November, 1855, from Palmer to Pratt--“Dear Sir,--You will place the £50
I have just paid you, and the £450 you will receive from Mr. Herring,
together £500, and the £200 you received on Saturday,” that is, the £200
that Fisher paid to Pratt at the express request of Cook “towards
payment of my mother’s acceptance for £2000, due 25th October, making
paid to this day the sum of £1300.” Can you doubt when you take all that
together--the dining together on the Friday--Cook writing that letter to
Fisher, saying it was of the greatest importance to him as well as to
Palmer that the £200 should be paid in order to pacify Pratt, can you
doubt that on that day Cook was a most convenient friend to Palmer, and
that he could not by any possibility do without him. But it does not end
there. Cook died on the Wednesday morning early, the 21st; if we want to
know what effect that death had on Palmer, and what interest he had in
it, Palmer’s mouth being sealed, we must get it from Pratt. Nobody else
that we know knows anything about it; Cook is gone. On the 22nd
November, the day after the death--and I am sure you will make some
allowance for a day having elapsed after the death of Cook before he
wrote--Palmer writes thus to Pratt--“Ever since I saw you I have been
fully engaged with Cook and not able to leave him.” Now, unless he
murdered him, that is the truest sentence that ever was expressed. He
watched the bedside of his friend; he was with him night and day; he
attended him as a brother; he called his friends around him; he did all
that the most affectionate solicitude could do for a friend that was
ill, unless he was plotting his death--“And I am sorry to say after all
he died this day, so that you had better write to Saunders; but mind, I
must have ‘Polestar’ if it can be so arranged; and should any one call
upon you to know what moneys Cook ever had from you do not answer the
question.” Then he says, “I sat up two full nights with Cook.” That he
sat up the whole of the night may not be true, but he was ready to be
called if Cook should be ill; and Elizabeth Mills says after the first
serious paroxysm, when she went to bed, she left Palmer in the
arm-chair, sleeping by the man whom they say he intended to murder. No!
murderers do not sleep by their victims in that way. What is the answer?
I read it to you in order that you may see what ruin Cook’s death
brought upon Palmer. The answer of Pratt is--and you will see how much
it increased the difficulties of Palmer--“I have your note, and am
greatly disappointed at the non-receipt of the money as promised, and at
the vague assurance as to any money. I can understand that your being
detained by the illness of your friend has been the cause of your not
sending up the amount.” Attend to this paragraph--“The death of Mr. Cook
will now compel you to look about as to the payment of the bill for
£500, due the 2nd of December. I have written Saunders informing him of
my claim, and requesting to know by return what claim he had for keep
and training”; so that the very first effect of Cook’s death was, in
Pratt’s opinion, who knew all about it, to saddle Palmer alone with the
sum of £500. He says, “The death of Cook will now compel you to look
about as to the payment of the bill for £500 on the 2nd of December.” We
will investigate the transaction out of which that bill arose, and you
will see, I venture to say, that I can satisfy you conclusively that the
transaction out of which that bill arose was a transaction for Cook’s
accommodation, for which Palmer had lent his name to accommodate Cook,
and for which upon Cook’s death Palmer became primarily and alone
responsible. It will be for you to judge, if I prove that to you,
whether it suited Palmer at that moment to stand before the holder of
that £500 bill--some client of Pratt’s--as the only man liable upon it,
and whether there was the same chance, supposing it had been for his own
accommodation, of putting it on, as they call it, after Cook’s death, as
there might have been before. But let me be fair to the prosecution, and
state to you now the view that the Attorney-General takes of that £500
transaction. As I told you, I mean to meet his case foot to foot, and to
show, and I hope to show him, that there is nothing in it; that if he,
as the law officer of the Crown, had had the option of taking up this
case or not, he would not have taken it up; that the Crown never would
have appeared upon it, but because the universal feeling of the country
was such as to render it impossible that the case should not be tried
after the verdict of wilful murder obtained on Dr. Taylor’s evidence;
and because the Crown, having seen the absolute necessity of its being
tried, felt that it would abandon the duty of protecting every one of
the Queen’s subjects if it did not take care that a man with so much
prejudice against him, that man leading the life that Palmer led, and
disgraced by forgeries to a large amount, as it is said, and a gambler
by profession, should not have a fair trial. There was no other way of
securing a fair trial for this man, as the Attorney-General at once
saw--there was no possibility of his being saved but by giving the
counsel who defended him all the information that my friend had himself.
We will see what his view is. My learned friend states it upon his
instruction in this way. He is bound, as I told you in the beginning, in
prosecuting this case to prosecute it strenuously; he is bound to put
the facts together according to his instructions in such a way that, if
they will and ought to establish guilt, it is brought home. Prosecutions
must be conducted in that way, or the guilty would escape in nine cases
out of ten. And therefore my friend, upon the view of the evidence--a
comparatively superficial one--thinks that this is the theory upon which
it appears probable that Palmer plotted the death of Mr. Cook. I will
read to you from my friend’s speech, with reference to the £500 bill
transaction; and, as I understand it, it is the greatest mistake that
was ever committed, and would not stand for a moment but for the popular
prejudice against Palmer. I think I can satisfy you that is so--“Pratt
still declining to advance the money”--that is the £1000 which Palmer
wanted him to advance--“Pratt proposed an assignment by Cook of two
racehorses, one called ‘Polestar,’ which won the Shrewsbury race, and
another called ‘Syrius.’ That assignment was afterwards executed by Mr.
Cook in favour of Pratt, and Cook was entitled to the money raised on
that security, which realised £375 in cash and a wine warrant.” They
twist it in this way, that Palmer, having forged the endorsement of
Cook, and being afraid of detection, put Mr. Cook out of the way. That
is the view they take of that case. I think I can satisfy you it is
impossible that that can be the correct view. It cannot, by any
possibility, as it seems to me. It is for you to judge. We know exactly
what took place; we had it from Pratt yesterday. What took place was
this. Palmer applied for the loan of £1000; Pratt said, “I can’t let you
have it.” Palmer said, “Will you discount a bill for £500?” Pratt said,
“Not without security.” Palmer said, “What security will you take; it is
for the accommodation of Mr. Cook? I have undertaken to get the enclosed
bill cashed for Mr. Cook; you had a £200 bill of his.” He reminds him
that he had been paid a £200 bill, and he says, “He is a very good and
responsible man; will you do it, and I will put my name to the bill?” So
that it was represented to Pratt as a transaction for the accommodation
of Cook; and Pratt’s answer is, “If Mr. Cook chooses to give me his
security I have no objection, but he must execute a bill of sale of his
two racehorses, ‘Polestar’ and ‘Syrius,’ and he must execute a power of
attorney, and signature to it must be attested by some solicitor in the
country, so that I may be quite sure that it is really a valid security;
and upon those terms, if you will get all that done, and Mr. Cook will
submit to all that, I will give him £375 in money, £65 wine warrant,
charging him £10 for expenses, and £50 for discount”--making up the sum
of £500; that is what Pratt is willing to do. There is no doubt at all,
you know, that Cook attached the highest value to “Polestar”; he was not
going to execute a bill of sale with a power of attorney to enable the
mortgagee or assignee to enforce it at once; he was not going to do
that, and not get any money for doing it; he knew the value of
“Polestar” and “Syrius”; “Polestar” was probably backed for the
engagements on which he won the money at Shrewsbury. My friend says he
never received that £375; it is in the last degree improbable that he
never received that money; I put it to you as men of sense that he must
have received it; do you think that he remained after executing the bill
of sale on the 6th of September the whole time from that day to his
death without writing to Pratt--“Why, you have the bill of sale of my
two horses, and I have not got any money upon them”? Is it credible,
can you believe Cook, who was as much in want of money as Palmer; do you
think he would throw away his property in that way, and let Pratt obtain
from him a bill of sale and get no money upon it? It is incredible; the
only pretence for setting it up is this, it is a perfectly fatal one
that will not stand before sensible men for a minute. Along with the
cheque for £375 he sent £315 to Palmer for his own purposes; but my
friend says Palmer, having got this cheque for £375 payable to order,
fraudulently appropriated it to himself; forged the name of Cook upon
the back of it, and kept Cook in ignorance of the transaction. Is it
credible, that during three whole months Cook, who knew that he had
executed a bill of sale of his two racehorses, and I will show you was
in want of money, should have allowed it to remain so? Is it not much
more probable that the signature of Cook was put on there with his full
knowledge? It is not suggested that there was any attempt at imitating
his handwriting. Is it not more probable that Cook, who wanted the ready
money, and who would probably be put to inconvenience if he did not get
the ready money, but only the means of getting it two days later--that
Palmer should let him have the £315 cash which was sent up, and Palmer
take the cheque? I will show you there is reason for believing that to
be the case; I will put it to you, in the first place, whether it is
probable he would be silent for three months. Palmer writes, “I will
thank you to let me have the £315 by return of post if possible; if not,
send it to me by Monday night’s post to the post office, Doncaster. I
now return you Mr. Cook’s paper, and he wants the money on Saturday if
he can have it; I have not promised it for Saturday, so please to
enclose it with mine in cash in a registered letter, and he must pay for
its being registered.” So that you see Palmer wanted it to be sent like
his own, and Cook wanted it to be sent in cash. “Do not let it be later
than Monday night’s post.” Pratt writes acknowledging the receipt of the
document, saying he will send him his money to Doncaster, and endeavour
to let Cook have his money at the same time. On the 10th of September
Palmer writes to Pratt that he must send him for Mr. Cook £385 instead
of £375 and the wine warrant, so that he can hand it to him with the
£385. Accordingly, here is an intimation that Cook, who wanted the money
on the very day, was inconvenienced by only getting a cheque on London
which he could not immediately change, and therefore Palmer gave him the
money and took the cheque. It is remarkable, when we look at the banking
account of Palmer at Rugeley, the £375 is paid in by somebody to
Palmer’s account, but the £315 is not paid into Palmer’s account at all;
that is the only sum paid in on that day, so that I put it to you upon
these facts, Pratt saying in a letter which accompanies the money, “I am
obliged to send a cheque for Mr. Cook, for I have not received the
money, which I shall do no doubt to-morrow”; so that not being able to
send cash to the full amount he is obliged to do that which did not suit
Cook; he sent him a cheque which he could not cash on the day he got it;
he is obliged to send it to London unless he could find some friend down
there, and that delays him for a whole day. I submit to you as the true
version of the transaction that the bill was accepted for Cook’s
accommodation; Cook gave as security for it the two horses, “Polestar”
and “Syrius”; Cook never complained to Pratt during the rest of his life
that he had not received the money upon it. It appears in the
correspondence that Cook wanted the ready money, and that he wanted it
on Saturday, and it would be probably inconvenient if he had got it a
bit later than Monday; though Palmer would not promise to get it sooner
than Tuesday. What says Palmer in his letter, which is not written for
the purpose of this case, but written at the date of this transaction,
that he, Palmer, would let Cook have the cash that was sent, and he
himself take the cheque with Cook’s authority, and put Cook’s name on
the back of it; and how else can you account for the silence of Cook,
for the fact that the £375 is paid into the account of Palmer at
Rugeley, and no trace of the other large sum of £315? That is well
worthy your consideration. You cannot account by any reasonable mode for
the fact that the security given for that £500 was Cook’s horses, and
Cook remaining quiet about it for three months after he had executed a
regular bill of sale, except the supposition that it was for Cook’s
accommodation, and Cook got the best part of the money; and, if so,
Palmer’s name being on the bill, what is the effect of Cook’s death?
Gentlemen, what Pratt, who knew all about it, says is, “The death of
Cook makes you liable for that sum of £500 due on the 2nd December.” I
submit to you, on the second ground of motive, which my learned friend
suggested, the case has altogether failed, and that it is perfectly
clear that at the date of Cook’s death Pratt was of opinion that the
death of Cook threw a further liability on Palmer of £500; he tells him
so in that letter. How could it be his interest to kill him? We already
find the difficulties which Cook’s death brings upon Palmer; the bill of
£500, the danger of the loss of “Polestar,” which he wanted very much to
have, and which Pratt would, of course, unless Palmer paid the £500,
send to the hammer, and realise so shortly; we find that inquiries were
at once apprehended on the part of Cook’s friends as to the money Pratt
had paid to Palmer out of those two bill transactions, and the value
which Mr. Cook had received for any endorsement which he had given.
[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]
Just see another transaction of that date; it is not quite so clear, as
it strikes me, but yet it makes it to my mind exceedingly improbable
that Palmer should have desired the death of Cook. Exceedingly
improbable! Mr. Wetherby told us to-day that though frequently stakes
won at a race were sent up by the clerk of the course to the winner’s
bankers within a week, it was not always so, and it would not be a
matter of complaint if it was not. On the 20th of November, the day
before Cook dies, and on which he was perfectly comfortable and happy,
enjoying the society of his friend Mr. Jones, with whom he was on terms
of the greatest intimacy, and to whom he could confide any troubles that
he had, and who appears to be a gentleman in every way respectable and
intelligent--on that day Cook was well, and Mr. Jones was with him, and
there is no doubt that on that day, according to the evidence of Mr.
Wetherby, he did sign and give this cheque for £350. If Palmer killed
him that night, and by any chance the £350 should not have been sent up
by Mr. Frail, so as to be there on the next morning, he (Mr. Wetherby)
would not pay that cheque, and would never pay it after notice of Cook’s
death, though the money should come up. He never did pay it. The end of
that transaction was this, that Mr. Frail did not send it up, but made a
claim upon Cook in respect of it. Cook’s executors disputed that, and
Cook’s executors finally recovered the money, but they did not send it
up to Mr. Wetherby. I do not put it as strong as the other case, because
Palmer might think that the money would be there; but he also might
think that it would not be there. It is not at all likely that, having
got the cheque for £350 from Cook, he would run the risk of losing that
money by destroying him in the night, Cook’s friends being there, and
sure to institute an immediate inquiry into his affairs. Is that
probable? I submit to you it is not. It is not likely that Palmer could
have got a cheque for £350, or Cook should have given it to him, which
should not be payable until the next day, when there might be no funds
to meet it; and with that uncertainty, is it likely that Palmer should
destroy Cook. That, therefore, is in the last degree improbable. It does
not end there--what they have said on the other side is, you know, that
he got this cheque fraudulently--he got possession of this money, and
then, lest Cook should detect it, he destroyed him. It is not at all
probable that that would answer his purpose. The moment the breath was
out of Cook’s body his friends would surround the corpse. He might be
perfectly certain that Mr. Jones would go to Mr. Stevens, that Stevens
and Bradford, his brother-in-law, would be down, and that a post-mortem
examination would take place, and instead of settling with Pratt as to
this £500 bill and the £350 cheque, he would have to settle with hard
men of business, men who cared nothing for him, looked upon him as a
blackleg, and would care neither for his feeling, his interest, nor
anything, but would let him go to ruin which way he liked, not stirring
a finger to save him. Do you think that was probable? I submit to you
not. It does not end there. We know from Herring that at that very time
Herring held one bill for £500 on which Cook’s name was.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL--I do not think there is any proof of that.
Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--Whether it be so or not as to the £500, he had three
£200 bills, one of which, I think, was drawn by Cook and accepted by
Palmer, and the other two drawn by Palmer and accepted by Cook, or the
other way.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL--You are quite right as to the £500.
[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]
Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--And another bill of £500, which my friend stated and
gave proof was not his mother’s signature. So that there was a bill for
£500 not in her handwriting to which Cook was a party, for all of which
Cook either in whole or in part, unless he rushed upon his own ruin,
must provide; in respect of which, for the accommodation of Palmer or
not, Palmer could go to Cook and say, “Now, Cook, it is true enough all
these bills are for my accommodation, but what is the use of your making
a fuss about that? If I cannot pay, you must, or your stud will be sold
up; had you not better give your name to some more bills and make it
easy?” If he put Cook to death that was gone. Again, in addition to the
£500 bill, for which the bill of sale on “Syrius” and “Polestar” was
given, the bill for £500 held by Herring was a forgery, according to
their case, which there would be no excuse for not meeting; a £500 bill
in the hands of a man who wants the money is not so easily put on; that
£500 bill would very soon find its way to his mother. It would not have
suited Palmer that his mother should know--his mother was a woman of
large fortune, a respectable person I am told--she disliked his gambling
propensities though she liked her son; neither did the excellent and
most honourable man his brother, before me, who stands by him now, but
who was estranged from him simply because he disapproved of his
gambling, neither would he have given to him any countenance. If Palmer
was pressed to pay that £500, and Cook was dead, there was nothing to
save him from the exposure. Nothing! If you doubt what I say is the
truth, look through the whole of the case--find me in any portion of
this most voluminous evidence the slightest trace that there was a man
in the world who would lend his name to Palmer to enable him to get
money. Is not the fact that he forged, if he did forge, the name of his
mother conclusive that he had no other resource? Is there the least
trace of evidence that he had any other resource than the good nature,
the easiness, perhaps the folly, of Cook, who could have renewed these
bills for him--the three £200 bills and the £500--and put them on as
they say? And was it not quite certain that if Cook, the acceptor of
them, dropped, the claim would come upon Cook’s executors, and then the
executors would ascertain all about it and sell him up? When you come to
think of it, is it credible that the man under those circumstances
should desire to bring not merely the creditors and executors of
Cook--who might be supposed, though Mr. Stevens is not one of that
class, to have some pity for Cook’s friend--but men of business, down
upon him, who have no right to have any pity? A man dies, his affairs
are put into the hands of solicitors; they have a plain duty to perform,
they cannot be compassionate, they must be just; they must see the
rights of their clients the executors established in due course of law,
and compromise and arrangement with them is wholly out of the question.
Can you find in any part of this case a single living person who was
willing to have done for Palmer what Cook had been doing for him for two
or three years? Does it appear that there was one? Does it appear that
Cook was a close-fisted fellow, and did not care to do Palmer a turn?
When Palmer needed the £200, which the harpy wanted from him, Cook at
once wrote and said it is a matter of great importance to him as well as
Palmer that this £200 should be paid; and he even risked the displeasure
of Fisher in doing it. Then, again, Cook was in his senses perfectly on
the Tuesday. He cannot have been very rich at that time. He gave him the
cheque for £350. How is it possible to conceive that under those
circumstances Palmer should have an interest in the death of Cook, and
yet what is the theory of the Crown? That Palmer was convinced that he
could settle his affairs as to Cook better with Mr. Stevens than he
could with Cook himself--settle these word-of-honour transactions; these
things, half of which would not bear inquiry in any way as reasonable
business transactions, with a shrewd and probably a penurious
man--deliberately thought that it would answer his purpose better to
come in contact with his executor, Mr. Stevens, whom Mr. Jones might
rush up to town and bring down with him. I submit to you with
confidence, though what I say may be inconsistent with the views
generally entertained by the public--the public, however, have never had
an opportunity of looking at all these letters--but it seems to me as
clear as anything can be, that it was the manifest interest of Palmer
that Cook should live. But, in addition to its being his interest that
he should live, was it safe for him that he should die? Palmer was a man
who added to a shrewd knowledge of the world a knowledge of his
profession, and, among other things, a knowledge of chemistry. Palmer
knew perfectly well, and he had studied his profession sufficiently when
he was a young man to know perfectly well, that, if strychnia was
administered, it would in all probability throw the victim into horrible
convulsions in a very short time, and in a way so striking as to be the
talk of a small neighbourhood like Rugeley for a month or two, which
would be time enough to alarm everybody, and to provoke inquiries into
the circumstances of the death, which must certainly end, or in all
probability end, if he was guilty, in his conviction. If that was so,
was he so circumstanced at that time as to make it safe for him to run
the risk of such suspicions? His brother, Walter Palmer, had died in the
month of August, and his only hope, unless his mother forgave him or
recognised those acceptances, his only hope of extrication from his
difficulties was the getting the amount due by the Prince of Wales
Insurance Company to him as the assignee of the policy on Walter
Palmer’s life; that was his only chance. He had a chance that way, and
it is plain that it was so good a chance, as I will show you presently,
that he refused an offer of return of premium from the company; it does
not appear what the amount was--and Pratt, who was his attorney,
believed the chance to be so good that he had actually got the discounts
of these large sums of money upon it, and had resolved, under the
directions of Palmer, to put it in suit. It was really the only
unpledged property he had, and how was he situated respecting it? It is
plain from the letters which were put in yesterday, and it is further
plain from a piece of evidence to which you will, I am sure, find it
worth your while to pay great attention. We had Mr. Deane called
yesterday, who is the attorney to the Prince of Wales insurance office;
and for some time--though it had ceased just at that time--but for some
time previously to this month of November, the insurance company, which,
I believe, is not a very old insurance company, were annoyed at being
called upon to pay so large a sum, and they determined to do all they
could to resist it. They accordingly sent down Inspector Field to
Stafford and his man Simpson to make inquiries, which he could not do
without talking and insinuating suspicions and raising a cloud of doubt
and conjecture about Palmer, and this had been going on for some
considerable time. Now, observe the evidence of Deane, and you will see
if it is not so. He says, “The name of my firm is Chubb, Deane & Chubb.
I had been to Rugeley some time previously to the inquest. I know Field,
the detective officer; we were solicitors to the Prince of Wales
insurance office; it was in our employment that Field went to Rugeley;
he was at Rugeley only a part of one day; he was at Stafford for three
or four days altogether; he did not see the prisoner Palmer; this visit
had been preceded by that of another officer named Simpson. Simpson
went from Stafford to Rugeley with myself and Field; he told me he had
seen Palmer; I think he went into Staffordshire in the first week in
October.” Then my learned friend asked him what they went down for; he
said that they went down to make inquiries as to the habits of life of
Mr. Walter Palmer, of whose death the Prince of Wales insurance office
had shortly before received notice; so that you see just before the
death of Cook Palmer knew himself to be an object of suspicion, but he
acted as if he thought it was the most unfounded and unwarrantable
suspicion, putting the policy of insurance into the hands of an attorney
to enforce payment of it, and the office meeting the claim by
insinuations and inquiries which were of a nature to destroy his
character and to bring around his head the suspicion of another murder.
[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]