The Sun.
London, England, 1856-05-26 00:00:00

[PRICE 4D. STAMPED ED*

die a natural death, or, by a foul deed of.poison? I
,assert
that he died by poison—that he was first practised on
by antimony and then killed by strychnine. The witnesses
for the prosecution said he died from tetanus and spasmo-
dic convulsions. Was there any doubt that that conclusion
was correct? and, further, was there any doubt that that
was caused by strychnine ? He had listened to all the
opinions that had been propounded, and he asserted that
the symptoms had been of the most marked character.
The deceased exhibited all the symptoms of death froth
sttychnipe, and in the depth of a mighty spasm he died.
'rho body, when dead, also exhibited signs that
could not be doubted, and the evidence that bad been
given to rebut the case,of the Crown was of the most in-
famous description. Our evidence to prove that death
was cceavioned by strychnine was of the most reliable
character, and the medical gentlemen who bad given that
' evileneestood in the highest rank in their professioe.
It had been asserted tliat the deceased was suffering
from a certain disease by which death was accelerated,
but the evidence of Dr. Savage entirely -disposed of that
assertion. It had also been said that he was suffering
from ill-health and debility, but what did he say
to his • father-in-law, who congratulated hira
on the occasion of his meeting him going to the races ?
Why, he struck hiat breast and said he was quite ;well.
Tali assumption of the defence that there was traumatic
tetanus was a mere pretence. Stipposinz th;3re was any-
thing in the assertion; the symptoms exhibited during the
illness were such as totally differed from every known
effect of the disease: It had' also been said that this
might have been a case of iiiicipa'thic tetanus, that he had
something the matter with his throat,and thus, they
were launched into a sea of doubt and affinity. There
wd.s not tha slightest evidenee in the whole case that the
man had ever taken cold or was treated for a cold.
Me could not but protest against the evidence that
hat been given by some Of the medical witnesses for the
defence. Snell evidence was a libel upon a,highly honour-
,Able and disttinguished profession, and he could not find

e III•

e. proceeding. The tetitnus that accompanied Con -'e death
was neither traurnetic nor idiopathic, and he felt sure tiat
upon theeevidenoe that •had been laid before the jury, they
could not by any poesibility arrive at suc'n a cam:Melon. Tile
learned gentleman then referred to the evaleited
given by lir. Nunnely, and ' to the fact that Dr.
Copefand'e book had been quoted,. but Ihe
thought a far better course .to have adopted would
have have been to have called Dr. Copeland himself. Surely
`he would have been a batter authority than his book.
Dr. Partridge had been ce.'ded to prove that death was
caused by arachnitise but when he was asked in simple
terms 'whether, looking at Cook's symptoms, he would,
before • the face of the whole medical profession,
say that Cook's death was occasioned by exachnitie4 he
declined to-say it was. Cook's death " had alsb, by an-
other medical witness, . been attributed to epilepsy,
but there was not a single case to which 'he had spoken
dr even read that bore the slightest analogy t i
the symptoms in • Cook's case. Mr. Partridge, Mr.
llehineon, and Dr. Lethebyethree o: the most respectable
of 'the witnesses ' called - for ' the defence, anreed
with Sir ':Benjamin Brodie, and affirmed that !they
could not account for the symptom's exhibited by
Cook,' as they - differed froth- every known disease.
They say there- is a difference in the periods bet Ween
the.peroxysms setting in and the symptoms descibeel
in Cook'S case. But then the difference between aiiinal
and. huMan life should be considered ; and, again', the
timeeof the paroxysms ,would depend much.upoa the
method Of the administration of the poison.) .If
in &I indurated substance, it would be Jar *ger
than ilother wise given: I gay from the evidence that
the ppieon was given about an hour before the parokysens
set in, and I find 'that in some 'of theexperiments al time
almost equal to that lied elapsed before . the. syrnel`
set in. Might it nothave been that the substance of
'pills, which the deceased naturally had some dreg
was snch as to prevent' the symptoms setting in.
defence said there was no premonitory syn3ptom%.
he denied. The asking to have the neck ruhl-4
a premonitory symptom. These symptoms were ci
poudent with the cases of Mrs. Smith and the Leed
and also the description given of the gentleman wt
'taken an overdose. . The indication' of the- body w
other fallacy, showing the character of . the cis
Then we had the theory of the lleart'being empty,.
must be borne in mind that it eouLl nut precis
averred at what period the final spism attack{
heart. Death takes place from snch a variety of
that there was nothing in the differences man
The symptoms. were• all so strongly marke
caqes of tetanus by strychnine could •
mistaken, and I•think that there can •be no sloe
death arose from strychnia. .The whole of the e i
of the medical men agreed that they knew of no
that mull-wroth:os elymptoint and death like -t ice in
Cook's case ; and,: therefore, with the known act that
there Was a poison which would product!, such
1 effectl, it was mast reasonable and cog nt to
reason that such was the cause of death. Upon tlee point
of not finding the poison, which all the medical wltnesses
for the defence agreed could he done, he could sinly say
that Drs. Taylor and Rees had the stomach and contents
for analysis in the very worst condition for expfiriment.
.Efe could not ton strongly condemn the strong partisan-
ship shown by ])r. Herepath in the metter, sitting as
he did by the side, of the prosecution, and nag,2:esting
the questions to be put to the witnesses f.ir . the
presecation, he learnt that the poison was ah4orbed
into the system, andnot knowing what were the a flaunts
given, are we to say that, because Dr. Taylor, WO made
the analysis under the most unfavourable circauistsmcd,
had not found thepoison, that it had not been in that body.
Yhe experiments of Drs. Rees and Taylor were cinducted
in a way which they 'must be accountable fair to the
fne4ical profession. He did not ask the jury tolcome to
the conclusion that the prisoner adatinietered iieon to
his friend • because the symptoms of deathi could
not be attributable to no known cause ; 1 but he
hail another point of the case to rely on, a9d which
had not been touched upon by the defence, and that
was that the learned advocate for the prisoner; had not
even accounted, in the slightest degree, for 04 posses.
sion of strychnine•by the prisoner on the evie of the
dreadful deed. The witness Newton was op to eon-
sure for not speaking of the purchase of strychnine. It
was perfectly true that it detracted from the other'
portion of his evidence, hat he had voluntarily come
for ward to peak of the circumstance, and hd thought
that there could not be the slightest motive attributed
to this man for having divulged the truth at the moment
he did. Under all the circumstances he thought it would
be impossible for them to arrive at any other conclu-
sion than that ' the prisoner was guilty of the
great crime imputed to him. It was not Ircause a
witness was mistaken as to the time that thal prisoner
arrived at the chemist's shop that his ovilenoe was
to be excluded.• It was nothing that he mid not
precisely mention the time Palmer arrived at the shop,
neither was it to be supposed that a person sitting in his
masters' surgery would think of ascertaining he exact
time at which a person would make a certain jpurchase.
,The evidence of Smith, for the defence, Was open
to great objection, and be thought the jUry would
attribute to it all the in:Terence it deserved, bat lie
thought that witness had come forward to try to save the
life of his companion, and had proved too mach. The
purchase of three grains of strychnia was, of itself, suf-
ficient to excite the suspicion of any man, and it did
attract the attention of Newton ; and why the prisoner
should have gone on two successive nigh s to pur-
chase strychnia he could not say, but I
at
h he
had
did
i
go there could not be a doubt. e
gone to his late partner, Thurlby, his first words would
have been to ask what was it for. Why, the was
not his purchase of even the six grains ascertained. It
this poison was used for the purpose of destroying dogs,
some persons must have assieted Palmer to !administer
it. Where -were the grooms. Why have they not been
called. But these important witnesses; if such
there be, had not been called. There was nn absencs
of all legitimate purposes for which that poison could
have been bought. It had been;eaid there were points in
the cafe that might be argued in favour of the prisoner—
namely, that ho called in two medical' men. It
was certainly true he did so. He called in ',Mr. Bam-
ford and iMr. Jones. If Palmer could hive got the
body into the oak coffin in the presence of two medical
men, he would have been safe ; and it was but through
Mr. Stevens that it was frustrated. Palmer did not ex-
pect that Dr. Jones would sleep with Cook, and had he I
not done so what would have been the r3sult
Why, Cook would have died in the nigh*, and been
found dead in his bed, and then the fact of Palmer hav-
ing called in medical aid would have stifled inquiry.
Would the jury believe that the woman Brooks had not
spoken the truth about the glass in Palmer'. hand after
the Shreveibury races, and which was the cause of this
poor fellow taking sick ? It is true that other's were taken
id, which was strange, but let them go on to Rugeley,
Cook was there,
well ; then came the roth which
Palmer had intercepted, and himself put' into the
cups in which .it was taken to him. Upon
Monday Palmer was away. Cook was better.
The tissues of Cook's body gave the presence
of antimony, and who could have given it but the pri-
soner. They had heard of James's powders being taken,
bus that was mere assertion. It was doubtless that anti-
mony was given for the purpose of sickening the prisoner
to pave the way to further his purpose by bringing on an
illness, and giving a colour and pretext for calling in the
medical assistance. Palmer had done this to make Cook
ill and prevent him going to receive the result of his
winnings. Palmer did not .wish Dr. Bamford to see
Cook upon the Tuesday morning, and spoke about Cook
being bilious at Shrewsbury. The medical men said there
was not any symptoms about Cook. Palmer never said a
word about the attack . upon Cook upon the Monday
night. The asking,Dr. Bamford to make up the pills,
and directing the attention of Dr. 'Tones to the
handwriting, was a strange _ , circumstance, and
might have been done .. to , lull .suspicion,
should any inquiry arise. Thera was nothing in
Palmer offering to bury Cook ; but it waif strange that
when Mr. Stevens had asked Palmer to recommend him
an undertaker that Palmer had gone out and sent
in an undertaker without having any previous
orders to do so. It was said Palmer did not flinch
from the post-mortem examination—but what did he
do ? 'Why, we have the extraordinary conversation
that took place on the day before Newton was sent for
by the prisoner, and be is given brandy and water, and
then Palmer asks him how much strychnine would
kill a dog. It might be said that the strychnine was to
kill dogs with ; but it would, be for the jury to.

tom.;
d ehf,
V)og,e;
T
LThis.
a was
orres-
case,
io bad
ELS an-

Ifenc
hut it
iely be
1 the
Icawes
fated.
that
)t be
,t that
idence
lisease,

Nel::1-:(4r, they, under all , the circumstanoesi,
• .e that part of the case. The assertion
that Palmer was a man in a relined state
that he had made in his opening observations bad been
fully established by the evidence of the bills, to the
amount of 19,0001., in the hands of Pratt, the whole of -
which.bills are forgeries. The prisoner was told that
he must be prepared to meet those bills, and the pri-
soner was teld by Pratt he could grant no further de-
lay. Palmer sends up 8001., and he is told he must do-a
great deal more, and he is informed that writs will be issued
by which allthose forgeries will be discovered. A short
tine is granted. Polestar wins a race, and Cook over-
ejoyed at the result thiuks that he, will be enabled to hie
happily through the winter. But he little thought of
what' was about to 'occur. Phlestar winning that race
was one of the most unfortunate events that ever oc- ,
curred to•him, for by that means he became• possessed •
of a large sum of money. Pratt at this time' was
pressing for his money, and the fear of the writs would
therefore furnish the motive for Cook's death.
But my learned friend has contended that the 'prisoner had
no motive for taking away the life of his friend Cook.
New, 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 administered by the
prisoner, then the question of motive must become a mere
secondary consideration. It is often difficult to dive into
the breast o 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-authenti-
cated fact. Bat motive is unquestionably an important
element in a cam ever 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 Novem-
ber last he owed On bills not less than 19,0001., of which
12,5C01. worth was in the hands of Pratt ; and out of that
latter sum 5,5001: was pressing for immediate payment.
By the death of Cook he was enabled to obtain possession
of 1,0201., due to the latter in the shape of bets; he was
enabled to obtain possession of the money which Cook must
have hid about him on his arrival at Rueeley, and which,
according to one of the witnesses, must have amounted to
700/..0r 800/. • and he attempted to obtain possession of
the 3501. which the Messrs. Weatherby were to hate re- •
caved as the amount of the stakes of the Shrewsbury
El:oldie:sp. The order forwarded by Palmer to the Messrs.
Weatherby for the 3501., and purporting to bear tho signa-
ture of Cook; had been sent hack 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. [The Attor-
ney-General then entered into some farther statements to
show the Crisis at which Palmer's affairs had arrived ;
emeeeeterteepplications for payment from the monev-leriders
for the sums they had advanced on the one hand, and on
the other threats of action upon the different bills which
they well knew were fonged, with the conviction at the
same time that, if the forgeries became known, hen a only
would IS3 disgraced, but be liable to the penalty of trans-
portation.] My learned frienl says that Cook was thebest
friend of the prisoner, and tkat Cook was the only person
to whom be 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 with-
out any resources for the aproachiag 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 2001. to 'Pratt, on account of -a transaction in which
both he and Palmer were interested, while 3001. more were
to be sent up on that night—ney learned friend contends
that that fact shows thet the prisoner and the deco ssed
perfectly understood one another et that time, and goes far
to prove the innocence of his client. To my mind, how-
ever, that very circumstance affords a very strong argu-
ment in favour of the case for the Crown. Tho only trans•
action 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 onca-be settled. and that
his horses shOuld come into his owh undisputed possession,
one of these horses being a vary valuable one, namely,
Polestar, which had jest won the Shrewsbury race. He
-accordingly, I have no doubt, gave Palmer 3001.. to be sent
up to London on account of that bid; but that sum war
never applied by the prisoner to the purpose for which it
had beets placed in his hands. There was not the slightest
foundation for the statement that Cook had entered into
an arrangement with Palmer for thepurposo of def,au i-
ing Fisher of the 200% he had advanced ; for theme was
nothing in his character which could sh ,w that he was
capable .of such an act, and it could not
,possibly have
been his interest that it should take place. Then there
'is the cheque for 3541., which it was said was the genuine
cheque of Cook. It is not for a moment suggrsted
whet induced Cook to give it to him.. That matter might
have bean solved by its production, but it has not been pro-
duced. Palmer seat for Cheshire to fill up the body of it,
allegiug that Cook was too ill to do so ; but why did he
not ask Mr. Jones, Cook's trusty friend, to fill' it rp ?
Nothing was so easy. Then, I ask you, does not the trans-
action bear fraud upon the face of it? I think thatit dew.
The prisoner either must have possession of the document,
or he must have got rid of it in some way or another. We
can only account for its non-production by supposing that
,zthere: was something in the transaction which will not
bear the light. The prisoner then got possession of all
the property of this poor young man ; but not satisfied
witlathat he perpetrated another fraud, almost as soon as
the breath was out of his body by fabricating au instru-
ment purporting to be signed by the deceased, to the effec
that the'deceeseaWas indebted to him in a large amount,
ani'lie induced Cheshire to attest its execution. He made
this claim in respect of bills which he said he had nego-
tiated for Cook's benefit ; but if they were bona file bills,
they must be in • existence, and ought to be pro-
duced. All these facts show irrefragibly, 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 tondiug to throw light on this mat-
ter, and that is with reference to Cook'e betting-book. Oa
the night when Cook lied--ere the breath had parted from
that poor man's body—the prisoner was found there, rum-
maging his pockets, and searching for his papers. When
enbeequently Stevens asked for the betting-hook, the pri-
soner said, "It is of no use, fora dead man's bets are void."
True it is that a dead man's bets are quid, but not when
they are paid during his life. Who received the bets?
The prisoner at the bar. Who was answerable for thorn ?
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 soea that Cook
was en titled a Sitrn of 1,020/. ; :ma ho would have seen
•that Fisher was his neetint, and from him- that Herring, and
not Fisher, had calculated his bets. Bat there is still more
yet to ho accounted for. When Stevens determined upon
having a post mortem examination, what was the conduct
of the prisoner at the her? [The learned Attorney-General
then proceeded to refer to the arrival of Dr. Harland in the
town of Rugeley for thopurpose of making the examination,
his conversation with Palmer, when the latter said that Cook
had died of epileptic ate, 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 re-
moval 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 prevent, the restlessness and uneasiness
of the prisoner while the examination was going on, his
remonstrating with Dr. Bamford for letting the jarsbesente
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 prosecnte this inquiry.
was such as the gravity and importance of the case proved
ought to have protected bins from the charge of insolent
curiosity brought against him by my learned friend. The
hon. and learned gentleman thee concluded as follows :---It
is for you to say, under these circumstances, whether or not
the death of.the de,eoaso,l was caused by the prisoner at the
ber. You have indeed had introduced into this case ono
other element which I cannot help thinking might well have
been omitted. You have heard from my learned friend an
unuenel, I think I may even say an unprecedented, expres-
sion of his conviction of the innocency of his client. I can
only say upon that point that I believe my learned friend
might have abstained from any such statement. What
would he think of see, 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 groat 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 ; ha hes endeavoured to intimidate you
by the fear of your own consciences, and by the fear of the
country condemning you for your discharging firmly and
honestly the great and solemn duty which you have to per-
form on this occasion. My learned friend told you that if
your verdict in this case should be guilty, the innocence of
the prisoner would one day or other bo made manifest, and
you would never cease to regret the verdict you hail 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 be-
lieved, 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, loceived in directing all his ener-
gies 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 pri-
ma say that I think
shoenoeirtgaht bar
justice,tsu t
and I gion fudlser,
considerationin to you, have ab-
stained 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,
had 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 conscience; trust to the sense of that duty to God and
man which you aro about to discharge upon 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 abilit 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
• eto him that benefit. But if, ou the other hand, all
give .
the facts and all the evidence lead your minds with
than--
factionstis-
to yourselves to the conclusion of Ms guilt,
at r hands.
but then only—l ask for a verdict of guilty
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 lee
satisfied. (The hon. and learned gentleman conclfided his
address shortly after half-past six o clock, after having been
every one who
listhadeneda
rtdo withhim
daringth o t
am
period
setri
eadt t
oe
fn ttiho
rue
eb
yhours and three-
quarters.)
Raid—The cause of
paLbouredi
aCsatmiepilgplle,
requires that this Court should
readtidvreeisysing the j
owmy duty, in this important
case, itheeit
wholeel
of the evidence on the one
nto adjourn.
bring
you l." -3 13 i f
side and on the other, accompanying the reading of it with
such remarks as I may think it proper to make. It is im-
possible to enter on that duty at this hour, and make._
there-
fore, 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 25 minutes to 7 o'clock,
Anal 10 o'clock on Monday.
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.
Mobs of 'persons were collected in the Old Bailey, at the