The Sun.
London, England, 1856-05-28 00:00:00

13,0001. for which he had insured her life. In 18

he made a desperate effort to secure the same resource;
In August of that year Walter Palmer, the brother,
died, just in time to satisfy the pressing claims of his
creditors ; and if the offices had paid-the 13,000/. for
which the brothers's life had also been insured, the
Rugeley poisoning cases might never have been
heard of. But the offices refused, and Palmer's case
at once became desperate. The usurers rapidly
grew importunate. Pratt held acceptances to the
extent of 11,5001., every one of which had been
forged by Palmer in his mother's name. Palmer
had Inane unheard-of efforts to carry on the battle.
He had frequently sent up small remittances to
Pratt ;he had imploringly pressed for time. "As
well," exclaims the Attorney-General, " might a
man appeal for mercy to a rabid tiger, as to a usu-
rer when the securities he has advanced upon have
failed." On the 9th November, Pratt, tired of law-
yers's letters, actually issued a writ for 4,0001.
against Palmer and his mother. Everything,
forgery and all, was on the point of immediate ex-
posure. Palmer had 91. 16s. at -his banker's, and
not another resource in the world. Shrewsbury
races came on. He was obliged to borrow 251. in
order to go there. He had a horse—The Chicken—
to run at those races ; eventually it did run, and
lost. Cook's horse, Polestar, was more fortunate.
On Tuesday, Nov. 13, 1855, Polestar won the
Shrewsbury Handicap. Cook had large payments
made to him on the course. He gave Fisher be-
tween 7001. and 8001. to take care of for him on the
Tuesday night. Fisher returned it to him the next
morning, and since that time it has never been ac-
counted for. Besides this, Cook was to receive in
London on the next Monday (the 19th), the settling
day at Tattersall's, a sum of 1,0201., as appeared
by his betting-book. That book, which was sworn
to be in his possession up to the time of his death
—which Palmer must obviously have consulted be•
fore he went up to town on the Monday to receive
Cook's debts—has never been found since.

If Palmer could procure this sum of nearly
2,0001., and appropriate it to his own uses, was
there no motive here? Why, by a j udicious use of this
2,0001. he could get rid of the pressure of his liabi-
lities until the January—he would have nearly two
months' respite from the usurers ; and to the
sanguine temper of a turf man, two months, under
such circumstances, is a species of eternity. True,
Palmer owed at that time about 19,0001. in the
aggregate ; but a larger sum than 19,0001. has
been made by the reckless gamblers of the turf on
the issue of a single race. Time—time, was all
the man warAted—a month's, a week's, a day's
respite was worth everything. And time he deli-
berately purchased by Cook's destruction. While
Cook, having left Shrewsbury and returned to
Rugeley, is labouring under the effects of antimony
administered by Palmer, this man, who was com-
pelled to borrow money in order to carry him to
the races, and who, instead of winning, had lost
there, is found paying away money to the more
pressing creditors who were harassing him at
Rugeley. On Monday, the 19th, he leaves Cook
ill at the Talbot, and goes himself to get paid at
Tattersall's those bets which Cook has won.
Every farthing of these bets is applied by Palmer's
directions to getting time on the bills for whose
payment Pratt Is pressing him. Motive !—why
it is not left to speculation. We need not ask
what motive he could have had, we need only
ask what he has actually proved to have done.
How did he collect these winnings of Cook's ?
How did he procure the accurate information of
the sums due to him by different parties in town ?
How—but by Cook's betting-book ? What became
of this book ? It has never been produced. When
Palmer was asked about it by the stepfather of his
victim, his reply was, " Oh, it's of no use ; a dead
man's bets are void." True, but Cook's bets had
been received during his life. They were taken on
Monday, the 19th ; Cook died on Tuesday, the
20th. Who received them ? Palmer. Who was
answerable for them ? Palmer. Who had an in-
terest in concealing their amount ? Palmer.
On Monday, having thus applied to his own pur-
poses every farthing of Cook's winnings, Palmer
returns to Rugeley. The antimony has been a
failure—come more stringent means are requisite.
It is absolutely indispensable to Palmer's safety
that Cook should never rise from the bed on which

he is lying to learn the manner in which his money
has been applied. On his return from town on the
Monday, if we believe Newton, Palmer purchases
three grains of strychnine ; on the Tuesday, be-
yond a doubt, he purchases six grains. Of the
manner in which this quantity of strychnine was
disposed of no attempt was made on the part of
the defence to offer auy account. On Monday
and Tuesday Palmer is in possession of this deadly
poison ; on the Monday Cook is seized with fright-
ful spasms in consequence of taking pills admin-
istered by Palmer on Tuesday, within one hour
after taking a similar dose, he expires in the ter-
rible convulsions of spasmodic tetanus. How
to judge from the symptoms alone, was that teta-
nus caused ? Taking the whole evidence together
on this point, it completely corroborates the opi-
nion of the most eminent surgeon of our time. Sir
Benjamin Brodie distinctly declared that, referring
to the symptoms themselves and the course they
took, the tetanus of which Cook died was not idio-
pathic (or constitutional), not traumatic (or caused
by external injury), hut that it was referable to
nothinc, else but poisoning by strychnia. In the
deplorable case of Mrs. Serjeantson Smith, where
strychnia was the undoubted cause of death, the
symptoms were almost identical with those of Cook.
The spasmodic convulsions, the sense of suffocation,
the dying request of the .agonised suffer, "Turn
me over," the iron rigidity of the limbs, the fright-
ful distortion, the incutved body, the absolute emp-
finer:B of the heart, were the same in both. But
then in Cook's case there was no strychnia found
in the body. Admitted ; but what does that prove ?
Ono of two things, neither of which is in any way
incompatible with guilt. Either that Dr. Taylor .
did not employ the proper testQ, or that the dose ad-
ministered ha,d been so nicely calculated that it was

only just sufficient to kill, and was consequently all
absorbed in the system. Half a grain destroys
life., Experiment shows that when two grains are
administered the poison cat be reproduced in some
abundance—when one grain is taken, it can still
be detected—but when only halt a grain, there is
no instance in which it has been discovered.

Fortunately for the safety of society and the in-
terests of justice, the admirable reply of the Attor-
ney- General and the masterly summing up of the
Lord Chief Justice, guided the jury to the cardinal
points through the mass of irrelevant matter in
which they might otherwise have been bewildered.
Nor would it be fair to omit all mention of the
debt of gratitude which the public certainly owes
to the jury, who for a period of 14 days have given
their close and undivided attention to this most
arduous and protracted case. They have manfully
done their duty. The work of investigation is
completed ; it is now for the law to take its course.
The safety of society imperatively demands that
no mistaken clemency should be shown to so unex-
ampled an offender against its most sacred laws as
the wretch who was yesterday condemned to die
a felon's death by the stern sentence of retributive
justice.