Part 29

Did you not receive that paper from Pratt?--I believe I did not. I think William Palmer gave it me.

Well, did he give it you?--I don’t recollect.

I repeat my question. Did William Palmer give you that document?--Most likely he did.

Did he, I ask again?--It was not signed at the time.

But did he give it you? I will have an answer.--I have no doubt he did.

Well, then, if that document bears the signature of Walter Palmer, and was given to you by William Palmer, cannot you tell whether it bears your own signature or not?--Mr. Attorney--

Don’t “Mr. Attorney” me--answer my question. Upon your oath, is not that your handwriting?--I believe it not to be.

Will you swear it is not?--I believe it not to be. [Great sensation.]

Now, did you apply to the Midland Counties Insurance Office to be appointed agent to the company at Rugeley?--I did.

When was it?--I should like to fetch my documents and papers; I should then be able to answer you accurately.

Oh, never mind the papers. Was it in October, 1855?--I think it was.

Did you send up a proposal for an insurance of £10,000 on the life of Bates?--I did.

Did William Palmer ask you to make that proposal?--Bates and Palmer came together to my office, with a prospectus, and asked me if I knew whether there was an agent for the Midland Counties Office in Rugeley. I told him I never heard of one. He asked me afterwards if I would write to get the appointment, because Bates wanted to raise some money.

Did you send to the Midland Counties Office to get the appointment of agent, in order that you might be enabled to effect this insurance on Bates’s life?--I did.

Did you make the application in order to get the insurance effected?--I did.

Upon the life of Bates for £10,000?--I did. [Sensation.] Bates was at that time superintending William Palmer’s stud and stables. I do not know at what salary. I afterwards went to the widow of Walter Palmer to get her to give up her claim on the policy of her husband. She was then at Liverpool. William Palmer gave me a letter for Pratt to take to her to sign. Mrs. Palmer said she would like to see her solicitor about it. I brought the document back with me because she did not sign it. I had no instructions to leave it.

Did she give any reason for not signing it?

Mr. Sergeant SHEE objected to the question.

Lord CAMPBELL decided that it could not be put.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Do you know whether Walter Palmer received anything on executing the assignment of his policy to William Palmer?--I believe he ultimately had something.

Did he not get a bill for £200?--I believe he did, and he also got a house furnished for him.

Was that bill paid?--I do not remember.

Is that document in your handwriting? [document handed in]--It is.

Now, having seen that document with your signature, I ask you whether you were applied to to effect an insurance on the life of Walter Palmer?--I do not recollect.

Not recollect! when your signature is staring you in the face?--No, I do not.

You are an attorney, and accustomed to business transactions?--I am.

Now I ask you again, were you applied to on the subject?--I may have been; it is from my memory I am speaking, and I wish, therefore, to speak as accurately as possible [laughter].

I don’t ask you as to your memory in the abstract, but your memory now that is refreshed by that document. Is that your signature?--Witness (hesitating) I have no doubt it may be.

Look at that document and see whether you were not applied to to effect the insurance I have named?--That is my signature.

I ask you, have you any doubt that in the month of January, 1855, you were called upon to attest another proposal for £13,000 on the life of Walter Palmer?--Witness (with hesitation): I may have signed that paper in blank.

Did you sign this proposal in blank?--I might have done.

But did you, I ask again?--I cannot swear I did or did not. I have some doubt whether I did not sign several of these proposals in blank [sensation].

Upon your oath, do you not know that William Palmer applied to you to effect an insurance for £13,000 on the life of his brother?--I do not remember.

Why this is a very large sum, surely you must remember such a transaction as this?--I may have been applied to on the subject.

Were you applied to to attest another proposal for an insurance with the Universal Life Office?--I cannot say that I was.

Will you swear that when Walter Palmer executed the deed of assignment of his policy to William Palmer, that you were not present? Now, be careful, for you will certainly hear of this on some future day if you are not careful.--I cannot say that I was.

Upon your oath, did you not attest the deed of assignment of Walter to his brother of his interest in a policy of insurance for £13,000?--I cannot say. I believe the signature “Jeremiah Smith” is very much like my handwriting.

I repeat the question?--I cannot say.

Why, did you not receive a cheque for £5 for attesting it?--I think I did receive a cheque for £5.

Did you not see William Palmer write this upon the counterfoil of his cheque-book [cheque-book handed to witness]?--Witness, with hesitation: I cannot positively swear that I did.

Did you not, sir, see him write it?--That is William Palmer’s handwriting [referring to the cheque-book].

Did you not know that you got a five pound cheque for attesting that signature?--I may have got a cheque for £5, but I may not have got it for attesting the signature of the document.

You say you got £200 for Cook--£100 from Mrs. Palmer and £100 from William Palmer?--Yes, and he gave £10 for the recommendation.

To whom?--To William Palmer.

Do you not know that the £200 bill was given for the purpose of enabling William Palmer to make up a sum of £500?--I believe it was not, for Cook received absolutely from me £200.

Did he not have the money from you in order to take up to London to pay Pratt?--No, he took it with him, I think, to Shrewsbury, to the races.

Who was the bill drawn in favour of?--I think William Palmer.

What became of the bill?--I do not know.

Witness: I was not present at the inquest on Cook. I can’t say who saw me when I went to the Talbot Arms and went into Cook’s room. One of the servants gave me a candle--either Bond, Mills, or Lavinia Barnes.

Re-examined by Mr. Serjeant SHEE: I have known Mrs. Palmer twenty years. I knew her before her husband’s death. I should say she is sixty years of age. William Palmer is not her eldest son. Joseph is the eldest. He resides at Liverpool. He is forty-five or forty-six years of age. I think George is the next son. He lives at Rugeley. He was frequently at his mother’s house. There is another son, a clergyman of the Church of England. He resided with his mother until within the last two years, except when he was at college. There is a daughter. She lives with her mother. There are three servants. Mrs. Palmer’s family does not visit much in the neighbourhood of Rugeley. Her house is a large one. I slept in a room nearest the Old Church.

Mr. Serjeant SHEE: Is there any pretence for saying you have ever been charged with any improper intimacy with Mrs. Palmer?--Witness: I hope not.

Mr. Serjeant SHEE: Is there any pretence for saying so?--Witness: There ought not to be.

Mr. Serjeant SHEE: Is there any truth in the statement or suggestion that you have had any improper intimacy with Mrs. Palmer?--Witness: They might have said so, but there is no reason.

Mr. Serjeant SHEE: Is there any truth in the statement?--Witness: I should say not.

Mr. Serjeant SHEE: When did it come to your knowledge that there was a proposal for Walter’s life?--Witness: I never heard of it until the inquest.

The Court then adjourned for about twenty minutes, when the proceedings were resumed.

W. JOSEPH SAUNDERS was then called up on his subpœna, but did not appear.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he should be extremely sorry to commence his reply if there was any chance of witness making his appearance.

Mr. Serjeant SHEE said he should now ask for the production of a letter written by Cook to Palmer on Jan. 4, 1855.

The letter, of which the following is a copy, was then put in and read:--

“Lutterworth, Jan. 4, 1855.

“My dear Sir,--I sent up to London on Tuesday to back St. Hubert for £50, and my commission has returned 10s. 1d. I have, therefore, booked 250 to 25 against him, to gain money. There is a small balance of £18 due to you, which I forgot to give you the other day. Tell Will to debit me with it on account of your share of training Pyrrhine. I will also write to him to do so, as there will be a balance due from him to me.

Yours faithfully,

“J. PARSONS COOK.”

“W. Palmer, Esq.”

Mr. Serjeant SHEE submitted that he was entitled to reply on a part of evidence. The course taken by the Attorney-General on getting at the contents of the cheque, the contents of an assignment of the policy on Walter Palmer’s life, and the contents of the proposals to various offices for the insurance, he submitted entitled him to a reply on those points.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE: We are of opinion that you have no right to reply.

Mr. BARON ALDERSON: That is quite clear.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he had been taken somewhat by surprise yesterday by the evidence of Dr. Richardson, with respect to angina pectoris. Dr. Richardson adverted to several books and authorities. He had now those books in his possession, and was desirous of putting some questions arising out of that part of the evidence.

The Court decided against the application.

The case for the defence here concluded.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S REPLY.

The Attorney-General, at ten minutes before three, commenced his reply, speaking occasionally in so low a tone that the conclusion of many of his sentences was inaudible. He said: May it please your lordships and gentlemen of the jury, the case for the prosecution and the case for the defence are now before you, and it now becomes my duty to address to you such observations upon the whole of the evidence as suggest themselves to my mind. I feel that I have a moral, solemn, and important duty to perform. I wish I could have answered the appeal made to me the other day by my learned friend (Serjeant Shee), and say that I am satisfied with the case which he submitted to you for the defence. But, standing here as the instrument of public justice, I feel that I should be wanting in the duty that I have to perform if I did not ask at your hands for a verdict of guilty against the prisoner. I approach the consideration of the case in, I hope, what I may term a spirit of fairness and moderation. My business is to convince you, if I can, by facts and legitimate arguments, of the prisoner’s guilt; and if I cannot establish it to your satisfaction, no man will rejoice more than I shall in a verdict of acquittal. Gentlemen, in the mass of evidence which has been brought before you, two main questions present themselves prominently for your consideration. Did the deceased man, into whose death we are now inquiring, die a natural death, or was he taken off by the foul means of poison? And if the latter proposition be sanctioned by the evidence, then comes the important--if possible, the still more important--question, whether the prisoner at the bar was the author of the death? I will proceed with the consideration of the subject in the order which I have mentioned. Did John Parsons Cook die by poison? I assert and contend the affirmative of that proposition. The case which is submitted to you on behalf of the Crown is this--that, having been first practised upon by antimony, Cook was at last killed by strychnine. The first question to be considered is--what was the immediate and proximate cause of his death. The witnesses for the prosecution have told you, one and all, that, in their judgment, he died of tetanus, which signifies a convulsive spasmodic action of the muscles of the body. Can there be any doubt that their opinion is correct? Of course it does not follow that, because he died of tetanus, it must be the tetanus of strychnia. That is a matter for after consideration. But, inasmuch as strychnine produces death by tetanus, we must see, in the first place, whether it admits of doubt that he did die of tetanus. I have listened with great attention to every form in which that disease has been brought under your consideration--whether by the positive evidence of witnesses, or whether by reference to the works of scientific writers; and I assert deliberately that no case, either in the human subject or in the animal, has been brought under your notice in which the symptoms of tetanus have been so marked as in this case.

From the moment the paroxysms came on of which the unhappy man died, the symptoms were of the most marked and of the most striking character. Every muscle, says the witness, the medical man who was present at the time--every muscle of his body was convulsed--he expressed the most intense dread of suffocation--he entreats them to lift him up lest he should be suffocated--and every muscle of his body, from the crown of his head to the soles of his feet, was so stricken--the flexibility of the trunk and the limbs was gone--and you could only have raised him up as you would have raised a corpse. In order that he might escape from the dread of suffocation, they turned him over, and then, in the midst of that fearful paroxysm, one mighty spasm seemed to have seized his heart, to have pressed from it the life blood, and the result was--death. And when he died, his body exhibited the most marked symptoms of this fearful disease. He was convulsed from head to foot. You could have rested him on his head and heels--his hands were clasped with a grasp that it required force to overcome, and his feet assumed an arched appearance. Then, if it was a case of tetanus--into which fact I will not waste your time by inquiry--the question arises, was it a case of tetanus produced by strychnia? I will confine myself for a moment to the exhibition of the symptoms as described by the witnesses. Tetanus may proceed from natural causes as well as from the administration of poisons, and while the symptoms last they are the same. But in the course of the symptoms, and before the disease reaches its consummation in the death of the patient, the distinction between the two is marked by characteristics which enable any one conversant with the subject to distinguish between them. We have been told on the highest authority that the distinctions are these--natural tetanus is a disease not of minutes, not of hours, but of days. It takes--say several other witnesses--from three to four days; and will extend to a period of even three weeks before the patient dies. Upon that point we have the most abundant and conclusive evidence of Dr. Curling; we have the evidence of Dr. Brodie; we have the evidence of Dr. Daniel, a gentleman who has seen something like twenty-five or thirty cases; we have the evidence of a gentleman who has practised twenty-five years in India, where these cases, arising from cold, are infinitely more frequent; and he gives exactly the same description of the course which this disease invariably takes. Idiopathic or traumatic tetanus is therefore out of the question, upon the evidence which has been given. But traumatic tetanus is out of the question for a very different reason. Traumatic tetanus is brought on by the lesion of some part of the body. But what is there in this case to show that there was anything like lesion at all. We have had several gentlemen called, who have come here with an evident determination to misconceive and misrepresent every fact. We have called before you an eminent physician, who had Cook under his care.

It seems that, in the spring of the year 1855, Cook, having found certain small spots manifest themselves in one or two parts of his body, and having something of an ulcerated tongue and a sore throat, conceived that he was labouring under symptoms of a particular character. He addressed himself to Dr. Savage, who found that the course of medicine he had been pursuing was an erroneous one. He enjoined the discontinuance of mercury. His injunction was obeyed, and the result was that the patient was suffering neither from disease nor wrong treatment. But lest there should be any possibility of mistake, Dr. Savage says that long before the summer advanced every unsatisfactory symptom had entirely gone; there was nothing wrong about him, except that affection of the throat, to which thousands of people are subject. In other respects, the man was better than he had been, and might be said to be convalescent. On the very day that he leaves London to go into the country, a fortnight before the races, his stepfather, who accompanied him to the station, congratulated him upon his healthy and vigorous appearance, and, the young man, conscious of a restored state of health, struck his breast, and said “He was well, very well.” Then he goes to Shrewsbury, and shortly afterwards arose those matters to which I am about to call your attention. I want to know in what part of the evidence there is the slightest pretence for saying that this man had an affection which might bring on traumatic tetanus? It is said that he had exhibited his tongue to witnesses, and applied for a mercurial wash, but it is clear that, although he had at one time adopted that course, he had, under the recommendation of Dr. Savage, got rid of it, and there is no pretence for saying he was suffering under any syphilitic affection of any kind. That fact has been negatived by a man of the highest authority and eminence. It is a pretence for which there was not a shadow of a foundation, and I should shrink from my duty if I did not denounce it as a pretence unworthy of your attention. There was nothing about the man which would warrant, for a single moment, the supposition that there was anything of that character in any part of his body when the tetanus set in. One or two cases of traumatic tetanus have been adduced in the evidence which has been brought forward for the defence. One is the case of a man in the London Hospital, who was brought into that institution one evening, and died the same night. But what are the facts? The facts are, that before he had been brought in he had had a paroxysm early in the morning--that he was suffering from ulcers of the most aggravated description. The symptoms had run their course rapidly, it is true, but the case was not one of minutes, but of hours. Another case has been brought forward in which a toe was amputated, but there we have disease existing some time before death. But then it is suggested that this may be a case of idiopathic tetanus proceeding from--what? They say that Cook was a man of delicate constitution, subject to excitement; that he had something the matter with his chest; that in addition to having something the matter with his chest, he had the diseased condition of throat; and putting all these things together, they say that if the man took cold he might get idiopathic tetanus.

We are here launched into a sea of speculations and possibilities. Dr. Nunneley, who comes here for the purpose of inducing you to believe there was something like idiopathic tetanus, goes through supposed infirmities, and talks about his excitability, his delicacy of chest, his affection of the throat, and he says these things would predispose to idiopathic tetanus if he took colds. But what evidence is there that he did take cold? Not the slightest in the world. There is not the smallest pretence that he ever complained of a cold, or was treated for a cold. I cannot help saying that it seems to me that it is a scandal upon a learned, and distinguished, and liberal profession, that men should come forward to put forth such speculations upon these perverted facts, and draw from them sophistical and unwarrantable conclusions, with a view to deceive you. I have the greatest respect for science. No man can have more. But I cannot repress my indignation and abhorrence when I see it perverted and prostituted for the purposes of a particular case in a court of justice. Dr. Nunneley talked to you about certain excitements being the occasion of idiopathic tetanus. You remember the sorts of excitement of which he spoke. They are unworthy of your notice. They were topics discreditable to be put forward by a witness as worthy of your consideration. But, suppose for a single moment that excitement at the time could produce any such effect, where is the excitement manifested by Cook as leading to the supposed disease? They say that the man, when he won his money at Shrewsbury, was for a moment excited. And well he might be. His fortunes depended upon the result of the race, and I will not deny that he was overpowered with emotions of joy. But those emotions subsided, and we have no further trace of them from that time to the moment of his death. The man passed the rest of the day with his friends in ordinary conversation and enjoyment. No trace of emotion was found. He is taken ill. He goes to Rugeley. He is taken ill there again. But is there the slightest symptom of excitement about him, or of depression? Not the least. When he is ill, like most people, he is low spirited. As soon as he gets a little better, he is cheerful and happy. He invites his friends and converses with them. On the night of his death his conversation is cheerful. He is mirthful and happy, little thinking, poor fellow, of the fate that was depending over him. He is cheerful, and talks of the future, but not in language of excitement.

What pretence is there for this idle story about excitement? None whatever. But even if there were excitement or depression--if these things were capable of producing idiopathic tetanus, the character of the disease is so essentially different that it is impossible to mistake the two. What are the cases which they attempt to set up against us? They brought forward a Mary Watson, who, with a gentleman, came all the way from some place in Scotland to tell us that a girl had been ill all day, that she is taken worse at night, that she gets well in a short time, and goes about her business. That is a case which they brought here to be compared with the death agony of this man. These are the sort of cases with which they attempt to meet such a case as is spoken to here. Gentlemen, I venture, upon the evidence which has been brought before you, to assert boldly, that the cases of idiopathic and traumatic tetanus are marked by clear and distinct characteristics distinguishing them from the tetanus of strychnine; and I say that the tetanus which accompanied Cook’s death is not referable to either of these forms of tetanus. You have, upon this point, the evidence of men of the highest competency and most unquestionable integrity, and upon their evidence, I am satisfied, you can come to no other conclusion than that this was not a case of either idiopathic or traumatic tetanus. But, then, various attempts have been made to set up different causes as capable of producing this tetanic disease. And first, we have the theory of general convulsions; and Dr. Nunneley having gone through the beadroll of the supposed infirmities of Cook, says, “Oh, this may have been a case of general convulsions--I have known general convulsions assuming a tetanic character!” I said to him, “Have you ever seen one single case in which death arising from general convulsions accompanied with tetanic symptoms has not ended in the unconsciousness of the patient?” He says, “No, I never heard of such a case, not one; but in some book or other, I am told, there is some such case reported,” and he cites, for that purpose, as an authority for general convulsions being accompanied with tetanic symptoms, Dr. Copland.