person he might be in company with. The last time I saw him he had a
redness over one tonsil, showing there was tenderness. He had three or
four superficial ulcers on his lips.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: C. Newton]
CHARLES NEWTON, examined--I am assistant to Mr. Salt, practising
surgeon at Rugeley. On Monday, 19th November, about nine o’clock in the
evening, Palmer came in to Mr. Salt’s surgery. He asked me for three
grains of strychnia, which I gave to him. I do not think he was in the
shop above two minutes. Between eleven and twelve on the next day I saw
him again in the shop of Mr. Hawkins, a druggist. He was in the shop
when I went in. He put his hand between my shoulders and said he wished
to speak to me. I went to the door with him and out into the street. He
asked me when Mr. Edwin Salt, the son of Mr. Salt, was going up to his
farm at Sudbury. Palmer had nothing to do with that at all. While we
were talking, a Mr. Brassington came up and entered into conversation
with me about some bills for money he had against my employer. Palmer
left us and returned to the shop, and came out again while we were still
talking. He went in the direction of his own house, which is between 200
and 300 yards away. I went into the shop after my conversation with Mr.
Brassington and saw Roberts, who was serving. I know Mr. Thirlby, who
deals in drugs. He was formerly an assistant to Palmer, and succeeded to
his business. He dispenses all Palmer’s medicines for him. About seven
o’clock in the evening of Sunday, the 25th November, I went to Palmer’s
house in consequence of being sent for by him. There was no one else
there. He asked me what dose of strychnia would kill a dog, and whether
it would be found in the stomach. I told him a grain, and that there
would be no inflammation, and I did not think it would be found. I think
he said, “It is all right,” as if speaking to himself, and snapped his
fingers. I heard the next day that the post-mortem examination of Cook’s
body was to take place. On my way to the post-mortem, about ten o’clock
in the forenoon, I saw Palmer at Bamford’s, and I told him where I was
going. He, Dr. Harland, and I went down together to the Talbot Arms for
the examination. Palmer and I were left alone together in the entrance
to the hall. He remarked it would be a stiff job, and asked me to go
over to his house for some brandy. We did so. While we were taking the
brandy he said, “You will find this fellow suffering from diseased
throat; he has had syphilis.” We then returned to the Talbot Arms. I was
examined before the coroner, but I said nothing about giving Palmer the
three grains of strychnia on Monday night.
[Sidenote: C. Newton]
Cross-examined--When I was first examined on behalf of the Crown I
mentioned the circumstance of the conversation about poisoning the dog.
Before that I mentioned it to Mr. Salt, but I cannot remember when. I
gave a statement to Mr. Gardner some time after the inquest. I mentioned
about the dog, but did not speak about the 3 grains of strychnia. I made
no mention about these matters at the inquest. I gave evidence about my
conversation with Palmer at the door of Hawkins’ shop. I knew my
evidence was with reference to the supposed purchase of strychnia by
Palmer at the shop. The first time I informed the Crown with reference
to the purchase of the 3 grains on the Monday was on Tuesday last. At
the post-mortem examination I did not point out any chancre to the
medical men there. It was not mentioned at all, and I did not see one
nor the marks of one.
Re-examined--The reason why I did not mention about the purchase of the
3 grains of strychnia before last Tuesday to the Crown was because Mr.
Salt was not on speaking terms with Mr. Palmer, and I thought Mr. Salt
would be angry at my letting him have it. I communicated the fact of my
own accord.
The Court then adjourned.
Third Day, Friday, 16th May, 1856.
The Court met at ten o’clock.
[Sidenote: C. J. Roberts]
CHARLES JOSEPH ROBERTS, examined by Mr. JAMES--In November last I was an
apprentice to Mr. Hawkins, a chemist at Rugeley. I remember that between
eleven and twelve o’clock on Tuesday, 20th November, Palmer came into
the shop and asked me first for 2 drachms of prussic acid. Whilst I was
putting it up for him Mr. Newton came in. Palmer said he wanted to speak
to him, and the two of them went out of the shop together. I saw
Brassington come up and speak to Newton when Palmer left them and came
back into the shop. I was putting the prussic acid into the bottle, and
he asked me for 6 grains of strychnine and 2 drachms of Batley’s
solution of opium. While I was making the things up Palmer stood at the
shop door with his back to me, looking into the street. He then took
them away and paid for them. After he left Newton came into the shop,
and I had some conversation with him. It would be two years before this
transaction that Palmer bought drugs in our shop. He always dealt with
Thirlby, who previously was his assistant, and is now practising as an
apothecary in Palmer’s name.
Cross-examined--I did not make any entry of the transaction in our book.
I am not in the habit of doing so when things are sold over the counter.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: W. V. Stevens]
WILLIAM VERNON STEVENS, examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL--I am a retired
merchant living in the city. I am the step-father of John Parsons Cook,
having married his father’s widow eighteen years ago. He did not live
with me, but we were always on friendly terms. He became entitled to
property worth about £12,000. The last time I saw him alive was at
Euston station at two o’clock on the afternoon of 5th November. He
looked better than I had seen him for some time, and I said, “My boy,
you look very well; you do not look anything of an invalid now.” He
struck himself firmly on the chest and said he was quite well. The next
time I saw him was after his death, information of which I received from
Mr. Jones, who came to my house on the Wednesday. I went to Lutterworth
on the Thursday to search for a will and any papers he had left. I found
a will. When I reached Rugeley the next day I went to the Talbot Arms,
and met Palmer in the passage. I had only seen him once before. Mr.
Jones introduced us in the inn, and we then went up and viewed the
body. I was greatly struck by the appearance of the countenance, the
tightness of the muscles across the face. We all then went down to one
of the sitting rooms, and I said to the prisoner that I understood from
Mr. Jones he knew something of my son’s affairs. He replied, “Yes, there
are £4000 worth of bills out of his, and I am sorry to say my name is to
them; but I have got a paper drawn up by a lawyer, signed by Mr. Cook,
to show that I have never had any benefit from them.” I told him I
feared there would be no money to pay them, and asked if he had no
horses or property. He replied that he had horses, but they were
mortgaged. He mentioned one debt of £300 that was owing to Cook. It had
nothing to do with sporting matters, and was a personal debt from a
relative of his. I then turned round to Palmer and said that, whether
Cook had left anything or not, he must be buried. Palmer immediately
said, “Oh! I will bury him myself if that is all.” I replied I could not
hear of that. Cook’s brother-in-law was there at the time, and he also
expressed a wish to bury him. I said it was my business, as executor, to
bury him, and that I intended to bury him in London in his mother’s
grave, and that the body would have to be at the inn for a day or two.
Palmer said that would be of no consequence so long as the body was
fastened up at once. Some short time afterwards I asked Palmer for the
name of some respectable undertaker in Rugeley, so that I might order a
coffin at once. He replied, “I have been and chosen that. I have ordered
a shell and a strong oak coffin.” I expressed my surprise, and said he
had no authority to do so. At my invitation, my son-in-law, Mr. Jones,
and Palmer all dined with me at the inn. We dined about three, as I was
going back to London by the quarter-past four train. Before I left I
asked Mr. Jones to go upstairs and bring me Cook’s betting book and any
papers. He went along with Palmer, and in about ten minutes he returned,
saying he could find no book or paper. I expressed my astonishment, and
Palmer said, “It is of no manner of use if you find it.” I said I was
the best judge of that, and I understood my son won a great deal of
money at Shrewsbury. Palmer replied that when a man dies his bets are
done with, and that Mr. Cook had received the greater part of his money
on the course at Shrewsbury. I said that the book must be found, and he
replied in a much quieter tone, “Oh, it will be found, no doubt.” The
body was in the shell, and I noticed that both the hands were clenched.
I then returned to town. The next morning I communicated with the uncle
of the deceased and with my solicitor, who gave me a letter to Mr.
Gardner, of Rugeley. I returned to Rugeley by the two o’clock train,
arriving there about eight. Palmer travelled by the same train. I met
him first at Euston station, when he told me he had been summoned to
London by telegraph. I saw him again in the refreshment room at
Wolverton. We had some conversation, and I remarked that it would be as
well to know something of the complaint of which Cook died, and that I
should like his body opened. Palmer replied, “That can be done very
well,” or “That can be easily done,” or something of that sort. I saw
him again in the refreshment room at Rugby, and mentioned to him my
determination to see a solicitor in Rugeley about my son’s affairs. From
Rugby to Rugeley we travelled in the same carriage, but no further
conversation took place. When we arrived at Rugeley he again spoke about
me employing a solicitor, and offered to introduce me to one. I refused
his offer, and said I would find one myself. I then immediately
purposely changed the tone of my voice and manner, and said, “Mr.
Palmer, if I should call in a solicitor to give me advice, I suppose you
will have no objections to answer him any questions he might choose to
put to you?” He replied, with a spasmodic affection of the throat, which
was perfectly evident, “Oh, no, certainly not.” I also expressed my
desire of taking a solicitor to Hednesford, where Cook’s horses were
kept. I ought to say that, when I first mentioned the post-mortem, there
was not the slightest change in Mr. Palmer’s manner; he was perfectly
calm and collected. We then parted, he to go home and I to go and look
for Mr. Gardner. Later in the evening Palmer came to me again, and the
first thing he spoke about was the bills. He said, “It is a very
unpleasant affair for me about these bills.” I remarked that I had heard
a different account of Mr. Cook’s affairs, and that his affairs could
only be settled in the Court of Chancery. All he replied was, “Oh,
indeed,” in a lower tone. The next day, Sunday, I saw him again in the
coffee room of my hotel. He advised me not to take a solicitor to
Hednesford, but I told him I should use my own judgment upon that. Later
in the evening, I think, I saw him again. I asked him who the Mr. Smith
was who had sat up with my son, as I wished to make inquiries regarding
the missing betting book. He replied he was a solicitor of that town. I
asked him if he attended my son medically, and he said no. He then asked
me if I knew who was to perform the examination, and I told him I did
not. On the Friday, when I twice saw the body, I did not perceive any
decomposition or anything which called for its being speedily put into a
shell; on the contrary, the body did not quite look to me like a dead
body.
[Sidenote: W. V. Stevens]
Cross-examined by Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--The last time my stepson stayed in
my house was for about a month, in January and February of last year. He
had a slight sore throat then, but I do not know that it was
continuously sore. He did not complain of it. I never noticed any ulcers
about his face. Between that time and the 5th November I saw him
several times, and he did not appear to be more delicate than usual. The
reason why I mentioned to him on 5th November that he was looking very
well was because he had complained of being an invalid the winter
before. His brother and sister were rather delicate, and his father died
at the age of thirty or thirty-one.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: J. T. Harland]
Dr. JOHN THOMAS HARLAND, examined by Mr. BODKIN--I am a physician
residing at Stafford. On 26th November I made a post-mortem examination
of Mr. Cook. I called at the house of Mr. Bamford, and on my way there I
was joined by Palmer, whom I had frequently seen and spoken to at
Rugeley. He said, “I am glad you have come to make a post-mortem
examination; some one might have been sent whom I did not know; I know
you.” I asked him what the case was; that I heard there was a suspicion
of poisoning. He replied, “Oh, no! I think not; he had an epileptic fit
on Monday and Tuesday night, and you will find an old disease in the
heart and in the head.” Palmer offered to lend me instruments, as I had
brought none with me. He said a queer old man seemed to suspect him. He
also said, “He seems to suspect that I have got the betting book, but
Cook had no betting book that would be of use to any one.” After we
reached Bamford’s house, Mr. Bamford and I went to Mr. Frere’s, a
surgeon in Rugeley, and from there to the Talbot Arms, where the
post-mortem examination was proceeded with. Palmer and several others
were in the room. Mr. Devonshire operated and Mr. Newton assisted him.
The body seemed to me to be stiffer than bodies generally are six days
after death. The muscles were strongly contracted and thrown out, which
showed there was a strong spasmodic action in the body before death. The
hands were clenched; firmly closed. The abdominal viscera were the first
parts of the body examined internally. They were taken out of the body,
and were in a perfectly healthy state. The liver was healthy. The lungs
were healthy; there was blood in them, but not more than could be
accounted for by gravitation. The brain was quite healthy. There was no
extravasation of blood nor serum on the brain. There was nothing in its
appearance that would cause unnatural pressure. The heart was
contracted, and contained no blood. This did not appear to be the result
of disease, but from spasmodic action. The stomach was taken out. At the
larger end there were numerous small yellowish-white spots about the
size of mustard seed. These would not at all account for death, nor
would they have any effect on the health of any one. There may have been
numerous follicles, nothing more. The kidneys were full of blood that
had gravitated since death, and had no appearance of disease. The blood
was in a fluid state, which is a rare occurrence even in cases of sudden
death. About the whole body generally there was no appearance of disease
that would account for death. The lower part of the spinal cord was not
minutely examined on this occasion. The upper part presented a perfectly
natural appearance.
[Sidenote: J. T. Harland]
On the 25th of January the body was again exhumed, so that we might
examine the spinal cord with more attention. Dr. Monckton and I jointly
made a report on the matter. I am still of the opinion that there was
nothing in the appearance that I have described to account for the death
of the deceased. When the stomach and intestines were removed from the
body in the first examination they were separately emptied into a jar by
Mr. Devonshire and Mr. Newton. Palmer was standing at the right of Mr.
Newton. When the intestines and stomach were being placed in the jar,
and while Mr. Devonshire was opening the stomach, I noticed Palmer
pushed Mr. Newton on to Mr. Devonshire, and he shook a portion of the
contents of the stomach into the body. I thought a joke was passing
among them, and I said, “Do not do that,” to the whole. Palmer was the
only one close to them when Mr. Newton and Mr. Devonshire were pushed
together. After this interruption the opening of the stomach proceeded.
It contained about, I should think, 2 or 3 ounces of brownish liquid. It
was stated that there was nothing particular found in the stomach, and
Palmer remarked to Mr. Bamford, “They will not hang us yet.” The stomach
was then emptied into the jar along with the stomach itself. The
intestines were then examined, and nothing particular found in them.
They were contracted and very small. They were placed in the jar, with
their contents, as they were taken from the body. I then tied the jar
over with two bladders and sealed it, and placed it on the table beside
the body. At that time Palmer was moving about the room. My attention
had been called away by the examination, and I missed the jar for a few
minutes. I called out, “Where is the jar?” and Palmer, from the other
end of the room, said, “It is here; I thought it more convenient for you
to take it away.” Palmer was standing a yard or two from a door at that
end of the room. I got the jar from him. I found there was a cut, hardly
an inch long, through both bladders. The cut was quite clean, as if
nothing had passed through. I asked who had done this, and Palmer, Mr.
Devonshire, and Mr. Newton all seemed to say they had not done it. I
told Palmer I should take the jar to Mr. Frere. He said, “I would rather
you take it with you to Stafford, if you would take it there,” but I
took it to Mr. Frere’s house, tied and sealed in the way I have told.
When I noticed the slit in the bladders I immediately cut the strings
and replaced the bladders, and tied them separately again, so that the
slit was not at the top. When I returned to the Talbot Arms Palmer
asked me what I had done with the jar. I said I had left it with Mr.
Frere, and that it would go to either London or Birmingham that night
for examination.
Cross-examined by SERJEANT SHEE--On the occasion of the first
examination you say you observed follicles under the tongue; are those
pustules?--Not under the tongue, on the tongue. They are not pustules;
they are large mucous follicles, not containing matter.
Is it a sort of thickening, then, of the skin?--Of the mucous follicles
at the base of the tongue. They appeared to be of long standing, and
were very numerous.
Do they indicate that there had been much soreness there?--I have no
doubt they would produce inconvenience. They must have given some slight
degree of pain in eating and speaking.
Will you undertake to say they were not enlarged glands, enlarged by the
irritation of disease?--I do not believe they were; I have seen them
frequently.
Do you adhere to your opinion that the lungs were healthy?--Yes.
Did not Mr. Devonshire, in your presence, express a contrary opinion,
and say they were unhealthy?--He said he thought there was emphysema, as
well as congestion of the lungs.
Is that not a diseased state of the lungs?--Yes, it is an abnormal
state. I examined the white spots on the wider part of the stomach.
How did you examine them?--By removing the mucous that was on the
surface of the stomach by the finger or scalpel. I had no lens, no
glass. I should have examined them with a lens if I had had one.
Was your examination of these appearances satisfactory to you without a
lens?--Yes.
You said that the brain was healthy; what sort of examination did you
make of the brain?--The brain was carefully taken out; the external part
was first of all examined; the membranes were examined, and slices were
taken off from the apex to the base of the brain. These slices were, I
should think, a quarter of an inch thick.
Is that as thick as it should be to make a full examination?--I think
that would show any disease if there was any. The spinal cord was
examined down to the first vertebra, and we found no appearance of
disease.
Supposing you had discovered a softness of the spinal cord on that
occasion, after a full examination, might not that have been sufficient
to account for the death of Mr. Cook?--No, certainly not; softening
would not produce tetanus at all; it might produce paralysis.
[Sidenote: J. T. Harland]
Do not you think in the case of a man dying by convulsions, in order to
ascertain with any degree of certainty what the cause of his death might
be, it was necessary shortly after his death to make a careful
examination of the spinal cord?--No, I do not. It was afterwards thought
desirable. It was first suggested on 26th December.
It was in January the second examination took place; supposing there had
been a softening, do not you think, in order to discover it, it was
necessary to examine the spinal cord at an earlier period after death
than two months?--If there had been a softening it would have been
detected at the second examination; the body remaining unexamined for a
long time would not produce hardening of the spine.
That is your opinion; might not any softening at that late period be the
result of decomposition?--The spine was very little soft indeed. There
were some appearances of decomposition upon it. I examined him to see if
there was any disease on him of the venereal kind. I observed there was
a loss of substance from past disease. It was cicatrised over, and on
the cicatrix there was a small abrasion.
Then it must have been in a sore state?--The excoriation might be a
little sore. It was very small. It was a mere excoriation; merely a
little of the excoriation rubbed off.
Re-examined--There were no chancres, nothing beyond what I would term an
excoriation, except the cicatrix from the old disease. There was no
symptom of ulcerated throat, nor any appearance of anything syphilitic
there. The follicles in the tongue are often produced by a disordered
stomach, and are of no serious consequence to health. The congestion of
the lungs, which Mr. Devonshire spoke about, was due, in my opinion,
wholly to the gravitation of blood after death. There was nothing
whatever in the brain to indicate the presence of any disease. Even if
there had been, I have never heard or read of any diseased state of the
brain occasioning death by tetanus. There is no disease of the spinal
cord with which I am acquainted which produces tetanus and that form of
death. Sometimes with inflammation of the membranes of the spinal cord
there is tetanus; but there were no appearances of inflammation
whatever.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: C. J. Devonshire]
CHARLES JOHN DEVONSHIRE, examined by Mr. HUDDLESTON--I am an
undergraduate of London University. I performed the post-mortem on 25th
November at the Talbot Hotel. The body was pale. The fingers were
clenched firmly; the thumb of the left hand was thrown into the palm,
and the fingers were clenched over. The mouth was a little contracted.
The body was stiff, much beyond the usual stiffness of death. I took out
the stomach and opened it with a pair of scissors. As I was opening the
stomach there was a pressure or push from behind. I did not pay any
attention to it, and I do not think any of the contents of the stomach
escaped. I punctured the anterior surface of the stomach, and a spoonful
of the contents fell out on the chair. I tied up where it was punctured,
and it was put into a jar and sealed by Dr. Harland. On the same day I
got the jar at Mr. Frere’s, and gave it, on the 28th, to Mr. Boycott,
Messrs. Lander & Gardner’s clerk. The body was opened again on the 29th
to get the liver and kidneys and spleen. They were taken from the body
with some blood, placed in a stone jar, which I sealed and handed to Mr.
Boycott on the 30th. In consequence of something Mr. Palmer had said, I
examined the body to find if there were any indications of syphilis, but
I found none. I also took out the throat, and found there were natural
papillæ there; they were larger than usual at the base of the tongue.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: John Myatt]
JOHN MYATT--I am postboy at the Talbot Arms at Rugeley. On 28th of
November last I was engaged to drive Mr. Stevens to Stafford station.
Before I started Mr. Palmer asked me if I was going to drive them to
Stafford. I told him I was. He asked if I was going to take the jars. I
said I believed I was. He said there was a £10 note for me if I would
upset them. I told him I should not. I saw him next morning, and he
asked me who went with the fly. I said Mr. Stevens, and I believed one
of Mr. Gardner’s clerks.
Cross-examined--How did you know what he meant by “going to drive them
to Stafford”?--I knew I was going to take some one to Stafford.
Did he use the name “Stevens” before he used these words to you?--He
mentioned Mr. Stevens afterwards.
You understood the word “them” to mean Mr. Stevens and his party?--Yes.