearances! No--no--no! You cannot believe
it. It is not in human nature. It cannot be true. You cannot find him
guilty--you dare not find him guilty on the supposition of its truth.
The country will not stand by you if you believe it to be true. You will
be impeached before the world if you say that it is true. I believe in
my conscience that it is false, and that, consistently with the rules
that govern human nature, it cannot possibly be true. [Sensation and
murmurs of applause.] With respect to the interviews and dialogues that
took place between the prisoner and Mr. Stevens, I contend that, so far
from telling against the former, they are in his favour. There is
nothing but the evidence of a kind and considerate nature in the fact of
his having ordered “a shell and a strong oak coffin” for the deceased;
nor is it possible to torture into a presumption of guilt the few words
of irritation that may have fallen from the prisoner in the course of a
conversation in which Mr. Stevens treated him with scorn, not to say
insolence.

With respect to the betting-book, many persons had access to Cook’s
room--servants, both men and women, undertaker’s men, and barbers; and
though I do not venture to mark out any particular person for suspicion,
any one of them may have purloined the book and been afraid to return
it. It is not fair in a case of this momentous importance to affix the
opprobrium on a man who is not proved to have ever had it in his hand.
The Crown had no doubt originally intended to rely upon the prisoner’s
medical books as affording damning proof of his guilt; but I will refer
to those volumes for evidences that will speak eloquently in his favour.
In youth and early manhood there is no such protection for a man as the
society of an innocent and virtuous woman to whom he is sincerely
attached. If you find a young man devoted to such a woman, loving her
dearly, and marrying her for the love he bears her, you may depend upon
it that he is a man of a humane and gentle nature, little prone to deeds
of violence. To such a woman was Palmer attached in his youth, and I
will bring you proof positive to show that the volumes cited against him
were the books he used when a student, and that the manuscript passages
are in the handwriting of his wife. His was a marriage of the heart. He
loved that young and virtuous woman with a pure and generous affection;
he loved her as he now loves her first-born, who awaits with trembling
anxiety the verdict that will restore him to the arms of his father, or
drive that father to an ignominious death upon the scaffold. [The
prisoner here covered his face with his hands and shed tears.] Here in
this book I have conclusive evidence of the kind of man that Palmer was
seven years ago. I find in its pages the copy of a letter addressed by
him while still a student to the woman whom he afterwards made his wife.
It is as follows:--

     “My dearest Annie,--I snatch a moment from my studies to write to
     your dear, dear little self. I need scarcely say that the principal
     inducement I have to work is the desire of getting my studies
     finished, so as to be able to press your dear little form in my
     arms. With best, best love, believe me, dearest Annie,

Your own WILLIAM.”



Now this is not the sort of letter that is generally read in courts of
justice. It was no part of my instructions to read that letter, but the
book was put in to prove that this man is a wicked, heartless, savage
desperado; and I show you what he was seven years ago--that he was a man
who loved a young woman for her own sake--loved her with a pure and
virtuous affection--such an affection as would, in almost all natures,
be a certain antidote against guilt. Such is the man whom it has been my
duty to defend upon this occasion, and upon the evidence that is before
you I cannot believe him to be guilty. Don’t suppose, gentlemen, that he
is unsupported in this dreadful trial by his family and his friends. An
aged mother, who may have disapproved of some part of his conduct,
awaits with trembling anxiety your verdict; a dear sister can scarcely
support herself under the suspense which now presses upon her; a brave
and gallant brother stands by him to defend him, and spares neither time
nor trouble to save him from an awful doom. I call upon you, gentlemen,
to raise your minds to a capacity to estimate the high duty which you
have to perform. You have to stem the torrent of prejudice; you have to
vindicate the honour and character of your country; you have, with
firmness and courage, to do your duty, and to find a verdict for the
Crown if you believe that guilt is proved; but, if you have a doubt on
that point, depend upon it that the time will come when the innocence of
that man will be made apparent, and then you will deeply regret any want
of due and calm consideration of the case which it has been my duty to
lay before you.

The speech of the learned Serjeant occupied exactly eight hours in its
delivery. There were some slight indications of an attempt to applaud at
its conclusion, but they were instantly repressed.

The Court then adjourned till 10 o’clock next morning.




EIGHTH DAY, MAY 22.


His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge was among the distinguished
persons who were accommodated with seats upon the bench.

The learned Judges, Lord Campbell, Mr. Baron Alderson, and Mr. Justice
Cresswell, took their seats at ten o’clock. The prisoner was at once
placed at the bar. His demeanour was, as on the previous days of his
trial, calm and attentive, but betrayed no additional anxiety.

Immediately after the learned Judges took their seats,

Lord CAMPBELL said: Before the proceedings commence I must express a
most earnest hope that until this trial is concluded the public journals
will continue to abstain from any comments upon the merits of the case,
or upon any part of the evidence. The propriety of this course is so
obvious as to need no explanation. This warning ought to extend to the
insertion of letters as much as to that of editorial articles.

THOMAS NUNNELEY, examined by Mr. GROVE: I am Fellow of the College of
Surgeons, and Professor of Surgery at the Leeds School of Medicine. I am
also a member of several medical and learned societies, foreign and
English, and have been in practice between twenty and thirty years. I
have a large practice, and have seen cases of both traumatic and
idiopathic tetanus. Of the latter disease I have seen four cases. They
did not all commence with lockjaw. One did not commence so, nor did
lockjaw become so marked in it as to prevent swallowing once during the
course of the disease. I have heard the evidence as to the symptoms of
Cook, and had previously read the depositions as to that part of the
case. Judging from those symptoms, I am of opinion that death was caused
by some convulsive disease. I found that opinion upon the symptoms
described in the depositions and the evidence before the Court.

Lord CAMPBELL said that the witness could only be examined as to his
opinion founded upon the _vivâ voce_ evidence before the Court.

Mr. GROVE said that his object was to distinguish between the opinion
founded on the _vivâ voce_ evidence and that founded on the depositions.

Examination continued: From the symptoms described by the witnesses in
court, I am of opinion that death was caused by some convulsive disease.
Looking at Cook’s general state of health--

Mr. Baron ALDERSON: You have nothing to do with that. You must only give
an opinion upon the symptoms described in evidence.

Examination continued by Mr. Serjeant Shee: I have been in court during
the whole of the trial. I have heard the evidence as to the symptoms of
Mr. Cook’s health previous to his final attack at Rugeley, the
description of the actual symptoms during the paroxysms, and the
appearance of the body on the _post-mortem_ examination. Do you remember
the account of the syphilitic sores?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected to this mode of putting the question,
because it was an assumption that these sores existed. A medical man
ought to be asked his opinion on the supposition only that certain
symptoms existed.

Mr. Justice CRESSWELL: Let the witness describe what he assumes to have
been the state of Cook’s health, and you will then see whether he is
justified in his assumption.

Examination continued: I assumed that Cook was a man of very delicate
constitution--that for a long period he had felt himself to be ailing,
for which indisposition he had been under medical treatment; that he had
suffered from syphilis; that he had disease of the lungs; and that he
had old standing disease of the throat; that he led an irregular life;
that he was subject to mental excitement and depression; and that after
death appearances were found in his body which show this to have been
the case. There was an unusual appearance in the stomach. The throat was
in an unnatural condition. The back of the tongue showed similar
indications. The air vessels of the lungs were dilated. In the lining of
the aorta there was an unnatural deposit, and there was a very unusual
appearance in the membranes of the spinal marrow. One of the witnesses
also said that there was a loss of substance from the penis. That scar
on the penis could only have resulted from an ulcer. A chancre is an
ulcer, but an ulcer is not necessarily a chancre. The symptoms at the
root of the tongue and the throat I should ascribe to syphilitic
inflammation of the throat. Supposing these symptoms to be correct, I
should infer that Cook’s health had for a long time not been good, and
that his constitution was delicate. His father and mother died young.
Supposing that to have been his state of health, it would make him
liable to nervous irritation. That might be excited by moral causes. Any
excitement or depression might produce that effect. A person of such
health and constitution would be more susceptible of injurious influence
from wet and cold than would one of stronger constitution. Upon such a
constitution as that which I have assumed Cook’s to have been convulsive
disease is more likely to supervene. I understand that Cook had three
attacks on succeeding nights, occurring about the same hour. As a
medical man, I should infer from this that the attacks were of a
convulsive character. I infer that in the absence of other causes to
account for them. According to my personal experience and knowledge from
the study of my profession, convulsive attacks are as various as
possible in their forms and degrees of violence. It is not possible to
give a definite name to every convulsive symptom. There are some forms
of convulsion in which the patient retains his consciousness. Those are
forms of hysteria, sometimes found in the male sex. It is also stated
that there are forms of epilepsy in which the patient retains
consciousness.

By Lord CAMPBELL: I cannot mention a case in which consciousness has
been retained during the fit. No such case has come under my notice.

Examination continued: I know by reading that that, although rarely,
does sometimes occur. The degree of consciousness in epilepsy varies
very much. In some attacks the consciousness is wholly lost for a long
time. Convulsive attacks are sometimes accompanied by violent spasms and
rigidity of the limbs. Convulsions, properly so called, sometimes assume
a tetanic complexion. I heard the passage from the works of Dr. Copland
read to the Court yesterday. I agree with what he states. Convulsions
arise from almost any cause--from worms in children, affections of the
brain in adults, hysteria, and in some persons the taking of chloroform.
Adults are sometimes attacked by such convulsions. Affections of the
spinal cord or eating indigestible food will produce them. I know no
instance in which convulsions have arisen from retching and vomiting. I
agree with Dr. Copland that these convulsions sometimes end immediately
in death. The immediate proximate cause of death is frequently asphyxia.

By Lord CAMPBELL: Death from a spasm of the heart is often described as
death by asphyxia.

Examination continued: I have seen convulsions recurring. I have seen
that in very various cases. The time at which a patient recovers his
ease after a violent attack of convulsions varies very much. It may be a
few minutes, or it may be hours. From an interval between one convulsion
and another I should infer that the convulsions arise from some slight
irritation in the brain or the spinal cord. When death takes place in
such paroxysms there is sometimes no trace of organic disease to be
found by a _post-mortem_ examination. Granules between the dura mater
and the arachnoid are not common at any age. I should not draw any
particular inference from their appearance. They might or might not lead
to a conjecture as to their cause and effect. I do not form any opinion
upon these points. They might produce an effect upon the spinal cord.
There are three preparations in museums where granules are exhibited in
the spinal cord, in which the patients are said to have died from
tetanus. Those are at St. Thomas’s Hospital. To ascertain the nature and
effect of such granules the spinal cord ought to be examined immediately
after death. Not the most remote opinion could be formed upon an
examination made two months after death, more especially if the brain
had been previously opened. Independently of the appearance of granules,
it would not after that period be possible to form a satisfactory
opinion upon the general condition of the spinal cord.

If there were a large tumour, or some similar change, it might be
exhibited; but neither softening nor induration of the structure could
be perceived. The nervous structure changes within two days of death. To
ascertain minutely its condition, it is necessary to use a lens or
microscope. That is required in an examination made immediately after
death. I have attended cases of traumatic tetanus. That disease commonly
begins with an attack upon the jaw. One of the four cases of idiopathic
tetanus that I have seen was my own child. In three of those cases the
disease began with lockjaw. The fourth case commenced in the body, the
facility of swallowing remaining. I have, within the last twelve months,
made _post-mortem_ examinations of two persons who had died from
strychnia. I did not see the patients before death. In both cases I
ascertained, by chemical analysis, that death had been caused by
strychnia. In both I found the strychnia. In one case--that of a lady
aged 28 years--I made my examination forty-two hours after death, and in
the other thirty hours. In the former case, the body had not been opened
before I commenced my examination. [The witness read a report of this
examination, in which it was stated that the eyelids were partially
open, and the globes flaccid, and the pupils dilated. The muscles of the
trunk were not in the least rigid; indeed, they were so soft, that the
body might be bent in any direction. The muscles at the hip and shoulder
joints were not quite so flaccid, but they allowed these joints to be
easily moved, while those of the head and neck, fore-arms, &c. were
rigid. The fingers were curved, and the feet somewhat arched. All the
muscles, when cut into, were found soft and dark in colour. The
membranes of the liver were exceedingly vascular. The membrane of the
spinal cord was much congested. There was bloody serum in the
pericardium; the lungs were distended, and some of the air-cells were
ruptured. The lining membrane of the trachea and bronchial tubes were
covered with a layer of dark bloody mucus of a dark chocolate colour.
The thoracic vessels and membranes were much congested, and the blood
was everywhere dark and fluid.] After reading this report the witness
continued:--In the second case I made my examination thirty hours after
death. I first saw the body about twelve hours after death. It was a
woman somewhere near twenty years of age. [The witness also read the
report of the examination in this case. The appearances of the body were
substantially similar to those presented in the previous case.] In two
other cases I have seen a patient suffering from over doses of
strychnia. Neither of those cases was fatal. In one case I had
prescribed the twelfth of a grain, and the patient took one-sixth. That
was for a man of middle age. Strychnia had been given in solution. In a
few minutes the symptoms appeared. They were a want of power to control
the muscles, manifested by twitchings, rigidity, and cramp, more violent
in the legs than in any other part of the body. The spasms were not very
violent. They continued six hours before they entirely disappeared.
During that time they were intermittent at various intervals. As the
attack passed off the length of the intervals increased. At first their
length was but a few seconds. The spasms were not combatted by medical
treatment. The other case was a very similar one. The quantity taken was
the same--double what I had prescribed. I have experimented upon upwards
of sixty animals with strychnia. Those animals were dogs, cats, rats,
mice, guinea-pigs, frogs, and toads. The symptoms of the attack in all
animals present great resemblances. Some animals are, however, much more
susceptible of its influence than others are. The period elapsing
between the injection of the poison and the commencement of the symptoms
has been from two minutes to thirty--more generally five or six. I
administered the poison occasionally in solution, but more generally in
its solid state. It was sometimes placed dry upon the back of the
tongue, and some fluid poured down the throat; sometimes it was enclosed
between two portions of meat; sometimes mixed up with butter or suet,
and sometimes rolled up in a small piece of gut. To frogs and toads it
was administered by putting them into a solution of strychnia. I have
also applied it direct to the spinal cord, and in other cases to the
brain. The first symptom has been a desire to be quite still; then
hurried breathing; then slavering at the mouth (when the poison had been
given through that organ); then twitching of the ears, trembling of the
muscles, inability to walk, convulsions of all the muscles of the body,
the jaws being generally firmly closed; the convulsions attended by a
total want of power in the muscles, which, on the least touch, were
thrown into violent spasms, with a galvanic-like shock. Spasms also come
on if the animal voluntarily attempts to move; that is usually the case,
but occasionally the animal is able to move without inducing a
recurrence of the spasms. These spasms recur at various periods, but do
not always increase in violence. The animals die after periods varying
from three hours to three hours and a half. In the cases where the
animals live longest the paroxysms occur at the longest intervals. In
all cases, in the interval before death, the rigidity ceases (I know no
exception to this), and the muscles become quite soft, powerless, and
flaccid. The limbs may be put in any position whatever. There is but
little difference from ordinary cases of convulsive death in the time at
which the _rigor mortis_ comes on.

I have destroyed animals with other poisons, and there is very little
difference between the rigidity in their cases and that in the cases of
death from strychnia. In the two women I have mentioned the _rigor
mortis_ was much less than is usual in cases of death from natural
disease. I have known fatal cases of poisoning animals by strychnia in
which there has between the first and the second paroxysm been an
interval of about half an hour, but that is not common. I have examined
the bodies of upwards of forty animals killed by strychnia. I have
invariably found the heart full on the right side; very generally the
left ventricle firmly contracted, and the blood usually dark, and often
fluid. There is no particular appearance about the spine. I have
experimented with other poison upon upwards of two thousand animals, and
have written upon this subject. It very often happens that in the case
of animals dying suddenly from poisoning the blood is fluid after death.
That also happens in cases of sudden death from other causes. I have
attended to the evidence as to the symptoms exhibited by Cook on the
Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday night. The symptoms on Sunday night I assume
to have been great excitement. Cook described himself as having been
very ill, and in such a state that he considered himself mad for a few
minutes. He stated that the cause of this was a noise in the street.
These symptoms, in the three nights I have mentioned, do not resemble
those which I have seen follow the administration of strychnia. Cook had
more power of voluntary motion than I have observed in animals under the
influence of this poison. He sat up in bed, and moved his hands about
freely, swallowed, talked, and asked to be rubbed and moved, none of
which, if poisoned by strychnia, could he have done. The sudden
accession of the convulsions is another reason for believing that they
were not produced by strychnia. Other reasons for believing that the
convulsions were not produced by strychnia are their sudden accession
without the usual premonitory symptoms, the length of time which had
elapsed between their commencement and the taking of the pills which are
supposed to have contained poison, and the screaming and vomiting. I
never knew an animal which had been poisoned with strychnia to vomit or
scream voluntarily. I apprehend that where there is so much spasm of the
heart there must be inability to vomit. In the cases related in which
attempts were made to produce vomiting they did not succeed. There is
such a case in the 10th volume of the _Journal de Pharmacie_, in which
an emetic was given without success. The symptoms exhibited after death
by animals poisoned by strychnia differ materially from those presented
by the body of Cook. In his case the heart is stated to have been empty
and uncontracted.

Lord CAMPBELL: I do not remember that. I think it was said that it was
contracted.

Mr. Baron ALDERSON: According to my note, Dr. Harland said that the
heart was contracted, and contained no blood.

Examination continued: The lungs were not congested, nor was the brain.
In the case of animals which have recovered, the paroxysms have subsided
gradually. I never knew a severe paroxysm followed by a long interval of
repose. I have experimented upon the discovery of strychnia in the
bodies of animals in various stages of decomposition, from a few hours
after death up to the forty-third day, in which latter case the body was
quite putrid. It has never happened to me to fail to discover the
poison. I have experimented in about fifteen cases.

Supposing a person to have died under the influence of strychnia poison
in the first paroxysm, and his stomach to have been taken out and put
into a jar on the sixth day after death, must strychnia have, by a
proper analysis, been found in the body?--Yes. If the strychnia be pure,
such as is almost invariably found among medical men and druggists, the
test is nitric acid, which gives a red colour, which in a great measure
disappears on the addition of protochloride of tin. If the strychnia be
pure, it does not undergo any change on the addition of sulphuric acid,
but on an addition of a mixture of bichromate of potash, with several
other substances, it produces a beautiful purple, which changes to
varying shades until it gets to be a dirty red. There are several other
tests. In this case the stomach was not, in my opinion, in an
unfavourable condition for examination. The circumstances attending its
position in the jar, and its removal to London, would give a little more
trouble, but would not otherwise effect the result. If the deceased had
died from strychnia poison, it ought to have been found in the liver,
spleen, and kidneys. I have seen this poison found in similar portions
of animals which had been killed by it. I have also seen it found in the
blood; that was by Mr. Herepath, of Bristol.

Could the analyses be defeated or confused by the existence in the
stomach of any other substance which would produce the same
colours?--No. Supposing that pyrozantine and salicine were in the parts
examined, their existence would not defeat the analysis. Pyrozantine is
very unlikely to be found in the stomach. It is one of the rarest and
most difficult to be obtained. The distinction between pyrozantine and
strychnia is quite evident; pyrozantine changes to a deep purple on the
addition of sulphuric acid alone, and the bichromate of potash spoils
the colour. In strychnia no change is produced by sulphuric acid. It
requires the addition of the bichromate to produce the colour.

Supposing the death to have been caused by a dose of strychnia, not more
than sufficient to destroy the animal, would it be so diffused by the
process of absorption that you would not be able by these tests to
detect it in any portion of the system?--No; I believe it would not.

Had that question occupied your attention before you were called upon to
give evidence upon this trial?--It had.

What is your reason for stating that strychnine, when it has done its
work, continues as strychnine in the system?--Those who say that some
change takes place argue that as food undergoes a change when taken into
the body, so does the poison; it becomes decomposed. But the change in
food takes place during digestion; consequently its traces are not found
in the blood. Substances like strychnine are absorbed without digestion,
and may be obtained unchanged from the blood. They may be administered
in various ways.

In your judgment will any amount of putrefaction prevent the discovery
of strychnine?--To say that it is absolutely indestructible would be
absurd, but within ordinary limits, no. I have found it at the end of
forty days.

What is the probable relative rapidity of the action of strychnine in an
empty and a full stomach?--The emptier the stomach the quicker the
action.

Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL.--I am a lecturer on surgery. Mr.
Morley, who was called for the prosecution, is a lecturer on chemistry.
Part (perhaps half) of the experiments on the 60 animals were made by me
and Mr. Morley jointly. There was nothing to distinguish the experiments
which I made alone from those which I made jointly with him. I state the
apparent results of the whole. My experiments were spread over a period
of thirty years. Many of them have been made since the Leeds case. Some
of them were made in reference to this case. I can’t say how many.

Now, don’t put yourself in a state of antagonism to me, but tell me how
many of your experiments were made in reference to this particular
case?--I cannot answer that question. The great bulk certainly were not.
I was first concerned in this case about the time of the death of the
person at Leeds. I was applied to. I was in correspondence with the
attorney for the defence. The details of the Leeds case were forwarded
to him by me, and I called his attention to them. The general dose in
these experiments was from half a grain to two grains. Half a grain is
sufficient to destroy life in the larger animals. I have seen both a dog
and cat die from that dose, but not always. Some animals as a species
are more susceptible than those of a different species, and among
animals of the same species some are more susceptible than others. The
symptoms in the experiments I have mentioned did not appear after so
long a period as an hour. We have had to repeat the dose of poison in
some instances when half a grain has been given. That happened in the
case of a cat. Symptoms of spasm were produced, but the animal did not
die. She had not, however, swallowed the doses. I think I have known
animals of the cat species killed with half a grain.

Have you any doubt about it?--Yes.

Half a grain, then, is the _minimum_ dose which will kill a cat?--I
think it would be the _minimum_ dose in the case of an old strong cat.
If administered in a fluid state I think a smaller dose would suffice.
Harried breathing is one of the first symptoms, afterwards there are
twitching and tremblings of the muscles, then convulsions.

Is there any diversity, as in the intervals and the order of the
symptoms, in animals of the same species?--They certainly don’t occur
after the same intervals of time, but I should say they generally occur
in the order I have described. There is some difference in the periods
at which the convulsions take place. Some animals will die after less
convulsion than others, but an animal generally dies after four or five.
In one or two instances an animal has died after one convulsion. In
those instances a dose has been given equal in amount to another dose
which has not produced the same effect. The order in which the muscles
are convulsed varies to some extent. The muscles of the limbs are
generally affected first. The convulsions generally occur
simultaneously.

Do you know any case of strychnine in which the rigidity after death was
greater than the usual _rigor mortis_?--I think not. I don’t think there
is any peculiar rigidity produced by strychnine.

Have you never found undue rigidity in a human subject after death from
strychnine?--Considerably less.

In the anonymous case to which we have referred were not the hands
curved and the feet arched by muscular contraction?--Not more than is
usual in cases of death from ordinary causes. The limbs were rigid, but
not more than usual.

In face of the medical profession, I ask you whether you signed a report
stating that “the hands were curved and the feet decidedly arched by
muscular contraction,” and whether you meant by those words that there
was no more than the ordinary rigidity of death?--Certainly; I stated so
at the time.

Where? In the report?--No; in conversation. Allow me to explain that a
distinction was drawn between the muscles of the different parts of the
body. I heard Mr. Morley’s evidence with regard to experiments on
animals, and his statement that “after death there was an interval of
flacidity, after which rigidity commenced more than if it had been
occasioned by the usual _rigor mortis_.”

You don’t agree with that statement?--I do not. I generally found the
right side of the heart full.

Does the fact of the heart in Cook’s case having been found empty lead
you to the conclusion that death was not caused by strychnine?--Among
other things it does. I heard the evidence of Dr. Watson as to the case
of Agnes Sennet, in which the heart was found distended and empty; also,
that of Mr. Taylor as to the _post-mortem_ examination of Mrs. Smyth. No
doubt he stated that the heart in that case also was empty.

And do those facts exercise no influence on your judgment?--They would
not unless I knew how the _post-mortem_ examination had been made. If it
was commenced at the head, the blood being fluid, the large drains would
be opened, and the blood, from natural causes, would drain away.

Do you know how the _post-mortem_ examination was made in this
case?--No. Excuse me, I do. The chest and the abdomen, not the head,
were first opened.

The heart, then, was not emptied in the first instance?--No.

Then what occasioned the contraction of the heart?--When the heart is
emptied it is usually contracted.

But how do you account for its contraction and emptiness?--I cannot say
that I am able to account for it.

Lord CAMPBELL: Would the heart contract if there were blood in it?--No.

Lord CAMPBELL: When you find the heart contracted you know, then, that
it was contracted at the moment of death?--It is necessary to draw a
distinction between the two cavities. It is very common to find the left
ventricle contracted and hard, while the right is uncontracted.

Lord CAMPBELL: That is death by asphyxia?--Precisely.

By the ATTORNEY-GENERAL: In Cook’s case the lungs were described as not
congested. Entosthema is of two kinds; one of them consists of dilation
of the cells, the other of a rupture of the cells. When animals die from
strychnine entosthema occurs. I do not know the character of the
entosthema in Cook’s case. It did not occur to me to have the question
put to the witnesses who described the _post-mortem_ examination.

To what constitutional symptoms about Cook do you ascribe the
convulsions from which he died?--Not to any.

Was not the fact of his having syphilis an important ingredient in your
judgment upon his case?--It was. I judge that he died from convulsions
by the combination of symptoms.

What evidence have you to suppose that he was liable to excitement and
depression of spirits?--The fact that after winning the race he could
not speak for three minutes.

Anything else?--Mr. Jones stated that he was subject to mental
depression. Excitement will produce a state of brain which will be
followed, at some distance, by convulsions. I think Dr. Bamford made a
mistake when he said the brain was perfectly healthy.

Do you mean to set up that opinion against that of Dr. Devonshire and
Dr. Harland, who were present at the _post-mortem_?--My opinion is
founded in part upon the evidence taken at the inquest, in part on the
depositions. With the brain and the system in the condition in which
Cook’s were I believe it quite possible for convulsions to come on and
destroy a person. I do not believe that he died from apoplexy. He was
under the influence of morphia. I don’t ascribe his death to morphia,
except that it might assist in producing a convulsive attack. I should
think morphia not very good treatment, considering the state of
excitement he was in.

Do you mean to say, on your oath, that you think he was in a state of
excitement at Rugeley?--I wish to give my evidence honestly. Morphia,
when given in an injured state of the brain, often disagrees with the
patient.

But what evidence have you as to the injured state of the
brain?--Sickness often indicates it. I can’t say whether the attack of
Sunday night was an attack of convulsions. I think that the Sunday
attack was one of a similar character, but not so intense, as the attack
of Tuesday, in which he died. I don’t think he had convulsions on the
Sunday, but he was in that condition which often precedes convulsions. I
think he was mistaken when he stated that he was awoke by a noise. I
believe he was delirious. That is one of the symptoms on which I found
my opinion. Any intestinal irritation will produce convulsions in a
tetanic form. I have known instances in children. I have not seen an
instance in an animal. Medical writers state that such cases do occur. I
know no name for convulsions of that kind.

Have you ever known a case of convulsions of that kind, terminating in
death, in which the patient remained conscious to the last?--I have not.
Where epilepsy terminates in death, consciousness is gone. I have known
four cases of traumatic, and five or six of idiopathic tetanus.

You heard Mr. Jones make this statement of the symptoms of Cook after
the commencement of the paroxysms:--After he swallowed the pills he
uttered loud screams, threw himself back in the bed, and was dreadfully
convulsed. He said, “Raise me up! I shall be suffocated.” The
convulsions affected every muscle of the body, and were accompanied by
stiffening of the limbs. I endeavoured to raise Cook with the assistance
of Palmer, but found it quite impossible, owing to the rigidity of the
limbs. When Cook found we could not raise him up, he asked me to turn
him over. He was then quite sensible. I turned him on to his side. I
listened to the action of his heart. I found that it gradually weakened,
and asked Palmer to fetch some spirits of ammonia to be used as a
stimulant. When he returned the pulsations of the heart were gradually
ceasing, and life was almost extinct. Cook died very quietly a very
short time afterwards. When he threw himself back in bed he clinched his
hands, and they remained clinched after death. When I was rubbing his
neck, his head and neck were unnaturally bent back by the spasmodic
action of the muscles. After death his body was so twisted or bowed,
that if I had placed it upon its back it would have rested upon the head
and the feet.--Now, I ask you to distinguish in any one particular
between those symptoms and the symptoms of tetanic convulsions?--It is
not tetanus at all; not idiopathic tetanus.

I quite agree with you that it is not idiopathic tetanus, but point out
any distinction that you can see between these symptoms and those of
real tetanus?--I do not know that there is any distinction, except that
in a case of tetanus I never saw rigidity continue till death and
afterwards.

Can you tell me of any case of death from convulsions in which the
patient was conscious to the last?--I do not know of any; convulsions
occurring after poison has been taken are properly called tetanic.

We were told by Sir B. Brodie that while the paroxysms of tetanic
convulsion last there is no difference between those which arise from
strychnine and those which arise from tetanus properly so called, but
the difference was in the course the symptoms took. Now, what do you say
is the difference between tetanus arising from strychnine and ordinary
tetanus?--The hands are less violently contracted; the effect of the
spasm is less in ordinary tetanus. The convulsion, too, never entirely
passes away. I have stated that tetanus is a disease of days, strychnine
of hours and minutes; that convulsive twitchings are in strychnine the
first symptoms, the last in tetanus; that in tetanus the hands, feet,
and legs are usually the last affected, while in strychnine they are the
first. I gave that opinion after the symptoms in the case of the lady at
Leeds, which were described by the witness Witham, and I still adhere to
it. I never said that Cook’s case was one of idiopathic tetanus. I do
not think it was a case of tetanus in any sense of the word. It differed
from the course of tetanus from strychnine in the particulars I have
already mentioned.

Repeat them: There was the sudden accession of the convulsions.

Sudden--after what?--After the rousing by Jones. There was also the
power of talking.

Don’t you know that Mrs. Smyth talked and retained her consciousness to
the end; that her last words were “turn me over?”--She did say something
of that kind. No doubt those were the words she used. I believe that in
poison from tetanus the symptoms are first observed in the legs and
feet. In the animals upon which I have experimented twitchings in the
ears and difficulty of breathing having been the premonitory symptoms.

When Cook felt a stiffness and a difficulty of breathing, and said that
he should be suffocated on the first night, what were those but
premonitory symptoms?--Well, he asked to be rubbed; but, as far as my
experience goes with regard to animals--

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: They can’t ask to have their ears rubbed, of
course. (A laugh.)

Mr. Serjeant SHEE said the witness was about to explain the effect of
being rubbed upon the animals.

Cross-examined continued: In no single instance could the animals bear
to be touched.

Did not Mrs. Smyth ask to have her legs and arms rubbed?--In the Leeds
case the lady asked to be rubbed before the convulsions came on, but
afterwards she could not bear it, and begged that she might not be
touched.

Can you point out any one point, after the premonitory symptoms, in
which the symptoms in this case differ from those of strychnine
tetanus?--There is the power of swallowing, which is taken away by
inability to move the jaw.

But have you not stated that lockjaw is the last symptom that occurs in
strychnine tetanus?--I have. I don’t deny that it may be. I am speaking
of the general rule. In the Leeds case it came on very early, more than
two hours before death, the paroxysms having continued about two hours
and a half. In that case we believed that the dose was four times
repeated. Poison might probably be extracted by chemical process from
the tissues, but I never tried it, except in one case of an animal. I am
not sure whether poison was in that case given through the mouth. We
killed four animals in reference to the Leeds case, and in every
instance we found strychnine in the contents of the stomach. In one case
we administered it by two processes, and one failed and the other
succeeded.

Re-examined: In making reports upon cases such as that which has been
referred to, we state ordinary appearances; we state the facts without
anything more.

Mr. WILLIAM HERAPATH, examined by Mr. GROVE, Q.C.: I am a Professor of
Chemistry and Toxicology at the Bristol Medical School. I have studied
chemistry for more than forty years, and toxicology for thirty. I have
experimented on the poison of strychnine. I have seen no case of a human
subject during life, but I have examined a human body after death. In
one case I examined the contents of the stomach and I found strychnine
about three days after death. There are several tests--sulphuric acid
and bichromate of potash, sulphuric acid and puce- oxide of
lead, sulphuric acid and peroxide of lead, sulphuric acid and peroxide
of manganese, &c. The lower oxides of lead would not succeed. These are
all colour tests, and produce a purple colour, passing to red. Another
class of tests give a different colour with impure, but not with pure,
strychnia. The process used previous to these tests is for the purpose
of producing strychnia. I obtained evidence of strychnia by the colour
tests in the case I have mentioned. I have experimented upon animals
with regard to strychnine in eight or nine cases. I have analysed the
bodies in two cases in which I destroyed the animals myself. Both of
them were cats. I gave the first one grain of strychnia in a solid form.
The animal took the poison at night, and I found it dead in the morning.
It was dreadfully contorted and rigid, the limbs extended, the head
turned round--not to the back, but to the side--the eyes protruding and
staring, the iris expanded so as to be almost invisible. I found
strychnine in the urine which had been ejected, and also in the stomach,
by the tests I have mentioned. I administered the same quantity of
strychnine in a solid form to another cat. It remained very quiet for 15
or 16 minutes, but seemed a little restless in its eyes and in
breathing. In 35 minutes it had a terrible spasm, the extremities and
the head being drawn together, and the feet extended. I watched it for
three hours. The first spasm lasted a minute or two. The saliva dripped
from its mouth, and it forcibly ejected its urine. It had a second spasm
a few minutes afterwards. It soon recovered and remained still, with the
exception of a trembling all over. It continued in that state for three
hours. During nearly two hours and a half it was in a very peculiar
state; it appeared to be electrified all through; blowing upon it or
touching the basket in which it was placed produced a kind of electric
jump like a galvanic shock. I left it in three hours, thinking it would
recover, but in the morning I found it dead, in the same indurated and
contorted condition as the former animal. I examined the body 36 hours
after death, and found strychnia in the urine, in the stomach and upper
intestine, in the liver, and in the blood of the heart. I have
discovered strychnia in all other cases by the same tests, but I took
extraordinary means to get rid of organic matter. In all cases in which
strychnia has been given I have been able to find it, and not only
strychnia, but also the nux vomica from which it is taken. I have found
nux vomica in a fox and in other animals. The detection of nux vomica is
more complicated than that of strychnia. In one case the animal had been
buried two months. I have experimented with strychnia not in a body, but
mixed purposely with organic putrefying matter. I have found it in all
cases, whatever was the state of decomposition of the matter.

Are you of opinion that where strychnia has been taken in a sufficient
dose to poison it can and ought to be discovered?--Yes; unless the body
has been completely decomposed; that is, unless decomposition has
reduced it to a dry powder. I am of opinion from the accounts given by
Dr. Taylor and the other witnesses, that if it had existed in the body
of Cook it ought to have been discovered. I am aware of no cause for
error in the analyses, if the organic matter had been properly got rid
of. The experiments I have mentioned were made in Bristol. I have made
experiments in London, and found strychnia in the stomach, liver, and
blood of an animal.

Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I don’t profess to be a
physiologist. I have principally experimented on the stomach until
lately. I tried my chemical process on the 8th of this month with a view
to the present case. The experiment here was on a dog. I experimented on
the tissues of a cat at Bristol, and of a dog in London. I found
strychnia in the blood, the heart, and the urine of the cat, besides the
stomach. One grain was given to the dog. It was a large dog. I have seen
a cat killed with a quarter of a grain. I have said that Dr. Taylor
ought to have found strychnia.

Have you not said that you had no doubt strychnia had been taken, but
that Dr. Taylor had not gone the right way to find it?--I may have said
so. I had a strong opinion from reading various newspaper reports--among
others the _Illustrated Times_,--that strychnia had been given. I have
expressed that opinion, no doubt, freely. People have talked a great
deal to me about the matter, and I can’t recollect every word I have
said, but that was my general opinion.

Re-examined by Mr. GROVE: What is the smallest quantity of strychnia
that your process is capable of detecting?--I am perfectly sure I could
detect the 50,000th part of a grain if it was unmixed with organic
matter. If I put 10 grains in a gallon or 70,000 grains of water I could
discover its presence in the 10th part of a grain of that water. It is
more difficult to detect when mixed with organic matter. If a person had
taken a grain a very small quantity would be found in the heart, but no
doubt it could be found. I made four experiments with a large dog to
which I had given the eighth part of a grain. I have discovered it by
change of colour in the 32d part of the liver of a dog.

Mr. GROVE said he believed his Lordship was of opinion that experiments
could not be shown.

Lord CAMPBELL: We have intimated that that is our clear opinion.

Mr. ROGERS, examined by Mr. GRAY: I am Professor of Chemistry at St.
George’s School of Medicine, in London. I have made experiments upon one
animal (a dog) poisoned by strychnia. The experiments commenced at the
close of last December, and ended about ten days since. I gave it two
grains of pure strychnia in meat. Three days after death I removed the
stomach and contents, and some of the blood. The blood became putrid in
about 10 days, and I then analysed it with a view to find strychnine. I
separated the strychnine by colour tests. I cannot say how much it was
by weight. In a month or five weeks, when the matter had putrefied, I
analysed the stomach and its contents. I treated it with acidulated
distilled water, and succeeded in discovering strychnia in large
quantities about 10 days ago. I never analysed a human subject with a
view to find strychnia, but I have many times done so to find other
poisons. Strychnia must unquestionably have been discovered in this case
if it had been present and the proper tests had been used.

Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I have only made one experiment.
If the contents of the stomach were lost it would make a difference, but
not if they were only shaken up. The operation would then be more
difficult. I am a medical man. I did not analyse the tissues of the body
of the dog. If I had tried the tissues of Cook’s body it might have been
found if it was there, notwithstanding the time that had elapsed since
he died. I don’t say that the time would prevent its discovery if there.

Re-examined by Mr. GRAY: If strychnia were in the stomach a portion
would probably be smeared over the mucous membrane, and then I should
expect to find it on the surface.

Dr. HENRY LETHEBY, examined by Mr. KENEALY: I am a Bachelor of Medicine,
Professor of Chemistry and Toxicology in the London Hospital of
Medicine, and Medical Officer of Health to the City of London. I have
been engaged for a considerable time in the study of poisons and their
action on the living animal economy. I have also been frequently engaged
on behalf of the Crown in prosecutions in cases of this nature during
the last 14 years. I have been present during the examination of the
medical witnesses, and have attended to the evidence as to the symptoms
which have been described as attending the death of Cook. I have
witnessed many cases of animals poisoned by strychnine, and many cases
of poisoning by nux vomica in the human body, one of which was fatal.
The symptoms described in this case do not accord with the symptoms I
have witnessed in the case of those animals. They differ in this
respect:--In the first place I never witnessed the long interval between
the administration of the poison and the commencement of the symptoms
which is said to have elapsed in this case. The longest interval I have
known has been three-quarters of an hour, and then the poison was
administered under most disadvantageous circumstances. It was given on a
very full stomach and in a form uneasy of solution. I have seen the
symptoms begin in five minutes. The average time in which they begin is
a quarter of an hour. In all cases I have seen the system has been in
that irritable state that the very lightest excitement, such as an
effort to move, a touch, a noise, a breath of air, would send the
patient off in convulsions. It is not at all probable that a person,
after taking strychnia, could pull a bell violently. Any movement would
excite the nervous system, and bring on spasms. It is not likely that a
person in that state could bear to have his neck rubbed. When a case of
strychnia does not end fatally, the first paroxysm is succeeded by
others, gradually shaded off, the paroxysms becoming less violent every
time, and I agree with Dr. Christison that they would subside in 12 or
16 hours. I have no hesitation in saying that strychnine is of all
poisons, either mineral or vegetable, the most easy of detection. I have
detected it in the stomach of animals in numerous instances, also in the
blood and in the tissues. The longest period after death in which I have
detected it is about a month. The animal was then in a state of
decomposition. I have detected very minute portions of strychnia. When
it is pure the 20,000th part of a grain can be detected. I can detect
the tenth part of a grain, most easily in a pint of any liquid, whether
pure or putrid. I gave one animal half a grain, and I have the strychnia
here now within a very small trifle. I never failed to detect strychnine
where it had been administered. I have made _post-mortem_ examinations
on various animals killed by it. I have always found the right side of
the heart full. The reason is that the death takes place from the fixing
of the muscles of the chest by spasms, so that the blood is unable to
pass through the lungs, and the heart cannot relieve itself from the
blood flowing to it, but therefore becomes gorged. The lungs are
congested and filled with blood. I have administered strychnia in a
liquid and a solid form; I agree with Dr. Taylor that it may kill in 6
or 11 minutes when taken in a solid state in the form of a pill or
bolus. I also agree with him that the first symptom is that the animal
falls on its side, the jaws are spasmodically closed, and the slightest
touch produces another paroxysm. But I do not agree with him that the
colouring tests are fallacious. I do not agree that it is changed when
it is absorbed into the blood, but I agree with its absorption. I think
it is not changed when the body is decomposed. The shaking about of the
contents of the stomach with the intestines in a jar would not prevent
the discovery of strychnia if it had been administered. Even if the
contents of the stomach were lost the mucous membrane would, in the
ordinary course of things, exhibit traces of strychnia. I have studied
the poison of antimony. If a quantity had been introduced into brandy
and water, and swallowed at a gulp, the effect would not be to burn the
throat. Antimony does not possess any such quality as that of immediate
burning. I have turned my attention to the subject of poison for 17 or
18 years.

Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am not a member of the College
of Physicians or of Surgeons. I do not now practise. I have been in
general practice for two or three years. I gave evidence in the last
case of this sort, tried in this court in 1851. I gave evidence of the
presence of arsenic. The woman was convicted. I stated that it had been
administered within four hours of death. I was the cause of her being
respited, and the sentence was not carried into effect, in consequence
of a letter I wrote to the Home Office. Other scientific gentlemen
interfered, and challenged the soundness of my conclusions before I
wrote that letter. I have not since been employed by the Crown.

By Mr. Justice CRESSWELL: I was present at the trial. I perfectly
remember it.

Cross-examination continued: I detected the poison. I said in my letter
that I could not speak as to possibilities, but merely as to
probabilities. I have experimented on animals for a great number of
years: on five recently. I have never given more than a grain, and it
has always been in a solid form--in pills or bread. In the case where
poison was administered under disadvantageous circumstances, it was
kneaded up into a hard mass of bread.

Mr. Baron ALDERSON: Did the animal bolt it or bite it?

Witness: I opened the mouth and put it into the throat. About half an
hour elapsed before the symptoms appeared in one case in which half a
grain had been given. In another case death took place within 13
minutes. I have noticed twitching of the ears, difficulty of breathing,
and other premonitory symptoms. There are little variations in the order
in which the symptoms occur. I have known frequent instances in which an
animal has died in the first paroxysm. I heard the evidence of Mrs.
Smyth’s death, and I was surprised at her having got out of bed when the
servant answered the bell. It is not consistent with the cases I have
seen. That fact does not shake my opinion. I have no doubt that Mrs.
Smyth died from strychnine. Cook’s sitting up in the bed and asking
Jones to ring the bell is inconsistent with what I have observed in
strychnine cases.

If a man’s breath is hurried, is it not natural for him to sit up?--It
is. I have seen cases of recovery of human subjects after taking
strychnine. There is a great uniformity in its effects; that is, in
their main features, but there is a small variation as to the time in
which they are produced.

What do you attribute Cook’s death to?--It is irreconcilable with
everything with which I am acquainted.

Is it reconcileable with any known disease you have ever seen or heard
of?--No.

Re-examined by Mr. Serjeant SHEE: We are learning new facts every day,
and I do not at present conceive it to be impossible that some
peculiarity of the spinal cord, unrecognizable at the examination after
death, may have produced symptoms like those which have been described.
I, of course, include strychnia in my answer, but it is irreconcileable
with everything I have seen or heard of. It is as irreconcileable with
strychnia as with everything else; it is irreconcileable with every
disease that I am acquainted with, natural or artificial. Touching an
animal during the premonitory symptoms will bring on a paroxysm.
Vomiting is inconsistent with strychnia. The Romsey case was an
exceptional one, from the quantity of the dose. The ringing of the bell
would have produced a paroxysm. I am still of opinion that the evidence
I gave on the trial in 1851 is correct. I am not aware that there is any
ground for an imputation upon me in respect of that evidence. I have no
reason to think Government was dissatisfied with me. I have since been
employed in Crown prosecutions. After that case Dr. Pereira came to my
laboratory and asked me, as an act of mercy, to write a letter to him to
show to the Home-office, admitting the possibility of the poison which I
found in the stomach having been administered longer than four hours
before death. I wrote the letter, drawing a distinction between what was
possible and probable, and the woman was transported for life.

Mr. R. E. GAY, examined by Mr. Serjeant SHEE: I am a member of the Royal
College of Surgeons. I attended a person named Forster for tetanus in
October, 1855. He had sore throat, muscular pains in the neck, and in
the upper portion of the cervical vertebræ. He was feverish, and had
symptoms ordinarily attending catarrh. I put him under the usual
treatment for catarrh, and used embrocations externally to the muscles
of the neck and throat, and also gargles. About the fourth day of my
attendance the muscular pains extended to the face, difficulty of
swallowing came on, the pains in the cervical vertebræ increased, also
those of the muscles of the face, particularly the lower jaw. In the
evening of the same day the jaw became completely locked, the pains came
on in the muscles of the bowels, the legs, and the arms. He became very
much convulsed throughout the entire muscular system, had frequent
involuntary contractions of the arms, and hands, and legs, his
difficulty of swallowing increased, and not a particle of food, solid or
liquid, could be introduced into the mouth. Attempting to swallow the
smallest portions brought on violent convulsions; so strong were they
throughout the system that I could compare him to nothing but a piece of
warped board. The head was thrown back, the abdomen thrust forward, and
the legs frequently drawn up and contracted; the attempt to feed with a
spoon, the opening of a window, or placing the fingers on the pulse
brought on violent convulsions. While the patient was suffering in this
manner he continually complained of great hunger, and repeatedly
exclaimed that he was hungry, and could not eat. He was kept alive to
the fourteenth day entirely by injections of a milky and farinaceous
character. He screamed repeatedly, and the noises that he made were more
like those of a wild man than anything else. On the twelfth day he
became insensible, and continued in that state until he died, which was
in the fourteenth day from the commencement of the attack of lockjaw.
The man was an omnibus driver, and when I first attended him he had been
suffering from sore throat for several days. There was no hurt or injury
of any kind about his person that would account for the symptoms I have
mentioned. His body was not opened after death, because it was
considered unnecessary. I consider his disease was inflammatory sore
throat from cold and exposure to the weather, and that the disease
assumed a tetanic form on account of the patient being a very nervous,
excited, and anxious person. His condition in life was that of an
omnibus conductor. He was a hardworking man, and had a large family
dependent upon him, and this, no doubt, acting upon his peculiar
temperament, tended to produce tetanic symptoms. The witness, in
conclusion, said he had not heard all the evidence in this case, but he
thought it right to communicate to the prisoner’s solicitor the
particulars of the case to which he had now referred, as he considered
it had an important bearing upon the charge against the prisoner.

Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The case I have mentioned was
undoubtedly one of idiopathic tetanus. It is the only one of the kind I
ever had to deal with. It arose from exposure to cold acting upon a
nervous and irritable temperament. I have a good many patients who are
nervous and irritable, but I never met with such another case. The
disease was altogether progressive from the first onset, and, although
for a short time there was a remission of the symptoms, they invariably
recurred. The locking of the jaw was one of the very first symptoms that
made their appearance.

Serjeant SHEE then addressed the Court, and said that the next witness
he proposed to call would occupy some time in examination, and, as it
was now nearly 6 o’clock, he suggested that it would be better to
adjourn the examination to the next day.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said he had no objection to the course proposed
by the learned Serjeant, and he then inquired of him how much time the
case for the defence was likely to occupy.

Serjeant SHEE said he hoped to conclude the defence to-morrow; and he
should endeavour to do so if he possibly could.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said there was no desire to hurry him. It was
most essential in so important an inquiry that the most ample
opportunity should be allowed for a full and satisfactory investigation.

The Court then adjourned till the following morning, at 10 o’clock.




NINTH DAY, MAY 23.


There was as great a crowd as usual in court this morning, long before
the commencement of the proceedings.

The Duke of Wellington, the Earl of Albemarle, Lord Donoughmore, Lord
Dufferin, Lord Feversham, Sir J. Pakington, Mr. Harcourt Vernon, General
Peel, Mr. Tollemache, Mr. S. Warren, and other Members of Parliament,
were present.

The learned Judges, Lord Campbell, Mr. Baron Alderson, and Mr. Justice
Cresswell, took their seats upon the bench at about ten o’clock, and,
the prisoner having been placed at the bar, the examination of witnesses
for the defence was resumed. No alteration has taken place in the
prisoner’s demeanour.

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.

Mr. J. B. ROSS, examined by Mr. GROVE: I am house-surgeon to the London
Hospital. I recollect a case of tetanus being brought into the hospital
on the 22d of March last. A man, aged thirty-seven, was brought in about
half-past seven o’clock in the evening. He had had one paroxysm in the
receiving-room; his pulse was rapid and feeble, his jaws were closed and
fixed, there was an expression of anxiety about the countenance, the
features were sunken, he was unable to swallow, and the muscles of the
abdomen and the back were somewhat tense. After he had been in the ward
about ten minutes he had another paroxysm, and his body became arched;
it lasted about a minute. He was afterwards quieter for a few minutes,
and then had another attack and died. The whole lasted about half an
hour. There was an inquest held on the body. It was examined, and no
poison was found. I think tetanus was the cause of death. There were
three wounds on the body, two at the back of the right elbow, each about
the size of a shilling, and one on the left elbow, about the size of a
sixpence. The man had had those wounds for twelve or sixteen years. They
were old chronic indurated ulcers, circular in outline, the edges
thickened and rounded, and covered with a white coating, without any
granulation. I am unable to say what was the origin of those ulcers, but
I have seen other wounds like them. I have seen old chronic syphilitic
wounds like them in other places. Those wounds were the only things
which would account for tetanus.

Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL.--I ascertained that poultices
had been applied to the wounds a day or two before, but I am not certain
as to the exact time. The man’s wife had objected to their application.
They were made of linseed meal. The man’s jaws were fixed so as to
render him perfectly incapable of swallowing anything. He said he had
first been taken with symptoms of lockjaw at eleven o’clock--as he told
me, at dinner,--but, as he told my colleague, at breakfast. He was able
to speak, but could not open the jaw. That is a symptom of tetanus.
There were symptoms of rigidity about the abdominal and lumbar muscles.
He did not say how long he had felt that rigidity. I gathered that some
other medical man, a surgeon, had seen him in the afternoon before he
came to the hospital, but I am not certain as to that; he was a
labouring man.

Have you any doubt that the disease had been coming on since the
morning?--No doubt at all. The sores were ugly sores of a chronic
character--ulcers. There was an integument which connected the two on
the right arm, so that they would be likely to run into one another. The
wounds continued under the skin, and there were no signs of healing.
They had the appearance of old neglected sores. They were at the seat of
the ulnar nerve--a very sensitive nerve,--that which is commonly called
the “funny-bone.” I believe he had successive paroxysms all the
afternoon before he came to the hospital. I think his attack arose from
tetanus. My opinion is founded upon the facts that he had had wounds,
that he had died of spasms, that he had lockjaw, that the muscles of the
abdomen and back were rigid, and that he complained of pain in the
stomach. I did not hear the account of the symptoms of Cook’s death. An
affection of the ulnar nerve was peculiarly liable to produce tetanus.

Re-examined by Mr. GROVE.--Strychnine was suspected in that case. The
nerves of the tongue are very delicate, as are also those of the throat
and fauces. I have read descriptions of tetanus in the books. The case
described by Mr. Gay was idiopathic, having been caused by a cold. An
injury to any delicate nerve would decidedly be a cause of tetanus.

Mr. RYNERS MANTELL, examined by Mr. GRAY.--I am a house-surgeon at the
London Hospital. I saw the case mentioned by Mr. Ross, and his statement
with respect to the symptoms is correct. In my judgment, the disease of
which the patient died was tetanus, produced by the sores on the arms.

Dr. WRIGHTSON, examined by Mr. KENEALY: I was a pupil of Liebig, at
Giessen. I am a teacher of chemistry in a school in Birmingham. I have
studied the nature and acquired a knowledge of poisons, and I have been
engaged by the Crown in the detection of poison in a prosecution. I have
experimented upon strychnia. I have found no extraordinary difficulties
in the detection of strychnia. It is certainly to be detected by the
usual tests. I have tested and discovered it both pure and mixed with
impure matter after decomposition has set in. I have detected it in a
mixture of bile, bilious matter, and putrifying blood. Strychnia can be
discovered in the tissues. I have discovered it in the viscera of a cat,
in the blood of one dog, and in the urine of another dog, both of them
having been poisoned by strychnia. I am of opinion that strychnia does
not undergo decomposition in the act of poisoning or in entering into
the circulation. If it underwent such a change, if it were decomposed, I
should say it would not be possible to discover it in the tissues; it
might possibly be changed into a substance, in which, however, it would
still be detectable. It can be discovered in extremely minute quantities
indeed. When I detected it in the blood of a dog, I had given the animal
two grains. To the second dog I gave one grain, and I detected it in the
urine. Half a grain was intended to have been given to the cat, but a
considerable portion of it was lost. Assuming that a man was poisoned by
strychnine, and if his stomach were sent to me for analyzation within
five or six days after death, I have no doubt that I should find it
generally. If a man had been poisoned by strychnine, I should certainly
expect to detect it.

Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Supposing that the whole dose
were absorbed into the system, where would you expect to find it?--In
the blood.

Does it pass from the blood into the solids of the body?--It does; or, I
should rather say, it is left in the solids of the body. In its progress
towards its final destination, the destruction of life, it passes from
the blood, or is left by the blood in the solid tissues of the body.

If it be present in the stomach, you find it in the stomach; if it be
present in the blood, you find it in the blood; if it be left by the
blood in the tissues, you find it in the tissues?--Precisely so.

Suppose the whole had been absorbed?--Then I would not undertake to find
it.

Suppose the whole had been eliminated from the blood, and had passed
into the urine, should you expect to find any in the blood?--Certainly
not.

Suppose that the _minimum_ dose which will destroy life had been taken,
and absorbed into the circulation, then deposited in the tissues, and
then a part of it eliminated by the action of the kidneys, where should
you search for it?--In the blood, in the tissues, and in the ejections;
and I would undertake to discover it in each of them.

Re-examined by Mr. Serjeant SHEE: Suppose you knew a man to have been
killed by strychnia, administered to him one and a-half hours before he
died, in your judgment would that strychnia certainly be detected in the
stomach in the first instance?--Yes.

Suppose it to have been administered in the shape of pills, and
completely absorbed and got out of the stomach, would it still be
found?--I can’t tell. If it were found, it would be in the liver and
kidneys.

Could it be detected, under those circumstances, in the coats of the
stomach?--Not knowing the dose administered, and the power of
absorption, I cannot say that it could certainly be detected, but
probably it could.

When death has taken place after one paroxysm, and an hour and a half
after ingestion of the poison, can you form an opinion as to whether the
dose was considerable or inconsiderable?--I cannot.

Mr. Baron ALDERSON: How do you suppose strychnine acts when taken into
the stomach?--I cannot form an opinion.

Mr. Baron ALDERSON: It goes, I suppose, from the stomach to the blood,
and from the blood somewhere else, and, arriving at that somewhere else,
it kills.

Lord CAMPBELL: I cannot allow this witness to leave the box without
expressing my high approbation of the manner in which he has given his
evidence.

Mr. Serjeant SHEE requested to be allowed to ask the witness whether a
strong dose was likely to pass through all the stages his lordship had
mentioned.

Mr. Baron ALDERSON: That depends on where the killing takes place.

Professor PARTRIDGE, examined by Mr. GROVE: I have been many years in
extensive practice as a surgeon, and I am a Professor of Anatomy in
King’s College. I have heard the evidence as to Cook’s symptoms and
_post-mortem_, examination. I have heard the statements as to the
granules that were found on his spine. They would be likely to cause
inflammation, and no doubt that inflammation would have been discovered
if the spinal cord or its membranes had been examined shortly after
death. It would not be likely to be discovered if the spinal cord was
not examined until nine weeks after death. I have not seen cases in
which this inflammation has produced tetanic form of convulsions, but
such cases are on record. It sometimes does, and sometimes does not,
produce convulsions and death.

Can you form any judgment as to the cause of death in Cook’s case?--I
cannot. No conclusion or inference can be drawn from the degree or kind
of the contractions of the body after death.

Lord CAMPBELL: Can you not say, from the symptoms you heard, whether
death was produced by tetanus, without saying what was the cause of
tetanus?

Witness: Hypothetically I should infer that he died of the form of
tetanus which convulses the muscles. Great varieties of rigidity arise
after death from natural causes. The half-bent hands and fingers are not
uncommon after natural death. The arching of the feet, in this case,
seemed to me rather greater than usual.

Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Granules are sometimes, but not
commonly, found about the spine of a healthy subject--not on the cord
itself; they may exist consistently with health. No satisfactory cases
of the inflammation I have described have come under my notice without
producing convulsions. It is a very rare disease. I cannot state from
the recorded cases the course of the symptoms of that disease. It varies
in duration, sometimes lasting only for days, sometimes much longer. If
the patient lives, it is accompanied with paralysis. It produces no
effect upon the brain which is recognisable after death. It would not
affect the brain prior to death. I do not know whether it is attended
with loss of sensibility before death. The size of the granules which
will produce it varies. This disease is not a matter of months, unless
it terminates in palsy. I never heard of a case in which the patient
died after a single convulsion. Between the intervals of the convulsions
I don’t believe a man could have twenty-four hours’ repose. Pain and
spasms would accompany the convulsions. I cannot form a judgment as to
whether the general health would be affected in the intervals between
them.

You have heard it stated, that from the midnight of Monday till Tuesday
Cook had complete repose. Now, I ask you, in the face of the medical
profession, whether you think the symptoms which have been described
proceeded from that disease?--I should think not.

Did you ever know the hands completely clinched after death except in
case of tetanus?--No.

Have you ever known it even in idiopathic or traumatic tetanus?--I have
never seen idiopathic tetanus. I have seen the hands completely clinched
in traumatic tetanus. A great deal of force is often required to
separate them.

Have you ever known the foot so distorted as to assume the form of a
club foot?--No.

You heard Mr. Jones state that if he had turned the body upon the back
it would have rested on the head and the heels. Have you any doubt that
that is an indication of death from tetanus?--No; it is a form of
tetanic spasm. I am only acquainted with tetanus resulting from
strychnine by reading. Some of the symptoms in Cook’s case are
consistent, some are inconsistent, with strychnine tetanus. The first
inconsistent symptom is the intervals that occurred between the taking
of the supposed poison and the attacks.

Are not symptoms of bending of the body, difficulty of respiration,
convulsions in the throat, legs, and arms, perfectly consistent with
what you know of the symptoms of death from strychnine?--Perfectly
consistent. I have known cases of traumatic tetanus. The symptoms in
those cases had been occasionally remitted, never wholly terminated. I
never knew traumatic tetanus run its course to death in less than three
or four days. I never knew a complete case of the operation of
strychnine upon a human subject.

Bearing in mind the distinction between traumatic and idiopathic
tetanus, did you ever know of such a death as that of Cook according to
the symptoms you have heard described?--No.

Re-examined by Mr. GROVE: Besides the symptom which I have mentioned as
being inconsistent with the theory of death by strychnine, there are
others--namely, sickness, beating the bed clothes, want of
sensitiveness to external impressions, and sudden cessation of the
convulsions and apparent complete recovery. There was apparently an
absence of the usual muscular agitation. Symptoms of convulsive
character arising from an injury to the spine vary considerably in their
degrees of violence, in their periods of intermission, and in the
muscles which are attacked. Intermission of the disease occurs, but is
not frequent, in traumatic tetanus. I don’t remember that death has ever
taken place in fifteen hours; it may take place in forty-eight hours
during convulsions. Granules about the spine are more unusual in young
people than in old. I don’t know of any case in which the spine can
preserve its integrity, so as to be properly examined, for a period of
nine weeks. I should not feel justified in inferring that there was no
disease from not finding any at the end of that time. The period of
decomposition varies from a few hours to a few days. It is not in the
least probable that it could be delayed for nine weeks.

By the ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Supposing the stomach were acted on by other
causes, I do not think sickness would be inconsistent with tetanus.

JOHN GAY, examined by Mr. GRAY: I am a Fellow of the Royal College of
Surgeons, and I have been a surgeon to the Royal Free Hospital. A case
of traumatic tetanus in a boy came under my observation in that hospital
in 1843. The patient was brought in during the time he was ill. He was
brought on the 28th of July and died on the 2nd of August. He had met
with an accident a week before. During the first three days he had
paroxysms of unusual severity. His mother complained that he could not
open his mouth, and he complained of stiff neck. During the night he
started up and was convulsed. On the following night he was again
convulsed. At times the abdominal muscles, as well as those of the legs
and back, were rigid; the muscles of the face were also in a state of
great contraction. On the following (third) day he was in the same
state. At two o’clock there was much less rigidity of the muscles,
especially those of the abdomen and back. On the following morning the
muscular rigidity had gone, he opened his mouth and was able to talk; he
was thoroughly relieved. He had no return of spasms till half-past five
the following day. He then asked the nurse to change his linen, and as
she lifted him up in the bed to do so violent convulsions of the arms
and face came on, and he died in a few minutes. About thirty hours
elapsed between the preceding convulsion and the one which terminated
his life. Before the paroxysm came on the rigidity had been completely
relaxed. I had given the patient tartar emetic (containing antimony) in
order to produce vomiting on the second day; it produced no effect. I
gave a larger dose on the third day, which also produced no effect. I
gave no more after the third day.

Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL.--The accident which had happened
to him was that a large stone had fallen upon the middle toe of the left
foot, and completely smashed it. The wound had become very unhealthy. I
amputated the toe. The mouth was almost closed up when I first saw him.
The jaw remained closed until the 1st of August, but I could manage to
get a small quantity of tartar emetic into the mouth. The convulsions
were intermitted during the day, but the muscles of the body, chest,
abdomen, back, and neck, were all rigid, and continued so for the two
days on which I administered tartar emetic. Rigidity of the muscles of
the chest and stomach would no doubt go far to prevent vomiting. The
symptoms began to abate on the morning of the 1st of August (the fourth
day), and gradually subsided until the rigidity entirely wore off. I
then thought he was going to get well. The wound might have been rubbed
against the bed when he was raised, but I don’t think it probable. Some
peculiar irritation of the nerves would give rise to the affection of
the spinal cord. No doubt the death took place in consequence of
something produced by the injury to the toe.

Re-examined by Mr. GRAY.--There may be various causes for that
irritation of the spinal cord which ends in tetanic convulsions. It
would be very difficult merely from seeing symptoms of tetanus, and in
the absence of all knowledge as to how it had been occasioned, to
ascribe it to any particular cause.

Dr. W. MACDONALD, examined by Mr. KENEALY.--I am a licentiate of the
Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh. I have been in practice for
fourteen years, and have had considerable experience, practical and
theoretical, of idiopathic and traumatic tetanus. I have seen two cases
of idiopathic tetanus, and have made that disease the subject of medical
research. Tetanus will proceed from very slight causes. An alteration of
the secretions of the body, exposure to cold or damp, or mental
excitement would cause it. Sensual excitement would produce it. The
presence of gritty granules in the spine or brain might produce tetanic
convulsions. I have seen cases in which small gritty tubercles in the
brain were the only assignable cause of death, which had resulted from
convulsions. I believe that in addition to the slight causes which I
have named, tetanic convulsions result from causes as yet undiscoverable
by human science. In many _post-mortem_ examinations of the bodies of
persons who had died from tetanus no trace of any disease could be
discovered beyond congestion or vascularity of some of the vessels
surrounding the nerves. Strychnia, however, is very easily discoverable
by a scientific man. I remember the case of a woman, Catherine Watson,
who is now present, and who was attacked with idiopathic tetanus on the
20th of October, 1855. [The witness read a report of the circumstances
attending this case, the subject of which was a young woman twenty-two
years of age, who, after going about her ordinary occupation during the
day, was attacked with tetanus at ten o’clock at night. By the
administration of chloroform the violence of the spasms was gradually
diminished and she recovered. After her recovery she slept for
thirty-six hours.] In that case there was lockjaw, which set in about
the middle of the attack. It is generally a late symptom. I had a
patient named Coupland who died of tetanus. It must have been
idiopathic, as there was no external cause. The patient died in somewhat
less than half an hour, before I could reach the house. I have made a
number of experiments upon animals with reference to strychnia poison. I
have found the _post-mortem_ appearances very generally to concur. The
vessels of the membranes of the brain have generally been highly
congested. The sinuses gorged with blood. In one case there was
hemorrhage from the nostrils. That was a case of very high congestion.
In some cases there has been an extravasation of blood at the base of
the brain. I have cut through the substance of the brain, and have found
in it numerous red points. The lungs have been either collapsed or
congested. The heart has invariably been filled with blood on the right
side, and very often on the left side also. The liver has been
congested, the kidneys and spleen generally healthy. The vessels of the
stomach on the outer surface have been congested, and on the mucous or
inner surface highly vascular. The vessels of the membranes of the
spinal cord have been congested, and sometimes red points have been
displayed on cutting it through.

From a _post-mortem_ examination you may generally judge of the cause of
death. I have in a great many cases experimented for the discovery of
strychnia. You may discover in the stomach the smallest dose that will
kill. If you kill with a grain you may discover traces of it. By traces
I mean evidences of its presence. You can discover the fifty-thousandth
part of a grain. I have actually experimented so as to discover that
quantity. The decomposition of strychnia is a theory which no scientific
man of eminence has ever before propounded. I first heard of that theory
in this court. In my opinion, there is no well-grounded reason whatever
for it. I have disproved the theory by numerous experiments. I have
taken the blood of an animal poisoned by two grains of strychnia, about
the least quantity which would destroy life, and have injected it into
the abdominal cavities of smaller animals, and have destroyed them, with
all the symptoms and _post-mortem_ appearances of poisoning by
strychnia. Strychnia being administered in pills would not affect its
detection. If the pills were hard they would keep it together, and you
might find its remains more easily. I do not agree with Dr. Taylor that
colour tests are fallacious. I believe that such tests are a reliable
mode of ascertaining the presence of strychnia. I have invariably found
strychnia in the urine which has been ejected. Strychnia cannot be
confounded with pyrozanthe. After strychnia has been administered there
is an increased flow of saliva. In my experiments that has been a very
marked symptom. Animals to which strychnia had been given have always
been very susceptible to touch. The stamp of a foot or a sharp word
would throw them into convulsions. Even before the paroxysms commenced
touching them would be likely to throw them into tonic convulsions.

Lord CAMPBELL: As soon as the poison is swallowed? No; it would be after
a certain time. The first symptoms of poisoning must have been
developed.

Examination continued: I do not think rubbing them would give them
relief. I think it extremely improbable that a man who had taken a dose
of strychnia sufficient to destroy life could after the symptoms had
made their appearance pull a bell violently. I have attended to the
evidence as to Cook’s symptoms. To the symptoms I attach little
importance as a means of diagnosis, because you may have the same
symptoms developed by many different causes. A dose of strychnia
sufficient to destroy life would hardly require an hour and a-half for
its absorption. I think that death was in this case caused by epileptic
convulsions with tetanic complications. I form that opinion from the
_post-mortem_ appearances being so different from those that I have
described as attending poisoning with strychnia, and from the
supposition that a dose of strychnia sufficient to destroy life in one
paroxysm could not, so far as I am aware, have required even an hour for
its absorption before the commencement of the attack. If the attack were
of an epileptic character, the interval between the attacks of Monday
and Tuesday would be natural, as epileptic seizures very often recur at
about the same hours of successive days.

Assuming that a man was in so excited a state of mind that he was silent
for two or three minutes after his horse had won a race, that he exposed
himself to cold and damp, excited his brain by drink, and was attacked
by violent vomiting, and that after his death deposits of gritty
granules were found in the neighbourhood of the spinal cord, would these
causes be likely to produce such a death as that of Cook?--Any one of
these causes would assist in the production of such a death.

As a congeries, would they be still more likely to produce it?--Yes.

Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am a general practitioner, and
am parochial medical officer. I have had personal experience of two
cases of idiopathic tetanus. What I have said about mental and sensual
excitement, and so on, has not come within my own observation. In the
case of Catherine Watson, I saw the patient at about half-past ten at
night. She had been ill nearly an hour, and had five or six spasms. She
had gone about her usual duties up to evening. She felt a slight
lassitude for two days previous to the attack. It was only by close
pressing that I ascertained that lock-jaw came on about an hour or two
after I was called in. The case of Coupland was that of a young child
between three and four years old. I was attending the mother, and saw
the child in good health half an hour before it came on. It was seized
with spasm, what I conjectured to be of the diaphragm, and died in about
half an hour. I had seen the child asleep, but I did not examine it. I
don’t know whether I saw the face of the child, but it was in bed; I
judged that it was asleep.

Is that the same as seeing it asleep?--Sometimes a medical man can form
a better judgment than a lawyer. Mr. Smith applied to me to be a witness
in this case. I communicated to him the case of Catherine Watson, as
resembling the case of Cook. I furnished my notes to be copied the night
before last. I have been here since the commencement of the trial. I
have been at all the consultations. I began the experiments for this
case in January. I had made experiments before. That was eight or ten
years ago. I then found out that strychnia could be discovered by
chemical and physiological tests. I killed dogs, cats, rabbits, and
fowls. The doses I administered were from three-quarters up to two
grains. To dogs, the smallest quantity administered was a grain. In four
cases, I killed with one grain, five with a grain and a half, one with a
grain and a quarter, and two with two grains. I never killed a dog with
half a grain of strychnia, and therefore never experimented to find that
quantity after death. I have always found the brain and heart highly
congested. The immediate cause of the fulness of the heart is, that the
spasm drives the blood from the small capillaries into the large
vessels. The spasm of the respiratory muscles prevents the expansion of
the lungs. The congestion of the brain is greatest when the animal was
young, and in full health. It does not depend upon the frequency of the
spasms. I have seen cases of traumatic tetanus. I have had two in my own
practice. One lasted five or six days, the other six or seven days, and
the patient recovered. I have never seen a case of strychnia in the
human subject. So far as I can judge, Cook’s was a case of epileptic
convulsions, with tetanic complications. Nobody can say from what
epilepsy proceeds. I have not arrived at any opinion on the subject. I
have seen one death from epilepsy. The patient was not conscious when he
died. I can’t mention a case in which a patient dying from epilepsy has
preserved his consciousness to the time of death.

You have been reading up this subject?--I am pretty well up in most
branches of medicine. (A laugh.) I know of no case in which a patient
dying from epilepsy has been conscious. My opinion is Cook died of
epileptic convulsions with tetanic complications.

By Lord CAMPBELL.--That is a disease well known to physicians. It is
mentioned in Dr. Copland’s Dictionary.

Examination continued. I believe that all convulsive diseases, including
the epileptic forms and the various tetanic complications, arise from
the decomposition of the blood acting upon the nerves. Any mental
excitement might have caused Cook’s attack. Cook was excited at
Shrewsbury, and wherever there is excitement there is consequent
depression. I think Cook was afterwards depressed. When a man is lying
in bed and vomiting he must be depressed.

This gentleman was much, overjoyed, at his horse winning, and you think
he vomited in consequence?--It might predispose him to vomit.

I am not speaking of “mights.” Do you think that the excitement of the
three minutes on the course at Shrewsbury on the Tuesday accounts for
the vomiting on the Wednesday night?--I do not. I find no symptoms of
excitement or depression reported between that time and the time of his
death. The white spots found in the stomach of the deceased might, by
producing an inflammatory condition of the stomach, have brought on the
convulsions which caused death.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL.--But the gentlemen who made the _post-mortem_
examination say that the stomach was not inflamed.

Witness.--There were white spots, which cannot exist without
inflammation. There must have been inflammation.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL.--But these gentlemen say that there was not
inflammation.

Witness.--I do not believe them. (A laugh.) Sensual excitement might
cause epileptic convulsions with tetanic complications. The chancre and
syphilitic sores were evidence that Cook had undergone such excitement.
That might have occurred before he was at Shrewsbury.

Might sexual intercourse produce epilepsy a fortnight after it
occurred?--There is an instance on record in which epilepsy supervened
upon the very act of intercourse.

Have you any instance in which epilepsy came on a fortnight afterwards?
(A laugh.)--It is within the range of possibility.

Do you mean, as a serious man of science, to say that?--The results
might.

What results were there in this case?--The chancre and the syphilitic
sores.

Did you ever hear of a chancre causing epilepsy?--No.

Did you ever dream of such a thing?--I never heard of it.

Did you ever hear of any other form of syphilitic disease producing
epilepsy?--No; but tetanus.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: But you say this was epilepsy; we are not talking
of tetanus?

Witness: You forget the tetanic complications. (Roars of laughter.)

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If I understand right, then, it stands thus--the
sexual excitement produces epilepsy, and the chancre superadds tetanic
complications?

Witness: I say that the results of sexual excitement produce epilepsy.

Mr. Baron ALDERSON said he had heard some person in court clap his
hands. On an occasion on which a man was being tried for his life such a
display was most indecent.

Examination continued: I cannot remember any fatal case of poisoning by
strychnia in which so long a period as an hour and a half intervened
between the taking of the poison and the appearance of the first
symptoms.

What would be the effect of morphia given a day or two previously? Would
it not <DW44> the action of the poison?--No; I have seen opium bring on
convulsions very nearly similar.

What quantity?--A grain and a half. From my experience, I think that if
morphia had been given a day or two before it would have accelerated the
action of the strychnia. I have seen opium bring on epileptic
convulsions. If this were a case of poisoning by strychnia, I should
suppose that as both opium and strychnia produce congestion of the
brain, the two would act together, and would have a more speedy effect.
If congestion of the brain was coming on when morphia was given to Cook
on the Sunday and Monday nights, it might have increased rather than
allayed it.

But the gentlemen who examined the body say that there was no congestion
after death?--But Dr. Bamford says there was.

You stick to Dr. Bamford?--Yes, I do; because he was a man of
experience--could judge much better than younger men, and was not so
likely to be mistaken.

But Dr. Bamford said that Cook died of apoplexy; do you think this was
apoplexy?--No, it was not.

What, then, do you think of Dr. Bamford, who certified that it
was?--That was a matter of opinion; but the existence of congestion in
the brain he saw.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The other medical men said there was none.

Lord CAMPBELL: That is rather a matter of reasoning than of evidence.

Re-examined by Mr. Serjeant SHEE: I have seen a great many children
asleep, and can tell whether they are so without seeing their faces. In
the case of the child who died of tetanus the mother had told me that it
was asleep. Dr. Mason Good is a well known author upon convulsions. From
my reading of his work and others I have learnt that there are
convulsions which are not, strictly speaking, epilepsy, although they
resemble it in some of its features. I also know the works of M.
Esquirolle. From reading those and other works I know that epileptic
convulsions sufficiently violent to cause death frequently occur without
the patient entirely losing his consciousness. Epilepsy, properly so
called, is sudden in its attack. The patient falls down at once with a
shriek. That disease occurs very often at night, and in bed. It
sometimes happens that its existence is known to a young man’s family
without his knowing anything about it. Convulsions of an epileptic
character are sometimes preceded by premonitory symptoms. It sometimes
happens that during such convulsions actual epilepsy comes on, and the
patient dies of an internal spasm. It often happens that if a patient
has suffered from epilepsy and convulsions of an epileptic kind during
the night, he may be as well next day as if nothing had happened, more
especially when an adult is seized for the first time. In such cases it
often happens that such fits succeed each other within a short period. I
heard the deposition of Dr. Bamford. If it were true that the mind of
the deceased was distressed and irritable the night before his death, I
should say that he was suffering from depression. From what Cook said
about his madness in the middle of the Sunday night I should infer that
he had been seized by some sudden cramp or spasm. Supposing that there
was no such cramp, I should refer what he said to nervous and mental
excitement. There might be some disturbance of the brain. I do not
believe that inflammation can be absent while spots on the stomach be
present. About eighteen months ago I examined the stomach of a person
who had died from fever, in which I found white spots. I consulted
various authors. In an essay on the stomach by Dr. Sprodboyne, a medical
man who practised in Edinburgh, I found mention of similar spots in the
stomach of a young woman who had died suddenly.

Dr. BAINBRIDGE, examined by Mr. GROVE: I am a doctor of medicine, and
medical officer to the St. Martin’s workhouse. I have had much
experience of convulsive disorders. Such disorders present great variety
of symptoms. They vary as to the frequency of the occurrence and as to
the muscles affected. Periodicity, or recurrence at the same hours,
days, or months, is common. I had a case in which a patient had an
attack on one Christmas night, and on the following Christmas night, at
the same hour, he had a similar attack. The various forms of convulsions
so run into each other that it is almost impossible for the most
experienced medical men to state where one terminates and the other
begins. In both males and females hysteria is frequently attended by
tetanic convulsions. Epileptic attacks are frequently accompanied by
tetanic complications.

Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Hysteric convulsions very rarely
end in death. I have known one case in which they have done so. That
occurred within the last three months. It was the case of a male. It
occurred in St. Martin’s workhouse. The man had for years been subject
to this complaint. On the occasion on which he died he was ill only a
few minutes. I did not make a _post-mortem_ examination. I was told he
was seized with sudden convulsions, fell down on the ground, and in five
minutes was dead. There was slight clinching of the hands, but I think
no locking of the jaw. The man was about thirty-five years of age. He
was the brother of the celebrated æronaut, Lieutenant Gale. In many
cases of this description consciousness is destroyed. It is not so in
all. I have met with violent cases in which it has been preserved. I
never knew a case in which during the paroxysm the patient spoke.
Epilepsy is sometimes attended with opisthotonos. I have seen cases of
traumatic tetanus. In such cases the patient retains his consciousness.
I have known many cases of epilepsy ending in death. Loss of
consciousness--not universally, but generally--accompanies epilepsy. I
never knew a case of death from that disease where consciousness was not
destroyed. I have known ten or twelve such fatal cases.

Re-examined by Mr. GROVE: Persons almost invariably fall asleep after an
epileptic attack.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: And after taking opium?--Yes.

EDWARD AUSTIN STEDDY, examined by Mr. GRAY: I am a member of the Royal
College of Surgeons, and am in practice at Chatham. In June, 1854, I
attended a person named Sarah Ann Taylor, for trismus and
pleuro-tothonos. When I first saw the patient she was bent to one side.
The convulsions came on in paroxysms. The pleuro-tothonos and trismus
lasted about a fortnight. The patient then so far recovered as to be
able to walk about. About a twelve-month afterwards, on the 3rd of
March, 1855, she was again seized. That seizure lasted about a week. She
is still alive. The friends of the patient said that the disease was
brought on by depression, arising from a quarrel with her husband.

Cross-examined by Mr. JAMES: I do not know how long before the attack
this quarrel occurred. During it the woman received a blow on her side
from her husband. During the whole fortnight the lockjaw or trismus
continued. In March, 1855, she was under my care about a week, during
the whole of which the trismus continued.

Dr. GEORGE ROBINSON, examined by Mr. KENEALY: I am a licentiate of the
Royal College of Physicians, and Physician to the Newcastle-on-Tyne
Dispensary and Fever Hospital. I have devoted considerable attention to
the subject of pathology. I have practised as a physician for ten years.
I have heard the whole of the medical evidence in this case. From the
symptoms described, I should say that Cook died of tetanic convulsions,
by which I mean, not the convulsions of tetanus, but convulsions similar
to those witnessed in that disease. The convulsions of epilepsy
sometimes assume a tetanic appearance. I know no department of pathology
more obscure than that of convulsive diseases. I have witnessed
_post-mortem_ examinations after death from convulsive diseases, and
have sometimes seen no morbid appearances whatever; and in other cases
the symptoms were applicable to a great variety of diseases. Convulsive
diseases are always connected with the condition of the nerves. The
brain has a good deal to do with the production of convulsive diseases,
but the spinal cord has more. I believe that gritty granules in the
region of the spinal cord would be very likely to produce convulsions,
and I think they would be likely to be very similar to those described
in the present case. I think that from what I have heard described of
the mode of life of the deceased, it would have predisposed him to
epilepsy. I have witnessed some experiments with strychnia, and have
performed a few. I have also prescribed it in cases of paralysis.

By the ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I have seen twenty cases where epilepsy has
been attended by convulsions of a tetanic character. I have never seen
the symptoms of epilepsy proceed to anything like the extent of the
symptoms in Cook’s case. I never saw a body in a case of epilepsy so
stiff as to rest upon the head and the heels. I never knew such symptoms
to arise in any case except tetanus. When epilepsy presents any of these
extreme forms it is always accompanied by unconsciousness. In almost
every case of epilepsy the patient is unconscious at the time of the
attack. In cases of epilepsy I have found gritty granules on the brain;
and any disturbing cause in the system, I think, would be likely to
produce convulsions. I believe that the granules in this case were very
likely to have irritated the spinal cord, and yet that no indication of
that irritation would have remained after death. I think that these
granules might have produced the death of Mr. Cook.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Do you think that they did so?

Witness: Putting aside the assumption of death by strychnia, I should
say so.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Are not all the symptoms spoken to by Mr. Jones
indicative of death by strychnia?

Witness: They certainly are.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Then it comes to this--that if there were no other
cause of death suggested, you would say that the death in this case
arose from epilepsy?

Witness: Yes.

By Serjeant SHEE: Epilepsy is a well-known form of disease which
includes many others.

Dr. RICHARDSON said: I am a physician, practising in London. I have
never seen a case of tetanus, properly so called, but I have seen many
cases of death by convulsions. In many instances they have presented
tetanic appearances without being strictly tetanous. I have seen the
muscles fixed, especially those of the upper part of the body. I have
observed the arms stiffened out, and the hands closely and firmly
clinched until death. I have also observed a sense of suffocation in the
patient. In some forms of convulsions I have seen contortions both of
the legs and the feet, and the patient generally expresses a wish to sit
up. I have known persons die of a disease called angina pectoris. The
symptoms of that disease, I consider, resemble closely those of Mr.
Cook. Angina pectoris comes under the denomination of spasmodic
diseases. In some cases the disease is detectable upon _post-mortem_
examination; in others it is not. I attended one case. A girl ten years
old was under my care in 1850. I supposed she had suffered from scarlet
fever. She recovered so far that my visits ceased. I left her amused and
merry in the morning; at half-past ten in the evening I was called in to
see her, and I found her dying. She was supported upright, at her own
request; her face was pale, the muscles of the face rigid, the arms
rigid, the fingers clinched, the respiratory muscles completely fixed
and rigid, and with all this there was combined intense agony and
restlessness, such as I have never witnessed. There was perfect
consciousness. The child knew me, described her agony, and eagerly took
some brandy-and-water from a spoon. I left for the purpose of obtaining
some chloroform from my own house, which was thirty yards distant. When
I returned her head was drawn back, and I could detect no respiration;
the eyes were then fixed open, and the body just resembled a statue; she
was dead. On the following day I made a _post-mortem_ examination. The
brain was slightly congested, the upper part of the spinal cord seemed
healthy, the lungs were collapsed, the heart was in such a state of firm
spasm and solidity, and so emptied of blood, that I remarked that it
might have been rinsed out. I could not discover any appearance of
disease that would account for the death, except a slight effusion of
serum in one pleural cavity. I never could ascertain any cause for the
death. The child went to bed well and merry, and immediately afterwards
jumped up, screamed, and exclaimed, “I am going to die!”

By the ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I consider that the symptoms I have described
were those of angina pectoris. It is the opinion of Dr. Jenner that this
disease is occasioned by the ossification of some of the small vessels
of the heart. I did not find that to be the case in this instance. There
have been many cases where no cause whatever was discovered. It is
called angina pectoris, from its causing such extreme anguish to the
chest. I do not think the symptoms I have described were such as would
result from taking strychnia. There is this difference,--that rubbing
the hands gives ease to the patient in cases of angina pectoris. I must
say, there would be great difficulty in detecting the difference in the
cases of angina pectoris and strychnia. As regards symptoms, I know of
no difference between the two. I am bound to say that if I had known so
much of these subjects as I do now in the case I have referred to I
should have gone on to analysis to endeavour to detect strychnia. In the
second case I discovered organic disease of the heart, which was quite
sufficient to account for the symptoms. The disease of angina pectoris
comes on quite suddenly, and does not give any notice of its approach. I
did not send any note of this case to any medical publication. It is not
at all an uncommon occurrence to find the hands firmly clinched after
death in cases of natural disease.

By Mr. Serjeant SHEE: There are cases of angina pectoris in which the
patient has recovered and appeared perfectly well for a period of 24
hours, and then the attack has returned. I am of opinion that the fact
of the recurrence of the second fit in Cook’s case is more the symptom
of angina pectoris than of strychnia poison.

Dr. WRIGHTSON was re-called, and in answer to a question put by Serjeant
SHEE, he said it was his opinion that when the strychnia poison was
absorbed in the system it was diffused throughout the entire system.

By the ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The longer time that elapsed before the death
would render the absorption more complete. If a minimum dose to destroy
life were given, and a long interval elapsed to the death, the more
complete would be the absorption and the less the chance of finding it
in the stomach.

By Serjeant SHEE: I should expect still to find it in the spleen, and
liver, and blood.

CATHERINE WATSON said: I live at Garnkirk, near Glasgow. I was attacked
with a fit in October of last year. I had no wound of any kind on my
body when I was attacked. I did not take any poison.

By the ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I was taken ill at night. I had felt heavy all
day from the morning, but had no pain till night. The first pain I felt
was in my stomach, and then I had cramp in my arms, and after that I was
quite insensible. I have no recollection of anything after I was first
attacked, except that I was bled.

Serjeant SHEE then said, that he was now about to enter into another
part of the case for the defence, and, probably, the Court would think
it a convenient period to adjourn.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said that the Court had no objection to adjourn
if the learned Serjeant thought it would be a convenient time to do so.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL requested that before the Court was formally
adjourned a witness named Saunders, whose name was upon the back of the
bill, and who was not in attendance, and who, he believed, had not made
his appearance during the trial, should be called upon his
recognizances. He added that he believed this witness was also
subpœned on behalf of the prisoner, but he (the Attorney-General)
intended to have called him for the Crown.

The COURT directed that the witness should be called upon his
recognizances, and this was done, but he did not appear.

The Court then adjourned until ten o’clock on Saturday morning.




TENTH DAY, MAY 24.


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

The interest felt in this extraordinary trial was by no means
diminished, notwithstanding the tedious length, to which the proceedings
have extended. The interior of the court was crowded in every part,
crowds were collected outside, and numbers of persons who had considered
themselves fortunate in obtaining orders of admission from the Sheriff,
were ranged in long rows along the passages leading to the court,
anxiously awaiting the only chance of admission, which was afforded them
by some more fortunate brother spectator vacating his position.

The counsel for the Crown were, as on previous days, the
Attorney-General, Mr. James, Q.C., Mr. Bodkin, Q.C., Mr. Welsby, and Mr.
Huddlestone. Counsel for the prisoner, Mr. Serjeant Shee, Mr. Grove,
Q.C., Mr. Gray, and Mr. Kenealy.


                    CLOSE OF THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE.

The names of the jurors having been called over.

Mr. OLIVER PEMBERTON, lecturer on anatomy, of Queen’s College,
Birmingham, and surgeon to the General Hospital of that town, was sworn
and examined by Mr. Grove, Q.C. Witness said--I was present at the
examination of the body of Cook after its exhumation in January, and
closely examined the condition of the spinal cord. It was not, however;
in such a condition as to enable me to say confidently in what state it
was immediately after death. The upper part, where the brain had been
separated, was green in colour from the effects of decomposition. The
remaining portion, though fairly preserved, for the body had been buried
two months, was so soft as to prevent my drawing any opinion of its
state immediately after death.

Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I saw the body the day after the
bony canal had been opened. The opening of that canal would, to a
certain extent, expose the cord, but the outer covering or dura mater
was not opened, to the best of my recollection, until I arrived. I
attended the examination on the part of the prisoner. Mr. Bolton,
professor of Queen’s College, Birmingham, was also present on the
occasion on the part of Palmer.

By Mr. Serjeant SHEE: Was there any difference of opinion expressed on
that occasion by the medical men?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected to the question.

Lord Campbell decided that it could not be put.

Mr. Serjeant SHEE said that this witness brought to a conclusion the
medical evidence on the part of Palmer.




GENERAL EVIDENCE.

HENRY MATTHEWS, examined by Mr. GROVE: I am inspector of police at the
Euston-square Railway Station. I was stationed there on Monday, 19th
November last. At two o’clock in the afternoon of that day a train left
London which would stop at Rugeley. No train after that hour stops at
Rugeley. The express train left at five in the afternoon; it is due at
Stafford at 8.42 p.m.; it did not arrive till 8.45. The distance from
Stafford to Rugeley by railway is nine miles. I do not know the distance
by road. The shortest and quickest mode of getting to Rugeley after the
two o’clock train, would be by the five o’clock express to Stafford, and
thence by road to Rugeley.

JOSEPH FOSTER, examined by Mr. GRAY: I am a farmer and grazier at
Sibbertoft, in Northamptonshire. I kept the George Hotel, at Welford, in
that county, up to Lady-day last. I knew the late John Parsons Cook for
many years previous to his death. I have met him at various places, in
the hunting field, at dinners, and elsewhere. I have had opportunities
of judging of his health. I think he was of a very weak constitution. I
form that judgment from having been with him on several occasions when
he suffered from bilious attacks. Those are the only circumstances upon
which I formed that opinion.

Cross-examined by Mr. JAMES: I knew Mr. Cook for ten years; he hunted
regularly for the last two years in Nottinghamshire. He kept sometimes
two and sometimes three horses. I have known him to hunt three days a
week when he was well. I knew Mr. George Pell. There is a cricket club
at Welford. I do not know whether Cook was a member of the club. I have
seen him there. I saw Cook for the last time at Lutterworth, about the
middle of October last. I last knew him to have a bilious sick headache
about a year and a half ago [laughter].

Lord Chief Justice CAMPBELL: I most strongly implore that there will be
no expression of any sensation evinced at the answers given by any of
the witnesses.

By Mr. JAMES: I saw Cook at my own house when he complained of
suffering. He did not hunt on that day. He came to my house to meet the
hounds, but did not go. He was dressed in his hunting dress. I could not
swear I did not see him next within a week afterwards in the
hunting-field.

By Lord CAMPBELL: I never saw Cook sick on any other occasion, except
about seven years previous at Market Harborough, at the cricket match,
after dinner.

GEORGE MYATT, saddler, examined by Mr. GRAY: I was at Shrewsbury races
on the day when Polestar won. I was at the Raven Hotel on the evening of
that day, Wednesday. I saw Cook and Palmer there about twelve o’clock on
the night of that day. I was waiting in the room at the hotel when they
came in. I considered Cook was the worse for liquor. They proposed
having a glass of brandy and water each before they went to bed. Each of
us had a glass of brandy and water. When Cook commenced to drink it he
made a remark that he fancied it was not good. He drank part of it off,
and said he thought there was something in it. He then gave it to some
one near him to taste. Cook proposed to have some more, and Palmer said
he would not have any more except Cook drank his up. They had no more
brandy and water, and Palmer and I went to bed. I slept in the same room
with Palmer. The brandy was brought in a decanter, and the brandy which
I had was poured out of the decanter, I don’t know by whom. I did not
leave the room during the time when Palmer and Cook came in to me until
we went to bed. I did not see anything put into the brandy and water,
and I do not think anything could have been put in without my seeing it.
Palmer and I went into the bedroom and left Cook in the sitting-room. I
slept in the same bedroom as Palmer. When I went to bed I locked the
door, and Palmer did not go out of the room during the night. When
Palmer got up in the morning, he asked me to go and call Cook. I did so.
I went to Cook’s bed-room door, rapped at it, and he told me to come in.
I went in, and he told me how ill he had been during the night, and that
he had been obliged to send for a doctor. He asked me what it was that
was put into the brandy and water, and I told him I did not know that
anything had been put into it. He asked me to send for the doctor,
meaning Palmer. I did so. I next saw Cook when he came in to his
breakfast. Palmer was in the room. Palmer and I breakfasted first, and
Cook came in directly after we had finished, and had breakfast in the
same room. On the evening of that day Cook, Palmer, and myself, left for
Rugeley, having previously dined together at the Raven. We started for
Rugeley about six o’clock in the evening. We travelled by the express
train from Shrewsbury; Palmer paid for the three railway tickets. On the
way Palmer was sick, and both Cook and he said they could not account
for the circumstance of their being sick. Palmer vomited on the road
between Stafford and Rugeley. We left the train at Stafford, at the
junction. We then got into a fly to proceed to Rugeley, there being no
train for that place. It was on the way to Rugeley that Palmer was ill
and vomited. Palmer said he could not account for it unless it was that
Cook had some brass vessel which he had drank out of, or that the water
was bad. There had been a great many people ill during the Shrewsbury
races. I heard several people speak of their having been ill who could
not account for it. The distance by road from Stafford to Rugeley is
about nine miles.

Cross-examined by Mr. JAMES: I have known Palmer all my life. He deals
with me for saddlery. I have not been in the habit of going to the races
with him, but I have gone now and then. I was at Shrewsbury races with
him. I never was at Doncaster with him. I was there once with a
gentleman named Robinson. I was at Wolverhampton races in August last. I
went with Palmer. I did not sleep in the same room with him at
Wolverhampton. I did not stop at the same hotel with him. I stopped with
my brother-in-law in Wolverhampton. I believe I was there a couple of
days. I did not dine or breakfast with Palmer. I was at Lichfield races
with Palmer in September. Lichfield course is within ten miles of
Rugeley. I did not sleep at Lichfield. I did not either go to Lichfield
or come home with Palmer. I believe I have never slept in a
double-bedded room with Palmer anywhere but at Shrewsbury. I never did.
I never was at Worcester in my life. I paid my own expenses to
Shrewsbury. Palmer paid the expenses of my living at the hotel at
Shrewsbury, and the fare back. He has never paid my expenses at any
other races. If he has paid any expenses for me, I have deducted them
from his bill. I dare say I went to some races with him the year before;
I think two or three, but I can’t call to mind how many. I had an
interview with Palmer in Stafford Gaol. I was with him a couple of
hours. I should think that that was a month or five weeks ago. I cannot
say when it was that I saw him. I cannot say whether it was before or
after Stafford Assizes. Mr. Smith said he was going, and I thought I
should like to see Palmer. I have stood half a sovereign or a sovereign
with him occasionally. I know what “putting on” a horse means. I did not
bet at Shrewsbury. I did not back Cook’s mare, Polestar. I have stood a
sovereign with Palmer on a horse. The first time when I saw Cook at the
Raven on the Wednesday evening was as near twelve o’clock as possible. I
had not been dining with Palmer. I had dined at home, at Rugeley. I
arrived at Shrewsbury about eight o’clock. I went to the Raven. I knew
the room which Palmer generally had, and I went up to see if he was
there. That was between eight and nine o’clock. I went there direct from
the railway station. I saw Cook at the door outside. He asked me what
brought me there. I told him I was come to see how they were getting on.
I found that Palmer had gone out, and I then went into the town. I was
away about an hour, and then returned to the Raven. I went into Palmer’s
sitting-room. Palmer was not there. I waited in the sitting-room till he
came. There was a man named Shelley there. He was a betting man. I
waited about a couple of hours before Palmer came in. I think he came in
about twelve o’clock, but I can’t say exactly. He came in with Cook. I
saw that Cook was the worse for liquor. He was not very drunk, but I
could see that he was the worse for liquor. The brandy and water was
brought in directly. The brandy was in a decanter. I believe the water
was on the table, but cannot say. I should say the brandy and the
tumbler were brought up together. I don’t remember Mrs. Brooks coming. I
don’t remember Palmer being called out of the room. I remember a
gentleman coming in. I know now that he was Mr. Fisher. Before Fisher
came in, Palmer had not left the room. That I will swear. Palmer never
left the room until he went to bed. I swear that positively. I was close
to him the whole time. When Fisher came in, Cook asked Palmer to have
some more brandy and water. Palmer said he would not have any more
unless Cook drank his. It was evident to any one that Cook was the worse
for liquor. Cook said, “I’ll drink mine,” and he drank it at a draught.
Directly after he drank it he said, “There’s something in it.” He did
not say, “It burns my throat dreadfully.” He said the brandy was not
good. I will swear he did not say, “it burns my throat dreadfully,” or
anything of that kind. He gave it to some one to taste. I believe it was
Fisher, but will not swear. I can’t say whether it was Palmer or Cook
who gave it to Fisher to taste. I believe there were only four persons
in the room at the time. I can’t say whether any other person came into
the room before we went to bed. Cook had emptied the glass as nearly as
possible; there was a little left in it. I can’t swear whether Palmer
touched the glass or not. I believe he did taste. I believe Palmer said
he could not taste anything that was the matter with the brandy and
water, and he gave it to Fisher. I don’t recollect Fisher saying, “It’s
no good giving me the glass--it is empty.” I can’t swear whether he said
so or not. I should think we remained in the room twenty minutes after
that. Cook did not leave the room before we went to bed. Palmer and I
went straight up to bed. We left Cook in the sitting-room. I did not
hear that night that Cook had been vomiting and was ill. I took one
glass of brandy and water. We had one glass each. The water was cold. On
the following day I dined with Palmer at the Raven. Mr. Cook served me
with what I had to eat. During the first two days of the inquest I was
at home at Rugeley. I did not go to the inquest.

Re-examined by Mr. GROVE: I was not subpœned for the Crown; I was
examined, but not summoned. The deputy-governor was not present all the
time I was with Palmer at Stafford. He went out once, but another
officer came in. Palmer did not say a word about this case. There was an
officer present the whole time.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I wish to ask the witness whether he did not tell
Mr. Gardner, when he was asked about the brandy and water, that he knew
nothing about it?

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE: There is no objection to that question.

WITNESS: I never spoke to him about brandy and water at all.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Did you meet him at Hednesford, where Saunders
lives?--Yes.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Did you not tell him there that you could
recollect nothing about brandy and water?--No.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Had you no conversation at all?--I had with Mr.
Stevens.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Did you not say, in Mr. Gardner’s presence, that
you could recollect nothing about the brandy and water?--I did not.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Were you not examined by Mr. Crisp and Mr.
Sweeting before the inquest was held, and did you not tell them that you
knew nothing about the brandy and water?--No, I did not.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: You swear you did not tell them anything about
it?--Yes.

JOHN SARGENT, examined by Mr. Sergeant SHEE: I am not in any business or
profession. I am in the habit of attending almost all public races in
the kingdom. I knew the late Mr. Cook intimately, and also the prisoner
Palmer. I received a letter from Cook during the Shrewsbury races. I was
subpœned on the part of the Crown. I have not had any notice to
produce that letter. I have not got it. I have searched for it, but I
had sent it to Saunders the trainer. I have made application to Saunders
for it. The application was by letter. I received a letter in answer. I
have seen Saunders since. I have done everything I could to get Cook’s
letter. I have not a copy of it, but I know what its contents were.

The Court decided that the contents of the letter could not be received
at that moment, as Saunders perhaps might attend before the conclusion
of the day.

Examination continued: I was not at Shrewsbury, and only know what Cook
stated in his letter. Shortly before Cook’s death I had an opportunity
of noticing the state of his throat. I was with him at Liverpool the
week previous to the Shrewsbury meeting. We slept in adjoining rooms. In
the morning he called my attention to the state of his throat. The back
part of the throat was a complete ulcer, and the throat was very much
inflamed. His tongue was swollen. I said I was surprised, on seeing the
state of his mouth, that he could eat anything. He said he had been in
that state for weeks and months, and now he did not take notice of it.
That was all that passed respecting the sore throat on that occasion. He
had shown his throat to me previously--at almost every meeting we
attended. On the platform at Liverpool, after the races, he took a
gingerbread cayenne nut by mistake. I saw him take it. He did not know
it was a cayenne nut. He told me afterwards that it had nearly killed
him. He did not state more particularly then the effect which it had
produced on him. I know that Cook was very poor at the Liverpool
meeting. That was the week before the Shrewsbury races. He owed me £25,
and gave me £10 on account, and said he had not sufficient to pay his
expenses at Liverpool, but that I should have the balance of £25 at the
Shrewsbury meeting. Cook and Palmer were in the habit of “putting on”
horses for each other. They did so at the Liverpool meeting. I put money
on at Liverpool for Palmer, and Palmer told me that Cook stood it along
with him. I heard Cook, a short time before his death, apply to Palmer
to supply him with “black wash.” I don’t know whether it is a mercurial
lotion. I never saw Cook’s throat dressed by anybody.

Cross-examined by Mr. James: The black wash was not to be drunk [a
laugh]. The application was made to Palmer at the Warwick Spring meeting
in 1855. Cook was at Newmarket. I lived in the same house with him
there. He was at nearly all the race meetings last year. His appetite
was very good, and that surprised me. The cayenne nut is made up for a
trick and mixed with other gingerbread nuts. Cook got one of those. I
have tasted them. Some of them are stronger than others.

JEREMIAH SMITH, by Mr. Serjeant SHEE: I am an attorney at Rugeley. I am
acquainted with the prisoner, and was acquainted with Cook. I saw Cook
at the Talbot Arms on Friday, the 16th of November. He was in his
bedroom. I saw him about ten o’clock. I was present at his breakfast. A
small tray was put on the bed. He took tea for breakfast, and had a
wineglass of brandy in it. I dined with him at Palmer’s house. I am not
quite positive that I had seen him between breakfast and dinner. We had
a rump-steak for dinner. We had some champagne at dinner. We drank
port-wine after dinner. He had three bottles altogether, and Cook took
his share. Cook, myself, and Palmer dined together. We left the house
about six in the evening. Cook and I left the house together. We went to
my house, and afterwards to the Albion Hotel, which is next door. We had
a glass of cold brandy-and-water. Cook left me there. He said he felt
cold, and warmed himself at the fire. He said he had borrowed a book,
and would go home and read it in bed. That was between seven and eight
o’clock, but I can’t say exactly. In the afternoon, after dinner, we
were talking about racing. I asked Cook for money--for £50. He gave me
£5. When he was taking the note out of his pocket-case, I said “Mr.
Cook, you can pay me all.” He said, “No; there is only £41 10s. due to
you.” He said that he had given Palmer money, and would pay me the
remainder when he returned from Tattersall’s on the Monday. On the night
following (Saturday night) he was not well, and I slept in his room. It
was late when I went; I should think about eleven or twelve o’clock. I
had been at a concert during the early part of the night on which Cook
was unwell. He had got some toast-and-water, and was washing his mouth.
He was sick. There was a night chair in the room before the fire. I saw
him sitting there. He tried to vomit, but whether he did so or not I
cannot say, for I did not get out of bed. I went to sleep about two
o’clock. I slept until Palmer and Bamford came into the room in the
morning. I lay still in bed, and heard a conversation between the doctor
and Cook. Bamford said, “Well, Mr. Cook, how are you this morning?” Cook
said, “I am rather better this morning. I slept from about two or three
o’clock, after the house had become quiet.” Bamford said, “I’ll send you
some medicine.” I don’t recollect any further conversation. I know Mrs.
Palmer, prisoner’s mother. She sent a message to me on Monday, and I
went to her and saw her. In consequence of what had passed, I went to
look for the prisoner to see if he had arrived. That was about nine
o’clock. I saw Palmer at ten minutes past ten. He came from the
direction of Stafford, in a car. He said to me, “Have you seen Cook
to-day?” I said, “No; I have been to Lichfield on business;” on which
Palmer said he had better go and see how he was before he went to his
mother’s. Palmer and I went up to Cook’s room together. Cook said, “You
are late, doctor, to-night. I did not expect you to look in. I have
taken the medicine which you gave me.” We did not stay more than two or
three minutes, and I think Cook asked me why I did not call earlier. I
said I had been detained on business. Cook said Bamford had sent him
some pills, which he had taken; and he intimated that he would not have
taken them if Palmer had come earlier. Cook told Palmer, that he had
been up talking with Saunders, and Palmer said, “You ought not to have
done so.” Palmer and I left the room together, and we went straight to
his mother’s.

The distance of Mr. Palmer’s house from the Talbot Arms is about four or
five hundred yards. We were there about half an hour. We both left
together and went to Palmer’s house. I entered with him. I asked him to
let me have a glass of grog, but did not get it. I then went home. After
dining with Palmer on Friday, I invited Cook and Palmer to dine with me
on the next day, Saturday. Cook sent me a message, stating that he was
not well and could not leave his room. I ordered a boiled leg of mutton
for dinner, and sent part of the broth from the Albion by the
charwoman--I think her name was Rowley. Previous to Cook’s death I
borrowed £200 for Cook, and negotiated a loan with Pratt for him for
£500. The £200 transaction was in May. I borrowed £100 of Mrs. Palmer,
and £100 of William Palmer, making together the £200 to which I have
referred. I knew that Palmer and Cook were jointly interested in one
horse, and that they were in the habit of betting for each other. When
Cook’s horse was going to run, Palmer “put on” for him; and when
Palmer’s ran, Cook “put on” for him. I have seen Thirlby, Palmer’s
assistant, dress Cook’s throat with caustic. I think this was before the
races at Shrewsbury. I have some signatures of Cook’s which I know to be
in his handwriting. The two notes with instructions to negotiate the
loan of £500, I saw Cook sign. [The notes were put in.] One of them is
signed “J. P. Cook,” the other “J. Parsons Cook.” I knew from Cook that
he was served with a writ. I do not remember that I received any
instruction to appear for him.

The letters put in were read by Mr. Straight, the Clerk of the Arraigns.
The first was without date, and signed “J. Parsons Cook,” Monday. The
following is a copy of the letter:--

     “My dear Sir,--I have been in a devil of a fix about the bill, but
     have at last settled it at the cost of an extra two guineas, for
     the ---- discounter had issued a writ against me. I am very much
     disgusted at it.”

The letter was sent to me, but its envelope was destroyed. The next
letter bore the date 25th June, 1855; it was also without address, but
witness stated that it had been sent to him, and he had destroyed the
envelope. The following is a copy of the letter:--

     “Dear Jerry,--I should like to have the bill renewed for two
     months. Can it be done? Let me know by return. I have scratched
     Polestar for the Nottinghamshire and Wolverhampton Stakes. I shall
     be down on Friday or Saturday. Fred. tells me Arabis will win the
     Northumberland Stakes.”

The memorandum put in and read was signed J. P. Cook, and the following
is a copy:--

     “Polestar three years, Sirius two years; by way of mortgage to
     secure £200 advanced upon a bill of exchange for £200, dated 29th
     August, 1855, payable about three months after date.”

Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am the person who took Mr.
Myatt to Stafford Gaol. I have known Palmer long and intimately, and
have been employed a good deal as attorney for him and his family. I
cannot recollect that he applied to me in December, 1854, to attest a
proposal for insurance on the life of Walter Palmer for £13,000 in the
Solicitors’ and General Assurance Office. I will not swear that I was
not applied to on the subject. I do not recollect that an application
was made to me to attest a proposal for £13,000 in the Prince of Wales
on Walter Palmer’s life, in January, 1855. I know that Walter Palmer had
been a bankrupt, but not that he was an uncertificated bankrupt. His
bankruptcy took place at least six years ago. He had been in no business
since that period to the time of his death. I knew that Walter had an
allowance from his mother, and he had also money at various times from
his brother William. In the years 1854 and 1855, I lived at Rugeley,
sometimes at Palmer’s house, and sometimes at his mother’s. There was no
improper intimacy between myself and Palmer’s mother. I slept at her
house frequently, perhaps two or three times a week, having my own place
of abode at Rugeley.

How long did this habit continue of sleeping two or three times a week
at Mrs. Palmer’s house?--Several years.

Had you your own lodgings and chambers at Rugeley?--Yes.

Your own bedroom?--Yes.

How far were your lodgings from Mrs. Palmer’s house?--Nearly a quarter
of a mile.

Will you be so good as to explain why, having your own place of abode,
and your own bed-room so near to Mrs. Palmer’s, you were still in the
habit of sleeping two or three times a week for several years at the
house of Mrs. Palmer?--Yes; sometimes there were members of Mrs.
Palmer’s family present.

Who were they?--There was Mr. Joseph Palmer, who resides at Liverpool;
Mr. Walter Palmer, too; and sometimes William Palmer.

When you went to see the members of Palmer’s family, was it too late
when you separated to return to your own lodgings?--We used to stop very
late drinking gin and water, smoking, and sometimes afterwards playing
at cards.

Then you did not go to your own lodgings?--No.

And this continued several years two or three times a week?--Yes.

Did you ever stay at Mrs. Palmer’s house all night when there were no
members of the family visiting?--Yes, frequently.

How often?--As many as two or three times a week.

When there were none of Mrs. Palmer’s sons there?--Yes.

And when the mother was?--Yes.

How often did that happen?--I cannot say. Sometimes two or three times a
week.

When there was no one else in the house but the lady?--There were the
mother, daughter, and servants.

You might have gone to your own home, then, for there was no one to
drink brandy-and-water with, or to smoke with?--I might have done so,
but I did not.

Do you mean, then, to swear solemnly that no improper intimacy subsisted
between you and Palmer’s mother?--I do [sensation].

Now I will turn to another subject. Do you remember being applied to by
Palmer to attest a proposal for an insurance of £10,000 on the life of
Walter Palmer in the Universal Life Office?--I do not remember; if you
have any document which will show it I shall be able to recollect,
perhaps.

Now, do you remember getting a five pound note for attesting the
signature of Walter Palmer’s assignment of his policy to his brother?--I
do not.

Is that your signature [handing a document to witness]?--It is very
similar to it.

Is it not yours?--I do not know [sensation].

Upon your oath, sir, is not that your signature?--Witness hesitating--

Examine the document, and then tell me, on your oath, whether that is
not your signature [witness examined the document].

Now you have perused it, tell me, is not that your signature?--Witness
(hesitating): I have some doubts whether this is my handwriting
[sensation].

Have you read the whole of the document?--I have not.

Then do so. [Witness again perused the whole of the paper.] Now, was
that document prepared in your office?--It was not.

Have you ever seen it before?--It is very much like my handwriting.

That is not what I asked you. Upon your oath, have you ever seen that
document before?--Witness (with hesitation): It is very much like my
handwriting [sensation].

I will have an answer to my question. Upon your oath, sir, is not that
your handwriting?--I think it is not in my handwriting. I think it is a
very clever imitation of it [sensation].

Will you swear it is not your handwriting?--I will swear it is not my
handwriting [renewed sensation].

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Will your lordship please to take a note of that
answer?

Mr. Baron ALDERSON: Did you ever make such an attestation as that in
your hand?--I do not remember.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Now is that the signature of Walter Palmer
(handing a paper to witness)?--I believe it to be.

Is that the signature of Pratt?--I do not know.

Did you not receive that paper from Pratt?--I believe I did not. I think
William Palmer gave it me.

Well, did he give it you?--I don’t recollect.

I repeat my question. Did William Palmer give you that document?--Most
likely he did.

Did he, I ask again?--It was not signed at the time.

But did he give it you? I will have an answer.--I have no doubt he did.

Well, then, if that document bears the signature of Walter Palmer, and
was given to you by William Palmer, cannot you tell whether it bears
your own signature or not?--Mr. Attorney--

Don’t “Mr. Attorney” me--answer my question. Upon your oath, is not that
your handwriting?--I believe it not to be.

Will you swear it is not?--I believe it not to be. [Great sensation.]

Now, did you apply to the Midland Counties Insurance Office to be
appointed agent to the company at Rugeley?--I did.

When was it?--I should like to fetch my documents and papers; I should
then be able to answer you accurately.

Oh, never mind the papers. Was it in October, 1855?--I think it was.

Did you send up a proposal for an insurance of £10,000 on the life of
Bates?--I did.

Did William Palmer ask you to make that proposal?--Bates and Palmer came
together to my office, with a prospectus, and asked me if I knew whether
there was an agent for the Midland Counties Office in Rugeley. I told
him I never heard of one. He asked me afterwards if I would write to get
the appointment, because Bates wanted to raise some money.

Did you send to the Midland Counties Office to get the appointment of
agent, in order that you might be enabled to effect this insurance on
Bates’s life?--I did.

Did you make the application in order to get the insurance effected?--I
did.

Upon the life of Bates for £10,000?--I did. [Sensation.] Bates was at
that time superintending William Palmer’s stud and stables. I do not
know at what salary. I afterwards went to the widow of Walter Palmer to
get her to give up her claim on the policy of her husband. She was then
at Liverpool. William Palmer gave me a letter for Pratt to take to her
to sign. Mrs. Palmer said she would like to see her solicitor about it.
I brought the document back with me because she did not sign it. I had
no instructions to leave it.

Did she give any reason for not signing it?

Mr. Sergeant SHEE objected to the question.

Lord CAMPBELL decided that it could not be put.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Do you know whether Walter Palmer received
anything on executing the assignment of his policy to William Palmer?--I
believe he ultimately had something.

Did he not get a bill for £200?--I believe he did, and he also got a
house furnished for him.

Was that bill paid?--I do not remember.

Is that document in your handwriting? [document handed in]--It is.

Now, having seen that document with your signature, I ask you whether
you were applied to to effect an insurance on the life of Walter
Palmer?--I do not recollect.

Not recollect! when your signature is staring you in the face?--No, I do
not.

You are an attorney, and accustomed to business transactions?--I am.

Now I ask you again, were you applied to on the subject?--I may have
been; it is from my memory I am speaking, and I wish, therefore, to
speak as accurately as possible [laughter].

I don’t ask you as to your memory in the abstract, but your memory now
that is refreshed by that document. Is that your signature?--Witness
(hesitating) I have no doubt it may be.

Look at that document and see whether you were not applied to to effect
the insurance I have named?--That is my signature.

I ask you, have you any doubt that in the month of January, 1855, you
were called upon to attest another proposal for £13,000 on the life of
Walter Palmer?--Witness (with hesitation): I may have signed that paper
in blank.

Did you sign this proposal in blank?--I might have done.

But did you, I ask again?--I cannot swear I did or did not. I have some
doubt whether I did not sign several of these proposals in blank
[sensation].

Upon your oath, do you not know that William Palmer applied to you to
effect an insurance for £13,000 on the life of his brother?--I do not
remember.

Why this is a very large sum, surely you must remember such a
transaction as this?--I may have been applied to on the subject.

Were you applied to to attest another proposal for an insurance with the
Universal Life Office?--I cannot say that I was.

Will you swear that when Walter Palmer executed the deed of assignment
of his policy to William Palmer, that you were not present? Now, be
careful, for you will certainly hear of this on some future day if you
are not careful.--I cannot say that I was.

Upon your oath, did you not attest the deed of assignment of Walter to
his brother of his interest in a policy of insurance for £13,000?--I
cannot say. I believe the signature “Jeremiah Smith” is very much like
my handwriting.

I repeat the question?--I cannot say.

Why, did you not receive a cheque for £5 for attesting it?--I think I
did receive a cheque for £5.

Did you not see William Palmer write this upon the counterfoil of his
cheque-book [cheque-book handed to witness]?--Witness, with hesitation:
I cannot positively swear that I did.

Did you not, sir, see him write it?--That is William Palmer’s
handwriting [referring to the cheque-book].

Did you not know that you got a five pound cheque for attesting that
signature?--I may have got a cheque for £5, but I may not have got it
for attesting the signature of the document.

You say you got £200 for Cook--£100 from Mrs. Palmer and £100 from
William Palmer?--Yes, and he gave £10 for the recommendation.

To whom?--To William Palmer.

Do you not know that the £200 bill was given for the purpose of enabling
William Palmer to make up a sum of £500?--I believe it was not, for Cook
received absolutely from me £200.

Did he not have the money from you in order to take up to London to pay
Pratt?--No, he took it with him, I think, to Shrewsbury, to the races.

Who was the bill drawn in favour of?--I think William Palmer.

What became of the bill?--I do not know.

Witness: I was not present at the inquest on Cook. I can’t say who saw
me when I went to the Talbot Arms and went into Cook’s room. One of the
servants gave me a candle--either Bond, Mills, or Lavinia Barnes.

Re-examined by Mr. Serjeant SHEE: I have known Mrs. Palmer twenty years.
I knew her before her husband’s death. I should say she is sixty years
of age. William Palmer is not her eldest son. Joseph is the eldest. He
resides at Liverpool. He is forty-five or forty-six years of age. I
think George is the next son. He lives at Rugeley. He was frequently at
his mother’s house. There is another son, a clergyman of the Church of
England. He resided with his mother until within the last two years,
except when he was at college. There is a daughter. She lives with her
mother. There are three servants. Mrs. Palmer’s family does not visit
much in the neighbourhood of Rugeley. Her house is a large one. I slept
in a room nearest the Old Church.

Mr. Serjeant SHEE: Is there any pretence for saying you have ever been
charged with any improper intimacy with Mrs. Palmer?--Witness: I hope
not.

Mr. Serjeant SHEE: Is there any pretence for saying so?--Witness: There
ought not to be.

Mr. Serjeant SHEE: Is there any truth in the statement or suggestion
that you have had any improper intimacy with Mrs. Palmer?--Witness: They
might have said so, but there is no reason.

Mr. Serjeant SHEE: Is there any truth in the statement?--Witness: I
should say not.

Mr. Serjeant SHEE: When did it come to your knowledge that there was a
proposal for Walter’s life?--Witness: I never heard of it until the
inquest.

The Court then adjourned for about twenty minutes, when the proceedings
were resumed.

W. JOSEPH SAUNDERS was then called up on his subpœna, but did not
appear.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he should be extremely sorry to commence his
reply if there was any chance of witness making his appearance.

Mr. Serjeant SHEE said he should now ask for the production of a letter
written by Cook to Palmer on Jan. 4, 1855.

The letter, of which the following is a copy, was then put in and
read:--

“Lutterworth, Jan. 4, 1855.

     “My dear Sir,--I sent up to London on Tuesday to back St. Hubert
     for £50, and my commission has returned 10s. 1d. I have, therefore,
     booked 250 to 25 against him, to gain money. There is a small
     balance of £18 due to you, which I forgot to give you the other
     day. Tell Will to debit me with it on account of your share of
     training Pyrrhine. I will also write to him to do so, as there will
     be a balance due from him to me.

Yours faithfully,

“J. PARSONS COOK.”

“W. Palmer, Esq.”



Mr. Serjeant SHEE submitted that he was entitled to reply on a part of
evidence. The course taken by the Attorney-General on getting at the
contents of the cheque, the contents of an assignment of the policy on
Walter Palmer’s life, and the contents of the proposals to various
offices for the insurance, he submitted entitled him to a reply on those
points.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE: We are of opinion that you have no right to
reply.

Mr. BARON ALDERSON: That is quite clear.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he had been taken somewhat by surprise
yesterday by the evidence of Dr. Richardson, with respect to angina
pectoris. Dr. Richardson adverted to several books and authorities. He
had now those books in his possession, and was desirous of putting some
questions arising out of that part of the evidence.

The Court decided against the application.

The case for the defence here concluded.


                     THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S REPLY.

The Attorney-General, at ten minutes before three, commenced his reply,
speaking occasionally in so low a tone that the conclusion of many of
his sentences was inaudible. He said: May it please your lordships and
gentlemen of the jury, the case for the prosecution and the case for the
defence are now before you, and it now becomes my duty to address to you
such observations upon the whole of the evidence as suggest themselves
to my mind. I feel that I have a moral, solemn, and important duty to
perform. I wish I could have answered the appeal made to me the other
day by my learned friend (Serjeant Shee), and say that I am satisfied
with the case which he submitted to you for the defence. But, standing
here as the instrument of public justice, I feel that I should be
wanting in the duty that I have to perform if I did not ask at your
hands for a verdict of guilty against the prisoner. I approach the
consideration of the case in, I hope, what I may term a spirit of
fairness and moderation. My business is to convince you, if I can, by
facts and legitimate arguments, of the prisoner’s guilt; and if I cannot
establish it to your satisfaction, no man will rejoice more than I shall
in a verdict of acquittal. Gentlemen, in the mass of evidence which has
been brought before you, two main questions present themselves
prominently for your consideration. Did the deceased man, into whose
death we are now inquiring, die a natural death, or was he taken off by
the foul means of poison? And if the latter proposition be sanctioned by
the evidence, then comes the important--if possible, the still more
important--question, whether the prisoner at the bar was the author of
the death? I will proceed with the consideration of the subject in the
order which I have mentioned. Did John Parsons Cook die by poison? I
assert and contend the affirmative of that proposition. The case which
is submitted to you on behalf of the Crown is this--that, having been
first practised upon by antimony, Cook was at last killed by strychnine.
The first question to be considered is--what was the immediate and
proximate cause of his death. The witnesses for the prosecution have
told you, one and all, that, in their judgment, he died of tetanus,
which signifies a convulsive spasmodic action of the muscles of the
body. Can there be any doubt that their opinion is correct? Of course it
does not follow that, because he died of tetanus, it must be the tetanus
of strychnia. That is a matter for after consideration. But, inasmuch as
strychnine produces death by tetanus, we must see, in the first place,
whether it admits of doubt that he did die of tetanus. I have listened
with great attention to every form in which that disease has been
brought under your consideration--whether by the positive evidence of
witnesses, or whether by reference to the works of scientific writers;
and I assert deliberately that no case, either in the human subject or
in the animal, has been brought under your notice in which the symptoms
of tetanus have been so marked as in this case.

From the moment the paroxysms came on of which the unhappy man died, the
symptoms were of the most marked and of the most striking character.
Every muscle, says the witness, the medical man who was present at the
time--every muscle of his body was convulsed--he expressed the most
intense dread of suffocation--he entreats them to lift him up lest he
should be suffocated--and every muscle of his body, from the crown of
his head to the soles of his feet, was so stricken--the flexibility of
the trunk and the limbs was gone--and you could only have raised him up
as you would have raised a corpse. In order that he might escape from
the dread of suffocation, they turned him over, and then, in the midst
of that fearful paroxysm, one mighty spasm seemed to have seized his
heart, to have pressed from it the life blood, and the result
was--death. And when he died, his body exhibited the most marked
symptoms of this fearful disease. He was convulsed from head to foot.
You could have rested him on his head and heels--his hands were clasped
with a grasp that it required force to overcome, and his feet assumed an
arched appearance. Then, if it was a case of tetanus--into which fact I
will not waste your time by inquiry--the question arises, was it a case
of tetanus produced by strychnia? I will confine myself for a moment to
the exhibition of the symptoms as described by the witnesses. Tetanus
may proceed from natural causes as well as from the administration of
poisons, and while the symptoms last they are the same. But in the
course of the symptoms, and before the disease reaches its consummation
in the death of the patient, the distinction between the two is marked
by characteristics which enable any one conversant with the subject to
distinguish between them. We have been told on the highest authority
that the distinctions are these--natural tetanus is a disease not of
minutes, not of hours, but of days. It takes--say several other
witnesses--from three to four days; and will extend to a period of even
three weeks before the patient dies. Upon that point we have the most
abundant and conclusive evidence of Dr. Curling; we have the evidence of
Dr. Brodie; we have the evidence of Dr. Daniel, a gentleman who has seen
something like twenty-five or thirty cases; we have the evidence of a
gentleman who has practised twenty-five years in India, where these
cases, arising from cold, are infinitely more frequent; and he gives
exactly the same description of the course which this disease invariably
takes. Idiopathic or traumatic tetanus is therefore out of the question,
upon the evidence which has been given. But traumatic tetanus is out of
the question for a very different reason. Traumatic tetanus is brought
on by the lesion of some part of the body. But what is there in this
case to show that there was anything like lesion at all. We have had
several gentlemen called, who have come here with an evident
determination to misconceive and misrepresent every fact. We have called
before you an eminent physician, who had Cook under his care.

It seems that, in the spring of the year 1855, Cook, having found
certain small spots manifest themselves in one or two parts of his body,
and having something of an ulcerated tongue and a sore throat, conceived
that he was labouring under symptoms of a particular character. He
addressed himself to Dr. Savage, who found that the course of medicine
he had been pursuing was an erroneous one. He enjoined the
discontinuance of mercury. His injunction was obeyed, and the result was
that the patient was suffering neither from disease nor wrong treatment.
But lest there should be any possibility of mistake, Dr. Savage says
that long before the summer advanced every unsatisfactory symptom had
entirely gone; there was nothing wrong about him, except that affection
of the throat, to which thousands of people are subject. In other
respects, the man was better than he had been, and might be said to be
convalescent. On the very day that he leaves London to go into the
country, a fortnight before the races, his stepfather, who accompanied
him to the station, congratulated him upon his healthy and vigorous
appearance, and, the young man, conscious of a restored state of health,
struck his breast, and said “He was well, very well.” Then he goes to
Shrewsbury, and shortly afterwards arose those matters to which I am
about to call your attention. I want to know in what part of the
evidence there is the slightest pretence for saying that this man had an
affection which might bring on traumatic tetanus? It is said that he had
exhibited his tongue to witnesses, and applied for a mercurial wash, but
it is clear that, although he had at one time adopted that course, he
had, under the recommendation of Dr. Savage, got rid of it, and there is
no pretence for saying he was suffering under any syphilitic affection
of any kind. That fact has been negatived by a man of the highest
authority and eminence. It is a pretence for which there was not a
shadow of a foundation, and I should shrink from my duty if I did not
denounce it as a pretence unworthy of your attention. There was nothing
about the man which would warrant, for a single moment, the supposition
that there was anything of that character in any part of his body when
the tetanus set in. One or two cases of traumatic tetanus have been
adduced in the evidence which has been brought forward for the defence.
One is the case of a man in the London Hospital, who was brought into
that institution one evening, and died the same night. But what are the
facts? The facts are, that before he had been brought in he had had a
paroxysm early in the morning--that he was suffering from ulcers of the
most aggravated description. The symptoms had run their course rapidly,
it is true, but the case was not one of minutes, but of hours. Another
case has been brought forward in which a toe was amputated, but there we
have disease existing some time before death. But then it is suggested
that this may be a case of idiopathic tetanus proceeding from--what?
They say that Cook was a man of delicate constitution, subject to
excitement; that he had something the matter with his chest; that in
addition to having something the matter with his chest, he had the
diseased condition of throat; and putting all these things together,
they say that if the man took cold he might get idiopathic tetanus.

We are here launched into a sea of speculations and possibilities. Dr.
Nunneley, who comes here for the purpose of inducing you to believe
there was something like idiopathic tetanus, goes through supposed
infirmities, and talks about his excitability, his delicacy of chest,
his affection of the throat, and he says these things would predispose
to idiopathic tetanus if he took colds. But what evidence is there that
he did take cold? Not the slightest in the world. There is not the
smallest pretence that he ever complained of a cold, or was treated for
a cold. I cannot help saying that it seems to me that it is a scandal
upon a learned, and distinguished, and liberal profession, that men
should come forward to put forth such speculations upon these perverted
facts, and draw from them sophistical and unwarrantable conclusions,
with a view to deceive you. I have the greatest respect for science. No
man can have more. But I cannot repress my indignation and abhorrence
when I see it perverted and prostituted for the purposes of a particular
case in a court of justice. Dr. Nunneley talked to you about certain
excitements being the occasion of idiopathic tetanus. You remember the
sorts of excitement of which he spoke. They are unworthy of your notice.
They were topics discreditable to be put forward by a witness as worthy
of your consideration. But, suppose for a single moment that excitement
at the time could produce any such effect, where is the excitement
manifested by Cook as leading to the supposed disease? They say that the
man, when he won his money at Shrewsbury, was for a moment excited. And
well he might be. His fortunes depended upon the result of the race, and
I will not deny that he was overpowered with emotions of joy. But those
emotions subsided, and we have no further trace of them from that time
to the moment of his death. The man passed the rest of the day with his
friends in ordinary conversation and enjoyment. No trace of emotion was
found. He is taken ill. He goes to Rugeley. He is taken ill there again.
But is there the slightest symptom of excitement about him, or of
depression? Not the least. When he is ill, like most people, he is low
spirited. As soon as he gets a little better, he is cheerful and happy.
He invites his friends and converses with them. On the night of his
death his conversation is cheerful. He is mirthful and happy, little
thinking, poor fellow, of the fate that was depending over him. He is
cheerful, and talks of the future, but not in language of excitement.

What pretence is there for this idle story about excitement? None
whatever. But even if there were excitement or depression--if these
things were capable of producing idiopathic tetanus, the character of
the disease is so essentially different that it is impossible to mistake
the two. What are the cases which they attempt to set up against us?
They brought forward a Mary Watson, who, with a gentleman, came all the
way from some place in Scotland to tell us that a girl had been ill all
day, that she is taken worse at night, that she gets well in a short
time, and goes about her business. That is a case which they brought
here to be compared with the death agony of this man. These are the sort
of cases with which they attempt to meet such a case as is spoken to
here. Gentlemen, I venture, upon the evidence which has been brought
before you, to assert boldly, that the cases of idiopathic and traumatic
tetanus are marked by clear and distinct characteristics distinguishing
them from the tetanus of strychnine; and I say that the tetanus which
accompanied Cook’s death is not referable to either of these forms of
tetanus. You have, upon this point, the evidence of men of the highest
competency and most unquestionable integrity, and upon their evidence, I
am satisfied, you can come to no other conclusion than that this was not
a case of either idiopathic or traumatic tetanus. But, then, various
attempts have been made to set up different causes as capable of
producing this tetanic disease. And first, we have the theory of general
convulsions; and Dr. Nunneley having gone through the beadroll of the
supposed infirmities of Cook, says, “Oh, this may have been a case of
general convulsions--I have known general convulsions assuming a tetanic
character!” I said to him, “Have you ever seen one single case in which
death arising from general convulsions accompanied with tetanic symptoms
has not ended in the unconsciousness of the patient?” He says, “No, I
never heard of such a case, not one; but in some book or other, I am
told, there is some such case reported,” and he cites, for that purpose,
as an authority for general convulsions being accompanied with tetanic
symptoms, Dr. Copland.

Now, Dr. Copland, I apprehend, would stand higher as an authority than
the man who quotes him. Dr. Copland might have been called, but was not
called, notwithstanding the challenge which I threw out, because it is,
unfortunately, easier for the case to gather together from the east and
from the west practitioners of more or less celebrity, than to bring to
bear on the subject the light of science as treasured in the books of
the eminent practitioners whom you have seen. But, I say, as regards
general convulsions, the distinction is plain. If they destroy the
patient, they destroy consciousness. But here, unquestionably, at the
very last moment, until Cook’s heart ceased to beat, his consciousness
remained. But then comes another supposed condition from which death in
this form is said to have resulted, and that is the cause intended to be
set up by a very eminent practitioner, Dr. Partridge. It seems that in
the _post-mortem_ examination of Cook, when the spinal marrow was
investigated, some granules were found, and it is said these may have
occasioned tetanic convulsions similar to those found in Cook. He is
called to prove that this was a case of what is called arachnitis,
arising from granules. I asked him the symptoms which he would find in
such a case. I called his attention to what it had evidently not been
called before--namely, the symptoms in Cook’s case; and I asked him, in
simple terms, whether, looking at these symptoms, he would pledge his
reputation, in the face of the medical world, and in the face of this
court, that this was a case of arachnitis. He would not do so, and the
case of arachnitis went. Then we have a gentleman who comes all the way
from Scotland to inform us, as the next proposition, that Cook’s was a
case of epileptic convulsions, with tetanic complications. Well, I asked
him the question, “Did you ever know of epilepsy, with or without
tetanic complications, in which consciousness was not destroyed before
the patient died?” His reply was, “No, I cannot say that I ever did, but
I have read in some book that such a case has occurred.” “Is there
anything to make you think this was epilepsy?--It may have been
epilepsy, because I don’t know what else it was.” “But you must admit
that epilepsy is characterised generally by loss of consciousness; what
difference would the tetanic complications have made?” That he was
unable to explain. I remind you of this species of evidence, in which
the witnesses have resorted to the most speculative reasoning, and put
forward the barest possibilities without the shadow of foundation. But
this I undertake to assert, that there is not a single case to which
they have spoken from their experience, or as the result of their own
knowledge, on which there were the formidable and decisive symptoms of
marked tetanus which existed in this case.

Having gone through these three sets of diseases--general convulsions,
arachnitis, epilepsy proper, and epilepsy with tetanic complications, I
supposed we had pretty nearly exhausted the whole of these scientific
theories. But we are destined to have another, and that assumed the
formidable name of angina pectoris. It must have struck you when my
learned friend opened his case, that he never ventured to assert the
nature of the disease to which they refer the death of Cook; and it
strikes me as most remarkable that no less than four distinct and
separate theories are set up by the witnesses who have been
called--general convulsions, arachnitis, epilepsy with tetanic
complications, and lastly, angina pectoris. My learned friend had this
advantage in not stating to you what his medical witnesses would set up,
because I admit that one after another they took me by surprise. The
gentleman who was called yesterday, and who talked of angina pectoris,
would not have escaped so easily if I had been in possession of the
books to which he referred, for I should have been able to expose the
ignorance, the presumption, of the assertions he dared to make. I say
ignorance and presumption, and what is worse, an intention to deceive. I
assert it in the face of the whole medical profession, and I am sure I
can prove it. These medical witnesses, one and all, differ in the views
they take on the subject; but there is a remarkable coincidence between
the views of some of them and the views of those who have been examined
on the other side. Dr. Partridge, Dr. Robinson, and Dr. Letheby, the
most eminent of the witnesses whom my learned friend has called, agreed
with the statements of Dr. Brodie and other witnesses, that in the whole
of their experience, and in the whole range of their learning and
observations, they know of no known disease to which the symptoms in
Cook’s case can be referred. When such men as these agree upon any
point, it is impossible to exaggerate its importance. If it be the fact
that there is no known disease which can account for such symptoms as
those in Cook’s case, and that they are referable to poison alone, can
you have any doubt that that poison was strychnia? The symptoms, at all
events, from the time the paroxysms set in, are precisely the same.
Distinctions are sought to be made by the sophistry of the witnesses for
the defence between some of the antecedent symptoms and some of the
others. I think I shall show you that these distinctions are imaginary
and that there is no foundation for them. I think I may say that the
witnesses called for the defence admit this, that, from the time the
paroxysms set in, of which Cook died, until the time of his death, the
symptoms are precisely similar to that of tetanus by strychnine. But
then they say--and this is worthy of most particular attention--there
are points of difference which have led them to the conclusion that
these symptoms could not have resulted from strychnine.

In the first place, they say that the period which elapsed between the
supposed administration of the poison and the first appearance of the
symptoms is longer than they have observed in the animals on which they
have experimented. The first observation which arises is this: that
there is a known difference between animal and human life, in the power
with which certain specific things act upon their organisation. It may
well be that poison administered to a rabbit will produce its effect in
a given time. It by no means follows that it will produce the same
effect in the same time on an animal of a different description. Still
less does it follow that it will exercise its baneful influence in the
same time on a human subject. The whole of the evidence on both sides
leads to establish this fact, that not only in individuals of different
species, but between individuals of the same species, the same poison
and the same influence will produce effects different in degree,
different in duration, different in power. But, again, it is perfectly
notorious that the rapidity with which the poison begins to work depends
mainly upon the mode of its administration. If it is administered in a
fluid state, it acts with greater rapidity. If it is given in a solid
state, its effects come on more slowly. If it is given in an indurated
substance, it will act with still greater tardiness. Then what was the
period at which this poison began to act after its administration,
assuming it to have been poison? It seems, from Mr. Jones’s statement,
that the pills were administered somewhere about eleven o’clock. They
were not administered on his first arrival, for the patient, as if with
an intuitive sense of the death that awaited him, strongly resisted the
attempts to make him take them; and no doubt these remonstrances, and
the endeavours to overcome them, occupied some period of time. The pills
were at last given. Assuming, which I only do for the sake of argument,
that the pills contained strychnine, how soon did they begin to operate?
Mr. Jones says he went down to supper, and came back again about twelve
o’clock. Upon his return to the room, after a word or two of
conversation with Cook, he proceeded to undress and go to bed, and had
not been in bed ten minutes before a warning came that another of the
paroxysms was to take place. The maid servant puts it still earlier, and
it appears that so early as ten minutes before twelve the first alarm
was given, which would make the interval little more than a quarter of
an hour. When these witnesses tell us that it would take an hour and a
half, or two hours, we see here another of those exaggerated
determinations to see the facts only in the way that will be the most
favourable to the prisoner. I find in some of the experiments that have
been made that the duration of time, before the poison begins to work,
has been little, if anything, less than an hour.

In the case of the girl at Glasgow, it was stated that it was
three-quarters of an hour before the pills began to work. There may have
been some reason for the pills not taking effect within a certain period
after their administration. It would be easy to mix them up with
substances difficult of solution, or which might <DW44> their action. I
cannot bring myself to believe that, if in all other respects you are
perfectly satisfied that the symptoms, the consequences, the effects
were analogous, and similar in all respects to those produced by
strychnine, it is not because the pills have been taken only a quarter
of an hour that you will say strychnine was not administered in this
case. But they say the premonitory symptoms were wanting, and they say
that in the case of animals, the animal at first manifests some
uneasiness, shrinks, and draws itself into itself as it were, and avoids
moving; that certain involuntary twitchings about the head come on--and
they say there were no premonitory symptoms in Cook’s case. I utterly
deny the proposition, I say there were premonitory symptoms of the most
marked character. He is lying in his bed; he suddenly starts up in an
agony of alarm. What made him do that? Was there nothing
premonitory--nothing that warned him the paroxysm was coming on? He
jumps up, says “Go and fetch Palmer--fetch me help--I am going to be ill
as I was last night.” What was that but a knowledge that the symptoms of
the previous night were returning, and a warning of what he might expect
unless some relief were obtained? He sits up and prays to have his neck
rubbed. What was the feeling about his neck but a premonitory symptom,
which was to precede the paroxysms which were to supervene? He begs to
have his neck rubbed, and that gives him some comfort. But here they say
this could not have been tetanus from strychnia, because animals cannot
bear to be touched, for a touch brings on a paroxysm--not only a touch,
but a breath of air, a sound, a word, a movement of any one near will
bring on a return of the paroxysm.

Now in two cases of death from strychnine we have shown that the patient
has endured the rubbing of his limbs, and received satisfaction from
that rubbing. We produced a third case. In Mrs. Smyth’s case, when her
legs were distorted, she prayed and entreated that she might have them
straightened. The lady at Leeds, in the case which Dr. Nunneley himself
attended, implored her husband, between the spasms, to rub her legs and
arms in order to overcome the rigidity. That case was within his own
knowledge; and yet in spite of it, although he detected strychnine in
the body of the unhappy woman, he dares to say that Cook’s having
tolerated the rubbing between the paroxysms is a proof that he had not
taken strychnia. But there is a third case--the case of Clutterbuck. He
had taken an overdose of strychnia, and suffered from the re-appearance
of tetanus, and his only comfort was to have his legs rubbed. And,
therefore, I say that the continued endeavour to persuade a jury that
the fact of Cook’s having had his neck rubbed proves that this is not
tetanus by strychnia, shows nothing but the dishonesty and insincerity
of the witnesses who have so dared to pervert the facts. But they go
further, and say that Cook was able to swallow. So he was before the
paroxysms came on; but nobody has ever pretended that he could swallow
afterwards. He swallowed the pills, and, what is very curious, and
illustrates part of the theory, is this--that it was the act of
swallowing the pills, a sort of movement in raising his head, which
brought on the violent paroxysm in which he died. So far from militating
against the supposition that this was a case of strychnine, the fact
strongly confirms it. Then they call our attention to the appearances
after death, and they say there are circumstances to be found which
militate against this being a case of strychnine. They say the limbs
became rigid either at the time of death or immediately after, and that
ought not to be found in a case of strychnia. Dr. Nunneley says, “I have
always found the limbs of animals become flaccid before death, and have
not found them become rigid after death.” Now, I can hardly believe that
statement.

The very next witness who got into the box told us that he had made two
experiments upon cats, and killed them both, and he described them as
indurated and contracted when he found them some hours after death. And
yet the presence of rigidity in the body immediately after death is put
forth by Dr. Nunneley as one of his reasons for saying this is not a
death by strychnia, although Dr. Taylor told us that, in the case of one
of the cats, the rigidity of the body was so great that he could hold it
out by the leg in a horizontal position. Notwithstanding that evidence,
Dr. Nunneley has the audacity to say that he does not believe this is a
case of strychnine, because there was rigidity of the limbs, because the
feet were distorted, and the hands clinched, and the muscles rigid. This
shows what you are to think of the honesty of this sort of evidence, in
which facts are selected because they make in favour of particular
hypotheses of the party advancing them. The next thing that is said is
that the heart was empty, and that in the animals operated upon by Dr.
Nunneley and Dr. Letheby, the heart was full. I don’t think that applies
to all cases. But it is a remarkable fact connected with the history of
the poison that you never can rely upon the precise form of its
symptoms and appearances. There are only certain great, leading, marked,
characteristic features. We have here the main, marked, leading,
characteristic features; and we have what is more, collateral incidents,
similar to the cases in which the administration and the fact of death
have been proved beyond all possibility of dispute. Why, in two cases
which have been mentioned--that of Mrs. Smyth and the Glasgow girl--the
heart was congested and empty. We know that in cases of tetanus death
may result from more than one cause. All the muscles of the body are
subject to the exciting action of the poison. But no one can tell in
what order these muscles may be affected, or where the poisonous
influence will put forth. When it arrests the play of the lungs and the
breathing of the atmospheric air, the result will be that the heart is
full; but if some spasm siezes on the heart, the heart will be empty.
You have never any perfect certainty as to the mode in which the
symptoms will exhibit themselves. But this is brought forward as a
conclusive fact against death by strychnine, and yet these men who make
this statement under the sanction of scientific authority, have heard
both cases spoken to by the gentlemen who examined the bodies. Then with
regard to congestion of the brain, and other vessels, the same
observation applies. Instead of being killed by action on the
respiratory muscles of the heart, death is the result of a long series
of paroxysms, and you expect to find the brain and other vessels
congested by that series of convulsive spasms. As death takes place from
one or other of these causes, so will the appearances be. There is every
reason to believe that the symptoms in this case were symptoms of
tetanus in the strongest and most aggravated form. Looking at the
symptoms which attended this unhappy man, setting aside the theory of
convulsions of epilepsy, of arachnitis, and angina pectoris, and
excluding idiopathic and traumatic tetanus--what remains? The tetanus of
strychnine, and the tetanus of strychnine alone. And I pray your
attention to the cases in which there was no question as to strychnine
having been administered in which the symptoms were so similar--the
symptoms so analogous--that I think you cannot hesitate to come to the
conclusion that this death was death by strychnine.

Several witnesses of the highest eminence, both on the part of the Crown
and for the defence, agree that in the whole range of their experience,
observation, and knowledge, they have known of no natural disease to
which these remarkable symptoms can be attributed. That being so, and
there being a known poison, which will produce them, how strong, how
cogent, how irresistible is the conclusion that it is that poison, and
that poison alone, to which they are to be attributed. On the other
hand, the case is not without its difficulties. Strychnia was not found
in this body, and we have it no doubt upon strong evidence, that in a
great variety of experiments upon the bodies of animals, killed by
strychnia, strychnia has been detected by tests which science placed at
the disposal of scientific men. If strychnia had been found, of course
there would have been no difficulty in the case, and we should have had
none of the ingenious theories which medical gentlemen have been called
here to propound. The question for your consideration is, whether the
absence of its detection leads conclusively to the view that this death
was not caused by the administration of strychnia. Now, in the first
place, under what circumstances was the examination made by Dr. Taylor
and Dr. Rees. They told us that the stomach of the man was brought to
them for analysation under the most unfavourable circumstances. They
state that the contents of the stomach had been lost, and therefore they
had no opportunity of experimenting upon them. It is true that they who
put the portions of the body into the jar make statements somewhat
different. But there appears to have been by accident some spilling of
the contents, and there is the most undeniable evidence of considerable
bungling in the way in which the stomach had been cut and placed in the
jar. It was cut, says Dr. Taylor, from end to end, and it was tied up at
both ends. It had been turned among the intestines, and placed amongst a
mass of feculent matter, and was in the most unsatisfactory condition
for analysation. It is very true that Dr. Nunneley, Mr. Herapath, and
Dr. Sotheby say that whatever impurities there may have been, if
strychnia had been in the stomach they would have found strychnia there.
I should have had every confidence in the testimony of Mr. Herapath if
he had not confessed a fact which had come to my knowledge, that he had
asserted that this was a case of poisoning, but that they did not go the
right way to find it out. I reverence the man who, from a sense of
justice and love of truth, will come forward in favour of any man for
the purpose of stating what he believes to be true; but I abhor the
trafficked testimony which I regret to see men of science sometimes
advance. But, assuming all they say to be true, as to the case of
detecting strychnine, is it certain that it can be found in all cases?
Dr. Taylor says no; and it would be a most mischievous and dangerous
proposition to assert that it is necessarily so, for it enables many a
guilty man to escape, who, by administering the smallest quantity
necessary to destroy life, might prevent its detection in the stomach.

What have these gentlemen done? They have given large doses in the
experiments they have made for the purposes of this case, in which they
have been retained--I use the word “retained,” for it is the proper
word--in all these cases, I say, they have given doses large enough to
be detected. But the gentlemen who made the experiments in Cook’s case
failed in detecting strychnine in two cases out of four in which they
had administered it to animals. The conclusion I draw is that there is
no positive mode of detection. But this case does not rest here. Alas, I
wish it did! I must now draw your attention to one part of the case
which has not been met or attempted to be disputed in the slightest
degree by my learned friend. My learned friend said that he would
contest the case for the prosecution step by step. Alas! we are now upon
ground upon which my friend has not even ventured a word in explanation.
Was the prisoner at the bar possessed of the poison of strychnia? This
is a matter with which it behoved my learned friend to deal, and to
exhaust all the means in his power in order to meet this part of the
case. The prisoner obtained possession of strychnia on the Monday night.
It is true that the evidence of the man who sold the strychnia to
Palmer, as I stated at the outset of these proceedings, and I repeat it
now, must be received with care and attention. Now Newton said that on
the night when Palmer came back from London, he came to him and obtained
three grains of that poison, the symptoms and effects of which are
precisely similar to those which are stated to have occurred in the case
of this poor man. With respect to the evidence of Newton, my learned
friend has done no more than repeat the warning which I gave you at the
commencement of the case. You have heard the reason assigned by the
witness why he did not state the fact of his having sold strychnine to
the prisoner on the previous evening, before the coroner, and you will
judge of the value of the explanation which he gave. Upon the other
hand, there is the consideration, what conceivable motive could this
young man have had for now coming forward and deposing to the fact of
his having sold this poison to the prisoner, except a sense of truth. My
learned friend has very justly and very properly asked for your most
attentive consideration to the question of the motives involved in this
part of the evidence, before you can come to the conclusion of the
prisoner having taken away, with malice and forethought, the life of
another.

Hideous though may be the crime of taking away life by poison, it is
probably not so horrible to contemplate as the motive of a judicial
murder effected by a false witness against a man’s life. Can you suppose
that this young man Newton could have the shadow of any such motive in
coming forward in a court like this to take away the life of the
prisoner at the bar, as, alas! his evidence must do, if you believe him.
If you believe the witness that, on the Monday night, for no other
conceivable and assignable purpose except the deed of darkness to be
committed that night, the prisoner at the bar obtained from him the
fatal means and instrument whereby Cook was to be destroyed, it is
impossible that you can come to any other conclusion than that the
prisoner is guilty of the foul deed with which he stands charged at the
bar. My learned friend says that Newton did not speak truth, because,
first, he did not make this statement before the coroner; and, secondly,
because Newton laid the time of Palmer’s arrival at nine o’clock,
whereas he did not arrive until ten o’clock. Now Newton only stated that
it was about nine o’clock, and every one knows how easy it is to make a
slight mistake as to the hour when there is nothing particular to fix
the event on the memory. My learned friend has sought to meet this part
of the case. He has produced a witness, all I can say of whom is, that
for the sake of the prisoner at the bar, I trust you will not allow him
to be affected by anything which that most disreputable witness,
Jeremiah Smith, has stated. Now Dr. Bamford said that Palmer told him he
had himself seen Cook between nine and ten o’clock, while Smith said
that they did not leave the car until past ten o’clock. With respect to
the evidence of Smith that he saw Palmer alight from the car, go from
thence to the house of Palmer’s mother, I ask you not to believe one
single word of it, because I do not myself believe a single word of his
evidence. Certainly such a miserable spectacle as that witness in the
box, I have never seen surpassed in a court of justice. He is a member
of the legal profession, and I blush that such a member is to found upon
the rolls. There was not one who heard his evidence who was not
satisfied that the man came here to tell a falsehood--not one who was
not convinced that he was mixed up in many of the villanies which, if
not perpetrated, were, at all events, contemplated, and that he came
here to save the life of his companion and friend, and the son of the
woman with whom he had that intimacy the nature of which he sought in
vain to disguise. I cannot but think that, looking to the whole of this
part of the case, you must believe the evidence of Newton, and if you do
so believe it, then that evidence is conclusive of the case. But the
case does not stop there, because we have the most indisputable evidence
that on the following day Palmer purchased more strychnine at the shop
of Mr. Hawkins.

You remember the circumstance connected with that purchase, Palmer’s
first asking for some prussic acid, and then ordering some strychnine to
be put up for him, Newton coming in, and the prisoner calling him out of
the shop to speak to him of the most unimportant matters. Why did the
prisoner take Newton out of the shop? Evidently because he wished to
avoid exciting suspicions which would very naturally be raised in the
mind of Newton, from the fact of the prisoner having purchased strychnia
on two occasions, and who would very naturally inquire for what purpose
it was that the prisoner wanted nine grains of strychnine. Why did the
prisoner go to Hawkins’s shop to purchase the poison? The reason was
clear. If he had gone to Thirlby’s, who was his former assistant, he
would naturally have asked Palmer for whom the strychnine was intended.
Why the prisoner should have gone on two successive days and purchased
the poison is one of those mysteries attending this case which I cannot
explain. At all events, it is quite clear that he did so. But if there
is some difficulty in this part of the case, there is, on the other
hand, a still greater difficulty arising from the use to which this
poison was to be put. If it was for the purpose of professional use, for
the benefit of some patient, where is the patient, and why was he not
produced? My learned friend passed over this part of the case in
mysterious but significant silence. Account for that six grains of
strychnia. Throw a doubt, if you please, on the purchase of the
strychnine on the Monday night, but on Tuesday it is unquestionably true
that six grains were purchased. If these six grains were required for
the use of any patients, why were they not produced, and if for any
other purpose why was it not explained?

Has there been the slightest shadow of attempt to show the use to which
the poison was applied? Alas! no. Something was said at the outset about
dogs which were troublesome in the paddock to the prisoner’s mares and
foals, but that was proved to have been in September. And if there had
been any recurrence of this annoyance why was it not proved in evidence?
If it were used for the purpose of destroying dogs some one must have
assisted him in the act. Why were they not called? But not only were
these persons not called, they were not even named. I ask you what
conclusion you can draw from these circumstances, except this one, that
the death of Cook took place with all the symptoms of poison by
strychnia--death in all the convulsions and throes which that deadly
poison produces in the frame of man.

It is said by my learned friend that Palmer might easily have purchased
strychnine at London, and that he would not have purchased it in Rugeley
on two occasions, if he had intended to have used it for a criminal
purpose. I admit the fact, and feel the full force of the observation;
and if he could have shown any proper use to which the poison was
applied, the assertion would have been one well worthy of your
consideration. But, how do the facts stand with respect to Palmer’s
visit to London? He might, it is true, have purchased strychnine there.
But, then, on the occasion of his visit he had a great deal to do; he
had to catch the train; he had pecuniary difficulties to settle and
arrange; and even then it would have required the certificate of one
other person in order to have obtained the strychnine, as he was not
known in London as a medical practitioner. But what avail all these
suppositions, when we have, on the other hand, the strong and
unmistakeable evidence that the prisoner did actually purchase the
strychnine at Rugeley? Well, then, it has been said that the fact of the
prisoner having called in two medical men, was strong presumptive
evidence to negate his guilt. It is true that he called in Dr. Bamford,
and wrote to Dr. Jones to come and see Cook. Now, as medical men, it is
true, that they would be very likely to know the symptoms of death by
strychnine. But there is a point in this part of the case which deserves
notice. If these symptoms exhibited were not those resulting from
strychnia, but were referable to that multiform variety of diseases to
which the witnesses have referred, there is no reason why the prisoner
should have any credit for sending for these medical gentlemen. It is
quite true that he called on old Dr. Bamford. I speak of that gentleman
in no terms of disrespect, but still I think I do him no injustice when
I say that the vigour of his intellect and the powers of his mind have
been impaired, as all human powers are liable to be, by the advance of
age. I do not think he was a person likely to make any very shrewd
observation as to the cause of the death of Cook; and the best proof of
this is to be found in what he did and what he wrote on the subject.

As regards Mr. Jones, these observations do not apply, for he was a man
in the possession of the full powers of mind. The prisoner selected
Jones, and the result proved how wise he was in making that selection.
The death of Cook occurred in the presence of Jones, with all those
painful symptoms you have heard described, and yet Jones suspected
nothing, and if the prisoner had succeeded in introducing Cook’s body
into that “strong oak coffin” which he had made for him, the body would
have been consigned to the grave, and nobody would have known anything
of these proceedings, while the presence of Jones and Dr. Bamford would
have been used to prevent any suspicion. On the other hand, it is not at
all improbable that the prisoner might have thought that the best mode
of disarming all suspicions would be to take care that some medical men
should be called in, and should be present at the time of death. There
is nothing to show that the prisoner entertained the most distant notion
that Jones would have to sleep in the same room as Cook, and if this had
not been the case, they would have found in the morning that Cook had
gone through his mortal struggle, and had died there alone and
unfriended. Cook would have been found dead next morning, and the old
man would have said he died of apoplexy, and the young man that he died
of epilepsy; and had any suspicion been awakened, it would have been
urged in reply, as it has been by my learned friend, that two medical
men were called in by the prisoner previous to his death. But the case
does not end here. We have had a great many witnesses who have told us a
great deal about strychnia, but none that have said a word about
antimony.

On the Wednesday night, at Shrewsbury, when Cook drank a glass of brandy
and water, he said that there was something in it which burned his
throat, and was afterwards seized with vomiting, which lasted for
several hours. On that same night, Mrs. Brooks saw the prisoner shaking
something in a glass. It is a remarkable fact, that when Cook drank that
brandy and water, he was taken ill a few minutes after. There were, it
is true, other persons taken ill at Shrewsbury about the same time; but
still you will have to bear in mind that scene of the shaking up of the
fluid in the glass in the passage, the fact that Cook was somewhat in
liquor, and that in that state he ought not to have been told by the
prisoner that he would not drink any more unless he finished his glass.
Pass on, however, to Rugeley. You still find that Cook was under the
influence of the same symptoms as those which he suffered at Shrewsbury.
You have the fact of the prisoner sending him over toast and water and
broth, and that no sooner had the poor man taken these things than he is
seized with incessant vomitings of the most painful character. Then,
too, there was the broth, said to have been sent by Smith from the
Albion, which was sent, however, not to the Talbot Inn, but to the
prisoner’s kitchen. This broth was taken over to the Talbot by the
prisoner himself, and as soon as it was touched by Cook, vomitings
followed. There is, too, the fact that the servant at the Talbot, after
taking two spoonfuls of the broth, was ill for several hours, and
vomited something like twenty times. Then, again, on the Monday, when
the prisoner was absent, Cook was found to be better; but upon the
Tuesday, when he returned to Rugeley, the vomitings again returned. Now,
the important fact is, that antimony was found in the tissues of the
poor man’s body, and in his blood; and the presence of the antimony in
the blood shows that it must have been taken within the last forty-eight
hours before death. The small quantity found does not afford, however,
the slightest criterion of the whole quantity administered. A part of
the quantity given would be thrown up in the vomiting.

Something has been said about Cook having taken the antimony in “James’s
powder,” but not a tittle of evidence has been given that he ever took
any of these powders, while the presence of the antimony in the blood
proved that it had been administered within, forty-eight hours of death.
I believe that you will feel that you have a right to conclude from all
the evidence that has been brought before you upon this point, that
antimony had been administered to Cook in a mode and in quantities which
showed that it could have been given for no legitimate object; and
further, that it must have been administered by the prisoner. And from
these facts you will see how great is the probability that he must, in
that case, have acted with the view of carrying out a fatal resolution
previously formed; for it is well known that antimony has often been
given in amounts capable of destroying life. But let us take into
consideration the conduct of the prisoner in the afterstages of the
case, and let us look at what took place on the day of Cook’s death. On
the preceding night he had suffered from what was indisputably a most
severe attack. Dr. Bamford sees Palmer on the Tuesday morning, and not a
word is said to him about that attack. The prisoner manifests an anxiety
that he should not see the deceased; he states that Cook is quiet, and
is dosing, and that he does not wish to have him disturbed. That might
be. But on the other hand it must be remembered that if Dr. Bamford had
seen Cook in the morning, Cook would in all probability have made known
to him his frightful suffering of the night before, as they must then
have formed the subject which was, of all others, the most present to
his memory. Dr. Bamford, however, did not see the deceased until seven
o’clock on the Tuesday evening, when he was much better. Palmer had then
talked of his having suffered from a bilious affection; and it is a
remarkable fact that he had more than once represented the illness of
Cook as one arising from a bilious attack, both to Dr. Bamford and Dr.
Jones, although the patient had exhibited none of the symptoms which
ordinarily accompany a bilious constitution. The moment Dr. Jones saw
him he made the observation that his “tongue was not that of a bilious
patient,” and the answer he got from Palmer was, “Oh, you should have
seen him before.” Seen him when before? There was not the slightest
ground for supposing that he had been suffering from any bilious
complaint, either at Shrewsbury or since his arrival at Rugeley. But not
one word did Palmer say to Dr. Jones about the fit of Cook on the night
before. Well, the three medical men consulted together, by the bedside
of the patient, and then Cook turned round and said, “Mind, I will have
no more pills and medicine, to-night,” remembering, as he no doubt did
at the time, his illness of the preceding night. No observation was made
even then by Palmer as to what had been the nature of Cook’s attack on
the night before; but the medical men having withdrawn into the
adjoining room or lobby, Palmer immediately proposed that Cook should
again take the same pills he had taken on the previous night; but he
desired Jones not to say anything to him about what they contained, lest
he might object to take them.

It was then arranged that the pills should be made up, and Palmer
proposed that they should be compounded by Dr. Bamford, although it was
then early in the evening, and he might easily have prepared them on his
own premises. He accompanied Dr. Bamford to the surgery of the latter;
and after the pills had been made up there, he asked Dr. Bamford to
write the address on them, and the address was so written. An interval
occurred of an hour or two, during which the prisoner had abundant
opportunities of going to his surgery, and doing what he pleased in the
way of changing the pills. He returned to the hotel, and before he gave
the pills to Cook he took care to call the attention of Jones, who was
present at the time, to the remarkable handwriting of an old gentleman
like Dr. Bamford, by whom the direction of the medicine had been
written. What necessity was there for that? Might it not have been part
of a preconceived design to save himself from any subsequent suspicion,
by his being able to state that the pills had been prepared by Dr.
Bamford? and might it not have been done for the purpose of disarming
any immediate suspicion on the part of Dr. Jones himself? Have we not
every reason to suppose that it may have been effectual in accomplishing
the latter result? Any one of these circumstances could not have been of
so decisive a character as to lead you to the conviction of the
prisoner’s guilt; but I ask you to consider them as a series of events
following one another in close succession; and I then leave it to you to
draw from them the conclusion to which you may find they must
legitimately lead. I will now pass over for a moment the remainder of
the history of the Tuesday night, and I will take you to the
circumstances which immediately followed Cook’s death. On the Thursday,
Mr. Stevens, the stepfather of the deceased, went over to Rugeley, on
receiving intelligence of the sad event. He applied to Palmer for
information upon the subject of Cook’s affairs; and in the course of the
communications which passed between them, Stevens said, “rich or poor,
the poor fellow should be buried.” Palmer then observed that he would
undertake to bury him himself, but Mr. Stevens declined, in a decisive
manner, to avail himself of that offer. I admit that there may be
nothing suspicious in the proposal of Palmer to bury his friend, if it
should be taken by itself, but there is this somewhat remarkable
circumstance in this part of the case, that when Mr. Stevens had said
that he could not have the funeral for a few days, Palmer observed that
“the body ought to be put into a coffin immediately;” and when, after an
absence of about half an hour, he returned, and was asked by Mr. Stevens
for the name of an undertaker to whom he should give directions about
the funeral, the prisoner stated, much to the surprise of the gentleman
whom he was addressing, that “he had himself ordered a shell and a
strong oak coffin.” Why should he have so hurriedly interfered in the
business of another man, unless he had made up his mind that the body
should be consigned to its last resting place, and removed from the
sight of man with the utmost possible rapidity?

You have heard the conversation which took place between Mr. Stevens and
the prisoner on the Saturday at the different railway stations at which
they met. It appears that at that time Mr. Stevens had made up his mind
that a _post-mortem_ examination of the body of the deceased should take
place, in consequence of circumstances which had engendered a suspicion
in his mind that the death of his step-son had not been the result of
natural disease. He had noticed the strange attitude of the
deceased--his clinched hands, and the unusual appearance of his
face--and being a man of natural shrewdness and sagacity, he felt a
lurking suspicion which he could not unravel, that there must have been
foul play in the case. He made known to the prisoner his intention of
having the body opened before it was consigned to the grave. It is true
that the prisoner did not flinch from that trying ordeal, and that he
met with firmness the trying gaze of Mr. Stevens, when the report of the
_post-mortem_ examination was first mentioned. But finding that there
was to be a _post-mortem_ examination, he was anxious to know who was to
perform it. Mr. Stevens would not inform him, but merely stated that it
was to take place on the Monday. Then we have on the Sunday that
remarkable conversation between the prisoner and Newton, which has been
for some time known to the Crown. It is true that Newton did not mention
the conversation in the course of his examination before the coroner;
but the reason for his silence upon the subject on that occasion may be
easily proved. He was called at the inquest solely for the purpose of
corroborating the evidence of Roberts with respect to Palmer’s
appearance in Dr. Hawkins’s shop on the Tuesday morning; and to that
point his evidence before the coroner was confined. He has since deposed
that during a conversation with Palmer on the Sunday, the latter
suddenly asked him, “What quantity of strychnine would you give if you
wanted to kill a dog?” The reply was, “From half-a-grain to a grain.”
The prisoner then asked, “Would you expect to find any traces of it in
the stomach after death;” Newton answered, “No;” and, on his doing so,
he observed the prisoner make a movement conveying an intimation of his
delight.

I had at one time thought that my learned friend engaged for the defence
would have attempted to show that the prisoner had purchased the
strychnia at the commencement of the week for the purpose of destroying
dogs; but no evidence whatever has been adduced to establish such a
point; and we had no evidence of any kind to show how that strychnia was
applied. But my learned friend has contended that the prisoner had no
motive for taking away the life of his friend, Cook. Now if I convince
you upon unimpeachable evidence that the death of Cook had bean caused
by strychnine, and that that strychnine could only have been
administered by the prisoner, then the question of motive must become a
mere secondary consideration. It is often difficult to dive into the
breast of man, and to ascertain with any certainty the reasons which
directed him to any particular course of action; and the inscrutable
character of any particular motive ought not to destroy the force of a
well-authenticated fact. But motive is unquestionably an important
element in a case over which any doubt as to the facts can by any
possibility rest. I believe I can perfectly satisfy your minds that in
this case the prisoner had a motive, and a very obvious motive, for
taking away the life of Cook. He was at the time reduced to a condition
of the direst embarrassment. It appears that in the month of November
last he owed on bills not less than £19,000, of which £12,500 worth was
in the hands of Pratt; and out of that latter sum £5,500 was pressing
for immediate payment. By the death of Cook he was enabled to obtain
possession of £1,020, due to the latter in the shape of bets; he was
enabled to obtain possession of the money which Cook must have had about
him on his arrival at Rugeley, and which, according to one of the
witnesses, must have amounted to £700 or £800; and he attempted to
obtain possession of the £350 which the Messrs. Weatherby were to have
received as the amount of the stakes of the Shrewsbury Handicap. The
order forwarded by Palmer to the Messrs. Weatherby for the £350, and
purporting to bear the signature of Cook, had been sent back by them to
the prisoner; and if that signature was not a forgery, why had it not
been produced on the part of the defendant?

My learned friend says that Cook was the best friend of the prisoner,
and that Cook was the only person to whom he could look for assistance
in his embarrassments. But Cook had no means of assisting him, unless he
were to appropriate to his use the money which he had won at Shrewsbury,
which was all the property he then possessed; and can any one believe
that the deceased would have parted with that money, and would have left
himself wholly without any resources for the approaching winter? My
learned friend contends that the fact that Palmer had written the letter
on the Friday night, in which he asked Fisher to pay £200 to Pratt, on
account of a transaction in which both he and Palmer were interested,
while £300 more were to be sent upon that night--my learned friend
contends that that fact shows that the prisoner and the deceased
perfectly understood one another at the time, and goes far to prove the
innocence of his client. To my mind, however, that very circumstance
affords a very strong argument in favour of the case for the Crown. The
only transaction with Pratt, in which Palmer and Cook were both
interested, was that relating to the bill for £500, and in which Cook
had assigned his horse as a collateral security. It is very easy to see
that he must have felt particularly anxious that that claim should at
once be settled, and that his horses should come into his own undisputed
possession, one of these horses being a very valuable one, namely,
Polestar, which had just won the Shrewsbury race. He accordingly, I have
no doubt, gave Palmer £300 to be sent up to London on account of that
bill; but that sum was never applied by the prisoner to the purpose for
which it had been placed in his hands. There is not the slightest
foundation for the statement that Cook had entered into an arrangement
with Palmer for the purpose of defrauding Fisher of the £200 he had
advanced; for there was nothing in his character which could show that
he was capable of so infamous an act, and it could not possibly have
been his interest that it should take place. I will not ask you to
direct your attention to the request addressed by the prisoner to
Cheshire, the postmaster, that he should bear his witness to the
genuineness of Cook’s signature to the order on the Messrs. Weatherby
for the sum of £350. That request was made forty-eight hours after
Cook’s death; and if the signature was not a forgery, why was that
extraordinary demand made of Cheshire, and why had not the document been
since produced? It is impossible to forget that if Cheshire had
testified to the genuineness of that document, the prisoner would have
been enabled to exercise over him the most fatal control, and that he
might then have compelled him to sign another paper, transferring, as
the prisoner had sought to do in the course of one of his conversations
with Mr. Stevens, to the deceased the liability for £4,000 or £5,000 due
on bills to Pratt, and outstanding in his own name.

All these facts show irrefragably, as I contend, that the death of Cook
had, in the opinion of the prisoner, become most desirable for his own
relief. There is another part of his conduct as tending to throw light
on this matter, and that is with reference to Cook’s betting book. On
the night when Cook died--ere the breath had hardly parted from that
poor man’s body--the prisoner was found there, rummaging his pockets,
and searching for his papers. When, subsequently, Stevens asked for the
betting book, the prisoner said, “Oh, it’s of no use, for a dead man’s
bets are void.” True it is that a dead man’s bets are void, but not when
they are paid during his life. Who received the bets? The prisoner at
the bar. Who was answerable for them? The prisoner at the bar. Who had
an interest in concealing the amount of those debts? The prisoner at the
bar. If Stevens had seen that book, he would have seen that Cook was
entitled to a sum of £1,020; he would have seen that Fisher was his
agent, and from him that Herring, and not Fisher, had calculated his
bets. But there is still more yet to be accounted for. When Stevens
determined upon having a _post-mortem_ examination, what was the conduct
of the prisoner at the bar? [The learned Attorney-General then
proceeded to refer to the arrival of Dr. Harland in the town of Rugeley
for the purpose of making the examination, his conversation with Palmer,
when the latter said that Cook had died of epileptic fits, and that
traces of old disease would be found in the head and heart, none of
which were, however, found on the examination of the body; the removal
of the jar containing the stomach and intestines of Cook, the slits cut
in the covering probably for the purpose of introducing something into
the jar, which would neutralise the poison if it were present, the
restlessness and uneasiness of the prisoner while the examination was
going on, his remonstrating with Dr. Bamford for letting the jars be
sent away, and his attempt to bribe the post-boy to upset the chaise and
break the jar.]

The conduct of Mr. Stevens, the stepfather of Cook, in resolving to
prosecute this inquiry, was such as the gravity and importance of the
case proved ought to have protected him from the charge of insolent
curiosity brought against him by my learned friend. The hon. and learned
gentleman then concluded as follows:--It is for you to say, under these
circumstances, whether or not the death of the deceased was caused by
the prisoner at the bar. You have indeed had introduced into this case
one other element which I cannot help thinking might well have been
omitted. You have heard from my learned friend an unusual, I think I may
even say an unprecedented, expression of the innocence of his client. I
can only say on that point that I believe my learned friend might have
abstained from any such statement. What would he think of me, if,
imitating his example, I should at this moment declare to you, on my
honour, as he did, what is the internal conviction which has followed
from my conscientious consideration of this case? My learned friend has,
with a full display of his great ability, also adopted another course,
which, although sometimes resorted to by members of our profession,
involves in my mind a species of insult to the good sense and the good
feeling of the jury; he has endeavoured to intimidate you by evoking
your own conscientious scruples for the purpose of preventing you from
adopting the only honest mode of discharging the great duty you are
called upon to perform. My learned friend told you that if your verdict
in this case should be Guilty, the innocence of the prisoner will one
day or other be made manifest, and you would never cease to regret the
verdict you had given. If my learned friend was sincere in that--and I
know that he was, for there is no man who is more alive than he is to
the claims of truth and honour--but if he said what he believed, all I
can state in answer is, that I can only attribute the conviction he has
expressed to that strong bias which his mind easily, perhaps, received
in directing all his energies to the defence of a man charged with this
frightful crime. But I still think he would have done well to have
abstained from any assurance of the innocence of the prisoner at the
bar. I go further, and say that I think he ought, in justice and in
consideration to you, to have abstained from telling you that the voice
of the country would not sanction the verdict which you might give. I
say nothing of the inconsistency which is involved in such a statement,
coming from one who but a short time before complained in eloquent terms
of the universal torrent of passion, and of prejudice by which, he said,
his client was borne down.

     In answer to my learned friend, I have only this to say to you. Pay
     no regard to the voice of the country, whether it be for
     condemnation or for acquittal; pay no regard to anything but to the
     internal voice of your own consciences; trust to the sense of that
     duty to God and man, which you are about to discharge upon this
     occasion, seeking no reward except the comforting assurance that
     when you shall look back at the events of this trial you have
     discharged, to the best of your ability, and to the utmost of your
     power, the duty you have been called upon to fulfil. If, on a
     review of the whole case, comparing the evidence on one side and on
     the other, and weighing it in the even scales of justice, you can
     come to the conclusion of the innocence, or even entertain that
     fair and reasonable doubt of guilt, of which the accused is
     entitled to the benefit, in God’s name give to him that benefit.
     But if, on the other hand, all the facts and all the evidence lead
     your minds with satisfaction to yourselves to the conclusion of his
     guilt, then--but then only--I ask for a verdict of Guilty at your
     hands. For the protection of the good, for the repression of the
     wicked, I then ask for that verdict by which alone--as it seems to
     me--the safety of society can be secured, and the demands--the
     imperious demands--of public justice can be satisfied. (The hon.
     and learned gentleman concluded his address shortly after half-past
     six o’clock, after having occupied the breathless attention of
     every one who had heard him during a period of three hours and
     three quarters).

Lord Campbell then addressed the jury as follows:--the cause of public
justice imperatively requires that the court should now adjourn. I shall
feel it my duty, in this important case, to bring before you the whole
of the evidence on the one side and on the other, accompanying the
reading of it with such remarks as I may think it proper to make. It is
impossible to enter on that duty at this hour, and I am, therefore,
under the painful necessity of ordering that you be again kept
sequestered from your families and friends during another Sabbath.

The court then adjourned at twenty-five minutes to seven o’clock until
ten o’clock on Monday.

We may here observe that the prisoner listened with deep attention to
the whole of the address of the Attorney-General, and even with, an air
of considerable anxiety, although he still preserved his usual perfect
self-possession.




ELEVENTH DAY, MAY 26.


The proceedings in this protracted case were resumed this morning at the
Old Bailey. The public interest which it has excited from the first
appears in no degree to have abated, and the Court was again densely
crowded. The prisoner was placed at the bar punctually at 10 o’clock,
and we were unable to trace any change in his appearance or demeanour,
although he naturally listened with marked attention, in which one might
occasionally detect a shade of anxiety, to the summing up of the Lord
Chief Justice. Still it must be admitted that he looked as little
concerned as any one in Court.

Several persons of distinction were present during portions of the day,
and among them we noticed Mr. Gladstone, M.P., General Fox, Mr. Milnes
Gaskell, M.P., Mr. C. Forster, M.P., Mr. Oliveira, M.P., Lord G. Lennox,
M.P., the Recorder, the Common Serjeant, Alderman Sir R. W. Garden, the
Sheriffs, and other gentlemen officially connected with the
administration of justice in the city.


                 SUMMING-UP OF THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.

Silence having been proclaimed,

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE (CAMPBELL) proceeded to sum up the case to the
jury; but spoke in so low a tone that some part of his address was not
audible in the reporters’ inconvenient box. He said,--Gentlemen of the
Jury, we have at length arrived at that stage in this solemn and
important case when it becomes the duty of the Judge to explain to you
the nature of the charge brought against the prisoner, and the questions
and considerations upon which your verdict ought to be given. Gentlemen,
I must begin by conjuring you to banish from your minds all that you may
have heard before the prisoner was placed in that dock. There is no
doubt that a strong prejudice elsewhere did prevail against the prisoner
at the bar. In the county of Stafford, where the offence for which he
has to answer was alleged to have been committed, that prejudice was so
strong that the Court of Queen’s Bench made an order to remove the trial
from that county. The prisoner, by his counsel, expressed a wish that
the trial might take place at the Central Criminal Court; and to enable
that wish to be accomplished an act has been passed by the Legislature,
authorising the Court of Queen’s Bench to direct the trial to be held in
this Court, so as to secure to the prisoner that he shall have a fair
and impartial trial.

Gentlemen, I must not only warn you against being influenced by what you
have before heard, but I must also warn you not to be influenced by
anything but by the evidence which has been laid before you with respect
to the particular charge for which the prisoner is now arraigned. It is
necessary that I should so warn you in this case, because the evidence
certainly implicates the prisoner in transactions of another description
which are very discreditable. It appears that he has forged a great many
bills of exchange, and that he had entered upon transactions which were
not of a creditable nature. Those transactions, however, must be
excluded from your consideration altogether. By the practice in foreign
countries it is allowed to raise a probability of the prisoner having
committed the crime with which he is charged by proving that he has
committed other offences--by showing that he is an immoral man, and that
he is not unlikely, therefore, to have committed the offence with which
he is charged. That is not the case in this country. You must presume
that a man is innocent until his guilt be established, and his guilt can
only be established by evidence directly criminating him on the charge
for which he is tried. Gentlemen, it gives me great satisfaction that
this case has been so fully laid before you. Everything has been done
that could have been accomplished for the purpose of assisting the jury
in arriving at a right conclusion. The prosecution has been taken up by
the Government, so that justice may be duly administered, the
Attorney-General, who is the first law officer of the Crown, having
conducted it in his capacity of a minister of justice. The prisoner also
appears to have had ample means for conducting his defence; witnesses
have very properly been brought from all parts of the kingdom to give
you the benefit of their information; and he has had the advantage of
having his case conducted by one of the most distinguished advocates of
the English bar. Gentlemen, I must strongly recommend to you to attend
to everything that fell from that advocate, so eloquently, so ably, and
so impressively. You are to judge, however, of the guilt or innocence of
the prisoner from the evidence, and not from the speeches of counsel,
however able or eloquent those speeches may be. When a counsel tells you
that he believes his client to be innocent, remember that that is
analogous to the mere form by which a prisoner pleads “Not Guilty.” It
goes for nothing more; and the most inconvenient consequences must
follow from regarding it in any other light.

I will now say a few words in order to call to your minds what are the
allegations in this case on one side and on the other. On the part of
the prosecution it is alleged that the deceased, John Parsons Cook, was
first tampered with by antimony, that he was then killed by the poison
of strychnia, and that his symptoms were the symptoms of poisoning by
strychnia. Then it is alleged that the prisoner at the bar had a motive
for making away with the deceased, that he had an opportunity of
administering poison, that suspicion could fall upon no one else, and
that a few days before the time when the poison is supposed to have been
administered he had purchased strychnia at two different places. It is
also alleged by the prosecution that his conduct during that
transaction, and after it, was that of a guilty and not of an innocent
man. The prisoner at the bar, on the other hand, puts forward these
allegations--that he had no interest in procuring the death of John
Parsons Cook, but, on the contrary, that it was his interest to keep him
alive; that the death was not occasioned by strychnia, but by natural
disease, and that the symptoms were those of natural disease, and were
by no means consistent with, the supposition of death by strychnia.
These are the allegations which are urged upon one side and the other,
and it is for you to say, upon the evidence, which, of these allegations
you believe to be founded on truth.

Gentlemen, you have a most anxious duty to perform. The life of the
prisoner is at stake; if he be guilty, it is necessary that he should
expiate his crime; if he be innocent, it is requisite that his innocence
should be vindicated. If his guilt be proved to you on satisfactory
evidence, it is your duty to society and to yourselves to convict him;
but unless his guilt be fully sustained by the evidence, it is your duty
to acquit him. You must bear in mind that in a case of this sort you
cannot expect that witnesses should be called to state that they saw the
deadly poison mixed up by the prisoner, and by him openly administered.
Circumstantial evidence of the fact is all that can be expected; and if
there be a series of circumstances leading to the conclusion of guilt, a
verdict of guilty may be satisfactorily pronounced. With respect to the
motive, it is of great importance, in cases of this description, that
you should consider whether there was any motive for committing the
crime with which a prisoner is charged, for if there be no motive, there
is an improbability of the offence having been committed. If, on the
other hand, there be any motive which can be assigned for the commission
of the deed, the adequacy of that motive becomes next a matter of the
utmost importance.

The great question which you will have to consider is, whether the
symptoms of Cook’s death are consistent with poisoning by strychnia. If
they are not, and you believe that the death arose from natural causes,
the prisoner is at once entitled to your verdict of Not Guilty. If, on
the other hand, you think that the symptoms are consistent with
poisoning by strychnia, you have another and important question to
decide--namely, whether the evidence which has been adduced is
sufficient to convince you that death was effected by strychnia, and, if
so, whether such strychnia was administered by the prisoner. In cases of
this sort the evidence has often been divided into the medical, and the
moral, or circumstantial evidence. They cannot be separated, however, in
the minds of a jury, because it is by a combination of those two species
of evidence that their verdict ought to be given. In this case you must
look at the medical evidence, to see whether the deceased died from
strychnia or from natural causes; and you must look to what is called
the moral evidence, to consider whether that shows that the prisoner not
only had the opportunity, but that he actually availed himself of that
opportunity, and administered the poison to the deceased. Now,
gentlemen, with these preliminary observations, I will proceed to read
over the evidence which has been given in the course of this long trial,
praying you most earnestly to weigh that evidence carefully, and to be
guided entirely by it in the verdict at which you may arrive. I begin
with that part of the case which was first raised by the
Attorney-General, with respect to the motive which the prisoner is
supposed to have had for taking away the life of John Parsons Cook. Now,
I think that that arises out of certain pecuniary transactions which
must be fresh in the minds of all of you. It appears that the prisoner
had borrowed large sums of money upon bills of exchange, which he drew,
and which purported to be accepted by his mother--a lady, it seems, of
considerable wealth, residing at Rugeley. Those acceptances were forged,
and the lady was not aware of them until a recent period, when they
became due, and proceedings were taken upon them. One of those
acceptances, for £2,000, was in the hands of a gentleman named Padwick;
£1,000 had been paid, and £1,000 remained due to Mr. Padwick upon that
bill. A solicitor named Pratt, of Queen-street, Mayfair, had advanced
large sums of money to the prisoner upon similar bills to the amount, I
think of £12,500. Several of those bills had been renewed without the
knowledge of the mother; but there were two which remained
unrenewed--one, for £2,000, became due on the 25th of October, 1855, and
another, for £2,000, became due on the 27th of October, 1855. Besides
these, Mr. Pratt held one bill for £500, and another for £1,000, which
were overdue, but not renewed, and which Pratt held over, charging a
very high rate of interest upon them.

In addition to these large sums, which had been advanced by Pratt to the
prisoner, it appears that upon similar bills Palmer had contracted a
very large debt with an attorney at Birmingham, named Wright, to whom he
owed £10,400. It had been stated by Palmer that he should be able to
liquidate those bills by the proceeds of a policy of assurance which had
been effected on the life of his brother, Walter Palmer. Gentlemen, the
law of this country wisely forbids an insurance being effected by one
person upon the life of another who has no interest in that life; but,
unfortunately, it does not prevent a man from insuring his own life to
any amount, however large, and whatever his position may be, and
assigning the policy of that insurance to another person. It has been
proved in evidence that there had been an insurance for £13,000 effected
on the life of Walter Palmer, who was a bankrupt, without any means
except such as were furnished to him by his mother; and that the policy
had been assigned by Walter Palmer to the prisoner at the bar. It was
expected that the £13,000 insured upon the life of his brother would be
the means of enabling the prisoner to meet the acceptances to which I
have referred, but the directors of the Prince of Wales Insurance-office
denied their liability upon that policy, and refused to pay it. Hence
arose the most pressing embarrassments; claimants were urging the
payment of their accounts, and it was evident that, unless they were
immediately paid, the law would be put in force against the prisoner and
his mother, and that the system of forgeries which had been so long
carried on would be made apparent. Now I begin with the evidence of Mr.
John Espin, a solicitor practising in Davies-street, Berkeley-square.
[The learned Judge then read the evidence of Mr. Espin with respect to
the £2,000 bill held by Mr. Padwick, the dishonouring of the cheque for
£1,000, and the final issuing of a _ca. sa._ against the person of the
prisoner on the 12th of December.] This, continued the noble Lord, is
certainly strong evidence to show the desperate state of the prisoner’s
circumstances at that time; but we now come to the evidence of Mr.
Thomas Pratt, who had advanced money to the prisoner upon bills of
exchange, which bore the forged acceptance of the prisoner’s mother, to
the amount of £12,500. [The learned Judge then proceeded to read the
whole of the evidence of Mr. Pratt, together with the voluminous
correspondence between that gentleman and the prisoner, detailing the
entire history of the transactions which had taken place between them
from the date of their first acquaintance in November, 1853, down to the
period of the apprehension of the prisoner upon the present charge. They
will be found reported in their proper place.] With regard to the letter
subjoined, and marked “strictly private and confidential,”--

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

“And oblige yours faithfully,

“WILLIAM PALMER.”



--the learned Judge observed that the jury would recollect that when
that letter was written Mr. Stevens, the stepfather of Cook, was making
inquiries of a nature which were certainly very disagreeable to Palmer.
[Having first disposed of that portion of the correspondence respecting
money due from Palmer to Pratt, and with regard to which Cook, was
supposed to have no interest, the learned judge next proceeded to read
that branch of the correspondence relating to the assignment of the two
racehorses, Polestar and Sirius, and to some other occurrences to which
Cook was supposed to have been a party.] With respect to the cheque for
£375, sent by Pratt to Palmer for Cook, from which the words “or bearer”
had been struck out, his Lordship observed:--Now, it is rather suggested
on the part of the prosecution, upon this evidence, that Cook had been
defrauded of this money by Palmer, and certainly the endorsement was not
in Cook’s handwriting; but, as was very properly argued on the part of
Palmer, it is very possible that Cook may have authorized Palmer or some
one else to write his name. Cheshire, a clerk in the bank, is then
called, and says that the check was carried to Palmer’s account. Now,
all this may have happened with the consent of Cook, in pursuance of
some agreement between him and Palmer. [His Lordship then read the
cross-examination of Pratt, the bill of £500, drawn by Palmer on Cook,
and payable on the 2nd of December, and also the evidence of Armshaw,
who proved that on the 13th November Palmer was in a state of
embarrassment, and that on the 20th he received from him two £50 notes.
It is for you, gentlemen, to draw your own inference from this evidence.
Having before the races been pressed for money, on the night of the
Tuesday on which Cook died he has two £50 notes in his possession. [His
Lordship next read the evidence of Spillbury, who on the 22nd of
November received a £50 note from Palmer; and of Strawbridge, who proved
that on the 19th of November his balance at the bank was only £9 6s.]
This evidence certainly shows that the finances of the prisoner were at
the lowest ebb, and he had no means of meeting his bills. [His Lordship
next read Wright’s evidence as to the large debts due to his brother
from Palmer, and the bill of sale given by Palmer, as security, upon the
whole of his property; Strawbridge’s evidence as to the forgery of Mrs.
Palmer’s name to acceptances; and the further evidence of Mr. Weatherby,
particularly calling the attention of the jury to the fact of the cheque
purporting to be signed by Cook having been returned to Palmer by Mr.
Weatherby, when he refused payment of it.] A great deal, said his
Lordship, turns upon the question of whether that cheque was really
signed by Cook or not, as, if not, it shows that Palmer was dealing with
Cook’s money and appropriating it to his own use.

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

Lord CAMPBELL: Mr. Weatherby said that the body of the cheque was not in
Cook’s handwriting, and he had paid no attention to the signature. You,
gentlemen, must consider all the evidence with regard to this part of
the case. The cheque is not produced, although it was sent back by Mr.
Weatherby to Palmer, and notice to produce it has been given. If it had
been produced we could have seen whether Cook’s signature was genuine.
It is not produced! [His Lordship then read the evidence of Butler, to
whom Palmer owed money in respect of bets; and of Bergen, an inspector
of police, who had searched Palmer’s house for papers after the
inquest.] It might have been expected that the cheque which was returned
by Mr. Weatherby to Palmer, who professed to set store upon it, and to
have given value for it, and who required Mr. Weatherby not to pay away
any money until it had been satisfied, would have been found, but it is
not forthcoming. It is for you to draw whatever inference may suggest
itself to you from this circumstance. We then come to the arrest of
Palmer. Now, as it strikes my mind, the circumstance that Palmer
remained in the neighbourhood after suspicion had risen against him is
of importance, and ought to be taken into consideration by you, although
he may, perhaps, have done so thinking that from the care he had taken
nothing could ever be discovered against him. It seems, however, that he
was imprisoned on civil process before the verdict of the coroner’s jury
rendered him amenable to a criminal charge. Besides the cheque
purporting to be signed by Cook, the prisoner also had in his possession
a document purporting that certain bills had been accepted by him for
Cook, but neither that document nor any such bills have been found. All
the papers which were not retained were returned to the prisoner’s
brother, and notice has been given to produce them, but neither the
bills nor the document are produced. With regard to this witness’s
statement, that Field was at Rugeley, I know not how it is connected
with the present investigation. If Field was employed ta inquire into
the health of Walter Palmer at the time the insurance was effected on
his life, and into the circumstances of his death, I know not what he
can have to do with the question you are to determine.

This, then, is the conclusion of the evidence upon one branch of the
case, and now begins the evidence relating to the health of Cook and the
events immediately preceding his death. [His Lordship then read the
evidence of Ismael Fisher, observing in the course of it that one of the
most mysterious circumstances in the case was that after Cook had stated
his suspicion as to Palmer having put something in his brandy he
remained constantly in Palmer’s company; he appeared to have entire
confidence in Palmer, and during the few remaining days of his life he
sent for Palmer whenever he was in distress; in fact, he seemed to be
under the influence of Palmer to a very great extent. His Lordship also
directed the attention of the jury to the circumstance of the £700 which
Cook had intrusted to the care of Fisher having been returned to him on
the morning of the day on which he went with Palmer to Rugeley. His
Lordship then read Fisher’s statement that he had been in the habit of
settling Cook’s account.] And now, he continued, comes the very
important letter of the 16th of November. Certainly if Cook induced
Fisher to make an advance of £200 on the security of his bets, and then
employed another person to collect those bets, there was a fraud on his
part. In the letter of the 16th of November Cook says--“It is of great
importance, both to Mr. Palmer and myself, that a sum of £500 should be
paid to Mr. Pratt, of 5, Queen-street, Mayfair, to-morrow, without fail.
£300 has been sent up to-night, and if you will be kind enough to pay
the other £200 to-morrow, on the receipt of this, you will greatly
oblige me, and I will give it to you on Monday at Tattersall’s.”

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

Lord CAMPBELL. Yes. “I am much better.” Now, the signature to this
letter is undoubtedly genuine, and it shows, first, that Cook at that
time intended to be in London on the Monday, and, secondly, that he
desired an advance of £200 to pay Pratt. How he came to alter his
intention as to going to London, and how Herring came to be employed for
him instead of Fisher, you must infer for yourselves. But if he
authorised the employment of Herring in order to prevent Fisher from
reimbursing himself, he was a party to a fraud. You must infer whether
he did so or not. [His Lordship then read the remainder of Fisher’s
evidence, and also the evidence of Mr. Jones, the law stationer, of
Gibson, and of Mrs. Brook.] This, he said, ends the history of Cook’s
illness at Shrewsbury. Taken by itself it amounts to very little, but
in connexion with what follows it deserves your serious consideration.
Then with regard to what took place at the Talbot Arms, at Rugeley,
where Cook lodged, you have a most important witness--Elizabeth Mills.
[His Lordship then read the evidence of Mills, observing that the events
of Monday and Tuesday, the 19th and 20th of November, and the symptoms
which immediately preceded the death of Cook, formed a most material
part of the case.] It has been suggested, continued the learned Judge,
by the counsel for the defence, that Elizabeth Mills may have been
bribed by Mr. Stevens, the father-in-law of Cook, to give evidence
prejudicial to the prisoner; but, in justice both to Mr. Stevens and to
Elizabeth Mills, I am bound to declare that not one fact has been
adduced to warrant us in believing that there is the slightest
foundation for any such statement. It has also been alleged that Mr.
Stevens called upon Elizabeth Mills, and read to her an extract from a
newspaper, with the view, it is presumed, of influencing her evidence or
guiding it in a particular direction; but this, too, is a gratuitous
assertion, and, so far from being supported by the evidence, it is
distinctly denied. As regards the manner in which Palmer was dressed
when he ran over from his own house to the Talbot Arms on the night of
Cook’s death, there is no doubt a difference between the testimony of
Elizabeth Mills and that of her fellow-servant, Lavinia Barnes, the
former asserting that he wore a plaid dressing-gown, and the latter a
black coat; but it is for you to decide whether the point is of
sufficient significance to justify a suspicion dishonourable to the
veracity of either witness. It has been asserted also that there are
certain discrepancies between the evidence given by Elizabeth Mills
before the coroner and that which she gave in your presence. That you
may the more accurately estimate the importance of those differences it
is competent for the prisoner’s counsel to require that the depositions
shall be read. What say you, brother Shee?

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

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

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

Lord CAMPBELL: You have now heard the depositions read, and you will
decide for yourselves whether her statements before the coroner are not
substantially the same as those which she made before you in the course
of her examination. You will have to determine whether there is any
material discrepancy between them. Her own explanation of her omission
to state before the coroner that she was sick after partaking of the
broth prepared for Cook is, that she was not asked the question: but
that she was sick the evidence of another witness goes distinctly to
prove; and it is for you to say whether, corroborated as it thus is, the
testimony of Elizabeth Mills is worthy of being believed, and, if so,
what inference should be drawn from it. The next witnesses are Mr. James
Gardner, attorney, of Rugeley, and Lavinia Barnes, fellow-servant of
Elizabeth Mills, at the Talbot Arms Inn. The learned judge, having read
his notes of the evidence of the witnesses in question, observed, the
testimony of Lavinia Barnes corroborates that of Mills as to the latter
having been seized with illness immediately after she had taken two
spoonfuls of the broth. There is some little difference of evidence as
to the exact time when Palmer was seen at Rugeley on the Monday night,
after his return from London; but you have before you the statements of
all the witnesses, and you will decide whether the point is one of
essential importance. [The learned judge then read over, without
comment, his notes of the evidence given by the witnesses Ann Rowley and
Sarah Bond, and then proceeded to recapitulate the facts deposed to by
Mr. Jones, surgeon, of Lutterworth.] Your attention, he observed, has
been very properly directed to the letter written by the prisoner on
Sunday evening to Mr. Jones, summoning the latter to the sick bed of his
friend Cook. The learned counsel for the defence interprets that
document in a sense highly favourable to the prisoner, and contends that
the fact of his having insured the presence of such a witness is
conclusive evidence of the prisoner’s innocence. You will say whether
you think that it is fairly susceptible of such a construction. It is
important, however, to consider at what period of Cook’s illness Jones
was sent for, and in what a condition he was when Jones arrived.
Palmer’s assertion, in his letter to Jones, was, that Cook had been
suffering from diarrhæa; but of this statement we have not the slightest
corroboration in the evidence. When Jones, looking at Cook’s tongue,
observed that it was not the tongue of a bilious attack, Palmer’s reply
was, “You should have seen it before.” What reason could Palmer have had
for using these words, when there is not the slightest evidence of
Cook’s having suffered from such an illness? It is a matter for your
consideration. [The deposition of Jones taken before the coroner having
been read at the instance of Mr. Serjeant Shee, the learned Judge
remarks,--] It is for you to say whether, in your opinion, this
deposition at all varies from the evidence given by Mr. Jones when
examined here; I confess that I see no variation and no reason to
suppose that Mr. Jones’s evidence is not the evidence of sincerity and
of truth.

After observing that the evidence of Dr. Savage [which he read] went to
show that down to the hour of the Shrewsbury races and the attack on the
Wednesday night, Cook was in perhaps better health than he had enjoyed
for along time, the learned Judge called the attention of the jury to
the evidence of Charles Newton, who deposed to having famished three
grains of strychnia to Palmer on the Monday night, and to having seen
him at the shop of Mr. Hawkins on the Tuesday. Having read the evidence
of this witness and his deposition before the coroner, his Lordship
said:--This is the evidence of Newton, a most important witness. It
certainly might be urged that he did not mention the furnishing of the
strychnia to Palmer on the Monday night before the coroner; he did not
mention it till the Tuesday morning, when he was coming up to London.
That certainly requires consideration at your hands; but then you will
observe that in his deposition, which has been read to you, although
there is an omission of that, which is always to be borne in mind, there
is no contradiction of anything which he has said here. Well, then, you
are to consider what is the probability of his inventing this wicked
lie,--a most important lie, if lie it be. He had no ill-will towards the
prisoner at the bar; he had never quarreled with him, and had nothing to
gain by injuring him, much less by betraying him to the scaffold. I
cannot see any motive that he could have for inventing a lie to take
away the life of the prisoner. No inducement was held out to him by the
Crown; he says himself that no inducement was held out to him, and that
he at last disclosed this circumstance from a sense of duty. If you
believe him his evidence is very strong against the prisoner at the bar;
but we will now turn to the next witness, Charles Joseph Roberts, whose
evidence is closely connected with that of Newton. [Having read the
evidence of Roberts, Mr. Hawkins’s assistant, who stated that on the
Tuesday he sold to the prisoner, at his master’s shop, three grains of
strychnia, his Lordship continued--], This witness was not
cross-examined as to the veracity of his testimony, nor is he
contradicted in any way. It is not denied that on this Tuesday morning
the prisoner at the bar got six grains of strychnia from Roberts. If you
couple that with the statement of Newton--believing that statement--you
have evidence of strychnia having been procured by the prisoner on the
Monday night before the symptoms of strychnia were exhibited by Cook,
and by the evidence of Roberts, undenied and unquestioned, that on the
Tuesday six grains of strychnia were supplied to him.

Supposing you should come to the conclusion that the symptoms of Cook
were consistent with death by strychnia--if you think that his symptoms
are accounted for by merely natural disease, of course the strychnia
obtained by the prisoner on the Monday evening and the Tuesday morning
would have no effect; but if you should think that the symptoms which
Cook exhibited on the Monday and Tuesday nights are consistent with
strychnia, then a case is made out on the part of the Crown. After the
most anxious consideration, I can suggest no possible solution of the
purchase of this strychnia. The learned counsel for the prisoner told us
in his speech that there was nothing for which he would not account. He
quite properly denied that Newton was to be believed. Disbelieving
Newton, you have no evidence of strychnia being obtained on the Monday
evening; but, disbelieving Newton and believing Roberts, you have
evidence of six grains of strychnia being obtained by the prisoner on
the Tuesday morning, and of that you have no explanation. The learned
counsel did not favour us with the theory which he had formed in his own
mind with respect to that strychnia. There is no evidence,--there is no
suggestion how it was applied, what became of it. That must not
influence your verdict, unless you come to the conclusion that the
symptoms of Cook were consistent with death by strychnia. If you come to
that conclusion, I should shrink from my duty, I should be unworthy to
sit here, if I did not call your attention to the inference that, if he
purchased that strychnia, he purchased it for the purpose of
administering it to Cook. [The evidence next read by the learned Judge
was that of Mr. Stevens, the stepfather of Cook. Upon this the noble
Lord observed.--] The learned counsel for the prisoner, in the discharge
of his duty, made a very violent attack upon the character and conduct
of Mr. Stevens. It will be for you to say whether you think it deserved
that censure. In the conduct of that gentleman I cannot see anything in
the slightest degree deserving of blame or reprobation. Mr. Stevens was
attached to this young man, who was his stepson, and who had no one else
to take care of him; and, whatever the result of this trial may be, I
think there were appearances which might well justify suspicion. I know
nothing which Mr. Stevens did which he was not perfectly justified in
doing. Having been to Rugeley and seen the body of the deceased, he goes
to his respectable solicitors in London, who recommend him to a
respectable solicitor, Mr. Gardner, at Rugeley.

Under his advice Mr. Stevens acts; a conversation ensues between himself
and the prisoner Palmer, but I see nothing in the proceedings which he
took at all deserving animadversion. Whether Palmer had any right to
complain of what was said about the betting book, and whether Mr.
Stevens could be blamed for suspecting that Palmer had taken it, it is
for you to say. [Having read the evidence of the woman Keeley, who laid
out the body of Cook, and of Dr. Harland, who spoke to the circumstances
attending the two _post-mortem_ examinations, to the pushing of Mr.
Devonshire, who operated, and the removal of the jar on the first
occasion, the learned Judge continued--] From that push no inference
unfavourable to the prisoner can be drawn, as it might easily be the
result of accident. In the removal of the jar, there would be nothing
more than in the pushing, were it not coupled with the evidence
afterwards given, which may lead to the inference that there was a plan
to destroy the jar, and prevent the analysis of its contents. [The
learned Chief Justice then read the evidence of Mr. Devonshire, the
surgeon, of Rugeley; Dr. Monckton, the physician; of Mr. John Boycott,
the clerk to Messrs. Landor, Gardner, and Landor, the Rugeley attorneys;
and of James Myatt, the postboy of the Talbot Arms, who swore that
Palmer had offered him £10 to upset the fly containing Mr. Stevens and
the jar with the contents of the deceased’s stomach. Remarking upon the
evidence of this last witness, the Chief Justice said--] In cases of
circumstantial evidence you must look to the conduct of the person
charged, and you must consider whether that conduct is consistent with
innocence or is compatible with guilt. I see no reason to doubt the
evidence of that postboy. An attempt was made upon cross-examination to
show that the offer of £10 was not made in reference to the jar, but as
an inducement to upset Mr. Stevens. It was suggested, you will remember,
that Stevens had wantonly provoked Palmer, and that Palmer might be
excused, therefore, if he wished him to be upset. I see no ground for
supposing that Stevens gave Palmer any such provocation, and, if you
believe the postboy, that bribe was offered to him to induce him to
upset the jar. That is not, indeed, a decisive proof of guilt, but it is
for you to say whether the prisoner did not enter upon that contrivance
in order to prevent an opportunity of examining the contents of the jar,
which might contain evidence against him. We have next the evidence of
Samuel Cheshire, formerly postmaster at Rugeley. [The learned Judge read
the evidence, remarking upon the circumstance of Palmer calling upon him
to witness a document said to have been signed by Cook, as if he had
been present and had seen Cook sign it; upon the remarkable fact of
Palmer endeavouring to obtain information from Cheshire as to the
contents of the letter from Dr. Taylor to Mr. Gardner; and upon the
impropriety of the following letter, addressed by the prisoner to the
coroner, Mr. Ward, during the progress of the inquest:--

     “My dear Sir,--I am sorry to tell you that I am still confined to
     my bed. I don’t think it was mentioned at the inquest yesterday
     that Cook was taken ill on Sunday and Monday night, in the same way
     as he was on the Tuesday, when he died. The chambermaid at the
     Crown Hotel (Masters’s) can prove this. I also believe that a man
     of the name of Fisher is coming down to prove he received some
     money at Shrewsbury. Now, here he could only pay Smith £10 out of
     £41 he owed him. Had you not better call Smith to prove this? And,
     again, whatever Professor Taylor may say to-morrow, he wrote from
     London last Tuesday night to Gardner to say, ‘We (and Dr. Rees)
     have this day finished our analysis, and find no traces of either
     strychnia, prussic acid, or opium.’ What can beat this from a man
     like Taylor, if he says what he has already said, and Dr. Harland’s
     evidence? Mind you. I know and saw it in black and white what
     Taylor said to Gardner; but this is strictly private and
     confidential, but it is true. As regards his betting-book, I know
     nothing of it, and it is of no good to any one. I hope the verdict
     to-morrow will be that he died of natural causes, and thus end it

“Ever yours,

“W. P.”]


Palmer says in that letter that he had seen it in black and white.
Cheshire states that he had not shown him the letter. However that might
be, there can be no question that this was a highly improper letter for
the prisoner to write; and speaking as the chief coroner of England, and
being desirous for the due administration of justice and of the law, I
have no hesitation in saying that it was not creditable in Mr. Ward to
receive such a letter without a public condemnation of its having been
written. You will say, gentlemen, whether the conduct of the prisoner in
that respect--suggesting to the coroner the verdict which he should
obtain from the jury--is consistent with innocence. The noble and
learned lord then read the evidence of Ellis Crisp, the police inspector
at Rugeley, who produced a medical book which had been found in the
prisoner’s house, and in which the following passage occurred in the
prisoner’s handwriting:--“Strychnia kills by causing tetanic fixing of
the respiratory muscles;” and remarking that this was a book which was
in the possession of the prisoner seven years ago, when he was a
student, he said that there was nothing in it which ought to weigh for a
moment against the prisoner at the bar. Having read without comment the
evidence of Elizabeth Hawkes, the boarding-house keeper, with respect to
the sending of game to Ward, of Slack, her porter, and of Herring, who
spoke to the directions given him by Palmer as to the disposal of Cook’s
bets, his Lordship called the particular attention of the jury to the
statement in the evidence of Bates, that the prisoner had told him not
to let any one see him deliver the letter to Ward. The next witness, he
continued, is Dr. Curling, and now, gentlemen, you will be called upon
to come to some conclusion with regard to the evidence of the scientific
men respecting the symptoms of the deceased before death, and the
appearance of his body after death. You will have to say how far those
symptoms and those appearances are to be accounted for by natural
disease, and how far they are the symptoms and appearances produced by
strychnine. It will be a question of great importance whether, in your
judgment, they correspond with natural, that is, with traumatic or
idiopathic tetanus, or with any other disease whatever. [His Lordship
read the evidence of Dr. Curling, and the examination in chief of Dr
Todd, without comment, and directed the Clerk of Arraigns to read the
depositions of Dr. Bamford. The depositions were accordingly read, and
his Lordship then remarked,--] When this deposition was first given in
evidence, Dr. Bamford was too ill to come into court; but he partially
recovered, and on a subsequent day he was examined and gave the _vivâ
voce_ evidence which I will now read [The learned Lord here read the
evidence, observing, with regard to the pills made up by Dr. Bamford,
that the prisoner certainly had an opportunity of changing them, if he
pleased; that circumstance deserved their serious consideration.] There
is not, he continued, the slightest reason to impute any bad faith to
Dr. Bamford, but it is allowed, on all hands, that the old man was
mistaken in saying that the death was caused by apoplexy.

All the witnesses on both sides say that, whatever the disease may have
been, it was not apoplexy; but he filled up a certificate that it was
apoplexy, in compliance with a recent Act of Parliament which renders a
certificate of the cause of death necessary. [The cross-examination of
Dr. Todd was then read, and his Lordship pointed out that the case of
strychnine seen by that witness bore a certain resemblance to Cook’s
attack on the Monday night.] The next witness is a gentleman of high
reputation and unblemished honour, Sir B. Brodie, one of the most
distinguished medical men of the present time. [His Lordship read Sir B.
Brodie’s evidence.] That distinguished man tells you, as his solemn
opinion, that he never knew a case in which the symptoms he had heard
described arose from any disease. He is well acquainted with the various
diseases which afflict the human frame, and he knows of no disease
answering to the description of the symptoms which preceded Cook’s
death. If you agree with him in opinion, the inference is that Cook died
from some cause other than disease. [The learned Judge then read the
evidence of Dr. Daniel, who agreed with Sir B. Brodie, and of Dr. Solly,
who also thought that natural disease would not account for death.]

Mr. Serjeant SHEE wished to have the cross-examination of this witness
read.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




TWELFTH DAY, MAY 27.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Referring to the evidence of Dr. Partridge, his lordship said it was
remarkable in this--that the symptoms of the deceased did not strictly
correspond with those he should have expected in the case of a death
from strychnine.

His lordship next read the evidence of Dr. Guy, who spoke to a case of
tetanus in a child of eight years of age, supervening from an injury to
the great toe, and expressed his opinion that there was no analogy
between that and this case, while the witness, his lordship added, had
declared it to be his belief that attacks of tetanus could always be
traceable to some collateral cause. His lordship then read the lengthy
evidence of Dr. McDonald, of Edinburgh, who attributed the death of Cook
to “epileptic convulsions with tetanic complications,” adding that it
was within the range of probability that the convulsions in this case
before the fatal attack were the result of mental excitement. His
lordship reminded the jury that this was the only witness who had given
a positive opinion as to the cause of death; the cause he had described,
and it might, according to the witness, have arisen from mental, moral,
or sexual excitement. It was for the jury to say what weight they
attached to this testimony in the face of the other mass of medical
evidence leading to a different conclusion. Having disposed of other
witnesses, his lordship came next in order to the evidence of Dr.
Richardson, who had described a remarkable case of angina pectoris, and
had pronounced an opinion that the symptoms as described in Cook’s case
presented a singular similarity to those of the strange case referred
to. It was for the jury to determine whether the deceased died from an
attack of the same disease; but on cross-examination the witness
admitted that the symptoms in his case might hive resulted from
strychnine, but at the time it occurred the effects of strychnine were
not so well understood as at the present day, or he would have searched
for it. Both in that case, as in Cook’s case, the symptoms were, the
witness said, not inconsistent with poisoning by strychnine, and that
was one of the questions the jury had to decide. Having read Catherine
Watson and Dr. Wrightson’s evidence, his lordship said this closed the
medical portion of the defence, and perhaps this would be the fitting
moment for an adjournment.

The Court accordingly adjourned for twenty minutes.

On the Court resuming,

His Lordship continued his charge. They had now (he said) to deal with,
the evidence of facts adduced by the defence. The first witness of this
kind was Matthews, the inspector of police at Euston-square, and from
his evidence, it might be taken as probable that on the Monday before
the death the prisoner went down from London to Rugeley by the five
o’clock express train. The next witness was Mr. Foster, the farmer, who
had known the deceased for some years, and who was called to speak to
the state of Cook’s health; but his lordship thought the testimony of
this witness, as bearing upon that particular point, was very slender.
Myatt came next, who had spoken to the brandy and water incident at
Shrewsbury, and who returned with the prisoner and the deceased from
Shrewsbury to Rugeley on the Thursday before the decease. This evidence,
his lordship said, was intended to show that the prisoner could not have
tampered with the deceased’s glass; it was inconsistent with the
evidence of Fisher and Mrs. Brooks, who were called for the prosecution,
and it would be for the jury to decide between them. Then they came to
the evidence of Mr. Serjeant, who saw the deceased’s tongue and mouth a
fortnight before the death, and the jury must decide whether the
appearances which the witness saw were consistent with the deceased’s
state of health as represented by the evidence for the prosecution. His
lordship then read the evidence of Mr. Jeremiah Smith, the solicitor, of
Rugeley, and also the three letters written by Cook to Smith with
reference to some bills which were due or overdue, the allusions to an
alleged improper intimacy between the witness and the prisoner’s mother,
and Smith’s denial of his handwriting in a document produced by the
prosecution, and purporting to bear his signature and the signature of
Walter Palmer.

To this point his Lordship directed special attention, remarking that as
the witness said he had no doubt that he had received the document from
William Palmer, the question for decision was whether William Palmer had
forged Smith’s signature. Remarking generally upon the evidence of this
witness, the Lord Chief Justice said it was a question for the jury to
decide--what reliance was to be placed on the testimony of this man, who
had denied his signature to the instrument produced, and then allowed
that it might be his signature. Then they had his acknowledgment that he
had received £5 from the prisoner; and the jury must ask themselves
whether he had received that £5 for attesting the signature of Walter
Palmer. There was also the fact of his being concerned in effecting an
insurance upon the life of Walter Palmer for £13,000, when he knew that
Walter Palmer had no means of livelihood except through an allowance
from William Palmer or his mother. And they must also take into
consideration his admission that he had been concerned in endeavouring
to effect an insurance for £10,000 on the life of Bates, whom he knew to
be a man living in lodgings at 6s. 6d. per week, and that he got himself
appointed agent to an insurance society for that purpose.

All these things must be taken into account in deciding upon the
credibility of the witness Smith. His Lordship then proceeded to say
that that was all the evidence which had been adduced; and to direct the
attention of the jury generally to the state of the pecuniary
transactions between Cook and the prisoner,--to the loss of the
betting-book--to the alleged tampering with the post-boy for the purpose
of upsetting the jar--to the resemblance of Cook’s symptoms to death by
strychnine--and, above all, to the purchase of strychnine by the
prisoner. The case was then in their hands; the evidence was before
them, and they were to decide by that evidence; not to convict the
prisoner upon suspicion, or strong suspicion merely; but to weigh the
evidence to the best of their judgment; to give the prisoner the benefit
of any doubt, if doubt existed, but not to be deterred by any
consideration from a due discharge of their duty.

Mr. Serjeant SHEE took exception to the summing up of the Lord Chief
Justice, considering that the question whether the symptoms of Cook were
the symptoms of strychnia was a question which ought not to have been
put, unless there had been added, or symptoms that might have been
produced by any other cause.

Lord CAMPBELL told the jury that unless they considered the death of
Cook was consistent with symptoms of death by strychnine, they ought to
acquit the prisoner.

Mr. Serjeant SHEE urged that the question ought not to have been put, in
his opinion; but if over-ruled, he must submit.

The Lord Chief Justice said he had submitted to the jury that it would
be for them to consider whether the symptoms of Cook were such as might
have resulted from natural disease; but if they thought those symptoms
such as might have been produced by strychnine, then they were to
consider the evidence, and come to a conclusion as to whether the
prisoner administered it or not.

The jury then retired to consider their verdict at eighteen minutes past
two, the judges also retiring; and the prisoner, who wore upon his
features an expression of mute despair, was then, according to such
cases, taken down below.

The crowds in the court broke up into noisy conversational groups as to
the nature of the coming verdict, and the news that the jury were
deliberating travelled fast and far, causing intense excitement outside
the Court, where an immense mass of people speedily assembled.

During the absence of the jury, there was one little incident, full of
significant import, which awakened marked attention, viz., the entrance
into Court of the Rev. J. Davis, chaplain of Newgate, who took his seat
upon the bench near the seats of the judges, in full canonicals, ready
to pronounce the final “Amen,” when sentence of death should be
pronounced, if the jury convicted the prisoner.

The jury re-entered the Court at thirty-five minutes past three, having
been absent one hour and seventeen minutes.

Upon the appearance of the jury every whisper ceased, and men seemed
scarcely to breathe in the solemnity of the moment.

The Judges then resumed their seats, and the prisoner was replaced at
the bar, looking calm and quiet.

The Clerk of the Arraigns inquired of the jury whether they had agreed
upon a verdict?

The Foreman replied in the affirmative.

The Clerk: Do you find the prisoner at the bar guilty or not guilty?

Foreman: We find him

                               =GUILTY.=

The Prisoner received the verdict almost unmoved.

The Clerk then inquired what the prisoner had to say why sentence of
death should not be passed upon him.

The prisoner made no answer.

The Chief Justice, in a solemn and impressive manner, then passed
sentence of death upon the prisoner in the usual form, and this
extraordinary trial was brought to a conclusion.

Printed at the Steam Press of G. LAWRENCE, 29 Farringdon Street, City.











End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Most Extra Ordinary Trial of
William Palmer for the Rugeley Poisonings, by Anonymous

*** 