“You must send me, for Mr. Cook, by Monday night’s post (to the
Post Office, Doncaster), £385, instead of £375, and the wine
warrant, so that I can hand it to him with the £375, and that will
be allowing you £50 for the discount, &c. I shall then get £10, and
I expect I shall have to take to the wine, and give him the money;
but I shall not do so if you do not send £385, and be good enough
to enclose my £315 with it, in cash, in a registered letter, and
direct it to me to the Post Office, Doncaster.”
I accordingly wrote to Palmer at the Post-office, Doncaster, enclosing
£300 in notes, and a cheque for £375. I struck out the words “or
bearer,” so that it was payable to order. In the letter I said:--
“You know by this time that if I do what I can to accommodate you,
there is a limit to my means to do so, and more particularly as in
this instance you have been the means of shutting up a supply I
could generally go to. I think also you had little reason to allude
to the £10 difference after the trouble, correspondence, &c., I had
with respect to a second insurance you know of, which, although it
did not come off, arose not from any lack of industry on my part. I
have no reply as yet from the Prince of Wales. When shall I see you
about the three £2,000 bills coming due at the end of this month? I
speak in time, in order that you may be prepared in case anything
untoward happens with the Prince of Wales. I am obliged to send a
check for Cook, as I have not received the money, which I shall do,
no doubt, to-morrow.”
The check for £375 and the wine-warrant was the consideration for Cook’s
bill of sale for £500. The other £300 had nothing to do with Cook’s
transactions. [A letter from Palmer was then read, acknowledging the
receipt of the previous letter, with the enclosures.] I had one other
transaction with Cook before this. It related to an acceptance of Cook’s
for £200, which was paid. I had no other pecuniary transactions whatever
with him. The date of that first transaction was the end of April or the
beginning of May, 1855. The bill was drawn by Palmer on Cook, and was
paid by Cook.
Mr. Stevens was here recalled, and having examined the endorsement on
the check for £375, said--This endorsement is not in the handwriting of
Cook. I never saw him write his name otherwise than “J. Parsons Cook,”
whereas this is written “J. P. Cook.”
Mr. Strawbridge was shown some acceptances purporting to be by Mrs.
Sarah Palmer, and said that none of them were in Mrs. Palmer’s
handwriting.
William Cheshire, who had been a clerk in the bank at Rugeley, in
September last, proved that Palmer had an account there, and that the
check already in evidence had been received by him, and carried to
Palmer’s credit.
Cross-examined: I did not know Cook; he never had any transactions with
us.
Mr. PRATT was then cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant SHEE: Previous to May,
1855, I knew nothing at all about Cook. I then held a sum of £310 due to
Palmer, and he wished me to add £190 to it, and to pay £500 to a Mr.
Sargent. I declined to do that without further security. He proposed the
security of Cook’s acceptances, and represented Cook to be a gentleman
of respectability and substance. On his representation I agreed to
accept a bill drawn by him on Cook for £200, and to make the advance. He
thus got the £500. I wrote to Cook about the first transaction. I also
wrote to him before his death, on the 13th of November, reminding him
that £500 was due on December 2. I sent the letter to him at
Lutterworth.
Re-examined: The first £200 bill was due on the 29th of June, but
was not then paid. I wrote about it, and Cook came up on the 2nd of
July and paid it. I did not see him.
JOHN ARMSHAW, examined by Mr. WELSBY: I am an attorney, practising
at Rugeley. About the 13th of November I was employed to apply to
Palmer for payment of a debt of about £60, due to some mercers and
drapers at Rugeley. On the 19th of November I sent up to London
instructions for a writ. On the next morning (the 20th), I went to
Palmer’s house. He gave me two £50 notes, and said he hoped he
should not be put to the cost of the writ. One was a Bank of
England, the other a local note. I took them to my employer to get
the receipt and change, and to settle about the costs.
JOHN WALLBANK, examined by Mr. WELSBY: I am a butcher at Rugeley.
On the Monday in Shrewsbury race week, Palmer’s man came to me and
fetched me to Palmer’s house. Palmer said, “I want you to lend me
£25.” I said, “Doctor, I’m very short of money, but I’ll try if I
can get it.” He said, “Do, that’s a good fellow; I’ll give it you
again on Saturday morning, as I shall then have received some money
at Shrewsbury.” On the Saturday I met him in the street, went to
his house with him, and he paid me the money.
Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant SHEE: Palmer had lent me money
sometimes when I had asked him. His mother lived in the town, in a
large house near the church. He was in the habit of going there.
JOHN SPILLBURY, examined by Mr. BODKIN: I am a farmer, near
Stafford, and have had dealings with Palmer. In November last he
owed me £46 2s. On the 22nd of November (Thursday), I called on him
and he paid me that amount. He gave me a Bank of England note for
£50. I called casually. I had not applied to him for the money.
That was the first transaction I had with him.
Mr. STRAWBRIDGE, examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, said: On the
19th of November Palmer had an account at the bank, and there was a
balance of £9. 6_s._ in his favour. Nothing was paid to his account
after that. The 10th of October was the last date on which anything
was paid to the account. The amount then paid was £50.
HERBERT WRIGHT, examined by Mr. E. JAMES: I am a solicitor, in
partnership with my brother, at Birmingham. I have known Palmer
since July, 1851. In November, 1855, he owed my brother £10,400. We
had a bill of sale upon his property. [It was produced and read. It
recited that Palmer was indebted to Edwin Wright in the sum of
£6,500, on account of bills of exchange accepted by Sarah Palmer
and endorsed by Palmer to Wright, and as security for that amount,
and a further sum of £2,300, which had been advanced to him, a
power of sale, subject to redemption, was given by Palmer over the
whole of his property, including his horses.] All the advances were
made upon bills, together with other collateral security. All the
bills are here. [The bills purporting to be accepted by Palmer’s
mother were produced; also an acceptance of Palmer’s for £1,600.]
In the early part of November I was pressing Palmer for payment.
Many of the bills were overdue. Palmer always said the money would
be paid after the Cambridgeshire races at Newmarket. I put the bill
of sale in force in December, after the verdict of the coroner’s
jury was returned. I was present when the property was taken. I
found no papers in the house.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant SHEE: A sheriff’s officer effected
the seizure, and an auctioneer followed him.
Should you have objected to give Palmer more time for payment if you had
been asked?--I hardly know; probably I should not. I was not hostile to
him. I never accommodated Cook. I had offered to do so, but the
transaction never assumed completion. (A laugh.)
Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL: These bills were discounted at 60
per cent. per annum, and would have been renewed probably at the same
rate of interest.
Mr. STRAWBRIDGE proved that the acceptances produced by the last witness
were not in the handwriting of Mrs. Palmer.
Cross-examined: They are a bad imitation of her hand.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that Mr. Weatherby was the only remaining
witness for the prosecution, and, as he was not now in court, he hoped
their Lordships would allow him to be examined in the morning, before
his learned friend opened the defence.
Mr. Sergeant SHEE asked the Court to permit the witness Mills to be
recalled, in order that he might examine her as to where she was now
residing.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: She was cross-examined upon that point.
Lord CAMPBELL: We are of opinion that there is no ground for recalling
her.
Mr. Sergeant SHEE asked permission to put some further questions to Dr.
Devonshire with regard to his having been pushed by Palmer during the
_post-mortem_ examination.
Lord CAMPBELL: By all means.
Mr. Justice CRESSWELL observed that he did not think it was a
circumstance to which much importance could be attached; he had not
taken a note of it.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON expressed a similar opinion. There was nothing
extraordinary in a person who was interested in the examination being
anxious to see all that was going on.
Mr. Sergeant SHEE, after that intimation of their Lordships’ opinion,
would not press his request.
Lord CAMPBELL hoped that the jury would have an opportunity given them
of breathing the fresh air that fine evening.
The Court adjourned at half-past 3 o’clock until 10 o’clock Wednesday
morning.