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

P
- --7 . ,
. .
~ . , ...2
• - • /1 7/,‘ . 104........"„iv._.4c-ve....,
--'"' - ' -4`,.• •,..,,,. „. .
~..„ • . di. •
• .. ' . ..
,74;0i,;,,,t1g1,,0 ••• __ . „ ...._ . • -
'PI : . .
14' 'N .t.,,, ,l' ki.
0.111 • Ar . - ~jii-` '
'''\
,ei , orc,•s.• ...„.„44. 74t ", :A* ' 4 i:•.,; It
.
i - , .. --,.
~kk.:,..4, H.- •, I 1k,.. 1 ~.::. i). )-
..... -,, - .
C..._ , _• _ , ,44 ,„,
mi ,
tvit -4, .. - kV, 0*
's.d
. ,-; 41-6/,,,..• - ... ' - ,ti ia f 4/ -- ' --,..e -'''J.,.„,,, - • ~ h
~ •. ..
.:1' )N
; Olt-- 'l,7 G ' 4 ,
05,95 A, ,
_,,_. ~ , ,‘,..4 to. 5-,.--rifs ~..,t
41---OPP--
~,-,
~,
. . . ,
ii: ll , c . ~, .4,_ 7,44 "Ii: 1i.............C"(.;reL lIJ •*•*- .'
- ,
4., ,-rt,,, • •Lf,r• ,ii, It
..,.... R0n.t,,,...‘, ck 9 .\: ..—',.. ~,....
~,ir

[PRICE 4D. STAMPED SD•

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 spasm°.
dio 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 from
strychnine, and in the depth of a mighty spasm he died.
The body, when dead, also exhibited signs that
could not be doubled, and the evidence that had been
given to rebut the case of the Crown was of the most in-
famous description. Our evidence to prove that death
was occasioned by strychnine was of the most reliable
character, and the medical gentlemen who had given that
evidence stood in the highest rank in their profession.
It had been asserted that 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 suffeiing
from ill-health and debility,, but what did he say
to his father-in-law, who congratulated him
on the occasion of his ameeting him going to the 'races ?
Why, he struck his breast and said ho was grate well.
The assumptioic of the defence that there was traumatic
tetanus was a mere pretence. Supposing there Was any-
thing in the assertion, the symptoms exhibitedduring the
illness were such as totallydiffered from every known
effect of the disease. It had also been said that this
might have been a case of idiopathic tetanus, that he had
something the matter with his throat, and thus they
were launched into a sea of doubt and difficulty. There
was not the slightest evidence in the whole case that the
man had ever taken cold or was treated for a cold.
He could not but, protest against the evidence that
had been given by some'of the, medical witnesses for the
defence. Such evidence wash libel upon a highly honour-
able and distinguished profession, and he could not find
words sufficiently strong to express his detestation of such
a proceeding. The tetanus that accompanied Cook's death
was neither traumatic nor idiopathic, and he felt sure that
upon the evidence that had been laid before the jury,they
could not by any possibility arrive at such a conclusion. The
learned gentleman then referred to the evidence
given by Mr. Nunnely, and to the fact that Dr.
Copeland's book had been quoted, but he
thought a far better course to have adopted would
have been to have called Dr. Copeland himself. Surely
he would have been a better authority than his book.
Dr. Partridge had been called to prove that death was
caused by arachnitis, 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 arachnitis, he
declined to say it was. Cook's death had also, by an-
other medical witness, been attributed to epilepsy,
but there was not a single case to which he had spoken
or even read that bore the slightest analogy to
the symptoms in Cook's case. Mr. Partridge, Mr.
Robinson, and Dr. Letheby, three of the most respectable
of the witnesses called for the defence, agreed
with Sir Benjamin Brodie, and affirmed that they
could not account for the symptoms exhibited by
Cook, as they differed from every known disease.
They say there is a difference in the periods between
the paroxysms setting in and %he symptoms described
in Cook's case. But then the difference between animal
and human life should be considered ; and, again, the
time of the paroxysms would depend much upon the
method of the administration of the poison. If
in an indurated substance, it would be far longer
than if otherwise given. I say from the evidence that
the poison was given about an hour before the paroxysms
set in, and I find that in some of the experiments a time
almost equal to that had elapsed before the symptoms
set in. Might it nothave been that the substance of those
pills, which the deceased naturally had some dread of,
was such as to prevent the symptoms setting in. The
defence said there was no premonitory symptoms. This
he denied. The asking to have the neck rubbed was
a premonitory symptom. These symptoms were corres-
pondent with the cases of Mrs. Smith and the Leeds case,
and also the description given of the gentleman who had
taken an overdose. The indication of the body was an-
other fallacy, showing the character of the defence.
Then we had the theory of the heart being empty, but it
must be borne in mind that it could nut precisely be
averred at what period the final spasm attacked the
heart. Death takes place from such a variety of causes
that there was nothing in the differences manifested.
The symptoms were all so strongly marked that
cases of tetanus by strychnine could not be
mistaken, and I think that there can be no doubt that
death arose from- strychnia. The whole of the evidence
of the medical men agreed that they knew of no disease
the; could produce symptoms and death like those in
Cook's case; and, therefore, with the known fact that

there was a poison which would produce such
effect?, it was most reasonable—aid cogent to
reason that such was the cause of death. Upon the point
of not finding the poison, which all the medical witnesses

fer the defence agreed could be done, he could only say
that Drs. Taylor and Rees had the stomach and contents
for analysis in the very worst condition for experiment.
He could not too strongly condemn the strong partizan-
ship shown by Dr. Herepath in the flatter, sitting as
he did by the side of the prosecution, and suggesting
the questions to be put to the witnesses for the
prosecution, he learnt that the pole en was absorbed
into the system, and not knowing what were the a founts
given, are we to say that, because Dr. Taylor, who made
the analysis under the most unfav,ruro.ble circumstances,
hadnot found the poison, that it had not been inthat body.
Tue experiments of Drs. Rees and Taylor were conducted
in a way which they must 'be accountable for to the
medical profession. He did not ask the jury to come to
the conclusion that the prisoner administered poison to
his friend because the symptoms of death could
not be attributable to no known cause ; but he
had another point of the case to rely on, and 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 the posses.
sion of strychnine by the prisoner on the eve of the
dreadful deed. The witness Newton was open to cen-
sure for not speaking of the purchase of strychnine. It
was perfectly true that it detracted from the other
portion of his evidence, hut he had voluntarily corns
forward to speak of the circumstance, and he thought
that there could not be the slightest motive attributed
to this man for basing divulged the truth at the mac...sent
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 because a
witness was mistaken as to the time that the prisoner
arrived. at the chemist's shop that his evidence was
to be excluded. It was nothing that he could 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 the exact
time at which a person would make a certain purchase.
The evidence of Smith, for the defence, was open
to great objection, and he thought the jury would
attribute to it all the imporance it deserve I, but he
thought that witness had come for ward to try to save the
life of his companion, and had proved too much. 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 nights to pur-
chase strychnia he could not say, but that he did
go there could not be a doubt. If he had
gone to his late partner, Thurlby, his first words would
have been to ask what was it for. Why, therefore, was
not his purchase of even the six grains ascertained. If
this poison was used for the purpose of destroying dogs,
some persons must have assisted 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 an absence
of all legitimate purposes for which that poison could
have been bought. It had been'said there were points in
the case that might be argued in favour of the prisoner—
namely, that he called in two medical men. It
was certainly true he did so. Ile called in :Mr. Bam-
ford and !Mr. Jones. If Palmer could have 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
not done so what would have been the result ?
Why, Cook would have died in the night, 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's hand after
the Shrewsbury races, and which was the cause of this
poor fellow taking sick ? It is true that others were taken
ill, which was strange, but let them go on to Rugeley,
Cook was there, well ; then came the breth which
Palmer had intercepted, and himself put into the
caps 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,Nhave given it but the pri-
soner. They had heard of James's powders being taken,
but 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. Jones to the
,handwriting, was a strange circumstance, and
might have been done to lull suspicion,
should any inquiry arise. There was nothing in
Palmer offering to bury Cook ; but it was 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—bnt 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 he 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
__

kr-;
6

_-~_

soy whether they, under all the circumstance/4
would believe that part of the case. The assertion
that Palmer was a man in a ruined state
that he had made in his opening observations had 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 t .Id 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 all those forgeries will be discovered. A short
time is granted. Polestar wins a race, and Cook over-
joyed at the result thinks that he will be enabled to live
happily through the winter. But he little thought of
what .wasesbout to occur. Polestar 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 suns 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 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 (light not to destroy the force of a well-authenti-
cated fad. 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 Novetn-
ber last he owed on bills not less than 19,0001., of which
12,500/. worth was in the hands of Pratt ;
and out of that
latter such 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 mud
have heel 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 3501. which the Messrs. Weatherby were to have re-
ceived 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 signa-
ture 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. [The Attor-
ney-General then entered into some further statements to
show the crisis at which Palmer's affairs had arrived ;
I repeated applications for payment from the money-lenders
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 forged, with the conviction at the
same time that, if the forgeries became known, he net only
would be disgraced, but be liable to the penalty of trans-
portation.] 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, tvhich 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 aproaching 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 2091. 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—my learned friend contends
that that fact shows that the prisoner and the deceased
perfectly understood ono another at 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. The only trans-
action with Pratt, in which Palmer and Cook were both
interested, was that, relating to the bill for 5001., 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 3001. 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 beets placed in his hands. There was not the slightest
foundation for the statement that Cook had entered into
an arrangement with Palmer for the purpose of defraud-
ing Fisher of the 2001. he had advanced ; for there was
nothing in his character which could show 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 suggested
what induced Cook to give it to him. That matter might
have been solved by its production, but it has not been pro-
duced. Palmer sent for Cheshire to fill up the body of it,
alleging 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 that it these
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
there 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
with that he perpetrated another fraud, almost as soon as
the breath was out of his body by fabricating an instru-
ment purporting to be signed by the deceased, to the effec
that the deceased was indebted to him in a large amount,
and he 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 bowl, file bills,
they must be its existence, and ought to be pro-
duced. All thee facts show irrofragibly, 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 mat-
ter, and that is with reference to Cook's betting-book. On
the night when Cook died—ore 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
subsequently Stevens asked for the betting-book, the pri-
soner said, "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 ?
Tho 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 1,0201. ; and 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 thepurpose of making the examination,
his conversation with Palmer, when the latter said that Coolc
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 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 present, the restlessness and uneasiness
of the prisoner while the examination was going on, his
remonstrating with Dr. Bernford for letting Use jarsbe sent
away, and his attempt to bribe the poet-boy to upset the
chaise and breakthe 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 thou concluded as follows :—lt
is for you to say, under these circumstances, whether or not
the death of the deceased Was Callseii by the prisoner at the
bar. 'You have indeed had introduced into this case ono
other clement which I cannot help thinking might well have
boon omitted. You have hoard from my learned friend an
unusual, I think I may even say au unprecedented, expres-
sion of his conviction of the innocence of his client. I can
only say upon that point that I believe my learned ft iend
might hey() abstained from any such statement. What
would he think of me, if, imitating his example, I should
at this moment declare to you, en 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; he has 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 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 ho be-
lieved, all I can state in answer is, that I can only attribute
the conviction ho has expressed to that strong bias which
his mind easily, perhaps, received 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-
sonerat the bar • but I go further, and' say that I think
ho ought
in justice, and in consideration to you, have ab-
stained from telling you that the voice of the country
would not sanction the verdict whioh 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 are 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 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, ane 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 Cod's name
give to him that benefit. But if, on the other hand, all
the facts and all the evidence lead your minds with satis-
faction to yourselves to the conclusion of his guilt, then—
but then only—l ask for a verdict of guilty at your hands.
For the protection of the good, for the repression of the
wicked, 1 then ask for ti t' verdict by which alone,_
tas_eit
seems to me,ethe-saletx Of society can be secured, and b.
demands—ethe iisaperious demands—of public justice can be
satisfied. (The hon. and learned gentleman concluded his
address shortly after half-past six o clock, after having been •
listened to with the utmost attention by every one who
had heard him during a period of three hours and three-
quarters.)
Lord Campbell, addressing the jury, said—The cause of
public justic imperatively requires that this Court should
now adjourn. I shall feel it my duty, in this important
case, to bring 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 im •
possible to enter on that duty at this hour, and I am, there-
fore, under the painful necessity of ordering that you bo
again kept sequestered from your families and friends
during another Sabbath.
The Court then adjourned, at 25 minutes to 7 o'clock,
until 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 l!ailoy, at the

• _•r+y, _
y,.
~ . 5.~..jy~~.
"+._ i`~~