TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMER.

Lyttelton Times, Volume VI, Issue 414, 22 October 1856, Page 2

TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMER.

death only precipitated ;md completed his own ruin; that Cook did not die oi' tho ollects of poison, but of natural disease; that there is nothing in any part of the evidence for the prosecution which is at all inconsistent with the innocence of the prisoner. It is for you to decide.between these allegations Jon the quo side and on the other. A most anxious task is, therefore, imposed upon you. If you find the prisoner guilty of the crime with which ho is charged you will consign him to an ignonrinioits death. If he is innocent it is of the last importance to the cause, of public justice that his innocence should be recognised by you ; and if he is; guilty it is also of the utmost importance to the same cause of public justice that he should not, if possible, escape the punishment due to his crime. If he is guilty of this crime the safety of society requires that he should meet his merited doom ; but.if you are not convinced of his guilt it is your duty not to destroy the life of one who for all you know may be an innocent man. But in cases of this sort 3 rou cannot expect that witnesses should be called to state, that they saw the deadly poison mixed and administered to the deceased. Circumstantial evidence is all that. can. be-given in a case of this kind; and if there 1)8 a series of circumstances leading to the conclusion of the guilt of the prisoner, then a verdict of guilty may be satisfactorily pronounced by the jury. It is of great importance that you should consider whether the prisoner had any motive for committing this crime, or whether there is such an improbability of his having committed it as could only be overcome by positive evidence on the other side. But if there should be a motive assignable for the commission of the crime, then the question of the adequacy of that -motive is one of little importance. In the .criminal annals of every country .and of every age we. find that the most atrocious crimes have been perpetrated with very little of an impelling motive, from no feeling of malice or revenge., but for the purpose of phtahimg possession of some very small sum of money, or securing some other apparently inconsiderable advantage. The first point you will have to -consider is, whether the symptoms of Cook's'death are consistent with the conclusion that he had been poisoned by strychnia.' In cases of this sort the evidence nmy be classed under two heads—the medical evidence and the moral evidence—the evidence of scientific men>.and the circumstantial evidence bearing upon the charge. They cannot be separated in the .minds of thejurv, because it is on a combination of the two that the verdict must be founded. It seems that the prisoner had borrowed large sums of meney on bills of exchange which purpoited to have been accepted by his mother, a lady,, it ,is»stited, of considerable property, and whose acceptances of these bills, were forgeries. It would further seem that she had not been aware of those forgeries until a period subsequent to the transaction into which you have now to inquire. One of the acceptances was- for a sum of £2,000, and was in the hands of a gentleman of the name of Padwick. Out of that, £1,000 Jiad been paid, and the other jgl.ooo remained due to Mr. Padwick or. that bill. A solicitor of the name of Piatt had advanced large sums of money to the prisoner on similar bills, those sums .amounting altogether to £12:000 Several of those had been renewed; but three had not been renewed; and one of these three, one for ,£2,000, bec.irne due on the 2/Jth of Oct., and the other for the same amount, became due on the 27th of that[inonth. The third bill was for a sum of £1,500. These bills had been held over from monthjto month, and a very high interest hud to be paid for them. Besides the bills due by the prisoner to Pratt, it appears that he had contracted on similar bills a very large debt with an attorney in Birmingham of the name of'Wripht. He owed •him-on those bills a sum ■of £1 0,400. lie had oxpt-cted that he shoul'i. have been able to meet those biils by the proceeds of .a policy of assurance eiTlcttd on the life of his brother, Walter Palmer. Gentlemen, the law of this country wisely forbids an insurance by one man on the life of another in which he has ao interest. But unfortunately it does nor prevent a man from insuring his own life for any amount, even though no pecuniary loss should follow from his death, and also from making over the policy, of insurance to another. The uisurance' cfF.-ctt-d in ti.e name of vV n l:er Palmer on his own life was assigned by him to WiLiam P.ilmcr, Ihf prisoner at the bar. Waiter Palmer died in August hisr, and it was expected that the j£! 3,000 for which his life had i;ee» injured wouldxifibr.l the prisoner tin- mc3i;s of taking up thtsc accepsjinc-es. But the Prince -.if Wales Oliici, in which th<: insurance luid b -n circled, denied their liability upon that policy «nd refused to pay it. Then arose a state of the most pressing embarrassment to the; prisoner ; the payment of the bills was urgently demanded of him, and he had reason to apprehend that if they were not immediately renewed the law would be put in force

against him, ami th;it coiiim: ot forgery which lie had carried on would be detected The learned judge read-the evidence of Piatt, to whom the prisoner was at that "time., indebted Tor advances on bills to the amount of \£l'2.i)Qw. 'J ho evidence o f Pratt was of a most important character in considering the question of motive in ihiit rnsp. He next laidhefore ihVjury the evidence in reference to tl'ie .fioOtf bill, in which Cook li.nl given an assignment of two of his horses as a security Tor its payment as well as the statement of Mr. Stevens 'I,at tie 'endorsement on PraU's-cho quc for H7IJI. payable to Cook w-is not in Cook's hnmluritin«: ; but the learned judge necompanied the wding „f j] li(t portion of Mr. Steven's cvi ience wi'.h On- observation that Cook, who h.-id been digged uith Palmer in that transaction, mi^ht.have ami,orist-d him to put his name on the cheque. Tie witness examined after Prat: was John Ariiisliiuv, mi accountant at llugeley, who deposed to bis having received fruni Palmer the amount of a debt of about 601 , due by Palmer to the owners of .1 drapery establishment iv that town, after legal proceedings lw.d been 'commenced for, its'- recovery. Next came the cv id nice of John Wallbank, a, butcher in Kugelcy, who stated that he bad lent 257 10 Palmer on the-Monday of the-.Shrewsbury race week, and that he got bnck the amount of the debt on the following Saturday, Then followed the evidence of John SpilMmrv/a farmer, residing near Stafford, who staled that he had received payment of a debt of 407 2s. from Palmer on Thursday, the 22nd November^—«v.u! the evidence of Thomas Strawbridge, the manag,!fr pf the bank at Rntrelcy, who deposed that on the 19 Nov. the state of Palmer's account at the bank was that there had been 9/ 6's in his favour. All those facts certainly showed that at the period at which'they had occurred the funds of the prisoner \iere in a very exhausted condition. The evidence of Mr. Herbert Wright, a tolL-itnr at Birmingham, was next brought forward, mid showed that the prisoner was indebted to.him in Nov.embei in a si>m of ] 0,4001.; that, he had been pre.-sing the prisoner for payment in thefir-t or second week of November, and that'he had sold off Palmer's property under a hill, after the coroner's verdict in Cook's case had been returned. And then Str.iwbridge, the manager of the. bank at Huge ley, moved that the signature of the prisoner's.mother to the bill received by .Wright from tiie prisoner was a forgery. Mr. Weatherby, the secretary to the Jockey Cinb. tic-posed to his having received on the 21st of Nov. a ch< que or order for the payment of a sum of 350/, purporting to have been signed by Cook, ai.dto his having sent back that cheque by the post to the prisoner. If that cheque'had been produced, a good deal might turn on the fact whether or not it bad really been signed by Cook, for if it .had been so signed it would go far to show that Palmer had been receiving the. money due to Cook since the Shrewsbury races with Cook's own sanction. But the cheque had not been found among the prisoner's papers, and neither had it been brought forward on his behalf, .although he had received notice to produce it. The learned judge, after having read the. statement of Mr. Stevens that the- horse Polestar had been sold at Tattetsairsjor 720 guineas, adverted to the inquiries of Field, the detective officT, with respect.to the insurance on the.life of.Walter Paluier aiffl, the attempted insurance on thelife of Bates, and staled that, he did not see how either of these transactions could affect the decsion of the case then before the jury. That was the evidence with respect to the pecuniary position of the prisoner at the time of Cook's deatti, and which may be supposed to'^r on the question whether or not.he had had a.mosive for conniving Cook's death. He would next pass to an examination of ihe transactions at Shrewsbury andthe events immediately preceding the death of C'/ok.-Ue read the whole of the evidence of Fislicr, who deposed to Cook's illness on the Wednesday night ,after drinking the br.Hidy and water at Shrewsbury—to the fact, that Cook bad given him for safekeeping about £700 or £800 in notes, which,he had returned on the Thursday ; and to the fact of his having pj'id £200 to Pratt on Cook's account on the Saturday, as veil as his.not having obtained the repayment* of that sum In consequence: of his -not having been entrusu-d, as usual, with the duty of settling Cook's account at Tattersall's on the .Monday. '1 be learne" judge said it was one ofihe. mysterious eiicumstcmces in the case that, althou.u'li Cook had been dosing him, he afterwards contiini.d to place much confidence in him. and called for his assistance whenever he was seized with illness. It was very clear thai the.prisoner exercised over him throughout a very considerable, amount of influence. Thomas Jones, a law stationer, also deposed to the illness of Cook on the Wednesday night. George Kead, thy third witness, confirmed,that .portion of the evidence; and .so also did- Mr.' Gibson, a surgeon at Shrewsbury. Mrs. Brocks was another of the win es es with'respect to that portion of the transactions. The learned judge here read the evidence of "\frs. Brooks, who deposed that she had ssen ihe prisoner on tiie Wednesday night holding a glass with a fluid like water in it to the light, in one of the lobbies of the Raven Hotel at Shrewsbury, and that the prisoner h..d then gone with it into Cook's rooai. That evidence of Mrs. Brooks

|f.taken, by itself .might amount to very little, but Itvhen taken in connection witii what had followed, lit deserved the serious attention of lire jury. The Inext witness was Elizabeth Mills, who had been a | chambermaid at the Talbot Anna, in Huge ley, in the ijnontli of November last. lie read at length-the of Klizobeih Mills, who stated all the.cir'citmstances connected with Cook's'indisposition on several occasions after having tasted cofllx- or broth at Rugeley-i-his severe illness on the Monday night., '.'and his fatal attack an.the succeeding night. In on one of the .questions put in the of the cross-examination, apparently with the ; design of showing that she had been unfairly tampered with by Mr. Stevens, he said that he saw no ground for thnt serious imputation on Mn Stevens, who was a gentleman of great r.-spect ability, r.ahd.who had very jnoperly, on the recommendation of his London solicitors, placed the ease arising out of the dea'h of Cook in the hands of respectable solicitors at Rugeley. It would be tor the jury to ;wh- ther that evidence was not substantially the same with the evidence which the witness had given on the present trial; and in considering 'that question, it should be remembered that the |.witness said she had not been asked at the coroner's jinquest to describe the symptoms which had accompanied Cook's fatal attack.: Tlv next witness was [Mr. Gardner, who had acted as the attorney of Mr. Stevens, from whose evidence it appeared" that that gentleman had frequently expostulated with the c'o'r^iter- atthe inquest, in consequence of the mamtel;in which he had put certain questions', or liad omitted to put other questions, to the witnesses. Then canie the evidence of Lavinia Barnes, a waitress at'the Talliot Arms in Rugeley, who deposed generally tothe sameJacts as Elizabeth Mills ; and he next pasoed on to the evidence of Ann Rowley, a charwoman, and Charles Hawley, a jrardener, at Rugeley^and of Sarah Bond, the housekeeper of the Talbot Arms-,-" in that town. These- witnesses cpnfiarried, in certain particulars, the more detailed evidence of Barnes and Mills He had next to bring-under thenotice of the jury the evidence of a very important witness—Mr. Jones, who stated that be wasa surgeon ;' that lie had been the intimate friend .of ;the deceased Cook;, that he had received: on the Monday a letter from Palmer, requesting him to go to Rugeley; and see Cook; who wasiill ; that he had arrived at Rugeley at about three o'clock on the Tuesday, and that he had been a Witness of Cook's" death on the Tuesday night. The learned judge said he thought it was certainly a circumstance very much in favour of the prisoner thathe had written to Mr. Jones to go and see his friend Cook during his illness: but he went on to bbservethat-while-the prisoner in his letter to' Jones had;said that Cook was suffering from a bilious attack and from there was no evidence whatever to confirm that statement, and, indeed, all the evidence-bearing upon the point went to establish a directly opposite-conclusion. The next witness was Dr. Savage, who deposed that before Cook liad gone down to the Shrewsbury races he had been in unusually good health; and upon that point Dr. Savage had spoken very strongly. Then came the evidence of Newton, the assistant of a surgeon at Rugeley, who stated that the prisoner had bought strychnia from him on* the Monday; that he had seen him in the shop of Hawkins on the day following; that he had been taken out of the shop hy him, ostensibly for the purpose of having some utterly unimportant question . f#dressed to him; and Joat on' .his return ik found that stryclinik had been'purchased b>.the prisoner from Roberts, the assistant of Hawkins. It certainly requires consideration on your part, gentlemen of the jury, that Newton did'not state at the. inquest that he had himself sold strychnia to the prisoner on the Monday night ; but then you •must observe that although there was that omission in his evidence, there is in these depositions no contradiction of anything he has said. Then you are to consider what is the probability of his having invented so wicked and abominable a lie against the prisoner. It does not appear that he ever entertained any ill-will towards him, or.that he had anything, to gain by inflicting on him any injury. I see no motive that Newton could have had for inventing this lie to take away the life of the prisoner. No inducement had been held out by the Crown to commit such a crime; and he says himself that the disclosure was made solely from a sense of duty. If.you believe him, the fact which he states is a very strong circumstance against the prisoner at the bar, and I must now leave you to form your own conclusion.as to the amount of credit to which his statement is entitled. I now pass on to the next witness,, Roberts, whose evidence is closely connected with that of Newton. Roberts says that six grains of strychnia were purchased from him by the prisoner on Tuesday morning, and he confirms the statement of Newton with respect to the appearance of Newton and of tin* prisoner together, in the shop of; Hawkins, his employer. That evidence, which is wholly iincQijtroverted, is of the most serious character. If you credit the evidence of Newton, if,you <:ouplo with it the:undisputed evidence of Roberts,, and if. you believe that Cook's symptoms showed tht}t he died of strychnia, then a case is

made.out for the Crown. The learned counsel who conducts the defence toid us nothing as to the theory he may have formed, with respect to the mode in which' the strychnia purchased by the prisoner was disposed of; and upon that point not a syllable of evidence has been brought before you. Iherc was no proof, and there is no suggestion how it was applied. That circumstance will not at all influence your judgment unless you consider that the symptoms of" Cook were consistent with death by strychnia; but if you come to the conclusion that his death was.caused by strychnia, and if you believe the witnesses Newton and Roberts, then I should be shrinking from my duty, and I should be unworthy to sit here, if I did not call your attention to the important inference that if Cook died by strychnia, thif. strychnia was administered by tl.e prisoner at the bar. (This was.the most remarkable and decided statement which the noble and learned lord made in the course of his lengthened address ; it created considerable sensation in the court; it seemed to strike sharply on the firm nerves of the prisoner ; but it apparently only roused but did not prostrate him ; and at its conclusion he began to write - : with-increased- rapidity on the paper lying before him.) The noble and lea ned lord next read the evidence of Mr. Stevens, the stepfather of Cook. Pc said that the counsel: for the prisoner had. made a very violent attack on the conduct and character of Mr. Stevens. It would be: for the jury to say how far that attack was deserved. He (Lord Campbell) could see nothing in the slightest degree to call for it. Mr." Stevens had been.attached to, that young man, who was his stepson, and had no one else to take care of him.' Whatever the1 result of the present trial may be, there were, as it seemed to him, appearances that might-well justify-suspi-cion that . the • .deceased, had not come fairly by■his death ; and he did not know that Mr. Stevens had done any thing which was not perfectly justifiable under the circumstances1. The learned judge next read .the evidence of Mary Keeling, who iaid out the ,body 0f,..,C00k, and deposed to its unusual rigidity; of Dr. Garland, who had assisted at ,the post-mortem examination pf Cook's body, and had drawn the report of the appearances which it presented; of Mr. Devonshire, by whom the postmortem examination of Cook's body ' had been performed.; of Dr. Monkion.who had madearecent post-mortem examination" of the spinal cord and marrow of Cook; of Mr! J. Roycott, who had .conveyed to London the jar containing a portion of the remains of Cook ; of James Myatt the ipostboy, who had driven the.chaise containing the>jar ,to; therailway station, and whom the prisoner wished toinduce to upset that jar; of Cheshire, the Rugeley post-master,* whonrthe prisoner asked to testify to the genuineness of a signature of Goo'k after Cook's death \'< of Captain Hatton, who produced the letter? addressed by: the prisoners Ward, the coroner, at the inquest, informing. Ward that Dr. Taylor had written to the solicitor, for the prosecution'that he had found neither strychnia, nor prussic acid, nor opium in the stomach of Cookj and expressing a hope that " The verdict would be tha,t Cook died of natural causes, and thus end it..'1 The learned; judge said he considered that letter as one Which it was very discreditable to the prisoner that he should have written, and very discreditable to the coroner that he should have received. It was an attempt to tamper with a judicial officer in the performance of his duties, and it was an act which he, as the first coroner of the country, by virtue of his office as Chief Justice pf the Court of the King's' Bench, felt specially called upon to denounce. The next witnesses-Mr. Crisp, the police inspector at Rugeley; and Mr. Berger, a superintendent pf rural police, who produced books containing entries in the, handwriting of the prisoner with respect to the'nature of strychnia. To these entries the learned judge did not attach the slightest importance, coming as they did from a medical man.": Then followed the evidence of Mrs. Hawkes, who kept a bo;irding-house in Beauford-buildings, Strand, who deposed to her having purchased game and fish on Mr. Palmer's account, which had afterwards been forwarded by his direction to Ward, the coroner. The succeeding witness was Mr. Herring, who deposed to the interview between him and Palmer on the Monday before Cook's death, at which Palmer authorised him to .settle Cook's account at Tattersall's on that day, and to apply the money he was to receive to oertain specified purposes. The Lord Chief Justice then called the attention 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. Wind, the coroner, and at the same time told him not to let any one see him deliver it. He then proceeded to refer to the medical testimony, and he said the jury would have upon that testimony 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 LoiulonJHospital, was the first witness, and he described,the symptoms of the two diseases, .known as traumatic nnd idippathic tetanus, and expressed his'opinion that the symptoms exhibited by the deceased were not consistent with either the traumatic or idiopnthic form of the disease, The next witness was Dr. Todd, and his

evidence was to the same effect His lordship then called attention to ; the examination of Dr. B,imford, and to the face of his having stated that Cook contradicted the statement made by the prisoner .as to I having drunk too much champagne at dinner at : Palmer's, and to this being the cause of his illness, and that he had only drunk two glasses. He also called their attention to the fact of the prisoner having taken the medicine from Dr. Bamford's surgery on the Tuesday night. This was most important evidence. 'I he prisoner saw the pills' made up, and had them in his possession, and most cerUinly had the opportunity of changing them. Whether he did so or not was a subject for their consideration. As to this gentleman having signed a certificate, that the death was from apoplexy, it did not appear that there was any bad faith on his part, and it seemed to be agreed on all hands that he was mistaken in ascribing death to apoplexy. Dr. Todd stated distinctly, in his cross examination that the symptoms exhibited by Mr. Cook certainly did not resemble those of either traumatic or idiopathic.; tetanus, but they did;correspond in every respect with those _of tetanus, from the poison ofstrychnia. The next witness was one whose high character for scientific knowledge jendered his opinion of very great importance in this inquiry —he.meant Sir Benjamin Brodie. This gentleman concurred with the other medical -witnesses as to the symptoms in Mr. Cook's case being those of* tetanus from .strychnia, and not: from any natural cause ; and the earliest period he had ever heard of death arising from natural tetanus was twelve hours; and he expressed an opinion that it was very probable that in that case some of the earlier symptom's had been overlooked. They had here the solemn evidence of this, distinguished witness that he knew of no natural disease that would account for the symptoms exhibited by the deceased in this case,;and the jury, if they.gave effect to this testimony, would..then;haveto consider to what other cause the death might fairly be assigned. Dr. Daniel, ''the' next witness, entirely concurred in the opinion expressed by Sir B.: Brodie, and he also expressed an opinion that Cook\ c symptoms were not such as would arise either from te*anus or epilepsy. The next evidencewas that of Dr. Solly and Dr. Lee, and the last-named gentlemen stated, in answer to a question made onbehalf of the prisoner^ that he had never-heard of syphilis either in its primary or secondary symptoms, producing tetanus. Dr. Corbett. Physician of the Glasgow Infirmary, showed the syjnptoms exhibited in the case of Agnes Sennet, and which was one of undoubted poisoning "by strychnia, and the jury would judge whether or not they were similar to those spoken to in the case of Mr..Cook.' There was also the Ro.msey case, where the lady named Sargenson. Smy the was accidentally poisoned by strychnia, administered by mistake in her medicine. A case at Leeds was then brought forward; that was also atv undoubted case of death, from strychnia, and the jury would have to consider in this casealso, whether the symptoms spoken to.didordid not resemble those of Mr. Cook. Dr. Morely was the medical gentleman who had attended upon the patient in this case, and he more particularly described 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 presence of strychnia. With regard to the presence of strychnia being discovered, this gentleman expressed an opinion that where the minimum dose was used to destroy life it was possible that it might not he discovered in the body of the person or animal killed by the poison. It was relied upon for the prisoner that there was no strychnia found in the body of the deceased upon the analysis by Dr. Taylor and Dr. Reesj but according to the evidence of these gentlemen, in two cases at least, where death was undoubtedly the result of strychnia, they could not by all the skill they possessed, discover the presence of strychnia in the" body of the animal after death. Whatever might be "the- value of the different theories that had been propounded upon the subject, it was perfectly clear upon the evidence that in two cases, at least, where poison had been administered to the animal and death was the result, no strychnia was discovered in the budies after death. His lordship then called the attention of the jury to^ the fact oi 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 considerable quantity at one time it would have the effect of causing a constricting sensation in the throat, similar to that described by Cook on the night of his illness at Shrewsbury. His lordship then called the attention of the jury'to the letter writen by Dr. Taylor to Mr, Gardner,"the solicitor at llugeley, and' which was opened by the postmaster, Cheshire, and the contents communicated to the prisoner; and he reminded the jury that at this time neither Dr. Taylor nor Dr." Rees was acquainted with the symptoms that had been exhibitsd"»by the deceased, but they were clearly of opinion that antimony in continual doses would be very likely to cause death. He should not comment upon the evidence of Dr.

Taylor, because its importance was apparent; ha proved tha existence of antimony in the body oi the deceased, and also that no strychnia was discovered after death in the bodies of certain animals that had j undoubtedly beeu killed by that poi>on. Dr. Rees j confirmed the evidence given by Dr. Taylor, and proved distinctly that in two out of four easesvhere the animals were destroyed by strychnia no poison could afterwards be discovered. The jury would judge from all the facts whether antimony was not administered at Shrewsbury and again at llugehy ; and, although antimony was not the cause of death, vet it was evidently a most important ingredient of the charge against the prisoner, and of the evidence by which it was sought to he supported. Professor Rrantle also confirmed the evidence as to the discovery of -intimony. Professor Christison, a man of the greatest eminence and skill in his profession, corroborated, in all the material points, the other medical testimony. With regard to the point of the interval that elapsed between the adminisjration of the poison and its effects becoming apparent, there was this important evidence—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 coma so quickly; and Professor Christison also stated his opinion that there was no natural 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 this concluded the evidence of the prosecution. The learned Judge did not conclude until eight o'clock his review of the evidence of the piooecutioa, »nd. at that hour the court a!joun;ed.