which requires explanation? When the jar was going to be sent to town he
objects to its going to Frere’s. He had some reason for that. He had an
assistant in his service who had been in the service of Frere. We know
the jealousies that exist in country towns between professional men. We
will not do Mr. Frere the injustice to suppose he would do so great a
wrong to Palmer as might result from tampering with the contents of the
jar; but still it was right to be cautious, and Palmer told Dr. Harland,
“I want you to take it with you to Stafford, and not let it go to
Frere’s house.” In these minor incidental matters his conduct appears to
me perfectly consistent with innocence. Let me call your attention to
this more important matter, on which my learned friend in his
instructions was told to rely--and accordingly he did, in the discharge
of his duty, rely upon it. I will call your attention to what has been
stated by Myatt, the postboy. His evidence was pressed into the case; it
could not well be excluded from it as an evidence of guilt. Now, what
did it amount to? Before I have done, under the general head of Palmer’s
conduct, I will call your attention to what passed between him and
Stevens. You will find the conduct and deportment of the latter were
such as would make some men almost kick him; it was so very provoking,
supposing Palmer was innocent. He dissembled with him--pretended to take
his advice--cross-questioned him--changed his tone upon him--now
speaking to him mildly, now in a voice of menace--threatened him with a
post-mortem examination--and evidently did the whole thing hostilely to
him, as if he thought something wrong had taken place, and it was his
duty not only to protect the property, but to see any person who had
been guilty of foul play towards Cook brought to condign punishment.
Stevens, after poring over the remains of the dead man at the
post-mortem examination, was ready to leave Rugeley, and a fly was
ordered for him and his companion, Mr. Boycott, in which they were to
proceed with the jar to Stafford, and thence by rail to London. Now, if
there were anybody base enough, either in support of a theory, in
support of a reputation--God forbid that I should suggest that to the
prejudice of Dr. Taylor!--if there were anybody capable of so great a
wickedness as tampering with the jar, it might easily be done; and he
was anxious to have it kept by Dr. Harland and not committed to the
custody of Stevens. His conduct to Palmer had been vexatious and
annoying in the last degree; the fly was being got ready after Palmer,
we may suppose, had dined; and meeting the postboy Myatt, he asked him,
according to Myatt, whether he was going to drive Mr. Stevens to
Stafford. “I told him,” said Myatt, “I was. He asked me if I would upset
them?” Now the word “them” was first used in this Court to designate the
jars. There was only one jar at that time, so it could not be meant to
apply to the jars; if used at all, which I think very doubtful for the
reason I tell you--at least in a bad sense--it must have been applied to
Mr. Stevens and his companion. And now just see if the facts in this
case which are undoubted do not give a reasonable colour to that.
Palmer (though I will show you his conduct to Stevens was exemplary in
every respect, by putting the dialogue between them before you without
making any comment on it) must have felt outraged beyond all expression
if--knowing himself to be innocent, that he had acted as a friend and
brother to Cook, and had called his relations about him when he was
ill--he found himself suspected of stealing a trumpery betting-book,
which he knew was of no use to any one, and charged of playing falsely
and foully with the life of Cook. He had great cause to be vexed and
irritated with Stevens, and that he was so is plain from what he said to
Dr. Harland--“There was a queer old fellow,” he said, “who has been down
making inquiries, who seemed to be suspicious of my having stolen the
betting-book, which everybody knows can be of no earthly use to
anybody.” It shows that his mind was impressed with the idea that he was
wronged. He may be supposed, communing with himself, to say, “He has
ill-treated me; he has encouraged suspicions which have been excited
against me already, and which, if he persists in his course of bringing
another charge against me in this matter, will probably render it
impossible to get the money from the insurance company in time to rescue
me from a position which may involve in ruin myself and some members of
my family.” That was evidently the tendency of what Stevens was about.
He meets this postboy and asks him if he is to be ready to drive the fly
to Stafford; the boy says, “Yes, I am.” He said, “If I would upset them
there was a £10 note for me.” He has been asked, “Had anything been said
about the jars?” I submit to you the true construction of the story, if
it occurred at all, is, that being under a feeling of irritation against
Stevens, and using strong expressions with regard to Stevens, hearing he
was going to Stafford, he said, “I should not mind giving £10 to upset
him.” He had been vexed at his conduct, and irritated by the perpetual
suspicions and inquisitiveness which he had displayed, even when he went
up with him, like a friend, to show him the corpse, uncovering it down
to the thighs. Some previous suspicion must have existed in Stevens’
mind; but Palmer had no suspicion of this thought that he was guilty of
so foul a crime as that which was imputed to him. If that evidence be
throughout true, it is only true in the milder and innocent sense, and I
have this reason for saying so. This man was in the service of the
landlord of the Talbot Arms, and was always about the yard; he was
driving to and from the Talbot Arms every day of his life; he must have
been there on the day of the post-mortem examination; he must have been
a constant companion of the stable boys and labourers about the yard;
and his observation must have been drawn to a thing so striking and
remarkable as a post-mortem examination on account of a suspicion of
murder. He was not called before the coroner; and nobody knew, at the
time the inquest was held, that he had ever said anything which could be
fairly taken in a sense which would make it evidence of a guilty mind in
Palmer. But if he had said that Palmer said, “I should not mind giving a
£10 note to have him upset; it is a humbugging concern,” and in that
manner, and with the feeling I have stated, it would not have excited
any observation or suspicion, and no one would have summoned Myatt to
the inquest. I submit that is the true version of this story. It is not
to be supposed that a medical man, knowing that he had given a large
dose of strychnia, would suppose that, by the accidental spilling of a
jar, the liver and spleen and some of the tissues continuing untouched,
he could have escaped the detection of his guilt.
[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]
Next I shall call your attention to the evidence of Charles Newton; he
is a person who has sworn before you that he saw Palmer at Mr. Salt’s
surgery at nine o’clock on the Monday night, and that Palmer asked for
three grains of strychnia; that he weighed it, and gave it to him in a
piece of paper; that is the first part of what he swore before you and
my lords. Now, I should tell you how this case has been conducted. As
soon as my learned friend the Attorney-General, as counsel for the
Crown, was made acquainted with the illness of my learned friend Mr.
Serjeant Wilkins, with his inability to conduct the defence and that I
was to supply his place, he desired that every scrap of evidence against
the prisoner should be forwarded to me, and to my learned friends near
me; and, accordingly, as soon as he received this evidence of Newton he
forwarded it to me, and I received it on the day this Court met. I
believe it was sent to me late on the previous night, but I did not see
it until the morning you were sworn; so that this witness Newton did not
bring this matter that was in his knowledge of the fact of the purchase
by Palmer at Mr. Salt’s surgery at nine o’clock on the Monday night of
three grains of strychnia--he did not bring that to the knowledge of the
Crown until the night before this trial commenced. Now, he had been
examined at the inquest, and he did not tell before the coroner the rest
of the story which he told when he was examined here. (The learned
serjeant read the examination of Charles Newton.) He did not tell that
to the coroner. All he told the coroner was that he was present when
Palmer bought some strychnia off Roberts on the Tuesday night in the
shop of Mr. Hawkins; he did not speak to the purchase of the strychnia
on the Monday night; he knew that he was called to corroborate a
statement which Roberts had made as to the presence of Palmer at the
shop, and the purchasing of the strychnia on the Tuesday, yet he never
said one word at that time either of the fact of Palmer having bought
strychnia off him on the Monday night or of his having asked him what
appearances, if a dog were killed by strychnia, would be exhibited on
its post-mortem examination. A man who so conducts himself is utterly
unworthy of credit. There is one honest, laudable motive in a Court of
justice, and that is to assist in the administration of the criminal law
of the land. If any man had the least hesitation when in Court, or to
come into Court and take the oath to depose to what he knew were the
facts, we should not be safe against crime for a moment. But you cannot
justify the fact of swearing away another man’s life, except under a
sense of duty, and for that object; and if a man, knowing that he is to
be sworn touching so grave a subject as that of murder, the first time
he takes the oath omits a considerable portion of what he knows, and
three weeks afterwards tells another portion, and at a further interval
comes forward and tells more--enough, in his opinion, to drive the guilt
home to the man who is accused--the witness, I say, who conducts himself
in that manner ought not to be believed. The prisoner who is convicted
upon the evidence of such a man as that is sacrificed by a jury. But
there are other circumstances in that statement which render it in the
last degree improbable. That Palmer should, once in a week, purchase
strychnia in the town of Rugeley is not to be wondered at. Strychnia is
sold for many purposes, to kill dogs and vermin, and Palmer, as you may
recollect, had often occasion to complain of the dogs from the slipping
of the foals and the galloping of the mares. In the course of the
evidence in this case it has been mentioned that strychnia was purchased
by Palmer twice within the week, when the first time he had bought quite
enough, and more, for the purpose imputed to him. But that a person
should go and buy strychnia twice in a week in a small country town,
having bought enough for all purposes the first time--that he should go
and buy more the next day at the shop of a rival tradesman, with whom he
was on bad terms--is to the last degree improbable. Common sense revolts
at it; nobody can or ought to be believed who makes any such statements.
Again, observe he had been to London on the Monday. In London there is
no difficulty for a medical man to get anything of the sort which he may
require. He has only to write it down in the technical way, so as to
give evidence of a medical education, and it is given to him at once,
without a word. He had been to London; and, again, if he could not get
it there, he could get it at Stafford. Why should he get it at Rugeley?
that is the last place that he would have gone to for it. It seems to me
that it is equally impossible he ever could have bought it for such a
purpose as the purpose attributed to him, and that he would have been,
if really guilty, so unwary as to allow the paper in which the strychnia
had been not to be found with the full quantity he had purchased in it;
he would not have been such a fool as not to take care that the paper in
which it was wrapped was full of strychnia before his house was
searched, so as to make sure that it should be found that nothing should
appear to have been used out of it, and that the exact quantity was in
the paper. I submit, therefore, it cannot be believed--it is not
credible!
I am now in a condition to satisfy you that Palmer was undoubtedly in
town, and that he could not have been there at nine o’clock; that he was
in London at a quarter-past three o’clock, and that he could not have
been there by nine o’clock--the hours at which the trains start rendered
it impossible. The thing is false--downright false. It is impossible to
have got to Rugeley before a quarter-past ten, and we will account for
what he did in a way that will entirely satisfy you. He attended the
post-mortem examination, and is it credible that a skilful medical man,
who has studied at the London hospitals, would have gone to that dolt
Newton to ask him as to what would be the effects of strychnia on a
dog’s stomach? Is it credible that he should go to that stupid sort of
fellow, who gave his evidence in that dogged, mulish, sullen manner,
which often is indicative of something else besides the want of
understanding, and that he would have gone and asked a chap like that,
“What are the effects of strychnia?” and then, when he had been told, he
would snap his fingers and say, “All right.” It cannot be--it is
impossible. No one would believe it; and I submit to you confidently
that unless there is much stronger evidence than that, it is evidence on
which you cannot rely for a moment. To show the animus of this Newton
against Palmer, I will remind you of what he stated. Palmer said that
“you will find that he has taken a great deal of mercury; you will find
this ‘fellow’ died from a diseased throat.” When he is questioned about
it mildly and quietly by my friend Mr. Grove as to what was the exact
term used, he answers, “I do not know whether he said poor or rich”;
just as if it could be a question of that kind. What we wanted to know
was whether he had spoken of the poor dead man in a pitying way, or
whether he had spoken of him as a disreputable person, unworthy of all
consideration. As to that part of the case I will say no more, and I
will proceed to other matters taking you back again to what occurred at
Shrewsbury.
[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]
The case for the Crown is, that as early as the 14th November, at
Shrewsbury, the scheme--the plot--of poisoning commenced. That is the
supposition of those from whom the case has been taken by the Crown.
Now, it is suggested that on the night of Wednesday, the 14th, Palmer
dosed this man Cook with something that he put into his brandy, and the
witness Fisher told us that Cook told him so. If you remember the early
part of my address to you, I read a few words at the end of a letter
from Cook to Fisher, in which, after telling him it was of vast
importance to him, as well as to Palmer, that £500 should be paid to Mr.
Pratt, he adds in a postscript “I am better.” These words must have
referred to his illness at Shrewsbury. The letter relates to another
matter which is of great importance to him and to Palmer, and he does
not seem to treat it as one having in his own mind a belief that Palmer
had drugged him with poison for the purpose of destroying his health at
Shrewsbury. Then, again, on the evidence, what does Palmer say himself
about what occurred at Shrewsbury? He says, when it is mentioned, “Cook
says I have put something in his glass; I do not play such tricks with
people”--taking it as if it had been never understood otherwise than as
a loose expression of a man, perhaps not actually drunk--the evidence
does not go to that extent--though I think you will be of opinion he was
very nearly approaching to that condition. I could not help being a
little amused by a version which I read some time ago of this portion of
the Shrewsbury plot. I will read it to you--“After indulging freely in
the foreign wines of an English country town, 150 miles from London, the
owner of ‘Polestar’ took to brandy and water to restore his British
solidity. Tossing off his glass, he complained that there was something
in it, for it burned his throat. Perhaps those who have drunk strong
brandy and water with similar haste may have experienced the same
sensation; perhaps also, like Mr. Cook, they may have vomited
afterwards. He bolted his brandy and water down at Palmer’s challenge,
and bolted it up again when it encountered the cold champagne. That
night he was very drunk, and very sick, and very ill. His dinner he cast
up into a basin; his money he deposited with his friend Mr. Ishmael
Fisher, a sporting wine merchant, of Shoe Lane, Holborn. To this Mr.
Ishmael Fisher the owner of ‘Polestar’ gave £700 to keep till next
morning, expressing his belief, at the same time, that Palmer had dosed
him for the sake of the money. If such had been Palmer’s intention,
would he have left Cook at such a moment? He neither followed him from
the room when his stomach rebelled, nor did he go near him all that
night. This neglect showed, indeed, how hollow was his friendship, but
it proves his innocence; guilt would have been much more officious. Next
morning Cook looked very ill, as men are apt to do after excessive
vinous vomiting; but his drunken suspicions of Palmer had evaporated
with the fumes of the brandy, and they were again friends and brother
sportsmen.”
[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]
I believe that is the true version of the matter, and that Cook
believed it to be so. He breakfasted with Palmer the next morning; he
was good friends with him the whole of the day, and went with him to
Rugeley, and there remained on Palmer’s invitation. In consequence of
the letter which Pratt wrote on the 13th, and which Palmer got on the
14th, in which they both had an interest, Cook wrote to Pratt to say
that somebody would call on him with £200, and he wrote to Fisher to
tell Fisher to do so. Did anybody at that time believe that there was
any intention to drug and poison this man? Does not the explanation that
Mrs. Brookes gave, which I must say was exceedingly creditable to her,
the readiness with which she stated to me that her husband did not
approve of her attending races, that it was disagreeable to him; and the
dignity, if I may say so, with which she answered the question put to
her by my learned friend--“Are you intimate with Palmer?” by this other
question, “What do you mean by intimate with him? I am friendly,” seemed
to me to entitle her to all due respect. And when she, being called for
the Crown, tells you, “That night I heard in several directions of a
great number of people who were purged and vomited; there was a general
affection of the kind amongst strangers visiting Shrewsbury on that
occasion”--I submit to you it was to the last degree improbable that
anything of that kind occurred. About the tumbler which she saw in
Palmer’s hand I cannot suggest any reason, because it is not in my
instructions, but it might probably be accounted for in this way, when
he came back from Rugeley and found all the people indisposed he would
naturally look at the water to see if there was anything to account for
its unwholesomeness. Mrs. Brookes said, and that is the point to which I
wish to call your attention, that he was in a passage under a
chandelier; that the waiter pointed to him when he showed her upstairs;
that he spoke to her while holding up the glass to the light, and said,
“Wait a minute, and I will come to you.” Nothing can be more natural
than that; and I submit to you it is impossible to say that there is
anything to justify a suspicion of poison in it. With regard to the
money he gave to Fisher, I can suggest no other reason than that, just
before being sick, he gave his money to Fisher, feeling that it was
coming upon him, and that his stomach was revolting at the liberties he
had taken with it. He had the good sense to place his money, when he was
still very sick, in the hands of Fisher, and he afterwards went to bed.
It may have been that he had been guilty of excess in eating and
drinking, and it was necessary to send for the doctor, who, when he
came, wished to send him an emetic. The young man knew so well what to
do that he said, “Oh! I can make myself sick without an emetic; I will
put my tooth-brush down my throat; I can be sick without your emetic.”
He took a pill when it was recommended to him and a black draught, and
the moment he laid his head on his pillow he was perfectly free from any
alarm, and he got up the next morning perfectly well. Gentlemen, that is
really too ludicrous to be worthy of a moment’s consideration. Now, let
us go to certain other matters, and more particularly to the conduct of
the prisoner himself. I would just mention that there was a person there
of the name of Myatt in the room at the time they say the brandy and
water was drugged. Why was he not called? The others came in just before
going to bed, but Myatt had been there the whole evening, and was not a
mere accidental visitor in the room. You will hear his version so far as
it is necessary. They have now got back to Rugeley, and then the history
of the slow poisoning continues. Cook and Palmer go back together, and
probably they talk all the way about Pratt and their difficulties, and
the way of getting out of them, and of the small way that the winnings
of Shrewsbury will go to effect the object. They both see ruin staring
them in the face unless the Prince of Wales office can be forced to pay
the money due upon the policy of insurance, and they can remain free
from all suspicion of insolvency or misconduct in the meantime. When
they get to Rugeley, by sending up the £200 to Pratt, they provide for
the temporary difficulty. They are on friendly terms, Palmer making use
of Cook’s things, and probably both attaining their own objects, as it
would appear that Palmer said directly Cook died that he had some
interest in bills which were outstanding; and that might well have been,
considering they were engaged in racing transactions; that they were
joint owners of one horse; that they had the same trainer, betted for
each other at races, and that they were confederates and friends on the
turf, in that sort of relation to each other which gave them a joint
interest in the same ventures. Cook sat at the table of Palmer on the
16th, and wrote up that night to Pratt. Cook goes to bed late on that
evening, well enough, not so drunk as to prevent his asking the
chambermaid to give him a longer candle, in order that he might read in
bed. He seems to have had a little champagne, not so much as to have
made him drunk, yet perhaps too much for a stomach weakened by the
excess, if it was excess, at Shrewsbury, or by the vomiting which was
occasioned by the illness there, and the hot water which he had taken.
He gets up the next morning poorly; he eats nothing that day; ails
enough for Mr. Bamford to be called in by Palmer, and Palmer is
unremitting in his attention to him on that day and the Sunday
following.
[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]
Now, it is said that that very attentiveness is evidence of the
prisoner’s guilt. What, as my friend here (Mr. Grove) says, what is a
man to do? Here is a young fellow’s health in very considerable danger.
Cook, having a joint interest in racing transactions with Palmer, thinks
it convenient to stop at Rugeley, where he has no friend but Palmer.
They are not flush of money, and Palmer has a house and an establishment
on a moderate scale immediately opposite the inn in which Cook is
staying. He is enabled to send such things over as can be got in a
private house, not at hotel prices, but at a very trifling expense. He
was on a visit to Palmer, and he knew nobody there but Palmer. He was
ailing; and as it is very dull for a man who has no intellectual
pursuits to be alone all day when out of health, Palmer goes over and
talks to him, and attends to him, and gets him what comforts he can.
That is what a man would do to a friend; it is precisely what a man
would do. If he had not done it, but merely attended to him at night
when he was taken ill on the Monday night, without visiting him during
the day, it might have been said that he was neglecting him, and only
attended to him when he wanted to give him another dose of poison. That
is the way the Crown would have put it then! He is laboriously attentive
to him under circumstances which can well be accounted for by the reason
that he had actually, if not a sincere friendship for him, at least a
friendly kind of liking for him, and an interest with him on betting and
racing transactions, and could supply him with several things from his
house at little or no expense. If Cook had been well he would probably
have had his meals at Palmer’s house. He was ill, and Palmer sends Dr.
Bamford to him. He saw him at eight o’clock on Sunday morning, and again
at six or seven o’clock. Cook told him his bowels had been moved twice
or thrice. That is what he told to Dr. Bamford; it may have been known
to Palmer that it was oftener, and that the truth was he was slightly
suffering under some symptoms of diarrhœa, as he afterwards stated in
the letter to Jones. It was Cook himself who told Dr. Bamford about his
bowels having been moved; and on the same day Palmer wrote a letter to
Jones, intending to bring Jones there, he being about to go to London,
and stated “Cook had been suffering from diarrhœa.” It was at
Shrewsbury, where everybody else had diarrhœa. He took the pill and
black draught, and their effects continued, probably to some extent when
he was at Rugeley. It is absurd to pretend that the suggestion of
diarrhœa could have any sinister object, as Jones must have
ascertained the truth as soon as he arrived at Rugeley.
[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]