FOOTNOTES:

Dr. Henry Savage, physician, of 7, Gloucester-place, examined by the Attorney-General.—I knew John Parsons Cook. He had been in the habit of consulting me professionally during the last four years. He was a man not of robust constitution; but his general health was good. He came to me in May, 1855, but I saw him about November of the year before, and early in the spring of 1855. In the spring of 1855 the old affair—indigestion—was one cause of his visiting 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 teeth. He said that he had been under a mild mercurial course, and he imagined that those spots were very syphilitic. I thought they were not, and I recommended the discontinuance of mercury. I gave him quinine as a tonic, and an aperient composed of cream of tartar, magnesia, and sulphur. I never at any time gave him antimony. Under the treatment which I prescribed the sores gradually disappeared, and they were quite well by the end of May. I saw him, however, frequently in June, as he still felt some little anxiety about the accuracy of my opinion. If any little spot made its appearance he came to me, and I also was anxious on the subject, as my opinion differed from that of another medical man in London. Every time he came to me I examined him carefully. There were no indications of a syphilitic character about the sores, and there was no ulceration of the throat, but one of the tonsils was slightly enlarged 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.

Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Shee.—I do not think that the deceased was fond of taking mercury before I advised him against it; but he was timid on the subject of his throat, and was apt to take the advice of anyone. No; I don’t think that he would take quack medicines. I don’t think he was so foolish as that.

Mr. Stevens, his stepfather, who saw him at the Euston Station on the 5th of November, when starting for Rugeley, said, “he looked better than he had seen him for a long time. ‘You don’t look,’ he said to him, ‘like an invalid’; and Cook, striking his chest, said he was quite well, and should be all right if he was happy.” In point of appearance he was not a robust man; his complexion was pale, and he had sore throat in the previous winter for some months.

For the defence, Foster, a farmer, said he considered him of a weak constitution, because he had bilious headaches, the last a year and a half back, but admitted that he hunted three days a week.

John Sargeant, a betting man, who met him at the races which he attended, said:—I had an opportunity of seeing the state of his throat before he died. I was with him at the Liverpool meeting the week previous to the Shrewsbury races; we slept in adjoining rooms. One morning he called me into his room and drew my attention to his throat, which was much inflamed. There were ulcers upon it, and the tongue was so swollen, that I said I was surprised at the state of his mouth. He said he had been in that state for weeks and months, “And now,” he said, “I don’t take notice of it.” He had shown me his throat before this at almost every meeting we attended. He took some gingerbread and cayenne on the platform at Liverpool, and told me afterwards it nearly killed him. (It came out afterwards that the cayenne nut was a trick nut.) The witness had also known Palmer supply Cook with blackwash before his death. He had never seen Cook’s throat dressed by anybody, and was surprised to see him eat and drink so well. He saw the blackwash applied (externally) at the Warwick Spring Meeting in 1855. With reference to another point, this witness spoke to Cook being unable to pay him more than £10 out of £25 at the Liverpool meeting, and promising the balance at Shrewsbury.

“It was agreed in consultation at Mr. Freer’s, at Rugeley, that the stomach and intestines should be opened, and, with their contents, enclosed in a jar. It was further agreed that the spinal cord should not be opened if its upper portion and the brain should prove to be in a healthy condition. At the examination I was assisted by Mr. Newton, a young gentleman who had, unfortunately, never witnessed a post-mortem. He punctured the stomach, and about a teaspoonful of its contents was lost. Afterwards, when Dr. Harland and I were examining the lining membrane, Mr. Newton suddenly turned the stomach inside out; an additional half teaspoonful was thus lost, the remainder falling into the jar. This accounts for Dr. Taylor finding the mucous membrane in contact with the intestines. With the exception of this casual puncture I maintain the post-mortem was skilfully performed.”—Letter to Lord Campbell. Appendix, p. xxiv.

“Sir,—I have great pleasure in replying to the inquiries in your leading article of January 19. (1) I stated that I had never known antimonial powder, when given in medicinal doses (i.e., from five to eight grains a dose) to produce vomiting or purging. I am aware that experience differs on this point—that some have found the substance inert, and others very active. From some recent experiments on antimonial preparations, I think it not unlikely that the powder sometimes contains arseniate of lime. Dr. Pereira mentions that in the case of a dose of half a teaspoonful it on one occasion produced violent vomiting, purging, and sweating; while in still larger doses (120 grains to a dose), prescribed by Dr. Elliotson, it occasioned in some instances only nausea. I have never met with any case in which serious symptoms could be referred to its operation; and in the case of Ann Palmer (the wife) this medical preparation would not account for the antimony found in her body. (2) My statement as to the cause of death was that the deceased died from the effects of tartar emetic, and from no other cause; that is the opinion which Dr. Rees and myself formed from the result of our examination, and from the description under which the deceased laboured during the eight days before her death. It is an opinion now equally shared by the two medical attendants of the deceased. We are quite prepared to maintain this at the trial.” The letter then went on to describe the state of Ann Palmer’s body, though not exhumed until eighteen months after death, and contrasted it with that of the brother, and concluded with the passage given in the text. Its effect could not be but prejudicial to the prisoner.

Attorney-General.—“Do you now say it is not your signature?”

Witness.—“I do.” (He then admitted getting appointed agent to the Midland County office in order to get a policy for £10,000 on Bate’s life.)

Attorney-General.—“I will refresh your memory with regard to these proposals. Look at that, and tell me whether it is your handwriting?”

Witness.—“Yes.”

Attorney-General.—“Now, refreshing your memory with that document, were you applied to in December, 1854, to attest a proposal of Walter Palmer to the Solicitors’ and General office for £13,000?”

Witness.—“That is my signature, certainly.”

Attorney-General repeats the question.

Witness.—“I don’t recollect.”

Attorney-General.—“What, with your signature staring you in the face?”

Witness.—“I might have been a witness to it. I am speaking from memory.”

Attorney-General.—“Have you any doubt, after looking at that document?”

Witness.—“I have no doubt.”

Attorney-General.—“At last we have got at it from you. Now look to that document, and see if another month afterwards—in January, 1855—you were asked to attest another proposal for £13,000 to the Prince of Wales office?”

Witness (hesitating).—“That is my signature. (A pause.) Perhaps if I saw the paper I could answer.”

Attorney-General.—“There is the paper.”

Witness (after a pause).—“I might have signed it in blank. I have some doubt whether I did not sign some of these in blank. The body of the papers is in the handwriting of William Palmer.”

Attorney-General.—“Upon your oath, don’t you believe that William Palmer applied to you to attest the proposal on his brother’s life for £13,000?”

Witness.—“He did apply to me.”

Attorney-General.—“Was it not to attest the proposal for £13,000 on his brother’s life?”

Witness.—“One of them was for £13,000. I don’t think I was present when Walter Palmer signed the assignment. I believe Jeremiah Smith’s (another witness of that name) handwriting is very like mine.”

After much fencing with the question, the witness saying he might or he might not have attested Walter Palmer’s signature to a deed of assignment, the Attorney-General put a cheque for £5 into the witness’s hand, and asked him if it was William Palmer’s signature to it.

Answer.—“It is.”

Question.—“Did you take that piece of paper to the bank and get £5 for it, and that for attesting the signature of Walter Palmer to the deed of assignment?”

Answer.—“I may have got the £5 at the bank; but upon my honour I do not know what for. (Laughter.) Cook, with reference to the £200 bill, gave Palmer £10 for the accommodation, and he took the money to Shrewsbury races. I cannot say who saw me on the Monday night when I went up to Cook’s room at the ‘Talbot Arms.’ I did not notice. I believe that either the chambermaid, the waitress, or the cook saw me go into the hotel. I don’t know who drove the fly to Stafford.”

This witness was also severely cross-examined as to his relations with Mrs. Palmer, replying with the same caution as to their impropriety, and could not get further than “that there ought not to be any truth” in the imputation.

Mr. Justice Stephen, who was present at the trial, gives the following graphic sketch of the demeanour of this witness:—“No abbreviation can give the effect of this cross-examination. The witness’s efforts to gain time, and his distress as the various answers were extorted from him by degrees, may be faintly traced in the report. His face was covered with sweat, and the papers put into his hands shook and rattled.”—Hist. Criminal Law of England. Vol. III., p. 399, note. “And yet, after all,” as the learned judge adds, “he was right as to the time according to the inspector at Euston. If Smith spoke the truth, Newton could not have seen Palmer at all that night, and Mills, if at all, must have seen him in Smith’s company. Mills never mentioned Smith” (and was never asked by the defence if he came with Palmer), “and Smith would not swear that she or anyone else had seen him at the ‘Talbot’ that night.”

He was called on his subpœna at the close of the evidence for the defence (tenth day), and when he did not answer, the Attorney-General said, “I should be deeply grieved if it could be possibly thought that the absence of any witness could in any way prejudice the prisoner’s case, and if my learned friend makes any application on that ground it shall not be resisted by me.” No application was made.

Mr. Edwin James (putting the disputed bill into his hand).—“Is the signature of William Palmer, as drawer of this bill, in your handwriting?”

Palmer.—“Yes.”

Mr. James.—“And did you apply to Mr. Padwick to advance you money on it?”

Palmer.—“I did.”

Mr. James.—“Who wrote Sarah Palmer’s acceptance on it?”

Palmer.—“Anne Palmer.”

Question.—“Who is she?”

Palmer.—“She is dead.”

Question.—“Do you mean your wife?”

Palmer.—“Yes.”

Question.—“Did you see her write it?”

Palmer.—“Yes.”

The action was, of course, at once abandoned, and no further proceedings taken on the other bills bearing the mother’s name.

“It must, however, be remembered, that the proof that Dove’s propensity was uncontrollable was very defective. An uncontrollable propensity, which accidental difficulties or the fear of detection constantly control and divert for a time, is an inconceivable state of mind. Is there the smallest reason to suppose that, if Mrs. Dove had met with a fatal accident, and had been lying in bed dying before her husband gave her any poison, his uncontrollable propensity to kill her would have induced him to give her poison nevertheless? If not, the propensity was like any other wicked feeling. It was certainly uncontrolled, and it may probably have been strong, but that is different to uncontrollable.”—History of the Criminal Law of England, by Mr. Justice Stephen. Vol. III., p. 435-6.

Transparent Form. Opaque Form. Crystalline Acid.

(1) 1,000 grains of distilled cold water, after standing 24 hours—dissolved 1·74 gr. 1·16 gr. 2·0 gr.

(2) 1,000 grains of boiling water, poured on the acid, and allowed to stand 24 hours—dissolved 10·12 gr. 5·4 gr. 15·0 gr.

(3) 1,000 grains of water, boiled for one hour, the quantity being kept uniform by the addition of boiling water from time to time, and filtered immediately—dissolved 64·5 gr. 76·5 gr. 87·0 gr.

“I don’t think you said what was in the newspaper parcel?”

“Eight packets.”

“What did the next parcel contain?”

“Nine packets. Packet 11 I received from Inspector Butcher on December 12, marked ‘1 W. D.’ Inside that there were two little tinfoil packages. Twelve was received from Butcher on December 14. It was a parcel labelled ‘The remainder of the sugar from Dr. Bedbrook’s.’ Sherry from the decanter used by Lamson was handed to me by Butcher on the 14th.”

“Did you later on receive this box and wafers?”

“Yes. It is marked 14.”

The Judge.—“Suppose I applied and gave a name out of the Medical Directory, and asked for two grains of aconitia, would you sell it me?”

Answer.—“If I were satisfied at the time you were a medical man I should let you have it.”

The Judge.—“Then anybody of respectable appearance and well dressed might apply? and is there anything by which you can satisfy yourself that the applicant is not an impostor and telling you that which is not true?”

Answer.—“The only thing would be the style of writing—whether it was in the style characteristic of medical men.”

The Judge.—“That hardly seems satisfactory.”

Mr. Poland.—“The Act does not require registration in the case of sale to a medical man.”

The Judge.—“It strikes me that anyone could go, if he had sufficient knowledge to write in the technical style of medical men, and get poison without difficulty; and though the matter is not before us in this case, it may be that the law requires amendment in this particular.”

The jury also appended to their verdict a presentment urging greater restrictions on the sale of poisons, with which the Judge thoroughly agreed, and undertook to forward it to the Home Secretary. During the present Session of Parliament the Government have announced that a “New Poisons Act” is preparing, and that it will deal with patent medicines. It is imperatively required.

In Aug., 1882, four boys and a girl suffered severely from chewing dried aconite root, which they had found in the street. The symptoms, tingling and numbness, abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, giddiness, muscular weakness, pains in the legs, and coldness of the feet, set in very rapidly, the greatest delay being a quarter of an hour. There was no dyspnœa, and the pupils in all were widely dilated. The treatment adopted was the administration of emetics (sulphate of zinc and vin. ipecac.), coffee and brandy, and castor oil. Recovery in two to seven days. Quantity taken, “a very small piece.” (Brit. Med. Journal, 1882, p. 1039.)