Why, did you not receive a cheque for £5 for attesting it?--I think I
did receive a cheque for £5.
Did you not see William Palmer write this upon the counterfoil of his
cheque-book [cheque-book handed to witness]?--Witness, with hesitation:
I cannot positively swear that I did.
Did you not, sir, see him write it?--That is William Palmer’s
handwriting [referring to the cheque-book].
Did you not know that you got a five pound cheque for attesting that
signature?--I may have got a cheque for £5, but I may not have got it
for attesting the signature of the document.
You say you got £200 for Cook--£100 from Mrs. Palmer and £100 from
William Palmer?--Yes, and he gave £10 for the recommendation.
To whom?--To William Palmer.
Do you not know that the £200 bill was given for the purpose of enabling
William Palmer to make up a sum of £500?--I believe it was not, for Cook
received absolutely from me £200.
Did he not have the money from you in order to take up to London to pay
Pratt?--No, he took it with him, I think, to Shrewsbury, to the races.
Who was the bill drawn in favour of?--I think William Palmer.
What became of the bill?--I do not know.
Witness: I was not present at the inquest on Cook. I can’t say who saw
me when I went to the Talbot Arms and went into Cook’s room. One of the
servants gave me a candle--either Bond, Mills, or Lavinia Barnes.
Re-examined by Mr. Serjeant SHEE: I have known Mrs. Palmer twenty years.
I knew her before her husband’s death. I should say she is sixty years
of age. William Palmer is not her eldest son. Joseph is the eldest. He
resides at Liverpool. He is forty-five or forty-six years of age. I
think George is the next son. He lives at Rugeley. He was frequently at
his mother’s house. There is another son, a clergyman of the Church of
England. He resided with his mother until within the last two years,
except when he was at college. There is a daughter. She lives with her
mother. There are three servants. Mrs. Palmer’s family does not visit
much in the neighbourhood of Rugeley. Her house is a large one. I slept
in a room nearest the Old Church.
Mr. Serjeant SHEE: Is there any pretence for saying you have ever been
charged with any improper intimacy with Mrs. Palmer?--Witness: I hope
not.
Mr. Serjeant SHEE: Is there any pretence for saying so?--Witness: There
ought not to be.
Mr. Serjeant SHEE: Is there any truth in the statement or suggestion
that you have had any improper intimacy with Mrs. Palmer?--Witness: They
might have said so, but there is no reason.
Mr. Serjeant SHEE: Is there any truth in the statement?--Witness: I
should say not.
Mr. Serjeant SHEE: When did it come to your knowledge that there was a
proposal for Walter’s life?--Witness: I never heard of it until the
inquest.
The Court then adjourned for about twenty minutes, when the proceedings
were resumed.
W. JOSEPH SAUNDERS was then called up on his subpœna, but did not
appear.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he should be extremely sorry to commence his
reply if there was any chance of witness making his appearance.
Mr. Serjeant SHEE said he should now ask for the production of a letter
written by Cook to Palmer on Jan. 4, 1855.
The letter, of which the following is a copy, was then put in and
read:--
“Lutterworth, Jan. 4, 1855.
“My dear Sir,--I sent up to London on Tuesday to back St. Hubert
for £50, and my commission has returned 10s. 1d. I have, therefore,
booked 250 to 25 against him, to gain money. There is a small
balance of £18 due to you, which I forgot to give you the other
day. Tell Will to debit me with it on account of your share of
training Pyrrhine. I will also write to him to do so, as there will
be a balance due from him to me.
Yours faithfully,
“J. PARSONS COOK.”
“W. Palmer, Esq.”
Mr. Serjeant SHEE submitted that he was entitled to reply on a part of
evidence. The course taken by the Attorney-General on getting at the
contents of the cheque, the contents of an assignment of the policy on
Walter Palmer’s life, and the contents of the proposals to various
offices for the insurance, he submitted entitled him to a reply on those
points.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE: We are of opinion that you have no right to
reply.
Mr. BARON ALDERSON: That is quite clear.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he had been taken somewhat by surprise
yesterday by the evidence of Dr. Richardson, with respect to angina
pectoris. Dr. Richardson adverted to several books and authorities. He
had now those books in his possession, and was desirous of putting some
questions arising out of that part of the evidence.
The Court decided against the application.
The case for the defence here concluded.