Part 18

There is a postscript, which I will read, but upon which I will at present make no observation--“I am much better.” What is the fair inference from these letters? I submit that the inference is, that at that date Cook was making himself very useful to Palmer. Pratt was pressing for an additional sum of £200. Palmer communicated his difficulty to Cook, who at once wrote to his agent to pay the £200. More than this,--the £300 referred to in the letter as having been paid “to-night” [The Attorney-General.--“The other day”] means one of these things--it either means the £300 which had been sent up on the 9th of November (and if it did, then Cook knew all about it--probably had an interest in Palmer’s transactions with Pratt); or it was a false representation, put forward merely for the purpose of putting a good face upon the matter to Fisher; or it means that on that day £300 had somehow or other come to their hands, and had been by Cook made applicable to the convenience of Palmer. Whichever way you take it it proves to demonstration that Palmer and Cook were playing into each other’s hands with respect to that heavy encumbrance upon Palmer, and that Palmer could rely upon Cook as his fast friend in any such difficulties. Although, when we take the sum total of £11,500, his difficulties sound large, yet the difficulty of the day was nothing like that, because, in the reckless spendthrift way in which they were living, putting on bills from month to month, and paying an enormous interest per annum, the actual outlay upon the day of putting on was not considerable. I submit that this letter shows that on the day on which it is said that Palmer was poisoning Cook, the 16th of November, Cook was acting towards him in a most friendly manner, was acquainted with his circumstances, and willing to relieve his embarrassments, and actually did devote a portion of his earnings to Palmer’s purposes. I will, however, make this plainer. Part of the case of my learned friend is that Palmer, leaving Cook ill in bed at Rugeley, ran up to town on the Monday, and intending to despatch Cook that night, obtained possession of his Shrewsbury winnings by telling Herring, who was not Cook’s usual agent, that he was authorized by Cook to settle his Shrewsbury transactions at Tattersall’s. On the Monday, as on the Tuesday, Cook, though generally indisposed, was during the greater part of the day quite well. He got up and saw his trainer and two jockeys. The theory of the case for the prosecution is that he was quite well, because Palmer was not there to dose him. You will see how grossly and contemptibly absurd that is presently. Being well on Monday and Tuesday, do not you think that, had not Cook known that Palmer did not intend to go to his regular agent, Fisher, he would have been very much surprised that he on Tuesday morning received no letter from that gentleman, informing him of the settlement of his transactions? And could Palmer, as a man of business, have relied upon an absence of such surprise and alarm on the part of Cook?

We have the evidence of Fisher, that he, at Cook’s request, contained in the letter of the 17th November, advanced the £200, which he would, had he settled Cook’s affairs, have been entitled to deduct from the money he would have received at Tattersall’s on the Monday. He did not settle those affairs, and the money has never been paid. That explains the whole transaction. Cook and Palmer understood each other perfectly well. It was the interest of both of them that Palmer should be relieved from the pressure of Pratt. Accordingly, Cook said, “This settlement shall not go through Fisher’s hands. We have got him to pay the £200 to Pratt, but it shall not be repaid to him on Monday. I will let Palmer go to London and settle the whole thing through Herring.” That was done, and accordingly Fisher has never been paid. There is a letter to which I will particularly call your attention. It is one sent by Palmer to Pratt on the 19th November, 1855:--“You will place the £50 which I have just paid you and the £450 you will receive by Mr. Herring--together £500--and the £200 you received on Saturday” [That is the £200 which Fisher paid to Pratt at the express request of Cook,] “towards payment of my mother’s acceptance for £2,000 due on the 25th of October, making paid to this day the sum of £1,300.” Taking that letter with the one which Cook wrote to Fisher on Friday, the 16th, can you doubt that on that day Cook was a most convenient friend to Palmer, who could not by possibility do without him? It does not end there. Cook died at 1 o’clock on the morning of Wednesday the 21st of November. If we want to know what influence that death had upon Palmer, we must take it from the letters. On the 22d of November--and I am sure you will make some allowance for a day having elapsed from the death of Cook--Palmer writes to Pratt, “Ever since I saw you I have been fully engaged with Cook and not able to leave home.” Unless he murdered Cook, that is the truest sentence that ever was penned. 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, unless he was plotting his death.

“Ever since I saw you I have been fully engaged with Cook, and not able to leave home. I am sorry to say, after all, he died this day. So you had better write to Saunders; but, mind you, I must have Polestar, if it can be so arranged; and, should any one call upon you to know what money or moneys Cook ever had from you, don’t answer the question till I have seen you.”

“I will send you the £75 to-morrow, and as soon as I have been to Manchester you shall hear about other moneys. I sat up two full nights with Cook, and am very much tired out.”

And did he not? Was it not true? It may not be true that he sat up the whole of the nights, but he was ready to be called if Cook should be ill. Elizabeth Mills says, that after the first serious paroxysm on the Monday night she left Palmer in the arm-chair, sleeping by the side of the man whom the prosecution say he had attempted to murder. No; murderers do not sleep by their victims. What was Pratt’s answer to Palmer’s letter? I will read it, that you may see what quick ruin Cook’s death brought upon Palmer. That answer, dated November 22, is as follows:--

“I have your note, and am greatly disappointed at the non-receipt of the money as promised, and at the vague assurances as to any money. I can understand, ’tis true, that your being detained by the illness of your friend has been the cause of not sending up the larger amount, but the smaller sum you ought to have sent. If anything unpleasant occurs you must thank yourself.”

“The death of Mr. Cook will now compel you to look about as to the payment of the bill for £500, on the 2d December.”

“I have written to Saunders, informing him of my claim, and requesting to know by return what claim he has for keep and training. I send down copy of bill of sale to Crubble to see it enforced.”

So that the first effect of Cook’s death was, in the opinion of Pratt, who knew all about it, to saddle Palmer with the sum of £500. Now I will undertake to satisfy you that the transactions out of which that bill for £500 arose were transactions for Cook’s benefit, and in which Palmer lent his name to accommodate Cook, upon whose death he became primarily and alone responsible for the bill. Let me state the view which my learned friend (the Attorney-General) takes of that transaction, because I intend to meet his case foot by foot, and I shall, I hope convince him that, if he had had the option, he would never have taken up this case--the Crown would never have appeared in it. The universal feeling in the country was, however, such as to render it impossible that the case should not be tried, after the verdict of wilful murder had been obtained upon the evidence of Dr. Taylor; and the Crown felt that it would be neglecting its solemn duty to protect every one of the Queen’s subjects, if it did not take care that a man against whom there was so much prejudice--a man leading the life which Palmer has led, disgraced, as it is said, by forgeries to a large amount, and a gambler by profession--should have a fair trial. There was no way of securing that, as my learned friend at once saw, no possibility of the prisoner’s being saved, except by giving to the counsel who defended him all the information which my learned friend himself possessed. The view which my learned friend takes of the £500 transaction, the theory on which he thinks it probable that Palmer plotted the death of Cook, is this:--

“Pratt still declining to advance the money, Palmer proposed an assignment by Cook of two race horses, one called Polestar, which won the Shrewsbury Races, and another called Sirius. That assignment was afterwards executed by Cook in favour of Pratt, and Cook, therefore, was clearly entitled to the money which was raised upon that security, which realised £375 in cash, and a wine warrant for £65. Palmer contrived, however, that the money and the wine warrant should be sent to him, and not to Cook. Mr. Pratt sent down his check to Palmer in the country on a stamp, as the act of parliament required, and he availed himself of the opportunity now afforded by law of striking out the word ‘bearer’ and writing ‘order,’ the effect of which was to necessitate the endorsement of Cook on the back of the cheque. It was not intended by Palmer that those proceeds should fall into Cook’s hands, and accordingly he forged the name of John Parsons Cook on the back of that cheque. Cook never received the money, and you will see that, within ten days from that period when he came to his end, the bill in respect of that transaction, which was at three months, would have fallen due, when it must have become apparent that Palmer received the money, and that, in order to obtain it, he had forged the endorsement of Cook.”

That is the view which the prosecution take of the case, and I think I shall be able to satisfy you that it cannot possibly be the correct one. We know from Pratt exactly what took place. Palmer wrote to him saying,--

“I have undertaken to get the enclosed bill cashed for Mr. Cook. You had the £200 bill of his. He is a very good and responsible man. Will you do it? I will put my name to the bill.”

So that it was represented to Pratt as a transaction for the accommodation of Cook. Pratt’s answer to that is:--

“If Mr. Cook chooses to give me security, I have no objection; but he must execute a bill of sale on his two horses, Polestar and Sirius; more, he must execute a power of attorney, and his signature to both must be witnessed by some solicitor in the country, so that I may be quite sure that it is a really valid security. If Cook will do that I will give him £375 in money, and a wine warrant for £65; which, charging £10 for expenses, and £50 for discount, will make £500.”

There can be no doubt that Cook attached great value to Sirius and Polestar, which mare was, probably, then booked for the engagements in which she won so much money at Shrewsbury; and it is to the last degree improbable that he would have executed this bill of sale, with a power of attorney to enable the mortgagee or assignee to enforce it at once effectually, and yet have received no money. Would he, if such had been the case, have remained quiet to the day of his death, and never have written to Pratt to say that although he had sent him the required documents he had never received the money? Cook was as much in want of money as Palmer was, and would he thus have thrown away his money? Is it credible that if Palmer had misappropriated the cheque he could for three months have kept Cook in ignorance of the transaction? Is it not probable that Cook’s name was written on the cheque with his full knowledge and consent? It is not suggested that there was any attempt to imitate his handwriting. Is it not more probable that Cook, who, I will prove to you from the letter, wanted ready money, and who would probably be put to inconvenience by receiving only a cheque, which he would not get cashed for a day or two, took the ready money--£315, which Pratt sent at the same time to Palmer--and that Palmer took the cheque? On the 6th of September Palmer wrote to Pratt:--

“I received the cheque for the £100, and will thank you to let me have the £315 by return of post, if possible; if not, send it me (certain) by Monday night’s post to the Post-office, Doncaster. I now return you Cook’s papers signed &c., and he wants the money on Saturday, if he can have it; but I have not promised it for Saturday. I told him he should have it on Tuesday morning at Doncaster; so please enclose it with mine, in cash, in a registered letter, and he must pay for it being registered. Do not let it be later than Monday night’s post to Doncaster.”

So that Palmer asked that it should be sent like his own, Cook, according to the letter, wanting it in cash. Pratt replied to Palmer, acknowledging the receipt of the documents, and promising that he would send him his money to Doncaster on the Monday, and would endeavour to let Cook have his at the same time. On the 9th of September Palmer wrote to Pratt:--

“You must send me, for Mr. Cook, by Monday night’s post (to the Post-office, Doncaster,) £385 instead of £375, and the wine warrant, so that I can hand it to him with the £375, and that will be allowing you £50 for the discount, &c. I shall then get £10, and I expect I shall have to take the wine, and give him the money; but I shall not do so if you do not send £385, and be good enough to enclose my £315 with it, in cash, in a registered letter, and direct it to me to the Post-office, Doncaster.”

In these letters there is an intimation that Cook wanted the money on the Saturday. He was inconvenienced by only getting a cheque upon London, which he could not immediately change; and, therefore, Palmer gave him the money and took the cheque. It is remarkable that, when we look to the banking account of Palmer at Rugeley, we find that the £375 is paid in by somebody to his account, but that the £315 is not paid in to his account at all. The bill was accepted for Cook’s accommodation, Cook gave security for it, and he never, during the three months which elapsed before his death, complained to Pratt that he had not received the money for it. I submit that the fair version of the transaction is that which is given in a letter from Palmer--that Palmer let Cook have the cash, and himself took the cheque, having Cook’s authority to put his name at the back of it. How else can you account for the silence of Cook, and for the fact that the £375 is paid into the Rugeley Bank, but there is no trace of the £315? This being so, the result of Cook’s death was to make Palmer liable for the £500 bill, on the back of which he had put his name. Therefore, I submit to you, that on the second motive suggested by my learned friend (the Attorney-General), the case has entirely failed. In addition to this, however, we find from these letters the difficulties which the death of Cook brought upon Palmer. We find the disappointment of Pratt that he could send no more money, the bill for £500, the danger of losing Polestar, which Palmer very much wanted to have, and which Pratt would, unless paid the £500, bring to the hammer in order to realise his security; and we find that inquiries were at once apprehended from Cook’s friends as to the moneys which Pratt had paid to Cook, and the probable value which the latter had received for the endorsements and acceptances which he had given. There is another, although not so strong a reason, why it is improbable that Palmer should have desired the death of Cook. Mr. Weatherby has told us to day that, although it frequently happens that the moneys won at a race are sent up by the clerk of the course in a week after the race, yet that does not always happen. On Tuesday, November the 20th, on the night of which day he died, Cook, who was then perfectly sensible, perfectly comfortable and happy, and enjoying the society of his friend Mr. Jones, gave to Palmer a cheque for £350 upon Weatherby’s. If Palmer killed Cook, and it happened that Fraill had not sent up the money so as to be there by Wednesday morning, Weatherby’s would not pay the cheque, nor would they have cashed it if they had received information that Cook had died during the night. It actually happened that the cheque when presented was not paid, because Fraill did not send up the money. Was it probable that Palmer, having got from Cook a cheque for £380, would have run the risk of losing his money by destroying him the same night?

It is suggested that he obtained this cheque fraudulently, and then, lest Cook should detect the fraud, destroyed him. That was not likely to answer his purpose. He might be certain that directly the breath was out of Cook’s body, Jones would go to Mr. Stevens; that Stevens and Bradford, Cook’s brother-in-law, would go down to Rugeley; that the death being sudden there would most likely be a _post-mortem_ examination; and that, instead of settling for the £500 bill and the £350 cheque with Cook, he would have to settle with hard men of business, men who cared nothing for him, who would probably look upon him as a “leg” upon the turf, and would regard neither his feelings nor his interests, but would let him go to ruin any way he might, not stirring a finger to save him. Is it probable that a shrewd intelligent man of business would make such a choice as that. More than this, we know that at that very time Herring held one bill for £500, and three for £200 each, to which there were the names of both Palmer and Cook, and for all of which, either in the whole or in part, Cook must, unless he rushed to his own ruin, provide. If Palmer put Cook to death, he immediately became solely liable, not only for these bills, but for that, as security, for which the bill of sale was executed on Sirius and Polestar, which would not be so easily renewed as those for the large sums on which the enormous usury was paid. That bill would very likely soon find its way to his mother, and that it should do so would not suit Palmer, for his mother is a respectable and serious person, who, although she loved her son, did not like and gave no encouragement to his gambling; nor did that excellent and most honourable man who stands by him--his brother, who was estranged from him for a length of time, until this calamity came upon him, simply because he disapproved the gambling by which he lived. Cook being dead, there was, therefore, no one to save Palmer from ruin, for in all this voluminous evidence there is not the smallest trace that there was any one else in the world who would lend Palmer his name or would assist him to obtain money. If it be, as it is stated, a fact that he forged the name of his mother, is not that conclusive evidence that he had no other resource but the goodnature--the easiness, perhaps the folly of Cook? Is it then credible that under such circumstances he would have desired to bring upon himself not merely the creditors and executors of Cook, but their solicitors--men who, in the discharge of their duty to their clients, can have no sympathy for any one, and with whom no arrangement is possible? I have, therefore, I hope, shown you that Palmer had an interest in the life of Cook. But, more than that, was it safe for him that Cook should die? Palmer was a man who had a shrewd knowledge of the world and a knowledge of his profession, and, among other things, of chemistry. My learned friends have put in a book which was found in his house, and among other notes one in which there is this, “Strychnia kills by causing tetanic fixing of the respiratory muscles.” In the same book there are many other notes.

Lord CAMPBELL: The Attorney-General stated that he did not place much reliance upon that note.

Mr. Serjeant SHEE: My learned friend did not press this note, but he thought it was evidence which ought to be before you (the jury). I use it to satisfy you that Palmer had studied his profession sufficiently to know, and knew perfectly well, that if strychnine were administered it would in all probability kill the victim in 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 more--time enough to alarm everybody and provoke inquiry into the circumstances of the death, which must certainly, in all probability, end in the detection of guilt. If that is so, was he at that time so circumstanced as to render it safe for him to run the risk of such suspicions? His brother, Walter Palmer, had died in the month of August; and, unless his mother forgave him, or recognized the acceptance, his only hope of extraction from his difficulties lay in getting from the Prince of Wales office the money due to him as assignee of the policy on his brother’s life. That his chance of getting that money was good is shown by the fact that he refused the offer of the office to return the premium, and that it was upon it that Pratt had obtained the discounts, and had resolved, under the direction of Palmer, to put it in suit. It was really the only unpledged property which he had, and how he was situated with regard to it appears from the letters and from the evidence. The Insurance company, annoyed at being called upon to pay so large a sum, were determined to do all they could to resist it. They accordingly sent Inspector Field and his man to Stafford to make inquiries. They could not do this without talking, and this had been going on for some time. [To show that this had been the case the learned Serjeant read the deposition of the witness Deane, who was examined yesterday.] So that just before the death of Cook, Palmer knew himself to be the subject of what he appeared from his actions to consider a most unfounded and unwarrantable suspicion. He put the policy into the hands of an attorney to enforce payment of the sum due upon it. The office met the claim by insinuations and inquiries which were of a nature to destroy his character and to bring upon his head the suspicion of a murder. The pressure by Pratt upon Palmer to meet the £2,000 bills did not commence until the office disputed the payment of that policy. All went as smooth as possible as long as Pratt held what he believed to be a good security, but when they began to dispute that, Pratt writes to Palmer and tells him that the state of things is changed. After saying that nothing can be done towards compelling the office to pay until the 24th, he says in his letter of the 2d of October:--

“This, you will observe, quite alters arrangements, and I therefore must request that you make preparations for meeting the two bills due at the end of this month.... In any event, bear in mind that you must be prepared to cover your mother’s acceptances for the £4,000, due at the end of the month.”