Newton now testified to having given Dr Palmer three grains of strychnine crystals at nine o'clock on Monday night, November 19th. He also told a most improbable tale about a meeting on Sunday, November 25 th, the eve of the post-mortem examination.
Cross-examined by Mr James, Q.C., for the Prosecution:
james. Do you remember Sunday, the 25th of November?
newton. I do.
james. Where were you at about seven o'clock that evening ?
Newton. At Dr Palmer's house.
james. What was the cause of your going there?
newton. I was sent for.
james. Where did you find Palmer when you went, and what was he doing?
newton. He was alone, sitting by the kitchen fire, reading.
james. What did he say to you ?
newton. He asked me how I was, and would I take a little brandy?
james. Did he say anything else to you ?
newton. He asked me: 'What dose of strychnia would be required to kill a dog?' I told him, 'a grain'. He then asked me whether it would be found in the stomach after death.
james. What did you say?
newton. I told him there would be no inflammation, and that I did
not think it would be found.
james. Did he make any remark upon that?
newton. I think he said: 'It is all right,' as if speaking to himself.
Then he did that [snapping his fingers).
Newton's evidence was greeted by a loud clapping of hands in Court, as though he had delivered a telling dramatic speech at Drury Lane. Lord Chief Justice Campbell made no attempt to quell the applause.
Cross-examined by Mr Grove for the Defence:
grove. You were examined at the inquest, I think you have stated; did you then say anything either about your conversation with respect to the dog, or about the three grains of strychnia ?
newton. No, I did not.
grove. Did you say anything about the conversation of Cook's suffering from diseased diroat—syphilis? newton. Yes, I did.
grove. At the inquest?
newton. I was not questioned there about the post-mortem at all . . .
Re-examined by Mr Attorney-General Cockburn:
the attorney-general. You have said that you gave information to the Crown on Tuesday about this fact of the three grains of strychnia. How was it you did not give that information before?
Newton. On account that Dr Palmer had not been friends with Dr Salt; they never speak to each other.
the attorney-general. What had that to do with it?
newton. I thought Dr Salt would be displeased at my letting Dr Palmer have anything.
the attorney-general. You say they did not speak?
newton. No; Mr Thirlby lived with Dr Salt for nineteen years . . .
the attorney-general. Was it in consequence of Mr Thirlby going to Dr Palmer's that this difference took place between Dr Palmer and Dr Salt?
newton. Yes; Dr Salt did not speak to Dr Palmer, or Mr Thirlby either.
the attorney-general. Was there any other reason besides that for
your keeping it back?
newton. That was my only reason.
Serjeant shee. Will your Lordship ask this witness whether he has not given another reason: the reason being that he was afraid he should be indicted for perjury?
newton. No, I did not give that as a reason, though I mentioned it to the gentleman sitting there [Mr Greenwood]. I stated that I had heard about a young man from Wolverhampton whom Mr George Palmer had indicted for perjury because this young man could not produce a book to show that he had sold Dr Palmer some prussic acid.
the attorney-general. In what case was that?
newton. The inquest upon Walter Palmer.
The Defence did not challenge Newton's reliability as a witness, but it has since been revealed that he was Ben Thirlby's illegitimate son by one Dorothy Newton of Bell's Yard, Long Row, Nottingham. His half-brother John was sentenced to four years' penal servitude for picking pockets at Lincoln Races; and he himself, as a boy, had been caught breaking up a stolen silver spoon belonging to his employer Mr Crossland, a wine merchant, and thereupon spent three days in the Nottingham House of Correction. The records show that his mother, a charwoman, begged him off from the magistrates who examined the case, promising to make good Mr Crossland's losses. A second offence has been mentioned, but we lack for details. Newton later, after attendance at the National School, assisted a Nottingham surgeon; and was then cunningly insinuated by Ben Thirlby into Dr Salt's employment. Dr Salt did not know of the blood-relationship between these two.
When the trial was over, the same obliging Newton, prompted perhaps by certain insurance company officials, called on the Attorney-General. He said that if Sir George Grey considered granting a reprieve (on the ground that Dr Palmer did not have time to make up the strychnine pills in his own surgery, and then administer them at the hour stated by the Prosecution) he would willingly swear to having given Dr Palmer the strychnine in the form of pills already made up—a fact he had hitherto forgotten! The Attorney-General undertook to bring this new evidence before his fellow-Minister, should Dr Palmer's lawyer sue for a reprieve.
Chapter XX
ABSENT WITNESSES
SERJEANT SHEE'S main ground of defence was that Dr Palmer did not stand to gain financially by John Parsons Cook's death, since it made him liable to repay debts which they jointly incurred, in an amount far exceeding such small sums as the Prosecution accused him of robbing. He had, indeed, bought six grains of stryclinine on the Tuesday morning from Hawkins's shop, openly and for a legitimate reason; Serjeant Shee, however, preferred to deny his having procured any from Newton on the Monday evening. Therefore, the convulsions reported by Elizabeth Mills that night were not, he argued, attributable to strychnine poisoning, but rather to tetanus or epilepsy, or some other ailment, as were also those of the Tuesday night winch carried Cook off early the following morning. Furthermore, had Dr Palmer planned to murder Cook, he would never have sent for his friend, Dr Jones of Lutterworth, an experienced physician, to sleep in the same bedroom and witness his death agonies. Nor would he have dared to rob Cook of the Shrewsbury winnings when Dr Jones was aware of their exact value and when Cook, being perfectly conscious, would have complained to him if Dr Palmer had stolen his hoard.
Upon Newton's testifying that the Doctor asked him one day to describe the effect of strychnine on a dog and say whether its presence in the stomach could afterwards be detected—though having himself, as the Prosecution showed, a precise knowledge of poisons, whereas Newton was young and ignorant—Serjeant Shee, who should have rejected this as an improbable fiction, made the mistake of accepting it in support of his case. The Prosecution had called George Bate (despite Serjeant Shee's protests against the irrelevance of the matter) to give evidence about Dr Palmer's attempted insurance of his life for twenty-five thousand pounds. With this witness in the box, Serjeant Shee now contended that the strychnia was bought at Hawkins's shop to poison certain dogs which, as Bate knew very well, had been worrying the Doctor's broodmares. However, Bate (or so Inspector Field has privately assured us) bore a grudge against Dr Palmer for having plotted his death; and though forced to admit that The Duchess of Kent had slipped her foal, pretended ignorance that the same thing had also happened to Goldfinder ten days before. He would give only artful and evasive answers to any of the questions put by Serjeant Shee, though he had been in charge of the Doctor’s stables at the time of these mischances. Here is a sample of the cross-examination:
Serjeant shee. Can you give me any notion of these mares' value?
bate. I don't pretend to tell the value of the stock.
Serjeant shee. Do you know that one of them sold for eight hundred
guineas ?
bate. I have heard so.
Serjeant shee. Were any of them in foal shortly before or at the
beginning of November ?
bate. I cannot say
. I should suppose there were some in foal.
A witness who behaved in this sullen way would have been sternly rebuked by most judges and ordered to give fair and proper answers. But the Lord Chief Justice was seen to smile; and his smile widened as Bate adroitly parried Serjeant Shee's subsequent questions.
Serjeant shee. Had any complaint been made about the dogs going
into the paddock?
bate. I think I once said to Harry Cockayne: "The turf seems a good
deal cut up here; how is it?'
Serjeant shee. What did you see on the turf that induced you to
make that observation ?
bate. I saw it cut up, which I supposed to be the horses' feet, for they
couldn't cut it up without they galloped.
Serjeant shee. Did you attribute that to anything ?
bate. Why, yes, I attributed it to the mares' galloping about. [Laughter.]
Serjeant shee. Had you any reason to think they had been run by dogs?
bate. I never saw any dog run them.
This was no answer to the question, but it much amused the Lord Chief Justice. The exchange continued:
Serjeant shee. Did Harry Cockayne keep a gun in the stable? bate. I have seen one there.
Serjeant shee. Did he keep a gun, which belonged to his master, for
any purpose?
bate. I have seen a gun at the paddock.
Serjeant shee. Did it belong to the master?
bate. I cannot say.
Serjeant shee. Did you ever see it used?
bate. No.
Serjeant shee. Was it in a condition to be used?
bate. I never had it in my hands to examine it.
In the end, Bate stood down without admitting that Dr Palmer had complained about the hounds, or threatened to poison them, or ordered Harry Cockayne to use the gun. According to Harry's belief, Bate had himself revengefully introduced hounds into the paddock; and Harry, if called, could at least have testified to the hounds and the gun. His sworn deposition concerning them, made at the inquest, lay before both the Lord Chief Justice and the Attorney-General. But though Serjeant Shee counted on cross-examining Harry, whom the Prosecution had subpoenaed as a witness, he found himself checkmated. The Crown lawyers kept Harry under their thumb, yet never put him in the witness box; and, as soon as the case for the Prosecution was over, smuggled him out of Court and away to Staffordshire, where Captain Hatton told him to fie low if he knew what was for his advantage.
Serjeant Shee lost two other important witnesses—one of them being Will Saunders, the trainer from Hednesford. When the Grand Jury held the inquest at Stafford, Saunders had deposed on oath that Cook sent for him, on the Monday afternoon, thirty-six hours before his death, gave him ten pounds on account of a £41 6s. debt, and excused himself for not paying the remainder— because of having handed Dr Palmer all his cash to settle urgent business affairs in London. This evidence, collusive though it may well have been, would have decidedly weakened the Crown's case that the Doctor had stolen Cook's money. The Crown lawyers, therefore, engaged Saunders to give evidence on their behalf, refrained from calling him, and then packed him off out of Mr Serjeant Shee's reach.
The third important witness was a man by the name of Allspice, who drove Dr Palmer in a fly from Stafford to Rugeley on the critical Monday evening—the evening when Newton stated that, about nine o'clock, he had freely presented Dr Palmer with three grains of stryclininc. Allspice would have been ready to swear that the train reached Stafford at 8.45; that the Doctor engaged him at The Junction Hotel for the drive to Rugeley; that, on arrival there, at ten minutes past ten, Dr Palmer had gone straight to The Talbot Arms, where Jeremiah Smith was anxiously awaiting him; and had then, after a brief visit to the hotel, returned, paid the fare, and walked away with Smith in the direction of The Yard. Had this been proved, the Crown must needs have abandoned the charge that Dr Palmer was given the strychnia at nine o'clock; took it to his surgery, made it up into pills and, at about half-past ten, administered diesc to Cook in place of Dr Barn-ford's prescription.
Two letters on this point are extant, written by Dr Palmer from Newgate Gaol, where he was being kept during the trial, to Jeremiah Smith. We copy them here verbatim:
Dear Jere,
No man in the world ever committed a grosser case of Perjury than that vile wretch Newton—he positively swore last Friday 16 May, that he let me have 3 grs. of Strychnine the Monday before Cook's death and that I went to Mr Salt's surgery for it, and got it from him at 9 o'clock.
It is a base lie, for I left London on that very night at 5 o'clock by Express and arrived at Stafford at 10 minutes to 9, brought a Fly from the Junction and arrived at Rugeley at Masters' door about 10 o'clock.
Now, as there is a God in Heaven (I am sure you can't have forgotten it) you know that you were waiting for my coming and when I got out of the Fly you told me that my Mother wanted to see me particularly, and after bidding Cook good-night we walked together down to The Yard and got a good brushing from the Old Lady about a writ of Brown's that Arminshaw had sent for; that Arminshaw told to George, and George to my Mother—and if you recollect she was very cross.
We then walked back to my house and you said: 'Well, let me have a glass of spirit.' I went to the cupboard and there was none— you said: 'Never mind,' and bid me good-night. This must have been after n o'clock—now I should like to know how I could get to Mr Salt's shop at 9 o'clock on that night? You can also prove this truth, that Cook dined with me (and you) at my house on the Friday before his death and that we had a quantity of wine. Cook then went with you and had a glass of Brandy and Water—and that he was then the worse for liquor. You can further prove that Cook handed me some money on this day, for he told you so in my presence when he gave you the £10. He told you at the same time I had won over £1000 on his mare at Shrewsbury, and lastly you can prove that he and I betted for each other, that we owned 'Pyrrhine jointly, and that we had had bill transactions together. These are solemn truths and I am fully persuaded that they cannot have escaped your memory.
Therefore let it be your most bounden duty to come forward and place yourself in the witness-box and on your oath speak these great truths. Then rest assured you will lie down on a downy pillow and get to sleep happy.
Bear in mind I only want the truth. I ask for no more.
Yours faithfully,
Wm Palmer
P.S. Newton no doubt calculated upon my coming by the luggage train, but this had been discontinued more than a month—thus my reason for going to Stafford.
Dear Jere,
Do, for God's sake, tell the Truth—if you will only consider I am sure you will recollect meeting me at Masters' steps that night, Monday the 19th of Nov. I returned from London and you told me my Mother wanted to see me. I replied: 'Have you seen Cook? And how is he?' You said: 'No.' I then said: 'Let us go upstairs and see him.' We did do so. When upstairs Cook said: 'Doctor, you are late! Mr Bamford has sent me two pills which I have taken.' And he said to you: 'Damn you, Jere, how is it you have never been to see me?' You replied that you had been busy all the day settling Mr Ingram's affairs and we then wished him good-night and went to my Mother's.
Yours ever faithfully,
Wm Palmer
Jeremiah Smith did, indeed, vouch for these facts under oath when called by the Defence.
The Crown lawyers played much the same trick with Allspice as with Cockayne and Saunders, though they did not subpoena him. They merely arranged for his temporary dismissal from The Junction Hotel, and his employment by Mr Bergen of the Rural Constabulary in a remote situation. Serjeant Shee dared not accuse the Attorney-General of sharp practice in spiriting away his witnesses, because to do so and thus, by inference, reproach the Lord Chief Justice of condoning a felonious act, would have ruined him professionally. Shee was aiming at a judgeship, and had perforce to swallow his discomfiture. As it was, the Lord Chief Justice rebuked him pretty sharply for a delay of ten minutes i
n producing another of his witnesses and, we may be certain, would not have waited until Saunders, Cockayne, and Allspice had been routed out and, despite all the efforts made by the Stafford Constabulary to detain them, brought up to London from the Midlands.
Now, if anyone asks us: 'Do you really believe that Mr Stevens, a retired merchant of modest fortune, was powerful enough to force diese extraordinary and disgraceful tactics on Messrs Chubb, Dean & Chubb, the Crown lawyers?', we shall unhesitatingly answer 'No, Sir!' But to the next question: 'Whom, then, do you suspect?', we shall reply with all possible circumspection, as follows: 'The jurymen were warned before the trial began that, if any of them happened to be shareholders of certain powerful insurance companies, they must retire as interested parties. But what of the Crown lawyers? Has anyone dared inquire into their impartiality? If Dr Palmer had been found innocent of poisoning Cook (as the Stafford Grand Jury found him innocent of poisoning his brother Walter), would not the companies have been liable in consequence to pay the Doctor the thirteen thousand pounds of Walter's life insurance? And what of the Stafford Police? Are none of them venal?'
We will, however, say no more, for fear of libel, but simply invite our questioner to decide whether it is impossible that representatives of the insurance companies privately acquainted Messrs Chubb, Dean & Chubb, and Captain Hatton, with their strong interest in the prisoner's condemnation.
It is perhaps a not very remarkable circumstance that the Judges, the Lord Mayor, the Sheriffs, the Aldermen and (we are told) the jury, the majority of them, were united in a fond love of the Turf. We believe that most loyal Turfites would feel a hundred times less aggrieved with a man who garotted a fellow-criminal, an unwanted child, or an ailing relative, dian with one who poisoned racehorses—as Dr Palmer was suspected of doing. The Doctor's reputation at Tattcrsall's was bad enough to condemn him for any crime charged against him: from petty larceny to High Treason; and if Serjeant Shee had pleaded that his client bought the strychnia from Messrs Hawkins for the purpose of poisoning one of the Earl of M's, or the Duke of D' swiftest and noblest horses, such a plea would necessarily have been construed as an invitation: 'Pray, hang this villain!' Be that as it may, a tacit agreement was reached over the nightly turtle-soup and pineapples consumed at the Guildhall during the trial, that no person of honour could dare support Dr Palmer, even in the name of abstract justice; for surely a man capable of doctoring a gallant thoroughbred would not hesitate an instant before murdering a score of plebeian bipeds? To poison foxhounds was an equally grave crime; and this explains why Serjeant Shee respected the feelings of all good fox-hunters in Court by referring to 'the dogs' in his cross-examination of George Bate, as though diey were not foxhounds, and therefore sacrosanct, but common and savage mongrels!