Silence having been proclaimed,
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE (CAMPBELL) proceeded to sum up the case to the
jury; but spoke in so low a tone that some part of his address was not
audible in the reporters’ inconvenient box. He said,--Gentlemen of the
Jury, we have at length arrived at that stage in this solemn and
important case when it becomes the duty of the Judge to explain to you
the nature of the charge brought against the prisoner, and the questions
and considerations upon which your verdict ought to be given. Gentlemen,
I must begin by conjuring you to banish from your minds all that you may
have heard before the prisoner was placed in that dock. There is no
doubt that a strong prejudice elsewhere did prevail against the prisoner
at the bar. In the county of Stafford, where the offence for which he
has to answer was alleged to have been committed, that prejudice was so
strong that the Court of Queen’s Bench made an order to remove the trial
from that county. The prisoner, by his counsel, expressed a wish that
the trial might take place at the Central Criminal Court; and to enable
that wish to be accomplished an act has been passed by the Legislature,
authorising the Court of Queen’s Bench to direct the trial to be held in
this Court, so as to secure to the prisoner that he shall have a fair
and impartial trial.
Gentlemen, I must not only warn you against being influenced by what you
have before heard, but I must also warn you not to be influenced by
anything but by the evidence which has been laid before you with respect
to the particular charge for which the prisoner is now arraigned. It is
necessary that I should so warn you in this case, because the evidence
certainly implicates the prisoner in transactions of another description
which are very discreditable. It appears that he has forged a great many
bills of exchange, and that he had entered upon transactions which were
not of a creditable nature. Those transactions, however, must be
excluded from your consideration altogether. By the practice in foreign
countries it is allowed to raise a probability of the prisoner having
committed the crime with which he is charged by proving that he has
committed other offences--by showing that he is an immoral man, and that
he is not unlikely, therefore, to have committed the offence with which
he is charged. That is not the case in this country. You must presume
that a man is innocent until his guilt be established, and his guilt can
only be established by evidence directly criminating him on the charge
for which he is tried. Gentlemen, it gives me great satisfaction that
this case has been so fully laid before you. Everything has been done
that could have been accomplished for the purpose of assisting the jury
in arriving at a right conclusion. The prosecution has been taken up by
the Government, so that justice may be duly administered, the
Attorney-General, who is the first law officer of the Crown, having
conducted it in his capacity of a minister of justice. The prisoner also
appears to have had ample means for conducting his defence; witnesses
have very properly been brought from all parts of the kingdom to give
you the benefit of their information; and he has had the advantage of
having his case conducted by one of the most distinguished advocates of
the English bar. Gentlemen, I must strongly recommend to you to attend
to everything that fell from that advocate, so eloquently, so ably, and
so impressively. You are to judge, however, of the guilt or innocence of
the prisoner from the evidence, and not from the speeches of counsel,
however able or eloquent those speeches may be. When a counsel tells you
that he believes his client to be innocent, remember that that is
analogous to the mere form by which a prisoner pleads “Not Guilty.” It
goes for nothing more; and the most inconvenient consequences must
follow from regarding it in any other light.
I will now say a few words in order to call to your minds what are the
allegations in this case on one side and on the other. On the part of
the prosecution it is alleged that the deceased, John Parsons Cook, was
first tampered with by antimony, that he was then killed by the poison
of strychnia, and that his symptoms were the symptoms of poisoning by
strychnia. Then it is alleged that the prisoner at the bar had a motive
for making away with the deceased, that he had an opportunity of
administering poison, that suspicion could fall upon no one else, and
that a few days before the time when the poison is supposed to have been
administered he had purchased strychnia at two different places. It is
also alleged by the prosecution that his conduct during that
transaction, and after it, was that of a guilty and not of an innocent
man. The prisoner at the bar, on the other hand, puts forward these
allegations--that he had no interest in procuring the death of John
Parsons Cook, but, on the contrary, that it was his interest to keep him
alive; that the death was not occasioned by strychnia, but by natural
disease, and that the symptoms were those of natural disease, and were
by no means consistent with, the supposition of death by strychnia.
These are the allegations which are urged upon one side and the other,
and it is for you to say, upon the evidence, which, of these allegations
you believe to be founded on truth.
Gentlemen, you have a most anxious duty to perform. The life of the
prisoner is at stake; if he be guilty, it is necessary that he should
expiate his crime; if he be innocent, it is requisite that his innocence
should be vindicated. If his guilt be proved to you on satisfactory
evidence, it is your duty to society and to yourselves to convict him;
but unless his guilt be fully sustained by the evidence, it is your duty
to acquit him. You must bear in mind that in a case of this sort you
cannot expect that witnesses should be called to state that they saw the
deadly poison mixed up by the prisoner, and by him openly administered.
Circumstantial evidence of the fact is all that can be expected; and if
there be a series of circumstances leading to the conclusion of guilt, a
verdict of guilty may be satisfactorily pronounced. With respect to the
motive, it is of great importance, in cases of this description, that
you should consider whether there was any motive for committing the
crime with which a prisoner is charged, for if there be no motive, there
is an improbability of the offence having been committed. If, on the
other hand, there be any motive which can be assigned for the commission
of the deed, the adequacy of that motive becomes next a matter of the
utmost importance.
The great question which you will have to consider is, whether the
symptoms of Cook’s death are consistent with poisoning by strychnia. If
they are not, and you believe that the death arose from natural causes,
the prisoner is at once entitled to your verdict of Not Guilty. If, on
the other hand, you think that the symptoms are consistent with
poisoning by strychnia, you have another and important question to
decide--namely, whether the evidence which has been adduced is
sufficient to convince you that death was effected by strychnia, and, if
so, whether such strychnia was administered by the prisoner. In cases of
this sort the evidence has often been divided into the medical, and the
moral, or circumstantial evidence. They cannot be separated, however, in
the minds of a jury, because it is by a combination of those two species
of evidence that their verdict ought to be given. In this case you must
look at the medical evidence, to see whether the deceased died from
strychnia or from natural causes; and you must look to what is called
the moral evidence, to consider whether that shows that the prisoner not
only had the opportunity, but that he actually availed himself of that
opportunity, and administered the poison to the deceased. Now,
gentlemen, with these preliminary observations, I will proceed to read
over the evidence which has been given in the course of this long trial,
praying you most earnestly to weigh that evidence carefully, and to be
guided entirely by it in the verdict at which you may arrive. I begin
with that part of the case which was first raised by the
Attorney-General, with respect to the motive which the prisoner is
supposed to have had for taking away the life of John Parsons Cook. Now,
I think that that arises out of certain pecuniary transactions which
must be fresh in the minds of all of you. It appears that the prisoner
had borrowed large sums of money upon bills of exchange, which he drew,
and which purported to be accepted by his mother--a lady, it seems, of
considerable wealth, residing at Rugeley. Those acceptances were forged,
and the lady was not aware of them until a recent period, when they
became due, and proceedings were taken upon them. One of those
acceptances, for £2,000, was in the hands of a gentleman named Padwick;
£1,000 had been paid, and £1,000 remained due to Mr. Padwick upon that
bill. A solicitor named Pratt, of Queen-street, Mayfair, had advanced
large sums of money to the prisoner upon similar bills to the amount, I
think of £12,500. Several of those bills had been renewed without the
knowledge of the mother; but there were two which remained
unrenewed--one, for £2,000, became due on the 25th of October, 1855, and
another, for £2,000, became due on the 27th of October, 1855. Besides
these, Mr. Pratt held one bill for £500, and another for £1,000, which
were overdue, but not renewed, and which Pratt held over, charging a
very high rate of interest upon them.
In addition to these large sums, which had been advanced by Pratt to the
prisoner, it appears that upon similar bills Palmer had contracted a
very large debt with an attorney at Birmingham, named Wright, to whom he
owed £10,400. It had been stated by Palmer that he should be able to
liquidate those bills by the proceeds of a policy of assurance which had
been effected on the life of his brother, Walter Palmer. Gentlemen, the
law of this country wisely forbids an insurance being effected by one
person upon the life of another who has no interest in that life; but,
unfortunately, it does not prevent a man from insuring his own life to
any amount, however large, and whatever his position may be, and
assigning the policy of that insurance to another person. It has been
proved in evidence that there had been an insurance for £13,000 effected
on the life of Walter Palmer, who was a bankrupt, without any means
except such as were furnished to him by his mother; and that the policy
had been assigned by Walter Palmer to the prisoner at the bar. It was
expected that the £13,000 insured upon the life of his brother would be
the means of enabling the prisoner to meet the acceptances to which I
have referred, but the directors of the Prince of Wales Insurance-office
denied their liability upon that policy, and refused to pay it. Hence
arose the most pressing embarrassments; claimants were urging the
payment of their accounts, and it was evident that, unless they were
immediately paid, the law would be put in force against the prisoner and
his mother, and that the system of forgeries which had been so long
carried on would be made apparent. Now I begin with the evidence of Mr.
John Espin, a solicitor practising in Davies-street, Berkeley-square.
[The learned Judge then read the evidence of Mr. Espin with respect to
the £2,000 bill held by Mr. Padwick, the dishonouring of the cheque for
£1,000, and the final issuing of a _ca. sa._ against the person of the
prisoner on the 12th of December.] This, continued the noble Lord, is
certainly strong evidence to show the desperate state of the prisoner’s
circumstances at that time; but we now come to the evidence of Mr.
Thomas Pratt, who had advanced money to the prisoner upon bills of
exchange, which bore the forged acceptance of the prisoner’s mother, to
the amount of £12,500. [The learned Judge then proceeded to read the
whole of the evidence of Mr. Pratt, together with the voluminous
correspondence between that gentleman and the prisoner, detailing the
entire history of the transactions which had taken place between them
from the date of their first acquaintance in November, 1853, down to the
period of the apprehension of the prisoner upon the present charge. They
will be found reported in their proper place.] With regard to the letter
subjoined, and marked “strictly private and confidential,”--
“My dear Sir,--Should any of Cook’s friends call upon you to know
what money Cook ever had from you, pray don’t answer that question
or any other about money matters until I have seen you.
“And oblige yours faithfully,
“WILLIAM PALMER.”
--the learned Judge observed that the jury would recollect that when
that letter was written Mr. Stevens, the stepfather of Cook, was making
inquiries of a nature which were certainly very disagreeable to Palmer.
[Having first disposed of that portion of the correspondence respecting
money due from Palmer to Pratt, and with regard to which Cook, was
supposed to have no interest, the learned judge next proceeded to read
that branch of the correspondence relating to the assignment of the two
racehorses, Polestar and Sirius, and to some other occurrences to which
Cook was supposed to have been a party.] With respect to the cheque for
£375, sent by Pratt to Palmer for Cook, from which the words “or bearer”
had been struck out, his Lordship observed:--Now, it is rather suggested
on the part of the prosecution, upon this evidence, that Cook had been
defrauded of this money by Palmer, and certainly the endorsement was not
in Cook’s handwriting; but, as was very properly argued on the part of
Palmer, it is very possible that Cook may have authorized Palmer or some
one else to write his name. Cheshire, a clerk in the bank, is then
called, and says that the check was carried to Palmer’s account. Now,
all this may have happened with the consent of Cook, in pursuance of
some agreement between him and Palmer. [His Lordship then read the
cross-examination of Pratt, the bill of £500, drawn by Palmer on Cook,
and payable on the 2nd of December, and also the evidence of Armshaw,
who proved that on the 13th November Palmer was in a state of
embarrassment, and that on the 20th he received from him two £50 notes.
It is for you, gentlemen, to draw your own inference from this evidence.
Having before the races been pressed for money, on the night of the
Tuesday on which Cook died he has two £50 notes in his possession. [His
Lordship next read the evidence of Spillbury, who on the 22nd of
November received a £50 note from Palmer; and of Strawbridge, who proved
that on the 19th of November his balance at the bank was only £9 6s.]
This evidence certainly shows that the finances of the prisoner were at
the lowest ebb, and he had no means of meeting his bills. [His Lordship
next read Wright’s evidence as to the large debts due to his brother
from Palmer, and the bill of sale given by Palmer, as security, upon the
whole of his property; Strawbridge’s evidence as to the forgery of Mrs.
Palmer’s name to acceptances; and the further evidence of Mr. Weatherby,
particularly calling the attention of the jury to the fact of the cheque
purporting to be signed by Cook having been returned to Palmer by Mr.
Weatherby, when he refused payment of it.] A great deal, said his
Lordship, turns upon the question of whether that cheque was really
signed by Cook or not, as, if not, it shows that Palmer was dealing with
Cook’s money and appropriating it to his own use.
Mr. Serjeant SHEE observed that Mr. Weatherby expressed an opinion that
the cheque was Cook’s.
Lord CAMPBELL: Mr. Weatherby said that the body of the cheque was not in
Cook’s handwriting, and he had paid no attention to the signature. You,
gentlemen, must consider all the evidence with regard to this part of
the case. The cheque is not produced, although it was sent back by Mr.
Weatherby to Palmer, and notice to produce it has been given. If it had
been produced we could have seen whether Cook’s signature was genuine.
It is not produced! [His Lordship then read the evidence of Butler, to
whom Palmer owed money in respect of bets; and of Bergen, an inspector
of police, who had searched Palmer’s house for papers after the
inquest.] It might have been expected that the cheque which was returned
by Mr. Weatherby to Palmer, who professed to set store upon it, and to
have given value for it, and who required Mr. Weatherby not to pay away
any money until it had been satisfied, would have been found, but it is
not forthcoming. It is for you to draw whatever inference may suggest
itself to you from this circumstance. We then come to the arrest of
Palmer. Now, as it strikes my mind, the circumstance that Palmer
remained in the neighbourhood after suspicion had risen against him is
of importance, and ought to be taken into consideration by you, although
he may, perhaps, have done so thinking that from the care he had taken
nothing could ever be discovered against him. It seems, however, that he
was imprisoned on civil process before the verdict of the coroner’s jury
rendered him amenable to a criminal charge. Besides the cheque
purporting to be signed by Cook, the prisoner also had in his possession
a document purporting that certain bills had been accepted by him for
Cook, but neither that document nor any such bills have been found. All
the papers which were not retained were returned to the prisoner’s
brother, and notice has been given to produce them, but neither the
bills nor the document are produced. With regard to this witness’s
statement, that Field was at Rugeley, I know not how it is connected
with the present investigation. If Field was employed ta inquire into
the health of Walter Palmer at the time the insurance was effected on
his life, and into the circumstances of his death, I know not what he
can have to do with the question you are to determine.
This, then, is the conclusion of the evidence upon one branch of the
case, and now begins the evidence relating to the health of Cook and the
events immediately preceding his death. [His Lordship then read the
evidence of Ismael Fisher, observing in the course of it that one of the
most mysterious circumstances in the case was that after Cook had stated
his suspicion as to Palmer having put something in his brandy he
remained constantly in Palmer’s company; he appeared to have entire
confidence in Palmer, and during the few remaining days of his life he
sent for Palmer whenever he was in distress; in fact, he seemed to be
under the influence of Palmer to a very great extent. His Lordship also
directed the attention of the jury to the circumstance of the £700 which
Cook had intrusted to the care of Fisher having been returned to him on
the morning of the day on which he went with Palmer to Rugeley. His
Lordship then read Fisher’s statement that he had been in the habit of
settling Cook’s account.] And now, he continued, comes the very
important letter of the 16th of November. Certainly if Cook induced
Fisher to make an advance of £200 on the security of his bets, and then
employed another person to collect those bets, there was a fraud on his
part. In the letter of the 16th of November Cook says--“It is of great
importance, both to Mr. Palmer and myself, that a sum of £500 should be
paid to Mr. Pratt, of 5, Queen-street, Mayfair, to-morrow, without fail.
£300 has been sent up to-night, and if you will be kind enough to pay
the other £200 to-morrow, on the receipt of this, you will greatly
oblige me, and I will give it to you on Monday at Tattersall’s.”
Mr. Serjeant SHEE: There is a postscript, my Lord.
Lord CAMPBELL. Yes. “I am much better.” Now, the signature to this
letter is undoubtedly genuine, and it shows, first, that Cook at that
time intended to be in London on the Monday, and, secondly, that he
desired an advance of £200 to pay Pratt. How he came to alter his
intention as to going to London, and how Herring came to be employed for
him instead of Fisher, you must infer for yourselves. But if he
authorised the employment of Herring in order to prevent Fisher from
reimbursing himself, he was a party to a fraud. You must infer whether
he did so or not. [His Lordship then read the remainder of Fisher’s
evidence, and also the evidence of Mr. Jones, the law stationer, of
Gibson, and of Mrs. Brook.] This, he said, ends the history of Cook’s
illness at Shrewsbury. Taken by itself it amounts to very little, but
in connexion with what follows it deserves your serious consideration.
Then with regard to what took place at the Talbot Arms, at Rugeley,
where Cook lodged, you have a most important witness--Elizabeth Mills.
[His Lordship then read the evidence of Mills, observing that the events
of Monday and Tuesday, the 19th and 20th of November, and the symptoms
which immediately preceded the death of Cook, formed a most material
part of the case.] It has been suggested, continued the learned Judge,
by the counsel for the defence, that Elizabeth Mills may have been
bribed by Mr. Stevens, the father-in-law of Cook, to give evidence
prejudicial to the prisoner; but, in justice both to Mr. Stevens and to
Elizabeth Mills, I am bound to declare that not one fact has been
adduced to warrant us in believing that there is the slightest
foundation for any such statement. It has also been alleged that Mr.
Stevens called upon Elizabeth Mills, and read to her an extract from a
newspaper, with the view, it is presumed, of influencing her evidence or
guiding it in a particular direction; but this, too, is a gratuitous
assertion, and, so far from being supported by the evidence, it is
distinctly denied. As regards the manner in which Palmer was dressed
when he ran over from his own house to the Talbot Arms on the night of
Cook’s death, there is no doubt a difference between the testimony of
Elizabeth Mills and that of her fellow-servant, Lavinia Barnes, the
former asserting that he wore a plaid dressing-gown, and the latter a
black coat; but it is for you to decide whether the point is of
sufficient significance to justify a suspicion dishonourable to the
veracity of either witness. It has been asserted also that there are
certain discrepancies between the evidence given by Elizabeth Mills
before the coroner and that which she gave in your presence. That you
may the more accurately estimate the importance of those differences it
is competent for the prisoner’s counsel to require that the depositions
shall be read. What say you, brother Shee?
Mr. Serjeant SHEE: With, your Lordship’s permission, we desire to have
them read.
Lord CAMPBELL: Then let them be read, by all means.
The Clerk of Arraigns then read the depositions of Elizabeth Mills, as
taken before the coroner.
Lord CAMPBELL: You have now heard the depositions read, and you will
decide for yourselves whether her statements before the coroner are not
substantially the same as those which she made before you in the course
of her examination. You will have to determine whether there is any
material discrepancy between them. Her own explanation 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: but
that she was sick the evidence of another witness goes distinctly to
prove; and it is for you to say whether, corroborated as it thus is, the
testimony of Elizabeth Mills is worthy of being believed, and, if so,
what inference should be drawn from it. The next witnesses are Mr. James
Gardner, attorney, of Rugeley, and Lavinia Barnes, fellow-servant of
Elizabeth Mills, at the Talbot Arms Inn. The learned judge, having read
his notes of the evidence of the witnesses in question, observed, the
testimony of Lavinia Barnes corroborates that of Mills as to the latter
having been seized with illness immediately after she had taken two
spoonfuls of the broth. There is some little difference of evidence as
to the exact time when Palmer was seen at Rugeley on the Monday night,
after his return from London; but you have before you the statements of
all the witnesses, and you will decide whether the point is one of
essential importance. [The learned judge then read over, without
comment, his notes of the evidence given by the witnesses Ann Rowley and
Sarah Bond, and then proceeded to recapitulate the facts deposed to by
Mr. Jones, surgeon, of Lutterworth.] Your attention, he observed, has
been very properly directed to the letter written by the prisoner on
Sunday evening to Mr. Jones, summoning the latter to the sick bed of his
friend Cook. The learned counsel for the defence interprets that
document in a sense highly favourable to the prisoner, and contends that
the fact of his having insured the presence of such a witness is
conclusive evidence of the prisoner’s innocence. You will say whether
you think that it is fairly susceptible of such a construction. It is
important, however, to consider at what period of Cook’s illness Jones
was sent for, and in what a condition he was when Jones arrived.
Palmer’s assertion, in his letter to Jones, was, that Cook had been
suffering from diarrhæa; but of this statement we have not the slightest
corroboration in the evidence. When Jones, looking at Cook’s tongue,
observed that it was not the tongue of a bilious attack, Palmer’s reply
was, “You should have seen it before.” What reason could Palmer have had
for using these words, when there is not the slightest evidence of
Cook’s having suffered from such an illness? It is a matter for your
consideration. [The deposition of Jones taken before the coroner having
been read at the instance of Mr. Serjeant Shee, the learned Judge
remarks,--] It is for you to say whether, in your opinion, this
deposition at all varies from the evidence given by Mr. Jones when
examined here; I confess that I see no variation and no reason to
suppose that Mr. Jones’s evidence is not the evidence of sincerity and
of truth.
After observing that the evidence of Dr. Savage [which he read] went to
show that down to the hour of the Shrewsbury races and the attack on the
Wednesday night, Cook was in perhaps better health than he had enjoyed
for along time, the learned Judge called the attention of the jury to
the evidence of Charles Newton, who deposed to having famished three
grains of strychnia to Palmer on the Monday night, and to having seen
him at the shop of Mr. Hawkins on the Tuesday. Having read the evidence
of this witness and his deposition before the coroner, his Lordship
said:--This is the evidence of Newton, a most important witness. It
certainly might be urged that he did not mention the furnishing of the
strychnia to Palmer on the Monday night before the coroner; he did not
mention it till the Tuesday morning, when he was coming up to London.
That certainly requires consideration at your hands; but then you will
observe that in his deposition, which has been read to you, although
there is an omission of that, which is always to be borne in mind, there
is no contradiction of anything which he has said here. Well, then, you
are to consider what is the probability of his inventing this wicked
lie,--a most important lie, if lie it be. He had no ill-will towards the
prisoner at the bar; he had never quarreled with him, and had nothing to
gain by injuring him, much less by betraying him to the scaffold. I
cannot see any motive that he could have for inventing a lie to take
away the life of the prisoner. No inducement was held out to him by the
Crown; he says himself that no inducement was held out to him, and that
he at last disclosed this circumstance from a sense of duty. If you
believe him his evidence is very strong against the prisoner at the bar;
but we will now turn to the next witness, Charles Joseph Roberts, whose
evidence is closely connected with that of Newton. [Having read the
evidence of Roberts, Mr. Hawkins’s assistant, who stated that on the
Tuesday he sold to the prisoner, at his master’s shop, three grains of
strychnia, his Lordship continued--], This witness was not
cross-examined as to the veracity of his testimony, nor is he
contradicted in any way. It is not denied that on this Tuesday morning
the prisoner at the bar got six grains of strychnia from Roberts. If you
couple that with the statement of Newton--believing that statement--you
have evidence of strychnia having been procured by the prisoner on the
Monday night before the symptoms of strychnia were exhibited by Cook,
and by the evidence of Roberts, undenied and unquestioned, that on the
Tuesday six grains of strychnia were supplied to him.
Supposing you should come to the conclusion that the symptoms of Cook
were consistent with death by strychnia--if you think that his symptoms
are accounted for by merely natural disease, of course the strychnia
obtained by the prisoner on the Monday evening and the Tuesday morning
would have no effect; but if you should think that the symptoms which
Cook exhibited on the Monday and Tuesday nights are consistent with
strychnia, then a case is made out on the part of the Crown. After the
most anxious consideration, I can suggest no possible solution of the
purchase of this strychnia. The learned counsel for the prisoner told us
in his speech that there was nothing for which he would not account. He
quite properly denied that Newton was to be believed. Disbelieving
Newton, you have no evidence of strychnia being obtained on the Monday
evening; but, disbelieving Newton and believing Roberts, you have
evidence of six grains of strychnia being obtained by the prisoner on
the Tuesday morning, and of that you have no explanation. The learned
counsel did not favour us with the theory which he had formed in his own
mind with respect to that strychnia. There is no evidence,--there is no
suggestion how it was applied, what became of it. That must not
influence your verdict, unless you come to the conclusion that the
symptoms of Cook were consistent with death by strychnia. If you come to
that conclusion, I should shrink from my duty, I should be unworthy to
sit here, if I did not call your attention to the inference that, if he
purchased that strychnia, he purchased it for the purpose of
administering it to Cook. [The evidence next read by the learned Judge
was that of Mr. Stevens, the stepfather of Cook. Upon this the noble
Lord observed.--] The learned counsel for the prisoner, in the discharge
of his duty, made a very violent attack upon the character and conduct
of Mr. Stevens. It will be for you to say whether you think it deserved
that censure. In the conduct of that gentleman I cannot see anything in
the slightest degree deserving of blame or reprobation. Mr. Stevens was
attached to this young man, who was his stepson, and who had no one else
to take care of him; and, whatever the result of this trial may be, I
think there were appearances which might well justify suspicion. I know
nothing which Mr. Stevens did which he was not perfectly justified in
doing. Having been to Rugeley and seen the body of the deceased, he goes
to his respectable solicitors in London, who recommend him to a
respectable solicitor, Mr. Gardner, at Rugeley.
Under his advice Mr. Stevens acts; a conversation ensues between himself
and the prisoner Palmer, but I see nothing in the proceedings which he
took at all deserving animadversion. Whether Palmer had any right to
complain of what was said about the betting book, and whether Mr.
Stevens could be blamed for suspecting that Palmer had taken it, it is
for you to say. [Having read the evidence of the woman Keeley, who laid
out the body of Cook, and of Dr. Harland, who spoke to the circumstances
attending the two _post-mortem_ examinations, to the pushing of Mr.
Devonshire, who operated, and the removal of the jar on the first
occasion, the learned Judge continued--] From that push no inference
unfavourable to the prisoner can be drawn, as it might easily be the
result of accident. In the removal of the jar, there would be nothing
more than in the pushing, were it not coupled with the evidence
afterwards given, which may lead to the inference that there was a plan
to destroy the jar, and prevent the analysis of its contents. [The
learned Chief Justice then read the evidence of Mr. Devonshire, the
surgeon, of Rugeley; Dr. Monckton, the physician; of Mr. John Boycott,
the clerk to Messrs. Landor, Gardner, and Landor, the Rugeley attorneys;
and of James Myatt, the postboy of the Talbot Arms, who swore that
Palmer had offered him £10 to upset the fly containing Mr. Stevens and
the jar with the contents of the deceased’s stomach. Remarking upon the
evidence of this last witness, the Chief Justice said--] In cases of
circumstantial evidence you must look to the conduct of the person
charged, and you must consider whether that conduct is consistent with
innocence or is compatible with guilt. I see no reason to doubt the
evidence of that postboy. An attempt was made upon cross-examination to
show that the offer of £10 was not made in reference to the jar, but as
an inducement to upset Mr. Stevens. It was suggested, you will remember,
that Stevens had wantonly provoked Palmer, and that Palmer might be
excused, therefore, if he wished him to be upset. I see no ground for
supposing that Stevens gave Palmer any such provocation, and, if you
believe the postboy, that bribe was offered to him to induce him to
upset the jar. That is not, indeed, a decisive proof of guilt, but it is
for you to say whether the prisoner did not enter upon that contrivance
in order to prevent an opportunity of examining the contents of the jar,
which might contain evidence against him. We have next the evidence of
Samuel Cheshire, formerly postmaster at Rugeley. [The learned Judge read
the evidence, remarking upon the circumstance of Palmer calling upon him
to witness a document said to have been signed by Cook, as if he had
been present and had seen Cook sign it; upon the remarkable fact of
Palmer endeavouring to obtain information from Cheshire as to the
contents of the letter from Dr. Taylor to Mr. Gardner; and upon the
impropriety of the following letter, addressed by the prisoner to the
coroner, Mr. Ward, during the progress of the inquest:--
“My dear Sir,--I am sorry to tell you that I am still confined to
my bed. I don’t think it was mentioned at the inquest yesterday
that Cook was taken ill on Sunday and Monday night, in the same way
as he was on the Tuesday, when he died. The chambermaid at the
Crown Hotel (Masters’s) can prove this. I also believe that a man
of the name of Fisher is coming down to prove he received some
money at Shrewsbury. Now, here he could only pay Smith £10 out of
£41 he owed him. Had you not better call Smith to prove this? And,
again, whatever Professor Taylor may say to-morrow, he wrote from
London last Tuesday night to Gardner to say, ‘We (and Dr. Rees)
have this day finished our analysis, and find no traces of either
strychnia, prussic acid, or opium.’ What can beat this from a man
like Taylor, if he says what he has already said, and Dr. Harland’s
evidence? Mind you. I know and saw it in black and white what
Taylor said to Gardner; but this is strictly private and
confidential, but it is true. As regards his betting-book, I know
nothing of it, and it is of no good to any one. I hope the verdict
to-morrow will be that he died of natural causes, and thus end it
“Ever yours,
“W. P.”]
Palmer says in that letter that he had seen it in black and white.
Cheshire states that he had not shown him the letter. However that might
be, there can be no question that this was a highly improper letter for
the prisoner to write; and speaking as the chief coroner of England, and
being desirous for the due administration of justice and of the law, I
have no hesitation in saying that it was not creditable in Mr. Ward to
receive such a letter without a public condemnation of its having been
written. You will say, gentlemen, whether the conduct of the prisoner in
that respect--suggesting to the coroner the verdict which he should
obtain from the jury--is consistent with innocence. The noble and
learned lord then read the evidence of Ellis Crisp, the police inspector
at Rugeley, who produced a medical book which had been found in the
prisoner’s house, and in which the following passage occurred in the
prisoner’s handwriting:--“Strychnia kills by causing tetanic fixing of
the respiratory muscles;” and remarking that this was a book which was
in the possession of the prisoner seven years ago, when he was a
student, he said that there was nothing in it which ought to weigh for a
moment against the prisoner at the bar. Having read without comment the
evidence of Elizabeth Hawkes, the boarding-house keeper, with respect to
the sending of game to Ward, of Slack, her porter, and of Herring, who
spoke to the directions given him by Palmer as to the disposal of Cook’s
bets, his Lordship called the particular attention of the jury to the
statement in the evidence of Bates, that the prisoner had told him not
to let any one see him deliver the letter to Ward. The next witness, he
continued, is Dr. Curling, and now, gentlemen, you will be called upon
to come to some conclusion with regard to the evidence of the scientific
men respecting the symptoms of the deceased before death, and the
appearance of his body after death. You will have to say how far those
symptoms and those appearances are to be accounted for by natural
disease, and how far they are the symptoms and appearances produced by
strychnine. It will be a question of great importance whether, in your
judgment, they correspond with natural, that is, with traumatic or
idiopathic tetanus, or with any other disease whatever. [His Lordship
read the evidence of Dr. Curling, and the examination in chief of Dr
Todd, without comment, and directed the Clerk of Arraigns to read the
depositions of Dr. Bamford. The depositions were accordingly read, and
his Lordship then remarked,--] When this deposition was first given in
evidence, Dr. Bamford was too ill to come into court; but he partially
recovered, and on a subsequent day he was examined and gave the _vivâ
voce_ evidence which I will now read [The learned Lord here read the
evidence, observing, with regard to the pills made up by Dr. Bamford,
that the prisoner certainly had an opportunity of changing them, if he
pleased; that circumstance deserved their serious consideration.] There
is not, he continued, the slightest reason to impute any bad faith to
Dr. Bamford, but it is allowed, on all hands, that the old man was
mistaken in saying that the death was caused by apoplexy.
All the witnesses on both sides say that, whatever the disease may have
been, it was not apoplexy; but he filled up a certificate that it was
apoplexy, in compliance with a recent Act of Parliament which renders a
certificate of the cause of death necessary. [The cross-examination of
Dr. Todd was then read, and his Lordship pointed out that the case of
strychnine seen by that witness bore a certain resemblance to Cook’s
attack on the Monday night.] The next witness is a gentleman of high
reputation and unblemished honour, Sir B. Brodie, one of the most
distinguished medical men of the present time. [His Lordship read Sir B.
Brodie’s evidence.] That distinguished man tells you, as his solemn
opinion, that he never knew a case in which the symptoms he had heard
described arose from any disease. He is well acquainted with the various
diseases which afflict the human frame, and he knows of no disease
answering to the description of the symptoms which preceded Cook’s
death. If you agree with him in opinion, the inference is that Cook died
from some cause other than disease. [The learned Judge then read the
evidence of Dr. Daniel, who agreed with Sir B. Brodie, and of Dr. Solly,
who also thought that natural disease would not account for death.]
Mr. Serjeant SHEE wished to have the cross-examination of this witness
read.
Lord CAMPBELL: Certainly. I daresay it is very applicable.