The action was, of course, at once abandoned, and no further proceedings taken on the other bills bearing the mother’s name.
[66] See Lord Campbell’s correction of this.—Judge’s charge, post.
[67] Ante, pp. 185 and 186, note.
[68] See the suggestion of Dr. Guy, that the death was probably due to morphia, and the remarks thereon in Chapter V., post.
[69] On this point, which was also put very strongly by Lord Campbell in his charge, the prisoner’s brother, in his letter to that judge, accuses the prosecution of cunningly keeping back a witness of the name of Cockayne, who had been examined before the coroner and whose deposition was before the Court, who would have explained the use for which the strychnia was bought. “Had he been, as he ought to have been called, he would have proved that he kept a gun loaded in the stable, by order of my brother, to shoot the dogs that worried his brood mares, and that he also threatened to poison them, and that the strychnia was purchased for that object, and that he had missed dogs since then, which had been in the habit of prowling about the pastures and hunting the mares.” He also accounts for the non-production of poisoned dogs, by the “medical fact that they go away to die in secret, concealed and quiet places, where they die undiscovered, and would be mortally attacked in so short a time that they could not get to their own home.” He further accuses them of sending this witness, and Sanders the trainer, who would have proved that Cook told him he had given Palmer all his money, out of the way, so that the prisoner’s solicitor could not call them for the defence.—Letter to Lord Campbell, pp. 17, 19. But see ante, p. 188, note.
[70] See ante, p. 216, note, on the evidence of a witness, Cockayne, who was called before the coroner.
[71] The prisoner’s brother, on the contrary, says that he distinctly, in a most solemn interview, declared his “perfect guiltlessness of blood.” The same writer unfortunately lessens the value of his other statements by a coarse attack on Lord Campbell as a worthy successor of Jeffries, and imputes to him and Baron Alderson a deliberate intention to force the jury to a conviction. As I had not the advantage of being present at the trial, I can only say nothing of this appears in any of the reports of the trial which I have collated, and whilst on the contrary we now have the evidence of an experienced criminal lawyer, who saw and heard all. Still, however, remains the great difficulty that strychnia, as every analytical chemist will testify, ought to have been found, if it had been given, though the failure to discover it does not conclusively negative the probability of it having been administered. Dr. Guy has suggested that morphia might have been the cause, introduced into the pills, a point of which would seem to be made in Serjeant Shee’s speech, and which would account for Palmer’s statement that Cook was not killed by strychnia, and with his wish for a further examination of the body by Mr. Herapath.—Hist. of Crim. Law of England. Vol. III., pp. 423-4. See on this point Chapter V.
[72] For the report of this trial I have relied on the apparently verbatim report in the Times (probably from the pen of the late Mr. Campbell Forster), collated with that in the Annual Register of 1856, and with the Summary by Mr. Justice Stephen based on the notes of the presiding judge.
[73] Mrs. Mary Wood. Mr. Overend objected to this witness being asked as to her opinion of Dove’s state of mind, on the ground that she was not a skilled witness. The objection was allowed by Mr. Baron Bramwell, but on the suggestion of the judge, not persevered in by the prosecution.
[74] Charles Harrison.