The Sun.
London, England, 1856-05-27 00:00:00

lof money, and the prisoner on similar bills amounting to
12,5001. Several of these bills had been renewed, and

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

THE RIIGELEY POISONINGS.

[The following appeared in part of our impression of
yesterday.]
The trial of William Palmer was resumed this morning
the Central Criminal Court. Intense interest was felt
this morning as to the result of the trial, it being known
that Lord Campbell would commense the day's proceedings
by summing up the evidence, and the probability of the
jury returning a verdict almost immediately following its
conclusion.

At a very early hour the avenues to the Court were
densely crowded by persons having the necessary coloured
ticket of admission in their hands, and the Court was
speedily filled after the opening of the doors. Every avail-
able space in the Court was occupied long before their
Lordships took their seats on the bench.
The congregation of persons in Newgate-street, probably
owing to the fineness of the weather and the near approach
of the termination of the trial, was greater than on any
former day, and anxious inquiries were made by many of
them of persons who left the Court, " How is it going
with him ?" &c.
Their lordships, Lord Chief Justice Campbell, Mr. Jus-
tice Cresswell, and Mr. Baron Alderson took their seats
on the bench precisely at ten o'clock, accompanied by
the Recorder, Deputy-Recorder, and several of the
aldermen. The Earl of Derby and the Right Hon. W. E.
Gladstone were also on the bench.

On their lordships taking their seats, the prisoner ap-
peared in the dock and walked to the bar dressed as on
each former occasion, in black with black kid gloves on.
He keeps up in appearance remarkably well considering
the immense amount of anxiety he must feel, and the ex
citement it must be to him from the protracted nature of
the proceedings necessarily long from the circumstances
connected with the case, and the importance of the result
of the trial to the prisoner. He stood the whole of the
day, and for the greater portion of it leaning on the bar
with his right hand in front of his mouth, and paid the
greatest attention to Lord Campbell's summing up—
scarcely taking his eyes off his lordship during the whole
of the time it occupied.
Before Lord Campbell commenced the summing up Mr.
Sergeant Shee applied to be allowed to put in an accept-
ance for 5001., drawn by Palmer and accepted by Copk,
dated September, 1855, which was granted.
His Lordship immediately after proceeded to charge the
jury, but in a very low tone of voice, which, unfortunately,
is now beceme a habit with him, and more particularly in
proportion to the great importance of the case under con-
sideration. In many instances daring his summing up he
was quite inaudible, and it was with difficulty he could
be heard at all. He commenced by saying :—Gentlemen
of the Jury,—We have at length arrived at that stage in
this solemn inquiry when it is the duty of the judge who
presides to explain to you the nature of the
charge brought against the prisoner at the bar, and to
direct your attention to the evidence upon which you
are to return your verdict ; and I begin by conjuring you
to banish from your minds all that you have heard relative
to the charge before entering that box. Strong prejudice
has, no doubt, prevailed in London and elsewhere against
the prisoner at the bar, and particularly in the county of
Stafford, where the offence for which he has to answer was
alleged to have been committed, and which was so strong
that the Court of Queen's Bench made an order, at the
request of the prisoner's counsel, for the removal of the trial
from that county to the Central Criminal Court, in accord-
ance with the terms of an act of Parliament especially
passed to attain that object. I feel, however, that on this
occasion the prisoner will have a fair and impartial trial ;
and whilst I warn you against being improperly in-
fluenced by what you have heard elsewhere, I
must also warn you against being improperly in-
fluenced against the prisoner by the evidence that has
been laid before you implicating the prisoner in bill trans-
actions of a discreditable charaeter, and allowed to be
introduced into the case to raise the probability of motive
on the part of the person accused for the commission of
the crime with which he stands charged. It affords me
great satisfaction to know that the case has been fully
laid before you. Everything has been clone that can he
accomplished for the purpose of assisting you in coming to
a right conclusion. The prosecution has been taken np
by the Government of the country, so that justice might
be effectually administered, and the Attorney-General, the
first law officer of the Crown, has conducted the prosecu-
tion as a minister of justice. Again, I am much pleased
to think that the prisoner appears to have ample means of
preparing and conducting his defence. Evidence with re-
gard to the scientific part of the case has been very pro-
perly brought from all parts of the kingdom, and the pri-
soner has had the advantage of having his case conducted
by one of the most distinguished advocates at the English
bar, and I must Strongly recommend you to attend to
everything that has been so eloquently, and im-
passively urged by him on the part of the prisoner, with
the exception of his own private personal opinion of the
innocence of the prisoner. That by no means ought to
influence your minds in arriving at a just conclu-
sion, if you are to try the prisoner upon the evidence
and not by the opinion of the learned counsel en-
gaged on either side. It- would have been better
if the expression of such an opinion by the learned coun-
sel for the prisoner been had abstained from, and it would
be a lamentable and unfortunate thing for the ends of
justice if permitted. A. prisoner's plea of not guilty goes
for nothing, and ought not to influence a jury, and if fol-
lowed out must, as I have already said, lead to disastrous
consequences. An advocate might be mistaken as to the
innocence or guilt of his client, and he ought to rest his
arguments of innocence on the facts of the case as pre.
seated in evidence, and not rely on a verdict of not
guilty from an expression of his own opinion
to that effect. I will now in a few words state to you the
allegations on one side and on the other. On the part of
the prosecution it is alleged that the deceased John Par-
sons Cook was first tampered with by antimony, and that
he was afterwards killed by strychnia; that his symp-
toms were those of poisoning by strychnia, and that the
prisoner having a motive for making away with him, took
an opportunity of administering strychnia to him, and
that the circumstances were so suspicious as to fall on him
and no one else; that within a few days of the deceased's
death, and when the supposed poison was administered to
him, he actually purchased a quantity of strychnia, an d
that the prisoner's conduit, previous to the death of John
Parsons Cook !and subsequently, was not dictated from
feeling's of humanity towards the deceased, bat for the
purpose of being the better able to accomplish his purpose.
On the other side it was contended, and you are to say
whether or not it was so, that the prisoner's conduct before
thedeceased's death was dictated purely by motives of hu-
manity towards him —that he had no interest, in the death of
the deceased, but on the contrary, that he had the greatest
interest in his lire. Further, it was said that Cook did
not die by strychnia, but from natural disease, and that
the symptoms preceding death were those of death from
natural causes, and that no part of the evidence that has
been given shows anything at all consistent with death
from poisoning by strychnia. It is for you, however, to
deeide whether the allegations on one side or the other
are proved, and a most anxious task is imposed on you
thereby, for if you fined the prisoner guilty he will have
to expiate his crime on the scaffold. It is of the greatest
importance, not only to him but also to society, that you
should thoroughly investigate the charge, for if persons
so acting are to escape with impunity, there would be no
safety to life, and society, in its present state, would be
hardly able to • exist. Unless you feel fully convinced
that the proof of the prisoner's guilt is beyond all doubt,
it is your bounden duty to acquit him, but in eases of this
kind you cannot expect that witnesses should be called
who saw the deadly ' poison administered by the
poisoner openly to the world. Evidence has been called ne-
cessarily of a circumstantial character tending to the con-
clusion of the guilt of the prisoner; but before you return
that verdict you must be satisfied Writ the evidence fully
justifies you in arriving at that conc:usion. With respect
to the prisoner's Motive, it is of great importance that you
should consider whether there was a motive or not suffi-
ciently strong enough to wish him to get rid of the deceased,
for in either C 390 it was of the greatest importance. A t
the same time you must bear in mind that the experience
of ourcriminal courts shows that acts of this kind have limm
Perpetrated from very slight motives indeed, and to gain a
small Pecuniary advantage. It appears to me that the
question you will have to consider is this—whether the
symptoms Presented by Cook's death are consistent with
death by strychnine for, if not, and you believe that death
arose from natural causes, the prisoner is at once entitled
to your • '
verdict, and ought to have it • but if the symptom s
are consistent with ;
P'-slning by strychnine, then on
have another important question toanswer y—
whether
the evidence which has
been adduced is sufficient to
convince you that the poison was administered by the
prisoner. In cases of this sort the evidence is naturally
and generally confined to medical and moral evidence.
The medical evidence being that of the scientific men,
and the moral evidence the circumstantial facts conneet,l
with the case; and it is impossible to separate their
because it is only by a comparison of the two that a verdict'
ought to be returned. In this case you will look to the
medical evidence, and say whether the deceased (lid die
by strychnia ; and to the moral evidence, and say whether
the prisoner not only had the opportunity, but did actually
avail himself of that opportunity, and administered the
poison to the deceased. With these preliminary obser-
vations I will now proceed to read over the evidence
which has been given,
and I mist earnestly hope that yon
will not be led away in the slightest degree by any observa-
tions that I might make, but that you will be guided en-
tirely by the evidence. 'Ma verdict must be yours, and
in Your hands must this case rest. I shall begin reading
the evidence at that part of the case as opened by the At-
torney-General, respecting any motive the prisoner might
have had to induce him or to wish for the getting rid of
the deceased,and which, if it existed, must have arisen out
of certain pecuniary transactions the nature of which has
been laid before you. It appears that the prisoner bor-
rowed large sums of money upon bills of exchange which
he drew, and which purported to be accepted by his
mother, one of which was in the hands of a gentleman
named Padwick. It was fer 20001„ 1,0:;01. had been
paid, and there was 1,00)l. remaining due on it. A soli-
citor of the name of Pratt hod also advanced large 8111323

there were two or three kr 2,0001.. each due on tho
25th of October, 1855, and the other on 27th October,
1855. One-half of 5001., and another of 1,0001. was
over due, and held over from month to month. Besides
these large sums advanced by Pratt to Palmer, he had con-
tracted very large debts with an attorney of Birmingham,
and 10,0001. was due to him on them. The prisoner ex-
pected to pay the bills owing to Pratt by the proceeds of a
policy of insurance effected on his brother Walter's life.
The law of this country wisely forbids the insurance of a
man's life by another person who has no interest in it ;
but the law, unfortunately, does not prevent a man who
insures his life from transferring'. to another person.
The policy on Walter Palmer's life was assigned by him to
the prisoner, and he having died, it was expected that the
proceeds of that policy, which was for 13,0001., would be
the means of enabling the prisoner to take up the accept-
ances held by Pratt ; but the insurance office refused to
pay the amount on the policy, and hence arose the most
pressing demands on the prisoner. Pratt urged imme-
diate payment, and unless that were complied
with, in all human probability those forgeries
which had been so long hid would be discovered and
brought to light. His lordship then proceeded to read the
evidence of Mr. Espin, Mr. Padwick's solicitor, relative to
the bill for 2,0601. and the two letters written by Palmer
in reference to it ; one dated the 12th November, which
was on the Monday of the weak of .the Shrewsbury races,
and the other dated the 25th, the Saturday after the death
of Cook.' Mr. Espin, in his evidence, said—l produce a
bill for 2,0001., which was placed in my hands by that
gentleman to enforce payment from the prisoner's mother.
The bill was due three months after date, but 1,0001. hid
been paid off, and the bill was placed in my hands on the
12th of December to enforce the payment of the remainder.
I received two letters from the prisoner; one contained
a cheque for 1,0001., with a request that it might not,
be presented till the 28th of November ; and the other
related to a sum of money, 3501., about which there
was some mistake about the remittance, and in which
Palmer stated he would shortly be in London. I
produce a cheque for 1,000/., inclosed in the above letter
of the 12th, dated the 28th. I presented it on that day
and payment was, refused. I also produce a cheque for
6001., dated Bth December, in prisoner's handwriting, pay-
able to Mr. Padwick or bearer, which was also dis-
honoured. It was forwarded in consequence of the cheque
of 1,0001. having been dishonoured. 1,0001. still remains
due on the 2,0001. bill. Execution was issued against the
'person. The prisoner was taken on the ea sa. This was
strong evidence to show the state of the prisoner's circum-
stances at the time, and the pressure that was being
put on him. We then come to the evidence of
Mr. Pratt, which was most important for their con-
sideration. Mr. Thomas Pratt said—"l ate a solicitor,
practising in King-street, Mayfair. lam acquainted with
the 'prisoner. It commenced in Nov., 1853, when I ob-
tained a loan of 1,0001. for him. That was afterwards
paid. In Oct., 11854, I was employed by him to make a
claim on two policies, both on the death of Ann Palmer.
I received 5,0001. from the Sun, and 3,0001. from the Nor-
wich Unions The money was applied in payment of
three bills amounting to 3,500/. or 4,000/. ; 2,0001. of
it was due on acceptances and loans obtained subse-
quently to the claims on the policies ; the remaining
1,5001. was not so applied. In April, 1355, ho. applied
to me for a loan of 2,000!. I obtained it on an, accept-
ance drawn by himself and accepted by his mother. On
20th November I and my clients held eight bills that I had
discounted for Palmer. I held four of them myself. There
were two others then overdue. The bills are as follows:—
June 5, 1851, for three months after date, drawn by Mr.
Palmer, and accepted by Sarah Palmer, for 500/., and en-
dorsed by him ; Aug. 2, 1854, a similar bill for 1,0001.,
payable three months after date; July 22,1835, for 2,0001.,
three months after date ; July 24, 1855, for 2,0001., three
months after the date, endorsed by Palmer to Thos. Pratt
(both of these becoming due in November) ; Sept. 27, 1855,
for 1,000/., for three months after date ; Sept. 29, 1855,
for 2,0001., for three mouths after date; Oct. 2, 1855, for
2,000/., for three mouths, indorsed by Palmer to Thos.
Pratt ; and one. Oct. 12, 1855, for 2,0001., for three months
after date. The whole of the bills purported to be
drawn by Mr. Palmer, and accepted by Sarah Palmer,
payable to the order of Palmer, and indorsed by him. The
whole amounted to' 12,500/. 6,000/. had been renewed,
and would become due in January; two bills were only
overdue on the 20th of Nov. for 2,000/. One bill for 1,0001.
and another for 50C/. was held over from month to month,
as was the interest. The interest charged for discounting
the bills was about 60 per cent. In August, 1855, Walter
Palmer died, and I made an application to the Prince of
Wales office for 13,000 L, the amount of the policy. Sarah
Palmer, as the acceptor of these bills, had frequently beeti
written to at Psugeley, but no replies had been received."
And there was every reason to believe that none
of these letters reached Sarah Palmer, the mother,
probably from some understanding between Palmer
and the Rugeley postmaster, that they should not be
delivered to her. His lordship then read the lengthened
correspondence that had passed between Palmer and Pratt
relative to these bills, and the non-payment of the amount
on the policy of insurance on Walter Palmer's life by the
Prince of Wales Insurance Company, all tending to show
the pecuniary pressure the prisoner was labouring under
at the time, which was near the period of Cook's death,
and the probability there was of the forgeries on the mo-
ther being known if the prisoner was unable to meet them.
At the conclusion of the reading of this correspondence,
the learned judge proceeded to say, that having read the
letters in which Cook was not concerned, he would now
read some in which ho was. The letters concerning the
raising of money for Cook, which letters were directed by
Palmer to be sent to him at the post-office, Doncaster, were
then read. In cross-examination the witness Pratt said
Cook was represented by Palmer to him as a person of re-
spectability, and on writing to him at Luttersvorth re-
specting a bill for 5001., which had not been paid, Cook
came up from Luttorworth and paid the amount himself.
After referring to other parts of the evidence, ho now came
to that of one of the witnesses, a butcher, residing at
Rugeley, in which a conversation took place concerning
the raising of a sum of 251. On the 9th of November the
prisoner had only a balance of 9/. at his bankers; and it
certainly did appear that having to meet a cheque for
1,0001., due on the 28th, and nothing to meet it with, he
was in a very desperate state. On the 21st of November
the Messrs. Weatherby received a letter from Palmer, en-
closing an order for 300/., and asking them to send him a
cheque for the amount for Cook, who, he represented, was
ill of bilious attack. On the 22d he again writes to Messrs.
Weatherby, directing them to send cheques to Eerwacker
and Pratt. On the 23d Mr. Weatherby wrote to Palmer,
telling hinethat there were not funds enough to meet it
with, and therefore they could not comply with the request
of Palmer; therefore his cheque had been sent to Wea-
therby, and returned by him to Palmer. Mr. 'Weatherby
received a letter on the 24th from Palmer ordering them
not to part with any money they had or might have be-
longing to John Parsons Cook. The cheque alluded to
had not been produced. They also had the evidence of
Butler to show that the prisoner, previous to the Shrews-
bury races, was short of money ; and if he (the prisoner)
had no funds at his oontrol, how was it possible for him
to have bought Polestar, whose value, after winning the
Shrewsbury race, was estimated by the witness Butler at
700 guineas ? and the mare was afterwards sold at Tatter-
sall's for 750 guineas. A document had also been spoken
of, to which the late postmaster Cheshire was asked to
sign his name. Why was not that produced ? The wit-
ness Burgett stated that the whole of the papers of the
prisoner were taken possession of, and on examination
neither that paper nor the order that purported to be signed
by Cook, and which the Messrs. Weatherby proved was
returned to Palmer, could be found amongst those papers.
These papers, after they had been examined by the soliei-
tor, had been sent to his brother, Mr. G. Palmer, yet they
had not been discovered. Burgen stated that he had care-
fully searched for the papers, and he could not find either
of them. These papers ought to have been produced.
He would now proceed to the circumstances that took
place at Shrewsbury, and the jury would have to draw
their own conclusions. The first witness called was Fisher,
who stated that he was a wine merchant, and knew Cook,
and saw him at the last Shrewsbury races, when
Polestar won. Cook seemed well on that day. On the
evening of Wednesday he said he stopped at the Rainbow,
where Palmer and Cook were stopping, and now com-
menced the tampering with Cook. Cook had some brandy
and water, and he asked Palmer to have some, but he said
he should not until he had drunk his. Cook did so, and
immediately after he said there was something in it. The
glass was handed to Reid and Fisher, and the latter said
there was a strong scent. In ten minutes after taking this
brandy Cook left the room and was taken ill ' • and Fisher
deposed that on Cook coining to his room ho told him he
had been sick, and that he received from him about 700/.
to take care of. The next morning Palmer said to Fisher,
"Cook says I have been nutting something in his brandy,
but he was d— drunk." It was important to recollect
the evidence on this point. Fisher had always been in
the habit of settling Cook's debts, and he also said he saw
oti the Shrewsbury race course Cook's betting-hook; and
it was an extraordinary circumstance that, as a large sum
of money had bean won by Cook, the betting-book could
not be found. The learned judge then went through the
other part of Fisher's evidence, and came to that given by
Jones, He deposed to hearing the deceased make the re-
'ark about the brandy and water. Gibson, the assistant
'e a Rurgeou in Rugeley, said he was sent for, and
when he arrived he found Cook in a very bad condi-
ttihoen,
evidence
seenft hire some pills and a draueht • and
evidence on that the witness tneef s s
the Brooksease which
t'enliaisthe'
related
Shrewsbury. This witness si!tedthat.she saw the prisoner
with a glass in hand
she also stated that she 8 shaking
the contents of it rohnd ;
aZnation, that a great
ineeenadirinohgsseiturehold it up to the light,
lannadnyshoeft stpaet::l,e
Shrewsbury races were
be
eetiorr:tr:ldwtaistatt evidenceewhieh ia
taken ill. The next point to
of Elizabeth Mills before the
the importance of may the more aesere-
gave in your presence. That you
competent for the prisoner's counsel to require that the
rately estimate
depositions shall be read. What say you, brother Shea
permissiOn,
we desire iSreergtoeahn at vSehtelei;m-Wriej "1111
Lord Campbell—Then let them be read by all means.
The Clerk of Arraigns then read the depositions of Eli-
zabeth Mills as taken before the coroner.
Lord Campbell--You have now heard the depositions
those
read, and you will decide for yourselves whether her state-
mentsis before the coroner are not substantially the acme as
thois3 Which she made before you in the course of her er•

amination. You will have to determine whether there is
any material discrepancy between them. Her own explana -
tion of her omission to state before the coroner that she was
sick after partaking of the broth prepared for Cook is that
she was not asked the question ; out that she was sick ,
the evidence of another witness goes distinctly to prove .
He (the Lord Chief Justice) did not think there was the
slightestground to supposethat this witness had been bribed
to come forward to give her evidence. She also stated she
had seen Mr. Gardner two or three times, but he was a
highly respectable gentleman, and it could not be supposed
that he would attempt in any way to prejudice the witness,
or give her directions as to the evidence she was to give.
'The evidence of the witness Elizebeth Mills, as given be-
fore the coroner, was then read by Mr. Straight, the clerk
of the court, which differed only from that given before
this court by the omission to state upon that occasion that
the broth had made her sick. The jury had hoard the ex-
plauatiou which she had given, and it was for them to
determine whether they thought her evidence was not to
be believed in consequence of that omission, particularly
as they found her evidence corroborated by the statemeets
of her fellow-servants. His lordship then went through
the evidence of Lydia Barnes and Sarah B ond, contending
that they entirely bore out the truth of what she said.
Having gone through this part of the evidence the court
adjourned.
On the re-assembling of the Court, his lordship pro-
ceeded with the evidence of Mr. Jones, the surgeon, of
Lutterworth, upon that portion relating to the consulta-
tion about the medicine which Cook was to take, and the
proposal that Dr. Bamford should prescribe for the de-
ceased, and also that relating to the missing betting-book.
His lordship having gone through his notes of that evi-
dence directed the evidence given by Dr. Jones, as
given by him before the coroner, to be read, and
said that he did not think there was anything differ-
ing from what he had stated in this court which could lead
them to think ho was not the witness of sincerity and
truth. His lordship then went into the evidence of New-
ton, the assistant to Dr. Salt, and said the jury would
have to consider the demeanour of the prisoner when he
was purchasing the strychnine amongst other drugs, at
Hawkins' shop, and his conduct upon seeing Newton.
They then came to the interview, upon the 25tli of Nov.,
with Newton, about the amount of strychnine to kill a
dog, and the effect it would have upon the stomach. NEW-
ton's evidence before the coroner was then put in and read,
and his lordship said it was for them to consider whether,
from that conversation which he made, they were to think
ho had wilfully told a wicked lie. He was not shown to
have any to the prisoner ; and he did not see that
he could have any motive for making the additional state-
ment which he had done. He then went through the
evidence of Roberts, the assistant to Hawkins. The cross-
examination had not attempted to deny that evidence.
This brought the prisoner into the possession of the
strychnia, which they would couple with the circum-
stances and symptoms of Cook's death. The learned
counsel had not favoured them with any explanation
or opinion or given anything as to what had become
of the' strychnia, or what had been done with it,
and if they came to the conclusion that the death of Cook
was caused by tetanus from strychnia ho should be shrink-
ingfrom his duty, in the high posi'ion which he held, if
he did not tell them that was a very strong fact established
by the prosecution which had not been in any way an-
swered. His lordship then went through the evidence of Mr.
Stevens, whose conduct he (his lordship) thought was per-
fectly justifiable, and did not merit that violent attack
which the learned Sergeant had made upon him. He had
strong suspicions, and the deceased was his stepson, and
he hid perfect grounds for acting in the manner
in which he did. His lordship then went through
the statement of the woman who laid the body out, and
that of Dr. Harland, and his interview with the prisoner
previouly to the post mortem examination, and the post
mortem examination was put in and read. It was signed
by Dr. Harland, Dr. Bamford, and Mr. Devonshire. Re-
verting to the evidence of the pushing at the post mortem
examination, and the jar being removed and found
near where Palmer was, mil then found with
,
;
the bladder cut this, of itself, was not much, but when
it was taken into consideration with prisoner's remarks
and sttbsdquent conduct, it seemed to indicate an intention
upon the part of the prisoner to upset the jar and destroy
its contents. After reviewing the evidence relating to the
post mortem examination, and after going through the evi-
dence of Boycott and the post boy, his lordship drew the
attention of the jury most especially to the offer of 101. to
upset the post chaise, and said it was for them to consider
in a case of circumstantial evidence the conduct of the
accused, and whether it was consistent with innocence or
guilt, and it was for them to consider whether Mr. Ste
vens had so provoked Paltrier that they could take
the view which the learned counsel did of the matter,
that Palmer only meant to upset Mr. Stevens, and
not to destroy the contents of the jar. The jar was men-
tioned at that interview, and it would be for them to say
whether such conduct was innocent of the design to de-
stroy the jar and its contents, and so destroy the chance
of their being evidence against him. He then came to his
conduct with Cheshire, the postmaster, in getting him
to be a party to the assignment of Cook's property; that
was evidence of fraud and forgery, but ought net to preju-
dice the case. Ho then came to the prisoner's getting hold
of the letter containing the report of Dr. Taylor to Mr.
Gardner, and, referring to prisoner's conduct and that of
the coroner, said he disapproved in the strongest man-
ner of the coroner in taking presents from the prisoner.
As far as the letter to the coroner was concerned, he asked
them to consider it most carefully. The prisoner might
be innocent, but they must consider, if that accorded with
innocence, it was • tampering with the coroner, and,
to his mine, suggesting to the coroner the ver-
dict which should be arrived at. The letter was,
to state to the coroner, that there had not been any
poison found, and that the verdict would be a natural
death. With regard to the book found at the prisoner's
house, he begged the jury not to attach any importance
whatever to it, as it was used by the prisoner in
his studies. The Lord Chief Justice then called the at-
tention of the jury to the evidence of the witness Bates,
and particularly to that portion of it in which the prisoner
had sent him with a letter to Mr. Ward, the coroner, and
at the same time told him not to let any one see him de-
liver it. He then proceeded to refer to the medical testi-
mony, and he said the jury would have upon that testi-
mony to form a judgment upon the scientific evidence,
how far the disease of which Mr. Cook died was natural,
or whether it was the result of poison. Mr. Curling, the
surgeon to the London Hospital, was the first witness, and
he described the symptoms of the two diseases known as
traumatic and idiopathic tetanus, and expressed his opinion
that the symptoms exhibited by the deceased were not
consistent with either the traumatic or idiopathic form of
the disease. The next witness was Dr. Todd, and his
evidence was to the same effect. [Dr. Bamford' deposi-
tions before the coroner were then road bylfr.Straight, the
deputy-clerk of Arraigns.] His lordship then called the
attention of the jary to the viva voce examination of Dr.
Bamford, and to the fact of his having stated that Cook
contradicted the statement made by the prisoner as to hi,
having drunk too much champagne at the dinner at Pal-
mer's, and to this being the cause of his illness, and that
he stated he had only drunk two glasses. Ho also 'called
their attention to the fact of the ptisoner havine' taken the
medicine from Dr Bamford's surgery on the Tuesday
night. This was most important evidence. The prisoner
saw the pills made up, and had them in hie possession,
and most certainly had the opportunity of changing them.
'Whether he did so or not was for their consideration.
As to this gentleman hating signed a certificate that the
death was from apoplexy, it did not appsar that there was
may bad faith on his part, and it seemed to bo agreed on
• all heti& that he was mistaken in ascribing the death to
apoplexy. Dr. Todd stated distinctly on his cross-exa-
mination that the symptoms exhibited by Mr. Cook cer-
tainly did not resemble those of either traumatic or
idiopathic tetanus, but they did correspond iu every
respect with those of tetanus from the poison of
strychnine. The next witness was one whose high charac-
ter for scientific knowledge rendered his opinion of very
ereat importa.rce in the inquiry—he meant-Sir Benjamin
Brodie. That gentleman concurred with the other medical
witnesses as to the symptoms in Mr. Cook's case being
those of tetanus from strychnine, and not from any natu-
ral cause, and the earliest period he ever heard. of death
arising from natural tetanus was Li hours, and ho ex-
pressed an opinion that it Was very probable that in that
case some of the earlier symptoms had been overlooked.
They had here the solemn evidence of this distinguished
witness that he knew of no natural disease that would ac-
coint for the symptoms exhibited by the deceased in this
case, and the jury, if they gave effect to this testimony,
would then have to consider to what other cause the death
might fairly be assigned. Dr. Daniel, the next witnesQ,
entirely concurred in the 'opinion expressed by Sir B.
Brodie, and he also expressed an opinion that C mk's symp-
toms were not such as would arise ether from tetanus or
lraesfoteibaeem.lhetacoi
le
up ri
answer.Seo lslyy andtlolalie egLxzet,e
se,
t'ai.
°int:de
madenthe: gentlemanfwoafs tthl!
that he had never heard of syphilis, either in its primary
or secondary symptoms, producing tetanus. The next
witness was Dr. Cot bett, the physician of the Glasgow In-
-Brmary, and Ins evidence went to show the symptoms that
were exhibited in the case of Agnes Sonnet, and which lae.s
one of undoubted poisoning by strychnine, and the jury
would judge whether or not they were similar to those
spoken to in the case of Mr. Cook. The next portion of
the evidence referred to the Rowsey case, where the lady
named Sergeants in Smythe was accidentally poisoned by
strychnine administered by mistake in her medicine. A
similar case at Leeds was then brought forward. That was
also ate undoubted case of death from strychnia, and the
jury would have to consider in this case also whether the
symptoms spoken to did or did net resemble those of
Mr. Cook. The next witness, Dr. Morley, was [the
medical gentleman who had attended upon the pa-
tient
in this case, and he most particularly c•e•
scribed the symptoms, and he also, stated that the
tests that were made use of after the post mortem
examination produced the colours which denoted the pre-
sence of strychnia. 'With regard to the presence of strych-
nia, being discovered, this gentleman expressed an opinion
that where the minimum dose to destroy life was admini-
stered, it was probable that it might not be discovered in
the body of the person or animal killed by poison. The
question as to the decomposition of strychnia in the blood
appeared to be a vexed one among the most eminent texi-
cologists, and the principal point for their consideration
was whether it was proved to their satisfaction that in any
case where the death was clearly the result of strychnia
that no trace of the poison was afterwards discovered. His
lordship next called the attention of the jury to the evi-
dence given by Dr. Taylor. Settle portion of the evidence
given by this gentleman was most important. It was re-
lied upon for the prisoner that there was no strychnia found
in the body of the deceased upon the analysis by Dr. Tay-
lor and Dr. Rees, bet according to the evidence of these
gentlemen in two cases at least where death wasundoubt-
edly the result of strychnia, they could net by all the skill
they possessed, discover the presence of strychnia in the
body of the animal after death. Whatever might have
been the value of the different theories that had been pro-
pounded upon the subject, it was perfectly clear upon the
evidence that in two cases at least where poison had been I
administered to the animal, and death wear the result,
strychnia was not discovered in the bodies after death.
His lordship then called the attention of the jury to the
fact of the discovery of antimony in the liver, spleen, and
blood of the deceased, and to the evidence of Dr. Taylor
that this antimony had in all probability been administered
very shortly before the death of the deceased, and also to
his opinion that if it was administered in any consider-
able quantity at one time it might have the effect of causing
a constricting sensation in the throat similar to that de-
scribed by Cook on the night of his illness at Shrewsiat-y.
His lordship then called the attention of the jury to the
letter written by Dr. Taylor to Mr. Gardner, the solicitor
at, Rngeley, and which it will be remembered was opened
by thepostmaster Cheshire, and the contents communicated
to the prisoner, and he reminded the jury that at this time
neither Dr. Taylor nor Dr. Rees were acquainted with the
symptoms that had been exhibited by the deceased, but
they wore clearly of opinion that antimony existed iu the
body ; anti, according to their testimony, antimony in con •
United doses would be very likely to cause deat'l. With
regard to the letter written by Dr. Taylor to the Lancet,
he thought it would have been better if that letter had not
bull written ; bat it was for the jn:y to say whether the
writing of that letter in any way detracted from the credit

1 that was due to his testimony. Also with-regard to the
latter, or article, in the Illustrated Paper, he was of opi-
nion that it would be better if it had not been written,
but the jury would judge if it affected his credit. It ap-
peared that Dr. Taylor consented to the publication of a
portion of the article, but he struck out everything that
related to tho Rugeley cases. He should not comment on
the evidence of Dr. Taylor, because its importance was ap-
parent—he proved the existence of antimony in the body
of the deceased, and also that no strychnine was discovered
after death in the bodies of certain animals that had un-
doubtedly been killed by that poison. Dr. Ree; was the
next witness. He confirmed the evidence of Dr. Taylor,
and proved distinctly that in two out of five cases when
the animals were destroyed by strychnia, no poison could
afterwards be discovered. Upon this gentleman there was
not even the imputation of having sent an indirect letter to
the Lancet, or having any indirect interview whatever with
the editor of a newspaper, and that gentleman spoke most
distinctly to the important facts to which he had referred.
The jury would judge, from all the facts, whether anti-
mony was not administered at Shrewsbury, and again at
Rugeley, and although antimony was not the cause of the
death, yet it was evidently a most important incident of
the charge against the prisoner, and of the evidence by
which it was sought to be supported. Professor Brand
also confirmed the evidence as to the discovery of antimony.
The next witness was Professor Christison, a man of the
greatest eminence and skill in his profession, and he cor-
roborated, in all the material points, the other medical tes-
timony. With regard to the point of the interval that
elapsed between the administration of the poison and its
effects becoming apparent, there was the important evi-
dence that if the poison had been mixed up with any
resinous or insoluble material, its action would be very
much retarded, and the symptoms would not come on so
quickly, and Professor Christison also stated his opinion
that there was no actual disease to which the symptoms
exhibited by Mr. Cook could be referred. His lordship
then directed the attention of the jury to the evidence of
Dr. Jackson, and thus concluded the evidence for the pro-
secution.

The Ccurt was then, it being 8 o'clock, adjourned until
10 to-morrow morning, when the Lord Chief Justic3 will
resume his summing up with the evidence for the defence.

PALMER, LAST NIGHT.

Extraordinary as it may appear, after the summing up of
Lord Campbell, so clearly against him, and wish a full con-
viction of its terrible importance and effect, the spirit of
ham Palmer remains unaffected and his courage as undauuted
as before.

He shows no wincing or faltering in his bearing, and met
his brother George and his solicitor, Mr. John Smith, of Bir-
mingham (not Jeremiah Smith, of Rugeley) with the same
firmness and unblenclied look. To his brother, who was vie'•
bly affected and shed tears on seeing him, William Palmer
spoke cheeringly and said, " Don't take on, George ! There
is a God above us that will stand between me and harm. I
am innocent of the crime imputed to me. Let that be a con-
solation to you, my mother, and my boy. Act upon my
word ; I have never deceived you yet ; and, however guilty I
have; been i;s other things, to destroy life has never entered
my head.'''

He then tapped his brother on the.shonlder and wont on
—" May yOu sleep as sound as I do. I have had a good tea,
with half a pound of steak. May you have as good a night's
rest as I shall. Tell my mother and my boy that Newton and
Mills are false, and that I fear the grave as little as my bed."
With that he shook hands with both. He then entered
into a desultory conversation, inquiring how his boy was,
s tying—" Tell Willy his father' has had many troubles, but
the least of all has been the accusation of murder against
him."

He then said, " Good night ! God bless you! May your
mind be as easy as wine is now. Don't feel low. Jerry
Smith's evidence was very bad. It has left the case just
where it was, and leaves Newton's evidence only open to the
suspicion that attended it before Jerry came."
He then exchanged a few words ,of parting as he bade his
brother and solicitor good bye, to all appa,rance himself the
least concerned of the party.