The Press. — London, England, 1856-05-24 00:00:00

490 THE PRESS. SATURDAY, Witness read numerous letters from Palmer re- Wing to his embarrassed position, and one on Nov. 21 announcing Cook's death, and desiring witness not to mention what moneys Cook had ever received from him, and a more pressing letter on the same subject on Nov. 20. Mr. Armstrong, a Hugeley attorney, proved receiving from Palmer on Nov. 20 two 501. notes in payment of a debt and costs. _ _ John Spillbury, a Rugeley farmer, proved having received from Palmer, on Nov. 22, a 501. Bank of England note in payment of 461. 2s. William Cheshire proved that the cheque for 3751. sent by Cook to Pratt was paid into the Rugeley Pro vincial Bank to Palmer's account. The court then adjourned. WEDNESDAY. The court was more crowded on this day, when the prosecution closed and the defence commenced, than on any previous occasion. Every available seat was occupied, every passage crowded, and the most intense interest manifested in the proceedings. Shortly after ten a.m. the judges entered, and 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 he has exhibited throughout the whole proceedings. The last witnesses for the prosecution, Mr. Charles Weatherby and Mr. Butler, were called. The first simply deposed to having re ceived from Palmer on 21st November a cheque signed by Cook for 3501., and on 24th November a notice from Palmer not to pay away any money he might have in hand on account of Cook. Mr. Butler was owed 7001. by Palmer for racing transac• tioas at Liverpool, 1855 ; could not get the money from him until Shrewsbury races, when Palmer paid him 401. and 2101. he won for Palmer and kept on account. struction of Cook, he thought that the evidence clearly showed that not only was it not the interest of Palmer to destroy Cook, but that the death of Cook was the very worst calamity that could possibly happen to Palmer. Cook was a gentleman of sup posed fortune, and had frequently been proposed by Palmer as security for borrowed money. The infer ence to be drawn from the letters of Palmer to Pratt, and particularly from a letter of Cook to Fisher of November the 16th, in which Cook said : Tt is of very great importance, both to Mr. Palmer and myself, that a sum of 5001. should be paid to a Mr. Pratt, of 5, William-street, May-fair, to-morrow without fail. 3001. has been sent up to night; and if you will be kind enough to pay the other 2001. to-morrow, you will greatly oblige me ; and I will give it to you on Monday at. Tat tersall's— the theory of the Crown ? That Palmer was eo in debt that be could settle his transactions better with Steven s , the executor, than with Cook, his friend. It was manifestly ' the interest of Palmer that Cook should live. The interest of Palmer that he should live? Was it safe for Palmer that he should die ? The learned sergeant then alluded to the point of the 13,0001. insurance upon the life of Walter Palmer, and contended that the doubts raised by the insurance company against Palmer were of a nature to destroy his character and bring upon his head the suspicion of murder. Would it not, then, have been clear to a keen man of the world like Palmer that those suspicions arising in October would have crushed him with irresistible momentum if rumour arose of another violent death in Novem ber, and that every chance—(and in the opinion of the highest legal authorities his claim was incon testable)—of his ever obtaining by law the 13,0001. insurance would be destroyed it' any foul play caused Cook's death? It was clear that Palmer bad no interest in Cook's death, but a direct pecuniary in terest in his living. Then as to the medical evidence of the case. The appearance of the body was such as might have been expected from the licentious life Cook was known to have led. When his body was opened the second time granules were discovered upon the arachnoid membrane which authoritative medical witnesses would state they regarded as conclusive explanation of the cause of death. Dr. Taylor first stated that death ensued from antimony, and then declared on oath that he believed Cook was poisoned by strychnine, although he had failed, on his own showing, to discover the faintest trace of strychnine, and, argued the learned sergeant, " if verdicts are to be moulded upon such testimony as this, life will be no longer secure." With respect to the immediate cause of Cook's death, it was not for him to explain. The Crown assumed that death arose from tetanic convulsions produced by strych nine; but there was no proof in the first place that the disease was tetanus, or only that tetanus produced by poison. The highest medical authority proved that men were often struck down by convul sions that left no trace of their origin. The learned sergeant then reviewed the whole of the symptoms experienced by Cook during his last illness, and denied that his death could have resulted from strych nine on the following grounds :—First, that no case could be found 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; secondly, that there was 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 Cook's case; thirdly, that there was no case in which the recovery from a paroxysm of strychnine poison bad been so rapid as it was in Cook's case upon Monday night, or in which a patient had endured so long an interval of repose or exemption frem its symptoms after wards. And as to the evidence of the post-mortem examination, he would bring Dr. Letheby, and other medical gentlemen, who should distinctly prove that, in cases of death from strychnine, the heart on examination is invariably found full. Then, with respect to the evidence of Elizabeth Mills, produced by the Crown. He was reluctant to impute perjury to her, but her statements before the coroner and in that court materially varied : The truth is (said the learned Sergeant) 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 strung 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. 'Tit 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 ln her evidence before the coroner she was asked whethtr she had tasted the broth ? She said she had, and she thought it very good. She did not then say a word about any ill effects the broth had produced ; but she has sip ce learnt that it is part of the case of those out of whose hat ds the Crown has taken the prosecution, and that it is the theory of Dr. Taylor that all this retching and vomiting whs the result of a ccnstant 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 persi.aded 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 incredib'e that a shrewd, intelligent man like Palmer should have eN• posed 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 pat• ticularly good ? It is not in the nature of things. A cook is a taster, she tastes everything, and Palmer most Was that Cook at that data was of immense use to Palmer; and whatever construction might be put on Cook's words, it was clear that Cook and Palmer were fast friends, playing into each other's hands, and that Cook was not only aware of Palmer's embar rassments, but was willing to relieve him. Con cerning Palmer's visit to London on the Monday previous to Cook's death, it had not been shown that Cook was in any way surprised at not hearing from Fisher on Tuesday relative to the settlement of his claims at Tattersall's for Shrewsbury races, as he knew that Palmer did not intend to go to this regular agent, Fisher, because Palmer in that case would have had to pay Fisher the 2001. out of the Shrewsbury winnings, advanced to Pratt ac cording to Cook's request on Nov. 16 ; and as it was the interest of both that Palmer should be relieved from the pressure of Pratt, it was clearly a vital point to get as much money together as possible by employing Herring to make Cook's Shrewsbury settlement at Tattersall's. And did not the death of Cook bring ruin upon Pal mer ? The 5001. bill of Cook, due on the 2nd of December, by Pratt's own words was saddled upon Palmer. " The death of Mr. Cook," wrote Pratt on Nov. 22nd, " will now compel you to look about as to the p.tyment of the bill for 5001." Now with refe rence to this 5001. transaction, which the Attorney. General bad offered as an evidence of Palmer's want of means—so great that he had forged Cook's name to the back of the bill, and pocketed the 3751. in cash and the 651. wine warrant—a view not borne out by fact Cook at the time of this transaction, in August, was as much in want of money as Pal mer. Palmer wrote to Pratt, as Pratt had shown, inclosing the 5001. bill, and asking Pratt to do the bill for Cook. Pratt declined, except on a bill of sale on Polestar and Sirius. Cook executed the bill of sale ; and he would ask was it credible that, after executing a bill of sale on his two best horses, he would remain silent for three months without the money (which he did) if Palmer misap propriated the cheque and the wine warrant? Pratt, in his letter inclosing Cook's cheque and wine war rant according to Palmer's request, sent Palmer 315/. in cash. Now, in Palmer's banking account at Rugeley 3751. appeared paid in to his account, but there was no mention of the 3151., and the fair in ference he drew from this transaction was that Cook, as proved by Palmer's letter to Pratt Sept. 9th, in want of ready money, took Palmer's cash, giving Palmer the cheque, and the authority to put his (Cook's) name at the back of it; or else how could Cook's silence for three months, the Rugeley Bank return, and Palmer becoming liable for the bill on Cook's death, be accounted for? Again, Cook on the day of his death gave Palmer a cheque on Messrs. Weatherby for 3501., for stakes won at Shrewsbury. If intelligence had been received that night of Cook's death, Messrs. Weatherby would have refused to pay the money; and was it probable that Palmer in his position would, under these circumstances, have destroyed Cook that night? As it happened, not having received the stakes from the clerk of the Shrewsbury course, Messrs. Weatherby could not cash the cheque. It was asserted that, having ob tained the cheque fraudulently, he had determined upon destroying Cook for fear of discovery. But was that a means likely to answer his purpose? If Pal mer put Cook to death he immediately became solely liable for the one bill of 5001. for three of 2001. held by Herring, and was security for the bill of sale exe cuted on Sirius and Polestar. The effect of Cook's death was to increase Palmer's liabilities, and de prive him of the assistance of a friend, for Cook being dead there was no one to save Palmer from ruin. In all the evidence produced there was not a trace that any one else in the world but Cook existed who would lend Palmer his name or assist him with money : The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then intimated that the case lor the prosecution wai closed. Again, was not the fact that Palmer forged, if he did forge, the name of his mother, was not that fact conclusive that he had no other resources ? Was that not evidence that he had no other resources than the good nature or the folly of Cook? Wu it not cer•ain that Palmer, in the event of his owing Cook money, would fare far worse after Cook's death with Cook's executors and their impassible attorneys, having a plain duty perform, to ascertain and procure as far as might be the rights of their clients estab lished in due course of law ? How then could Palmer have an interest in the death of Cook? And yet what was THE DEFENCE. It Mr. Sergeant SHEE then rose to open the defence. Acknowledging the vast responsibility resting upon him, he admitted that everything had been done by the Crown to insure a fair and impartial trial. The prosecution was taken out of private bands, the ordinary forms of law were broken through to pre vent the influences of local prejudice, and every tittle of evidence intended to be pressed against the prisoner had been previously communicated by the Attorney-General to the prisoner's counsel. All this was a source tf encouragement in undertaking the defence, wuich he had commenced with an unbiassed mind, but in conducting which he was further stimulated, after a careful perusal of all the evidence, by the most thorough and sincere conviction of the prisoner's innocence. In dealing with the case he would avoid no single point that had been raised, he would meet the case for the prosecution foot by foot, and grapple with every difficulty suggested by the Attorney-General. The prolcosition which the Crown undertook to establish against the prisoner at the bar, and to support entirely by circumstantial evi dence, was this--i.hat the prisoner having, in the second week of November, made up his mind that it would be to his interest to get rid of John Parsons Cook, deliberately prepared his body for deadly poison by the slower poison of antimony, and after wards despatched him by the deadly poison strychnia. Now, no jury would convict a man of such a crime as that imputed to the prisoner unless, in the first place, it be made clear that he had some motive for its commission, some strong reason for planning that man's death ; in the second place, that the symptoms of the deceased before death and the appearances presented by the body afterwards were consistent with the thecry of poisoning and in consistent with the thsory of death from other and natural causes; or, thirdly, that the circumstances against him were such as to admit no doubt of the fact. Now, it was under these three heads that he would discuss the evidence in the case; and if he adhered to that order it was clear that he must exhaust the whole subject. But before he proceeded to these points he would wish to restore to its proper place 11 the discussion the fact that strychnine was not f mud in Cook's body. Never were circumstances more worable for the detection of strychnine, had any ex ,ted in the body. But none was found. Dr. Tay -IWs written opinion was that Cook might have 1):en poisoned by antimony as discovered, but that n) strychnine was detected in the analysis. The a sertion that strychnine when once absorbed into t'te system was not discoverable, was a mere hypo thesis, and one unsupported by any authority of consequence. On the contrary, he would bring for ward Dr. Nnnneley, Dr. Williams, Dr. Letheby, Dr. Parker, Dr. Robinson, Mr. Rogers, and Mr. Herepath, the most eminent analytical chemists a2d scientific men of the day, as utterly rejecting - does, and all agreeing of the body could so far t or less of a grain of as to prevent it; respond being discovered. Now, to Palmer for the de- tet4 theory of Dr. Tayl that no stage of putrefaction decompose une•fiftieth part strychnine, if once taken, a ing to chymical tests, and ithilimmas to the motive attributed 111