The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-05-26 00:00:00

Palmer then observed that he would undertake to bury
him: himself, but Mr. Streveus 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, but there is this somewhat
remarkable circumstance, 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.
Strevens for the name of an undertaker to whom he should
give directions about the funeral, the prisoner stated,
much to the surprise of the gentlemen 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 ? It appears that
at that time Mr. Strevens had noticed the strange
attituati of the deceased—hie clenched hands, and
the unusual appearance of his face—and being a man of
natural shrewdness and sagacity, he felt a lurking suspi-
cion 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 tryiag ordeal, and that he met
with firmness the trying gaze of Mr. Strevens, when the
report of the post mortem examinatiel was first mentioned.
But finding that there was to be a post mortem examina-
tion, he was anxious to know who was to perform it.
Then we have on the Sunday that remarkable conversa-
tion 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. He was called at
the inquest, solely for the purpose of corroborating
the evieenee of Roberts with respect to Palmer's
appearance in Ele. Hawkin's shop o't the Tues-
day • 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 doe ?"
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.
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 been caused by strychnine,
and that that strychnine could only have been adminis-
tered by the prisoner, then the question of motive must
become a mere secondary consideration. I believe 1 can
perfectly satisfy your minds that in this case the prisoner
had a motive, and a v( ry-ebvious motive for taking away
the life of Cook. He was at :-
he time reduced to a con-
dition of the direst embarrassment:. ; it spears that in
the month of November last he owed on bills :_m)t less
than £19,000, of which £12,500 worth was in the hanu: or
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 £7OO 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.
Cook had no means of assisting him, unless he were to
appropriate to kis use the money which he had won
at Shrewsbury, which was all the 'property he then poss
sessed ; and can anyone believe that the deceased would
have parted with that money, and would have left himself
wholly without resources for the approaching winter ?
The only transaction with Pratt, in which Palmer and
Cook were both: interested, was that relating to the
bill for £5OO, and in which Cook had assigned big
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 .4'300 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. 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 48 hours after Cook's death ; and
if the signature was not a forgery, why was that extraor-
dinary 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, transfer-
ring, as the prisoner had sought to do in the course of one
of his conversations with Mr. Strevens, to the deceased the
liability for £4OOO or £5OOO due on bills to Pratt, and
outstanding in his own name. All these facts show ail'efra-
gably, 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, aubse-
qaently, Stevens asked for the betting book, the prisoner
said, " Oh, it is 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 conceal-
ing the amount of those debts ? The prisoner at the bar.
If Strevens 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, ana
not Fisher, had calculated his bets. But there is still more
yet to be accounted for. 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 ex-
amination of the body ; the removal of the jar contain-
ing 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 remons-
trating 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 hon. and learned gentle-
man then concluded as follows :—lt 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 ele-
ment 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 expres-
sion of the innocence of his client. 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 inter-
nal 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 mem-
bers 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 have
abstained from telling you that the voice of the country
would not sanction the verdict you might give. In
ence 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 on this occasion, seeking no reward
excepting 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 re-
view of the whole case, compteafhiargelihnriegnaognnt
letd
rueiseani
ovs
toni
hdneeao nbercvleete
hnde: nsuicbaaotnl one
side
tense,
justice,t
od
r even
you
ot
uh eecnaotntehrectrat andethtaowt
ecg:fivaoecnttsot
oahnyidmouatlrhisaetltlvibeeesneat. But if, on the other
guilt, of which. the accused. is entitled to the benefit, in
hwG/on.tdhds,s
satisfaction
stfhea evtoidtehnececalaeacdlasyioonuraf mindshis
guilt, then—but, then only—l ask for a verdict of guilty at
your hands. For the protection of the good, for the re-
pression 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.
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 again be 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 (this day).
It is now confidently believed that the verdict will not
Tuesday evening at the soonest, but most be given before T.
probably not before Wednesday morning. Lord. Camp-
bell (I understand) has intimated to the sheriffs, that the
summing up will occupy him the whole of Monday and
Tuesday.