consideration in the after stages of the case, and also in one
remarkable particular--in an incident that took place on the day of the
death, on the evening of the preparation of the pills--and in his
conduct taken in all its circumstances I fear you will find but too
cogent proofs of his guilt. I begin with the Tuesday, the day of the
death. Mr. Cook had had what every one will admit to have been a most
severe fit on the night before. Dr. Bamford comes upon the Tuesday, but
not a word is said to him about it. He comes, and the prisoner is
solicitous that he shall not see Cook; and twice in the course of that
morning, when old Mr. Bamford is desirous of coming up to see the man,
the prisoner said, “He is tranquil and dozing; I wish him not to be
disturbed.” That may have been innocent, but on the other hand, if Dr.
Bamford had come at that time when the fit was fresh in Cook’s mind, the
probability is great that Cook would have told him what had happened the
night before. Cook does not see him till seven o’clock, when Mr. Jones
had arrived. One would have expected that, having been invited to come
by the prisoner, the first thing Mr. Palmer would have done would have
been to mention how he found him the night before. He talks of nothing
but about the bilious symptoms--bilious at Shrewsbury, bilious to Dr.
Bamford, and bilious to Mr. Jones; and thus he is represented throughout
by the prisoner at the bar, yet all this time the medical men agree in
saying that there was not a bilious symptom about him from beginning to
end; no feverish skin, no loaded tongue, and none of the concomitants of
a bilious condition. The moment Mr. Jones sees him, considering he had
heard that this man was suffering under a bilious affection, he says,
“That is not the tongue of a bilious patient.” The only answer he gets
is, “You should have seen it before.” When? When the man saw him at
Shrewsbury, or when Dr. Bamford saw him, they both found his tongue
perfectly clean; the irritation in the bowels was not the result of
natural action, but of the antimony; and not one single word does he say
to Mr. Jones of the fit that had taken place the night before. It is a
remarkable circumstance, when the three medical men are consulting at
the bedside, the patient says, “I will have no more pills--no more
medicine to-night,” intimating that his sufferings of the night before
he ascribed to the pills which he had taken. There is no observation
made by Mr. Palmer as to what had been the nature of the man’s attack
the night before, he having been called up in the dead of the night.
They go into an adjoining room to consult as to the best thing to be
done. The man had declared his aversion to taking any pills or medicine;
and Mr. Palmer immediately proposes that he shall take the same pills
that he took the night before. He says to Mr. Jones, “Do not tell him
the contents, because he has a strong objection to them.” It is arranged
to have the pills made up; he does not wait to have the pills sent by
Dr. Bamford, though it was early in the evening, but he accompanies Dr.
Bamford down to his surgery. I cannot for the life of me understand why
Dr. Bamford should have made up those pills at all. The prisoner had a
surgery of his own close by, and he could have made up the pills in two
minutes, he knew perfectly well their contents, instead of which he goes
down with Dr. Bamford to his surgery. One would have supposed it would
have been quite enough, as he was the person who every night
administered the pills to Cook, if Dr. Bamford put the pills in a box
and handed them over to Mr. Palmer, who knew what was to be done with
them, instead of which Mr. Palmer asks Dr. Bamford to write the
direction. He does write the direction, and then Mr. Palmer walks away
with the pills. An interval occurs of an hour or two, during which time
he had abundant opportunity of going home to his surgery and doing what
he pleased in the way of substituting other pills. He comes back, and
before he gives the pills he takes care to call the attention of Mr.
Jones, who was present, to the remarkable handwriting of the old
gentleman, Dr. Bamford, as being worthy of attention in a man of his
advanced age. What necessity was there for all that? Was not it, think
you, part of a scheme, that in case there should afterwards be any
question as to the cause of this man’s death, or the possibility of his
having had poison administered to him, he should be able to say to Mr.
Jones, “Why, you know they were Dr. Bamford’s pills. You were present at
the bedside of the deceased, you saw that I administered nothing except
pills, and you must be clear they were Dr. Bamford’s pills. Did not I
show you the address written, and call your attention to the excellence
of the handwriting?” Who knows but all that prevented the possibility of
suspicion being excited and presenting itself to the mind of Mr. Jones.
[Sidenote: Attorney-General]
Now, any one of those circumstances in itself would not be such as I
could venture to submit to you as conclusive of the prisoner’s guilt,
but I ask your attention to a series of things following one upon the
other, which, at the same time, are of a most remarkable character, and,
taken as a whole, lead but to one conclusion. The death having taken
place (I am passing over for a moment other circumstances which have no
reference to the immediate cause of death, I shall come back to them in
another part of the case), we find the father-in-law comes down to
Rugeley upon the Friday. Let us see what the conduct of the prisoner is
then. The father-in-law applies to him for information on the subject of
his stepson’s affairs. I pass that over, because that, too, will come
under a different head; but having done so, and it appearing from the
representation which the father-in-law made that the man had died in
comparative poverty, something is said about his being buried. “Well,”
says Mr. Stevens, “rich or poor, poor fellow, he must be buried.” Mr.
Palmer immediately says, “If that is all, I will bury him myself.” “No,”
says the stepfather, and the brother interposes. Mr. Stevens says, “No,
I am his stepfather and his executor, and it is my place to bury him.”
Well, there is nothing in all that. Palmer may have said, with regard to
his friend, that he would see the last respect paid to his memory. But
there is this remarkable thing, when the stepfather says that nobody
shall bury him but himself, and makes the observation that perhaps it
will be inconvenient to the people at the inn to have him lying there
for two or three days, because he intended to have him buried in town,
so that the poor man might lie in the same grave with his
mother--immediately after this Palmer says, “There will be no harm in
that, he can stay as long as you like; but the body ought to be put in a
coffin immediately.” After that Mr. Stevens gets into conversation with
Dr. Bamford about his son-in-law, and while they are in conversation Mr.
Palmer slips away, goes out into the town, and comes back in about half
an hour, when Mr. Stevens asks him for the name of some undertaker in
order that he may go and give the undertaker directions about the
funeral, and he finds to his surprise that Mr. Palmer has gone out, and
has himself, without any authority, ordered a shell and a strong oak
coffin in order that the body may be immediately put away. This, again,
is a circumstance not unworthy of consideration. Why should he interfere
and meddle in a matter which did not concern him, and which it was the
business and province of another man to attend to, except this, that he
had made up his mind that that body should be consigned to its last
resting-place and removed from the sight of man with as much rapidity as
circumstances would permit of? You have heard what took place in the
course of conversation upon the subject of the betting book. I pass that
by for the present.
I now come to Saturday, when, returning from London, Mr. Stevens and Mr.
Palmer met in the railway train, and at the different stations when the
train stopped had conversations with one another; and it appeared at
that time Mr. Stevens had fully made up his mind to have the body
examined--there were circumstances which had engendered suspicion in his
mind; he had seen the attitude of the corpse; he had seen the clenched
hands; and, being a man of sagacity and shrewdness, upon putting things
together, there was a lurking suspicion in his mind that he could not
overcome, and he was determined that he would be satisfied, and he made
known his intention of having the body examined before it was consigned
to the grave. It is due to Mr. Palmer to say that he did not flinch from
the trying ordeal of Mr. Stevens’ scrutinising glance when he mentioned
the subject of post-mortem examination; he makes no objection to the
post-mortem examination; he is anxious to know who shall perform it, but
Mr. Stevens will not inform him of the fact. It is to take place, and it
is appointed to take place on the Monday. On the Sunday we have that
remarkable conversation to which Newton speaks, and which has been in
the possession of the Crown (it is not, like the other part of his
evidence, brought forward at the last moment) and in the possession of
my learned friend. It is true he did not state it before the coroner,
but the explanation is extremely easy. Before the coroner, Roberts was
the man who came forward to prove the purchase of strychnia, and vouched
Newton being there. Newton was immediately fetched, and his deposition
will be found immediately following that of Roberts; not for the purpose
of giving a general statement, but for the purpose of corroborating
Roberts, which he does. Hence it came to pass, in answering only the
questions which were put to him by the coroner, nothing was said upon
the subject of that Sunday’s conversation, but it was given immediately
afterwards to the Crown.
[Sidenote: Attorney-General]
I think you will not believe that Newton comes forward for the purpose
of making a false representation as to this conversation. What was the
conversation? He is sent for by Mr. Palmer to his house, and he is
treated with a glass of brandy and water, and when he has a glass of
brandy and water they get into general conversation, and then, I think,
the prisoner says, “How much strychnia would you give if you wanted to
kill a dog?” “Why, I should give from half a grain to a grain.” “Would
you expect to find any appearances in the stomach after death?” “No
inflammation or erosion, no appearances.” Upon which a sort of
half-uttered ejaculation comes from the prisoner. “That is all right,”
and a sort of action of the hands. Was that entirely an invention? Was
nothing said about a dog? Was nothing said about strychnia? Now, it may
have proceeded from two causes, if you believe the conversation. It may
have been that the prisoner was in a state of great anxiety when he
found the post-mortem examination was to take place, and he was anxious
to know whether the views of another medical man confirmed his own with
regard to the appearances in the body after death, where death had been
occasioned by strychnia. It may have been that he meditated some
trickery, some jugglery, that involved the real destruction of a dog,
which may have given rise to those questions which were suggested on the
part of the defence to one of the witnesses who were called; it may have
been that something was in contemplation to destroy or attempt to
destroy a dog, to account for the purchase of the strychnia, which he
knew was likely to be brought up in evidence against him, and which it
would be a difficult matter to explain. Whether any such attempt was
afterwards made I know not; I imagined that we were going to have some
evidence to that effect, from the questions that were asked, but no such
evidence has been afforded--not the slightest as to what purpose this
quantity of strychnia has been applied. It has not been found upon the
prisoner’s premises. What has become of it? I cannot solve precisely the
secret of that conversation. Like many other matters in this case, it
remains a mystery; but this I know, I can look at it in no aspect in
which it does not reflect light upon the guilt in which this transaction
is involved; if you can solve the difficulty, for heaven’s sake do, but
I can suggest to you no solution. From that man Newton, then, he got his
strychnia on the Monday night, and for that man he sends on the Sunday.
With that man he holds a conversation--was it with the view of leading
Newton to believe that it was for the purpose of killing a dog he had
got it? These are speculations and surmises, into which I do not deem it
necessary further to go. It will be for you to say whether you can
entertain any doubt upon all these facts, when they are before you, that
this death was occasioned by strychnia, and that that strychnia was
administered by the prisoner, either from what he obtained upon the
Monday night, or from that which, beyond the possibility of question, he
obtained upon the Tuesday, for which he has failed to account, and for
which, indeed, he has not attempted to account.
But, then, my learned friend says that the man had no motive to take
away the life of his friend, and it is right we should see how that
matter stands. Gentlemen, if, indeed, I have satisfied you, beyond the
reach of reasonable doubt, by the evidence I have adduced, and by the
failure on the part of the evidence for the defence to neutralise its
effect, that the death here was occasioned by strychnia--that the
strychnia could have been administered by no one, and, in fact, was
administered by no one, save Mr. Palmer--the question of motive becomes
a matter of secondary consideration. It is often difficult to dive into
the breasts of men, to understand the motives that have been working
there, and by those motives to account for their actions. Omniscience
alone can exercise that faculty and that power; and therefore, where
acts are proved against a man beyond the reach of reasonable doubt, it
is not because we may not be able to exercise a sufficiently
scrutinising power to ascertain the motives that we are to doubt the
facts, the existence of which is brought beyond the reach of reasonable
doubt; but nevertheless it is always an important element in a case, and
it is, above all, an important element in a case upon which any
reasonable doubt can by possibility rest, to see whether there was an
adequate motive to lead to the perpetration of the act which is charged.
On the other hand, gentlemen, we must not be too precise in weighing the
question of adequacy of motive; that which, to the good, would appear of
no influence, however remote or minute, in inducing them to commit
crime, oftentimes, with the wicked, is quite sufficient to impel them
into crime, and it may have been so here.
[Sidenote: Attorney-General]
But let us see, before I make any further observations upon that point,
how the matter stands upon the proof which is before us. I told you that
Mr. Palmer was a man in circumstances of the direst embarrassment, with
ruin actually staring him in the face, and that nothing could avert that
ruin save pecuniary means at once obtained for his purpose. The proof
which I have offered to you has fully come up to the proposition with
which I started. The fact has been proved beyond the possibility of
doubt. It appears that in the month of November, 1855, Mr. Palmer was in
this position. He owed upon bills, all of which were forged, the sum of
£19,000; he had bills to the amount of £12,500 standing in the hands of
Mr. Pratt; he had bills to the amount of £6500 standing in the hands of
Mr. Wright; and he had a bill for £2000 in the hands of Mr. Padwick.
Although it is true that £1000 upon that account had been paid off to
Mr. Pratt, yet the bills still remained for the full amount in Mr.
Pratt’s hands. Although £1000 had been paid to Mr. Padwick, he held a
warrant of attorney and a bill of sale upon the stud for the remaining
£1000. All those bills, without exception, were forgeries. A
correspondence took place between Mr. Pratt and himself with regard to
the £13,000 policy upon his brother’s death, through which he hoped to
liquidate Mr. Pratt’s demand; he had been disappointed of that money,
and upon the office declining to pay the money, as early as the middle
of October, Mr. Pratt gave him to understand, in the most distinct and
positive terms, that the bills must be met. Bills for £4000 were due, or
were coming due, at the end of that month--one upon the 25th for £2000,
and another upon the 27th for £2000. Bills already renewed were coming
due from month to month, and there was £5500 which it was necessary
immediately to provide for. Mr. Pratt gave him notice that he could give
him no longer delay, inasmuch as the office had resolved to dispute this
policy. It was no longer an existing valid security, and consequently
Mr. Pratt could not be a party to representing to his clients, with
whose money those bills had been discounted, that it was in any respect
a valid security, therefore the bills must be met.
[Sidenote: Attorney-General]
The matter was coming to a crisis; the bills must be paid at maturity;
he sends him up three small sums, first a sum of £300, and then two sums
of £250 each, making the sum of £800. Of that sum £200 was to come off
other bills to fall due in January, leaving only £600 applicable to the
principal. He is told at once that he must do a great deal more; he is
told, late in October, that unless he does a great deal more writs will
be issued against his mother and against himself, which would at once
bring the matter to a termination by showing that those bills were
forgeries. He entreats that time shall be given; he obtains this
concession from Mr. Pratt, that the writs shall not be served until a
given day, and he in the interval must make further payments on account
of the principal bill due. That being the state of things upon the 13th,
Mr. Pratt writes and presses him for further payment. On that day
“Polestar” won. Cook was, as you have heard, in an ecstasy of delight,
feeling that his difficulties were, at all events for a time, removed;
that he should now get through the winter and live happily till the next
racing season. He little thought what was about to take place. If this
accusation is well founded, the mare winning, and his being entitled to
a large sum of money, was the most fatal thing that could have befallen
him. Alas! how great is the shortsightedness of mortal man! When we
have the highest cause of joy and exultation, often while the sunshine
of our prosperity warms and gladdens our heart for a moment, there is
lurking beneath our feet a fatal abyss, into which we are about to fall.
This poor man, if this charge be true, might have been living now, had
it not been that upon that fatal day his mare won, and he became
entitled to a large sum of money, which afforded temptation to his
murderer.
[Sidenote: Attorney-General]
Now, it becomes perfectly clear that at this moment matters were
approaching an immediate crisis. What was Mr. Palmer to do? He had no
source to which to turn for money. It is clear that he could not go to
his mother. I presume that source had long since been exhausted, or he
would not have forged her name. What was he to do if he could not get
money to satisfy Pratt’s demand? You know, although a moneylender is
considerate and indulgent enough as long as he is certain of his
payment, and gets his heavy usurious interest paid down on the nail, if
he once becomes doubtful of the security and uncertain of payment, you
may as well ask mercy of a rabid tiger, or you may as well ask pity of
stones, as hope to find bowels of compassion in him. Pratt gave him fair
warning that the money must be paid, or something must be paid by way of
instalment on the principal, and to keep the interest down. Where was
Mr. Palmer to get money from? My learned friend says Cook was his best
friend, and that Cook was the man he was to look to; and that as long as
he kept Cook alive he had a friend in need to whom he could resort for
assistance. In what way? Was Cook to give acceptances to Pratt? Is
anybody weak enough to suppose that Pratt would have taken Cook’s
acceptances to keep those bills alive, unless there was a part payment
of the principal and interest? It is quite clear that he would not. When
even for the sum of £500 he was asked to take Cook’s security, he
refused to do so, unless there was the collateral security of an
assignment of his horses. Cook had assigned to him all the property he
possessed. All that Cook had in the world was his winnings upon that
day’s race at Shrewsbury, and what little money he may have obtained by
his winnings at the races at Worcester. If you believe the witness
Myatt, those winnings were exhausted, and therefore this man had nothing
except his winnings at the Shrewsbury races; and you are asked by my
learned friend to believe that it would have been of use to Palmer to
keep this man alive. The reverse is proved by the evidence. With Pratt
his personal security would have been unavailing. Pratt tells you that
he would not take anything from him unless it was the real security of
an assignment of his horses or other property. Just see the interest
which Palmer had in securing all Cook’s effects. My learned friend says
they were mixed up together in transactions in which they had a joint
and common interest--they were confederates upon the turf and had joint
bets together. Yes; but one man putting another on does not mean that
when A puts B on and says we are likely to make a good thing, and we
will share it, that B is to pay A’s losings if they do not win. They
might be confederates on the turf, but that did not make Cook
responsible for Palmer’s liabilities. Does any one suppose that Cook
intended to find the means to enable Palmer to meet Pratt’s insatiable
demands, to stave off the difficulties in that quarter? Was Cook to
deprive himself of his winnings, and leave himself without money, for
the benefit of his friend? That is the proposition, for the whole of
which my learned friend must contend before you before he can establish
anything like a case to show that if Cook had lived it would have been
better for Palmer than that he should die. My learned friend says there
is proof that they were mixed up closely together to be found in this,
that Cook writes to his agent, Fisher, and says to Fisher, writing on
the Friday after he had dined with Palmer, “There is a matter which is
of importance to Palmer and to me, that £500 should be paid to Mr. Pratt
to-morrow; £300 has been sent down to-night, and I request you will be
so good as to pay Mr. Pratt £200 to-morrow on my account, and charge it
to me.” My learned friend thought that that transaction would be
favourable to his client, and he put it prominently forward. To my mind
he could have adduced nothing more fatal. The explanation of it is to me
as clear as the sun at noonday. Cook had brought with him some £600 or
£700; at least at Shrewsbury he was seen by Fisher with a roll of notes
amounting to some £700 or £800. On the same evening the parties came to
Rugeley, when he had not had time to spend the money. He speaks of a
£500 transaction, in which he and Palmer have a joint interest. There is
only that one transaction with Pratt in which they had a common
interest, that was the £500 raised by the assignment of “Polestar,” and
a bill, of which we say Cook never got the proceeds; and he says,
writing on that night to Fisher, “£300 have been sent up to-night, and I
will be obliged to you to pay the other £200 to make up the whole.” No
£300 were ever sent up that night. Mr. Pratt has given an account of the
whole transaction. £300 were to be sent that night; by whom were they to
be sent? Can you doubt? Where is all Cook’s money gone? I can quite
understand that he handed over £300 to Palmer to send up to Pratt, and
directed Fisher to pay another £200. What followed in respect to the
joint transaction? What was the joint transaction? they never had but
one, and that was for £500. What was it? Why, it was the money which had
been got by the assignment of “Polestar” and “Sirius”; “Polestar” had
just won at Shrewsbury--it was natural that the man should desire to
redeem his mare; moreover, the bill was coming due; he had the cash in
his pocket, and he knew that he was going to receive money at
Tattersall’s, which he never did; and he says, “£300 will be sent up
to-night.” It is the only matter in which they have a common interest,
not only as to the £500, but in any respect; Pratt had no other dealing
whatever with them jointly or with Cook, if we except the bill for
£500--what does it show? It shows that £300 had been sent for the
purpose--he sends up £300, but how is it applied? Pause for a moment;
the £300 is not sent up, Palmer keeps it in his pocket; what is done
with the other £200? Is it carried to the account of the matter in which
they had joint interest with Pratt? No such thing; it goes as part of
the payment made by Palmer to Pratt on account of the bills which Pratt
then held--it never went to any matter of joint interest--it is an idle
and false pretence to say that Cook was in any way responsible to Pratt;
it may have been the intention of Palmer when Cook should be no more to
represent him as so, but there is no foundation in reality and in fact
for the statement. I say the transaction of the £500, so far from
helping the prisoner’s case, shows conclusively that the £200 advanced
by Fisher, and the £300 to be sent up that night to satisfy this bill
for £500, and the assignment to release “Polestar” and “Sirius,” was
£500 more taken from this young man and appropriated by the prisoner to
his own use.
[Sidenote: Attorney-General]