3 CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY THIS BOOK IS ONE OF A COLLECTION MADE BY BENNO LOEWY 1854-1919 AND BEQUEATHED TO CORNELL UNIVERSITY Cornell University Library HV6248.P17 A2 1857 The most extraordinary trial of William olin 3 1924 030 310 522 DATE DUE ri^^Tl ^^^1=ff7nr t9Hf»f^ 1 j CAVLORO PRINTED IN U.S. A The original of tiiis bool< is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924030310522 THE MOST EXTRAORDINARY TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMER, o FOB THE RUGELEY POISONINGS, WHICH LASTED TWELVE BATS.— (MAT 14-27, 1856.) FOURTH EDITION REVISED. LGIfDOlSr: W. M. CLARK, 16 & 17,^ WARWICK LANE-, PATERNOSTER R*?^r. AND SOLD BT ALL BOOKSELLERS. o-ti a-ij 3 7 uet8, &e., with a complete Alphabetical Index. All lovers of harmony will find this Book an Invaluable companion. It has sold immensely, and has 4eserred its s^e from "the excellency of Its arrangement, as well as its general correctness. Price Siwpence, CLARE'S OICEEONEAN EECITEB, AHD CCarPAKlOir to the OEPHEAN WAItBlEE. Being a selection of the choicest specimens of Elocution, Dramatic Scenes, and Pathetic and Humorous tlecitanont, now so poptilar at the various London Eatertainments, *c. Price Two Shillings. Twenty One Engravings. THE LOVES OE PARIS. A Itanwnce, Trsuslated ftom the French, by John Wilson Ro8S,.E«l. XI. In Five Volumes Octavo, ill EmbeUished'Ctoth Binding, with 380 Engravingn, price SSs. CLARK'S T.ALE8 0% THE WARS, ABD ITATAIi AITD HlilTABT CHBOKIOLE. Each Engraving represents some memorable Naval or Military exploit ; and the whole comprises a comp!rto history of every celebrated battle bySwand Land, together wjjh innnmerableaneedoles of individual heroism fomung a Navel and Military History of Britain to ^<^^^ '8*4- Price 3s. «d., Fofty One Engravings, „ . , ™ „. .,» ™ ■MASTIH THB rOFKBLIJr^i; OB, MEMOISS OiP A VAIBT PB Works Published iy W. M. Clark, 16 and 17, Warmck-Lant. XIII. PEOPLE'S EDITION OF COOPER'S NOVELS. Comprising tlie following ; — Tlie Pilot. The Pioneer. The Spy. The Prairie. The La»torthe Moliicans. The Keil Rover. Lionel Lincoln. The Water Witcli. tn one handsome Yolume, price 73, Crl., coni^isting of nearly 1,000 Octavo pages, and 200 Kngravings. Bea'.lt:ri.ny 'inted in Nonpareil Type. Originally published in 24 Vols., at Twelve Guineas. XIV. Price Sixpence. CLARK'S CRICKETER'S GUIDE. CoDtaiDing the Hietory and Origin of tbat manly Game, an account of tlie Ct-lRbrnted Playera, and Heuiarkablo MatcbcBi Instructions to Cricketers, and the New Laws of Cricket. By a Member of the Marylcbone Cricket Club. XV. CLARK'S LAW OF LANDLORD, TENANT, AND LODGER, AND SMALL TENEMENT ACT. Arranged in a plain, easy, and simple manner ; embodying the nelr Law of Ejectment, and llie New Buildin'; Act J House Duties' Act, the New Agricoltural Tenant Act, and other recent enactments which relate to Landlords ami | Tenants, with ^t necessary forms and raoi^s uf proceedings in every possible case. Corrected to the present time. Price Sixpence. XVI, In one handsome Volume, Octavo, bound, Five Shillings. WILL WATCH, THE BOLD SMUGGLER. A TALE OF THE COAST, xvn. In One handsome Volume, Octavo, bound, price Five Shillint^B. THE LIFE AND TIMES OF DICK TURPIN, THE HIGHWAYMAN, Wiih nearly Seventy Engravings. A New Historical Romance of the l7th Century. By H. D. Milbb. XVIII. In One Volume, price Threepence. DIBDEN'S SEA SONGS. This work contains the whole of the Songa of the immortal Charles Dibden, and many others of celebrity, Of anonymouK nnthorship. THE WANDERING JEW; A TALE OF THE JESUITS, i By M. Iin;enc Sue. Price gs, 6d. With Twcnty-fonr whole-length Portraits, after Gavarni, and others. XX. THE MYSTERIES OF PARIS. By M. Eugene Sue! Price 2s. 6d. Being the only perfect Translation extant, from the Paris Edition : Reviled bT the Author, Willi explanatory Notes by the Translator. ' XXI In One Volume, Quarto, price Four Shillings, with Nuuierons EneravinffS. THE NEWGATE CALENDAR. , Giving a truthful account of the Lives, Trials, and Daring Deeds, of the greatest Villains that ever lived . XXII Price Twopence, Gilt Edges. CLARK'S BALL-ROOM GUIDE AND DANCER'S COMPANION. Containing many of the Popular Dances of the day, being a complete Guide to Etiquette XXIII. Pi ice Threepence, tiilt Edges, CLARK'S BOOK OF THE BALL-ROOM. Containing plain instructions for llic execnlion of every Fashionable Dance recognised in Polite SocietT XXIV. Price Twopence. THE GAMES OF CHESS AND DRAUGHTS i Together with the Kevis«L Laws of llie Loudon Chess Club, as sanctioned by the celebrated player Mr Staunton ' XXV. In One Volume, price ijeven Shillings and Sixpence. THE RUINED COTTAGE, or the Fanner's Maid. By Hannah Mama Jones. XXVI. , In One Volnnie, price Five Shillings. ! ALICE LEIGHTON,, or the Murder at the, Druids' Stones. XXVII. In One Volume, price five Shillings. DB LISLE, or the Shipwrecked Stranger. A Tale bt LttVe and War. xx'van. In One Volume, prite Five Shillings. EMMA MAYFIELD, or the Rector's Daughter. « , n. ^. XXIX. f In Two Volumes, 600 Coloured Engravings, price One Guinea BROOK'S CYCLOPAEDIA OF BOTANY . ^ ,,. XXX. ■ % In One Vblnme, *ith Coloured Engravings, price Four Shillingii. BROOK'S CULPEPPER'S HER BAL. I The whole of the aiove Works are constantly kept in mint, and mUbt forwarded Post Fbsk mi J receipt (ff published price in PsHmStmfB. ■^"™'" •"" *^°" '^«^ «• J TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMEI roll THE RUGELEY POISONINGS. CENTRAL CEIMINAL COUHT, May 14, 1856. The long-deferred trial of William Palmer, wliicli, owing to the necessity of passing a special act of Parliament to enable it to talte place in this court, has been delayed for a period of several montlis since the finding of a true bill by the Grand Jury of Stafford- shire, commenced to-day at the Old Bailey ; and, notwithstanding the interval which has elapsed since this extraordinary case was first brought under the notice of the public, the^ intense interest and excitement which it then occasioned seem in no degree to have abated. Indeed, if the applications for admission to the court which were made so soon as the trial was appointed, and the eager endeavours of large crowds' -to gain an entrance to-day, may be regarded as a criterion of the public anxiety upon the progress and issue of the trial, the interest would seem to have augmented rather than diminislicd. At a very early hour every entrance to the court was besieged by persons of respect- able appearance, who were favoured witli cards giving them a right of entrance. Without such cards no admittance could on any pretence be obtained, and even tiie fortunate holders of them found that thoy had many difficulties to overcome, and many, stern Janitors to encounter, before an entrance to the much-coveted precincts could be obtained. On the whole, however, the arrangements of the Under-SherifFs Stone and Ross were excellent, and, although there may be individual cases of complaint, as there always will be when delicate and important functions have to be performed with firmness, it'is but justice to testify to the general complctcneis and propriety of the regulations which the Sherifls had laid down. Among the distinguished persons wlio wore present at the opening of the Court were the Earl of Derby, Earl Grey, the Marquis of Anglcaea, Lord Lucan, Lord Denbigh, Prince Edward of Saxe Weimar, Lord W. Lennox, Lord G. G. Lennox, and Lord H. Lennox. The Lord Advocate of Scotland sat by tlic side of tlie Attorney-General during; the trial. At five minutes to ten o'clock the learned Judges, I^ord Chief Justice Campbell, Mr. Baron Alderson, and Mr. Justice Crcsiwell, accoKi|)anLed by the Lord Mayor, and Aldermen Sir G. Carroll, Humphrey, Sir R. W. Carden, i'innis. Sir F. G. Moon, and Sidney, Mr. Sherifl' Kennedy,. Mr. Sheriff Rose, Mr. Dnder-Sheriff Stone, and Mr. Under-Shcriff' Rose, took their seats on the bench. The prisoner, William Palmer, was immediately placed in the dock ; and to tlie indictm'ent which charged him witli the wilful murder of John Parsons Cook, who died at Rugeley upon the 21st of November last, he pleaded, in a clear, low, but perfectly audible and distinct tone, " Not guilty." The prisoner is described in the calendar as " William Palmer, 31, surgeon, of superior degree of instruction." In appearance Palmer is much older, and, although there are no marks of care about his face, there are the set expres- sion and rounded frame which belong to tlie man of forty or forty-five. His countenance is clear and open, the foreliead high, the complexion ruddy, and tlnj general impression which one would form from iiis appearance would be rather favourable than otherwise, although his features are of a common and somewhat mean cast. There is certainly nothing to indicate to the ordinary observer the presence cither of ferocity or cunning, and one would expect to find in him more of the boon companion than the subtle adversary. His manner was remarkably calm and collected throughout the whole of the day. It was altogether devoid of bravado, but was respectful and attentive, and was calculated to create a favourable impression. He frequently conversed vvith Mr. Smith, his professional adviser, and remained standing until the close of the speech for the prosecution, when at liis request his counsel askcJ that ho might he permitted to sit — an application whicl" was at once acceded to by Lord Cauipbell. The eouBsel engaged in the case were : — The Attorney-General, Mr. E. James, Q.C., Mr. Bodkin, Mr. Welsby, and Mr. Huddleston, for the Crown; and Mr. Serjeant Shee, Mr. Grove, Q.C., Mr. Gray, and Mr. Kenea'y, for the prisoner. A most respectahje jury having heen erpp9.nelled, and all tjip ivi^nesses, with the exception of the {ne'dical ipen, having been o?4p?ed oi|t of court, THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL proceeded, amid breathless silence, to open the ease on the part of the prosecution. He said: Gentle- men of the jui y, tl)e duty you are csllg^ upon to discharge is the inost soleijin whicli a mw can hy possibility have to perform— it is tp git in judgment and todgcide gn issue an^'hieh depends the life of a fellow human being who stands charged with the highest crime for which a man can be arraigned before a wprldly tribunal, X »m sure thijt I need not as^ your most anxious and earnest attention to such a case : but there is one thing I feel it incuinhent op nje tp urge upon you. The peculiar civoutnstances of this case have giyen it a profound jnd painful interest throughout the whole country. There is scarcely a man, perhaps, whp {las not come to some conclusion on the issue which you are now to decide. All the details have been seized on with eager avidity, and there is, perhaps, no one who is not more or less acquainted with those details. Standing here as a minister of justice; with no interest and no desire save that justice shall be be done impartially, I feel it incumbent on me to warn you not to allow any preconceived opinion to operate on your judgment this day. Your duty — your bounden duty — is to try this case according to the evidence which shall be brought before you, and according to that alone. You must discard from your minds anything that you may have read or beard, or any opinion that you may have formed. If the evidence shall satisfy you of the prisoner's guilt, you will discharge your duty to society, tp your consciences, and to the oaths which you have taken, by fearlessly pronouncing your verdict apcordjngly ; but jf tjie evidence fail to produce a reasonable conviction of guilt in your minds, ttod forbid that the scale of justice should be inclined against the prisoner by anything of prejudice or preconceived opinion. My duty, gentlemen, will be a simple one. It will be to lay before you the facts on which the pro- secution is based, and in doing so I must ask for your most patient attention. They are of a somewhat complicated character, and they range over aconsidei'able period of time, so that it will be necessary not merely to look to circumstances which are immediately connected with the accusation, but to go back to matters of an antecedent date. I niay safely say, however, that, in my conscience, I believe there is not afact to which lam about to ask your patient attention which lias not an immediate and mo ilTid betook himself also to the tU!'f. He kept racehorses ^nd betted considerably ; and in the course of his operiitioris he becauie much connected mid familiarly intiiijato with the prisoner William Palmer, It is for the murder of jliat Mr, John Piirsons Cook th»t the prisoner stands iniiiiied torday, thf ciiar^e ugainst him being that he tpolj away that man's life by poison. It will be necessary to show you the circum-stances in which the prisoner Palmer yina then placed, and the position in which he stood relatively to the deceased Cook. It will be impossible thoroughly to understand this case in all its bearings without those circumstances being laid before you, and it will be necessary, therefore, that J should go into them particu- larly. The case which, on the part of the prosecution, I have to urge against Palmer is this — that, being in desperate circumstances, with ruin, disgrace, and punishment staring him in the face, which could only be averted by nieans of money, he took advantage of his intimacy with Cook, when Cook had beoome the winner of a coqsiderable sum, tp destroy him, in order it. obtain possession of his money. Out of the circumst-4npes of Painter at that time ^rose, ^s we say, the motive which induced him to coiiimit this crime. If I show you uppn evidence which can leave no reasonable doubt in your minds that he committed that crime, motive? become a matter of secondary inaportance. Nevertheless, in inquiries of this kind, it is natural and right to look to see what may have been the motives by which a man has been induced W commit the crime charged against him; and if we find strong motives, the more readily s shall we be led to believe in the probability of the crime having been committed; but if we find an absence ef motive the probability is the other way. In this p^se, th? motive will be matter fur serious consideration; and inasmuch as the circumstances Qtit of whi?h we say th«tt the motive arose come first in order of time, I will deal with them befgfe I cqme to that which is the more immediate subject matter of our inquiry. It seems to me that it would be mo?t convenient that I should follow the chronological order of events, and I will thcrefpr^ pvtwe. that course. It appears that as early as the year 1853 Palmer had got into difficulties, and thfiit he began to raise money upon bills. In 1864 his circumstances beoftpie worsp, and he was at that time indebted to different persons in a large sum of money. He then had recoufse tp &n expedient which it is important that I should bring before you; but, as it will become necessary for me to detail to you transactions involving fraud, and, what is worse, forgeVy, I wish to make a few observations to you before 1 detail those transactions. AUhofigh I am anxious, where I feel it lo be absolutely neoessary for the elucidation of the truth, that those circumstances should be brought before you, I wish tb*t they sbquld npt have more than their fair and legitimate weight. You must not allow them tp prejudice your minds against the prisoner -with reference to that which is the real matter of inquiry, I cannOf aypjtl bringing them forward ; but I wovdd anxiously caution you and pray you not to allow any pvejU' dice by reason of those transactions to operate against the prisoner ; for, though a wan TORy be guilty of fraud and forgery, it does not follow, therefore, that he is guilty pf murder. Among the bills on which Palmer raised money in 1853 was one for £2,000, yvhich he had discounted by a person named Padwick. That bill bore the acceptance of Sarah Palmer, th? mother of the prisoner. She Was, and is, a woman of considerable property, and her accep. tance being believed to be genuine, was a security upon which monev could readily be raised. *rhe prisoner forged that acceptance, and that was, if not the first, at all events pne of the earliest transactions of that nature by means of which for a long period of time mptiey ^V*s obtained by him upon bills, with his mother's acceptance forged by him. This show? bPW, when thiags came to a climax aud he found himself involved in a position of gre^tperjl and emergency, he had recourse to a desperate expedient to avoid the consequences wbleb seemed inpvitably to press upon him. He owed iu 1854 a very large sum of money. Op the 39th; of gept^iflber in that year his wife died. He had effected an insurance upon her life for f 13,000, ,0,1}^. tfe? proceeds of that insurance were realised, and by means of them he discharged ?Qm^ of his inost pressing liabilities. In dealing with a portion of these liabilities he employed a ggntlpHjan named Pratt, a solicitor in London, who was in the habit of discounting bills. BJri Pratt received from him £8,000, and Mr. Wright, a solicitor of Birmingham, repeiv?d,f 5,000 ; and with [hose two sums £13,000 of debt was disposed of ;. but that still left Palmpv with consider- able liabilities, and among other things, the bill of £2,000, which was discounted by Pftdwick, remained unpaid. In the course of the same year he effected an insurance on his brother's life, and upon the strength of that policy Palmer proceeded to issue fresh biUs, which were discounted by Pratt at the rate of 60 per cent., who kept the policy as coUatpf^ ?eo«rity. The bills which were discounted in the course of that year amounted in the whplp to £12,500. I find that there were two bills discounted as early as June, 1854, whiph were held over from month to month. In March, 1855, two bills were discounted for £2,000 i^ach, wjtb the proceeds of which Palmer bought two race-horses, called Nettle and Chicken. Those bills were re- newed in June, and one became due on the 2Sth of September, and the other on the 2nd of October, when they were again renewed. The result of the bill proceedings of the year was that in November, when the Shrewsbury races took place, there were in Pratt's hands qne b)ll for £2 000, due the 25th of October ; another for £2,000, flue the 27th of Optpber ; two fpr the joint sum of £f,5U0, due on the 9th of November; one for £liO00. due on, the 30th 9*' September ; one for £2,000, due on the 1st January ; one for £2,000, due on Ihip &th pf Japuary ; and another for £2,000, due on the l5th of January; making altogether £l2,600. HlfiOQ pi this sum, however, he had contrived to pay oft', so that there was due in Npyeiflbsr, Igp.noless than £1 1,500, upon bills, every one of which bore the fqrgad acceptanf epf the pjisoner s mother. Under these circuojstances, a pressure naturally arose— the pressure of £11,500 of liabilities, ' with not a shilling in the world to meet them, and the BtiU greater piessitre resulting ffom^a consciousness that the moment when he could no longer go on and his ipptbor was resprtpd (o for payment, the fact of those forgeries would at once become maniftst, and would bjring upqn, him the peril of the law for the crime of forgery. The prisoner's brpther d'ed in AHgust, 18S5. His life had been insured, and the policy fpr £13,000 had been as§ig»pi *?' '?? W^' soner, who, ,of eoutse, expected that the proceeds of that insurance would pay flff bis IjabUities; but the office in which the insurance was eifecied declined to pay, and cpusequfloW there was no assistance to be derived from that source. Now, in these tiansactipns to which I b»ve referred, the deceased John Parsons Cook had been to a certain extent concerned. "S^^^™' that in May, 1855, Palmer was pressed to pay £500 to a person named Serje.aot. He had at that time in the hands of Palmer a balance upon bill transactions of £310 to his credit, ajid he wanted 'Pratt to advance the £190 necessary to make up £500. Pratt declined to do that, except upon security ; upon which Palmer offered him the acceptance of Cppk, represeiijipg him S 2 to be a man of substance. Acconllugly the acceptance of Cook for £200 was sent up, and upon tbat Pratt advanced the money. When that bill for £200 became due. Palmer failed to provide for it, and Cook had to meet it himself. In August of the same year, an occurrence took place to which I must call jour particular attention. Palmer wrote to Pratt to say that he must- have £1000 by a day named. Pratt declined to advance it without se- curity ; upon which Palmer offered the security of Cook's acceptance for £500. Pratt still de- clined to advance the money without some more tangible security. Now Palmer represented this as a transaction in which Cook required the money, and it may be that such was the fact. I have no means of ascertaining how that was; but I will give him the credit of supposing it to be true. Pratt still declining to advance the money, Palmer proposed an assignment by Cook of two racehorses, one called Polestar, which won the Shrewsbury races, and another called Sirius. That assignment was afterwards executed by Cook in favour of Pratt, and Cook, there- fore, was clearly entitled to the money which was raised upon that security, which realised £375 in cash, and a wine warrant for £65. Palmer contrived, however, that the money and wine warrant should be sent to him, and not to Cook. Mr. Pratt sent down hia cheque to Palmer in the country on a stamp as the Act of Parliament required, and he availed himself of the op- portunity now offered by law of striking out the word " bearer" and writing " order," the effect of which was to necessitate the endorsement of Cook on the back of the cheque. It was not intended by Palmer that those proceeds should fall into Cook's hands, and accordingly he forged the name of John Parsons Cook on the back of that cheque. Cook never received the money, and you will see that, within ten days from the period when he came to his end, the bill in respect to that transaction, which was at three months, would have iallen 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. I wish t^ese were the only transactions in which Cook had been at all mixed up with the prisoner Palmer ; but there is another to which it is necessary to refer. In September, 1855, Palmer's brother having died, and the proceeds of the insurance not having been realised. Palmer induced a person named Bates to propose his life for insurance. Palmer had succeeded in raising money upon previous policies, and I have no doubt that he persuaded Cook to assist him in that transaction, so that, by representing Bates as a man of wealth and substance, they might get a policy on his life, by which policy, deposited as a collateral security, ihey might obtain advances of money. Bates had been somewhat better off in the world, but he had fallen into decay, and he had accepted employment from Palmer as a sort of hanger-on in his stables. He was a healthy young man; and, being in the company of Palmer and Cook at Rugeley on the 5th of September, Palmer asked hitn to insure his life, and produced the form of proposal to the office. Bates declined, but Palmer pressed him, and Cook interposed and said, " You had better do it ; it will be for your benefit, and you'll be quite safe with Palmer." At length they succeeded in per- suading him to sign the proposal for no less a sum than £25,000, tjook attesting the proposal, which Palmer filled in, Palmer being referred to as medical attendant, and his former assistant, Thirlby, as general referee. That proposal was sent up to the Solicitors and General Insurance Office, and in the ensuing month — tilat office not being disposed to effect the insurance — they sent up another for £10,000 to the Midland Office— on that same life. That proposal also failed, and no money, therefore, could be obtained from that source. All these circumstances are import- ant, because they show the desperate straits in which the prisoner at that time found himself. The leariied counsel then read a series of letters from Mr. Pratt to the prisoner, all pressing upon the prisoner the importance of his meeting the numerous bills which Pratt held, bearing the acceptance of Mre. Sarah Palmer ; and these letters appeared to become more urgent when the writer found that the insurance office refused to pay the £13,000 upon the policy effected on the life of the prisoner's brother, and which Pratt held as collateral security. The letters were dated at intervals between the 10th of September and the 18th of October, 1855. On the 6th of November, two writs were issued by Pratt for £4,000, one against Palmer and the other against his mother ; and Pratt wrote on the same day to say that be had sent the writs to Mr. Crabbe, but that they were not to be served until he sent further instructions, and he strongly urged Palmer to make immediate arrangements for meeting them, and also to arrange for the bills for £1,500 due on the 9th of November. Between the 10th and the 13th of November^ Palmer succeeded in paying £6U0; but on that day Pratt again wrote to him, urging him to raise £1,000, at all events, to meet the bills due on the 9th. That being the state of things at that time, we now come to the events connected with Shrewsbury Races. Cook was the owner of a mare called Polestar, which was entered for the Shrewsbury Handicap. Jshe had been advantageously weighted, and Cook, believing that the mare would win, betted largely upon the event. The race was run upon the l3lh of November— the very day on which that last letter was written by Pratt, which would reach Palmer on the 14th. The result ot the race was that Polestar won, and that Cook was entitled, in the first place, to the stakes which amounted to £424, minns certain deductions, which left a net sum of £381 19s. His bets had also been successful, and he won, upon the whole, a total sum of £2,05U. "He had won also in the previous week, at Worcester and I shall show that at Shrev.sbury he had in his pocket, besides the stakes and the money which he would be entitled to receive at Tattersall's, between £700 and £800. The stakes he would receive through Mr. Weatherby, a great racing agent ill Loudon, with whom he kept an acco;mt, and upon whom he would draw; and, the race being run on a Tuesday, he would be entitled on the ensuing Monday to receive his bets at Tattersall's, which amounted to £1,020. Within a week from that lime Mr. Cook died, and the important inquiry which we have now to make is how he came by his death — whether by natural causes or by the hand of man i and if the latter, by whose hand ? It is important, in the iiret place, that 1 should show you what was his state of health when he went down to Shrewsbury. He was a young man, but twenty-eight when he died. He was slightly disposed to a pulmonary complaint, aiid, although delicate in that respect, he was in all other respects a hale and hearty young man. He had been in the habit, fiom time to time, especially with reference to his chest, of consulting a physician in London — Dr. Savage, who saw him a fortnight before his death. For four years he had occasionally consulted Dr. Savage, being at that time a little anxious about the state of his throat, in which there happened to be one or two slight eruptions. He had been taking mercury for these eruptions, having mistaken the character of the complaint. Dr. Savage ai once saw that he had made a mistake, and desired him to discontinue the use of mercury, substituting for it a course of tonics. Mr. Cook's health imtaediately began to improve ; but, inasmuch as the new course of treatment might have involved serious consequences in case Dr. Savage had been mistaken in the diagnosis of the disease, he asked Cook to look in upon him from time to time, and Cook had, as recently as within a fortnight of bis death, gone to call upon Dr. Savage. Dr. Savage then examined his throat and whole system carefully, and ho will be prepared to tell you that at that time he had nothing on earth the matter with him except a certain degree of thickening of the tonsils, or some of the glands of the throat, to which anyone is liable, and there was no symptom whatever of ulcerated' sore-throat or any- thing of the sort. Having then seen Dr. Savage, he went down^o Shrewsbury Races, and his horse won. After that he was somewhat excited, as a man might naturally be under the circumstances of having won a considerable sum of money, and he asked several friends to dine with him to celebrate the event. They dined together at the Raven, the hotel where he was staying, and had two or three bottles of wine, but there was no excess of any sort, and no foundation for saying that Cook was the worse for liquor. Indeed he was not addicted to excesses, but was, on the contrary, an abstemious man on all occasions. He weat to bed that right, and there was nothing the matter with him. He got up the next day, and went again on the course, as usual. That night, Wednesday, the 14tb November, a remarkable incident happened,, to which I beg to draw your attention. A friend of his, a Mr. Fisher, and a Mr. Herring, were at Shrewsbury Races, and Fisher, who, besides being a sporting man, was an agent for receiving winnings, and who received Cook's bets at the settling day at Tattersall's, occupied the room next to that occupied by Cook. Late in the evening Fisher went into a room m which he found Piilmer and Cook drinking brandy-and-water. Cook gave him somethiug to drink, and said to Palmer, '• You'll have some more, won't you ?" Palmer replied, " Not unless you Snish your glass." Cook said, " I'll soon do that ;" and he finished it at a gulp, leaving only about a tea- spoonful at the bottom of the glass. He had hardiy swallowed it, when he exclaimed, " Good God ! there's something in it, it burns my throat." Palmer immediately took up the glass, and drinking what remained, said, " Nonsense, there's nothing in it ;" and then pushing the glass to Fisher and another person who had come in, said, " Cook fancies there is something in the brandy-and-water — there's nothing in it — taste it." On which one of them replied, " How can we taste it ? you've drank it all." Cook suddenly rose and left the room, and called Fisher out, saying that he was taken seriously ill. He was seized with most violent vomiting, and became so bad that after a little while it was necessary to take him to bed. He vomited ihfere again and again in the most violent way, and as the sickness continued after the lapse of a couple of hours a medical man was sent for. He came and proposed an emetic and other means for making the sick man eject what he had taken. After that, medicine was given him — at first some stimulant of a comforting nature, and then a pill as a purgative dose. After two or three hours he became more tranquil, and about 2 o'clock he fell asleep and slept till next morning. Such was the state of the man's feelings all that time that I cannot tell what passed ; but he gave Fisher the money which he had about him, desiring him to take care of it, and Mr. Fisher will tell you that that money amounted to between £800 and £900 in notes. The next morning, having passed a quiet night, as I have said, and feeling better, he went out on the course ; and he saw Fisher, who gave him back his notes. That was the Thursday. He still looked very ill, and felt very ill ; but the vomiting had ceased. On that day Pal™"'' horse, the Chicken, ran at Shrewsbury. He had backed his mare heavily, but she lost. When Palmer went to Shrewsbury he had no money, and was obliged to borrow 25 £to lake him there. His horse lost, and he lost bets upon the race. He and Cook then left Shrewsbury, and returned to Rugeley, Cook going to the Talbot Arms Hotel, directly opposite the prisoner's house. There i« an incident however, connected with the occurrence at Shrewsbury, which l inust mention. Atout 11 o'clock that night, a Mrs Brooks, who belted »" »°'"^',^?;,,,, and in an establishment of jockeys, went to speak to the deceased upon some rac,nDu ^^^^^^^^ the lobby she saw p'alme /holding up a tumbler to the l.ght ; and, ha"ng looked a ^^^^^ ^^^ the gas, he withdrew to an outer room and present y returned wuh the g^ss ;u^j^ ^„d „ater went iito the room where ^ stopping at tfte looked as well as he had looked at any tjme since I had know^ htm. 1 \„o^„ him Raven Hotel at Shrewsbury. I l-°-//^{^;; ^^^^ ^ 'p^^y aT'tLT.me hotel, and occupied rather more than 1 wo years. Cook »"f j^^''"" " ft^^^. {^y,', a sitting room, and they occupied a room separated from mine »nly\y\^°°'!^"Yl and 2 o'clock, I went in o the sittin-room. it jointly.*^ On the Wednesday n.ght, ^^^^^^^JJit';, ^'^gele;, a friend of Palmer's Tb,y I iiound-there Cook, P^'™-^ "i^J^i^'J ,tV„ by Cook. "> ' 1 it down. Cook asked Pa mer had grog before "■«"• ^^.^''^ f.^ Palmer said, "I will not have any more till yeu haye to have ^<>'^^,.^°'lXTlli'^ThTllai drink mine." He took up Us glass amd drank the grog drunk yours CooK ^ai . afterwards, " There is somettag in it ; ;t bums my °5 ™'r fdftut; •• PataeT th n goTup, took the glass, sipped up what was left in it, mi mi, '.''-rf ", no W in it "There was no more than a teas^oonful in the glass when he emptied r^'^fhe" mrartime mT Read had come in.; Palm^- handed the glass to Read and to me and asked if we thought there was anything m it. We both said the glaijs was so emp y ^at we could not recognise anything. I said I thought there was rather a strong scent upon it, but I could not say it arose from anything but brandy, Lord CAJirEELL: Did you put your lips to it? ^ .,„,,, Witness: I did not. It was completely drained. Within ten minutes I retired. Cook had left the room, and then came back aud called me from it. We went to my own sitting room. He there told me he was very ill and very sick, and asked me to take his money. Mr. E. James: Did he state what he was suffering from ? Mr. Serjeant Shee objected to this (juestion. Lord Campdell: Surely his statement of the effect produced on him by what he had just swallowed is admissible. Witness : He said he was -very sick, and he thought "that d Palmer " had dosed him. He handed me over some money, between £700 and £800, in bank notes, to take care of. Jle did not slepp in the same room -with Palmer. He was seized with vomiting after he had given me the money, and left the room. ~He afterwards came back to my room, and again complained of whnt he had been suffering. He asked me to go to his ■bedroom. I went with him. Mr. Jo:ies, a law-stationer, went with me. He then vomited again violently, and was so ijl that I sent for a doctor— Mr. Gibson, who came about half- past twelve or a quarter to one. I remained with Coqk till two o'clock. I sent for Mr. Q-ibson a second time, and he sent some medicine, which Cook took. After seeing the ■ doctor and taldng the medicine lie became more composed, Mr. Jones ai).d I gave hipi thp medicine. Next morning, about ten o'clock, I saw Palmer. I found him in my sitting-room when I caine down stairs; he said, " Coqk has been stating that I gave him something in his brandy. I never play such tricks with people. But I can tell you what he was. He was d d drunk." I should say Cook was certainly not drunk. Lord Campbell : Was he affected by liquor ? Witness : Not at all approaoliing drunkenness, my lord, Cook came into my bed- rqom before I was up the same momliig. He was much better, but still looked ill. 1 gave him ba:ck his money. About three o'clock on that day (Thursday) I saw Cook oi} the race-course. He looked very Ul. I had always settled Cook's bets tor him when he did ■not settle them himself. I saw his betting-book in his hand. It was dark in colotli, and about half the size of this. (The witness here produced a small black pocketbook). On the 17th of November (Saturday), by Cbok's request, I paid Pratt £200, Ilis account, in the ordinary coiirse, would have been settled at' Tattersajl's on Monday, the 19th. I advaiiced the £200 to pay Pratt. I knew that Cook had won at Slire wsbury, and I should have been entitled to deduct that £200 fi-pm his wimiingS, if I had settled Ms accoimt at TattexsaU's. I did not settle that accoiuit, and I have nqt been paid my adva^ce, Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Shee. — 1 had known Cook about two years, 4iid Palmer longer. They were a good deal coimocted in racing transactions. ' Do you know that they were partners ?— I dqn't remember settling any transactions jn which they were jointly interested, and I don't know that th0y owned horses jointly They appeared very intimate and were much together, generally staying at the same hotels. I was not at the Worcester meeting. I don't know whetljer Palmer won at Shrewsbury as well as Cook. The races began on the Tuesday about 2 o'clock. Polestar ran about an hour afterwards, but I cannot tell the exact time. I saw Cook on the course after the rice, and he appeared much elated. Polestar won easily. In the cvenin" when I went mto the sitting-room, there was a candle on the table'. A glass was' ordered for me when I sat down. I don't remember drinking anything, but I cannot swear that I did 15 not. 1 tun a good judge of brandy liy t]ie smolj. I said there was nothing particular in the smell, but the glass was so completely di-ajujd, that there was very little to smell. I comited the jnoney Cook gave me. I had been at the Tlnicom that evening quite an hour before. I dined at the Raven about 6 o'clopk. I did not see Cook after the rage on the Wedjiesda^, tiU I saw him at the ITuicorn, between 9 and 10 o'clock in the evening. I merely looked into the room. I saw Sandars, the trainer, Cook, Palmer, jind a lady. I cap't say -yirhetl^er they were drinking. Did it happen that a good many people were ill on that Wednegday at Shewebury — I me^u people connected with the races ? Np. I don't know that there were. On the Wednesday it was damp underfoot, but I forget whether it rained. I saw Cock several times on the course. On the Thursday the weather was cold and damp. I don't know that Cook and Palmer bjreak- fasted to|ether on the Thursday morning. On the 17th of November I received a letter from Cooic. ^The letter was read. It was dated, '• Rugeley, Nov. the l6th," and in it Cook said it •was of very great importance to Palmer and to himself tliat £500 should be paid to Pratt on the next day, that £300 should be sent, and he would be greatly obliged if Fisher would pay the Other £200 Immediately on receipt of the letter, promising to give it him back on the fol- lowing iVlonday at Tattersall's. He added that he was much better.] Re-examined by the Attobkey Genebal; I never intended to say that Cook and Pjilmer were partners. Did you notice any change of feeling on the part of Coolf towards Palmer? — He never had any great respect for Palmer, but I did notice a oiiango in him. It was a handicap ^-ace that Polestar won. Palmer had a horse called Chicken, which ran on the Thursday and lost. He had betted upon the race. Cook was not more elated at winning tlian people usually are. I ajx not sure that I drank any brandy-and-water while I was staying at the Kaven. Thomas Jones, examined by Mr. Welsbt, saidt I am a law stationer in Carey-street, London. I was at Shrewsbury races last November, and I lodged at the Eaven. I arrived there on a Monday night. I supped with Cook, Herring, Fisher and Gravatt. Cook appeared well. I saw him on the Tuesday and Wednesday, and lie then also seemed quite well. Fisher and I went to the raven between eleven and twelve o'clock on Wednesday night. Read was ■ there, and be invited Cook into my room. Palmer was also there. After the party broke up, Fisher came and told me something about Cook, in consequence of which I went with him to ■Cook's bedrooin. He complained of something burning at his throat and of vomiting. Some medicine was brought, — pills and a draught. Cook refused to take the pills. I then went to the doctor's and got some liquid medicine, and gave him a small quantity in a wineglass. He was in bed. About a quarter of an hour , afterwards he took the pills also, and I left him. Between six and seven o'clock next morning I saw him again. He said he felt easier and better. He looked pale. This witness was not cross-examined. George Read, examined by Mr. BoD?iiN : I live in Victoria-street, near Farririgdon-market. I keep a house frequented by sporting characters. I nm acquainted witli Palmer. I saw him at Shrewsbury races on Tuesday, as well as Cook. He appeared to be in his usual health. I saw him also the next day, and he was apparently in the same hesilth. I stayed at the Kaven. On the Wednesday night I went between eleven and twelve into tlie room in which were Palmer arid Cook. There was more than one gclitleman in the room. I had some brandy-and-w^ter there. I saw that Cook was in pain almost immi^diately after I entered. He said tq us thgre is Eometliing in the brandy-and-water. Palmer handed me the glass after it had been emptied. I said, " What is the use of examining a glass which is empty? "1 believe Cook left the room. I did nqt see him again. I saw him on the following morning at eleven o'clock. He was in his sitting-room. He said in my he.ariiig tliat he was very ijl. Cross-examined : On Tuesday he was as well as usual. He never looked a strong maq, but one having delicate health. He was not in the habit of complaining qf ill-health. , By the CouKT: I had some of the briindy-arid- water, and it did not make me ill. Re-exatnined by the Attokney-G EHEii-iL : My brandy was talcen from anotherdecanter, which 'was seqt for when I went in. Cqok appeared to be a delicate maji, but I never knew anything to be the matter with him. He frequented races everywhere. I never knew him prevented by 'illness from going to races. William Scaife Gibson: lam assistant to Mr. Hcathcote, surgeon, of Shrewsbury. On "the Idtti qf November last I wis sent for, and went to the Railway Hotel, Shrewsbury, between twelve and one p'olook ^ night. I saw Mr Cook there. He was in bis bedrporn, but not in bed. Tje complained of paii; in his stomach, and heat in his throat. He also said he thought he llad been poisoned. 1 felt his puiso and looked at his tongue, which was perfectly clean. He appeared much distended about the abdomen. I recommended an emetic. IJe said that he could niake'himself sick with warm water, I sent the waitress for some. S^e brought about a pint. I recommended him to use a feather. He said he cpuld do it yith the han 17 to Cook. I cannot say whether Palmer was there, nor can I remember whether the arrowroot remained on Cook's stomach. On Saturday, about three o'clock in the afternoon, I saw Mr. Bamford, the surgeon. On Sunday momine I went to Mr. Cook's room, about seven or eight o'clock. Mr. Smith, called " Jerry Smith," slept in Mr. Cook's room during Saturday night. He is a friend of the prisoner Palmer. I asked Cook if he ^ was any worse? He said he felt pretty comfortable, and had slept well since twelve o'clock. On Sunday more broth, a, large breakfast-cup full, was brought over for Cook. That was between twelve and one o'clock. I believe Charles Horley brought It. I took some of that broth up to Cook's room in the same cup in which it was brought. It was hot. I tasted it. I drank about two table- spoonfuls. In about half- an-hour or an hour I was sick. I vomited violently during the whole afternoon till about 5 o'clock. I was obliged to go to bed. I vomited a great many times. During the morning I had felt perfectly well, and had not taken anything that could disagree with me. It was before dinner that I took the broth. I went down to work again about a quarter before 6 o'clock. On the Sunday evening I saw Mr. Cook ; he dii not appear to be any worse. He seemed to be in good spirits. The illness seemed to be confined to vomitings after taking food. On Sunday night I saw Cook last about 10 o'clock. On Monday morning I saw him between 7 and 8 o'clock, when I took up to him a eup of coffee. I did not remain to see him drink it. He did not vomit it. Palmer was coming down stairs, as though from Cook's room, about 7 o'clock. To my knowledge Palmer was not there, on Monday. Cook got up about 1 o'clock, and appeared to be a great deal better. He shaved, washed, and dressed himself. He said he felt better, only exceedingly weak. He dressed as if he was going out. Ashmall the jockey, and his brother, and Saunders the trainer, came to see him. As soon as he got up I gave him some arrowroot, which remained on his stomach. He sat up until about 4 o'clock, when he returned to bed. Between 9 and 10 o'clock at night I saw Palmer. He was sitting down in Cook's room. I saw Cook about half-past 10 o'clock, and not again imtil about a quarter before 12 o'clock. On the Monday night, about 8 o'clock, a pUl-box wrapped in white paper was brought from Mr. Bamford's. It was given to mo by Miss Bond, the housekeeper, to take up to Cook's room. I took it up and placed the box on the dressing- table. That was before Palmer came. When I saw Palmer he was sitting by the fire in Cook's room. I went to bed between 10 and IX o'clock. About eight or ten minutes before 13 o'clock the waitress, Lavinia Barnes, called me up. While I was dressing I twice heard screams from Cook's room. My room is above, but not immediately oyer Cook's. I went down to Cook's room. As soon as I entered the room I saw Mm sitting up in bed. He desired me to fetch Palmer directly. I told him Palmer was sent for, and walked to his bedside. I found the pillow upon the floor. There was one mould candle burning in the room. I picked up the pUlow, and asked Cook if he would lay his head down. He was sitting w, beating the bedclothes with both his hands and arms, which wera stretched out. When I asked him to lay his head down, he said, " I can't lie down ; I shaU be suffocated if I Ue 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 jerkmg 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 m the room. He was moving and knocking about aU the time. Twice he called aloud, " Murder ! He asked me to rub one hand. I found it stiff. It was the left hand. By the Coubi.— It was stretched out. It did not move The hand was about halt shut. All the upper part seemed to be stiff. t.^ t i. j r,i, j •* Examination resumed.— I did not rub it long. As soon as he thought I had rubbed it sufficiently he thanked me, and I left off. Pahner was there while I was rubbmg the hand While I was rubbing it the arm and also the body seemed to twitch. Cook was perfectlT conscious. Wlicn Palmer came in he recognized him. He was throwing himself about the bed, and said to Palmer, " Oh, doctor, I shaU die." Palmer replied, " Oh, my lad. Tou won't '" Palmer just looked at Cook, and then left the room, askmg me to stay bvthe bedside. In about two or three minutes he returned. He brought with him some dUIs He save Cook a draught in a wineglass, but I cannot say whether he brought that with him He first gave the pills, and then the draught. Cook said the pills stuck m his throat, and he could not swallow them. Pahner desued me to give him a teaspoontul of toast-ind-water. and I did so. His body was still ierkmg and jumpmg. When I put the spoon to his mouth he snapped at it and got it fast between his teeth, and seMied to bite it v^ hard. In snapping at the spoon he threw forward his head and neck. He swallowed the toast-and-water, and with it the piUs. Palmer then handed hmi a draught ma winclass, which was about three parts full. . It was a dark, thick, heavy-lookmg hquid. Cook drank this. Hesnapped at the glaas.as he had done at the spoon. He seemed as though he could not exactly control himself. He swallowed the draught, but vomited v. u immeJuvtclv into iho chamber utensil. I supported Ws foreWd The YO^t smelt U^^^^^^ Palmer said he hoped eitljer that the pills fed stayed pn his ^t^^^f <'J^ °^ ^^^^ and He searehed for the pills iA the vomitVth a hen 6ook l^^'J ^5^i^|, "J^^^,', ^'ent to t\e bedsfdfe? c6me and feel hoW ^ s heart Ijeat, or sqmethijig of *** f c^*- •^^^'^g^^^^f'^'t^ foc» hut h^ andpressed'his hand, I cannof s4y jyhether to *¥. heart or tpthe s^e ot m ^j saidTt was ^nint. ' ^ ^^^ ^"'^ ''^,^'1^; ^L^wX^n-i «'- he\^s JteeJ. any one suffer §uch agony as ne am ^asi nIBn^r f .»t^, "". ■'.""'-i,;£^^' ■„-^",7.v.:r, should think I should no'tilike to gee any onpT^e " a^i^m. tsaid, '--^iiat ^r yw tlmk w^^he cajise of aU th^t agTw ?" ^^ sfid, " Tive p^ s whioji PaWr ^aye me at ^lalf-past IQ." I do not think akyl^inl more' was said. J %ked Ijim if he wou^d take anyth%f ^' 1 loTot^etnember seeing Palmer on that day ■ t t , ' . - ■■ Tiie qiiestiop whicli eljcite(l this ans-yer was, " ^\H Palmer mail^e! any remiirk ahpiit hjs dress?'' Attor the answer Ijad b^en given, ' ' '"* : '" T Mr. Seijeant Shee objected to the form in which the q\iestion had h^£n pjit.- Lord Campbell: Ifsfeems to me thiat tjie examination is CondupteJ wltl\ perfect fairn^ssi No Ici^dirig question, nor apy qne vhiph qould he coiVsiderefl BouBtfuI, has been put fo tfae witness. ^' ' ' . , . - ^ . . ^ Examination continued: I left tlie rqoii^, but re\uai)ie4 0n the landing. After I had been waiting there a short time (s(boi)t a minute or two) Pulmer came out. I sj^iij, '' tie is much the same as last night." Palmer said, " Oh, he is not so ill bv a iiiiietji'part." He (hen went down stairs as though gpin^'tqhjs own house. He ijas aVaent l|utii very short time, and theij returned to Cook's room. I also went in. J believe Cook said, " Turn pie over on my ri'ht sider*' I was then outijide, but the dpor was open. I do not think that I was in thp room at the time he died. I Went in just before, but caine out again. Jones was there at the time^ and had hii right arm under Cook's head. Palmer was then feeling Cook's pulse, and said to Jones, " Hla 19 wlso is gone." Jones pvessejl the ?i(le of his facs to Cook's heart, lifted up'hia hands, l)llt ilid not (ipeak. Palmer msked me to fetcli Mr. Bamfoid, and I went for hijn. Cook's death occurred about three-quaj-ters of uii hum- after I had been called uj). Mr. Bamford caijie oyer. I (iid not return to Cook's room. When iVlr. Bamford came down stairs he said, " He is deatj; he was dead when I arrived." Aftor Mr. Bamford had gone I went up to the landing, and sat upon the stairs. I had uat there about ten minutes when Jones came out of the room, ^nd saidj '' Mr. Palmer wants you,'' or " Will you go into the room ?" I went into the room where Cooli was lying d«ad. Palmer was there. I said to liim, " It is not possible that Mr. Cook is dead f*' He said, '* Oh yes, he is dead." He asked me who I thought would come and l^y him out. I mentioned two women whom I' thouglit Palmer knew. He said, ''Those are just the wottien." I said, "Shall I fetch them?" and he said, " Yes." I had seen a betting-book in Cook's room. It was a dark book, with gold hands round the edges. It was not every large boqlf, rathev mora long than square, and had a clasp at one end. I saw Cook have this book wl)en he stopped at Talbot Arms, as he went to the Liverpool races, some months before. Thpre was a case at the one aide 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'clofck. Ke took a postage stamp from d pocket at one end of the book. I replficed the book on the franje of the looking-glass on the dressing-table. Palmer was in the room after that time. To my knowledge 1 never saw the book 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 bad worn were lying op a chail'. I saw Palmer searching the pock&ts of the ooat. That was about ten minutes after the death. When I went into the room Palmer had in his hand, searching the pocket?, the coat which I had seen Cook Wear. Palmer also searched under the pillow and bolster. I saw two or three letters lying upon the chimney-piece. 1 never saw them again, but I way not much in the room afterwards. I had not seen thi> letters before Cook's death. The examination in cliief of this witness being concluded, the Court adjourned, at twerity minutes past nix o'clock, till nejct morning, when it met ni ten o'clock. ■" SECOND DAY, May 15. Among fli-e distinguislied perisons present were the Earl of Derby, Earl Qrey, Lord "W. I^eimos, Lord G, G. Lennox, Lord H. Lennox, &c. fl}e learned judges, Lord Chief Juatlce Campbell and Mr. Baron Aldorson, accom- panied by the Bpgprder, the Sheriffs, the Undeiv-Sheriffs, and several members of the Can't of Aldermen, took their seats on the bench at 10 o'clock. The prisoner was then placed at the bar. The expression of his countenance was Bsdder and mora subdued than on the preceding day. He maintained his usual tranquil- lity of demeanour, seldom ohanging his position, and. gazing steadfastly at the witnesses. The same counsel were again in attendance : — The Attorney-General, Mr. E. James, Q.Q,, y^y. BpdWn, Mr. Welsby, and Mr. Huddleston, for the Crown; and Mr. Seijeant Shee, Mr. G-rove, Q.O., Mr. Gray, and Mr. Kenealy, for the prisoner. Tlie Jury, vrbo had been all night at the London Coffee-house, were conducted into potiirt by the officer who had them in charge. JBlisabetli MiUs, who was under examination the previous evening, was agailti placed in tjie witness-iipx. She deposed as follows; — I had been engaged at the Talljot Arms fbr ^bout three years preyious 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 iljnesa diiring tbat time except of an affection in his throat. I heald him complain of a 80ve throat two QT tlu'oa months before his death. He said it resulted from cold. He took a gargle fai' ii. , i believe ha had it fi'om Mr. Thirlby. I did not observe any sores t^bout his mouth. X njiver heard him complain of a difficulty in swallowing. I have seen him ■^;tb ft " loa,dBd" tongue oooasiunally, but I never heard him complain of a sore tongue, ncff ha*vei I feewd of canstic being applied to his tongue. It was 3, month, if not more, before hi$ death thftt I heard him say he had a sord throat. I never knew him to take medicine before his last illness. He had a slight cough throv(gh cold, l)Ut H©YW to my knowledge a -violent one. He had not been ailing just before he went to Shrewsbury. On his return from Shrewsbury he complained of bemg poorly. I left my situation at Christmas, and went to my home in the Potteries. Since then I hare been in another sitij»tio», which I left in February. I have seen Mr. Stevens, Mr Ciok's father- 20 ji-Uw, since I hftye been in London. I cannot say how many times I have seen him, but it is not more than six or seven times. Sometimes we conversed together in a private roo'"- He only came to see vrhether I liked the place or whether I liked London. Weused to converse together about Mr. Cook's death. I have talked to him about Mr. Cook s death at Rugeley. I cannot remember anything else that we talked about except the death. He has never given me farthing of money or promised to get me a place. I saw Mr. Stevens last Tuesday at Dolly's Hotel, where I had been in service. Lavima Barnes was with us. She was the waitress at the Talbot Arms when Mr. Cook died. Iwo other persons were present, Mr. Hatton, the chief officer of Rugeley, and Mr. Gardner, an attorney at the same place. Mr. Cook's death may have been mentioned at this meeting. Other things were talked of which I do not wish to mention. ' Serjeant Skee: But you must mention them. u i , . Witness: I cannot remember wliat they were. I don't know whether we talked about the trial. They did not ask me what I could prove. My deposition was not read over to me, and Mr. Stevens did not talk to me about the symptoms that were exhibited by Mr. Cook before his death. I had seen Mr. Hattou a few times before. I once saw him at Dolly's. He merely dined there. I cannot remember whether he 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. (A.laugh.) I saw Mr. Gardner once at Dolly's, and once in the street, and I swear these were the only occasions I ever saw him. I never went with him to a solicitor's ofiBee. At present I am living with my mother at Rugeley. Before that I had been living among myfriends. 1 know a man named Dutton. He is a friend of mine. I have been staying at his house. His mother lives in the same house. He is a labouring man. I used to sleep with Dutton 's mother. I swear that I slept with his mother. I have also been staying with a cousin of mine in the Potteries. 1 left Dolly's of my own accord, because I did not like the place. I can read, and I read the news- papers. I have heard of the case of a person named Dove, who was supposed to have mur- dered his wife at Leeds. I merely heard that it was another strychnine case, but the syuvptoms 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 -ased the word " twitching " before I came to London. The words " twitching" and " jerking " were not first suggested to me. I did not say anything about the broth having made me sick before the coroner, 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 was examined several times, and I was questioned particularly upon the subject of the broth, and I said on one occasion that I thought the broth was very good. I did not at the time think it was the broth that had caused the sickness. I was so ill that I was obliged to go to bed ; but I could not at all account for it. I only took two table-spoonfuls, 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 bed- room 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. I am 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 was. I did not ask him, and he did not toll me. He did not ask me many questions. He put a few to me and wrote down my answers. He mentioned Mr. Stevens' name. Mr. Stevens was there. Serjeant Shee: Why did not you tell me that ? Because you did not ask me. (A laugh.) Gross-exxmination continued: I did not tell the coroner that Mr. Cook was beating the bedclothes on the Monday night. I did say that he sometimes threw his head back, and then would raiie himself up again, and I believe I also said that he could hardly speak for shortness uf breath. T 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 LoBD Chief Justice here interposed and intimated his opinion that it would be a fairer course to read the witness's depositions. The other judges concurred. The Attokney-Genekal said, he should have interposed, but it was his intention to adduce 21 evidence to show the manner in which the case was conducted by the coronef, 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 Ihey had been put to me. I was not purposely recalled to state the symptoms of the deceased in the presence of Dr. Taylor. When the prisoner camo to the Talbot on the Tuesday night he had a plaid dressing-gown 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 was here produced. The deposition of the witness was 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. The witness was 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 I said, " Not that I was awave of." I don't know what brought the sickness to my mind afterwards, but I think that some one else in the house brought tiie fact to my memory. I certainly did vomit after I took the broth, and was obliged to go to bed. I am 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. I 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 waited outside the house. I am engaged to be married to one of the Buttons. Serjeant Suee: 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 was that he was 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. Mr. Gardner, examined by the Attorney-General : I am a member of the firm of Gardner and Co., of Rugeley. I acted in this matter for the firm of Cookson and Co., the solicitors of 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 his clerk took down the answers. The inqaest 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 submitted that what was said by the coroner was no evidence against the prisoner. The Attorney-General : It is not intended as evidence against the prisoner, but to rebut the efltect of eyidence that you have put in. I mU ask — ^had you occasion to expos- tulate with the coroner as to the omission of his clerk to take down the answers o/ witnesses ? Mr. Seqeant Shee : I object to the question being put in that form. The Attorney-General : Did you observe that the clerk omitted to take down the answers of Elizabeth MiUs ? — Not in reference to that particular case. Mr. Baron Aldbrson : 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 ? — I do not recollect it. Lord Campbell : It 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 th^t 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 ; my object is to show, 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. Witness, crossrexamined by Serjeant Shee : The jury put a great many questions. Re-examined : 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. i>/2 lord C'.vju-BELL : My learned brcQircn tliiiili kUal evidence iipou this ponil is Hol admissible. , . Mr. Justice Cebsswell said the depositions •which had been put, ill did not bIiow that any questions had been put by the juiymen. If tliey had contained such questions they would have shown the motive of the jury m .putting thom. But the Court was lett totally ill the dark as to whether question^ had been put bv the coroner or any other person. For anything that appeared to the contrai-y, the witnesses miaht have made a voluntary statement, without any (luestipns at ajl beiiig put to them. No foundation was laid, therefore, for the Attorney- General's question. Mr, Baron Aldekson concuiied. 5n1 in^thr street,' aiSVsked'him' whether he'' thoiight ^ horse Chickon woujS win? Ho desired me, if I heard anything further about a horse belongmg to Lord Derby, which was also to run, tocaU and tell him on the following day. I went to the Kaven to see him at half-past ten o'clock on the Thursday evening. Some friends waited for me m fho 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 arc two passages, ouc facing the other, to the left. I saw Palmer standing by a small tabic in the passage. He had a tumbler-glass in his hand, in which there appeaa-od to be, a smallqaanrtity of watw. I did not see him put anything into it. There was a light between him and. me, and ho held it up to the light. 'He said to me, ".I will be with you prasently." He saw mc the moment I got to the top of the stairs. He stood at the table a minute or two, longer with the glass ia his hand, holding it up to the light once or twice, and now and then shaking k. I 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, takini^ the glass with him. In two or three minutes he came out a^ain vrith the glass. _, "VVhait wa.s in the glass was still the colour of water. He then carried it into his o-\vn sitting-room, the door of which was shut. He afterwards cams out, and brought me a glass with hrandy-and-water in it. It might have been the same gljss. I had some of the brandy- and-water. It produced no unpleasant consequences. We had some convei-sation about the races. In the course of it he said he should back his own horse, Chicken. I was present at the race, when Chicken ran and lost. Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Si-iee.— I am married. Brooks i», the name of ray husband. He never goes with me to races. I live v/ith him. I don't attend many races in the ■ course of a year. My husbslnd has a high apppintnaent, and does not sametion ray going to races. A great number of racing men were ill at Shrewsbury 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. , , , Re-examined; I was not examined before the Coroner. The brandy-and-Wa;ter which Palmer gave me waa cold. I had been on friendly terms with him. I had known him a number of years as a racing man. La vmiA Bakheb, examined by Mr. E. Jajies; In November, 1855,1 was a waitress at the Talbot Arms. I knew Psdmer and Cook. Cook called there onthe l2th (Monday) aa he was going to the races. He did not comijlain of illness^ I saw him, when be returned on the IStli. On the Friday lie came between nine and ten o'clock in the eveajng, after dining with Palmer. He spoke to, me. He was sober. On the Saturday 1 saw him' twice. Some broth was sent over and taken up to hinj by me. He could not talce it; he was too sick. I caruif.d it down and put it into the kitchen. I afterwards saw Palmer, and told' him Cook was too siok to take it. Palmer said he must have it. Elizabeth Mill» afterwards took it up again < She was taken ill with violei^ 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'oloek. I saw some broth on that day in the kitchen. . It was in a " sick-cup," with two handlesj 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 daring the day. Sandars came to see hiw, and Itijok him up some brandy-aod-water. I slept that night in the next room to (book's. JPalmer came between eight and nine o'clock in tlie evening, and went up-stahs, bnt 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 w<-nt np-8toir.'>. Cook was very ill, and asked me to send for Palmer. He screamed out "Murder!' He exclaimed that Ire was in • violent pain — that he was sruffocatiiag. His eyes were wild-lpoking, standing a great way out of itbttead. He was beating the b«d with iu». arios. He cried out, " Christy have mere/ oa mj n !""«', ... "'^"^jJi.'^' ? EPi??-'^.'" i"°'^ A *P^^^t ■ Having caHtcl tSlfi JlHls, 1 tea to soul " Bbot» " f(ft PiiUufei'. Palmer came, aiid I again went into the room. Coolc was tlioQ more cbmpo-ed. He said, " Oli. doctor, I shall die." Pahner ^eplieg, " Doit't be alarmed, my laS," I saw Cook dfiiik a daikisu fhixture oiit of a glass.., t don't know.wliO,ga*e it tb him. I both sftw Shd : h^:i';d him sriap at the ^la^s. llo Br^giit up. the draft. J Wft him between twelve an8 bne 6ylpbk, wheh h6 w^ mjibh mpre. compos^di bn the Tu^adify he seetped i little better. At ftiglit, a little tefore twelve o elodcjth? bell rang again. ,. I wtls in the Jcitehen. Mills waht up stiiir^. I fdlldwed her, and heard Cook^oreaming, bttt did not go' into the rboin. 1 stood otit- iSde the abor arid saw Palinfi: borne. He h?d been fttehsdj I ^id as he passed me : " Mr. Cook is ill again." He said, " Oh, is he?" and went into the room. . He was dressed id liisusual manner, and wore a black coat aijd a.cap.^ I remained oni .the landing when Palmer oatne out. AS life, vferit down stairs, Mills "asked liim Jiow ^ookwSs? He said to Her and tb me, " He is not S6 dAS by fifty parts as he^was last nigtt." I jfeard Qook asjc to 'be turrie'd o'ver bbfbre I Weiit in, while Palmer was ihSf^, 1 went in after Palmpr had left, but J taatne out befotfe Cbolt died. After Ite (Jied dii; thd Tuesday.l -vVent into,,th.e room aftd found Paimfer vritii a coat in his h.^^ He viras cjeariiig put the pockpts of the goat isnd lookiag uiider the bolster. I fciid, " uk ! Mr.^ Coo^ can't be dead !", , Pahner saidj " He is;. I knfew he -woiild be." mid then left the iboiA. J saw Him, on ttq "timrsday following. He cjJine into fee body of the hall, and asked for iTie key of Mr. Cook's bedroom,- in which thabody wfts lying. The kty -\V!<^ in the bar. ite said he wanted some books 4nd papers and a p&pierlmife, tot tKey 'S'fere to go baEk fe fnf .stationer's^ or else he would h^ye to pay for them. I went with him int'd the room. He then rec[ue^cd me to go to Miss Bond for some boolis. , I went d:o'^^•ftSta^rs arid fetched thfe books. When I retmned fee Ivas still in the roomi looking for thb paperknife on the top of tKe cfiestpf drawers among booksj f&pers; and clothfes. He said, "1 can't fin$ the Knrfe ^nywhere." Miss BpaA, the .housekeeper; afterwards cftme •tip, ii.d I lefi. O.u tlie Fridaj^ .tetween 3 and. 4. o(' clock, I sa'w Jit. Jones With Paltnier. jb;i^ sSid he thought Palmer kiiew whpre the bettingrbook was. Paliaer askfed ine ta g6 SUd loqk for il, and said it was sure to be fjmndj but it was not worth SBiything to any oiie b'tit Cpok. Mills and I Tyent up to look for it, but We coiildnot find it. We searched everj'where, in the bed and all round the room, but njpt in the drawers. Wfe went dowri arid told Patm,^f arid .Tories tW we could not findit. Palmer said, " Oh, it Will be f6und somewhere. I'll go with yon and look myself,'.' He did xiot go with us; but left the h'OTiSe. I did fiot s'eahirn come out of tiie room on the,Thursday. Ther6 was no reason fbr our iiot looking in: the (^aweys. ^oihe pqojle wej-e in the room at th6 time iaiHng the coffin; Crbss- exiffiimed by Sir. Serjeant Sheb.— Cook had some coffee on the Saturday Between 12 arid 1. I did ribt pay any particitlat attention to the time When Palnief ^veIlt up on the Monday. 1 ^in not sure it was beAjre half-past 9, but I am svtte it was before 10. I doli't remember Whether Codik toucied the gliss from wlijch lie drank the riuxture. I think ^oifae' one' else was holding it. There was some of Cook's linen in Several of the drawers, 'there T^-as a portmanteau containing other things Ijesides those in the drawers. There were dresS fclotAes, an overcoat, and morning clothes. The door was locked on the night of the death. The wbiiieh were sent for to lay out the corpse before it was li^Mt. The ifldertaker Wferit 05 l!he following morning, and the door was locked after they left;' They came again te thd Th-ursday iiight, 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 undertakers t^-hen I lodk6d for the book. ... Re-exatfaih^'d by- the Attoknet- General.— ^The chainber-maid and I -rirere in and out of the room w'hii^ the women were laying out t)ie body, but they were sOnietirncs left ^oile. I saw nothing of the bpdt at that time. I had seen it before in Cook's hand,' but 1 don't remember seeing it in tlift room. _ ■ . . - .- ' Ainu RdWLET, examuied Ipv &. "^elsby.— I live at Rugeley, and have&elgpiently been elnplJlDyed a:3 charwoman by Palmar. On tHp Saturday tefere Cook dtefl Ealmef sent me fo Jfc. Bo'hinson's, at the Albion Inn, for a .Uttle broth; foi; Cook. I fetched the broth, took it to Palriie-f's house, and piit it to the fire in the back .kitchen to warm. After doing ^6. 1 WiSil^ about my work, in' other jarts of the house. When the broth was hot; Paltiier Brouglit it to me ia tlie IutcEen> and poured it into a cup.. He told nle to take it tb' tfie Talbot a'rnis fdr Codkj fb as£ if he. would take a Uttle bread of toast with it, and to sAf tfet Smith had sent it. ,, , . _ _ .; By Lord Campbell. — He did not say wfiy I was to say that. - Examiriatibii' resumed.— There is a Mr. Jeremiah Smith in Kugeley.-. He is called •* Jerfy Smitii." Bfe is' a ffiehd of Pahner's. I took the broth to the Talhdt Arms, and sSve it to Lavinia Barnes. , , . , .. , , .,._ CrosS-cjTiiiniuEd' by Jlr. Serjeant $heb.— Mr. Snjith was in the habit of putting up at the Albion. He was friendly witli Cook. Cook was to have dined with Smith that day, but wfs not able to go. JIi's. Robinsonj the landlady of tKe Albion,- marde the broth, bu/- r do'tft knowbv >*hose orders. 24 By Lord Campbell.— The broth -was at the fire in Palmer's kitchen about five """CHARLES HoRLEY, examined by Mr. Bodhn.-I am a g^denej Uving at R«gely, and was occasionaUy employed by the prisoner in his garden. On the Svmd*y^«*°J^J;X died, Palmer asked me to take some*^ broth to Cook. That was at Palmer "house whece I was in the habit of going. It was between 12 and 1 o'clock. He gaje •"e the broth m a smaU cup with a coler over it, and told me to take it to the Talbot ^rms 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 I cannot say. The witness was not cross-examined. . » ^ i * ^v^ SarahBond. examinedbyMr. Huddleston : InNoyember l^'^* ^ J^^.^o^P'^^tPl^^f TalbotArms. IknewCook. He stayed at theTalbotArnis. I?^='°e'nber Ins going to Shrews- bury races on the 12th of November. He returned on the Thwday. I ^^'^^J^^^^ ?^^ he was very poorly. I did not see him on the Friday or Saturday On Sunday 1 saw Jum about eight 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. I 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 ^e necessary that any one should be with him. I asked if Daniel JeiJLins, the boots, should sleep intheroom. Palmersaid,thatCook was somuch better hehadmuchratherhe did not. On the Monday morning, a Uttle before seven o'clock, I saw Palmer again, lie 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 coifee. He did not say anything about its strength. He remained in the kitchen, and I made the coffee and gave it to him. He told me that Oie 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, I went up to his room between eleven and twelve o'clock. "When I went into the room Cook was aione. He was sitting up in bed, resting on his elbow. He seemed disappointed, and said 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 out, went away for a few minutes, and then returiied. After he came back, I heard that Cook had vomited. Cook said, he thought he should die. Palmer cheered him up, and said, that he would do all he could to prevent it. When Palmer came out pf 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 three and four o'clock on Tuesday. That was when Mr. Jones came. A little after six o'clock I took some jelly up to Cook. He seemed 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 eight and nine o'clock on Wednesday morning, I locked the door of the room in which Cook's body lay. About nine o'clock I gave the key to "Mr. Tolly the barber, when he came to shave 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 mdertaker. Cross-examined by Mr. Grove : The passengers by the express Strain from London arrived at X.ugeley "about ten o'clock in the evening. They come by ily from Stafford. William Henry Jones, examined by the Attorney-General : I am 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 hous^ I had been on terras of intimacy with him nearly five years. He was twenty-eight years of age when he died, and un- married. He was originally educated for the law, but of late years had devoted himself to agriculture and the turfs'- The last year or two he had no farm. He kept race-horses and betted. 1 had known Palmer about twelve months. Lately Cook considered my house at Lutterworth as his home. I have attended him professionally. His health was generally good, but he was not very robust. He was a man of active habits. He both hunted and played cricket. In November last he invited me to go to Shrewsbury to see his horse run, and I went. I spent Tuesdaly, the 13th, with him there. That was the day on which Polestar ran and won. I dined with Cook and other friends at the Bavea Hotel, where he was staying. The horse having won, there was a little extra champagne drunk. We dined between six and seven o'clock, and the party broke up between eight and nine. Cook afterwards accompanied me round the town. We went to Mr. Fraill's, who is clerk of the course. I saw Cook produce his 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 Shee objected to this statement being given in evidence, and the Attor- ney-General, therefore, did not ask any questions as to its purport. 25 Examination resumed : I left the Raven Hotel at ten o'clock. Cook -was then at the door. He was not at all the -worse for liquor. He wns in his usual health. On the following Monday I received a letter from Palmer. This letter, -which was put in and read, was as follows :— " My dear Sir,— Mr. Cook was taken ill at Shrewsbury, and obliged to call in a medi- cal man. Since then he has been confined to his bed here -with a very severe bilious attack, combined with diarrhcea. I think it desirable for you to come and see him as soon as possible. > " Nov. 18, 1855. WiniAM Palmhr." Examination reamed: On that day (Monday) I was very unwell. On the next day I went to Rugeley. I arrived at the Talbot Arms about half-past three o'clock in the aflernoon, and immediately went up to Cook's room. He said that he was very comfortable, but he had been very ill at Shrewsbury. He did not detaU the symptoms, but said that he was obliged to oall 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. In 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 diarrhcea. The toast-and-water was in the room. Mr. Bamford came in the evening about seven o'clock. Palmer had told me that Mr. Bamford had been called in. Mr. Bamford expressed his opinion that Cook was going on very satis- factorily. 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. I do not remember to whom ho addressed this observation. We three (Palmer, Banford, 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 this, and he went away. I went back to Cook's room, and Palmer went with me. During 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: Did he appear to have recently suffered from a bilious attack? — No. Examination resumed: Palmer and I went to his house about eight o'clock. I remained there about half-an-hour, and then returned to Cook. I next saw Palmer in Cook's room at nearly eleven o'clock. He had brought with him a box of pills. He opened the paper, on wliich the direction was written in my presence. That paper was roimd the box. Ho called my attention to the paper, saying, " What an excellent handwriting for an old man !" I did not read the direction, but looked at the writing, which was very good. Palmer proposed to Cook that he should take the pills. Cook protested very much against it, because they had made him so ill the previous night. Palmer repeated the request several times, and at last Cook complied with it, and took the pills. The 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-watcr. I do not know when Cook had drank the toast-and water, but it was standing by the bedside all 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 him- self during the winter. After he had taken the pills I went downstairs to my supper, and returned to his room at nearly twelve 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 n bed about ten minutes, and had not gone to sleep, when he suddenly started up in bed, and called out, " Doctor, get up, I am 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. Palmer." He asked me to give him something; I declined, and said, "Palmer will be here directly." Cook was then sitting up m bed. The room was rather dark, and I did not observe anything par- ticular in his countenance. He asked me to rub the back of his neck. I did so. I supported him with my arm. There was a stiffness aboiit the muscles of his neck. Palmer came very soon (two or three minutes at the utmost) after the chambermaid ^Yent for him. Ha 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, threw himself back in the bed, and was drcadluUy convulsed. That could not have been the result of the action of the pills last taken. Cook said, " Kaise me up ! I shall be suffocated." That was at the commencement of the convulsions, which lasted five or ten minutes. The convulsions affected every rausele of the body, and wer* flcc'rtnpatiirtl Uy sltDdiaii' at ille liinfc*. I duilcilvoiirefl td rhtie Citok; willi tlie assistaitce of Palme*,' l)ut found it qtfile iWpossiWej Ortiiig to tM fiaiAty itlhc liinbs. Whtin CSok found V8 could not raise Lira up, he asked me to turd liiih «*«?. Hb w4i theri qriitte SfenSiMfe. I ttrfllea him on to his side. I h'stened to the Action bf hiS hiearf. I foiiiia tlitt it grddn^lly weakened, and asfced Paime* *B fetch Some spirits of inimbnMj to M used as 4 stipitilantr Palmer *ent to his hotso and fetched the bottle. Hte *ftl Slraj* a ferf short time. . Whfea he rettirned thej«iU sations of the heart tfete gtsimiilr b*«8iflfi aild life was alnlbSt ft*thict. Cook died very V,nikm a veiy short time afterwards. From the time he called to me to that of his death there elaflSM abSht ton Blinuteg ot i quarter of an hour. He died of tetanus, which is * Sl^mddic affection of the mtiteles of the ^thoiabody. It cansfe^ death by StopjJHig tfite action of the heart. The feeuse of suffteatton is SausSd by m epilepsy. In eijilepsy 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. Lavinia Barnes was, recalled, at the instance of Mr. Serjeant, OHEfi, and in answer to the learned Serjeant, she said: On Monday morning Mr, (Dook said to me that he had been very ill on Sunday night, just before twelye o'clock, and that he had rung the bell for some one to come to l?im.; but he thought that they had all gone to bed. EuzABETH Mills, recalled by the AlTORNEY-fiENEBAL, and examined on the same point: I remember on Monday morning asking Mr. Coot how he was^ and he said that he had been di^tvirbedi in the night, adding, "I was just mad for two minutes." f said, ''Why. did you not ring the bell ?'' and he replied, " I thought yoi would he all fast asleep, and would not hear me "the illness passed awavj and' I managed to get over it without." He also said tbat he thought he had beenf disturbed by^ the noise of aquarrel in the street. , fir. iSenky Savage, physician, of 7, Gloucester-place, examined by the Attohney-Genekal: I knew John iParsons Cook. He had' been in the habit oi consulting me prot'essionalfy during the last four years. He was a man, not of roftust constitution; but his general health was good. He came to me in May, l855, but I saw hiift about November of the year hefore, and early in the spring of 1855.. In the spring of 1865 the old affair— indigestion — vfas orte cause of hii .yfeiting me, and he had some spots upon his body, about which he was uneasy. He had also two shallow ulcers on his tongue, which' corresponded with two bad teetfi. He said that he had been under a mild mercurial course, and he imagined that those spots were syphilitic. 1 thought they were not, and I recommended the discontinuance of mercury. 1 gave hini quinine as a tonic, and an aperient composed, of cream of tartar, magnesia, and sulphur. I ;iever at any time gave him antimony. iTnder the treatment which I prescribed the sores gradually disappeared, and they were quite well by the end of May. I saw him, however, fre- quently in June, as he still felt some little anxiety about the accuracjr of my opinion. If any little spot made its appearance he came to ine, and 1 also Was anxious on the subject, as my dpinion diiffered f'ri^m tliat of another medical man in London. Every time he came to me I examined him carefully. There were no iifdicatiou^ of a, syphilitic character about the sore^ and there was no ulceration of the throat, but one of the tonsils was slightly enlarged ^8 and tender. I saw him last alive, and carefully examined him, either on the 3rd or 5th of November. There was in my judgment no venereal taint about him at the time. Cro.is-examined by Mr. Serjeant Shbe: I do not thibk that the deceased was fond of talcing 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. CiiAmES Newton, called and examined by Mr. James, Q.C. — I am assistant to Mr. Salt, a surgeon, at Rugeley. I know the prisoner, WiUiara Palmer. ' I remember Monday, the 19tli of November. I saw Palmer that evening at Mr. Salt's svurgery about nine o'clock. I was alone when he came there. He asked me for three grains of strychtiine, and I weighed it accurately and gave it to him, enclosed in a piece of paper. He said nothing further, but " Good night," and took it away with him. I kn^w him to be a medicid 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 eleven and twelve o'clock. He was then at the shop of Mr. Hawkins, a druggist. He asked me 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 he then asked me when Mr. Edwin Salt was going to his farm. The farm in question was at a place about four- teen miles distant from Rugeley. Palmer had nothuie whatever to do with that farm ; but Mr. Salt's going there was a rumour of the town. While we were talking, a Mr. Bras- sington came up and spoke to me, and during our conversation Palmer went into Hawkins' shop again. Palmer came out of the shop a second time, while I was still talking to Brassington. I am not s\ire whether Palmer spoke to me at that time ; liut he went past me in the direction of his own house, which is about 200 yards from Ha-.vkins'. I men went into Hawkins' shop, where I saw Roberts, Mr. Hawkins' apprentice, and I had some conversation with him about Palmer. I knew a man named TTurlby, who had been an assistant and a partner of Palmor. Palmer usually dealt with Thirlby for Jiis drugs — in fact, Thirlby dispensed Palmer's medicine. On Sunday, the 25th of November, about seven 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 flie dose of strychnine to give to kiU a dog i' I told him a grain. He asked me what would be the appearance of the stomach after death ? I told lum that there would be no inflammation, and that I did not think it could be found. ITpon that he snapped his finger and thumb in a quiet way, and exclaimed, as if communing with hiinsel^ "That's all ri^ht." (Sensation.) He made some other remarks of a commonplace cha- racter, which I do not recollect. I was with him altogether about five minutes. On the following day, Monday, the 26th of November, I heard that a post mortem examination was to take place. I went to Dr. Bamford's house, intending to accompany him to the post mortem, and I found Palmer there in the study. "That was about ten o'clock in the day. Palmer asked me what I wanted ? I told him that I had come to attend ihepost mortem. He asked whether I thought Mr. Salt was going ; and 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. Frers, a surgeon, practising at Rugeley, were both 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 Ijrandy, 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 after- wards went over witli Palmer to the post mortem, and foimd the other doctors there. During the^osi! mortem. Palmer stood near to Dr. Bamford, against the fire. I was exa- mined 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 November. The first person that I told of it was Cheshire, the postmaster. Mr. Sergeant Shee 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. Cross-examined by Mr. Ghove, Q.C. : It might have been a week or two or three days after I gave Palmer the strychnine that I first mentioned the occurrence to any one, I thmk I may undertake to say that it was not a fortnight afterwards. Subsequently to the mquest I was examined for the purpose of giving evidence on the part of the Crown I cannot say how long after the inquest; that was. When I was first examined on behalf of the Cro^vn, I did not mention the three grains of strychnine, but I did mention the conversation about the poisoning of the dog. That -vvxis not the first time that I had v^-B^BrraSSCSBSaBB^^SSIHBBBBBBBB^^^ 29 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 given 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." I 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 that there is a difference between poor and rich. It is impossible to recollect all that I said upon every occasion. £e-examined by the Attokney-Geneka.l : I did not mention the circumstance of my having given the strychnine to Palmer, because Mr. Salt, my employer, and Palmer were not Mends, 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 Eugeley 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. I 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. Serjeant Sheb : Have you not given another reason for not mentioning the occur- rence about the three grains of strychnme before — that reason being that you were afraid you could be indicted for perjury? — No, I did not give that as a reason, bvit I stated to a gentleman that a yoimg man at Wolverhampton had been threatened to be indicted for per- jury 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 tlie 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 Cook. The CouKT then adjourned at twenty-five minutes past six o'clock until ten next day, the jury being conducted, as on the previous evening, to the London Coffeehouse in charge of the officers of the Cgiurt, THIRD DAY, May 16. The court was quite as full at the commencement of the proceedings this morning as it had been on 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 Sheriflfe, 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. Por the prisoner ;— Mr. Seijeant Shee, Mr. Grove, G.C, Mr. Gray, and Mr. Kenealy. • j v ht The next witness for the prosecution was Chables Joseph Robebts, exanunea by Mr. E James ■ In November last I was apprentice to Mr. Hawkins, a druggist, at Rugeley. I know Palmer. On Tuesday, November the 20th, between eleven and twelve in the da.T he came into Mr. Hawkins's shop. He first asked for two drachms of prussic acid, for Wch he had brought a bottle. I was putting it up when Newton, the assistant of Salt came in. Palmer told him he wanted to speak to him, and they went out of the shop together. \l then saw Brassington, die cooper, take Newton away from Palmer, and enterintoconversation with him. Palmer then came backmto the shop and asked me for six grainslof strychnine and two drachms of Batley's solution of opmm (commonly called Batley's sedative). I had put up the prussic acid, which was lying -upon the counter. He stood at the counter when ho ordered the things, and whUe I was preparing them 80 behind the counter he stood at the shop door, with his back to »;e, locilung into the street, I was about five minutes prepai-ing them. He stood at the dpor till .they wejS ie»dy, when I delivered them to hiiu— tluj prussic acid in the bottle he }isd brougjit, the stryeh- niue in a paper, and the opium in a botlie. He paid me for thepi ft»d Jtppk tJieiJi away. No one else was in the shop liom the time when Palmer .and Newton went out till J delivered the things to him. "When Palmer had left, Kewton came in, and WP hp4 ^'i «Vf suipi-ise. I mH, '• I di I tljBi) went to the door, a|ntf''caj^in^ fo [})g hgifse^e^per, } dpsired tbaS sverything is the bftdroom s|iould be loc!ce4 ug. and iiotgjpg tflupjiefl vpti( ; returned Of sent some ppe. Before leavipg I went i^p stairs tp lake a }a^t IppJi; ^t tlig bpdy. Smfte fpvwnts ^^^eR in the rpom, turnjng oyer the bgd-cl_othes, and al§o t|ie mi'den^ker. J jj^d given feipi. jnstrHCtion^ before draneV to yl^ce tite ^ody in the coftin, ^^ ^gp stan()?ng hy the §ide ; I don% I ^m a perfect sti-^ngSf-" PI? s^4, " ^ Kuo.w th^rn all intini^teiy, and I paftintrqduee you to one. ' When I §et horns I must Jiaye a clip pf cqifpe, s,^H will then ppme over, and take, you all abp^it." I thanked him, as, 1 Ij^d done ofiae pr twi'!^ before, and said I -flTiuldn't tronWe liim. ' He repei'ted his ofier. Altering my tbiie and manner, I said, " Mr. Pataev. if I should,., call in a spUpjtqr to giye ^g adyiof, I sqppq^B you will baye no objection tq answer any- ques- tion he may put to yqu." I altered m^. mm pnrposgly ; 1 looked steadily a| him, but, although ' the moon was shining, 1 could pot ?e,qltis fe^Jure^ distinctly. He ^aid, vjiJJi a gpasnodjq corir vulsion of tte throat, which \V8S, perfectly apparent, " Oh r^p, certain)? not." „ At Volv^rton, I hud purposely me^itioned my ' dpsifp tbftt, t.ljere si^qqld ta s, ,^)o^i-?*io?-i;cw , essSTBination, and I ought to say th^t iie, -vvas qui'te cajm jytj^U. I jnpntiqn.Sid H' After I aslsgd Wm.t.hat question there -wa? a p'§use fof tlnep. pf ffiur paiqutos., He then ^ajs nfpi^p.^gil to fipBjq;ft^e( tn me after he had had his coffee, and I ag;ain begged he would not trouble himself." I went ta Mx- Gardner,, aqd then oai^e ^i^pk to tfie inn. Palipgr paw^ tq nie, and began te tftlfe fttPllb tha bills. He said, "It's a v^ry unpleasant affair fqr fne."' I ssvid, " I think it right tP U& you, tbat gmoe I saw you I hav^ |iad rii^Hier' a diflferei^t acqqunt, of Sifr. Cpok's, hSm^s:' He ?aid, " Qli, Jndesdl I hqp'e. at any' rate, they ^ill b^ ^Bttlp,!^ pleasantly,'' I §a', Lond' in the, ta,H? *» ii^ tpe ^i.Yening be oai^ij iq^. I -^Y9nt pn with pi;^ Smith!" ivro or three time 32 night." Ho said, " He is a solicitor in the town." I asked if he was in practice. He replied, " Yes." I said, " I ask you the question because, as the betting-book is lost, I should wish to know who has been with tlie young man." After a pause, I said, " Did you attend my son in a medical capacity?" Ho said, '' Oh, dear, no." I said, "I ask you, because I am determined to have his body examined; and if you had attended him professionally I suppose the gentle- man I shall call in would think it 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 indiffer- ence to me." On the Friday, when Palmer gave orders for the shell, did you perceive any sign of decora- position 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 surprised at its appearance. Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Shee: The last time Cook stayed at my. house was in January or February last year, for about a nionth. He then had a sore throat. I do 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, I 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 w^as a fortnight or three weeks after my son's death. Field called upon me; I never applied to him. By Mr. Baron Aldehson: I never called upon Mr. Bamford, but he dined with me at the Talbot Arms. Mart Kbelby, examined by Mr. Welsby : I am » widow, living at Rugeley. On the morning of Wednesday, the 21st of November last, I was sent for to lay out Cook's body, i/ly sister-in-law went with me- That was about one 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 upon the chest. The head lay a little turned on one side. The body was very stiff indeed. I have laid out many corpses* 1 never saw one so stiff before- We had difficulty in straightening the arms. We could not keep them straight down to the body. I 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 again. I did not see anything of a betting-book, nor any small book like a, pocket- book. Cross-examined by Mr. Grove: It is not usual to tie the hands of a corpse. I have never before used tape to tie the arms ; I have used it to tie the ankles together, and also for the toes. I have never seen it used for the arms. It is usual to lay the arms by the sides. If the body gets stiff the arms remain as tbey were at the time of death. If the eyes are closed at the time of death there is no difficulty in keeping them closed. It is a common thing to put penny pieces upon them to keep them closed. That is to prevent the eyelid drawing back. The jaw is generally tied up shortly after death. Re-examined by the Attorney-General: I cannot say how many bodies I 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 I went upstairs 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. John Thomas Harland, examined by Mr. Bodkin : I am a physician residing at Stafford. On the 26th of November last I went from Stafford to Rugeley, to be present at & poat-mortem examination. I arrived 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 are come to make a paat-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 poison- ing." He said, "Ob, no; I think not. He had an epileptic fit on Monday and Tuesday last, and you will find old disease in the heart and in the head." We then went together to Mr. Bamford's. I had brought no instruments with me, having only been requested to 33 be presint 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 something, but he did not know what he meant or what he wanted. He also ■aid, " He seems to suspect that I have got the betting-book. Cook had no betting-book that would be of use to anyone." 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 esamination 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 body was very stiff. By Lord Campbell : It 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 Lobd Campbell, the witness read a report which he prepared on the day on which this post-mortem examination took place, November 26th, 1855, and transmitted to Mr. Stevens, the step-father 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 examinatiou 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 uf 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 thoUghc right to exhume the body, that the spinal cord might be more carefully examined. I was preseut 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 ; nothini; but the most normal and healthy state, allowance being made fur the lapse of time since the death of the deceased." Examination resumed: I am still of opinion that there was nothing in the appearance of the gpine to account for the death of the deceased, and nothing of an unusual kind which might not be referred id changes after death. When the stomach and the intestines were removed from the body on the occasion of the first examination they were separately emptied into a jar, 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 pur- sued The stomach contained about three ounces of a brownish fluid. There was nothmg 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 his own observation of the stomach. The stomach, after being emptied, was put into the lar. The intestines were then examined, but nothing particular was found m 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. Palmer was then moving about the room. In a few mmutes I missed the iar &om where I had placed it. During that time my attention had been withdijawn by the examination. On missing the jar I caUed out, " Where's the jar? and Palmer, ' D 34 fi!om the other end of the room, said, "It is here; I thought it would be more convenieat for you to take away." There was a door at the end of the room where he was. He wa» 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 witness referred to a plan of the room, whieh was put in by the Attomey-General.]i The door near which Palmer was standing: was not the one by which he had entered the room. I called to PalmeB, " 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 edg,es were quite clean. No part of the contents of the jaa5 eould have passed throurfl it., Frnding this cut, I said, " Here is a cut ; who has done this ?" Palmer, and Mr. Deyonshir^ ana. Mr. Newton aE said that they hacl not done h, and nothing more was said about it. When I was about to remove the jar from the room, the pri«or.3r askedme whot-I. wiva goiaig to do with it. I said I should take it to Mr. Pro^e-s^ He said, '■ I had rather yau would take it to Stafford than take it there." I made no answer that I remembas. I took it to- Mr. Frerfe's house. After doing so, I returned to the Talbot Armsi I left, the jar m Mr. Prere's hall, tied and scaled. Enmediately upon finding tha slit in> the cover,. I cut the^ Strings and altered the bladders, so that the slitsiwere not oven the top of ^e jar. 1 Ksealed them. Afteaj going ta Mr. Prere's I went to the Talbot Aaims. I went into the yard to order fliy carii&gS", and while I was waiting for it the prisoner came across to me. He asked me what I haji done with the jtx. I tolil him that I had left it at Mv. PreieUv He inqjoired what would be done with it,, and I said it would go either to Birmingham or London that ni^it for examination-. I do not recolleot that he made any reply. When I re-covered the jar, I tied each cover separately, and sealed it with my own soal. During the &iai post-ntartem examination there, were severalEageley persons present, but I believe no one on behalf of the plriaoner. At the second examination, t^rae was some one these on behalf of Palmer. Cross-eaaanined by Mr. Seijeant Shee: In the course of &e. post-mortem examination. Palmer said,. "They won't hang us yet." lam not sure whether that observation wa» addressed to DuBamford,. or whether he prefeced it by the word " Doctor." I think, that he first said it to Dr. Ba.mfordin a loud whisper, and afterwards repeated itto several persona. I had said to him that I had heard that there was a suspicion of poisoningi I made notes im pencil at the time of Utiepost mortem, and I wrote a more formal report from those notes as soon as I got homei The original pencil notes are destrojsd. I sent the fiiir copy toMr.. StevenB, Cook's fether-in-law, the sEtme evening. They, were not prodaoed before the coroner. At the base of the tongue of the dteceased I observed some enlarged mucous follicles; Ihey were not pustules containing matteri but enlarged mucous follicles of long' standingi There- were a good many of themj but I do not suppose that they would occasion much ineonrenience. They might caiise some degree of pain, buti think that it would be slight. I donot believe that they were enlarged glanfe I should not say that deceased's lungs were diseased, though they were not in their normal state; The iMngg were fuU of blood and the heart empty: Ihad'no lens at thspostt-moriem, but I made an examination which was satisfactory to me; without one. The brain was trarefullytafcea out ; the membranes and external parts were first eKamined, and thin slices of about a quarter! of an inch in thickness were taken off and subjeotfed to separate examination. I think by that means we should have discovered ^sease if any 'had existed; and if there had been any indication of disease}, I should have examined it more carefully. I examined die: spinal cord as far dowm as possible, and if thece had been any. appearance of disease-I Aouldi have opened the canal. There was no appearance of diseasBj however. W'e opened down; to the first vertebral If we had found a softening of the spinal cord, Ido not fiiink thfl* it would have been' suificient to have- caased Cook s deatti ;. oestainiy not. A softenin" of the spinal cord would not produce tenatus — ^it mrgjit produce paralysis. I di» ttot think, as a medical man investigating the cause of death, that it was necessary care- fully to examine the spinal cord. I db not know who suggested that tltere Should be an examinBtion) of the ^inal cord two mouthsiafter death. There were some appearances of decorapoBition when we examined the spinasl, cord, but I do not tlunfc that there was sufficient to interfere with our examination. I examinedithe body to ascertain if there was any trace of venereal disease. I did find certain indicattoas of that descriplSoni and the marks- of an old excoriation, which were oicatriced over; He examinedby the Attohnby-Gbnebal: There were no indibations of wounds or soras such as could by poBsibility produce tetanus. There was no disease of the lungs to account for dfeath. The heart was healWiy, and its emptiness I attribute to spasmodic wHAm. The heart Bemg empty, of course deatli ensued. The convulsive spasmodic action of the muscles of tile Body, which, was deposed to ye»terd»y by Mr., Jones, wouldj in my judgment, oeeasion the emptineSB of the bairt. There was notliing wliattever in the brain to indicate the presence of any disease of any sert; But if there had been, I never heard or lead of any- disease of the brain 35 aver producing tetauus. There was no relaxation of the spinal oord which would acootmt tot ithe 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 WitU Whiclfl am aeq^uaJnted, that would produce tetanus. Mr. Charles James Devonshirk, undergraduate of tTniversity of London, late assisisat to Dc MoncktoO) examined by Mr. Huddleston: I made the first post-mortem examinatisii >f the body of Mr. Cook ia November last. The body was pale- and stiff; the hands were clinched, and Uie mouth was contorted, I opened the body. The livef was very, healthy. TJao heart also seemed, healthy, but it was perfeatly empty. The lungs Oontained a considerabls quantity of dark, fluid blood. The blood was perfectly fluid., The brain was healthy thittflj^ out. I examined the medulla oblongata, and about a quarter or half an iucH bf the spiiial cord. It was perfectly sound, I took out the stomach, and opened it with a pair of soisAits. I put the contents in a jar, which was taken to Mi:.- Frere's, the surgeon. X obtained. the Jar from Mr. Frera's on Monday, in the same state as it was before, and I gave it Mir. Boy6dt<^ clerk to Mr, Grandner, the attorney, I examined the body again on the 29th, and took- out t^e liver, kidneys, spleen, and some blood, I put them in a stone jar, which I covered with wssh- le.aher 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 tiu parts carefully, and found no indications of the sort. I also took out the throat. The papillc were slightly enlarged, but^ they were nabui-al, and one of'the tonsil's was shrunE. Cross-examined by Mr. GsOTE, Q.G. — Tetanic Convul^onsare considered to proceed fi<«t& derangement of the spine, and from complaints thUt a^'ct the spine. These deraDgemetlt9 a^e not always capable of being detected by examination. In exarmining the body of a person sup- posed to have died from tetanus, the spinal cord would be the first orgath looked to. About hai|f an inch of the spinal cord, exterior to the aperture of'the cranium, was examined oullt!^ f|^ occasion. I was not present when the granules were discovered on the second examination. The learned counsel was proceeding to cross-examine this witness upon some minute paints ol « scientific nature, when Baron Alderson, interposing, said, — 'Wlien you have all the medical men in liiondoii here, you had better not examine aa undergraduate of the Univer^t}; of London upon such points, % should th'nk. Dr. MoNcKTON,, examined by the Aitornb^-Genep.al; t am a physician in practice, and reside at Uugeley. 0n the 28th of j'anuary I made a posi-moHem examination of the spioal cord and marrow of the dbceased, J'. Pi Cook. 1 found the muscles of the trunk iii a state of laxity, whith 1 should attribute te the decay of the body which had set in^ but thai laxity would not. i.e at all inconsistent, in my opinion, with a great rigiditj^ of those muscles ati the time at death. Tlie mascles of the arms and tegs were in a state of rigidity, but they were not more rigid than usual in dead bodies. 1'he muscles of the arms bad partially flfexed the fing^lfB of 'ihe hand. The feet were turned inwards to a much greater extent than usual, I oareMly c»a- minedi the spinal cord. The body v*as then in such a coitilJtfon as. to enable me to maie a satis- factorv exainiaalion of it; and if prior to death there fiad' been any disease of a normal cha- racter on the spinal oord and marrow, 1 should have had no diffitoully in detecting it. There wan no disease. T discovered oettain granule* upon it. It is diSficult to acconnt for their origin, but they are frequently found in pei^sonS of adrfat»c'ed' age, I never knew them its ottar sioii sudden death. L agree entirely with the evidence which has bgen given by Dr. Hatlkhd; This witness was not cross-examined. *> j. rt. » Mr. John Boycott, exaitiihed by Mr. 'WelSbt : 1 sttn cleA to MegS*s. Lanabr,:Cratdn:er, and Landorj attorneys atKugel'ey. On tiie 26tli of last November, I rfeoeived ajar&dm Mr. Devonshire,^ eovered with, leather and BroWn paper, and sealed' up. 1 took it to Ljndon, and. delivered, it on the next day to l)r. Tajibr, afGuy's Hbspitalj OA 4 stibse- quent day 1 deceived anotfier jir, siihu^te secured, fiom Mi:. Devon^Hire, atnd I alsG brua<'ht that to Eondon and delivered- it to Dr. Tayjor. 1 wa8 not present at the -feifu'est on Cook's bod^, and ctid not fetch ifewton to bfe examiiifea thete. On Tiiesday list; whea at the Rugeley statidn, previous to my depslrtiite for Londoft, Nevrton came and' made a cominuiiication to me. He knew that Mr. Gardner w'as not there ;, and \*lieh we i^aelied London I took him to Mr. Gardner^ and heaid him make tie same communication, to Mr. Gardner -wliich. Ke Had' made before to me. This- vtritness was not cross-examiiied; .jo. ,, i- w ^it James Mtaitt, exarmned by Mr, Jambs : In NoVenib'fer.Iastl.wasVpostDoy at the lalbot Ariii* at S,ufieley> I' fenow Palmer, the firisoner, and I remember Monday; the 26th of November last, t viras ordiered on that night, a littlfe after five o'ttfock,, tff take Mi. Stevens to the Stafiord station in a fiy. Before I started T went home to g6t my tea, and on returning from my tea to the falbot Arms I met the prisoner, He asked' me if I -jra* goiiiK to drive Mr. Stfeven* t3 iStafford. 1 told'him I was. What did he sayto youthen?— Ke asked me if 1 would-ufiset tham, D 2 36 " 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, " K you could, there's a £10 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." I do not recollect that he said anything more about the jar. I said, that if I didn't go, somebody else would go. He told me not to be in a htirry, for if anybody else went he -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. Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Shee : Were not the words that Palmer used, " I -wouldn't mind giving £10 to break Stevens's neck." I don't recollect the words " break his neck." Well, "upsat him.'' Did he say, "I wouldn't mind giving £10 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 he used any epithet, applied to Stevens ; he said it was a humbugging concern altogether, or something of that. I don'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 Riigeley, 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 upward of eight years post- master at Rugeley. I come now from Newgate, where I am 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 1 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 17tb, I went to see Mr. Cook, who was in bed at the Talbot Arms, at Rugeley. I lived at the post- office, which was 300 or 400 yards from Palmer's house. On the 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 took a receipt stamp, as requested. When I reached Palmer's, I found him in his sitting-room. He said that he wanted me to write out a cheque, 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 he 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 he requested me, and I left the paper with Palmer. Mr. Weatherby was here called, in order to trace this docummt. In answer to Mr. James, he said : I am secretary to the Jockey Club, and my establishment is at 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 cheque or order upon our house for £350. It came by post. I sent it hack two days afterwards— on Friday, the 23rd. I sent it back by post to Palmer, the prisoner, at Rugelev. Boycott was recalled, and proved that he had served notices upon the prisoner, and upon Mr. Smith, his attorney, to produce the " cheque or order" referred to ; and that it had not been produced in pursuance of those notices. Prisoner's counsel did not now produce it. Examination of Samuel Cheshire continued : 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." I do not re- member 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. I do 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 consequence of his having sent for me. When I arrived I found him in the kitchen, and he 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 together ; and this is a document which he gave me some days ago, and I want you to 37 witness it. I said, " What is it about ?" He said, "Some business that I have joined him in, and which vf as all for Mr. Cook's benefit ; and this is the document stating so." I just cast my eye over the paper. It was a quarto post paper of a yellow description, I looked at the writing, and I bo- ' heved 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 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 lo sign it ' Palmer said it did not much matter, as he dared say they would not object to Mr. Cook's signature. I left the paper with Palmer, and went away. \ believe there was a stamp upon iL ' 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, but it had not been produced.] ' Witness continued : I remember the effect of it — it was that certaiq bills — 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, but that was the purport of them. I know that the amounts were large, although I do not remember them all. I remember, however, that one was for £1,000 and another for £500. There wSs a signature to that docu- ment. 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-oiEce for letters addressed to his mother, who resided at Rugeley. I cannot remember that during the months of October and November, 1855, I gave him any letters addressed to his mother ; nor can I say whether in those months I gave him any letters addressed to Mr. Cook ; but 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 5th 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 wantfed, 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 aU that passed on that occasion. The letter for reading which I am now under sentence of pun- ishment was from Dr. Alfred Taylor, of Lon4on, to Mr. Gardner, the solicitor of Hugeley. I read part of the letter, and told Palmer as much as I remembered of it. This took place on the morning of the 5th of December. I told Palmer that the letter mentioned that no traces of strychnine were to be 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 hand, Sgned " W. P." aud addressed to " W. Ward, Esq., Coroner," I believe to be in the prisoner's handwriting. Captain Hatton, examined by Mr. James : I am chief constable of Stailord. The letter now produced I obtained &om the coroner The Clerk of Arraigns read the letter in question. It bore no date, and was to the fol- lowing effect: — "My dear Sir, — I am sorry to tell you that I am still confined to my, bed. I don't think it was men- tioned at the inquest yesterday that Cook was taken ill on Sunday and Monday night, in tho same way bs he was on the Tuesday, when he died. The cbamhermaid at the Crewn Hotel (Masters's) con prove this. 1 also believe that a man by the name of Fisher is coming down to prove he received some money at ' Shrewsbnry. Now, here he could only pay Smith £\0 out of £41 he owed him. Had you not better call Smith to prove this 7 And again, whatever Professor Taylor may say to-morrow, he wrote from London last Tuesday night to Gardner to say, * We (and Dr. Bees) have this day finished our analysis, and find n« traces of either strychnia, prussic acid, or opium.' What con beat this from a man like Taylor, if he says what he has already said, and Dr. Harland's evidence ? ; Mind you, I know aud saw it in black and white -what Taylor said to Gardner ; but this is strictly private and confidential,:bnt it is true. As regards hia betting-book, I know nothing of it, and it is of no good to any one. I hope the verdict to-morrow will b« , that he died of natuval causes, and thus end it. "Ever yours, '**W. P.*' The witness Cheshire was then cross-examined by Mr. Seijesmt Sree : I knew Cook very well, i I did not know his handwriting. I have seen it, but am not sufficiently familiaf with it to be able to identify it. I have seen him write. Wlien I refused to sign the document which Palmer presented to me for signature he observed, " Oh, it is no matter, I daresay they wUl not call in question Mr. Cook's signature." What Palmer asked ma was, " whether I had seen or heard anything?" I said that I had seen something, but that it woijd be wrong for me 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 iimooent as a baby." I remember having been told by Palmer, "the Saturday before Cook died, that the latter was 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 Kugeley on that day. To Mr. James: The duration of the journey from Stafford to Shrewsbury is upwards of an hour. ' Ellis Crisp, examined by Mr. James : I am inspector of police at Engeley. On the 1 7th of December I assisted in searching the prisoner's house. There was a sale of his furniture, &c., on the 5th of January. The book now produced I found in his house, and took it away. Iti i was being sold, and I took it away, (A laugh.) 38 "^tte ^rk. .of Arrwgus read from the.baojt raferred to this sentenoq, ivoypd .by dje witness Bojrpotl, tp te in pSnia^swriting-" Strychflia WUs by «*usii;g tstamc bw^ of the r»^f»r.>toi-y J. inSBPif, esawinsd by Mr. J*M8a: This manusorii.t .bo* I found ifl the j?«wper's hanse «thel6th.or 17th of December. I am an inspector of^Uoe w StaflordsJurs. The Akornex-Gbn^bai. read aoe^ttract. &pm the bo^ m guftsnoB. *» related te Mrj^h- «i»e, and alluded to ihe mode of its operatioa u„-..«» iotd Cii^BEii.-. That may be merely a passage exUactsd ftom an «hcle on S*?yel».n«- m some encyclopEedia. , ... i , -^ • u The Attorn ey-Gesbral: No doubt it may. I put it m for what it is worth. __ Et.KW*BTS Hawkes, examined by Mr. Hv»di.eston : I Iteep a bQ»rd»ng..hoiwe at ,. Bean- ftrt-buiWiog«. Strand. I know Palmer He wa. at my howe on the Jet December last He - "* ' ■ . game and fish for him. I purchased some lowk for him on the Ut where. I directed them myself, and gave them to the porter, who cavrwd them to the railway staUon. I have never been paid for theiu. Palmer came t6 my bonse on the ftveomg of that day, but I did not see him. Tho direction on the hani(per ysds " W. W- Waid, Esq., tstolce- naoa-Trent, Stafforusbire." , ,. „ ^ . ■ j Geqroe Herring, examined by Mr. Welsbt: I Uve near New Cross, «nd am incte- aemdent, I knew Cook.and met hiw at the Shrewsbury races last November. I put up at the B»Ten. He apjieared in bis usual health. I saw him between six and seven 00 WednesJaj, tl^ second day of the races. I bad a private room, with Mr. Fishpr, Mr. Bead, ,and Mr. l. Jones. It was next the room «ccnpied by jCcok and Palmer. On Thursdior (the f«llawing day) I »»H Cppk,, ,1 do not know that at that lime he had any money with, him, but I saw bim with B&nk ol .England .and provincial bank notes on Wednesday. He unfolded .them 00 his knees in twos and threes. Tliere was a considerable number of notes. He f bo.w«d me at Shrewsbury !us bettiqg-book. It contained entries of bets made ou the Shrewsbury races. On Monday, the 13th of November, I received a letter from Palmer. I have it here, The Clerk of Arfaigns read the letter, of which the following is a qqpy :— on Mon- Pi.hUKU," Dear Sir,— I shall feel muoli obliged if you will give me a call at 7, Beaufort-bnildiiiga, Stsand, toy, aboHt half-past two. " I am. dear Sir, very trujy yours, " W. Piti Examination oonUnued; I received Jhis letter on Mcndaj;, and called at Beaufort-buildings ftat same fey, at half-past two exactly. I found Palmer there. He asked me wbat I would take? I declined to take anything. I then asked him how Mr. Cook was? He said, "He's aU right; his physician gave Jliim a, dose uf calpQiel, and advised hiin not to come out, it being a damp dv." X don't know which term be used, " damp" or " wet." He then went on to say, in tJie same seatence, " What I want to see you about is settling his account." While be was speaking be took out half a sheet of note p^per from his pocket, and it was open when he bad &nshed the sentence. He held it up, «nd eaid. '' This is it." I rose to take it. He said, " You bad Ibetter take its i^o^teIlt3 down ; this will be a check against you." At the same time he pointsd to some paper lying on the table. I wrote on that paper from his dictation. I have hoK ;die:paper -which I so wrote. [The witness read the document in question, which contained instmetions as to certain payments he should pay out of moneys to be reoeived by him at Tsit- tersall's, on account of the Shrewsbury races.] Palmer then said, that I had better write out a ehe^ue for Pratt and Padwick — -for the former £450, and for the latter £350, and send them at (Hwe. I tcdd him I had only one form of cheque in my pocket. He said J could easily tUl up a draught on half a sheet of paper. I refiised to comply with his rec^uesti ^ I had npt as yet lecNved the money. He replied that it would be all right, for that Cook would not deoeive me. He wished me particularly to pay Mr. Pratt the £450. His words, as nearly as I csui remember thcsi were, " You must pay Pratt, as it is for a bill of sale on the mare." I don't know whether lie said '■ a bill of sale," or " a joint bill of sale " He told me he was going to see botli Pratt and Padwick, to tell them that I would send on the money. Previous to his saying this, I told bim that if be would give me the addi'ess of Pratt and Padwick, I would call ou them, after I bad got the money from Tattersall's, and give it to them. He then asked me what was between ■QS. There was only a few pounds between us, and afler we bad bad some conversation ou the prant he toPk out of his pocket a £50 Bank of Enul-md 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 cheque it would tuiswer as well. 1 gave him a cheque for £2U, and n-ne ^overeigns. When I was going away I do nol remember th,it he said anything about my paying the SBoney to Prait aud Padwick. He sail, on pirlmg, " When you liave settled this account wtita S9 down word .to either mp or Cook." I tunned round and said, " I.«hall oerUinly write to Mr. Cook." I «iiid so became I thought I was settling Mr. Cook's account. He sftid, " It don't ^udi matter which jou write to.'" I said, " If I address • Mr. Cook, Rugeley, Stafford,' it will he correct, will .it not ?" He said, " Y;ea." After lea-ving Beaufort Buildings I went to Tatter- «U 8. .1 then received all the money 1 expeoted, enoept £110 from Mr. Morris, who paid me *90 instead of £200. I sant from Tattersall's a oheqtre for £450 la Mr. Pratt. I posted a Jett«r to Cook from Tattersall's, -and directed it to Ri^geley. On Tuesday the 20th, nest day, I deceived a telegraphic message. I kme not got it here. I ^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. ,1 addressed my letter as before, but I believe the letter was not posted till the "Wednesday. I had three bills of exchange with me. I know Falmer' examined by the Attorney-Gf.nbral: I am a member of the College of Surgeons, and Surgeon to the London Hospital. I have particularly turned my attention to the subject of tetanus, and have published a work upon that subject. Tetanus means a spasmodic affection of the voluntary muscles. Of true tetanus there are only two descriptions— idiopatliio and traumatic. There are other diseases in which we see contractions of the muscles, butwe 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 fifty 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 of the abdomen afterwards bets 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 aggra- tions into paroxysms. As the disease goes on, these paroxysms become more frequent and 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 suffocation, pwing 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 — I may say a constant symptom. It is not always strongly marked, but generally so. It is an early symptom. Another symptom is a pectdiar expression of the countenance. By LoED Campbell ; I 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 aflected, 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 ia no ■woimds in the arms or Jegs, 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 syphilitio sore ■would not produce tetanus. I know of no instance in ■which a syphilitic sore has led to tetanus. I think it a very ■unlikely cause. The time in which traumatic tetanus causes death varies from twenty- four hours to three or four days, or longer. The shortest period that ever came to my knowledge ■was eight to ten hours. The disease, Tvhen once commenced, is continuous. Did you ever know a case in which a man ■was attacked one day, had twenty-four 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. J. . p ii. _ -T? T_ _n 43 Assuming tetanus to be synonymous with, convulsive or spasmpi^io action of the muscles, was there in that sense tetanus on the Monday j4ght ?— No doubt there vras spasmodic action of the muscles. There was not, in your opinion, either idiopathic or traumatio tetanus ?—No. "Why are you of that cg)inion ? The sudden onset of the spasms a»d their rapid SW- gvdeiMjeare consistent with neither of the two forms of tetanus. Is there not what is called hysteric tetanus?— Yes. It is Tftther hysteria combiuett ■with spasms, but 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 aad bruchsia, poisons otf a cognate (Jharaoter, produces that°effeot. I never saw a ease of human life destroyed by strychnine. Cross-examined by Mr. Sejjeant Sheb : Irritation Of the spinal cord or of the nerves Trro^eeding to it might produce tetanus. Do you agree with the opinion of Dr. Webster, in his lectures on the Principles and Practice of Physic, that in lour cases «ut of five the disease begins with lockjaw ?— I ^o. Do you agree with Dr. Watson that all the symptoms dt tetanic convulsions may arise from causes so slight as these ; — ^the sticking of a fish-bone in the fauces, the air caused ty a musket-shot, the stroke of a whip-lash under the eye, leaving the skin unbroken, the cutting of a com, the biting of the finger by a favourite sparrow, the blow of a itick on the neck, the insertion of a seton, the extraction of a tooth, the injection of an hydrp- .cele, and the operation of cutting '^Excepting the percussion of the air from a musket- ball, I think that all these causes may produce the symptoms referred to. Bo you remeniber reading of a case which occurred at Edinburgh, in -Which a negro servant lacerated his thumb by the 'feacture of a china dish, and wasinstantly, while the guests were at dinner, seized with tetanus ? The Attorney- GrENERAX, interposing before the witness replied : I have taken some pains to aspertain 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 ?— I know of no well-authenticated instance of the kind. Did you inquire into this case which is mentioned in your own treatise — " A negro having scratched his thumb with a piece of broken china, was -seized with tetanu?, and in a quarter of an hour after this he was dead ?— I referred to authority as far as I coulii, hut I did not find any reference to it except in Cyelopeedias. When I wrote that book I was a young man 22 years of age. I have mafmrer judgment and greater experience now. Toil say that no case of idiopa^ic 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 ta those of a wound ending in traumatic tetanus ; they would more likely, in the first in- stance, to come under the notice of a physician than that of a surgeon ?— 'Certainly. By Lord Campbell : 1 have read of cases of idiopathic tetanus in this country. Mr. Serjeant Shee.: We shall be able to show that -there have been -such eases. "Cross-examination continued : Do you not know that very lately there was a case ia ■the London Hospital, a case in which tetanus came on so rapidly and so unaccountably, that it was Teferred to strychnine, and it was thought necessary to examine the stomach, of the patient ? — I know that such an opinion was entertained before 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 notsee the patient, who was under thecare of the honse- :8Vu-geons, who are now in court. Cmss-examination continued: Might not the irritation of * syphilitic sore, by wet, n saying that people may die from tetanus sjid other diseases without the appearance of morbid symptoms after death. Are not convulsions not, strictjy speaking, tetanic, constantjy pressived by retching, disten- tion of the stomach, flatulence of thestowacb and bowels, and other dyspeptic syroplomi'? — Such cases do not coine under my observation as a bospiital surgeon. I tbinl( it is, very probable that general convulsions are accompanied by yelUng. I don't Inow that they frequently terminale fatally, and that the proximate cause of death is spasm of the c«Epiratory muscles, inducing asphyxia. Ke-examined by'the Attornbt-Generai.: These convulsiADS are easily distinguished from tetanus, because in them there is an entire loss of cansciouscesj. Is It one of the characteristic features of tetanus that the consciousness is not afi^ected ?-t- It is. Ur. ToBD, Bxaaiined hy the Atto*WBS.Gbsebai.: I am physician at King's College Hospital, and have held that ofBce about tw^ty years. J have also lectured on physiology and anaiomy, on tetanus and the diseases of the nervous system, and hav« publisihed my lectures. I agree with dhe last witness jfi. his distinction between idiopathic and trauwatjc tetanus, i have jeen two cases txf what appeared to me to be idiopathie t*ianus, but such cases are rare in this country. • By Lord Campbeil: I define idiopathic tetanus to be that form of the disease which is produced without any external wound, apparently from internal causes — {rom a constituiionaj -cause. Examination resumed: In my opinion, the term " tetanus" ought not to be applied to disease produced by poisons; but I should call the symptoims tetanic, in order to distinguish the chaiaiter of the convulsions. I have observed cases of traumatic tetanus. Except that in all such cases there is some lesion, the symptoms are precisely ihe same as those of idiopathic tetamis. The diseasejbegins with stifEness about the jaw. The symptoms gradually develop themselves and extend to the muscles of the truck. When tJbe disease has begun is there any intermission ? — There are remissions, but they are not complete; only diminutions of lbs severity of the syrop^oms-^not a total subsidence. The patient does not express himself as completely well, quite comfortable. I speak from my own experience. What is the usual period that elapses between the commencement «id the termination of the disease ? — The cases may be divided into two classes. Acute cases will terminaJe in thiee or four days, chr»nic cases wjU go on as long as from nineteen to twenty-two or tweuty-three days, and perhaps longer. I do not think that I h»ve kuowu a case in which death occurred withia ibur days. Cases are reported in which it oecmtrsd in a shorter period. In tetanus the '^''^ miiies are affected, bijt not BO much as the trunk. Their afEectiou is a late symptom, the locking of the jaw is an early one. Sometimes the convulsions of epilepsy assume iomewhat of j» tetanic character, but they are essentially distimt from tetanus. In epilepsy the [.atient always loses consciousness. Appjilexy never produces tetanic convulsions. Perhaps I might be allowed to say that when there is effusion of blood upon the brain, and a portion of the bi am is involved, the'museles may be thrown into short tetanic convulsions. In such case the conscious- ness would be destroyed. Having heard described the symptoms attending the death ol the deceased, and the post-mortem examination, I am of opinion that in this case there was nfiuhet apoplexy nor epilepsy. . , i tr > The ATTOBUfEY-GEKEKAL said that, as Dr. Bamford was so unwell that it was doubttiu whether he would be able to appear as a witness, he proposed to put in bis deposition, in ordel to found upon it a question to the witness now under examination. Dr. Todd and Dr. Tweedie deposed that they had seen Dr. Bamfoid on the previous «tay» and that he was then suffering from a severe attack of English cholera. He was too uubbU to be able to attend and give evidence. The Couax ruled that the depositions taken before the coroner might be, read j and tuey •were accordinely read by the Clerk of Awaigns. Th-y were to the following -effect:— ■ " I attended the late Mr. Cook at the request of Mr. William Palmer. I Best saw him about three o'clock on Saturday, the 17th of November, wtien be was suffering fr-om violent voiiiiiing, the stomach being in that irritable state that it would not contain a teaspoonful of milk. Uere was perfect moisture of the skin, and he was quite sensible. 1 prescribed medicine for bm, and Mr. Palmer went up to my house and waited tiU I hid made it up, and then took it away. I 44 prescribed a saline medicine, to be taken in an effervescing state. Between seven and eight 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 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 accompany him» Mr. Cook's sickness still continued. I remained about ten 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 administersd some pills before I saw Mr. Cook on Saturday, which had purged him several times.'; Between six and seven o'clock in the evening I again visited the deceased, accompanied by Mr. Palmer. The sickness still continued. I went on Monday morning, between eight and nine 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, 1 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 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 I gave the pills to Mr. j?almer. The effervescing mixture oontEuued twenty grains of carbonate of potash, two drachms of compound tincture of cardamiue, and two drachms of ample syrup, together with fifteen grains of tartaric acid for each powder. I never gave Mr. Gook 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 ,but he expressed a wish on 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 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 I do 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 » gen- tleman 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 wishefl me to fill up the certificate, and I did so. We had no conversation at that time as to the cause of deaths nothing more than the opinion I have expressed. Mr. Palmer said he was of the same opinion as myself with respect to the death rfif the deceased. I never knew apoplexy produce rigidity of the limbs. Drowsiness is n prelude to apoplexy. I attributed the sickness of the first two days to a disordered stomach, Mr. Cook never sent for me himself." The examination of Dt'. Todd by the Attoknbt-Generai, 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 sor?s or from sore throat. There are poisons which will produce tetanic convulsions. The principal of those poisons are nux vomica, strychnine, arid bruocia. I have never seen human life destroyed by strychnine, hut I have seen animals destroyed by it frequently. 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 that 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 adminis- tration of strychnine, when given in solution — and I believe that poisons of that nature act more rapidly in a state of solution than in any other form — would develope themselves in tea minutes after it was taken, if the dose were a large one ; if not so large, they might he half an hour, or an hour before they appeared. Those symptoms would be tetanic convulsions 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 he 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, in 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 45 proper, resultii^g either from a wound, or from disease. From all the evidence I have heard, I think that the symptoms which presented themselves in the case of Mr. Cook arose from tetanus produced by stiychnine. ' Cross examined by Mr. Gbove, Q.C— There are cases sloping into each, other, as it ■were, of every grade and degree, from mild convulsions to violent tetantio 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 examination of the spinal cord shortly after death, in investigatmg supposed deaths from strychnine, is important. The signs of decomposition, however, could be 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 strycknine 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 right side of the heart ■was usually full of blood. It is some years since I made such an examination ; but I am able, nevertheless, to speak positively as to the state of the heart. It was usually empty on both sides. I do not agree with Dr. Taylor, or other authorities, in the opinion that in cases of tetanus animals died asphyxiated. If they did, we .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 kno-w from my reading that morphia sometimes produces convulsions ; but I believe that they wouldbe of an epileptic character. I think that the symptoms from morphia would be longer deferred in miking their appearance than from strychnine ; but I cannot speak positively on the point. Morphia, like strychnine, is a vegetable poison. I have not observed in animals the jaw fixed after the administration of strychnine. He-examined by the Attoeney-Geneeal. — Whatever may be the true theory as to the emptiness of the heart after strychpine, I should say that the heart is more ordinarily empty than filled aicer tetanus. I think that the heart would be more contracted after strychnine than in ordinary tetanus. I do not believe that a medical practitioner 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 examina- tion, 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 Beodie, examined by Mr. James, Q.C. : I have been for many years senior surgeon to St. George's Hospital, and have had considerable experience as a sur- geon. In the cOTirse of my practice I have had under my care many cases of 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 symptoms which accompanied the death of Mr. Cook, and I am of opinion that so far as there was a general contraction of the muscles they resembled those of 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 Tuesday night. The symptoms of traumatic te- tanus always begin, so far as I have seen, very gradually, the stiffiiess of the lower jaw being, I believe, invariably, the symptom first complained 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 in a limb, and an early symptom has been spasmodic contraction of the'muscles of that limb. I do not myself recollect a case of ordinary tetanus in which occurred that contraction in the 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 12 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 24 hours. I think that these are the principal 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 wit- nessed tetanic convulsioms 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 idiopathic or 46 teaamatic, I ne-rer knew tetairas result from soie throat, oi froHl ft chancre, 6r from sny other form of syphilitic disease. The symptoms were not the result either of apoplexy or ■of epilepsy. Perhaps I hadfeetter say at once that I never sawa case in which the symptoms that I have heard described here arose from any disease. (Sensation.) ''WTieii I say that, of course I refer not to paifieular symptoms, but to the general course which the symp- toms took. . . , ■Cross-examined bvMr, Serjeant Shee: Ibelievelrememher one casein the physicians ward of St. George's Hospital, which was shown to me as a case of idiopathic tetanus, ^ut I doubted whether it was tetanus at alL It was a slight case, and 1 do not remember the particulars. ... Considering how rare eases of tetajiuS are, do you think that the description giysa by a chambermaid and a provincial medical man, who had never seen but one Case, is suf- ficient 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 wo^d you rely upon— the medical man or the chambermaid ? Baron Aldebson; This is hardly a question to put to a medical witness, although it may be a very proper observition for you to make. Cross-examination continued : I never knew syphilitic poison produce tetanic convul- sions, except in cases where there was disease of the bones of the head. [Sir Benjamin Brodie gave hifl evidence with great clearness— slowly, audibly, and distinctly, — matters in which other medical witnesses would do well to emulate so dis- tinguished an example.! Dr. Daniell, eiammed by the ATTOBNET-GENEait: I Was fbr many years surgeon to the Bristol Hospital, but have been out of practice for some time. In the course &{ 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 termfaiated 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 idioi>athic 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 giV6tt of the symptoms which accom- panied the attack upon Mr. Cook before his death, and It appear? to me that the circum- stances of that attack are assuredly distinguishable from those which came under my expe- rience 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 ordiaary tetantis 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. Lock-jaw is almost invariaWy a symptom of those cases of tetanus — of traumatic tetanus especially. I do not recollect that clinching of the hstttds is a usual symptom of ordinary tetanus, nor do I remember any twreting. of the foot. 1 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 symptoms, as they have been described, certainly cannot be refferable- 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 increashig, being con- tinuous in their character, and without intermission. In my judgment the symptonts ia the case of Mr., Cook could not be referred either to idiopathic o* traumatic tetanus. Cross-examined by Mr. GaovE, Q.C. : I have not read Dr. Curling's or Dr. Cope- land's books on the subject of tetanus ; nor have 1 of late studied much the reported cases. I am not aware that excitement or irritation from vomiting has ever been e^ven as the cause of tetanus. The main symptoms of tetanus ate, 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. 1 do not like the term "as- phyxia ;" but I think that death from tetanic convulsions may probably arise from suffo- cation. It is many years since I saw a post mortem upon a case of tetanus. 1 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 fer as I know, afforded evidence of the cause to which the tetanus was to be attributed. Mr. Samuel Solly, surgeon of St. Thomas's Hospital, examined by Mr. Wp.lsbt : 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 siy or seven under my own care, and I may have seen ten or fifteen more. Of those cases it .vas doubtful in one vrhether the disease was idiopathic or traumatic — the wound was so slight and the 47 SympttraS go obSettfB, thHt it was difficult to decide which it was. The others were all decidedly ttaumatic cases. The shortest period that I recollect during which the disease lasted before it terminated in death, was 30 hours. The disease was always progressive in its character. I have teard thie description given by the witnesses of Mr. Cook's attacks, and they differ essentially ftdm those oases Which I. have seen. In my experience of tetanus there has always been a. marked expression of the countenance as the first symptom. It is a sort of grin, and so peculiar, that having once seen it you can never mistake it. In the symptoms that I heard detailed with regard to Mr. Cook, there were tiolettt convulsions' OU MoudUy night, and on Tuesday the individual was entirely free ftom any discomfort about the face or jaw; wherfeas, in the cases under my notice,, tlue disease was always coirtinuous, and the flxediieBs of the jaw was the last symptom to dis- appear. In my judgment, the symptoms detailed in Mr. Cook's case are referable neither tB apoplexy, epilepsy, nor to any disease that I have ever Witnessed. Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant S'hbE: The sort of grin which I have described is known as-ri^ics sardonicus. It is not commoa to all convulsions. Elpilepsy is a disease of a convulsive character. I heard the account given by Mr. Jones of the last few minutes of Mr. Cook's deaih — that he uttered a piercing shriek, and died after five or six minutes quietly. That last shriek and the paroxysm which ai companied 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. i)eath from tetanus accompanied with convulsions seldom leaves any trace behind ft^, but d'eath fi'om convulsions arising from epilepsy does leav« its traoe in the shape of a slight effusion of blood on the brain, and a congestion of the vessels. Re-examined by the ATTorn6Y-General: The convulsions of epilepsy are aocompiwiied by a vdriisty of syinptoms. When a patient dies of epilepsy he dies perfectly unconscious and comatose. I never saw any case of convulsive disease at all like this. There are cases of convulsive disease which are similar to tetanus in their onset, but not in their progress. For example, laceration of the brain, a sudden injury to the spinal cord, and the irritatiba from teeth- ing in iufknts, will produce convn'lsioos resulting in death ; but there would be Wanting the marked •xpression of the fkce which I have described, which I have never missed in cases of tetanus. Mr. Henry LeB, surgeon to King's College, and to the Lock Hospital, examined by Mir. Bodkin: The Lock Hospital is exclusively devoted to cases of a syphilitic character, and at present I see probably as many as 3,00'J of those cases in the course of a year. I have never known an instance of that disease terminating in tetanus. By the CoOrT: I have never seen or read of a case either of primary or secondary symp- toms resulting in teftlfftns. This witness was not cross-examined. Dr. Henry CosbbTt, physician of Glasgow,, examined by Mr. Jamies, O.C. : In September,. lS45, I was medical cl'erk at the Glasgow fiifirmary, and I remember a patient, named Agnes Sennetf, aHas Agnes Fi^nch, who died there on the 27th of September, 1845. It was stated that she had taken slwychnioe pilU, 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 1 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 *ese: There was a strong retraction of the moiith ; the face wis much suffused and' red ; the pupils offhe eye were dilated; the head was bent back; the spine was curved ; and the muscles were rigid and hard like a board; the arms were stretched out; the harids were clinched; and there vfere 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 in 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. _ Cross-examined' by Mr. Serjeant Sheb : The retraction of the mouth was continuous, but » was worse at times. I do 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 twenty minutes after. I tried to make her vomit with a feather, but failed. She only vomited partially after I had given her an emetic. Re-examined bj the Attorney-General : There was spasmodic action and grinding of the tteetb. She could open her mouth and swallow. There was no lock-jaw or ordinary tetanus. By Mr. Serjeant ShKE : I do not recollect that touching her senther into paroxysms. trt WATSoiis ejMmined by the Attornby-GenEral : I am 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 violent convulsions, and her arms were stretchea ot^- «ad rigid. The muscles of the body were also rigid; they were kept quiet by rigidity. ^h« 4id not Breathe, the muscles being kept ttill by tetanic rigidity. That paroxysm subsided, and fresh raroxysms came on after a short interval. She died in about hair an hour. She seemed 48 T J .. „1Urt the state ot her hands. Her body was opened. Tha perfectly eo,.sc,ous. I don ' «"^^"'^^| '^^^^i^, of the heart were empty. My father pub- heart was found distended and sun. xne lUhed an account of 'li* "^«- „' „ . The spinal cord was quite healthy. Cross-examined hy Mr. ^^J^^y • „ Welsbt: In 1845 I was engaged in the laboratory ot Dr. J. Patteeson, «''*""f",isDensed the prescriptions. 1 made up a prescription for a ^, w I dispensed the prescriptions. _ -, ^ the Infirmary at ''l*=f°?.V_t„re It consisted ot pills which contained strychnine. There paralytic patient '^^'^^^^^^^ /f sirychnine in the four. were four piUs, ana on b ^^^^^ ^^j^^ ^^^^ ^1^^,^ jj^^j^ ^,g;„g ^^j^.^^ ^y ^ ^^ong person ?— Yes. Baron Au>EBSON^j^^.^^^ ^^ ^^ Bodkin: In September, 1845, I was a patient in the Maky I^^^^J' . '^ paralytic patient was in the same ward, and I attended to her. There Glasgow I"*"™^/ Earned Frencb or Senuett who was suffering from a sore head. She died, was also a^pa ^ ^j^^^j ^^^r the paralytic patient on the afternoon of the day Sennett died, for I was ur^^^ B^ applying something to.her skin. There were some pills which she was to take the P" P ^^ rj.jjg paralytic woman took one and swallowed it according to the orders that had been given, and then handed the box to the girl with a sore head. The girl swallowed ■two of the pills, and then went and sat by the ward iire. She was taken ill in about three- quarters of an hour. She fell back on the floor, and I went for the nurse. We took her to bed and sent for the doctor. We were obliged to cut her clotlies 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 look the pills till she was taken to the bed. Caroline Hickson, examined by Mr, E. James: In October, 1848, 1 was nurse and lady's maid in the family of Mr. Sarjantson Smyth. The family were tleen residing about two miles from Komsey. On the 30th of October Mrs. Smyth was unwell- We dealt with Mr- Jones, a druggist in Romsey. A prescription had been sent to him to be made up for Mrs Smyth. The me- dicine was brought back about six o'clock in the afternoon. It was a mixture in a bottle. My mistress took about half a wineglass of it the following morning, at five or t6n minutes past seven o'clock- 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 her night-dress. I thought she had fainted. She appeared to suffer from what 1 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 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 conscipus, and knew me during the whole time. About an hour and a quarter elapsed from the time I gave her the medicine till ^e died. Cross-examined by Mr. Grove : She could not sit up from the time I went up to her till she died. It wag when she. was in a paroxysm that I endeavoured to straighten her liinbs. The effect of cold water was to throw her into a paroxysm. It was a continually recuiring attack, lasting about an hour or an hour and a quarter. Her teeth were clinched during the whole time- Re-examined by the Attorney-General: The fit came on five or ten minutes after I gave lier 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. Welsby : I am a surgeon and apothecary at Romsey. I attended Mrs. Sarjantson Smyth in 1848. I was summoned to her house one morning soon after eight, 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 tbe feet were hollowed up, and the toes contracted, apparently from recent spasmodic action. The inner edge of each foot was turned up. There was a remarkable 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 k post-mortem examination three days after the death. The contraction of the feet continued, but it had gone ofl' somewhat from the rest of the body. I found no trace of disease in the body. The heart was contracted and p»r- fectly empty, as were all the large arteries leading from it. I analysed 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 tests. 49 Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Shbb: Incases 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 mortisf — 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 cbymist, at Romsey, in 1848. My master made a mistake in preparing a prescription for Mrs. Smyth. The mistake was the substitution of strychnine for salaoite (bark of willow). He destroyed himself afterwards. Jake Witham, examined by Mr. E James. In March last I was in attendance upon a lady who died. (The learned counsel told the witness she had better not mention the lady's name.) Sh« took some medicine. After she took it she became ill. She complaiiied first of her back. Her head was thrown back, her body stretched out, and I observed twiching?. Her eyes were drawn aside and staring. I put my hand upon her limbs, which did not at all relax. She first complained of being ill in that way on Monday, the 25th of February, and died on Saturday, the let of March. She had attacks on the Monday, on the Wednesday, on the Thursday, on the Friday (a very slight one), and at a qtiarter-past eight o'clock on the Saturday morning. She died about twenty minutes to eleven that night. Between the attacks slle was composed. She priacipally complained of prickings in the legs and twichings in the muscles and in the haudS| which she said she could compare to nothing else than a galvanic shock. She wished her husband to rub her legs and arms. She was dead when Dr. Morley came. Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Shee : On the Saturday nigiit she could not bear to have her legs touched when the spasms were strong upon her. Her limbs were rigidly eKtended when she asked to be rubbed That was in the interval between the spasms. Touching her then brought on the spasms. Her body was stiff immediately after death, but I did not stay long in the house. On the Satiirday she was sensible from half-aa- bour to an hour, from a quarter past eight tOl after nine. I suppose she was insensible the remainder of the time. She did not speak. Be-examined by Mr. E. James : On the Saturday before she died the symptoms were the same as on the other days — not more violent. Mr. MoBLEX, examined by Mr. Welsbt : I am 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 supposed they arose from hysteria, and ordered medicine in consequence. The same symptoms were repeated on the following Wednesday 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 accovmt for death. There .was no emaciation, wound, or sore. There was a peculiar expression of anxiety about the coun- tenance. 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 state, and also in a solid state. They are the best tests to detect the presence of strychnine. In each case we foimd appearances characteristic of strychnine. We admi- nistered 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 produced by strychnine— namely, general uneasiness, difdcult 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. Cross-examined by Mr. Gbove : I did not see the patient during a severe attack. I Kave observed in animals that spasms are brought on by touch. That is a very marked symptom. The spasm is like a galvanic shock, "{he patient was not at all insensible during the time I saw'her, and she was able to swallow, but I did not see her durmg a severe attack. After death, we found the lungs very much congested. There was a small (luantity 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 of serum tinged with Mood ia 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 flo^^'ing 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 symptom^ did not appear for an hour after the administration of the poison. I have made the experiments in conjunction with Mr. Nunttelfey. "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 th» 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 have detected strychnine in the stomach nearly two months after- death, when decomposition has proceeded to a considerable extent. Ee- examined by the Attokney-Geneeae : From half a grain to a grain has beeiv 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 aniinals when the poison had been administered internally. Sometimes we examined the 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 ? Mr. Serjeant Shbe objected to a question which suggested a theory. The Attornet-Genekal : What would be the operation of that portion of the poisow ■which is taken into the system ? — It would destroy life. Mr. Baron A-lderson : And yet leave an excess in the stomach ? — That is my opinion, The Attorney-Genekai, : Would the excess remaining in the stomach prodiiee no effect? — I am not sure that strychnine could lie in the stomach. without actingprejudicially. 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 Bometimes to fail in discovering it. If death resulted feom 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 plaoa' 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 tlie veins.. Mr. Serj«ant Shee : Is it your theory that in the action of poisoning the poison becomes- absorbed, and ceases to exist as poison ? — I have thought much upon that question, and' have not formed a decided opinion, but X am inclined to think that it is so. A part may- be absorbed and a part remain in the stomach' unchanged. Mr. Serjeant Shee : What chemical reason can you give for your opinion that stryehninsj after havini; effected the operation of poisoning, ceases to be strychnine in the blood? — My opinion rests upon- the general principle that, in acting upon living bodies, organic suliM- Btances — such as food and medicine — are generally changed in their composition. Mr. Sei-jeant Shee; What are the component parts of sti'yohnine? Mr. Haroii .4LDEES0N: You will find that in any cyclopoedia. Brother Sheb. Mr. Serjeant Shee: Have you any rp.ason to believe that strychnine can be decomposed by any sort of putrefying or fermenting process? Witness: I doubt whether it can. Mr. Edward D. MooRB.expmined by Mr. Hoddleston: Abottt fifieen years ago I was in practice as a snrgeoni and [ atten'led, with Dr. Chambers, a gentleman named' Clutterbnck, who ■wan suffering fi-om 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 dbses of strychnine, and •we, in coii.^eqnence. gave him a stronger dose. I made up three draughts, containing a quarter ef a grain each. He took one in my presence. I remained with him a little time, and left him; as he .said- he felt q(ui^e comfortable. About three-quarters of an hour afterwards I was sum- moned to him. I found him stiffened in every lirab, and the head drawn back. He was de- sirous that we should move and turn Bm, and rub him. We tried to give- him ammonia^ in %. spoon, and he snappediat the spoon. He was suffering, I should say, more than three homfc Sedatives were given Him, He survived the attack. He was Conscious' all the tiaw. 51 Cross-examined By Mr. Sei-jeant SHeB; TKe spasms ceased in about three hours, but the rteidity of the ifluscles remained till the next day. His hands and feet were at'first drawn back, and he was much easier when we clinched tli em forwards. His paralysis was better after the atttek. Ec-examined by the Attorney-General: Strychnine stimulates the nerves which- act ■upon the volimtary muscles, and therefore acts beneficially tn cases of paralysis. ■ _ The AttorSet-General intimated that the next witness to be called was Dr. Taylor, .ind, as it was a cjuarter after five, the trial was adjourned until Monday, at nine o'clock. Lord Campbell, before the jury left the box, exhorted them not to form any opinion upoa the case until they had heard both sides. They should even abstain from conversing about it among themselves. Mr. Serjeant Shee said that medical witnesses would he called for the defence. His Lordship also expressed -a hope that, if the jury were taken cut upon the following.day (Sunday), they would not be allowed to go to. any place of public resort, and mentioned aa instance in which a jury, under similar circumstances, had teen conducted to Epping Forest. The Court then rose, and the jury were conveyed to the London Coffee- bouse. PIETH DAY, M^YlQ: The^CouTt was again crowded long beforethe commeucement'of the proceedings this mornings The Earl of Denbigh and Lord Lyttleton were among the gentlemen wlio occupied seats upon the' bench. The jury came into' Court shortly' before- ten o'clock", and were sOon follewed by Lord Campbell and Mr. Jiistice Cresswell, accompanied byth-e Piecorder, the Sheriffs and Under- ShenfFs, &c. Mr. Baron Ahlerson did not take his seat until about two o'clock'. The prisoner was immediately p aced at the bar. Theresas no alteration perceptible ia his countenance or demeanour, and he took notfs of several parts of Dr. Taylor's evidence. The Attorney-Genera), Mh E. James, Q.C, Mr. Welsby, Mi-; Bodkin, and Mr; Hiuldleston, appeared for the Crown; Mri Seijcant SbSe, Mr. Grove, Q.C, Mri Gray, and Mr. Ktnealy, for the prisoner. Dr. Alfred SwAyne T.^ylor, examined by the ATTOKNEY'-GEKirHAL: lama felloiv of the College of Physicians, lecturer on medical jitrisprudetfce at Guy's hnspital, and the author of the well-known treatise on poisons and on medical' jurisprudence. I liave made the poison called strychnia- the" subject of my attention. If is the' produce of thie nux vomica, which alsc contains biucia, a poison- of an analogous character. Brucia is variously estimated at from one'-sixth to one-twelfth the' sfrenglh of strychnia. Mostvarieties of impure strychnia that are sold contain more or less brucia. Unless, therefore; you- are certain as to the purity of the article, you m-ay be misled as 10 its^sirengib. I have performed a variety of experiments with strychnia on animal life. I' have never witnessed its action on a hiim-an subject. 1 have tried its effects upon animal life — upon rabbits-'— ii> ten or twelve instances. The' symptoms are, on the whole, very uniform. The' quantity Ihave uiven has varied from half a grain 'to two grains. Half a grain is sulBcient to detroy a rabbit. I have given it both in a solid and a liquid state. WherV given in a flnid state, it proJuees-its effects in a vei-y few minutes ; when in a solid slate, as a sort of piU or bolus, in aliout six to eleven minntes: The tiinfe varies accovdiug to the strength of the dose, and also to the strength of ihe-animal. la-what way doss it operate, in your opinion fi-It is fifSt absorbed itltb the- b&od, then circulated through the body, and especially aets-on the spinal cord, from' -which proceed tte nerves acting on'the Voluntary muscles. Supposing the poison to have been absorbed, -what time -wouWyou give for the circu- lating process ? — 1116 circulation of the-blnod through the whole system is considered'to take place about once in four miKutes.- The circulation in- animals is -qu^ker. The ab- sorption of the poison by rabbits is therefore quicker. The time would also depend on the stomach, — wliether.it contained much food or- not, — whether thepoison came into imme- diate contact with the inner surface of the stomach. In your opinion, does the poison act immediately on the nervous systfetn, or must it first be absorbed ? It must' first be absorbed. The symptoms, you say, are uniform.- Will you -describe them ? — The aftilnal, for about five or six minutes, does not appear tosufi&r; but moves about gently; When the poison be- gins to act it suddenly falls on its side, there is a trembling, a quivering Motiofl, ofthe whole of th« muscles Oi the body, arising from the poison pfod-uoingTioleatand involuiltary- B 2 52 contraction. There is then a sudden paroxysm or fit, the fore legs and the hind legs are stretched out, the head and the tail are 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 remis- sion of the s)-mptoms, 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 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 ocuurred 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 pos- sible to hold the body by its hind legs stretched out horizontally. In an animal kUled 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 detect any injury in the stomach ? — No. I have found in some cases con- gestion of the membranes 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 ordinary 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 ordinarj' 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. Bar- tholomew's Hospital. The patient recovered. You have heard the desfriptions given by the witnesses of the symptoms and appear- ances 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 seven minutes, and the animal died (including those seven) in thirteen minutes. In the second case the symptoms appeared in nine minutes, and the animal died in seventeen. In the third case the symptoms appeared in ten minutes, and the animal died in eighteen. In the fourth case the symptoms appeared in five minutes, and death took place in twenty-two. In the fifth case the symptoms appeared in twelve minutes, and death occurred in twenty-three. 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 mem- brane 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 rapi- dity 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 process 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 quan- tity of sulphuric acid, precipitates the strychnia. Tests are applied to the strychnia, or supposed strychnia, when extracted. Strychnia has a peculiar strongly bitter taste. It is not sqluble 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 sul- phuric acid and bi-chromate of potash. It produces a blue colour, changing to violet and purple, and passing to red ; but colouring tests are very fallacious, with this excep- tion—when we have strychnine separated in its crystallised state we can recognise the crystals by their form and their • chemical properties, 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 appliecj, similar colours would be obtained ? — There are a variety of mixtures which produce similar coloiirs. One of them has also a bitter taste like strychnia. Vegetable poisons are more difiioult 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. Bees. I have applied the 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 ? — In one case I disco- 53 •vered some by the colour test. In a second case there vras a bitter taste, but no other indioatoon of strychnia. In the other two cases there were no indications at all of steydmia. In the_ case where it was discoyercd by a colour test two grains had been administered; and in the second case where there was abittertaste, one grain. In one of the cas^ where we fmled 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 ?— It is absorbed into the 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, has been given, could you find "ly ? — ^o- It is taken up by absorption, and is no longer discorerable in the stomach. The smallest quantity by which I haye destroyed the life of an animal is half a grsun. 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 be discovered. Suppose half a grain to be absorbed into the blood, what proportion does it bear to the total quantity of blood circulated in the system ? —Assuming the system to contain tlie 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 twenty minutes. I believe it undergoes some partial change in the blood, which increases the difficulty of discovering it. I never heard of its being separated from the tissues in a crystallised state. The crystals are I)eculiar in form, but there are other organic crystallised 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 w.is sent to me. It was ddivered to me by Mr. Boycott, in a brown stone jar, covered with bladder, tied, and sealed. The jar confciined the stomach and the intestines. I have experimented upon them widi a view to ascertain if there was any poison present. What pmsons did you seek for in the first instance r — Various, — pnissic 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 fevourable 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 iine mucous surfiace, 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 shaken about in every possible way in the journey to London. The contents of the intestines were there, but not tiie 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 analysed all. We searched in the liver and one of the kidneys for mineral poison. Each part of the Kver, one kidney, and the spleen, all yielded antimony. The quantity was less in proportion in the spleen than in the other parts. It was reproduced, or brought out, by boUing the animal substance in a mixture of hydro- chloric acid and water. Grail and copper- water were also introduced, and the antimony ■was found deposited on the copper. We applied various tests to it — those of Frofeesor 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 withm 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 eighteen hours. A boy died within eighteen hojrs 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 into the blood and the system oeyond what was ejected. If it contuiued to be given after it had produced certain symptoms it would destroy life. It may, however, be given with impunirr. I heard the account given by the female servants of the frequent vomiting of Mr. Cook, both at Kugeley and at Shrewsbury, and also the evidence of Mr. Gibson and Mr. Jones as to the predominant symptoms inhis c.se, Vomitings produced by antimony would caose those svmptoras. If given in small quantities sufficient to c.iuse 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 iufigment as to the time when the anti- mcj-.y «-as administered, but it must have been withiii two or three weeks, at the outside bciVire dciJi. There was no evidence that any had been given within some hours o*' death. It miglit,le^ve a,^,eii3a.tiQP, in^the thipat^-A ohoh;iflgtsenaation-^if a Jaige. cfaaathy was taken at oneq, I fopiid jjo.trace.of pi^rcjiry durijigithe. analysis, ilf a. few grains had beeji talten recently Tp^iave. death I ,^auW ihntVe, expected , to find, some , trace. If a, ijian had taken mercury .fpr a syphilitic afle«tio& Tvithin.t^vo.Qr three TYeeks, I^ should iha^e (};xpected to.find it. It is vei;y.*low;in, parsing, out pf, the body. As snialL a quantity as thvee.or four grains might leave .sqijie. trace. Ir^coJl^t ^ page .in -reliich three grairis of calomel were given, three -or four hojirs before d*ath, an^ traces, of mercury were fotmd. Half a grain three or four days before death, if f a^rourably given, andjUOt'Tomited, would, I should expect, leave.a-tvace. One: grain wsuld certainly do.sxi. J heard the evidence as to the death of Mrs. Smyth, Agnes French,, and the other lady jnentioned, and also- as to the attack of Qlulterbuck. .Frojn your own e;iperi?nce in reference to strjcbuine, dp you.eoinoide in ojiinion -with tha <>ther wiliiesses, that the deaths in, those cases were caused by strychnine? — ^Yes. Dili the symptgnjs, in Cook's case appear to be of a similar character to the symptoms in those cases ? — They did. As a .professor of me(lical soieftce, do y^ou-iknow any cause in the range of human disease except sti}chriine to yrhich the synip.tom^ in Cook's ca3e;can be referred ?, — I donot. Cross-e.'jamijieil.hy l\Ir. Serjeant She^; I. mean by the word " trace" a very small quantity, which can harilly he estimated by wejght. J do not ^apply it in the sense of. an imponderable quantity. In chemical .lan$;.uage it is frequently used )n tiiat. sense. An infiniteEimal quantity yvould be called " a trace." The quantity of antimony that we di^cnvered in all paits of the body would make up about lialF a grain. We did not ascertain that there was that quantity, but I, will undertake to, ^ay, that we extracted as much as half as'ain. That quantity would not.be, sufficient to cause de.ath. 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.^apjtlied lo 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 materials you used, defeat the object of the testp^It would, but all the materials I used were pure. Such an accident could not have happened witholit my having. some intimation of it in the course of the pvoces?. I, should think antimony w<^ifld operate more qnickly upon animals than upon men. I am acquainted with the works of Orhla. Jle stood in the highest rank of analytical chemists. Did not Orfik find antimony in a dog four months after injection ? — Yes; but the animal had taken about 45 grains. Jlr. Serjeant Shee called the attention of the witness to a passage in Orfila'a work in reference to that case, to the effect that the antimony w:|s faund accumulating in the bones, the liver contained a great deal, and the tissues a very little. Witness: Yes; when antimony has been long in the -body it passes into the bones; but I think yoa will find that these are not Otfila's.experinients. Orfila is quoting the experiments Of another person. But ts not that the case. with nearly all the experiments referred to in your own book?— No; I cannot say that. Mr. Serjeant Sheb ,^gain referred , to a case in 0>^/a,.m which forly-fiva grains were given to a, dog, and three and a-half monthssfler death a quantity was found in the fat, and some in ^be liver, bones, and tissues. Witness: That shows that antimony gets into the bones and flesh, but Inever knew a case in whioh,forty-fiv9 grains had been given,, and I have given iio opinion upon sueh 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 gVains. The dog died in the case you mentioned. When antimony is administered, as it was in that case, the liver becomes fatty and gristlcd. Cook's liver presentedno 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 de- scribed. We cannot. say positively how long it takes to get out of the body, but I have known three giiains cleared out in twenty-four 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. Pro- fessor of Chemistry. Either then or subsequently he mentioned Mr. Gardner. I bad not known Mr. Gardner before. I had never before been concerned in cases of this kind at Eugdey. Mr. Serjeant .Shee read the letter written by Dr. Taylor to Mr. Gardner: — '• Chemica) Laboratory, Gu-v»s Hospital, Dec. 4, 1855. " Re J. P. Cook. Esq., deceased. 'Dear Sir, —Dr. Bens and I have completed the analysis to-day. We have sketched a report, which will 1)6 rrady to-mnvrow or npxt day. " As 1 am going to Dtirlinm AasizPS on the part of the Crown, in the case of Reg. t. Woolpr. ihp vpport will bo in Iho handa,,of Dr. Hecs, No. 26, Albt-inorle-streBt. It, will ho most desirahTe that Mr. Stevens dhotild oatl on Dr. Eeea, read the report with him, and put such.queslioaa as may occur. 56 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 prnssic acid had been purchased on the Tuesday ; that is 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 Shee, the deposition of this witness taken at the coroner 3 inquest was read by the Clerk of Arraigns. Cross-examination continued : Having given my evidence I returned to town, and soon after- ■WBrds heard that the prisoner had been committed on a charge of wilful murder. Aid that his life depended in a great degree upon yon?— No 5 I simply gave an opinion as to the poison, not as to the prisoner's case. I knew that I should probably be examined as a witness upon this trial. . Do you think it your duty to abstain from all public discussion of the question which might influence the public mind? — Yes. Did you write a letter to the Lancet f — Yes, to contradict several misstatements of my cndence 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 poisoDing at Rugeley. The mode in which they ■will stfTect the person accused is of minor importance compared with their probable influence on society. I bflre no hesitation in saying that the future security of life in this country will mainly depend on the judge, the jury, and the counsel who may have to dispose of the charges of murder which have arisen out of tiiese investigations.*' Cross-examination continued; That is my opinion now. It had been stated that if strychnia caused death it could always be found, which I deny. It had also been circulated in every newspaper that a person could not be killed by tartar emetic, which I deny, and which might have led to the destruction of hundreds of lives. I entertain no prejudice against the prisoner. TVliat I meant was that if these statements ■which I have seen in medical and other periodicals ■were to have their ■way, there was not a life in the country which ivas safe. Do yon 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 their probable influence on society?" — I have never suggested that they should lead him to the scaffold. I hope that, if innocent, 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 impor- tance than that of one man. That is your opinion ? — Yes. 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 sud- denly, 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 demanJed explanation. You adhere to the opinion that, as a medical man and a member of an honourable profession, you were right in publishing this letter before the trial of the person accused ? — I 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? — I have seen him once or twice. Did you allow pictures of yourself and Dr. Rees to be taken for publication i — Be so gbod 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 m very like. * Did you receive Mr. Maynew at your house ? — He came 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 Parada)', and entered into conversation with him about these cases. He represented, as I understood, that lie was connected with an insurance company, and "wished for gnformatioa about a number of cases of poisoning which had occurred durmg many yearg. 57 After we had converged about an hour he asked if there was any objection to the publiea- tion of these details. Still believing him to be connected with an insurance-office, I replied that, so tax as the correction of error was concerned, I should have no objection to anjrthing appearing. On that evening he went away without telling me that he was the editor of the lUurated Times, or connected with any other paper. I did not know that imtil he called upon me on Thursday morning, and showed me the article in print. I remonstrated verbally with him. He only showed me part of a slip. I told him I objected to its publication, and struck out all that I saw regarding these oases. He afterwards put the article into the shape in wliich it appeared. I could not prevent his publishing the results of our conversation on points not connected with these cases. You did permit him to pubhsh part of the slip? — Nothing connected vrith the Eugeley cases. Did he show you the slip of "Our interview with Dr. A. Taylor?" — I do not remember seeing that. I will swear that, to the best of 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 scientificman and extracted information from me. Why did you not tell your servant to show him the door ? — Until we had had the con/, versatiou 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 ? — 1 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 ? — I told him that I objected to the parts which referred to the Rugeley cases. It 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 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 publish this — " Dr. Taylor here requested us to state that, although the practice of secret poisoning appeared to be on the increase, it should be remembered 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 on the slip, " And that when analysis fails, as in cases where small doses of strychnia had been administered, physiology and pathology would invariably suffice to establish the cause of death," 1 did not strilce that out. I i'li. not thinls of it circulating among 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 vnith. 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? — No; I do not know the person. Or to any one? — No. I never used any expression so vulgar and improper. Yon have been greatly misinstructed. Or, " He will have strychnia enough before I have done with him?" — It 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. . ^ i n 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 Ceesswell: It was memoranda made by Dr. Harland at the tirne. 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?— It vras after he sat up that Cook was seized with those Symntoms. 58 Can you refer to a case in whiolj a person who had takea atry.cbniai beat die ,beS with hia-or ber armsP^It is exactly what I should expect to arise from a sense of sufCooatioa. Do you know any case in which the symptoms of poisouii^ by strychnia commenced witli this beating of the bed-clothes? — There have been only abont fifteen cases, and in none of those •was the patient seized inched. Beating of the bedclothes is a symptoDi wiich may be exhibited by a person suflFering from a sense of sufFocation, whether caused by strychnia or other Oiiuses. A ca«e has been communicated to me by a friend, in which the patient shook .as though he had the ague. Mr. Serjeant Shee objected to this last answer, but as the learned Strjeant had. been, ques- €oning the witness as to the results of his reading. The Court rifled that the evidence w:is admissible. Cross-examination continued: 1 have known of no caso ot poisoning by strychnia in which ■the patient screamed before he was seized. That is common in -ordinary convavlsbiis. In cases of poisoning by strj^chnia 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 a;fter the ingestion of the poison, as in the case of Cook on the Tuesday night? — Yes, longer. In my book on medical jurispru- dence, page 185 of the 5th 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 healthj young female ,in an hour and a-lialf. None of the symptoms appeared for an hour. There is a case in whiqh 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 fuU, but not a very considerable dose. In .my .book .on, poigons there is no case in which the paroxysms commeftced more than iaif an hour alter the ingestion of the poison. That book is eight years old, and since 18i8 cases ha\(e oc- curred. There is a mention of one in which three hours elapsedbefore the paroxysms occurred. Mr. Serjeant Shee then referred to this caa^, and called attention to the fact that the only statement as to time was that in three hours thepatient lost his speech, and at length was seized with violent tetanic convulsions. Cross-examination continued : I know of no other fatal case in •which the interval was so long. In that case there was disease of the brain. Rgferriug to the Lancet, I find that in the case to which I referred, as communicated ,by Dr.. Bennett, the' strychnia was dis- solved 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 not remember any case in which a patient recovered in three or four hours, but such cases must have .ocouKred. 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 pa- roxysms gradually sub.-ided, and tb.e 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 mention 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. I do not think tbat the attack on Tuesday night was the result of anything which had been administered to him on the Monday night. In tlie 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. Chiistison 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 ? — It may have been. Are not the colour tests of strychnia so uncertain and fallacious that they cannot be depended upon ? — Yes, tmless you first get the strychnia in a visible and tangible form. Is it not impossible to get it so from the stomach ? — It is not impossible ; it depends upon the quantity which remains there. You do not agree that the 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 Atioeney-General : In case of death from strychnia the heart is sometimes found empty after death. That is the case of liuman subjects. There are 59 three such cases on record. I think that emptiness results ftotn spasmodic aflectiou 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 sgenerally moo-e filled when, the paioxjrsms are more 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 liirihs and hack. In the case of the rabbit, in which the rigidity was relaxed at the time of death, it returned while the body •was warm. In ordinary death it only appears when the body is cold, or nearly so. I never inew 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 indi- cate great violence of the spasms from which the person died. The time which elapses hetween 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 bedclothes. I hAve no doubt that the substances I used for the analysis were pure. I had tested them. The fact that in three distinct processes each gave the same result, was strong confirmation Of each. I have no doubt that what we found was antimony. The quantity found. ^oes 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, ■which 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 me lo 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 1 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'tfind opium, prussic acid, or strychiiia, I referred to antimony, as the only substance found in^t-hehody. Before writing to the Lancet^ I had been made the subject of a great many attacks. What I said as to the possibility or impossibility of discovering strychnia afier 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. Dr.'G O. Rees, examined by 'Mr. E. J^ames, Q,C., said : I am 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. I am of opinion that it may hive been administered- within a few days, or a few hours, of Mr, Cook's death. All the tests we employed failed to (Hscover 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 unfavourable 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, ,gufficient to destroy life, and no trace of it be found after death. I was present at the experiments made by !>. Taylor upon the animals, and at the endeavour lo delect it in the stomachs afterwards. We failed to do so in three cases out of four. The symptoms accom- panying the death of the animals were very similar to those described in the case of Mr, Cook. I^have heard -the casesthat have beeu 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, Gbc^e, Q.C : I did not see either of the animals reject any portion of -the poison ; but! 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 Bkande, examined .by Mr. Welsby: I am Professor of Chemistry at tie Royal Institution. I was not presept.at the anallysis of the liver, spleen, &c., of the deoea.sed; 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 sdkrtion of airtimony, and we ascertained that there was no action until the solution was slightly acidified by muriatic aqidund heated. The. antimony was then deposited, and I am enabled to .st-ate positively that the deposit was antimony. By the Attoenet-Genekal: The experiment I refer to was made for the iiurpose of testing theacouracy of the test that had already been applied, and it was perfectly satisfactory. Professor 'OjaEiSTjsoN said: I am a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, and Professor of-Materia Medica to the University of Edinburgh ; I am also the anthor of a work on the aplgeeft of poisons, and I have .directed a good deal of attention to strychnia. In my opinion, it 60 i^sts by absorption into the blood, and through that upon the nervous system. I have seen its effects on a human subject, but not a fatal case. I have seen it tried upon pigs, rabbits, oats, and one wild boar. (A laugh.) I first directed my attention to this poison in 1820, in Paris. It had been discovered two years before in Paris. In most of my experiments upon animals I gave very small doses— a sixth of a grain; but 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 gene- rally 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 stomaoh, a do»e 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, oats, and dogs. The first is a slight tremor and unwillingness to move ; then fre^ quently the animal jerks its head back slightly; soon after that all the symptoms cf tetanus come on, which have been so often descriheli by the previous witnesses. When the poison is administered by the stomaoh, de ith generally takes place between -^ period of five minutes and five-and-twenty minutes after the symptoms first make their appearance. 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, that I could attribute satisfactorily to the poison. The heart of the animal generally contained blood in all the cases in which I 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 be the case if it were mixed with resinous materials, or any materials that were difficult of digestion, and such materials would be within the knowledge of any medical men, and they are frequently used for the purpose of making ordinary pills. Absorption 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 commences 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 tlie 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 resemble 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 v/hat took place at the Talbot Arms on thft Monday and Tuesday, and the result of my experience induces me to come to the conclusion that the symptoms exhibited by the deceased were 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 I 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 qnanfity 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 >■ very unsatisfactory state for examination, and there must have been a considerable quantity of strychnia in tlao stomach to have enabled any one to detect its presence under such circumstances. Cross-examined. — 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. I'rom my own observation I should say that animals destroyed by strychnia die of asphj^xia, 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 reference to opinions expressed by him in his work, and he explained that this work was written twelve years ago, and that the experience he had since obtained had modified some of the opinions he then entertained. Cross-examination continued. — I have not noticed that in cases where a patient is suffering from strychnia the slightest touch appears to bring on the paroxysm. It is so remai'kably in the case of animals, unless you touch them very gently indeed. Strychnia has a most intensely bitter taste. It is said, on the authority of a French chemist, that a griiu will give a taste to more than a gallon of water. If resinous substances were used 61 in the formation of a piU it does not foUow tKat they would necessarily be found in the stomach ; they might he passed off. By the Attorney-General : One of the cases referred to in the work that has been relenred towas that of a game-keeper, who was found dead; his head was thro\vn back, nis nands were clmched, and his limbs were rigid. A paper containing strychnia was lound in his pocket, and upon a post-mortem examination there were indications which under the circumstances, satisfied him of the existence of strychnia. There was a substance m the body of an intense bitter, which was tested by the colour test, and it succeeded m one instance, but faUed in another. I have no doubt that colour-tests are not to be relied on. The trial was then again adjourned at six o'clock, until the following (Tuesday) moniing, at ten o'clock. The jury were taken, as on the former occasions, to the London vxittee-house, m the charge of the officers of the court. SIXTH DAY, May 20. The trial of William Palmer on the charge of poisoning John Parsons Cook was resumed this morning. Toe court was quite as much crowded as during the previous days. Among the gentlemen upon the bench were Mr. Horsman, M.P., Sir J Ramsden, MP., 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 demeanour were in no respect changed. John Jackson, examined by Mr. James: I am a member of the College of Physicians. I have recently returned from India, where I have practised for twenty-five years. During that practice I have had my attention directed to cases of idiopathic 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 traumatic tetanus is about one-third. I have seen not less than forty cases in the hospital at Calcutta. That disease is not considered to be so fatal as trau- matic tetanus, but 1 have found that it is equally so. It is commonly found in children — ^both native and European. It takes place about the third day alter birth. It will also be occa- sioned 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 between the sjmptoms of the two diseases. I have always seen idiopathic tetanus preceded by premonitory symptoms. Those are a peculiar expression of the countenance and stiffness in the muscles of the throat and of the jaw. The period which usually elapses between the attack of idiopathic tetanus and tiie fatal termination of the disease is in infants forty-eight hours; in adults, if the disease arises from cold, it is longer, and may continue many days, going through the same grades as the traumatic form of the disease. I have not heard the evidence of ihe attacks of the deceased Cook. Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Shee : In idiopathic tetanus the patient is always un- comfortable for some time before the attack. The appetite is not murh affected. He complains more of the muscles of his neck. He may within twelve hours of a serious attack preserve his relish for food. I never heard 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. Re-examined by the Attorney-General : In an infant not more than six hours will elapse between the premonitory symptoms and the commencement of f.he tetanic paroxysm ; in an adult the interval will be from twelve to twenty-four, sometimes more than I hat The interval from the commencement of the tetanic convulsions to death will vary from three to ten days. Some- times death may occur in two days, but that is an early termination. 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 twenty minutes or half an hour. Daniel Scully Bergen, examined by the Attorney-General: I am thechief superin- tendent of police in 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 IS, searched the house 62 of the prisoner Palmers I found a quantity of papers, the greater ponion ia the surgery and drai'ing-roum, but some in Palmer's bedroom. I put tliem all into the drawing-room, locked the door, and put the key into my pocket. On the following day (Sunday) I endeavoured to make a selection of them in the presence of Mr. George Palmer, the prisoner's brother, an attorney at Rugeley. Assisted by Inspector Crisp and Mr. WooUaston, 1 went through all the papers. Eventually, on the Tuesday morning, I gave up the idea of selection, and tied up all the papers, took them awayin a black leather bag, and conveyed them to Stafford, where I delivered them (0 Mr. Hatlon, the chief constable. Some days afterwards, I believe on (he 24(h Decem- ber, 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 again tied up. Mr. Deane copied a portion of them, but he kept none. They Were all. leftat theofBce 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 signature of Cook, nor any paper pur- porting to bear his signature respecting bills of exchange. Some of the papers were alterwards returned to Mr. George Palmer. Mr. Deane selected a large number of letters and documents, priiaie 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 ] 5th December. Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Shee: The inquest was held- at the Talbot Arms. It con- tinii d several days. The first meeting was merely to empannel 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. From the commencement of the inquest until that time- he was at his house at Rugeley. He was never present at the inquest, nor did any one act prnlessionally for him. Some time before tile death of Cook I heard of an Inspector Fieldy who I believe is not now a police-ofEoer, being at Kugeley. I know that there are such persons- as the Duttons, but' do not know anything about them, or their mother. IIen'rt Augustus Deane, examined by Mr. James: I am an attorney, and a member of the firm of Chubb, Deane, and Chubb, Gray's-inn. I attended the inquest on the body of Walter Palmer, but not that on the body of Cook. On the 24th of December I saw Palmer's paper-; at Stafford. They were in the custody of the last witness. The papers were in a black bag, which wa-. unsealed in my presence. Bergen, Mr. Hatton, the chief-constable, and myself were th* persons present. I carefully examined all the papers, for the purpose of selecting those which it -jvas necessary should be kept, I returned a considerable number of immaterial papers to George Palmer. Among the papers! found no cheek upon Messrs. Weatherby, purporting to he- signed by the deceased Cook, nor any paper like that which tie -witness Cheshire stated that Palmer asked him to attest — an acknowledj!ment purptyting to be signed by Cook that bills to- the amount of some thou^ands had been accepted by Palmer for Cook's h'eneSit. I saw George- Palmer, the solicitor, aftei- the pajiers which I had selected were returned to him, Cro-^s-examined by Mr. Serjeant Shee: Iknow Held, the detective officer. , We -were solicitors- to the Prince of Wales Insurance-office. It was 'in our employment' that Field went to Rugeley.- He was at Rugel«y only a part of one day. He was at Stafford for three or four days! alto- gether. He did not see the prisoner Palmer. His visit had been preceded by that of another ofH-j'-r, named Simpson. Simpson went from Stafford to Rugeley with myself and Field. H& told me he had seen Palmer. I think he went into Staffordshire in the. first week in October. Rs-i-xamined by Mr. Jamrs. — Field was sent down to make inquiries as to the habits of life of Mr. Walter Palmer, of whoso 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 aa insura.ice ol £25,000 upon his life. John Espix, examined by Mjt, James. — I am a solicitor practising in Davies-street, Berfceley- sqn-ire. I am solicitor to Mr. Padwiek. I produce a bill for £2,0130 which was placed in my hand* to enforce payment from the prisoner. M K, Stka WBEiDGB, manager of the bank at Rugeley, was called and proved tha* the drawini;, and endorsement of this bill — a billiat three, months.for £2,000, drawn by William Palmer, and. purporting to be aooepted by Sarah Palmer — were in the handwriting, of the prisoner, and that the acceptance was not in that of his mother. .loMN E.»prN continued.— This hill would be due on the 6th of October, 1854. £1,000 had been paid off it. Judgment was signed on the 12th of Deoembei^, and I had then had the bill only a day or two. The execution wa.s issued on the l-2th of December. I have here a lettsr: from William Palmer addressed to Mr. Padwiek on the 12thof November, and enolosing.aoheque, and req-iesting that it-should not be presented until the 2&th of November. I produce the cliequet foi £1.000 enclosed in this letter of the 12th. The cheque is dated the 28th. Thatcheque was not- paid. I produce another cheque,- dated the 8th of December^ 1855, payable to Mr. Padwick- or bearer, for the sum of £600. [Mr. Stra-wbridge proved that the.agnature to this cheque was. in the handwriting of the prisoner.J That was not paid.- It was received) a few days after the cheelc.for £1,000 ^vas dishonoured'. £l,0GO-6till remaingd'due. -We-iBWwd.aca-.sa. against thes prisoHer!s person. Upon that-P^mer wasiarrested. C3 Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Shee.— I believe all the documents were placed in my hands together about the 12th of December. j "= WiLi.iAM_ Bamfom), examined by the Attorney-General : I am a surgeon and apothecary f7T'"^;fv7' "> Stiiffordshn-B, I first saw the deceased, John Parsons Cook, on Saturday, the 17th ot I«ovember. Palmer, the prisoner, asked me to visit him. Palmer said that Cook had bteen dinmg with him the day before, and had taken too much champagne. I went with Pahner to see Cook. I asked if he had taken too much wine the day bfifore, and he assured me that he took but two glasses. I found no appearance of bile about Cook, but there was constant vomiting. I prescribed for him a saline eflFervesoing draught, and a six-ounce mixture. I never saw Cook take any of the pills which I had prescribed. After I had prepared the pills on the Monday evening I took- them to the Talbot Arms, and gave them to a servant maid, who took ttiem upstairs. On the Saturday, Sunday, and Monday, I prepared the same pills. I saw P.almer on the Tuesday morning. I was going to see Cook when he met me. I asked him if' he had seen Cook the night before. He said that he saw him between nine and ten o'clock, and was with him for half an hour. He requested that I would not disturb Cook, and I went home ■Without seeing hira. Between twelve and one o'clock Palmer met me again. I was going to see Cook, and Palmer begged I would not go, because he was still and quiet, and he did°iot •wish him to be disturbed. At seven o'clock in the evening Palmer came to my house and requested me to go and see Cook again. 1 went and saw him. Having seen Cook, I left the room with Jones an.t v, t Charles Weatheeby, examined by Mr. Welsby, said: On the 2:st of November 1 received a letter from Palmer, enclosing a cheque for £350. I produce that letter:— " Bugeley, Not. 20, 1855, " Gentlemen,-! 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 wiUl a bilious attack, which has prevented him from being in town. Yours respectfully^^ ^^^^^^ , On the morning of the 23rd I received another letter from him, which I also produce. In tliis letter Palmer requested Messrs. Weatherby to send a cheque for £75 to Mr. Pratt, F 2 68 and a cheque for £100 to Mr. Earwaker, and deduct the same from Cook's draio]. On the 23rd I sent a letter to Palmer, of which I produce a copy : — "Not. 23, l.'^M. " Sir,— We retnm Mr. Cook's cheque, not haTiBg funds enough to meet It. When Mr. Frail called to-day to settle the Shrewsbury Stake account, he informed us that he 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 ackuowledge the receipt of the cheque." On the 24:th the following notice, signed by Palmer, was left at my office : — " Nov. 24, 1855. ** Gentlemen, — T 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 by you to me or my order of the cheque or draft in my favour, given by the said John Parsons Cook for the sura of £350, sent to you by me, and acknowledged in your letter received by me at Bugeley on Wednesday morning, tlie 20th of this month of November. " Yours, &c. " Wm. Palmbb." " Messrs. weatherby, 6, Old Burlington-street." On the 23rd I sent a letter to Cook at Eugeley, which was subsequently returned to me through the dead-letter office. Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Sheb : The cheque for £350 was, as far as I recollect, signed by Cook. The Attornet-G-eneeal : Was it signed J. P. Cook, or J. Parsons Cook?— I did not observe. By Lord Campbell : I observed that the body of the cheque was not in Cook's hand- writing, but that the signature was. Mr. Serjeant Shee : When that cheque of Cook's was presented, you had not funds in hands to meet it ?— No. Were funds afterwards sent up by Mr. Prail, 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 can't positively say. Clerks of the course pay at different times. But Cook might reasonably have supposed that they would be in hand, as it was then a week after he had won the race. I mformed Palmer,, when I did not pay his cheque, of my reasons for not doing so. Mr. F. BuTLEK examined by the Attoenet-Genekal : I attend races, and bet. I was at Shrewsbury races, and had an account to settle with Palmer. I had to receive £700 odd from him in respect of bets made at the Liverpool races. I had no money to receive in respect of the Shrewsbxiry races. I endeavoured to get my money at Shrewsbury, and I got £40. I asked him for money several times, and he said he had none, but had some to receive. He did not say how much. He gave me a cheque for £250 upon the Rugeley bank, which was not paid. I know Cook's horse Polestar. After she had won the race at Shrewsbury she was worth about £700. She was worth more after than before she won. Cross-examined by Mr. Gkovb : I won £210 on Polestar for Palmer, 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. 69 THE DEFENCE, (Seventh Day Continued.) Mr. Serjeant Siiee then 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 over- whelming sense of responsibility. Once only has it before 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 for 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 useless 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 of science, an opinion has almost universally pre- vailed that the blood of John Parsons Csok 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 conscientiously endeavoured to per- form — without, to a great extent, sharing in that conviction. Before you knew that you wouldftave 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 circumstances under which we meet in this place are of a character to excite in me mingled feelings of encouragement 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 inidst of that prejudice, be 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 in that branch of the Legislature to which the noble and learned lord who presides here belongs, and was sanctioned by him, was passed to prevent the 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 liim, 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 intended 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 constituted authorities of the laud — everything which the Legislature and the Law Officers of the Crown could do to se- cure a fair and impartial trial has been done, and if that unhappily an injustice should on either side be committed, the whole responsibility will rest upon my Lords and upon the jury. A most able man was selected by the prisoner as his counsel not many weeks ago, but, unfortu- nately, 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 re- sponsibility, although th6 national efifort, so to speak, which has been made to insure a fair trial is a great cause of enooilragement to me. I am moved by the task that is before me, but I am 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 per- fectly free to form what I trust will prove to be a right judgment upon the case, and— -I 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 satis- faction, 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 will prove to you the sincerity with which I declai-e 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 sug- gested by my learned friend. You will see that I shall avoid no point which has been raised. I 7a will deal fairly with you, and I know tliat I shall have your patiant attention to an address which must, I fear, unavoidably be a long one, but in which no observation will be iutroduoed which does not necessarily and properly belong to the case. The proposition wliich' my learned friend undertakes to establish entirely by circum- stantial evidence, may he 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, deliherately prepared his body for the reception of a deadly poison by the slower poison of antimony, and that he afterwards despatched him by the deadly poison of strychnin?. 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 commissiott,— 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 vrith the theory that death proceeded from natural causes. Under these three heads I shall discuss the large mass of evidence which has been laid before you ; and I must, by adhering to that order, exliaust the whole subject, and leave myself no cljance of evading any dffioulty vi-ithout immediate detection. Before, however, I proceed to grapple in these close quarters with the case for the Crown, allow me to restore to its proper place in the dis- cussion, a fact which, although it was by no means concealed by my learned ftiend 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 sti-ychnine was not found in the body of the unfortunate deceased. If he died of the poison of strychnine — if he died -withia a few hours, or within a quarter of an hour or twenty minutes of the administration of a, strong dose — ii ttie post-morlem examination took place within six days of the death, there is not the least reason to suppose that between the time of the inj ection of the poison and the paroxysms of death, there was any dilution of it, or any ejection of it by vomiting. Never, therefore, unless chemical analysis is altogethei' a failui'e 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 skUful chemist ; we have no reason to beueve — in fact, we know to the contrary — that he and Dr. Rees did not do all that the science of chemical 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 rea- son 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 firm expectation that if it was there it would be found, and without any doubt £is to the efficiency of their tests. Then, in December, they say, — *' Wo tlo not find Btrychnine, pra99ic acid, or any trace of opium. From the contents having been drained away" (not drained oat of tiie .jar, you know) " it is now impo9sible to say whether any strych- iiiiie had or had not been given .just before death, but it is quite possible for tartar emetic to destroy life if g^ven in repeated doses ; and, so far as we can at present foi-ni an opinion, in the absence of any natural cau^e of death, the deceased may have died from the effects of antimony in this or some other form.'' But they afterwards attandeii the inquest, and having heard the evidence of Mills, of Mr. Jones, of Lutternorth, 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, notwith- standing his written opinion that Cook might have been poisoned by antimony, and notwith- standing 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 stryphnine 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 elements 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. It 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 ill having poisoned five rabbits twenty-five years ago, and five others since this question was raised, it cannot have much weight. But I will call before you a number of geallemen of high eminence in their profession as analytical chemists, who will state their utter jeaunciatioa of that theory. I will call Dr. Nunneley, a fellow of the Royal College of SiMgeoiis and a professor of chemistry, who attended the case at Leeds, which haa beea desoiihad ta yau, and 71 Dr. WiUiatms, professor of materia medica at the Koyal College of Surgeons in Ireland, for eighteen years surgeon to the City of Dublin Hospital. Dr. Letheby, one of the ablest and most aistmgiwhed men of soience in this great city, professor of chemUtry ajid. toxicology in the Medical College of the London Hospital, and medical officer of the City of London, will tell you that heiejects the theory as a heresy unwortdy the belief of scientific men. Dr. Nicholas J^ai>ker of tlie College of Physicians of London, and professor of medicine, Dr. Bobinsan, of the College of JPhysioians, and Mr. Rogers, professor of chemistry, concur with Dr. Letheby^ , Lastly, I will call Mr. William Herapath, of Bristol, probabfe" the most emineijt chemical analyst m this country, who also utterly rejects the theory. All of thp*e gentlemen contend that If not only half a grain of strychnine, but even l-SOth part or less has' once entered into the human frame, itcan and must be discovered by the tests knoiwn to chymists. Thsy will tell you this, not as the result of a few experiments, for ever regretted, upon five rabbita, but from a large ex- perience as to the operation of the poison upon the inferior animalsj created, as you know, for the benefit of mankiud,andmany of them from their experience as to its effectsuponthe 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 beeniouo4in 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 chemical tests. I will now apply myself to a question which in my judgment is of equal, if not greater, importance— tie «3\iestion whether, in the second weeds of November, 1855, the prisoner had a rootive for the com- iniss4«jri 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 woiijd come to the con- clusion that he had committed such a crime. It seems to me abundantly clear upon the evidence that not onuy was itnot the interest of Palmer that Cook should die, but that the death of Cook was the very worst calamity that could.befall him, and. that he could not possibly be ignprant that it would be followedliy his own ruin. That it was followed by his immediate ruin we know. AVe know that at the time when it is said he commenced to plot Cook's death he wasiija condition of the greatest embarrassaMntr-Tan embarrassment which in its extreme intensity ha(i come upon him but recently — an embarrassment, too, in some degree mitigated by the circumstance 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 state of the greatest em- barrassment did he wish to destroy Cook. My learned friend stated to you " That, being in desperate circumstances, with ruin, disgrace, and punishment staring him in the.face, which 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 oivder 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 of November Palmer had any motive to commit this crime, > Whenaloag oorrespondeneeisreadto ajury, who are without the same means of testing its importance .is 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 y;esterday 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 Mm. i AUow me to call ypur attention to the relation in which these men stood to each other. They had been intiinate 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 thet same hotels ; they were seen together upon almost all the race courses in the kingdom ;, they were known to be connected" in adventiires upon the same horsesiat the same races; and although, Cook being ijead, the mouth of the prisoner being sealed, aijd 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, if, is abundantly clear that they were very closely connected. la August, 1855, money was wanted either by Cook or Palmer, and Palmer applied to Pratt for it. He seems to have wao/tqi f2UL),.to make up a larger sum, having already £'190 in Pratt's hands; and he .offered as security for the advance his friend Mr. Cook, whom he described as a gentleman of respectability and substanpe." We dp 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 f 13,000. may for a year or two pass before the world for a man of considerable means. It is not «very one who will go to Doctors' Commons to ascertain the precise amount of the property he has inherited. Jlir. Cook, of Lutterworth, kept his i;acehorses,.Uved expensively, was known to have inherited a fortune, and was altogether a person whose friendship was of considerable im- portance to a man like Palmer. Recollect that I am not now defending Palmer against the crime of forgery, nor am I defending him against the imputation of reckless improvidence in 73 obtaitiing money at an enormous discount. But as early as May, 1855, Palmer and Cook were thus cironmstanced. What was their position in November? The evidence of Pratt, and the correspondence which he proved, can leave no doubt on our mindu 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 £1,500, having become due some time before, but being held over from month to mouth upon payment by Palmer, who was liable for them, of what was called interest at the rate of 60 per cent. These three sums— £2,000, £2,000, and £1,500 — were tbe embarrassments which were pressing upon him in tbe second week in .November, and, be it observed, they were pressed upon him 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 £2,000 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 Slst of October, and a further sum of £300 as soou afterwards as possible, making a total 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 ninth of November the £300 was paid, and then a letter was written, to which I beg your particular attention. On the thirteenth 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 faet 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 £1,000, for without it I shall be unable to renew the £l,500 due on the ninth." Pratt had threatened to issue a writ against Palmer's mother. Palmer had almost gone upon his knees to bag him not to do 80, and this letter really meant, " Unless you give me £200 more and make up j61,000, a writ shall be served upon your mother." That letter is written on the thirteenth of November. Palmer gets it at Eugeley, whither he had gone from the racecourse qn the day that Polestar won. What does he do ? He iastantly returns to Shrewsbury, gets there on Wednesday, sees Cook. They say he doses him. We will see how probable tliat i> 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 Eugeley 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 sixteenth of November, Palmer writes to Pratt — " 1 am obliged to ceme to TattersalPs on Monday to the settling. ' so that I shall not call and see yon Ijefore Monday, but a friend of mine will call and leave yon £200 to-morrow, and 1 will give you tbe remainder un Monday." The person who ordinarily settled Cook's accounts was a person named Fisher, a wine- msrchant in Shoe-lane, who vraa 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 £500 ehonld be paid to aMr. Pratt, of 5, Queen-street, May-fair, lo-morrow, without fail. £300 has been sent op to-night, and, if you will be kind enough to pay the other J200 to-morrow, on the receipt of this, yon will 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 observation — "I am much better." What is the fair inference from these letters ? I sub- mit that the inference is, that at that date Cook was making himself very useful to Palmer. Pratt was pressing for an additional sum of £200. Palmer communicated his difficulty to Cook, who at once wrote to his agent to pay the £200. More than this, — ^the £300 referred to in the letter as having been paid "tonight" [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 in- terest 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 demon- stration that Palmer and Cook were playing into each other's hands with respect to that heavy enctmibrance upon Palmer, and that Palmer could rely upon Cook as his fast friend in any such difficulties. Although, when we take the sum total of £11, 500, his difficulties sound large, yet the difficulty of the day was nothing like that, because, in the reckless spendthrift way in which they were living, putting on bills from month to month, and paying an enormous interest per annum, the actual outlay upon the day of putting on was not considerable. I submit that this letter shows that on the day on which it is said that Palmer was poisoning Cook, the 16th of November, Cook was acting towards him in s 73 most friendly maimer, was aequainted ■with his ciicumsttuices, and ■vrilling 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 inbed at Rugeley, ran up to town on the Monday, and intending to des- patch Cook that night, obtained possession of his Shrewsbury winnings by telling Her- ring, who was not Cook's usual agent, that he was authorized by Cook to settle his Shrews- bury transactions at Tattersall's. On the Monday, as on the Tuesday, Cook, though generally indisposed, was during the greater part of the day quite well. He got up and saw his trainer and two jockeys. The theory of the case for the prosecution is that he was quite well, because Palmer was not there to dose him. You will see how grossly and contemptibly absurd that is presently. Being well on Monday and Tuesday, do not you. think that, had not Cook known that Palmer did not intend to go to his regular agent, Fisher, he would have been very much surprised that he on Tuesday morning received no letter from that gentleman, informing him of the settlement of his transactions ? And could Palmer, as a man of business, have relied upon an absence of such surprise and alarm on the part of Cook i 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 Loudon and settle the whole thing through Herring." That was done, and accordingly Fisher has never been paid. There is a letter to which I will particularly call your attention. It is one sent by Palmer to Pratt on the 19th November, 1855 : — " You will place the £60 which I have just paid you and the £450 you wUl receive by Mr. Herring — ^together £500 — and the £200 you received on Saturday" [That is the £20p which Fisher paid to Pratt at the express request of Cook,} " t'owards pay- ment of my mother's acceptance for £2,000 due on the 26th of October, making paid to this day the sum of £1,300." Taking that letterwith the one which Cook wrote to Fisher on Friday, the 16th, can you doubt that on that day Cook was a most convenient friend to Palmer, who could not by possibility do without him ; It does not end there. Cook died at 1 o'clock on the morning of Wednesday the 21st of November. If we want to know what influence that death had upon Palmer, we must take it from the letters. On the 22d of November — and I am sure you will make some allowance for a day having elapsed from the death of Cook — Palmer writes to Pratt, " Ever since I saw you I have been fully en- gaged with Cook and not able to leave home." Unless he murdered Cook, that is the truest sentence that ever was penned. He watched the bedside of his friend. He was with him night and day. He attended him as a brother. He called his friends around him. He did tdl that the most affectionate solicitude could do for a friend, imless he was plotting his death. •* Ever since I saw you I have been folly engaged Trith Cook, and not able to leave home. I am eorry to say, after all, ha died this day. Se you had better write to Saund ers ; but, mind you, I must have Pole- atar, if it can be so arranged ; and, should any one call upon you to know .what money or moneys Cook ever had &om yon, don't answer the question till 1 have seen you." "I will send you the £75 te-morrow, and as soon as I have been to Manchester you shall hear about other moneys. I sat up two full nights with Cook, and am very much tired out." And did he not? Was it not true? It may not be true that he sat up the whole of the nights, but he was ready to be called if Cook should be ill. Elizabeth Mills says, that after the first serious paroxysm on the Monday night she left Palmer in the arm-chair, sleeping by the side of the man whom the prosecution say he had attempted to murder. No ; murderers do not sleep by their victims. Wliat 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 £600, on the 2d December.*' , , , . , " I have written to Saunders, ipformlng him of my claim, and requesting to know by retnm what daim he has for keep and training. Isend down copy of bill of sale to Grabble to see it enforced." So that the first effect of Cook's death was, in the opinion of Pratt, who knew all about it, to saddle Palmer with the sum of £500. Now I will undertake to satisfy you that the trans- actions out of which that bill for £500 arose were transactions for Cook's benefit, and in which Palmer lent his name to accommodate Cook, upon whose death he became primarily and alone responsible for the bUl. Let me state the view which soy learned frieod (theAttomey-Genejal) 74 takes of that trattsaotiaO) because I intend to maet his case foot by foot, and I shall, I hope convince Mm that, if he had had tha option, he would nev^r Jiave takan up this case — the Crown would never ha^;e 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 tlie Queen's subjects, if it did not take care that a man against whom there was so much prejudice — a man loading the life which Palmer has led, disgraced, as it is said, by forgeries to a large amount, and a gambler by prpfession — should have a fair trial. There was no way of seeming tliat, as my learned iViend at once saw, no possibility of the prisoner's being saved, except by giving to the counsel who del'eadad- him all the information which my learned friend himself possessed. The view which my learned friend takes of the £500 transaction, the theory on which hp thinks it probable that Palmer plotted the death of Cook, is this : — " Pratt still declining to advance tlie money, Palmer proposed an a^^ignment by Cppk of tv70 race horges, one called Polestar, which won the Slirewabury Races, and another called Sirius. That aasigu- ment was afterwai-ds executed by Cook in favoui* of Pratt, and Cook, therefore, was clearly entitled to the mouey which was raised upon that security, which realised £375 in cash, and a wine waiTant for .£65. Palmer contrived, however, that the money and the wine warrant should be sent to him . and not to Cook. Mr, Pratt sent dowxj his check to Palmer in the country on a stamp,, as the, aot of parliament required, aud he availed himself of the opportunity now afforded by law of striltihg out' the word ' beaier ' and wrrtijig * order,' the effect of which was to necessitate the endorsement of G'ook on the back of the cheijuq. It was not intended by Palmer that those proceeds should fidl into Cook's hands, and accordingly he forged the name of John Parsons Cook on the back of that cheque. Cook never received the money, and you will see that, within ten days from that period when he came to his end, the bill in respect of tha(t transaction, which was at three months, would have fallen due, when it must have become apparent that Palmer received the money, and that, in order to obtain.it, he had forged the endorsement of Cook.*' That is the view which the prosecution take of the case, and I- think I shall be able to satisfy you that it cannot possibly be the correct one. We know from Pratt exactly what took place. Palmer wrote to hun saying, — " I have undertaken to. get the enolosed bill cashed for Mr. Cook, Yon had the £200 bill of his. He Is 9 very good and. responsible man. "Will you do it ? 1 will put my name to the bill." So that it was represented to Pratt as a transaction for the accommodation of Cook. Pjatt's answer to that is : — ' *' If Mr. Cook chooses to give me security, I have no objection ; TJut he. must execute a bill of sole on his two horses, Polestor and Sirius; more, ho must execute a power of attorney, and his signature to both must be witnessed by some solicitor in the country, so that I may be quite sure that it is a really valid security. If Cook will do thati will give him .£375 in money, and a. wine wasront for JK65; which,, charging £10 for expenses, and .£50 for discount, will make £500." ' There can be no doubt that Cook attached great value to Sirius and Polestar, which mare was, probably, then booked for the engagements in which she won so much money at Shrewsbury; and it is to the last degree improbable that he would have executed this bill .of sale, with a power of attorney to enable the mortgagee or assignee to enforce it at once effectually, aiid yet iave received no money. Would he, if such had been the ease, have remained quiet to the day of his death, and never have written to Pratt to say that althougb 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 I'almer had mis- appropriated the cheque he could for three months have kept Cook in ignorance of tlie trans- action? Is it not probable tbat Cook's name was written on the cheque with his full knowledge and consent? It is not suggested that there was any attempt to imitate his handwriting. Is it not more probable that Cook, who, I will prove to yon from the letter, wanted ready money, and ' ■who would probably be put to inconvenience by receiving only a cheque, which he would not get cashed for a day or two, took the ready money — ^£315, which Pratt sent at the same time to Palmer — and that Palmer took the cheque? ' On the 6th of September Palmer ■wrote to Pratt:— > " I received the chojiue for the £100, and will thank you to Itet me have the £31.5 by return of post, if possible ; if not, send it rae (certain) by IVlouday night's post to the Post'Otlioe, Donoaster. I now return you Cook's papers signed &c., and he wants the money on Saturday, if he, can have it ; but I have not promised it for Saturday. Itold him he should have it on Tuesday morning atDoncaater; so please enclose it with mane., m 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 Boneaster." So that Palmer asked thi^t it should be sent like his own. Cook, according to the letter, ■wanting it in cash, Pratt replied to Palmer, acknowledguig the receipt of the documents, and promising that he would send him liis money to Doncaater 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 Poat.offlce, PoucttSter,) ^365 instead of j^375, and the wine warrant, so that I can hand it to him with the £375, aud that will be allowing you j£^0 for the discount, &c. I shall then get .^0, and 1 expect I shall have to tcke t the^wiae, and giva.niia, the money; but I shall not do so if you do not send ,£3ti0,.and be^oo^ enou^toieAfdoeaiin^ ^31$,wit^ itj in cash, in a registered letter, and direct it to me to the Fost-t^ce,. Donoasteii.," In these letters there is an intimation that Cook wanted the mon^y r. Taylor that at the inquest he sat next to Mr. Deane, the attorney's clerk, and suggested the questions which it was necessary in his judgment 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 to state positively upon oath his opinion that the pills given on Monday and Tuesday nights contained strychnine ; fancy The Attorney- Genebal.— I am sorry that my learned friend should be misled upon a matter of fact ; but I am told that Dr. Taylor was not present when Mr. Jones was examined. Mr. Shee continued: Then the observation which I was about to make does not apply; and all I can sav is, that Mr. Jones had probably in his mind's eye, when he gave that evidence, a recollection o'f what he had seen on the Tuesday night. He could not have see^n 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 obser9able in Cook. However, Mr. Jones, who is a competent 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 coroners clerk farst put down " tetinus ;" and the probability, I think, is that that disease did occur to Mr. Jones at the time, and that he used the word, because the clerk never could have invented it. Ihea "tetinus" 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 tne fair inference from that ? Why, that the man who saw Cook in the 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 CookS were not t'etanic, properly speaking, but were of that strong and •"«f">"^'''"Vt"'; 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 .«'™f,/™" ';« " "}■ of Dr. Copland, which will enable you to judge whether Cook's complain bears a greater re- semblance to general convulsions than to traumatic tetanus or strychmne, tetanus. Before do..,g so, however, 1 would observe that the only persons who can be supposed to know »"y't."S »' t. an-.is i>ot traumatic are physicians, and tha-t not one of that most honourable cla.s of pie" 82 (wio see tlie attacks ot patients in their beds, and not in the hospital), has been called by ther Crown, with the exception of Dr. Todd, who is a most respeectable man, and who gave nis evidence in such a way as to command, the, lespecc of everyone; but even his practice appears- to be not so much that of a physician as of a suigeon. 1 am instructed that I shall be able to «how, by the most eminent men in the profession, that the description which I. am about to read from Dr. Copland's book, the DicUonary of. Practical Medicine, is the true description of general convulsions. In that book I find the following, under the head of " Coovulsions:" — "Deflnltioh— Violent and involuntary contractions of apart or of the whole of the bodF, ssmetimes ■with risiditv and tension (toiiic convulsions), bnt mpie frequently -witb tumultuous agitations, consisting of altertiatine shocks (olonio convulsions), that come on suddenly, cither in recurring or in distant pa- xoxysms, and after irrogular 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 abfisis of arrangement of all the diseaaea attended by abnormal action of voluntary mustiles, we shall have eV&ry;grade, passing imperceptibly irom the most acUte form of tetanus through cramp, 'epilepsy eclampsia, ponvnlsions, &c.;down to the most atonic states -of chorea and tremor." ' As to the premonitory sym.ptoms, it says:— " The premonitory signs of 'general convulsions are {inter alia), vertigo and aizziness, iiTitability of temper, flushings, or alternate, auahing and paleness of the face,' nausea, retching or vomiting, or pam and dretension of stomach and left hypoohondrium, unusual flatulence of the stomach and bowels or other dyspeptic symptoms." ' * lu further descrihiug these conTtilsionS/ the article says: — " In many instances the general sensibility and consciousness are but yery slightly impaired, particn- larly, in the more simple oases, and when the proximate cause is not seated in the encephalon ; but in pi-opbrtion as this part is affected, primarily or consecutively, and the neck and face tumid and li'vid the cerebral functions are obscured, and the convulsions attended by stupor, delirium, &c., or rapidly pass into,, or are followed by, these states. Then, it add-s: — " The'paroxyam may cease in a few moments or minutes, or continue for some or even many hours. It generally subsides l-apidly, the patient experiencing, at its termination, fatigue, headache, or -stupor ; but he is usually restored in a short thhe to the same state as before the seizure, which ishableto recur ina person ontie affected, -but at- tincertain intervals, .ifter repeated attacks the fit sometimes becomes periodic (the convulsio recMr7»ens of authors.) And, in detailing the originof these convulsions, it says: — " The most common causes are {inte'r fxti'a), 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 tvhich greatly depress the nervous influence, ae well as diminish and derange the actions of the heart, as fear, terror, anxiety, sadness, distressing intelligence, frightful dreams, &o.— the syphilitio 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 MiDs 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 g-entlemeu whom I .shall call before you — men of tiie highest eminence in their profession, and not mere hospital surgeons, who have seen nothing of this nature but traumatic tetanus — Tpill 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 prstty much the same thing as idio- pathic 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 a 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 Ujion idiopathic tetanus are the general prac- titioners 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 ot 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 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 fishbone ia »he fauces, the air caused by a muuket shot, the stroke of a whip-lash under the eye, leaving 83 the skin imlyroken, the cutting of a corn, the biting of tlie finger by a tame 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 cupping." He goes on to say that when the disease arises from exposure to the cold or dam,p 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 colcl, or by exposure 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 Doth together would call it forth. Dr. Watson, adds liat, 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 vpiiters 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 -spciken to on the day of the inque&t by EHzalbeth 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 strychine ; because, if you shall be satisfied, upon full investigation, that they are not oonsistent with the symptoms, which are the unquestionable result of strychnia tetaniis, then the hypo- thesis 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 MiUs ; but, before I go to that evidence, I wiU call your attention to the de- scription of strychnia tetanus as given by two very eminent gentlemen. Dr. Taylor and Dr. Christison, who were called for the Crovm 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 MiUs and Mr. Jones, you will, I think, have great difficulty in determming that Mr. Cooke died from strychnine. Let us first take Dr. Taylor's description of strychnia tetanus, I am 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 secondhand 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 five to twenty minutes after the poison has been swallowed the patient is suddenly seized with tetanic symptoms 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 fur " 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 five to twenty 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, inoreasiug in severity, the patient dies asphyxiated." Now I submit, although there are some of these systems 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 stifihess and a starting of the limbs. Those symptoms increase, tiU at length the animal is attacked by general spasms. The fit is then succeeded by an interval of calm, daring which the senses are i.npaired or are unnaturally acute ; butanother 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 symptoms? I know exactly what Dr. Christison means hy this description, beeause I have had thi. advantage of having had several experiments per- formed in my presence by Dr. Letheby, which enable me to understand it. One of these experi- meats was this : — A dog had a grain of strychnine put into his mouth, and for about 20 or 25 84 minntes he remiuned perfectly well. Suddenly lie fell down apon 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 afrtdd to move. If you touched hun 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 sufiScient to kill the dog it would have been longer in producing an effect; the paroxysms would have ocoured 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 pessible 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 principle, 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 ia the books, in which, while the paroxysms lasted, the patient bad 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 Iiim, he actually asked to hare his neck rubbed ; and it was rubbed. I now come to the next reason why we say that death in this ease did not result from strychnine poifiou; 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 hook, that from five to twenty jninutes after the poison has been swallowed the tetanic symptoms commence ; and then, in support of this statement, he proceeds to cite a number of cases. One yo»ng lady was " in- stantly 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 Lancetf and there a young man, aged 17, was ** attacked in about a quarter of an huur." Then there is the case of Dr. Warner, who took half a grain of sulphate of strychnine, and died in fifteen minutes. Then there is the case of a young woman who took two or three drachms of mix ymica^ and died in between thirty and forty minutes. Another case is given by Dr. Watson in his hook, which he himself observed in the Middlesex Hospital, where strych- nine pills, intended for paralytic patients, were taken by mistake. One-twelflh 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 eases, that the in- terval 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 paroxsym of strychnine poison has been so rapid a; it was in Cook's case upon Monday night, or in which a patient has emlured so long an interval of repose or ex- emption 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 Mill's room, and called out that Cook was iu another fit r 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 severitv, the patient dies asphyxiated. Dr. Christison holds precisely the same language ; but 1 submit that here there is abroad distinction between the case of Cook and that which these gentlemen state to be the distinguishing feature of the disease. I now come to the port-mortem examination. Dr. Letheby was good enough to dig up from his garden, iu order that I might see it, an animal wMch had been killed by strychnine, with a view to this inquirv, 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, I am told by a gentleman, whom I shall call before you, who is not afraid of dogs^and remember that this is rather a matter for experiment than of theory, — I am told that the result of an enormously lar^e pro- portion of such examinations — and, indeed, of all of them if they be properly conducted— 85 is, that the heart is invariably full. At the same time, I am told that the examiners do the thing clumsily, they may contrive to get an empty heart. If there he any doubt ia your minds, however, as to the heart bemg 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 hero, and tliat you -will see them die by strychnine, and examine their hearts, and form an opinion for yourselves. I have now discussed what may be said to be the theory of these matters ; but I have not yet met the strong point whichi 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 posi- tion of life. I am veiTr reluctant 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, delibe- rately perjured. The truth is, we know perfectly well that if a oonsiderablo interval of time ocoui-s betweeu the first story and the second story, and if the intelligent and respectable persons who are anxious to investigate tlie truth, but who still have a strong moral oonviotion — upon imperfect information — of the guilt of an accused person, will talk to witnesses and say, "Was there any- thing 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 that 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 ojMuion 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 of justice in the civil courts, if a person has upon material points told two difierent stories juries are rarely willing to believe that person ; and ia eiiminal oases 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 he safe to rely upon the testimony last given, differing from the statoment which was made when the impression was fresh upon the witness's mind. It cannot bo 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 prosecu- tion—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 ques- tions have been put by my learned friends and by me on account of which it has been necessary for counsel to interpose and to ask the learned judges whether the question was a proper one. Our rules of examination are strict, bat 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 pot-house 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- oflSce about Walter Palmer— and Inspector Field there, and Inspector Simpson— and all impressed with the belisf that whatever the London doctor said must be true, and tliat if Dr. Alfred Swayne Taylor bad 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 everybody 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 King 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 revolutionary times, but it shows to what an extent the introduction of a loose system of questioning may go. I don't say that Dr. Taylor suggested any but proper questions, but you must consider the difficulties under which the coroner had to labour, and I am told thai he is an exceedingly good lawver and a most respectable man. Dr. Taylor said that the coroner's omission (o ask questions arose, in his opinion, rather from want of knowledge than from intention. Of course the coroner would not be likely to know the proper ques- tions to put in such a case, but when he did know them he seems to have put them. Ue was risht in refusing to put irrelevent questions to gratify an inquisitive juryman ; we are our- selves constantly being rebuked by the learned judges, and told to adhera to the rules, and not to put questions which are irrelevant. I have now pointed out such discrepancies in the evidence given by 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 ot 86 knowing what is the case on the part of the Crown- I do not mean to aay she has Leen ttstored by the Crown ; I believe that my learned friend would not have called her it he thought she had ; but ^e has had an opportunity of discovering by interviews with several different people that the case for the prosecution is, that Palmer haying first prepared 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 thei e was an administration of something which had the effect of producing retching, nausea, and irritation of the stomach. Those symptoms are therefore attributed to ther perseTTering intention of the prisoner to reduce Cooli to such a state of weakness that, when once ingestion of the poison occurred, he was sure to be carried off. In her evidence before the coroner she was asked whether she had tasted the broth 3 She said she had, and she thought it very good. She did not then say anything about the 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 broth ; perhaps she may have been sick on some Sunday or another, and she has persuaded herself — for I do not wish to impute perjury to her — that she was made sick by the two table-spoonfuls of broth which she drank. Is it not to the last degi'ee 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, when, 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 particularly 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 be ill. Her statement is not credible and cannot be relied on. Then she said in her evidence before the coroner that on Saturday Cook had coflfee 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 by 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 erdered 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 8 o'clock and ordered a cup of coffee for Cook. I gave it to him. I believe Palmer was in the bedfoom at the time. I did not see him drink it. I observed afterwards that the coffee had been vomited." Her statement was not so strong as that of my learned friend, but 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 by 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 tor him, and that his reluctance was overruled by 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 bed- room between 9 and 10 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 be guilty, but 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 can- not be retracted without humiliation, and when once this young woman had been induced to vary her statement in a material particular she liad not the moral courage to set herself right. But the particulars I have mentioned axe 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 mouth, and her neck would, if they had been observed at the inquest, have been reduced to verbal expression, and recorded in the depositions. I am told by Dr. Nunueley, Dr, Robinson, and other gentlemen, that the symjitoms she described are inconsistent with anj- known disease. There was an extraordinary grouping of symp- toms, some of them quite consistent with tetantis produced by strychnine administered under peculiar circumstances, others quite inconsistent with it. Now, in the last week in Pebruary a frightful case of strychnine occurred in Leeds. A person having the means of access to the bedside of a patient, was supposed to have administered small doses, day by day, and after keeping her for some time 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 tho legs, tlisrt she was alarmed at being touched in the intervals between tho spasms. I will now call your attention to the evidence of Mills. She states : — " Cook said, ' I can't lie down ; I shall be suffijoated if I lie down. Oh, fetch Mr. Palmer !' Tho last words he said very loud. I did not ob.iorve his legs, but there was a sort of jumping or jerking about his head and neck and the body. Some- times he would throw back his head uj^on the pillow, and then raise it up again. He had much difficulty in breathing. The balls of his eyes projected very much. He screamed agaui three or four times while I was in tho room. He was moving and knocking about a£ the time. He asked me to rub his hands. I did iiib them, and he thanked me. I noticed him ' twitch.' I gave him toast-and- water. His body was still jerking and lumping. When I put the spoon to his mouth, ho snapped at it and got it fast betweea his 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 thea handed liim 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 control himself." The expressions she used, pattioularly the word " twitching," aie remarlciible. 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 oamiot otherwise account for the remark- able vai-iairce in her e\ddence. From the time she left the Talbot Arms tUl she came here she seems to have been a person of remarkable importance. She 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 tho circumstances of Cook's deaUi. 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 f 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 how she was and talked of other tilings. I do 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 wliich they thought it required stimulating. Mr. Hatton, the police officer of Rugeley, also saw her a few times. They could haye gone to hex for no purpose but that of taking her evidence. I may mention a circumstance which shows how diflferently minor matters may be stated by witnesses who do not wish to assert what is false. When Palmer went into the bedroom after being caUedup, 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 commence- ment of the paroxysm. Mills answered the question I put to her upon tliat point pretty fciirly ; she said, " He came m 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 talkmg about what they have witnessed, the real image of -wliat occurred becomes confused or altogether obliterated from their minds, and they at last unconsciously tell a story which is very differentfi-om the truth. Mills was examined three times before tlie coroner, and if that officer acted improperly on those occasions it was quite competent for the OroWn to bring him here and give, him an opportunity of vuidieatmg hunself, but he ought not to be blamed upon the evidence of a witness like ier. In the course of her examination, however, there came out a fact which is worthy of remark. Is there not something exteaordinary in the periodicity of the attacks she desci-ibed in their recurrence on 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 unnecessai-y details, I will now state what I intend to prove upon tliis pai-t of the case. I shaU call a great number of most respectable medical prac- titionei-s and siu-geons in general practice, with a lai'ge experience in great cities, who wiU support the theory that tliese 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 suflicient amount of disease to render violent mweral poisons, m Uieir opinion, desirable and by habits which led to a chi'onic ulceration of the tonsils and diflioulty m swallowii'in- They will prove that men witli constitutions wealiened by mdolgence have often under tlie influence of sti-ong mental excitement and violent emotion oi any kmd, been suddenly tlirown into such a state of convulsion that symptoms have been exhibited m the volmitary muscles of violent disease, and that persons suifermg fi-om those symptoms have constantly died asphyxiated or of exhaustion, Icavmg no trace whatever as to the cause of death. In addition, I will ealj several gentlemen who wdl speak to experiments they have made upon animals, and who wiU be ready to show you those experunents in any yai'd belongmg to this building, if my lords should thmk fit. They wiU tell you, on 88 the authority of Orfila, that no degree of putrescence mil 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 opportxmity of hearing the witnesses on either side. Lord CiMPBELL : Li the language of the law " which country you are." Mr. Serjeant Shee; Which country you are. Yon 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. la 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 yoa with snch matters as the pushing against Dr. Devonshire during the post-mortem examination or the catting 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 farther end of the room. Lord Campbell: What was said referred only to the pushing. Mr. Seijeant Shee: I take leave to suggest that in an examination in the town of Rngeley, 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 be allowed to have weight agMnst the prisoner, especially as Mr. Devonshire said nothing was lost. The matter was one in wMch all present took considerable interest, and a little leaning over might easily have pro- duced the effect which was spoken to. Then, as to the removal of the jar. It was not taken out of the room. It conid not have been taken away without its removal being observed, and it would have been to the last degree foolish for any guilty person to attempt to remove it. That a man who knew himself to be innocent should be very unwilling that the jar should be removed out of the hands of persons upon whom he could rely for honest dealing is very probaUe. Palmer knew that there were some persons who did not want to pay him £ 1 3,000, and who had fw a long time been doing all they could to undermine 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 observation, " Well, doctor, they won't hang us yet," that he knew that it was intended to ground a suspicion or a complaint upon iae post-mortem examina- tion, and it was exceedingly natural that he should like to have the jar kept in safe custody, even in the crowded room. AU his conduct is consistent with this explanation. To Dr. Harland, with whom he does not appear to have been particularly intimate, he says, " I am very glad you 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 bear investigation if it were properly conducted. I dare say there are in Rugeley many excellent and very serious people to whom the pri- soner's habits 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 had, I believe, been some slight difference, arising out of Thjrlby (Palmer's assistant) having come to him from Mr. Frere. I do not do Mr. Frere the injustice to think that this shght dispute would have led him to put anything into the jar, but it may account for Palmer's caution. Let us now come to the 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 firom London, and had acted towards Palmer in such a way as would have induced some men to kick him. Assuming Palmer to be innocent, Stevens' 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 exa- mination, and acted throughout under the impresnon that some one had been guilty of foul play towards Cook, which ought to be 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 oyer tbe 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 support of a theory, er to maintain a reputation — God forbid that I should suggest that to the prejudice of Dr. Taylor! I do not mean to do so — bttt if there was anybody capable of acting so great a wicked, ness.it might be done; and it was but a reasonable concern that Palmer should be anxious that it shonld stop at Dr. Hariand's. He did not like its going with Stevens to London. Stevens 89 had been particularly troublesom*; he had been vexations and annoying to the last degree. Tha fly was ready, when Palmer met Myatt, the postboy, and learned that he was gobg 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. He, 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 the sum which would be sufiicient 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 1 was. — After you said you believed you were, what did he say? — He says, 'Do you think you could npset 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 — "Were not these the words Palmer used, — 'I should not mind giving £10 to break Mr. Stevens's neck ?' — I do not recollect him saying 'to break his neck.' — Were they not words to that effect, ' I should not mind giving him £lO to break his neck?' — I do not recollect that. — Then '£10 to upset him?' — Yes. — Those were the wards, 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 eu 'upset the fellow?' — He did not describe him in any way. Did he say anything about him at the time ? — He did say something abost 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 humbugging concern,' or something to that effect ? — Yes." I submit to you that, after this evidence, you can only regard this expression about " upsetting 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 hadfrom the first exhibited. That this is tie 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 iim. 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 eie- quainted, should have supposed that by the accidental spilling of a jar — the liver, spleen, and some of the tissues remaining behind — he 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 tke Crown until the night before this trial commenced. He was examined before the coroner, but 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 teUs 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 be believed upon his oath. There are other circumstances which render Newton's statement in the highest degree im- probable. "That Palmer should once in a way purchase strychnine inBugeley is not to be 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 trades- man with whom he had dealt for two years, is in the highest degree incredible. Nobody would believe it. Nobody can or ought to believe it. But observe this also. Palmer had 9Q> been to Londoaem aie>Moaday, and in London there is no difficulty in procuring strych- nine. It is sold to any one -who, by TTuiting 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 at 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 taien 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'elocfc, could nothave been in Rugeley at the time at which Newton says he was at Mr. Salt's. Palmer attended th© 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 he 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 wUl 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 wiU now take you back to what occurred at Shrewsbury. The case for the Crown is that as early as Wednesday, the 14th November, the scheme of poisoning Cook begun to be executed at, Shrewsbury. It is suggested that Cook was dosed with somethmg that wasi 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 — "I 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 Kag in view, which is of great importance to himself and Palmer. Is his wrtting in that tone consistent with his having a belief that Palmer had drugged him with poison for the purpose of destroying his life at ShrewsbuiT-? What did Palmer say about it? — " Cook says I have put some- thing 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 actusdly drunk, was very nearly so. Palmer' did not arrive at the Haven 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 vrith Sarmders 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 Seij eant here read to the jury a long extract ftom an article which had appeared in some newspaper, which he did not mention, in which the occurrences at Shrewsbury were de- scribed in a style which seemed intended to be humourous, and in which Cook's sickness was attributed to his having taken too much brandy upon champagne, in order to " restore lis British solidity." The learned Serjeant said that 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 Mm, 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 £200, and Cook wrote to Fisher and asked him to call oa 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 -noney into Fisher's hands and go to bed. He was still very sick, and a doctor was sent for,, who recom- mended an emetic. Cook made himself sick by drinking warm water and putting the handle of a toothbrusli 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 hack 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 waa due, and they could meanwhile remain free from all suspicion of insolvency or any sort of mit- -conduct. When they got to Rugeley they provided for the temporary difficulty by sending 91 £200 to Pratt. They were then evidBffitly on friendly terms, Cook's -winnings being at Palmer's service, and probably both effeeting theiis- objects, because, as it would appear from what Palmer said, Cook had some interest im the bills which were outstanding. Probably his name might pot 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 Eugeley affords, no ground of suspiaon against the prisoner. On tlie 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 visiti for though he did not sleep in Palmer's house Palmer was in continual atteadi- ance on him, and, owing to the close proximity of his 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 lealously and' laboriously attentive to him the conclusion is that he must have murdered him ! It is said that Palmer was giiilty of a falsehood in representing Cook as suiffering front diarrhoea ; hut that 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 ijaportauce, and should be deemed decisive of the prisoner's innocence. The supposition of the Crovvn is, that Palmer intended to dose Cook with antimony — to keep his stomach in continual, irritation by vomiting, ii order tha* he might the more surely despatch him with strychnine ; and that during Sunday, the day on which he insisted on bis 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 tha* Palmer was indeed bent upon destroying Cook by this singular process, is it not manifest that there is one man who of aU 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 tb him— Mr. Jones, of Lutterworth. Yet this is -the Tery man to whom, when he is about to set out for London, Palmer writes a letter informing him that Cook is iH," tod urging him to come over and see him without delay. I entreat of you to appreciate the full importance of th-at 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 lii^ant to kill Cook to possess himself of his ■winnings. Who was with Cook when the race was won ?' Who was by his side on the Shrewsbury racecourse for the three minutes that he was speechless ! Who saw liim take out his pocketbook and count up his winnirtgs ? Who but Jones ?— Jones, who was his bosom ftiend, his com;^anioti, his coniiaant, and whp knew to the last farthiilg the amount of his gains. Jones was of aH men li-ving 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 ■viiidibate 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 bJTn in his Uiness, and even sleep in the same room with himl 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— which we are assured he did that Palmer was poisoning him, Jones was the man to whom he Would'most wiUmgly have unbosomed himself, and in whose faithful ear he would have most edgerly disburdened the perilous stuff that weighed upon his own brain. Palmer and Jones were both medical men; anij it is not improbable that, in the course of his studies, the latter may have noted in his class- book the verv 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 mans 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 gram or two more would have silently thrown him into an eternal sleep. But, instead ot 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 m 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 im- peached before the world if you 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 dialogues that took 92 place between the prisoner and Mr. Stevens, I contend that, so far from telling against the former, they are in his favour. There is nothing but the evidence of a kind and considerate nature in the fact of his having ordered " a shell and a st«ong oak coffin" for the deceased ; nor is it possible to tortm-e into a presumption of guilt the few words of irritation that may have fallen from the prisoner in the comse of a conversation iu 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 1 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 man 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 manhood 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 youqg man devoted to such a woman, 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 arma 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 conclusi^ie 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 he afterwards made his wife. It is as follows; — " My dearest Annie, — I snatch a moment &om my studies to write to yonr dear, dear little self. I need scarcely say that the principal indaoement I have to work is the desire of getting my studies finished, eo as to be able to press your dear little form in my arms. With best, best love, beUffve me, dearest Annie, Tenr own William," Now 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, but the book 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 man whom it has been my duty to defend upon this occasion, and upon the evidence that is be- fore you I cannot believe him to be guilty. Don't suppose, gentlemen, that he is unsupported in this dreadful trial by his family and his friends. Anjaged 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; but, if you have a doubt on that point, depend upon it that the time will come when the innocence of that man will be made apparent, and then 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 aght hours in its delivery. There were some slight indications of an attempt to applaud at its conclusion, but they were instantly repressed. The Court then adjourned till 10 o'clock next morning. EIGHTH DAT, Mat 22. 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, 93 took their seats at ten 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 : Before the proceedings commence I must express a most earnest I'. ope that until this trial is concluded the public journals wiU continue to abstain from any comments upon the merits of the case, or upon any part of the evidence. The pro- priety of this coxu-se is so obvious as to need no explanation. This warning ought to extend to the insertion of letters as much as to that of editorial articles. Thomas Ncnneley, examined by Mr. Gkovb : I am Fellow of the College of Sur- geons, 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 twentjr and thirty years. I have a large practice, and have seen cases of both traumatic and idiopathic tetanus. Of the latter (fisease 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 disease. I have heard the evidence as to the symptoms of Cook, and had previously read the deposi- tions 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 : Prom 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 Alderson : You have nothing to do with that. You must only give am opinion upon the symptoms described in evidence. Examiaation 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 pre- vious to his iinal attack at Rugeley, the description of the actual symptoms during the paroxysms, and the appearance of the body on the post-mortem examination. Do you remember the account of the syphUitic sores ? The Attorney-General objected to this mode of putting the question, because it was an assumption that these sores existed. A medical man ought to be asked his opinion on the supposition only that certain symptoms existed. Mr. Justice Cresswell : Let the witness describe what he assumes to have been the state of Cook's health, and you wQl then see whether he is justified in his assumption. Examination continued : I assumed 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 luiusual 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 unnatiural 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 ulcer, but an idcer is not necessarily a chancre. The symptoms at the root of the tongue and the throat I should ascribe to syphilitic inflam- mation of the throat. Supposing these symptoms to be correct, I should infer that Cook's health had for a long time not been good, and tliat 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 consti- tution 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 foi-ms 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 94 consciousness. Those ai'e forms of hysteria, somstimes fopnd in. the male sex. It is also stated tliat there are forms of epilepsy ia which the patient retains consciousness. By Lord Campbell : I cannot mention a case in which consciousness has been retained during the fit. No such case has come under my notice. Examination continued: I 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 ior a long time. Convulsive attacks are sometimes accompanied by violent spasms and rigidity of the Umbs. Convulsions, properly so called, sometimes assume . a tetanic com- plexion. 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 covulsious 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 Cahpkbll: Deatli from a spasm of the heart is often described as death by asphyxia. Examination oontinned: I have seen convulsions recurring. I have seen that in very various cases. The time at which apdtient recovers his ease after a violent attack of convulsions varies very much. It may be a few minutes, or it may bS 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 durS, 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 immediately 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 struc- ture 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 vidth an attack upon the jaw. One of the fouT 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 com- menced in the body, the facility of swallowing remaining. L have, 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 oases 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 28 years— I 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 flaccid, and the pupils dilated. The muscles of the trunk were not ia the least rigid ; indeed, they were so soft, that the body might be bent in any direction. The muscles at the hip and shoulder joints were not quite so flaccid, but they allowed these joints to be easily moved, while those of the head and neck, fore-arms, &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 mem- branes 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 lolour. The thoracic vessels and membranes were much congested, and the blood was *verywhere dark and fluid.] After reading this report the witness continued : — In the second case I made my examination thirty hours after death. I first saw the body about twelve hours after death. It was a woman somewhere near twenty years of age. [The witness also read the report of the examination in this case. The ap- pearances 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 those oases was fatal. Bi one case I 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 96 in solution. In a few minutes the symptoms appeared. They -vrere a ivant of power to control the muscles, manifested by twitchings, rigidity, and cramp, more violent in the legs thanin any other part of the body. The spasms were not Tery violent. They con- tinued_ six hours before they entirely disappeared. During that time they were intermittent at vai-ious interrals. As the attack passed off the lengtli of the intervals increased. At first their length was but a few seconds. The spasms were not com- liatted 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, mioe, guinea-pigs, frogs, and toads. The symptoms of the attack in all animals present great resemblances. Some aiiimals are, however, much more susceptible of its influence than others are. The perio^d elapsing between the injection of the poison and the commence- ment of the symptoms has been from two minutes to thu'ty — ^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, and 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 breathing ; then slavering at the mouth (when the poison had been given through that organ) ; then twitching of the ears, trem- bling 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, but occasionally the animal is able to move without inducing a recmxence of the spasms. These spasms recur at vaiious periods, but do not always 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 cases, in the interval before death, the rigidity ceases (I know no excep- tion 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 fi-om strychnia. In the two women I have mentioned the rigor mortis 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 gene- rally 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 two thousand 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 symptom? exhibited by Cook on the Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday night. The symptoms on Sunday night I assume to have been great excitement. Cook 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 motion than I have observed in animals imder the influence of this poison. He sat up in bed, and moved his hands about freely, swallowed, talked, and asked to be rubbed and m.oved, none of which, if poisoned by strychnia, could he have done. The sudden acces- sion 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 commencement and the taking of the pUls which are Supposed to have contained poison, and the screaming and vomiting. I never knew an animal which had been poisonedwith strychnia to vomit or screom voluntarily. I appre- hend 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 Pharmacie, in wliich an emetic was given without success. The symptoms exhibited after death by 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 vmcontracted. Lord Campbell: I do not remember that. I think it was said that it was contracted. Mr. Baron Aldebson : According to my note, Dr. Harland said that the heart was con- tracted, 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 drug^tS, 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 ou an addition of a mixture of bichromate of potash, with several other substances, it pro- duces 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 condition 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 effect the result. If the deceased had died from strychnia poison, it ought to have been found ih (he 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 foind in the blood ; that was by Mr. Herepath, of Bristol. Could the analyses be defeated or confused by the existence in the stomach of any other substance which would produce the same colours? — No. Supposing that pyrozantine and salicine were in the parts examined, their existence would not defeat the analysis. Pyrozantine is very unlikely to be found in the stomach. It in one of the rarest and most diilicult to be obtained. The distinction between pyrozantine and strychnia is quite evident ; pyrozantine 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 the bichromate to produce the colour. Supposing the death to have been caused by a dose of strychnia, not more than sufiicient to 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 evidenc* upon this trial ?— It had. What is your reason for stating that strychnine, when it has done its work, continues as strychnine 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 absolutely 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 the action of strychnine in an empty and a full stomach ? — The emptier the stomach the quicker the action. Cross-examined by the ATTORNEy-GENEBAL. — I 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 60 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. Some of them were made in reference to this 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 experiments 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 case 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 details of the Leeds case were 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. Haifa grain is sufficient to destroy life in the larger animals. I have seen both a dog and cat die I'rom that dose, but not always. Some animals as a species are more susceptible than those of a different species, and among auimals of the same. species some are more susceptible than others. The symptoms in the experiments I have 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 gvaiE \ms been given. That happesned in the case of a est. Symptoms ef spasm were pro- 97 dueed, 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 ? — I think it would be the mimmum dose in the case of an old strong cat. If administered in a fluid slate I think a smaller dose would suffice. Harried 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 the symptoms, in animals of the same species ? — They certainly don't occur after the same intervals of time, J)ut 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 aa 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 t — 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 usual in cases of death from ordinary causes. The limbs were rigid, but not more than usual. In face of the medical profession, I ask yon whether yon 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. Morley's evidence with regard to experiments on animals, and his statement that " after death there was an interval of flacitoy, after which rigidity commenced more than if it had been occasioned by the usual rigor mortis." Yon don't agree with that statement? — ^I do not. I generally found the right side of the heart fnll. Does the fact of the heart in Cook's case having been found empty lead yon 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 he stated that the heart in that case also was empty. And do those facts exercise no influence on your judgment? — They would not unless I knew how the post-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 oontraation of the heart? — When the heart is emptied it is usually contracted. But how do you account for its contraction and emptiness? — I cannot say that I am able to account for it. Lord Campbell: Would the heart contract if there were blood in it? — No. Lord Campbell : When you find the heart contracted you know, then, that it was con- tracted at the moment of death? — It 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 Attornet-Genbkal : In Cook's case the limgs were described as not congested. Entosthema 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. I do 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 whieh ha died? — Not to any. Was not the fact of his having syphilis an important ingredient in your judgment upon his jasef — ^It was. I judge that he died from convulsions by the combination of symptoms. H What evidsnce have you to suppose that he was liable to exoitement and depression of Epirits? — The fact that after winning the race he eould not speak for three minutes. Anything else? — Mr. Jones stated tjhat he was subject to mental depression. Exoitentient will produce a state of brain which will be followed, at some distance, by convulsions. I think Dr. Bamford made a mistake when he said the brain was perfectly healthy. Do you mean to ^et up that opinion against that of I)r. Devonshire and Dr. Harland, who were present at the post-mortem? — My opinion is founded in part upon the evidence taken at the inquest, in part on the depositions. With the brain and the system in the condition iu. which Cook's were 1 believe it quite possible 'for convulsions to come on and destroy a person. I do 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 attadk. I should think morphia 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 exciteiji,ent 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 con- dition 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 Js one of ,the symptoms on which I found my opinion. Any intestinal irritation will produce convulsions in a tetariio form. I havo known iustances 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 th^it kind, terminating in death, in which the patient remained conscious to the last ? — I have not. Where epSepsy terminates in death, coneciousuess is gone. I liave known four cases of tranmatlc, and five or gix of idiopathic tetanus. ' You heard Mr. Jones make this statement of the symptoms of Cook after the com- mencement of the paroxysms : — After he swallowed the pflls he uttered loud screania, threw himself back in the bed, and was dreadfully conwased. He said, " Raise me up ! 1 shall be suffocated." The convulsions affected every muscle of the body, and were ac- companied 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 foujid that it gradually weaikened, 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 afterwards. When he threw himself back in bed he clinched his hands, and they remained clinched after death. When I was rubbing his net'k, his liead and necli were unnaturally bent back by the spasmodic action of the muscles. After deatii his body was so twisted or bowed, that if I had placed it upon its back it would have rested upon the head and the feet.— Now, I ask you to distin- guisii in any one particular between those sypmtoms find the symptoms of tetanic convulsions ? — It 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 i« . 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 ? — I 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 l^st there is no difference between those which arise from strychnine and those wMch 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. I do not think it was a case of tetanus in any sense of the word. It difiEered from the com-se of tetanus from strychnine in the particulars I have already, mentioned. Eepeat them ; There was the sudden accession of the convulsions. Sudden — after 'what? — After the rousing by Jones. There was also the power of talking. Don't you 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 belieye that in poison from tetanus the symptoms are first observed in the legs and feet. In the animals upon which I haveexperimented tnitchiiga in the ears and difficulty of breathing having been the premonitory symptoms. "When Cook felt a stiffiiess and a difficulty of breathing, and said that he should bie suffocated on the first night, what were those but premonitory symptoms? — Well, hp asked to be rubbed ; but, as fer as my experience goes with j:egard to animals^- The Attorney-General : , They can't ask to have their ears rubbed, of course. (Ala^gh.) Mr. Seqeant Shee said the witness was about to explain the effect of being rubbed upon the animals. Cross-examined continued: In no single instance could the animals bear to be touched. Did not Mrs. Smyth ask to have her legs and arms rubbed? — In the Leed? case the lady asked to be rubbed before the convulsions cajne 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 syiuptoms, in which the^ymptoms in this case differ from those of strychnine tetanus ? — There is thp power of swiallowing, which is taken away by inability to move the jaw. But have you not slated that lockjaw is the last symptom that occurs in strychnine tetanu? ? — I have. I don't deny that it may be. I am 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 he extracted by chemical process from the tissues, but I never tried it, except in one case of an animal. I am not sure whether poison was in that case given through the mouth. We killed four animals in reference to the Leeds c»se, and in every instance we fonnd strychnine in the contents of the stomach- In one case we administered it by two processes, and one failed and the othpr succeeded, Re-examined: In making reports upon cases such as that which has be^ij referred to, we State ordinary appearances; we state the facts without anything more. Mr. William Herapath, examined by Mr. Grove, Q.C. : I am a Professor of Chemistry and Toxicology at the Bristol Medical School. I have studied chemistry for more than forty y^ars, and toxicology for thirty. I have experimented on the poison of strychnine. I have seen no case of a human subject during life,, but I have examined a human body ^ter death. In one case I examined the contents of the stomach and I found strychnine about lihree days after death. There are several tests — sulphuric acid and bichromate of potash, sulphuric acid and puce-coloured oxide of lead, sulphuric acid and perpxide pf lead, sulphuric acid and peroxide of manganese, &o. The lower oxides of lead wpuld iiot succeed. These are all colour tests, and produce a purple colour, passing to red. Another class of tests give a different colour with impure, but not with ^ure, strychnia. The pro- cess 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 experi- mented 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 r^gid, 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 admi- nistered the same quantity of strychnine in a solid form to another oat. It remained very quiet for 15 or 16 minutes, but seemed a little restless in its eyes and in breathing. In 35 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 dripped 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 aU 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 all through ; blowing upon it or touching the basket in which it was placed produced a kind of electric jump like a galvamic shock. I left it in three hours, thinking it would recover, but in the morning I found it dead, in the same indurated and contorted condition as the former animal. I examined the body 36 hours after death, and found strychnia in the urme, m the stomach and upper intestine, in the liver, and in the blopd of the heart. I have discpvered strychnia. 100 in all other cases by tlie same tests, but I took extraordinary means to get rid of organic mattei-. In all cases in which strychnia has been given I have been able to find it, and not only strychnia, but also the nux 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 stiychnia. la 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 opinion that where strychnia has been taken in a sufScient 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. I am 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. I am aware of no cause for error 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 Attoknht-Geneeai: I don't profess to be a physiologist. I have principally experimented on the stomach until lately. I tried my chemical process on the 8th of this month with a view to the present case. The experiment here was on a dog. I experimented on the tissues of a cat at Bristol, and of a dog in London. I found strychnia in the blood, the the heart, and the urine of the cat, besides the stomach. One grain was given to the dog. It was a large dog. I have seen a cat killed with a quarter of a grain. I have said that Dr. Tay- lor ought to have found strychnia. Have 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? — I 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. Ee-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 50,000th part of a grain if it was unmixed with organic matter. If I put 10 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 when 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 with a large dog to which I had given the eighth part of a grain. I have discovered it by change of colour in the 32d 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 Chemistry at St. George's School of Medicine, in London. I have made experiments upon one animal (a dog) poisoned by strychnia. The experiments 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 contents, and some of the blood. The blood became putrid in about 10 days, and I then analysed it with a view to find strychnine. I separa- ted 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, I analysed the stomach and its contents. I treated it with acidulated distilled water, and succeeded in discovering strychnia in large quantities about 10 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 unques- tionably have been discovered in this case if it had been present and the proper tests had been used. Cross-examined by the Attorney-General : I have oidy made one experiment. If the contents of the stomach were lost it would make a diflerenoe, but not if they were only shaken up. The operation would then be more difficult. I am a medical man. 1 did not analyse the tissues of the body of the dog. If I had tried the tissues of Cook's body it might have 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 : If 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. Dr. Henry Letheby, examined by Mr. Kenealy: I am a Bachelor of Medicine, Professor •f Chemistry and Toxicology in the London Hospital of Medicine, and Medical Officer of Health to the City of London. I have been engaged for a considerable 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 14 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 101 oases of animals poisoned by strychnine, and many cases of poisoning by mix vomica in tho human body, one of which was fatal. The 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* In the first place I never witnessed the long interval between the administration of the poison and the eoramenoemeut of the symptoms which is said to have elapsed in this case. The longest in- terval I have known has been three-quavters of an hour, and then the poison was administered under most disadvantageous circumstances. It was given on a very fall 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 se»n the system has b»en 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 psrson in that state could bear to have his neck rubbed. When a case of strychnia does not end fatally, the first paroxysm is suooeeAed by others, gradually shaded off, the paroxysms becoming less violent every time, and I agree with Dr. Christison that they would subside in 12 or 16 hours. I have no hesitation in saymg that strychnine is of all poisons, either mineral or vegetable, the most easy of detection. I hava detected it in the stomach of animals iu numerous instances, also in the blood and in the tissues. The longest peri d after death in which I have detected it is about a month. The animal waa then in a state of decomposition. I have detected very minute portions of strychnia. When it is pure the 20,000th part of. a grain can be detected. I can detect the tenth part of a graiu 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 atryohnina where it had been administered. I have made ^os^-wiortem 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, bat therefore becomes gorged. The lungs aro congested and filled with blood. I have administered strychnia in a liquid and a solid form; I agree with Dr. Taylor that it may kill in 6 or 11 minutes when taken in a solid state in the form of a pill or bolus. I also ajre» with him that the first symptom is that the animal falls on its side, the jaws are spasmodicaUy closed, and the slightest touch produces another paroxysm. But I do not agree with him that the colouring tests are fallacious. I do 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. Tha shaking about of the contents of the stomsch with the intestines in a jar would not prevent tha 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 »• 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 17 or 18 years. Cross-examined by the Atioknet-Geneeal : I am not a member of the College of Physicians or of Surgeons. I do not now practise. I have been in general practice for two or three years. 1 gave evidence in the last case of this sort, tried in this court in 1851. 1 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 respited, and the sen- tence was not carried into effect, in consequence of a letter I wrote to the Home Office, Other scientific gentlemen interfered, and challenged the soundness of my conclusions before I wrote that letter. I have not since been employed by the Crown. By Mr. Justice Cbesswell: I was present at the trial. I perfectly remember it. Cross-examination continued: I 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 : on five 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 Alderson : 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 in which half a grain had been given. In another case death took place within 13 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 cases 1 hare seeu. That fact does not shake my opinion. I have no doubt that Mrs. Smyth died from strychnine. Cook's sitting up in the bed and asking Jones to ring the bell is inconsistent with what I have observed in strych- sine cases. 102 If a man's breath is hurried, is it not natural for him ta sit up ?— It is. I have seen cases of recovery of human subjects after taking strjohnine. There is a great uniformity in its ettects; that is, in their main features, but there is a small variation as to the time in which they are produced. ,., ,. -.u-ut What do you attribute Cook's death to ?— It is irreconcUeable with everything with which 1 am acquainted. , , u j « :, w Is it reconcileable with any known disease yon have ever seen or heard ot ?— JNo. . Re-examined by Mr. Serjeant Shee: We are learning new facts every day, and I do not at present conceive it to be impossible (hat some peculiarity of the spinal cord, unreoogmzable at the examination after deatu, may have produced symptoms, like those which have been described. I, of coarse, include strychnia in my answer, but it is irreconciieable with every- thirie I have seen or heard of. It is as irreconciieable with strychnia as with everything else; it U irreconciieable with every disease that I am acquainted with, natural or artificial. 'Touching an animal during the premonitory symptoms will bring on a paroxysm. Vomiting is incon- sistent with strychnia. The Romsey case was an exceptional one, from the quantity of the dose. The ringing of the bell would have produoed a paroxysm. I am still of opinion that the evi- dence I gave on the trial in 1851 is correct. I am not aware that there is^any ground for aa imputation upon me in respect of that evidence. I have no reason to think Government was dissatisfied with me. I have since been 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 theletteri drawing a dislinctian between what was possible and probable, and the woman was transported for life. Mr. R. E. Gat, examined by Mr Serjeant Shee : I am a member of the Royal College of Surgeons, t 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 vertebrse. He was feverish, and had symptoms ordinai'ily attending catarrh. I put him under the usual treat- ment for catarrh, and used embrocations externally to the muscles, of the neck and throat,'and also gargles. About the fourth day of my attendance 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 of the same day the jaw became completely locked, the pains came on in the muscles of the bowels, the legs, and tha arms. He became very much convulsed throughout the entire muscular system, had frequent iuvoIunCary contractions of the arms, and hands, and legs, his difficulty of swallowing increased, and not a particle of food, solid or liquid, could be iutrodiiced 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 heact' was thrown back, the abdomen thrust forward, and the legs frequently drawn up and. con- tracted ; the attempt to feed with a spoon, the opening of a window, or placing the fingers, 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 fourteenth 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 anything else. On the twelfth day he became insensible, and continued in that state until he died, which was in the fourteenth 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 I have mentioned.. His body was not opened after death, because it was considered unnecessary. I consider his disease was inflam-, matory 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 anxlious person. Hij condition in life was that of an omnibus conductor. He was a hardworking man, and had a large family dependent upon him, and this, no doubt, acting upon his peculiar temperament, tended to produce 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 thai, 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 Attoknez-Genekal: 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 irritable, but I never met with such another case. The disease was altogether progressive from the first onset, and, although for a short time there was a remission of the symptoms, they invariably recurred. The locking of the jaw was one of the ^ery first symptoms that made their appearance. Serjeant Shee then addressed the Court, and said that the next witness he proposed to call 103 would occupy some titne in examination, anil, as it was now nearly 6 o'clock, be suggested tbat it would be better to aidjourn the examination to the next day. The LohO Chief Justicb said he had no objection to the course proposed' by the learned Serjeant, and be then inquired of him bow much time the case for the defeAca was likely to HjtftUpy. Serjeant Shee s&id- he hoped to conclude the defence to-morrow; and he should endeavour to do so if be possibly could. The tiORD Chief Justice said there wasno 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 till the following morning, at 10 o'clock. NINTH BAY, May 23. There was as great a crowd as usual in court this morning, long before the commence- anent of the proceedings. The Duke of Wellington', the Earl of Albemarle, Lord Donoughmore, Lordi Dnfferin, Lord Fe-versham, Sir. J. Pakington, Mr. Harcourt Vernon, General Peel, Mr. Tollemache, Mr. S. Warren, and other Members of Parliament, were present. The learned JudgeSj Lord Campbell, Mr. Baron Alderson, and Mr. Justice CressweU, took their seats upon the bench at about ten o'clock, and^ the prisoner haying been placed at the bar, tie examination of witnesses for the defence was resumed. No altera- tion has taken place in lihe prisoner's demeanour. Counsel for flie Grown: The Attorney-General, Mr. E. James, Q.C., Mr. Welsby, Mr. Bodkin, and Mr. Huddleston; for the prisoner, Mr. Seijeant Shee, Mr. Grove, Q.C., Mr. Gray, and Mr. Kenealy. Mr. J. B. Ross, examined by Mr. Grovb^: I am house-surgeon to the London Hospital. I recollect a case of tetanus being brought into the hospital on the 22d of Maich last. A man, aged thirty-seven, was brought in about half -past seven o'clock in the evening. He had had one paroxysm in the receiving-room f his pulse was rapid and feeble, his jaws were closed and fixed, there was an eSpijession 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 his body became arched ; it lasted about a; minute. He was after- wards 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 woimds 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 granula- tion. I am 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' Atiobney-Genekal. — I 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 eleven o'clock — as he told me, at dinner, — but, as he told my colleague, at breakfast. He was able to speak, but could liot open the jaw. That is a symptom of tetanus. There were symptoms of rigidity about the abdominal and lumbar muscles. He did not say how long he had felt that rigidity. I gathered that some other medical man, a surgeon, had seen him in the after- Boon before he came to the hospital, but I am not certain as to that ; he was a labouring luan. ^ Have you any doubt that the disease had been coming on since the morning?-' No 104 doubt at all. The sores were ugly sores of a chronic character — ulcers. There inras 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 were no signs of heal- ing. 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 successive 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 died of spasms, that he had lockjaw, that the muscles of the abdomen and back were rigid, and that he 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. Gkove. — 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. Rtneks Manteh, examined by Mr. Gray. — I amahouse-surgeonat 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 tetanufl» produced by the sores on the arms. Dr. Weightson, examined by Mr. Keneait; I was a pupil of Liebig, at Giessen. I am a teacher of chemistry in a school in Birmingham. I have studied the nature and acquired a knowledge of poisons, and 1 have been engaged by the Crown in the detection of poison ia a prosecution. I have experimented upon strychnia. I have found no extraordiuary difficulties in the detection of strychnia. It is certainly to be detected by the usual tests. I have testea and discovered it both pure and mixed with impure matter after decomposition has set in. ! have detected it in a mixture of bile, bilious matter, and putrifying blood. Strychnia can be disco> vered 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. I am of opmion that strychnia does not undergo decomposition in the act of poisoning or in entering into tbe circulation. If it underwent such a change, if it were decomposed, I 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 tha second dog I gave one grain, and I detected it in the urine. Half a grain was intended to have been given to the cat, but a consideable portion of it was lost. Assuming that a man was poi- soned by strychnine, and if his stomach were sent to me for analyzation 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. Gross-examined by the Attoeney-General ; Supposing that the whole dose were absorbed into the system, where would you expect to find it? — In the blood. Does it pass from the blood into the solids of the body ? — It does ; or, I should rather say, it is left in the solids of the body. In its progress towards its final destination, the destructioa 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 wiU 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 ? — In the blood, in the tissues, and in the ejections ; and I would undertake to discover it in each of them. Re-examined by Mr. Serjeant Sheb : Suppose you knew a man to have beea 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 stiU 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 cannot 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 inges- tion of the poison, can you form an opinion as to whether the dose was considerable or inconsiderable ? — ^I cannot; 105 Mr. Baron Alderson : How do you suppose strychnine acts ■when taken into the stomach ? — I cannot form an opinion. Mr. Baron Aldbeson : 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 aU the stages his lordship had mentioned. Mr. Baron Alderson : That depends on where the killing takes place. Professor Pariridqe, examined by Mr. Grove : 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. I 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 if 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 onrecord. Itsometimes does,and sometimes doesnot, 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 by tetanus, without saying what was the cause of tetanus ? "Witness : HypotheticaUy I should infer that he died of the form of tetanus which 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 Aitornet-Genbbal: Granules are Gometimes, 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 inflammation 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 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 accompanied with paralysis. It produces no effect upon 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 tfould accompany the convulsions. I cannot form a judgment as to whether the general health would be affected in the intervals be- tween them. You have heard it stated, that from the midnight of Monday till Tuesday Cook had com- plete 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 — 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 foot 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 it would have rested on the head and the heels. Have you any doubt that that is an indication of death from tetanus ? — No ; it is a form of tetanic spasm. I am only acquainted ivith tetanus resulting from stychnine by reading. Some of the symptoms in Cook's case are consistent, some are inconsis- tent, 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. Be-examined by Mr. Grove : Besides the symptom which I have mentioned as being inconsistent with the theory of death by strychiine, there are others— namely, sickness, 106 teating the bed clothes, want of sensitiveness to external Impressions, and sudden cessa- tidn of the convulsions and apparent complete recovery. There was apparently ah absence of the usual muscular agitation. Symptoms of convulsive character arising from an injutjr to the spine vary considerably in their degrees of violence, in their periods of intetmission, and in the muscles which are attacked. Intermission of the disease Occurs, but is not frequent, in traumatic tetanus. I don't remember that death has ever taken place in fifteen hours ; it may take place in forty-d^t hours during convulsions. Cteaiules abollt 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 Jieriod 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 ATTOitNEY-GENEBA,L : Supposing the stolnach were acted oil by other causes, I do not think sickness would be inconsistent with tenatus. John Gat, examined by Mr. Gbay : 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 hdspital in 1843. 'The patient was brought in during the thne he was ill. He was brought on the 28th of July and died on the 2nd 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 eould' not opett his. mouth, and he complained of stiff neck. During the night he started up and was donvulsed. Oa 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 following (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 the following day. He then asked the nurse to change his linen, and as she lifted him up in 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 which terminated his life. Before the paroxysm came on the rigidity had been com- pletely relaxed. I had given the patient tartar emetic (containing antimony) in order to produce vomiting on the second day ; it produced no effSct. I gave a larger dose on the> third day, which also produced no effect. I gave Ho more after the third day. Cross-examined by the Attoknet-GeNEBal. — 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 raoutn was almost Closed up when I first saw him. The jaw remained closed until the 1st 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, Mrere 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 1st 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 affdctiott of the spinal cord. No doubt the death took place in con- sequence of something produced by the injury to the toe. Re-examined by Mr. Geay. — 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. W. Macdonald, examined by Mr. Kenealy.— I am a licentiate of the Royal CoUege 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 tyo oases 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 tuber- cles in the brain were the only assignable cause of death, which had resulted from con- vulsions. I believe that in addition to the slight causes which I have named, tetanic con- Tulsions result from causes as yet undisooverable by human science. In mnay 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 scieutiao man. I remem- 107 ber the case of a woman, Catherine "Watson, who is now present, and who was attacked with idiopathic tetanus on the 20th of 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 ten o'doofc at night. By the- administration of ehlbrofoito. 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 ia generally a late symptom. I had. a patient nanled 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 poidon. I have found the post-mortem appearances very generally to concur. The vessels of the membranes of the brain have generally been highly congested. , 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 sut- face have been congested, and on the mucous or inner surface MgMy vascular. The vessels of the membranes of the spinal cord have been congested, 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 cases experimented for the discovery of strychnia. You may discover in the stomach the smallest dose that will kiU. 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- thou- sandth 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. I first heard of that theory in this court. In my opinion, there is no well-grounded reason whatever for it. I have disproved the theory by numerous experi- ments. I have taken the blood of an ammal poisoned by two grains of strychnia, about the least quantitjr which would destroy life, and have injected it into the abdominal cavi- ties of smaller animals, and have destroyed them, with all the symptoms and post-mortem appearances of poisoning by strychnia. Strychnia being administered In piUs would not affect its detection. If the pills were hard they would keep it together, and you might find its remains more easily. I do 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 foimd strychnia in the tirine which has been ejected. Strychnia cannot be confounded with pyrozanthe. After strychnia has been administered there is an in- creased flow of saliva. In my experiments that has been a very marked symptom. Ani- mals to which strychnia had been given have always been very susceptible to touch. The stamp of a foot or a sharp word would flirow them, into convulsions. Even before the paroxysms commenced touching them would.be likely to throw them into tonic convulsions. Lord Campbell : As. soon as the poison is swallowed? No ; it would be after a certain ■dme. The first symptoms of poisoning must have been developed. Examination continued : . I do not thinik rubbing them would give them relief. I think it extremely improbable that a man who. had taken a dose of strychnia sufficient to destroy life could after the symptoms had made their appearance pull a beU violently. I have attended to the evidence as to Cook's symptoms. To the symptoms I attach little impor- tance as a means of diagnosis, because you may have the same symptoms developed by many different causes. A dose of strychnia sufficient to destroy life would hardly require an hour and a-half for its absorption. I think that death was in thiscase caused by epileptic con-vulsions "with tetanic complications.^^ I form that opinion from the posi-morfem appear- ances being so different from those that I have described as attending poisoning^ with strychnia, and from the supposition that a dose of strychnia sufficient to destroy life in one paroxysm could not, so far as I am aware, have required even an hour for its absorption before the commencement of the attack. If the attack were of an epileptic character, the interval between the attacks, of Monday and Tuesday would be natural, as epileptic seizures very often recur at about the same hours of successive days. Assuming that a man was in so excited a state of mind that he was silent for two or three -minutes after his horse had won a race, that he exposed himself to cold and damp, excited his brain by drink, and was attacked by violent vomiting, and that after his death deposits of gritty grannies were found in the neighbourhood of the spinal cord, would these causes be likely to produce such a death as that of Cook ? — Any one of these causes would assist in the production of Buoh a death. As a congeries, would they be still njore likely to produce it?— Yes 108 Cross-examined fey the Attorney-General: I am a general practitioner, and am parochial medical oiBcer. I have had personal experience of two cases of idiopathic tetanus. What I have said about mental and sensual excitement, and so o», has not oome within my own observa- tion. 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 pre'rious to the attack. It was only by close pressing that I ascertained that look-jaw 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 wa& 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 hour. 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 hin^ 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. I 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 be discovered by chemical and physiolo^cal tests. I killed dogs, cats, rabbits, and fowls. The doses I administered were from three-quarters tip to two grains. To dogs, the smallest quan- tity 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 ^eath. I have always found the brain and heart highly 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 con- gestion of the brain is greatest when the animal was young, and in full health. It does not de- pend 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 far as I can judge. Cook's was a case of epileptic convulsions, with tetanic complications. Nobody can say firom 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 he died. I can't mention a case in which a patient dying from epUepsy has preserved his consciousness to the time of death. You have been reading up this subject? — I am pretty well up in most branches of me- dicine. (A laugh.) I know of no case in which a patient dying from epilepsy has beeiv conscious. My opinion isCook died of epileptic convulsions ■with tetanic complications. By Lord Campbeli,. — That is ,a disease well kno^wn to physicians. It is mentioned in. Dr. Copland's Dictionary. Examination continued. I 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 Shrewsbury, and wherever there is excitemfent there is consequent depres- sion. I think Cook was Erfterwaids 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 yomitei in consequence ? — It might predispose him to vomit. I am not speaking of " mights." Do you think that the excitement of the three minutes on the 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 inflammatory condition of the stomach, have brought on the con- ■vulsions which caused death. The Attornet-Genebal. — But the gentleman who made the post-mortem examinatioa.^ say that the stomach was not iniiained. Witness. — There were white spots, which cannot exist without inflammation. There must have been inflammation. The Attorney-General.— But these gentleman gay that there was not inflammation. Witness. — 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 am instance on record in which epilepsy supervened upon the very act of intercourse. Have you any instance in which epilepsy came on a fortnight aftfrwards ? (A laugh.) — It is ■within the range of possibility. 109 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 ever 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 Attoenet-Genekal : But you say this was epilepsy ; we are not talking of tetanus ? Witness : You forget the tetanic complications. (Roars of laughter.) The Attoknet-Genebal : If I understand right, then, it stands thus— the sexual excitement produces epilepsy, and the chancre superadds tetanic complications ? Witness : 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 l£fe such a display was most indecent. Examination continued : I 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 ; Shave 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 nights, 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 -v?as apoplexy? — ^No, it was not. 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 Attokney-Gene»al : The other medical men said there was none. Lord Campbell : That is rather a matter of reasoning than of evidence. Be-examined by Mr. Serjeant Shee: I 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 convubions. From my reading of his work and others I have learnt that there are con- vulsions which are not, strictly speaking, epilepsy, although they resemble it in some of its features. I also know the works of M. Esquirolle. 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, properly 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 * patient has suffered from epilepsy and convulsions of an epileptic kind during the night, he may be as well next day as if nothing had happened, 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 was distressed and irritable the night before his death, I should say that he was suffering from depression. From what Cook said about his madness 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 n» 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 infiammation can be absent while spots on the stomach be 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 in the stomach of a young woman who had died suddenly. Dr. Bainekidge, 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 no and as to the muscles affected. Periodicity, or recurrence at the same hours^ days, or months, is comaiou. I had a ca?e 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 varioijs 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 begins. In both males and females hysteria is frequently attended by tetanic convulsions. Epileptic attacks are frequently accompanied by tetanic cAnplications. Cross-examined by the Attornet-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 months. It was the case of a male. It occurred in St. Martin's workhouse. The man had tor years been subject to this complaiut. On the occasion on which he died he w*s ill only a few minutes. 1 did not make a post-mortem examination, I was told he was seized with sudden convulsions, fell down on the ground, and in five minutes was dead. There was slight clinching of the hands, but L think no locking of the jaw. The man was abput thirty-five years of age. He was the brother of the celebrated aeronaut, Lieutenant Gale. In many cases of thi? description consciousness is- destroyed. It is not so in all. I have met with violent cases in which it has been preserved. I never knew a case in which during the paroxysm the patient spoke. Epilepsy is sometimes attended with opisthotonos. I have seen cases of traumatic tetanus. In such oases the patient retains his consciousness. I have known many cases of epilepsy ending in death. Iioss of con- sciousness — not universally, but generally — aocomjfanies epilepsy. I never knew 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: I am a member of the Royal College of Surgeons, and am in practice at Chatham. In June, 1854, 1 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 convulsiims cam? 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 twelve- month 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 was brought on by depression, arising from a quarrel with her husband. Cross-examined by Mr. James: I do not know how long before the attack this quarrel occurred. During it the woman received a blow on 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, durin;j the whole of which the trispaus continued. Dr. G-EOROE Robinson, examined by Mr. Kenealy : I am a licentiate of the Royal College of Physicians, and Physician to the Newoastle-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 convul- sions, by which I mean, not the convulsions of tetanus, but convulsions similar to those ■witnessed in that disease. The convulsions of epilepsy sometimes assume a tetanic appear- ance, X 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 cormected witlj. the condition of the nerves. The brain has a good deal to do with the production of con- vulsive 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 J 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 Attorn by- General : I have seen twenty cases where epilepsy has been attended by convulsions 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 iq 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 tlie 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. Ul The Attorney- Geneeal : Do yo« think that they did so ? Witness : Putting aside the assumption of death by strychnia, I should say so. Tlie Attoknbt-Geneeal : Are not all the symptoms spoken to by Mr. Jones indioative of death by strychnia ? Witness : They certainly are. The Attorney-Geneiial : 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 ? Witness: Yes. By Serjeant Shbe : Epilepsy is a well-known form of disease which includes many others. Dr. Richardson said : I am a physician, practising in London. I have never seen a case of tetanus, properly so called, but 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 also observed a sense of suffocation in the patient. In some forms of convulsions I have seen contortions both of the legs and the feet, and the patient generally expresses a. wish to sit up. I have known persons die of a disease called angina pectoris. The symptoms of that disease, I consider, re- semble closely those of Mr. Cook. Angina pectoris comes ;under the denomination of spasmodic^ diseases. In some cases the disease is detectable upon posi-morfem examination; in others it is not. I attended one case. A girl ten years old was under my care in 1850. I supposed she had suffered from scarlet fever. She recovered so far that my visits ceased. I left her amused and merry in the morning; at half-past ten 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 witnessed. There was perfect consciousness. The child knew me, described her agony, and eagerly took some brandy.fi«d-water from a spoon. I left for the purpose of ob- taining some chloroform from my own house, which was thirty yards distant. When I returned her head was drawn back, and I could delect no respiration; the eyes were then fixed open,, an-d 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 spSsm and solidity, and so emptied of bloeTo9u(» l^at letter. I have not got it. I. have searched for it, but.X ha4 ^ent it to Saunders the tnainer. I have made application to Saunders forit. The applicalvon wae;by;letter. Ixeceived. a letterin answer. I have seen iSauuders wnoe. .1 have doAe everything I oould to get Cook's letter. I have not a copy of it, but I know what its contents werp. The Court decided that the contents of the letter could, not be£25 at the Shrewsbury meeting. Cook and Palmer were in the habit of "putting on" horses for each other. They did so at the Liverpool meeting. I put money on at Liverpool foi* Pahner, . and Palmer told Bie that Cook stood it along with him. I heard Cook, a short time before his death, apply to Palmer to supply him with'" black wash." I don't know whetber it is.a mercurial. lotion. I never saw Cook s throat dressed by anybeijjr. ... Cross-examined by Mr. James : The black wash was not to be drunk [a laugh*]. 'The appli- cation was made to Palmer at the Warwjck Spring meeting in 1850. Cook was at Newmarket. I lived in the same. house with him there. He was at nearly all the race meetings last year. His appetite was very good, and tjiat surprised me. The cayenne nut is made up for a trick and mixed with other gingerbread nuts. Cook got one of those. I have tasted them. Some of them are stronger than others. Jeremiah Smith, by Mr. Seqeant Sheb: I am an attorney at Rugeley. 'I am aioquaiutea. with the prisoner, and was acquainted with Cook. I saw Cook at the Talbot Arms, on Friday,, the reth of November. He was in, his bedroom. I saw bim .about ten o'clopjj. 'I was present at his breakfast. A small.tray was put on the bed. He took tea for breakfast, and had a wine- glass of brandy in'it. I dined with him at Palmer's house. 'I am not .quite positive that I bad aeen him between breakfast and dinner. We had a. rump«steak.for dinner. "We 4ad -some champagne at dinner. We drank port-wine after dinner. 'He had three bottles altogether, and Cook took bis share. Cook, myself, and Pabner dined together. We left the house about six in theevenittg. Cook audi left the hciuse together. Weweut,to my house, and afterwards, to the Albion Hotel, which is next door. We had.a glass of -eold brandy-aud-water. Cook left me there. He said he felt cold, and warmed himself at the fire. He ssud he had borrowed, a hook, and would go home ,and read it in bed. That was between seven and eight o'clock, ,but I pan!t »ay exactly. In the afternoon, after dinner, we were talking about xacing, , I asked Cook iijr I 2 116 money — for £50. He gave me £5. When he was taking the note out of his pocket-case, I said " Mr. Cook, you can pay me all." He said, " No ; there Is only £41 lOs. due to you." He said that he had given Palmer money, and would pay me the remainder when he returned from Tattersall's on the Monday. On the night following (Saturday night) he was not well, aiid I slept in his room. It was late when I went ; I should think about eleven or twelve o'clock. I had been at a concert during the early part of the night on which Cook was unwell. He had got some toast-and-water, and was washing his mouth. He was sick. There was a night chair in the room before the fire. I saw him sitting there. He tried to vomit, but whether he did so or not I cannot say, for I did not get out of bed. I went to sleep about two o'clock. I slept until Palmer and Bamford came into the room in the morning. I lay still in bed, and heard a conversation between the doctor and Cook. Bamford said, " Well, Mr. Cook, how are you this morning?" Cook said, "I am rather better this morning. I slept from about two or three o'clock, after the house had become quiet." Bamford said, " I'll send you some medicine." I don't recollect any further conversation. I know Mrs. Palmer, prisoner's mother. She sent a message to me on Monday, and I went to her and saw her. In consequence of what had passed, I went to look for the prisoner to see if he had arrived. That was about nine o'clock. I saw Palmer at ten minutes past ten. He came from the direction of Stafford, in a car. He said to me, " Have yon seen Cook to-day? " I said, " No; I have been to Lichfield on business;'' on which Palmer said he had better go and see how he was before he went to his mother's. Palmer and I went up to Cook's room together. Cook said, " You are late, doctor, to-night. I did not expect you to look in. I have taken the medicine which you gave me." We did not stay more than two or three minutes, and I think Cook asked me why I did not call earlier. I said I had been detained on business. Cook said Bamford had sent him some pills, which he had taken ; and he intimated that he would not have taken them if Palmer had come earlier. Cook told Palmer, that he had been up talking with Saunders, and Palmer said, " You ought not to have done so." Palmer and I left the room together, and we went straight to his mother's. The distance of Mr. Palmer's house from the Talbot Arras is about four or'five hundred yards. We -were there about half an hovir. We both left together and went to Palmer's house. I entered -with him. I asked him to let me have a glass of grog, but did not get it. I then went home. After dining vrith Palmer on Friday, I invited Cook and Palmer, to dine with me on the next day, Saturday. Cook sent me a message, stating that he was not well and could not leave his room. I ordered a boiled leg of mutton for dinner, and sent part of the broth from the Albion by the charwoman — I think her name was Kowley. Previous to Cook's death I borrowed £200 for Cook, and negotiated a loan with Pratt for him for £500. The £200 transaction was in May. I borrowed £100 of Mrs. Palmer, and £100 of William Palmer, making together the £200 to which I have referred. 1 knew that Palmer and Cook were jointly interested in one horse, and that they were in. the habit of betting for each other. When Cook's horse was going to run. Palmer " put on" for him ; and when Palmer's ran. Cook " put on " for him. I have seen Thirlby, Palmer's assistant, dress Cook's throat with caustic. I think this was before the races at Shrewsbury. I have some signatures of Cook's which I know to be in his handwriting. The two notes with instructions to negotiate the loan of £500, I saw Cook sign. [The notes were put in.] One of them is signed "J.P.Cook," the other " J. Parsons Cook." I knew from Cook that he was served with a writ. I do not remember that I received any instruction to appear for him. The letters put in were read by Mr. Straight, the CI erk of the Arraigns. The first was without date, and signed " J. Parsons Cook," Monday. The following is a copy of the "My dear Sir,— I have been in a devil of a fix abont the bill, but have at last settled it at the cost of an extra two guineas, for the discounter had issued a writ against me. I am very much disgusted at it." The letter was sent to me, but its envelope was destroyed. The next letter bore the date 25th June, 1855 ; it was also without address, but witness stated that it had been sent to him, and he had destroyed the envelope. The foUovring is a copy of the letter :— " Deal Jerry,-! should like to have the bill renewed for two months. Can it be done ? Let me know by return. I have scratched Polestar for the Nottinghamshire and Wolverhamnton StakM I ehSl ha down on Friday or Saturday. Fred, tells me Arabia will win the Norftumbe/Cd SttkesI^ The memorandum put in and read was signed J. P. Cook, and the foUowing is a copy :_ ^Jl^S^^'l''^^^^^ TTI'n^l'".' *™ ^^^'^ = by way of mortgage to secure £200 advanced upon a bill of exchange for £200, dated 29th August, 1855, payable about three months after date." o<. £™f -;^'^a?i"?il'y the ATTomjET-GENEEAL : I am the person who took Mr. Myatt to btattord (raol. I have known Palmer long and intimately, and have been emploved a good deal as attorney for him and his family. I cannot recollect that he applied to me in IJecember, 1854 to attest a proposal for insurance onthelifeof Walter Palmer for £13 000 in the Sohcitors and General Assurance Office. I wiU not swear that I was not allied u> on the subject. I do not recollect that an application was made to me to attest a pro 117 posal for £13,000 in the Prince of Wales on Walter Palmer's life, in January, 18fi5. I know that Walter Palmer had been a bankrupt, but not that he -was an uncertificated bank- rupt. His bankruptcy took place at least six years ago. He had been in no business Bince that period to the time of his death. I knew that "Walter had an allowance from his mother, and he had also money at various times from his brother William. In the years 1854 and 1855, I lived at Rugeley, sometimes at Palmer's house, and sometimes at his mother's. There was no improper intimacy between myself and Palmer's mother. I slept at her house frequently, perhaps two or three times a week, having my own place of abode at Rugeley. How long did this habit continue of sleeping two or three times a weekat Mrs. Palmeif's house ? — Several years. Had you your own lodgings and chambers at Rugeley ? — Yes. Your own bedroom i — ^Yes. How far were your lodgings from Mrs. Palmer's house ? — Nearly a quarter of a mile. Will you be so good as to explain why, having your own place of abode, and your own hed-room so near to Mrs. Palmer's, you were still in the habit of sleeping two or thre^ times a week for several years at the house of Mrs. Palmer ? — Yes ; sometimes there were mem- bers of Mrs, Palmer's family present. Who were they ? — ^There was Mr. Joseph Palmer, who resides at Liverpool ; Mr. Walter Palmer, too ; and sometimes William Palmer. When you went to see the members of Palmer's family, was it too late when you sepa- rated to return to your own lodgings ? — We used to stop very late drinking gin and water, smoking, and sometimes afterwards playing at cards. Then you did not go to your own lodgings ? — No. And this continued several years two or three times a week ? — ^Yes. Did you ever stay at Mrs. Palmer's house all night when there were no members of the family visiting ? — ^Yes, frequently. How often ?-^As many as two or three times a week. When there were none of Mrs. Palmer's sons there ? — ^Yes. And when the mother was ? — ^Yes. How often did that happen ? — I cannot say. Sometimes two or three times a week. When there was no one else in the house but the lady ? — There were the mother, daughter, and servants. You might have gone to your own home, then, for there was no one to diink brandy- and- water with, or to smoke with ? — I might have done so, but I did not. Do you mean, then, to swear solemnly that no improper intimacy subsisted between you and Palmer's mother ? — ^I do [sensation]. Now I will turn to another subject. Do you remember being applied to by Palmer to attest a proposal for an insurance of £10,000 on the life of Walter Palmer in the Universal liife Office ? — I do not remember ; if you have any document which will show it I shall be able to recollect, perhaps. Now, do you remember getting a five poujid note for attesting the signature of Walter Palmer's assignment of his policy to his brother? — I do not. Is that your signature [handing a document to witness] ? — ^It is very similar to it. Is it not yours ? — I do not know [sensation]. Upon your oath, sir, is not that yoin- signature ? — ^Witness hesitating— r Examine the documient, and then tell me, on your oath, whether that is not your sig- nature [witness examined the document]. Now you have perused it, tell me, is not that your signature ? — ^Witness (hesitating) : I have some doubts whether this is my. handwriting [sensation]. Have you read the whole of the document ? — I have not. Then do so. [Witness again perused the whole of the paper.] Now, was that docu- ment prepared in your office ? — It was not. Have you ever seen it before ? — It is very much like my handwriting. That is not what I asked you. Upon your oath, have you ever seen that document before ? — Witness (with hesitation) : It is veiy much like my handwriting [sensation]. I will have an answer to my question. Upon your oath, sir, is not that your hand- writing? — I think it is not in my handwriting. I think it is a very clever imitation of it [sensation]. Will you swear it is not your handvrriting ? — I vrill swear it is not my handwriting [renewed sensation]. The Attorney-General : WiU your lordship please to take a note of that answer ? Mr. Baron Alderson : Did you ever make such an attestation as that in your hand? — I do not remember ? The Attorney-Geneeal : Now is that the signature of Walter Palmer (handing a paper to witnsss) ? — I believe it to be. 1T«: Is fflttt tlle.^^atvtte ofi Pratt?"I! domot Yloow. Bid' you not reoeive that paper: fisom PKitti?^— I believe: I didi not. I think ■William. Patknep ^TG'it me. Well; did- he ^Ve it you ?— I don't reooUeet. tiepeat my questioni Did William Palmeit give you that document?' — Most, likely h«fdid. Did* hej I aste again ?^-It was notaignedJ at thier timiej But did he gi the orfttpatty at Rugeley ? — I did.. When wasit ?^— I shouldJlibe to fetehi my dhoumentsi and. papers-; I should then. be able to answer you aceuitltelyc- Oh, never mind the papers. Was it in October, 1855 ?i—tthinl» ifcwasi SWd'yOu-send up iipr4)posallforan.insuranoaof. ftlOjaOO'on. tfie Ufa of. Bates? — I did,. Did William Palmer ask you to make that proposal ? — Batiesismd- Palmer oame together to my. office^ wi^^ prospectUB, aad^ashedtme if Iiknew whethes thare.waa.aa ag^nt for tbe Midland CotMies Offi($e>in:LRiSg»)'ey. I told him I never heerd-utoee. Ha asked ma afiteiwards if I would write to get the appointment, because Bates- wanteditiiriaise'SOmK money. Did you send to the Midland Counties Office, to get. the appointment oS agent^, in. order, tbat you might be enabled. to effect: this insurance on Bates.' sj life? — I did., Sfd^jWfrmaka'the'appluiatiaii in order to get: that insunuioei effected ? — tdidv Upon the life of Bates for £10,000 ? — I did. [Sensation.], Bates was at that time super-^ intending William Palmer's stud and^stables. I do not< know at wihat salary. I afteFw.ar4s.went to the widow of Walter Palmepto' get her to givie: up hee claim on: the pelioy- o£her. husband; She -was then at Liverpool. William Palmer gave me a lette1^ foK Pratt to, taJ&e: to her to. sign. Mrs. PadmieK said shtriWould like to see her sqlieilor about it, I. broug)>t the document back with me because she did not sign it. Lhad no instructions toleaveit. Did she give any reason for not signing it? , Mr. Sesgeaot Shsb objooted totheqjiestioa-. Lord C AMPBEiX. deddeii tiiat it could, not be put. The- AiwoKW-fisr-GairasKatL : Da: you know whether, Walter Eailmer rseeivad. anjfthingf on executing the assignment of his policy to William PalmosS— L -bdieve- -he ultimatelg had, Eometbing, Did he not gett a) bill fat £200? — I believe hei did,,and'> he alsD.g^t, a house, fiixuiehed. ibi' hits. Was that bill paid? — I do not remember. & tha« di50£ Waiter Palmer? — lido not recollect.. Not recollect ! when your signature is staring', you, in the face? — No, Ldb not. You are an afitotney^i'SadiaccueCumod-tobusiness transactions? — I. am. New I a^iyuui agaiuy -WBiJB'.you applied to-on the 'subject ?—r-I. may. have been^, k.is-froniimy memory I am speaking, and I wish, therefore, to speaia as accurately as possihle 13augjiter3i Idsn't ask jitW-asto-yqiarmemory in.tha aJjsti)aet),but your memojy now that is- sefeashed by that document. Is that your sigilaitarei? — ^Witness (UesitatingJ I. ha^e no doubt it may be. Look at tlhat,d'npon the counterfoil of his eheque-book [cheque- book handed to witness") ? — Witness, with hesitation: I cannot positively swear that I did. Did' you not, sir, see him write it ^— That is William Palmer's handwriting [referring to the cheque-book]. Did you not know that jou got a five pound cheque for attesting that signature ? — I may iave got a cheque for £5, but I may not have got it for attesting the signature of the document. You say you got £200 for Conk— £100 ffom Mrs. Palmer and £100 from William Palmer? — Yes, and he gave £10 &r the recommendation. To whom ? — To William Palmer. Do you not know that the £200 biE was given for the purpose of enabling William. S'aliner to make up a sum of £5Q0 ?— I believe it was not, for Cook received absolutely &om one £200. Did he not have the money tcaai you in order to take up to London to pay Pratt ?— No, she took it with him,. I think, to Shrewsbvtry, to the races. ' "Who was the bill diama in fkvour of ?— I think WUliam Calmer. What became of the bill i — I do not know. Witness : I was not present at the inquest on Cook. I can't say who saw me when I went to the Talbot Arms and went into Cook's room. One of the servants gave me a candle — either Bond, Milb, or Lavinia Barnes. Ke-examined by Mr. Seajeant Shee : I have known Mrs. Palmer twenty years. I knew her before her husband's death. I should say she is sixty years of age. William Palmer is not her eldest son. Joseph is the eldest. He resides at Liverpool. He is forty- five or forty-six years of age. I thmk George is the next son. He lives at Rugeley. He was frequently at his mother's house, "there is another sou, a clergyman of the Church of England. He resided with his mother until within the last two years, except when he was at college. There is a daughter. She lives with her mother. There are Hbxee servants. Hrs. Palmer's family does not visit much in the neighbourhood of Kttgeley. Her house is a large one. I slept in a room nearest the Old Church. ffit. Serjeant Shee : Is there any pretence for saying you have ever been charged with any improper intimacy with Mrs. Pahner ? — Witness: I hope not. Mr. Serjeant Shee : Is there any pretence for saying so i — Witness : There ought not to be. Mr. Seij,eant Shee : Is there any truth in the statement or suggestion that you have had any improper intimacy with Mrs. Palmer J— Witness : They might have said so, but there is no reason. Mr. Serjeant Shee : ]^ there any truth in the statement i — ^Witness : I should say not. Mr. Serjeant Shee : When did it come to youi knowledge that there was a proposal i&z "Walter's life ? — Witness : I never heard of it until the inquest. The Court then adjourned for about twenty minutes, when the proceedings were resumed. W. Joseph Saundebs was then called up on his subpoena, but did not appear. The Aiiornhy-General said he should be extremely sorry to commence his reply if thete was any chance of witness making his appearance. Mr. Serjeant Shee said he should now ask for the production of a letter written by Cook fo Palmer on Jan. 4, 1855. The letter, of which the following is a copy, was then put in and read: — " Iiutterworth, Jan. 4, 1855. ^ My dear Sir, — Tseht up to London on Tuesday to back St. Hubert for j£50, and my commission baa xettimed 10s. Id. I have, therefore, booked 2S0 to 25 against him, to gain money. There is a small iidsnee of £18 due to you, which I forgot to give yon the other day. Tell Will to debit me with it on Mcnmtof your share of training Pyrrhinet. IniH also write taliim to do so.as there will be a balonee dns from him to me. Toura faithfojlyi, ■" W. Palmer, Esq." " J- Parsohs Cook." Mr. Serjeant Shee submitted that he was entitled to reply on a part of evidence; The course taken by the Attorney-General on getting at the contents of the cheque, the contents -of an assignment of the policy on Wsdter Palmer's life, and the contents of the proposals t» ^various offices for the insurance, he submitted entitled him to a reply on those points. The LoBD Chief Justice : We are of opinion that you have no right to reply. 120 Mr. Baron Alderson : That is quite clear. The Attorney-General said he had been taken somewhat by surprise yesterday by '1", ^ evidence of Dr. Richardson, with respect to angina pectoris. Dr. Richardson adverted to several books and authorities. He had now those books in his possession, and was desirous of putting EQme questions aiising out of that part of the evidence. The Court decided against the application. The case for the defence here concluded. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPLY. The Attorney-General, at ten minutes before three, conimeuoed his reply, speaking occa- sionally in so low a tone that the conclusion of many of his sentences was inaudible. He said t May it please your lordships, and gentlemen of the jury, the case for the prosecution and the case for the defence are now before you, and It now becomes my duty to address to you such observations upon the whole of the evidence as suggest themselves to my mind. I feel that I ^ave a moral, solemn, and important duty to perform. I wish I opuld have answered the appeal made to me the other day by my learned friend (Serjeant Shee), and say that I am satisfied with the case which he submitted to you for the defence. But, standing here as the instrument of public justice, I feel that I should be wanting in the duty that I have to perform if I did not ask at your hands for a verdict of guilty against the prisoner. I approach the consideration of the case in, I hope, what I may term a spirit of fairness and moderation. My business is to convince you, if I can, by facts and legitimate arguments, of the prisoner's guilt; and if I cannot establish it to your satisfaction, no man will rejoice more than I shall in a verdict of acquittal. Gentlemen, in the mass of evidence which has been brought before you, two main questions present themselves prominently for your consideration. Did the deceased man. into whose death we are now inquiring, die a natural death, or was he taken off by the foul means of poison ? And if the latter proposition be sanctioned by the evidence, then comes the im- portant — if possible, the still more important — question, whether the prisoner at the bar was the author of the death? I will proceed with the consideration of the subject in the order which 1 have mentioned. Did John Parsons Cook die by poison ? I assert and contend the affirmative of that proposition. The case which is submitted to you on behalf of the Grown is- this — that, having been first practised upon by antimony. Cook was at last killed by strych- nine. The first question to be considered is — what was the immediate and proximate cause of his death. The witnesses for the prosecution have told you, one and all, that, in their judg- ment, he died of tetanus, which signifies a convulsive spasmodic action of the muscles of the body. Can there be any doubt that their opinion is correct? Of course it does not follow that, because he died of tetanus, it must be the tetanus of strychnia. That is a matter for after consideration. But, inasmuch as strychnine produces death by tetanus, we must see, in the first place, whether it admits of doubt that he did die of tetanus^ I have listened with great attention to every form in which that disease has been brought under your consideration-— whether by the positive evidence of witnesses, or whether by reference to the works of scientific writers ; and I assert deliberately that no case, either in the human subject or in the animal, has been brought under your notice in which the symptoms of tetanus have been so marked as. in this case. From the moment' the paroxysms came on of which the unhappy tnan died, the symptoms were of the most marked and of the most striking character. Every muscle, says the witness, the medical man who was present at the time — every musble of his body was convulsed — he ex- pressed the most intense dread of suffocation — he entreats them to lift him up lest he should be suffocated — and every muscle of his body, from the crown of his head to tha soles of his feet, was so stricken — the flexibility of the trunk and the limbs was gone — and you could only have raised him up as you would have raised a corpse. In order that he might escape from the dread of suffocation, they turned him over, and then, in the midst of that fearful paroxysm, one mighty" spasm seemed to have seized his heart, to have pressed from it the life blood, and the result *as; — death. And when he died, his body exhibited the most marked symptoms of this fearfui disease. He was convulsed from head to foot. You could have rested him on his head and heels — his hands were clasped with a grasp that it required force to overcome, and his feet assumed an arched appearance. Then, if it was a case of tetanus — into which fact I will not waste your tim.e by inquiry — the question arises, was it a case of tetanus produced by strychnia ? I will confine myself for a moment to the exhibition of the symptoms as described by the witnesses. Tetanus may proceed from natural causes as well as from the administration of poison^ and while the symptoms last they are the same. But in the course of the symptoms, aud before the disease reaches its consummation in the death of the patient, the distinction between the two is marked by characteristics which enable any one conversant with the subject to distinguish between them. We have been told on the highest authority that the distinctions are these — natural tetanus is a disease not of minutes, not of hours, but of days. It takes — say several other witnesses — from three to four days ; and will extend to a period of even three weeks before the patient dies. Upon that point we have the most abuuilant and conclusive evidence of Dr. Curling; we have the evidence of Dr. Brodie; we have the evidence of Dr. Daniel, a gentle- man who has seen something like twenty-five or thirty cases ; we have the evidence of a gentleman who has practised twenty-five years in India, where these cases, arising from cold, are infinitely more frequent j and he gives exactly the same description of the course which this disease in- variably takes. Idiopathic or traumatic tetanus is therefore out of the question, upon the evi- dence which has been given. But traumatic tetanus is out of the question for a very difi'erent reason. Traumatic tetanus is brought on by the lesion of some part of the body. But what is there in this case to show that there was anything like lesion at all. We have had several gen- tlemen called, who have come here with an evident determination to misconceive and misrepre- sent every fact. We have called before you an eminent physician, who had Cook under his care. It seems that, in the spring of the year 1 855, Cook, having found certain small spots manifest themselves in one or two parts of his body, and having something of an ulcerated tongue and a sore throat, conceived that he was labouring under symptoms of a particular character. He addressed himself to Dr. Savage, who found that the course of medicine he had been pursuing was an erroneous one. He enjoined the discontinuance of mercury. His injunction was obeyed and the result was that the patient was stiffering neither from disease nor wrong treatment. But lest there should be any possibility of mistake. Dr. Savage says that long before the summer ad- vanced every unsatisfactory symptom had entirely gone; there was nothing wrong about him, except that affection of the throat, to which thousands of people are subject. In other respeotSr the man was better than he had been, and might be said to be convalescent. On the very day ^at he leaves London to go into the country, a fortnight before the races, his stepfather, who ac- companied him to the station, congratulated him upon his healthy and vigorous, appearance, and,, the young^man, conscious of a restored state of health, struck his breast, and said " He was well, very well." Then he goes to Shrewsbury, and shortly afterwards arose those matters to which I am about to call your attention. I w;ant to know in what part of the evidence there is the slightest pretence for saying that this man had an affection which might bring on traumatic teta^ Qua? It is said that ha had exhibited his tongue to witnesses, and applied for a mercurial wash, hut it is clear that, although he had at one time adopted that course, be had, under the recommen- dation of Dr. Savage, got rid of it, and there is no pretence for saying he was suffering under any syphilitic affection of any kind. That fact has been negatived by a man of the highest authority and eminence. It is. a pretence for which there was not a shadow of a foundation, and I should dnrink from my duty if I did not denounce it as a pretence unworthy of your attention. There ■was nothing about the man which would warrant, for a single moment, the supposition that there was anything of that character in any part of his body when the tetanus set in. One or two cases of traumatic tetanus have been adduced in the evidence which has been brought forward for the defence. One is the case of a man in the London Hospital, who was brought into that insti- tution one evening, and died the same night. But what are the facts? The facts are, that be- fore he had been brought in he had had a paroxysm early in the morning — that he was suffering from ulcers of the most aggravated description. The symptoms had run their course rapidly, it is true, but the case was not one of minutes, but of hours. Another case has been brought for- ward in which a toe was amputated, but there we have disease existing some time before death. But then it is suggested that this may be a case of idiopathic tetanus proceeding from — what? They say that Cook was a man of delicate constitution, subject to excitement; that he had some- thing the matter with his cheat; that in addition to having something the matter with his chest, he had the diseased condition of throat; and putting all these thmgs together, they say that if the man took cold he might get idiopathic tetanus. We are here launched, into a sea of speculations and possibilities. Dr. Nunneley, who conies here for the purpose of inducing you to believe there was something like idiopathic tetanus, goes through supposed infirmities, and talks about his excitability, his delicacy of chest, his affection of the throat, and he says these things would predispose to idio- pathic tetanus if he took colds. But what evidence is there that he did take cold? Not •the slightest in the world.. There is not the smallest pretence that he ever complained of a cold, or was treated for a cold. I cannot help saying that it seems to me that it is a scandal upon a learned, and distinguished, and liberal profession, that men should come forward to put forth such speculations upon these perverted facts, and draw from them, sophistical and unwarrantable conclusions, with a view to deceive you. I have the greatest respect for science. No man can have more. But I cannot repress my indiguatioa and abhorrence when I see it perverted and prostituted for the purposes of a particular case in a court of justice. Dr. Nunneley talked to you about certain excitements being the occasion of idiopathic tetanus. You remember the sorts of excitement of which he spoke. They are unworthy of your notice. They were topics discreditable to be put forward by a witness as vv^orthy of your consideration. But, suppose for a single moment that excitement at the time could produce any such effect, where is the excitement mani- ifested by Cook as leading to the supposed disease ? They say that the man, when he won Ks money at ShrewAury, was for a moment eXeited. And well lie migUtbe'. His fbrtunw depended upon the result of the race, and I will not deny tfiat he was o-wrpowered' yriA emotions of joy. But those emotions sixfisidecl, and we Rare no fartlier trace of them from that time to the moment of his death. The man passed the rest of the- day with his ■friends in ordinary conversation and enjoyment. No trace of emotion WiB found. He is' taken ill. He goes toRugeltey. He' is taken iH' there agam. But is' there the slightest symptom of excitement- about him,, or of depression ? Not the least. When he is- ill, l&e-most people, he is low spirited. As soon as he gets- a Kttle better, hB is cheerful and; happy. He invites his friends and converses -with them. On the night of his dteath Wa conversation is cheerful. He is mirthful' and happy; little thinking,, poor fellow, of the 'fate that was depending over him. He is oh-eerfid', and' talks of the' future, but notia language of excitement. "What pretence is there f&T this idle story about excitement?' None -whatever. But even if there were excitement or diepressioir — if these things were capable of producing idiopathic tetanus, the characteroft&e disease is so essentially differentthat it is impossible to mistake the two. What' are the cases which they attempt to set up against us? They ■lirought forward a Mary Watson, who, -with a- gentleman, come all the way from some pl&ce in Scotland to teU usthat agirl had been HI all day, that she is taken worse atnight, that she gets well in a short time, and goes about her business. That is a case which they brought here to be compared -with the death agony of this man. These are the sort of -cases with -vrfiic& they attempt tO! meet such a case as is spoken to here. CJentlemen, I venture, upon the evidencef which has been, brought before you, to assert boldly, that the esses of idiopathic ajid traumatic tetanus are marked by clear aii3i distinct chaiaeteristios ■(fistinguishing them from the tetanus of strychnine f and I say that the tetanus -whiah atj- -eorapajiied- Cook's dteath is not referable to either of these forms of tetanus. Tbu have, Tipon' this point, the evidence of men of the highest competency and most unquestionable integrity, and upon their evidence, I am satisfied, you can come to no other conclusion -tiian that Uiis'was not a case of either idiopathic or traumatic- tetanus. But, theui various attempts have been made to set up different causes as capable of producingthis tetanic dis^ ease. And first, we have th-e theory of general convulsions ; and Dr. Nmmel'ey having gone through the beadroU; of the supposed' infirmities of Gook, says, " Oh, this may have been a case of general convulsions — 1 have known general convtdisioHs assuming a tetanic character !" I said to- him, "HaTe you ever seen one single ease in which death arising- from general convulsions accompanied- with tetanic symptoms has not endied in the uncon- sciousness of the patient ?*" He says, "No, I never heard of such a case, not one ; but in" some book or other, I am told, there is some such case reported^* and- he cites-, flir that purpose, as an authority for general convulsions being accompanied with tetanic symptoms. Dr. Copland. Now, Dr. Copland, I apprehend, -would' stand higher as an authority than the man who yott< what his' medical witnesses' would setup, because I adtmit that one: after another they toek me by surprise. 'She' gendemSn' who was called XUterday, and viha talked! of angina> peetoidsj would not have ssesped so' easily if I had been ia possession of the hoakBi to winoh^ he s^erretl, for I should hare been able'toesposethe ignorancej tfae presumption,, of the asrartions he dared tO' make. I say ignoraince aud'{)resuinption, anil what is worse, an intention; to dseeiye. L assert it in the fkce of the whole medical profession, and I am sure I can pravie rt^ These medical witneeses, one and all, differ in the views thejf ta^'on.the snibjecff but tlinre is a remarkable coincidense' between the vieWsof some of them and. the views of those who haare been examined on the other side. Dr. Fai'tridge,. Dr. Robinsonv SBd Dr> Letfaeby, thai most eminent of the witnesses whom< my learned &iend has cabled agreed ytiiii the statements of I^. Brodie and other witnessesi that in the whole of theiir experience, and fit the whole range of their liearniBg and observations, they know of no known' disease to whiah^ thei^mptoms in Coofc'S' case can be referred. When such men as these agree upon any point, it is iinjiossible to' exaggerate its. importance. If it be the fkct that there is' no known disease which can account for such sjmptoms as those in Cook's oasej and tiiat they are referable to poison alone, can- yoti< hav» amy doubt that that poison was strychnia? The symptoms, at all ewants, from the tima^ tilB' paroxysms set m, are precisely the same, Distnnetibns are sought ta be; madb by the sophistry ofc the' witnesses fhr the defence between' some of the anteeedent sflUptomB and; some of the others. I think I shall show you Cha* these distinotions are im- ajjnary and thait t&ere is no foundation for them. I think I may say that the^ witnesses called- forthe defence, admit thisv tBtat, from the time the paroxysms set in, of which Gbak died, until the' time'Of his death, the- sjaiptoms are- precisely similar to that of tetanus by stiyohnine; But then, they say — and' this is worthy of most particular attention — there are points of difference' wKch have led them to* the> eoncltision- that these symptoms eould not have resulted from s6fychnine. In the first place, they say that the 'period which ela:psed between the supposed' administra- tion of. the poison a«d ttte* first appearance of tihe symptoms is longer than they have observed in, the animals «n which tlseybA-re experimented. The first observation' which arises is this: Ihat there is' a, known dHfereoce between animal and hnman life, in the power with which certain spenific things act upon, tteir organisation. It may well be that poison administered to a rabbit will produce its effect in ar given tSine. It by no' means follows that it will produ'ce the sam» e&ct in' the same time- on< an animal of a different description. Still less does it follow that it win exercise its baaeflil influence' in th'B'same time on a human sabject. The whole of thef evidence on both' sides leads to establish tbisfaet, tlhatnot only in individiialsof different species; hut between individuals' of the same species; the same poison and the same influence will produce ^eots difl'ereiit i» diegreey different in dnrationi different in power. But, again, it is perfectly notorious that the rapidity with whieh the- poison begins to work depends mainly upon the ramls of its administrafioni If it is administered in a flWd state, it acts with greater rapidity. If it i» given i'n isolid stats, its effects come on more slowly. If it is given in an indurated subi- stance, it will act with still greater tardiness. Then what was- the period at which this poison- began to act after its administration, assuming it to have been poison ? It seems, front' Mr. Joues's staitement, that the pills were administered somewhere about eleven o'clock. They wwe not administered on his first arrival, for the patient, as if with an intuitive sense of the death that awaited) him, strongly resisted the attempts to make him take them ; and no doubt tbese remonstrances, aud the endeavours to overcome them, occupied some period of time. The piUs were at last given. Assuming, which I only do for the sake- of argument, that the pins- contained strychnine, how soon did they begin to operate? Mr. Jones says he went down to supper, and came back again about twelve o'doek. Upon his return to the room, after a word or two of conversation with Cook, he proceeded to undress and goto bed, and had not been ill' bed ten minutes before a warning came that another of the paroxysms was to take place. The- maid servant puts it still earlier, and it appears that so early as ten minutes before twelve the first alarm wa'S given, whieh would make the interval little more than a quarter of an hour. When these witnesses tell us that it would take' an hour and a half, or two hours, we see here :aitother of thosei exaggerated determinations to see the facts only in the way that will be the most favourable to the- prisoaer. I find in some of the experiments that have been made that 124 the duratioo of time, before the poison begins to work, has been little, if anything, less than an hour. In the case of the girl at Glasgow, it was stated that it was three-quarters of an hour before the pills began to work. There may have been some reason for the pills not taking effect withm a certain period after their administration. It would be easy to mix them, up with substances difficult of solution, or which might retard their action. I cannot bring myself to believe that, if in all other respects you are perfectly satisfied that the symptoms, the consequences, the effects were analogous, and similar in all respects to those produced by strychnine, it is not because the piUs have been taken only a quarter of an hour that you will say strychnine was not administered in this case. But they say the premonitary symptoms were wanting, and they say that in the case of animals, the animal at first manifests some uneasiness, shrinks, and draws itself into itself as it were, and avoids moving ; that certain involuntary twitchings about the head come on — and they. say there were no premonitory symptoms in Cook's case. I utterly deny the proposition, I say there were premonitory symptoms of the most marked character. He is lying in his bed ; he suddenly starts up in an agony of alarm. What made him do that f Was there nothing premonitory — ^nothing that warned him the paroxysm was coming on ? He jiimps up, says " Go and fetch Palmer — fetch me help — I am goiflgto be ill as I was last night." What was that but a knowledge that the symptoms of the previous night were returning, and a warning of what he might expect unless some relief were obtained ? He sits up and prays to have his neck rubbed. What was the feeling about his neck but a premonitory symptom, which was to precede the paroxysms which were to supervene i He begs to have his neck rubbed, and that gives him some comfort. But here they say this could not have been tetanus from strychnia, because animals caimot bear to be touched, for a touch brings on a paroxysm— not only a touch, but a breath of air, a sound, a word, a movement of any one near will bring on a return of the paroxysm. Now in two oases of death from strychnine we have shown that the patient has endured the rubbing of his limbs, and received satisfaction from that rubbing. We produced a third case. In Mrs. Smyth's case, when her legs were distorted, she prayed and entreated that she might have them straightened. The lady at Leeds, in the case which Dr. Nunneley hunself attended, implored her husband, between the spasms, to rub her legs and arms in order to overcome the rigidity. That case was within his own knowledge ; and yet in spite of it, although he detected strychnine in the body of the unhappy woman,,, he dares to say that Cook's having tolerated the rubbing between the paroxysms is a proof that he had not taken strychnia. But there is a third case — the case of Clutterbuck. He had taken an overdose of strychnia, and suffered from the re-appearance of tetanus, and his only comfort was to have his legs ru,bbed. And, therefore, I say that the continued endeavour to persuade a jury that the fact of Cook's having had his neck rubbed proves that this is not tetanus by strychnia, shows nothing but the dishonesty and insincerity of the witnesses who have so dared to pervert the facts. But they go further, and say that Cook was able to swallow. So he was before the paroxysms came on ; but nobody has ever pretended that he could swallow afterwards. He swallowed the pjlls, and, what is very curious, and illustrates part of the theory, is this— that it was the act of swal-, lowing the pills, a sort of movement in raising his head, which brought on the violent paroxysm in which he died. So far from militating against the supposition that this was » case of strychnine, the fact strongly confirms it. Then they call our attention to the ippearances after death, and they say there are circumstances to be found which militate against this being a case of strychnine. They say the limbs became rigid either at the time of death or immediately after, and that ought not to be found in a case of strychnia. Dr. Nunneley says, "I have always found the limbs of animals become flaccid before death, and have not found them become rigid after death." Now, I can hardly believe that statement. The very next witness vfho got into the box told us that he had made two experiments upon cats, and killed them both, and he described them as indurated and contracted when, he found them some hours after death. And yet the presence of rigidity in the body immediately after death is put forth by Dr. Nunneley as one of his reasons for saying this is not a death by strychnia, although Dr. Taylor told us that, in the case of one of the cats, the rigidity of the body was so great that he could hold it out by the leg in a hori- »ontal position. Notwithstanding that evidence. Dr. Nunneley has the audacity to say ttiat he does not believe this is a case of strychnine, because there was rigidity of the toibs, because the feet were distorted, and the hands clinched, and the muscles rigid. Ihis shows what you are to think of the honesty of this sort of evidence, in which facts axe selected because they make in favour of particular hypotheses of the party advancing them. The next thing that is said is that the heart was empty, and that in the animals operated npon by Dr. Nunneley and Dr. Letheby, the heart was full. I don't thinli that »pplies to all cases. But it is a remarkable fact connected with the history of the poison 125 that you never can rely upon, th,e .precise form of its symptoms and appearances. There are only certain great, leading, marked, characteristic features, "We have here the main, marked, leading, characteristic features ; and we hare what is more, collateral incidents, similar to the eases in which the administration and the fact of death have been proved beyond all possibility of dispute. Why, in two cases which have been mentioned — that of Mrs. Smyth smd the Glasgow girl— the heart was congested and empty. We know that in cases of tetanus death may result from more than one cause. All the muscles of the body are subject to the excitmg action of the poison. But no one can tell in what order these muscles may be affected, or where the poisonous influence will put forth. When it arrests the play of the lungs and the breathing of the atmospheric aii', the result will be that the heart is full ; but if some spasm siezes on the heart, the heart will be empty. You have never any perfect certainty as to the mode in which the symptoms will exhibit themselves. But this is brought forward as a conclusive fact against death by strychnine, and yet these men who make this statement under the sanction of scientific authority, have heard both cases spoken to by the gentlemen who examined the bodies. Then with regard to congestion of the brain, and oth^r vessels, the same observation applies. Instead of being killed by action on the respiratory muscles of the heart, death is the result of a long series of paroxysms, and you expect to find the brain and other vessels congested by that series of convulsive spasms. As death takes place from one or other of these causes, so will the appearances be. There is every reason to believe that the symptoms in this case were symptoms of tetanus in the strongest and most aggravated form. Looking at the symptoms which attended this unhappy man, setting aside the theory of convulsions of epilepsy, of arachnitis, and angina pectoris, and excluding idiopathic and traumatic tetanus — what remains ? The tetanus of strychnine, and the tetanus of strychnine alone. And I pray your attention to the oases in which there was no question as to strychnine having been administered in which the symptoms were so similar — the symptoms so analogous— that I think you cannot hesitate to come to the conclusion that this death was death by strychnine. Several witnesses of the highest eminence, both on the part of the Crown and for the defence, agree that in the whole range of their experience, observation, and knowledge, they have known of no natural disease to which these remarkable symptoms can be attri- buted. That being so, and there being a known poison which will produce them, how strong, how cogent, how irresistible is the conclusion that it is that poison, and that poison alone; to which they are to be attributed. On the other hand, the case is not without its difficulties. Strychnia was not found in this body, and we have it no doubt upon strong evidence, that in a , great variety of experiments upon the bodies of animals, killed by strychnia, strychnia has been detected by tests which science placed at the disposal of scientific men. If strychnia had been found, of course there would have been no diiEculty in the case, and we should have had none of the ingenious theories which medical gentle- men have been called here to propound. The question for your consideration is, whether the absence of its detection leads conclusively to the view that this death was not caused by the administration of strychnia. Now, in the first place, under what circumstances was the examination made by Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees. They told us that the stomach of the man was brought to them for analysation under the most unfavourable circum- stances. They state that the contents of the stomach had been lost, and therefore they had no opportunity of experimenting upon them. It is true that they who put the por- tions of the body into the jar make statements somewhat different. But there appears to have been by accident some' spilling of the contents, and there is the most undeniable evidence of considerable bimgling in the way in which the stomach had been cut and placed in the jar. It was cut, says Dr. Taylor, from end to end, and it was tied up at both ends. It had been turned among the intestines, and placed amongst a mass of feculent matter, and was in the most unsatisfactory condition for analysation. It is very true that Dr. Nunneley, Mr. Herapath, and Dr. Sotheby say that whatever impurities there may have been, if strychnia had been in the stomach they would have found strych- nia there. I should have had every confidence in the testimony of Mr. Herapath if he had not confessed a fact which had come to my knowledge, that he had asserted that this was a case of poisoning, but that they did not go the right way to find it out. I reverence the man who, from a sense of justice and love of truth, wHl come forward m favour of any man for the purpose of stating what he believes to be true ; but 1 abhor the trafficked testimony which I regret to see men of science sometimes advance. But, assuming aU they say to be true, as to. the case of detecting strychnine, is it certain that it can be found in all cases? Dr. Taylor says no ; and it would be a most mischievous and dan- gerous proposition to assert that it is necessarUy so, for it enables many a guilty man to escape, who, by administering the smallest quantity necessary to destroy Me, might pre- vent its detection in the stomach. _ . What ha^e these gentlemen done i They have given large doses in the experiments they 1^6 lave made for the purposes of this case, in ■w^Bich they have teen reteitreii — I use the worS ■ "retained," for it is the prpper word— 'in all these cases, 1 say, they have given closes large enough to be detected. But the gentlemen who made the experiments in Cotfk's case failed 'in detecting strychnine in two oases out of four in whitih they had administered it to animals. The conclusion I draw is that there is no positive mode of detection. But this case does not lest here. Alas, I wish it did ! I must now draw your attention to one part of the case which, has not been met or attempted to be disputed in the Slightest degree 'by my learned friend.- My learned friend said that he would contest the case Tor the prosecution istep ty step. Alas! we are now upon ground upon which my friend has not even ventured a word -iit -explanation. Was the prisoner at the bar possessed of 'the poison of ■strychnia ? This is a matter with which it behoved my learned friend to deal, and to exhaust all the means in 1>i» power in order to meet this part of the case. The prisoner obtained possession of strychnia on the Monday night. It is true that the evidence of the man who sold the strychnia to Palmer, as I stated at the outset of these proceedings, and I repeat it now, must be received with care and attention. Now Newton said that on the night when Palmer came back from London, 'he ■came to him and obtained three grains of that poison, the symptoms and effects Of which are precisely similar to those which are^tated to have occurreii in the case of this poor man. With Tespect to the evidence of Newton, my learned friend has done no move than repeat the warning which I gave you at the commencement of the case. You have heard the reason assigned by •the witness why he did not statethe fact of his t been the result^ of natural disease. He had noticed the strange attitude of the deceased— his chnched hands, and the unusual appearance of his face— and being a man of natUi-al slirewdness and sagacity, he felt a lurking suspicion which he could -hot unravel, that there must have been tout play in the case. He made known to the prisoner his intention of havmg the body opened before it was consigned to the grave. It is true that the prisoner did not flmch &om that trying ordeal, and that he met with firmness the trying gaze of Mr. Stevens when the report of the post-mortem examination was first mentioned. But finding that there was to be a post-mortem examination, he was anxious to know who was to perforni it. Mr. bteyens would not inform him, but merely stated that it was to take place on the Monday, ihen we have on the Sunday that remarkable conversation between the prisoner and Newton, which has been for some time known to the Crown. It is true that Newton did not men- tion the conversation in the course of his examination before tlie coroner ; but the recoil for his silence upon tlie subject on that occasion may be easdy proved. He -was called at the inquest solely for the puipose of corroborating the evidence of Roberts with respect to Palmer's appearance in Dr. Hawkins's shop on the Tuesday mormng ; and to that point his evidence before the coroner was confined. He has sin«=/^POS«dAat during ^ convei-sation with Palmer on the Sunday, the latter suddenly asked him, " What quantity of sterchnme would you give if you wanted to kill a dog ?" The reply was, " Fromhalf-a- ^n to a grain." '/he prisoner then a^ked, '< Would you expect to find any traces of it hX stoiach after death;" Newton answered, "No;" and, on his domg so, he observed the nriaoner make a movement conveying an intimation ot his deligtit. attempted to show that the ^ri^oner had purchased the strychnia at the ^^T "^«"^"^f j '^„« week for the purpose of destroying dogs; but no evidence whatever has been adduced to Tsmhlish 8 uch a point : and we had no evidence of any kind to show how hat strychnia was :3 a Bu in/l arn'ed friend has coptended that the prisoner had no ^t'-f. '^-^^'"2 ^^y the iif« Of bis friLd. Cook. Now if I convince you UT>on nmmpoachahle evidence that the death of Cook had he«a caused by itrychnine, and that that strjohiiine could only '^'' ^^^^y oon- >uimstw«d by the prisoner, tjjen the question of motive muat become a mere se ^.^^^ ^^^^ jiideration. It is often difficult to dive into the breast «f matt, a-ud to ^scerid,^ i„sorulable certainty the reasons which directed him to any particular course of a'="°"^jj ^'^theuticated fact, character of aiiy particular motive oughi oot to destroy the iorce °^^^^^^^ '^^^ (jo^bt as to the But motive is unquestionably an iniportant element in a case ""'^ minds that in this case facts cao by any possibility re«t. Ibelieveloaii P^'^^'^''^ , t^Jaway the life of Cook. He the prisoner had a motive, and a »ery obvious motive, '"'' 'f-';~'° t. It appears that in the was at the time reduced to a condiUon of the ■*""«*'/, q goo ^F which £12>500 worth was in month of November last he owed su bills not l^*' '''*"*„' j,r«ssivu! for immediate paymettt. the hands of Pratt ; and out of that latter sum *^'^""."„of£i,o^, due to the latter in the By the death of Cook he was enabled to obtam P''r,T°°„,oney which Cook must have had shape of bets, be was enabled '» '''"^"' P^^f/j'''" " „drng to one of the witnesses, must have about him on 1.^ arrival at Kugoleyand^w^^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^ ^g^^j ^^ich the amounted to £700 or £300; and *>; aUempted to V ^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^ Shrewsbury Messrs. Weatherby were to ^ave rece ved a^ ^e Weatherby for the £351}, and pur- Handicap. The order ^^"''■■'l^J^^^y/J;^'^ 1 een sent back by them to the prisoner; Ld if that porting to bear the 7"*'";<= "^ f ""i^'jf ^^/been produced on the part of the defendant ? ■ •'»" MrfeaTn'ed friei'''sfy7jh:K wa° the bes? friend of the prloner, and that Cook was the only person to whom he could look for assistance in his embarrassments. But Cook had no means of assisting him, unless he wore to appropriate to his use the money which he had won at Shrewsbury which was all the property he then possessed; and can any one believe that the de- ceased would have parted with that money, and would have left himself wholly without any resotirees for the approaching winter ? My learned friend contends that the fact that Palmer bod written the letter on the Friday night, in which he asked Fisher to pay £200 to Pratt, on account of a transaction in which both he and Palmer were interested, while £.S0O more were to be sent up on that night — my learned friend contends that that fact shows that the prisoner and the deceased perfectly understood one another at the time, and goes fiir to prove the inno- cence of his client. To my mind, however, that very circumstance affords a very strong argument in favour of the case for the Crown. The only transaction with Pratt, in which Palmer and Cook were both interested, was that relating to the bill for £500, and in which Cook bad assigned bis horse as a collateral security. It is very easy to see that he must have felt particularly anxious that that claim should at once be settled, and that his horses should come iiito his own undisputed possession, one of these horses being a very valuable one, namely, Polestar, which had just won the Shrewsbury race. He accordingly, I have no doubt, gave Palmer £300 to be sent up to London on account of that bill; but that sum was never applied by the prisoner to the purpose for which it had been placed in bis hands. There is not the slightest foundation for the statement that Cook had entered into an arrangement with Palmer for the purpose of defrauding Fisher of the £200 he had advanced; for there was nothing in his character which could show that he was capable of so infamous an act, and it could not possibly have been his interest that it should take place. I will not ask youto direct your attention to the request addressed by the prisoner to Cheshire, the postmaster, that he should bear his witness to the genuineness of Cook's signature to the order on the Messrs. Weatherby for the sum of £350. That request was made forty-eight hours after Cook's death; and if the signature was not a forgery, why was that extraordinary demand made of Cheshire, and why had not the document been since produced ? It is impossible to forget that if Cheshire had testified to the genuine- ness of that document, the prisoner would have been enabled to exercise over him the most fatal control, and that he might then have compelled him to sign another paper, transferring, as the prisoner had sought to do in the course of one of his conversations with Mr. Stevens, to the deceased the liability for £4,000 or £5,000 due on bills to Pratt, and outstanding in his own name. All these facta show irre&agably, as I contend, tliat the death, of Cook had, in the opinion of the prisoner, become most desirable for his own relief. There is another part of his conduct as tending to throw light on this matter, and that is with reference to Cook's betting book. On the night when Cook died — ere the breath had hardly parted from that poor man's body — the prisoner was found there, rummaging his pockets, and searohing for his papers. When, subsequently, Stevens asked for the betting book, the prisoner said, " Oh, its of no use, for a dead man's bets are void." True it is that a dead man's bets are void, but not when ihey arc paid during his life. Who received the bets ? The prisoner at the bar. Who was answerable for them ? The prisoner at the bar. Who had an interest in concealing the amount of those debts ? The prisoner at the bar. If Stevens had seen that book, he would have seen that Cook was entitled to a sura of £1,020 ; he would have seen that Pisher was his agent, and from him that Herring, and not Fisher had calculated his bets. But there is still more yet to be accounted for. When Stevens determined upon having a, post -mortem examination, what was the conduct of the prisoner 131 at the bar ? [The learned Attoniejr-Gencral then proceeded to refer to the arriral of Dr. Harland in tlie town of Rugeley for the purpose of making the examination, liis conversa- tion -with Palmer, when the latter said that Cook had died of epileptic fits, and that traces lhe learned Judge observed ihcit the jury would recollect that when that letter was written Mr. Stevens, the stepfather of Cook, was making inquiries of a nature which .were certainly very disagreeable to Palmer. [Haying first disposed of that portion of the correspondence respect- iag money due from Palmer to Pratt, and with regard to which Cook was supposed to have no interest, the learned judge next proceeded to read that branch of the correspoDdence relating 10 the assignment ot the two racehorses, Polestar and Sirius, and to some other occurrences to ffhitch Cook was supposed to have been a parly.] With respect to the cheque for £373, sent by Pratt to Palmer for Cook, from which the words " or bearer" had been struck out, hit Lordship observed: — Now, it is rather suggested on the part of th« prosecution, upon this evidence, that Cook had been defrauded of this money by Palmer, and certainly the endorse- ment was not in Cook's handwriting; but, as was very properly argued on the part of Palmer, it is v«ry possible that Cook may have authorized Palmer or some one else to write his name. Chashire, a clerk in the bank, is then called, and says that the check wss csirried to Palmer's acsount. Now, all this may have happened with the consent of Cook, in pursuance of same agreement between him and Palmer. {[His Lordship then read the crosa-f^Kamination of Pr*tt, the bill of £500, drawn by Palmer on Cook, and payable on the 2o(l of December, and and also the evidence of Arnishaw, who proved that on the 1.3th November Palmer was in a fitale of embarrassment, and that on the 20th he received from him two £50 notes 1 ]t is for yoQ, gentlemen, to draw your own inference from this, evidence. Having before the races beatt pressed for money, on the night of the Tuesday on which Cock died he has two £50 notee in hi< possession. [Hie Lonbbip next read the evidence of Spillbury, who on the 2?nd of Kovember received 8 £St> note from Palmer; and of Strawbridge, who proved that on tie 19th 135 of Novemter his balance at the bank was only £9 6s.] This evidence certainly shows that ''l| finances of tho jirisoner were, at the lowest ebb, anil he- had no means of meeting his bills. [His Loruship next read 'Wrijht's eviilende as to the large debts due to his brnther from Palmer, and the bill of sale given by Palmer, as security, npon the whole of his property; Strawbridge's evidence as to the forgery of Mrs. Palmer's name to acceptances; and the further evidence of M,t. Weatherby, particularly calling the attention of the jury to the fact of the cheque purporting to be signed by Cook having been reHirned to Palmer by Mr. Wea- therby, when he refused payment of it.] A great deal, said his Lordship, turn* upon! the question of whether that cheque was really sighed by Cook or not, as, if not, it sho ws that Palmer was dealing with Cook's money and appropriating it to his own use. Mr. Serjeant Sueb observed that Mr. Weatherby expressaJ an opiaion that the cheque was Cook's. Lord CviiPEELL! Mr. Weatherby said that the body of the- cheque was not in Cook's hand- writing, and he had paid no attention to the signature. Yon, gentlemen, must consider all the eijideace with regard to this part of the case. The cheque is not produced, althongb it was sunt back by Mr. Weatherby to Palmer, and notice to produce it has been given. If it had been produced we could have seen whether Cook's signature was genuine. It is net produced ! [His Lordship then read the evidence of Butler, to whom Palmer owed money in respect of bets ; and of Bergen, an inspector of police, who had searched Palmer's house for papers after the inquest] It might have been expected that the cheque which was returned by Mr. Weatherby to Palmer, who professed to set store upon it, and tu have given value for it, and who required Mr. Weatherby not to pay away any money until it had been satisfied, would have been found, but it is not forthcoming. It is for yon to draw whatever inference may suggest itself to you from this circumstance. We then come to the' arrest of Palmer. Now, as it strikes my mind, the circumstance that Palmer remained in the neighbourhood after suspicion had risen against him is of importance, and ought to be taken into consideration by you, although he may, per- haps, have done so thinking that from the care he had taken nothing could ever be discovered against him. It seems, however, that he was imprisoned on civil process before the verdict of the coroner's jury rendered him amenable to a criminal charge. Besides the cheque purporting to be signed by Cook, the prisoner also had in his possession a document purporting that certain bills had been accepted by him for Cook, but neither that document nor any such bills have been found. All the papers which were not retained were returned to the prisoner's brother, and notice has been given to produce them,5 but neither the b'lls nor the docnment are prodnced. With regard to this witnes.s's statement, that Field was at Rugeley, I know not how it is con- nected with the present investigation. If Field was employed to inquire into the health of Walter Palmer at the time the insurance was effected on his life, and into the circnmstancea of his death, I know not what he can have to do with the question yoii are to determine. This, then, is the conclusion of the evidence upon one branch of the case, and now begins the evidence relating to the health of Cook and the events immediately preceding his death. [His Lordship then read the evidence of Ismael Fisher, observing in the course' of it that oce of the most mysterious circumstances in the case was that after Cook had staled his suspicion as to Palmer Living put something in his brandy he remained constantly in Palmer's company ; he appeared to have entire confidence in Palmer, and during the few remaining days of his life he sent for Palmer whenever he was in distress ; in fact, he seemed to be under the influence of Palmer to a very great extent. His Lordship also directed the attention of the jury to the circumstance of the £700 which Cook had intrusted to the care of Fisher having be»n retumod to him on the morning of the day on which he went with Palmer to Rugeley. His Lordship then read Fisher's statement that he had been in the habit of settling Cook's account,] And now, he continued, comes the very important letter of the 16th of November; Certainly if Cook induced Fisher to make an advance of £200 on the security of his bets, and th»n employed another person to collect those bets, there was a fraud on his part. In the letter of the 16th of November Cook says — "It is of great importance, both to Mr. Palmer and myself, that a sum of £500 should be paid to Mr. Pratt, of 5, Queen-street, Mayfair, to-morrow, without faiL £30J has been sent up to-night, and if you will be kind enough to pay the other £20U to-motrow, on the receipt of this, you will greatly oblige me, and 1 will give i(i to you on Monday at Tattersall's." Mr. Serjeant Shbe: There is a postscript, my Lord. Lord Campbell. Yes. "lam much better." Now, the signature to'this letter is un- doubtedly genuine, and it shows, first, that Cook at that time intended to be in London on the Monday, and, secondly, that he desired an advance of £200 to pay Pratt. How he came to alter his intention as to going to London, and how Herring came to be employed for him instead of Fisher, yoU must infer for yourselves. But if he authorised the employment of Herring in order to prevent Fisher from reimbursing himself, he was a party to a fraud- You must infer whether he did so or not. [His Lordship then read the remainder of Fisher's evidence, and a&o the evidence of Mr. Jones, the law stationer, of GibsoK, ami of Sir». Brook.] Thisji he said, ends the history of Cook's ilkess at Shrewsbiiry. Taken by itself it amounts to 136 very little, but in comiexion nitb what foUiws it deserves youv serious consiJeralioii. Then with regard to what took place at the Ta'.hot Anns, at Riigcley, where Cook lodged, )0U have a most important witness— Elizabeth Mills. [His Lordship then read the evidence of Mills, observing that the events of Monday and Tuesday, the 19th and 20tU of November, and the symptoms which immediately preceded the death of Cook, formed a most material part of the case.] It has been suggested, continued the learned Judge, by the counsel for the defence, that Elizabeth Mills may have been bribed by Mr. Stevens, the father-in-law of Cook, to giva evidence prejudicial to the priaoner ; but, in justice both to Mr. Stevens and to Elizabeth MilU, I am bound to declare that not one feet has been siJdnced to warrant us in believing that there i« the slightest foundation for any iuch statement. It has also been alleged that Mr. Steveng called upon Elizabeth Mills, and read to her an extract from a newspaper, with the view, it is presumed, of influencing her evidence or guiding it in a particular direction ; but this, too, is a gratuitous assertion, and, so far from being supported by the evidence, it is distinctly denied. As regards the manner in which Palmer was dressed when he ran over from his own house to the Talbot Arms on the night of Cook's death, there is no doubt a difference between the testimony of Elizabeth Mills and that of her fellow-servant, Lavinia Barnes, the former assert- ing that he wore a plaid dressing-gown, and the latter a black coat ; but it is for you to decide whether the point is of sufficient significance to justify a suspicion dishonourable to the veracity of either witness. It has been asserted also that there are certain discrepancies between the evidence given by Elizabeth Mills before the coroner and that which she gave in your presence. That you may the more accurately estimate the importance of those difi'erences it is competent for the prisoner's counsel to require that the depositions shall be read. What say you, brother Shee ? Mr. Serjsant Shee : With your Lordship's permiBsion, -we desire to have them read. Lord Campbell : Then let them be read, hy all means. The Clerki of Arraigns then read the depositions of Elizabeth Mills, as taken befora the coroner. , *. . Lord CsSiraELL: You have now heard the depositions read, and you will decide for yourselves whether her statements before the coroner are not substantially the same as those which she made before you in the course of her examination. Yon wOl have to determine whether there is any material di'icrepaney between them. Her own explana- tion of her omission to state before the coroner that she was sick after partaking of the broth prepared for Cook is, that she was not asked the question : but that she was sick the evidence of another witness goes 'distinctly to prove ; and it is for you to say whether, corroborated as it thus is, the testimony of lilizabeth Mills is worthy of being believed, and, if so, what inference should be drawir from it. The next witnesses are Mr. James Gardner, attorney, of Rugeley, and Lavinia Barnes, fellow-servant of Elizabeth Mills, at the Talbot Arms Inn. The learned judge, having read his notes of the evidence of the witnesses in question, observed, the testimony of Lavinia Barnes corroborates that of Mills as to the latter having been seized with illness immediately after she had taken two spoonfuls of the h|oth. There is some little difference of evidence as to the exact time •when P"almerHvas seen at liugeley on the Monday night, after his return from London; but you&ftve before yo^'the statements of all the'-witnesses, and you will decide whether the point is oiie of essential importance. [The Ipamed judge then read over, without comment, his*notes of the evidence given by the witnesses Ann Kowley and Sarah Bond, and then proceeded to recapitulate the facts-deposed to by Mr. Jones, surgeon, of Lutter- worth.] Your attention, he observed, has been very properly directed to the letter written by the prisoner on Sunday evening to Mr. Jones, summoning the latter to the sick bed of his friend Cook. The learned counsel for the defence interprets that document in a sense highly favourable to the prisoner, and contends that the fact of his having insured the presence of such a witness is conclusive evidence of the prisoner's innocence. You wUl say whether you think that it is fairly susceptible of such a construction. It is important, however, to consider at what period of Cpok's illness Jones was sent for, and in what a condition he was When Jones arrived. Palmer's assertion, in his letter to Jones, was, that Cook had been suffering from diSrrhsea ; but of this statement we have not the slightest corroboration in the evidence. When Jones, looking at Cook's tongue, observed that it was not the tongue of a bilious attack, Palmer's reply was, " Yoji -should have seen it before." "What reason could Palmer have hadjbr usi»g these words, when there is not the slightest evidence of Cook's having sufferedJBom such an illness ? It is a matter for your consideration. [The deposition of Jones taken before the coroner having been read at the instance of Mr. Serjeant Shee, the learned Judge remarks,-*-] It is for you to say whether, in your opinion, this deposition at all varies from the evidence given by !Mr. Jones when examined here ; I confess that I see no variation and no reason to suppose that Mr. Jones's evidence is not the evidence of sincerity and of truth. Alter observing that the evidence of Dr. Savage [which he read] went to show that devrn to the hour of the Shrewsbury races and the attack on the Wednesday night, Cook was in perhaps better health than he had enjoyed for along time, the learned Judge called the atten- w tion of the jury .» the evidence of Ouarles Newton, who deposed to having furnished three grains of strychnia to Palmer on the Monday night, and to having seen him at the shop of Mr. Havrkins on the Tuesday. Having read the evidence of this witness and his deposition before the coroner, his Lordship said : — This is tlie evidence of Newton, a most important witness. It certainly might he urged that he did not mention the furnishing of the strychnia to Palmer on the Monday night before the coroner; he did not mention it till the Tuesday morning, whea he was coming up to London. That certainly requires consideration at your hands ; but then yon will observe that in his deposition, which has teen read to you,' although there is an omis- sion of that, which is always to be borne in mind, 'there is bo contradiction of anything which ht has said here. Well, then, you are to consider what is the probability of his inventing this wicked lie, — a most important lie, if lie it be. He had no ill-will towards the prisoner at the bar; he had never quarrelled with him, and had nothing to gain by injuring him, much less by betraying him to the scaffold. I cannot see any motive that he could have for inventing a lie to take away the life of the prisoner. No inducement was.held out to him by the Crown; he says himself that no inducement was held out to him, and that he at last disclosed this circum- stance from a sense of duty. If you believe him his evidence is very strong against the pri- soner at the bar ; but we will now turn to the next witness, Charles Joseph Roberts, whose evi- dence is closely connected vrith that of Newton. [Having read the evidence of Roberts, Mr, Hawkins's assistant, who staled that on the Tuesday he sold to the prisoner, at his master's shop, three grains of strychnia, his Lordship continued — ], This witness was not cross-examined as to the veracity of his testimony, nor is he contradicted in any way. It is not denied that on this Tuesday morning the prisoner at the bar got six grains of strychnia from Roberts. If you couple that with the statement of Newton — believing that statement — you have evidence of strychnia having been procured by the prisoner on the Monday night before the symptoms of strychnia were exhibited by Cook, and by the evidence of Roberts, undenied and unquestioned, that on the Tuesday six grains of strychnia were supplied to him. Supposing you should come to the conclusion that the Bymptoms of Cqpk were con- sistent T,Tith death liy strychnia— if you thiak that his symptoms are accounted for by merely natural disease, of course the strychifla obtained by the prisoner on the Monday evening and the Tuesday morning -would have no effect ; but if you should think that the symptoms -which Cook exhibited on the Monday and Tuesday nights are consistent with strychnia, then a case is made out on the part of the Cro^vn. After the most anxious con- sideration, I can suggest no possible solution of the purchase of this strychnia. The learned counsel for the prisoner told us in his speech that there was nothing for -which he -would not account. He quite properly denied that Newton was to be believed. Disbelieving Newton, you have no evidence of strychnia being obtained on the Monday evening ; but, disbelie\'ing Newtdn and believing Roberts, you have evidence of six grains of strychnia being obtained by the prisoner on the Tuesday morning, and of that you have no ex- planation. The learned counsel did not favoiu- us with the theory which he had formed in his own mind with respect to that strychnia. IJhere is no evidence, — there is no sug- gestion ho-w it was applied, what b^ame of it. fheX must not influence your 'verdiet, unless you come to the CDnclusion that'the symptoms of Cook were consistent -with'doath by strychnia. If you come to that conclusion, I should shrink from my duty, I should be un-vvorthy to sit here, if I did not calljfour attention to the inference that, if he purchased tliat strychnia, he purchased it for the purpose of administering it to Cook. [The evidence next read by the learned Judge was that of Mr. Stevens, the stepfather of Cook. Upon this the noble Lord observed. — ] The learned counsel for the prisoner, in the discnarge of his duty, made a very violent attack upon the character and conduct of Mr. Stevens. It will be for you to say whether you think it deserved that censure. In the conduct of that gentleman 1 caimot see anything in the slightest degree deserving of blame or repro- bation. Mr. Stevens was attached to this young man, who was his stepson, and who had no one else to take care qt him ; and, whatever ^he result of this trial may be, I think there were appearances which might well justify ^spicion. 'I know nothing which Mr. Stevens did which he was not jjerfectly justified irrfdoing. Having been to Rugeley and seen the bb(ty of the deceased, he- goes to his respectable solicitors in London, who recom- mend him to a resgectable solicilior^ Mr. Gardner, at Rugeley. Under Iiis advice Jj}. Stevens acts ; a conversation ensues between himself and the prisoner Palmer, but I see Qothing m the proceedings w^ich he took at all deserving animadversion. Whether Palmer had any right to complain of what was said about the betting book, and whether Mr. Stevens eould be blamed for suspecting that Palmer had taken it, it is for you to say. [Having read the evidence of the woman Keelcy, who laid out the body of Conk, and of Dr. Harland, who spoke to the circumstances attending ihe two post-mortem examinations, to the pushing of Mr. Devonshire, who operaled, and the removal of the-jar on the first occasion, the learned Judge continued — ] From that push no inference unfavourable to the prisoner can be drawn, as it might easily be the result ef accident. In the removal of the jar, there would be not^in» more than in the pushing, were rt nqt coupled with the evidence afteriyards given, 138 riliich may lead to Ihe inference that there was a plan to Jestroy the jar, and prevent the analysis of its contents. [The learned Chief Justice then read the evidence qf Mr. Devonshire, the surgeon, of Rugeley ; Dr. Monokton, the physician ; of Mr. John Boycott, the clerk to Messrs. Landor, Gardner, and Landor, the Rugeley attorneys; and of James Myatt, the postboy of the Talhot Arms, who swore that Palmer had offered Mm £10 to upset the fly containing i\Ir. Stevens and the jar with the contents of the deceased's stomach. Remarking upon the evi- dence of this last witness, the Chief Justice said— J In cases of circumstantial evidence you must Ipok to the conduct of the person charged, and you must consider whether that conduct is consistent with innocence or is compatible with guilt. I see no reason to doubt the evidence of that postboy. An attempt was made upon cross-examination to show that the offer of £10 was not made iu reference to the jar, but as an inducement to upaet Mr. Stevens. It was suggested, you vrill remember, that Stevens had wantonly provoked Palmer, and that Palmer might bo eKcucatl, therefore, if he wished him to be upset. I see no ground for supposing that SteveBs. gave Palmer any such provocation, and, if you believe the postboy, that bribe was offered to him to induce him to upset the jar. That is not, indeed, a decisive proof of guilt, but it is for you to say whether the prisoner did not enter upon that contrivance in order to prevent an op- por(.tmity of examining tlie contents of the jar, which might contain evidence against. him. AVe haue next the evidence of Samuel Cheshire, formerly postmaster at Rugeleyi [The learned Jftdge read the evidence, remarking upon the circumstance of Palmer calling upon him to witns&s a document said to have been signed by Cook, as if he had been present and bad seen Cook sign it ; upon the remarkable fact of Palmer endeavouring to obtain information from Cheshiie as to the contents of the letter from Dr. Taylor to Mr. Gardner; and upon theimpro- pvii^iy of the following letter, addressed by the prisoner to the coroner, Mr. Ward, during the prp;i;rsss of the inquest : — "My dear Sir,— I am sorry to tell you tbat I am still conQaecI to my t)ed. I (ion't think it wag men- tldu«)d at the inquest yesterday that Cook was taken ill on Saoclay and Monday night, in the same way as ha was on the Tuesday, when he died. The chambermaid at the Crown Hotel (Masters's) can prove tkis, I also liettBVt) that a man of the name of Fisher is coming down to prove he received aomo money at SlTrewsbury. Now. here he could only pay Smith .£10 out of £41 he owed him. Had you not better call Smith to prove this ? And, again, whatever Professor Tayloe. may say to-morro\7, he wrote from London 1ft t Tuesday night to Gardner to say, * We (and Br, KeeB)have this day finished our analysis, and find no tracea of either strychnia, prnssio acid, or opivm.' What can beat this from a man likti Taylor, if ho 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 thia is strictly private and confidential, hut it is true. As regards hie betting-book, I know nothing of ' it, and it ia of no good to any one, I hope the verdict to-morrow wdl be that he died of natural causes, and thus end it. "Everyoara, " W. P."] Palmer says m that letter that he had seen it in black and white. Cheshire states that he liivd not shown him the letter. However that might' be, there can be no question that this was a LijWy improper letter for the prisoner to write; and speaking as the chief coroner of England, and being desirous for the due administration of justice and of the law, I have no hesitation in saying that it was not creditable in Mr. Ward to receive such a lettei^ithout a public ooudemna- tion of its having been written. You will say, gentlemen, whether the conduct of the prisoner in that respect— rsnggesting to the coroner the verdict which he should obtain from the jury— is consistent with innocence. The noble and learned lord then read the evidence of Ellis Crisp, the police inspector at Rugeley, who produced a medical book which had been found in the prisoner's house, and in which the following passage ocourred in the prisoner's handwriting:— " Strychnia kills by causing tetanic fixing of the respiratory muscles;" and remarking that this was a book which was in the possession of the prisoner seven years ago, when he was a student, he said that there was nothing in it which ought to weigh for a moment against the prisoner at the bar. Having read without comment the evidence of Elizabeth Hawkes, the boarding-house keeper, with respect to the sending of game to Ward, of Slack, her porter, and of Herring, who spoke to the directions given him by Palmer as to the disposal of Cook's bets, his Lordship called the particular attention of the jury to the statement in the evidence of Bates, that the prisoner had told him not to let any one see him deliver the letter to Ward. The next witness, he con- tinued, is Dr. Curling, and now, gentlemen, you will be called upon to come to some conclu- sion with regard to the evidence of the scientific men respecting the symptoms of the deceased before death, and the appearance of his body after death. You wilt have to say how far those symptoms and those appearances are to be accounted for by natural disease, and how far they are the symptoms and appearances produced by strychnine. It will be a question of great im- portance whether, in your judgment, they correspond with natural, that is, with traumatic or idiopathic tetanus, or with any other disease whatever. [His Lordship read the evidence of Dr. Curling, and the examination in chief of Dr. Todd, without comment, and directed the Clerk of Arraigns to read the depositions of Dr. Bamford. The depositions were accori^ngly read, and his Lordship then remarked,—] When this deposition was first given in evidence, l>r. Bamford was too ill to come into court; but he partiidly recovered, and on a subsequent day he was examined and gave the vivii voce evidence which I will now read. [The learned Lord here read the evidence, observing, with regard to the pills made np by Dr. Bamford, that the prisoner cer- tainly had an opportunity of changing them, if he pleased j that circumstance deserved their 139 serious ccusidevation.] There is not, he contimied, the sh'ghteet rcasoti to impute any bad faith to Dr. Bamfbrd, but it is allowed, on all hands, that the old man -was mistaken in saying that the death was caused by apoplexy. All the witnesses on both sides say that, whatever the disease may have been, it was no^ apoplexy ; but he tilled up a certificate that it was apoplexy, in oomplianoe with a recent Act of Parliament which renders a certificato of the cause of death necessary. [The cross-examination of Dr.Todd was then read, and his Lordship pointed out that the case of strychnine seen by that witness bore a certain resemblance to Cook'a attack on tlic Monday niglit.] The next witness is a gentleman of high repntfttion and unblemished honour, Sir B. Brcdie, one of the most distinguished medical men of the present time. [His Lordship read Sir B. Brodie's evidence.] That distinguished man tells you, as his solemn opinion, that he never knew a case in which the symptoms he had heard described arose from any disease. He is welh acquainted with tlie various diseases which afflict the human frame, and he knows of no disease answering to the description of the symptoms which preceded Cook's death. If you agree with him in opinion, the inference is that Cook died from some cause other than disease. [The learned Judge then read the evidence of Dr. Daniel, who agreed with Sir B. Brodie, and of Dr. Solly, who also thought that natural disease would not account for death."]. Mr. Seijeant Shee wished to have the cross-examination of this witness read. Lord Campbell: Certainly. I daresay it is very applicable. Mr. Serjeant Shee read a part of the cross-examination : — *• Is not the risuB aardonicns very common in all forma of violent eotivulBions ? — No, it is not common. 1*068 it not frequently occur in all violent convul Bions wbicli aBsnme, without being tetanus, a tetanic fona and appe&ranoe? — Yes, it does. Are they not avery numerous claas?— No.lhey aj-e not numerous. la it not very difficult to distinguisli between them and idiopathic tetanufi ? — In the onset, but not in the progress. I tilink you Bay you have only seen one case of idiopathic tetanus ?—l have only seen one. When you answered that question of mine you spo^e from your reading, and not from your experience ? — I did not know your qnestion applied to idiopathic tetanus alone. Does epilepsy sometimes occur in the midst of violent convulsions ? — ^Epilepsy itself is a disease of a convulsive chaa-acter. I am aware of that; but vou heard the account that was given by Mr. Jones of the few last moments before Mr. Cook died ? Yes, I did. That he uttered a piercing shriek, fell back and died ; did he not ? Yes. TeU me whether that last shriek and the paroxysm that occiiiTed immediately afterwards — would not that hear a strong re- semblance to epilepsy? In some respects it bears a resemblance to it. Are all epileptlo con- vulsions — I do not mean epileptic con"\'ul6ions designated by scientiiic men as of the epileptic character — are they 'all attended wi,lh an utter waijt of consciousness? — No, not all. Does not death by convul- sions frequently oecnr without leaving any trace in the body behind it? — Death from tetanus, accom. panied with convulsions, leave aelttom any trace behjind ; but death irom epilepsy leaves a trace behind it generally." Lord Campbell. — The jury have heard you read it. It is for them to say whether it is important in their view or not. Evidence is next given of various cases of tetanus arising from strycluiine ; it is for you, gentlemen, to consider how far the symptoms in those cases resemble the symptoms in this case, or how far the symptoms in this case resemble those of ordinary tetanus, idiopathic or traumatic. [The learned judge read his notes of the evidence given by Dr. Robert Corbett, Dr. Watson, Dr. Patterson, and Mary Kelly, wit- nesses examined to prove the symptoms in the Glasgow case, and then proceeded to call the attention of the jury to the testimony of Caroline Hickson, Mr. Taylor, surgeon, and Charles Bloxham, all of whom were examined with reference to the case of Mrs. Smyth, of Homsey. He then passed on to the Leeds case — that of Mrs. Dove, whose name had transpired so- frequently in the course of the trial, that it would be vain to affect any reserve on the subject now. After reading the evidence of Jane Witham and George Morley, the learned judge observed, — ] It is beyond all controversy that strychnia was not discovered in the dead body of Cook, but it is important to bear in mind that the witness Morley declares that in cases where the quantity of .strychnine administered had been the minimum dose that will destroy life, it is to be expected that the chemist should occasionally fail in detecting traces of the poison after death. That case of Mrs. Dove's is a very important one, because it is a case in which it is beyond all question that death was caused by strychnine, however administered. It is for you to deteimine how far the symptoms of this unhappy lady corresponded with or differed from those of Cook. You will remember that she had repeated attacks of convulsions. She recovered from several, but at last a larger dose than usual was given, and death ensued. With regard to the possibility of the poison being decomposed in the blood, that appears to be a vexed question among toxieologists, aiid Mr. Morley diflfers on the point from other and, I doubt not, most siiieere witnesses. The great question for your consideration at this part of the inquiry is whether there may not be cases of death by strychnia in which, nevertheless, the strychnia has not— let theeause be what it may— been discovered in the dead body. [The learned Judge then read the evidence of Edward Moore in the Clntterbuck case, where an over-dose of strychnia had been adminis- tered; and proceeded as follows:—] I have now to call your attention to the evidence of Dr. Taylbr,T)ut before doing so 1 think it right to intimate that I- fe^'it will be impossible to con- cludte this- case to-night. It is most desirable, however, to finish the evidence for the prosecution. 140 this evening. When that is concluded I shall be under the necessity of adjourning ihf Court, and asking you to attend here again to-morrow, when, God willing, this investigation will certainly close. [The learned Judge then proceeded to read his notes of Dr. Taylor's evidence, and on arriving at that portion of it in which the witness described the results of his own experiments upon animals observed, — ] There is here a most important question for your con- sideration. Great reliance is placed by tlie prisoner's counsel, and very naturally so, upoii the fact that no trace of strychnine was detected in the stomach of Cook by Dr. Taylor and Dr. Bees, who alone analyzed it and experimented upon it. But, on the other hand, you must bear in mind that we have their own evidence to show that there may be and have been cases of death by strychnine in which the united skill of these two individuals have failed to detect the presence of the strychnine after death. Both Dr. Taylor and Dr. Ilee.s have stated upon their oaths that in two cases where they knew death to have been occasioned by strychnine— the poison having, in fact, been administered with their own hands — they failed to discover the slightest trace of the poison in the dead bodies of the animals on which they had experimented. It is possible that other chemists might have succeeded in detecting strychnine in those animals, and strych- nine also in the jar containing the stomach and intestines of Cook ; but, however this may be, it is beyond all question that Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees failed to discover the faintest indications of strychnine in the bodies of two animals which they had themselves poisoned with that deadly drug. "Whatever may be the nature of the different theories propounded for the explanation of this fact, the fact itself is deposed to on oath ; and, if we believe the witnesses, does not admit of doubt. AVith regard to the letter from Dr. Taylor to Mr, Gardner, stating that neither strychnia, prussic acid, nor opium, had been found in the body, his Lordship ssiid this letter was "written before Cook's symptoms had been communicated to Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees ; but they had been informed that prussic acid, strychnia, and opium had been bought by Palmer on the Tuesday. They searched for all these poisons, but they found none. The only poison they found in the body was antimony, and therefore they did not, in the absence of symptoms, attribute death to strychnia, as they could not at that time ; but they say that it possibly may have been produced by antimony, because the quantity discovered in the body was no test of the quantity which might have been taken into the system. As to the letter which was written by Professor Taylor to Hie Lancet, the learned Judge remarked : I must say I think it would have been better if Dr. Taylor, trusting to the credit which lie had before acqtiired, had taken no notice of what had been said ; but it is for you to say whether, he having, as he says, been misrepresented, and having written this letter to set himself right, that materially detracts from the credit which would otherwise be given to his evidence. Having concluded the rcadmg of Dr. Taylor's evidence, his lordship said : This is Dr. Taylor's evidence. I will not comment upon it, because I am sure that you must see its importance with regard to the antimony and the strychnia . For the discovery of strychnia. Dr. Taylor experimented upon the bodies of two animals which he had himself killed with that poison, but in them no strychnia could be found. [The learned Judge next read the evidence of Dr. Recs, in commenting upon which he said : I do not know what interest it could be supposed that Dr. Taylor had to give evidence against the prisoner. He was regularly employed in his profession, and Hnew nothing about Mr. Palmer until he was called upon by Mr. Stevens, and the jar was given to him. He could have no enmity against the prisoner, and no interest whatever to misrepresent the facts. [Mr. Serjeant Siiee reminded the learned Judge that the experimehts upon the two rabbits were not made until after the inquest.] 'That makes no difference. If the witnesses are the witnesses of truth, there are equally cases where there has been the death of an animal by strychnia, and no strychnia can be found in the animal ; if that experiment had been made this morning, the fact would have been the same. Dr. Taylor has been questioned about some indiscreet letter^which he wrote, and some indiscreet conversation which he had with the editor of the Illustrated Times. Against Dr. Rees there is not even that imputation, and Dr. Rees concurs with Dr. Taylor that in these experiments the rabbits were killed by strychnia ; that they did whatever was in their power, according to their skiR and knowledge, to discover the strychinia, as they did with the contents of the jar, and no strychnia could be discovered. As to the antimony, he corroborates the testimony of Dr. Taylor. Antimony is a component of tartar emetic, tartar emetic produces vomiting, and you will judge from the vomiting at Shrewsbury and Rugeley whether antimony may have been administered to Cook at those places. Anti- mony may not have produced death, but the question of its administration is a part of tke Co^e which you must seriously consider. His Lordship then read the evidence of Pro- fessor Brande, of Dr. Christison, a man above suspicion, who said that if the quantity af strychnia administered waS small he should not expect to find it after death, and of Dr John Jii'kson, who spoke to the symptoms of idiopathic and traumatic tetanus as he had 141 had olworvod tl.om in India, wliicli concluded th» evidence on tlie part of tlia Crown. Havine thus gone through all the evidence for the prosecution, his Lo.J.hip iaUmated that ht .hould defer iho remainder of h.s charge until the following day ; and the Court wa3 therefore (at eight clock) adiourncd till ten o'elock the next morning. TWfiLETH DAY, May 26. This was tho 12th day of Ihe trial, and on no previous morning was there a greater crowd, either within the court, or waiting on the outside for admission. Among the person? ot dis- tinctiouupon the bench weie the Earl of Denbigh, Lord G. Lennox, Mr. Gaskell, :uid other members of Parliament, Counsel for the Crown— The Attorney-General, Mr. E. James, Q.C., Mr. Bodkin, Mr. Welsby, and Mr. Huddleston ; fbr the prisoner— Mr. Serjeant Shee, Mr. Grove, Q.C., Mr. Gray, and Mr. Eenealy. The learned Judges, Lord Campbell, Mr. Baron Alderson, and Mr. Justice Creswell, came into court about 10 o'clock, accompanied by the Sheritfs, Sir 3. W. Garden, and other aldermen. No sort of change has taken place in the appearance and general bearing of the prisoner. Once only, while the learned Judge was summing up the case which had been made out by the proieciiMon, a slight shade passed across his countenance, but it was gone in a moment. He was continually writing notes on small slips of paper, and handing them to one or other of his counsel. As soon as he had been placed at the bar. Lord Campbell proceeded with the charge. He said: — Gentlemen of the jury, — At the aJjoumment of the Court yesterday evening, I had finished the task of laying betoreyou all the evidence on the part of the prosecutiou, and that evidence, if unanswered, does certainly present for your consideration a very serious case against the prisoner at the bar. It appears that in tiie middle of November he was involved in pecuniary difliculties of the most formidable nature j that he had engagements to perform which he was unable to perform without some most extraordinary espedients; that he had to inake payments for which lie was unprepared; that actions had been brought against him and against his mother open forged bills; and that ha had no credit in any quarter from which money could be raised. It so happened, that at that time, on the 13th of November, Cook, the deceased, by winning a race, became master of at least £1,000; and there is evidence from which the inference may be drawn that the prisoner formed the design of appropriating that money to his own use. Whether he did endeavour to accomplish that object or not, it is for you to determine. We find, however, that he did appropriats the money to the payment of debts for which ho alone was liable. There is evidence from which it may be in- ferred that he drew a cheque in the name of Cook which was a forgery, and by means of which ha endeavoured to obtain payment of part of the money. There is further evidence that he e:n- ployed Herring to collect the money on the Monday, and to appropriate it to his own use. What effect would have been produced by the survival of Cook under such circumstances you are to infer. It Rirther appears, that on Cook's dcatli the prisoner contemplated the advantage of obtaining the horse Polostar, which had just won the race. Wo have also evidenqc of his having ikbricated a document declaring that certain bills of exchange, in which it appears that Cook had no concern, were negotiated for Cook's advantage, and that he had derived no benefit from them. That document, gentlemen, was brought forward after Cook's death; and if Cook liad sur- vived, the fraud must have been exposed. With respect to the joiut liability of Cook and the prisoner, it has been represented on behalf of the prisoner, that after Cook's death that liability -would be thrown entirely upon him, and he would be a severe loser. Now, such liability would bu rather a distant object ; and, on the other hand, it must be remembered that if the prisoner had obtained possession of all Cook's property by the means to which ha resorted, he would not h.ive been a severe loser by bis deat^. Upon the important question of whether Cook died from natural disease or from poison, wo have the evidence of Sir B. Brodic, and of other most hononrable and skilful men, who say that in their opinion he did not die from natural disease, as they know of no natural disease which will account for the symptoms attending his death. Many of them farther say that they believe the symptoms exhibited by him were the symptoms of atryoluiine— that they were what might be expected to be produced by strychnine, and that, comparing them with the symptoms of natural tetanus, they do not con-espond with those symptoms, but that they do correspond with tlie symptoms of strychnine. Then, gi^ntlomen, you are to take into c-oiisidoiHilion, t!;a fact lliat no sti-ychiiino wis ftnind in tho body, but there is no rule «f kw accor.iiiig to whioh poison muji l.i; 142 fouud in the body of a deceased befoio a charge of poisoning can be maintained, and all we know respecting strychnine not being found in tlie body is that, in that part of the body which was analysed by Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees they found none. Witnesses of great reputation, Dr. Clu-istison among the number, have said whore strychnine has been administered under certain circumstances, they should not expect that it would be found: and you have the. evidence of Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees that, having experimented upon animals certainly killed by strychnine, having resorted to the same means for its detection which they employed in examining the body of Coolc, no strychnine was to be discovered. Then with regard to the length of time that occurs between the administration of strychnine and its operation, the evidence seems to me to lead to this conclusion, that, although when administered to animals with the view of making experi- ments, it generally operates more rapidly than it is said to have operated in this instance, yet there is a difference in its operation upon animals and upon the human frame; and that where it is administered in the shape of pills, much may depend upon the manner in which those pills are made up, and likewise looking to the state of body of the person to whom it is administered, upon whether there was any previous tampering with the health of that person. It is asserted, too, that thdrc are instances in which a greater space of time elapsed than in this case between the administration of the poison, if poison was administered, and the appearance of the ^ymptom3. Mr. Serjeant Shee; I do not think those instances were proved, my lord. Lord Campbell. — There are instances in the books which it has been agreed on both, sides should be referred to in the course of the trial — there are instances recorded by me- dical ■writers, and spoken of in the evidence I have read, in which a longer time has elapsed. With regard to no blood having been found in the heart, the result of the evidence seems to be, when death is produced by contraction of the respiratory organs, causing asphyxia, blood is found in the heart ; but when it is produced by a spasm in the heart itself, the heart contracts, and the blood is expelled, so that after death no blood is found in it. You must also look at the evidence with regard to the conduct of the prisoner at the bar before the death of the deceased. You must consider the evidence as to his having tampered with the health of the deceased by administering something to him in brandy- and- water and in other things, one of them being the broth, a part of which was taken by Mills, and, according to her evidence and that of Barnes, caused her to be attacked, as the deceased had been, with vomiting. It seems clear that antimony was found in the body. It is for you to say whether it was administered by the prisoner. I again say that if you believe the witnesses, you connot doubt that the prisoner procured this very poison of strychnine on the Mondy and on the Tuesday — three grains on the Monday, six grains on the Tuesday. For what sur.pose was that poison obtained ? The witness who proved the purchase upon the Monday is impeached, but no impeachment rests on the evidence of the witness who swears that poison was sold by him on the Tuesday to the prisoner at the bar. What was his intention in buymg that poison i What was to be its application ? No explanation is given ! Then it is im- possible that you should not pay any attention to the conduct of the prisoner after the death. Prom the instances which have been given in evidence you will say whether his conduct was what might be expected from an innocent or from a guilty man. With regard to the betting-book, there is certainly reasonable evidence iiora which you may in- fer that in order to obtain possession of it he abstracted it from the room of the deceased. You may further take into consideration his attempt to bribe the postboy to overturn the jar containing those parts of the body which were to be sent up to London for analizatioii, and from which evidence might be obtained against him. You find him tampering with the postmaster to induce him to open a letter &om the medical men who were examining the body to Mr. Gardner, solicitor for the prosecution ; then, again, tampering with the coroner, and tiylng to induce him to procure a verdict from the jury that no murder had been committed. These are serious matters for you to consider. You must say what in- ferences you draw from them. Certainly they present, if unanswered, a very serious case for your consideration. If, however, you think either that the case for the prosecution is insufficient, or that the answer to it is satisfactory, the prisoner is entitled to your verdict. The answer consists of two parts — first, the medical evidence, and, secondly, the evidence as to facts. With regard to the medical witnesses on the part of the prisoner, I must observe that, althougii there were among them gentlemen of high honour, consummate integrity, and profound scientific knowledge,' who came here with a sincere wish te speak the truth, there were also gentlemen whose object was to procure an acquittal for the prisoner. It is, in my opinion, indispensable to the administration of justice that a witness should not be turned into an advocate, nor an advocate into a witness. You must say, gentlemen, whether some of those who were called for the prisoner belonged to the category I have described, — that of a witness becoming an advocate. His Lordship then proceeded to read the evidence for the defence, beginning with that of Dr. Nunneley, who expressed the opinion that th« death of Cook was caused not by strychnine but by some convulsive disease, and who produced reports of the post-mortem examination which he 143 had maiJe in two cases of deatli from strychnine. ^These reports were also read by the Clerk ol Arraigns. Having gone thronghthe examination and Cross-examination of the witness without comment, his Lordship observed,—] This, gentlemen, is the evidence of Dr. Nunneley. You recollect the manner in which he gave it, and you must forrti your own opinion as to the weight to be attached to it. Certainly ho seemed to display an interest not qiUte beoommg a witness Id a court of justice, but you will give every attention to the facts to wliioh ho refers and to the etid«nce he gives. He differs very materially in general opinion from several of the witnesses examined on the part of the prosecution,— especially in the statement that thero is no extraordi- nary rigidity 6f body after death from tetanus, a point wliich is clearly of cousidcrablo importanco in coming to ft conclusion as to the cause of Cook's death. His Lordsliip next read Mr. Herapath's evideilce, and at the close of it remarked,— Mr, Herapath. is a very distinguished chemist, and, no doilbt, says what he sincerely thinks. He is of opinion that where there has been death by strychnine, strychninfe ought to be discovered. But he seems to have intimated an opinion that the deceased in this very case died by strychnine, and Dr. Taylur did not tise proper means to discover it. Now, the oiily evidence we have in this case that there is no strychnine is that it was not discovered by the analysis of Dr. Taylor and Dr. llces ; but, as I before pointed out, in two of the instances in wliich they certainly had poisoned animals by stryclinine the result was tihe same — iio strychnine was discovered. [The learned Judge theii read the evidence of Mr. Rogers, who agreed with Mr. Herapath as to the possibility of detecting the poison.] There is no reason to doubt, his Lordship continued, that this witness does sincerely entertain the opinion he expresses. According to these witnesses, where strychnine exists, even mixed with impure matter, it should be discovered by skilful experimenters using the proper tests. [After reading the evidence of Dr. Henry Lstheby, who said that the symptoms in this case were not, iu his opinion, those of strychnme, his Lordship pro- ceeded, — ] Dr. Letheby spealcs sincerely, according to his experience ; but I must say that cases of this kihd seem to vary vety ikiucli. There are cases which are, as this witness says, exceptional, and among them he mentions that of the lady at Eomsey. The fair result would probably be that enough is not known of cases of this kind for us to be aware of all their varieties, and where there is a strong probability that strychnine has been administered any peculiarity in the symptoms wotild not be anything like conclusive evidence to rebut that probability. [The evidence of Dr. Gay was then read.] This witness, said his Lordship, gives you a case of idiopathic tetanus. You are to say whether, from the symptons he describes, you can infer that the case of Cook was one of idiopathic tetanus. The weight of evidence seems to me to show that it was not idiopathic any more thail traumatic tetanus. [The learned Judge read his notes of the evidence of Mr. J. B. Ross, house-surgeon to the London Hospital, who, it will be remembered, described a case of tetanus admitted into that institution on the 23rd of March last. Tliere were on the body of the patient three wounds — tWo at the back of the right elbow, each about the iizo 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 granulation.] Cfdl that tetanus by what medical name you please, it is admitted upon all hahds that it was to bfe referred to certain wounds plainly lUscemible upon the body bf the patient. On the body of John Parsons Cook no such wounds were dis- covered. No doubt witnesses have been examined for the defence who have stated that, iu their opinion, Cook's was not a case of tetanus at all, and it is for you to say what amount of credit should be attached to their representations. At all events, it is beyond controversy that the case cited by Mr. Koss is distinguishable from the present in these important respects — -that there was no suspicion of poison, and that death was obviously attributable to external wounds. We now come to the evidence of Dr. Wrightson, who, you will remember, had been a pupil of Liebeg at Giessen, and is at present a teacher of che- mistry in a medical school at Birmingham. [The learned Judge, having passed in. review the evidence in question, observed, — ] This witness, who, I have no doubt, is a most scientific and honourable man, has stated that, assuming a man to have been poisoned by Strychnine, he should expect to find traces of the poison in the stomach within five or six days after death ; but he gave lus testimony with that caution which is never so proper and becoming as in treating on questions of science; and, taking all the facts of this case together, and contrasting the testimony of the various witnesses, it will be for you to say whether, under particular circumstances, the poison may not be unobservable, or whether the chemists to whom the duty of analysation was intrusted in the present instance, may not have failed to employ the proper means to detect it. And now we come to the evidence of Mr. Partridge, who has been for many years in extensive practice as a surgeon, and is professor of anatomy in King's College, Loudon. [The learned Judge read his notes of the evidence of Professor Partridge.] It is very true that this most respectable witness 144 gave It as his opinion that some of the symptoms in Cook's ease were inconsistent with the tetanus of strychnine, but then it is important to bear in mind that he only spoke troni nis own experience, and that we have abundant evidence to show that the symptoms attenmng the tetanus of strychnia vary very much in different cases. The learned Judge then called the attention of tlie jury to the evidence of Mr. Gay, Fellow of the Royal College, ot Surgeons, who had described a case of traumatic tetanus that came under his observatioii iu the Royal Free Hospital in 1843. The patient was a boy, the middle toe ot whose lett foot had been completely smashed by the accidental fall of a laige stone upon it. ihis being a case of tetanus incontestibly occasioned by the smashmg of the patient s toe, I cannot see that it bears any analogy whatever to the case now under consideration, tor there is not the slightest pretext for saying that any such accident ever happened to Cook. But there is in the evidence of Mr. Gay another matter well deserving of your attentive consideration. The witness told you that in the event of a given set of tetanic symptoms being proposed for the judgment of a medical man, it would be extremely difficult, if not quite impossible, without collateral evidence, to ascribe the attack to any particular cause. On you devolves the duty of inquiring and deciding whether that collateral evidence is supplied by the conduct of any particular person, or by the means that he may have had in his possession ; and, if so, whether the prisoner is that person. The learned Judge then passed on to the evidence of Dr. W. Macdonald, a licentiate of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, who had described a case of idiopathic tetanus that came under his own notice in the month of October, 1855. [ The Cleik of Arraigns read Dr. Macdonald's report of the circumstances attending this case, the subject of which was Catherine "Watson, a youn;* woman 22 years of age, who, after going aboi^t her ordinary occupation during the day, was attacked with tetanus at 10 o'clock at night. By tlie administration of chloroform the violence of the spasms was gradually diminished and she recovered. After her recovery she slept for 36 hours.] His Lordslup continued, — It is very certain that the patient here alluded to did not die. She is still alive, and gave evidence before you ; and you will, after a fair review of all the circumstances, decide for yourselves whether there is any similarity between her case and that which resulted iuthe death of Cook. Dr. Macdonald has gone the length of introducing a new term of disease, "epilepsy with tetanic complications," and not only tloes he state that this may have been such a case, but he declares his belief that it was so, adding that it might have arisen &om mental, moral, or sexual excitement. You will have to determine what weight you will attach to this evidence as compared with the medical testimony adduced by the Crown, [Having read without comment the evidence of Dr. Bainbridge, the medical officer of St. Martin's workhouse, the learned Judge next called the attention of the jury to the testi- mony of Mr. Steddy, a surgeon in practice at Chatham, who in 1854 had attended a person named Sarah Ann Taylor for trismus and pleuro-tothonos.] The convulsions in that case came on in paroxysms, and she is still alive, but it is important that you should bear in mind that it was elicited in cross-examination that the woman had received a blow upon her side from her husband. The case was therefore one of traumatic tetanus, and, having heard it described, you will say whether there were manifested in. the course of it any symptoms resembling in the slightest degree those that were observed m the case of Cook. In commenting on the evidence of the -ivitness next in order, Dr. George Robinson, o:' Newcastle-on-Tyne, the learned Judge remarked, — You have here the testimony of a respectable physician, from whose opinions you are called upon to infer that this was a case of epilepsy. Dr. Robinson thought that, putting aside the assumption of death by styrchnia. Cook may have died of epilepsy: but, on being asked by the Attorney- General whether all the symptoms spoken to by Mr. Jones were not indicative of death by strychnia, he at once replied, " They certainly arc." Nor is it immaterial to remember that the wit- ness failed to mention a single case as having fallen under his own observation where an epileptic patient retained his consciousness during the lit. Dr. Richardson, who, I am bound to say, appears a very respectable witness, was next examined, and was the first to suggest the theory that Cook may have died of angina pectoris. In 1850 the witness had under his care a girl of ten years old, whom he believed to be afflicted with that malady, and he has described her symptoms with great minuteness ; but you will remember that he candidly admitted that if he had known as much then as he knows now, he would have analysed the stomach of the girl after death, with a view to ascertain whether strychnia might not be detected. And here, again, arises the important question I have already pro- pounded for your consideration. You will have to determine whether Cook's symptoms were orwere not consistent with death by strychnia. If they were not, your conclusion will be in favour of the prieoncr ; if they were consistent with death by strychnia, I do not say that on that fact alone you should find a verdict against him, but this I say, that it mil be your duty to consider ths fact in connection with other evidonce that has been brought bat'orc you, in order that you may come to a clear conclusion ns to whether this was a death by strychnia, and, if so, whetlier the prisoner at the bar was the num who 145 administered it to the deceased. After Dr. Richardson had giyeil his evidence, Er. Wrightson was recalled, and, in reply to a question put to him by the counsel for the ;|!ro-wn, stated that if a minimum dose to destroy life were given, and a long interval elapsed oefore death, the more complete -would be the absorption and the less the chance of fiua-..ig the poison in the stomach. Mr. Serjeant Shee : He added, my Lord, that he should still expect to find it in the spleen, liver, and blood. Lord Campbell : You are quite right j he certainly did so say so, and you have done •well in calling attention to the statement. [The learned Judge then read, Tvithout comment, his notes of the evidence given by Catherine Watson and Oliver Pemberton, and added, — ] This is the close of the medical testimony adduced on belief of the prisoner, and I propose that the Court sliotdd now adjourn for a brief period. The Court then adjourned for about twenty minutes, and it may be mentioned, as an instance of the tenacity with which the human mind will cling to hope imder the most desperate circumstances, that just as he was leaving the dock the prisoner threw over the bar to one of the learned .gentlemen engaged in his defence a slip of paper, on which were written, in a clear and firm hand, these words, — " I think they'U find » verdict of not guilty." , When the trial was resumed the learned Judge said, that, having concluded the medical e-^idence, he now came to that of the witnesses who spoke as to facts. Having read the evidence of Henry'Matth^ws as to the time at which the express train, by which alone the prisoner could have left London on the Monday night, arrives at Stafford, and that of Joseph Ftftter, who gave it as his opinion that Cook was of weak constitution, and stated that he founded this opinion upon having during seven years' time seen him suffer from bilious attacks, the noble Lord said,'— Of the evidence 6f the latter witness I must say that this is very slender evidence to show that Cook was in such a state of health as might produce the result which has been spoken to by several of the witnesses as likely to result torn weak health. Upon the evidence of filyatt as to the transactions at Shrewsbury, the learned Judge said, — The materiality of the evidence of this witness seems to be to show that Palmer could not have left the room to have brought in such an ingredient as it is suggested he used, and that he could not have given anything of the sort to Cook. XTpon this point Myatt's evidence is at variance with that of the -witnesses for the Crown, and is not consistent with that of Mrs. Brooke. You are to judge between them. That there -«'8s this scene — that Cook drank his brandy-and- water and complained that there was something in it, and that it was tasted by some one who said that there was nothing in it — has been proved by the evidence for the prosecution, and is corroborated by this witness. [His Lordship next read the evidence of John Serjeant as to the diseased state^bf Cook's tliroat, and as to the effect produced upon him by swallowing a gingerbread nut con- taining cayeime pepper. On this his Lordship observed, — ] You are to say whether this evidence induces you to think, contrary to the evidence which you have heard on the other side, that Cook was at the time he had these attacks in bad health. As to the cayenne pepper nut, it would have happened to any of you who had swallowed such a nut to exhibit the same symptoms. Next comes a very material witness, a part of whose statement would, if you believe him, be very important— I mean Jeremiah Smith. It is for you to say, looking at the whole of the evidence which he has given, both upon his examination and re-examina- tion, what value you attach to it. In the course of reading the evidence of this wittjess, his Lordship said,— If Smith's testimony, as to what occurred on the Monday evening, be true, it would show to you, that the very identical pills which Bamford had made, -were in the state in which he had prepared them, taken by Cook before Palmer arrived Irom London, at all events, before he went to the Talbot Arms. As to the broth, there is no explanation why it was not sent to the Talbot Arms, where Cook was, but was taken to Palmer's house. The dressing of CooVs throat by Thirlby, which is spoken to by this witness, is material ; and it is very extraordinary that Thirlby is not here to give evidence with respect to it. After reading Smith's evidence, the learned Judge said,— Gentlemen, it is for you to say whether you think that this witness is to be believed. You saw how he conducted himself ; how he at last denied that the signature to a deed which he had attested, and which he received from the prisoner at the bar, was his handvirritmg. Then, it appears that he did receive £5. The counterfoil of the cheque-book of William Palmer is produced, and shows that he gave to this witness a cheque for £5, which this witness took to the bank and got cashed, and you are to say whether it is not clear that Smith received that for attesting this very deed. Further, you are to say what weight you can attach to the evidence of a -witness who has been engaged in transactions such as those in which Smith admits that he was concerned. We are now upon the question of veracity, and you must say whether you can believe a witness who acknowledges that he was engaged in procuring the insurance upon the life of AYaltcr Palmer, who hid been a 14(5 bankrupt six years ago, and who had no means of living except the allowance from his friends, and the allowance made to him by the prisoner. He also aeknOT»ledged e, it is so ordained by Providence, for the safety of iW creatures, that there are means of detecting and punishing those who admisister it. I again mplore you to repent, and to prepare for the awful change which awaits you. 1 will not seek soljarrow up your feelings by any enumeration of the circumstance of this foul murder; but I will content myself now by passing upon you the sentence of the law, which is — that you be taken from hence to the gaol of Newgate, and be thence removed to the gaol of the county of Stafford, being the county in which the offence for which you stand convicted wae committed, and that you be taken thence to the place of execution, and be there hanged by the neck until you be dead, and that your body be afterwards buried within the precincts of the prison in which you shall be last confined after your conviction, and may the Lord of Heaven have mercy on your soul 1 — Amen. The prisoner was immediately removed from the dock, and the trial was at an end. Mr. James, Q.C., applied that the bills bearing the acceptance ot Mrs. Sarah Palmer, which had been proved to have been forged, should be impounded — an application which the Court without hesitation granted. Turning then to the jury. The Lord Chief Justice said : I beg to return to you. Gentlemen, the warm thanks of my learned brothers and myself for the service which yon have rendered to your country upon this occasion. Your conduct throughout this protracted trial, which you have attended, no doubt, at much serious inconvenience to yourselves, has been such as to merit our utmost com- mendation. I only hope, and I doubt not, that you will be rewarded for your patient attention and for the sacrifices Which you have made by the approbation of your own consciences and the approving voice of your country. Turning next to the Sheriffs, hi| Lordship continued : We have also to thank the Sheriifs of London for the manner in which the Court has been kept during the trial, for their excel- lent arrangements, and for the facilities which they appear to have afforded to every one who had any business here to transact. Before quilting the bench,' the learned Judges signed the warrants for the removal of the prisoner to the gaol of Stafford, and for the execution to be carried out there by the Sheriffs of that county. « EEMOVAL OF PALMER TO STAFFORD GAOL. Last night the convict William Palmer was taken from Newgate in a cab to the Euston station in charge of two gaolers, and thence conveyed to Stafford gaol by the eight o'clock train, which would arrive at Stafford about twelve o'clock. When the cab which contained the prisoner and his keepers drove into the yard of the Euston Station the prisoner alighted and walked through the large room on to the platform. He was immediately recognized by some persons who had seen him in court, and the news of his being at the station spread rapidly. In a few moments there was a tremendous rush through the station on to the platform, and in an incredibly short sparse of time the prisoner was the object of general cui-iosity, although the fact of his removal had been kept as secret as possible. He walked rapidly to the train, with a gaoler on each side, followed by the crowd which had collected. He wore a cloak and a cap, and was, we -understand, fettered to one of his gaolera by the leg and arm. He was placed in the middle compartment of a first-class carriage, a gaoler being on each side of him. When he was seated in the carriage the crowd surrounded the window, eager to catch a glance of one who had attained such an unenviable notoriety. This was evidently annoying to Palmer, and the blind of the carriage window was drawn down, much to the disappointment of the curious. He looked as uool aad collected as during the trial. IHE END. taiNTED BY G. Lawbekce, 29, Farhingdon Street, Citt. APPENDIX TO CLAEK'S EDITION OF THE '^LIFE, TRIAL, AND EXECUTION OF WLLWAM PALIEE. W. M. CLARK, 16 AND 17, WARWICK-LANE. EXECUTION OF WILLIAM PALMER. Staffoed, June 14. This morning, a few minutes before eight o'clock, William Palmer was executed in front of the County Gaol in this town for the murder of John Parsons Cook under circumstances with which, it were scarcely too much to say, the whole civilised world is familiar. This atrocious crime, of which thousands have just witnessed the terrible but appropriate deruniement, from the very first moment at which it became the subject of investigation in the coroner's court at Kugeley, excited and sustained an unusual degree of interest throughout the whole country, which went on augmenting as the varied and striking incidents of which it was composed became publicly known from time to time. The friend- ship subsisting between the murderer and his victim, arising out of a community of tastes and pursuits, — the agent used in his destruction, at once so subtle and potent, which, though resorted to for the purpose of evading detection, eventually became the principal means of conviction, and, by the revelations it elicited in a court of justice may be said to have elevated an interesting department of toxicological science from the region of purely pro- fessional knowledge to the rank of a social question of great public importance — the extraor- dinary motives leading to the commission of the crime, and all its collateral events — its investigation before a criminal tribunal under circumstances of singular solemnity and interest, and the inherent characteristics of the circumstantial evidence upon which the whole trial and conviction turned — all these considerations have combined to invest this case with an impoiftance never before, perhaps, surpassed on any previous occasion of the kind, and, by raising it to the position of a cause celebre in the criminal history of the country, to denude its judicial investigation of the vulgar and repulsive associations which cling round the crime itself. They have also lent a kindred interest to the execution of the criminal, who had otherwise nothing to distinguish him from the class of monsters to which he belonged, except, perhaps, in the heartless and unredeemed atrocity with which he at once disgraced and outraged humanity. After the revulsion of feeling consequent upon his conviction. Palmer seems to have been all along buoyed up with the belief that the Government would not carry his sentence into exe- cution, from the conflict of evidence as to the absorption or otherwise of strychnine by the body before or after death. He grounded this belief also on the circumstance, so much relied on by the counsel for his defence, that the post-mortem examination of the body of Cook wholly failed to discover any trace of strychnine. These considerations, and the knowledge that his friends out of doors were making great exertions to procure a respite, encouraged his hopes that his sentence would be stayed or commuted ; and he may be said to have clung to this feeling, in a greater or less degree, to the last, notwithstanding an official visit paid him by Lieutenant-Colonel Dyott, the High-Sheriff of the County, accom- panied by Mr. Hand, the TJnder-Sheriff, on the afternoon of yesterday, by whom he was in- formed that there was no possibility of the Royal clemency being extended to him, and that he must prepare himself for execution. He received this terrible intimation, which des- troyed all ground for hope, in silence, and without any perceptible emotion, and, though from that moment a great change came over him, it was evident to those about him that he still entertained the notion that mercy would be shown to him. The almost inevitable efiect of all overtures, however well meant, to stay the execution of a criminal upon grounds which admit of no chance of such a result, unhitppily is to divert the current of his mind from those solemn considerations which ought moat to engage the attention of one so awfully circumstanced, and to lead him to' fritter away, in alternations of hope and despaif. the brief interval still left him for preparation and repentance. To a great extent this was the result produced in the case of Palmer, though he appears to have allowed religious con- siderations to occupy his mind to some degree, and even received the ministrations of the chaplain with respect and gratitude. This was especially so after Tuesday last, from which time he applied himself to religious meditation with some earnestness, though the impres- sions derived from it were constantly liable to he diminished by the hope that his life would be prolon!?ed, which he cherished to the last. He was not remarkably communicative to the officers of the prison in attendance upon him, and when he did break silence it was mostly to complain of what he called the partisan spirit with which Lord Campbell summed up the evidence on his trial. His eyes occasionally became suffused with tears, but that was almost the only sign of emotion exhibited by him, and he would wipe them away and immediately regain his composure. From the time of his condemnation he ate and slept well, and even on the night preceding his execution, though it was a very advanced hour before he retired to rest, he slept two hours and a half. Since his conviction he has seldom or never availed himself of the privilege permitted by the prison regulations of having additional diet ; ho has been contented with the ordinary gaol allowance ; and all he has asked for besides has been a salad, and of this he ate frequently. For the first time since his return to Stafford he attended the service in the chapel of the prison twice on Sunday last He occupied a seat, which was screened from the gaze of the rest of the prisoners, in the immediate vicinity of the communion table, and was accompanied by an officer of the gaol. Upon both occa- sions the Rev. Mr. Goodacre, the chaplain, delivered an impressive sermon, taking for his text, on one occasion, the appropriate words, " Let no man deceive himself." The culprit listened with marked attention and frequently shed tears. He never afterwards attended the service, however, though he had the oppbrtunity of doing so twice a-day. His subse- quent religious meditations, which were chiefly conducted by the chaplain, took place in his cell. Of late he has been in the daily habit of reading the morning and evening service and the Commination service from the Book of Common Prayer. The Rev. Thomas Palmer, a clergyman of the Church of England, his brother, visited him almost daily after his con- viction, as did also his brother George several times, and his sister. Miss Sarah Palmer, twice at least. A Mr. Hey wood, who married an elder sister — now dead — of the convict, also saw him on Friday morning. A venerable gentleman, named Wright, who has long made it his chief mission to administer religious consolation and advice to criminals under sentence, had likewise frequent interviews with him ; and towards the end of the week the Rev, Henry Sneyd, a clergyman residing in this county, who was not before known to the convict, came to see him from a benevolent impulse, and was on several occasions admitted to his pre- sence. Yesterday ho received a letter from the Rev. Mr. Davis, the ordinary at Newgate, of whom since his return to Stafford he has frequently spoken in terras of gratitude, but the contents of the communication have not transpired. His brothers George and Thomas, accompanied by his sister, visited him for the last time yesterday evening. They arrived at the prison about seven o'clock, and, after remaining in his company for several hours, took a final leave of him. The scene at parting was most distressing, but the convict him- self is said to have evinced comparatively little emotion. Yesterday morning Mr. Smith, his solicitor, was summoned by telegraph from London to Stafford, at Palmer's earnest request, and he arrived here at half-past ten o'clock last night, and had an interview with the convict, in the presence of Major Fulford, the Governor of the gaol. The prisoner had declined to retire to rest until Smith came, and from that cir- cumstance, and the anxiety he had shown to have him sent for it was supposed that he had some important communication to make to him ; but it was not so. On going into the cell, the Governor informed Palmer that if he had anything confidential to say on family affairs to Mr. Smith, he (the Governor) would keep it a secret. The prisoner replied that he had not, and he hoped the Governor would lose no time in publishing all he said. He also added, all he had to say was to thank Mr. Smith for his great exertions — the officers of the prison for their kindness to him — and that Cook did not die from strychnine. Major Fulford expressed a hope that in his then awful condition he was not quibbling with the question, and urged him to say *'Ay" or "No," whether or not he murdered Cook. He , answered immediately " Lord Campbell summed up in favour of poisoning by strychnine," The Governor retorted, it was of no importanco how the deed was done, and asked him to say " Yen" or "No" to the question. Palmer said " he had nothing more to add. He was quite easy in his conscience, and happy in his mind." This is the Governor's version of the conversation ; but upon the material point Mr. Smith stated last night, just after leaving the convict, that what Palmer said to him was, "I am innocent of poisoning Cook by m7m\°h«'a"ufboy." "'"^ ''' ^^'^ '""' '''" '''"' ""^ ''"'"^ '""'""^ ''"^ "^'" ^^^ ""' ««^ '» welt''er„''«nhl''rh^*"f'.f ^'^^'''^ '" ^""'"^ """'' "'" <="'?"' ™' executed, is situated ir. the consXahlAl,,. ;' " °V"* '"■'"''• ""'' ^"""""'i^d by ^ "»" of the same material of considerable height forming a larfggle. Once or twice, when the executioner was gently holding down his legs, he raised himself slightly up, and there was a simultaneous convulsive moment of the shoul- deisfor an instant ; but he exhibited no other sign of life. He held a handkerchief in one of his hands, where it still remained tightly clenched when the body was cut down. With some very slight exceptions the deportment of the crowd, among whom were many decently dressed women, was decorous in the extreme. "When the prisoner first made his appear- ance on the scailold there was a slight shout of disapprobation from one part of the crowd, but it was never repeated, and from this time until the drop fell there was almost a dead silence. So deeply impressed did the people appear to be with the dreadful character of the spectacle that by far the greater part of them left shortly after the drop fell, and com- paratively few remained to see the body cut down. The weather underwent a change just before the hour fixed for execution. The rain ceased, and it took place in an interval of sunshine. On the removal of the body, Mr. Bridges, a gentleman from Liverpool, engaged in phrenological pursuits, was permitted to take a cast of the convict's head, and this pro- cess over, his remains were buried in a grave behind the chapel, within the precincts of the prison. A barbarous custom prevails in the prison at Stafford in the burial of criminals subjected to capital punishment, and it was adhered to in the case of Palmer. It will, perhaps, scarcely be credited that his body, on being removed from the scaffold, was divested of every article of clothing, and buried in a perfectly nude state, without even a shell. But so it was, and this was his ignominious end. It will be seen that the convict contented himself with denying that Cook was poisoned by strychnine, and that no direct answer was ever given by him to the question whether he murdered him by other means. The impression conveyed by all the proceedings of the wretched man down to the very latest moment of his existence was, that when he denied the justice of his sentence in so determined a manner he had some mental reservation, and that he applied the observation to the charge of poisoning Cook by means of strychnine only. Should there be any foundation for the suggestion that the death was caused by other means it would tend still further to complicate this most extraordinary case. It is but an act of justice to acknowledge the debt of obligation due to Major Fulford, the governor of the gaol, and to Mr. Hatton, the chief constable of the county, from the correspondent of this journal on this occasion, for the facilities they afforded him, in common with other representatives of the press, in the discharge of a painful duty. THE JURY'S DELIBERATION. The following has been addressed to the Times by one of the jury : — To the Editob. — Sir, — A paragraph having appeared in the Times affecting the jury who tried Palmer's case, and mis-stating facts, I beg to trouble you with a statement of what actually took place on our retirement to consider our verdict. On reaching the room there was a dead silence for about twenty minutes. A discussion of the facts that had been laid before us was then commenced, and it lasted for about ten minutes, after which each man took pen and paper and wrote his decision and name, it having been agreed that no one should pro- nounce his opinion lest any other should receive a bias. The papers were then laid on the table ; the foreman opened them and read them aloud, when " Guilty " was found to be the unanimous verdict. An earnest conversation then ensued, having no relation to William Palmer. This is a precise account of the proceedings of the jury. It is very material to the dignity of justice and the jury's credit that it should be known that no portion of our time was spent in sham ; that no hollow pretence to appear decorous on such a solemn occasion was resorted to. Our situation was too dreadful and too solemn to admit of humbug. It is quite untrue that we were absent a long time for the mere sake of appearances. The long account you published must have been obtained from one of the jury, though at secohd-ha*id. I claim the right of giving you direct a full and true account, and shall be obliged by your publishing it word for word. THE EXPENSES OP THE PROSECUTION. The circumstances attending the financial proceedings in the case of the Queen v, William Palmer, are without precedent in the annals of criminal trials in this country. Although ■ the prisoner was only tried on one indictment, there were upwards of a hundred witnesses subpoenaed, and the total number of persons connected either immediately or remotely with the proceedings, exceeded two hundred. The expenses incidental to a prosecution of such a nature, and to a defence in which the Crown were met foot to foot, were necessarily very gteat. Medical men and seientifle witnesses of considerable attainments *el-e summoned from all parts of the kingdom to give evidence, and many of them were kept in town for more than a fortnight. Several exaggerated statements hate been made with reference to the cost of the trial, but so far as it can be ascertained it will not exceed £9,000. Of this sum two-thirds, or about £6,000, will be borne in the first instance by the Crown, and the remaining one-third by the family of the prisoner. This calculation is, however, indepen- dent of the earlier expenses incurred for the post-mortem examination on the body of Cook, the subsequent chemical analysis by Drs. Taylor and Kees, and the expenses con- nected with the coroner's inquest, all of which were defrayed by Mr. Stevens, the stepfather and executor of the deceased. After the coroner's jury had returned their verdict of wilful murder against Palmer, in Cook's case, the Solicitor to the Treasury took up the proceedings, and the Crown has discharged the whole of the subsequent disbursements. The fees to the Attorney-General, Mr. Edwin James, and the other counsel retained for the prosecution, have not yet been paid, as it is not the practice of the Crown in such cases to mark any specific amount on the briefs when delivered. The fees payable by the Crown to the counsel engaged in Palmer's case cannot be less than £800, including "refreshers" and additional fees in consultation. The consultations were held not at the chambers of the Attorney-General in the Temple, but at the private resi- dence, of the hon. and learned gentleman in Hertford-street, May Fair. The consultations for the defence were held at the chambers of Mr. Serjeant Shee ; and the fees actually paid to counsel exceeded £500. The Crown has paid the whole of the expenses incurred by the witnesses during their stay in London, their allowance for loss of time, and the charges incurred for the maintenance of the jury at the London Coffee-house. A portion of this sum will be received back from the Central Criminal Court upon the certificate of the pre- siding Judge and the Recorder of the City ; and the county of Stafford will have to recom- pense the City. The Crown will ultimately allow the county of Stafford half of the expense to which it has been put by the prosecution, that amount becoming a charge upon the consolidated fund. Though the prisoner complained that he had not had the advan- tage of a fair trial, it must be admitted that the Crown gave him every possible. facility for defending himself. In the case of ordinary criminals, a person charged with the offence of murder by a coroner's inquisition, is allowed copies of the depositions sworn before the coroner, and also a list of the names of the witnesses endorsed on the back of the iijdict- ment. It is supposed that with this assistance a prisoner can prepare his defence so as to meet and answer the case of the Crown. Bui in Palmer's case, his solicitors not only had copies of the depositions taken before the coroner, and a. list of the names of all the wit- nesses sent before the grand jury, but they were furnished by the Crown with the nature of the evidence which they were subpcenaed to give. A fairer trial, therefore, is absolutely impassible to imagine, PALMER'S DIARY. ArxER the conviction of Palmer he expressed to the under-sheriff his deep regret that he was unable during his sojourn in Newgate to attend the daily performance of divine wor- ship. He added that the early hour fixed for his trial, and the time that it was necessary for him to bestow in the preparation for his defence each morning, precluded the possibility of his being present. His diary (for 18r55) which appears to have been kept with great care, notes the fact that on the Sunday after' his wife's death, and on the Sunday after Walter Palmer's death, ho was at church and took the sacrament. Then diary is one of Lett's half-crown editions, with a space for every day in the year. Under the head of the 25ih of January there is the following entry ir—" At church (sacrament), Willie (his son) poorly." "The word "poorly" is underlined . twice. The on the 3rd of February there is the following: — "Mr. Pratt came here from London to get receipts endorsed on Siin and Norwich assurances." 5th of February, " 15 dozen of wine in from Pratt." 7th Feb. " Jere' (Jeremiah Smith) and Ben (Thirlby) packed the wine; gave them a bottle each for tlieir trouble." 16th Feb. "dined with Jere at the 'yard' "(Mrs. Sarah Palmer's). Ilth, Feb. " Quinquagesima Sun- day, at church ; Mr. Atkinson preached ; dined at the yard." The first entry in the diary having reference to Cooji is under the head of March 6th — " Cook dined here.J" The Fast D.iy, the 19 h of March, is duly recoideu, and aisii the circumstance of his having gone to Lo..don on the 12t-h " to see Pratt." On the 6lh of April (Good Fiiday) " At church with Willie." On the 10th of May there is an entry, " Paid Sarah Palmer's bill dueh The last entry in the diary records the post mortem examination on Cook, and runs" thus ; — "Attended a p. m. examination on poor Cook, with Dr. Harland, Mr. Bamford, Newton, and a Mr. Devousinre."