THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMER, AT THE CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT, MAY, 1856, FOR POISONING- JOHN PARSONS COOK, AT RUGELEY. ILLUSTRATED AND UNABRIDGED EDITION or Cimrg REPORT OF THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMER, FOE POISONING JOHN PARSONS COOK, AT RUGELEY. THE TALBOT ARMS, RUGELEY, THE SCENE OP COOK’S DEATH. FROM THE SHORT-HAND NOTES TAKEN IN THE CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT FROM DAY TO DAY. LONDON: WAEp AND LOCK, 158, ELEET STREET. 1856, INDEX TO WITNESSES.—MEDICAL EVIDENCE AND COUNSEL. PAGE Lee, Henry (surgeon to King’s College and Lock Hospitals) 61 Letheby, Dr. Henry (medical officer of Health to the City of London) . . 120 Macdonald, Dr. W. (licentiate of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh) . 127 Mantoll, Mr. Rynci s (house-surgeon at the London Hospital) 124 Matthews, Henrjr (inspector of police at Euston-square Railway Station) . . 134 Mills, Elizabeth (chambermaid at the Tal- bot Arms) 25,30,38 Monckton, Dr. (physician at Bugelcy) . 47 Moore, Edward D.”( surgeon) ... 65 Morlcy, Mr. (surgeon at Leeds) . . . 63 Myatt, James (postboy at the Talbot Arms) 48 Myatt, George (saddler at Rugeley) . . 134 Newton, Charles (assistant to Mr. Salt, chemist) ....... 3$ Nunneley, Mr. Thomas (professor of Sur- gery at Leeds) 112 Patterson, Dr. J. (Glasgow Infirmary) . 62 Partridge, (professor of anatomy in King’s College) 125 Pratt, Mr. Thomas (solicitor, Mayfair) . . 79 Road, Mr. George (sporting housekeeper) . 25 Rees, Dr. G. 0. (lecturer at Guy’s Hospital) 74 Richardson (physician of London) . . 132 Robinson, George (physician to the New- castle-on-Tyne Fever Hospital . . 132 Roberts, Mi-. Charles Joseph (apprentice to Mr. Hawkius, chemist) .... 41 Rogers, Mr., (professor of chemistry at St. George’s School of Medicine). . . 120 Ross, Mr. J. 8., (house-surgeon to the London Hospital) 124 Rowley, Ann (charwoman to Palmer) . . 34 Savage, Dr. Henry (physician) ... 38 Serjeant, John (attendant at races) . . 136 Shee’s, Serjeant, opening for the De- fence S4 Slack, Frederick (porter to Mrs. Hawkes) . 52 Smith, Jeremiah (attorney at Rugeley) . 137 Solly, Mr. Samuel (surgeon of St. Thomas’s Hospital) 61 Spillbury, Mr. John (farmer, near Stafford) 82 S teddy, Edward Austin (surgeon at Chat- ham) . ■ . . . . 132 Stevens, Mr. William (stepfather to the deceased, Cook) . . . . . 42 Straw-bridge, Mr. (of the Bank) ... 82 Taylor, Dr. Alfred Swaine (fellow of the College of Physicians) .... 66 Taylor, Mr. Francis (apothecary at Romsoy) 63 Todd, Dr. (physician at King’s College Hospital) . - 50 Walbank,John (butcher at Rugeley) . . 82 Watson, Dr. (surgeon at Glasgow Infirmary) 02 Watson, Catherine of Garnkirk, Glasgow) . 133 Wetherby, Charles (treasurer of the Jockey Club S3 Witham, Jane (a lady’s attendant) ... 63 Wright, Mr. Herbert (solicitor, Birmingham 82 Wrightson, Dr. (pupil of Liebig’s) , . 124 * PAGE Armshaw, John (solicitor at Rugeley) . 82 Attorney-General’s (The) Opening Address for the Prosecution ..... 8 Attorney-General’s Reply to the Evidence for the Defence 142 Cambridge, Dr. (medical officer to St. Mar- tin’s Workhouse) 131 Bamford, Mr. William (surgeon at Rugeley) 78 Barnes, Lavinia (waitress at the Talbot) . 33, 38 Bates,’George (Palmer’s stable-keeper) . 53 Bergen, Daniel Scully (chief superintendent of Stafford Police) ....... 76 Blocksome, Charles (apprentice to Mr. Jones, chemist) 63 Bond, Sarah (housekeeper at the Talbot) . 34 Boycott, John (clerk to Messrs. Landor and Gardner") 47, 49 Brande, (professor of chemistry at the Royal Institution) 74 Brodie, Sir Benjamin (senior surgeon to St. George’s Hospital) 59 Brooks, Mrs. Ann (a lady who attends races) 32 Burden, J. (inspector of police in Stafford- shire) 51 Butler, F. (jockey)' S3 Cheshire, Samuel (late postmaster at Rugeley) 4S, 50 Christison, (professor of Materia Medica to the University of Edinburgh) . . 74 Crisp, Ellis (inspector of police at Rugeley) 50 Curling, Thomas Blizard (surgeon) . . 54 Daniel, Dr. (surgeon to the Bristol Hospital) 60 Deane, Henry Augustus (attorney of Gray’s Inn) 78 Devonshire, Mr. Charles James (late assis- tant to Dr. Monckton) .... 47 Espin, John (solicitor of London) . . 78 Fisher, Ishmael (wine merchant) ... 23 Foster, Joseph (farmer at Sibbertoft) . . 134 Gardner, Mr. (solicitor of Rugeloy) . . . 31 Gay, Mr. John (surgeon to the Royal Free Hospital) . 126 Gibson, ‘ William Soaifo (surgeon’s assis- tant) 25 Guy, Mr. R. E. (member of the Royal Col- ’ lege of Surgeons) . . . . . 122 Harland, Dr. John Thomas (physician at Stafford) ■ 44 Hatton, Captain (chief constable of Stafford) 50 Hawkes, Elizabeth (boarding-house keeper) 51 Herapath, Mr. William (professor of toxi- cology at the Bristol Medical School) . 119 Herring, George (independent) ... 51 Hickson, Caroline (lady’s maid) . 62 Horley, Charles (gardener to Palmer) . , 34 Jackson, John (member of the College of Physicians) 76 Jones, Thomas (law stationer) ... 24 Jones, William Henry (surgeon) ... 35 Keeley, Mary (widow at Rugeley) . . 44 Ivclley, Mary (patient at Glasgow Infirmary) 62 SUMMARY OF THE TWELVE DAYS’ PROCEEDINGS. FIEST DAY.—May 14,1856. SIXTH DAY.—May 20. The Attorney-General’s Opening Address for the Prosecution.—Evidence for the Prosecution commences, Ishmael Fisher (wine merchant) being the first witness examined.—The follow- ing witnesses were also examined this day Thomas Jones (law stationer), George Bead (sporting-house keeper), William Scaife Gibson (surgeon of Shrewsbury), and Elizabeth Mills (chambermaid at the Talbot Arms) . . 6—-29 PAGE The Prosecution was opened this day with Dr. Jackson’s evidence.—Daniel Scully Bergen (chief superintendent of police at Stafford) Henry Augustus Deane (of the firm of Chubb Deane and Chubb, Gray’s Inn)—John Espin (solicitor)— William Bamford (surgeon at Eugeley)—Thomas Pratt (solicitor of London)— John Armshaw (attorney at Eugeley)—John Wallbank (butcher at Eugeley)—John Spillbury (Staffordshire farmer)— Mr. Strawbridge (of the bank)—Herbert Wright (solicitor of Birm- ingham 7(j—S2 PAGE SECOND DAY.—May 15. The Court opened this day with a ceutiauation of Elizabeth Mills’s evidence;—the evidence of the following witnesses was also taken; Mr. Gardner (solicitor at Eugeley). Mrs. Ann Brooks (a lady who attends races).—Lavinia Barnes (waitress at the Talbot Arms).—Ann Eowley(Palmer’s charwoman).—Charles Horley (gardener to Palmer)).—Sarah Bond (house- keeper at the Talbot).—Mr. William Henry Jones (surgeon at Lutterworth).—Dr. Henry Savage (physician), and Charles Newton (assistant to Mr. Salt, chemist,) who supplied Palmer.with strychnine 30—40 SEVENTH DAY—May 21. The Case for the Prosecution was closed this day With the examination, of Charles Weatherby (secretary to the. Jockey Club)—and Mr. F. Butler (a well-known sporting character)— Serjeant Shee occupied the remainder of the day (eight hours) in his address for the De- fence , . . . ' . . . . 83—111 EIGHTH DAY.—May 22. THIED DAY.—May 16. Mr. Thomas Nunneley (Professor of Surgery at the Leeds School, of Medicine) was the first evidence submitted for the Defence.—He was followed by Mr. William Herapath (professor of Chemistry and Toxicology)— Mr. Eogers (professor of Chemistry at St. George’s School of Medicine)—Dr. Henry Lotheby (Medical Officer of Health to the City of London)— and Mr., E. E. Guy (member of the Eoyal College of Surgeons) whose testimony closed the proceedings of the day ~ . . 113—123 The proceedings opened this day with the exami- nation of Charles Joseph Eoberts, apprentice to Dir. Hawkins, druggist at Eugeley, and who sold Palmer six grains of strychnine.—Deposi- tions of Dr. Bamford read.—Mr. William Stevens, stepfather of Mr. Jones arrived by the three o’clock train from Lutterworth. T saw him in Cook’s room. About four o’clock I took Cook another cup of coffee. 1 cannot say whether Palmer was there. Afterwards I saw Palmer. He opened the bed-room door and gave me the chamber utensil, saying that Cook had vomited the coffee. There was coffee in the utensil. I saw Cook several times before I went to bed. He appeared to be in very good spirits, and talked about getting up next morning. He said he would have the barber sent for to shave him. I believe I gave him some arrowroot. 1 did not see him later than half- past ten. Palmer was with him when I last saw him. I gave Palmer some toast and water for Cook at the door. Palmer then said to Cook, “Can this good girl do anything more for you to-night?’’ Cook said, “No; I shall want nothing more till morning.” He spoke in a composed and cheerful manner. I remained in the kitchen all night, to see how Cook went on, and did not go to sleep. About ten minutes before twelve o’clock the bell of Cook’s room was rung violently. Jones was sleeping in a second bed in the same room. On hearing the bell I went up to Cook’s room. Cook was sitting up. I think Jones was supporting him, with his arms round his shoulders. Cook said, “Oh, Mary, fetch Mr. Palmer directly,” I went to Palmer’s, and rang the surgery bell. As soon as I had rung I stepped off the steps to look at Palmer’s bed-room window, where I expected him to appear, and he was there. He did not lift up the sash, but opened a small casement and spoke to me. I could not see whether he was dressed, but I heard and knew his voice. I asked him to come over to Mr. Cook directly, as he was much the same as he had been the night before. I don’t remember what he replied. 1 went back to the hotel, and in two or thee minutes Palmer came. I was then in the bed-room. Jones was there supporting Cook. Palmer said he had never dressed so quickly in his life. The question which elicited this answer was, “Did Palmer make any remark about his dress ? ” After the answer had been given, Mr. Serjeant Shee objected to the form in which the question had been put. Lord Campbell—lt seems to me that the examination is conducted with perfect fairness. No leading question, nor any one which could be considered doubtful, has been put to the witness. Examination continued—l left the room, but remained on the landing. After I had been waiting there a short time (about a minute or two) Palmer came oat. I said, “He is much the same as last night.” Palmer said, “ Oja, he is not so ill by a fiftieth part.” He then went down stairs as though going to his own house. He was absent but a very short time, and then returned 28 THE TRIAL OE WILLIAM PALMER. to Cook’s room. I also went in. I believe Cook said, “ Turn me over on my right side.” I was then outside, but the door was open. Ido not think that I was in the room at the time he died. I went in just before, but came out again. Jones was there at the time, and had his right arm under Cook’s head. Palmer was then feeling Cook’s pulse, and said to Jones, “ His pulse is gone.” Jones pressed the side of his" face to Cook’s heart, lifted up his hands, hut did not speak. Palmer asked me to fetch Mr. Bamford, and I went for him. Cook’s death occurred about three-quarters of an hour after I had been called up. Mr. Bamford came over. I did not return to Cook’s room. "When Mr. Bamford came down stairs he said, “He is dead; he was dead when I arrived.” After Mr. Bamford had gone I went up to the landing, and sat upon the stairs. I had sat there about ten minutes when Jones came out of the room, and said, “ Mr. Palmer wants you,” or “"Will you go into the room ?” I went into the room where Cook was lying dead. Palmer was there. 1 said to him. “It is not pos- sible that Mr. Cook is dead ?” He said, “Oh yes, he is dead.” He asked me who I thought Ei.izAr.ETU Mills, Ehambkkmaiij at thm Talbot Arms. would come and lay liim out. I mentioned two women whom I thought Palmer knew. He said, “Those are just the women.” I said, “Shall I fetch them?” and he said, “Yes.” I had seen a betting- hook in Cook’s-room. It was a dark book, with gold bands round the edges. It was not a very large book, rather more long than square, and had a clasp at one end. I saw Cook have this book when he stopped at Talbot Arms, as he went to the Liverpool races, some months before. There was a case at the one side containing a pencil. I saw the book in Cook’s room on Monday night. I took it off the dressing- table and gave it to him in bed. He asked me to give him the book, pen, and ink, and some paper. I gave him all. That was between seven and eight o’ clock. He took a post- age stamp from a pocket at one end of the book. I re_ placed the book on the frame of the looking-glass on the dressing-table. Palmer was in the room after that time. To my knowledge I never saw Masters, Landlord or the Talbot Arms FIRST DAY, MAY 14, 1856 29 the hook afterwards. I afterwards searched the room for it, but could not find it. When I went into the room after Cook’s death, the clothes he had worn were lying on a chair. I saw Palmer searching the pockets of the coat. That was about ten minutes after the death. When I went into the room Palmer had in his hand searching the pockets, the coat which I had seen Cook wear. Palmer also searched under the pillow and holster. I saw two or three letters lying upon the chimney-piece. I never saw them again, hut I was not'much in the room afterwards. I had not seen the letters before Cook’s death. The examination in chief of this witness being concluded, the Court adjourned, at twenty minutes past six o’clock, till next morning, when it met at ten o’clock. The Maypole, Eugeley 30 THE TRIAL OE WILLIAM PALMER. SECOND DAY.—May 15, 1858. distinguished pci-soils present were the Earl of Derby, Earl Grev, Lord Yd. Lennox, Lord G. G. Lennox, Lord H. Lennox, &c. The learned Judges, Lord Chief Justice Campbell, Baron Alderson, and Mr. Justice Cresswcll, accompanied by the Recorder, the Sheriffs, the Under-Sheriffs, and Several members of the Court of Aldermen, took their seats on the bench at ten o’clock- -Ihe prisoner was then placed at the bar. The expression of his countenarice was sadder and more subdued than on the_ preceding day. He maintained his usual tranquillity of demeanour seldom changing his position, and gazing steadfastly at the witnesses. The same counsel were again in attendance The Attorney-General, Mr. E. James, Q.C., Mr. Lodkm, Mr. Weisby,,and Mr. Huddleston, for the Crown; and Mr. Serjeant Shee, Mr. Grove, Q.C., Mr. Gray, and Mr. Kenealy, for the prisoner. The Jury, who liad been all night at the London Coffee-house, were conducted into court by the officer who had them m charge. Elizabeth Mills, who was under examination the previous evening-, was agafti placed in the witness-box. She deposed as followsl had been engaged at the Talbot Arms for about three Years previous to Cook s death. Cook first came to that inn in the month of May, 1855, and was off and on for some months. I never heard him complain of any illness during that time except of an affection m his throat I heard him complain of a sore throat two or three months before hIS-death. He said it resulted from cold. He took a gargle for it. I believe he had it from Mr. Tliirlby. I did not ooseis e any sores aoout his mouth. I never heard him complain of a difficulty in swallowing. I have seen him with a “loaded” tongue occasionally, but 1 never heard him ' complain ol a sore tengile, nor have I heard of caustic being applied to bis tongue. It was a month, if not more, before his death, that I heard him say he had a sore throat. °I never knew him to take medicine before his last illness. Ho had a slight cough through cold, but neve" to my knowledge a violent one. He had not been ailing just "before Ye wentto Shrewsbury. 'On his return from Shrewsbury die complained of being poorly. I left my situation at Christmas, and went to my home in tae Potteries. Since then I have been in another situation, which I left in -February. I have seen Mr. Stevens, Mr. Cook’s father-in-law, since I have been in London. 1 cannot say now many times I have seen him, but it is not more than six or seven times. Some- times we conversed together in a private room. He only came to see whether I liked the place or whether ! liked London. We used to converse together about Mr. Cook’s death. I have talked to him about Mr. Cook s death at Eugeley. I cannot remember anything else that we talked about except the death. He has never given me a farthing of money or |romised to get me a place. I saw Mr. Stevens last Tuesday at Dolly’s Hotel, where I had beßfc in service I omnia Barnes was with us. She was the waitress at the Talbot Arms when Mr Cook died 'VAntW persons were present, Mr. Hatton, the .chief officer of Eugeley, and Mr. Gardner an attorney at the same place. Mr. Cook’s death may have been mentioned at this meeting Other things Ao talked of which I do not wish to mention. ° Mr. Serjeant Shee-—But you must mention them. Witness-—I cannot remember what they were. Ido not know whether we talked about the trial They did not ask me what 1 could prove. My deposition was not react over to me, and Mr Stevens did not talk to me aboiu die symptoms that were exhibited by Mr. Cook before Ms death. I had seen Mr. Hatton a few nines before. I once saw him at Dolly’s. He merely dined there. I cannot remember whether ho spoke to me about Cook’s death. He might have done so. I cannot remember whether he did or not. I know he asked me how I did. Gl laugh.) I saw Mr. Uau nei once at s, and onee in street, and I swear tliese were the only occasions I ever never went with Mm to a solicitor’s office. At present lam living with ray mother at KUpeley. Before that I had been, hnaag among my friends. I know a man named Hutton. He is a of mine. I have been staying at his house. His mother lives hi the same house. He is a labouring man. I used to sleep with Hutton’s mother. I swear that I slcut with his mother. 1 nave also been staying with a cousin of mine in the Potteries. I left Dolly’s of my own accord, because I did not like the place. I can rea(] and j read the news- .papers. I have heard of the case of a person named Dove, who was supposed to have mur- dei’ei his wiie at a . I merely beard that it was another strychnine case, but the symptoms of strychnine were not mentioned. I will swear that I mentioned “twitching” to the coroner If I did not use the exact word, I said something to the same effect. I will swear that I have used the word twitching before I came to London. The words “twitching” and “jerkino-” were not, first suggested to me. I did not say anything about the'broth having made me sick- before the coronei, because it did not occur to me. I did tell the coroner that I tasted the broth and that I did not observe anything particular about it. I v,-as examined several times, and I w-is questioned paivicalaily upon the subject of the broth, and I said on one occasion that I thono-bf the broth was very go°d- I did not at the time think it was the broth that had caused the sickness. I was so ill tna* I was ooliged to go to bed; but I could not at all account for it. SECOND DAT, MAY 15, 1856. I only took two tablespoonfuls, and the sickness came on in about half an hour. I never knew of Mr. Cook taking coffee in bed before those occasions. If I have said that Mr. Palmer ordered coffee for Cook, I have no doubt that it is correct. I cannot remember so well to-day as I did yesterday. I cannot remember whether I told the coroner that I had not seen Mr. Palmer when I gave the°deceased the coffee. I don’t remember whether I said anything before the ■coroner about seeing a box of pills in the deceased’s bedroom on the Monday night, and that Palmer was in the room at the time. Perhaps I was not asked the question, I did nothing but answer questions that were put to me. _ lam sure that Palmer was in the room on that night. I remember that he brought a jar of Jelly, and I opened it. I swear that the deceased told me that the pills Palmer had given him had made him ill. I did not say this before the coroner. I was asked some questions by Dr. Collier with regard to what I had stated to the coroner, and I said that my evidence had been altered, as some things had occurred to me since, and I had made another statement to a gentleman. I gave this additional statement to a gentleman at Dolly’s. I don’t know who the gentleman Avas. I did not ask him, and he did not tell me. He did not ask me many questions. He put a few to me and Avrote doAAm my*?ansAverSr He mentioned Mr. Stevens’ name. Mr. Stevens was there. Serjeant Shee—Why did you not tell me that? Because you did not ask me. (A laugh.) Cross-examination continued: I did not tell the coroner that Mr. Cook was beating the bed- clothes on the Monday night. I did say that he sometimes threw his head back, and then would raise himself up again, and I believe I also said that he could hardly speak for shortness of breath. I did not say that he called “ Murder!” twice, and I do not remember saying that he “ twitched” while I was rubbing his hands. I did not say anything about toast and water being given to Mr. Cook, by order of Palmer, in a spoon ; or that he snapped at the spoon, and bit it so hard that it was difficult to get it out of his mouth. The Loud Chief Justice here interposed, and intimated his opinion that it would be a fairer course to read the Aritness’s depositions. The other Judges concurred. The Attorney-General said, he should have interposed, but it Avas his intention to adduce evidence to show the manner in which the case was conducted by the coroner, and that he was expostulated with upon omitting to put proper questions, and also omitting to take down the answers that were given. Cross-examination continued I should have answered all those questions if they had been put to me. I Avas not purposely recalled to state the symptoms of the deceased in the presence of Dr. Taylor. Wham the prisoner came to the Talbot on the Tuesday night, he had a plaid dressing- o-oAvn on, but I cannot say whether he had a cap or not. I did' not observe that the prisoner appeared at all confused at the time he was examining the clothes and the bed of the deceased. A model of the prisoner’s house and of the hotel Avas here produced. The-deposition of the witness Avas put in and read, for the purpose of showing that the statements made by her in her examination on Wednesday were omitted when she was examined by the coroner. Re-examined by Mr E. James. I was examined on a great many different days by the coroner. I was not asked to describe all the symptoms I saw. The coroner himself put the questions to me, and his clerk took down the answers. I merely answered the questions, and I was not told to describe all I saw. The coroner asked me if the broth had any effect upon me, and 1 said, “ Not that I was aware of.” I don’t knoAv what brought the sickness to my mind afterwards, but I think that some one else irj the house brought the fact to my memory. I certainly did vomit after I took the broth, and was obliged to go to bed. lam quite sure the deceased told me that it was the pills Palmer had given him that had made him ill. When Mr. Collier came to me he said that he was for the Crown, and he then asked me questions about the inquest and the death of Mr. Cook. 1 answered all the questions he put to me, and he took them down in writing, and carried the statement away with him. Two other persons Avaited outside the house, lam engaged to be married to one of the Duttons. Serjeant Shee—Did not Dr. Collier tell you that he was neither for the Crown nor for the defence, but for the truth ? Witness—No ; what he said Avas that he Avas for the Crown ; but what he desired above all things was to know the truth, and that he asked me to tell him without fear, favour, or affection. lam a member ot the firm of Gardner & Co., of llugeley. I acted in this matter for the firm of Cookson and Co., the solicitors ot Mr. Stevens, the father-in-law of Cook. I attended the inquest on the body of Cook, and occasionally put questions to the witnesses. Mr. Ward, an attorney, was the coroner. He put questions to the witnesses, and hisclerk took down the answers. Theinquest lasted five days, and several times upon each day I expostulated with the coroner on account of his omitting to put questions. Mr. Serjeant Shee submittedjhat what was said |by“the coroner was no evidence against the prisoner. The Attorney-General—dt is not intended as evidence against the prisoner, but to rebut the effect of evidence that you have put in. I will ask—had you occasion to expostulate with the coroner as to the omission of his clerk to take down the answers of witnesses ? Mr. Serjeant Shee—l object to the question being put in that form. The Attorney-General—Did you observe that the clerk omitted to takedown the answers of Elizabeth Mills?—. Not in reference to that particular case. Mr. GARDNER, examined by the Attorney-General. 32 THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMER. Mr. Baron Alderson—Her account of the matter is that the questions were not put. The Attorney-General—Did Dr. Taylor object that questions were not put which ought to have Been put?—l do not recollect it. Lord Campbell—lt is not. suggested, as I understand, that the coroner refused to correct any mistakes that were made. , The Attorney-General*-^I am prepared to show'that there was such misconduct on the part of the coroner as led to expostulation. Mr. Serjeant Shee—Don’t state that unless you are going to prove it. The Attorney-General—It is suggested that a witness has given evidence here which she did not give before the coroner; tny object is to showr, first, that questions were not put to her which might and ought to have been put; secondly, that her answers to other questions were not taken down. Lord Campbell held that the evidence was not admissible. The jury put a great many questions. Re-examined. Cross-examined by Serjeant Shee. The jury made very strong observations as to the necessity of putting questions. The Attorney-General—Did they assign any reason for interfering when they put questions ? Mr. Serjeant Shee objected to this question, on the ground that it did not arise out of his cross- examination. Lord Campbell—My learned brethren think that evidence upon this point not admissible-, Mr. Justice Ckesswell said, the depositions which had been put in did not show that any questions had been put by the jurymen. If they had contained such questions they would have shown the motive of the jury in putting them. But the Court was left totally in the dark as to ■whether questions had been put by the coroner or any other person. For anything that appeared to the contrary, the witnesses might have made a voluntary statement without any questions at} all being put to them. No foundation was laid therefore for the Attorney-General's question. Mr. Baron Alderson concurred. Mrs. ANN BROOKS, examined by the Attorney-General. I live at Manchester. lam in the habit of attending races, I was at Shrewsbury races in November, 1855. I saw Palmer there. On the 14th (Wednes- day), about eight o’clock iu the evening, I met him in the street, and asked him whether he thought his horse Chicken would wun ? He desired me if I heard anything further about a horse belonging to Lord Derby, which was also to runr to call and tell him on the following day. I went to the Raven to see him at half-past ten o’clock on the Thursday Some friends waited for me in the road. I went upstairs and asked a servant to tell Palmer that I wished to speak to him. The servant said he was there. At the top of the stairs there are two passages, one facing the other,, to the left. I turned to the left. I saw Palmer standing by a small table in the pas- sage. He had a tumbler-glass in his hand, in which there appeared to be a small quantity of water. I did not see hira put anything into it. There was a light between him and me, and he held it up to the light. He said to me, “ J he with you presently.” saw me the moment I got j-0 the top of the stairs He stood at the table a minute or two longer with the glass Mrs, Ann Brooks, a Lady who Attends Races. SECOND DAT, MAY 15, 1856. 33 n his hand, holding it up to the light once or twice, and now and then shaking it, .1 made an observation about the fineness of the weather. The door of a sitting- room, which I supposed was unoccupied, was partially open, and he went into it, taking the glass with him. In two or three minutes he came out again with the glass. What was in the glass was still the colour of water. He then carried it into his own sitting-room, the door of which was shut. He afterwards came out and brought me a glass with brandy-and- water in it. It might have been the same glass. I had some of the brandy-and-water. It pro- duced no unpleasant consequences. We had some conversation about the races. In the course of it he said he shotild back his own horse, Chicken. I was present at the race, when Chicken, ran and lost,. Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Shee. lam married. Brooks is the name of my husband. He never goes with me to races. I live with him. I don’t attend many races in the course of a year. My husband has a high appoint- ment, and does not sanction my going to races. A great number of racing men were ill at Shrews- bury on the Wednesday. There was a wonder as to what had caused their illness, and something was said about the water being poisoned. People were affected by sickness and purging. I knew some persons who were so affected. The passage in which I saw Palmer holding the glass led to a good many rooms. I think it was lighted by gas. I supposed that he was mixing some cooling drink. I was not examined before the coroner. The brandy-and-water which Palmer gave me was cold. I had been on friendly terms_ with him, I had known him a number of years as a racing man. Re-examined. LAVINIA BARNES, examined by Mr. E. James. In November, 1855,1 was a waitress at the Talbot Arms. I knew Palmer and Cook. Cook called there on the 12lh (Monday) as he was going to the races. He did not complain of illness. I saw hitm when he returned on the 15th. On the Friday he came between nine and ten o’clock in the even- ing, after dining with Palmer. He spoke to me. He was sober. On the Saturday I saw'him twice. Some broth was sent over and taken up to him by me. He could not take it; he w-as too sick. I car- ried it down and put it into the kitchen. I afterwards saw Palmer, and told him Cook was too sick to take it. Palmer said he must have it. Elizabeth Mills afterwards took it up again. She was taken ill with violent vomiting on the Sunday, between twelve and one o’clock. She went to bed, and did not come down stairs till four or five o’clock. I saw some broth on that day in the kitchen. It was in a “sick-cup,” with two handles, not belonging to the house. I did not see it brought. The cup went back to Palmer’s. On the Monday morning, between seven and eight o’clock, I saw Palmer. He told Mills he was going to London. I also saw Cook during the day. Sandars came to see him, and 1 todk him up some brandy-and-water. I slept that night In the next room to Cook’s. Palmer came between eight and nine o’clock in the evening, and went upstairs, but I did not see whether he went into Cook’s room. About twelve o’clock I was in the kitchen, when Cook’s bell rang violently. I went upstairs. Cook was very ill, and asked me to send for Palmer. He screamed out “Murder;” He exclaimed that he was in violent pain—that he was suffocating. His eyes w'ere wild-looking, standing a great way out of his head. He was beating the bed wiih his arms. He cried out, “ Christ, have mercy on my soul!” 1 never saw a person in such a state. Having called up Mills, I left to send “ Boots” for Palmer. Palmer came, and I again went into the room. Cook was then more composed. He said, “ Oh, doctor, I shall die.” Palmer replied, “Don’t be alarmed, my lad.” I saw Cook drink a darkish mixture out of a glass. I don’t know who gave it to him. I both saw and heard him snap at the glass. He brought up the draught. I left him between twelve and one o’clock, when he was much more composed. On the Tuesday he seemed a little better. At night, a little before twelve o’clock, the bell rang again. I was in the kitchen. Mills went up stairs. I followed her, and heard Cook screaming, but did not go into the room. I stood outside the door, and saw Palmer come. He had been fetched. I said as he passed me, “ Mr. Cook is ill again.” He said, “ Oh, is he ?” and wrent into the room. He was dressed in his usual manner, and wore a black coat and a cap. I remained on the landing when Palmer came out. As he went down stairs, Mills asked him how Cook was? He said to her and to me, “He is not so bad by fifty parts as he was last night.” I heard Cook ask to be turned over before I went in, while Palmer was there. I went in after Palmer had left, but I came out before Cook died. After he died on the Tuesday I went into the room, and found Palmer with a coat in his hand. He was clearing out the pockets of the coat, and looking under the bolster. I said, “Oh I Mr. Cook can’t be dead!” Palmer said, “He is. I knew he would be,” and then left the room. I saw him on the Thursday following. He came into the body of the hall, and asked for the key of Mr. Cook’s bedroom, in which the body was lying. The key Was in the bar. He said he wanted some books and papers and a paperknife, for they were to go back to the stationer’s, or else he would have to pay for them. I went with him into the room. He then requested me to go to Miss Bond for some books. I went down stairs and fetched the books. When I returned he was still in the room looking for the paperknife on the top of the chest of drawers among books, papers, and clothes. He said, “I can’t find the knife anywhere.” Miss Bond, the housekeeper, afterwards came up, and I left. On the Friday, between three and four o’clock, I saw Mr. Jones with Palmer. Jones said he thought Palmer knew where the betting-book was. Palmer asked me to go and look for it, and said it was sure to be 34 THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMER. found, but it was not worth anything to any one but Cook. Mills and I went up to look for it, but we could not find it. We searched everywhere, in the bed and all round the room, but not in Uhe drawers. We went down and told Palmer and Jones that we could not find it. Palmer said,' “ Oh, it will be found somewhere. I’ll go with you and look myself.” He did not go with us, but left the house. I did not see him come out of the room on the Thursday. There was no reason for our not looking in the drawers. Some people were in the room at the time nailing the coffin. Cook had some coffee on the Saturday between 13 and 1. I did not pay any particular attention to the time when Palmer went up on the Monday. lam not sure it was before half-past nine, but I am sure it was before 10. I don’t remember whether Cook touched the glass from which he drank the mixture. I think some one else was holding it. There was some of Cook’s linen in several of the drawers. There was a portmanteau containing other things besides those in the drawers. There were dress clothes, an overcoat, and morning clothes. The door was locked on the night of the death. The women were sent for to lay out the corpse before it was light. Tlle’undertakers went on the following morning, and the door was locked after they left. They came again on the Thursday night, had the key, and went up by themselves. The body was put into the coffin the day Stevens was there. The women were in the room with the three undertakers when I looked for the book. Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Shee. Re-examined by the Attorney-General. The chambermaid and I were in and out of the room while the women Were laying out the body, but they were sometimes left alone. I saw nothing of the book at that time. I had seen it before in Cook’s hand, but I don’t remember seeing it in the room. ANN ROWLEY, examined by Mr. Welsby. I live at Rugeley, and have frequently been employed as charwoman by Palmer. On the Satur- day before Cook died Palmer s entme to Mr. Robinson’s, at the Albion Inn, for a little broth for Cook. I fetched the broth, took it to Palmer’s house, and put it to the fire in the back kitchen to warm. After doing ao, 1 went about my work in other parts of the house. When the broth was hot, Palmer brought it to me in the kitchen, and poured it into a cup. He told me to take it to the Talbot Arms for Cook, to ask if he would take a little bread or toast with if, and to say that Smith had sent it. By Lord Campbell—He did not say why I was to say that. Examination resumed.—There is a Mr. Jeremiah Smith at Rugeley. He is called “ Jerry Smith;” He is a friend of Palmer’s. I took the broth to the Talbot Arms, and gave it to Lavinia Barnes. Mr. Smith was in the habit of putting up at the Albion. He was friendly with Cook. Cook was to liave dined with Smith that day, but was notable to go. Mrs. Robinson, the landlady of the Albion, made the broth, but I do not know by whose orders. F.y Lord Campbell—The broth was at the fire in Palmer’s kitchen, five minutes. Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Sh.ee. I am a gardener living at Rugeley, and was occasionally employed by the prisoner in his garden. On the Sunday before Cook died Palmer asked me to take some broth to Cook. That was at Palmer’s house, where I was in the habit of going. It was between 12 and 1 o’clock. He gave me the broth in a small cup, with a cover over it, and told me to take it to the Talbot Arms for Cook. I did so. I cannot say whether or not the broth was hot. I gave it to one of the servant girls at the Talbot Arms, but which 1 cannot say. The witness was not cross-examined. CHARLES HORLEY, examined by Mr. BodJcin. SARAH BOND, examined by Mr. Huddleston In November last I was housekeeper at the Talbot Arms. I knew Cook. He stayed at the Talbot Arms. I remember his going to Shrewsbury races on the 12th of November. He returned on the Thursday. I heard him say that he was very poorly. I did not see him on the Friday or Saturday. On Sunday I saw him about 8 o’clock in the evening. He was in bed. He said that he had been very poorly, but was better. Very soon afterwards I saw Palmer. 1 asked him what he thought of Cook, and he replied that he was better. On Saturday night Smith had slept in the room with Cook. On the Sunday evening I asked Palmer if Cook would not want somebody with him that night, and Palmer replied that he was so much better, that it would not he necessary that any one should be with him. I asked if Daniel Jenkins, the boots, should sleep in the room? Palmer said, that Cook was so much better he bad much rather he did not. On the Monday morning, a little before 7 o’clock, I saw Palmer again. He came into the kitchen to me. I asked him how Cook was. He said he was better, and requested me to make him a cup of coffee. He did not say anything about its strength. He remained in the kitchen, and I made the coffee and o-ave it to him. He told me that he was going to London, and that he had written for Mr. Jones to come to see Cook. On the Monday night, hearing from the waitress that Cook was ill, 1 went up to his room between 11 and 12 o’clock. When I went into the room Cook was alone. He waa sitting up in bed, resting on his elbow. He seemed disappointed, and said that he did not want to see me, but Palmer. I went out on to the landing, and soon afterwards Palmer came. Palmer went into the room. I could not see what was done in the room. Palmer came put, went away for a few minutes, and then returned. After he came back I heard that Cook had vomited. Cook SECOND DAY, MAY 15, 1856. 35 he thought he should die. Palmar cheered him up, and said that he would do all he could to prevent it. When Palmer came out of the room again, I asked him if Cook had any relatives, and he said that he had only a step-father. I saw Cook again between 3 and 4 o’clock on Tuesday. That was when Mr. Jones came. A little after 6 o’clock I took some jelly up to Cook. Beseemed very anxious for it, and said that he thought he should die. I thought he seemed better. I did not see him again alive. Between 8 and 9 o’clock on Wednesday morning, I locked the door of the room in which Cook’s body lay. About 9 o’clock I gave the key to Mr. Tolly, the barber, when he came to shavp the corpse. On Thursday I gave it to Lavinia Barnes, After that I went up to the room and met Palmer coming out of it. After I came out the door was locked, and I had the key. On Friday, when Mr. Stevens came, I gave the key to the undertaker. Cross-examined by Mr. Grove. The passengers by the express train from London arrived at Bugeley about 10 o’clock in the evening. They come by fly from Stafford. WILLIAM HENRY JONES, examined by the Attorney-General. lam a surgeon, living at Lutterworth. I have been in practice fifteen years. I was acquainted with Cook, who from time to time resided at my house. 1 had been on terms of intimacy with him nearly five years. He was 28 years of age when lie died, and unmarried. He was originally educated for the law, but of late years had devoted himself to agriculture and the turf. The last year or two he had no farm. He kept racehorses, and betted I had known Palmer about 12 months. Lately Cook considered my house at Lutterworth as his home. I have attended him professionally. Mis health was generally good, hut he was not very robust. He svas a man of active habits. .He both hunted and played cricket. In November last he invited me to go (to Shrewsbury to see Ms horse run, and I went. I spent Tuesday, the 13th, with him there. That was the day on which Polestar ran and won. I dined with Cook and other friends at the Kaven Hotel, where he was Staying. The horse having won, there was a little extra champagne drunk. We dined between 6 and 7 o’clock, and the party broke up between 8 and 9. Cook aftewards ac- companied me round the town. We went to Mr. Fraili’s, who is Clerk of the Course. I saw Cook produce Ms betting-book to Whitehouse, the jockey. He calculated his winnings on Polestar. There were figures in the book. Cook made a statement as to his winnings. Mr. Serjeant Slice objected to this statement being given in evidence, and the Attorney-General therefore did not ask any questions as to its purport. Examination resumed.-—-I left the Raven Hotel at 10 o’clock. Cook was then at the door. He was not at all the worse for liquor. He was in Ms usual health. On the following Monday I re- ceived a letter from Palmer. This letter, wMch was put in and read, was as follows: “ My dear Sir,—Mr. Cook was taken ill at Shrewsbury, and obliged to call in a medical man. Since then he has been confined to Ms bed iiefe with a very severe bilious attack, combined with diarrhoea. I think it desirable for you to come to see Mm as soon as possible. “ November 18, 1855.” “ William Palmee. Examination resumed.-—On that clay (Monday) I was very unwell. On the nest day I went to Bugeley. I arrived at the Talbot Arms about half past 3 o’clock in the afternoon, and immediately went np to Cook’s room. He said that he was very comfortable, but he had been very ill at Shrewsbury. He did not detail the symptoms, hut said he was obliged to call in a medical man. Palmer came in. I examined Cook in Palmer’s presence. He; had a natural pulse. I looked at his tongue, which was clean. I said it was hardly the tongue of a bilious diarrhoea attack. Palmer replied—“ You should have seen it before.” I did not then prescribe for Cook. _ln the course of the afternoon I visited him several times. He changed for the better. His spirits and pulse both improved. I gave him, at his request, some toast and water, and he vomited. There was no diarrhoea. The toast and water was in the room. Mr. Bamford came in the evening about 7 o’clock. Palmer had told me that Mr. Bamford had been called in. Mr. Bamford expressed Ms opinion that Cook was going on very satisfactorily. We were talking about what he was to have, and Cook objected to the pills of the previous night. Palmer was there all the time. Cook said the pills made him ill. Ido not remember to whom he addressed this observation. We three (Palmer, Bamford, and myself) went out upon the landing. Palmer proposed that Mr. Bamford should make up some morphine pills as before, at the same time requesting me not to mention to Cook what they contained, as he objected to the morphine so much. Mr. Bamford agreed to tMs, and he went away. I went back to Cook’s room, and Palmer went with me. Luring the evening I was several times in Cook’s room. He seemed very comfortable all the evening. There was no more vomiting nor any diarrhoea, but there was a natural motion of the bowels. I •observed no bilious symptoms about Cook. By Lord Campbell—Lid he appear to have recently suffered from a bilious attack No. Examination resumed.—Palmer and I went to his houseaboutS o’clock. I remained there about half-an-hour, and then returned to Cook. I next saw Palmer in Cook’s room at nearly 11 o’clock. He had brought with him a box of pills. He opened the paper, on which the direction was written in my presence. That paper was round the box. He called my attention to the paper, saying, “Vv hat an excellent handwriting for an old man !” I did not read the direction, but loosed at the writing, which was very good. Palmer proposed to Cook that he should take the pills. Cook pro- tested very much against it, because they had made him so ill on the previous'night. Palmer repeated the request several times, and at last Cook complied with it, and took the pills. The 36 THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMER moment he took them he vomited into the utensil. Palmer and myself (at Palmer’s request) searched in it for the pills, to see whether they were returned. We found nothing but toast-and- water. Ido not know when Cook had drunk the toast-and-water, but it was standing by the bed- side ali the evening. The vomiting could not have been caused by the contents of the pills, nor by the act of swallowing. After vomiting Cook laid down and Appeared quiet. Before Palmer came Cook had got up and sat in a chair. His spirits were very good; he was laughing and joking,, talking of what he should do with himself during the winter. After he had taken the pills I went do-An stairs to my supper, and returned to his room at nearly 12 o’clock. His room was double- bedded, and it had been arranged that I should sleep in it that night. I talked to Cook for a few minutes, and then went to bed. When I last talked to him he was rather sleepy, but quite as well as he had been during the evening. There was nothing about him to excite any apprehensions. I had been in bed about 10 minutes, and had not gone to sleep, when he suddenly started up in bed, and called out, “ Doctor, get up, lam going to be ill! Ring the bell and send for Palmer.” I rang the bell. The chambermaid came, and Cook called out to her, “Fetch Mr. Paltrjer.” He asked me to give him something; I declined, and said, “ Palmer will be here directly.” Cook was then sitting up in bed. The room was rather dark, and I did not observe anything particular in his coun- tenance. He asked me to rub the back of his neck. I did so. 1 supported him with my arm. There was a stiffness about the muscles of his neck. Palmer came very soon (two or three minutes at the utmost after the chambermaid went for him. He said, “ I never dressed so quickly in my life.” I did not observe how he was dressed. He gave Cook two pills, which he told me were ammonia pills. Cook swallowed them. Directly he did so he uttered loud screams, threwMiimself back in the bed, and was dreadfully convulsed. That could not have been the result of the action of the pills last taken. Cook said, “Raise me up! I shall be suffocated.” That was at the commence- ment of the convulsions, which lasted five or ten minutes. The convulsions affected every muscle of the body, and were accompanied by stiffening of the limbs. I endeavoured to raise Cook with the assistance of Palmer, but found it quite impossible, owing to the rigidity of the limbs. When Cook found we could not raise him up he asked me to turn him over. He was then quite sensible- I turned him on to his side. I listened to the action of his heart. I found that it gradually weakened,‘and asked Palmer to fetch some spirits of ammonia, to be used as a stimulant. Palmer went to his house and fetched the bottle. He was away a very short lime. When he returned the pulsations of the heart were gradually ceasing, and life was almost extinct. Cook died very quietly a very short time afterwards. From the time he called to me to that of his death there elapsed about ten minutes or a quarter of an hour. He died of tetanus, which is a spasmodic affection of the muscles of the whole body. It causes death by stopping the action of the heart- The sense of suffocation is caused by the contraction of the respiratory muscles. The room was so dark that I could not observe what was the outward appearance of Cook’s body after death. When he threw himself back in bed he clinched his hands, and they remained clinched after death. When I was rubbing his neck his head and neck were unnaturally bent back by the spas- modic action of the muscles. After death his body was so twisted or bowed that if I had placed it upon the back it would have rested upen the head and the feet. By Lord Campbell—When did you first observe that twisting or bowing?— When Cook threw himself back in bed. Examination resumed.—The jaw was effected by the spasmodic action. Palmer remained half- an-liour or an hour after Cook’s death. I suggested that we should have some women to lay Cook out. I left the room to speak to the housekeeper about this. Seeing two maids on the landing I sent them into the room where Palmer was with Cook’s body. I went down stairs and spoke to the housekeeper, and then returned to the bedroom. When I went back Palmer had Cook’s coat in his hand. He said to me, “ You, as his nearest friend, had better take possession of his effects.” I took Cook’s watch and his purse, containing five sovereigns and five shillings, which was all I could find. I saw no betting-book nor any papers or letters belongingto Cook. I found no bank- notes. Before Palmer left did he say anything to you on the subject of affairs between himself and Cook?—He did. Soon after Cook’s death he said, “It is a bad thing for me that Mr. Cook is dead, as I am responsible for £3,000 or £4,000, and I hope Mr. Cook’s friends will not let me lose it. If they do not assist me all my horses will bo seized.” He said nothing about securities or papers. 1 was present when Mr. Stevens, Cook’s stepfather, came. Palmer said that if Mr. Stevens did not bury Cook he should. Ido not recollect that there was any question about burying' him. Mr. Stevens, Palmer, Mr. Bamford, and myself dined together. After dinner, Mr. Stevens, in Palmer’s presence, asked me to go and look for Cook’s betting-book. I went to look for it, and Palmer followed me. The night that Cook died the betting-book was mentioned. What was said about it ?—Palmer said that it would be of use to no one. What led to this ?—My taking possession of the effects. Hid you make any observation about the book ?—I cannot recollect. Hid yon find it ?—No. Hid you make any remark ?—No particular remark. Hid Palmer know what you were looking for ?—Yes. ■ How ?—I said, “ Where is the betting-book ?” Upon that he said, “Itisof no use to any one.’ You are sure he said that ?—Yes. When I went to look for the book, at Mr. Steven’s request Palmer followed me. I looked for the book for two or three minutes, but did not find it. I told the maidservants that I could not find it. Palmer returned with me to the dining-room, and I told Mr. Stevens that 1 could not find the book. SECOND DAY, MAY 15, 1856. 37 By Lord Campbell—When Palmer, Mr. Bamford, and myself held the consultation on the landing on the Tuesday night, nothing was said about the spasms of the night before. Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Shee. I am a regular medical practitioner, and have for 15 years practised medicine as a means of gaining a living. lam a licentiate of the Apothecaries’ Company, and have endeavoured, both as a young man and since, to qualify myself for my profession. "When I saw Cook his throat was slightly ulcerated, bpt he could swallow very well, although with a little pain. I know that he had applied caustic to his tongue, but he had ceased to do so for two months. He did not after that •continue to complain of pain in his throat or tongue. I saw him frequently during the races, and never heard him express any apprehension about spots which appeared upon his body, although he did express apprehensions of secondary symptoms resulting from syphilis. lam not aware that •at the time he died he was suffering from the venereal disease, but I know that he had it about a twelvemonth ago. He had been reduced in circumstances some time before he died, but he was redeeming them. I do not know that he was frequently in want of small sums of money. I believe that he owned a mare in conjunction with Palmer named Pyrrhine, which was under the acre of Sandars, the trainer. The race which Polestar won was a matter of very great importance to the deceased. He was much excited at the race, and more particularly so after it. Deceased was a very temperate man and did not exceed in wine on the evening of the race. The next I heard of him was through the letter from Palmer. Palmer knew perfectly well who I was, and that I was in practice as a surgeon at Lutterworth. When I saw deceased he objected to take morphia pills, because they had made made him ill ihe night before. He did not say that Dr. Savage had for- bidden him to take the morphia, but he said that he had been directed not to take mercury or opium. The effect of morphia would be to soothe and to cause slight constipation. When I saw him and he roused up a little, he said “ Palmer, give me the remedy you gave me last night.” I rubbed the deceased’s neck for about five minutes. He died very quietly. I had seen cases of tetanus before. I think I mentioned tetanus at the inquest. lam sure, if you refer to my depo- sitions, you will find that I mentioned tetanus and convulsions both. (The depositions were referred to, and there was no mention of tetanus in them.) Witness continued, however, “lam sure that I mentioned tetanus.” The Attorney-General—I must set this right. I have here the original deposition, and I find that the matter stands thus:—“ There were strong symptoms of”—then there is the word “com- Palmeb’s Stable*) bob Brood Mabes at Eogeley. 38 THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMER. pression” struck out; and then there is the word “tetanus” also struck out—it is evident that the clerk did not know the meaning of what he was writing—and then the words “ violent convulsions” are added; so that the sentence stands, “There were strong symptoms of violent convulsions.” By Mr. Serjeant Shee—l also said before the coroner that I could not tell the cause of death, and that ! imagined at the time that it was from over-excitement. The Lord Chief Justice said, that the learned counsel must not read detached portions of the depositions—the whole must be read. (The depositions were accordingly read by the Clerk of the Arraigns.) Cross-examination continued.—l do not recollect that I ever said that deceased died of epilepsy. Dr. Batnford said he died in an apoplectic fit, and I said that I thought he did not. I said that it was more like an epileptic than an apoplectic fit. _ I do not know Mr. Pratt, but I took a letter from him to Cook. Cook did not open it, but said, “ I know the contents- of it—let it be till to-morrow morning.” I have seen Palmer’s racing establishment at Rugeiey. I saw a number of mares in foal, and others in the paddock, and some very valuable horses. The stUbies were good, and the establishment appeared to be a large and expensive one. lam not a good judge of the value of racing-horses, but I understand other horses very well. I have only seen one case of tetanus, and that case resulted from a wound. The patient in that case lasted three days before death ensued. I am satisfied that the death of Mr. Qpok did not arise from epilepsy. In epilepsy consciousness is lost, but there is no rigidity or convulsive spasm of the muscles. The symptoms are quite different. I am equally certain that death was not the result of apoplexy. Re-examined by the Attorney-General. LAVINIA BARNES was recalled at the instance of Mr. Serjeant Shee, and, in answer to the learned Serjeant, she said,— On Monday morning Mr. Cook said to me that he had been very ill on Sunday night, just before 12 p’clock, and that he had rung the bell for some one to come to him ; but he thought that they had all gose to bed.. ELIZABETH MILLS, recalled by the Attorney-General, and examined on the same point. I remember on Monday morning asking Mr. Cook how he was, and he said that had been dis- turbed in the night, adding, “ I was just mad for two minutes.” I said, “ Why did you not ring the bell 1” and he replied, “ i thought you would be ail fast asleep, and would not hear me. The illness passed away, and 1 managed to get over it without.” He also said that he thought he had been disturbed by the noise of a quarrel in the street. Dr. HENRY SAVAGE, physician, 7, Gloucester-place, examined by the Attorney-General. I knew John Parsons Cook. He had been in the habit of consulting me professionally during the last four years. He was a man not of robust constitution; but his general healih was good. He came to me in May, 1855, but I saw him about November of the year before, and early in the spring of 1855. In the spring of 1855 the old affair—indigestion—was of his visiting me, and he had some spots upon his bodty, about which he was uneasy. He had also two shallow ulcers on his tongue, which corresponded with two bad teeth. He said that he had been under a mild mercurial course, and heimagined that those spots were syphilitic ; I thought they were not and I recommended the discontinuance of mercury. I gave him quinine as atonic, and an aperient composed of cream of tartar, magnesia, and sulphur. I never at anytime gave him antimony. Under the treatment which I prescribed the sores gradually disappeared, and they were quite well by the end of May. I saw him, however, frequently in June, as he still felt some little anxiety about the accuracy of ray opinion. If any little spot made its appearance he came to me, and I also was anxious on the subject, as my opinion differed from that of another medical man in London. Every time he came to me I examined him carefully. There were no indications of a syphilitic character about the sores, and there was no ulceration of the throat, but one of the tons ls was slightly enlarged and tender. I saw him last alive, and carefully examined him, either on the 3d or sth of November. There was, in my judgment, no venereal taint about him at the time. 1 do not think that the deceased was fond of taking mercury before I advised him against it ; but he was timid on the subject of his throat, and was apt to take the advice of any one. No; I don’t think that he would take quack medicines. I don’t think he was so foolish as that. Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Shee. lam assistant to Mr. Salt, a surgeon at Rugeley. I know the prisoner, William Palmer. I re- member Monday, the 19th of November I saw Palmer that evening at Mr. Salt’s surgery, about 9 o’clock. I was alone when he came there. He asked me for three grains of strychnine, and I weighed it accurately and gave it to him, enclosed in a piece of paper. He said nothing further hut “ Good night,” and took it away with him. I knew him to be a medical man and gave it him—-made no charge for it. The whole transaction did not occupy more than two or three minutes. I again saw Palmer on the following day, between 11 and 12 o’clock. He was then at the shop of Mr. Hawkins, a druggist. He asked mo how I was, and put his hand upon my shoulder and said he wished to speak with me. Accordingly I went out into the street with him, and ho then asked me when Mr. Edwin Salt was going to his farm. The farm in question was at a place about 14 miles distant from Rugeley. Palmer had nothing whatever to do with that farm ; but Mr. Salt’s going' there was a rumour of the town. While we were talking a Mr. Brassington CHARLES NEWTON, examined by Mr. James, Q.C. SECOND DAT, MAY 15, 1856. 39 came up and spoke to me, and during our conversation Palmer' went into Hawkins’s simp again. Palmer came out of the shop a second time, while I was still talking to Brassington. 1 am not sure whether Palmer spoke to me at that time; hut he went past me in the direction of his own house, which is about 200 yards from Hawkins’. I then went into Hawkins’ shop, where I saw Eoberts, Mr; Hawkins’ apprentice, and I had some conversation with him about Palmer. I know a man named Thirlby, who had been an assistant and a partner of Palmer. Palmer usually dealt with Thirlby for his^drugs—in fact, Thirlby dispensed Palmer’s medicine. On Sunday, the 25th of November, about 7 o’clock in the evening, I was sent for and went to Palmer’s house, I found Palmer, when I got there, in his kitchen. He was sitting by the fire reading. He asked me how I was, and to have some brandy-and-water. No one else was present. He asked me what ■was the dose of strychnine to give to kill a dog? I told him a grain. He asked me what would be the appearance of the stomach after death ? I told him that there would be no inflammation, and that I did not think it could be found. Upon that be snapped his finger and thumb in a quiet way, and exclaimed, as if communing with himself, “That’s all right.” (Sensation.) He made some other remarks of a commonplace character, which Ido not recollect. I was with him alto- gether about five minutes. On the following day—Monday, the 26th of Move nber—l heard that a post mortem examination was to take place. I went to Dr. Bamford’s house, intending to accom- pany him to the examination, and I found Palmer there in the study'. That was about 10 o’clock in the day. Palmer asked me what I wanted. I told him that I had come to attend the post mortem. He asked whether I''thought Mr. Salt was going; ana I replied that he was engaged and could not go. I took the necessary instruments with me, and went down to the Talbot Arms. Dr. Harland, and Mr. Frere, a surgeon, practising at Rugeley, were boih there. They went away, however, for a short time, and left Palmer and me together in the entrance to the hall at the Talbot Arms. He spoke to me. He said—-“It will be a dirty job; I will go and have some brandy.” I went with him to his house, which was just opposite. He gave me two wine-glasses of neat brandy, and he took the same quantity himself. He said—“You’ll find this fellow suffering from a diseased throat —he has had syphilis, and has taken a great deal of mercury.” I afterwards went over with Palmer to thepost mortem, and found the other doctors there. During the post mortem Palmer stood near to Dr. Bamford, against the fire. I was examined before the coroner, and did not state before that functionary that I had given Palmer three grains of strychnine on the night of the 19th of Novem- ber. The first person that I told of it was Cheshire, the post-master. Mr. Serjeant Shoe objected to anything that this witness had said to Cheshire being admitted as evidence against the prisoner. The Court ruled in favour of the objection. Thu Model Exhibited in Covet of the Talbot Amis and Palmer’s House. 40 THE TRIAL OP WILLIAM PALMER. Cross-examined by Mr. Grove, Q.C. It might have been a week, or two or three days after I gave Palmer the strychnine, that ! first mentioned the occurrence to any one. I think I may undertake to say that it was not a fortnight afterwards, Subsequently to the inquest I was examined for th*e purpose of giving evidence on the pait of the crown. 1 cannot say how long after the inquest that was. When I was first examined on behalf of the crown I did not mention the three grains of strychnine, but I did mention the con- versation about the poisoning of the dog. That was not the first time that I had mentioned that conversation; for I had mentioned it before to Mr. Salt; but I cannot tell how long before. I was examined twice for the purpose of the prosecution by the crown. I did not mention Cook’s suffering from sore throat at the inquest, but I did mention the conversation which took place at Hawkins’s shop. At that time I knew it had been alleged that Palmer had purchased strychnine at Hawkins’s, and I presumed that my evidence was required with reference to that point. I first stated on Tuesday last, for the purposes of this prosecution, the fact of my having givep.Palmer three grains of strychnine. I cannot say whether in that examination I said that Palmer said, “You will find this ‘poor’ fellow suffering from a diseased throat.” 1 don’t know whether I said “poor fellow” or “ rich fellow.” Do you not know that there is a difference in the expression “fellow” and “poor fellow?”—I know there is a difference between rich and poor. It is impossible to recollect all that I said upon every occasion. Re-exammed by the Attorney-General. I did not mention the circumstance of my having given the strychnine to Palmer, because Mr. ■Salt, my employer, and Palmer were not friends, and I thought it would displease Mr. Salt if he knew that I had let Palmer have anything. I first mentioned it to Boycott, the clerk of Mr. Gardner, the solicitor, at the Rugeley station, where I and a number of other witnesses were assembled for the purpose of coming to London. As soon as I arrived in London, Boycott took me to Mr. Gardner’s. 1 communicated to him what I had to say; and I was then taken to the solicitor of the Treasury, and I made the same statement to him. Mr. Serjdtint Shee—-Have you not given another reason far not mentioning the occurrence about the three grains of strychnine before—that reason being that you were afraid you could be indicted for perjury ?—No, I did not give that as a reason, but I stated to a gentleman that a young man at ■Wolverhampton had been threatened to be indicted for perjury by George Palmer, because he had said at the inquest upon Walter Palmer, that he had sold the prisoner prussic acid, and he had not entered it in the book and could not prove it. I stated at the same time that George Palmer said he could be transported for it. I did not enter the gift of the three grains of strychnine from Mr. Salt’s surgery in a book. The inquest upon Walter Palmer did not take place till five or six weeks after the inquest upon Mr. Cook, The Court then adjourned at 25 minutes past 6 o’clock until 10 o’clock next day, the jury being conducted, as on the previous evening, to the London Coffee House in charge of the officers of the Court. ‘PAEMBR’sHoUSE, HuGELEY, FROM HIS GARDENS. THIRD DAT, MAY 16, 1856. 41 The Court was quite as full at the commencement of the proceedings this morning, as it had been upon either of the preceding days. The Earl of Derby, Earl Grey, and other noble lords were again present. The jury took their seats shortly before ten o’clock. The learned Judges, Lord Chief Justice Campbell, Mr. Baron Alderson, and Mr. Justice Cresswell, soon afterwards entered the Court, accompanied by the Recorder and Sheriffs, and the prisoner was then placed at the bar. He appeared rather more anxious than on the two previous days, but was still calm and collected, and paid the greatest attention to the evidence. Counsel for the Crown:—The Attorney-General, Mr. E. James, Q.C., Mr. Bodkin, Mr. Welsby, and Mr. Huddleston; for the prisoner:—Mr. Serjeant Slice, Mr. Grove, Q.C., Mr. Gray, and Mr. Kenealy. ' THIRD DAY.—May 16, 1856. In November last, I was ap- prentice to Mr. Hawkins, a druggist, at Rugeley. I know Palmer. On Tuesday, Novem- ber the 20th, between eleven and twelve in the day, he came into Mr. Hawkins’s shop. He first asked for two drachms of prussic acid, for which he had brought a bottle. I was putting it up when Newton, the assist- ant of Salt, came in. Palmer told him he wanted to speak to him, and they went out of the shop together. 1 then saw Brassington, the cooper, take Newton away from Palmer, and enter into conversation with him. Palmer then came back into the shop, and asked me lor six grains of strychnine and two drachms of Batley’s solution of opium, called “ Batley’s sedative”.) I had put up the prussic acid, which was lying upon the counter. Hestood at thecoun- ter when he ordered the things, and while I was preparing them behind the counter, he stood at the shop door, with his back to me, looking into the street. I was about five minutes preparing them. He stood at the door till they were ready, when 1 delivered them to him—the prussic acid in the bottle he had brought, the strychnine in a paper, and the opium in a bottle. He paid me for them, and took them away. No one else was in the shop from the time when Palmer and Newton went out, till I delivered the things to him. When Palmer had left, Newton came-in, and we had some conversation. I had at that time been six years in Mr. Hawkins’s employment. Palmer had not bought any drugs at the shop for about two years. I know Thirlby, Palmer’s assistant. He had started a shop about two years before. By Lord Campbell—Thirlby was carrying on business as a druggist at the time. CHARLES JOSEPH ROBERTS, examined by Mr. E. James. Thirlby’s Shop, Rugeley. I did not make entries of any of these things in the books. Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Shee. When articles are paid for across the counter I am not in the habit of making entries of them in the books. The Attorney-General stated that Dr. Bamford was seriously ill, and unable to attend, but his depositions would be read. Re-examined. 42 THE TRIAL OP 'WILLIAM PALMER. Mr. WILLIAM STEVENS, examined by the Attorney-General I have been a merchant in the City, but am now out of business. Was stepfather to the deceased Mr. Cook. I married his father’s widow 15 (or 18) years ago, and I have known him intimately ever since. I was made executor to his grandfather’s will. I was always on friendly terms with him, and constantly had the care of him. He had property worth altogether about 13,1)00?. He was articled to a solicitor at Worthing, in Sussex, but he did not follow the profession. He had been con- nected with the turf about three or four years—perhaps not so much. I did e%prything in my power to withraw him from that pursuit. Lord Campbell—But you still remained on friendly terras? Witness—On affectionate terms. The last time I saw him alive was at the station at Euston-square, about two on the afternoon of the sth of November. I think he told me he was going to Rugelet', but I am not quite sure; he looked better than I had seen him for a very long time. I was so gratified that I said, “ My boy, you look very well now; you don’t look anythingof an invalid.” He said he was quite well, and struck himself on the chest. I think he added he should be quite right if he was happy. In M». Wi. Stevens, Cook’s Stepfatheh. a robust man. His complexion was pale. During the previous winter he had had a sore throat for some mbnlhs. I first heard of his death on the evening of Wednesday, November 21. Mr. Jones, of Lutterworth, called at my bouse and informed me of it. * The next dav I went down to Lutterworth with Mr. Jones for the purpose of searching for the will and papers. The day after I went to Rugeley. I arrived between twelve and one. I asked to see the body when I got to the inn. I met Palmer in the passage. I had seen him once before, and Mr. Jones introduced rne to him. He followed us upstairs to see the body, and removed the sheet from it to rather below the waist. I was much struck with its appear- ance. I first noticed the tightness of the muscles across the face. There did not appear to rne to he any emaciation or disease. We all went down stairs to one of the sitting roams. In a short time t said to Palmer, “ I hear from Mr. Jones that you know something of my son’s affairs. Can you tell me anything about them ?” He replied, “Yes ; there are £I,OOO worth of bills out of his, and I am sorry to say my name is to them ; but I have got a paper drawn up by a lawyer arid signed by him to show that I never had any money from them.” I expressed great surprise at this, and said, “ I fear there won’t be 4,000 shillings to pay you.” “ But,” I asked, “had be no horses, no property ?” Palmer replied, “Yes, he has some horses, but they are mortgaged.” J said, “ Has he no sporting bets, nor anything of that sort ?” Hh mentioned one debt of £3OO. J would rather not stale the name of the person who owed it. It is a relation of his, not a sporting gentleman. (Ihe witness wrote down the name, and handed it to the counsel on both sides and the Judges.) Lord Campbell—- The name is immaterial. Examination continued.—-Palmer said he did not know of any other debt. I said I thought his sporting creditors would have to take his sporting effects, as I should have nothing to do with them. I added, “Well, whether he has left anything or not, poor fellow, he must be buried.” Palmer immediately said, “Oh ! I will bury him myself, if that is all.” I said, “ I certainly cannot think of your doing that; I shall do it.” Cook’s brother-in-law, who had come to meet me, was then present, and expressed a great wish to be allowed to bury him. I said, “No ; as his executor, I shall take care of that. I cannot have the funeral immediately, because I intend to bury him in London, in his mother’s grave. I shall be sorry to inconvenience the people here at the inn but I will get it done as soon as possible.” Palmer said, “Oh ! that is of no consequence, but the’ body ought to be fastened up at once.” He repeated that observation—“ So long as the body is fastened THIKD DAY, MAY 16, 1856. 43 up, it is of no consequence.” While I was talking to Cook’s brother-in-law Palmer and Jones left the room. They returned in about half an hour. I then asked Palmer for the name of some respectable undertaker at Rugeley, that I might at once order a coffin and give directions. He said, “I have been and done that. I have ordered a shell and strong oak coffin.” I expressed my surprise. I said, “ I did not give you any authority to do so, but I must see the undertaker to let him have my instructions.” I think he told me the name of the undertaker. I ordered dinner for myself, my son-in-law,'and Jones, and I asked Palmer to come in. We all dined together at the inn at about three. I was going back to London that afternoon. After dinner, Palmer being still present, I desired Mr. Jones to be so good as to go upstairs and get me Cook’s betting-book, or pocket-book, or books orpapers that might be there. I had seen him with a betting-book—a small one with clasps. Mr. Jones then left the room, and Palmer followed him. They were away ten minutes Mr. Jones said, on their return, “ I am very sorry to say I cannot find any betting book or papers.” I exclaimed, “No betting-book, Mr. Jones? ” Turning towards Palmer, I said, “ How is this?” Palmer said, “01), it is no manner of use if you find it.” I said “No use. Sir! lam the best judge of that.” He again said, “Itisof no manner of use.” I said, “I am told it is of use. I understand my Son won a great deal of money at Shrewsbury, and I ought to know something about it.” He replied, “It is of no use, I assure you. When a man dies his bets are done with. Besides, Cook received the greater part of his money on the course at Shrewsbury.” I said, “ Very well, the book ought to be found, and must be found.” Palmer then said, in a quieter tone, “It will he found, no doubt.” I again said, “ Sir, it shall be found.” I then went to the door, and, calling to the housekeeper, I desired that everything in the bedroom should be locked rip, and nothing touched,until I re- turned or sent-some one. Before leaving I went upstairs to take a last look at the body. Some servants were in the room, turning over the bed clothes, and also the undertaker. I had given him instructions before dinner to place the body in the coffin. He was standing by the side of the shell. The body was in it, uncovered. I knelt down by the side of the shell, and, taking the right hand of the corpse, I found it clinched. I looked across the body, and saw that the left hand was clinched in the same manner. I returned to town, and communicated next morning with my solicitor, who gave me a letter to Mr. Gardner, of Eugeley. I returned to Eugeley, where I arrived at eight o’clock next evening (Saturday). I started from Euston-square at two o’clock, and on the platform I met Palmer. He said he had received a telegraphic message summoning him to London after I had left Rugeley. I asked him where Cook’s horses were kept. He told me at Eddisford, near Eugeley, and said he would drive me out there if I wished. When I got to Wolverton, where the train stops, I saw him again in the refreshment-room. I said, “ Mr. Palmer this is a very melancholy thing, the death of my poor son happening so suddenly ; I think, for the sake of his brother and sister, who are somewhat delicate, it might be desirable for his medical friends to know what his complaints wore.” Cookhad a sister and a half-brother. Palmer replied, “ That can be done very well.” The bell then rang, and we went to our seats. He travelled in a different car- iiage till we reached Eugby where I saw him again in the refreshment room. I said, “Mr. Palmer, as I live at a distance, I think I ought to ask a solicitor at Eugeley to look after my interest.” He said, “Oh, yes; you might do that. l)o you know any solicitor?” I said, “No.” I then got some refreshment, and went hack to my carriage ; I found Palmer sitting there. I had no conversation with him before I reached Eugeley, but continued talking to a lady and gentleman, with whom I had been conversing since I left town. After we arrived at Eugeley, Palmer said, “Ho you know any solicitor here ?” I said, “ No, I don’t; I am a perfect stranger.” He said, “ I know them all intimately, and I can introduce you to one. When I get homo I must have a cup of coffee, and I will then come over and take you all about.” I thanked him, as I had done once or twice before, and said I wouldn’t trouble him. He repeated his offer. Altering my tone and manner, I said, “ Mr. Palmer, if I should call in a solicitor to give me advice, I suppose you will have no objection to answer any question he may put to you ?” I altered my tone purposely; I looked steadily at bun, but, although the moon was shining, I could not see liis features distinctly. He said, with a spasmodic convulsion of the throat, which was perfectly apparent, “ Oh, no, certainly not.” At Wolverton I had purposely mentioned my desire that there should be a post mortem examination, ’ and I ought to say that he was quite calm when I mentioned it. After 1 asked him that question, there was a pause for three or four minutes. He then again proposed to come over to me after he had had his coffee, and I again beggpd he would not trouble liimself. I went to Mr. Gardner, and then came hack to the inn. Palmer came to me and began to talk about the hills. He said, “It is a very unpleasant affair for me.” I said, “I think it right to tell you that since I saw you I have had rather a different account of Mr. Cook’s affairs.” He said, “Oh, indeed! I hope at any rate, they will be settled pleasantly.” I said, “His affairs can only be settled in a Court of Chancery.” He asked me what friends Mr. Cook visited in the neighbourhood of London. I said, “ Several.” The next day (Sunday) I saw him again between dve and six in the evening. He said, “You were talking of going to Eddisford. If I were you I mould not take a solicitor with me there.” I said, “ Why not ? I shall use my own judgment.” Later in the evening he came again to my room, holding a piece of paper as if he wished to give it me. I went on with my writing and said, “ Pray, who is Mr. Smith ?” He repeated “Mr Smith” two or three times, and I said, “ I mean a Mr. Smith who sat up with my son one night.” He said, “Heis a solicitor in the town.” I asked if he was in practice. Ho replied, “ Yes.” I said, “I ask you the question because, as the betting-bools is lost, I should wish to kxow who has been with the young man.” After a pause I said, “Did you attend my son in a medical capacity?” He said, “Oh dear no.” I said, “ I ask you, because' lam determined to have his body examined; and if you had attended him professionally I suppose the gentleman I shall call in would think it 44 THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMER. proper that you should be present.” He asked who was to perform the examination. I said. “ I cannot say; I shall not know myself until to-morrow. I think it right to tell you of it; but whether you are present at it or not is a matter of indifference to me.” On the Friday, when Palmer gave orders for the shell, did you perceive any sign of decomposition in the body, or anything which would render its immediate enclosure necessary?—On the contrary* the body did not look to me like a dead body. I was suprised at its appearance. The last time Cook stayed at my house was in January or February last year, for about a month. He then had a sore throat. Ido not remember that it was continually sore. He had not the least difficulty in swallowing. I did not notice any ulcers about his face. In the spring he complained of being an invalid, and said his medical friends told him that if he was not better in the winter he ought to go to a warm climate. No communication was made to me about insuring his life. I was dissatisfied about the loss of the betting-book. I desired that everything belonging to the deceased might be locked up. When I returned to Rugeley with Palmer 1 went to seek for Mr. Gardner. I saw him on the following (Sunday) morning. I have once been in communication with the police- officer Field. That was a fortnight or three weeks after my son’s heath. Field called upon me. I never applied to him. By Mr. Baron Alderson—I never called upon Mr. Bamford, but he dined with me at the Talbot Arms. Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Shee. lam a widow, living at Rugeley. On the morning of Wedesday, the 21st of November last, I was sent for to lay out Cook’s body. My sister-in-law went with me. That was about 1 o’clock in the morning. The body was still warm, but the hands and arms were cold. The body was lying on the back. The arms were crossed before the chest. The head lay a little turned on one side. The body was very stiff indeed. I have laid out many corpses. I never saw one so stiff before. We had difficulty in straightening the arms. We could not keep them straight down to the body. J passed a piece of tape under the back, and tied it round the wrists to fasten the arms down. The right foot turned on one side, outwards. We were obliged to tie both the feet together. The eyes were open. We were a considerable time before we could close them, because the eyelids were very stiff. The hands were closed, and were very stiff. Palmer was upstairs with us. He lighted me while I took two rings off Cook’s fingers. That was off one hand. The fingers were very stiff, and I had difficulty in getting off the rings. I got them off, and when I had done so the hand closed aeain. I did not see anything of a bettine-book. nor ar.v small book like a norket.book. MARY KEELEY, examined by Mr. Welsly. 1 cannot say how many bodies 1 have laid out, but I have laid out a great many of all ages. I never knew of the arms being tied before this instance. It is usual to lay the arms by the sides within a few minutes after death. I was called up at half-past twelve. It was half-past'one when 1 went up stairs to the room where Cook lay. Sometimes the feet of corpses get twisted out • it is then that they are tied. That occurs within about half-an-hour after death. I have never known the eyelid so stiff as in this case. I have put penny pieces on the eyes. In those cases the lids were stiff, but not so stiff as in this instance. Re-examined by the Attorney-General. JOHN THOMAS HARLAND, examined by Mr. Bodkin lam a physician residing at Stafford. On the 26th of November last I went from Stafford to Rugeley to be present at a post mortem examination. I ar- rived at Rugeley at ten o’clock in the morning. I called at the house of Mr. Bamford, surgeon. As I went there Palmer joined me in the street. He came from the back of his own house. I had frequently seen him and had spoken to him before. He said, “I am glad that you have come to make a post mortem examination. Some one might have been sent whom I did not know.” I said, “What is this case? I hear there is a suspicion of poisoning.” He said, “Oh, no; I think not. He had an epileptic fit on Monday and Tues- day last, and you will find old disease in the heart and in the head.” then went together to Mr. Bamford’s. I had brought no instruments with me having only been requested to be present at the examination. Palmer said that he had instruments, and offered to fetch them and lend them to me. He (Palmer) said there was a very queer old man who seemed to suspect him of John Thomas Harlaxd, Physician, THIED DAY, MAY 16, 1856. 45 something, but he did not know what he meant or what he wanted. He also said, “He seems to suspect that I have got the betting-book. Cook had no betting-book that would be of use to any- one.” Mr. Bamford and I then went to the house of Mr. Frere, who is a surgeon at Rugeley. Palmer did not go with us. Thence we went to the Talbot Arms, where the post mortem examina- tion was proceeded with. Mr, Devonshire operated, and Mr. Newton assisted him. There were in the room, besides, Mr. Bamford, Palmer, myself, and several other persons. I stood near Mr. Devonshire. The was very stiff. By Lord Campbell—lt was much stiffer than bodies usually are five or six days after death. Examination resumed.—The muscles were very highly developed. By that I mean that they were strongly contracted and thrown out. I examined the hands. They were stiff and were firmly closed. The abdominal viscera were first examined. At the suggestion of Lord Campbell, the witness read a report which he prepared on the day on which this post mortem examination took place, November 26, 1855, and transmitted to Mr. Stevens, the stepfather of the deceased- This report described the state of the various internal organs as being perfectly healthy and natural. The material statements were all repeated in the subsequent examination of the witness. After reading the report, The witness continued—The abdominal viscera were in a perfectly healthy state. They were taken out of the body. We examined the liver. It was healthy. The lungs were healthy, but contained a good deal of blood. Not more than would be accounted for by gravitation after death. We examined the head. The brain was quite healthy. There was no extravasation of blood, and no serum. There was nothing which, in my judgment, could cause pressure. The heart was contracted, and contained no blood. That was the result not of disease, but of spasmodic action. At the larger end of the stomach there were numerous small yellowish-white spots, about the size of mustard seeds. They would not at all account for death. I doubt whether they would have any effect upon the health. I think they were mucous follicles. The kidneys were full of blood, which had gravitated there. They had no appearance of disease. The blood was in a fluid state. That is not usual. It is found so in some cases of sudden death, which are of rare occurrence. The lower part of the spinal cord was not very closely examined. We examined the upper part of that cord. It presented a perfectly natural appearance. On a subsequent day, I think the 25th of January, it was thought right to exhume the body, that the spinal cord might he more care- fully examined. I was present at that examination. The lower part of the spinal cord was then minutely examined. A report was made of that examination. This report was put in, and was read by the witness. It described minutely the appearance and condition of the spinal cord and its envelopes, and concluded with this statement:—There is nothing in the condition of the spinal cord or its envelopes to account for death ; nothing but the most normal and healthy state, allowance being made for the lapse of time since the death of the deceased.” Examination resumed.—I am still of dpinion that there was nothing in the appearance of the spine to account for the death of the deceased, and nothing of an unusual kind which might not be referred to changes after death. When the stomach and intestines were removed from th« cook’s grave. 46 THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMER. body on the occasion of tlie first examination, they were separately emptied into ajar, and were afterwards placed in it. Mr. Devonshire and Mr. Newton removed them from the body. They ■were the only two who operated. At that time the prisoner was standing on the right of Mr. Newton. While Mr. Devonshire was opening the stomach, a push was given by Palmer, which sent Mr. Newton against Mr. Devonshire, and shook some of the contents of the stomach into the body. I thought a joke was passing among them, and said, “ Don’t do that.” By Lord Campbell—Might not. Palmer have been impelled by some one outside him ? There was no one who could have impelled him. What did you observe Palmer do ?—I saw Mr. Newton and Mr, Devonshire pushed together, and Palmer was over them. He was smiling at the time. Examination continued,—After this interruption the opening of the stomach was pursued. The stomach contained about three ounces of,a brownish fluid. There was nothing particular in that. Palmer was looking on, and said, “They won’t hang us yet.” He said that to Mr. Bamford in a loud whisper. That remark was made upon bis own observation of the stomach. The stomach, after being emptied, was put into the jar. The intestines were then examined, but nothing particular was found in them. They were contracted and very small. The viscera, with their contents, as taken from the body, were placed in the jar, which was then covered over with two bladders, which were tied and sealed. I tied and sealed them. After I had done so, I placed the jar upon the table by the body. Phimer was then moving about the room. In a few moments I missed the jar from where I had placed it. Daring that time my attention had been withdrawn by the examination. On missing the jar I called out, “Where’s the jar?” and Palmer from the other end of the room, said, “It is here; I thought it would be more convenient for you to take away.” There was a door at the end of the room where he was. He was within a yard or two of that door, and about 24 feet from the table on which the body was lying. [Before making this last statement the wit- ness referred to a plan of the room which was put in by the Attorney-General.] The door near which Palmer was' standing was not the one by which he had entered the room. I called to Palmer, “ Will you bring it here ?” I went from the table and met Palmer half-way, coming with the jar. The jar had since I last saw it been cut through both bladders The cut was hardly an inch long. It had been done with a sharp instrument. I examined the cut. The edges were quite clean. No part of the contents of the jar could have passed through it. Finding this cut, I said, “ Here is a cut; who has done this ?” Palmer and Mr. Devonshire and Mr. Newton all said that they had not done it, and nothing more was said about it. When I was about to remove the jar from the room the prisoner asked me what I was going to do with it. I said I should take it to Mr. Frere’s. He said, “ I had rather you would take it to Stafford than take it there.” I made no answer that I remember. I took it to Mr. Frere’s house. After doing so I returned to the Talbot Arms. I left the jar in Mr. Frere’s hall, tied and sealed. Immediately upon finding the slit in the cover I cut the strings and altered the bladders, so that the slits were not over the top of the jar. I resealed them. After going to Mr. Frere’s I went to tlie Talbot Arms. I went into the yard to order my carriage, and while I was waiting for it the prisoner came across to me. He asked me what I had done with the jar. I told him that I had left it at Mr. Frere’s. He in- quired what would be done with it, and I said that it would go either to Birmingham or London that night for examination. Ido not recollect that he made any reply. ■ When 1 re-covered the jar, I tied each cover separately, and sealed it with my own seal. During the first post mortem examination there were several Rugeley persons present, but I believe no one on behalf of the prisoner. At the second examination there was some one there on behalf of Palmer, Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Shee. In the course of the post mortem examination Palmer said, “ They won’t hang us yet.” I am not sure whether that observation was addressed to Dr, Bamford, or whether he prefaced it by tlie word “ Doctor.” I think that be first said it to Dr. Bamford in a loud whisper, and afterwards repeated it to several persons. I had said to him that I had heard that there was a suspicion of poisoning. I made notes in pencil at the time of the post mortem, and I wrote a more formal report from those notes as soon as I got home. The original pencil notes are destroyed. I sent the fair copy to Mr. Stevens, Cook’s father-in-law, the same evening. They were not produced before the coroner. At the base of the tongue ot the deceased I observed some enlarged mucous follicles; they were not pustules containing matter, but enlarged mucous follicles of long standing. There were a good many of them, but I do not suppose that they would occasion much incon- venience. They might cause some degree of pain, but I think that it would be slight. Ido not believe that they were enlarged glands. I should not say that deceased’s lungs were diseased, although they were not in their normal state. The lungs were full of blood and the heart empty. I had no lens at the post mortem, but I made an examination which was satisfactory to me, without one. The brain was carefully taken out; the membranes and external parts were first examined, and thin slices of about a quarter of an inch in thickness were taken off and subjected to separate examination. I think that by that means we should have discovered disease if any had existed; und if there had been any indication of disease I should have examined it more carefully, j ex_ arnined the spinal cord as far down as possible, and if there had been any appearance of disease I should have opened the canal. There was no appearance of disease however. We opened down to the first vertebra. If we had found a softening of the spinal cord Ido not think that it would have been sufficient to have caused Mr. Cook’s death; certainly not. A softening of the spinal cord would not produce tetanus—it might produe paralysis. Ido not think, as a medical man investigating the cause of death, that it was necessary carefully to examine the spinal cord. Ido THIRD DAY, MAT 16, 1856. not know who suggested that there should be an examination of the spinal cord two months after death. There were some appearances of decomposition when we examined the spinal cord, but I do not think that there was sufficient to interfere with our examination. I examined the body to ascertain if there was any trace of venereal disease. I did find certain indications of that description, and the marks of an old excoriation, which were cicatriced over. i Re-examined by the Attorney-General. There were no indications of wounds or sores such as could by possibility produce tetanus. There was no disease of the lungs to account for death. The heart was healthy, and its emptiness I attribute to spasmodic action. The heart being empty, of course death ensued. The con- vulsive spasmodic, action of the muscles of the bcdy, which was deposed to yesterday by Mr, Jones, would, in my judgment, occasion the emptiness of the heart. There was nothing whatever in the brain to indicate the presence of any disease of any sort; but if there had been, I never heard or read of any disease of the brain ever producing tetanus. There was no relaxation of the spinal cord which would account for the symptoms accompanying Mr. Cook’s death as they have been described. In fact, there was no relaxation of the spinal cord at all, and there is no disease of the spinal cord with which I am acquainted which would produce tetanus. Mr. CHARLES JAMES DEVONSHIRE, (Undergraduate of the University of London, and late assistant to Dr. Moncktonj, examined by Mr. Huddleston. I made the first post mortem examination on the body of Mr. Cook in November last. The body was pale and stiff: the hands were clinched, and the mouth was contorted. I opened the body. The liver was very healthy. The heart also seemed healthy, but it was perfectly empty. The lungs contained a considerable quantity of dark fluid blood. The blood wras perfectly fluid. The brain was healthy throughout. I examined the medulla oblongata and about a quarter or half an inch of the spinal cord. It was perfectly sound. I took out the stomach and opened it with a pair of scissors. I put the contents in ajar, which was taken to Mr. Frere’s, the surgeon. I obtained the jar from Mr. Frere’s on Monday in the same state as it was before, and I gave it Mr. Boycott, clerk to Mr. Gardner the attorney. I examined the body again on the 29th, and took out the liver, kidneys, spleen, and some blood. I put them in a stone jar, which I covered with washleather and brown paper, and sealed up. I delivered that jar also to Boycott. Palmer said at the examination that we should find syphilis upon the deceased. I therefore examined the parts carefully and found no indications of the sort. I also took out the throat. The papilla were slightly enlarged, but they were natural, and one of the tonsils was shrunk. Cross-examined by Mr. Grove, Q.C. Tetanic convulsions are considered to proceed from derangement of the spine and from com plaints that affect the spine. These derangements are not always capable of being detected by examination. In examining the body of a person supposed to have died from tetanus the spinal cord would be the first organ looked to. About half an inch of the spinal cord, exterior to the aperture of the cranium, was examined on the first occasion. I was not present when the granules Avere discovered on the second examination. The learned counsel was proceeding to cross-examine this witness upon some minute points of a scientific nature, Avlxen Baron Ai.dersox, interposing, said—When yon have all the medical men in London here, you had better not examine an Undergraduate of the University of London upon such points, I should think. Dr. MONCKTON, examined by the Attorney-General. lam a physician in practice, and reside at Rugeley On the 28th of January I made a post mortem examination of the spinal cord and marrow of the deceased, J. P. Cook. I found the muscles of the trunk in a state of laxity, which I should attribute to the decay of the body which, had set in; but that. laxity would not be at all inconsistent, in my opinion, with a great rigidity of those muscles at the time of death. The muscles of the arms and legs were in a state of rigidity, but they were not more rigid than usual in dead bodies. The muscles of the arms had partially flexed the fingers of the hand The feet were turned inwards to a much greater extent than usual. I carefully examined the spinal cord. The body was then in such a condition as to enable me to make a satisfactory examination of it; and if prior to death there had been any dis- ease of a normal character on the spinal cord and marrow', I should have had no difficulty in detecting it. There was no disease. I discovered certain granules upon it. It is difficult to account for their origin, hut they are frequently found in persons of advanced age. I never knew them to occasion sudden death. I agree entirely in the evidence which has been given by Dr, liar land. This witness AA’as not cross-examined. Mr. JOHN BOYCOTT, examined by Mr. JFelsby. lam clerk to Messrs. Landor, Gardner, and Landor, attorneys at Rugeley. On the 26th of last November I received a jar from Mr. Devonshire, covered with leather and broAvn paper, and sealed up. I took it to London, and delivered it on the next day to Dr. Taylor at Guy’s Hospital. On a subsequent day I received another jar, similarly secured, from Mr. Devonshire, and I also brought that to London and delivered it to Dr. Taylor. I Avas not present at the inquest on Cook’s body, and did not fetch Newton to ho examined there. On Tuesday last, when at the Rugeley station, previous to my departure for London, NcAvton came and made a communication to me. He knew that Mr. Gardner was not tjiere; and Avhen Ave reached London I took him to Mr. Gardner, and I heard him make the same communication to Mr. Gardner which he had made before to me. This AA'itness Avas not cross-examined. 48 THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMER. JAMES MY ATT, examined by Mr. James. In November last I was postboy at the Talbot Arms at Eugeley. I know Palmer, the prisoner, and I remember Monday, the 26th of Novem- ber last I was ordered on that night, a little after five o’clock, to take Mr. Stevens to the Stafford station in a fly. Before I started I went home to get my tea, -and on return- ing from my tea to the Talbot Anns I met the prisoner. He asked me if I was going to drive Mr. Stevens to Stafford. I told him I was. What did he say to you then ?—He asked me if I would upset them. “Them?” Had anything been said about a jar ?—He said he supposed I was going to take the jar. What did you say then ? I said I believed I was. What did he say after that ? ■—He said “ Do you think you could upset them?” What answer did you make ? •—I told him “ No.” Did he say anything more ? —He said, “If you could there’s a £lO note for you.” (Sensation.) What did you say to that ? —I told him I could not. I then said, “ I must go, the horses are in the fly ready for us to start.” Ido not recollect that he said anything more about the jar. 1 said, that i I didn’t go somebody else would go. He told me not to be in a hurry, for if anybody else went ho would pay me. I saw him again next morning, when I was going to breakfast. He asked me then who went with the fly. I told him Mr. Stevens and, I believed, one of Mr. Gardner’s clerks. James Mtatt, Postboy ax the Talbot Arms. Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Shoe- "Were not tbe words that Palmer used—“l wouldn’t mind giving £lO to break Ste- vens’s neck?” I don’t recol- lect the words “break his neck.” Well, “upset him. Did he say, “I wouldn’t mind giv- ing £lO to upset him Yes; I believe those were the words. I do not know that Palmer appeared to have been drinking. I don’t recollect that he had. I can’t say that housed any epithet, applied to Stovcns—he said it was a humbugging concern ‘alto- gether—or something of that. Cheshire, late Postmaster at Eugeley. THIRD DAY, MAY 16, 1856. I dou’t recollect that he said Stevens was a troublesome fellow, and very inquisitive. I don't remember anything more than I have said. I do not know whether there was more than one jar. SAMUEL CHESHIRE, formerly postmaster at Rugeley, who has been sentenced to two years’ imprisonment for tampering with letters in connexion with this affair, was brought up in custody, and examined by Mr. James. He is an extremely respectable looking man, above the middle age, and was dressed in black. He deposed as follows;—I was for upwards of eight years postmaster at Rugeley. I come now from Newgate, where lam under sentence for having “read” a letter. [The question was “opened” a letter.] I “confessed” to having done so. [The question was “Did you plead guilty to that charge?”] I knew the prisoner William Palmer very well—we; were schoolfellows together, and I have been three or four times in my life at races with him. I never made a bet but once in my life; but I was very intimate with Palmer. I accompanied him to Shrewsbury races in November, 1855. I returned to Rugeley on Tuesday, the 13th, the same day on which Polestar won the handicap. On Saturday, the 17th, I went to see Mr. Cook, who was in bed at the Talbot Arms Hotel at Rugeley. I lived at the post-office, which was 300 or 400 yards from Palmer’s house. On Tuesday evening, the 20th, I received a message from Palmer, asking me to-go over to him, and to take a receipt stamp with me. In consequence of that message I went to Palmer’s house, and I took a receipt stamp, as requested. When I reached Palmer’s I found him in his sitting-room. He said that ho wanted me to write out a check, and he produced a copy from which he said I was to write. I copied the document which he produced. He said that it related to money which Mr. Cook owed him; and lie asked me to write it because, he said, Cook was too ill to do it, and Weatherby would know his (Palmer’s) handwriting. He said that when I had written it he would take it over to Mr. Cook to sign. I then wrote as lie requested me, and I left the paper with Palmer, Mr. Weatherby was here called in order to trace this document. In answer to Mr. James, he said,—I am secretary to the Jockey Club, and my establishment is in Birmingham. I keep a sort of banking account, and receive stakes for gentlemen who own racers and bet. I knew the deceased John Parsons Cook, who had an account of that nature with me. I knew Palmer slightly; he had no such account with me. On the 21st of November I received a check or order upon our house- for £350. It came by post. I sent it back two days afterwards—on Friday, the 23rd. I sent k back by post to Palmer, the prisoner, at Rugeley. Boycott was recalled, and proved that he had served notices upon the prisoner and upon Mr. Smith, his attorney, to produce the “check or order” referred to; and that it had not been pro- duced in pursuance of those notices. Prisoner’s counsel did not now produce it. As far as I can remember, what I wrote was, “ Pay to Mr. William Palmer the sum of £350, and place it to my account.” Ido not remember whether I put any date to it, I left it with Palmer, and went away. That was on Tuesday. On the Thursday or Friday following Palmer sent again for me. Ido not remember what day it was, but it was after I had heard of the death of Mr. Cook at the Talbot Arms. I went to Palmer in the evening between six and seven o’clock, in conse- Examination of SAMUEL CHESHIRE continued.— quence of his having sent for me. When I arrived I found him in the kitchen, and be immediately went out, and shortly after returned with a quarto sheet of paper in his hand. He gave me a pen, and asked me to sign something. I asked what it was, and he replied, “You know that Cook and I have had dealings toge- ther; and this is a document which he gave me some days ago, and I want you to witness it.” I said, “Whatisit about?” He said, “ Some business that I have joined him in, and which was all for Mr. Cook’s benefit; and this is the docu- ment stating so.” I just cast my eye over the paper. It was quarto post paper of a yellow description. I looked at the writing, and I believed that it was Mr. Palmer’s. When he asked me to sign it, I told him that I could not, as I might perhaps be called upon to give evidence on the matter at some future day. I told him that The Post-Office, Rugeley. 50 THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMER. I had not seen Mr. Cook sign It, and I also said that I thought the Post-office authorities would not approve my mixing myself up in a matter which might occasion my absence from my duties to give evidence. In fact, I did not give any exact reasons for refusing to sign it. Palmer said it did not mat- ter, as he dared say they would not object to Mr. Cook’s signature. I left the paper with Palmer, and went away. I believe that there was a stamp upon it. I did not read it all, but I cast my eye down it. [Notices had also been served upon the prisoner and his attorney, to produce this document, hut it had not been produced.] Witness continued.—l remember the effect of it—it was that certain hills—the dates and amounts of which were quoted, although I cannot recollect them now—were all for Mr. Cook’s benefit and not for Mr. Palmer’s. Those were not the exact words, hut that was the purport of them. I know that the amounts were large, although Ido not remember them all. I remember, however, that one was for £l,OOO, and another for £5OO. There was a signature to that document. It was either “I. P.” or “J. P., Cook.” I don’t think the word “Parsons” was written ; but either “I. P.” or “J. P. Cook.” Palmer was in the habit of calling at the Post- office for letters addressed to his mother, who resided at Eugeley. I cannot remember that during the months of October and November, 1855,1 gave him any letters' addressed to his mother; nor ■can I say whether in those months I have given him letters addressed to Mr. Cook; hut Cook has .taken Palmer’s letters and Palmer has taken Cook’s letters. I remember the inquest upon Cook. I saw Palmer frequently while that inquest was going on. He came down to me*on the Sunday evening previous to the sth of December—the date to which the inquest was adjourned—and asked me if I saw or heard of anything fresh to let him know. I guessed what he wanted, and thought that he wanted to tempt me to open a letter. I therefore told him that I could not open a letter. He said that he did not want me to do anything to injure myself. I believe that was all that passed upon that occasion. The letter, for reading which I am now under sentence of punish- ment, was from Dr. Alfred Taylor, of London, to Mr. Gardner, the solicitor, of Eugeley. I read part of the letter, and told Palmer as much as I remembered of it. This took place on the morning of the sth of December. I told Palmer that the letter mentioned that no traces of strychnine were to he found. 'I can’t call to mind what else I told him. He said he knew there would be no traces of poison, for he was perfectly innocent. The letter I hold in my hand, signed “W. P.,” and addressed to “ Yvr. Wi Ward, Esq., Coroner,” I believe to be in the prisoner’s handwriting. lam chief constable of Stafford. The letter now produced I obtained from the coroner. The Clerk of Arraigns read the letter in question. It bore no date, and was to the following effect:— “My dear Sir.—I am sorry to tell you that lam 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 ho died. The chambermaid at the Crown Hotel (Masters’s) can prove this. I also believe that a man by the name of Fisher is coming down to prove he received some money at Shrewsbury. Now, here he could only pay Smith £lO out of £4l he owed him. Had you not better call Smith to prove this ? And, again, whatever Pro- fessor Taylor may say to-morrow, he wrote from London last Tuesday night" to Gardner to say, ‘We (and Dr. Eces) 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 hetting-book, I know nothing of it, and it is of no good to any one. I hope the verdict to-morrow will he that he died of natural causes, and thus end it.—Ever yours, “ W.P.” CAPTAIN HATTON, examined by Mr. James. _ I knew Cook very well. 1 did not know his handwriting. I have seen it, but am not suffi- ciently familiar with it to be able to identify it. I have seen him write. 'When I refused to sign the document which Palmer presented to me for signature ho observed, “ Oh, it is no matter. I dare say they will not call in question Mr. Cook’s signature.” What Palmer asked me was, “ Whether I had seen or heard anything ?” I said that I had seen something, but that it would he wrong for ine to tell him what. He then inquired what I had seen. I think the phrase he used, in speaking of his own innocence, was that he was “as innocent as a baby.” I remember having been told by Palmer, the Saturday before Cook died, that the latterwas very ill- On that day I saw Cook. He was ill and in bed. I saw Palmer about midday of Wednesday, the second day of the Shrewsbury races. I saw him at Rugeley on that day. To Mr. James The duration of the journey from Stafford to Shrewsbury is upwards of an hour The witness CHESHIRE was then cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Shee. lam inspector ol police at Rugeley. On the 17th December I assisted m searching the pri- soner’s house. There was a sale of his furniture, &c., on the sth January. The book now pro- duced I found in his house, and took it away. It was being sold, and I took it away. (A laugh.) ELLIS CRISP, examined by Mr. James. It was brought out at tne saic witn a lot of other nooits. There were several medical books in the house. There was no attempt to conceal the volume I seized. The Clerk of Arraigns read from the book referred to this sentence, proved by the witness Boycott to be in Palmer’s writing—“ Strychnia kills by causing tetanic fixing of the respiratory muscles. Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Shoe. THIRD DAY, MAY 16, 1856. 51 This manuscript book I found in the prisoner’s house on the 16th or 17th of December. lam an inspector of police in Staffordshire. The Attorney-General read an extract from the book in question. It related to strychnine, and alluded to the mo([e of its operation. Lord Campbell—That may be merely a passage extracted from an article on “ strychnine” in some encyclopaedia. The Attorney-General—No doubt it may. I put it in for what it is worth. J. BTJRDON, examined by Mr. James. ELIZABETH HAWKES, examined by Mr. Huddleston. I keep a boarding-house at 7, Beaufort-buildings, Strand. I know Palmer. He was at my house on the Ist of December last. He asked my porter to buy some game and fish for him. I purchased some fowls for him on the Ist of December. They consisted of a turkey and a brace of pheasants. The porter purchased the fish. I packed these things up in a hamper. I had no conversation with Palmer about these things. I bought them by Palmer’s order, conveyed through the porter. • I sent them somewhere. I directed them myself, and gave them to the porter, who carried them to the railway station. I have never been paid for them. Palmer come to my house on the evening of that day, but I did not see him. The direction on the hamper was “W. W, Ward, Esq., Stoke-upon Trent, Staffordshire.” GEORGE HERRING, examined bv Mr. Welsbu. I live near New Cross, and am independent. I knew Cook, and met him at Shrewsbury races last November. I put up at the Raven. He appeared in his usual health. I saw him between ■6 and 7on Wednesday, the second day of the races. I had a private room, with Mr. Fisher, Mr. Reed, and Mr. T. Jones. It was next the room occupied by Cook and Palmer. On Thursday (the day following) I saw Cook. Ido not know that at that lime he had any money with him,bat I saw him with Bank of England and provincial bank-notes on Wednesday. He unfolded them on his knee in twos and threes. There was a considerable number of notes. He showed me at Shrewsbury his betting-book. It contained entries of bets made on the Shrewsbury races. On Monday, the 19th of November, I received a letter from Palmer. I have it here- The Clerk of Arraigns read the letter, of which the following is a copy;— Ij“ Dear Sir,-—I shall feel much obliged if you wall give me a call at 7, Beaufort-buildings, Strand, on Monday, about half-past 2. “I am, dear Sir, very truly yours, “ W. Palmer.” Examination continued—I received this letter on Monday, and called at Beaufort-buildings that same day at half-past 2 exactly. I found Palmer there. He asked me what I would take? I declined to take anything. I then asked him how Mr. Cook was ? He said, “ He’s all right; his physician gave him a dose of calomel, and advised him not to come out, it being a damp day.” I don’t know which term he used, “damp” ”or “wet.” He then went on to say, in the same sentence, “ What I want to see you about is settling his account.” While he was speak- ing he took out half a sheet of note paper from his pocket, and it was open when he had finished the sentence. He held it up and said, “ This is it.” I rose to take it. He said, “ You had better take its contents down; this will be a check against you.” At the same time he pointed to some paper lying on the table. I wrote on that paper from his dictation. I have here the paper which Iso wrote. [The witness read the document in question, which contained instructions as to cer- tain payments he should make out of moneys to be received by him at Tattersall’s on account of the Shrewsbury races.] Palmer then said that 1 had better write out a check for Pratt and Padwick -—for the former £450, and for the latter £350, and send them at once. I told him I had only one form of check in my pocket. He said I could easily fill up a draft on half a sheet of paper. I refused to comply with his request, as I had not as yet received the money. He replied that it would be all right, for that Cook would not deceive me. He wished me particularly so pay Mr. Pratt the £450. His words, as nearly as I can remember them were, “ You must pay Pratt, as it is for a bill of sale on the mare.” I don’t know whether he said'1' a bill of sale,” or a “joint bill of sale.” He told me he was going to see. both Pratt and Padwick, to tell them that I would send on the money. Pre- vious to his saying this, I told him that if he would give me the address of Pratt and Padwick, I would call on them, after I had got the money from Tattersall’s, and give it to them. He then asked me what was between us ? There were only a few pounds between us, and, after we had had some conversation on the point, he took out of his pocket a £SO Bank of England note. He required £29 out of.the note, and I was not able to give it; but he said that if I gave him a check it would answer as well. I gave him a check for £3O and nine sovereigns. When I was going away I do not remember that he said anything about my paying the money to Pratt and Padwick. He said on parting, “ When you have settled this account, write down word to either me or Cook.” I turned round and said, “ I shall certainly write to Mr. Cook.” I said so because I thought that I was settling Mr. Cook’s account. He said, “It don’t much matter which you write to.” I said, “If I address ‘ Mr. Cook, Rugeley, Stafford,’ it will be correct, will it not ?” He said, “Yes.” After leaving Beaufort-buildings, I went to Tattersall’s. I then received all the money I expected, except 53110 from Mr. Morris, who paid me £9O, instead of £2OO. I sent from Tattersall’s a check for £450 to Mr. Pratt. I posted a letter to Cook from Tattersall’s, and directed it to Rugeley. On Tuesdaf the 20tb, next day, I received a telegraphic message. I have not got it here. 1 gave it to Captain Hatton at the coroner’s inquest at Rugeley. In consequence of receiving that message, I wrote again to Cook that day. I addressed my letter as before, but I 52 THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMER, believe the letter was not posted till the Wednesday. I have three bills of exchange with me. I know Palmer’s handwriting, but never saw him write. I cannot prove his writing; but I knew Cook’s writing, and I believe the drawing of two and the accepting of the three bills to be in his writing. I got them from Fisher, and gave him cash for them. [The witness Boycott was recalled and identified the signatures on the bills as those of Palmer and Cook.] Examination continued.— The bills are each for £2OO. One of them was payable in a month, and when it fell due on October 18, Cook paid the £IOO on account. He paid me the remaining £IOO at Shrewsbury, but I cannot tell with certainty on what day. I did not pay the £350 to Mr. Padwick. I hold another bill for £SOO. [Thomas Strawbridge, manager of the bank at Rugeley,'[identified the drawing and endorsing as in the handwriting of Palmer. The acceptance, purporting to be in the writing of Mrs. Sarah Palmer, he did not believe to have been written by her.] Examination continued.—l am sure that the endorsement on the £SOO bill is in Cook’s writing. I got the bill froftrMr. Fisher. I paid £2OO on account of it to Palmer, and £275 to Mr. Fisher. The balance was discount. It was not paid at maturity. 1 have taken proceedings against Palmer to recover the amount. Cross-examined by Mr. Grove. Several people were ill at Shrewsbury on the second day of the races. They suffered irom a kind of diarrhoea. I was one of those so affected. I had my meals at the Raven, where I put up, as also had my companions. They were not ill, but a gentleman who dined with us one day at the inn was. Palmer did not dine with me any day at the Raven. I saw Cook several times on the racecourse. The ground was wet. I remonstrated with him on Thursday for standing on it. That was after he had been taken ill on Wednesday. I was with Palmer for about an hour at Eeaufort-buildings. FEEDEEICK SLACK, examined bv Mr. Huddleston. lam the porter at Mrs. Hawkes’s boarding-house at Beaufort-buildings. On the Ist of Decem- ber I saw Palmer there, and he gave me the direction to put on a hamper containing game. It was “W. W. Ward, Esq., Stoke-upon-Trent, Staffordshire.” He told me to buy a turkey, a brace of pheasants, a codfish, and a barrel of oysters ; and to buy them wherever I pleased. lie said he did not wish the gentleman for whom they were intended to know from whom they came. I saw him write the direction in the coffee-room. I got the hamper and put all the things in it. I sewed it up and took it to the railway. Mrs. Hawkes bought the fowls, and I the other articles. It being now within five minutes of (3 o’clock, the Court intimated its intention not to proceed further with the case that evening. Lord Campbell suggested that some facility of breathing fresh air should be afforded to the jury before the sitting of the Court on the following morning. Were it not that he made it a practice to take a walk early in the morning in Kensington-gardens, he should himself find it im- possible to endure the fatigue of so arduous a trial. An omnibus, or a couple of them, ought to be engaged for the accommodation of the jury, that they, too, might enjoy similar recreation. Mr. Baron Alderson— Why should they not take a walk in the Temple- gar- dens? There could be no more tran- quil spot. (A laugh.) The Sheriffs int im ated that they would attend to the recom- mendatioua of the learn- ed Judges. The Court thenadjourn- edatfio’clock until 10 next day, the jury being con- ducted, as on the previous evening, to the London Coffee House in charge of the Sheriffs’ officers. William Webb Ward, Eso., Coroner fob Staffordshire. FOURTH DAY, MAY 17, 1856. ' FOURTH DAY.—May 17, 1856. The adjourned trial of William Palmer for the murder of John Parsons Cook was resumed this morning. The court was densely crowded, and there was no abatement of the interest which has from the commencement been excited by these proceedings. Among the distinguished persons present were Earl Grey, and Mr, Dallas, the American Minister. The jury, who, in accordance with the suggestions made by the learned judges on the previous day, had during the morning been conducted to the Middle Temple-gardens by the officer who had them in charge, and allowed to walk there for some time, entered the court about ten o’clock, and almost immediately afterwards the learned judges—Lord Chief Justice Campbell, Mr. Baron Alderson, and Mr. Justice Cresswell, accompanied by the Recorder, the Common Serjeant, the Sheriffs,and Under-Sheriffs, andseveral members of the Court of Aldermen, took their seats upon the bench. The prisoner was then placed at the bar. There was no change in the expression of his countenance, and during the day he main- tained his usual tranquillity of demeanour. The same counsel were again in attendance{ The Attorney-General, Mr. E. James, Q.C., Mr. Bodkin, Mr. Welsby, and Mr. Huddleston for the Crown; Mr. Serjeant Shee, Mr. Grove, Q.C., Mr.rGray, and Mr. Kenealy for the prisoner. GEORGE BATES, examined by Mr. James. I was brought up a farmer, but am now out of business. I have known Palmer eight or nine years. In September, October, and November last I looked after his stud, and saw that the boys who had the care of the horses did their duty. I had no fixed salary, but used to receive mone'y occasionally; some weeks I received two sove- reigns, and some only one. I lodged in Rugeley. The rent I paid was 6s. 6d. per week, lam a single man. I knew the deceased Cook. I have no doubt that I saw him at Palmer’s house in September. I cannot fix the date. I dined with him at Palmer’s. By Lord Campbell I sat at table with them. Examination continued.—After dinner some- thing was said of an insurance of my life. Either Cook or Palmer, which I cannot say, commenced the conversation. Mr. Serjeant' Shee objected to the reception of any evidence with regard to the proposal of the insurance of the witness’s life. The Attorney-General said that his object was to show the position of Cook’s affairs at this time. Lord Campbell, after consultation with the other Judges, said I doubted whether this would be relevant and proper evidence to re- ceive upon this trial, and upon consultation the other Judges agree with me that it is too remote. The examination of the witness with regard to the insurance was therefore not pursued. Witness—I remember the death of Cook, and the inquest. I know Mr. William Webb Ward, the coroner. On the morning of the 6th of De- cember, while the inquest was being held, I saw Palmer. He gave me this letter, and told me to go to Stafford and give it to Mr. Ward. [The letter referred to was that addressed to Mr. Ward, which was on the previous day put in and read.] That was between 9 and 10 o’clock. He also gave me a letter to a man named France, a dealer in Geouge Bate, Esq., “ A Gentleman of good Property, and possessing a Capital Cellar of Wine.” 54 THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMER. game at Stafford. Palmer said that there would be a package of game from France, which I was to direct and send to Mr. Ward. I got a basket of game from France npon the order which the prisoner had given me. I directed it, “Webb Ward, coroner (or solicitor) Stafford,” and sent it to Mr. Ward. I directed it myself. I gave a man 3d. to take the game, but I delivered the note to Mr. Ward myself. I found him at the Dolphin Inn, Stafford. lie was in the smoking-room. I told him I wanted to speak to him. He called me out into the yard or passage, and there I gave him the note. There were other people in the smoking-room. I had had no directions from the prisoner as to how I was to deliver the note. When I returned to llugeloy that night I saw the prisoner. I told him that I had delivered the letters which I took to Stafford, and had sent a boy with the game. I remember Thursday, the 13th of December. On that day I was sent for to the prisoner’s house .early in the morning. About _ midday I went to Palmer’s house. I found him in bed. He said that he wanted me to go to' Stafford to take Webb Ward a letter, and to take care that no one saw me give it to him.. On the Saturday, previously I had taken Palmer some money. On the Thursday Palmer told me to go to Ben and tell him he wanted a £5 note. I understood Ben to be Mr. Thirlby, his assistant. Palmer added, “ Tell him that I have no small change.” I believe he asked me to look in a drawer under the dressing glass, and said, “Tell me the amount of that bill.” I looked in the drawer, and found there a £5O Bank of England bill. I left the bill there. This was’before Ite gave me the letter for Ward. After seeing the bill I went to Thirlby’s for the £5. I got from Thirlby a£s note of a local bank, and took it to Palmer. I then went downstairs, leaving Palmer in bed, with the writing materials on the bottom of it. I remained downstairs, in the yard or kitchen, about half an hour. When-I went upstairs Palmer again asked me the amount of the bill which was in the drawer. I jost looked at it, and thought it was the same bill I had left there. He then gave me the letter, which was sealed, and I took it to Stafford. I followed Mr. Ward through the room of the railway station, and gave it to him in the road. Mr. Ward did not open or read the letter, but crumpled it up in his Land, and put it in his pocket. I believe I told him from whom I had brought it. Having delivered the letter, I returned to Rugeley. I saw the prisoner, and told him that I had given Ward the letter. He said nothing. Palmer had four brood mares, and four yearlings, and a three-year-old. I can’t tell their value. 1 heard that one of these horses sold for 800 guineas. I can’tsay whether the mares were in foal in November, but I suppose some were. Palmer’s stables were at the back of his house, and the paddocks, which were near them, covered about twrenty acres of ground, and were fenced with a hawthorn hedge. I remember a mare called the Duchess of Kent being there. We supposed she slipped her foal, but we could not find it. lam not aware that Goldfinder’s dam slipped her foal. I once saw the turf cut up with horses’ feet, and attributed it to the mares galloping about. I never saw any dogs “ run” them. I have seen a gun at the paddocks. I cannot say whether it belonged to Palmer. I never examined it. Ido not know Inspector Field by sight. I have seen a person whom I was told was Field. He came to me at the latter end of September, or beginning of October or November. I cannot say whether he saw Palmer. He was a stranger to me. Ido not know that he put up anywhere. (A laugh.) I did not see him more than once. Ido not know Field. On Thursday, December 13, I saw Gillott, who is a sheriff’s officer, in Palmer’s yard. Re-examined by the Attorney-General. It was after the hay harvest that I saw the turf in the paddock cut up. I should say that it was in the latter end of September. I cannot say how long it was before Cook’s death. Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Slme. lam a member of the College of Surgeons, and Surgeon to the London Hospital. I have par- ticularly turned my attention to the subject of tetanus, and have published a work upon that sub- ject. Tetanus means a spasmodic affection of the voluntary muscles. Of true tetanus there are only two descriptions—'idiopathic and traumatic. There are other diseases in which we see con- tractions of the muscles, but we should not call them tetanus. Idiopathic tetanus is apparently self-generated ; traumatic proceeds from a wound or sore. Idiopathic tetanus arises from exposure to damp or cold, or from the irritation of worms in the alimentary canal. It is not a disease of frequent occurrence. I have never seen a case of idiopathic tetanus,"although I have been surgeon to the London Hospital for twenty-two years. Cases of traumatic tetanus are much more frequent. Speaking quite within compass, I have seen 50 such cases. I believe 100 would be nearer the mark. The disease first manifests itself by stiffness about the jaws and back of the neck. Rigidity of the muscles ol the abdomen afterwards sets in. A dragging pain at the pit of the stomach is an almost constant attendant. In many instances the muscles of the back are extensively affected. These symptoms, though continuous, are liable to aggravations into paroxysms. As the disease goes on, these paroxysms become more frequent and more severe. When they occur the body is drawn backwards; in some instances, though less frequently, it is bent forward. A difficulty in swallowing is a very common symptom, and also a difficulty of breathing during the paroxysms. The disease may, if fatal, end in two ways. The patient may die somewhat suddenly from suffo- cation, owing to the closure of the opening of the windpipe ;'or he may be worn out by the severe and painful spasms, the muscles may relax, and the patient gradually sink and die. The disease is generally fatal. The locking of the jaw is an almost constant symptom attending traumatic tetanus—1 may say a constant symptom. It is not always strongly marked, but generally so. It is an early symptom. Another symptom is a peculiar expression of the countenance. ". ' THOMAS BLIZARD CURLING, examined by the Attorney-General. FOURTH DAT, MAY 17, 1856. 55 Lord Campbell—l believe this is not peculiar to traumatic tetanus, but my observation is taken from such cases. Examination resumed.—There is a contraction of the eyelids, a raising of the angles of the mouth, and,contraction of the brow. In traumatic tetanus the lower extremities are sometimes affected, and sometimes, but somewhat rarely, the upper ones. When the muscles of the extremities are affected the time at which that occurs varies. If there is no wound in the arms or legs the extremities are generally not affected until late in the progress of the disease. I never knew or read of traumatic tetanus being produced by a sore throat or by a chancre. In my opinion a syphilitic sore would not produce tetanus. I know of no instance in which a syphilitic sore has led to tetanus, h think it a very unlikely cause. The time in which traumatic tetanus causes death varies from 24 hours to three or four days, or longer. The shortest period that ever came to my knowledge was eight to ten hours. The disease, when once commenced, is continuous. Did you ever know of a'case in which a man was attacked one day, had 24 hours’ respite, and was then attacked the next day?— Never. I should say that such a case could not occur. You have heard the account given by Mr. Jones of the death of the deceased,—were the symptoms there consistent with any forms of traumatic tetanus that has ever come under your observation ?—No. What distinguishes it from such cases?— The sudden onset of the disease. In all cases which, have come under my notice the disease was preceded by the milder symptoms of tetanus, gradually proceeding to the complete development. Were the symptoms described by the woman Mills as being presented on the Monday night those of tetanus ?—No ; not of the tetanus of disease. Assuming tetanus to be synonymous with convulsive or spasmodic action of the muscles, was there in that sense tetanus on the Monday night ?—No doubt there was spasmodic action of the muscles. There was not, in your opinion, either idiopathic or traumatic tetanus ?—No. Why are you of that opinion ?—The sudden onset of the spasms and their rapid subsidence are consistent with neither of the two forms of tetanus. Is there not what is called hysteric tetanus ?—Yes. It is rather hysteria combined with spasms, hut it is sometimes called hysteric tetanus. I have known no instance of its proving fatal, or of it occurring to a man. Some poisons will produce tetanus. Nux vomica, acting through its poisons strychnia and hruchsia, poisons of a cognate character, produces that effect. I never saw a case of either human or animal life destroyed by strych nine. Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Shee. Irritation of the spinal cord or of the nerves proceeding to it it might produce tetanus. Do you agree with the opinion of Dr. Webster, in his lecture's on the Principles and Practice of Physic, that in four cases out of five the disease begins with lockjaw ?—I do. Ho you agree with Dr. Watson that all the symptoms of tetanic convulsions may arise from causes so slight as these :—the sticking of a fishbone in the fauces, the air caused by a musket shot, the stroke of a whip lash under the eye, leaving the skin unbroken, the cutting of a corn, the biting of the finger by a favourite sparrow, the blow of a stick on the neck, the insertion of a seton, the extraction of a tooth, the injection of a hydrocele, and the operation of cutting?— Excepting- the percussion of the air from a musket ball, I think all these causes may produce the symptoms referred to Do you remember reading of a case which occurred at Edinburgh, in which a negro servant lacerated his thumb by the fracture of a china dish, and was instantly, while the guests were at dinner, seized with tetanus ? The Attorney-General, interposing before the witness replied—l have taken some pains to ascertain what that case is, and where it is got from. Cross-examination continued.—Could traumatic tetanus occur within so short a time as a quarter of an hour after the reception of an injury?—l know of no well authenticated instance of the kind. . . Did you inquire into this case which is mentioned in you own treatise, . A negro having scratched his thumb with a piece of broken china was seized with tetanus, and in a quarter of an hour after this he was dead ?”—I referred to authority as far as I could, but I did not find any reference to it except in cyclopaedias. AVhen I wrote that book I was a young mall 22 years of age. I have maturer judgment and greater experience now. You say that no case of idiopathic tetanus has come under your notice?—-None. I dare say you will tell us that such cases are not so likely to come to the hospital as those of a wound ending in traumatic tetanus, they would be more likely in the first instance to come under the notice of a physician than that of a surgeon?—Certainly. By Lord Campbell.—l have read of cases of idopathic tetanus in this country. Mr. Serjeant Shee—We shall be able to show that there have been such cases. Cross-examination continued.—Do you not know that very lately there was in the London Hos- pital a case in which tetanus came on so rapidly and so unaccountably that it was referred to strychnine, and it was thought necessary to examine the stomach of the patient ?—I know that such an opinion was entertained beforp the history of the case was investigated. I have heard that no strychnine was found. In that case old syphilitic sores were discovered. By Lord Campbell—I did not see the patient, who was under the care of the house-surgeons, who are now in court. 56 THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMER. Cross-examination continued.—Might not the irritation of a syphilitic sore, by wet, cold, drink, mercury, and mental excitement lead to tetanic symptoms? Ido not think that that is very likely. The irritation which is likely to produce tetanus is the sore being exposed to friction, to which syphilitic sores in the throat are not exposed. I should class tetanus arising from the irritation of a sore as “traumatic.” Cases very rarely occur which it is difficult to class as either “traumatic” or “ idiopathic.” 1 should class tetanus arising from irritation of the intestines as “idiopathic.” The character of the spasms of epilepsy is not tetanic. Not of the spasms; but are not the contractions of epilepsy sometimes continuous, so that the body may be twisted into various forms, and remain rigidly in them ? Not continuously. For five or ten minutes together ?—I think not. Does it not frequently happen that general convulsions, no cause or trace of which in the form of disease or lesion is to be found in the body after death, occur in the most violent and spastic way so as to exhibit appearances of tetanic convulsions ?—No instance of the kind has come under my •observation. Do you agree with this opinion of Dr. Copeland, expressed in his Dictionary of Practical Medicine, ■ under the head “General Convulsions.” “ The abnormal contraction of the muscles is in some cases of the most violent and spastic nature, and frequently of some continuance, the relaxations being of brief duration, or scarcely observable, and in others nearly or altogether Approaching to tetanic ? ”—I would rather speak from my own observation. I have not observed anything of the kind. Does it not happen that a patient dies of convulsions, spastic in the sense of their being tumul- tuous and alternating, and chronic in the sense of exhibiting continuous rigidity, yet after death no disease is found ?—-It does not often happen to adults. Does it sometimes?—l do not know, nor have I read of such a case. I have no hesitation in saying that people may die from tetanus and other diseases without the appearance of morbid symptoms alter death.- Are not convulsions, not, strictly speaking, tetanic, constantly preserved by retching, distention of the stomach, flatulence of the stomach and bowels, and other dyspeptic symptoms ?—Such cases do not come under my observation as a hospital surgeon. I think it is very probable that general convulsions are accompanied by yelling. I don’t know that they frequently terminate fatally, and that the proximate cause of death is spasm of the respiratory muscles, inducing asphyxia. Re-examined by the Attorney-General. These convulsions are easily distinguished from tetanus, because in them there is an entire loss of consciousness. Is it one of the characteristic features of tetanus that the consciousness is not affected ?—lt is. Dr. TODD, examined by the Attorney-General. I am physician at King’s College Hospital, and have held that office about 20 years. I have also lec- tured on physiology and anatomy, on tetanus and the diseases of the nervous system, and have published my lectures. I agree with the last witness in his distinction between idiopathic and traumatic tetanus. I have seen two cases of what ap- peared to me to be idiopathic teta- nus, but such cases are rare in this country. By Lord Campbell—l define idiopathic tetanus to be that form of the disease which is produced without any external wound, ap- parently from internal causes— from constitutional causes. Examination resumed.—In my opinion the term tetanus ought not to be applied to disease produced by poisons, but I should call the symptoms tetanic in order to distin- guish the charafcter of the convul- sions. I have observed cases of traumatic tetanus. Except thatin all such cases there is some lesion the symptoms are precisely the same as those of idiopathic tetanus. The disease begins with stiffness about the jaw. The symptoms gradually develop themselves and extend to the muscles of the trunk. When the disease has begun is Dr. Todd, Physician or King’s College Hospital. Ward, Coroner, t Dr, Decs. Thirlby. Smith, Solicitor. Sup. Hatton. Dr. Taylor, Interior of the Town Hale, Eugbley, during the Inquest on the John Parsons.Cook. 58 THE TEIAL OF WILLIAM FALMEE there any intermission?— There are remissions, but they*are not complete; only diminutions of the severity of the symptoms, not a total subsidence. The patient does not express himself as completely well, quite comfortable. 1 speak from my own experience. What is the usual period that elapses between the commencement and the termination of the disease ?—The cases may be divided into two classes. Acute cases will terminate in three or four days, chronic cases will go on as long as from 19 to 22 or 23 days, and perhaps longer. Ido not think that I have known a case in which death occurred within four days. Cases are reported in which it occurred in a shorter period. In tetanus the extremities are affected, but not so much as the trunk. Their affection is a late symptom. The locking of the jaw is an early one. Sometimes the convulsions of epilepsy assume somewhat of a tetanic character, but they are essentially distinct from tetanus. In epilepsy the patient always loses consciousness. Apoplexy ' never produces tetanic convulsions. Perhaps I may be allowed to say that when there is effusion of blood upon the brain, and a portion of the brain is involved, the muscles may be thrown into short tetanic convulsions. In such case the consciousness would be destroyed. Having heard described the symptoms attending the death of the deceased, and the post mortem examination, lam of opinion that in this case there was neither apoplexy nor epilepsy. The Attorney-General said that, as Dr. Bamford was so unwell that it-was doitbtful whether he would be able to appear as a witness, he proposed to put in his deposition, in order to found upon -it a question to the witness now under examination. Dr. Todd and Dr. Tweedie deposed that they had seen Dr. Bamford on the previous day, and that he was then suffering from a severe attack of English cholera. He was too unwell to be able to attend and give evidence. The Court ruled that the depositions taken before the coroner might be read; and they were read accordingly by the Clerk of the Arraigns. They were to the following effect:— “I atteifded the late Mr. Cook at the request of Mr. William Palmer. I first saw him about 3 o’clock on Saturday, the 17th of November, when he was suffering from violent vomiting, the stomach being in that irritable state that it would not contain a leaspoonful of milk. There was perfect moisture of the skin, and he was quite sensible. I prescribed medicine for him, and Mr. Palmer went up to my house and waited until I had made it up, and then took it away. I pre- scribed a saline medicine, to be taken in an effervescing state. Between 7 and 8 o’clock in the evening Mr. Palmer again requested me to visit Mr. Cook. The sickness still continued, everything being ejected which he took into his stomach. I gave him two small pills as a slight opiate. Mr. Palmer took the pills from my house. I did not accompany him, nor do I know what became of the pills. On the following morning (Sunday) Mr. Palmer again called, and asked me to accom- pany him.- Mr. Cook’s sickness still continued. 1 remained about 10 minutes. Everything he took that morning was ejected from his stomach. Everything he threw up was as clear as water, except some coffee which he had taken. Mr. Palmer had administered some pills before I saw Mr. Cook on Saturday, which had purged him several times. Between 0 and 7 o’clock in the evening I again visited the deceased, accompanied by Mr. Palmer. The sickness still continued. I went on Monday morning, between 8 and 9 o’clock, and changed his medicine. I sent him a draught which relieved him from the sickness, and gave him ease. I did not see him again until Tuesday night, when Mr. Palmer called for me. I examined Mr. Cook in the presence of Mr. Jones and Mr. Palmer, and I observed a change in him. He was irritable and troubled in his mind. His pulse was firm, but tremulous, and between 80 and 90. He threw himself down on the bed and turned his face away. He said he would have no more pills nor take any more medicine. After they had left the room Mr. Palmer asked me to make two more pills similar to those on the previous night, which I did, and he then asked me to write the directions on a slip of paper; and 1 gave the pills to Mr. Palmer. The effervescing mixture contained 20 grains of carbonate of potash, two drachms of compound tincture of cardamine, and two drachms of simple syrup, together with 15 grains of tartaric acid for each powder. I never gave Mr. Cook a grain of antimony. I did not see the preparations after they were taken away by Mr. Palmer. Mr. Cook did not say he had taken the pills which he had prepared, hut ho expressed a wish on the Sunday and Monday nights to have the pills. His skin was moist, and there was not the least fever about him. When I saw the deceased on Monday he did not say that he had been ill on the Sunday night, but Mr. Palmer told me that he had been ill. I considered death to have been the result of congestion of the brain when the post mortem examination was made, and Ido not see any reason to alter that opinion. I have attended other patients for Mr. Palmer. I attended Mrs. Palmer some days before her decease; also two children, and a gentleman from London, who was on a visit at Mr. Palmer’s house, and who did not live many hours after I was called in. The whole of those patients died. Mr. Palmer first made an application to me for a certificate of Mr Cook’s death on the following Sunday morning, when I objected, saying, “He is your patient.” I cannot remember his reply; but he wished me to fill up the certificate, and I did so. We had no conversation at that time as to the cause of death—nothing more than the opinion I have expressed. Mr. Palmer said he was of the same opinion as myself with res ect to the death ot the deceased. I never knew apoplexy produce rigidity of the limbs. Drowsiness is a prelude to apoplexy. I attributed the sickness on the first two days to a disordered stomach. Mr. Cook never sent for me himself.” The examination of Dr. Todd by the Attorney-General was then proceeded with as follows : Having heard the deposition of Dr. Bamford read, I do not believe that the deceased died from apoplexy or from epilepsy. I never knew tetanus arise either from syphilitic sores or from sore throat. There arc poisons which will produce tetanic convulsions. The principal of those poisons are mix vomica and those which contain as their active ingredients strychnine and bruccia. I FOURTH DAY, MAY 17, 1856. 59 have never seen human life destroyed by strychnine, but I have seen animals destroyed by it fre- quently. The poison is usually given in a largish dose in those cases, so as to put an end to the sufferings and destroy life as soon as possible. I should not like to give a human subject a quarter of a grain. I think |hat it is not unlikely that half a grain might destroy life; and I believe that a grain certainly would. I think that half a grain would kill a cat. The symptoms which would ensue upon the administration of strychnine when given in solution-—and 1 believe that poisons of that nature act more rapidly in a state of solution than in any other form—would develop themselves in ten minutes after it was taken, if the dose were a large one; if not so large, they might be half an hour or an hour before they appeared. Those symptoms would be tetanic con- vulsions of the muscles, more especially those of the spine and neck; the head and back would be bent back, and the trunk would be bowed in a marked manner; the extremities also would be stiffened and jerked out. The stiffness, once set in, would never entirely disappear; but fresh paroxysms would set in, and the jerking rigidity would re-appear; and death would probably ensue in a quarter of an hour or so. The difference between tetanus produced by strychnine and other tetanus'is very marked. In the former case the duration of the symptoms is very short, and instead of being continuous in their development, they will subside if the dose has not been strong enough to produce death, and will be renewed in fresh paroxysms; whereas hi other descriptions of tetanus the symptoms commence in a mild form, and become stronger and more violent as the disease progresses. The difficulty experienced in breathing is common alike to tetanus properly so called and to tetanic convulsions occasioned by strychnine, arising from the pressure upon the respiratory muscles. I think it is remarkable that the deceased was able to swallow, and that there was no fixing of the jaw, which would have been the case with tetanus proper, resulting either from a wound or from disease. From all the evidence, I have bear'd, 1 think that the symptoms which presented themselves in the case of Mr. Cook arose from tetanus produced by strychnine. Cross-examined by Mr. Grove, Q.C. There are cases sloping into each other, as it were, of every grade and degree, from mild convul- sions to violent tetanic spasms. I have published some lectures upon diseases of the brain, and I adhere to the opinion there expressed, that the state of a person suffering from tetanus, is identical with that which strychnine is capable of producing. In a pathological point of view, an examina- tion of the spinal cord shortly after death, in investigating supposed deaths from strychnine, is important. The signs of decomposition, however, could bo easily distinguished from the evidences of disease which existed previously to death ; but it would be difficult to distinguish in such a case whether mere softening resulted from decomposition or from pre-existing disease. There is nothing in the post mortem examination which leads me to think that deceased died from tetanus proper. I think that granules upon the spinal cord, such as I have heard described, would not be likely to cause tetanus. I have not heard of cases treated by Mr. Travers. In animals to which strychnine has been administered I cannot say that I have observed what you call an intolerance of touch; but by touching them the spasms are apt to be excited. That sensibility to touch continues as long as the operation of the poison continues. I have examined the interior of animals that have been killed by strychnine ; but I have not observed in such cases that the light side of the heart was usually full of blood. It is some years since I made such an examination; but lam able, never- theless, to speak positively as to the state of the heart. It was usually empty on both sides. Ido not agree with Dr. Taylor, or other authorities, in the opinion that in cases of tetanus animals died asphyxiated. If they did, w7e should invariably have the right side of the heart full of blood, which is not the case. I think that the term asphyxiated, or suffocated, is often very loosely used. I know from my reading that morphia sometimes produces convulsions; but I believe that they would be of an epileptic character. I think that the symptoms from morphia would be longer deferred in making their appearance than from strychnine!; hut I cannot speak positively on the point. Morphia, like strychnine, is a vegetable poison. I have not observed in animals the jaw lixed after the administration of strychnine. Re-examined by the Attorney-General. Whatever may'be the true theory as to the emptiness of the heart after strychnine, I should say that the heart is more ordinarily empty than filled after tetanus. I think that the heart would be more contracted after strychnine than in ordinary tetanus. Ido not believe that a medical prac- titioner would have any difficulty in distinguishing between ordinary convulsions and tetanic con- vulsions. I have heard the evidence of the gentlemen who made the post mortem examination, and I apprehend that, there was nothing to prevent the discovery of disease in the spinal cord, had any existed previously to death. Sir BENJAMIN BRODIE, examined by Mr. James, Q.C. 1 have been for many years Senior Surgeon to St. George’s Hospital, and have bad considerable experience as a surgeon. In the course of my practice I have had under my care many cases ot death from tetanus. Death from idiopathic tetanus is, according to my experience, very rare in this country. The ordinary tetanus in this country is traumatic tetanus. I have heard the symp- toms which accompanied the death of Mr. Cook, and I am ot opinion that so tar as there was a general contraction of the muscles they resembled those ot traumatic tetanus; but as to the course those symptoms took they were entirely different. I have attended to the detailed description of the attack suffered by Mr. Cook on the Monday night, its ceasing on Tuesday, and its renewal on the Tuesday night. The symptoms ot traumatic tetanus always begin, so far as I have seen, very gradually, the stiffness of the lower jaw being, I believe, invariably, the symptom first com- 60 THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMER plained of—at least, so it has been in my experience. The contraction of the muscles of the back is always a later symptom —generally much later. The muscles of the extremities are affected in a much less degree than'those of the neck and trunk, except in some cases where the injury has been’ln a limb, and an early symptom has been spas- modic contraction of the muscles of that limb. I do not myself recollect a case of ordinary te- tanus in which occurred that con- traction in th(» muscles of the hand, which I understand was stated to have taken place in this instance. Again, ordinary tetanus rarely runs its course in less than two or three days, and often is protracted to a much longer period. I knew one case only in which the disease was said to have terminated in so short a time as twelve hours; but probably in that case the early symptoms had been overlooked. Again, I never knew the symptoms of ordinary tetanus to last for a few minutes, then subside, and then come on again after twenty-four hours. I think that these are the prin- cipal points of difference which I perceived between the symptoms of ordinary tetanus and those which I have heard described in this case. I have not witnessed tetanic convulsions from strychnine on animal life. I do not believe that death in the case of Mr. Cook arose from what we ordinarily call tetanus either idio- pathic or traumatic. I never knew tetanus result from sore throat or from a chancre or from any other form of syphilitic disease. The symptoms were not the result either of apoplexy or of epilepsy. Perhaps I had better say at once that I never saw a case in which the symptoms that I have heard described here arose from any disease. (Sensation.) ‘When I say that, of course I refer not to particular symptoms, but to the general course which the symptoms took. Sir Benjamin Brodie I believe I remember one case in the physician’s ward of St. George’s Hospital which was shown to me as a case of idiopathic tetanus, but I doubted whether it was tetanus at all. It was a slight case, and I do not remember the particulars. Considering how rare cases of tetanus are, do you think that the description given by a chamber- maid and by a provincial medical man, who had never seen but one case, is sufficient to enable you to form an opinion as to the nature of the case ?—I must say I thought that the description was very clearly given. Supposing that they differed in their description, which would you rely upon—the medical man or the chambermaid ? Baron Alderson—That is hardly a question to put to a medical witness, although it may be a very proper observation for you to make. Cross-examination continued.—l never knew syphilitic poison produce tetanic convulsions, ex- cept in cases where there was disease of the bones of the head. (Sir Benjamin Brodie gave his evidence with great clearness—slowly, audibly, and distinctly— matters in which other medical witnesses would do well to emulate so distinguished an example.) Cross-examined by Mr .Serjeant Shee. Hr. DANIELL, examined by the Attorney-General. I was for many years surgeon to the Bristol Hospital, but have been out of practice for some time. In the course of a long practice I should think that I have seen at least thirty cases of tetanus. Two of those were certainly cases of idiopathic tetanus ; one of them terminated fatally, the other did not. I quite agree with the other medical witnesses that idiopathic tetanus is of very rare occurrence in this country. The only difference in the symptoms between idiopathic and traumatic tetanus that I perceived was, that the former were more modified—not so severe—in their character. I was not able to trace these two cases of idiopathic tetanus to any particular cause, I have heard the description given of the symptoms which accompanied the attack upon FOURTH DAY, MAT 17, 1856. 61 Mr. Cook before bis death, and it appears to me that the circumstances of that attack are assuredly distinguishable from those which came under my experience in dealing with cases of tetanus. The evidence of Sir B. Brodie quite expresses my opinion with respect to the difference of the symptoms between ordinary tetanus and tetanic convulsions produced by strychnine. Tetanus begins with uneasiness in the lower jaw, followed by spasms of the muscles of the trunk, and most frequently extending to the muscles of the limbs. Lockjaw is almost invariably a symptom of those cases of tetanus—of traumatic tetanus especially. Ido not recollect that clinching of the hands is a usual symptom of ordinary tetanus, nor do I remember any twisting of the foot. I do not believe that any of the cases which came under my experience endured for a shorter time than from thirty to forty hours. I never knew a case of syphilitic sore producing tetanus. The symp- toms as they have been described certainly cannot be referable to apoplexy or epilepsy. I never heard of such a thing. In all the cases of tetanus which came under my observation consciousness has been retained to the last,' throughout the whole disease. The symptoms have never set in in their, full power from the commencement, but have invariably commenced in a milder form and have then gone on increasing, being continuous in their character and without intermission. In my judgment the symptoms in the case of Mr. Cook could not be referred either to idiopathic or traumatic tetanus. Cross-examined by Mr. Grove, Q.C. I have not read Dr. Curling’s or Dr. Copeland’s books on the subject of tetanus ; nor have I of late studied much the reported cases. lam not aware that excitement or irritation from vomiting has ever been given as the cause of tetanus. The main symptoms of tetanus are, in my opinion, always very similar, although the inferior symptoms may vary simply. I cannot undertake to say that the convulsions of tetanus arise from the spine. Ido not like the term “ asphyxia,” but I think that death from tetanic convulsions may probably arise from suffocation. It is many years since I saw a post mortem upon a case of tetanus. I cannot say whether in the case of death from suffocation the heart would be full of blood or the reverse. An examination of the spinal cord or marrow never, so far as I know, afforded evidence of the cause to which the tetanus was to be attributed. I have been connected with St. Thomas’s Hospital as lecturer and surgeon for 28 years, and during that time I have seen many cases of tetanus. I have had six or seven under my own care, and I may have seen ten or fifteen more. Of those cases it was doubtful in one whether the disease was idiopathic or traumatic—the wound was so slight and the symptons so obscure that it was difficult to decide which it was. The others were all decidedly traumatic cases. The shortest period that I recollect during which the disease lasted before it terminated in death was thirty hours. The disease was always progressive in its character. I have heard the description given by the witnesses of Mr. Cook’s attacks, and they differ essentially from those cases which I have seen. In my experience of tetanus there has always been a marked expression of countenance as the first symptom. It is a sort of grin,'and is so peculiar that having once seen it you can never mistake it. In the symptoms that I have heard detailed with regard to Mr. Cook there were violent convulsions on Monday night, and on the Tuesday the individual was entirely free from any dis- comfort about the face or jaw; whereas in the cases under my notice the disease was always con- tinuous, and the fixedness of the jaw was the last symptom to disappear. In my judgment the symptoms detailed in Mr. Cook’s case are referable neither to apoplexy, epilepsy, nor to any disease that I have ever witnessed. Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Shoe. The sort of grin which I have described is known as rtsm sardoniem It is not common to all convulsions. Epilepsy is a disease of a convulsive character. I heard the account given by Mr. Jones of the last few minutes of Mr. Cook’s death—that he uttered a piercing shriek, and died after five or six minutes quietly. That last shriek and the paroxym which acccompanied it bear in some respects a resemblance to epilepsy. All convulsions which may be designated as of an epileptic character are not attended with an utter want of consciousness. Death from tetanus accompanied with convulsions seldom leaves any trace behind it; but death from convulsions arising from epilepsy does leave its trace in the shape of a slight effusion of blood on the brain, and congestion of the vessels. Re-examined by the Attorney-General. The convulsions of epilepsy are accompanied by a variety of symptoms. When a patient dios of epilepsy he dies perfectly unconscious and comatose. I never saw any case of convulsive disease at all like this. There are eases of convulsive disease which are similar to tetanus in their onset, but notin their progress. For example, laceration of the brain, a sudden injury to the spinal coad, and the irritation from teething in infants will produce convulsions resulting in death ; but there would be wanting the marked expression of the face which I have described, and which I have never missed in cases of tetanus. Mr. HENRY LEE, examined by Mr. BodUn. lam Surgeon to King’s College, and to the Lock Hospital. The Lock Hospital is exclusively devoted to cases of a syphiltic character, and at present I see probably as many as 3,000 of those in the course of a year. I have never known an instance of that disease terminating in tetanus. By the Court—I have never seen' or read of a case either of primary or secondary symptoms resulting in tetanus, I This witness was not cross-examined. Mr. SAMUEL SOLLY, Surgeon of St. Thomas’s Hospital, examined by Mr. Welshy. 62 THE TRIAL OE WILLIAM PALMER. Dr. HENRY CORBETT, physician, ofGlasgow, examined by Mr. James, Q.C. In September, 1845, I was Medical Clerk at tbe Glasgow Infirmary, and I remember a patient, named Agnes Sennett, alias Agnes French, who died there on the 27th of September, 1845. It was stated that she had taken strychnine pills, which had been prepared for another patient in the ward, and the symptoms which accompanied her death were those of strychnine. The pills were for a paralytic patient. I saw her when she was under the influence of the poison, and I had seen her the day before that, perfectly well. She had been admitted for a skin disease of the head. When I saw her after she had taken the poison she was in bed. The symptoms were these : There was a strong retraction of the mouth,the face was much suffused and red ; the pupils of the eyes were dilated; the head was bent back; the spine was curved; the muscles were rigid and hard like a board ; the arms were stretched out; the hands were clinched ; there were severe paroxysms recurring every few seconds. She died in about an hour and a quarter after taking the pills. * When I was called first the paroxysms did not last so long ; but they increased in severity. According to the prescription there should have been a quarter of a grain of strychnine to each pill, and this woman had taken three. The paralytic patient was to have taken a pill each night, or one each night and morning, I forget which. Crosss-examined by Mr. Serjeant Shee. The retraction of the mouth was continuous, but it was worse at times. Ido not think that I observed it after death. The hands were not clinched after death—they were semi-bent. She died an hour and a quarter after taking the medicine. The symptoms appeared about 20 minutes after. I tried to make her vomit, but failed. She only vomited partially after I had given her an emetic. Re-examined by the Attorney-General. There w'as spasmodic action and grinding of tire teeth. She could open her mouth and swallow. There was no lockjaw or ordinary tetanus. By Mr. Serjeant Shee—T do not recollect that touching her sent her into paroxysms. Dr. WATSON, examined by the. Attorney-General. lam a surgeon at the Glasgow Infirmary. I remember the case of Agnes Sennett. I was called in about a quarter of an hour after she was taken ill. She was in vi.dent convulsions, and her arms were stretched out and rigid. The muscles of the body w'ere also rigid; they were kept quiet by rigidity. She did not breathe, the muscles being kept still by tetanic rigidity. That paroxysm subsided, and fresh paroxysms came on after a short interval. She died in about half an hour. She seemed perfectly conscious. I don’t recollect the state of her hands. Her body was opened. The heart was found distended and stiff. The cavities of the heart were empty. My lather published an account of the case. Cross-examined by Mr. Grove. The spinal cord was quite healthy. Dr. J. PATTERSON, examined by Mr. Welshy. In 1845 I was engaged in the laboratory of the Infirmary atGlasgow. I dispensed the prescriptions. I made up a prescription for a paralytic patient named M’lntyre. It consisted of pills which con- tained strychnine There were four pills and one grain of strychnine in the four. Mr. Baron Alderson—Was any noise made about their being taken by a wrong person? Yes MARY KELLEY, examined by Mr. Bodkin. In September, 1845,1 was a patient in the Glasgow Infirmary; a paralytic patient was in tbe same ward, and 1 attended to her. There was also a patient named French or Sennett who was suffering from a sore head. She died. I was turning a wheel near the paralytic patient on the afternoon of the day Sennett died, for the purpose of applying something to her skin. There were some pills which she was to take near her. The paralytic woman took one and swallowed it according to the orders that had been given, and she handed the box to the girl with the sore head. The girl swallowed two ot the pills, and then went and sat by the ward fire. She was taken ill in about three quarters of an hour. She fell back on the floor, aud I went for the nurse. We took her to bed and sent for the doctor. We were obliged to cut her clothes off, because she never moved. She was like a poker. I was by her side when she died. She never spoke after she fell down. Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Shee, It was three-quarters of an hour from the time she took tiie pills till she was taken to the bed. CAROLINE HICKSON, examined by Mr. E James. In October, 1848, I was nurse and lady’s-maid in the family of Mr. Sarjantson Smyth. The family were then residing about two miles from Romsey. On the 30th of October Mrs. Smyth was unwell, We dealt with Mr. Jones, a druggist in Romsey. A prescription, had been sent to lam to be made up for Mrs. Smyth. The medicine was brought back about six in the a wineglass of it the following snorting at five or ten minutes past seven. I left the room when I had given it her. Five or ten minutes afterwards I was alarmed by the ringing of her bell. I went into her room, and found her out of bed leaning upon a chair, in he?night- dress, I thought she bad fainted. She appeared to suffer from what I thought were spasms I ran and sent the coachman for Mr. Taylor, the surgeon, and returned to her. Some of the other servants were there assisting her. She was lying on the floor. She screamed loudly and FOURTH DAY, MAY 17, 1856. 63 her teeth were clinched. She asked to have her arms and legs held straight. I took hold of her arms and legs, which were very much drawn up. She still screamed, and was in great agony. She requested that water should be thrown over her, and I threw some. Her feet were turned inwards. I put a bottle of hot water to her feet, but that did not relax them. Shortly before she died, she said she felt easier. The last words she uttered were—“ Turn me over.” We did turn her over, on the floor, She died a very few minutes after she had spoken those words. She died very quietly. She was quite conscious, and knew me during the whole time. About an hour and a-quarter elapsed from the time I gave her the medicine till she died. - Cross-examined by Mr. Grove. She could not sit up from the time I went up to her till she died. It was when she was in a paroxysm that I endeavoured to straighten her limbs. The effect of cold water was to throw her into a paroxysm. It was a continually recurring attack, lasting about an hour or an hour and a-quarter. Her teeth were clinched during the whole time. Ile-examined by the Attorney-General. The fit came on five or ten minutes after I gave her the medicine. She was stiff all the time till within a few minutes after death. She was conscious all the while. Mr. FRANCIS TAYLOR, examined by Mr. Welsh/. lam a surgeon and apothecary at Romsey. I attended Mrs. Sarjantson Smyth in 1848. I was summoned to her house one morning soon after 8, and when I arrived I found her dead. The body was on the floor, near the bed. The hands were very much bent. The feet were contracted and turned inwards. The soles of the feet were hollowed up and the toes contracted, apparent!}' from recent spasmodic action. The inner edge of each foot was turned up. There was a remark- able rigidity about the limbs. By Lord Campbell—The body was warm. Examination continued.—The eyelids were almost adherent to the eyeballs. The druggist who made up the prescription was named Jones I made a post mortem examination three days after the death. The contraction of the feet continued, hut it had gone off somewhat from the rest of the body. I found no trace of disease in the body. The heart was contracted and perfectly empty, as were all the large arteries leading from it. I analyzed the medicine she had taken with another medical man. It contained a large quantity of strychnine. It originally contained nine grains, and she had taken one-third—three grains. I made a very casual examination of the stomach and bowels, as we had plenty of proof that poison had been taken without making use of the tests. Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Slice. In oases of death from ordinary causes the body is much distorted. It does not generally, I should think, remain in the same position after death. If the body is not laid out immediately, is it not stiffened by the rigor mortis ?—Probably it is. The ancles were tied by a bandage to keep them together. I commenced to open the body at the thorax and abdomen. The head was also opened. CHARLES BLOCKSOME, examined by Mr. Huddleston. I was apprentice to Mr. Jones, the chymist, at Romsey, in 1848. My master made a mistake in preparing a prescription for Mrs. Smyth. The mistake was the substitution of strychnine for salacite (bark of willow). He destroyed himself afterwards. JANE WITH AM, examined by Mr. E. James. In March last I was in attendance upon a lady who died. j_The learned counsel told the witness she had better not mention the lady’s name.] She took some medicine. After she took it she became ill. She complained first of her back. Her head was thrown back, her body stretched out, and I observed twitchings. Her eyes were drawn aside and staring. I put my hand upon her limbs, which did not at all relax. She first complained ot being ill in that way on Monday, the 25th of February, and died on Saturday, the Ist of March. She had attacks on the Monday, on the Wednesday, on the Thursday, on the Friday (a very slight one), and at a quarter-past eight on the Saturday morning. She died about twenty minutes to eleven that night. Between the attacks she was composed. She principally complained of prickings in the legs and twitchings in the muscles and in the hands, which she said she could compare to nothing else than a galvanic shock. She wished her husband to rub her legs and arras. She was dead when Dr. Morley came. Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Shee. On the Saturday night she could not bear to have her legs touched when the spasms were strong upon her. Her limbs were rigidly extended when she asked to be rubbed. That was in the intervals between the spasms. Touching her then brought on the spasms. Her body was stiff' immediately after death, but 1 did not stay long in the bouse. On the Saturday she was sensible from half-an-hour to an hour, from a quarter past eight till after nine. I suppose she was insensible the remainder of the time. She did not speak. Re-examined by Mr. B. James. _ On the Saturday before she died, the symptoms were the same as on the other days—not more violent. Mr. MORLEY, examined by Mr. Welshy. I atn a surgeon. I attended on the lady to whom the last witness has alluded for about two months before her death. On the Monday before she died she was in bed apparently comfortable, when I observed (as I stood by her side) several slight convulsive twitchings of her arms. I sup- 64 THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMER posed they arose from hysteria, and ordered medicine in consequence. The same symp- toms were repeated on the following Wednes- day or Thursday. I saw her on Saturday, the day she died. She was apparently better, and quite composed in the middle of the day. She complained of an attack she had had in the night. She spoke of pain and spasms in the back and neck, and of shocks. I and another medical man were sent for hastily on the Saturday night. We were met by the announcement that the lady was dead. On the Monday I accompanied another medical gentleman to the post mortem examination. We found no disease in any part of the body which would account for death. There was no emaciation, wound, or sore. There was a peculiar expression of anxiety about the countenance. The hands were bent and the fingers curved. The feet were strongly arched. We carefully examined the stomach and its contents to see if we could find poison. We applied several tests—nitric acid, chloride of sulphuric acid, bi-chloride of potash in a liquid and also in a solid state. They are the best tests to detect the presence of strychnine. In each case we found appear- ances characteristic of strychnine. We ad- ministered the strychnine taken from the stomach to animals by inoculation. We gave it to a few mice, a few rabbits, and a guinea pig, having first separated it by chemical analysis. We observed in each of the animals more or less of the effects prod uced by strych- nine—namely, general uneasiness, difficult Mr. Thomas Mobley, Surgeon at Leeds breathing, convulsions of a tetanic kind, muscular rigidity, arching backwards of the head and neck, violent stretching out of the legs. These symptoms appeared in some of the animals in four or five minutes, in others in less than an hour. The guinea pig suffered but slightly at first and was left, and found dead the next day. The symptoms were strongly marked in the rabbits. After death there was an interval of flaccidity, after which rigidity commenced, more than if it had been occasioned by the usual rigor mortis. I afterwards made numerous experiments on animals with exactly similar results, the poison being administered in a fluid form. I did not see the patient during a severe attack. I have observed in animals that spasms are brought on by touch. That is a very marked symptom. The spasm is like a galvanic shock. The patient was not at all insensible during the time I saw her, and she was able to swallow, but I did not see her during a severe attack. After death we found the lungs very much congested. There was a small quantity of bloody serum in the pericardium. The muscles of the whole body were dark and soft. There was a decided quantity of effusion in the brain. There was also a quantity ot serum tinged with blood in the membranes of the spinal cord. The membranes of the spinal marrow were congested to a considerable extent. We opened the head first, and there was a good deal of blood flowing out. Part of the blood may have flowed from the heart. That might partially empty the heart, and would make it uncertain whether the heart was full or empty at the time of death. I have often examined the hearts of animals poisoned by strychnine. The right side of the heart is generally full. In some cases I think that the symp- toms did not appear for an hour after the administration of the poison. I have made the experi- ments in conjunction with Mr. Nunneley. We have made experiments upon frogs, but they are different in many respects from warm-blooded animals. I have in almost all cases found the strychnine where it was known to have been administered. In one case it was doubtful. We were sure the strychnine had been administered in that case, but we doubted whether it had reached the stomach. There were appearances which might lead one to infer the presence of strychnine, but they were not satisfactory, i ],ave detected strychnine in the stomach nearly two months after death, when decomposition has proceeded to a considerable extent. Cross-examined by Mr. Grove. Re-examined by tiro Attorney-General. From half a grain to a grain has been administered to cats, rabbits, and dogs. From one to two grains is quite sufficient to kill a dog. How does the strychnine act ? Is it taken up by the absorbents and carried into the system ?—I think it acts upon the nerves, but a part may be taken into the blood and act through the blood. We generally examined the stomach of the animals when the poison had been administered inter- FOURTH DAT, MAY 17, 1856 , 65 nally. Sometimes we examined tlie skin. The poison found in the stomach would be in excess of that absorbed into the system. Are you then of opinion that, a portion of the poison being taken into the system and a portion being left in the stomach, the portion taken into the system would produce tetanic symptoms and death r Mr. Serjeant Slice objected to a question which suggested a theory. The Attorney-General—What would be the operation of that portion of the poison which is taken into the system ?—lt would destroy life. Mr. Baron Alderson—And yet leave an excess in the stomach ?—That is my opinion. The Attorney- General—Would the excess remaining in the stomach produce ho effect ?—I am not sure that strychnine could lie in the stomach without acting prejudicially. Suppose that a minimum quantity is administered, which being absorbed into the system, destroys life, should you expect to find any in the stomach ?—I should expect sometimes to fail in discovering it. If death resulted from a series of minimum doses spread over several days, would the appearance- of the body be different from that of one whose death had been caused by one dose ?—I should connect the appearance of the body with the final struggle of the last day. Would you expect a different set of phenomena in cases where death had taken place after a brief struggle, and in cases where the struggle had been protracted ?—Certainly. At the post mortem examination of which I have spoken, we found fluid blood in the veins. Mr. Serjeant Shee—ls it your theory that in the action of poisoning, the poison becomes ab- sorbed and ceases to exist as poison?—-I have thought much upon that question, and have not formed a decided opinion, but lam inclined to think that it is so. A part may be absorbed and a part remain in the stomach unchanged. Mr. Serjeant Shee—What chymical reason can you give for your opinion that strychnine, after having effected the opeiation of poisoning, ceases to be strychnine in the blood?—My opinion rests upon the general principle that, in acting upon living bodies, organic substances—such as food and medicine—are generally changed in their composition. Mr. Serjeant Shee—What are the component parts of strychnine ? Mr. Baron Alderson—'You will find that in any cyclopaedia, brother Shee. Mr. Serjeant Shee—Have you any reason to believe that strychnine can be decomposed by any sort of putrefying or fermenting process? Witness—l doubt whether it can. About fifteen years ago I was in practice as a surgeon, and I attended, with Dr. Chambers, a gentleman named Clutterbuck, who was suffering from paralysis. We had been giving him small doses of strychnine when he went to Brighton. On his return he told us that he had been taking larger doses of strychnine, and we, in consequence, gave him a stronger dose. I made up three draughts, containing a quarter of a grain each. He took one in my presence. I remained with him a little time, and left him as he said he felt quite comfortable. About three-quarters of an hour afterwards I was summoned to him, I found him stiffened in every limb, and the head drawn back. He was desirous that we should move and turn him and rub him. We tried to give him ammonia in a spoon, and he snapped at the spoon. He was suffering, 1 should say, more than three hours. Sedatives were given him. He survived the attack. He was conscious all the time. Mr. EDWARD D. MOORE, examined by Mr. Huddleston. Cross-examined by Mr- Serjeant Shee. The spasms ceased in about three hours, but the rigidity of the muscles remained till the next day. His hands and feet at first were drawn back, and he was much easier when we clinched them forwards. His paralysis was better after the attack. Ee-examined by the Attorney-General- Strychnine stimulates the nerves which act upon the voluntary muscles, and, therefore, acts beneficially in cases of paralysis. The Attorney-General intimated that the next witness to he called was Dr. Taylor, and, as it was a quarter after 5, the trial was adjourned until Monday at 10 o’clock. Lord Campbell, before the jury left the box, exhorted them not to form any opinion upon the case until they had heard both sides. They should even abstain from conversing about it among, Mr. Serjeant Shee said that medical witnesses would be called for the defence. His Lordship also expressed a hope that, if the jury were taken out upon the following day (Sunday), they would not be allowed to go to any place of public resort, and mentioned an in- stance in which a jury, under similar circumstances, had been conducted to Epping Eorest. The jury were then conveyed to the London Coffee House. 66 THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMER. FIFTH DAY.—May 19, 1856. The court was again crowded long before the commencement of the proceedings.this morning. The Earl of Denbigh and Lord Lyttelton were among the gentlemen who occupied seats upon the bench. The jury came into court shortly before ten o’clock, and were soon followed by Lord Campbell and Mr. Justice Cresswell, accompanied by the Recorder, the Sheriffs and Under-Sheriffs, &o. Mr. Baron Alderson did not take his seat until about two o’clock, The prisoner was immediately placed at the bar. There was no alteration perceptible in his countenance or demeanour, and he took notes of several parts of Dr. Taylor’s evidence. The Attorney-General, Mr. E. James, Q.C., Mr. Welsby, Mr. Bodkin, and Mr. Huddleston appeared for the Crown; Mr. Serjeant Shoe, Mr. Grove, Q.C., Mr. Gray, and Mr. Kenealy for the prisoner. I am a Fellow of the College of Physicians, lecturer on medical jurisprudence at Guy’s Hospital, and the author of the well-known Treatise on Poisons and on medical jurisprudence. I have made the poison called strychnia the subject of my attention. It is the produce of the nux vomica, which also contains brucia, a poison of an analogous character. Brucia is variously estimated at from one—ixth to one-twelfth the strength of strychnia. Most varieties of impure strychnia that are sold contain more or less brucia. Unless, therefore, you are certain as to the purity of the article, you may be misled as to its strength. I have performed a variety of experi- ments with strychnia on animal life. I have never witnessed its action on a human subject. I have tried its effects upon animal life—upon rabbits—in ten or twelve instances. The symptoms arc, on the whole, very uniform. The quantity I have given has varied from half a grain to two grains. Half a grain is sufficient to destroy a rabbit. I have given it both in a solid and a liquid state. When given in a fluid state, it produces its effects in a very few minutes; when in a solid state, as a sort of pill or bolus, in about six to eleven minutes. The time varies according to the strength of the dose, and also to the strength of the animal. In what way docs it operate, in your opinion ?—lt is first absorbed into the blood, then circu- lated through the body, and especially acts on the spinal cord, from which proceed the nerves acting on the voluntary muscles. Supposing the poison has been absorbed, what time would you give for the circulating process ? The circulation of the blood through the whole system is considered to take place about once in four minutes. The circulation in animals is quicker. The absorption of the poison by rabbits is therefore quicker. The time would also depend on the state of the stomach,—whether it contained much food or not, whether the poison came into immediate contact with the inner surface of the stomach. In your opinion, does this poison act immediately on the nervous system, or must it first be absorbed ?—lt must first be absorbed. The symptoms,' you say, are uniform. Will you describe them ?—The animal for about five or six minutes docs not appear to suffer, but moves about gently; when the poison begins to act it suddenly falls on its side, there is a trembling, a quivering motion, of the whole of the muscles of the body, arising from the poison producing violent and involuntary contraction. There is then a sudden paroxysm or fit, the fore legs and the hind legs are stretched out, the head and the tail arc drawn back in the form of a bow, the jaws are spasmodically closed, the eyes are prominent; after a short time there is a slight remission of the symptoms, and the animal appears to lie quiet, but the slightest noise or touch reproduces another convulsive paroxysm; sometimes there is a scream, or a sort of a shriek, as if the animal suffered from pain ; the heart beats violently during the fit, and after a succession of these fits the animal dies quietly. Sometimes, however, the animal dies during a spasm, and I only know that death has occurred from holding my hand over the heart. The appearances after death differ. In some instances, the rigidity continues. In one case the muscles were so strongly contracted for a week afterwards that it was possible to hold the body by its hind legs stretched out horizontally. In an animal killed the other day the body was flaccid at the time of death, but became rigid about five minutes afterwards. I have opened the bodies of animals thus destroyed. Could you delect any injury in the stomach I—No. I have found in some cases congestion of the rqembranes of the spinal cord to a greater extent than would be accounted for by the gravitation of the blood. In other cases I have found no departure from the ordinarv state of the spinal cord and the brain. I ascribe congestion to the succession of fits before death.’ In a majority of instances, three out of five, I found no change in the abnormal condition of the spine. In all cases the heart has been congested, especially the right side. I saw a case of ordinary tetanus in the human subject years ago, but I have not had much experience of such cases. I saw one case last Thursday week at St. Bartholomew’s Hospital. The patient recovered. Dr. ALFRED SWAINE TAYLOR, examined by the Attorney-General. FIFTH DAY, MAY 19, 1856. 67 You have heard the descriptions given by the witnesses of the symptoms and appearances which accompanied Cook’s attacks ?—I have. Were those symptoms and appearances the same as those you have observed in the animals to which you administered strychnine?— They were. Death has taken place in the animals more rapidly when the poison has been administered in a fluid than in a solid form. They have died at various periods after the administration of the poison. The experiments I have performed lately have been entirely in reference to solid strychnine. In the first case the symptoms began in 7 minutes, and the animal died (including those 7) in 13 minutes. In the second case the symptoms appeared in 9 minutes, and the animal died in 17. In the third case the symptoms appeared in 10 minutes, and the animal died in 18. In the fourth case the symptoms appeared in 5 minutes, and death took place in 22. In the fifth case the symptoms appeared in 12 minutes, and death occurred in 23. If the poison were taken by the human subject in pills it would take a longer time to act, because the structure of the pill must be broken up in order to bring the poison in contact with the mucous membrane of the stomach. I have administered it to rabbits in pills. Would poison given in pills take a longer period to operate on a human subject than on a rabbit ?—I do not think we can draw any inference from a comparison of the rapidity of death in a human subject and in a rabbit. The circulation and absorption are different in the two cases. There is also a difference between one human subject and another. The strength of the dose, too, would make a difference, as a large dose would produce a more rapid effect than a small one. I have experimented upon the intestines of animals, in order to reproduce the strychnia. The pro- cess consists in putting the stomach and its contents in alcohol, with a small quantity of acid, which dissolves the strychnia, and produces sulphate of strychnia in the stomach. The liquid is then filtered, gently evaporated, and an alkali added—carbonate of potash, which, mixed with a small quantity of sulphuric acid, precipitates the strychnia. Tests are applied to the strychnia, or supposed strychnia, when extracted. Strychnia has a peculiarly strong bitter taste. It is not soluble in water, but it is in acids and in alcohol. The colouring tests are applied to the dry residue after evaporation. Change of colour is produced by a mixture of sulphuric acid and bi-chromate of potash. It produces a blue colour, changing to violet and purple, and passing to red ; but colouring tests arc very fallacious, with this exception—when we have strychnine sepa- rated in its crystallized state we can recognise the crystals by their form and their chemical pro- perties, and above all, by the production of tetanic symptoms and death when administered through a wound in the skin of animals. Are there other vegetable substances from which, if these colouring tests were applied, similar colours would be obtained ?—There are a Variety of mixtures which produce similar colours. One of them has also a bitter taste like strychnia. Vegetable poisons are more difficult of detection by chemical process than mineral poisons; the tests are far more fallacious. I have endeavoured to discover the presence of strychnine in animals I have poisoned in four cases, assisted by Dr. Rees. I have applied tho process which I first described. I have then applied the tests of colouring and of taste. Were you able to satisfy yourself of the presence of strychnia?—ln one case I discovered some by the colour test. In a second case there was a bitter taste, but no other indication of strychnia. In the other two cases there were no indications at all of strychnia. In the case where it was discovered by a colour test two grains had been administered; and in the second case, where there was a hitter taste, one grain. In one of the cases where we failed to detect it one grain, and in the other half a grain, had been given. How do you account for the absence of any indication of strychnia in cases where you know it was administered ?—lt is absorbed into tbe blood, and is no longer in the stomach. It is in a great part changed in the blood. How do you account for its presence when administered in large doses?— There is a retention of some in excess of what is required for the destruction of life. Supposing a minimum dose, which will destroy life, had been given, could you find any ?—-Yo. It is taken up by absorption, and is no longer discoverable in the stomach. The smallest quantity by which I have destroyed the life of an animal is half a grain. There is no process with which I am acquainted by which it can be discovered in the tissues. As far as I know, a small quantity cannot he discovered. Suppose half a grain to be absorbed into the blood, what proportion does it hear to the total quantity of blood circulated in the system ?—Assuming the system to contain the lowest quantity of blood, 251bs„ it would be l-50th of a grain to a pound of blood. A physician once died from a dose of half a grain in 20 minutes. I believe it undergoes some partial change in the blood, which increases the difficulty of dicovering it. I never heard of its being separated from the tissues in a crystallised state. The crystals are peculiar in form, but there are other organic crystallized substances like them, so that a chemist will not rely on the form only. After the post mortem examination of Cook a portion of the stomach was sent to me. It was .delivered to mo by Mr. Boycott in a brown stone jar, covered with bladder, tied, and sealed. The jar contained the stomach and the intestines. 1 have experimented upon them with a view to ascertain if there was any poison present. What poisons did you seek for in the first instance ?—Various; prussic acid, oxalic acid, morphia, strychnia, veratria, tobacco poison, hemlock, arsenic, antimony, mercury, and other mineral poisons. Did you find any of them?—We only found small traces of antimony. Were the parts upon which you had to operate in your search for strychnia in a favourable 68 THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMER. condition ?—The most unfavourable that could possibly be, the stomach had been completely cut from end to end, all the contents were gone, and the fine mucous surface, on which any poison, if present, would have been found, was lying in contact with the outside of the intestines—all thrown together. The inside of the stomach was lying in the mass of intestinal feculent matter. That was the fault or misfortune of the person who dissected ?—I presume it was ; but it seemed to have been sh ken about in every possible way in the journey to London. The contents of the intestines were there, but not the contents of the stomach, in which and on the mucous membrane I should have expected to find poison. By my own request other portions of the body were sent up to me,—namely, the spleen, the two kidneys, and a small bottle of blood. They were delivered to me by Mr. Boycott. We had no idea whence the blood had been taken. We analyzed all. We searched in the liver and one of the kidneys for mineral poison. Each part of the liver, one kidney, and the spleen all yielded antimony. The quantity was less in proportion in the spleen than in the other patts. It was reproduced, or brought out, by boiling the animal substance in a mixture of hydrochloric acid and water. Gall and copper water were also introduced, and the antimony was found deposited on the copper. We applied various tests to it—those of Professor Brandt, of Dr. Rees, and others. I detected some antimony in the blood. •It is impossible to say with precision how recently it had been administered ; but I should say within some days. The longest period at which antimony can be found in the blood after death is eight days ; the earliest period at which it has been found after death, within my own knowledge, is 18 hours. A boy died within 18 hours after taking it; and it was found in the liver. Antimony is usually given in the form of tartar emetic; it acts as an irritant, and produces vomiting. If given in repeated doses a portion would find its way info the blood and the system beyond what was ejected. If it continued to be given after it had produced certain symptoms it would destroy life. It may, however, be given with impunity.’ I heard the account given by the female servants of the frequent vomiting of Mr. Cook, both at Rugeley and at Shrewsbury, and also the evidence of Mr. Gibson and Mr. Jones as to the predominant symptoms in his case. Vomitings produced by antimony would cause those symptoms. If given in small quantities sufficient to cause vomiting it would not affect the colour of the liquid in which it was mixed, whether brandy, wine, broth, or water. It is impossible to form an exact judgment as to the time when the antimony was administered, but it must have been within two or three weeks at the outside before death. There was no evidence that any had been given within some hours of death. It might leave a sensation in the throat—a choking sensation—if a large quantity was taken at once. I found no trace of mercury during the analysis. If a few grains had been taken recently before death I should have expected to find some trace. If a man had taken mercury for a syphilitic affection, within two or three weeks I should have expected to find it. It is very slow in passing out of the body. As small a quantity as three four grains might leave some trace. I recollect a case in which three grains' of calomel were given or four hours before death, and traces of mercury were found. Half a grain three or four days before death, if favourably given, and not vomited, would, I should expect, leave a race t One grain would certainly do so. I heard the evidence as to the death of Mrs. Smyth, Agnes French, and the other lady mentioned, and als© as to the attack of Clutterbuck. From your own experience in reference to strychnine do you coincide in opinion with the other witnesses, that the deaths in those cases were caused by strychnine ?—Yes. Did the symptoms in Cook’s case appear to be of a similar character to the symptoms in those cases r—They did. As a professor of medical science, do you know any cause in the range of human disease except strychnine, to which the symptoms in Cook’s case can he referred ?—I do not. Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Slice. I mean by the word “ trace” a very small quantity, which can hardly he estimated by weight. I do not apply it in the sense of an imponderable quantity. In chemical language it is frequently used in that sense. An infinitesimal quantity would be called a “trace.” The quantity of antimony that we discovered in all parts of the body w'ould make up about half a grain. We did not ascer- tain that there was that quantity, but I will undertake to say that we extracted as much as half a grain. That quantity would not he sufficient to cause death. ‘ Only arsenic or antimony could have been deposited, under the circumstances, on the copper, and no sublimate of arsenic was obtained. [The witness, in reply to a further question, detailed the elaborate test which he had applied to the deposit, in order to ascertain that it consisted of antimony ] _ Would a mistake in any one of the processes you have described, or a defect in any of the mate- rials you used, defeat the object of the test? It would, but all the materials I used were pure. Such an accident could not have happened without my having some intimation of it in the course of the process. I should think antimony would operate more quickly upon animals than upon men. _ lam acquainted with the works of Orfila. He stood in the hignest rank of analytical chymists. Did not Orfila find antimony in a dog four months after injection s—Yes ; but the animal had taken about forty-five grains. Mr. Serjeant Slice called the attention of the witness to a passage in Orfila’s work in reference to that case, to the effect that the antimony w'as found accumulating in the bones, the liver con- tained a great deal, and the tissues a very little. Witness—Yes; when antimony has been long in tbe body it passes into the bones; but I think you will find that these are not Orflla’s experiments. Orfila is quoting the experiments of another person. FIFTH DAY, MAY 19, 1856. 69 But is not that the case with nearly all the experiments referred to in your own book ?—No ; I cannot say that. Mr. Serjeant Shee again referred to a case in Orfila in which 45 grains were given to a dog, and three and a-half months after death a quantity was found in the fat, and some in the liver, bones, and tissues. Witness—That shows that antimony gets into the bones and flesh, but I never knew a case in which 45 grains had been given, and 1 have given no opinion upon such a case A pretty good dose is required to poison a person, I suppose ?—That depends on the mode in which it is given. A dog has been poisoned with six grains The dog died in the case you men- tioned. When antimony is administered as it was in that case the liver becomes fatty and gristled. Cook’s liver presented no appearance of the sort. I should infer that the antimony we found in Cook’s body was given much more recently than in the experiments you have described. We cannot say positively how long it takes to get out of the body, but I have known three grains cleared out in 24 hours. I was first applied to in this case on Thursday, the 27th of November, by Mr. Stevens, who was introduced to me by Mr. Warrington, professor of chemistry. Either then or subsequently he mentioned Mr. Gardner. I had not known Mr. Gardner before. I had never before been concerned in cases of this kind at Eugeley. Mr. Serjeant Shee read the letter written by Dr. Taylor to Mr. Gardner:— “ Chemical Laboratory, Guy’s Hospital, Dec. 4, 1855. “ Ee J. P. Cook, Esq., deceased. “ Dear Sir,—Dr. Eees and I have completed the analysis to-day. We have sketched a report, which will be ready to-morrow or next day. “ As I am going to Durham Assizes on the part of the Crown, in the case of Eeg. v. Wooler, the report will be in the hands of Dr. Eees, No. 26, Albermarle-street. It will be most desirable that Mr. Stevens should call on Dr. Eees, read the report with him, and put such questions as may occur. Dus. Taylor and Eees performing their Analysis. “ In reply to your letter received here this morning, I beg to say that we wish a statement of all the medicines prescribed for deceased (until his death) to be drawn up and sent to Dr. Eees. “We do not find strychnine, prussic acid, or any trace of opium. From the contents having been drained away, it is now impossible to say whether any strychnine had or had not been given just before death, but it is quite nossible for tartar emetic to destroy life if given in repeated 70 THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMER. closes; and, so far as we can at present form an opinion, in the absence of any natural cause of death, the deceased may have died from the effects of antimony in this or some other form. “ We are, dear Sir, yours faithfully, “ Alfred S. Taylor. Was that your opinion at the time ?—lt was. We could infer nothing else . Have you not said that the quantity of antimony you found was not sufficient to account for death ?—Certainly. , If a man takes antimony he first vomits, and then a part qf.the antimony goes out of the body; some may escape from the bowels. A great deal passes at once into the blood by absorption, and is carried out by the urine. Can you say upon your oath that from 'Cue traces in Cook’s body you were justified in stating your opinion that death was caused by antimony ?—Yes, perfectly and distinctly. That which is found in a dead body is not the slightest criterion as to what the man took when he was alive. When you gave your opinion that Cook died from the effects of antimony had you any reason to think that an undue quantity had been administered ?—I could not tell". Peopfe may die from large or small quantities ; the quantity found in the body was no criterion as to how much he had taken. May not the injudicious use of a quack medicine containing antimony, the injudicious use of James’s powders, account for the antimony you found in the body ?—Yes; the injudicious use of any antimonial medicine would account for it. Or even their judicious use ? It might. With that knowledge, upon being consulted with regard to Cook, you gave it as your opinion that he died from the poison of antimony ?—You pervert my meaning entirely. I said that antimony in the form of tartar emetic might occasion vomiting and other symptoms of irritation, and that in large doses it would cause death, preceded by convulsions. (The witness was pro- ceeding to read his report upon the ease, but was stopped by the Court.) I was told that the de- ceased was in good health seven or eight days before his death, and that he had been taken very sick and ill, and had died in convulsions. No further particulars being given us we were left to sup- pose that he had not died a natural death. There was no natural cause to account for death, and finding antimony existing throughout the body we thought it might have been caused by antimony. An analysis cannot be made effectually without information. You think it necessary before you can rely upon an analysis to have received a long statement of the symptoms before death ?—i short statement will do. You allow your judgment to be influenced by the statement of a person who knows nothing of his own loro wledge ?—I do not allow my judgment to be influenced in anyway; I judge by the result. Do you mean to say that what Mr. Stevens told you did not assist you in arriving at the con- clusion you state in writing ?—I stated it as a possible case—not as a certainty. If we had found a very large quantity of tartar emetic in the stomach we should have come to the conclusion that the man had-died from it. As we found only a small quantity, we said he might have died from it. I attended the coroner’s inquest on the body of Mr. Cook. I think I first attended on the 14th of December. Some of the evidence was read over to me. I think that Dr. Harland was the first witness I heard examined. I heard Mr. Bamford examined, and also Lavinia Barnes, I cannot say as to Newton. I heard Jones. I had experimented some years ago on five of the rabbits I have mentioned; that is about twenty-three years ago. That is the only knowledge of my own that I had of the effect of strychnia upon animal life. I have a great objection to the sacrifice of life. No toxicologist will sacrifice the lives of a hundred rabbits to establish facts which he knows to be already well established. I experimented upon the last rabbits since the inquest. Do not you think that is a very slight experiment r—You must add to experiment the study of poisons and cases. I Do not you think that a rabbit is a very unfair animal to select ?—No. Would not a dog be much better ?—Dogs are very dangerous to handle. (A laugh.) Do you mean to give that answer ?—Dogs and cats bear a greater analogy to man because they vomit, while rabbits do not, but rabbits are much more manageable. Mr. Serjeant Shee—l will take your answer that you are afraid of dogs. Witness—After the experiments I have tried with dogs and cats I have no inclination to go on. Do you admit that as to the action of the respiratory organs they would be better than rabbits r I do not. .As to the effect of the poison would they not ?—I think a rabbit is quite as good as any animal The poison is retained, and its operation is shown. At the inquest I saw Mr. Gardner. I suggested questions to the coroner. Some of them he put to the witnesses, and others they answered upon my suggestion of them. Ten days before the inquest Mr. Gardner informed me, in his letter, that Strychnia, Batley’s solution, and prussic acid had been purchased on the Tuesday ; that was why I used the expressions to which you have referred. We did not allow that information to have any influence upon our report. At the request of Mr. Serjeant Shoe the deposition of this witness taken at the coroner’s inquest was read by the clerk of arraigns. Cross-examination continued.—Having given my evidence I returned to town, and soon after- wards heard that the prisoner had been committed on a charge of wilful murder. And that his life depended in a great degree upon you?—No; 1 simply gave an opinion as to the “ G. Owen Rees.” FIFTH DAT, MAT 19, 1856. poison, not as to the prisoner’s case; I knew that I should probably be examined as a witness upon his trial. , Do you think it your duty to abstain from all public discussion of the question which might influence the public mind ?—Tes. Did you write a letter to the Lancet ?—Tes, to contradict several misstatements 01 my evidence which had been made. This letter, which appeared in the Lancet of February 2, 1856, was put in by Mr. Serjeant Shee, and read by the clerk of arraigns. The principal part of the letter referred to the case of Mrs. Ann Palmer; the concluding paragraph, for which Mr. Serjeant Shee stated that he desired it should be read, was as follows : “ During the quarter of a century which I have now specially devoted to toxicological inquiries I have never met with any cases like these suspected cases of poisoning at Rugeley. The mode in which they'will affect the person accused is of minor importance compared with their probable influence on society. I have no ’Hesitation in saying that the future security of life in this country will mainly depend on the judge, thejury, and the counsel who may have to dispose of the charges of murder which have arisen out of these investigations.” Cross-examination continued.—That is my opinion now. It had been stated that if strvchnia caused death it could always be found, which I deny. It had also been circu'ated in every news- paper that a person could hot be killed by tartar emetic, which I deny, and which might have led to the destruction ofhundreds of lives. I entertained no prejudice against the prisoner. What I meant, was that if these statements which I had seen in medical and other periodicals, were to have their way, there was not a life in the country which was safe. Do you adhere to your opinion that “ the mode in which they will affect the person accused,” that is, lead him to the scaffold, “ is of minor importance, compared with thew probable influence on society? ”—I have never suggested that they should lead him to the scaffold. I hope that, if inno- cent, he will be acquitted. What do you mean by the mode in which they will affect the person accused being of minor importance ?—The lives of 16,000,000 of people are, in my opinion, of greater importance than that of one man. That is your opinion ?—Tes. As you appear to put that as an objection to my evidence, allow me to state that in two dead bodies I find antimony. In one case death occurred suddenly, and in the other the body was saturated with antimony, which I never found before in the examination of 300 bodies. I say these were circumstances which demanded explanation. Ton adhere to the opinion that, as a medical man and a member of an honourable profession, s'ou were right in publishing this letter before the trial of the person accused?—l think I had a right to state that opinion in answer to the comments which had been made upon my evidence. 'Had any comments been made by the prisoner ?—No. Or by any of his family?— Mr. Smith, the solicitor for the defence, circulated in every paper statements of “ Dr. Taylor’s inaccuracy.” I had no wish or motive to charge the prisoner with this crime. My duty concerns the lives of all. Do you know Mr. Augustus Mayhew, the editor of the Illustrated Times?—l have seen him once or twice. Did you allow pictures of yourself and Dr. Rees to be taken for publication ?—Be so good as to call them caricatures. No; I did not. Mr. Serjeant Shee—There may be a difference of opinion as to that. I think it is very like. Did you receive Mr. Mayhew at your house?— Became to me with a letter of introduction from Professor Faraday. I never received him in my laboratory. Did you know that he called in order that you might afford him information for an article in the Illustrated Times?—I swear solemnly I did not. The publication of that article was the most disgraceful thing I ever knew, I had never seen him before, nor did I know that he was the editor of the Illustrated Times. On your oath ?—On my oath. It was the greatest deception that was ever practised on a scientific man. It was disgraceful. He called on me in company with another gentleman, with a letter from Professor Faraday. I received him as I should Professor Faraday, and entered into conversation with him about these cases. He represented, as i unders ood, that he was connected with an insurance company, and wished for information about a number of cases of poisoning which had occurred during many years. After we had conversed about an hour he asked if there was any objection to the publication of these delays. Still believing him to be connected with an Insurance-office, I replied that, so far as the correction of error was concerned, I should have no objection to anything appealing. On that evening he went away without telling me that he was the editor of the Illustrated Times, or connected with any other paper. I did not know that until he called upon me on Thursday morning, and showed me the article in print. 1 remon- strated verbally with him. He only showed me part of a slip. I told him I objected to its publi- cation, and struck out till that I saw regarding these cases. He afterwards put the article into the shape in which it appeared. I could not prevent his publishing the results of our conversation °n points not connected with these cases. You did permit him to publish part of the slip?—-Nothing connected with the Rugeley cases. Did he show you the siip of “ Our interview with Dr. A. Taylor?”—l do not remember seeing that. I will swear that, to the best of my judgment and belief, he did not. He showed me a slip containing part of what appeared in that article. I struck out all which referred to the Rugeley cases. I thought I had been deceived. A person came with a letter of introduction from a scientific man and extracted information from me. 72 Why did you not tell your servant to show him the door ?—Until we had had the conversation, I did not know anything about the deception. It was not until the Thursday morning that I ■knew he was connected with a paper He told me it was an illustrated paper. Did you correct what he showed you ?—I struck out some portions. And allowed the rest to be published ?—I said I had nothing to do with it, but I objected to its publication. Peremptorily ?—No ; I said, “I do not like this mode of putting the matter. I cannot, however, interfere with what you put into your journal.” ' • - Did you not protest as a gentleman, a man of honour, and a medical man, that it was wrong and objectionable to do it?—l told him that I objected to the parts which referred totheßugeley cases. ■lt was most dishonourable. Did you not know that in the month of February an interview with Dr. Taylor on the subject of poison must be taken to apply to those cases ?—I did not think anything about it. I thought it THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMER. was. a great- cheat to extract from me that information. Mr. Mayhew was with me about twenty minutes or half an hour on the Thursday morning. I remonstrated with him. I was not angry with him in the sense of quarrelling. Did you allow him to pub- lish this—“ Dr. Taylor here requested us to state that, al- though the practice of secret poisoning appeared to be on the increase, it should be re- membered that by analysis the chemist could always detect the presence of poison in the body ?”—I did not request him to state anything of the kind. I do not remember whether that was on the slip. Had I seen it I should have struck it out. I remember seeing ou the slip, “And that when ana- lysis fails, as in cases where small doses of strychnia had been administered, physiology and pathology would invari- ably suffice to establish the cause of death.” I did not strike that out. I did not think of it circulating among John Smith, Esq., Palmer’s Solicitor. the class of persons from whom jurors would be selected. I think the public ought to know that chemical analyses are not the only tests, on which they can rely. I don’t remember the passage—“ Murder by poison could be detected as readily as murder in any other form, while the difficulty of detecting and convicting the murderer was'felt in other cases "as well as in those where poison was employed.” The article has been very much altered. It was a disgraceful thing. I have not seen Mr. Mayhew since. Seeing in The times an advertisement, stating that this information had been given by me, I wrote to him demanding its withdrawal, and that demand was complied with. That was on the Thursday or Friday.* Did you say to a gentleman named Cook Evans that you would give them strychnia enough before they had done, or words to that effect ?—Ho; I do not know the person. Or to any one ?—No. I never used any expression so vulgar and improper. You have been greatly misinstructed. Or, “He will have strychnia enough before I have done with him ?”—lt is utterly false. The person who suggested that question to you, Mr. Johnson, has been guilty of other falsehoods. In the letter to Sir George Grey, and on other occasions, he has misrepresented my statements and evidence. _ What did you do with the medical report to which you referred It was a private letter from Dr. Harland to Mr. Stevens. Mr. Justice Cbesswell—It was memoranda made by Dr. Harland at the time. Cross-examination continued.—Cook’s symptoms were quite in accordance with an ordinary case of poisoning by strychnia. . , ■ Can you tell me of any case in which a patient, after being seized with tetanic symptoms, sat up in bed and talked ?—lt was after he sat up that Cook was seized with those symptoms. * It is but fair to Mr. Mayhew to state that he has written a letter to The limes entirely denying the truth of Dr. Taylor’s statements. FIFTH DAY, MAY 19, 1856. 73 Can you refer to a case in which a person who had taken strychnia heat the bed with his or her arms r—lt is exactly what I should expect to arise from a sense of suffocation. Do you know any case in which the symptoms of poisoning by strychnia commenced by this heating of the bed-clothes ?—There have been only about 15 cases, and in none of those was the patient seized in bed. Beating of the bed-clothes is a symptom which may be exhibited by a person suffering from a sense of suffocation, whether caused by strychnia or other causes. A case has been communicated to me by a friend, in which the patient shook as though he had the ague. Mr. Serjeant Shoe objected to this last answer, but as the learned serjeant had been questioning the witness as to the results of his reading, The Court ruled that the evidence was admissible. Cross-examination continued.—l have known of no case of poisoning by strychnia in which the patient screamed before he was seized. That is common in ordinary convulsions. In cases of poisoning by strychnia the patient screams when the spasms set in; the pain is very severe. I cannot refer to a case in which the patient has spoken freely after the paroxysms had commenced. Can you refer me to any case in an authentic publication in which the access of the strychnia paroxysm has been delayed so long after the ingestion of the poison as in the case of Cook on the Tuesday night?-—Yes, longer. In ray book on medical jurisprudence, page 185 of the sth edition, it is stated that in a case communicated to the Lancet, August 31, 1850, by Mr. Bennett, a grain and a-half of strychnia taken by mistake destroyed the life of a healthy young female in an hour and a-half. None of the symptoms appeared for an hour. There is a case in which the period which elapsed was two hours and a-half. It was not a fatal case, but that does not affect the question. A grain and a-half is a full, but not a very considerable dose. In my book on poisons there is no case in which the paroxysm commenced more than half-an-hour after the ingestion of llte poison. That book is eight years old, and since 1848 cases have occurred. There is a mention of one in which three hours elapsed before the paroxysms occurred. Mr. Serjeant Shee then referred to this case, and called attention to the fact that the only state- ment as to time was that in three hours the patient lost his speech and at length was seized with violent tetanic convulsions. Cross-examination continued.—l know of no other fatal case in which the interval was so long. In that case there was disease of the brain. Referring to the Lancet, I find that in the case to which I referred, as communicated by Dr. Bennett, the strychnia was dissolved in cinnamon water. Being dissolved, one would have expected it to have a more speedy action. The time in which a patient would recover would depend entirely upon the dose of strychnia which had been taken. I do-mot remember any case in which a patient recovered in three or four hours, but such cases must have occurred. There is one mentioned in my book on medical Jurisprudence. The patient had taken nux vomica, but its powers depend upon strychnia. In that case the violence of the paroxysms gradualy subsided, and the next day, although feeble and exhausted, the patient was able to walk home The time of the recovery is a point which is not usually stated by medical men. I cannot men.ion any case in which there was a repetition of the paroxysms after so long an interval as that from Monday to Tuesday night, which occurred in Cook’s case. Ido not think that the attack on Tuesday night was the result of anything which had been administered to him on the Monday night. In the cases of four out of five rabbits the spasms were continued at the time of death and after death. In the other the animal was flaccid at the time of death. Are you acquainted with this opinion of Dr. Christison, that in these cases rigidity does not come on at the time of death, but comes on shortly afterwards ?—Dr. Christison speaks from his experience, and I from mine. Did you hear that Dr. Bamford said that when he arrived he found the body of Cook quite straight in bed ?—Yes. Can that have been a case of ophisthotonos ?—lt may have been. Are not the colour tests of strychnia so uncertain and fallacious that they cannot be depended upon ?—Yes, unless you first get the strychnia in a visible and tangible form. Is it not impossible to get it so from the stomach ?—lt is not impossible ; it depends upon the quantity which remains there. You do not agree that a fiftieth part of a grain might be discovered ?—I think not. Nor even half a grain?— That might be. It would depend upon the quantity of food in the stomach with which it was mixed. Re-examined by the Attorney-General. In cases of death from strychnia the heart is sometimes found empty after death. That is the ease of human subjects. There are three such cases on record. I think that emptiness results from spasmodic affection of the heart. I know of no reason why that should rather occur in the case of man than in that of a small animal like a rabbit. The heart is generally more filled when the paroxysms are frequent. When the paroxysm is short and violent, and causes death in a few moments, I should expect to find the heart empty. The rigidity after death always affects the same muscles—those of the limbs and back. In the case of the rabbit, in which the rigidity was relaxed at the time of death, it retbrned while the body was warm. In ordinary death it only appears when the body is cold, or nearly so. I never knew a case of tetanus in which the rigidity lasted two months after death; but such a fact would give me the impression that there were very violent spasms. It would indicate great violence of the spasms from which the person died. The time which elapses between the taking of strychnia and the commencement of the paroxysms depends on the constitution and strength of the individual. A feeling of suffocation is one of the earliest symptoms of poisoning by strychnia, and that would lead the patient to beat the bed 74 THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMER. clothes. I have no doubt that the substances I used for the purpose of analysis were pure. I had tested them. The fact that three distinct processes each gave the same result was strong con- firmation of each. I have no doubt that what we found was antimony.' The quantity found does not enable me to say how much was taken. It might be the residue of either large or small doses. Sickness would throw off some portion of the antimony winch had been administered. We did not analyse the bones and tissues. Why did you suggest questions to the coroner?—He did not put questions which enabled^mo to form an opinion. I think that arose rather from want of knowledge than from intention. There was an omission to take down the answers I made no observation upon that subject. At the time I wrote to Mr. Gardner, I had not learnt the symptoms which attended the attack and death of Cook. I had only the information that he was well seven days before he died, and had died in convulsions. I had no information which could lead me to suppose that strychnia had been the cause of death, except that Palmer had purchased strychnia. Failing to find opium, prussic acid, or strychnia, I referred to antimony as the only substance found in ihe body. _ Before writing to the lancet, I had been made the subject of a great many attacks. What I said as to the possibilty or impossibility of discovering strychnia after death had been misrepresented. In various newspapers it had been represented that I had said that strychnia could never be detected, that it was destroyed by putrefaction. What I said was that when absorbed into the blood it could not be separated as strychnia. I wrote the letter for my own vindication. I am a lecturer on Materia Medica at Guy’s Hospital, and I assisted Dr. Taylor in making the post mortem examination referred to by that gentleman; and he has most correctly stated the result. I was present during the whole time, and at the discovery of the antimony. lam of opinion that it may have been administered within a few days or a few hours of Mr. Cook’s death. All the tests we employed failed to discover the presence of strychnia. The stomach was in a most unfavourable state for examination ; it was cut open, and turned inside out; its mucous surface was lying upon the intestines, and the contents of the stomach, if there had been any, must have been thrown among the intestines, and mixed with them. These circumstances were very unfa- vourable to the hope of discovering strychnia. I agree with Dr. Taylor as to the manner in which, strychnia acts upon the human frame, and I am of opinion that it may be taken either by accident or design, sufficient to destroy life, and no trace of it be found after death. I was present at the experiments made by Dr. Taylor upon the animals, and at the endeavour to detect it in the sto- machs afterwards. We failed to do so in three cases out of four. The symptoms accompanying the deaths of the animals were very similar to those described in the case of Mr. Cook. I have heard the cases that have been mentioned in this Court, and the symptoms in every one of them are analogous to those in the case of Mr. Cook. Cross-examined by Mr. Grove, Q.C. Dr. G. O. REES, examined by Mr. E. James, Ci.C. *■ I did not see either of the animals reject any portion of the poison; but I heard that in one case the animal did reject a portion. I have no facts to state upon which I formed the opinion that the poison acts by absorption. Professor BEANDE, examined by Mr. Welsby. lam Professor of Chemistry at the Royal Institution. I was not present at the analysis of the liver and spleen, &c., of the deceased; but the report of Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees was sent to me for my inspection afterwards. I was present at one of the analyses. We examined in the first place the action of copper upon a very weak solution of antimony, and we ascertained there was no action until the solution was slightly acidified by muriatic acid and heated The antimony was then deposited, and I am enabled to state positively that that deposit was antimony. By the Attorney-General—The experiment I refer to was made for the purpose of testing the accuracy of the test that had already been applied, and it was perfectly satisfactory. I am a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, and Professor of Materia Medica to the University of Edinburgh; I am also the author of a work on the subject of poisons, and I have directed a good deal of attention to strychnia. In my opinion it acts by absorption into the blood, and through that upon the nervous system. I have seen its effect on a human subject, but not a fatal case. I have seen it tried upon pigs, rabbits, cats, and one wild boar. (A laugh.) I ftrst directed my attention to tins poison in 1820, in Paris. It had been dis- covered two years before in Paris. In most of my experiments upon animals, I gave very small doses—a sixth of a grain; hut I once administered a grain. I cannot say how small a dose would cause _the death of an animal by administration into the stomach. I generally applied it by injection through an incision in the cavity of the chest. A sixth part of a grain so administered killed a dog in two minutes. I once administered to a rabbit, through the stomach, a dose of a grain, I saw Dr. Taylor administer three-quarters of a grain to a rabbit, and it was all swallowed except a very small quantity. The symptoms are nearly the same in rabbits, cats, and dogs. The first is a slight tremor and unwillingness to move ; then frequently the animal jerks its head back slightly; soon after that all the symptoms of tetanus come on which have been so often described by the previous witnesses. When the poison is administered by the stomach death generally takes place between a period of five minutes and five-and-twenty minutes after the symptoms first make their appear- ance. I have frequently opened the bodies of animals thus killed, and have never been able to trace any effect of the poison upon the stomach or intestines, or upon the spinal cord or brain, PROFESSOR CHRISTISOIs examined. FIFTH DAY, MAY 19, 1856. 75 that I could attribute satisfactorily to the poison. Tire heart of the animal generally con- tained blood in all the cases in which 1 have been concerned. In the case of the wild boar the poison was injected into the chest. A third of a grain was all that was used, and in ten minutes the symptoms began to show themselves. If strychnia was administered in the form of a pill it might be mixed with other ingredients that would protract the period of its operation. This would oe me case u 11 were mixeu wun resinous materials, or materials that were difficult of digestion, and such materials would be within the knowledge of any medical man, and they are fre- quently used for the purpose of making ordinary pills. Absorp- tion in such a case would not commence until the pill was broken down by the process of digestion. In the present state of our knowledge of the subject, I do not think it is possible to fix the precise time when the operation of the poison com- mences on a human subject. In the case of an animal we take care that it is fasting, and we mix the poison with ingredients that are readily soluble, and every circumstance favourable for the development of the poison. I have seen many cases of tetanus arising from wounds and other causes. The general symptoms of the disorder very nearly re- semble each other, and in all the natural forms of tetanus the symptoms begin and advance much more slowly, and they prove fatal much more slowly, and there is no intermission in certain forms of natural tetanus. In tetanus from strychnia there are short intermissions. I have heard the evidence of what took place at the Talbot Arms on the Monday and Tuesday, and the result of my experience induces me to come to the conclusion that the symptoms exhibited by the deceased w’ere only attributable to strychnia, or the four poisons containing it. (The witness gave the technical names of the poisons he referred to.) There is no natural disease of any description that I am acquainted with to which 1 could refer these symptoms. In cases of tetanus consciousness remains to the very last moment. When death takes place in a human subject by spasm it tends to empty the heart of blood. When death is the consequence of the administration of strychnia, if the quantity is small, I should not expect to find any trace in the body after death. If there was an excess of quantity more than was required to cause the death by absorption, I should expect to find that excess in the stomach. The colour tests for the detection of the presence of strychnia are uncertain. Vegetable poisons are more difficult of detection than mineral ones, and there is one poison with which I am acquainted for which no known test has been discovered. The stomach of the deceased was sent in a very unsatisfactory state for examination, and there must have been a considerable quantity of strychnia in the stomach to have enabled any one to detect its presence under such circumstances. Professor Cheistison, of Edinburgh. The experiments I refer to were made many years ago In. one instance I tried one of the colour tests in the case of a man who was poisoned by strychnia, but I failed to discover the presence of the poison in _ the stomach. I tried the test for the development of the violet colour by means of sulphuric acid and oxide of lead. From my own observation I should, say that animals destroyed by strychnia die of asphyxia; but in my work, which has been referred to, it will be seen, that I have left the question open. Some further questions were put to the witness by the learned counsel for the prisoner in re- ference to opinions expressed by him in his work, and he explained that this work was written 12 years ago, and that the experience he had since obtained had modified some of the opinions he then entertained. • . The trial was then again adjourned at six o'clock. Cross-examined. THE -TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMER. SIXTH DAY.—Maw 20, 1856. The trial of William Palmer on the charge of poisoning John Parsons Cook was resumed this morning. The court was quite as much crowded as during the previous days. Among the gentle- men upon the bench were Mr. Horsman, M.P., Sir J. Ramsden, M.P., and Sir John Wilson, Governor of Chelsea Hospital. The learned Judges, Lord Chief Justice Campbell, Mr. Baron Alderson, and Mr. Justice Cresswell, accompanied by the Recorder, the Sheriffs, Under-Sheriffs, and several members of the Court of Aldermen, came into court shortly before 10 o’clock, and took their seats upon the bench. The prisoner was immediately placed in the dock. His appearance and dcnjeanour were in no respect changed. JOHN JACKSON, examined by Mr. James. • lam a member of the College ef Physicians. I have recently returned from India, where I have practised for 25 years. During that practice I have had my attention directed to cases of idio- pathic and traumatic tetanus. In England idiopathic tetanus appears to be rare. In India it is comparatively frequent. The pro- portion of cases of idiopathic to trau- matic tetanus is about one-third.. I have seen not less than 40 cases in the hospital at Calcutta. That disease is not considered to be so- fatal as traumatic tetanus, but I have found that it is equally so. It is commonly found in children both, native and European. It takes place aboutthethird day afterbirth.. It will also be occasioned by cold in the climate of India. In infants there is a more marked symptom of lockjaw than in traumatic tetanus. In adults there is no difference be- tween the symptoms of the two dis- eases. I have always seen idiopa- thic tetanus preceded by premoni- tory symptoms. Those are a pecu- liar expression of the countenance and stiffness in the muscles of the throat and of tin; jaw. The period which usually elapses between the attack of idiopathic tetanus and the fatal termination of the disease is in infants 48 hours; in adults, if the disease arises from cold, it is longer, and may continue many days, going through the same grades as the trumatic form of the- disease. I have not heard the evi- dence of the attacks of the deceased Cook. DE. JOHN JACKSON. In idiopathic tetanus the patient is always uncomfortable for some time before the attack. _ The. appetite is not much affected. He complains more of the muscles of his neck. He may within 12 hours of a serious attack preserve his relish for food. I never heai-d a patient complain of want of appetite. I have known cases of idiopathic tetanus in which the first paroxysm occurred in bed. I have known this disease occur to women after confinement or miscarriage. Sometimes one of the premonitory symptoms is a difficulty in swallowing. Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Slice In an infant not more than six hours will elapse between the premonitory symptoms and the commencement of the tetanic paroxysm; in an adult the interval will be from 12 to 24, sometimas more than that. The interval from the commencement of the tetanic convulsions to death will vary from three to ten days. Sometimes death may occur in two days, but that is an early termi- nation. When the disease sets in the course of the symptoms is alike in both forms of tetanus. Both forms are much more common in India than in England. The symptoms in India are the same as in England. I have never seen a case in which the disease ended in death in 20 minutes or half-an-hour. DANIEL SCULLI BERGEN, examined by the Attorney-General. I am the chief superintendent of police at Stafford. I attended the coroner’s inquest on the body of Cook. After the verdict had been returned, I, on the night of Saturday, December 15, Re-examined by the Attorney-General. SIXTH DAY, MAY 20, 1856. 77 searched the house of the prisoner Palmer. I found a quantity of papers, the'great-r portion in the surgery and drawing-room, hut some in Palmer’s bedroom. I put them all into the drawing- room, locked the door, and put the key into my pocket. On the following day (Sunday) I en- deavoured to make a selection of them in the presence of Mr. George Palmer, the prisoner’s brother, an attorney at Kugeley. Assisted by In- spector Crisp and Mr. Woollaston, I went through all the papers. Eventually, on the Tuesday morn- ing, I gave up the idea of selection and tied up all the papers, took them away in a black leather bag, and conveyed them to Stafford, where I de- livered them to Mr. Hatton, the chief constable. Some days afterwards, I believe on the 24th of Deeember, the bag was opened in my presence, and the papers were gone through-minutely by Mr. Deane, solicitor, acting for the prosecution. He classified them, and they were then again tied up. Mr. Deance copied a portion of them, but he kept hone. They were all left at the office of the chief constable. When I examined the papers I saw what they were. I did not find a cheque on Messrs. Weatherby, purporting to bear the signa- ture of Cook, nor any paper purporting to bear his signature respecting bills of exchange. Some of the papei-s were afterwards returned to Mr. George Palmer Mr. Deane selected a large number of letters and documents, private accounts, private letters, which were delivered to Inspector Crisp, with instructions to give them to Mr. George Palmer. William Palmer was arrested on the night of the 15th of December. The inquest was held at the Talbot Arms. It continued several days. The first meeting was merely to empanel the jury. The inquest lasted more than a fortnight. The prisoner was arrested by the sheriff on, a civil process a day or two before the verdict was delivered. Prom the commencement of the inquest until that time he was at his house at llugeley. He was never present at the inquest, nor did any one act professionally for him. Some time before the death of Cook I heard of an Inspector Field, who I believe is not now a police-officer, being at Hugeley. I know that there are such persons as the Duttons, but I do not know anything about them, or their mother. MR, deane* solicitor. Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Shee. hr. HATTON, CHIEF OF STAFFORDSHIRE CONSTABULARY * 78 THE-TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMER. HENRY AUGUSTUS DEANE, examined by Mr. James. lam an attorney, and a member of the firm of Chubb, Deane, and Chubb, Gray’s-inn. I attended the inquest on the body of Water Palmer, but not that»on the body of Cook. On the 24th of December, I saw Palmer’s papers at Stafford. They were in the custody of the last witness. The papers were in a black bag, which was unsealed in my presence. Bergen, Mr. Hatton, the chief constable, and myself were the persons present. I carefully examined all the papers, for the pur- pose of selecting those whichit was necessary should be kept. I returned a considerable, number of immaterial papers to George Palmer. Among the papers I found no cheque upon Messrs. Weatherby, purporting to he signed by the deceased Cook, nor any paper like that which the witness’Cheshire stated that Palmer asked him to attest—an acknowledgment purporting to be signed by Cook that bills to the amount of some thousands had been accepted by Palmer for Look’s benefit. I saw George Palmer, tlpe solicitor, after the papers which I had selected were returned to him. I know Pield, the detective officer. We were solicitors to the Prince of Wales Insurance Office. It was in our employment that Field went to llugeley. He was at Rugeley only a part of one day. He was at Stafford for three or four days altogether. He did not see the prisoner Palmer. His visit had been preceded by that of another officer, named Simpson. Simpson went from Stafford to Rugeley with myself and Field. He told me he had seen Palmejc I think he went into Staffordshire in the first week in October. Cross-examined by' Mr. Serjeant Shoe. Field was sent down,to make inquiries as to the habits of life of Mr. "Walter Palmer, of whose death the office had shortly before received notice, and also to inquire into the circumstances of a person named Bates, with reference to a proposal for an insurance of £25,000 upon his life. Re-examined by Mr. James. I solicitor practising in Davies-street, Berkeley-square. lam solicitor to Mr. Padwick- I produce a bill for £2,000 which was placed in my hands to enforce payment from the prisoner.. Mr. Strawbridge, manager of the bank at Rugeley, was called, and proved that the drawing and endorsement of this bill—a hill at three months for ,£2,000, drawn by William Palmer, and purporting to be accepted by Sarah Palmer—were in the handwriting of the prisoner, and that the acceptance was not in that of his mother. John Espin continued—This bill would be due on the 6th of October, 1854. £l,OOO had been paid off it. Judgment was signed on the 12th of December, and I had then had the bill only a day or two. The execution was issued on the 12th of December. I have here a letter from William Palmer addressed to Mr. Padwick on the 12th of November, and enclosing a check, and requesting that it should not be presented until the 28th of November. I produce the check for £l,OOO enclosed in this letter of the 12th, The check is dated the 28th. That check was not paid. I produce another check, dated the Bth of December, 1855, payable to Mr. Padwick or bearer, for the sum of £6OO. [Mr. Strawbridge proved that the signature to this check was in the handwriting of the prisoner.] That was not paid. It was received a few days after the check for £l,OOO was dishonoured. £l,OOO still remained due. We issued a ca. sa. against the prisoner’s person. Upon that Palmer was arrested. JOHN ESPIN, examined by Mr. James. Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Shee. I believe all the documents were placed in my hands together about the 12th. of December. WILLIAM BAMFORD, examined by the Attorney-General. I am a surgeon and apothecary at Rugeley, in Staffordshire. I first saw the deceased John Parsons Cook on Saturday, the 17th of November. Palmer, the prisoner, asked me to visit him.. Palmer said that Cook had been dining with him the day before, and had taken too much cham- pagne. I went with Palmer to see Cook. I asked Cook if he had taken too much wine the day before, and he assured me that be took but two glasses. I found no appearance of bile about Cook, but there was constant vomiting. I prescribed for him a saline effervescing draught and a six ounce mixture. I never saw Cook take any of the pills which I had prescribed. After I bad prepared the pills on the Monday evening I took them to the Talbot Arms and gave them to a servant maid, who took them upstairs. On the Saturday, Sunday, and Monday, I prepared the same pills. _ I saw Palmer on the Tuesday morning. I was going to see Cook when he met me. I asked him if he bad seen Cook the night before. He said that he saw him between 9 and 10 o’clock, and was with him for half-an-hour. He requested that I would not disturb Cook, and I went home without seeing him. Between 12 and 1 o’clock Palmer begged I would not go, because be was still and quiet, and he did not wish him to be disturbed. At 7 o’clock in the evening Palmer came to my house, and requested me to go and see Cook again. I went and saw him. Having seen Cook, I left the room with Jones and Palmer. Palmer said he rather wished Cook to have his pills again, and that he would walk up with me for them. He did so, and stood by while I prepared them in my surgery. I had strychnia in a cupboard in my own private room. I put the pills in a box, and addressed it, “ Night pills. John Parsons Cook, Esq.” I wrote that direction on all the four nights. On the Tuesday night Palmer requested that I would put on a direction. After that I did not again see Cook alive. Palmer took away the pills between 7 and 8 o’clock. I had wrapped the box up in paper, and bad sealed it. There was no impression of a seal upon it. The direction was upon a separate paper, which I placed under the box, and between it and the outside paper. Nothing was written on the box or on the outside paper. It was as near as could be 20 minutes SIXTH DAY, MAY 20, 1856. 79 past 12 at midnight when I saw Cook dead. I understood he was alive when they came to me, and I could not have been more than five or ten minutes in going up. I found the body stretched out, resting on the heels and the back of the head, as straight as possible, and stiff. The arms were extended down each side of the body, and the hands were clinched. I filled up the certificate, and gave it as my opinion that he died from apoplexy. Palmer asked me to fill up the certificate. I had’forms of certificates in my possession. When Palmer asked me to fill up the certificate, I told him that, as Cook'was his patient, it was his place to fill up the certificate. He said he had much rather I did it, and I did so. I was present ‘at the post mortem examination. After it was over. Palmer said, “We ought not to have let that jar go.” That was all he said. Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Slice. My house is about 200 yards from that of the prisoner. lam a solicitor, and practice in Queen-street, Mayfair. I know the prisoner Palmer. My acquaintance with him commenced at the end of November, 1853. I obtained for him a loan of .■£l,ooo. That was repaid. In October, 1854, I was employed by him to make a claim for two policies upon the life of Ann Palmer. I received upon the prisoner’s account £5,000 from the Sun office, and £3,000 from the Norwich Union. The money was applied in payment of, I think, three bills, amounting to £3,500 or £4,000, which were due, and of loans obtained after I had made the claims upon the policies. _ There was £1,500 not so applied. That was paid to Palmer, or applied to other purposes under his direction. In April, 1855, Palmer applied to me for a loan of £2,000. He did not state the purpose for which he required the loan. I obtained it upon a bill for £2,000 drawn by himself, and purporting to be accepted by Sarah Palmer. On the 28th of November of that year there were eight bills held by clients of mine or by myself. [These bills were produced and read ; the total amount for which they were drawn was £12,500.] Two bills, dated July 22 and July 24, for £2,090 each, were the only bills which were overdue in November, 1855. Two bills, for £5OO and £l,OOO, were held over from month to month. [These were bills dated June 5 and August 2, 1854.] The interest was paid monthly. With two exceptions, these bills were discounted at the rate of sixty per cent. On the 9th of November the interest for holding over the two bills, dated in 1854, was due. I remember the death of Walter Palmer. That occurred in August, 1855. I was instructed by William Palmer to claim from the Prince of Wales Insurance Office £13,000 due upon a policy upon his life. The Sarah Palmer by whom these bills purport to he accepted is the mother of the prisoner. While holding these bills I from time to time addressed letters to her. I wrote to Palmer as follows ; ‘‘lf you are quite settled on your return from Doncaster, do pray think about your three bills, so shortly coming due. If Ido not get a positive appointment from the office to pay, which Ido not expect, you must be prepared to meet them as agreed. You told me your mother was coming- up this month, and would settle them.” About a week afterwards I wrote to him. [This letter had no date, but bore a postmark, Sept. 24]:— •‘You are aware there are three bills, of £!2,000 each, accepted by your mother, Mrs. Sarah Palmer, falling due in a day or two. Now, as the £ 13,000 cannot be received from the Prince of Wales Insurance Office for three months, it will be necessary that those bills should be renewed ;■ I will therefore thank you to send me up three new acceptances to meet those coining clue ; and which, when they fall due, I presume the money will be ready to meet, which will amount to £1,500 more than your mother has given acceptances for.” On the 2nd of October I wrote : “ 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 £4,090 due at the end of the month.” On the 6th of October I wrote to him another letter, containing this passage:— “I have your note acknowledging receipt by your mother of the £2,000 acceptance, due the 2nd October. Why not let her acknowledge it herself 1 You must really not fail to come up at once if it be for the purpose of arranging for the payment of the two bills at the end of the month5. Remember I can make no terms for their renewal, and they must be paid.” I had received from Palmer a letter, dated October 5, acknowledging, on the part of his mother, the receipt of a bill of exchange for £2,000 On the 10th I wrote to Palmer a letter, from which the following is an extract:— “However, not to repeat what I said in my last, but with the view of pressing on you the remembrance that the two bills due at the end of this month, the 26th and 27th, must be met, I say no more. The £2,000 acceptance of your mother, due the 29th of September, I sent her yesterday. It was renewed by the second of the three sent me up.” On the 18th of October I wrote to Palmer as follows : “ I send copies of two letters I have received. As regards the first, it shows how important it is that you or your mother should prepare for payment of the £4,000 due in a few days. I cannot now obtain delay on the same ground I did the oiliers, for then I could have no ground for supposing the claim would not be admitted.” On the 27th of October Palmer called and paid me £250. That was on account of the bills due On the 25th and 27ih of that month. He said he would remit another sum of an equal amount before the following Wednesday, and would pay the remainder of the principal by instalments as shortly as possible. In reply to a letter of mine of the 27th of October, I received the following letter from him, dated 28th of October:— THOMAS PRATT, examined by Mr. James. THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMER. “ I will send you tlie £250 from Worcester on Tuesday, as arranged. For goodness’ sake do not think of writs; only let me know that such steps are going to be taken and i will get you the money, even if I pay £l,OOO for it; only give me a fair chance, and you shall be paid the whole of the money.” On the 31st of October I wrote to Palmer:— “ The £250 in registered letter duly received to-day. With it I have been enabled to obtain consent to the following :—That, with the exception of issuing the writs against your mother, no proceeding as to service shall be made until the morning of Saturday, the 10th, when you are to send up the £l,OOO or £1,500. You will be debited with a month’s interest on the" whole of £4,000 out. of the money sent up. I impress upon you the necessity of your being punctual as to the bills. You will not forget also the £1,500 due on the 9th of November ”. On the 6th of November I issued writs against Palmer and his mother for £4,000. I sent Ahem to Mr. Crabbe, a solicitor at Eugeley, On the 10th of November Palmer called on me'. I had received a letter from him on the 9th of November :—“I will be with you on Saturday next at half-past one.” Ho did call on me, and paid me £3OO, which, with the two sums I had before received? made up £SOO. £2OO was de- ducted for interest, leaving £6OO. He was to endeavour to let me have a further remit- tance, but nothing positive was said. It is possible that wilts were mentioned, but I have no recollection of it. No doubt he knew of them. [A -letter of November 13th from Pratt to Palmer was then road, in which, after giving some explanations with respect to the “ Prince of Wales” policy, Pratt said, “I count most positively on seeing you on Saturday;" do, for both our sakes, try and make up the amount to £l,OOO, for without it I shall be unable to renew the £1,500 due on the ■oth.”] On the 16th of November Palmer wrote to me ; “I am obliged to come,to Tatter sail’s on Monday to the settling, so that I shall not call and see you before Monday, but a friend of mine will call and leave you £2OO to-mor- row, and I will give you the remainder on Monday.” Mr. Thomas Pratt, Bill Discounter. On the Saturday (November 17th) some one came from Palmer, and gave me a check of a Mr. Fisher for £2OO. On the 19th Mr. Palmer wrote to me ;—• “All being well, I shall be with you to-morrow (Monday), but cannot say what time now. Fisher left the £2OO for me.” On Monday, the 19th, which was the settling day at Tattersall’s, Palmer called on me after 3 o’clock. This paper (produced) was then drawn up, and he signed it: “ You will place the £5O which I have just paid you, and the £450 you will receive by Mr. Herring—together £soo—and the £2OO you received on Saturday, 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.” He paid me £5O at the time, and said I should receive the £450 through the post, from Mr. Herring. I afterwards received a cheque from him for that amount, which was paid through my bankers. On the 21st of November Palmer wrote to me— “ Ever since r saw you Ihave been fully engaged with Cook and not able to leave home. lam 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. “1 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.” On the 22d of November I wrote to Palmer “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 de- tained 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. SIXTH DAY, MAY 20, 1856. 81 “ The death of Mr. Cook will now compel you to look about as to the payment of the bill for £5OO on the 2d of December. On the 23d of November I received a note from Palmer, saying that Messrs. Weatherby, of 6, Old Burlington-street, would forward a cheque for £75 in the morning. I saw him on the 24th when he signed the following paper:— “ I have paid you this day £lOO. £75 you will pay for renewal of £1,500 due the 9lh of November for one month, and £25 on account of the £2,000 due the 25th of October, making £1,325 paid.' I had received a cheque for £75 on Messrs. Weatherby, but they refused to pay it. On the 26th. of November Palmer wrote to me:— “(Strictly private and confidential.) “ My dear Sir,—Should any of Cook’s friends call upon you to know what money Cook ever had from you, pray don’t answer that question or any other about money matters until I have seen you. And oblige yours faithfully, “ “William Palmer,” There was a bill of sale on Polestar and another horse of Cook’s called Sirius. I did not know Cook. Ineversawhim. The bill ofsale was executed at the beginning of September. Theprisoner had’transacted the loan. On the 26th of August Palmer wrote to me on the subject:— “ Now, I want, and must have it from somewhere, £l,OOO clear by next Saturday without fail, and you can raise it on the policy (viz., the policy for £13,000 on the life of W. Palmer) if you like, and it must be had at a much less rate of interest than I have hitherto had, because the security is so very good, and if you cannot manage it you must let me have the policy, because you have plenty of security for your money.” On the 30th of August he again wrote:— “I have undertaken to get the enclosed bill cashed for Mr. Cook. You had the £2OO bill of his. He is a very good and responsible man. Will you do it ? I will put my name to the bill.” In this letter was enclosed Cook’s acceptance for £5OO. On the 6th of September Palmer wrote : “ I received the cheque for the £lOO, and will thank you to let me have the £315 by return of fost, if possible ; if not, send it to me (certain) by Monday night’s post, to the Post-office, Doncaster, 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.” On the 9th of September he wrote : “ 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 £5O for the discount, &c. I shall then get £lO, and I expect I shall have to take to 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.” I according wrote to Palmer, at the Post-office, Doncaster, enclosing £3OO in notes, and cheque for £375. I struck out the words “or bearer,” so that it was payable to order. In the letter I said— “ You know by this time that if I do what I can to accommodate you there is a limit to my means to do so, and more particularly as in this instance, you have been the means of shutting up a supply I could generally go to. I think also you had little reason to allude to the £lO difference after the trouble, correspondence, &c., I had with respect to a second insurance you know of, which, although it did not come off, arose not from any lack of industry on my part. I have no reply as yet from the Prince of Wales. When shall I see you about the three £2,000 bills coming due at the end of this month ? I speak in time, in order that you may be prepared in case any- thing untoward happens with the Prince of Wales. lam obliged to send a cheque for Cook, as I have not received the money, which 1 shall do, no doubt, to-morrow.” The cheque for £375 and the wine warrant was the consideration for Cook’s bill of sale for £5OO. The other £3OO had nothing to do with Cook’s transactions. [_A letter from Palmer was then read, acknowledging the receipt of the previous letter, with the enclosures.] I had one other transaction with Cook before this. It related to an acceptance of Cook for £2OO, which was paid. I had no other pecuniary transaction whatever with him. The date of the first transaction was the end of April or early in May, 1855. The bill was drawn by Palmer on Cook, and was paid by Cook. Mr. Stevens was here recalled, and, having examined the endorsement on the cheque for £375, said—This endorsement is notin the handwriting of Cook. I never saw him write his name other- wise than “ J. Parsons Cook,” whereas this is written “ J. P. Cook.” Mr. Strawbridge was shown some acceptances purporting to be by Mrs. Sarah Palmer, and said that none of them were in Mrs. Palmer’s handwriting. William Cheshire, who had been a clerk in the bank at Rmgeley in September last, proved that Palmer had an account there, and that the cheque already in evidence had been received by him and carried to Palmer’s credit. Cross-examined.—I did not know Cook; he never had any transactions with me. Mr. PEATT was then Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Shee. Previous to May, 1855, I knew nothing at all about Cook. I then hold a sum of £3lO, due to Palmer, and he wished me to add £l9O to it, and to pay £5OO to a Mr. Sargent. I declined to do that without further security. He then proposed the security of Cook’s acceptances, and repre- sented Cook to be a gentleman of respectability and substance. On his representation I agreed to accept a bill drawn by him on Copk for £2OO, and to make the advance. He thus got the £5OO. I wrote to Cook about the first transaction. I also wrote to him before his death, on the 13th of November, reminding him that £5OO was due December 2. I sent the letter to him at Lutterworth. 82 THE TRIAL OP WILLIAM PALMER. Re-examined. The first £2OO bill was due on the 29th of June, but was not then paid. I wrote about it, and Cook came up on the 2nd of July and paid it. I did not see him. JOHN ARMSHAW, examined by Mr. TVchhy. lam an attorney, practising at Rugeley. About the 13th of November I was employed to apply to Palmer for payment of a debt of about £6O, due to some mercers and drapers at Rugeley. On the I9th of November I sent up to London instructions for a writ. On the next morning (the 20th) I went to Palmer’s house. He gave me two £5O notes, and said he hoped he should not be put to the cost of the writ. One was a Bank of England, the other a local note. I took them to my employer to get the receipt and change, and to settle about the costs. JOHN WALLBANK, examined by Mr. TFelshj. lam a butcher at Rugeley. On the Monday, in Shrewsbury race week. Palmer’s man came to me and fetched me to Palmer’s house. Palmer said, “I want you to lend me £25.” I said, “ Doctor, I’m very short of money, but I’ll try if I can get it,” He said, “ Do, that’s a good fellow ; I’ll give it you again on Saturday morning, as I shall then have received some money at Shrewsbury.” On the Saturday I met him in the street, went to his house with him, and he paid me the money. _ Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Shee. Palmer had lent me money sometimes when I had asked him. His mother lived in the town, in a large house near the church. He was in the habit of going there. JOHN SPILLBURY, examined by Mr. Bodkin. lam a farmer, near Stafford, and have had dealings with Palmer. In November last he owed me £46 2s. On the 22nd of November (Thursday) I called on him, and he paid me that amount. He gave me a Bank of England note for £5O. I called casually. I had not applied to him for the moneys That vyas the first transaction I had with him. Mr. STRAWBRIDGE, examined by the Attorney-General. On the 19th of November Palmer had an account at the bank, and there was a balance of £9 6s. in his favour. Nothing was paid to his account after that. The 10th of October was the last date on which anything was paid to the amount. The amount then paid was £5O. HERBERT WRIGHT, examined by Mr. E. James. lam a solicitor, in paatnership with my brother, at Birmingham. I have known Palmer since July, 1851, In November, 1855, he owed my brother £10,400. We had a bill of sale upon his property. [lt was produced and read. It recited that Palmer was indebted to Edwin Wright in the sura of £6,500, on account of bills of exchange accepted by Sarah Palmer and endorsed by Palmer to Wright, and as security for that amount, and a further sum of £2,300, which had been advanced to him, a power of sale, subject to redemption, was given by Palmer over the whole of his property, including his horses.] All the advances were'made upon bills, together with other collateral security. All the bills are here. [The bills purporting to be accepted by Palmer’s mother were produced; also an acceptance of Palmer’s for £1,600.] In the early part of November I was pressing Palmer for payment. Many of the bills were overdue. Palmer always said the money would be paid after the Cambridgeshire races at Newmarket, I put the bill of sale in force in December, after the verdict of the coroner’s jury was returned, I was present when the property was taken. I found no papers in the house. Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Shoe. Should you have objected to give Palmer more time for payment if you had been asked ?—I hardly know ; probably I should not. I was not hostile to him. I never accommodated Cook. I had offered to do so, but the transaction never assumed completion. (A laugh.) Re-examined by the Attorney-General. These bills were discounted at 60 per cent, per annum, and would have been renewed probably at the same rate of interest. Mr. Strawbridge proved that the acceptances produced by the last witness were not in the hand- writing of Mrs. Palmer. Cross-examined.—They are a had imitation of her hand. The Attorney-General said that Mr. Wcathcrby was the only remaining witness for the pro- secution ; and, as ho was not now in court, lie hoped their Lordships would allow him to be examined in the morning, before his learned friend opened the defence. Mr. Serjeant Shee asked the Court to permit the witness Mills to be recalled, in order that he might examine her as to where she was now residing’. The Attorney-General—Sfie wag cross-examined upon that point. Lord Campbell—-We are of opinion that there is no ground for recalling her. Mr. Serjeant Shee asked permission to put some further questions to Dr. Devonshire, with regard to his having been pushed by Palmer during the post mortem examination. Lord CAMPBELL—By all means. Mr. Justice Cbesswell observed, that he did not think it was a circumstance to which much importance could be attached; he had not taken a note of it. Mr. Baron AIdEKSOX expressed a similar opinion. There was nothing extraordinary in a person who was interested in the examination being anxious to see all that was going on. Mr. Serjeant Shee, after that intimation of their Lordships’ would not press his request. Lord Campbell hoped that the jury would have an opportunity given them of breathing the fresh air that fine evening.—The Court adjourned at half-past 3. SEVENTH DAY, MAY 21, 1856. 83 SEVENTH DAY.—May 21, 1856. Ths court was even more crowded this morning than it had been since the commencement of the trial. By 9 o’clock every available seat was occupied, and a great number of persons waited in the passages leading to the various entrances during the whole day without being able to obtain ad- mission. Among the distinguished persons who were present we noticed the Lord Chief Baron, the Earl of Denbigh, Lord G. Lennox, Mr. Mpnckton Milnes, Mr. L. Gower, Mr. G. O. Higgins, Mr. Forster, and several other members of the House of Commons. The learned Judges, Lord Campbell, Mr. Baron Alderson, and Mr. Justice Cresswell, entered the court at about 10 o’clock, accompanied by the Sheriffs, Sir R. W. Carden, and other Aldermen. The prisoner was immediately placed at the bar. He listened with great attention to the address of his learned counsel, and maintained the same calmness and seif-possession that he has exhibited since the first day of the proceedings. Counsel for the Crown—the Attorney-General, Mr. E. James, Q.C., Mr. Welsby, Mr. Bodkin, and Mr. Huddleston; for the prisoner-—Mr. Serjeant Shee, Mr. Grove, Q.C., Mr. Gray, and Mr. Kenealy. CHARLES WEATHERBY, examined hy Mr. Welsby. On the 21st of November I received a letter from Palmer, enclosing a cheque for £350. I produce that letter:— “ Rugeley, Nov. 20, 1865. “ Gentlemen,—I will thank you to send me a cheque for the amount of the enclosed order. Mr. Cook has been confined here to his bed for the last three days with a bilious attack, which has prevented him from being in town.—Yours respectfully, "VVm. Palmek.” On the morning of the 23rd I received another letter from him, which I also produce. [ln this letter Palmer requested Messrs. Weatherby to send a cheque for £75 to Mr. Pratt, and a cheque for £lOO to Mr. Earwaker, and deduct the same from Cook’s draft.] On the 23rd I sent a letter to Palmer, of which I produce a copy : “ Nov. 23, 1855. “ Sir,—'We return Mr. Cook’s cheque, not having funds enough to meet it. When Mr. Frail called to-day to settle the Shrewsbury Stake account, ho informed us that ho had paid Mr. Cook his winnings there. We could not comply with your request as to paying part of the money even if we had had sufficient in hand to pay the sums you mention, which, we have not. Be so good as to acknowledge the receipt of the cheque.” On the 24th the following notice, signed by Palmer, was left at my office “Nov. 24, 1855. “ Gentlemen,—I hereby request you will not part with any moneys in your hands, or which may come into your hands, on account of John Parsons Cook, to any person, until payment hy you to me or my order of the cheque or draft in my favour given by the said John Parsons Cook for the sum of £350 sent to yon by me, and acknowledged in your letter received by me at Rugeley, on Wednesday morning, the 20th of this month of November.'—Yours, &c., Wm. Palmek. “Messrs. Weatherby, 6, Old Burlington-street.” On the 23rd I had sent a letter to Cook at Rugeley, which was subsequently returned to me through the dead-letter office. • Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Slice. The cheque for £350 was, as far as I recollect, signed hy Cook. The Attorney-General—Was it signed J. P. Cook, or J. Parsons Cook?—I did not observe. Ry Lord Campbell—l observed that the body of the cheque was not in Cook’s handwriting, hut that the signature was. Mr. Serjeant Shee—When that cheque of Cook’s was presented, you had not funds m hand to meet it ?—No. Were funds afterwards sent up by Mr. Frail, the clerk of the course at Shrewsbury ?—-They were to have been, but were not eventually. In the ordinary course of things ought they to have been in your hands on the day you received the cheque I—l cannot positively say. Clerks of the course pay at different times. But Cook mio-ht reasonably have supposed that they would be in hand, as it was then a week after he had won the race. I informed Palmer when I did not pay his cheque, of my reason for not doing so. Mr. F. BUTLER, examined by the Attorney-General. I attend races, and bet. I was at Shrewsbury races, and had an account to settle with Palmer. I had to receive ,£7OO odd from him in respect of bets made at the Liverpool races. I had no money, to receive in respect of the Shrewsbury races. I endeavoured to get my money at Shrewsbury and I got £4O. I asked him for money' several times, and he said he had none, but had some o -receive. He did not say how much. 'He gave me a cheque for £250 upon the Rugeley Bank, which was not paid. I knew Cook’s horse Polestar. After she had won the race at Shrewsbury she was worth about £7OO. She was worth more after than before she won. Cross-examined by Mr. Grove. I won £2lO on Polestar forPalrwer, and kept it on account. Mr. Stevens proved that Polestar was sold at Tattersall’s, on the 10th of March, by auction, and fetched 720 guineas. The Attorney-General—That is the case for the prosecution. Till-: TOWN HALL, ROGELEY, WHLiUi THE XXQ,UESI' OX THE BODY »F COOK WAS HELD THE DEFENCE. Mr. Serjeant Shee tlxen rose to open the defence. He said,—In rising to perform the task which it now becomes my duty to discharge, I feel, gentlemen of the jury, an almost overwhelm- ing sense of responsibility. Once only has it fallen to my lot to defend a fellow-creature charged with a capital offence. You can well understand that to take a leading part in a trial of this kind is sufficient to disturb the calmest temper and try the clearest judgment, even if the effort only last one day. But how much more trying is it to stand for six long days under the shade, as it were, of the scaffold, conscious that the least error in judgment may consign my client to an ignominious death and public indignation ! It is ixseless for me to conceal that which all your endeavours to keep your minds free from prejudice cannot wholly efface from your recollection. You perfectly well know that for six long months, under the sanction and upon the authority uf science, an opinion has almost universally prevailed that the blood of John Parsons Cook has risen from the ground to bear witness against the prisoner; you know that a conviction of the guilt of the prisoner has impressed itself upon the whole population, and that by the whole population has been raised, in a delirium of horror and indignation, the cry of blood for blood. You cannot have entered, upon the discharge of your duty—which, as I have well observed, you have most conscien- tiously endeavoured to perform—without, to a great extent, sharing in that conviction. Before you you knew that you would have to sit in that box to pass judgment between the prisoner and the Crown you might with perfect propriety, after reading the evidence taken before the coroner’s jury, have formed an opinion with regard to the guilt or innocence of the prisoner. The very circum- stances under which we meet in this place are of a character to excite in me mingled feelings of en- couragement and alarm. Those whose duty it is to watch over the safety of the Queen’s subjects felt so much apprehension lest the course of justice should be disturbed by the popular prejudice which had been excited against the prisoner—they were so much alarmed that an unjust verdict might, in the midst of that prejudice, he passed against him, that an extraordinary measure of precaution was taken, not only by her Majesty’s Government, but also by the Legislature. An act of Parliament, which originated iu that branch of the Legislature to which the noble and learned Lord who presides here SEVENTH HAY, MAY 21, 1856. 85 belongs, and was sanctioned by him, was passed to prevent tbe possibility of an injustice being done through an adherence to the ordinary forms of law in the case of William Palmer. The Crown, also, under the advice of its responsible Ministers, resolved that this prosecution should not be left in private hands, but that its own law officer, my learned friend the Attorney-General, should take upon himself the responsibility of conducting it. And my learned friend, when that duty was intrusted to him, did what I must say will for ever redound to his honour—he resolved that in a case in which so much prejudice had been excited, all the evidence which it was in- tended to press against the prisoner should, as soon as he received it, be communicated to the prisoner’s counsel. I must therefore tell my unhappy client that everything which the consti- tuted authorities of the land—everything which the Legislature and the law officers of the Crown could do to secure a fair and impartial trial has been done, and that if unhappily an injustice should on either side be committed, the whole responsibility will rest upon nay Lords and upon the jury. A most able man was selected by the prisoner as his counsel not many weeks ago, but, unfortunately, was prevented by illness from discharging that office. I have endeavoured to the best of my ability to supply his place ; but I cannot deny that I labour under a deep feeling of responsibility, although the national effort, so to speak, which has been made to insure a fair trial is a great cause of encouragement to me. I am moved by the task that is before me, but Xam not dismayed. I have this further cause for not being altogether overcome in discussing the mass of evidence which has been laid before you. When the papers in the case came into my hands, I had formed no opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the prisoner. My mind was perfectly free to form what I trust will prove to be a right judgment upon the case, and—l say it in all sincerity—having read these papers, I commenced his defence with an entire conviction of his innocence. I believe that truer words were never pronounced than the words he uttered when he said! “Not Guilty” to this charge, and if I fail in establishing his innocence to your satisfaction I shall have very great misgivings that my failure is attributable only to my own inability to do justice to his case, and not to any weakness in the case itself. I wall prove to you the sincerity with which I declare my conviction of the prisoner’s innocence by meeting the case for the prosecution foot to foot, and grappling with every difficulty which has been suggested by my learned friend. You will see that I shall avoid no point which has been raised. I will deal fairly with you, and I know that I shall have your patient attention to an address which must, I fear, unavoidably be a long one, but in which no observation will be introduced which does not necessarily and properly belong to the case. The proposition which my learned friend undertakes to establish entirely by circumstantial evidence may be shortly stated. It is that the prisoner, having in the second week in November made up his mind that it was his interest to get rid of John Parsons Cook, deliberately prepared his body for the recep- tion of a deadly poison by the slower poison of antimony, and that he afterwards despatched him by the deadly poison of strychnine. Now, no jury will convict a man of the crime thus charged unless it be made clear, in the first place, that he had some motive for its commission,—some strong reason for desiring the death of the deceased ; in the second place, that the symptoms before death and the appearances of the body after death are consistent with the theory that he died by poison; and, in the third place, that they are inconsistent with the theory that death proceeded from natural causes. Under these three heads I shall discuss the vast mass of evidence which has been laid before you, and I must, by adhering to that order, exhaust the whole subject, and leave myself no chance of evading any difficulty without immediate detection. Before, how- ever, I proceed to grapple in these close quarters with the case for the Crown, allow me to restore to its proper place in the discussion a fact which although it was by no means concealed by my learned friend in that address by which he at once seized upon your judgments, appeared to me to be thrown too much into the shade, the fact, I mean, that strychnine was not foundin the body of the unfortunate deceased. If he died of the poison of strychnine—if he died within a few hours or within a quarter of an hour or twenty minutes of the administration of a strong dose—if the post mortem examination took place within six days of the death, there is not the least reason to suppose that between the time of the injection of thepoison and the paroxysms of death there was any dilution of it, or any ejection of it by vomiting. Never, therefore, unless chemical analysis is altogether a failure in the detection of strychnine, were circumstances more favourable for its discovery. But, beyond all question, strychnine was not found. Whatever we may think of the judgment and experience of Dr. Taylor, we have no reason to doubt that he is a very skilful chymist; we have no reason to believe—in fact, we know to tbe contrary—that he and Dr. Bees did not do all that the science of chymical analysis could enable men to do to detect the poison. They had a distinct intimation from the executor and near relative of the deceased that he, for some cause or another, had reason to suspect that poison had been administered. They undertook an analysis of the stomach, which (without now going into details upon that point) was not on the whole in an un- favourable condition, with a finmexpectation that if it was there it would be found, and without any doubt as to the efficiency of their tests. Then, in December they say : “We do not find strychnine, prussic acid, or any trace of opium. From the contents Laving 86 THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMER. been drained away ” (not drained out of the jar, you know) “it is now impossible to say whether any strychnine had or had not been given just before death, but it is quite possible for tartar emetic to destroy life if given in repeated doses; and, so far as we can at present form an opinion, in the absence of any natural cause of death, the deceased may have died from the effects of antimony in this or some other form.” But they afterwards attended the inquest, and having heard the evidence of Mills, of Mr. Jones, of Lutterworth, and of Roberts (who spoke to the purchase of strychnine on the morning of the death), they came to the conclusion that the pills administered to Cook on the Monday and the Tuesday night contained strychnine. Dr. Taylor came to that conclusion, notwithstanding his written opinion that Cook might have been poisoned by antimony, and notwithstanding the fact that no trace of strychnine was found in the body. I call your attention now to this circumstance in order to claim for it its proper place in the discussion. The gentlemen who have come to the conclusion that strychnine may have been in the body, although it was not found, have arrived at that conclusion from experiments of a very partial kind indeed ; they contend that when strychnine has once done its fatal work and become absorbed into the system it ceases to be the thing it was when taken into the system ; it becomes decomposed, its nleraents are separated from each other, and therefore are no longer capable of responding to the tests which would certainly detect its presence if undecomposed. That is their case. They account for its not being found, and for their belief that it destroyed Cook, by that hypothesis. Now, it is only an hypothesis. No authority for it can be drawn from experiments, and it is supported by the opinion of no eminent toxicologists .but themselves. It is only fair to them and to Dr. Taylor in particular, to say that Dr. Taylor- does propound that theory in his book. is, however, only a theory of his own ; he does not support it by the authority of any distinguished toxicologist; and when we recollect that his knowledge of the matter—good, humane man !—consists in having poisoned five rabbits 25 years ago, and five others since this question was raised, it cannot have much weight. But I will call before you a number of gentlemen of high eminence in their profession as analytical chymists, who will state their utter renunciation of that theory. I will call Dr. Nunneley, a fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons and a professor of Chymistry, who attended the case at Leeds, which has been described to you, and Dr. Williams, professor of materia medica at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, for 18 years surgeon to the City of Dublin Hospital. Dr. Letheby, one of the ablest and "most distinguished men of science in this great city, professor of chymistry and toxicology in the Medical College of the London Hospital, and medical officer of the city of London, will tell you that he rejects the theory as a heresy unworthy the belief of scientific men. '“Dr. Nicholas Parker, of the College of Physicians, London, and professor of medicine, Dr. Robinson, of the College of Physicians, and Mr. Rogers, professor -of chymistry, concur with Dr. Letheby. Lastly, I will call Mr. William Herapath, of Bristol, probably the most eminent chymical analyst in this country, who also utterly rejects the theory. All of those gentlemen contend that if not only half a grain of strychnine, hut even l-50th part or less has once entered into the human frame it can and must be discovered by the tests known to chymists. They will tfell yon this, not as the result of a few experiments, for ever regretted, upon five rabbits, but from a large experience as to the operation of the poison upon the inferior animals, created as you know for the benefit of mankind, and many of them from their experience as to its effects upon the human system. I will satisfy you from their evidence that if you admit the correctness of the tests which were used, the only safe conclusion at which you can arrive is that, strychnine not having been found in the body, it could never have been there. They all agree, too, that no degree of putrefaction or fermentation in the human system could so -decompose strychnine that it should no longer possess those qualities which cause it, in its undecomposed state, to respond to chymical tests. I will now apply myself to a question which, in my judgment, is of equal, if not of greater importance—the question whether in the second week of November, 1855, the prisoner had a motive for the commission of this murder—a strong- reason for desiring that Cook should die. I never will believe that, unless it were made clear that it was his interest to destroy Cook, you would come to the conclusion that he had committed such a crime. It seems to me abundantly clear upon the evidence that not only was it not the interest of Palmer that Cook should die, hut that the death of Cook was the very worst calamity that could befal him, and that he could not possibly he ignorant that it would be followed by his own ruin. That it was followed by his immediate ruin we know. We know that at the time when it is said he commenced to plot Cook’s death he was in a condition of the greatest embarrassment—an embarrassment which, in its extreme intensity had come upon him but recently—-an embarrassment, too, in some degree mitigated by the circumstances that the acceptances he is said to have forged were those of his mother—a lady of large fortune living in the town. My learned friend’s hypothesis is, that not until he was in a slate of the greatest embarrassment did be wish to destroy Cook. My learned friend stated to you “ That, being in desperate circumstances, with ruin, disgrace, and punishment staring him in Hie face, which SEVENTH DAY, MAY 21, 1856. 87 could only be averted by means of money, he took advantage of his intimacy with Cook, when Cook had become the winner of a considerable sum, to destroy him, in order to obtain possession of his money.” Let us test this theory. Let us relieve our minds for a moment from the anxiety we must always feel when the life of a fellow-creature is at stake, and, looking at it as a mere matter of business, let us ask ourselves whether, in the second week in November, Palmer had any motive to commit this crime. When a long correspondence is read to a jury, who are without the same means of testing its importance as the judge or the counsel, they frequently do not attach that weight to it which it deserves. But I watched the correspondence which was read to you yesterday with an anxiety which no words can express, because I firmly believed that in it the innocence of the prisoner lay concealed ; that it proved not only that the prisoner had no motive to kill Cook, but that Cook’s death was ruin to him. Allow me to call your attention to the relation in which these men stood to each other. They had been intimate as racing friends for two or three years ; they had had many transactions together; they were jointly interested in at least one racehorse, Pyrrhine; they generally stayed at the same hotels ; they were seen together upon almost all the race-courses in the kingdom ; they were known to be connected in adventures upon the same horses at the same races ; and although, Cook being dead, the mouth of .the prisoner being sealed, and transactions of this kind not being recorded in regular books, it is impossible to give you positive evidence as to their relations to one another ; it is abundantly clear that they were very closely connected. In August, 1855, money was wanted either by Cook or Palmer, and Palmer applied to Pratt for it. He seems to have wanted 200?., to make up a larger sum, having already 190?. in Pratt’s hands ; andhe offered as security for the advance his friend Mr. Cook, whom he described as a gentleman of respectability and substance. We do not know the exact state of Cook’s affairs at that time. Such a fortune as he had might have been thrown down in a week with the life he was leading ; but a young man who is reckless as to the mode in which he employs his money and has only 13,000?. may for a year or two pass before the world for a man of considerable means. It is not every one who will go to Doctors’ Commons to ascertain the precise amount of property he has inherited. Mr. Cook, of Lutterworth, kept Ms racehorses, lived expensively, was known to have inherited a fortune, and was altogether a person whose friendsMp was of considerable importance to a man like Palmer. Recollect that lam not now de- fending Palmer against the crime of forgery, nor ami defending him against the imputation of reckless improvidence in obtaining money at an enormous discount. But as early as May, 1855, {Palmer and Cook were thus circumstanced. What was their position in November ? The evidence of Pratt, and the cor- respondence wMch he proved, can leave no doubt on our minds upon that subject. Among amass of bills, amounting altogether to 11,500?., there were two, of 2,000?. each, due the last week in October, two others, amounting to 1500?., having become due some time before, but being held over from month to month upon payment by Palmer, who was liable for them, of what was called interest at the rate of 60 per cent. These three sums—2ooo?., 2000?., and 1500?.—were the embarrassments which were pressing upon him in the second week in November, and, be it observed, they were pressed upon Mm by a man who, although he would, doubtless, have been glad to get his principal, would also, upon anything like security, have been very well pleased to continue to receive interest. How can capital, if well secured, be better employed than in returning 40 or 60 per cent ? In this state of things Palmer, in answer to an urgent demand for money, came up to town on the 27th of October. Pratt then insisted that if Palmer could not pay one of the 2000?. bills which had just become due he should pay instalments, in addition to the enormous interest charged upon it, and it was agreed that 250?. should be paid down, 250?. upon the 31st of October, and a further sum of 300?. as soon afterwards as possible, making payment on account of that bill of 800?., to “quiet” Pratt or his client, and to induce him to let the bill stand over. On the 9th of November, the 300?. was paid, and then a letter was written, to which I beg your particular attention. On the 13th of November, the day that Polestar won the race, Pratt wrote to Palmer that the case (“Palmer v. the Prince of Wales Insurance Company”) had been laid before Sir F. Kelly, that in the opinion of several secretaries of insurance offices the company had not a. leg to stand upon, and that the mere fact of the enormous premium would go a great way to get a verdict. The letter concluded, —“I count most positively on seeing you on Saturday. Do, for both our sakes, try and make up the amount to 1000?., for without it I shall be unable to renew the 1500?. due on the 9th.” Pratt had threatened to issue a writ against Palmer’s mother. Palmer had almost gone upon his knees to beg him not to do so, and this letter really meant, “ Unless you give me 200?. more and make up 1000?. a writ shall be served upon your mother.” That letter is written on the 13th of November. Palmer gets it at Rugeley, whither he had gone from the racecourse on the day that Polestar won. What does he do ? He instantly returns to Shrewsbury, gets there on Wednesday, sees Cook. They say he doses him. We will see how probable that is presently. Cook goes to bed in a state I will not describe, gets up next morning much more sensible than he went to bed, goes upon the racecourse, returns with Palmer to Rugeley on the Thursday, goes to bed, gets up next morning still uncomfortable, but able to go and dine with Palmer on that day (Friday). On that day, the 16th of November, Palmer writes to Pratt:— 88 THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMER. “I am obliged to come to Tattersall’s on Monday to the settling, so that I shall not call and see yon before Monday, but a friend of mine will call and leave you 200/. to-morrow, and I will give you the remainder on Monday.” , The person who ordinarily settled Cook’s accounts was a person named Fisher, a wine-merchant in Shoe Lane, who was called first in this case ; and on that very day (the day on which Cook dined with Palmer) Cook writes to him “It is of great importance, both to Mr. Palmer and myself, that a sum of 5001. should be paid to a Mr. Pratt, of 5, Queen Street, Mayfair, to-morrow, without fail. 300/. has been sent up to-night, and if you will be kind enough to pay the other 200/. to-morrow on the receipt of this, youwill greatly oblige me, and I will give it to you on Monday at Tattersall’s.” There is a postscript, which I will read, but upon which I will at present make no observa- tion—“ lam much better.” What is the fair, inference from these letters? J. 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, wheat 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 incumbrance 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 i 1 his difficulties sound1 large, yet*the diffic.ulty 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 authorised 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. Yon 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 sen I. by Palmer to- Pratt on the 19th of 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 2000/. due on the 25th of October, ranking paid to this day the sum of 1300/.” Taking that letter with the one whieh 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 2lst 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 lam 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 heme.” I nless he murdered Cook, that is the truest sentence that ever was penned. SEVENTH DAY, MAY 21, 1856, 89 He watched the bedside of his friend. He was with him night and day. He attended him as a brother. He sailed 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. lam 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 751. 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.” TALBOT INN, EUGELEY. HIE SHOULDER OF MUTTON INN, EUGELEY. 90 THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMER. 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 says 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 Z. on the 2nd of December. ‘ll have written Saunders, informing Mm 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 Z. Now, I will undertake to satisfy you that the transactions out of which that bill for 500 Z. 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 hav.e 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 Z. transaction, the thoery 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 assignmenf 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 3751, in cash, and a wine warrant for 05Z, 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 oppor- tunity 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 check. 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 check. 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 a 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 Z. bill of his. He is a very good and responsible man. Will you do it ? I will put my name to the bill.” Po that it "was represented to Pratt as a transaction for the accommodation of Cook. Pratt’s answer to that is— “lf Mr. Cook chooses to give me security, I have no objection ; but he must execute a bill 0f 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 sue that it is a really valid security. If Cook will do that I will give him 375 Z. in money, and a wine warrant for 65Z.• which, charging 10Z. for expenses, and 50Z. for discount, will make 500 Z.” There can be no doubt that Cook attached great value to Sirius and Polestar, which mare was SEVENTH DAY, MAY 21, 1856. 91 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 check he could for three months have kept Cook in ignorance of the trans- action ? Is it hot probable that Cook’s name was written on the check with his full knowledge and consent ? ‘ It is not suggested that there was any attempt to imitate his handwriting. Is it 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 check which he would not get cashed for a day or' two, took the ready money—3l6/., which Pratt sent at the same time.to Palmer—and that Palmer took the check? On the 6th of September Palmer wrote to Pratt- “I received the check for the 100/., and willthank youto let mehave 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 to you Cook’s papers signed, &e., 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 to 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 check upon London, which he could not immediately change ; and, therefore, Palmer gave him the money and took the check. It is remarkable that, when we look to the banking account of Palmer at Rugeley, we find that the 375/. is paid in by soma- body to his account, but .that the 315/. is not paid in to his account at ajl. 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 check, 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 Dank, 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 pro- bable value which the latter had received for the endorsements and acceptances which he bad 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 check 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 tlffi check, nor would they have cashed it ii they had received information that Cook had died during the night. It actually happened that the check when presented was not paid, because Fraill did not send up the money. Was it probable that Palmer, having got from Cook a check for 380/., would have run the risk of losing his money by destroying him the same night ? It is suggested that he obtained this check fraudulently, and then, lest Cook should detect the fraud, destroyed him. That was G 2 92 not likely to answer Ms 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 5001, bill and the 3501. check 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 THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMER. than this, we know that at the very time Herring held one bill for 5001., and three for 2001; each, to which there were the names of both Palmer ancl Cook, and for all of which, either in the whole or in the 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 se- curity 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. The 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 per- son, who, although she loved her son, did not like and -gaj:e no encouragement to his gambling ; nor did that excellent and most honour- able man who stands by him —his brother, who was es- tranged 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 chymistry. 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 pro- fession 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 MB. WETHERBY, SECRETARY TO THE JOCKEY CLUB. striking as to be the talk of a small neighbourhood like Rngeley 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 recognised 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 SEVENTH DAY, MAY 21, 1856. 93 INSFECTOR FIELD, THE DETECTIVE OFFICER. 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 »o large a sum, were determined to do all they could to resist it. They accordingly sent Inspector Field and his man to btaftord 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 Oook, 94 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 briilg upon his head the suspicion of a murder. The pressure by Pratt upon Palmer to meet the 2000 Z. 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 2nd 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 4000 Z. due at the end of the month.” There was the pinch. The office would not pay, and bills for 4000 Z. were coming due. If anything occurred to increase the suspicions of the office—which was very unwilling to pay- all chance of the 13,000 Z. was lost. That 13,000 Z. is sure to be paid, unless that man (pointing to the prisoner) is convicted of murder. As sure as he is saved, and saved I believe he will be, that 13,000 Z. will be paid. There is no defence—no pretence of a defence. taken was an enormous one, and that 13,000 Z. is good for him and will pay all his creditors. This correspondence of which my learned friend must have taken a view different from any which I can take, but which I am sure he would have put in, whatever had been his view of it—this correspondence saves the prisoner if there is common sense in man. Here is another letter from Pratt to Palmer, dated October the 6th : “I have your note, acknowledging receipt by your mother of the 2000?. acceptance, due the 2nd October. Why not let her acknowledge it herself? You must really not fail to come up at once, if*it be for* the purpose of arranging for the payment of the two bills at the end of the month. Remember I can make no terms for their renewal, and they must be paid. I will of course hold the policy for so much as it is wort])., but in the present position of the affair, no one except your mother, who is liable upon the bills, can look upon it as a security. [That was because Simpson and Field were down there making inquiries.] Do not neglect attending to this, for under a recent act bills of exchange are now recovered in a few days. You know and can appreciate my conduct in avoiding all trouble and annoyance to your mother ; but to that there is a limit. I cannot by any representation be a party to inducing anybody to believe that security exists where there is doubt upon the point. P.S. I cast no doubt upon the capability of the office to pay, but in the nature of things, with so large an amount in question, it is not to be surprised at, if they think they have grounds of objection, they should temporise by delay.” Does not this show that on the 3th of October suspicious were hanging over Palmer’s head, which would come down with irresistible momentum and crush him if there were a suspicion of another violent and sudden death ? Do you think that a man who had written in his manual what were the effects of strychnine, would risk such a scene as that po'son would develop in the presence of the dearest and best friend of Cook, —a man whom he could not influence, —and a medical man, who loved Cook so well as to sleep in the same room with him, that he might be ready to attend him in case he needed assistance ?• Is that common sense? Are you going to enforce such a theory as that which Dr. A. Taylor propounded as to the effects which strychnine produces upon rabbits ? Impossible—perfectly impossible ! I will prove the position in which Palmer stood still more clearly. On the 10th of October Pratt, in a- letter addressed to him, says : “I may add that I hear they (thelnsurance company) have been making inquiries in every direction.” THE TRIAL OF WILLIA M PALMER. To be sure, they had. Field, the detective officer, had been at Stafford, where he could mate inquiries as well as at Rugeley. ‘ ‘ Rnt on what they ground their dissatisfaction is as yet a mystery. In any event no step can be taken to compel payment until after the 4th of December.” It is plain that suspicions were then rife, or that attempts were made to excite suspicions against him with regard to the death of Walter Palmer. On the 18th of October Piatt enclosed to Palmer a letter from the solicitor of the company, stating that the directors had determined upon declining to pay the amount claimed ; but that, although the facts disclosed in the course of their inquiries would have warranted their retention of the premiums which had been paid, they were prepared to refund them to any one who might be shown to be legally entitled to them. Palmer determined that the money should be paid ; and a case was laid before Sir Fitzroy Kelly. If anything happened to Cook by foul play he had no more chance of receiving this 13,000?. than of obtaining 130,000?. From all this I infer, not only that Palmer had no interest in Cook’s death, but that be had a direct pecuniary interest in his living. I think it is impossible that I should be so much mistaken as that a considerable portion of what I have advanced should not SEVENTH DAY, MAY 21, 1856. 95 be.worthy of your attention ; and I therefore submit to you, to the Court, and to my learned friend, that the case as to this supposed motive for the crime has failed. We now proceed to the facts of the case, and in considering them it will be necessary to group them without entire reference to dates. I will first inquire whether the symptoms with which Cook was attacked, and the appearances presented by his body after death were consistent with the theory of his having died by strychnia poison, and inconsistent with that of his having died from gome natural causes. It is under this head that I shall discuss, I hope not unduly, the medical evidence in this case, and present to you such observations as occur to me on the witnesses who have been called to support the view which the Crown takes of the effect of that medical testimony. Cook died at 1 o’clock in the morning of Wednesday, November 21, in the presence of Jones. It was no sooner light than Jones posted to town and saw his stepfather, Mr. Stevens. Mr. Stevens went down to Rugeley and was introduced to Palmer. Palmer went with him to the Talbot Arms, and uncovered the corpse—a bold thing to do if he had murdered him. The body was so little emaciated or affected by disease that Stevens wondered if he could be dead ; but he observed some little rigidity about the muscles. Stevens’s suspicions were roused ; he as’ked Palmer to dinner, questioned him about the betting-book, got angry that it was not produced, dissembled with Palmer, cross-examined him, went up to town, met him at Euston- square, again at Wolverton, at Rugby, and at Rugeley. At last he gave him to understand that he suspected him and intended to probe the whole matter to the bottom. He resolved to have a post mortem examination, and that examination took place. The appearances presented by the body after death were such as might have been anticipated by those who were acquainted with Ms course of life, his general health, his pursuits, and, not to say anything hard of him, Ms vice, and the drinking, racing company wMch he kept. His father had died at 80 years of age, Ms mother about the same age, a few years after her second marriage ; his sister was dead ; and he Mmself was affected by a pulmonary disorder. Cook had been suffering for a long time from a sore throat, and bore about him all the signs and indications of having led a licentious life. Indeed, he appears to have been about as dissipated a young man as can well be imagined. Ido not mean to say that he was utterly depraved, or that he was lost to all sense of honour and pro- priety ; but it does not admit of doubt that his manner of living was wild, riotous, and extra- vagant. His complaints indicated his excesses, and he was avowedly addicted to pursuits the reverse cif commendable. When his body was opened there was evidences of a soreness of the tongue. I do not go the length of saying that there was anything to lead to the inference that there was an actual sore at the time of deatn, but there were follicles and symptoms, if not of a recent, certainly of a not very remote ulcer. The inside of the mouth had been ulcerated, and the skin taken off on both sides. There is abundant evidence to show that Cook was himself of opinion that these symptoms were syphilitic. He could scarcely be persuaded to obey the instructions of Dr. Savage, the respectable and very competent physician whom he consulted, and, though it is admitted that he was not “fool enough to go to quack doctors,” it is very certain that he was weak enough to follow the counsels of every medical man who would venture to give Mm advice when it coincided with Ms own opinion, that mercury, was the best thing for Ms complaint. The spotr which are the fatal characteristics of his dreadful malady had already made their appearance on Ms body, and he was haunted by the apprehension that some day, as he was running about the race-course, his face would be suddenly covered over with copper blotches, which would leave no doubt on the minds of those who saw them as to the true nature of his disease. Many a man similarly affected has retrieved his position, redeemed his character, and become a virtuous member of society. Far be it from me, then, to say one word that would press with undue severity on the memory of the dead ; but no false delicacy shall deter me from the discharge of my duty ; and I make these remarks not in an unkind or censorious spirit, but for the sake of truth, and because the state of Cook’s health is a most important element in this inquiry. It is certain that it was Ms own opinion that he was suffering from virulent syphilis, and in this opinion the medical men who originally attended him did not hesitate to concur. That he did not correct his habits is evident from the fact that within a recent period of his death he had again become diseased. When his body was opened on the second examination, there were found between the delicate membrane which the spinal marrow covers and is called the arachnoid, and embedded to some extent in the next covering, not so delicate, termed the dura mater, granules about one inch in extent; and I will satisfy you, upon the evidence of witnesses whose authority will not be questioned, that if the body had been opened in the dead-house of any hospital in this metropolis, those granules would have been regarded as symptoms affording conclusive explanation of the cause of death. Such, then, was the condition of Cook’s health—a condition but partially and imperfectly revealed by the first post mortem examination. That examination was not conducted with the same minuteness and precision that circumstances rendered necessary on a subsequent occasion, and the syphilitic disease was neither ascertained nor suspected. The stomach was taken out, and you have heard the suggestion, which, were it not that the Court has ruled it to be of no significance, I should have been prepared to disprove, that Palmer attempted THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMER. SEVENTH DAY, MAY 21, 1856. SCENE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GRIMI#2 COURT, DURING PALMER’S TRIAL. 98 to interfere with the operation by shoving against the medical man engaged in it. The inference sought to bo deduced was, that some of the stomach escaped from the jar ; but we have the evidence of Dr. Devonshire himself that such was not the fact. None of it did escape, and it was sent up in its entirety to London, there to be analysed by Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees. Those gentlemen examined it with the knowledge that, owing to the report of Palmer having purchased a fatal drug from Mr. Roberts on the day of the death, there was a suspicion of foul play. Mr. Stevens talked of the fact to Dr. Taylor, and, with the consciousness of it on his mind, that gen- tleman wrote a letter attributing the death to antimony. [Dr. Taylor intimated dissent. ] Well, if the letter is not to be so understood, it is at all events susceptible of this interpretation—that the death may have been caused by antimony. Dr. Taylor attends the coroner’s inquest, which, in all probability, is held in consequence of his own letter. He hears the evidence of J ones, Roberts, and Mills, and it is but natural to presume that these are the witnesses whose testimony has the greatest influence on his opinion. He forms his judgment on the evidence of, chambermaids, waitresses, and housekeepers, and contrary to the opinion of the medical man who attended Cook in his last illness (for be it remembered he had no encouragement from Mr.' Jones, the surgeon, of Lutterworth, a man of age and character to form a sound decision on the case) ;he comes boldly and at once to the conclusion that his original notion about antimony having been the cause of death was a mistake, and then he has the incredible imprudence—an imprudence which has necessitated this trial, or at all events rendered it necessary that it should tdfce place in this form and place—to declare upon his oath to the coroner’s jury that he believes that the pills given to Cook on the Monday and Tuesday contained strychnine, and that Cook was consequently poisoned. That evidence of his is carried on the wings of the press into every house in the united kingdom. It becomes known throughout the length and breadth of the land that Dr. Taylor, a man who has devoted his life to science, a man of the highest personal character, and who stands well with his medical friends, has declared—not as a conjectural opinion, mark you; nor as & reserved opinion delivered in a private room to a few men whose dis- cretion might be relied on—but, that in the public room of a public inn, in a little village where everything that occurs is known, he has declared upon his solemn oath that it is his belief that Cook died because pills containing strychnine were administered to him on the nights of Monday and Tuesday. He had himself failed to discover the faintest traces of strychnine, yet, at the coroner’s inquest he had the hardihood to declare his conviction that the pills contained strychnine, and that Cook died of them. His evidence is neither consis- tent with itself nor with the opinion of Mr. Jones. He takes upon him to pronounce posi- tively, in the face of the world, that Cook’s disease was nothing else than tetanus, and tetanus, too, of the kind that can be produced by poison only, and that poison strychnine. Such was Dr. Taylor’s testimony ; and on such testimony the coroner’s jury returned their verdict. But, merciful Heaven ! in what position are we placed for the safety of our own lives and those of our families, if, on evidence such as this, men are to be put upon their trial for foul murder as often as a sudden death occurs in any household !If science is to be allowed to come and dogmatise in our courts—and not science that is successful in its operations or exact in its nature, but science that is baffled by its own tests, and bears upon its forehead the motto, “A little learning is a dangerous thing”—if, I say, science such as this is to be suffered to dogmatise in our courts, and to utter judgments which its own processess fail to vindicate, life is no longer secure, and there is thrown upon judges and jurymen a weight of responsibility too grievous for human nature to endure. _ If Dr. Taylor had detected the poison by his own tests, he, with his long experience in toxicological studies, would have been an excellent witness for the Crown-; but he has not found the poison, and not having seen the patient, and knowing nothing of his death- bed symptoms beyond what he gathered from the evidence of an ignorant servant girl, and of Mr. Jones, whose testimony does not show that he agrees with him in opinion, Dr. Taylor thinks himself justified in declaring upon his oath in public court that the pills contained strychnine, and that Cook was poisoned. If verdicts are to be moulded on testimony sudh as this, what medical practitioner is safe ? On what ground does Dr. Taylor vindicate his opinion ?He does not appear to have ever seen one solitary case of strychnine in the human subject, yet, with the full knowledge that the consequences of his assertion might be disastrous to the prisoner at the bar, he has the audacity to assert that the pills, which, for anything he knows to the contrary, were the same that Dr. Bamford prepared, contained strychnine, and that Cook was poisoned by it. I have quoted the sentiment “ A little learning is a dangerous thing,” and assuredly to no science is that maxim so applicable as to the medical. Of all God’s works there is no other which so eloquently attests our entire dependence on Him and our own utter nothingness as that mortal coil in which we live, and breathe, and have our being. We are struck with amazement as we contemplate it. We feel, we see, we hear; yet the instant that we attempt to give a reason for these sensations our path is crossed by the mystery of creation, and all we know is that God created man—that he is our Omnipotent Maker and we the work of His hands. Yet we fancy that we can penetrate all mysteries, and there are no bounds to our arrogance. There has been much talk THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMER. SEVENTH DAY, MAY 21, 1856. 99 in this inquiry of the two kinds of tetanus—idiopathic’ and traumatic. Dr. Todd, urged by the Court to explain the former, described it as “constitutional.” Perhaps “self-generating” would have done as well, but let that pass. But how is our knowledge advanced by translating “idiopathic” as constitutional? It is easy to give an English translation of that Grreeek compound, but the thing is to explain what the translation means. What is the meaning of the phrase “constitutional tetanus ?” Lord Campbell. —Tetanus not occasioned by external injury. Mr. Serjeant Skee.—Just so, my Lord, or in other words, tetanus not referable to any known cause. But, in truth, idiopathic means in a general sense “unaccountable.” Not that consti- tutional tetanus is always and invariably so, but that cases of tetanus do continually occur of which you can only suspect the cause and attribute it by hypothesis to a “cold,” or some other vague accident. In such cases you say that the disease is idiopathic, not traumatic. The Crown will have it that Cook’s was the tetanus of poison, but it is almost an assumption to say that it was tetanus at all. That he died of convulsions, or immediately after them, is certain, and that they were convulsions similar to those from which he suffered on the preceding night is beyond all doubt. But what pretence is there for positively asserting that they were tetanus at all ? The evidence of Mr. Jones fairly interpreted cannot be construed otherwise than as intimating an impression that they were convulsions that partook of a tetanic character. That might be, and yet the malady might not be tetanus. It is bad reasoning—most defective logic—to argue without positive proof of the fact that the disease was tetanus, and no other tetanus in the world than that pro- duced by poison. Following the trail dragged for them by the toxicologists, the Crown have thought proper to impute the death of this man to the poison of strychnine. It is for them to prove the fact. We contest it, but it by no means follows that we should be bound to explain the death on other grounds. If we can satisfy you that this man was assailed by any one of the numerous kinds of convulsions to which humanity is liable, and that he was asphyxiated or deprived of life when writhing in some sudden spasm or paroxysm, we shall have done all that can in fairness be demanded of us, unless, indeed, the Grown shall be prepared to prove that Cook’s symptoms were irreconcileable with any other doctrine than of death by strychnine. This they have not done and cannot do. I propose to call your attention to the statements of the witnesses Mills and J ones with respect to the symptoms they observed in Cook on the evenings of Monday and Tuesday, and, having done so, I will submit to your candid judgment whether those symptoms may not be more naturally accounted for by attributing them to convulsions which are not tetanic at all, and most assuredly not tetanic in the distinctive character of strychnine, but which may rather be classed under those ordinary convulsions by means of which it constantly pleases Providence to strike men down without leaving upon their bodies the faintest indications from which the cause of death may be inferred. You have it on the authority of medical men of the highest distinction that it sometimes occurs that men in the prime of life and full vigour of health are smitten to death by convulsions that leave no trace upon the body of the sufferer. The statements, of Mills and Jones are such as to render it unnecessary to resort to the hypothesis of any kind of tetanus, much less to that of strychnine, in accounting for the death of Cook. Regard being had to the delicate state of his health, and to the continually recurring derangements of his constitution, it is far safer to conclude that he died of ■ ordinary' convulsions than of any description of tetanus, whether traumatic, idiopathic, or that produced by poison. Nor must we omit to inquire into the state of his mind. He went to Shrewsbury races in the imminent peril of returning from them a ruined man. His father-in- law, Mr. Stevens, assured Palmer that there would not be four thousand shillings for those who had claims on his estate. From the necessity he was under of raising money at an enormous discount, we may easily infer that he was in desperate difficulties, and that, unless some sudden success on the turf should retrieve his fortunes, his case was hopeless. His health shattered, his mind distracted, he had long been cherishing the hope that “Polestar” would win, and so put him in possession of a sum amounting, in stakes and winnings, to something like a thousand guineas. The mare, it is true, was hardly his own, for she had been mortgaged, and if she should lose, she would become the property of another person. Picture to yourselves what must have been the condition, mental and bodily, of that young man when he rose from his bed on the morning of the races. It is scarcely possible that, as he went down to breakfast, this thought must not have crossed his mind, ‘‘ My fate is trembling in the balance; this is the crisis of my destiny ; unless my horse shall win, and give me one chance more of recovering myself, to-night I am a beggar.” With these feelings he repairs to the race-course. Another race is run before “Polestar” is brought out. His impatience is extreme. He looks on in a state of agonising excitement. Will the minutes never fly ?At last arrives the decisive moment. The time has arrived for his race. The flag is dropped ; the horses start; his mare wins easily, and he, her master, has won a thousand guineas ! For three minutes he is not able to speak, so intense is his emotion. Slowly he recovers his utterance, and then how rapturous is his joy !He is saved, he is saved ! Another chance to retrieve his position, one chance more to recover his character ! 100 THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMER. As yet, at all events, he will not he a disgrace to his family and his friends. Conceive him to he, with all his faults, an honourable young man, and you may easily imagine what his ecstacy must have been. He loves the memory of his dead mother—-he* still reverences the name of his father —he is jealous of his sister’s honour, and it may he that he cherishes silently in his heart the thought of some other being dearer still than all, to whom the story of his ruin would bring bitter anguish. But he is not ruined ;he will meet his engagements like an honourable man. There is now no danger of his being an outcast, an adventurer, a black-leg. He will live to redeem his position, and to give joy to those who love him. With such thoughts in his heart, he returns to his inn in a state of indescribable elation, and with a revulsion from despair that must have convulsed—though not in the sense of illness—every fibre of his frame. His first idea is to entertain his friends, and he does so. The evidence does not prove that he drank to excess, but he gave a champagne dinner, and we all know that is a luxurious entertainment, at which there is no stint, and not much self- respect. That evening he did not spend in the society of Palmer; indeed it is not clear in whose company he spent it. But we find him on the evening of Wednesday at the “ Unicorn,” with Saunders, his trainer, and a lady. On Thursday he walks upon the course, and Herring remonstrates with him for doing so, as the day is damp and misty, and the ground wet. That night he is seized with illness, and he continues ailing until his death at Rugeley. Arrived at Rugeley, it is but natural to suppose that a reaction of feeling may have set in. Then the dark side of the picture may have presented itself to his imagination. The chilling thought may have come upon him that his winnings were already forestalled, and would scarcely suffice to save him from destruction. It is when suffering from a weakened body, and an irritated and excited mind, that he is attacked by a sickness which clings to his system, leaves him without any rest, incapacitates him from taking food, distracts his nerves, and places him in imminent danger of falling victim to. any sudden attack of convulsions to which he may have a predisposition. He relished no society so much as that of Palmer, whose residence was immediately opposite the Talbot Arms Inn, where he was lying on his sick bed. For two nights he had been taking opiate pills prescribed by Dr. Bamford. On Sunday night, at 12 o’clock, he started as from a dream in a state of the utmost excitement and alarm. He admitted afterwards that for two minutes he was mad, but he could not ascribe it to anything unless to his having been awakened by a squabble in the street. But do no such things happen to people of sound constitutions and regular habits ? Do no such people awaken in agony and delirium because there is a noise under their windows ? No, these are the afflictions of the dissipated and the anxious, whose bodies are shattered and whose minds are distracted. Next day, Monday, he was pretty well, but not so well as to mount his horse, or to take a walk in the fields. He could converse with his trainer and jockey, but he took no substantial food, and drank not a drop of brandy-and-water." You will bear in mind that Palmer was not with him that day. In the middle of the night he was seized with an attack similar in character to that of the night preceding, but manifestly much milder, for he retained his consciousness throughout it, and was not mad for a moment. The evidence of Elizabeth Mills is conclusive on the point. [The learned Serjeant read some passages from the deposition of the witness in question.] At 3 o’clock on the following day (Tuesday) Mr. Jones, the surgeon of Lutterworth, arrived, and spent a considerable time—probably from 3to 7 o’clock—in his company. They had abundant opportunity for conversing confidentially, and they were likely to have done so, for they were very intimate, and Jones appears to have been on more familiar terms with Cook than was any other person, not even excepting Mr. Stevens. Nothing occurred, in the entire and unbounded confidence wffiich must have existed between Mr. Cook and Mr. Jones, to raise any suspicions in the mind of Mr. Jones ; and at the consultation which took place between 7 and 8 o’clock on Tuesday evening between Jones, Palmer, and Bamford, as to what the medicine for that evening should be, the fit of the Monday night was not mentioned. That is a remarkable fact. The Crown may say that it is remarkable, inasmuch as Palmer knew it, and said not a word about it; but I think that it shows that the fit was so little serious in the opinion of Cook, that he did not think it worth mentioning to his intimate friend Jones. If Cook had not given to Elizabeth Mills a rather exaggerated description of what had occurred, would he not have said to Mr. Jones, when he came from Lutterworth to see him, "You can’t judge of my condition from my appearance now, for I was in a state of perfect madness over night, and in fact I thought that I was going to die ? ” Evidently he would have said something of that sort, and if he had Mr. Jones would have mentioned it at the consultation. My inference, then, is that the first statement which was made by Elizabeth Mills, was the correct of what occurred. Palmer, in the presence of Jones, administered two pills to Mr. Cook, which it is supposed poisoned him—which contained a substance which sometimes does its deadly work in a quarter of an hour—which has done it in less, and which rarely exceeds half an hour ; and we are asked to believe that, in spite of Cook’s objecting in the presence of his friend to take the pills, Palmer positively farced them down his throat at the imminent peril of the man falling down in a few minutes in convulsions evidently tetanic. As in the course of the examination of SEVENTH DAY, MAY 21, 1856. 101 Mr. Jones the word “tetanus” was used, it is right that I should say a word upsn that sub- ject. The word “ tetanus ”is not in his deposition; but I tell you what is in it, and it is one of the most remarkable features in this case, because it shows how people, when they get a theory into their heads, will fag that theory, how they will stretch it to the very utmost, and make it fit into the exact place in which they wish to put it. We have it now in the evidence of Dr. Taylor that at the inquest he sat next to Mr. Deane, the attorney’s clerk, and sug- gested the questions which it was necessary in his judg- ment to put in order to elicit the truth as to the symptoms of Mr. Cook's disease. Now, fancy Dr. Taylor, who had had a letter telling him that there was a suspicion of strychnine, and who had all but made up his mind at that time ts state positively upon oath his opinion that the pills given on Monday and Tues- day nights contained strych- nine ; fancy The Attorney-General,— I am sorry that my learned friend should be misled upon a matter of fact; but lam told that Dr. Taylor was not present when Mr. Jones was examined. Mr. Serjeant Shee con- tinued.—Then the observa- tions which I was about to make do not apply; and all I can say is, that Mr. Jones DR. BAMFORD, OF RUGELEY. had probably in his mind’s eye when he gave that evidence, a recollection of what he had seen on the Tuesday night. He could not have seen very accurately, however, for he said that there was only one candle in the room, and that he had not light enough to see the patient’s face, and that he could not tell whether there was much change in the countenance of the deceased—a very important fact when the doctors all say that Cook’s disease cannot have been traumatic tetanus, because there is always a peculiar expression of the countenance in those cases, which was not observable in Cook. However, Mr. Jones, who is a com- petent professional man, gave his evidence, and it is quite clear that the notion of tetanus must have entered into his mind, because I find in the depositions that the coroner’s clerk first put down “ tetanus ; ” and the probability, I think, is, that the disease did occur to Mr. Jones at the time, and that he used the word, because the clerk never could have invented it. Then “tetanus” is struck out; then the word “convulsions” is written, and also struck out; and, as the sentence stands, it is, “There were strong symptoms of violent convulsions.” What is the fair inference from that ? Why, that the man who saw Cook in this paroxysm did not think himself justified in saying that it was a tetanic convulsion at all, though it was very like tetanus. Now, I will just call your attention to the features of general convulsions as described in cross-examination by the medical witnesses, in order to show that the convulsions of which Cook died were not tetanic, properly speaking, but were of that strong and irregular kind which cannot be classed under the head of tetanus, either traumatic or idiopathic, but under the head of general convulsions. I propose upon this part of the case to read an extract from the work of Dr. Copland, which will enable you to judge whether Cook’s complaint bears a greater resemblance to general convulsions than to traumatic tetanus or strychnine tetanus. Before doing so, however, I would observe that the only persons who can be supposed to know anything of tetanus not traumatic are physicians, and that not one of that most honourable class of men (who see the attacks of patients in their beds, and not in the hospital) has been called by the Crown, with the exception of Dr. Todd, who is a most respectable man, and who gave his evidence in such a way as to command the respect of every one ; but even his practice appears to be not so 102 THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMER. much that of a physician as of a surgeon. I am instructed that I shall he able to show by the most eminent men in the profession that the description which I ain about to read from Dr. Copland’s book, the Dictionary of Practical Medicine, is the true description of general con- vulsions. In that book I find the following, under the head of “ Convulsions :” “Definition.—-Violent and involuntary contractions of a part or of the whole of the body, sometimes with rigidity and tension (tonic convulsions), but more frequently with tumultuous agitations, consisting of alternating shocks (clonic convulsion's) that come on suddenly, either in recurring or in distant paroxysms, and after irregular and uncertain intervals.” The article then goes on : “ If we take the character of the spasm in respect of permanency, rigidity, relaxation, and recurrence as a basis of arrangement of all the diseases attended by abnormal action of voluntary muscles, we shall have every grade, passing imperceptibly from the most acute-form of tetanus through cramp, epilepsy, eclampsia, convulsions, &c., down to the most atonic states of chorea and tremor.” As to the premonitory symptoms, it says : “ The premonitory signs of general convulsions are (inter alia), vertigo and dizziness, irritability of temper, flushings, or alternate flushing and paleness of the face, nausea, retching or vomiting, or pain and distension of stomach and left hypochondrium, unusual flatulence df the stomach and bowels, or other dyspeptic symptoms.” In further describing these convulsions the article says ; ‘‘ In many instances the general sensibility and consciousness are but very slightly impaired, particularly in the more simple cases, and when the proximate cause is not seated in the ence- phalon ; but in proportion as this part is affected primarily or consecutively, and the neck and face tumid and livid, the cerebral functions are obscured, and the convulsions attended by stupor, deliriurf, &c., or-rapidly pass into, or are followed by these states.” Then, it adds : “ The paroxysm may cease in a few moments or minutes, or continue for some or even many hours. It generally subsides rapidly, the patient experiencing at its termination, fatigue, head- ache, or stupor ; but he is usually restored in a short time to the same state as before the seizure, which is liable to recur in a person once, affected, but at uncertain intervals. After repeated attacks the fit sometimes becomes periodic (the convulsio recurrens of authors).” And, in detailing the origin of these convulsions it says :—■ “ The most common causes are (inter alia) all emotions of the mind which excite the nervous power and determine the blood to the head, as joy, anger,' religious enthusiasm, excessive desire, &c., or those which greatly depress the nervous influence, as well as diminish and derange the actions of the heart, as fear, terror, anxiety, sadness, distressing intelligence, frightful dreams, &c.—the syphilitic poison and repulsion of gout or rheumatism.” Do you believe, if Dr. Taylor had read that before the inquest, that he would have dared to say that the man died from strychnine ? Is there one single symptom in the statement made in the depositions by Elizabeth Mills and Mr. Jones which may not be classed under one of the varieties of convulsions which Dr. Copland describes ? It is not for me to suggest a theory : but the gentlemen whom I shall call before you—men of the highest eminence in their profession, and not mere hospital surgeons, who have seen nothing of this nature but traumatic tetanus—will tell you that Mr. Cook’s symptoms were those of general convulsions, and not of tetanus. My belief is—and I hope you will confirm it by your verdict—that Mr. Cook’s complaint was not tetanus at all, although it may well have been— according to the descriptions to which I shall call your attention—some form of traumatic or idiopathic tetanus, there being no broad, general distinction or certain confine between idiopathic, or self-generating tetanus, and many forms of convulsions. The tetanic form of convulsions is pretty much the same thing as idiopathic tetanus; and when we are told by medical witnesses that they never saw a case of idiopathic tetanus, my answer to that is that they must have had very limited experience. It is not a disease of very frequent occurrence, it is true ; but there are gentlemen here who have seen cases of idiopathic tetanus, and they are by no means of that rare occurrence which has been represented to you by the witnesses for the prosecution. There is one gentleman here, of very large practice at Leeds, whom I shall call before you, who attended at the bedside of Mrs. Dove, who has himself seen four cases of idiopathic tetanus. Traumatic tetanus very frequently occurs in hospitals in fact, it often supervenes upon the operations of the surgeon ; but the persons to give you correct information upon idiopathic tetanus are the general practitioners who enjoy the confidence of families, and who have the opportunity of visiting at their dwellings, both rich and poor, when they are attacked by any of those convulsive diseases or fits which heads of families and brothers and sisters are so careful not to disclose to the world at large. Dr. Watson is a general practitioner, and he says in his Lectures on the Principles and Practice of Physic, that most cases of tetanus may be traced to one of two causes—which are, exposure to the cold, SEVENTH DAY, MAY 21, 1856. 103 or sudden alternations of temperature, and bodily injury. “It has been known to arise,” he says, “from causes so slight as these,—the sticking of a fish-bone in the fauces, the air caused by a musket shot, the stroke of a whip-lash under the eye, leaving the skin unbroken, the cutting of a corn, the biting of the finger by a tame sparrow, the blow of a stick on the neck, the inser- tion of a seton, the extraction of a tooth, the injection of a hydrocele, and the operation of cupping.” He goes on to say that when the disease arises from exposure to the cold or damp it comes on earlier Than on other occasions—often in a few hours—so that if the exposure takes place in the night the complaint may begin to manifest itself next morning. He also says that although tetanus may be occasioned by a wound, independently of exposure to cold, or of expo- sure to cold without bodily injury, there is good reason for thinking that in many instances one of the causes would fail to produce it where both together would call it forth. Dr. Watson adds that, although the pathology of tetanus is obscure, we may fairly come to the conclusion that the symptoms are the result of some peculiar condition of the spinal cord, produced and kept up by irritation of the substance, and that the brain is not involved in the disease ; the modern French writers upon the disease hold that it is an inflammable complaint, and that it consists essentially of inflammation of the spinal marrow. Now, who shall say that those symptoms which were spoken to on the day of the inquest by Elizabeth Mills and Mr. Jones may not be ranged under one of those forms of tetanus ? Idiopathic tetanus is so like general convulsions that in many cases it cannot be distinguished from them; and to such an extent is this so that Dr. Copland states that convulsions frequently assume a tetanic appearance. It is true that traumatic tetanus begins in four cases out of five by a seizure of the lower jaw; but then in the fifth case it does not so commence ; and Sir B. Brodie mentions two instances in which it began in the limb which was wounded. Now, having gone so far, and having endeavoured to satisfy you that the symptoms which were spoken to by those two witnesses in their depositions may be, as I am told and instructed that they are, rather referable to a violent description of general convulsions than to any form of tetanus, let us proceed to inquire whether or not the symptoms are consistent with what we know of tetanus produced by strychnine; because, if you shall be satisfied, upon full investigation, that they are not consistent with the symptoms which are the unquestionable result of strychia tetanus, then the hypothesis of the Crown entirely fails, and John Parsons Cook can’t have died of strychnine poison. Whether that be so or not will depend in a great degree, as it strikes me—although, of course, that will be for you to decide—upon what you think of the evidence of Elizabeth Mills ; but, before Igo to that evidence, I will call your attention ,to the description of strychnia tetanus as given by two very eminent gentlemen, Dr. Taylor and Dr. Christison, who were called for the Crown the other day ; and, if you find from their description that strychnia tetanus is a different thing from the picture first given of the attack and paroxysms by Elizabeth Mills and Mr. Jones, you will, I think, have great difficulty in determining that Mr. Cook died from strychnine. Let us first take Dr. Taylor’s description of strychnia tetanus. lam not sure whether he stated that he had ever seen a case of strychnia tetanus in a human subject; but we must be just to Dr. Taylor. He has had large and extensive reading on the subject on which he writes, and it is not to be supposed that he has set down in his book what he has not found established upon respectable authority. Therefore, although we have it second hand in the book, we must suppose that Dr. Taylor knows something of the subject. In his work upon strychnia poisoning, Dr. Taylor says, “that in from 5.t0 20 minutes after the poison has been swallowed the patient is suddenly seized with tetanic symptons affecting the whole of the muscular system, the body becoming rigid, the limbs stretched out, and the jaws so fixed that considerable difficulty is experienced in introducing anything into the mouth.” But according to the statement of the witnesses, Mr. Cook was sitting up in bed, beating the bedclothes, talking, frequently telling the people about him to go for Palmer, asking for “the remedy,” and ready to swallow whatever was given him. There was no “ considerable difficulty in introducing anything into the mouth,” and the paroxysm, instead of beginning within “from 5 to 20 minutes after the poison was supposed to have been swallowed,” did not begin for an hour and a-half afterwards. Dr. Taylor further on states, ‘ ‘ After several such attacks, increasing in severity, the patient dies asphyxiated.” Now I submit, although there are some of these symptoms in this case, as there will be in every case of violent convulsions, that this is not a description of the case of John Parsons Cook. The other medical authority to whom I said I should refer, is Dr. Christison. He says that the symptoms produced by strychnine are very uncommon and striking—the animal begins to tremble, and is seized with stiffness and a starting of the limbs. Those symptoms increase, till at length the animal is attacked hy general spasms. The fit is then succeeded hy au interval of calm, during which the senses are impaired or are unnaturally acute; but another paroxysm soon sets in, and then another and another, until at last a fit occurs more violent than any that had preceded it, and the animal perishes suffocated. Now, who can say that that description at all tallies with the account of Mr. Cook’s symptojos? I know exactly what Dr. Christison means .by this THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMER. description, because I have had the advantage of having had several experiments performed in my presence by Dr. Letheby, which enable me to understand it. One of those experiments was this :—A dog had a grain of strychnine pnt into his mouth, and for about 20 or 25 minutes he remained perfectly well. Suddenly he fell down upon his side, and his legs were stretched out in a most violent way. He was as stiff as it was possible to be. In that state the dog remained, with an occasional jerk, for two or three minutes. In a short time he recovered and got up, but he appeared to be dizzy and uncomfortable, and was afraid to move. If you touched him he shrunk and twitched, and after another minute down he went again. He got up again and fell down again, and at last he had a tremendous struggle, and then he died. That is what Dr. Christison means by his description. If the dose had not been sufficient to kill the dog it would have been longer in producing an effect; the paroxysms would have occurred at more distant intervals, and they would have been less and less severe until the animal- recovered. But if the dose be strong enough to kill, the interval between the paroxysms is short, and at last one occurs which is strong enough to kill. Just before the animal dies the limbs become as supple and free as it is possible to conceive the limbs of an animal to be. Whichever way you put the limbs of the animal after it is quite dead, the rigor mortis comes on after a time, and they remain in any position in which they are placed. I saw an experiment performed also upon two rabbits. The symptoms were substantially the same ; the limbs of both of them*were quite flaccid immediately upon death; and during the intervals between the paroxysms the animals shuddered and were extremely “touchy.” Now, gentlemen, I will give you my reasons for saying that, according to their own principles, as adduced in evidence by the Crown, Mr. Cook’s death cannot have resulted from strychnia poison. I object to the theory of it having resulted from strychnia poison—first, on the ground that no case can be found in the books in which, while the paroxysms lasted, the patient had so much command over the muscles of animal life and voluntary motion as Mr. Cook had upon Monday and Tuesday night. The evidence is that he was sitting up in his bed beating the bedclothes, calling out, and that so far from being afraid of people touching him, he actually asked to have his neck rubbed; and it was rubbed. I now come to the next reason why we say that death in this case did not result from strychnia poison; and I assert that there is no authentic case of tetanus from strychnine in which the paroxysm was delayed so long after the ingestion of the poison as it was in Mr. Cook’s case. Dr. Taylor says, in page 74 of his book, that in from 6 to 20 minutes after the poison has been swallowed the tetanie symptoms commence ; and then, in support of this statement, he proceeds to cite a number of cases. One young lady was “instantly deprived of the power of walking, and fell down.” In the next case, which was that of a girl, “tetanic symptoms came on in half an hour.” The next is a German case, taken from the Lancet, and there a young man, aged 17, was “ attacked in about a quarter of an hour.” Then there is the case of Dr. Warner, who took half a grain of sulphate of strychnine, and died in 15 minutes. Then there is the case of a young woman who took two or three drachms of mix vomica, and died in between 30 and 40 minutes. Another case is given by Dr. Watson in his book, which he himself observed in the Middlesex Hospital, where strychnine pills intended for paralytic patients were taken by mistake. One-twelfth of a grain was intended to be administered every six hours ; but unluckily a whole grain was given at one time, about 7 o’clock in the evening, and in half an hour it began to exhibit its effects. Dr. Watson says, that “any attempt at movement—even touching the patient by another person— brought on a recurrence of the symptoms.” It is clear, then, from all these cases, that the interval which elapsed between the supposed ingestion of the poison and the commencement of the paroxysm was much too long—three times too long to warrant the supposition that strychnia poison had been taken in this case. Thirdly, I submit—and I shall prove—that there is no case in which the recovery from a paroxysm of strychnine poison has been so rapid as it was in Cook’s case upon Monday night, or in which a patient has endured so long an interval of repose or exemption from its symptoms afterwards. In this case of Mr. Cook, according to the theory of the Crown, the paroxysms would not have been repeated at all if a second dose had not been given. There was an end of it when Elizabeth Mills left Palmer sleeping by the side of his friend in an arm chair; how easy would it have been then, if he had been so disposed, to administer another dose, and to have hurried into Elizabeth Mills’s room and called out that Cook was in another fit ? Dr. Taylor says in his book that the patient is suddenly seized with spasms affecting the whole system, and that after several such attacks increasing in severity the patient dies asphyxiated. Dr. Christison holds precisely the same language; but I submit that here there is a broad distinction between the case of Cook and that which these gentlemen state to be the distinguishing feature of the disease. I now oome to the post mortem examination. Dr. Letheby was good enough to dig up from his garden, in order that I might see it, an animal which had been killed by strychnine with a view to this inquiry a month before, and to examine the heart before me. The heart of that animal was quite full. The heart also of the dog that was killed in my presence was quite full, and so were the hearts of both the rabbits that I saw killed. Now, lam told by a SEVENTH DAY, MAY 21, 1856. 105 gentleman whom I shall call before you, who is not afraid of clogs—and remember that this is rather a matter for experiment than of theory—l am told that the result of an enormously large proportion of such examinations—and, indeed, of all of them if they be properly conducted—is, that the heart is invariably full. At the same time, I am told that if the examiners do the thing clumsily they may contrive to get an empty heart. If there be any doubt in your minds, however, as to the heart being full in these cases, I hope that some morning you will desire that a reasonable number of animals should be brought into one of the yards here, and that you will see them die by strychnine, and examine their hearts and form an opinion for your- selves. I have now discussed what may be said to be the theory of these matters ; but I have not yet met the strong point which was made by the Crown of the evidence of Elizabeth Mills. I, upon all occasions, am most reluctant to attack a witness who is examined upon his or her oath, and particularly if he be in a humble position of life. lam very reluctaut to impute perjury to such a person ; and I think that a man who has been as long in the profession as I have been, must, in most cases be put a little to his wits’ end when he rushes upon the assumption that a person whose statements have, after a considerable lapse of time, materially varied, is therefore necessarily deliberately perjured. The truth is, we know perfectly well that if a considerable interval of time occurs between the first story and the second story, and if the intelligent and respectable persons who are anxious to investigate the truth, but who still have a strong moral conviction—-upon imperfect information—of the guilt of an accused person, will talk to witnesses and say, “Was there anything of this kind?” or “anything of that kind ?” the witnesses at last catch hold of the phrase or term which has been so often used to them, and having in that way adopted it, they fancy they may tell it in court. This might have been the case with Elizabeth Mills ; and let me point out to you what occurs to me to be the right opinion that you should form of that witness. I submit to you that in this case of life and death—or, indeed, in any case involving a question of real importance to liberty or to property—that young woman’s evidence would not be relied on. In the ordinary administration oT justice in the civil courts, if a person has upon material points told two different stories, juries are rarely willing to believe that person ; and in criminal cases the learned judges, without altogether rejecting the evidence, point out to the jury the discrepancies which have taken place, and submit whether, under all the circumstances, it would be safe to rely upon the testimony last given, differing from the statement which was made when the impression wras fresh upon the witness’s mind. It cannot be said in this case that Elizabeth Mills was not fully and fairly examined. I submit that my learned friend the Attorney-General really made a false point—the most unfortunate in the course of the prosecution—in attacking, upon this ground, the coroner, Mr, Ward. Just place yourselves, gentlemen, for a moment in the position of the coroner ; and to enable you the better to do so, just recollect what has passed in the course of this trial in this court ; recollect, if you can, how many questions have been put by my learned friends and by me on account of which it has been necessary for counsel to interpose, and ask the learned judges whether the question was a proper one. Our rules of examination are strict, but they are most beneficial, because they exclude from the minds of the jury that loose and general sort of information, which in country towns especially, is the subject of pothouse stories and market gossip, and substitute for it the evidence of actual facts which have been seen and are deposed to by the witnesses. Imagine the coroner in a large room at a tavern, just under the bed-room where poor Cook died— a crowd of excited villagers in the room, all full of suspicion produced by the inquiries of the Prince of Wales Insurance Office about Walter Palmer—and Inspector Field there and Inspector Simpson—■ and all impressed with the belief that whatever the London doctor said must be true, and that if Dr. Alfred Swayae Taylor had made up his mind that it was poison, poison it was. The whole town was in a state of uproar and excitement. Every question that occurred to every body must be put . before the coroner—“Didn’t you hear so and so ? ” “ Didn’t somebody tell you that some one had said so and so ?” and so on. How is it possible under such circumstances to conduct an inquiry with the dignity and decorum that are observed in the superior courts ? There was a celebrated trial some years ago in France, in which I remember to have taken great interest, of the Ministers of Charles X. Upon that occasion one witness actually proved that he had read all the pamphlets that had been published on the subject, and he came forward to state what, upon the whole, was the result which those pamphlets had made upon his mind. It is true that that was in revolu- tionary times, but it shows to what extent the introduction of a loose system of questioning may go. I don’t say that Dr. Taylor suggested any but proper questions ; lout you must consider the difficulties under which the coroner had to labour, and I am told that he is an exceedingly good lawyer, and a most respectable man. Dr. Taylor said that the coroner’s omission to ask ques- tions arose, in his opinion, rather from want of knowledge than from intention. Of course the coroner would not be likely to know the proper questions to put in such a case, but when he ■ did know them he seems to have put them. He was right in refusing to put irrelevant questions to gratify an inquisitive juryman : we are ourselves constantly being rebuked by the learned ■judges, and told to adhere to the rhles anti not to put questions which are irrelevant. I have now 106 THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMER. pointed out such discrepancies in the evidence given hy Mills before the coroner and before you as will, I think, make it clear to you that you cannot rely upon her testimony. Since she first gave her evidence she has had the means of knowing what is the case on the part of the Crown. Ido not mean to say that she has been tutored by the Crown ; I believe that my learned friend would not have called her if he thought she had ; but she has had an opportunity of discovering by interviews with several different people that the case for the prosecution is, that Palmer, having first prepare the body of Cook for deadly poison by the poison of antimony, afterwards despatched him with the deadly poison of strychnine. Their case is, that there was an administration of something which had the effect of producing nausea, and irritation of the stomach. Those symptoms are there- fore attributed to the persevering intention of the prisoner to reduce Cook to such a state of weakness that, when once ingestion of the deadly poison occurred, he was sure to be carried off. In her evidence’hefore the coroner she was asked whether she had tasted the* broth ? She said she had, and she thought it very good. She did not then say a word about any ill effects the broth had produced; but she has since learnt that it is part of the case of those out of whose hands the Crown has taken the prosecution, - and that it is the theory of Dr. Taylor that all this retching and vomiting -was the result of a constant dosing with antimonial poison. She has probably been frequently asked whether she was not sick after drinking the Jjroth; perhaps she may have been sick on some Sunday or another, and she has persuaded herself—-for Ido not wish to impute perjury to her—that she was made sick hy the two table-spoonfuls of broth which she drank. Is it not to the last degree incredible that a shrewd, intelligent man like Palmer, should have exposed himself to such a chance of detection as sending broth which he had poisoned from his house, to stand by the kitchen fire of the Talbot Arms, w7hen, sure as fate, the cook would taste it ? Did you ever know a cook who would not taste broth sent by another person, and said to be X-W-rticularly good ? It is not in the nature of things. A cook is a taster, she tastes every- thing, and Palmer must have known that, as sure as ever he sent into the kitchen broth contain- ing antimony, the cook would take it and he ill. Her statement is not credible, and cannot be relied on. Then she said in her evidence before the coroner that on Saturday Cook bad coffee and vomited directly he swallowed it, and that up to the time she gave him the coffee she had not seen Palmer. She was not then aware that the theory of the gradual preparation of the body hy antimony was to fit into the theory of death from strychnine, but by the time she came here she had become acquainted with that part of the case. My learned friend stated that ‘ ‘ Palmer ordered him coffee on Saturday morning ; it was brought in by the chambermaid, Elizabeth Mills, and given to the prisoner, who had an opportunity of tampering with it before giving it to Cook.” There is all the difference between this statement of my learned friend and that first made by Mills before the coroner. But the young woman did not go quite so far as that. She went however to this extent ;—“Palmer came over at eight o’clock and ordered a cup of coffee for Cook. I gave it to him. I believe Palmer was in the bedroom at the time. I did not see him drink it. I observed afterwards that the coffee bad been vomited.” Her statement was not so strong as that of my learned friend, hut a great deal stronger than the one she made before the coroner. The two statements are essentially different, and the difference between them consists in this—the one supports the theory suggested hy the prosecution, the other is totally inconsistent with it. Can you rely on a woman who makes such alterations in her testimony ? That is not all. The case suggested for the Crown now is, that Cook expressed reluctance to take the pills ordered for him, and that his reluctance was overruled hy Palmer. Mills’s first statement was that Cook said the pills made him ill. Here she said that the pills which Palmer gave him made him ill. Before the coroner, too, she did not say that Palmer was in the bedroom between nine and ten on Monday night, as she has stated here. She makes him more about the bedside of the man, she gives him a greater opportunity of administering pills and medicine, she shows an animus, the result, according to the most charitable construction that can be put upon it, of a persuasion that Palmer must he guilt} 7, hut still an animus which shows that she is not to be relied on. How easily may persons in her condition make mistakes without intending to deceive ! It is the just punishment of all falsehood that when a lie has once been told it canned be retracted without humiliation, and when once this young woman had been induced to vary her statements in a material particular she had not the moral courage to set herself right. But the particulars I have mentioned are nothing to those to which I will now call your attention. I impeach her testimony on the ground that she here gesticulated and gave her evidence in such a manner that if it had been natural and she had adopted it at the inquest it must have attracted the attention of Dr. Taylor. The remarkable contortions into which she put her hands, her month, and her neck would, if they had been observed at the inquest, have been reduced to verbal expression, and recorded in the depositions. lam told by Dr. Nunneley, Dr. Robinson, ai d other gentlemen, that the- she described are inconsistent with any known disease. There was an extraordinary grouping of symptoms, some of them quite consistent with tetanus produced by strychnine administered under peculiar circumstances, others quite ine< nsistent with it. Now, in the last week in February a frightful ease of strychnine occurred in .Leeds. A person having SEVENTH DAY, MAY 21, 1856. 107 the means of access to the bedside of a patient was supposed to have administered small doses, day by day, and after keeping her sometime in a state of irritation, to have at last killed her. The person who attended the patient spoke of her symptoms for about a week before her death, and said she had “twitchings” in the legs, that she was alarmed at being touched in the intervals between the spasms. I will now call your attention to the evidence of Mills. She states : “ Cook said,,11 can’t lie down ; I shall be suffocated if I lie down. Oh,' fetch Mr. Palmer ! ’ The last words he said very loud. I did not observe his legs, but there was a sort of jumping or jerking about his head and neck and his body. Sometimes he would throw back his head upon the pillow, and then raise it up again. He had much difficulty in breathing. The balls of his eyes projected very much. He screamed again three or four times while I was in the room. He was moving and knocking about all the time. He asked me to rub his bauds. I did rub them, and he thanked me. I noticed him ‘twitch.’ I gave him toast-and-water. His body was still jerking and jumping. "When I put the spoon to his mouth he snapped at it and got it fast between bis teeth, and seemed to bite it very hard. In snapping at the spoon he threw forward his head and neck. He swallowed the toast-and-water, and with it the pills. Palmer then handed him a draught in a wineglass. Cook drank this. He snapped at the glass as he had done at the spoon. He seemed as though he could not exactly controul himself.” The expressions she used, particularly the word “twitchings,” are remarkable. It may well be that when this case became public she may have had her attention called to it, and then had questions put to her with regard to the symptoms of Cook which induced her to alter the evidence she had before given. I cannot otherwise account for the' remarkable variance in her evidence. From the time she left the Talbot Arms till she came here she seems to liave been a person of remarkable importance. Sbe went to Dolly’s where Stevens visited her five or six times. What for ? Stevens was unquestionably—and within proper limits he is not to be blamed for it—indignant at the circumstances of Cook’s death. He is not in the same condition of life as Mills. Why did he call on her ? Why did he converse with her in a private room 1 He came, she said, to inquire after her health and see how she liked London. Mr. Gardner also saw her in the street, but he only asked her bow she was and talked of other things. Ido not say that these gentlemen went to her with the deliberate intention of inducing her to say what was false; but they did go With the deliberate intention of stimulating her memory upon points as to which they thought it required stimulating. Mr. Hatton, the police- officer of Eugeley, also saw her a few times. They could have gone to her for no purpose but that of taking her evidence. I may mention a circumstance which shows how differently minor matters may be stated by witnesses who do not wish to state what is false. When Palmer went into the bedroom, after being called up, he remarked, “ I do not think I ever dressed so quickly in my life,” and it is suggested that he never went to bed, but waited up for the commencement of the paroxysm. Mills answered the question I put to her upon that point pretty fairly ; she said, ‘‘ He came in his dressing-gown, and I do not recollect that there was anything like a day-shirt about his neck.” On the other hand, Lavinia Barnes, who gave her evidence in a most respectable manner, said that he was quite dressed; that he wore his usual dress. People get talking about what they have witnessed, the real image of what occurred becomes confused or altogether obliterated from their minds, and they at last unconsciously tell a story which is- very different from the truth. Mills was examined three times before the coroner, and if that officer acted improperly on those occasions it was quite competent for the Crown to bring him here and give him an opportunity of vindicating himself, but he ought not to be blamed upon the evidence of a witness like her. In the course of her examination, however, there came out a fact which is worthy of remark. Is there not something extraordinary in the periodicity of the attacks she described in their recurrence on the three nights nearly at the same hour. There are numerous cases in the books in which attacks of this kind occurred at the same distance of time after the patient had gone to bed. Without going into unnecessary details, I will now state what I intend to prove upon this part of the case. I shall call a great number of most respectable medical practitioners and surgeons in general practice, with a large experience in great cities, who will support the theory that these fits of Cook were probably not tetanus at all, but violent convulsions, the result of a weak habit of body, increased by a careless mode of life—by at least a sufficient amount of disease to render violent mineral poisons, in their opinion, desirable, and by habits which led to a chronic ulceration of the tonsils and difficulty in swallowing. They will prove that men with constitutions -weakened by indulgence have often, under the influence of strong mental excitement and violent emotion of any kind, been suddenly thrown into such a state of convulsions that symptoms have been exhibited in the voluntary muscles of violent disease, and that persons suffering from those symptoms have constantly died asphyxiated or of exhaustion, leaving no trace whatever as to the cause of death. In addition, I will call several gentlemen v ho will speak to experiments they have made upon animals, and who will be ready to show you experiments in any yard belonging to this building if my Lords should think fit. They will tell you, on the authority of Orfila, that no degree of 108 THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMER. putrescence will decompose strychnine, and that if it is in the body they would be sure to find it even now, , Lord Campbell said that the Court could not see the experiments made, but witnesses might be called to prove them. Mr. Serjeant Shee.—I have now done with that branch of the case, and will proceed to the last matter to which I propose to direct your attention. I propose to discuss whether the circumstantial evidence is inexplicable on the supposition of the prisoner’s innocence ; and, if I show you that in all its broad and salient features it is not so, I am sure that you will be only too happy to acquit him, recollecting that you represent the country, which is uninformed upon the case, which has no opportunity of hearing the witnesses on either side. Lord Campbell.—ln the language of the law “ which country you are.” , Mr. Serjeant Shee.~Which country you are. You are responsible not to render this king- dom liable to the charge of having, in a paroxysm of prejudice propagated by a professional man with no knowledge of his own upon the matter, condemned an innocent person. In_ discussing the circumstantial evidence, I will avoid no point that seems at all difficult; but not to waste time, I will not, after the intimation which I have received from the bench, trouble you with such matters as the pushing against ,Dr. Devonshire during the post mortem examination or the cutting of a slit in the cover of the jar, which might be done accidentally with any of the sharp instruments which were being used, or the putting it at the further- end of the room. Lord Campbell.—What was said referred only to the pushing. Mr. Serjeant Shee.—l .take leave to suggest that in an examination in the town of Eugeley, where Palmer was perfectly well known, the fact of there having been a little apparent shoving,‘which may for the moment have disturbed the operator, is not to he allowed to have weight against the prisoner, especially as Mr, Devonshire said nothing was lost. The matter was one in which all present took considerable interest, and a little leaning over might easily have produced the effect which was spoken to. Then, as to the removal of the jar. It was not taken out of the room. It could not have been taken away without its removal being observed, and it would have been to the Hast degree foolish for any guilty person to attempt to remove it. That a man who knew himself to be innocent should be very unwil- ling that the jar should he removed out of the hands of persons upon whom he could rely for honest dealing is very probable. Palmer knew that there were some persons who did not want to pay him 13,0001., and who had for a long time been doing all they could to under- mine his character, and to impute to him most wicked conduct with regard to the death of a relation—suspicions in which none of his relatives had joined. It'is clear from his observa- tion, “ Well, doctor, they won’t hang us yet,” that be knew that it was intended to ground a suspicion or a complaint upon the post mortem examination, and it was exceedingly natural that he should like to have the Jar kept in safe custody, even in the crowded rooih. All his conduct is csnsisteut with this explanation. To Dr. Harland, with whom he does not appear to have been particularly intimate, he says, “I am very glad yon are come, because there is no knowing who might have done it.” That is the conduct of a respectable man, who knew that his conduct would hear investigation if it were properly conducted. I dare say there are in Eugeley many excellent and very serious people to whom the prisoner’s habit of life, his running about’to races and so on would not much recommend him, and who he had reason to know entertained prejudices against him. As to his objection to the jar being taken to Mr. Frere’s, there bad, I believe, been some slight difference, arising on io iThirlby (Palmer’s assistant) having come to him from Mr. Frere. I do not do Mr. Frere the injustice to think that this slight dispute would have led him to have put anything into the jar, but it may account for Palmer’s caution. Let us now come to those more prominent features of Palmer’s conduct upon which, in accordance with his instructions, my learned friend principally relied. I will first call your attention to the evidence of Myatt, the postboy at the Talbot Arms. Mr. Stevens had come down from London, and had acted towards Palmer in such a way as would have in- duced some men to kick him. Assuming Palmer to be innocent, Stevens’s conduct was most provoking. He dissembled with Palmer, cross-questioned him, pretended to take his advice, scolded him in a harsh tone of voice, almost insulted him, threatened a post mortem examination, and acted throughout under the impression that some one had been guilty of foul play towards Cook, which ought to he brought to light and punished. Stevens had been there during the whole of the post mortem examination—a gloomy, miserable day it must have been, poring over the remains of that poor dead man; the jar was ready, and the fly was at the door to take himself and Boycott to Stafford, in order that this jar might be sent to London out of Palmer’s ken and notice ; so that if there was anybody base enough to do it either in suppoi-t of a theory or to maintain a reputation—God forbid that I should suggest that to theprejudise of Dr. Taylor; I do not mean to do so—but if there was anybody capable of acting so great a wickedness, it might be clone ; and It was hut a reasonable concern that Palmer should be anxious that it should stop at Dr. Harland’s. He did not like its going -with. Stevens to London. Stevens had been particularly troublesome ;he had been vexatious and annoying to the last degree. The fly was ready, when Palmer met Myatt, the postboy, and learned that he was going to drive Mr. Stevens to Stafford. According to Myatt’s evidence, Palmer then asked him if he would upset “them.” That word was first used in this court to designate the jars ; but as there was at that time but one jar, it must have been intended to apply to Mr. Stevens and his companion. Palmer’s conduct to Stevens had been most exemplary, and he must have been irritated to the last degree to find that he was suspected of stealing a paltry betting-book, which was of no use to anyone, and of having'played foully and falsely with the life of his friend, the deceased. That he was much annoyed was proved by his observation to Dr. Harland in the morning—“ There has been a queer old fellow down here making inquiries, who seems to suspect that everything is wrong. He thinks I have stolen a betting-book, which everyone who knows anything knows can be of no use .to anyone now that poor Cook is dead.” This shows that Palmer’s mind was impressed with a sense that Stevens had illtreated him. Pie, no doubt, said to himself, “He (Stevens) has encouraged and brought back suspicions which have well nigh destroyed me already, and which if he proceeds in this course of bringing another charge against me will probably render it impossible to get tbe sirm which would be sufficient to release me from my embarrassments.” In this state of mind Palmer met the postboy who was ready to drive Mr. Stevens to Stafford. What occurred then was thus described by Myatt : “He said he supposed I was going to take the jars.—What did you say then, or what did he say ?—I said I believed I was.—After you said yorr believed you were, what did he say ?—He says, ‘Do you think yon could upset them ? ’—What answer did you make ?—I told him, ‘ No.’ —Did he say anything more ?—He said, if I could, there was a 10/. note for me.-—What did you say to that ?—I told him I should not. —Did he say any more to you ?—I told him that I must go, for the horse was in the fly waiting for me to start.” In cross-examination he was asked— SEVENTH DAY, MAY 21, 1856. 109 “Were not these the words Palmer used, —‘l should not mind giving 10/. to break Mr. Stevens’s neck ? ’—l do not recollect him saying ‘to break his neck.’—Were they not words to that effect, ‘I should not mind giving 10/. to break his neck V—l do not recollect that.—Then ‘lO/. to upset him?’—Yec.—Those were the words, were they?— Them were the words, to the best of my recollection.—Did he appear to have been drinking at the time ?—I cannot say.— When he said ‘to upset him, ’ did he use any epithet: did he describe him in any way such as ‘upset the fellow He did not describe Mm in any way.—Did he say anything about him. at the time ?—He did say something about it ; ‘it was a humbugging concern,’ or something to that effect.—That he was a humbugging concern, was that it !—No.—That ‘ it was a humbug- ging concern,’ or something to that effect ?—Yes.” I submit to you that, after this evidence, you can only regard this expression about “upset- ting them -’ in its milder and more innocent sense, as a strong expression used by a man vexed and irritated by the suspicious and inquisitive manner which Stevens had from the first exhibited. That this is the correct view of the matter is confirmed by the fact that at the time of the inquest nothing was known of this, and Myatt was not called. Myatt was engaged at the Talbot Arms, and must frequently have conversed about the death of Cook and the post mortem examination with servants and other persons about that inn. Had any serious weight been attached to this offer of Palmer, it would have excited attention, and would have been given in evidence before the coroner. On the other hand, it is to the last degree improbable that a medical man, knowing that he had given a large dose of strychnine, with the violent properties of which he was well acquainted, should have supposed that by the accidental spilling of a jar— tbe liver, spleen, and some of the tissues remaining behind—be could possibly escape detection. I will next call your attention to the evidence of Charles Newton, who swore that he saw Palmer at Mr. Salt’s surgery at 9 o’clock on Monday night, when he gave him three grains of strychnine in a piece of paper. He did not bring this to the knowledge of the Crown until the night before this trial commenced. He was examined before the coroner, hut although then called to corroborate the statement of Roberts as to the presence of Palmer at Hawkins’s shop, where he was said to have purchased strychnine, he then said nothing about the purchase on the Monday night. A man who so conducts himself, who when first sworn omits a considerable portion of what he tells three weeks afterwards, and again comes forward at the last moment and tells more than enough in his opinion to drive home the guilt to the person who is accused, that man is not to he believed upon his oath. There are ether circumstances which render Newton’s statement in the highest degree improbable. That Palmer should once in a way purchase strychnine in llugeley is not to he wondered at. It is sold to kill vermin, to kill dogs. And whatever the evidence as to the galloping of the mares and their dropping their foals, it shows that Palmer had occasion for it, and for other purposes. But that, having bought enough for all ordinary purposes, he should go and buy more the next day, and should purchase it at the shop of a tradesman with whom he had not dealt for two 110 THE TRIAL OE WILLIAM PALMER. years, is in the highest degree incredible. Nobody would* believe it. Nobody can or ought to believe it. But observe this also. Palmer had been to London on the Monday, and in London there is no difficulty in procuring strychnine. It is sold to any one who, by writing down the technical description of what he wants, shows that he has had a medical education. Why did he not get it in London ? And if he could not get it in London, why did he not get it in Stafford, or at any of the other places to which he had been? If he had bought it for this guilty purpose, would he not, as a wary man, have taken care that when his house was searched there should be found in it the paper containing the exact quantity of strychnine which he had purchased ? What could have been easier to do than that ? Newton’s story, therefore, cannot be believed ; but, in addition, I will show" that Palmer, who ’is stated by Herring to have been-in London at a quarter past 3 o’clock, could not have been in llugeley at the time at which Newton says he was at Mr. Salts. Palmer attended the post mortem examination ; and is it credible that he, a skilful medical man, who studied in a London hospital, and made a note upon one of his books of the effect of strychnine, would ask that stupid sort of fellow Newton anything about its action upon a dog ; and would, when the answer -was given, snap his fingers and say, “It is all right, then, it cannot be found.” No one will believe it for a moment. The animus of Newton is shown by his omitting the -word “poor,” and representing Palmer as having said, “You will find this fellow suffering from a disease of the throat ; he has had syphilis ; ” and then, when cross- examined upon the subject by my learned friend Mr. Grove, replying, “I don’t know whether he said poor or rich,” as if that had anything to do with the question. I will now take you back to what occurred at Shrewsbury. The case for the Crown is, that as early as Wednesday, the 11-th of November-, the scheme of poisoning Cook began to be executed at Shrewsbury. It is suggested that Cook was dosed with something that was put into his brandy-and-water. You will remember that I read to you a letter from Cook to Fisher, dated the 16th of November, to- which there is this postscript—“l am better.” That must have referred to his illness at Shrewsbury. It is the postscript to a letter in which he speaks of the object he has in view, which is of great importance to himself and Palmer. Is his writing in that tone consistent with his having a belief that Palmer had drugged him with poison for the purpose of destroying his life at Shrewsbury ? What did Palmer say about it ?—* ‘ Cook says I have put something in his glass. I don’t play such tricks.” He treated it as though it had never been understood to be more than the expression of a man who, if not actually drunk, was very nearly so. Palmer did not arrive at the “Raven” until after the dinner hour. We have no evidence how Cook fared there ; but we shall be able to prove that he went from there to the “Unicom,” where he arrived pretty flush, and where he sat drinking brandy-and-water with Saunders the trainer and a lady. Seven or eight glasses of brandy-and-water did this good young man drink, and the result was that his unfortunate syphilitic throat was in a very dreadful state, if not of actual laceration, at least of soreness and irritation. [The learned Serjeant here read to the jury a long extract from an article which had appeared in some newspaper, which he did not mention, in which the occur- rences at Shrewsbury were described in a style which seemed intended to be humorous, and in which Cook’s sickness was attributed to his having taken too much brandy upon champagne, in order to “restore his British solidity.” The learned Serjeant said this entirely concurred with his own view of the case. He then continued.] Cook’s own conduct afterwards proved that his illness was owing to his having drunk too much. He got up in the morning, breakfasted with Palmer, was good friends with him, and went with him to Rugeley. At Rugeley they received Pratt’s letter of the 13th, in consequence of which Palmer wrote to Pratt to say that some one would call upon him and pay him 2001., and Cook wrote to Fisher and asked him to call on Pratt and pay this money. Does, that look as though he thought there had been an attempt to poison him ? Mrs. Brooks, who gave her evidence in a most creditable manner, proved that there was much sickness among the strangers who were at Shrewsbury ; and the rest of her evidence did not tell much against Palmer, who might, after Cook’s complaint, very naturally have been looking at the tumbler to see if anything had been put into it. Cook got worse, and at last had the good sense to put his money into Fisher’s hands and go to bed. He was still very sick, and a doctor was sent lor, who recommended an emetic. Cook made himself sick by drinking warm water and putting the handle of a toothbrush down his throat. He took a pill and a black draught, went to sleep, and next morning was quite well. This is really too ludicrous to receive a moment’s consideration. A person named Myatt was in the room at the “Raven” all the evening. He has been put into the box, but I shall call him, and you will hear his account. Palmer and Cook having got back to Rugeley the history of the slow poisoning continues. They went there together, and probably talked on the way of their difficulties and the mode of getting out of them, and of the small way that the winnings at Shrewsbury would* go to effect that object, both seeing ruin staring them in the face unless the Prince of Wales Insurance Office could be made to pay the money which was due, and they could meanwhile remain free from all suspicion of insolvency or any sort of miscon- duct. When they got to Rugeley they provided for the temporary difficulty by sending 200 L to Pratt. They were then evidently on friendly terms, Cook’s winnings being at Palmer’s service, and probably both effecting their objects, because, as it would appear from what Palmer said, Cook had some interest in the bills which were outstanding. Probably his name might not be upon them, but as they were engaged in these racing transactions, were joint owners of one horse, and had the same trainer, they were very probably equally interested in these bills—were, in fact, what I remember to have once heard a nobleman well known upon the turf call “confederates.” The frequency of Palmer’s visits to Cook during the illness of the latter at Rugeley, affords no ground of suspicion against the prisoner. On the contrary, it tells in his favour. Cook had no friend in the town but Palmer, with whom he may almost be said to have been on a visit; for though he did not sleep in Palmer’s house, Palmer was in continual attend- ance on him ; and, owing to the close proximity of Ids own residence, was enabled to bring him many little delicacies not easily attainable at an inn. Had he neglected the sick man, and only visited him occasionally, the inference of the Crown would probably have been that he was a black-hearted scoundrel, who only looked in now and then to give him his poison ; but as he was zealously and laboriously attentive to him, the conclusion is that he must have murdered him ! It is said that Palmer was guilty of a falsehood in representing Cook as suffering from diarrhoea : but this is to .put a very violent and a very uncharitable construction on his words ; for you will remember, that Bamford swore to Cook having told him that his bowels had been affected twice or three times on Sunday. But, leaving these minor points, I come to one which in this case of circumstantial evidence is of the very last importance, and should be deemed decisive of the prisoner’s innocence. The supposition of the Crown is that Palmer intended to dose Cook with antimony—to keep his stomach in continual irritation by vomiting, in order that he might the more surely despatch him with strychnine; and that during Sunday, the day on which he insisted on his taking the broth, Cook was under the influence of this insidious treatment. Now, supposing this to be true, and assuming it to be the fact that Palmer was indeed bent upon destroying Cook by this singular process, is it not manifest that there is one man who of all the men in the world would have been the very last whom he would have selected to be a witness of his proceedings ? That man is a surgeon in the prime of life, a man intimately acquainted with Cook and very much attached to him—Mr. Jones, of Lutterworth. Yet this is the very man to whom, when he is about to set out for London, Palmer writes a letter, informing him thai} Cook is ill, and urging him to come over and see him without delay. I entreat of you to appreciate the full importance of that fact. The more you think of it the more profound will become your conviction that it affords evidence irrefragable of Palmer’s innocence. The imputation is that Palmer meant to kill Cook to possess himself of his winnings. Who was with Cook when the race was won,? Who was by Ids side on Shrews- bury racecourse for the three minutes that he was speechless ? . Who saw him take out his pocketbook and count up his winnings ? Who but Jones ?—Jones, who was his bosom friend, his companion, his confidant, and who knew to the last farthing the amount of his gains. Jones was of all men living the most likely to be the recipient of Cook’s confidence, and the man who was bound by every consideration of honour, friendship, and affection, to protect him, to vindi- cate his cause, and to avenge his death. Yet this was the man for whom Palmer sent, that he might converse with Cook, receive his confidences, minister to him in his illness, and even sleep in the same room with him ! How, if Palmer is the murderer they represent him, are you to account for his summoning Jones to the bedside of the sick man ? If Cook really suspected—as we are assured he did—that Palmer was poisoning him, Jones was the man to whom he would most willingly have unbosomed himself, and in whose faithful ear he would have most eagerly disburdened the perilous stuff that weighed upon his own brain. _ Palmer and Jones were both medical men, and it is not improbable that in the course of his studies the latter may have noted in his classbook the very passages respecting the operation of strychnine which also attracted the attention of the former. Is it conceivable, that if Palmer meant to slay Cook with poison in the dead of the night he would have previously ensured the presence, in his victim’s bed-room, of a medical witness, who would know from the symptoms that the man was not dying a natural death ? He brings a medical man into the room, and makes him lie within a few inches of the sick man’s bed, that he may hear his terrific shrieks and witness those agonising convulsions which indicate the fatal potency of poison ! Can you believe it ? He might have despatched him by means that would have defied detection, for Cook was taking morphia medicinally, and a grain or two more would have silently thrown him into an eternal sleep. But instead of doing so he sends to Lutterworth for Jones. You have been told that this was done to cover appearances. Done to cover appearances ! No—no—no ! You cannot believe it. It is not in human nature. It cannot be true. You cannot find him guilty—you dare not find him guilty on the supposition of,its truth. The country will not stand by you if you believe it to be true. You will be impeached before the world if yofi say that it is true. I believe in my conscience that it is false, and that consistently with the rules that govern human nature it cannot possibly be true. [Sensation and murmurs of applause.] With respect to the interviews and. SEVENTH DAY, MAY 21, 1856. 112 dialogues that took place between the prisoner and Mi* Stevens, I contend that, so far from telling against the former, they are in his favour. Thei’e is nothing but the evidence of a kind and considerate nature in the fact of his having ordered “a shell and a strong oak coffin ” for the deceased ; nor is it possible to torture into a presumption of guilt the few words of irritation that may have fallen from the prisoner in the course of a con- versation in which Mr. Stevens treated him with scorn, not to say insolence. With respect to the betting-book, many persons had access to Cook’s room—servants, both men and women, undertaker’s men, and barbers ; and though I do not venture to mark out any particular person for suspicion, any one of them may have purloined the book and been afraid to return it. It is not fair in a case of this momentous importance to affix the opprobrium on a fnfin who is not proved to have ever had it in his hand. The Crown had no doubt originally intended to rely upon the prisoner’s medical books as affording damning proof of his guilt; but I will refer to those volumes for evidences that will speak eloquently in his favour. In youth and early man- hood there is no such protection for a man as the society of an innocent and virtuous woman to whom he is sincerely attached. If you find a young man devoted to such a vynnan, loving her dearly, and marrying her for the love he bears her, you may depend upon it that he is a man of a humane and gentle nature, little prone to deeds of violence. To such a woman was Palmer attached in his youth, and I will bring you proof positive to show that the volumes cited against him were the books he used when a student, and that the manuscript passages are in the handwriting of his wife. His was a marriage of the heart. He loved that young and virtuous woman with a pure and generous affection ; he loved her as he now loves her first-born, who awaits with trembling anxiety the verdict, that will restore him to the arms of his father, or drive that father to an ignominious death upon the scaffold. [The prisoner here covered his face with his hands, and shed tears.] Here in this book I have conclusive evidence of the kind of man that Palmer was seven years ago. I find in its pages the copy of a letter addressed by him while still a student to the woman whom lie afterwards made his wife. It is as follows : the trial of william palmer. “My dearest Annie,—I snatch a moment from my studies to write to your dear, dear little self. I need scarcely say that the principal inducement I have to work is the desire of getting my studies finished, so as to he able to press your dear little form in my arms. With best, best love, believe me, dearest Annie, Your own William.” Wow this is not the sort of letter that is generally read in courts of justice. It was no part of my instructions to read that letter, hut the hook was put in to prove that this man is a wicked, heartless, savage desperado ; and I show you what he was seven years ,ago, —that he was a man who loved a young woman for her own sake—loved her with a pure and virtuous affection—such an affection as would, in almost all natures, be a certain antidote against guilt. Such is the mau whom it has been my duty to defend upon this occasion, and upon the evidence that is before you, I cannot believe him to he guilty. Don’t suppose, gentlemen, that he is unsupported in this dreadful trial by his family and his friends. An aged mother, who may have disapproved of some part of his conduct, awaits with trembling anxiety your verdict; a dear sister can scarcely support herself under the suspense which now presses upon her ; a brave and gallant brother stands by him to defend him, and spares neither time nor trouble to save him from an awful doom. I call upon you, gentlemen, to raise your minds to a capacity to estimate the high duty which you have to perform. You have to stem the torrent of prejudice ; you have to vindicate the honour and character of your country; you have, with firmness and courage, to do your duty, and to find a verdict for the Crown, if you believe that guilt is proved; hut, if you have a doubt upon that point, depend upon it that the time will come when the innocence of that man will he made apparent, and when you will deeply regret any want of due and calm consideration of the case which it has been my duty to lay before you. The speech of the learned Serjeant occupied exactly eight hours in its delivery. There were some slight indications of an attempt to applaud at its conclusion, hut they were instantly repressed. The Court then adjourned till 10 o’clock this day. EIGHTH DAY, May 22, 1856. On the resumption of this case this morning the court was, as usual, densely crowded, and all its avenues were beset by eager applicants for admission. His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge was among the distinguished persons who were accommodated with seats upon the bench. The learned Judges, Lord Campbell, Mr. Baron Alderson, and Mr. Justice Cresswell, took their seats at 10 o’clock. The prisoner was at once placed at the bar. His demeanour was, as on the previous, days of his trial, calm and attentive, but betrayed no additional anxiety. Immediately after the learned Judges took their seats, Lord Campbell said, be- fore the proceedings com- mence, I must express a most earnest hope that until this trial is concluded the public journals will continue to ab- stain from any comments upon the merits of the case, or upon any part of the evidence. The propriety of this course is so obvious as to need no explana- tion. This warning ought to extend to the insertion of letters as much as to that of editorial articles. THOMAS NUNNELEY, Examined by Mr. Grove. I am Fellow of the College of Surgeons, and Professor of Surgery at the Leeds School of Medicine. I am also a member of several medical and learned societies, foreign and English, and have been in practice between twenty and thirty years. I have a large practice, and have seen cases of both traumatic and idio- pathic tetanus. Of the latter disease I have seen four cases. They did not all commence with lockjaw. One did not commence so, nor did lockjaw become so marked in it as to prevent swallowing once during the course of the MU. NUNNELEY, PROFESSOK OF SURGERY AT LEEDS. disease. I have heard the evidence as to the symptoms of Cook, and had previously read the depositions as to that part of the case. Judging from those symptoms, I am of opinion that death was caused by some convulsive disease. I found that opinion upon the symptoms described in the depositions and the evidence before the Court. Lord Campbell said that the witness could only be examined as to his opinion founded upon the viva voce evidence before the Court. Mr. Grove said that his object was to distinguish between the opinion founded on the viva voce evidence, and that founded on the depositions. Examination continued.—From the symptoms described by the witnesses in court I am of opinion that death was caused by some convulsive disease. Looking at Cook’s general state of health.— Mr. Baron Aldebson.—You have nothing to do with that. You must only give an opinion upon the symptoms described in evidence. Examination continued by Mr. Serjeant Shee.—I have been in court during the whole of the trial. I have heard the evidence as to the symptoms of Mr. Cook’s health previous to his final attack at Rugeley, the description of the actual symptoms during the paroxysms, and the appearance of the body on the post mortem examination. 114 THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMER. Do you remember the account of the syphilitic sores ? * The Attorney-General objected to this mode of putting the question, because it was an assump- tion that these sores existed. A medical man ought to be asked his opinion on the supposition only that certain symptoms existed. Mr. Justice Ciiesswell.—Let the witness describe what he assumes to have been the state of Cook’s health, and you will then see whether he is justified in his assumption. Examination continued.—I assume that Cook was a man of very delicate constitution—that for a long period he had felt himself to be ailing, for which indisposition he had been under medical treatment; that he had suffered from syphilis; that he had disease'of the lungs; and that he had old standing disease of the throat; that he led an irregular life; that he was subject to mental excitement and depression; and that after death appearances’ were found in his body which show this to have been the case. There was an unusual appearance in the stomach. The throat was in an unnatural condition. The back of the tongue showed similar indications. The air vessels of the lungs were dilated. In the lining of the aorta there was an unnatural deposit, and there was a very unusual appearance in the membranes of the spinal marrow. One of the witnesses also said that there was a loss of substance from the penis. That scar on the penis could only have resulted from an ulcer., A chancre is an niceI*,1*, but an ulcer is not necessarily a chancre. The symptoms at the root of the tongue and the throat I should ascribe to syphilitic inflammation of the throat. Supposing these symptoms to he correct, I should infer that Cook’s health had for a long time not been good, and that his constitution was- delicate. His father and mother died young. Supposing that to have been his state of health, it would make him liable to nervous irritation. That might be excited by moral causes. Any excitement or depression might produce that effect. A person of such health and constitution would be more susceptible of injurious influence from wet and cold than would one of stronger constitution. Upon such a constitution as that which I have assumed Cook’s to have been convulsive disease is more likely to supervene. I understand that Cook had three attacks on succeeding nights, occurring about the same hour. As a medical man, I should infer from this that the attacks were of a convulsive character. I infer that in the absence of other causes to account for them. According to my personal experience and knowledge from the study of my profession, convulsive attacks are as various as possible in their forms and degrees of violence. It is not possible to give a definite name to every convulsive symptom. There are some forms of convulsion in which the patient retains his consciousness. Those are forms of hysteria, sometimes found in the male sex. It is also stated that there are forms of epilepsy in which the patient retains consciousness. By Lord Campbell.—l cannot mention a case in which consciousness has been retained during the fit. No such case has come under my notice. Examination continued.—l know by reading that that, although rarely, does sometimes occur. The degree of consciousness in epilepsy varies very much. In some attacks the consciousness is wholly lost for a long time. Convulsive attacks are sometimes accompanied by violent spasms and rigidity of the limbs. Convulsions, properly so called, sometimes assume a tetanic complexion. I heard the passage from the works of Dr. Copland read to the Court yesterday. I agree with what he states. Convulsions arise from almost any cause—from worms in children, affections of the brain in adults, hysteria, and in some persons the taking of chloroform. Adults are sometimes attacked by such convulsions. Affections of the spinal cord or eating indigestible food will produce them. I know- no instance in which convulsions have arisen from retching and vomiting. I agree with Dr. Copland that these convulsions sometimes end immediately in death. The immediate proximate cause of death is frequently asphyxia. By Lord Campbell.—Death from a spasm of the heart is often described as death by asphyxia. Examination continued.—I have seen convulsions recurring. I have seen that in very various cases. The time at which a patient recovers his ease after a violent attack of convulsions varies very much. It may be a few minutes, or it may be hours. From an interval between one con- vulsion and another I should infer that the convulsions arise from some slight irritation in the brain or the spinal cord. When death takes place in such paroxysms there is sometimes no trace of organic disease to be found by a post mortem examination. Granules between the dura mater and the arachnoid are not common at any age. I should not draw any particular inference from their appearance. They might or might'not lead to a conjecture as to their cause and effect. I do not form any opinion upon these points. They might produce an effect upon the spinal cord. _ There are_ three preparations in museums where granules are exhibited in the spinal cord, in which the patients are said to have died from tetanus. Those are at St. Thomas’s Hospital. To ascertain the nature and effect of such granules the spinal cord ought to be examined imme- diately after death. Not the most remote opinion could be formed upon an examination made two months after death, more especially if the brain had been previously opened. Independently of the appearance of granules, it would not after that period be possible to form a satisfactory opinion upon the general condition of the spinal cord. If there were a large tumour, or some similar change, it might be exhibited; but neither softening nor induration of the structure could be perceived. The nervous structure changes within two days of death. To ascertain minutely its condition it is necessary to use a lens or microscope. That is required in an examination made immediately after death. I have attended cases of traumatic tetanus. That disease commonly begins with an attack upon the jaw. One of the four cases of idiopathic tetanus that I have seen was my own child. In three of those cases the disease began with lockjaw. The fourth case EIGHTH DAY, MAY 22, 1856. 115 commenced in the body, the facility of swallowing remaining. I hare within the last twelve months made post mortem examinations of two persons who had died from strychnia. I did not see the patients before death. In both eases I ascertained by chemical analysis that death had been caused by strychnia. In both I found the strychnia. In one case—that of a lady aged twenty-eight years—l made my examination forty-two hours after death, and in the other thirty hours. In the former case the body had not been opened before I commenced my examination. [The witness read a report of this examination, in which it was stated that the eyelids were partially open and the globes Hacid, and the pupils dilated. The muscles of the trunk were not in the least rigid ; indeed, they were so soft that the body might be beat in any direction. The muscles at the hip and shoulder joints were not quite so flaccid, hut they allowed these joints to be easily moved ; while those of the head and neck, fore-ai-ms, &c., were rigid. The fingers were curved, and the feet somewhat arched. All the muscles, when cut into, were found soft and dark in colour. The membranes of the liver were exceedingly vascular. The membrane of the spinal cord was much congested.' There "was bloody serum in the pericardium; the lungs were distended, and some of the air-cells were ruptured. 'The lining membrane of the trachea and bronchial tubes were covered with a layer of dark bloody mucus of a dark chocolate colour. The thoracic vessels and membranes were much congested, and the blood was everywhere dark and fluid.] After reading this report the witness continued:—ln the second case 1 made my examination thirty hours after death. I first saw the body about twelve hours after death. It was a woman somew'here near twenty years of age. [The witness also read the report of the examination in this case. The appearances of the body were substantially similar to those presented in the previous case.] In two other cases I have seen a patient suffering from over doses of strychnia. Neither of these cases was fatal. In one case 1 had prescribed the twelfth of a grain, and the patient took one-sixth. That was for a man of middle age. Strychnia had been given in solution. In a few minutes the symptoms appeared. They were a want of power to control the muscles, manifested by twltchings, rigidity, and cramp, more violent in the legs than in any other part of the body. The spasms were not very violent. They continued six hours hi fore they entirely disappeared. During that time they were intermittent at various intervals. As the attack passed off' the length of the intervals increased. At first their length was but a few seconds. The spasms were not combated by medical treatment. The other case was a very similar one. The quantity taken-was the same—double what I had prescribed. I have experimented upon upwards of sixty animals with strychnia. Those animals were dogs, cats, rats, mice, guinea-pigs, frogs and toads. The symptoms of the attack in all animals present great resemblances. Some animals are, however, much more susceptible of its influence than others are. The period elapsing between the injection of the poison and the commencement of the symptoms has been from two minutes to thirty,—more generally five or six. I administered the poison occasionally in solution, but more generally in its solid state. It was sometimes placed dry upon the back of the tongue, aud some fluid poured down the throat; sometimes it was enclosed between two portions of meat, sometimes mixed up with butter or suet, and sometimes rolled up in a small piece of gut. To frogs and toads it was administered by putting them into a solution of strychnia. I have also applied it direct to the spinal cord, and in other cases to the brain. The first symptom has been a desire to be quite still; then hurried breath- ing ; then slavering at the mouth (when the poison had been given through that organ) ; then twitching of the ears, trembling of the muscles, inability to walk, convulsions of all the muscles of the body, the jaws being generally firmly closed; the convulsions attended by a total want of *power in the muscles, which on the least touch were thrown into violent spasms with a galvanic- like shock. Spasms also come on if the animal voluntarily attempts to move ; that is usually the case, hut occasionally the animal is able to move without inducing a recurrence of the spasms. These spasms occur at various periods, but do notalways increase in violence. The animals die after periods varying from three hours to three hours and a half. In the cases where the animals live longest the paroxysms occur at the longest intervals. In all eases in the interval before death the rigidity ceases (I know no exception to this) and the muscles become quite soft, powerless, and flaccid. The limbs may be put in any position whatever. There is but little difference from ordinary cases of convulsive death in the time at which the rigor mortis comes on. I have destroyed animals with other poisons, and there is very little difference between the rigidity in their cases and that in the cases of death from strychnia. In the two women 1 have mentioned the rigor vxortis was much less than is usual in cases of death from natural disease. I have known fatal cases of poisoning animals by strychnia in which there has between the first and the second paroxysm been an interval of about half an hour, but that is not common. I have examined the bodies of upwards of forty animals killed by strychnia. I have invariably found the heart full on the right side; very geneVally the left ventricle firmly contracted, and the blood usually dark, and often fluid. There is no particular appearance about the spine. I have experimented with other poison upon upwards of 2000 animals, and have written upon this subject. It very often happens that in the case of animals dying suddenly from poisoning, the blood is fluid after death. That also happens in cases of sudden death from other causes, I have attended to the evidence as to the symptoms exhibited by Cook on the Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday nights. The symptoms on Sunday night I assume to have been great excitement. CooTt described himself as having been very ill, and in such a state that he considered himself mad for a few minutes. He stated that the cause of this was a noise in the street. These symptoms, in the three nights I have mentioned, do not resemble those which I have seen follow the administration of strychnia. Cook had more power of voluntary 116 THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMER. motion than I have observed in animals under the influence of this poison. He sat up in bed, and moved his hands about freely, swallowed, talked, and asked to be rubbed and moved, none of which, if poisoned by strychnia, could he have done. The sudden accession of the convulsions is another reason for believing that they were not produced by strychnia. Other reasons for believing that the convulsions were not produced by strychnia are their sudden accession without the usual premonitory symptoms, the length of time which had elapsed between their commence- ment and taking of the pills which are supposed to have contained poison, and the screaming and vomiting. I never knew an animal which had been poisoned with strychnia to vomit or scream voluntarily. I apprehend that where there is so much spasm of the heart there must be inability to vomit. In the cases related in which attempts were made to produce vomiting they did not succeed. There is such a case in the 10th volume of the Journal de Fharmacie, in which an emetic was given without success. The symptoms exhibited after death-in animals poisoned by strychnia differ materially from those presented by the body of Cook. In his case the heart is stated to have been empty and uncontracted; Lord Campbell.—l do not remember that. I think it was said that it was contracted. Mr. Baron Aldekson.—According to my note, Dr. Harland said that the was contracted, and contained no blood. Examination continued.—The lungs were not congested, nor was the brain. In the case of animals which have recovered the paroxysms have subsided gradually. I never knew a severe paroxysm followed by a long interval of repose. I have experimented upon the discovery of strychnia in the bodies of animals in various stages of decomposition, from a few hours after death up to the forty-third day, in which latter case the body was quite putrid. It has never happened to me to fail to discover the poison. I have experimented in about fifteen cases. Supposing a person to have died under the influence of strychnia poison in the first paroxysm, and his stomach to have been taken out and put into a jar on the sixth day after death, must strychnia have, by a proper analysis, been found in the body ?—Yes. If the strychnia be pure, such as is almost invariably found among medical men and druggists, the test is nitric acid, which gives a red colour, which in a great measure disappears on the addition of protochloride of tin. If the strychnia be pure, it does not undergo any change on the addition of sulphuric acid, but on the addition of a mixture of bichromate of potash, with several other substances it produces a beautiful purple, which changes to varying shades until it gets to be a dirty red. There are several other tests. In this case the stomach was not, in my opinion, in an unfavourable condi- tion for examination. The circumstances attending its position in the jar and its removal to London would give a little more trouble, but would not otherwise affect the result. If the de- ceased had died from strychnia poison it ought to have been found in the liver, spleen, and kidneys. I have seen this poison found in similar portions of animals which had been killed by it. I have also seen it found in the blood; that was by Mr. Herapath, of Bristol. Could the analyses be defeated or confused by the existence in the stomach of any other sub- stance which would produce the same colours?— No. Supposing that pyroxantine and siiicine were in the parts examined, their existence would not defeat the analysis. Pyroxantine is very unlikely to be found in the stomach. It is one of the rarest and most difficult to be obtained. The distinction between pyroxantine and strychnia is quite evident. Pyroxantine changes to a deep purple on the addition of sulphuric acid alone, and the bichromate of potash spoils the colour. In strychnia no change is produced by sulphuric acid. It requires the addition of bichromate to produce the colour. Supposing the death to have been caused by a dose of strychnia, not more than sufficient to1 destroy the animal, would it be so diffused by the process of absorption that you would not be able by these tests to detect it in any portion of the system ?—No; I believe it would not. Had that question occupied your attention before you were called upon to give evidence upon this trial ?—lt had. “What is your reason for stating that strychnine, when it has done its work, continues as strych- nine in the system ?—Those who say that some change takes place argue that as food undergoes a change when taken into the body, so does the poison; it becomes decomposed. But the change in food takes place during digestion, consequently its traces are not found in the blood. Substances like strychnine are absorbed without digestion, and may be obtained unchanged from the blood. They may be administered in various ways. In your judgment will any amount of putrefaction prevent the discovery of strychnine ?—To say that it is indestructible would be absurd, but within ordinary limits, no. I have found it at the end of forty days. What is the probable relative rapidity of action of strychnine in an empty and a full stomach ? The emptier the stomach the quicker the action. Cross-examined by the Attorney-General.—l am a lecturer on surgery. Mr. Morley, who was called for the prosecution, is a lecturer on chemistry. Part (perhaps half) of the experiments on the sixty animals were made by me and Mr. Morley jointly. There was nothing to distinguish the experiments which I made alone from those which I made jointly with him. I state the apparent results of the whole. My experiments were spread over a period of thirty years. Many of them have been made since the Leeds case. I can’t say how many. Now, don’t put yourself in a state of antagonism to me, but tell me how many of your experi- ments were made in reference to this particular case ?—I cannot answer that question. The great bulk certainly were not. I was first concerned in this about the time of the death of the person at Leeds. I was applied to. I was in correspondence with the attorney for the defence. The EIGHTH DAY, MAY 22, 1856. 117 details of the Leeds case was forwarded to him by me, and I called his attention to them. The general dose in these experiments was from half a grain to two grains. Half a grain is sufficient to destroy life in the larger animals. I have seen both a dog and cat die from that dose, but not always. Some animals as a species are more susceptible than others. The symptoms in the experiments I havd mentioned did not appear after so long a period as an hour. We have had to repeat the dose of poison in some instances when half a grain has been given. That happened in the case of a cat. Symptoms of spasm were produced, but the animal did not die. She had not, however, swallowed the doses. I think I have known animals of the cat species killed with half a grain. Have you any doubt about it ?—Yes. •• Half a grain, then, is the minimum dose which will kill a cat?—l think it would be the minimum dose in the case pf an old strong cat. If administered in a fluid state I think a smaller dose would suffice. Hurried breathing is one of the first symptoms, afterwards there are twitching and tremblings of the muscles, then convulsions. Is there any diversity, as in the intervals and the order of symptoms, in animals of the same species ?—They certainly don’t occur after the same intervals of time, but I should say they generally occur in the order I have described. There is some difference in the periods at which the convulsions take place. Some animals will die after less convulsion than others, but an animal generally dies after four or five. In one or two instances an animal has died after one convulsion. - In those instances a dose has been given equal in amount to another dose which has not produced the same effect. The order in which the muscles are convulsed varies to some extent. The muscles of the limbs are generally affected first. The convulsions generally occur simultaneously. Do you know any case of strychnine in which the rigidity after death was greater than the usual rigor mortis?—I think not. I don’t think there is any peculiar rigidity produced by strychnine. Have you never found undue rigidity in a human subject after death from strychnine?— Considerably less. In the anonymous case to which we have referred were not the hands curved and the feet arched by muscular contraction ?—Not more than is unusual in cases of death from ordinary causes. The limbs were rigid, but not more than usual. In face of the medical profession, I ask you whether you signed a report stating that “the hands were curved and the feet decidedly arched by muscular contraction,” and whether you meant by those words that there was no more than the ordinary rigidity of death ?—Certainly; I stated so at the time. , Where ? In the report ?—No ; in conversation. Allow me to explain that a distinction was drawn between the muscles of the different parts of the body. I heard Mr. Morloy’s evidence with regard to experiments on animals, and his statement that “ after death there was an interval of flaccidity, after which rigidity commenced more than if it had been occasioned by the usual rigor mortis.” You don’t agree with that statement?—l do not. I generally found the right side of the heart full. Does the fact of the heart in Cook’s case having been found empty lead you to the conclusion that death was not caused by strychnine ?—Among other things it does. I heard the evidence of Dr. Watson as to the case of Agnes Sennet, in which the heart was found distended and empty ; also, that of Mr. Taylor as to the post mortem examination of Mrs. Smyth. No doubt ho stated that the heart in that case also was empty. And do those facts exercise no influence on your judgment?— They would pot unless I knew how thejpost mortem examination had been made. If it was commenced at the head, the blood being fluid, the large drains would be opened, and the blood, from natural causes, would drain away. Do you know how the post mortem examination was made in this case ?—No. Excuse me, I do. The chest and the abdomen, not the head, were first opened. The heart, then, was not emptied in the first instance ?—No. Then what occasioned the contraction of the heart?—When the heart is emptied it is usually contracted. But how do you account for its contraction and emptiness ?—I cannot account for it. Lord Campbell.—Would the heart contract if there was blood in it ?—No. Lord Campbell.—When you find the heart contracted you know, then, that it was contracted at the moment of death ?—lt is necessary to draw a distinction between the two cavities. It is very common to find the left ventricle contracted and hard, while the right is uncontracted. Lord Campbell.—That is death by asphyxia ?—Precisely. , By the Attorney-General.—ln Cook’s case the lungs were described as not congested. Bntos- thema is of two kinds; one of them consists of dilation of the cells, the other of a rupture of the cells. When animals die from strychnine entosthema occurs. Ido not know the character of the entosthema in Cook’s case. It did not occur to me to have the question put to the witnesses who described the post mortem examination. To what constitutional symptoms about Cook do you ascribe the convulsions from which he died ?—;Not to any. Was not the fact of his having syphilis an important ingredient in your judgment upon his case ?—lt was. I judge that he died from convulsions, by the combination of symptoms. What evidence have you to suppose that he was liable to excitement and depression of spirits ? i he fact that after winning the race he could not speak for three minutes. 118 THE -TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMER. Anything else ?—Mr. Jones stated that he was subject to mental depression. Excitement will produce a state of brain which will be followed, at some distance, by convulsions. .1 think Dr. Bamford made a mistake when he said the brain was perfectly healthy. Do you mean to set up that opinion against that of Dr* Devonshire and Dr. Harland, who were present at the post mortem ?—My opinion is founded in part on the evidence taken at the inquest, in part on the depositions. With the brain and the system in the condition in which Cook’s were I believe it is quite possible for convulsions to come on and destroy a person. Ido not believe that he died from apoplexy. He was under the influence of morphia. I don’t ascribe his death to morphia, except that it might assist in producing a convulsive attack. I should think morphia was not very good treatment, considering the state of excitement he was in. Do you mean to say, on your oath, that you think he was in a state of excitement at Rugeley ? —I wish to give my evidence honestly. Morphia, when given in an injured state of the brain, often disagrees with the patient. But what evidence have you as to the injured state of the brain ?—Sickness often indicates it. I can’t say whether the attack of Sunday night was an attack of convulsions. I think that the Sunday attack was one of a similar character, but not so intense, as the attack of Tuesday, in which he died. I don’t think he had convulsions on the Sunday, but he was in that condition which often precedes convulsions. I think he was mistaken when he stated that he was awoke by a noise. I believe he was delirious. That is one of the symptons on which I found my opinion. Any intestinal irritation will produce convulsions in a tetanic form. I have known instances in children. I have not seen an instance in an animal. Medical writers state that such cases do occur. I know no name for convulsions of that kind. Have you ever known a case of convulsions of that kind, terminating in death, in which the patient remained conscious to the last?—l have not. Where epilepsy terminates in death consciousness is gone. I have known four cases of traumatic, and five or six of idiopathic tetanus. You heard Mr. Jones make his statement of the symptoms of Cook after the commencement of the paroxysms :—“ After he swallowed the pills, he uttered loud screams, threw himself back in the bed, and was dreadfully convulsed. He said, ‘ Raise me up 1 I shall be suffocated.’ The convulsions affected every muscle of the body, and were accompanied by stiffening of the limbs. I endeavoured to raise Cook with the assistance of Palmer, but found it quite impossible, owing to the rigidity of the limbs. When Cook found we could not raise him up he asked me to turn him over. He was then quite sensible. I turned him on to his side. I listened to the action of his heart. I found that it gradually weakened, and asked Palmer to fetch some spirits of ammonia, to be used as a stimulant. When he returned the pulsations of the heart were gradually ceasing, and life was almost extinct. Cook died very quietly a very short time after- wards. When he threw himself back in bed he clinched his hands, and they remained clinched after death. When I was rubbing his neck his head and neck were unnaturally bent back by the spasmodic action of the muscles. After death his body was so twisted or bowed that if I had placed it upon the hack it would have rested upon the head and the feet?” Now, I ask you to distinguish in any one particular between those symptoms*and the symptoms of tetanic convulsions ?—lt is not tetanus at all; not idiopathic tetanus. I quite agree with you that it is not idiopathic tetanus, but point out any distinction that you can see between these symptoms and those of real tetanus.—I do not know that there is any distinction, except that in a case of tetanus I never saw rigidity continue till death and afterwards. Can you tell me of any case of death from convulsions in which the patient was conscious to the last?—l do not know of any ; convulsions occurring after poison has been taken are properly called tetanic. We were told by Sir B. Brodie that while the paroxysms of tetanic convulsion last there is no difference between those which arise from strychnine and those which arise from tetanus properly so called, but the difference was in the course the symptoms took. Now, what do you say is the difference between tetanus arising from strychnine and ordinary tetanus ?—The hands are less violently contracted; the effect of the spasm is less in ordinary tetanus. The convulsion, too, never entirely passes away. I have stated that tetanus is a disease of days, strychnine of hours and minutes ; that convulsive twitchings are in strychnine the first symptoms, the last in tetanus; that in tetanus the hands, feet, and legs are usually the last affected, while in strychnine they are the first. I gave that opinion after the symptoms in the case of the lady at Leeds, which were described by the witness Witham, and I still adhere to it. I never said that Cook’s case was one of idiopathic tetanus. Ido not think it was a case of tetanus in any sense of the word. It differed from the course of tetanus from strychnine in the particulars I have already mentioned. Repeat them.—There was the sudden acccession of the convulsions. Sudden—after what ?—After the rousing by Jones. There was also the power of talking. Don’t yoti know that Mrs. Smyth talked and retained her consciousness to the end; that her last words were “ turn me over ? ”—She did say something of that kind. No doubt those were the words she used. I believe that in poison tetanus the symptoms are first observed in the legs and feet. In the animals upon which I have experimented twitchings in the ears and difficulty of breathing have been the premonitory symptoms. 'When Cook felt a stiffness and a difficulty of breathing, and said that he should be suffocated on the first night, what were those but premonitory symptoms ?—Well, he asked to be rubbed; but, as far as my experience goes with animals— The Attorney-General.—They can’t ask to have their ears rubbed, of course. (A laugh.) Mr. Serjeant S/iee said the witness was about to explain the effect of being rubbed upon the animals. EIGHTH DAY, MAY 22, 1856. 119 •Cross-examination continued.—ln no single instance could the animals bear to be touched. Did not Mrs. Smyth ask to have her legs and arms rubbed ?—ln the Leeds case the lady asked to be rubbed before the convulsions came on, but afterwards she could not bear it, and begged that she might not be touched. Can you point out any one point, after the premonitory, symptoms, in which the symptoms in this case differ from those of strychnine tetanus?— There is the power of swallowing, which is taken away by the inability to move the jaw. But you ha ve n'ot stated that lockjaw is the last symptom that occurs in strychnine tetanus ? I have. I .don’t deny that it may be. lam speaking of the general rule. In the Leeds case it came on very early, more than two hours before death, the paroxysms having continued about two hours and a half. In that case we believed that the dose was four times repeated. Poison might probably be extracted by chemical process from the tissues, but I never tried it except in one case of an animal. lam not sure whether poison was in that ease given through the mouth. We killed four animals in reference to the Leeds case, and in every instance we found strychnine in the contents of the stomach. In one case we administered it in two processes, and one failed and the other succeeded. Re-examined.—In making reports upon cases such as that which has been referred to we state ordinary appearances ; we state the facts without anything more. Mr, WILLIAM HERAPATH, Examined by Mr. Grove, Q. C. lam a professor of chymistry and toxicology at the Bristol Medical School. I have studied chymistry for more than 40 years, toxicology for 30. I have experimented on the poison of strych- nine. I have seen no case of a human subject during life, but I have examined a human body after death. In one ease I-examined the contents of the stomach and I found strychnine about three days after death. There are several tests—sulphuric acid and bichromate of potash, sulphuric acid and puce coloured oxide of lead, sulphuric acid, and peroxide of lead, sulphuric acid and peroxide of manganese, &c. The lower oxides of lead would not succeed. These are all colour tests, and produce a purple colour, passing to red. Another class of tests gives a different colour with impure, but not with pure, strychnia. The process used previous to these tests is for the purpose of producing strychnia. I obtained evidence of strychnia by the colour tests in the case I have mentioned. I have experimented upon animals with regard to strychnine in eight or nine cases. I have analysed the bodies in two cases in which I destroyed the animals myself. Both of them were cats. I gave the first one grain of strychnia in a solid form. The animal took the poison at night, and I found it dead in the morning. It was dreadfully contorted and rigid, the limbs extended, the head turned round—not to the back, but to the side —the eyes protruding and staring, the iris expanded so as to be almost invisible. I found strychnine in the urine, which had been ejected, and also in the stomach, by the tests I have mentioned. I administered the same quantity of strychnine in a solid form to another cat. It remained very quiet for fifteen or sixteen minutes, but seemed a little restless in its eyes and in breathing. In thirty-five minutes it had a terrible spasm, the extremities and the head being drawn together, and the feet extended. I watched it for three hours. The first spasm lasted a minute or two. The saliva dropped from its mouth, and it forcibly ejected its urine. It had a second spasm a few minutes afterwards. It soon recovered and remained still, with the exception of a trembling all over. It continued in that state for three hours. During nearly two hours and a-half it was in a very peculiar state ; it appeared to be electrified ail through, blowing upon it or touching the basket in which it was placed produced a kind of electric jump like a galvanic shock. I left it in three hours, thinking it would recover, hut in the morning I found it dead, in the same indurated and contorted condition as the former animal. I examined the body thirty- six hours after death, and found strychnia in the urine, in the stomach and upper intestine, in the liver, and in the blood of the heart. I have discovered strychnia in all other cases by the same tests, but I took extraordinary means to get rid of organic matter. In all cases in which strychnia has been given I have been able to find it, and not only strychnia, but also the mix vomica from which it is taken. I have found nux vomica in a fox and in other animals. The detection of nux vomica is more complicated than that of strychnia. In one case the animal had been buried two months. I have experimented with strychnia not in a body, but mixed purposely with organic putrefying matter, I have found it in all cases, whatever was the state of decomposition of the matter. Are you of opinidh that where strychnia has been taken in a sufficient dose to poison it can and ought to be discovered?— Yes; unless the body has been completely decomposed; that is, ■unless decomposition has reduced it to a dry powder. lam of opinion, from the accounts given by Dr. Taylor and the other witnesses, that if it had existed in the body of Cook it ought to have been discovered. lam aware of no cause for eiror in the analyses, if the organic matter had been properly got rid of. The experiments I have mentioned were made in Bristol. I have made experiments in London, and found strychnia in the stomach, liver, and blood of an animal. Cross-examined by the Attorney-General.—l don’t profess to be a physiologist. I have principally experimented on the stomach until lately. I tried my chymical process on the Bth of this month with a view to the present ease. The experiment here was on a dog. I experi- mented on the tissues of a cat at Bristol and of a dog in London. I found strychnia in the blood, the heart, and the urine of the oat, besides the stomach. One grain was given to the dog. It was a large dog. I have s6en a cat killed with a quarter of a grain. I have said that Dr. Taylor ought to have found strychnia. 120 THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMER. Haye you not said that you had no doubt strychnia had been taken, but that Dr. Taylor had not gone the right way to find it?—l may have said so. I had a strong opinion from reading various newspaper reports among others the Illustrated Times that strychnia had been given. I have expressed that opinion, no doubt, freely. People have talked a great deal to me about the matter, and I can’t recollect every word I have said, but that was my general opinion. Re-examined by Mr. Grove.—What is the smallest quantity of strychnia that your process is capable of detecting ?—I am perfectly sure I could detect the 50-000 th part of a grain if it was unmixed with organic matter. If I put ten grains in a gallon or 70,000 grains of water I. could discover its presence in the 10th part of a grain of that water. It is more difficult to detect Avhen mixed with organic matter. If a person had taken a grain a very small quantity would be found in the heart, [but no doubt it could be found. I made four experiments )vith a large dog to which I had given the eighth part of- a grain. I have dis- covered it by change of colour in the 32nd part’ of the liver of a dog. Mr. Grove said he believed his Lordship was of opinion that experiments could not be shown. Lord Campbell.—We have intimated that that is our clear opinion. Mr. ROGERS, Examined by Mr. Gray. I am professor of chymistry at St. George’s School of Medicine, in London. I have made experi- ments upon one animal, a dog poisoned by strychnia. The ex- periments commenced at the close of last December, and ended about ten days since. I gave it two grains of pure strychnia in meat. Three days after death I removed the stomach and con- and some of the blood. The blood became putrid in about ten days, and I then analysed it with a view to find strychnine. I separated the strychnine by colour tests. I cannot say how much it was by weight. In a month or five weeks, when the matter had putrefied,! analysed the stomach and its contents. I treated it with acidulated distilled water, and succeeded in discovering strych- nia in large quantities about ten days ago. I never analysed a human subject with a view to find strychnia, but I have many times done so to find other poisons. Strychnia must unquestion- ably have been discovered in this case if it had been present and the proper tests had been used. Cross-examined by the Attorney-General.—l have only made one experiment. If the contents of the stomach were lost it would make a difference, but not if they were only shaken up. The operation would then be more difficult. I am a medical man. I did not analyse the tissues of the body of the dog. If I had tried the tissues of Cook’s body it mightjiave been found if it was there, notwithstanding the time that had elapsed since he died. I don’t say that the time would prevent its discovery if there. Re-examined by Mr. Gray.—lf strychnia were in the stomach a portion would probably be smeared over the mucous membrane, and then I should expect to find it on the surface. MR. W. herapath, professor of chemistry. Dr. HENRY LETHEBY, Examined by Mr. Kenealy. I am a bachelor of medicine, professor of chymistry and toxicology in the London Hospital of Medicine, and Medical Officer of Health to the City of London. I have been engaged for a con- siderable time in the study of poisons and their action on the living animal economy. I have also been frequently engaged on behalf of the Crown in prosecutions in cases of this nature during the last fourteen years. I have been present during the examination of the medical witnesses, and have attended to the evidence as to the symptoms which have been described as attending the death of Cook. I have witnessed many cases of animals poisoned by strychnine, and many cases of poisoning by nux vomica in the human body, one of which was 'fatal. The EIGHTH DAY, MAY 22, 1856. 121 Dll. LETHEBY, MEDICAL OFFICEB, OF HEALTH TO THE CITY OF LONDON. symptoms described in this case do not accord with the symptoms I have witnessed in the case of those animals. They differ in this respect:—ln the first place I never witnessed the long interval between the administration of the poison and the commencement of the symptoms which is said to have elapsed in this case. The longest interval I have known has been three-quarters of an hour, and then the poison was administered under most disadvantageous circumstances. It was given on a very full stomach and in a form uneasy of solution. I have seen the symptoms begin in five minutes. The average time in which they begin is a quarter of an hour. In all cases I have seen the system has been in that irritable state that the very lightest excitement, such as an effort to move, a touch, a noise, a breath of air, would send the patient off in convulsions. It is not at all probable that a person, after taking strychnia, could pull a bell violently. Any movement would excite the nervous system, and bring on spasms. It is not likely that a person in that state could bear to have his neck rubbed. When a case of strychnia does not end fatally, the first paroxysm is succeeded by others, gradually shaded off, the paroxysms becoming less violent every time, and I agree with Dr. Christison that they would subside in twelve or sixteen hours. I have no hesitation in saying that strychnine is of all poisions, either mineral or vegetable, the most easy of detection. I have detected it in the stomach of animals in numerous instances, also in the blood and in the tissues.. The longest period after death in which I have detected it is about a month. The animal was then in a state of decomposition. I have detected very minute portions of strychnia. When it is pure the 20,000 th part of a grain can be detected. 1 can detect the tenth part of a grain most easily in a pint of any liquid, whether pure or putrid. I gave one animal half a grain, and I have the strychnia here now within a very small trifle. I never failed to detect strychnine where it had been administered. I have made post mortem examinations on various animals killed by it. I have always found the right side of the heart full. The reason is that the death takes place from the fixing of the muscles of the chest by spasms, so that the blood is unable to pass through the lungs, and the heart cannot relieve itself from the blood flowing to it, and therefore becomes gorged. The lungs are congested apd filled with blood. I have administered strychnia in a liquid and a solid form; I agree with Dr. Taylor that it may kill in six or eleven minutes when taken in £t solid state in the form of a pill or bolus. I also agree with I 122 THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMER. him that the first symptom is that the animal falls on its side, the jaws are spasmodically closed, and the slightest touch produces another paroxysm. But I do not agree with him that the colour tests are fallacious. Ido not agree that it is changed when it is absorbed into the blood, but I agree with its absorption. I think it is not changed when the body is decomposed. The shaking about of the contents of the stomach with the intestines in ajar would not prevent the discovery of strychnia if it had been administered. Even if the contents of the stomach were lost the mucous membrane would, in the ordinary course of things, exhibit traces of strychnia. I have studied the poison of antimony. If a quantity had been introduced into brandy-and-water, and swallowed at a gulp, the effect would not be to burn the throat. Antimony does not possess any such quality as that of immediate burning. I have turned my attention to the subject of poison for seventeen or eighteen years. Cross-examined by the Attorney-General.—l am not a member of the College of Physicians or of Surgeons. I do not now practise. I have been in general practice for tyyp or three years. I gave evidence in the last case of this sort, tried in this court in 1851. I gave evidence of the presence of arsenic. The woman was convicted. I stated that it had been administered within four hours of death. I was the cause of her being respired, and the sentence was not carried into effect, in consequence of a letter I wrote to the Home Office. Other scientific gentlemen inter- fered, and challenged the soundness of my coneimions before I wrote that letter. I have not since been employed by the Crown. By Mr. Justice Cresswell.—I was present at the trial. I perfectly remember it. Cross-examination continued.—l detected the poison. I said in my letter that I could not speak as to possibilities, but. merely as to probabilities. I have experimented on animals for a great number of years. Oa firs recently. I have never given more than a grain, and it has always been in a solid form—in pills or bread. In the case where poison was administered under disadvantageous circumstances it was kneaded up into a hard mass of bread. Mr. Baron Aldbrsox.—Did the animal bolt it or bite it ? Witness.—I opened the mouth and put it into the throat. About half an hour elapsed before the symptoms appeared in one case iu which half a grain had been given. In another case death took place within thirteen minutes. I have noticed twitching of the ears,, difficulty of breathing, and other premonitory symptoms. There are little variations in the order in which the symptoms occur. I have known frequent instances in which an animal has died in the first paroxysm. I heard the evidence of Mrs. Smyth’s death,, and I was surprised at her having got out of bed when the servant answered the bell. It is not .consistent with the eases I have seen. That fact does not shake my opinion. I have no doubt that Mrs. Smyth died from strychnine. Cook’s sitting up in bed and asking Jones to ring the bell is inconsistent with, what I have observed in strychnine cases. If a man’s breath is hurried is it not natural for him to sit up ?:—lt is. I have seen cases of recovery of human subjects after taking strychnine. There is a great uniformity in its effects— that is, in their main features, but there is a small variation as to the time in which they are produced. What do you attribute Cook’s death to ?—lt is irreconcileable with everything with which I am acquainted. Is it reconcileahle with any known disease you have ever seen or heard of?— No. Re-examined by Mr. Serjeant Slice.—We are learning new facts every day, and I do not at present conceive it to be impossible that some peculiarity of the spinal cord, unrecognisable at the examination after death, may have produced symptoms like those which have been described. I, of course, include strychnia in my answer; but it is irreconcileable wiih everything I have seen or heard of. It is as irreconcileable with strychnia as with everything else ; it is irreconcileable with every disease that lam acquainted with, natural or artificial. Touching an animal during the premonitory symptoms will bring on a paroxysm. Vomiting is inconsistent with strychnia. The Romsey case was an exceptional one, from the quantity of the dose. The ringing of the bell would have produced a paroxysm. I am still of opinion that the evidence I gave on the trial in 1851 is correct. I am not aware that there is any ground for an impu- tation upon me in respect of that evidence. I have no reason to think Government was dis- satisfied with me. I have not been since employed in Crown prosecutions. After that case Dr. Pereira came to my laboratory and asked me, as an act of mercy, to write a letter to him to show to the Home Office, admitting the possibility of the poison which I found in the stomach having been administered longer than four hours before death. I wrote the letter, drawing a distinction between what was possible and probable, and the woman was transported for life. Mr. R. E. GAY, Examined by Mr. Serjeant Shee. lam a member of the Royal College of Surgeons. I attended a person named Forster for tetanus in October, 1855. He had sore throat, muscular pains in the neck, and in the upper portion of the cervical vertebrae. He was feverish, and had symptoms ordinarily attend- ing catarrh. I put him under the usual treatment for catarrh, and used embrocations externally to the muscles of the neck and throat, and also gargles. About the fourth day of my attenef- ance the muscular pains extended to the face, difficulty of swallowing came on, the pains in the cervical vertebrae increased, also those of the muscles of the face, particularly the lower jaw. In the evening ot the same day the jaw became completely locked, the pains ci.nie on in the muscles of the bowels, the legs, and the arms. He became very much convulsed throughout the entire muscular system, had frequently involuntary contractions of the arms, and hands, and NINTH HAY, MAY 23, 1856. 123 legs, his difficulty of swallowing increased, and not a particle of food, solid or liquid, could he introduced into the mouth. Attempting to swallow the smallest portions brought on "violent convulsions; so strong were they throughout the system that I could compare him to nothing but a piece of warped board. The head was thrown back, the abdomen thrust forward, and the legs frequently drawn up and contracted; the attempt to feed him with a spoon, the opening, of a window, or placing the lingers on the pulse, brought on violent convulsions. "While the patient was suffering in this manner he continually complained of great hunger, and repeatedly exclaimed that he was hungry, and could not eat. He was kept alive to the 14th day entirely by injections of a milky and farinaceous character. He screamed repeatedly, and the noises that he made were more like those of a wild man than any- thing else. On the 12th day he became insensible, and continued in that state until he died, which was in the 14th day from the commencement of the attack of lockjaw. The man was an omnibus driver, and when I first attended him he had been suffering from sore throat for several days. There was no hurt or injury of any kind about his person that would account for the symptoms'! have mentioned. His body was not opened after death, because it was considered unnecessary. I consider his disease was inflammatory sore throat from cold and exposure to the weather, and that the disease assumed a tetanic form on account of the patient being a very nervous, excited, and anxious person. His condition in life was that of an omnibus conductor. He was-a hard working man, and had a large family dependent upon him, and this no doubt, acting upon his peculiar temperament, tended to produce the tetanic symptoms. The witness, in conclusion, said he had not heard all the evidence in this case, but he thought it right to communicate to the prisoner’s solicitor the particulars of the case to which he had now referred, as he considered it had an important bearing upon the charge against the prisoner. Cross-examined by the Attorney-General.—The case I have mentioned was undoubtedly one of idiopathic tetanus. It is the only one of the kind I ever had to deal with. It arose from exposure to cold, acting upon a nervous and irritable temperament. I have a good many patients who are nervous and irratable, but I never met with such another case. The disease was altogether pro- gressive from the first onset, and, although there was a remission of the symptoms, they invariably recurred. The locking of the jaw was one of the very first symptoms that made their appearance. Serjeant Shee then addressed the Court, and said that the next witness he proposed to call would occupy some time in examination, and, as it was now nearly six o’clock, he suggested thfct it would be better to adjourn the examination to the next day. * The Lord Chief-Justice said he had no objection to the course proposed by the learned Serjeant, and he then inquired of him how much time the case for the defence was likely to occupy. Serjeant Shee said he hoped to conclude the defence to-morrow; and he should endeavour to do so if he possibly could. The Lokd Chief-Justice said there was no desire to hurry him. It was most essential in so important an inquiry that the most ample opportunity should be allowed for a full and satisfactory investigation. The Court then adjourned to this morning at ten o’clock. NINTH DAt, May 33, 1856. There was a great crowd as usual in court this morning, long before the commencement of the proceedings. The Duke of Wellington, the Earl of Albemarle, Lord Dononghmore, Lord Dufferin, Lord Feversham, Sir J. Pakington, Mr. Harcourt Yernon, General Peel, Mr. Tollemache, Mr. S. Warren, and other members of Parliament were present. The learned Judges, Lord Campbell, Mr. Baron Alderson, and Mr. Justice Cresswell, took their seats upon the bench at about 10 o’clock, and, the prisoner having been placed at the bar, the examination of witnesses for the defence was resumed. No alteration has taken place in the prisoner’s demeanour. Counsel for the Crown—the Attorney-General, Mr. E. James, Q.C., Mr. Welsby, Mr. Bodkin, and Mr. Huddleston; for the prisoner, Mr. Serjeant Shee, Mr. Grove, Q.C., Mr. Gray, and Mr. Kenealy. Mr. J. B. BOSS, Examined by Mr. Grove. ■ * lam house-surgeon to the London Hospital. I recollect a case of tetanus being brought into the hospital on the 22nd of March last. A man, aged 37, was brought in about half-past seven in the evening. He had had one paroxysm in the receiving-room ; his pulse was rapid and feeble, his jaws were closed and fixed, there was an expression of anxiety about the countenance, the features were sunken, he was unable to swallow, and the muscles of the abdomen and the back were somewhat tense. After he had been in the ward about ten minutes he had another paroxysm, and hisbody became arched; it lasted about a minute. He was afterwards quieter for a few minutes,’and then had another attack and died. The whole lasted about half an hour. There was an inquest held on the body. It was examined, and no poison was found. I think tetanus was the cause’of death. There were three wounds on the body, two at the back of the right elbow, each about the size of a shilling, and one on the left elbow, about the size of a sixpence. *The man had had those wounds for twelve or sixteen years. They were old chronic indurated ulcers, circular in outline, the edges thickened and rounded, and covered with a white coating, without any granulation. lam unable to say what was the origin of those ulcers, but I have seen other wounds like them. I have seen old chronic syphilitic wounds like them in other places. Those wounds were the only things which would account for tetanus. Cross-examined by the Attorney-General.—l ascertained that poultices had been applied to the wounds a day or two before, but I am not certain as to the exact time. The man’s wife had objected to their application. They were made of linseed meal. The man’s jaws were fixed so as to render him perfectly incapable of swallowing anything. He said he had first been taken with symptoms of lockjaw at 11 o’clock—-as he told me, at dinner, but, as he told my colleague, at breakfast. He was able to speak, but could not open the jaw. That is a symptom of tetanus. There were symptoms of rigidity about the abdordinal and lumbar muscles. Ho did not say how long he had felt that rigidity. I gathered that some other medical man, a surgeon, had seen him in the afternoon before he came to the hospital, but I am not certain as to that; he was a labouring man. Have you any doubt that the disease had been coming on since the morning ?—No doubt at all. The sores were ugly sores of a chronic character—ulcers. There was an integument which connected the two on the right arm, so that they would be likely to run into one another. The wounds continued under the skin, and there wera no signs of healing. They had the appearance of old neglected sores. They were at the seat of the ulnar nerve—a very sensitive nerve—that which is commonly called the “funny-bone.” I believe he had succes* sive paroxysms all the afternoon before he came to the hospital. I think his attack arose from tetanus. My opinion is founded upon the facts that he had had wounds, that he had diedof spasms, hat he had lockjaw, that the muscles of the abdomen and back were rigid, and that lie complained of pain in the stomach. I did not hear the account of the symptoms of Cook’s death. An affection of the ulnar nerve was peculiarly liable to produce tetanus. Re-examined by Mr. Grove.'—’Strychnine was suspected in that case. The nerves of the tongue are very delicate, as are also those of the throat and fauces. I have read descriptions of tetanus in the books. The case described by Mr. Gay was idiopathic, having been caused by a cold. An injury to any delicate nerve would decidedly be a cause of tetanus. Mr. RYNERS MANTELL, Examined by Mr. Gray. lam a house-surgeon at the London Hospital. I saw the case mentioned by Mr. Ross, and his statement with respect to the symptoms is correct. In my judgment, the disease of which the patient died was tetanus, produced by the sores on the arms. 'Dr. WRIGHTSON, Examined by Mr. Kenealy. I was a pupil of Liebig at Giessen. lam a teacher of chymistry in a school at Birmingham. I have studied the nature and acquired a knowledge of poisons, and I have been engaged by the Grown in the detection of poison in a prosecution. I have experimented upon strychnia. I have found no extraordinary difficulties in the detection of strychnia. It is certainly to be NINTH DAY, MAY 23, 1856. 125 detected by the usual tests. I hare tested and discovered both pure and mixed with impure matter after decomposition has sec in. I have detected it in a mixture of bile, bilious matter, and putrefying blood. Strychnia can be discovered in the tissues. I have discovered it in the viscera of a cat, in the blood of one dog, and in the urine of another dog, both of them having been poisoned by strychnia. lam of opinion that strychnia does not undergo decomposition in the act of poisoning or in entering into the circulation. If it underwent such a change, if it were decomposed, 1 should say it would not be possible to discover it in the tissues; it might possibly be changed into a substance, in which, however, it would still be detectable. It can be discovered in extremely minute quantities indeed. When I detected it in the blood of a dog I had given the animal two grains. To the second dog I gave one grain, and I detected it in the urine. Half a grain was intended to be administered to the cat, but a considerable portion of it was lost. Assuming that a man was poisoned by strychnine, and if his stomach were sent to me for analysation within five or six days after death, I have no doubt that I should find it, generally . If a man had been poisoned by strychnine I should certainly expect to detect it. Cross-examined by the Attorney-General.—Supposing that the whole dose were absorbed into the system, where would you expect to find it ?—ln the blood. Does it pass from the blood into the solids of the body ?—lt does; or I should rather say it is left in the solids of the body. In its progress towards its final destination, the destruction of life, it passes from the blood, or is left by the blood in the solid tissues of the body. If it be present in the stomach, you find it in the stomach; if it be present in the blood, you find it in the blood; if it be left by the blood in the tissues, you find it in the tissues ?• Precisely so'. Suppose the whole had been absorbed ?—Then I would not undertake to find it. Suppose the whole had been eliminated from the blood, and had passed into the urine, should you expect to find any in the blood ?—Certainly not. Suppose that the minimum dose which will destroy life had been taken, and absorbed into the circulation, then deposited in the tissues, and then a part of it eliminated by the action of the kidneys, where should you search for it ?—ln the blood, in the tissues, and in the ejections ; and I would undertake to discover it in each of them. Ile-examined by Mr. Serjeant Shee■—Suppose you knew a man to have been killed by strychnia administered to him one and a half hours before he died, in your judgment would that strychnia certainly be detected in the stomach in the first instance ?—Yes. Suppose it to have been administered in the shape of pills and completely absorbed and got out of the stomach, would it still be found ?—I can’t tell. If it were found it would be in the liver and kidneys. Could it be detected under those circumstances in the coats of the stomach ?—Not knowing the dose administered and the power of absorption, I canndt say that it could certainly be detected, but probably it could. When death has taken place after one paroxysm, and an hour and a half after ingestion of the poison, can you form an opinion as to whether the dose was considerable or inconsiderable ?—I cannot. Mr. Baron Aldebson.—How do you suppose strychnine acts when taken into the stomach ? I cannot form an opinion. Mr. Baron Aldersom.—It goes, I suppose, from the stomach to the blood, and from the blood somewhere else; and, arriving at that somewhere else, it kills. Lord Campbell.—-I cannot allow this witness to leave the box without expressing my high approbation of the manner in which he has given his evidence. Mr. Serjeant Shee requested to be allowed to ask the witness whether a strong dose was likely to pass through all the stages his Lordship had mentioned. Mr. Baron Alderson.—That depends on where the killing takes place. I have been many years in extensive practice as a surgeon, and I am a Professor of Anatomy in King’s College. I have heard the evidence as to Cook’s symptoms and post mortem examination. 1 have heard the statements as to the granules that were found on his spine. They would be likely to cause inflammation, and no doubt that inflammation would have been discovered if the spinal cord or its membranes had been examined shortly after death. It would not be likely to be discovered it the spinal cord was not examined until nine weeks after death. I have not seen cases in which this inflammation has produced tetanic form of convulsions, but such cases are on record. It sometimes does, and sometimes does not produce convulsions and death. Can you form any judgment as to the cause of death in Cook’s case ?—I cannot. No conclusion or inference can be drawn from the degree or kind of the contractions of the body after death. Lord Campbell.—Can you not say from the-*symptoms you heard whether death was produced l>y tetanus, without saying what was the cause of tetanus ?—Hypothetically, I should infer that he died of that form of tetanus whioh convulses the muscles. Great varieties of rigidity arise after death from natural causes. The half-bent hands and fingers are not uncommon after natural death. The arching of the feet in this case seemed to me rather greater than usual. Cross-examined by the Attorney-General.—Granules are sometimes, but not commonly, found about the spine of a healthy subject—not on the cord itself; they may exist consistently with health. No satisfactory cases of the ififiammation I have described have come under my notice without producing convulsions. It is a very rare disease. I cannot state from the recorded cases the Professor PARTRIDGE, Examined by Mr. Grove. 126 THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMER. course of the symptoms of that disease. It varies in. duration, sometimes lasting only for days, sometimes much longer. If the patient lives it is accorrf'panied with paralysis. It produces no effect on the brain which is recognisable after death. It would not affect the brain prior to death. I do not know whether it is attended with loss of sensibility before death. The size of the granules which will produce it varies. This disease is not a matter of months, unless it terminates in palsy. I never heard of a case in which the patient died after a single convulsion. Between the intervals of the convulsions I don’t believe a man could have twenty-four hours’ repose. Pain and spasms would accompany the convulsions. I cannot form a judgment as to whether the general health would be affected in the intervals between them. You have heard it stated that from the midnight of Monday till Tuesday Cook had complete repose. Now, I ask you, in the face of the medical profession, whether you think the symptoms which have been described proceeded from that disease ?—I should think not. Did you ever know the hands completely clinched after death except in, case of tetanus ?—No. Have you ever known it even in idiopathic or traumatic tetanus ?—I have never seen idio- pathic tetanus. I have seen the hands completely clinched in traumatic tetanus. A great deal of force is often required to separate them. Have you ever known the feet so distorted as to assume the form of a club foot ?—No. You heard Mr. Jones state that if he had turned the body upon the back h would have rested on the head and the heels. Have yon any doubt that that is an indication of death from tetanus ? —No ;itis a form of tetanic spasm. lam only acquainted with tetanus resulting from strychnine by reading. Some of the symptoms in Cook's case are consistent, some are inconsistent with strychnine tetanus. The first inconsistent symptom is the intervals that occurred between the taking of the supposed poison and the attacks. Are not symptoms of bending of the body, difficulty of respiration, convulsions in the throat, legs, and arms perfectly consistent with what you know of the symptoms of death from strychnine ? —Perfectly consistent- I have known cases of traumatic tetanus. The symptoms in those cases had been occasionally remitted, never wholly terminated. I never knew traumatic tetanus run its course to death in less than three or four days. I never knew a complete case of the operation of strychnine upon a human subject. • Bearing in mind the distinction between traumatic and idiopathic tetanus, did you ever know of such a death as that of Cook according to the symptoms you have heard described ?—No. Re-examined by Mr. Grove.—Besides the symptom which I have mentioned as being inconsistent with the theory of death by strychnine there are others—namely, sickness, beating the bed- clothes, want of sensitiveness to external impressions, and sudden cessation of the convulsions and apparent complete recovery. There was apparently an absence of the usual muscular agitation. Symptoms of convulsive cbarfccter arising from an injury to the spine vary consider- ably in their degrees of violence, in their periods of intermission, and in the muscles which are attacked. Intermission of the disease occurs, bu£ is not frequent, in Traumatic tetanus. I don’t remember that death lias ever taken place in fifteen hours ; it may take place in forty-eight hours during convulsions. Granules about the spine are more unusual in young people than in old. I don’t know of any case in which the spine can preserve its integrity, so as to be properly examined, for a period of nine weeks. I,should not feel justified in inferring that there was no disease from not finding any at the end of that time. The period of decomposition varies from a few hours to a few days. It is not in the least probable that it could be delayed for nine weeks. By the Attorney-General.—Supposing the stomach were acted on by other causes, I do not think sickness would be inconsistent with tetanus. I am a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons, and I have been a surgeon to the Royal Free Hospital. A case of traumatic tetanus in a boy came under my observation in that hospital in 1843. The patient was brought in during the time hb was ill. He was brought on the 28th of July and died on the 2d of August. He had met with an accident a week before. During the first three days he had paroxysms of unusual severity. His mother complained that he could not open his mouth, and he complained, of stiff neek. During the night he started up and was con- vulsed. On the following night he was again convulsed. At times the abdominal muscles, as well as those of the legs and back, were rigid; the muscles of the face were also in a state of great contraction. On the fallowing (the third) day he was in the same state- At two o’clock there was much less rigidity of the muscles, especially those of the abdomen and back. On the following morning the muscular rigidity had gone, he opened his mouth and was able to talk; he was thoroughly relieved. He had no return of spasms till half-past five o’clock the following day. He then asked the nurse to change his liflfen, and as she lifted him up iu the bed to do so violent convulsions of the arms and face came on, and he died in a few minutes. About thirty hours elapsed between the preceding convulsion and the one jyhich terminated his life. Before the paroxysm came on the rigidity had been completely relaxed. I had given the patient tartar emetic (containing antimony) in order to produce vomiting on the second day; it produced no effect. I gave a larger dose on the third day, which also produced no effect. I gave no more after the third day. Cross-examined by the Attorney-General.—The accident which had happened to him was that a large stone had fallen upon the middle toe of the left foot, and completely* smashed it. The wound had become very unhealthy. I amputated the toe. The mouth was almost closed up JOHN GAY, Examined by Mr. Gray. NINTH DAY, MAY 23, 1856. 127 when I first saw him. The jaw remained closed until the Ist of August, but I could manage to get a small quantity of tartar emetic into the mouth. The convulsions were, intermitted during the day, but the muscles of the body, chest, abdomen, back, and neck were all rigid, and continued so for the two days on which I administered tartar emetic. .Rigidity of the muscles of the chest and stomach would no doubt go far to prevent vomiting. The symptoms began to abate on the morning of the Ist of August (the fourth day), and gradually subsided until the rigidity entirely wore off. I then thought he was going to get well. The wound might have been rubbed against the bed when he was raised, but I don’t think it probable. Some peculiar irritation of the nerves would give rise to the affection of the spinal cord. No doubt the death took place in consequence of something produced by the injury to the toe. Re-examined by Mr. Gray.—There may be various causes for that irritation of the spinal cord which ends in tetanic convulsions. It would be very difficult merely from seeing symptoms of tetanus, and in the absence of all knowledge as to how it had been occasioned, to ascribe it to any particular cause. Dr. "VY. MACDONALD, Examined by Mr. Kenealy. lam a licentiate of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh. I have been in practice for fourteen years, and have had considerable experience, practical and theoretical, of idiopathic and traumatic tetanus. I have seen two cases of idiopathic tetanus, and have made that disease the subject of medical research. Tetanus will proceed from very slight causes. An alteration of the secretions of the body, exposure to cold or damp, or mental excitement would cause it. Sensual excitement would produce it. The presence of gritty granules in the spine or brain might produce tetanic convulsions. I have seen cases in which small gritty tubercles in the brain were the only assignable cause of death, which had resulted from convulsions. I believe that in addition to the slight causes which 1 have named tetanic convulsions result from causes as yet undiscoverable by human science. In many post mortem examinations of the bodies of persons who had died from tetanus no trace of any disease could be discovered beyond congestion or vascularity of some of the vessels surrounding the nerves. Strychnia, however, is very easily discoverable by a scientific man. I remember the case of a woman, Catharine Watson, who is now present, and who was attacked with idiopathic tetanus on the 20th ot October, 1855. [The witness read a report of the circumstances attending this case, the subject of which was a young woman twenty-two years of age, who, after going about her ordinary occupation during the day, was attacked with tetanus at 10 o’clock at night. By the administration of chloroform the violence of the spasms was gradually diminished and she recovered. After her recovery she slept for thirty-six hours.] In that case there was lockjaw, which set in about the middle of the attack. It is generally a late sj'mptom. I had a patient named Coupland who died of tetanus. It must have been idiopathic, as there was no external cause. The patient died in somewhat less than half an hour, before I could reach the house. I have made a number of experiments upon animals with reference to strychnia poison. I have found the post mortem appearances very generally to concur. The vessels of the membranes of the brain have generally been highly con- gested. The sinuses gorged with blood,. In one case there was hemorrhage from the nostrils. That was a case of very high congestion. In some cases there has been an extravasation of blood at the base of the brain. I have cut through the substance of the brain, and have found in it numerous red points. The lungs have been either collapsed or congested. The heart has invariably been filled with blood on the right side, and very often on the left side also. The liver has been congested, the kidneys and spleen generally healthy. The vessels of the stomach on the outer surface have been congested, and on the mucous or inner surface highly vascular. The vessels of the membranes of the spinal cord have been con- gested, and sometimes red points have been displayed on cutting it through. From a post mortem examination you may generally judge of the cause of death. I have in a great many eases experimented for the discovery of strychnia. You may discover in the stomach the smallest dose that will kill. If you kill with a grain you may discover traces of it. By traces I mean evidences of its presence. You can discover the fifty-thousandth part of a grain. I have actually experimented so as to discover that quantity. The decomposition of strychnia is a theory which no scientific man of eminence has ever before propounded. 1 first heard of that theory in this court. In my opinion, there is no well-grounded reason for it. I have disproved the theory hy numerous experiments. I have taken the blood of an animal poisoned by two grains of strychnia, about the least quantity which would destroy life, and have injected it into the abdominal cavities of smaller animals, and have destroyed them, with all the symptoms and post mortem appearances of poisoning by strychnia. Strychnia being administered in pills would not affect its detection. If the pills were hard they would keep it together, and you might find its remains more easily. Ido not agree with Dr. Taylor that colour tests are fallacious. I believe that such tests are a reliable mode of ascertaining the presence of strychnia. I have invariably found strychnia in the urine which has been ejected. Strychnia cannot be confounded with, pyroxanthe. After strychnia has been administered there is an increased flow of saliva. In my experiments that has been a very marked symptom. Animals to which strychnia had been given have always been very susceptible to touch. The stamp of a foot or a sharp word would throw them into convulsions. Even before the paroxysms commenced, touching them would be likely to throw them into tonic conyulsions. Lord Campbell.—As soon as the poison is swallowed ?—No ; it would be after a certain time The first symptoms of poisoning must have been developed. THE 'TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMER. KIKTH DAY, MAY 23, 1856. THE JUIiOHS’ SLEEPING APA^f J AT THE LONDON COFFEE-HOUSE. k and from the supposition that a dose of strycnma s attending poisoning W1 L ot so far as jam aware, have required even an hour or is- to destroy hfe in one paroxysm could not so ar as am an epileptic character, ■ftsstea: zssrtfSX -* 'vo"‘d bc nM"r*l' “epilept,c 1 '■'7 oft“ « »b»«‘ «>e “mc rciwiS"™of mind that he was silent for two or throe Assuming that a man was in so excxtea a share o , d damp, excited his toinutes after his horse had won a race, that he exposed deposits of gritty "brain by drink, and was attacked by violent vomiting, and that alter his cteatn ay Examination continued.—l do not think rubbing them would give them relief. I extremely improbable that a man who had taken a dose of strychnia sufficient to destroy life C°V after the symptoms had made their appearance pull a bell violently. I have attended to* evidence as to Cook s symptoms. To the symptoms I attach little importance as a meal,s'jc diagnosis because you may have the same symptoms developed by many different causes. A dosei" strychnia sufficient to destroy life would hardly require an hour and a half for its absorption M. think that death was in this case caused by epileptic convulsions, with tetanic complications. ItytA, that opinion from the post mortem appearances being so different from those that I have descr’15 1 130 THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMER. granules were found in the neighbourhood of the spinal cord, would these causes be likely to produce such a death as that of Cook’s ?—Any ode of these causes would assist in the production of such a death. As a congeries would they be still more likely to produce it ?—Yes. Cross-examined by the Attorney-General.—l am agej>eral practitioner, and am parochial medical officer. I have had personal experience of two cases of idippathic tetanus. What I have said about mental and sensual excitement and so on has not come within my own observation. In the case of Catherine Watson I saw the patient at about half-past ten at night. She had been ill nearly an hour, and had five or six spasms. She had gone about her usual duties up to evening. She felt a slight lassitude for two days previous to the attack. It was only by close pressing that I ascertained that lockjaw came on about an hour or two after I was called in. The case of Coupland was that of a young child between three and four years old. I-was attending the mother, and saw the child in good health half an hour before it came on. It was seized with spasm, what I conjectured to be of the diaphragm, and died in about half an ho4r. I had seen the child asleep, but I did not examine it. I don’t know whether I saw the face of the child, but it was in bed ; I judged that it was asleep. Is that the same as seeing it asleep ?—Sometimes a medical man can form a better judgment than a lawyer. Mr. Smith applied to me to be a witness in this case. I communicated to him the case of Catherine Watson, as resembling the case of Cook. I furnished my notes to be copied the night before last. I have been here since the commencement of the trial. 4 have been at all the consultations. I began the experiments for this case in January. I had made experiments before. That was eight or ten years ago. I then found out that strychnia could he discovered by chemical and physiological tests. I killed dogs, cats, rabbits, and fowls. The doses I adminis- tered were from three-quarters up to two grains. To dogs the smallest quantity administered was a grain. In four cases I killed with one grain, five with a grain and a half, one with a grain and a quarter, and two with two grains. I never killed a dog with half a grain of strychnia, and therefore never experimented to find that quantity after death. I have always found the brain and heart4ughly congested. The immediate cause of the fulness of the heart is that the spasm drives the blood from the small capillaries into the large vessels. The spasm of the respiratory muscles prevents the expansion of the lungs. The congestion of the brain is greatest when the animal was young and in full health. It does not depend upon the frequency of the spasms. I have seen cases of traumatic tetanus. I have had two in my own practice. One lasted five or six days, the other six or seven days, and the patient recovered. I have never seen a case of strychnia in the human subject. So fax as I can judge. Cook’s was a case of epileptic convulsions with tetanic complications. Nobody oan say from what epilepsy proceeds. I have not arrived at any opinion on the subject. I have seen one death from epilepsy. The patient was not conscious when be died. I can’t mention a case in which a patient dying from epilepsy has preserved his conscious- ness to the time of death. You have been reading up this subject ?—I am pretty well up in most branches of medicine. (A laugh.) I know of no case in which a patient dying from epilepsy has been conscious. My opinion is that Cook died of epileptic convulsions with tetanic complications. By Lord Campbell,—That is a disease well known to physicians. It is mentioned in Dr. Copland’s Dictionary. Examination continued.—l believe that all convulsive diseases, including the epileptic forms and the various tetanic complications, arise from the decomposition of the blood acting upon the nerves. Any mental excitement might have caused Cook’s attack. Cook was excited at Shrews- bury, and wherever there is excitement there is consequent depression. I think Cook was afterwards depressed. When a man is lying in bed and vomiting he must be depressed. This gentleman was much overjoyed at his horse winning, and you think he vomited in con- sequence ?—lt might predispose him to vomit. I am not speaking of “ mights.” Do you think that the excitement of the three minutes on 'he course at Shrewsbury on the Tuesday accounts for the vomiting on the Wednesday night ?—I do not. I find no symptoms of excitement or depression reported between that time and the time of his death. The white spots found in the stomach of the deceased might, by producing an inflam- matory condition of the stomach, have brought oa the convulsions which caused death. The Attorney-General.—But the gentlemen who made the post-mortem examination say that the stomach was not inflamed.—There were white sgpts, which cannot exist without inflammation. There must have been inflammation. The Attorney-General.—But these gentlemen say that there was not,—I do not believe them. (A laugh) Sensual excitement might cause epileptic convulsions, with tetanic complications. The chancre and syphilitic sores were evidence that Cook had undergone such excitement. That might have occurred before he was at Shrewsbury. Might sexual , intercourse produce epilepsy a fortnight after it occurred ?—There is an instance on record in which epilepsy supervened upon the very act of intercourse. Have you any instance in which epilepsy came on a fortnight afterwards ?(A laugh.)—lt is within the range of possibility. Do you mean, as a serious man of science, to say that ?—The results might. What results were there in this case ?—The chancre and the syphilitic sores. Did you over Hear of a chancre causing-epilepsy ?—No. Did you ever dream of such a thing ?—I never heard of it. Did you ever hear of any other form of syphilitic disease producing epilepsy ?—No; but tetanus. The Attorney-General.—But you Say this was epilepsy ; we are not talking of tetanus ?—You orget the tetanic complications. (Roars of laughter.) The Attorney-General.—lf I understand right then, it stands thus—the sexual excitement produces epilepsy, and the chancre superadds tetanic complications ?—I say that the results of sexual excitement produce epilepsy. * Mr. Baron Alderson said he had heard some person in court clap his hands. On an occasion on which a man was being tried for his life such a display was most indecent. Examination continued.—l cannot remember any fatal case of poisoning by strychnia in which so long a period as an hour and a-half intervened between the taking of the poison and the appearance of the first symptoms. What would be the effect of morphia given a day or two previously ? Would it not retard the action of the poison ?—No ; I have seen opium bring on convulsions very nearly similar. What quantity ?—A grain and a half. From my experience, I think that if morphia had been given a day or two before it would have accelerated the action of the strychnia. I have seen opium bring on epileptic convulsions. If this were a case of poisoning by strychnia, I should suppose that as both opium and strychnia produce congestion of the brain, the two would act together, and would have a more speedy effect. If congestion of the brain was coming on when morphia was given to Cook on the Sunday and Monday night, it might have increased rather than allayed it. But the gentlemen who examined the body say that there was no congestion after death ?—But Dr. Bamford says there was. You stick to Dr. Bamford ?—Yes, I do, because he was a man of experience, could judge much, better than younger men, and was not so likely to be mistaken. But Dr. Bamford said that Cook died of apoplexy ; do you think this was apoplexy ?—No, it was not. NINTH DAY, MAY 23, 1856. 131 What, then, do you think of Dr. Bamford, who certified that it was ?—That was a matter of opinion, but the existence of congestion in the brain he saw. The Attorney-General.—The other mfedical men said there was none. Lord Campbell.—That is rather a matter of reasoning than of evidence. Re-examined by Mr. Serjeant Shoe.—l have seen a great many children asleep, and can tell whether they are so without seeing their faces. In the case of the child who died of tetanus the mother had told me that it was asleep. Dr. Mason Good is a well known author upon convul- sions. From my reading of his works and others I have learnt that there are convulsions which are not, strictly speaking, epilepsy, although they resemble it in some of its features. I also know the works of M. Esqu.rollo. From reading those and other works I know that epileptic convulsions sufficiently violent to cause death frequently occur without the patient entirely losing his consciousness. Epilepsy, propbrly so called, is sudden in its attack. The patient falls down at once with a shriek. That disease occurs very often at night, and in bed. It sometimes happens that its existence is known to a young man’s family without his knowing anything about it. Convulsions of an epileptic character are sometimes preceded by premonitory symptoms. It sometimes happens that during such convulsions actual epilepsy comes on, and the patient dies of an internal spasm. It often happens that if a patient has suffered from epilepsy and convul- sions of an epileptic kind during the night, Tie may be as well next day as if nothing had hap- pened, more especially when an adult is seized for the first time. In such cases it often happens that, such fits succeed each other within a short period. I heard the deposition of Dr. Bamford. If it were true that the mind of the deceased were distressed and irritable the night before his death, I should say that he was suffering from depression. From what Cook said about his mad- ness in the middle of the Sunday night I should infer that he had been seized by some sudden cramp or spasm. Supposing that there was no such cramp, I should refer what he said to nervous and mental excitement. There might be some disturbance of the brain. I do not believe that inflammation can be absent while spots on the stomach are present. About eighteen months ago I examined the stomach of a person who had died from fever, in which I found white spots. I consulted various authors. In an essay on the stomach by Dr. Sprodboyne, a medical man who practised in Edinburgh, I found mention of similar spots on the stomach of a young woman who had died suddenly. , Dr. BAINBETDGE, examined by Mr. Grove. I am a doctor of medicine, and medical officer to the St. Martin’s workhouse. I have had much experience of convulsive disorders. Such disorders present great variety of symptoms. They vary as to the frequency of the occurrence and as to the muscles affected. Periodicity, or recurrence at the same hours, days,, or months, is common. I had a case in which a patient had an attack on one Christmas night, and on the following Christmas night, at the same hour, he had a similar attack. The various forms of convulsions so run into each other that it is almost impossible for the most experienced medical men to state where one terminates and the other bpgins. In both males and females hysteria is frequently attended by tetanic convulsions. Epileptic attacks are frequently accompanied by tetanic complications. Cross-examined by the Attorney-General.—Hysteric convulsions very rarely°end in death. I have known one case in which they have done so. That occurred within the last three mouths. It was the case of a male. It occurred in St. Martin’s workhouse. The man had been for years subject to this complaint. On the occasion on which he died he was ill only for a few minutes. I did not make a post-mortem examination. I was told he was seized with sudden convulsions, THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMER. fell rlown on the ground, and in five minutes was dead. There was slight clinching of the hands, but I think no locking of the jaw. The man was about thirty-five years of age. He was the brother of the celebrated aeronaut, Lieutenant Gale. In many eases of this description conscious- ness is destroyed. It is not so in all. I have met with vhflent cases in which it has been pre- served. I never knew a case in which during the paroxysm the patient spoke. Epilepsy is some- times attended with opisthotonos. I' have seen cases of traumatic tetanus. In such cases the patient retains his consciousness. I have known many cases of epilepsy terminating in death. Loss of consciousness—not universally, but generally—accompanies epilepsy. I never a case of death from that disease ■where consciousness was not destroyed. I have known ten or twelve such fatal cases. Re-examined by Mr. Grove.—Persons almost invariably fall asleep after an epileptic attack. The Attorney-General.—And after taking opium ?—Yes. EDWARD AUSTIN STEDDY, examined by Mr. Gray. lam a member of the Royal College of Surgeons, and am in practice at. Chatham. In June, 1854, I attended a person.'named Sarah Ann Taylor for trismus and pleuro-tothonos. When I first saw the patient she was bent to one side. The convulsions came on in paroxysms. The pleuro-tothonos and trismus lasted about a fortnight. The patient then so far recovered as to be able to walk about. About a twelvemonth afterwards, on the 3rd of March, 1855, she was again seized. That seizure lasted about a week. She is still alive. The friends of the patient said that the disease wras brought on by depression arising from a quarrel with her husband. Cross-examined by Mr. James.—l do not know how long before the attack this quarrel occurred. During it the woman received a blow upon her side from her husband. During the whole fortnight the lockjaw or trismus continued. In March, 1855, she was under my care about, a week, during the whole of which the trismus continued. I am a licentiate of the Royal College of Physicians, and physician to the Newmastle-on-Tyne Dispensary and Fever Hospital. I have devoted considerable attention to the subject of pathology. I have practised as a physician for ten years. I have heard the whole of the medical evidence in this case. From the symptoms described I should say that Cook died of tetanic convulsions, by which I mean, not the convulsions of tetanus, but convulsions similar to those witnessed in tha.t disease. The convulsions of epilepsy sometimes assume a tetanic appearance. I know no department of pathology more obscure than that of convulsive diseases. I have witnessed post- mortem examinations after death from convulsive diseases, and have sometimes seen no morbid appearances whatever, and in other cases the symptoms were applicable to a great variety of diseases. Convulsive diseases are always connected with the condition of the nerves. The brain has a good deal to do with the production of convulsive diseases, but the spinal cord has more. I believe that gritty granules in the region of the spinal cord would be' very likely to produce convulsions, and I think they would be likely to be very similar to those described in the present case. I think that from what I have heard described of the mode of life of the deceased it would have predisposed him to epilepsy. I have witnessed some experiments with strychnia, and have performed a few. I have also prescribed it in cases of paralysis. By the Attorney-General.—l have seen 20 cases where epilepsy has been attended by convul- sions of a tetanic character. I have never seen the symptoms of epilepsy proceed to anything like the extent of the symptoms in Cook’s case. I never saw a body in a case of epilepsy so stiff as to rest upon the head and the heels. I never knew such symptoms to arise in any case except tetanus. When epilepsy presents any of these extreme forms it is always accompanied by unconsciousness. In almost every case of epilepsy the patient is unconscious at the time of the attack. In cases of epilepsy I have found gritty granules on the brain, and any disturbing cause in the system, I think, would be likely to produce convulsions. I believe that the granules in this .case were very likely to have irritated the spinal cord, and yet that no indication of that irritation would have remained after death. I think that these granules might have produced the death of Mr. Cook. The Attorney-General.—Do you think that they did so ?—Putting aside the assumption of death by strychnia I should say so. The Attorney-General.—Are not all the symptoms spoken to by Mr. Jones indicative of death by strychnia ?—They certainly are. The Attorney-General.—Then, it comes to this—that if there were no other cause of death suggested you would say that the death in this case arose from epilepsy ?—Yes. Serjeant Shec.—Epilepsy is a well-known form of disease which includes many others. 'Dr. GEORGE ROBINSON, exanyned by Mr. Kenealy, I am a physician, practising in London. I have never seen a case of tetanns, properly, so-called, hut I have seen many cases of death by convulsions. In many instances they have presented tetanic appearances without being strictly tetanous. I have seen the muscles fixed, especially those of the upper part of the body. I have observed the arms stiffened out, and the hands closely and firmly clinched until 'death. I have alsp observed a sense of suffocation in the patient. In some forms of convulsions I have seen contortions both DR. RICHARDSON said, of-the legs and the feet, and the patient generally expresses a wi'sh to sit up. I have known persons die of a disease called angina pectoris. The symptoms of that disease, I consider, resemble closely those of Mr. Cook. Angina pectoris comes under the denomination of spasmodic diseases. In some cases the disease is detectable upon •post-mortem examination ; in others it is not. I attended one case. A girl 10 years old was under my care in 1850. I supposed she had suffered from scarlet fever. She recovered so far that ray visits ceased. I left her amused and merry in the morning; at half-past 10 in the evening I was called in to see her, and I found her dying. She was'supported upright at her own request, her face was pale, the muscles of the face rigid, the arms rigid, the fingers clinched, the respiratory muscles completely fixed and rigid, and with all this there was combined intense agony and restlessness, such as I have never wit- nessed. There was perfect consciousness. The child knew me, described her agony, and eagerly took some brandy-and-water from a spoon. I left for the purpose of obtaining chloroform from my own house, which was 30 yards distant. When I returned her head was drawn back, and 1 could detect no respiration; the eyes were then fixed open, and the body just resembled a statue ; she was dead. On the following day I made a post-mortem examination. The brain was slightly congested; the upper part of the spinal cord seemed healthy; the lungs were collapsed ; the heart was in such a state of firm spasm and solidity and so emptied of blood that I remarked that it might have been rinsed out. I could not discover any appearance of disease that would account for the death, except a slight effusion of serum in one pleural cavity. I never could ascertain any cause for the death. The child went to bed well and merry, and immediately afterwards jumped up, screamed, and exclaimed, “ I am going to die.” The Attorney-General.—l consider that the symptoms I have described were those of angina pectoris. It is the opinion of Dr. Jenner that this disease is occasioned by the ossification of some of the small vessels of the heart. I did not find that to be the case in this instance. There have been cases where no cause whatever was discovered. It is called angina pectoris from its causing such extreme anguish to the chest. I do not think the symptoms I have described were such as would result from taking strychnia. There is this difference—that rubbing the hands gives ease to the patient in cases of angina pectoris. I must say there would be great difficulty in detecting the difference in the cases of angina pectoris and strychnia. As regards symptoms I know of no difference between the two. I am bound to say that if I had known so much of these subjects as I do now in the case I have referred to I should have gone on to analyse to endeavour to detect strychnia. In the second case I discovered organic disease of the heart, which was quite sufficient to account for the symptoms. The disease of angina pectoris comes on eJt:ng a 01. note for attesting an assignment by Walter Palmer to his o!roiner of such a policy r Perhaps I might. I don’t recollect positively. Ihe Attorney-General (handing* a document to witness).—is that your signature *—lt is very like my signature. - J Have you any doubt about it r—(After considerable hesitation) I haye some doubt. iiead the. document, and tell me, on your solemn oath, whether it is your signature ?—I haye some doubt whether it is mine. , J s Ilead tne document, sir. Was it prepared in your office ?—lt was not. I will have an answer from you on your oath one way or another. Isn’t that your hand- writing. 1 believe that it is not my nandwriting. I think that it is a very clever imitation of it. - J Will you swear that it is not ?—I will. I think that it is a very good imitation of my hand- writing. J Baron Aedersox.—Did you ever make such an attestation ?-I don’t recollect, my Lord. The Atfainey-General- Look at the other signature there, “Walter Palmer,’'’ is that his signature ?—I believe that is Walter Palmer’s. Look at the attestation and the words “ signed, sealed, and delivered;” are they in Mr. Pratt’s handwriting ?—They are. Did you receive, that from Mr. Pratt ?—Most likely I did; hut I can’t swear that I did. It might have been sent to William Palmer. Did you receive it from William Palmer ?—I don’t know ; very likely I did. Did William Palmer give you that document ?—I have no doubt he d'id. If that be the document he gave you, and those are the signatures of Walter Palmer and of Pratt, is not the other signature yours ?—l’ll tell you, Mr. Attorney Don’t “Mr. Attorney ” me, sir ! Answer mj: question. Isn’t that your handwriting?—! believe it not to be. 0 Will you swear that it isn’t ?—I believe that it is not. Did you apply to the Midland Counties Insurance Office in October, 1855, to he appointed their agent at Rugeley ?—I think I did. . TwmSend them a Woposal on the life of Bates for 10,000/. you yourself?—! did Did Wilham Palmer apply to you to send that proposal ?—Bates and Palmer came together to my omce with a prospectus, and asked me if I knew whether there was any agent for that com- pany in Rugeley ? 1 told them I had never heard of one, and thev then asked me if I would write and get the appointment, because Bates wanted to raise some money. Did you send to the Midland Office and get appointed as their agent in Rugeley, in order to effect that 10,000/. insurance on Bates s life ?—I did. Was Bates at that time superintending William Palmer’s stud and stables ?—He was. At a salary of 1/. a-week ?—I can’t tell his salary. After that did you go to the widow of Walter Palmer to get her to give up her claim on the policy of her husband ?—I did. Where was she at that time ?—At Liverpool, Did you receive a document from Pratt to take to her ?—William Palmer gave me one which had beep directed to him. Did the widow refuse ?—She said she should like her solicitor to see it; and I said “By all means.” _ ’ J Of course! Didn’t she refuse to do it—didn’t you bring it back?—l hrnnvht it back as I had no instructions to leave it. jo r Drougtit it oacic as she say that she had understood from her husband that the insurance was for Mr. Serjeant Shee objected to this question. What passed between the widow and witness could be no evidence against the prisoner. said, that the question was intended to affect the credit of the witness, ana with that view it was most important. The Court ruled that the question could not be put. n®* know that Walter Palmer obtained nothing for making tnat assignment ?—I believe that he ultimately did get something for it forhinu J°U kn°W got WaS a biil f°r ?~Yes; and he had a house furnished Don’t you know that he got a hill dor 200/. ?—Yes. 140 THE- TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMER. And don’t you know that that bill was never paid ?—No, I do nOt. Now, I’ll refresh your memory a little with regard to those proposals (handing witness a document). Look at that, and tell me whether it is in your handwriting ?—lt is. ° Refreshing your memory with that, I ask you were you not applied to by William Palmer in December, 1854, to attest a proposal on the life of his brother Walter for 13,000/. in the Solicitors and General Insurance Office ?—I might have been. Were you or were you not, sir! Look at that document, and say have you any doubt upon the subject?—l do not like to speak from memory with reference to such matters. No; but not speaking from memory in an abstract sense, but having your memory refreshed by a perusal of that document, have you any doubt that you were applied to ?—I have no doubt that I might have been applied to. Have you any doubt that in January, 1855, you were called on by William Palmer to attest another proposal for 13,000/. on his brother’s life in another office ; look at the document and tell me ?—I seethe paper, but I don’t know; I might have signed it in blank. Do you usually sign attestations of this nature in blank ?■—l have some doubt wdiether I did not sign several of them in blank. On your oath, looking at that document, don’t you know that William Palmer applied to you to attest that proposal upon his brother’s life for 13,000/. ?—He did apply to me to attest proposals n some offices. Were they for large amounts ?—One was for 13,000/. Were you applied to to attest another for the like sum in the Universal Office ?—I might be. They were made much about the same time, were they not ? You did not wait for the answers to come back to the first application before you made the second ?—I do not know that any answers were returned at all. Will you swear that you were not present when Walter Palmer executed the deed assigning the policy upon his life to his brother William Palmer ? Now, be careful, Mr. Smith, for depend upon it you shall hear of this again if you are not.—I will not swear that I was, I think 1 was not ? lam not quite positive. (Very few of the answers to these questions of the Attorney-General were given without con- siderable hesitation, and the witness appeared to labour under a sense of embarrassment which left a decidedly unfavourable impression upon the minds of the audience.) MRS. PALMER’S HOUSE. TENTH DAY, MAY 24, 1856. 141 THE VAULT OF THE PALMER FAMILY IN RUGELEY CHURCHYARD. Do you know that the 200/. hill 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/. If I am not mistaken, he took it with him to Shrewsbury races—not the last races. In whose favour was the bill drawn ?—I think in favour of William Palmer. I don’t know what became of it. I have never seen it since. I cannot state with certainty who saw me on the Monday ; but I called at the Talbot Arms, and went into Cook’s room. One of the servants gave me a candle. As well as I can remember, the servant who did so was either Bond, Mills, or Lavinia Barnes, I can’t say which. Re-examined by Mr. Serjeant Shee.—l have known Mrs. Palmer, the prisoner’s mother, for twenty years. It is upwards of twenty years since her husband died. I should think she must be about sixty years of age. William Palmer is not her eldest son. Joseph is the eldest. He resides at Liverpool, and is a timber merchant. He is 45 or 46 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 vears, 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, and there are many spare bedrooms in it. I slept in the 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.—l hope not. Mr. Serjeant Shee.—ls there any pretence for saying so ? Witness.—There ought not to be. Mr. Serjeant Shee—ls 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 they had no reason for saying so. Mr. Serjeant Shee.—ls there any truth in the statement ? Witness.—l should say not. (Laughter.) William Joseph Sanders, a witness, subpoenaed both by the Crown and the prisoner, was then called upon his recognisance, but did not appear. The Attorney-General said, he should be extremely sorry to commence his reply if there were any chance of the witness making his appearance. Lord Campbell.'—There does not appear to be the slightest chance. He has been called repeatedly. Mr. Serjeant Shee said, he should now ask for the production of a letter written by Cook to Palmer on the 4th of January, 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 com- 142 THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMER. mission has returned 10s. Id. I have, therefore, hooked 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, and there will be a balance due from him to me. * “ Yours faithfully, “ W. Palmer, Esq. “ J. Parsons Cook.” Mr. Serjeant Shee contended that he was entitled to reply on the part of the evidence. The course taken by the Attorney-General in getting at the contents of the check, the contents of an assignment of the policy on Walter Palmer’s life, and the contents of the proposals to various offices lor 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 Alders on.-—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 the disease known as angina pectoris. Dr. Rt&nardson adverted to several books and authorities. He had now those books in his possession, and he 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 rose to reply on the part of the Crown, and spoke as follows :—May it please your lordships and gentlemen of the jury, the case for the prosecution and that for the defence are before yon, and it now becomes my duty to address to yott such observations upon the whole of the evidence as suggest themselves to my mind. I feel that I have a most solemn and important duty to perform. I wish that 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 I have to perform if I did not revert to my original position, and again solicit at your hands a verdict of guilty against the accused. I approach the con- sideration of the case in what, I hope, 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 ol .poison ? And if the latter proposition be sanctioned by the evidence, then comes the important question, whether the prisoner at the bar was the author of his death ? I will proceed with the consideration of the subject in the order I have mentioned. Did John Parsons Cook die by poison ? I again assert the affirmative of that proposition. The case-»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 Ms 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 eoiuect ? Of course it does not follow that, because he died of tetanus, it must he the tetanus of strychnine. 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 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 in which the unhappy man died, the symptoms were of the most marked and striking character. Every muscle, says the medical man who was present at the time, was convulsed—he expressed the most intense dread of suffocation—he entreated them to lift him up lest he should he suffocated—every fibre of his body, from the crown of his head to the .soles of his feet, was contracted—the flexibility of tbe trunk and of the limbs was gone-—and you could only have raised him up as you would have lifted a corpse. In order that he might- escape from the sense of suffocation they turned him over, and then, in the midst of that fearful paroxysm, one mighty spasm seems 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 tbe most marked symptoms ol 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 if required force to overcome, and his feet were twisted so as to resemble a natural malformation. Then, if it was a case of tetanus into which fact I will not waste your time by inquiring—the question arises, was it a cajse of tetanus produced by strychnine ? I will confine myself for a moment to the exMhition 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,. TENTH DAY, MAY 24, 1556. 148 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 that the distinctions are lese na nra 1 is a disease not of minutes, not of hours, but of days. It takes-say several 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 ana conclusive evidence. u ave examine _ Benjamin Brodie, a,man, I need scarcely say, of the most exalted eminence rn his profession Mr Curl in'j- Dr Todd, Dr. Daniel, a -gentleman who has seen between twenty-five and thirty cases of natural tetanus in India, and all these distinguished witnesses _ give exactly the same .description of the course which the case invariably takes. Idiopathic or nauiml tetanus,, therefore, is out of the question. Traumatic tetanus'is out of the question for a differmt leason. That description of disease is brought--on by the lesion;of some Paf °f, there in this case to show that there was anytmng like lesion at all . Ave have had several representations of the death of Cook by witnesses Who appear to have come mto conic i say it with the deepest sorrow—for the express purpose of studiously misconceiving and mismt r- preting the facts of this case. We have called before .you an eminent pryswian wro a 00' under his care. It seems that, in the spring of the year 1855, Goon, having oun iam sma spots in one or two parts of his body, and having something-oi an ulcerate ‘ & c oridressed 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 ne naabeen 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 made him come to him again and again to see that aU was going on well, and this medical witness assures na that long before the summer adva c -every unsatisfactory symptom had entirely disappeared ; there was nothing wrong about Coo' -except that affection of the throat to which thousands-of, people are subject r^pects the man was better than lie bad been, and might be said to be eunvaiescent