diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | .gitattributes | 4 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | LICENSE.txt | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | README.md | 2 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/51135-0.txt | 13661 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/51135-0.zip | bin | 285320 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/51135-h.zip | bin | 722555 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/51135-h/51135-h.htm | 13769 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/51135-h/images/cover.jpg | bin | 89364 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/51135-h/images/cover_lg.jpg | bin | 152174 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/51135-h/images/palmer_lg.png | bin | 157475 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/51135-h/images/palmer_sml.png | bin | 31125 -> 0 bytes |
11 files changed, 17 insertions, 27430 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d7b82bc --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitattributes @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@ +*.txt text eol=lf +*.htm text eol=lf +*.html text eol=lf +*.md text eol=lf diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6312041 --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements, +metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be +in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. + +Procedures for determining public domain status are described in +the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org. + +No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in +jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize +this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright +status under the laws that apply to them. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..c950baa --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for +eBook #51135 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/51135) diff --git a/old/51135-0.txt b/old/51135-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index e1c7b40..0000000 --- a/old/51135-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,13661 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Most Extra Ordinary Trial of William -Palmer for the Rugeley Poisonings, by Anonymous - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with -almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or -re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included -with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license - - -Title: The Most Extra Ordinary Trial of William Palmer for the Rugeley Poisonings, which lasted Twelve Days - -Author: Anonymous - -Release Date: February 6, 2016 [EBook #51135] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMER *** - - - - -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 negro 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 negro 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 spastic 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 spastic 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, spastic 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-coloured 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 retard 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 retard 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 - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMER *** - -***** This file should be named 51135-0.txt or 51135-0.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/5/1/1/3/51135/ - -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) - - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions -will be renamed. - -Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no -one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation -(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without -permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, -set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to -copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to -protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project -Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you -charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you -do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the -rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose -such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and -research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do -practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is -subject to the trademark license, especially commercial -redistribution. - - - -*** START: FULL LICENSE *** - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project -Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at -http://gutenberg.org/license). - - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy -all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. -If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the -terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or -entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement -and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" -or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the -collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an -individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are -located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from -copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative -works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg -are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project -Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by -freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of -this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with -the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by -keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project -Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in -a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check -the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement -before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or -creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project -Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning -the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United -States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate -access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently -whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, -copied or distributed: - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with -almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or -re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included -with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived -from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is -posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied -and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees -or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work -with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the -work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 -through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the -Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or -1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional -terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked -to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the -permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any -word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or -distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than -"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version -posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), -you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a -copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon -request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other -form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided -that - -- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is - owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he - has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the - Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments - must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you - prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax - returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and - sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the - address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to - the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." - -- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or - destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium - and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of - Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any - money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days - of receipt of the work. - -- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set -forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from -both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael -Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the -Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm -collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain -"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or -corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual -property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a -computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by -your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with -your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with -the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a -refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity -providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to -receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy -is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further -opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER -WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO -WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. -If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the -law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be -interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by -the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any -provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance -with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, -promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, -harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, -that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do -or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm -work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any -Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. - - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers -including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists -because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from -people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. -To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation -and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 -and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive -Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at -http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent -permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. -Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered -throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at -809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email -business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact -information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official -page at http://pglaf.org - -For additional contact information: - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To -SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any -particular state visit http://pglaf.org - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. -To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate - - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm -concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared -with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project -Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. - - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. -unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily -keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. - - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: - - http://www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. diff --git a/old/51135-0.zip b/old/51135-0.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index c455aa9..0000000 --- a/old/51135-0.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/51135-h.zip b/old/51135-h.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index dda0a16..0000000 --- a/old/51135-h.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/51135-h/51135-h.htm b/old/51135-h/51135-h.htm deleted file mode 100644 index 9f00a2c..0000000 --- a/old/51135-h/51135-h.htm +++ /dev/null @@ -1,13769 +0,0 @@ -<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" -"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> - -<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" lang="en" xml:lang="en"> - <head> <link rel="coverpage" href="images/cover.jpg" /> -<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=utf-8" /> -<title> - The Project Gutenberg eBook of The -Most Extraordinary Trial of William Palmer. -</title> -<style type="text/css"> - p {margin-top:.2em;text-align:justify;margin-bottom:.2em;text-indent:4%;} - -.c {text-align:center;text-indent:0%;} - -.cb {text-align:center;text-indent:0%;font-weight:bold;} - -.courr {font-family:courier, serif;} - -.sans {font-size:130%;font-family: sans-serif;text-align:center;text-indent:0%;} - -.hang {text-indent:-2%;margin-left:2%;} - -.indd {text-indent:8%;} - -.nind {text-indent:0%;} - -.r {text-align:right;margin-right: 5%;} - -small {font-size: 70%;} - -big {font-size: 130%;} - - h1 {margin-top:5%;text-align:center;clear:both;} - - h2 {margin-top:4%;margin-bottom:2%;text-align:center;clear:both; - font-size:120%;} - - h3,h4 {margin-top:4%;margin-bottom:2%;text-align:center;clear:both; - font-size:100%;} - - hr {width:50%;margin:2em auto 2em auto;clear:both;color:black;} - - hr.full {width: 50%;margin:5% auto 5% auto;border:4px double gray;} - - table {margin-top:2%;margin-bottom:2%;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;border:none;} - - body{margin-left:4%;margin-right:6%;background:#ffffff;color:black;font-family:"Times New Roman", serif;font-size:medium;} - -a:link {background-color:#ffffff;color:blue;text-decoration:none;} - - link {background-color:#ffffff;color:blue;text-decoration:none;} - -a:visited {background-color:#ffffff;color:purple;text-decoration:none;} - -a:hover {background-color:#ffffff;color:#FF0000;text-decoration:underline;} - -.smcap {font-variant:small-caps;font-size:100%;} - - img {border:none;} - -.blockquot {margin-top:2%;margin-bottom:2%;font-size:90%;} - sup {font-size:75%;vertical-align:top;} - -.figcenter {margin-top:3%;margin-bottom:3%;clear:both; -margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;text-align:center;text-indent:0%;} - @media print, handheld - {.figcenter - {page-break-before: avoid;} - } - -.pagenum {font-style:normal;position:absolute; -left:95%;font-size:55%;text-align:right;color:gray; -background-color:#ffffff;font-variant:normal;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;text-decoration:none;text-indent:0em;} -@media print, handheld -{.pagenum - {display: none;} - } -</style> - </head> -<body> - - -<pre> - -The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Most Extra Ordinary Trial of William -Palmer for the Rugeley Poisonings, by Anonymous - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with -almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or -re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included -with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license - - -Title: The Most Extra Ordinary Trial of William Palmer -for the Rugeley Poisonings, which lasted Twelve Days - -Author: Anonymous - -Release Date: February 6, 2016 [EBook #51135] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMER *** - - - - -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) - - - - - - -</pre> - -<hr class="full" /> - -<p class="figcenter"> -<a href="images/cover_lg.jpg"> -<img src="images/cover.jpg" width="284" height="450" alt="book-cover" /></a> -</p> - -<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" summary=""> - -<tr><td class="c" align="center"><a name="CONTENTS" id="CONTENTS"></a><b><big>CONTENTS:</big></b></td></tr> -<tr><td> -<a href="#MEMOIR"><b>Memoir of William Palmer.</b></a><br /><br /> -<a href="#TRIAL_OF_WILLIAM_PALMER"><b>Trial of William Palmer:</b></a><br /><br /> -<a href="#CENTRAL_CRIMINAL_COURT_May_14_1856"><b>Central Criminal Court, May 14, 1856.</b></a><br /> -<a href="#SECOND_DAY_May_15"><b>Second Day, May 15.</b></a><br /> -<a href="#THIRD_DAY_May_16"><b>Third Day, May 16.</b></a><br /> -<a href="#FOURTH_DAY_May_17"><b>Fourth Day, May 17.</b></a><br /> -<a href="#FIFTH_DAY_May_19"><b>Fifth Day, May 19.</b></a><br /> -<a href="#SIXTH_DAY_May_20"><b>Sixth Day, May 20.</b></a><br /> -<a href="#SEVENTH_DAY_May_21"><b>Seventh Day, May 21.</b></a><br /> -<a href="#THE_DEFENCE"><b>The Defence. (Seventh Day Continued.)</b></a><br /> -<a href="#EIGHTH_DAY_May_22"><b>Eighth Day, May 22.</b></a><br /> -<a href="#NINTH_DAY_May_23"><b>Ninth Day, May 23.</b></a><br /> -<a href="#TENTH_DAY_May_24"><b>Tenth Day, May 24.</b></a><br /> -<a href="#ELEVENTH_DAY_May_26"><b>Eleventh Day, May 26.</b></a><br /> -<a href="#TWELFTH_DAY_May_27"><b>Twelfth Day, May 27.</b></a></td></tr> -</table> - -<h1><small>THE MOST EXTRAORDINARY</small><br /> - -<big>T R I A L</big><br /> - -<small><small>OF</small></small><br /> - -<big>W I L L I A M P A L M E R,</big><br /> - -<small><small>FOR THE</small></small><br /> - -<span class="courr">RUGELEY POISONINGS,</span><br /> - -<small><small><span class="courr">WHICH LASTED TWELVE DAYS.</span></small></small></h1> - -<p class="figcenter"> -<a href="images/palmer_lg.png"> -<img src="images/palmer_sml.png" width="300" height="373" alt="[Image not -available: drawing of Palmer in the dock]" /></a> -</p> - -<p class="c">LONDON:<br /> -W. M. CLARK, 16 & 17, WARWICK LANE, PATERNOSTER ROW<br /> -<small>AND SOLD BY ALL BOOKSELLERS.</small></p> - -<table border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="2" summary=""> - -<tr valign="top"><td><b>COUNSEL FOR THE CROWN.</b><br /><br /> -The Attorney-General,<br /> -Mr. James, Q.C.,<br /> -Mr. Bodkin,<br /> -Mr. Welsby, and<br /> -Mr. Huddleston.</td> - -<td style="border-left:double 3px black;"><b>COUNSEL FOR THE PRISONER.</b><br /><br /> -Mr. Serjeant Shee,<br /> -Mr. Grove, Q.C.,<br /> -Mr. Gray, and<br /> -Mr. Kinnealy.</td></tr> -</table> - -<table border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="2" summary=""> - -<tr><td class="c" align="center">The following Gentlemen were sworn on<br /><br /> - -<b>THE JURY.</b></td></tr> - -<tr><td class="c" align="center"> </td></tr> -<tr><td>Thomas Knight, of Leytonstone.<br /> -Richd. Dumbrell, Fore Street.<br /> -Wm. Mavor, Park Street.<br /> -Wm. Newman, Coleshill Street.<br /> -George Miller, Duke Street, Grosvenor Square.<br /> -George Oakshott, Ham Lane, West Ham.<br /> -Charles Bates, Borough Road.<br /> -Wm. Ecclestone, Ham Lane.<br /> -Samuel Mullett, Great Portland Street.<br /> -John Over, Grosvenor Road, Pimlico.<br /> -Wm. Nash, Conduit Street.<br /> -Wm. Fletcher, Fore Street.</td></tr> -</table> - -<p>The prisoner, <span class="smcap">William Palmer</span>, 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 <span class="smcap">John Parsons Cook</span>.</p> - -<h2><a name="MEMOIR" id="MEMOIR"></a>MEMOIR<br /><br /> -<small>OF</small><br /><br /> -WILLIAM PALMER.</h2> - -<p class="nind"><span class="smcap">William Palmer</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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 <i>bona fides</i>, 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.</p> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_001" id="page_001"></a>{1}</span></p> - -<h2><a name="TRIAL_OF_WILLIAM_PALMER" id="TRIAL_OF_WILLIAM_PALMER"></a> -TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMER<br /><br /> -<small>FOR</small><br /><br /> -THE RUGELEY POISONINGS.</h2> - -<hr /> - -<h3><a name="CENTRAL_CRIMINAL_COURT_May_14_1856" id="CENTRAL_CRIMINAL_COURT_May_14_1856"></a>CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT, <span class="smcap">May 14, 1856</span>.</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">The</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_002" id="page_002"></a>{2}</span> his request his counsel asked that -he might be permitted to sit—an application which was at once acceded -to by Lord Campbell.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>A most respectable jury having been empanelled, and all the witnesses, -with the exception of the medical men, having been ordered out of court,</p> - -<p class="c">THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL</p> - -<p class="nind">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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_003" id="page_003"></a>{3}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_004" id="page_004"></a>{4}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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, -<i>minus</i> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_005" id="page_005"></a>{5}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_006" id="page_006"></a>{6}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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 -<i>Manual for Students Preparing for Examination at Apothecaries’ Hall</i>; -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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_007" id="page_007"></a>{7}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_008" id="page_008"></a>{8}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_009" id="page_009"></a>{9}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_010" id="page_010"></a>{10}</span> 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.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_011" id="page_011"></a>{11}</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>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 <i>post mortem</i> 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.</p> - -<p>The <i>post mortem</i> 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 <i>post -mortem</i> 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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_012" id="page_012"></a>{12}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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 <i>post mortem</i> -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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_013" id="page_013"></a>{13}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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 <i>minimum</i> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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:—<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_014" id="page_014"></a>{14}</span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Ismael Fisher</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">E. James</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>Lord <span class="smcap">Campbell</span>: Did you put your lips to it?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Witness</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">E. James</span>: Did he state what he was suffering from?</p> - -<p>Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span> objected to this question.</p> - -<p>Lord <span class="smcap">Campbell</span>: Surely his statement of the effect produced on him by -what he had just swallowed is admissible.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Lord <span class="smcap">Campbell</span>: Was he affected by liquor?</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>.—I had known Cook about two years, -and Palmer longer. They were a good deal connected in racing -transactions.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_015" id="page_015"></a>{15}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.]</p> - -<p>Re-examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: I never intended to say that Cook -and Palmer were partners.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Thomas Jones, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Welsby</span>, 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.</p> - -<p>This witness was not cross-examined.</p> - -<p>George Read, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Bodkin</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>By the <span class="smcap">Court</span>: I had some of the brandy-and-water, and it did not make me -ill.</p> - -<p>Re-examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">William Scaife Gibson</span>: 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_016" id="page_016"></a>{16}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: Did you form any opinion as to what -was the matter with Cook?—I treated it as a case of poisoning.</p> - -<p>Did you observe anything in the vomit which led you to believe he had -been poisoned?—Nothing at all.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Would it not have been better to get the poison up at once, if -possible?—He threw up the warm water.</p> - -<p>Lord <span class="smcap">Campbell</span>: Did that cleanse the stomach?—Yes.</p> - -<p>Cross-examination continued: Yet you thought calomel necessary?—Yes; on -account of the distended state of the bowels.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Re-examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: The piece of bile was about the -size of a pea? The water thrown up was perfectly clean. Cook’s tongue -was quite clean.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Elizabeth Mills</span> examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">James</span>: 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_017" id="page_017"></a>{17}</span> to Cook. I cannot -say whether Palmer was there, nor can I remember whether the arrowroot -remained on Cook’s stomach.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>By the <span class="smcap">Court</span>.—It was stretched out. It did not move. The hand was about -half shut. All the upper part seemed to be stiff.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_018" id="page_018"></a>{18}</span> 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.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>The question which elicited this answer was, “Did Palmer make any remark -about his dress?” After the answer had been given,</p> - -<p>Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span> objected to the form in which the question had been -put.</p> - -<p>Lord <span class="smcap">Campbell</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_019" id="page_019"></a>{19}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<hr /> - -<h3><a name="SECOND_DAY_May_15" id="SECOND_DAY_May_15"></a>SECOND DAY, <span class="smcap">May 15</span>.</h3> - -<p>Among the distinguished persons present were the Earl of Derby, Earl -Grey, Lord W. Lennox, Lord G. G. Lennox, Lord H. Lennox, &c.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>The Jury, who had been all night at the London Coffee-house, were -conducted into court by the officer who had them in charge.</p> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_020" id="page_020"></a>{20}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: But you must mention them.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: Why did not you tell me that?—Because you did not ask -me. (A laugh.)</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Lord Chief Justice</span> here interposed and intimated his opinion that it -would be a fairer course to read the witness’s depositions.</p> - -<p>The other judges concurred.</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span> said, he should have interposed, but it was his -intention to adduce<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_021" id="page_021"></a>{21}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>The witness was re-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">E. James</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: Did not Dr. Collier tell you that he was neither for the -Crown nor for the defence, but for the truth?</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gardner</span>, examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span> submitted that what was said by the coroner was no -evidence against the prisoner.</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: 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?</p> - -<p>Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: I object to the question being put in that form.</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: Did you observe that the clerk omitted to take -down the answers of Elizabeth Mills?—Not in reference to that -particular case.</p> - -<p>Mr. Baron <span class="smcap">Alderson</span>: Her account of the matter is that the questions were -not put.</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: Did Dr. Taylor object that questions were not put -which ought to have been put?—I do not recollect it.</p> - -<p>Lord <span class="smcap">Campbell</span>: It is not suggested, as I understand, that the coroner -refused to correct any mistakes that were made.</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: I am prepared to show that there was such -misconduct on the part of the coroner as led to expostulation.</p> - -<p>Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: Don’t state that unless you are going to prove it.</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>Lord <span class="smcap">Campbell</span> held that the evidence was not admissible.</p> - -<p>Witness, cross-examined by Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: The jury put a great many -questions.</p> - -<p>Re-examined: The jury made very strong observations as to the necessity -of putting questions.</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: Did they assign any reason for interfering when -they put questions?</p> - -<p>Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span> objected to this question, on the ground that it did -not arise out of his cross-examination.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_022" id="page_022"></a>{22}</span></p> - -<p>Lord <span class="smcap">Campbell</span>: My learned brethren think that evidence upon this point -is not admissible.</p> - -<p>Mr. Justice <span class="smcap">Cresswell</span> 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.</p> - -<p>Mr. Baron <span class="smcap">Alderson</span> concurred.</p> - -<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Ann Brooks</span>, examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>.—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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Lavinia Barnes</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">E. James</span>: 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_023" id="page_023"></a>{23}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>.—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.</p> - -<p>Re-examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>.—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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Ann Rowley</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Welsby</span>.—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.</p> - -<p>By Lord <span class="smcap">Campbell</span>.—He did not say why I was to say that.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>.—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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_024" id="page_024"></a>{24}</span></p> - -<p>By Lord <span class="smcap">Campbell</span>.—The broth was at the fire in Palmer’s kitchen about -five minutes.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Charles Horley</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Bodkin</span>.—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.</p> - -<p>The witness was not cross-examined.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Sarah Bond</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Huddleston</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Grove</span>: The passengers by the express train from -London arrived at Rugeley about ten o’clock in the evening. They come by -fly from Stafford.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">William Henry Jones</span>, examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span> objected to this statement being given in evidence, -and the Attorney-General, therefore, did not ask any questions as to its -purport.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_025" id="page_025"></a>{25}</span></p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>This letter, which was put in and read, was as follows:—</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p class="indd"> -“Nov. 18, 1855.<br /> -</p> - -<p class="r"> -<span class="smcap">William Palmer.</span>”<br /> -</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>By Lord <span class="smcap">Campbell</span>: Did he appear to have recently suffered from a bilious -attack?—No.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_026" id="page_026"></a>{26}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>By Lord <span class="smcap">Campbell</span>: When did you first observe that twisting or -bowing?—When Cook threw himself back in bed.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>What was said about it?—Palmer said that it would be of use to no one.</p> - -<p>What led to this?—My taking possession of the effects.</p> - -<p>Did you make any observation about the book?—I cannot recollect.</p> - -<p>Did you find it?—No.</p> - -<p>Did you make any remark?—No particular remark.</p> - -<p>Did Palmer know what you were looking for?—Yes.</p> - -<p>How?—I said, “Where is the betting-book?” Upon that he said, “It is of -no use to anyone.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>By Lord <span class="smcap">Campbell</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: 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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_027" id="page_027"></a>{27}</span> 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.”</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: 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.”</p> - -<p>By Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Lord Chief Justice</span> 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.)</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Re-examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Lavinia Barnes</span> was recalled, at the instance of Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>, 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Elizabeth Mills</span>, recalled by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>, 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.</p> - -<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Henry Savage</span>, physician, of 7, Gloucester-place, examined by the -<span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_028" id="page_028"></a>{28}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Charles Newton</span>, called and examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">James</span>, 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.</p> - -<p>On the following day, Monday, the 26th of November, I heard that a <i>post -mortem</i> examination was to take place. I went to Dr. Bamford’s house, -intending to accompany him to the <i>post mortem</i>, 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 <i>post -mortem</i>. 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 <i>post mortem</i>, and found the other doctors there. During the -<i>post mortem</i>, 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.</p> - -<p>Mr. Sergeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span> objected to anything that this witness had said to -Cheshire being admitted as evidence against the prisoner.</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Court</span> ruled in favour of the objection.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Grove</span>, 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_029" id="page_029"></a>{29}</span> 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.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Re-examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Court</span> 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.</p> - -<hr /> - -<h3><a name="THIRD_DAY_May_16" id="THIRD_DAY_May_16"></a>THIRD DAY, <span class="smcap">May 16</span>.</h3> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>The next witness for the prosecution was <span class="smcap">Charles Joseph Roberts</span>, -examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">E. James</span>: 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_030" id="page_030"></a>{30}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>By Lord <span class="smcap">Campbell</span>: Thirlby was carrying on business as a druggist at the -time.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>.—I did not make entries of any of -these things in the books.</p> - -<p>Re-examined: When articles are paid for across the counter I am not in -the habit of making entries of them in the books.</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span> stated that Dr. Bamford was seriously ill, and -unable to attend, but his depositions would be read.</p> - -<p>Mr. William <span class="smcap">Stevens</span>, examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>Lord <span class="smcap">Campbell</span>: But you still remained on friendly terms?</p> - -<p>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).</p> - -<p>Lord <span class="smcap">Campbell</span>: The name is immaterial.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_031" id="page_031"></a>{31}</span> 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.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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 <i>post-mortem</i> -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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_032" id="page_032"></a>{32}</span> 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.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>By Mr. Baron <span class="smcap">Alderson</span>: I never called upon Mr. Bamford, but he dined -with me at the Talbot Arms.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mary Keeley</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Welsby</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Grove</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>Re-examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">John Thomas Harland</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Bodkin</span>: I am a physician residing -at Stafford. On the 26th of November last I went from Stafford to -Rugeley, to be present at a <i>post-mortem</i> 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 -<i>post-mortem</i> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_033" id="page_033"></a>{33}</span> 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 <i>post-mortem</i> 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.</p> - -<p>By <span class="smcap">Lord Campbell</span>: It was much stiffer than bodies usually are five or -six days after death.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>At the suggestion of <span class="smcap">Lord Campbell</span>, the witness read a report which he -prepared on the day on which this <i>post-mortem</i> 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,</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>By Lord <span class="smcap">Campbell</span>.—Might not Palmer have been impelled by some one -outside him?—There was no one who could have impelled him.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_034" id="page_034"></a>{34}</span> 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 -<i>post-mortem</i> 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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: In the course of the <i>post-mortem</i> -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 <i>post-mortem</i>, 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 <i>post-mortem</i>, 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.</p> - -<p>Re-examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: There were no indications of wounds -or sores such as could by possibility produce <i>tetanus</i>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_035" id="page_035"></a>{35}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Charles James Devonshire</span>, undergraduate of University of London, -late assistant to Dr. Monckton, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Huddleston</span>: I made the -first <i>post-mortem</i> 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 -<i>medulla oblongata</i>, 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 <i>papillæ</i> were slightly enlarged, but they were natural, -and one of the tonsils was shrunk.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Grove</span>, 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</p> - -<p>Baron <span class="smcap">Alderson</span>, 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.</p> - -<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Monckton</span>, examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: I am a physician in -practice, and reside at Rugeley. On the 28th of January I made a -<i>post-mortem</i> 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.</p> - -<p>This witness was not cross-examined.</p> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">John Boycott</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Welsby</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>This witness was not cross-examined.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">James Myatt</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">James</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>What did he say to you then?—He asked me if I would upset them.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_036" id="page_036"></a>{36}</span></p> - -<p>“Them?” Had anything been said about a jar?—He said he supposed I was -going to take the jar.</p> - -<p>What did you say then?—I said I believed I was.</p> - -<p>What did he say after that?—He said, “Do you think you could upset -them?”</p> - -<p>What answer did you make?—I told him “No.”</p> - -<p>Did he say anything more?—He said, “If you could, there’s a £10 note -for you.” (Sensation.)</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: 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.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Samuel Cheshire</span>, 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. <span class="smcap">James</span>. 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.</p> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weatherby</span> was here called, in order to trace this document. In -answer to Mr. <span class="smcap">James</span>, 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Boycott</span> 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.</p> - -<p>Prisoner’s counsel did not now produce it.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_037" id="page_037"></a>{37}</span> 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.]</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Captain <span class="smcap">Hatton</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">James</span>: I am chief constable of Stafford. -The letter now produced I obtained from the coroner.</p> - -<p>The Clerk of Arraigns read the letter in question. It bore no date, and -was to the following effect:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>“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.</p> - -<p class="r"> -“Ever yours,<br /> - -“W.P.”<br /> -</p></div> - -<p>The witness Cheshire was then cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>To Mr. <span class="smcap">James</span>: The duration of the journey from Stafford to Shrewsbury is -upwards of an hour.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Ellis Crisp</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">James</span>: 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.)<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_038" id="page_038"></a>{38}</span></p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">J. Burdon</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">James</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span> read an extract from the book in question. It -related to strychnine, and alluded to the mode of its operation.</p> - -<p>Lord <span class="smcap">Campbell</span>: That may be merely a passage extracted from an article on -“Strychnine” in some encyclopædia.</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: No doubt it may. I put it in for what it is worth.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Elizabeth Hawkes</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Huddleston</span>: 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.”</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">George Herring</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Welsby</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>The Clerk of Arraigns read the letter, of which the following is a -copy:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>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.</p> - -<p class="c"> -“I am, dear Sir, very truly yours,<br /> -</p> - -<p class="r"> -“<span class="smcap">W. Palmer</span>.”<br /> -</p></div> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_039" id="page_039"></a>{39}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Grove</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>Frederick <span class="smcap">Slack</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Huddleston</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>It being now within five minutes of 6 o’clock the Court intimated its -intention not to proceed further with the case that evening.</p> - -<p>Lord <span class="smcap">Campbell</span> 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.</p> - -<p>Mr. Baron <span class="smcap">Alderson</span>: Why should they not take a walk in the -Temple-gardens? There could be no more tranquil spot. (A laugh.)</p> - -<p>The Sheriffs intimated that they would attend to the recommendations of -the learned judges.</p> - -<p>The Court then adjourned at 6 o’clock until 10 o’clock Monday.</p> - -<hr /> - -<h3><a name="FOURTH_DAY_May_17" id="FOURTH_DAY_May_17"></a>FOURTH DAY, <span class="smcap">May 17</span>.</h3> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>The jury, who, in accordance with the suggestions made by the learned -judges on the<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_040" id="page_040"></a>{40}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">George Bates</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">James</span>.—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<i>s.</i> 6<i>d.</i> 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.</p> - -<p>By Lord <span class="smcap">Campbell</span>: I sat at table with them.</p> - -<p>Examination continued: After dinner something was said of an insurance -of my life. Either Cook or Palmer, which I cannot say, commenced the -conversation.</p> - -<p>Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span> objected to the reception of any evidence with regard -to the proposal of the insurance of the witness’s life.</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span> said that his object was to show the position of -Cook’s affairs at this time.</p> - -<p>Lord <span class="smcap">Campbell</span>, 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.</p> - -<p>The examination of the witness with regard to the insurance was, -therefore, not pursued.</p> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_041" id="page_041"></a>{41}</span></p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>Re-examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Thomas Blizard Curling</span>, examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>By <span class="smcap">Lord Campbell</span>: I believe this is not peculiar to traumatic tetanus, -but my observation is taken from such cases.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_042" id="page_042"></a>{42}</span></p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>There was not, in your opinion, either idiopathic or traumatic -tetanus?—No.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: Irritation of the spinal cord or of -the nerves proceeding to it might produce tetanus.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Do you remember reading of a case which occurred at Edinburgh, in which -a negro servant lacerated his thumb by the fracture of a china dish, and -was instantly, while the guests were at dinner, seized with tetanus?</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>, interposing before the witness replied: I have -taken some pains to ascertain what that case is, and where it is got -from.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Did you inquire into this case which is mentioned in your own -treatise—“A negro 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.</p> - -<p>You say that no case of idiopathic tetanus has come under your -notice?—None.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>By Lord <span class="smcap">Campbell</span>: I have read of cases of idiopathic tetanus in this -country.</p> - -<p>Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: We shall be able to show that there have been such -cases.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>By Lord <span class="smcap">Campbell</span>: I did not see the patient, who was under the care of -the house-surgeons, who are now in court.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>For five or ten minutes together?—I think not.</p> - -<p>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 spastic way, so as to -exhibit appearances of tetanic convulsions?—No instance of the kind has -come under my observation.</p> - -<p>Do you agree with this opinion of Dr. Copeland, expressed in his -<i>Dictionary of Practical Medicine</i>, under the head “General -Convulsions.” “The abnormal contraction of the muscles<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_043" id="page_043"></a>{43}</span> is in some cases -of the most violent and spastic 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.</p> - -<p>Does it not happen that a patient dies of convulsions, spastic 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Re-examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: These convulsions are easily -distinguished from tetanus, because in them there is an entire loss of -consciousness.</p> - -<p>Is it one of the characteristic features of tetanus that the -consciousness is not affected?—It is.</p> - -<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Todd</span>, examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>By Lord <span class="smcap">Campbell</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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 <i>post-mortem</i> examination, I am of opinion that in this case there -was neither apoplexy nor epilepsy.</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span> 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.</p> - -<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Todd</span> and Dr. <span class="smcap">Tweedie</span> 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.</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Court</span> 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:—</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_044" id="page_044"></a>{44}</span> 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.”</p> - -<p>“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 <i>post-mortem</i> -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.”</p> - -<p>The examination of Dr. <span class="smcap">Todd</span> by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_045" id="page_045"></a>{45}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>Cross examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Grove</span>, 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 <i>post-mortem</i> 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.</p> - -<p>Re-examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>.—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 -<i>post-mortem</i> examination, and I apprehend that there was nothing to -prevent the discovery of disease in the spinal cord, had any existed -previously to death.</p> - -<p>Sir <span class="smcap">Benjamin Brodie</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">James</span>, 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_046" id="page_046"></a>{46}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Supposing that they differed in their description, which would you rely -upon—the medical man or the chambermaid?</p> - -<p>Baron <span class="smcap">Alderson</span>: This is hardly a question to put to a medical witness, -although it may be a very proper observation for you to make.</p> - -<p>Cross-examination continued: I never knew syphilitic poison produce -tetanic convulsions, except in cases where there was disease of the -bones of the head.</p> - -<p>[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.]</p> - -<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Daniell</span>, examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Grove</span>, 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 <i>post mortem</i> -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.</p> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Samuel Solly</span>, surgeon of St. Thomas’s Hospital, examined by Mr. -<span class="smcap">Welsby</span>: 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_047" id="page_047"></a>{47}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: The sort of grin which I have -described is known as <i>risus sardonicus</i>. 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.</p> - -<p>Re-examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Henry Lee</span>, surgeon to King’s College, and to the Lock Hospital, -examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Bodkin</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>By the <span class="smcap">Court</span>: I have never seen or read of a case either of primary or -secondary symptoms resulting in tetanus.</p> - -<p>This witness was not cross-examined.</p> - -<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Henry Corbett</span>, physician of Glasgow, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">James</span>, Q.C.: In -September, 1845, I was medical clerk at the Glasgow Infirmary, and I -remember a patient, named Agnes Sennett, <i>alias</i> 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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>Re-examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: There was spasmodic action and -grinding of the teeth. She could open her mouth and swallow. There was -no lock-jaw or ordinary tetanus.</p> - -<p>By Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: I do not recollect that touching her sent her into -paroxysms.</p> - -<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Watson</span>, examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_048" id="page_048"></a>{48}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Grove</span>: The spinal cord was quite healthy.</p> - -<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">J. Patterson</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Welsby</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>Baron <span class="smcap">Alderson</span>: Was there any noise made about their being taken by a -wrong person?—Yes.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mary Kelly</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Bodkin</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: It was three quarters of an hour -from the time she took the pills till she was taken to the bed.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Caroline Hickson</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">E. James</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Grove</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>Re-examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Francis Taylor</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Welsby</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>By Lord <span class="smcap">Campbell</span>: The body was warm.</p> - -<p>Examination continued: The eyelids were almost adherent to the eyeballs. -The druggist who made up the prescription was named Jones. I made a -<i>post-mortem</i> 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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_049" id="page_049"></a>{49}</span></p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>If the body is not laid out immediately, is it not stiffened by the -<i>rigor mortis</i>?—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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Charles Blocksome</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Huddleston</span>: 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Jane Witham</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">E. James</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>Re-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">E. James</span>: On the Saturday before she died the -symptoms were the same as on the other days—not more violent.</p> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Morley</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Welsby</span>: 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 <i>post-mortem</i> 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 <i>rigor mortis</i>. I afterwards made numerous experiments on animals -with exactly similar results, the poison being administered in a fluid -form.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Grove</span>: 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_050" id="page_050"></a>{50}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>Re-examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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?</p> - -<p>Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span> objected to a question which suggested a theory.</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: What would be the operation of that portion of the -poison which is taken into the system?—It would destroy life.</p> - -<p>Mr. Baron <span class="smcap">Alderson</span>: And yet leave an excess in the stomach?—That is my -opinion.</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: Would the excess remaining in the stomach produce -no effect?—I am not sure that strychnine could lie in the stomach -without acting prejudicially.</p> - -<p>Suppose that a <i>minimum</i> 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.</p> - -<p>If death resulted from a series of <i>minimum</i> 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.</p> - -<p>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 <i>post-mortem</i> examination of which I -have spoken we found fluid blood in the veins.</p> - -<p>Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: What are the component parts of strychnine?</p> - -<p>Mr. Baron <span class="smcap">Alderson</span>: You will find that in any cyclopœdia, Brother -<span class="smcap">Shee</span>.</p> - -<p>Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: Have you any reason to believe that strychnine can be -decomposed by any sort of putrefying or fermenting process?</p> - -<p>Witness: I doubt whether it can.</p> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Edward D. Moore</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Huddleston</span>: 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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_051" id="page_051"></a>{51}</span></p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>Re-examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: Strychnine stimulates the nerves -which act upon the voluntary muscles, and therefore acts beneficially in -cases of paralysis.</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span> 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.</p> - -<p>Lord <span class="smcap">Campbell</span>, 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.</p> - -<p>Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span> said that medical witnesses would be called for the -defence.</p> - -<p>His <span class="smcap">Lordship</span> 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.</p> - -<p>The Court then rose, and the jury were conveyed to the London -Coffee-house.</p> - -<hr /> - -<h3><a name="FIFTH_DAY_May_19" id="FIFTH_DAY_May_19"></a>FIFTH DAY, <span class="smcap">May 19</span>.</h3> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Alfred Swayne Taylor</span>, examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>In your opinion, does the poison act immediately on the nervous system, -or must it first be absorbed? It must first be absorbed.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_052" id="page_052"></a>{52}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>You have heard the descriptions given by the witnesses of the symptoms -and appearances which accompanied Cook’s attacks?—I have.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Were you able to satisfy yourself of the presence of strychnia?—In one -case I discovered<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_053" id="page_053"></a>{53}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Supposing a <i>minimum</i> 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.</p> - -<p>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 <i>post-mortem</i> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Did you find any of them?—We only found small traces of antimony.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_054" id="page_054"></a>{54}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Did the symptoms in Cook’s case appear to be of a similar character to -the symptoms in those cases?—They did.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: 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.]</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Did not Orfila find antimony in a dog four months after injection?—Yes; -but the animal had taken about 45 grains.</p> - -<p>Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>But is not that the case with nearly all the experiments referred to in -your own book?—No; I cannot say that.</p> - -<p>Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span> again referred to a case in <i>Orfila</i>, 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span> read the letter written by Dr. Taylor to Mr. -Gardner:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p class="r"> -“Chemical Laboratory, Guy’s Hospital, Dec. 4, 1855.<br /> - -“Re J. P. Cook, Esq., deceased.<br /> -</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_055" id="page_055"></a>{55}</span></p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“We are, dear Sir, yours faithfully,</p> - -<p class="r"> -“<span class="smcap">Alfred S. Taylor.</span><br /> - -“<span class="smcap">G. Owen Rees.</span>”<br /> -</p></div> - -<p>Was that your opinion at the time?—It was. We could infer nothing else.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Or even their judicious use?—It might.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Do you not think that is a very slight experiment?—You must add to -experiment the study of poisons and cases.</p> - -<p>Do not you think that a rabbit is a very unfair animal to select?—No.</p> - -<p>Would not a dog be much better?—Dogs are very dangerous to handle. (A -laugh.)</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: I will take your answer that you are afraid of dogs.</p> - -<p>Witness: After the experiments I have tried with dogs and cats, I have -no inclination to go on.</p> - -<p>Do you admit that as to the action of the respiratory organs they would -be better than rabbits?—I do not.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_056" id="page_056"></a>{56}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>At the request of Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>, the deposition of this witness -taken at the coroner’s inquest was read by the Clerk of Arraigns.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Do you think it your duty to abstain from all public discussion of the -question which might influence the public mind?—Yes.</p> - -<p>Did you write a letter to the <i>Lancet</i>?—Yes, to contradict several -misstatements of my evidence which had been made.</p> - -<p>This letter, which appeared in the <i>Lancet</i> 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:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>“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.”</p></div> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Had any comments been made by the prisoner?—No.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Do you know Mr. Augustus Mayhew, the editor of the <i>Illustrated -Times</i>?—I have seen him once or twice.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: There may be a difference of opinion as to that. I -think it is very like.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Did you know that he called in order that you might afford him -information for an article in the <i>Illustrated Times</i>?—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 <i>Illustrated Times</i>.</p> - -<p>“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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_057" id="page_057"></a>{57}</span> 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 <i>Illustrated Times</i>, 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.”</p> - -<p>You did permit him to publish part of the slip?—Nothing connected with -the Rugeley cases.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Did you correct what he showed you?—I struck out some portions.</p> - -<p>And allowed the rest to be published?—I said I had nothing to do with -it, but I objected to its publication.</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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 -<i>The Times</i> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Or to any one?—No. I never used any expression so vulgar and improper. -You have been greatly misinstructed.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>What did you do with the medical report to which you referred?—It was a -private letter from Dr. Harland to Mr. Stevens.</p> - -<p>Mr. Justice <span class="smcap">Cresswell</span>: It was memoranda made by Dr. Harland at the time.</p> - -<p>Cross-examination continued: Cook’s symptoms were quite in accordance -with an ordinary case of poisoning by strychnia.</p> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_058" id="page_058"></a>{58}</span></p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span> objected to this last answer, but as the learned -Serjeant had been questioning the witness as to the results of his -reading,</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Court</span> ruled that the evidence was admissible.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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 -<i>Lancet</i>, 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.</p> - -<p>Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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 <i>Lancet</i>, 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Did you hear that Dr. Bamford said, that when he arrived he found the -body of Cook quite straight in bed?—Yes.</p> - -<p>Can that have been a case of ophisthotonos?—It may have been.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Is it not impossible to get it so from the stomach?—It is not -impossible; it depends upon the quantity which remains there.</p> - -<p>You do not agree that the fiftieth part of a grain might be -discovered?—I think not.</p> - -<p>Nor even half a grain?—That might be. It would depend upon the quantity -of food in the stomach with which it was mixed.</p> - -<p>Re-examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: In case of death from strychnia the -heart is sometimes found empty after death. That is the case of human -subjects. There are<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_059" id="page_059"></a>{59}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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 <i>Lancet</i>, 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.</p> - -<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">G. O. Rees</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">E. James</span>, Q.C., said: I am Lecturer on -Materia Medica at Guy’s Hospital, and I assisted Dr. Taylor in making -the <i>post-mortem</i> 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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Grove</span>, 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.</p> - -<p>Professor <span class="smcap">Brande</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Welsby</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>By the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>Professor <span class="smcap">Christison</span> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_060" id="page_060"></a>{60}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_061" id="page_061"></a>{61}</span> in the formation of a pill it does not follow that they would -necessarily be found in the stomach; they might be passed off.</p> - -<p>By the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: 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 -<i>post-mortem</i> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<hr /> - -<h3><a name="SIXTH_DAY_May_20" id="SIXTH_DAY_May_20"></a>SIXTH DAY, <span class="smcap">May 20</span>.</h3> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>The prisoner was immediately placed in the dock. His appearance and -demeanour were in no respect changed.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">John Jackson</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">James</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>Re-examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Daniel Scully Bergen</span>, examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_062" id="page_062"></a>{62}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Henry Augustus Deane</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">James</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>Re-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">James</span>.—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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">John Espin</span>, examined by <span class="smcap">Mr. James</span>.—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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Strawbridge</span>, 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">John Espin</span> 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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_063" id="page_063"></a>{63}</span></p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>.—I believe all the documents were -placed in my hands together about the 12th of December.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">William Bamford</span>, examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: 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 -<i>post-mortem</i> examination. After it was over, Palmer said, “We ought not -to have let that jar go.” That was all he said.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: My house is about 200 yards from -that of the prisoner.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Thomas Pratt</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">James</span>: 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:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>“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.”</p></div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_064" id="page_064"></a>{64}</span></p> - -<p class="nind">About a week afterwards I wrote to him [This letter had no date, but -bore a postmark, Sept. 24]:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>“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.”</p></div> - -<p class="nind">On the 2nd of October I wrote:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>“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.”</p></div> - -<p class="nind">On the 6th of October I wrote to him another letter, containing this -passage:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>“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.”</p></div> - -<p class="nind">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:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>“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.”</p></div> - -<p class="nind">On the 18th of October I wrote to Palmer as follows:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>“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.”</p></div> - -<p class="nind">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:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>“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.”</p></div> - -<p class="nind">On the 31st of October I wrote to Palmer:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>“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.”</p></div> - -<p class="nind">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:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>“I will be with you on Saturday next, at half-past one.”</p></div> - -<p class="nind">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.”]</p> - -<p>On the 16th of November Palmer wrote to me:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>“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.”</p></div> - -<p class="nind">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:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>“All being well, I shall be with you to-morrow (Monday), but cannot -say what time now. Fisher left the £200 for me.”</p></div> - -<p class="nind">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:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>“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.”</p></div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_065" id="page_065"></a>{65}</span></p> - -<p>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:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>“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.”</p> - -<p>“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.”</p></div> - -<p class="nind">On the 22nd of November I wrote to Palmer:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>“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.</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“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.”</p></div> - -<p class="nind">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:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>“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.”</p></div> - -<p class="nind">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:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p class="c"> -“(Strictly private and confidential.)<br /> -</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p class="r"> -“And oblige, yours faithfully,<br /> - -“<span class="smcap">William Palmer</span>.”<br /> -</p></div> - -<p class="nind">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:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>“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.”</p></div> - -<p class="nind">On the 30th of August he again wrote:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>“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.”</p></div> - -<p class="nind">In this letter was enclosed Cook’s acceptance for £500. On the 6th of -September Palmer wrote:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>“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.”</p></div> - -<p class="nind">On the 9th of September he wrote:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>“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.”</p></div> - -<p class="nind">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:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>“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.”</p></div> - -<p class="nind">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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_066" id="page_066"></a>{66}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined: I did not know Cook; he never had any transactions with -us.</p> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Pratt</span> was then cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: 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.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">John Armshaw</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Welsby</span>: 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">John Wallbank</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Welsby</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">John Spillbury</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Bodkin</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Strawbridge</span>, examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>, said: On the -19th of November Palmer had an account at the bank, and there was a -balance of £9. 6<i>s.</i> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Herbert Wright</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">E. James</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: A sheriff’s officer effected -the seizure, and an auctioneer followed him.</p></div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_067" id="page_067"></a>{67}</span></p> - -<p>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.)</p> - -<p>Re-examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: These bills were discounted at 60 -per cent. per annum, and would have been renewed probably at the same -rate of interest.</p> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Strawbridge</span> proved that the acceptances produced by the last witness -were not in the handwriting of Mrs. Palmer.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined: They are a bad imitation of her hand.</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span> 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.</p> - -<p>Mr. Sergeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span> 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.</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: She was cross-examined upon that point.</p> - -<p>Lord <span class="smcap">Campbell</span>: We are of opinion that there is no ground for recalling -her.</p> - -<p>Mr. Sergeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span> asked permission to put some further questions to Dr. -Devonshire with regard to his having been pushed by Palmer during the -<i>post-mortem</i> examination.</p> - -<p>Lord <span class="smcap">Campbell</span>: By all means.</p> - -<p>Mr. Justice <span class="smcap">Cresswell</span> 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.</p> - -<p>Mr. Baron <span class="smcap">Alderson</span> 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.</p> - -<p>Mr. Sergeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>, after that intimation of their Lordships’ opinion, -would not press his request.</p> - -<p>Lord <span class="smcap">Campbell</span> hoped that the jury would have an opportunity given them -of breathing the fresh air that fine evening.</p> - -<p>The Court adjourned at half-past 3 o’clock until 10 o’clock Wednesday -morning.</p> - -<hr /> - -<h3><a name="SEVENTH_DAY_May_21" id="SEVENTH_DAY_May_21"></a>SEVENTH DAY, <span class="smcap">May 21</span>.</h3> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Charles Weatherby</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Welsby</span>, said: On the 21st of November -I received a letter from Palmer, enclosing a cheque for £350. I produce -that letter:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p class="r"> -“Rugeley, Nov. 20, 1855.<br /> -</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p class="r"> -“Yours respectfully,<br /> - -“<span class="smcap">Wm. Palmer</span>.”<br /> -</p></div> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_068" id="page_068"></a>{68}</span> 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:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p class="r"> -“Nov. 23, 1855.<br /> -</p> - -<p>“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.”</p></div> - -<p class="nind">On the 24th the following notice, signed by Palmer, was left at my -office:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p class="r"> -“Nov. 24, 1855.<br /> -</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p class="r"> -“Yours, &c.<br /> - -“<span class="smcap">Wm. Palmer</span>.”<br /> - -“Messrs. Weatherby, 6, Old Burlington-street.”<br /> -</p></div> - -<p class="nind">On the 23rd I sent a letter to Cook at Rugeley, which was subsequently -returned to me through the dead-letter office.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: The cheque for £350 was, as far as -I recollect, signed by Cook.</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: Was it signed J. P. Cook, or J. Parsons Cook?—I -did not observe.</p> - -<p>By Lord <span class="smcap">Campbell</span>: I observed that the body of the cheque was not in -Cook’s handwriting, but that the signature was.</p> - -<p>Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: When that cheque of Cook’s was presented, you had not -funds in hands to meet it?—No.</p> - -<p>Were funds afterwards sent up by Mr. Frail, the clerk of the course at -Shrewsbury?—They were to have been, but were not eventually.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">F. Butler</span> examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Grove</span>: I won £210 on Polestar for Palmer, and kept -it on account.</p> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stevens</span> proved that Polestar was sold at Tattersall’s on the 10th of -March, by auction, and fetched 720 guineas.</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: That is the case for the prosecution.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_069" id="page_069"></a>{69}</span></p> - -<hr /> - -<h3><a name="THE_DEFENCE" id="THE_DEFENCE"></a>THE DEFENCE.<br /><br /> -(<i>Seventh Day Continued.</i>)</h3> - -<p>Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_070" id="page_070"></a>{70}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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 <i>post-mortem</i> -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,—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>“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.”</p></div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_071" id="page_071"></a>{71}</span> -Dr. Williams, professor of <i>materia medica</i> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_072" id="page_072"></a>{72}</span> obtaining money at an enormous discount. But as early -as May, 1855, Palmer and Cook were thus circumstanced. What was their -position in November?</p> - -<p>The evidence of <span class="smcap">Pratt</span>, 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—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>“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.”</p></div> - -<p class="nind">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:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>“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.”</p></div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_073" id="page_073"></a>{73}</span> 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?</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>“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.”</p> - -<p>“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.”</p></div> - -<p class="nind">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:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>“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.”</p> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -<p>“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.”</p></div> - -<p class="nind">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)<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_074" id="page_074"></a>{74}</span> 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:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>“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.”</p></div> - -<p class="nind">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,—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>“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.”</p></div> - -<p class="nind">So that it was represented to Pratt as a transaction for the -accommodation of Cook. Pratt’s answer to that is:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>“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.”</p></div> - -<p class="nind">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:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>“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.”</p></div> - -<p class="nind">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:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>“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.”</p></div> - -<p class="nind">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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_075" id="page_075"></a>{75}</span> 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?</p> - -<p>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 <i>post-mortem</i> -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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_076" id="page_076"></a>{76}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>Lord <span class="smcap">Campbell</span>: The Attorney-General stated that he did not place much -reliance upon that note.</p> - -<p>Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: 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:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>“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.”</p></div> - -<p class="nind">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:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>“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.”</p></div> - -<p class="nind">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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_077" id="page_077"></a>{77}</span> 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:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>“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.</p> - -<p>“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.”</p></div> - -<p>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 -<i>post-mortem</i> examination, and that examination took place.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_078" id="page_078"></a>{78}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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 <i>dogma mater</i>, -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 <i>post-mortem</i> 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.]</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_079" id="page_079"></a>{79}</span> -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?”</p> - -<p>Lord <span class="smcap">Campbell</span>: Tetanus not occasioned by external injury.</p> - -<p>Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: 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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_080" id="page_080"></a>{80}</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_081" id="page_081"></a>{81}</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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——</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">The Attorney-General</span>.—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.</p> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shee</span> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_082" id="page_082"></a>{82}</span> (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 <i>Dictionary of Practical Medicine</i>, is -the true description of general convulsions. In that book I find the -following, under the head of “Convulsions:”—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>“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.”</p></div> - -<p class="nind">The article then goes on:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>“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.”</p></div> - -<p class="nind">As to the premonitory symptoms, it says:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>“The premonitory signs of general convulsions are (<i>inter alia</i>), -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.”</p></div> - -<p class="nind">In further describing these convulsions, the article says:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>“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.”</p></div> - -<p class="nind">Then, it adds:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>“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 <i>convulsio recurrens</i> of -authors.)”</p></div> - -<p class="nind">And, in detailing the origin of these convulsions, it says:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>“The most common causes are (<i>inter alia</i>), 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.”</p></div> - -<p class="nind">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 <i>Lectures on the Principles and Practice of Physic</i>, -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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_083" id="page_083"></a>{83}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_084" id="page_084"></a>{84}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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 <i>Lancet</i>, 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 <i>nux vomica</i>, 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?</p> - -<p>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 <i>post-mortem</i> 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—<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_085" id="page_085"></a>{85}</span>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.</p> - -<p>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?</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_086" id="page_086"></a>{86}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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 <i>animus</i>, 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 <i>animus</i> 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_087" id="page_087"></a>{87}</span> 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.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_088" id="page_088"></a>{88}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>Lord <span class="smcap">Campbell</span> said that the Court could not see the experiments made, -but witnesses might be called to prove them.</p> - -<p>Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>Lord <span class="smcap">Campbell</span>: In the language of the law “which country you are.”</p> - -<p>Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: 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 <i>post-mortem</i> 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.</p> - -<p>Lord <span class="smcap">Campbell</span>: What was said referred only to the pushing.</p> - -<p>Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: 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 <i>post-mortem</i> 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.</p> - -<p>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 -<i>post-mortem</i> 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 <i>post-mortem</i> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_089" id="page_089"></a>{89}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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 <i>post-mortem</i> -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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_090" id="page_090"></a>{90}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>Palmer attended the <i>post-mortem</i> 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 <i>animus</i> 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.]</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_091" id="page_091"></a>{91}</span> £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!</p> - -<p>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!</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_092" id="page_092"></a>{92}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>“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,</p> - -<p class="r"> -Your own <span class="smcap">William</span>.”<br /> -</p></div> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>The Court then adjourned till 10 o’clock next morning.</p> - -<hr /> - -<h3><a name="EIGHTH_DAY_May_22" id="EIGHTH_DAY_May_22"></a>EIGHTH DAY, <span class="smcap">May 22</span>.</h3> - -<p>His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge was among the distinguished -persons who were accommodated with seats upon the bench.</p> - -<p>The learned Judges, Lord Campbell, Mr. Baron Alderson, and Mr. Justice -Cresswell,<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_093" id="page_093"></a>{93}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>Immediately after the learned Judges took their seats,</p> - -<p>Lord <span class="smcap">Campbell</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Thomas Nunneley</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Grove</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>Lord <span class="smcap">Campbell</span> said that the witness could only be examined as to his -opinion founded upon the <i>vivâ voce</i> evidence before the Court.</p> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Grove</span> said that his object was to distinguish between the opinion -founded on the <i>vivâ voce</i> evidence and that founded on the depositions.</p> - -<p>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—</p> - -<p>Mr. Baron <span class="smcap">Alderson</span>: You have nothing to do with that. You must only give -an opinion upon the symptoms described in evidence.</p> - -<p>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 <i>post-mortem</i> examination. Do you remember -the account of the syphilitic sores?</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span> 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.</p> - -<p>Mr. Justice <span class="smcap">Cresswell</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_094" id="page_094"></a>{94}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>By Lord <span class="smcap">Campbell</span>: I cannot mention a case in which consciousness has -been retained during the fit. No such case has come under my notice.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>By Lord <span class="smcap">Campbell</span>: Death from a spasm of the heart is often described as -death by asphyxia.</p> - -<p>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 <i>post-mortem</i> 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.</p> - -<p>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 <i>post-mortem</i> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_095" id="page_095"></a>{95}</span> 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 <i>rigor mortis</i> comes on.</p> - -<p>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 <i>rigor -mortis</i> 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 <i>Journal de Pharmacie</i>, 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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_096" id="page_096"></a>{96}</span></p> - -<p>Lord <span class="smcap">Campbell</span>: I do not remember that. I think it was said that it was -contracted.</p> - -<p>Mr. Baron <span class="smcap">Alderson</span>: According to my note, Dr. Harland said that the -heart was contracted, and contained no blood.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Had that question occupied your attention before you were called upon to -give evidence upon this trial?—It had.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>.—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.</p> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_097" id="page_097"></a>{97}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>Have you any doubt about it?—Yes.</p> - -<p>Half a grain, then, is the <i>minimum</i> dose which will kill a cat?—I -think it would be the <i>minimum</i> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Do you know any case of strychnine in which the rigidity after death was -greater than the usual <i>rigor mortis</i>?—I think not. I don’t think there -is any peculiar rigidity produced by strychnine.</p> - -<p>Have you never found undue rigidity in a human subject after death from -strychnine?—Considerably less.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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 <i>rigor mortis</i>.”</p> - -<p>You don’t agree with that statement?—I do not. I generally found the -right side of the heart full.</p> - -<p>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 <i>post-mortem</i> examination of Mrs. Smyth. No -doubt he stated that the heart in that case also was empty.</p> - -<p>And do those facts exercise no influence on your judgment?—They would -not unless I knew how the <i>post-mortem</i> 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.</p> - -<p>Do you know how the <i>post-mortem</i> examination was made in this -case?—No. Excuse me, I do. The chest and the abdomen, not the head, -were first opened.</p> - -<p>The heart, then, was not emptied in the first instance?—No.</p> - -<p>Then what occasioned the contraction of the heart?—When the heart is -emptied it is usually contracted.</p> - -<p>But how do you account for its contraction and emptiness?—I cannot say -that I am able to account for it.</p> - -<p>Lord <span class="smcap">Campbell</span>: Would the heart contract if there were blood in it?—No.</p> - -<p>Lord <span class="smcap">Campbell</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>Lord <span class="smcap">Campbell</span>: That is death by asphyxia?—Precisely.</p> - -<p>By the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: 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 <i>post-mortem</i> examination.</p> - -<p>To what constitutional symptoms about Cook do you ascribe the -convulsions from which he died?—Not to any.</p> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_098" id="page_098"></a>{98}</span></p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Do you mean to set up that opinion against that of Dr. Devonshire and -Dr. Harland, who were present at the <i>post-mortem</i>?—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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_099" id="page_099"></a>{99}</span></p> - -<p>Repeat them: There was the sudden accession of the convulsions.</p> - -<p>Sudden—after what?—After the rousing by Jones. There was also the -power of talking.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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—</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: They can’t ask to have their ears rubbed, of -course. (A laugh.)</p> - -<p>Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span> said the witness was about to explain the effect of -being rubbed upon the animals.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined continued: In no single instance could the animals bear -to be touched.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">William Herapath</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Grove</span>, 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-coloured 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_100" id="page_100"></a>{100}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>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 <i>Illustrated Times</i>,—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.</p> - -<p>Re-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Grove</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Grove</span> said he believed his Lordship was of opinion that experiments -could not be shown.</p> - -<p>Lord <span class="smcap">Campbell</span>: We have intimated that that is our clear opinion.</p> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rogers</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Gray</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>Re-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Gray</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Henry Letheby</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Kenealy</span>: 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_101" id="page_101"></a>{101}</span> 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 <i>post-mortem</i> 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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>By Mr. Justice <span class="smcap">Cresswell</span>: I was present at the trial. I perfectly -remember it.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Mr. Baron <span class="smcap">Alderson</span>: Did the animal bolt it or bite it?</p> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_102" id="page_102"></a>{102}</span></p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>What do you attribute Cook’s death to?—It is irreconcilable with -everything with which I am acquainted.</p> - -<p>Is it reconcileable with any known disease you have ever seen or heard -of?—No.</p> - -<p>Re-examined by Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">R. E. Gay</span>, examined by Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span> then addressed the Court, and said that the next witness -he proposed to call<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_103" id="page_103"></a>{103}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Lord Chief Justice</span> 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.</p> - -<p>Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span> said he hoped to conclude the defence to-morrow; and he -should endeavour to do so if he possibly could.</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Lord Chief Justice</span> 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.</p> - -<p>The Court then adjourned till the following morning, at 10 o’clock.</p> - -<hr /> - -<h3><a name="NINTH_DAY_May_23" id="NINTH_DAY_May_23"></a>NINTH DAY, <span class="smcap">May 23</span>.</h3> - -<p>There was as great a crowd as usual in court this morning, long before -the commencement of the proceedings.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">J. B. Ross</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Grove</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>.—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.</p> - -<p>Have you any doubt that the disease had been coming on since the -morning?—No<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_104" id="page_104"></a>{104}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>Re-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Grove</span>.—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.</p> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ryners Mantell</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Gray</span>.—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.</p> - -<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Wrightson</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Kenealy</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: Supposing that the whole dose -were absorbed into the system, where would you expect to find it?—In -the blood.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Suppose the whole had been absorbed?—Then I would not undertake to find -it.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Suppose that the <i>minimum</i> 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.</p> - -<p>Re-examined by Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_105" id="page_105"></a>{105}</span></p> - -<p>Mr. Baron <span class="smcap">Alderson</span>: How do you suppose strychnine acts when taken into -the stomach?—I cannot form an opinion.</p> - -<p>Mr. Baron <span class="smcap">Alderson</span>: It goes, I suppose, from the stomach to the blood, -and from the blood somewhere else, and, arriving at that somewhere else, -it kills.</p> - -<p>Lord <span class="smcap">Campbell</span>: I cannot allow this witness to leave the box without -expressing my high approbation of the manner in which he has given his -evidence.</p> - -<p>Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span> requested to be allowed to ask the witness whether a -strong dose was likely to pass through all the stages his lordship had -mentioned.</p> - -<p>Mr. Baron <span class="smcap">Alderson</span>: That depends on where the killing takes place.</p> - -<p>Professor <span class="smcap">Partridge</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Grove</span>: 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 -<i>post-mortem</i>, 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Lord <span class="smcap">Campbell</span>: Can you not say, from the symptoms you heard, whether -death was produced by tetanus, without saying what was the cause of -tetanus?</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Did you ever know the hands completely clinched after death except in -case of tetanus?—No.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Have you ever known the foot so distorted as to assume the form of a -club foot?—No.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Re-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Grove</span>: Besides the symptom which I have mentioned as -being inconsistent with the theory of death by strychnine, there are -others—namely, sickness,<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_106" id="page_106"></a>{106}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>By the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: Supposing the stomach were acted on by other -causes, I do not think sickness would be inconsistent with tetanus.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">John Gay</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Gray</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>.—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.</p> - -<p>Re-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Gray</span>.—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.</p> - -<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">W. Macdonald</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Kenealy</span>.—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 <i>post-mortem</i> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_107" id="page_107"></a>{107}</span> 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 <i>post-mortem</i> 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.</p> - -<p>From a <i>post-mortem</i> 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 <i>post-mortem</i> 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.</p> - -<p>Lord <span class="smcap">Campbell</span>: As soon as the poison is swallowed? No; it would be after -a certain time. The first symptoms of poisoning must have been -developed.</p> - -<p>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 -<i>post-mortem</i> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>As a congeries, would they be still more likely to produce it?—Yes.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_108" id="page_108"></a>{108}</span></p> - -<p>Cross-examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>By Lord <span class="smcap">Campbell</span>.—That is a disease well known to physicians. It is -mentioned in Dr. Copland’s Dictionary.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>This gentleman was much, overjoyed, at his horse winning, and you think -he vomited in consequence?—It might predispose him to vomit.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>.—But the gentlemen who made the <i>post-mortem</i> -examination say that the stomach was not inflamed.</p> - -<p>Witness.—There were white spots, which cannot exist without -inflammation. There must have been inflammation.</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>.—But these gentlemen say that there was not -inflammation.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Have you any instance in which epilepsy came on a fortnight afterwards? -(A laugh.)—It is within the range of possibility.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_109" id="page_109"></a>{109}</span></p> - -<p>Do you mean, as a serious man of science, to say that?—The results -might.</p> - -<p>What results were there in this case?—The chancre and the syphilitic -sores.</p> - -<p>Did you ever hear of a chancre causing epilepsy?—No.</p> - -<p>Did you ever dream of such a thing?—I never heard of it.</p> - -<p>Did you ever hear of any other form of syphilitic disease producing -epilepsy?—No; but tetanus.</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: But you say this was epilepsy; we are not talking -of tetanus?</p> - -<p>Witness: You forget the tetanic complications. (Roars of laughter.)</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: If I understand right, then, it stands thus—the -sexual excitement produces epilepsy, and the chancre superadds tetanic -complications?</p> - -<p>Witness: I say that the results of sexual excitement produce epilepsy.</p> - -<p>Mr. Baron <span class="smcap">Alderson</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>What would be the effect of morphia given a day or two previously? Would -it not retard the action of the poison?—No; I have seen opium bring on -convulsions very nearly similar.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>But the gentlemen who examined the body say that there was no congestion -after death?—But Dr. Bamford says there was.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>But Dr. Bamford said that Cook died of apoplexy; do you think this was -apoplexy?—No, it was not.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: The other medical men said there was none.</p> - -<p>Lord <span class="smcap">Campbell</span>: That is rather a matter of reasoning than of evidence.</p> - -<p>Re-examined by Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Bainbridge</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Grove</span>: 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_110" id="page_110"></a>{110}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: 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 <i>post-mortem</i> 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.</p> - -<p>Re-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Grove</span>: Persons almost invariably fall asleep after an -epileptic attack.</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: And after taking opium?—Yes.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Edward Austin Steddy</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Gray</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">James</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">George Robinson</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Kenealy</span>: 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 -<i>post-mortem</i> 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.</p> - -<p>By the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: 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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_111" id="page_111"></a>{111}</span></p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: Do you think that they did so?</p> - -<p>Witness: Putting aside the assumption of death by strychnia, I should -say so.</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: Are not all the symptoms spoken to by Mr. Jones -indicative of death by strychnia?</p> - -<p>Witness: They certainly are.</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: 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?</p> - -<p>Witness: Yes.</p> - -<p>By Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: Epilepsy is a well-known form of disease which -includes many others.</p> - -<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Richardson</span> 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 <i>post-mortem</i> -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 <i>post-mortem</i> 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!”</p> - -<p>By the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>By Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Wrightson</span> was re-called, and in answer to a question put by Serjeant -<span class="smcap">Shee</span>, he said it was his opinion that when the strychnia poison was -absorbed in the system it was diffused throughout the entire system.</p> - -<p>By the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>By Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: I should expect still to find it in the spleen, and -liver, and blood.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Catherine Watson</span> said: I live at Garnkirk, near Glasgow. I was attacked -with a fit in<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_112" id="page_112"></a>{112}</span> October of last year. I had no wound of any kind on my -body when I was attacked. I did not take any poison.</p> - -<p>By the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span> 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.</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Lord Chief Justice</span> said that the Court had no objection to adjourn -if the learned Serjeant thought it would be a convenient time to do so.</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span> 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.</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Court</span> directed that the witness should be called upon his -recognizances, and this was done, but he did not appear.</p> - -<p>The Court then adjourned until ten o’clock on Saturday morning.</p> - -<hr /> - -<h3><a name="TENTH_DAY_May_24" id="TENTH_DAY_May_24"></a>TENTH DAY, <span class="smcap">May 24</span>.</h3> - -<p>The Lord Chief Justice Campbell, Mr. Baron Alderson, and Mr. Justice -Cresswell took their seats at ten o’clock.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<h4>CLOSE OF THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE.</h4> - -<p>The names of the jurors having been called over.</p> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Oliver Pemberton</span>, 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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>By Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: Was there any difference of opinion expressed on -that occasion by the medical men?</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span> objected to the question.</p> - -<p>Lord Campbell decided that it could not be put.</p> - -<p>Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span> said that this witness brought to a conclusion the -medical evidence on the part of Palmer.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_113" id="page_113"></a>{113}</span></p> - -<h4>GENERAL EVIDENCE.</h4> - -<p><span class="smcap">Henry Matthews</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Grove</span>: 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Joseph Foster</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Gray</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">James</span>: 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].</p> - -<p>Lord Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Campbell</span>: I most strongly implore that there will be -no expression of any sensation evinced at the answers given by any of -the witnesses.</p> - -<p>By Mr. <span class="smcap">James</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>By Lord <span class="smcap">Campbell</span>: I never saw Cook sick on any other occasion, except -about seven years previous at Market Harborough, at the cricket match, -after dinner.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">George Myatt</span>, saddler, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Gray</span>: 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_114" id="page_114"></a>{114}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">James</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>Re-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Grove</span>: I was not subpœned for the Crown; I was -examined, but not<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_115" id="page_115"></a>{115}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: 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?</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Lord Chief Justice</span>: There is no objection to that question.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Witness</span>: I never spoke to him about brandy and water at all.</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: Did you meet him at Hednesford, where Saunders -lives?—Yes.</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: Did you not tell him there that you could -recollect nothing about brandy and water?—No.</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: Had you no conversation at all?—I had with Mr. -Stevens.</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: Did you not say, in Mr. Gardner’s presence, that -you could recollect nothing about the brandy and water?—I did not.</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: You swear you did not tell them anything about -it?—Yes.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">John Sargent</span>, examined by Mr. Sergeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Jeremiah Smith</span>, by Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_116" id="page_116"></a>{116}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>“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.”</p></div> - -<p class="nind">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:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>“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.”</p></div> - -<p>The memorandum put in and read was signed J. P. Cook, and the following -is a copy:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>“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.”</p></div> - -<p>Cross-examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_117" id="page_117"></a>{117}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>How long did this habit continue of sleeping two or three times a week -at Mrs. Palmer’s house?—Several years.</p> - -<p>Had you your own lodgings and chambers at Rugeley?—Yes.</p> - -<p>Your own bedroom?—Yes.</p> - -<p>How far were your lodgings from Mrs. Palmer’s house?—Nearly a quarter -of a mile.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Who were they?—There was Mr. Joseph Palmer, who resides at Liverpool; -Mr. Walter Palmer, too; and sometimes William Palmer.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Then you did not go to your own lodgings?—No.</p> - -<p>And this continued several years two or three times a week?—Yes.</p> - -<p>Did you ever stay at Mrs. Palmer’s house all night when there were no -members of the family visiting?—Yes, frequently.</p> - -<p>How often?—As many as two or three times a week.</p> - -<p>When there were none of Mrs. Palmer’s sons there?—Yes.</p> - -<p>And when the mother was?—Yes.</p> - -<p>How often did that happen?—I cannot say. Sometimes two or three times a -week.</p> - -<p>When there was no one else in the house but the lady?—There were the -mother, daughter, and servants.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Do you mean, then, to swear solemnly that no improper intimacy subsisted -between you and Palmer’s mother?—I do [sensation].</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Is that your signature [handing a document to witness]?—It is very -similar to it.</p> - -<p>Is it not yours?—I do not know [sensation].</p> - -<p>Upon your oath, sir, is not that your signature?—Witness hesitating—</p> - -<p>Examine the document, and then tell me, on your oath, whether that is -not your signature [witness examined the document].</p> - -<p>Now you have perused it, tell me, is not that your signature?—Witness -(hesitating): I have some doubts whether this is my handwriting -[sensation].</p> - -<p>Have you read the whole of the document?—I have not.</p> - -<p>Then do so. [Witness again perused the whole of the paper.] Now, was -that document prepared in your office?—It was not.</p> - -<p>Have you ever seen it before?—It is very much like my handwriting.</p> - -<p>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].</p> - -<p>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].</p> - -<p>Will you swear it is not your handwriting?—I will swear it is not my -handwriting [renewed sensation].</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: Will your lordship please to take a note of that -answer?</p> - -<p>Mr. Baron <span class="smcap">Alderson</span>: Did you ever make such an attestation as that in -your hand?—I do not remember.</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: Now is that the signature of Walter Palmer -(handing a paper to witness)?—I believe it to be.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_118" id="page_118"></a>{118}</span></p> - -<p>Is that the signature of Pratt?—I do not know.</p> - -<p>Did you not receive that paper from Pratt?—I believe I did not. I think -William Palmer gave it me.</p> - -<p>Well, did he give it you?—I don’t recollect.</p> - -<p>I repeat my question. Did William Palmer give you that document?—Most -likely he did.</p> - -<p>Did he, I ask again?—It was not signed at the time.</p> - -<p>But did he give it you? I will have an answer.—I have no doubt he did.</p> - -<p>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—</p> - -<p>Don’t “Mr. Attorney” me—answer my question. Upon your oath, is not that -your handwriting?—I believe it not to be.</p> - -<p>Will you swear it is not?—I believe it not to be. [Great sensation.]</p> - -<p>Now, did you apply to the Midland Counties Insurance Office to be -appointed agent to the company at Rugeley?—I did.</p> - -<p>When was it?—I should like to fetch my documents and papers; I should -then be able to answer you accurately.</p> - -<p>Oh, never mind the papers. Was it in October, 1855?—I think it was.</p> - -<p>Did you send up a proposal for an insurance of £10,000 on the life of -Bates?—I did.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Did you make the application in order to get the insurance effected?—I -did.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Did she give any reason for not signing it?</p> - -<p>Mr. Sergeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span> objected to the question.</p> - -<p>Lord <span class="smcap">Campbell</span> decided that it could not be put.</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>: Do you know whether Walter Palmer received -anything on executing the assignment of his policy to William Palmer?—I -believe he ultimately had something.</p> - -<p>Did he not get a bill for £200?—I believe he did, and he also got a -house furnished for him.</p> - -<p>Was that bill paid?—I do not remember.</p> - -<p>Is that document in your handwriting? [document handed in]—It is.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Not recollect! when your signature is staring you in the face?—No, I do -not.</p> - -<p>You are an attorney, and accustomed to business transactions?—I am.</p> - -<p>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].</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Look at that document and see whether you were not applied to to effect -the insurance I have named?—That is my signature.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Did you sign this proposal in blank?—I might have done.</p> - -<p>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].</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Were you applied to to attest another proposal for an insurance with the -Universal Life Office?—I cannot say that I was.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_119" id="page_119"></a>{119}</span>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>I repeat the question?—I cannot say.</p> - -<p>Why, did you not receive a cheque for £5 for attesting it?—I think I -did receive a cheque for £5.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Did you not, sir, see him write it?—That is William Palmer’s -handwriting [referring to the cheque-book].</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>You say you got £200 for Cook—£100 from Mrs. Palmer and £100 from -William Palmer?—Yes, and he gave £10 for the recommendation.</p> - -<p>To whom?—To William Palmer.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Who was the bill drawn in favour of?—I think William Palmer.</p> - -<p>What became of the bill?—I do not know.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Re-examined by Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: Is there any pretence for saying you have ever been -charged with any improper intimacy with Mrs. Palmer?—Witness: I hope -not.</p> - -<p>Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: Is there any pretence for saying so?—Witness: There -ought not to be.</p> - -<p>Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: Is there any truth in the statement?—Witness: I -should say not.</p> - -<p>Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>The Court then adjourned for about twenty minutes, when the proceedings -were resumed.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">W. Joseph Saunders</span> was then called up on his subpœna, but did not -appear.</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span> said he should be extremely sorry to commence his -reply if there was any chance of witness making his appearance.</p> - -<p>Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span> said he should now ask for the production of a letter -written by Cook to Palmer on Jan. 4, 1855.</p> - -<p>The letter, of which the following is a copy, was then put in and -read:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p class="r"> -“Lutterworth, Jan. 4, 1855.<br /> -</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p class="r"> -Yours faithfully,<br /> - -“<span class="smcap">J. Parsons Cook</span>.”<br /> - -“W. Palmer, Esq.”<br /> -</p></div> - -<p>Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span> 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.</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Lord Chief Justice</span>: We are of opinion that you have no right to -reply.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_120" id="page_120"></a>{120}</span></p> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Baron Alderson</span>: That is quite clear.</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span> 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.</p> - -<p>The Court decided against the application.</p> - -<p>The case for the defence here concluded.</p> - -<h4>THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S REPLY.</h4> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_121" id="page_121"></a>{121}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_122" id="page_122"></a>{122}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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 <i>post-mortem</i> 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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_123" id="page_123"></a>{123}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_124" id="page_124"></a>{124}</span> the duration of time, before the poison begins to work, -has been little, if anything, less than an hour.</p> - -<p>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 retard 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_125" id="page_125"></a>{125}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>What have these gentlemen done? They have given large doses in the -experiments they<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_126" id="page_126"></a>{126}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_127" id="page_127"></a>{127}</span> 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?</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_128" id="page_128"></a>{128}</span></p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_129" id="page_129"></a>{129}</span> 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?</p> - -<p>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 <i>post-mortem</i> 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 -<i>post-mortem</i> examination was first mentioned. But finding that there -was to be a <i>post-mortem</i> 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_130" id="page_130"></a>{130}</span> 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?</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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 <i>post-mortem</i> examination, what was the conduct -of the prisoner<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_131" id="page_131"></a>{131}</span> 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.]</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>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).</p></div> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_132" id="page_132"></a>{132}</span></p> - -<p>The court then adjourned at twenty-five minutes to seven o’clock until -ten o’clock on Monday.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<hr /> - -<h3><a name="ELEVENTH_DAY_May_26" id="ELEVENTH_DAY_May_26"></a>ELEVENTH DAY, <span class="smcap">May 26</span>.</h3> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<h4>SUMMING-UP OF THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.</h4> - -<p>Silence having been proclaimed,</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Lord Chief Justice</span> (<span class="smcap">Campbell</span>) 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_133" id="page_133"></a>{133}</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_134" id="page_134"></a>{134}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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 <i>ca. sa.</i> 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,”—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>“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.</p> - -<p class="r"> -“And oblige yours faithfully,<br /> - -“<span class="smcap">William Palmer</span>.”<br /> -</p></div> - -<p class="nind">—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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_135" id="page_135"></a>{135}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span> observed that Mr. Weatherby expressed an opinion that -the cheque was Cook’s.</p> - -<p>Lord <span class="smcap">Campbell</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: There is a postscript, my Lord.</p> - -<p>Lord <span class="smcap">Campbell</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_136" id="page_136"></a>{136}</span> 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?</p> - -<p>Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span>: With, your Lordship’s permission, we desire to have -them read.</p> - -<p>Lord <span class="smcap">Campbell</span>: Then let them be read, by all means.</p> - -<p>The Clerk of Arraigns then read the depositions of Elizabeth Mills, as -taken before the coroner.</p> - -<p>Lord <span class="smcap">Campbell</span>: 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_137" id="page_137"></a>{137}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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 <i>post-mortem</i> 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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_138" id="page_138"></a>{138}</span> 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:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>“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</p> - -<p class="r"> -“Ever yours,<br /> - -“W. P.”]<br /> -</p></div> - -<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 <i>vivâ -voce</i> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_139" id="page_139"></a>{139}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.]</p> - -<p>Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span> wished to have the cross-examination of this witness -read.</p> - -<p>Lord <span class="smcap">Campbell</span>: Certainly. I daresay it is very applicable.</p> - -<p>Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span> read a part of the cross-examination:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>“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.”</p></div> - -<p>Lord <span class="smcap">Campbell</span>.—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 <i>minimum</i> 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_140" id="page_140"></a>{140}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>As to the letter which was written by Professor Taylor to the <i>Lancet</i>, -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 <span class="smcap">Shee</span> 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.</p> - -<p>Dr. Taylor has been questioned about some indiscreet letter which he -wrote, and some indiscreet conversation which he had with the editor of -the <i>Illustrated Times</i>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_141" id="page_141"></a>{141}</span> 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.</p> - -<hr /> - -<h3><a name="TWELFTH_DAY_May_27" id="TWELFTH_DAY_May_27"></a>TWELFTH DAY, <span class="smcap">May 27</span>.</h3> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>The Lord Chief Justice, Baron Alderson, and Mr. Justice Cresswell, took -their seats on the bench at ten o’clock.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_142" id="page_142"></a>{142}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>The Court accordingly adjourned for twenty minutes.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_143" id="page_143"></a>{143}</span></p> - -<p>On the Court resuming,</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span> 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.</p> - -<p>Lord <span class="smcap">Campbell</span> 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.</p> - -<p>Mr. Serjeant <span class="smcap">Shee</span> urged that the question ought not to have been put, in -his opinion; but if over-ruled, he must submit.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_144" id="page_144"></a>{144}</span></p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>The jury re-entered the Court at thirty-five minutes past three, having -been absent one hour and seventeen minutes.</p> - -<p>Upon the appearance of the jury every whisper ceased, and men seemed -scarcely to breathe in the solemnity of the moment.</p> - -<p>The Judges then resumed their seats, and the prisoner was replaced at -the bar, looking calm and quiet.</p> - -<p>The Clerk of the Arraigns inquired of the jury whether they had agreed -upon a verdict?</p> - -<p>The Foreman replied in the affirmative.</p> - -<p>The Clerk: Do you find the prisoner at the bar guilty or not guilty?</p> - -<p>Foreman: We find him</p> - -<p class="sans"> -<b>GUILTY.</b><br /> -</p> - -<p>The Prisoner received the verdict almost unmoved.</p> - -<p>The Clerk then inquired what the prisoner had to say why sentence of -death should not be passed upon him.</p> - -<p>The prisoner made no answer.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<hr /> - -<p class="c">Printed at the Steam Press of <span class="smcap">G. Lawrence</span>, 29 Farringdon Street, City.</p> - -<hr class="full" /> - - - - - - - -<pre> - - - - - -End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Most Extra Ordinary Trial of -William Palmer for the Rugeley Poisonings, by Anonymous - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMER *** - -***** This file should be named 51135-h.htm or 51135-h.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/5/1/1/3/51135/ - -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) - - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions -will be renamed. - -Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no -one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation -(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without -permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, -set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to -copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to -protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project -Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you -charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you -do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the -rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose -such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and -research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do -practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is -subject to the trademark license, especially commercial -redistribution. - - - -*** START: FULL LICENSE *** - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project -Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at -http://gutenberg.org/license). - - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy -all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. -If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the -terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or -entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement -and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" -or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the -collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an -individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are -located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from -copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative -works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg -are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project -Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by -freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of -this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with -the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by -keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project -Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in -a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check -the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement -before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or -creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project -Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning -the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United -States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate -access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently -whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, -copied or distributed: - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with -almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or -re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included -with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived -from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is -posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied -and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees -or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work -with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the -work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 -through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the -Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or -1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional -terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked -to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the -permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any -word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or -distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than -"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version -posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), -you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a -copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon -request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other -form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided -that - -- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is - owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he - has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the - Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments - must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you - prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax - returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and - sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the - address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to - the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." - -- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or - destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium - and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of - Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any - money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days - of receipt of the work. - -- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set -forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from -both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael -Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the -Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm -collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain -"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or -corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual -property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a -computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by -your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with -your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with -the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a -refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity -providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to -receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy -is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further -opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER -WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO -WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. -If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the -law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be -interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by -the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any -provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance -with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, -promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, -harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, -that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do -or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm -work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any -Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. - - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers -including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists -because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from -people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. -To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation -and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 -and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive -Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at -http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent -permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. -Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered -throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at -809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email -business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact -information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official -page at http://pglaf.org - -For additional contact information: - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To -SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any -particular state visit http://pglaf.org - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. -To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate - - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm -concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared -with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project -Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. - - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. -unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily -keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. - - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: - - http://www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - - -</pre> - -</body> -</html> diff --git a/old/51135-h/images/cover.jpg b/old/51135-h/images/cover.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 50eb95c..0000000 --- a/old/51135-h/images/cover.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/51135-h/images/cover_lg.jpg b/old/51135-h/images/cover_lg.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 231e387..0000000 --- a/old/51135-h/images/cover_lg.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/51135-h/images/palmer_lg.png b/old/51135-h/images/palmer_lg.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index ed7f752..0000000 --- a/old/51135-h/images/palmer_lg.png +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/51135-h/images/palmer_sml.png b/old/51135-h/images/palmer_sml.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 0b81bae..0000000 --- a/old/51135-h/images/palmer_sml.png +++ /dev/null |
