Lord Campbell. Yes. “I am much better.” Now, the signature to this letter is undoubtedly genuine, and it shows, first, that Cook at that time intended to be in London on the Monday, and, secondly, that he desired an advance of £200 to pay Pratt. How he came to alter his intention as to going to London, and how Herring came to be employed for him instead of Fisher, you must infer for yourselves. But if he authorised the employment of Herring in order to prevent Fisher from reimbursing himself, he was a party to a fraud. You must infer whether he did so or not. [His Lordship then read the remainder of Fisher’s evidence, and also the evidence of Mr. Jones, the law stationer, of Gibson, and of Mrs. Brook.] This, he said, ends the history of Cook’s illness at Shrewsbury. Taken by itself it amounts to very little, but in connexion with what follows it deserves your serious consideration. Then with regard to what took place at the Talbot Arms, at Rugeley, where Cook lodged, you have a most important witness—Elizabeth Mills. [His Lordship then read the evidence of Mills, observing that the events of Monday and Tuesday, the 19th and 20th of November, and the symptoms which immediately preceded the death of Cook, formed a most material part of the case.] It has been suggested, continued the learned Judge, by the counsel for the defence, that Elizabeth Mills may have been bribed by Mr. Stevens, the father-in-law of Cook, to give evidence prejudicial to the prisoner; but, in justice both to Mr. Stevens and to Elizabeth Mills, I am bound to declare that not one fact has been adduced to warrant us in believing that there is the slightest foundation for any such statement. It has also been alleged that Mr. Stevens called upon Elizabeth Mills, and read to her an extract from a newspaper, with the view, it is presumed, of influencing her evidence or guiding it in a particular direction; but this, too, is a gratuitous assertion, and, so far from being supported by the evidence, it is distinctly denied. As regards the manner in which Palmer was dressed when he ran over from his own house to the Talbot Arms on the night of Cook’s death, there is no doubt a difference between the testimony of Elizabeth Mills and that of her fellow-servant, Lavinia Barnes, the former asserting that he wore a plaid dressing-gown, and the latter a black coat; but it is for you to decide whether the point is of sufficient significance to justify a suspicion dishonourable to the veracity of either witness. It has been asserted also that there are certain discrepancies between the evidence given by Elizabeth Mills before the coroner and that which she gave in your presence. That you may the more accurately estimate the importance of those differences it is competent for the prisoner’s counsel to require that the depositions shall be read. What say you, brother Shee?
Mr. Serjeant Shee: With, your Lordship’s permission, we desire to have them read.
Lord Campbell: Then let them be read, by all means.
The Clerk of Arraigns then read the depositions of Elizabeth Mills, as taken before the coroner.
Lord Campbell: You have now heard the depositions read, and you will decide for yourselves whether her statements before the coroner are not substantially the same as those which she made before you in the course of her examination. You will have to determine whether there is any material discrepancy between them. Her own explanation of her omission to state before the coroner that she was sick after partaking of the broth prepared for Cook is, that she was not asked the question: but that she was sick the evidence of another witness goes distinctly to prove; and it is for you to say whether, corroborated as it thus is, the testimony of Elizabeth Mills is worthy of being believed, and, if so, what inference should be drawn from it. The next witnesses are Mr. James Gardner, attorney, of Rugeley, and Lavinia Barnes, fellow-servant of Elizabeth Mills, at the Talbot Arms Inn. The learned judge, having read his notes of the evidence of the witnesses in question, observed, the testimony of Lavinia Barnes corroborates that of Mills as to the latter having been seized with illness immediately after she had taken two spoonfuls of the broth. There is some little difference of evidence as to the exact time when Palmer was seen at Rugeley on the Monday night, after his return from London; but you have before you the statements of all the witnesses, and you will decide whether the point is one of essential importance. [The learned judge then read over, without comment, his notes of the evidence given by the witnesses Ann Rowley and Sarah Bond, and then proceeded to recapitulate the facts deposed to by Mr. Jones, surgeon, of Lutterworth.] Your attention, he observed, has been very properly directed to the letter written by the prisoner on Sunday evening to Mr. Jones, summoning the latter to the sick bed of his friend Cook. The learned counsel for the defence interprets that document in a sense highly favourable to the prisoner, and contends that the fact of his having insured the presence of such a witness is conclusive evidence of the prisoner’s innocence. You will say whether you think that it is fairly susceptible of such a construction. It is important, however, to consider at what period of Cook’s illness Jones was sent for, and in what a condition he was when Jones arrived. Palmer’s assertion, in his letter to Jones, was, that Cook had been suffering from diarrhæa; but of this statement we have not the slightest corroboration in the evidence. When Jones, looking at Cook’s tongue, observed that it was not the tongue of a bilious attack, Palmer’s reply was, “You should have seen it before.” What reason could Palmer have had for using these words, when there is not the slightest evidence of Cook’s having suffered from such an illness? It is a matter for your consideration. [The deposition of Jones taken before the coroner having been read at the instance of Mr. Serjeant Shee, the learned Judge remarks,—] It is for you to say whether, in your opinion, this deposition at all varies from the evidence given by Mr. Jones when examined here; I confess that I see no variation and no reason to suppose that Mr. Jones’s evidence is not the evidence of sincerity and of truth.
After observing that the evidence of Dr. Savage [which he read] went to show that down to the hour of the Shrewsbury races and the attack on the Wednesday night, Cook was in perhaps better health than he had enjoyed for along time, the learned Judge called the attention of the jury to the evidence of Charles Newton, who deposed to having famished three grains of strychnia to Palmer on the Monday night, and to having seen him at the shop of Mr. Hawkins on the Tuesday. Having read the evidence of this witness and his deposition before the coroner, his Lordship said:—This is the evidence of Newton, a most important witness. It certainly might be urged that he did not mention the furnishing of the strychnia to Palmer on the Monday night before the coroner; he did not mention it till the Tuesday morning, when he was coming up to London. That certainly requires consideration at your hands; but then you will observe that in his deposition, which has been read to you, although there is an omission of that, which is always to be borne in mind, there is no contradiction of anything which he has said here. Well, then, you are to consider what is the probability of his inventing this wicked lie,—a most important lie, if lie it be. He had no ill-will towards the prisoner at the bar; he had never quarreled with him, and had nothing to gain by injuring him, much less by betraying him to the scaffold. I cannot see any motive that he could have for inventing a lie to take away the life of the prisoner. No inducement was held out to him by the Crown; he says himself that no inducement was held out to him, and that he at last disclosed this circumstance from a sense of duty. If you believe him his evidence is very strong against the prisoner at the bar; but we will now turn to the next witness, Charles Joseph Roberts, whose evidence is closely connected with that of Newton. [Having read the evidence of Roberts, Mr. Hawkins’s assistant, who stated that on the Tuesday he sold to the prisoner, at his master’s shop, three grains of strychnia, his Lordship continued—], This witness was not cross-examined as to the veracity of his testimony, nor is he contradicted in any way. It is not denied that on this Tuesday morning the prisoner at the bar got six grains of strychnia from Roberts. If you couple that with the statement of Newton—believing that statement—you have evidence of strychnia having been procured by the prisoner on the Monday night before the symptoms of strychnia were exhibited by Cook, and by the evidence of Roberts, undenied and unquestioned, that on the Tuesday six grains of strychnia were supplied to him.
Supposing you should come to the conclusion that the symptoms of Cook were consistent with death by strychnia—if you think that his symptoms are accounted for by merely natural disease, of course the strychnia obtained by the prisoner on the Monday evening and the Tuesday morning would have no effect; but if you should think that the symptoms which Cook exhibited on the Monday and Tuesday nights are consistent with strychnia, then a case is made out on the part of the Crown. After the most anxious consideration, I can suggest no possible solution of the purchase of this strychnia. The learned counsel for the prisoner told us in his speech that there was nothing for which he would not account. He quite properly denied that Newton was to be believed. Disbelieving Newton, you have no evidence of strychnia being obtained on the Monday evening; but, disbelieving Newton and believing Roberts, you have evidence of six grains of strychnia being obtained by the prisoner on the Tuesday morning, and of that you have no explanation. The learned counsel did not favour us with the theory which he had formed in his own mind with respect to that strychnia. There is no evidence,—there is no suggestion how it was applied, what became of it. That must not influence your verdict, unless you come to the conclusion that the symptoms of Cook were consistent with death by strychnia. If you come to that conclusion, I should shrink from my duty, I should be unworthy to sit here, if I did not call your attention to the inference that, if he purchased that strychnia, he purchased it for the purpose of administering it to Cook. [The evidence next read by the learned Judge was that of Mr. Stevens, the stepfather of Cook. Upon this the noble Lord observed.—] The learned counsel for the prisoner, in the discharge of his duty, made a very violent attack upon the character and conduct of Mr. Stevens. It will be for you to say whether you think it deserved that censure. In the conduct of that gentleman I cannot see anything in the slightest degree deserving of blame or reprobation. Mr. Stevens was attached to this young man, who was his stepson, and who had no one else to take care of him; and, whatever the result of this trial may be, I think there were appearances which might well justify suspicion. I know nothing which Mr. Stevens did which he was not perfectly justified in doing. Having been to Rugeley and seen the body of the deceased, he goes to his respectable solicitors in London, who recommend him to a respectable solicitor, Mr. Gardner, at Rugeley.
Under his advice Mr. Stevens acts; a conversation ensues between himself and the prisoner Palmer, but I see nothing in the proceedings which he took at all deserving animadversion. Whether Palmer had any right to complain of what was said about the betting book, and whether Mr. Stevens could be blamed for suspecting that Palmer had taken it, it is for you to say. [Having read the evidence of the woman Keeley, who laid out the body of Cook, and of Dr. Harland, who spoke to the circumstances attending the two post-mortem examinations, to the pushing of Mr. Devonshire, who operated, and the removal of the jar on the first occasion, the learned Judge continued—] From that push no inference unfavourable to the prisoner can be drawn, as it might easily be the result of accident. In the removal of the jar, there would be nothing more than in the pushing, were it not coupled with the evidence afterwards given, which may lead to the inference that there was a plan to destroy the jar, and prevent the analysis of its contents. [The learned Chief Justice then read the evidence of Mr. Devonshire, the surgeon, of Rugeley; Dr. Monckton, the physician; of Mr. John Boycott, the clerk to Messrs. Landor, Gardner, and Landor, the Rugeley attorneys; and of James Myatt, the postboy of the Talbot Arms, who swore that Palmer had offered him £10 to upset the fly containing Mr. Stevens and the jar with the contents of the deceased’s stomach. Remarking upon the evidence of this last witness, the Chief Justice said—] In cases of circumstantial evidence you must look to the conduct of the person charged, and you must consider whether that conduct is consistent with innocence or is compatible with guilt. I see no reason to doubt the evidence of that postboy. An attempt was made upon cross-examination to show that the offer of £10 was not made in reference to the jar, but as an inducement to upset Mr. Stevens. It was suggested, you will remember, that Stevens had wantonly provoked Palmer, and that Palmer might be excused, therefore, if he wished him to be upset. I see no ground for supposing that Stevens gave Palmer any such provocation, and, if you believe the postboy, that bribe was offered to him to induce him to upset the jar. That is not, indeed, a decisive proof of guilt, but it is for you to say whether the prisoner did not enter upon that contrivance in order to prevent an opportunity of examining the contents of the jar, which might contain evidence against him. We have next the evidence of Samuel Cheshire, formerly postmaster at Rugeley. [The learned Judge read the evidence, remarking upon the circumstance of Palmer calling upon him to witness a document said to have been signed by Cook, as if he had been present and had seen Cook sign it; upon the remarkable fact of Palmer endeavouring to obtain information from Cheshire as to the contents of the letter from Dr. Taylor to Mr. Gardner; and upon the impropriety of the following letter, addressed by the prisoner to the coroner, Mr. Ward, during the progress of the inquest:—
“My dear Sir,—I am sorry to tell you that I am still confined to my bed. I don’t think it was mentioned at the inquest yesterday that Cook was taken ill on Sunday and Monday night, in the same way as he was on the Tuesday, when he died. The chambermaid at the Crown Hotel (Masters’s) can prove this. I also believe that a man of the name of Fisher is coming down to prove he received some money at Shrewsbury. Now, here he could only pay Smith £10 out of £41 he owed him. Had you not better call Smith to prove this? And, again, whatever Professor Taylor may say to-morrow, he wrote from London last Tuesday night to Gardner to say, ‘We (and Dr. Rees) have this day finished our analysis, and find no traces of either strychnia, prussic acid, or opium.’ What can beat this from a man like Taylor, if he says what he has already said, and Dr. Harland’s evidence? Mind you. I know and saw it in black and white what Taylor said to Gardner; but this is strictly private and confidential, but it is true. As regards his betting-book, I know nothing of it, and it is of no good to any one. I hope the verdict to-morrow will be that he died of natural causes, and thus end it
“Ever yours,
“W. P.”]