The Proceedings of the Old Bailey

 

490.   WILLIAM PALMER was indicted for the wilful murder of   John Parsons Cook: he was also charged on the Coroner's Inquisition with a like offence.

  MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL, MR. EDWIN JAMES , Q. C., MR. BODKIN,MR. WELSBY, and MR. HUDDLESTON. conducted the Prosecution; and MR. SERJEANT. SHEE, MR. GROVE, Q. C., MR. GRAY, and MR. KENEALEY. conducted the Defence.

  ISHMAEL FISHER . I am a wine merchant, residing at No. 4, Victoria-street, Holborn. I am in the habit of attending races, and betting occasionally on races—I knew the deceased, John Parsons Cook—I had known him, I should think, about two years—I was at the Shrewsbury races in Nov., 1855—I remember the race for the Shrewsbury Handicap—a mare, called "Polestar," the property of Mr. Cook, won that race—it was on Tuesday, 13th Nov.—I saw Mr. Cook on that day on the course—he then appeared quite as well as he had been for any time that I had known him—I had been in the habit of seeing him at different races—while I was at Shrewsbury I was stopping at the Raven Hotel—I know Palmer the prisoner, very well—I have known him, I should think, about the same time I have known Cook, or perhaps a little more—Cook and Palmer were also stopping at the Raven Hotel—they occupied the adjoining room to mine—there was only a wooden partition between my room and their's—they

occupied a sitting room jointly—I saw them there together—between 11 and 12 o'clock, on the Wednesday night, I went into their sitting room—I thete found Mr. Cook, Mr. Palmer, and Mr. Myatt; I believe ne is a saddler, at Kugeley—he is a friend of Palmer's—they each appeared to have some grog before them—I observed that Cook had a glass of brandy and water before him—he asked me to sit down, and I did so—Cook asked Palmer to have some more brandy and water—Palmer said, "I shall not have any more till you have drunk yours"—Cook on that said, "Oh, I will drink mine"—he then took Up his glass and drank it at a draught, or nearly so; he might have made two draughts of it—he drank it off immediately—after he had drunk it, he said there was something in it—he said that within a minute after he had drunk it—he said, "It burns my throat dreadfully," or some such words—on his saying that, Palmer got up, and took up the glass—he sipped up what was left in the glass, and said, "There is nothing in it"—I should think there was certainly not more than a teaspoonful left in the glass—Cook had apparently emptied the glass—in the mean time a Mr. Read, whom I knew, came in—he is a wine merchant—he attends races—Palmer handed the glass to him, and asked him if he thought there was anything in it—it was handed to me also—Mr. Read and I each said, the glass being so empty, we could not recognize anything—I said I thought there was rather a strong scent on it—I did not make any other remark, only that I could not detect anything besides brandy—I could not say there was anything besides brandy.

COURT. Q. Did you taste it? A. There was no chance of tasting it—I did not put it to my lips—the glass was completely drained at the time—I gave my opinion about it from the smell.

MR. JAMES. Q. Shortly after this did Cook retire from the room? A. He did—I should say that was within ten minutes after—he came back, and called me from the room—I went with him into my own sitting room—he was very ill—he told me he had been very sick, and asked me to take his money—he stated what he had been suffering from—(MR. SERJEANT SHEE. submitted that no such statement was receivable. LORD CAMPBELL. was of opinion, that anything stated as to the effect produced upon him by what he had taken was admissible)—he said he had been very sick—he thought that d—d Palmer had dosed him—he handed me over some money on that occasion—it was over 700l.; I cannot remember exactly; between 700l. and 800l.—it was all in bank notes—he gave it me to take care of it—he did not say until when I was to take care of it—Palmer and Cook did not sleep in the same room.

Q. After he had given you this money, did you see him again suffering that night from sickness? A. Oh yes; he was seized immediately again, in my sitting room, with vomiting—that was after he had given me the money—he retired to some place of retirement, and came back to me again—he again explained to me from what he had been suffering, and asked me to go to his bedroom—he repeated what he had said before, that he had been again very sick—I went Up to Ms bedroom with him; and a Mr. Jones, a stationer, who was there, went with me to his bedroom—while I was there he vomited again violently—foe was so ill, that I thought it right to send for a doctor, Mr. Gibson—Mr. Gibson came and attended him—we remained with him till 2 o'clock, or a little after—I went for Mr. Gibson a second time—I should think it must have been about half past 12, or a quarter to 1 o'clock, that Mr. Gibson was sent for first, and about twenty minutes afterwards we sent for him again, or sent for some second medicine.

COURT. When did you send for him the second time? A. About 1 I o'clock, as near as I remember.

MR. JAMES. Q. Was he more composed afto he had seen the doctor, and taken the mediciue? A. Yes.

COURT. Q. Did Mr. Gibson give him some medicine? A. He sent him some medicine, but he did not administer it himself—he lent him some medicine which he took—we gave him the medicine I mean Mr. Jones and myself.

MR. JAMES. Q. You gave him the medicine which Mr. Gibson had sent? A. Yes—I saw Palmer next morning; about 10 o'clock, in my own sitting room—he was there when I got down stairs—I found him there—he said that Cook had been stating that he had given him something last night, that he had been putting something in his brandy, or something to that effect; "but," he said, "I never play such tricks with people; I can tell you what he was; he was d—d drunk"—I should say he was certainly not drunk—I had not seen him at dinner on the previous evening; it was some time after his dinner—from what I saw of him, he was certainly sober.

COURT. Q. Was he affected by liquor? A. Not at all approaching drunkenness.

MR. JAMES. Q. On this same morning, did Cook come into your bedroom after he had got up? A. Yes, he came into my bedroom before I left my room—he was looking very ill, but was much better—I gave him back; his money—I saw him on the race course at Shrewsbury on that Thursday, I think about 3 o'clock—he looked very ill then—I had always been in the habit of settling Cook's bets for him; I mean when he did not settle them himself—I had been in the habit of paying and receiving for him at Tattersall's and other places—I saw Cook's betting book in his hand at Shrewsbury—I should say it was a little more than half the size of this book (producing a small one,) the same kind of book—I cannot remember what colour it was, but, as near as I can remember, it was very near this colour—on Saturday, 17th, I paid to Mr. Pratt, by Mr. Cook's direction, a sum of 200l., by a cheque—the account for what he had won or lost at Shrewsbury would, in the ordinary course, have been settled at Tattersall's on the following Monday, the 19th—as his agent, I expected to have to settle that account—I advanced the 200l. on the Saturday to pay Mr. Pratt—I knew that he had won at Shrewsbury considerably—If I had had his account to settle, in the ordinary course, on the Monday, at Tattersalls, I should have been entitled to deduct the 200l. that I had advanced on his account to Mr. Pratt—that was the course of dealing between us—I did not settle that account and, consequently, could not repay myself the advance.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJENT SHEE. Q. How long had you known Cook? A. About two years—I had known Palmer little longer—knew that they were a good deal connected in racing transactions—I do not remember settling any transaction for Cook in which he and Palmer were jointly interested—I do not know whether they owned any horses jointly; they appeared to be very intimate, they were a good deal together, generally staying at the same hotels—I was not at the Worcester meeting—I knew that Cook won considerably at Shrewsbury—I knew thai Polestar was his mare—I do not know whether Palmer won—I cannot say at what hour the races began on the Tuesday, they generally begin about 2 o'clock, or earlier—I should think Polestar ran perhaps an hour after the races commenced, but as for the time I win not undertake to say.

COURT. Q. Polestar would ran about 3 o'clock, then? A. I should imagine so.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. Did you see Cook on the coarse after the race? A. I did—he appeared very much elated and gratified—the mare won the race pretty easy—when I went into the room in the evening in which Cook, Palmer, and Myatt were, I remember seeing a glass before Mr. Palmer, and before Mr. Cook—I could not answer for Myatt's glass, he was sitting in a corner by the fire place—I believe there was a decanter on the table—I do not know whether there was more than one, I think not—I did not observe the glasses sufficiently to see whether both had been drinking—Cook asked me to sit down, and he asked me to take something—I believe directly I sat down there was some more brandy ordered—I do not think I took any, I do not remember drinking any—I cannot say positively—I was not tipsy—I do not think I drank anything, I would not swear I did not—I like brandy and water very well—I am a wine merchant, I should be a good judge of it by the smell, and believe I am—when I had smelt the glass, I said that it had a strong smell about it, but I thought there was nothing in it except brandy—the glass was so perfectly empty, it had been so completely drained, there was very little to smell in it—I counted the money—I had been at the Unicorn that evening, I should think that was quite an hour before this occurred, before I went into the room, perhaps more—I had dined at the Raven, we generally dine about 6 o'clock—I should think it was about 6 o'clock, or between 6 and 7 o'clock, most likely—I cannot say whether Cook dined there—I do not remember seeing him that afternoon, till I saw him at the Unicorn.

Q. Do you know that Palmer left Shrewsbury immediately after the races? A. There was a report of that kind—I do not know it—I did not see him any more after the races that day—I saw Cook and Palmer too at the Unicorn on the Wednesday night, before I saw them at the Kaven—I think that was about 9 o'clock, or between 9 and 10 o'clock—I cannot say whether he was drinking there—I merely looked into the room and stepped back again—I saw Mr. Saunders, the trainer, in the room, with Mr. Palmer, Mr. Cook, and a lady—I do not know whether they had glasses and drink before them.

Q. Do you know whether it happened to a good many persona to be ill at Shrewsbury on the Tuesday or Wednesday? A. No, I do not know that it did, I did not hear of it, I had a friend who was rather poorly there, but a different kind of illness to Mr. Cook's, not at all serious—I do not know that many people connected with the races felt ill, and complained of illness—I think the Wednesday was rather a dull day; it was damp under foot, but I do not know that it rained, I forget—I saw Cook about the race course several times on the Wednesday—I remember that the weather was rather cold and damp on the Thursday, but whether it rained or not I would not swear—I think we had some rain on the Thursday, but I would not swear—I do not know whether Cook and Palmer breakfasted together on the Thursday morning, but I believe they did—I cannot say that I saw them together on the course on the Thursday—I do not know whether they left Shrewsbury together—on 17th Nov. I received a letter from Cook—the solicitor has it—this is it—it is dated Rugeley, 16th Nov., 1855—(read: "Dear Usher,—It is of very great importance to both Mr. Palmer and myself that a sum of 500l. should be paid to Mr. Pratt, of Queen-street, Mayfair, to-morrow, without fail; 300l. has been sent up tonight, and if you will be kind enough to pay the other 200l. tomorrow, on receipt of this, you will greatly oblige me; I will settle it on Monday, at Tattersall's. I am much better. Yours, J. Parsons Cook")

COURT. Q. That was the 200l. you were to pay to Pratt? A. Yes; I received it at No. 4, Victoria-street, London.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. After baring told me that you received that letter, do not you know they had for some time before been connected in racing transactions? A. I considered they were; but I had no proof of that.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. Am I to understand you to say that they were partners, or anything of that sort? A. I did not say so; I did not intend to say so—I had no knowledge of any interruption of their intimacy—I could always tell that Cook had no great respect for Mr. Palmer, though he was connected with him—I have heard him speak rather disrespectfully of him—it was the Handicap race that Polestar won—I know that Palmer had a horse there, called Chicken—Chicken ran that day, the Thursday—she lost—I heard that Palmer had bets on that race—Cook was not more elated at winning the race than persons generally are whose horses win—I was staying at the Raven—I am not sure that I took any brandy and water at that house.

  ROBERT JONES . I am a law stationer, in Carey-street I was at Shrewsbury bury races last Nov.—I lodged at the Raven—I got there on the Monday night—on that night Cook supped there with me and Mr. Herring, Mr. Fisher, and a person of the name of Grabatt—he appeared well—I saw him on the Tuesday, and on the Wednesday again, and he appeared quite well on those days—I and Mr. Fisher went to the Raven between 11 and 12 o'clock on Wednesday night—Read was also with us there in the same room—Cook came into my room, and invited me into his; I went there and found, among others, Mr. Palmer there—I did not go into the room with Mr. Fisher and Mr. Read, I went up stairs first, and then went in and found Palmer and other persons—after the party broke up, Fisher came to me and told me something about Cook, in consequence of which I went up into his bedroom and found him complaining of a burning in his throat, and saw him vomiting—some medicine was brought, some pills and a draught—Cook refused to take the pills, and in consequence of that I went to the medical man, I do not know his name—I got some liquid medicine which I brought back, and gave a portion of it to Cook, about a teaspoon full, I think; I put a small quantity in a wine glass, and added some water in it—he was then in bed—after twenty minutes or a quarter of an hour he took the pills also—I saw him again next morning early, between 6 and 7 o'clock; he was still in bed, and told me he felt easier and better than on the previous night—he looked pale being in bed.

  GEORGE READ . I live in Victoria-street, near Farringdon-market, and keep a house there frequented by sporting men. I was acquainted with Cook and with Palmer—I saw them at Shrewsbury races in Nov.—I was there on the Tuesday of the race, and saw them both on the course—I saw Cook more than once on the course, and had one bet with him—he appeared on that Tuesday in his usual health, as well as I have always seen him—I was on the course on the following day, Wednesday, and saw him there then in apparently the same state of health—I stopped at the Raven—on that Wednesday night I went into the room where Palmer and Cook were sitting, at the Raven, between the hours of 11 and 12 o'clock—there was another gentleman in the room, and I think there was more than one—one gentleman was sitting on the sofa, and I saw Mr. Cook standing up, and Mr. Palmer standing up—it was merely a practice to go into the room before we went to bed, we were in adjoining rooms, and we went to have a

glass of brandy and water before we retired to refit—the brandy and water was there before I went in—while I was there, I saw that Cook was in pain, that was almost immediately after I entered; I did not ask him any question, I heard him say to Mr. Palmer that there was something in the brandy and water, he was addressing us all—I had not observed him drink any of the brandy and water before he made that observation—Mr. Palmer then handed me the glass to taste it, but there was nothing in it—I said, "What is the use of handing the glass when it is empty?"—I believe Cook left the room, I did not see anything more of him that night—I saw him about 11 o'clock on the following morning, he was up and in the sitting room—he did not make any complaint to me direct, I heard him say to Mr. Herring or Mr. Howard, that he was very ill.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. That he wad very ill, or had been? A. That he was very ill—on Tuesday he was as well as I have always seen him—I should consider that he was in a delicate state of health—he had a pallid complexion—he was never, to my knowledge, in the habit of complaining that he was unwell.

COURT. A. You had some of the brandy and water? A. I had; it did not disagree with me.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. Where was your brandy and water got from! A. From the hotel, below—there was another decanter sent for while I was in the room, it is not likely that we should have taken it from that—it was brought in by the waiter—Cook was rather a delicate man in appearance—I never knew anything specific the matter with him, all I mean to say is, that he had the appearance of not being a strong man—I should think he attended every race regularly—in that pursuit he was exposed a good deal to the open air, like the rest of us—I have never known him to be prevented by illness from attending on that pursuit.

  WILLIAM SCAIFE GIBSON . I am an assistant to Mr. Heathcote, a surgeon, at Shrewsbury. On 14th Nov. I was sent for to the Raven Hotel, Shrewsbury—I got there I suppose between 12 and 1 o'clock at night—I saw Mr. Cook in his bedroom, he was not in bed—he complained of pain in his stomach, and heat in his throat, and he likewise told me that he thought he had been poisoned—I felt his pulse, it was about ninety—I looked at his tongue, and it was perfectly clean—he appeared very much distended about the abdomen—I recommended him an emetic, and he said he could make himself sick with warm water—I sent the waitress for some warm water, and three quarters of a pint was brought—I recommended him a feather, and he said that he could make himself sick with the handle of a tooth brush, which he did—he drank the whole of the water—I noticed what came from him, it was perfectly clean and clear—I told him I would send him some medicine—I sent him two pills and a draught by Read—the pills were compound rhubarb and about three grains of calomel—it is in the Pharmacopœia—I sent directions that the draught was to be taken about twenty minutes afterwards—that was composed of mistura sennacum, that is an infusion of senna, what we call black draught—I afterwards, that same night, saw Mr. Jones—that could not have been much more than half an hour after I had given the pills and draught to Bead—I gave Mr. Jones some medicine for him, an anodyne draught and anti-spasmodic draught; that was divided into two draughts—Mr. Heathcote saw him that evening, but I did not see him after the time I was there.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. Did you form an opinion of what was the matter with him? A. I went to work, and treated it as if he

had taken poison—I took him At his word—I noticed nothing in what he vomited up—he had pain, which is a symptom of having taken poison—that is not very uncommon—he appeared a little excited, but appeared to know what he was doing very well, and what he wan saying, and the idea of taking the poison would have some effect on the brain—by saying that he appeared a little excited, I do not mean that he appeared a little tipsy, but excited by drink only—the brain was stimulated with the brandy and water—in my judgment, what I prescribed for him was a good thing, according to the circumstances, if he had taken poison.

Q. Would not it have been better to get it up at oncet? A. Well, he threw up all the warm water—I gave him a good deal, three quarters of a pint, I thought that cleansed his stomach—I thought that would be an additional remedy, on account of his bowels being so distended—I saw nothing like bile in the basin, but on the edge of the basin I did, which he must have thrown up before, not at the time.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. What quantity? A. About the size of a pea—the water he threw off while I was there was perfectly clear—his tongue was perfectly clean, but in a bilious attack, if the stomach had been wrong any time, it would have been this colour (mahogany.)

  ELIZABETH MILLS . I was chambermaid at the Talbot Arms, Rugeley, in Nov. last—I had been about two years in that service—I know the prisoner—I did not know that he was in practice, but he was considered a medical man—he was in the habit of coming to the Talbot Arms—I knew Mr. Cook who died there—he came there on Thursday, 15th Nov., between 0 and 10 o'clock at night—the prisoner, I believe, came with him—they came in a fly—he retired to rest that night between 10 and 11 o'clock, about half past 10, perhaps—he complained that he had been poorly at Shrewsbury, and of feeling poorly then—I do not remember seeing Palmer after he get out of the fly—on the following morning, Friday, I took Mr. Cook up seme hot water, about 12 o'clock, and I think it was about I when he went out—he then appeared poorly; he felt no worse, he said, but he was not well—he came home that night to the Talbot Arms about 10 o'clock, and went to bed about half an hour afterwards, about half past 10—I asked him if he felt any worse than what he did when we went out—he said he felt no worse, and that he had been dining at Mr. Palmer's—he was perfectly sober—he asked me for an extra piece of candle, as he was going to read—I saw no more of him that night—on Saturday morning Palmer came over—I do not know exactly at what time, it might be perhaps about 8 o'clock—he lives opposite the Talbot Arms—I do not know whether Cook had sent for him—Palmer ordered a cup of coffee for Mr. Cook—he did not order it in our kitchen, I believe he ordered it of me—I believe I gave it to Mr. Cook, Palmer was then in the room—I took it up to the bedroom—Palmer was in Cook's bedroom—I did not see Cook drink it, I left it there in Cook's hands, and went down stairs—it might be an hour, or it might be a couple of hours afterwards, that I went up and found that it had been vomited into the utensil—I observed it in the chamber utensil, which was on the little table by the side of the bed, which he had on purpose that he could put his arm and reach it himself—I cannot remember that I spoke to Palmer at all about this now, or he to me—I did not see the toast and water in the bedroom that morning, or during that day—I did not observe a jug there; a jug was sent down to me from Cook's room for some fresh toast and water, but it was net given to me—I first saw that jug on Saturday night, as late as 10 o'clock—the waitress, I believe, brought it down for me to make some fresh toast and water—her

name is Laviuia Barnes—she laid that she had thrown pat the crust of bread that was in the jug—that jug did not belong to the Talbot Arms, I am quite sure of that—I cannot remember how often, to my knowledge, Palmer was in Cook's room on that Saturday, he might come and go without my seeing him—I saw him perhaps four or five times on that Saturday in Cook's room, or going to the door, or from the door of the room—I heard Palmer tell Cook that he would send him some broth over, and I saw some broth in the kitchen, which they said was sent over by Mrs. Rowley—that broth had not been made in the Talbot Arms—as soon as it came my fellow servant, Lavinia Barnes, took it up—ten minutes or a quarter of an hour after the broth had been sent over, I met Palmer on the stain; he was coming up, and I was going down—he asked me, had Mr. Cook had his broth—I told him that I was not aware that there was any come for him—while that conversation was going on, Lavinia Barnes came forward out of the commercial room, I believe she had heard what had passed between Palmer and me—she said that she had taken the broth up to Mr. Cook as soon as it came in, and he refused to take it, saying that it would not stay on his stomach—Palmer said, "You must go and fetch the broth, he must have it"—I fetched it, and took it into Mr. Cook's room—I cannot remember whether I gave it to him, or to Mr. Cook, but I know I left the two together—I am quite sure that that was some of the same broth which had been sent over—it had been brought down stairs and set on the table, and never moved, I am quite sure—an hour or two afterwards I went up, and found the broth in the chamber utensil; it had been vomited—on that evening, about 6 o'clock, some barley water was made in the hotel for Cook, and I took it up to him—I cannot remember whether Palmer was there when I took it up—I do not know whether it stayed on his stomach or not; sometimes it would, and sometimes it would not—some arrowroot was made in the kitchen about 8 o'clock on Saturday, and I took it up—I do not remember who was there then—I took it up, but do not remember who was there then—I do not remember whether Palmer was there—I do not positively remember whether that was retained on Cook's stomach—Mr. Bamford was called in; Saturday, about 3 o'clock in the afternoon, was the first time I saw him—he might have been there some time the day before, but I do not know—on Sunday morning I went into Mr. Cook's room, between 7 and 8 o'clock—Mr. Jeremiah Smith had slept in his room that night—he is a lawyer, and is called Jerry Smith, the lawyer; I have seen him with Palmer—I asked Cook if he felt any worse—he said that he felt pretty comfortable, and had slept well since 12 o'clock—on the Sunday a large breakfast cup of broth was brought over by Charles Hawley, I believe—I did not see him, but I heard it was him—I do not know who he is, but he has something to do with the church—I did not see it brought over, I heard it—I took some of it up to Mr. Cook's room in the same cup in which it was brought—it was brought over hot, ready for drinking—I took it up in the same cup, exactly as it came over—I tasted it before I took it up to Mr. Cook's room—I suppose I drank about two table spoonfuls, the effect of that was to make me sick in about half an hour, or it might be an hour—I was sick violently all the afternoon till about 5 o'clock—I was obliged to retire to my bedroom, and go to bed—I vomited a great many times—I was quite well before that—I felt perfectly well during the morning, and had no nausea—I had taken nothing to disagree with me—I had had my usual breakfast—this was before my dinner—about a quarter before 6 o'clock I went down to my tea—I saw Mr. Cook in the evening, after I had to some extent recovered—I did not perceive that he was any worse that evening—with the

exception of his vomiting the broth, he seemed in good spirits—I have no reason to believe that he had any bowel complaint—there was a discharge from the bowels on Saturday, about once perhaps—the illness was after taking the broth, and those things that were sent to him—the latest hour that I saw him on Sunday night might be about 10 o'clock—it might be after when he retired to rest, it could not be much after—on Monday morning, between 7 and 8 o'clock, I went into his room; I took him up his breakfast, a cup of coffee—I do not think I remained with him while he drank it—he did not vomit that—Palmer had been there that morning at a quarter past 7 o'clock, or it might be about 7—I do not know whether he saw Cook that morning, but I saw him coming down stairs, as though he had been to see Mr. Cook—Mr. Cook got up on that Monday about 1 o'clock—I am not aware that Palmer came again during that day, from a quarter past 7 o'clock, when I saw him coming down stairs—Cook appeared a great deal better on that Monday, he washed and dressed himself, and shared—he said that he felt better, only exceedingly weak—he dressed himself entirely, just as if he was going out—Mr. Ashmal, the jockey, came to see him that evening, and Ash mat's brother, and Mr. Saunder, his trainer—he had no other visitors that day that I am aware of—I gave him some arrowroot that day, as soon as he got up, and some dry toast; that remained on his stomach—I believe he also had a cup of coifee that day, but I do not remember when it was, perhaps between 4 and 5 o'clock—I saw him during the afternoon, he continued better, he sat up till about 4 o'clock, and then went to bed—I think it was between 9 and 10 o'clock that evening that I again saw Palmer, he went and sat down in Cook's room—I do not remember whether I left Palmer in Cook's room when I retired to bed, it might be then about half past 10 o'clock—I did not see Cook again till about a quarter before 12—I remember something being given to me about 8 o'clock that night by Miss Bond, the housekeeper, which appeared to be a pill box, to take up stairs to Cook's room—I took it up to Cook's room, and placed it on the dressing table—it appeared to be a round pill box, and it was wrapped up in white paper—(I had not then seen Palmer since the morning)—I left it there, and retired to rest; Palmer was then sitting down by the fire—I went to bed between 10 and 11 o'clock—the waitress, Lavinia Barnes, called me up; it might be at a quarter or 10 minutes before 12 o'clock—I did not look, but I should fancy from the time the clock struck that it might be that—while I was dressing I heard violent screams twice from Cook's room—my room is not exactly over his, but it is up above on another story—I went down to Cook's room, and as soon as I entered I found him sitting up in bed; he desired me to fetch Mr. Palmer directly—I told him that Mr. Palmer was sent for, walked to his bed side, and found the pillow on the floor—there was a mould candle burning—I picked up the pillow, and asked him if he would lay his head down—he was at that time sitting up beating the bed clothes like this with his arms and hands, as quick as he could, with both his hands and arms stretched out in this form—having picked the pillow up, and asked him to lay his head down, he said, "I cannot lie down, I shall suffocate if I lie down; oh! fetch Mr. Palmer," very loud he called out—I did not observe his legs then—I observed that his body, and head, and neck were moving, there was a sort of jumping or jerking about his head and neck—sometimes he would throw his head down on the pillow, arid raise himself up again—the jumping or jerking was in all his body—his breathing was very bad, and the balls of hoth his eyes very much projected—I observed a gasping when he spoke;

it was difficult for him to speak, he was so short of breath—he screamed again three or four times while I was in the room, that was while that violence was—he was moving and knocking about all the time—he called aloud, "Murder!" twice—after the heating had gone on with his hands and arms, he asked me to rub one hand, and I found it stiff—it was the left hand.

COURT. Q. Just describe what you mean by "stiff"? A. It appeared to be stretched out and stiff—they did not move—the hand was like this (half shut)—it seemed to be stiff all the way up his arm.

MR. JAMES. Q. What effect had your nibbing upon it? A. I did not rub it so very long—as soon as he thought I had rubbed it sufficiently, he thanked me, and I did not rub it again—I did not perceive that the stiffness had gone—Palmer was in the room after I rubbed his hand—while the jerking of the body was going on, Cook was quite conscious, and I noticed him to twitch while I was rubbing his hand—his arms seemed to twitch, and the body also—he seemed to twitch altogether—while this was going on he seemed to know all that was going forward—when Palmer came in be recognised him—he was throwing himself about the bed, and he said, "Oh, doctor, I shall die!"—he addressed Palmer when he said that—Palmer's reply was, "Oh, my lad, you won't"—Palmer left, to fetch something—I do not know exactly what he said, or what he did, but he seemed just to look at him, and then he went and asked me to stay by the bed side with him—he returned very shortly, I should think, as quick as he could possibly go over, I should think two minutes—I did not continue rubbing his hands—I only stood by the bed side—when Palmer came back he brought some pills, and he gave him something else, but whether he brought it with him I do not know—he gave him a draught in a wine glass; first the pills, and then the draught—when he gave him the pills, Cook said that they stuck fast in his throat, and he could not swallow them, and Mr. Palmer desired me to give him a teaspoon full of toast and water—I did so, and he took it—when I gave it to him from the spoon, his body was still jumping and jerking—he snapped, in a sort of snapping way, at the spoon, with his head and neck, and the spoon was fast between his teeth—it was difficult to get it back—he seemed to bite it very hard—his head and neck moved forward when he snapped—it was as if this was the spoon; there (Snapping with her teeth at a quill)—the water went down his throat, and washed the pills down—Mr. Palmer handed him a draught then from a wine glass, something liquid—it was about three parts full of a dark, thick, heavy looking nature—he drank that—he snapped at the glass in the same manner as he did at the spoon—it seemed an involuntary motion—he seemed as if he could not exactly control himself—he swallowed it, and it was vomited up immediately into the chamber utensil, which I held—it was placed on the bed, and I supported his head—it smelt like opium—Palmer said that he hoped the pills had stayed, or he hoped that the pills had not returned, and he searched for the pills with a quill off the dressing table, and said, "I cannot find the pills;" but he desired me to take it away, and to pour it carefully, and see whether I could see the pills—I did so, but could not see the pills at all—I emptied the contents of the utensil, and brought it back—he seemed to be more easy then—that attack lasted, I should think, half an hour, or it might be more, from the time I went into the room when he was beating the bedclothes to the time that he got more easy—he then got more composed—during the whole of that time he appeared to be quite conscious—he appeared to know all that was going forward—I recollect his asking Palmer

to feel his heart—that wag after he got more composed—he was lying down more quiet, and desired Palmer to come and feel how his heart beat, or something of that sort—Palmer went to his bed side, and I do not know whether he pressed his hand to his heart, or the side of his face—he said that it was all right, or something of that sort, quite a slight remark—left him that morning about 3 o'clock—he was not asleep when I left him—I left Palmer in the room with him—Mr. Cook was dozing when I left him, but I learned next morning that he was not, for he told me that he heard me go out—I left Palmer in the easy chair, asleep, I believe, and I retired to the next room, close to his door—I saw Cook again about 6 o'clock on the Tuesday morning—I said to him, "Is Mr. Palmer gone?"—he said, "Yes, he left at a quarter before 5 o'clock"—I asked him how he felt, or whether he had been any worse—he said, no, he had been no worse since I had left him in the morning—I said, "You were asleep when I went out"—he said, "No; I heard you go"—he asked me if I had ever seen any one suffer or in such agony as he was last night—I said, "No, I never have"—he said he should think I should not wish ever to see any one like that again—I said, "What do you think was the cause of all that illness, Mr. Cook?"—he said, "Some pills Palmer gave me at half past 10 o'clock"—I do not think anything more was said then—I think I left him—I asked him, would he have a cup of coffee, or if he would take anything; and he said, no, not then—I do not remember seeing Palmer on Tuesday morning, until he was sent for—I met him on the stairs that morning, I did not see him in the room—I did not observe any jerkings or convulsions about Cook when I saw him on the Tuesday morning—he seemed quite composed and quiet—I noticed that his eyes looked very wild—I observed none of the beating or convulsion—his body seemed to be quite quiet—there was no mgving about the body, but the eyes looked very wild; he appeared as if he wished to settle down and be quiet—about 12 o'clock he rang his bell, and desired me to send Boots over to ask Mr. Palmer if he might have a cup of coffee—the Boots returned, and said he might have a cup of coffee, and Mr. Palmer would be over immediately—I took the coffee up—that was a little after 12 o'clock—Palmer was then in Cook's room—I gave the coffee to Palmer—I gave it into his hands—he tasted the coffee, to see if it would be too strong for Mr. Cook—I left it in his hands, and left the room—I do not know whether the coffee was vomited then, or whether it was after 4 o'clock—I cannot now remember whether I went into the room again—Mr. Jones arrived that afternoon, I believe, by the 3 o'clock train, from Lutterworth—when first I saw Mr. Jones I found him in to. Cook's room—after that I took him up some more coffee—that might be about 4 o'clock, or between 4 and 5—it was another cup of coffee.

COURT. Q. To whom did you give that? A. I cannot remember whether I gave it to Mr. Cook—I left it in the room—whether Mr. Palmer was there I cannot remember now.

MR. JAMES. Q. After you had taken up the coffee at 4 o'clock, did you see Palmer? A. Yes; after I had taken it up, he opened the door and asked me to empty that, he had vomited the coffee—ho told me that Cook had vomited the coffee; he opened the bedroom door, I was outside on the landing, I suppose he heard me—he gave me the chamber utensil at the door—I did not go into the room at all, it was as I was passing the door—I cannot remember how long afterwards it was, I do not think it could be an hour—I cannot remember whether Palmer was there when I took the coffee up and left it in the room—the utensil had coffee in it—during

that evening I saw Cook several times before I retired to rest—he appeared to be in very good spirits, and was talking about getting up the next morning, and said he would have the barber sent for and be shaved—I believe I gave him some arrowroot that evening—the last time I saw him that evening was not later than half past 10 o'clock—Palmer was with him when I left him.

COURT. Q. He was in his bedroom? A. Yes; I gave him a jug of toast and water at the door for Cook—Mr. Palmer said to Mr. Cook, "Can this good girl do anything more for you to-night"—Mr. Cook said, "No, I shall want nothing more, good night."

MR. JAMES. Q. Was that said by Mr. Cook in a composed and comfortable manner? A. Yes, it was—I did not go to bed that night; I remained in the kitchen, I was anxious to see how Mr. Cook went on—while I was in the kitchen, the bell of Mr. Cook's room rang violently.

COURT. Q. Were you asleep at that time? A. No, I was sitting up in the kitchen.

MR. JAMES. About what time was it? A. A little before 12 o'clock, perhaps 10 minutes before 12—it was as near as possible at the same time as on the previous night—Mr. Jones was sleeping in his bedroom, it was a double bedded room, a bed was made up for Mr. Jones—I went up to Mr. Cook's room on hearing the bell—I found Mr. Cook, I believe, sitting up in bed, Mr. Jones appeared to be supporting him; I think he had his arm round his shoulders—Mr. Cook said, "Oh, Mary! fetch Mr. Palmer directly"—he was conscious then, and spoke to me—I went over to Mr. Palmer and rang the bell, the surgery bell; I believe it was at the surgery door, and Mr. Palmer came to the bedroom window—he came to the window as soon as I stepped off the steps into the middle of the road—I expected him to come to the window—as soon as I rang the bell, I stepped off the steps into the road, and he was there, he did not put up the sash—I did not discover a light in his bedroom—I could not positively see him, I could hear him—I could not discern him exactly, he merely opened one square of glass, a small casement at the side, and spoke to me—I could not see whether he was dressed or not at that time—I could not see him at all, I heard him, I heard his voice—I knew his voice—I asked him to come over to Mr. Cook directly, he was much the same as he was the night before—I do not remember what answer he gave me, I turned round and went across again directly—Palmer came in two or three minutes, perhaps—I was in the bedroom when Palmer came—when he came in I think he said he had never dressed so quick in his life, that was the first thing he said—Mr. Jones was still with Mr. Cook—Cook was sitting up in the bed, in much the same state as he was the previous night—I had only been absent a few minutes—Cook was sitting up, and I believe Jones was supporting him—when I left the room after Mr. Palmer came in, I remained in the landing, just outside the door—I waited there—after I had been waiting there some short time, Mr. Palmer came out in about a minute or two, very shortly; I said to him, "He is much the same as he was last night, Mr. Palmer?"—he replied, "Oh! he is not so ill by a fiftieth part"—nothing else passed—he was then going down stairs, as though he was going to his own house—he returned in a very short time, in a few minutes, and went to Mr. Cook's room—I believe I went into the room after he had returned—I believe I heard Mr. Cook make a request about being turned over; I believe he said, "Turn me over on my right side"—I was not in the room at the time it was said, I was at the door—I heard it at the door, the door was open—I did not go in—I do not think I

way in the room at the moment he departed—I believe I went in just before he died, but I came out again—I believe I was uot in when he departed—I saw Mr. Jones in attendance on him a few minutes before he died—he was supporting him, I think—I think the last I saw of him he had his right arm under Mr. Cook's head—I believe that was it, I cannot be positive—Mr. Palmer was then feeling Mr. Cook's pulse, and he said to Mr. Jones, "His pulse is gone"—Mr. Jones pressed the side of his face to Mr. Cook's heart, and after he had listened to his heart, Mr. Jones lifted up his hands, but did not speak—Mr. Palmer asked me to fetch Mr. Bamford, and I went over for Mr. Bamford.

Q. From the time that you were called up on this night, at about 10 minutes before 12 o'clock, to his death, how long do you think elapsed? A. It might be three quarters of an hour—he died before 1 o'clock—when I went to fetch Mr. Bamford I did not go into the room again; Mr. Bamford came over, and I saw him when he came down stairs, and he said, "He is dead, he was dead when I arrived"—after Mr. Bamford went out I went on the landing, and sat down on some stairs leading up to the attics—I sat there about ten minutes, and Mr. Jones came out of the room and looked at me, and said, "Mr. Palmer wants you," or, "Will you go in?" or something of that sort, pointing with his finger towards the door of Mr. Cook's room—I went into the room where Mr. Cook was lying dead—Palmer was there—no one was with him—I said, "It is not possible Mr. Cook is dead"—he said,. "Yes, he is dead! oh, yes, he is dead!"—he then asked me who I thought would come to lay him out, and I mentioned two women that I thought Mr. Palmer knew—he said, "Those are just the women"—Lsaid, "Shall I fetch them?" and he said, "Yes."

Q. Had you seen in Mr. Cook's room, during the time he was there, a bettingbook? A. Yes—it was a dark book with a gold band round the edge, with a clasp at one end—it was not a very large book, it was not exactly square, more long than square—I had seen that same book in his possession when he had stopped at the Talbot Arms before, on his way to Liverpool races—there was a case on one side to admit a pencil, and a pencil in it—I cannot remember how long ago it was that he had stopped there before, it was some months, perhaps three or four—I saw that book in bis room on the Monday night before his death—I gave him the book from the dressing table to his bed—that was before his attack on the Monday night.

COURT. Q. How came you to give it to him? A. He asked me to give him the book off the looking glass, and I took it from the looking glass.

MR. JAMES. Q. For what purpose did he require it? A. He asked me to give him the book, the pen and ink and the paper, he was going to write, and I gave him all at once, I took them all to him in bed—that was between 7 and 8 o'clock on Monday night—after he had written the letters he took from the book a postage stamp—there was a pocket at one end of the book, where he took the stamp from—I then placed the book again on the looking glass—that was at his request—I never saw the book to my knowledge after that—I did not search the room for it the night Mr. Cook died—I did afterwards, the first time I was requested to do so—I searched everywhere—I could not find it—when I went into the room where the body was lying, when Palmer was there, I believe the clothes that Mr. Cook had worn were placed on a chair somewhere—I saw Palmer searching the pockets of the coat—that was on the Tuesday night after Mr. Cook was dead, at the time that Mr. Jones wished me to go in the room, perhaps ten minutes after—I went in and found Mr. Palmer with the coat in his hand;

that was the coat that I had seen Mr. Cook wear—he was searching the pockets of the coat—it was not a frock coat, nor yet a dress coat, or a great coat; I know the style of the coat, but not the name of it.

Q. Did you observe him do anything with the bolster or pillow, where Cook had lain? A. Yes, he searched under the pillow and bolster—I saw two or three letters lying on the chimney piece, I think—that was at this time, immediately after Cook's death, and while Palmer was in the room—I never found them afterwards, to my knowledge—I did not go much into the room afterwards—I had not seen those letters on the mantelpiece before the death, to my knowledge—after his death I did, while Palmer was in his room—I have never seen them since to my knowledge.

Adjourned.

Thursday, May 15th.

  ELIZABETH MILLS , cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. How long had you been at the Talbot Arms at the date of Mr. Cook's death? A. About two years—I cannot exactly remember how long before Mr. Cook's death I saw him there first, he was there three or four months, almost altogether—he made it his home—I mean immediately preceding his death—he came first in May, 1855—he was there, on and off, about three months altogether—I never heard him complain of anything except his throat—he first complained of his throat perhaps two or three months before his death; he did not complain frequently, it was merely a sore throat, or something of that, through a cold—I believe he had a gargle for it, but I only saw one bottle—I believe he had the gargle from Mr. Thirlby—I did not observe any sores about his mouth when he first came, or at any time previous to his death—I never heard him complain of any difficulty in swallowing—I do not know of his tongue having been sore—I have seen him with a loaded tongue, from a bad stomach—he did not complain in my hearing of the tongue being sore, so as to render it difficult for him to swallow—I do not know of caustic having been applied to it while he was there—I do not know that Mr. Thirlby attended him for his mouth and throat at the inn—I cannot tell how recently before his death I heard him complain of a sore throat: it was longer than a fortnight, it might be a month, or more; a month, or two—he did not tell me that it was actually sore, that the skin was off, that it was sore in that sense; but that it was sore, he should fancy from cold, he had got a slight cold—he never told me that it had healed—he did not, beside the gargle, take medicine at the house that I know of—I saw pill boxes about during his last illness—he had not a violent cough, he had a cough which a person would have from a cold, but not a frequent cough—I do not say that he was rarely without one, I say that he bad a slight cough at the time his throat was sore; it would be through cold perhaps—he had not been ailing, to my knowledge, just before he went to Shrewsbury—when he came back from Shrewsbury he at once said that he was poorly—after he died I stayed at the Talbot Inn, till the day after Christmas day; I then went home; that is in the Potteries, Shelton—I have been in service since at Dolly's Hotel, Paternoster-row—I went into service there in Jan.—I am not in service there now—I remained till Feb., I stayed six weeks there—it is a chop house—I was there as chambermaid—after I came to London I saw Mr. Stevens, perhaps about a week after—I met him at Dolly's Hotel once, and perhaps four or five times—I will not swear that it was not ten or twelve times—I will swear that it was not twenty times—it might be six or seven times—I will swear that it was not twelve

times—sometimes he spoke to me while Mrs. Dewhuret was there, in one of her sitting rooms—I did not go into a sitting room and speak to him alone, sometimes Mrs. Dewhuret was there, and sometimes Miss Dewhurst—it was not always about Cook's death that he spoke to me—he merely called to see how I liked London, and whether I was well in health.

Q. He was in the station of a gentleman; do you mean to say that he called to see whether you liked London? A. Yes, to see if I liked the place—I am not going to take my oath that he always called to ask me how I liked London—he sometimes talked about one thing, and sometimes another, but nothing besides Mr. Cook's death—I had conversed a little with him at the Talbot Inn when he was there, before the funeral—I had had no private conversation with him—I had never been in a room with him alone at the Talbot Inn—he had not spoken to me about coming to London—when he came to Dolly's Hotel, he spoke to me about many more things besides Mr. Cook's death—I cannot remember now what else.

Q. Tell me a single thing of sufficient importance to remain on your memory, except Cook's death? A. I cannot remember, I do not keep things in my head for weeks and months together—I did not tell him, "Mr. Stevens, you have been here often enough; I have told you all I know"—he never gave me any money, never a farthing—he has made me no promises, not even to get me a place—the last time I saw him was yesterday in Court; he is not in Court now that I am aware of—the last time I saw him before that, and out of Court, was on Tuesday, at Dolly's Hotel—he merely said, "How do you do?" and asked me how I was, and plenty more were present—he did not dine at Dolly's—he may live there for what I know, I do not know exactly where he lives—it was in one of the sitting rooms—I was not alone with him, Lavinia Barnes was there—Lavinia Barnes, of the Talbot Inn; she is staying at Dolly's now—there were two more gentlemen in the room beside, they were Mr. Hatton and Mr. Gardner—Mr. Hatton is, I suppose, the chief officer of police in Staffordshire, or at Rugeley, and the neighbourhood—I only know that people say that he is—I knew him when he was there—Mr. Gardner is, I believe, an attorney, at Rugeley—I cannot remember whether on this occasion all the talk was about Cook's death, it might be mentioned—I do not pretend to keep in my head what the conversation was that evening—there were many more things mentioned: what I do not wish to mention—I cannot remember the subjects, it would be impossible for me to remember—the gentlemen talked among themselves of other subjects than Cook's death, but perhaps my thoughts were occupied with something else; I was not paying attention to them—I do not remember any other subject which remains on my memory—I cannot remember any other matter of conversation—they might talk about Cook's death, I cannot recollect—I do not know whether they talked about the trial which was coming on—they did not, that I heard, talk about the evidence which I was to give—they did not ask me what I could prove—they did not read my deposition before the Coroner over to me—I saw nothing produced, nothing was read to me—nothing was read to me from a newspaper, nor did Mr. Stevens on any previous interview read anything to me from a newspaper—he did not read my deposition to me—he did not talk to me about the symptoms which Cook exhibited shortly before his death—I do not know Mr. Deane—that was not the first time since Cook's death that I had seen Mr. Hatton, I had seen him before, I cannot remember how many times; I should say perhaps twice, I am sure not half a dozen times—I saw him once at Dolly's, not about Cook's death;

I believe he merely dined there, and I saw him in a sitting room—I did not wait on him—I was not alone in the room with him—he did not say anything about Cook's death to me that I can remember—I cannot remember, upon my oath, that he spoke to me about Cook's death—I do not pretend to tell you what I think; he might have, but I cannot remember—I do not know whether he did or did not, he might—I mean, on my oath, to say that I cannot remember—he asked me how I was, I can remember that—I do not remember that he said a good deal more than that, I do not know—I had seen Mr. Gardner three or four times before, since Cook's death, once at Dolly's, and I met him in the street, but merely said, "Good morning," or, "How do you do?"—that was twice—I have not met him anywhere else that I am aware of—I say, "No"—I mean to say positively that I only met him at Dolly's, and in the street—I'have not been to an attorney's office with him—I had no talk with him in the street besides "How do you do?"—I left Dolly's in Feb.—I have not been to London since, before I came up for this trial—from Dolly's I went to my mother's house—I am now living with my mother, when I am at home that is, at Rugeley she is now—I have been living there with my mother about three weeks—before that I was living among my friends at Hitchinghill—I have got some friends there—friends are friends, I suppose—I have been living there with some friends.

Q. With whom? A. I say I have been living with my friends—I know a man of the name of Dutton, he is a friend of mine.

Q. Is it with him you have been living? A. I have been living with two—I have been staying at Dutton's a short time—he is a friend of mine—there is a Mrs. Dutton, his mother—I have been living with Dutton, I have been staying there about a month—Dutton is about thirty years of age, perhaps—he is a labouring man—his mother lives in the house—I have known him about two years—the house is a cottage, there are two rooms down and two up—there are two bed rooms—his mother sleeps in one, and I slept with her—I always slept with her, I swear that—I have known his mother ever since I have known him, two years—she is not dependent upon him, I believe she has 6s. a week coming in—I do not know what he has coming in, nor about—he is there now for anything I know—I do not know that I have any other friends there—I have been staying with mother and with a cousin for a while—that is in the Potteries—when I spoke of two friends, I spoke of his brother being there; his brother was there also, another single brother—I left Dolly's because I did not like the place—I left of my own accord—I can read, easily—I can read newspapers—I do not remember that I have read the case of a Mrs. D * *, I may have done so.

Q. A case that lately occurred at Leeds; a lady who was poisoned by her husband, or said to be? A. I heard it spoken of, I did not read it—I heard it spoken of by many persons, I cannot mention one more than another—I never heard Mr. Stevens mention it, or Mr. Gardner, or Mr. Hatton; no one belonging to the trial—I was not told, when I heard of it, what the symptoms of Mrs. D * * were; I merely heard there had been strychnine used in Leeds, another strychnine case—I never heard the symptoms stated to me—the symptoms of strychnine were never mentioned to me—I will swear that—I first used the expression "twitching" to the Coroner, or if I did not mention "twitching," I mentioned words to the same effect—I cannot swear that I used that word to the Coroner, I used it before I came to London, but I do not know to whom—I will swear I

used it before I came to London—I believe I used it in mother's house—I swear I did, and I described to her the symptoms that the young man died under—I will swear I used the word "twitching" to mother—she is not here—I cannot remember when I first used the word "jerking" to anybody—it has never been used to me by anybody—I have never been asked by anybody whether there was not jerking or twitching, not that I can remember—I do not remember saying yesterday that I vomited at least twenty times after I had drunk about two table spoonfuls of the broth.

Q. Did you state one word about that before the Coroner? A. It never occurred to me then, it occurred to me three days after.

Q. You say it never occurred to you before the Coroner; did you state this before the Coroner, "I tasted the broth on the Sunday before Mr. Cook's death; it was not made in this house; I thought the broth very good after I had tasted it; I believe some broth had been sent over on the Saturday; nothing particular was in the taste of the broth"? A. No, I did not taste anything particular—I believe that is what I said—I cannot remember that I had been examined first before the Coroner, and had retired, and was then recalled—I was examined twice, and I believe three times before the Coroner—I do not know whether it was on the first occasion that my attention was called to the fact of the broth having been sent over, but on one occasion it was called distinctly to the broth, and I was asked whether I tasted it—I did state that I had tasted it, and thought it very good—it never occurred to me to state to the Coroner that after I tasted it I vomited frequently in the course of the afternoon—I did not think it was the broth at the time—I told you yesterday that I went to bed in consequence of the vomiting—sickness of that kind repeated frequently in the course of that afternoon is not a very common occurrence with me—I am not subject to it—I have a bilious attack sometimes, but not such violent sickness as I had that afternoon—I could not at all account for it at the time—I only took two table spoonfuls; that was all—the vomiting came on from half an hour to an hour afterwards—on the Saturday morning Mr. Cook had coffee for breakfast—Mr. Palmer ordered it, I believe—Cook did not express a wish to me to have coffee, that I heard—I do not know whether he or Palmer told me to bring coffee, but I never knew Cook to take coffee in bed before; he in general took tea.

Q. I understood you to say yesterday, "Palmer came over, at 8 o'clock, and ordered a cup of coffee for Mr. Cook"? A. I do not remember whether Palmer ordered it or not—I do not remember stating yesterday that he did—if I stated it yesterday it is truth, but I do not remember whether Palmer ordered the coffee or not, now.

Q. You stated it yesterday. A. Then it if correct—I swear to it now—if it was stated yesterday, I do not doubt that it is correct—(Thai portion of the witness's evidence was read over to her from the Judge's notes)—I will now swear that that is correct—it is no doubt correct if I said so yesterday)—perhaps I cannot recollect to-day so well as I did yesterday.

Q. Did you state this before the Coroner, "On Saturday he had coffee for breakfast, about 8 o'clock; he ate nothing; he vomited directly he had swallowed it; up to the time I had given him the coffee I had not seen Mr. Palmer"? A. That I cannot remember—I cannot remember whether I stated before the Coroner that he vomited directly he had swallowed it, or whether I stated that up to the time. I had given him the coffee I had not seen Mr. Palmer—I stated yesterday that I saw a pill box on Monday night; it was sent over there about 8 o'clock, wrapped up in paper, and

that I placed it on the dressing table in Mr. Cook's bedroom, and that on that same evening I saw Palmer in Cook's room, between 9 and 10 o'clock—I do not remember whether I said a word about that before the Coroner; I might; I cannot remember it now—perhaps I was not asked the question by the Coroner—I did not state anything beside what I was asked—I cannot remember whether I did or did not—I will now swear that he was there between 9 and 10 o'clock—he brought a jar of jelly, and I opened it in his bedroom—I cannot remember now how long after 9 o'clock I saw that he was there—it was between 9 and 10 o'clock—I cannot tell to a quarter of an hour—I should say it was nearer 10 than 9 o'clock—I should imagine so—I cannot be positive—I did not say that I saw him there again at half past 10 o'clock—I said it was half past 10 o'clock when I left Cook—I do not recollect whether Palmer was there the'n—I have no certain recollection of seeing him there that night, after the time I saw him between 9 and 10 o'clock, until he was fetched over to Mr. Cook—I do not know when he took the pills—I stated yesterday that I asked him on the Tuesday morning what he thought the cause of his illness was, and that he said, "The pills which Palmer gave me at half past 10 o'clock"—I did not say that before the Coroner.

Q. Have you been questioned since Cook's death by any one respecting what you did say before the Coroner as to when these pills might have been given, or respecting anything that you said about these pills before the Coroner? A. Yes—that was at Hitchinghill, by Dr. Collier.

Q. Did you tell him that the gentlemen in London had altered your evidence on that point, and that your evidence was now to be, "Cook said, 'The pills which Palmer gave me at half past 10 o'clock made me ill'"? A. I did not tell him the gentlemen had altered my evidence—I stated something about my evidence being altered since—he said he had not got that down in what I had given to die Coroner; and I said, no, but I thought it was down' on some of the papers I had given to the other gentlemen in London.

Q. Did you say that the evidence had been altered by anybody, or by yourself, since? A. It had been altered by myself—it had occurred to me since—I could not say who the gentleman was to whom I had given it, because I did not know—I gave it to him at Dolly's.

Q. You said "in some of the papers;" were there more papers than one besides the depositions? A. I believe this paper was the only one, except Dr. Collier's—I did say "in some of the papers," the one that he had—I gave it to the one at Dolly's.

Q. Do you mean to tell the Jury that you do not know to whom you gave it? A. I did not ask the gentleman who he was, neither did he tell me.

COURT. Q. Do you mean that you do not know his name? A. No, I do not.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. Did he tell you from whom he came? A. No, he did not—he asked me if I would answer him a few questions—I said, "Certainly"—he neither said who he was, neither did I ask him who he was—I do not know who he is—I saw him in a private sitting room—I was with him perhaps half an hour—he did not ask me very many questions—he was writing while I was answering the questions—he did not tell me who he was, or who he came from, or what it was wanted for.

Q. Did he mention Mr. Stevens's name? A. Yes—he did not tell me he came from Mr. Stevens.

Q. What did he say about Mr. Stevens? A. Mr. Stevens was with him, he called Mr. Stevens by name—Mr. Stevens was with him.

Q. Why not tell us that before? A. You did not ask me—I did not know that he was an acquaintance of Mr. Stevens—I thought he might be, he came with him—all I said then was taken down.

Q. Did you say before the Coroner, that when Mr. Cook was ill on the Monday night, and sitting up in bed and beating the bed clothes, that he said, "I cannot lie down, I shall suffocate if I do"? A. I do not remember whether I said that or not to the Coroner—I do not know whether I mentioned the word "jerking" to the Coroner, but I know that I said his body and neck was moving constantly, or something of that sort—I am not positive about whether I used the word "jerking," I might and I might not—I said before the Coroner, that he threw his head back, and rose himself up again—I am sure I said that.

Q. Did you say he was jumping and jerking all over the body? A. I do not know whether I mentioned the word "jerking," I said he was jumping, the whole of the body was in a jumping, snatching way—I believe I said that it was difficult for him to speak, he was so short of breath—I did not mention that he called aloud, "Murder!" twice—I cannot remember whether I said that the fingers did not move—I did not say to the Coroner that as soon as he thought I had rubbed his hands sufficiently he thanked me—I do not remember saying that I noticed him to twitch while I was rubbing his hand—I do not now remember whether I said anything to that effect, or expressing that same meaning—I cannot remember—I do not remember whether I stated that Cook said the pills stuck fast in his threat, he could not swallow them—I did not answer the Coroner anything but what he asked me—if he had asked me those questions they would have been answered, the same as I am answering them to you—I did not state to the Coroner that Palmer told me to give him some toast and water in a spoon, nor that I gave it him, and he snapped at it, and got the spoon between his teeth, so that it was difficult to get it out of his mouth—I did not state that his head and neck moved forward together, and that it was in that way he got the spoon—(LORD CAMPBELL. suggested that as it was proposed that the deposition of the witness before the Coroner should be put in and read, that would be the more proper course to adopt instead of getting the effect of it by the present course of examination. MR. SERJEANT SHEE. stated that he should certainly read the deposition as part of his case; at the same time he felt it his duty to adopt the course he was now pursuing. The ATTORNEYGENERAL. would have interposed, and submitted that the witness was entitled to hear the deposition read before answering these questions, but that he was prepared to adduce evidence, showing that repeated-expostulations were addressed to the Coroner, as to the mode in which the examination was conducted.)

Q. Did you state to the Coroner that he snapped at the glass when Palmer gave him a draught, as he had before done at the spoon? A. I did not; if the Coroner had asked me to describe the whole symptoms, I should have done it from the beginning to the end; but he did not, he asked me question by question, and what he asked me I answered—I should have answered these questions if they had been put to me—I believe Dr. Taylor was present the first time I was examined before the Coroner—I could not swear to the gentleman, I believe he was there—I believe I was examined more than twice—I was not recalled after I had been examined once, for the purpose of describing the symptoms for Dr. Taylor to hear—I was not examined as to the symptoms upon any occasion when I knew the medical

gentlemen Were there—on the Monday night Mr. Palmer had on a drab cap—I stated to the Coroner how Mr. Palmer Was dressed on the Monday night, I did not state how he was dressed on the Tuesday night—I did not state yesterday how he was dressed on the Tuesday night—he had a plaid dressing gown on, but I cannot remember what sort of cap.

Q. Did you observe how he was about the neck and throat, whether he had a shirt on, or any collar; or whether he had any appearance of a man who had been up, or of a man who had only lately got oat of bed? A. I do not know that I noticed particularly about that—I could not say whether he had bis night shirt on or his day shirt; or whether he had any cravat or stock, or whether he had slippers on, or boots or shoes—I cannot remember—I stated in my examination yesterday, that after Mr. Cook's death, Mr. Jones came out to me on the landing, and said, either "Mr. Palmer wants you;" or, "Will you go in?"—I do not remember the words exactly—I did not say that I saw Palmer with a coat in his hand searching the pockets ten minutes after Mr. Jones told me to go in—as soon as Mr. Jones came out he desired me to go into the room, which I did at once; it was then that I saw Palmer searching the pockets of the coat—I do not remember whether I stated before the Coroner that Palmer did not seem at all confused when I went in—I did not discover anything about him to be confused—I stated that I saw him search under the pillow, and at the back of the bolster, and that he just turned the corners up as a gentleman would do looking for a watch, and that at that time he had the coat in his hand—I know the room in which the examination of this body took place (a model of the house was fore produced)—that describes the room in which the body was examined—I should say that represents the door at which the doctors came in, and the persons who attended the examination—there is another door leading into a sitting room, and there is a door from that sitting room on to the landing; there is a gas lamp over the front door of the Talbot Arms—I do not know the width of the street between the prisoner's house and the Talbot Arms.—(The deposition of the witness before the Coroner was fare put in and mad, as follows: Elizabeth Mills sworn, saith: "I am chambermaid at the Talbot Arms—I attended upon the deceased—he came from Shrewsbury on the Thursday night, 15th Nov., between 9 and 10 o'clock—he came in a fly—Mr. Palmer, surgeon, was with him—Mr. Cook complained of having been ill at Shrewsbury—he did not say what was the matter with him, but said he did not feel exactly well—he went to bed about half past 10 o'clock, and rose next day about 1—breakfasted in bed, because he was not well—he had tea and dry toast for breakfast—I did not see him again until night—he went to bed on the Friday night about half past 10 o'clock—he told me he had dined with Mr. Palmer—he did not appear at all the worse for liquor—I took him up stairs to his bedroom, and then went and fetched him a longer piece of candle for him to read, at his request—I am sure he was sober—he did not get up Saturday or Sunday—on Saturday he had coffee for breakfast, about 8 o'clock—he ate nothing, he vomited directly he had swallowed it—up to the time I had given him the coffee, I had not seen Mr. Palmer—I asked him what he thought was the cause of his sickness, and he said he thought it was bile—on Saturday, about 12 o'clock, or half past, I gave the deceased some broth—the broth was brought by Mrs. Rowley—Mr. Palmer in the morning said he would send some broth—I took him some broth at Mr. Palmer's request about 1 o'clock—it was a large breakfast cup—I left Mr. Palmer and deceased together—I believe he had vomited the broth immediately—at

4 o'clock he had some coffee—he threw up everything he took on Saturday—Mr. Bamford was called in on the Saturday morning—he was vomiting all Sunday morning—I saw him next about 6 o'clock, and took him a little barley water, that staid on his stomach—about 5 o'clock I took him some arrowroot which was made in the house—he took that, and I believe he vomited that—I heard deceased say he had done—I took him some toast and water—on Monday I took him some coffee and dry toast, and that staid on his stomach—I took him some arrowroot at 1 o'clock, and a little dry toast—he was then sitting up—the arrowroot and dry toast staid on his stomach—about 5 o'clock I gave him some coffee, that remained on his stomach—I took him a little arrowroot at 8 o'clock, that remained on his stomach—took some barley water at 10 o'clock—he did not vomit on the Monday—he was taken ill a little before 12 o'clock on Monday night—I was called up and went to deceased's room, and found him sitting up in bed—he told me to fetch Mr. Palmer directly—the Boots was sent for Mr. Palmer—the deceased was sitting up in bed, beating it with his hands—when I went into the room, Mr. Palmer came shortly after; deceased screamed twice before I got to the room—he said it was the pills that had made him ill—he took the pills about half past 10 o'clock—his eyes appeared very wild, his arms and legs, after beating the bed, appeared quite stiff—he was in a sitting position—his mouth appeared to be closed—he said to Mr. Palmer, 'Doctor, I shall die'—Mr. Palmer said, 'No, my lad, you won't—Palmer went to fetch some pills, and something in a wine glass—it was a brown, heavy looking liquid—from the smell, I should think it was opium—a wine glass was nearly full—he took the pills first, and then the contents of the wine glass—I remained with him until 3 o'clock, and then left Mr. Palmer with him, and he did not vomit afterwards—he asked me to to rub his hands; they appeared stiff, cold, and damp—he had complained when he was here before of a pain in his throat—he has been staying here occasionally since May last—I did not hear any more screams that night—I went into his room on Tuesday morning, about a quarter before 5 o'clock; Mr. Cook then stated that Mr. Palmer left a quarter before 5 o'clock—Mr. Cook was then alone, and dozing at that time—I asked him how he felt, and he said pretty comfortable then—he declined to have anything to eat—I saw him again about 7 o'clock, and he then asked me if I had, at any time, seen a person in such agony as he was the previous night—I said I had not—I asked him at 8 o'clock if he would have anything to eat, and he said no, not until he had seen Mr. Palmer—it was when I saw him at 8 o'clock that he said he thought the pills made him ill—I asked him again at 10 o'clock if he would have anything, and he said no, not before seeing Mr. Palmer—a little before 12 o'clock he rang the bell, and asked me to send the Boots to ask Mr. Palmer, if he (deceased) might have a cup of coffee—I sent the Boots, and he brought a message from Mr. Palmer that deceased might have a cup of coffee, and he would be over directly—Mr. Palmer was in the room when I took the coffee—I saw Mr. Palmer band the coffee to Mr. Cook at 4 o'clock—I took him another cup of coffee—I gave that cup to Mr. Cook—about half an hour afterwards I was passing the door; Mr. Palmer called to me and gave me a vessel, and said Mr. Cook had vomited the coffee—I saw him again several times, but gave him nothing until 8 o'clock, when I gave him some arrowroot—I was in and out several times between that and 10 o'clock, when I saw him then he said he should want the barber to shave him in the morning, as he should get up—he asked me to make him a little toast and water, Mr. Jones would bring it up stairs

with him, and he said,' Good night'—Mr. Jones and Mr. Palmer were in the room when I took the toast and water—during the illness of the deceased I saw on the dressing glass a small, dark coloured book, with a clasp—I should know the book again if I saw it—there was a case for a pencil, and a pencil in it—I could see the top of the pencil—I have seen Mr. Cook in possession of that book before he went to Liverpool, two months ago—round the outside of the book there was a gold bordered band—I gave the book, either on Monday or Tuesday night previous to his death, to Mr. Cook—he was then in bed—he took from it a penny postage stamp, he put it on a letter directed to Saunders, 'Hednesford'—I then replaced the book on the glass at Mr. Cook's request—I have not seen that book since his death—since deceased's death I have searched everywhere for the book, but it cannot be found—after Mr. Cook's death Mr. Jones desired me to go into the room—Mr. Jones and Mr. Palmer had not been out of the room from the time of Cook's death—I was sitting on the upper flight of stairs, three or four yards from the bedroom door, when Mr. Jones came out—I believe he said,'Will you go in? Mr. Palmer wants you,' or words to that effect, pointing towards the door—it was at that time open—I could not see Mr. Palmer from where I sat—I went immediately into the room—I saw Mr. Palmer there—he asked me who I thought would be proper to come and lay out Mr. Cook—I mentioned to him the names of two women, and he said they were just the women—I saw Mr. Palmer search the pockets of a coat—it was a small coat, not a dress coat—he did not seem at all confused—I saw him search also under the pillow, and the back of the bolster—he just turned the corners up, as a gentleman would in looking for a watch—at this time he had the coat in his hand—he was quite aware I was present, as we were conversing at the time—I did not see Mr. Palmer take anything out of the pockets, nor from under the pillow—I left him in the room—Mr. Jones slept in the same room with Mr. Cook—the coat Mr. Palmer was searching was not his own coat that I am aware of—he had a dressing gown on at that time—I tasted the broth on the Sunday before Mr. Cook's death; it was not made in this house—I thought the broth was very good after I tasted it; there was a good deal of grease on the top of it—some jelly was brought in on Monday evening by Mr. Palmer, and Mr. Cook asked if he might take a little, and Mr. Palmer said, perhaps he might to-morrow—nothing else was sent up by Mr. Palmer that I tasted—I believe some broth had been sent over on the Saturday; nothing peculiar was in the taste of the broth—Mrs. Keeling and Mrs. Andritt were the women who came to lay out the deceased—Mr. Cook asked for some jelly on the Saturday night")

MR. JAMES. Q. How long do you think you were under examination before the Coroner altogether? A. I cannot remember, perhaps about a couple of hours, on different occasions—I was not asked before the Coroner to describe all the symptoms I saw—the Coroner put the questions to me himself—I believe the Coroner's clerk wrote down my answers—I did nothing more on that examination than answer the questions the Coroner put to me; what he asked me I answered, and nothing more—he did not ask me to make a full statement of the symptoms and all I saw, but put questions, and I answered them.

COURT. Q. Were you asked what effect the broth had upon you, or how you felt after taking the broth? A. The Coroner asked me if the broth had any effect upon me, and I said not that I was aware of.

MR. JAMES. Q. What brought to your mind afterwards the vomiting

after taking the broth; just explain it exactly? A. I do not know, nothing particular occurred to me, I believe it was some one else in the house that mentioned my sickness first—that was perhaps a week after the Coroner's inquest—I cannot remember who it was, it was some of my fellow servants in the house, I do not remember which—it is the fact that I was vomiting after taking the broth, and that I went to bed—Lavinia Barnes knows that—when I asked Mr. Cook what made him ill, he said, "The pills I took at half past 10 o'clock"—I believe I said before the Coroner, "The pills that I took at half past 10 o'clock;" or, "Some pills that I took at half past 10 o'clock;" I cannot remember now what the exact words were—it was when I saw him at 8 o'clock that he said he thought the pills had made him illhe said, "The pills Palmer gave me at half past 10 o'clock"—it has occurred to me since the inquest that those were the words.

Q. You say that a person of the name of Dr. Collier called upon you; do you see him in the Court? A. Yes, that is the gentleman (pointing him out.)

Q. Did he make any representation to you as to who he wast? A. He said he was for the Crown; he did not tell me who he was until he was leaving—he asked me about the inquest, and about the death of Mr. Cook—I do not remember the day of the month that he came to me—it might be three weeks or a month ago, or more—he found me at Hitchinghill—he asked me questions—he took down some little, not all I said; some he wrote down, and some he did not—I saw him write down something that I said; he took it away with him, he did not ask me to sign it—I cannot exactly remember how long he was writing my statement, perhaps it might be half or three quarters of an hour—I saw him in a room at the house.

COURT. Q. Did he read over to you what he had taken down? A. I cannot remember whether he did or not, I believe not.

MR. JAMES. Q. Was any other person with him? A. I believe there were two outside—they did not come into the house—I saw two join him when he went away from the house—I cannot say that I should know them again, I merely saw them from the garden gate.

Q. Was there any taste in this broth that struck you when you took it? A. I tasted turnips, I fancied, and Celery, nothing more than just the vegetables—I never took tartar emetic, I do not know whether there is any taste in that—I was living at the Talbot Arms two years altogether—Mr. Cook once had a gargle for his throat, it wag some liquid in a bottle—I do not know what the ordinary gargle for a sore throat is, but I have seen him take some in his month and gargle his throat, and spit it out—I believe he got it from Thirlby's I believe I remember the label on the bottle—that is the Thirlby who was Palmer's assistant—I know Thirlby, he is a chemist and druggist—I believe he succeeded to Palmer's business—I have been living with some friends of the name of Dutton, I am engaged to one of the Buttons.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. Was not this what Dr. Collier said to you: "I am not for the Crown, nor for the defence, nor for anything but the truth?"A. He asked me if I was Elizabeth Mills—I said, "Yes"—he said, would I answer him a few questions—I said, "Certainly"—he said, "I am for the Crown, but I want you to speak to me, for neither favour nor affection, I merely want the truth, and nothing but the truth."

  JAMES GARDNER . I am an attorney, and a member of the firm of Lander, Gardner, and Lander, at Kugeley. We have acted for Messrs. Clayton, Cookson, and Wainwright, of Lincoln's-inn, with reference to Mr. Cook's

affairs—they are the attornies of Mr. Stevens, the stepfather of Mr. Cook, the deceased—when Mr. Stevens came down to Rugeley, after the death of his step-son, he brought a letter to me from the firm in London, with whom we correspond—I attended the inquest which was held on the body of Mr. Cook—I put questions occasionally.

COURT. Q. Mr. Ward was the Coroner? A. Yes—he is an attorney.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. Did he put questions to the witnesses? A. He did—his clerk took down the answers.

Q. Had you, on behalf of Mr. Stevens, occasion to expostulate with the Coroner as to the questions which he put, or questions which he omitted to put? A. Upon several occasions—I expostulated with him upon that several times each day.

COURT. Q. How long did the inquest last? A. I think five days altogether, I am not quite sure—(MR. SERJEANT SHEE. submitted that this inquiry should be confined to the examination of the witness Elizabeth Mills. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL. contended that it was material, to show the manner in which the examination generally was conducted. LORD CAMPBELL. considered it admissible, not as evidence against the prisoner, but to explain the manner in which the evidence was taken.)

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL, Q. Bid you observe, while the examination was going on, that the clerk omitted to take down answers to the questions that had been put? A. Certainly.

COURT. Q. While Elizabeth Mills was under examination? A. Icannot swear that—I cannot apply that to Elizabeth Mills's examination.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. When did it arise? A. I can only state it generally—I certainly do not exclude the case of Elizabeth Mills's evidence—I cannot swear that any complaint was made during her examination of the omission to take down answers—(The ATTORNEY-GENERAL. proceeding to apply the inquiry to the evidence generally, LORD CAMPBELL. intimated that the COURT. was of opinion that the inquiry was too general)—I do not remember whether, in the course of the examination of Elizabeth Mills, Dr. Taylor objected that some questions were not put by the Coroner that ought to have been put.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. After the examination by the Coroner, and any gentleman attending professionally, did the Jury put several questions? A. A great maay.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. Did the Jury make any observations as to the necessity of their putting questions? A. Most strong observations—(The ATTORNEY-GENERAL. proposed to ask the nature of the strong observations made by the Jury. MR. SERJEANT SHEE. objected to the question. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL. submitted that it arose out of the crossexamination. MR. SERJEANT SHEE. contended that it did not; and that no expression of the individual opinion of any Juryman was admissible. MR. BARON ALDERSON. and MR. JUSTICE CRESSWELL. were of opinion that it was not admissible,)

  ANNE BROOKS . I live in Manchester, and am in the habit of attending races sometimes. I was at Shrewsbury races in Nov., 1855, and saw Palmer there—I had occasion to go and speak to him; that was on the 14th, Wednesday—I met him in the street on the first occasion, that was about 8 o'clock in the evening—I asked him if he thought his horse would win on the following day—that horse was called Chicken, and was to run on the Thursday—Mr. Palmer said, if I heard anything further, I was to call in at the Raven Hotel that evening, and tell him—the information was in reference to another horse called Lord Alfred, which was to run

in the race—he merely said, "Be sure you call if you heap anything"—I went to see him that evening at the Raven, it was about half past 10 o'clock when I went; I had some friends with me who waited below—as I passed the clock in the market square, I noticed the time, and said if it was any later I should not like to call—my friends waited down stairs, and I went up to the first floor; a servant was going up as I went to the door, and I asked her to be good enough to tell Mr. Palmer I wished to see him—when you get to the top of the stairs there is a lobby or passage facing you, and another to the left—when I got to the top of the stairs, I turned to the left—I knew at that time which room Mr. Palmer was occupying, he stayed frequently at the Raven Hotel—I called there the evening before, but he was gone to Rugeley—I knew hut room, but never was in it—I knew the sitting room which he occupied—the servant called my attention to Palmer by saying, "He is there, Ma'am"—she just moved her head, she had a tray in her hand, and said, "He is there"—Palmer was at that time standing at a small table in the passage—he had a tumbler glass, something similar to this one (produced) in his hand, when I saw him first—there appeared to be a small quantity of liquid in it, which appeared to be the colour of water; it was clear—I do not mean that it was water coloured, but that it was liquid of the colour of water—he just turned it in this manner, round, shaking the fluid up that was in it—there was a light in the passage where I stood—Mr. Palmer was a little in the shade, the light was nearer to me—he said, "I will be with you presently," and held it up in this way between him and the light—he noticed me the moment I got to the top of the stairs—after he had said, "I will be with you presently," he stood a few minutes longer, or perhaps a minute or two longer at the table, with the glass in his hand—he held it up once or twice during the time he staid there, and at intervals, between when he held it up first and afterwards, I observed him shaking it now and then—while he was shaking it, and holding it up to the light, I made an observation about the weather, what very fine weather we had—the weather was fine—there was a sitting room door partially open, adjoining Palmer's sitting room, and he carried the glass into that sitting room—I supposed at the time that it was unoccupied—I heard no one talking—I heard no one address him as he went in, but I could not see the whole of the room—he was there about two or three minutes, and then came out again with the glass still in his hand—what I saw ia the glass was still of the colour and appearance of water—he then carried it into his own sitting room, and shut the door after him—he was there three or four minutes, and then he came out to me, and brought roe out a glass with brandy and water in it—it might be the same glass, it looked like it, but the fluid was different—mine was brandy and water; I had the brandy and water, and it produced no unpleasant consequences on me—a conversation took place between us about the race on the following day, about the horses—he said that he should back his horse Chicken—I was present at the race; Chicken ran, and lost—I did not afterwards hear from Palmer whether he had won or lost on the race.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. Is your name Brooks? A. Yes, that is my name—I am married, that is the name of my husband—I have been in the habit of frequenting some few races near home, but I had other business at Shrewsbury on this occasion—my husband did not go with me, he never goes—I do not attend many races in the course of the year—my husband has a very high appointment—he holds a public office—he does not sanction my going, when he knows it—I am on terms of

friendly acquaintance with a great many of these racing men—I never, to my recollection, knew Mr. Herring, who goes by the name of Howard on the turf, till I met him at Stafford before the Grand Jury—I did not know him by sight.

Q. Do you know whether other racing men on the Wednesday were taken ill at Shrewsbury? A. There were a great many ill; one of my company was dreadfully ill—there was a wonder what had caused it—we made an observation that we thought the water might have been poisoned at Shrewsbury—we were all affected in the same way with sickness.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. Did you see anybody affected yourself in that way? A. They were sick and purged—I myself saw a lady who came to meet me, that was one, and another party in my company; in fact, he was that ill that he could not go to the race on the Thursday.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. I think I heard you say that they were affected by sickness and purging? A. They were—I saw Mr. Palmer with a glass in his hand—he held it carelessly up, in this form, not near the light—I did not see any substance in the glass.

Q. Did he hold it between his eyes and the light, so that he could see if there had been anything floating in it? A. Just in this way—this was a passage that led to a good many rooms—I think there was a gas light, I think it was a chandelier—he said, "I will be with you presently," when he carried the glass into the unoccupied sitting room, as I supposed—he said that while he was holding it up—there was no confusion at all, nothing to excite suspicion, he was quite calm—I thought he was mixing himseif up some cooling drink, and was waiting for water—I was not examined before the Coroner.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. Was the brandy and water he gave you hot or cold? A. Cold—I am on friendly terms with many men who frequent the turf, and have been on intimate terms with Mr. Palmer—I have known him a great many years as a racing man.

  LAVINIA BARNES . In Nov., 1855, I was in service at the Talbot Arms, as waitress—I know Palmer and knew Cook—I saw him on Monday, 12th Nov., on bis going to the Shrewsbury races, he called there and spoke to me—he seemed much as usual, he seemed very well—he did not complain of anything, as I know of—I saw him on his return from Shrewsbury on the 15th, Thursday night—I remember his coming back on the Friday, after having dined with Palmer—I saw him between 9 and 10 o'clock at night—I spoke to him—he was sober—Elizabeth Mills attended on him to his room—I saw him twice during the Saturday—I remember some broth being sent over on the Saturday—I took it up to Mr. Cook—he did not drink it then, he said he could not take it, he was too sick—I brought it down, and put it in the kitchen, on the table—after that I saw Palmer, and told him that Mr. Cook could not take it, he was too sick; Palmer replied that he must have it, and it was afterwards taken up to him by Elizabeth Mills, the chambermaid—on the Sunday I did not see some more broth which was sent over—Elizabeth Mills was taken ill on the Sunday, between 12 and 1 o'clock, I think, with vomiting—it was violent—she went to bed—I saw her vomiting—I did not see her again till between 4 and 5 o'clock, I rather think—she complained to me at the time of being ill from the vomiting, she said she felt very sick—I did not see the broth brought on the Sunday—I do not know whether that broth was made in the Talbot Arms, it was in a sick cup, with two handles, which was not belonging to the Talbot Arms—that cup went back to Mr. Palmer's—on the Monday

morning I saw Palmer at the Talbot Arms, between 7 and 8 o'clock—he did not say anything to me about where he was going, but be told Elizabeth Mills, in my presence, that he was going to London—T did not see Mr. Cook on the Monday till after dinner—I saw him during the day—I remember some one coming to see him—I remember Mr. Saunders, the trainer, from Hednesford, being there—I took up to Mr. Saunders some cups of brandy and water—my room is the next to Mr. Cook's—on that Monday night Palmer came, between 8 and 9 o'clock, I think—I saw him go up stairs in the direction of Cook's room, and I saw him in the room afterwards—I saw him in Cook's room between 12 and 1 o'clock—I do not remember seeing him in the room before 12 o'clock—about 12 o'clock I was in the kitchen, I had not gone to bed, and was alarmed by Mr. Cook's bell ringing violently—it rings into the passage by the kitchen—I went up stairs, and found Mr. Cook very ill—he asked me to send for Mr. Palmer—he was screaming "Murder!" he seemed in violent pain, and said that he was suffocating—his eyes were very wild looking, and they were standing a great way out of his head, as if they were going to start out of his head—he was beating the bed with his hands in this way when I saw him first—I left for the purpose of sending the Boots for Palmer—Elizabeth Mills had not come then, I called her up afterwards—Cook screamed "Murder!" and for Christ to have mercy on his soul—I had never seen any person in such a state before—I sent the Boots of the hotel over for Palmer—he came, and after he came I went up again into the room—Cook was then more composed—he spoke to Palmer in my presence—he said, "Oh, doctor! I shall die!" or something like that—Palmer said, "Don't be alarmed, lad"—I did not see any pills given—I saw Cook drinking a darkish mixture in a glass—I cannot remember who gave it to him, but I saw it in his hand—Palmer was in the room—when Cook put the glass to his month he was biting at it, snapping at it—I saw his teeth snap at the glass, I both saw and heard that—that black looking draught did not remain on his stomach, he vomited it—I left him between 12 and 1 o'clock—he was then more composed—I cannot remember when I first saw him on Tuesday—I did see him, and he seemed a little better—I asked him how he was—I saw him more than once on the Tuesday, he seemed better during the whole of the time—on the Tuesday night I was alarmed again by Mr. Cook's bell ringing—Elizabeth Mills went up to answer the bell—she was with me in the kitchen when the bell rang—I followed her up stairs, and met her coming back—I did not go into Mr. Cook's room then—I heard him screaming—I was standing on the landing by the door—I saw Palmer come, Elizabeth Mills fetched him—I was on the landing when he came, and said to him, "Mr. Cook is ill again"—he said, "Oh, is he?" and went into the room—he was dressed in his usual way; he had a black coat on—there was nothing peculiar about his dress, except that he had a cap on—after he had gone into the room I remained on the landing—I could not hear what was going on inside—after some time Palmer came out, and went down stairs and away for something—when he came out he spoke to me first, I think, and said that Cook was not so bad by a fiftieth part as he was the night before—I heard Elizabeth Mills ask him how Cook was—it was in answer to her question that he said that Cook was not one fiftieth part as bad as he was the night before—we were both standing together, and he said it to us both—I went into the room before Cook died; Mr. Jones was there in attendance on him—I heard Cook ask Jones before he died to be turned over—I was not in the room when I heard him ask that,

I was standing on the landing—Palmer was in the room when he asked to be turned over—I do not remember what I heard when I went into the room—I canie oat again before I knew that Cook was dead—I did not see him die, I was not in the room when he died—after he was dead, I was in the room when Palmer was there, and saw him with a coat in his hand when I went in; he was feeling in the pockets of it, and he felt under the bolster—when I saw him doing this, I said, "Oh, Mr. Cook cannot be dead!"—he said, "He is, and I knew he would be"—I left him in the room with the dead body—that was on Tuesday—I remember seeing Palmer on the following Thursday; I met him in the hall of the hotel, and he asked me for the key of Mr. Cook's bedroom, the room in which the body had said—I had not the care of the key, it was in the bar, and I fetched it—he said that he wanted some books and papers and a paper knife, that they were to go back to the stationer's where he had them from, or he should have to pay for them—I went into the room with him, and while I was in the room with him, he requested me to go to Miss Bond, for some books which she had—I went down stairs with the message, and got the books from Miss Bond; one of them had a green heading on it—when I went back I found Palmer still in the room, looking for the paper knife on a chest of drawers, among some clothes and papers belonging to Mr. Cook—I know that it was a paper knife that he was looking for, because he said, "I cannot find the knife anywhere"—he was then searching on the top of the cheat of drawers—afterwards Miss Bond, the housekeeper, came up into that room, and I left—I remember Mr. Jones coming on Friday, the same Mr. Jones who slept in his room on Tuesday—I saw him on Friday with Palmer, and I asked him if he knew where Mr. Cook's betting book was—I cannot remember what Mr. Palmer said—he said that it would be sure to be found, and asked me and the chambermaid, Elizabeth Mills, to go and look for it—he said that it was not worth anything to any one else but to Cook—this was between 3 and 4 o'clock, I think—I remember Mr. Stevens being at the Talbot Arms—he left about half past 4 o'clock—alter that had been said about the betting book we went up stairs to look for it, and could not find it—Palmer did not go up with us—we hunted for it; we searched the place—we did not look in any drawers, but we searched the bed and all round the room—there were two sets of drawers, they, were open—I went down, saw Palmer and Jones, and stated that we had not been able to find it—Palmer said, "Oh, it will be found somewhere; I will go with you and look myself"—he did not go with me, he went out of the house, and I did not see him afterwards—I do not know at what time Palmer came out of Cook's room on Friday, I did not see him come out—I cannot remember seeing him come away—there was no reason for our not searching the drawers for the betting book.

COURT. Q. Why did not you expect to find it there? A. There were some people in the room with Mr. Cook's corpse, nailing the coffin, and they were standing by the drawers.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. You say that some broth was sent up, and Cook could not take it, he was too sick, and that Palmer came over shortly afterwards, and said that he must have it? A. Yes—Palmer said that he must have it; those were the words—he did not say why he must have it—I do not remember his saying anything to the effect of, "Why, he has eaten nothing for several days"—he did not say to me whether anything had been eaten by Cook—Cook had had coffee, and cocoa, and arrowroot—that was between 12 and 1 o'clock on the Saturday—I

have said that on the Monday evening I saw Palmer, between 8 and 9 o'clock, going up stairs, and did not see him again till Cook was taken ill, about 12 o'clock—I am not quite certain that it was before 9 o'clock—I am not sure that it was before half past 9 o'clock—I did not pay particular attention to what the exact hour was—I am quite certain it was before 10 o'clock—I knew that he had been to London—I do not know at what hour the train came in from London—there is an omnibus from Mr. Master's to the station—it starts about half past 7 o'clock to the hotel—it is not a mile to the station—I do not know at what time the express train came in from London at that time, and I do not know whether it stopped at Rugeley—I think it must have been before 10 o'clock that I saw Palmer come is—I cannot remember now whether it was before 10 o'clock—I cannot remember now whether, when Cook snapped at the glass, the glass was in his hand—I saw him drinking, and I think I saw his hand up to the glass—I think he was as if he was going to catch hold of the glass, and somebody else was holding it—I cannot remember whether I saw Cook's hand touch the glass—I think somebody was holding it for him—he might be holding it—there was some of Cook's linen in the drawers; I do not know whether there was in all the drawers, but in many of them—Cook had many clothes there; I cannot say how many, there was a portmanteau full, besides what was in the drawers—I cannot remember whether he had a great coat, but he had an overcoat there, and dress clothes, and morning clothes—I cannot remember how soon after the death of Cook the door was locked—it was locked that night, the night of the death—it was locked after the corpse was laid out—women were sent for to lay out the corpse before it was light—I cannot say whether the door was locked as soon as that was done—it was locked when I got up, and Miss Bond had the keys in the bar—the undertakers went in the morning—I do not know how long they were there—I did not see them come out—after they came out the door was locked again; I am sure of that—they had to come again with the dead clothes, and the shell of the coffin—I cannot recollect when they brought them; it was in the night, but I think the shell was there before that—I do not remember at what hour they came—they had the key, and were allowed to go up, and nobody with them—I cannot remember how many there were—on the Friday, when Mr. Stevens was there, they had not been long there, they only came to screw the coffin up—the body was put into the coffin that day, not the sight before—the women were fetched to put bin in—besides the women and the undertakers, I and the chambermaid were present—I was not there all the time, I went out and in—I saw three persons employed there by the undertakers.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. On the Tuesday night, after Cook died, the door was locked? A. It was looked before I got up in the morning—when the women came to lay out the body, the door was not opened for then; it was open—the chambermaid and I were with them when they laid out the body—I did not remain there; I went in and out—I cannot recollect whether the chambermaid was there—the women were left alone, I cannot say how long—I left them there when I went to bed, so I cannot say—I was about the room while they were laying out the body—I did not show the women in—I do not know who did—I saw, when the women were there, a small book on the glass of the dressing table—I had seen that book while Mr. Cook was there, but I never saw it afterwards—I cannot remember when I saw it—I saw him with it in his hand—I did not see it after his return from Shrewsbury races—I did not look into the

drawers when I went up stairs to look for the book—I do not know whether Mills did or not—I looked under the bed, and she helped me.

  ANN ROWLEY . I live at Rugeley. I have been in the habit of being employed by Mr. Palmer as a charwoman—I remember the Saturday before Mr. Cook died—Mr. Palmer sent me to Mr. Robinson's, of the Albion, on that day, for a little broth for Mr. Cook—I fetched it—the Albion is in New-street, or Albion-street—it is an inn, a small distance from the Talbot Arms—I brought the broth to Palmer's house—I took it through the back kitchen, and put it into a little saucepan, and put it by the kitchen fire to warm—I then went about my work in the back kitchen, again, and left it at the fire—Mr. Palmer brought it to me in the back kitchen when it was hot—he poured it into a cup—I held the cup, and Mr. Palmer poured it in—he said I was to take it across to Mr. Mastery's, for Mr. Cook, and I was to tell whoever I gave it to, to ask Mr. Cook if he would take a little bread, or a little toast, with it, and to say that Mr. Smith had sent it.

COURT. Q. Did he say why you were to say that Mr. Smith had sent it? A. No.

MR. WELSBY. Q. Did you take it to the Talbot Arms? A. Yes—he said it was Jeremiah Smith that had sent it—there is a gentleman of that name, an attorney, Hying at Rugeley—that is the Mr. Smith who goes by the name of Jerry Smith—he is a friend of Mr. Palmer's—he used to visit at Mr. Palmer's—I took the broth to the Talbot Arms, and gave it to Lavinia Barnes.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. Was Mr. Smith in the habit of putting up at the Albion? A. Yes—I think he goes there to his meals a good deal—I was not so circumstanced respecting him as to know where he might have passed his night on any particular night—I do not know where he slept on the Sunday night—I believe he was intimate and friendly with Mr. Cook.

COURT. Q. Did you ever see them together? A. I have seen Mr. Cook come to Mr. Smith's—I do not know that I ever knew them to dine together—Mr. Cook was to have dined with Mr. Smith that day, but he was not able to go—I believe Mrs. Robinson, of the Albion, made the broth, by Mr. Smith's order, for anything I know—I do not know anything about it—I was sent there for the broth, and I know no more—from the time I left the broth in the saucepan in the kitchen to Palmer's bringing it to me in the back kitchen, I should say not above five minutes elapsed.

  CHARLES HAWLEY . I am a gardener, residing at Rugeley. I was occa-sionally employed by the prisoner—I remember going to his house on the Sunday before Mr. Cook died.

COURT. Q. How were you employed by Palmer? A. In the garden, as a gardener.

MR. BODKIN. Q. How came you to go there on the Sunday? A. Mr. Palmer asked me whether I would take some broth to Mr. Cook—that was in his own house—I was very often in the habit of going there on the Sunday—it was between 12 and 1 o'clock in the day that he asked me to do that—he gave me the broth in a small cup with a cover; he told me to take it across to the Talbot Arms for Mr. Cook—I did so—I cannot tell whether it was hot—I did not look at it, or feel it—I gave it to one of the servant girls, either Mills or Lavinia.

  SARAH BOND . I was housekeeper at the Talbot Arms, in Nov. last I knew Mr. John Parsons Cook—he had been staying there during the last year—I remember his going to the Shrewsbury races on 12th Nov.; he came back on the Thursday—I saw him on the Thursday night—I heard

him say that he was very poorly—I did not see him on the Friday or Saturday—I saw him on the Sunday evening about 8 o'clock—he was in bed—he said that he had been very poorly, bat he was better that night—I saw Palmer there that Sunday night, very soon after I came out of Mr. Cooks room—I asked him what he thought of Mr. Cook—he told me he was better—on the Saturday night some one slept in the room with him—I mentioned about his having some person with him, and he said that either he or Mr. Jerry Smith should be with him that night, he should not be left on the Saturday night—I asked him if he thought he would not want some oae with him on the Sunday night; he said he was so much better he would not require any one, he would be much better without any one—I mentioned the Boots, Daniel Jenkins, and asked if he should sleep in the room—he said he had much rather he did not, for he was so much better, and he would be much better alone—I saw Palmer again next morning (Monday) a little before 7 o'clock—he came into the kitchen to me—I asked him how Mr. Cook was—he said he was better, and he asked me to make him a cup of coffee—he did not say how it was to be made, whether it was to be strong or weak, he merely asked me to give him a cup of coffee—I made that coffee—he remained in the kitchen while I made it, he then took it from me—I gave it him, and he took it from me to take to Mr. Cook—he told me that he was going to London that day—he said that he had written to Mr; Jones to come to be with Mr. Cook, because he was going to London, he thought it would tie better—I saw Mr. Cook en the Monday night—I went up to his room; the waitress came, and told me that he was very ill—that was from 11 to 12 o'clock—I had mot heard the bell ring, the waitress told me it had rung—when I went into the mom there was no person with him—he was on the bed, sitting up a little; he seemed rather irritable when I went in; he seemed disappointed that it was not Mr. Palmer, he said it was Mr. Palmer that he wanted—I was not in the room above two or three minutes—when I went in, Mr. Cook was sitting up in bed resting on his elbow—I was going to light his candle, but he told me not to light it, he did not want a candle—I then left the room, and went on the landing—Mr. Palmer came in—I was then on the landing—I could see into the room—Palmer went into the room—I could not see what he was doing, but I heard that he was giving him some pills, and there was a draught for him to take—he left the room again to fetch some medicine, and then came back again—he was not away many minutes—when he came back, I beard nothing in the room, except hearing that Mr. Cook was very sick and very ill—he fold Mr. Palmer that he thought he should die, and he must not leave him—I beard him say so, I was in the passage—when Cook said that, Palmer cheered him up, and told him that he would do all he could to prevent that—when Mr. Palmer came out again, I asked him if Mr. Cook had any relatives—he said that he had only a stepfather—I saw Mr. Cook again on the Tuesday, between 3 and 4 o'clock in the afternoon, when Mr. Jones came—I took him up a little jelly a little after 6 o'clock—I did not see Mr. Cook alive after that—when I took him up the jelly he seemed very anxious for it, and said if he did net have something he thought he should die—I thought he seemed a little better then—on the Wednesday morning I got the key of Mr. Cook's bedroom between 8 and 9 o'clock—I took care of the key—I believe I gave it to Mr. Tolly, the barber, when he went to shave him—that was about 9 o'clock on the Wednesday—I gave the key to Lavinia Barnes on the Thursday—I afterwards went upstairs into the room—I met Mr. Palmer just coming out of the room as I went in—I locked

the door after he came out—I am not certain whether I looked it, or Mr. Palmer, but it was locked—if he locked it he gave me the key—I gave that key up to Mr. Stevens when he came on the Friday—I think I gave it to the undertaker.

Cross-examined by MR. GROVE. Q. What time did you see Mr. Palmer on the Monday evening? A. A little before 12 o'clock—I had not seen him before in the course of the evening—the last train that stops at Rugeley is between 7 and 8 o'clock—that is not the express, the express does not stop at Rugeley—it is necessary for passengers coming from the express to have a fly, or some conveyance, from Stafford—I cannot tell at what time they would arrive in the ordinary course, I should say about 10 o'clock'—when I first went into Mr. Cook's room, he seemed rather irritable—he seemed disappointed that it was not Mr. Palmer; it warn Mr. Palmer he wanted—I thought he seemed worse than he had been—I offered to light his candle, but he told me not, and then I left the room—the conversation I had with him was not above two or three minutes—he was then sitting up in bed—I was not present when he was ill on the Sunday night—I did not hear him say anything about it.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. I think it was Barnes who told you that he was so ill, and which led you to go up stairs? A. Yes—she had in the meanwhile gone to fetch Mr. Palmer—Mr. Palmer came directly after I left the room—I remained on the landing.

Q. What led you to ask Mr. Palmer what relatives the man had? A. I thought he seemed so very ill that I thought it was necessary to know what relatives he had—it was in consequence of the state in which I found him when I went into the room; he appeared very ill, and told Mr. Palmer he thought he should die—I then asked Mr. Palmer the question.

  WILLIAM HENRY JONES . I am a surgeon and medical practitioner, living at Lutterwerth. I have been in practice fifteen years—I was intimately acquainted with the deceased, Mr. Cook—lie resided at my house from time to time, he boarded with me occasionally—I had been on terms of intimacy with him nearly five years—he was twenty-eight years of age when he died—he was unmarried—he was of no profession—he was originally educated for the law—in later years he had entirely addicted himself to the turf, and to agriculture a little—he had a farm two or three years ago at Calthorpe—for the last year or two he has had nothing but racing—he kept race horses, and betted on the turf—I do not know when he became acquainted with Palmer—I have known of their intimacy for more than twelve months—he considered my house at Lutterworth as his home lately—I attended him from time to time professionally.

Q. What had been the state of his health? A. His health was generally good—he was not of a very robust constitution—he was a man of active habits, in general—he both hunted and played cricket—I was aware when the Shrewsbury races were about to take place; I had a letter from him—he invited me to come over to see his horse run; I have a letter from him to that effect—I went over in consequence—I spent Tuesday, the 13th, with him, the day bis horse ran; that was Polestar—I was aware that the hone won—I dined with him at the Raven Hotel afterwards—several others dined at the same time—there was a little extra champagne—I staid till 10 o'clock, I did not remain at table till 10—we dined between 6 and 7 o'clock—the party broke up between 8 and 9 o'clock I should imagine—he accompanied me down the town to the house of Mr. Frail—I was going off by the 10 o'clock train—Mr. Frail was clerk of the course—I was present at a

conversation that took place between Cook and Frail, and Whitehouse the jockey, was there—the conversation turned entirely upon racing matters—I saw him produce his betting book to Whitehouse—he calculated the odds and his winnings—I did not overlook the book, I stood by while he had it in his hand—I saw that there were figures in the book, but I did not examine them—he made some statement as to his winnings, that he had taken 7 to 1, to that effect—it was near upon 10 o'clock when I left the hotel—I left Mr. Cook at the door of the hotel—I was constantly with him until 5 minutes to 10 o'clock—he was not the worse for liquor at all that day—he had not drunk too much, net so as to affect his sobriety in the least—he was not at all the worse for liquor—he did not appear to me to be otherwise than in his usual health that evening—on the Monday after that I received a letter from Mr. Palmer—I have it here—(Read: "Nov. 18th, 1855. My dear Sir,—Mr. Cook was taken ill at Shrewsbury, and obliged to call in a medical man. Since then, he has been confined to his bed here with a very severe bilious attack combined with diarrhœa, and I think it advisable for you to oome to see him as soon as possible. Signed, William Palmer.")—that letter came to me on the Monday morning—I was very unwell that day—the next day, Tuesday, I went to Rugeley—I arrived by the 3 o'clock train, I believe—I got to the Talbot Arms something about half past 3 o'clock—I immediately proceeded to visit Cook—he expressed himself to me as being very comfortable—he said he had been very ill at Shrewsbury; I do not think anything else passed about What he had suffered at Shrewsbury—he said he bad been very ill at Shrewsbury—he did not tell me what the symptoms were, he said he was obliged to call in a medical man at Shrewsbury—Palmer came to the room where we were, soon afterwards—I examined Cook in Palmer's presence—I felt his pulse, it was tolerably natural; his tongue was clean—I remarked to Mr. Palmer, "This is hardly the tongue of a bilious diarrhœa attack"—Palmer replied, "You should have seen it before"—I did not prescribe or recommend anything for him at that time, I did not consider him in my hands at all—I visited him several times in the course of that afternoon—I found that he changed for the better, his spirits were better, and his pulse was better; he was decidedly improving—he vomited in the afternoon—I gave him a little toast and water, and he vomited—he asked me for it—it was in the room—there was no diarrhœa—Mr. Bamford came that evening, somewhere about 7 o'clock—Palmer had previously informed me that he had called in Mr. Bamford to his assistance—when Mr. Bamford came he expressed his opinion that Mr. Cook was going on very satisfactorily.

Q. Was anything then said by Cook about the previous night? A. He objected to the pills of the previous night.

COURT. Q. Did you ask him about them? A. They were mentioned.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. What Was mentioned? A. Merely what he should have; what we should prescribe for him was mentioned, and he objected to having the pills again—something was mentioned about what he was to have—Mr. Cook mentioned the pills first—he objected to baring them—Palmer was there the whole time—Mr. Cook said they made him ill the previous night, and he objected to taking them—I do not recollect to whom he addressed himself—after his objecting to taking the pills, we three medical men withdrew from the room into the passage—Mr. Palmer there proposed that Mr. Bamford should make up the morphine pills, the same as before, at the same time requesting me not to mention to Mr. Cook what they contained, as he objected to the morphine so much—Mr. Bamford

agreed to it—Mr. Bamford then left—I went back to Cook's room—I think Mr. Palmer went with me—I have no recollection how long he stopped there; not long—I was afterwards in Cook's room several times in the course of the evening—I talked, to him a short time, and then left him—he seemed very comfortable all the evening—there was not any more vomiting that I observed—there was no diarrhœa—there was an action on the bowels, but not diarrhœa.

COURT. Q. Did you observe any bilious symptoms? A. No, certainly not, natural.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. Did you observe any bilious symptoms about him at all? A. None whatever.

COURT. Q. Were there any symptoms of his having recently suffered from any bilious attack? A. No.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. You say you were in and out in the course of the evening, after Mr. Bamford went away; did Mr. Palmer afterwards leave? A. Yes—he left, and went over to his own house—I should think that was about 8 o'clock—I went with him—I remained with him from a quarter to perhaps half an hour, and then came back to Cook's room—the next time I saw Mr. Palmer in Cook's room was nearly 11 o'clock—he then brought a box of pills with him—he opened it in my presence, and showed me the directions—the directions were written on a slip of paper, which was round the box—he directed my attention to the paper, saying, "What an excellent hand for an old man upwards of eighty to write!"—I did not read the direction through; I merely looked at the handwriting—it was a very good handwriting—Mr. Palmer proposed to Mr. Cook to take those pills—Cook protested very much against it, on the ground that they had made him so ill on the previous night—Palmer repeated the request several times, and at last Cook complied with it, and took them—after he had taken them, we left him, and I went and took some supper—the moment he took the pills he vomited—he vomited into a utensil—search was made in the utensil by Mr. Palmer and by myself, at Mr. Palmer's request, for the pills, to see whether they had been returned—we found nothing but toast and water, no pills—the pills had evidently been retained—he did not take the pills in toast and water—he took them without anything, as far as I recollect—he could do it—he must have drunk the toast and water previously, I do not know when; he had it by his bed side—I do not think it possible that the contents of the pills could have caused the vomiting, it came too quickly—I should say that the act of swallowing could not have done it—after the vomiting, he lay down to rest, and we left him—he appeared quiet after that.

Q. You have said that he seemed better; before that, had he become stronger than he was when you first arrived? A. Yes—he expressed himself so—he had got out of bed, and sat on a chair—that was before Palmer came and gave him these pills—I can hardly recollect whether it was between the time when I went over with Palmer to his house, and the time that he came with the pills, or whether it was earlier than that—in the course of the evening before he took the pills, his spirits were very good, and he was very jocose—he was laughing and joking, speaking of what he should do during the winter; that he intended to ride and hunt again—he spoke of his future plans and prospects—after Cook had taken the two pills which Palmer brought at 11 o'clock, I went down stairs, and took a little supper—I returned at very nearly 12 o'clock—it had then been arranged, at his request, that I should sleep in his room that night—it was a double bedded

room—after going up stairs, I talked to him for a few minutes, and then went to bed—at the time when I last talked to him, before I got into bed, he appeared rather sleepy, but quite as well as usual—I wished him to go to sleep—there was nothing at all about him to excite any apprehension—I had been in bed about ten minutes, I should imagine, when he suddenly raised himself up in bed—I was not asleep—as far as I can imagine, it was about ten minutes, I cannot say how the time went—he suddenly started up in bed, and called out these words, "Doctor, get up! I am going to be ill; ring the bell for Mr. Palmer"—I did ring the bell—the chambermaid came to the door, and Cook himself called out to her, "Fetch Mr. Palmer"—he asked me to rub his neck—before that, he asked me to give him something—I said I had nothing with me; Mr. Palmer would be there directly—he was sitting up in bed at that time.

Q. Did you observe whether there was anything in the expression of his countenance? A. Nothing very particularly; in feet, the room was rather dark, I could not observe—he then asked me to rub his neck—I do not think he said why—he said, "Bub my neck"—I rubbed the back part of his neck for him, and supported him in my arms at the time, while I was rubbing him.

Q. Did you observe anything about the back of the neck while you were rubbing? A. It was stiff, a sort of hardness there appeared about the neck, a stiffness of the muscles—Palmer came very soon indeed after the chambermaid went away, two or three minutes at the utmost—he made the remark when he came in, "I was never so quickly dressed in my life" did not observe how he was dressed, I was so engaged with this poor fellow in my arms at the time.

Q. Did he bring anything with him? A. He gave him two pills, I think he brought? A. with him; he told me they were ammonia pills—Cook swallowed? A. directly he had swallowed? A. he uttered loud screams—directly he had swallowed? A. he threw himself back in his bed, and was dreadfully convulsed—that certainly could not have been from the action of the last taken pills, as they had been taken immediately before—he said to me, "Raise me up, or I shall be suffocated"—the convulsions lasted from five to ten minutes, I should think—that was not before he called out to be raised up, it was at the time; it was at the commencement of the convulsions—he threw himself with a sudden jerk back upon the bed—it was just afterwards that he called out to be raised up, just after he was down—the convulsions then set in violently—the convulsions extended over all the muscular fibres; there was a violent contraction of every muscle of the body, and stiffening of the limbs—when he called out to me to raise him up lest he should be suffocated, I endeavoured to do so, with the assistance of Mr. Palmer, but found it quite impossible, owing to the rigidity of the limbs—when he found that we could not raise him up, he asked me to turn him over—I did so—he was quite sensible—listened to the action of his heart—that was after I had turned over—I found it gradually to weaken—I requested Mr. Palmer to go and fetch some spirits of ammonia for him, to revive the action of the heart, as a stimulant, in hopes of reviving him—Palmer went to his house, and fetched the bottle—he was gone for a very short period, I should say not above a minute; he was very quick indeed—when he came back the heart was gradually sinking, and life was almost extinct, and he died very quietly at last—he died very soon after Palmer returned, he was not able to take the ammonia when he came—from the time that he first

roused me and raised himself in his bed, until he died, I suppose from ten minutes to a quarter of an hour elapsed.

Q. Of what, in your judgment as a medical man, did he die? what was the proximate cause of death? A. He died from tetanus—the meaning of the word tetanus is lock-jaw, that is the common term.

COURT. Q. Lock jaw is a symptom of tetanus? A. Yes, one of the symptoms, but every muscle of the body was affected in the same manner, with violent spasm.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. How should you express in ordinary English the general symptoms of what you call tetanus, in one word? A. Violent spasmodic affection of all the muscles of the body—that affection causes death by stopping the action of the heart—it affects, the respiratory muscles, and so stops the action of the lungs as well—it is that spasm of the respiratory muscles that causes the sense of suffocation—when the death took place he was still on his side—he was still on his side after he was dead—I did not turn the body on its back.

Q. Did you observe what was the outward appearance of the body immediately after the death? A. It was very dark; I could not mike the observation I should, there was only one candle in the room.

COURT. Q. You could make no observation as to the colour of his skin? A. No, I could not.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. Had you any opportunity of observing in what position his hands were? A. Yes, clenched—both hands were clenched; the left hand particularly, that I had in my hands—I observed the clenching of the hands immediately after the attack took place, as he threw himself back in the bed—that was immediately after his taking the pills that Palmer brought over—I did not see the hands clenched when I was rubbing his neck.

Q. Did you observe, either before or at the time, of death, or immediately afterwards, anything in the position of the head and neck? A. Yes, the head was quite, bent back, I mean into an unnatural position.

COURT. Q. By spasmodic action? A. Yes.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. Did you observe whether there was any effect produced by spasmodic action in the form of the body, as regarded the back? A. Yes, the body was twisted back like a bow, twisted quite, back.

COURT. Q. When did you observe that appearance? A. Immediately after death, or at the time—all the time—after he threw himself back, it was immediately drawn back.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. If you had placed the body at that time, on the back, in what position would it have rested? A. On the head and heels—if I had placed that body in a position on a plane surface, it would have rested on the head and heels—I did not observe anything at the time of death, or immediately after, about the jaw; his face was turned away from me, I could not observe that—after death I saw that the jaw was all affected by spasm; the side of the jaw, the side of the face, every muscle, of the body.

Q. After death did Palmer say anything to you on the subject of any claim that he had upon Cook? A. Yes, it was mentioned afterwards that he had a claim upon Cook—that was that night, it was not exactly a claim—it was some time after Ms death, that night—Palmer remained from half an hour to an hour after the death, I should think—he did not desire me to send the women servants in to him, that was a suggestion of my own—I

wished to have some women to lay him out—I went out of the room to speak to the housekeeper, and told the two servants to go in, the two maids who were sitting on the steps just by, while I went down stairs—I remained down stairs a few minutes with Miss Bond, the housekeeper, and then returned, and fouad Mr. Palmer in the room with Mr. Cook's coat in his hand—he remarked to me, "You, being his nearest friend, had bitter take possession of his valuables," or "of his effects or something of that sort—I took possession of his watch, and his purse, containing five sovereigns and 5s. or 6s.—that was all the money I could and belonging to him—I could not find any betting book, or any papers—there were two letters which I had brought with me from the country—I had given them to Cook, and he said he would see? A. in the morning—they had not, been opened—he would not open? A. then, he told me to open them I just broke the seal, and gave then to him—they were letters of his brother in law, of no importance—after that, before Palmer left, he said that it was a bad thing for him that Mr. Cook was dead, for he was responsible for money of Cook's—he said, "I am responsible for some 3,000l. or 4,000l. and I hope Mr. Cook's friends will not let me lose it; if they do not assist me, all my hones will be seized"—nothing was said by him about securities, or papers, or anything of that sort, nothing mow definite than, that—I was present on the Friday whan Mr. Stevens, the step-father, came—I heard some remarks between them on the subject of the funeral—Mr. Palmer said that if Mr. Stevens did not bury him, he should himself—I do not recollect any expression then by Mr. Stevens as to burying him—I do not recollect how that observation arose—Mr. Stevens, My. Palmer myself and Mr. Bamford dined together at the Talbot Arms that day, about 3 o'clock, and after dinner Mr. Stevens requested me to go and look for Cook's betting book, Palmer being them present—Mr. Stevens was going to London by the train—we went and searched, and Palmer came with me—he followed me immediately after I went out of the room—he had told me previously to that, on the night that Cook died, that the betting book would be of no use to any one, but it most probably would be found—it was taking possession of the effects on the night of the deiyth which led me to have conversation with him about the subject of the betting book—I think I made an observation on the subject—we just looked for the book, it was very cursory, it was of no consequence—I looked for it, but certainly did not find it—made no particular remark on not finding it—he said that it was sure to be found, it was of no use to any one—he knew what I was looking for—I said, "Where is the betting book?" or something of that kind; and then on that he said, "I have no doubt it will be found, but it is of no use to any one"—he said, "The beta are void"—I am sure he said that—"When a person dies," he said, "all the beta are void"—I am not acquainted with the turf at all—on the Friday, Palmer went up stairs with me to Cook's room, when we looked for the betting book—he looked on that occasion—I could not find it, and he came down stairs with me, and I told the, maid servant to go up and search among his linen, a second search—after that I went into the room where Mr. Stevens was, and told him that I could not find it—Palmer went in with me—I do not recollect the remark Mr. Stevens made—on that evening, when I had sent the maid servants in to speak to Mr. Palmer on the subject of the women laying out the body, I went down stairs, but was mot absent move than two or three minutes before I returned to the room.

COURT. Q. In the consultation that you three medical men had on the

Tuesday night, was anything said about the symptoms that had occurred the night before? A. Nothing.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. You pursue the medical profession seriously, as a means of living, is that so? A. Yes—I am a regularly educated medical man, and a licentiate of the Apothecaries' Company—when I was a younger man I endeavoured to qualify myself for the practice of my profession, and I have done so since—Mr. Cook lived a good deal at my house lately—his health was pretty fair, pretty good—he had been ill occasionally, slight illness—I know that he bad been under treatment by Dr. Savage, for some time—he had not been treating himself a good deal with mercury—I know that he had a sore throat for a considerable time, two or three months—it was bad in the summer, and was slightly ulcerated, not a very extreme case, slightly, at the back part of the tongue—he could swallow, but it gave him a little pain occasionally, it depended a good deal upon what he did swallow—I know that he did apply caustic to his tongue, and had it done—he used to do that two months before his death—he did not, till after he had ceased to do it, complain of occasional pain in his throat or tongue—I did not see much of him during those two months, but occasionally—he came and stayed two or three days at a time, and went away again—he attended most of the races—I never heard him mention any specks that appeared on his body—he expressed apprehension of his being affected by secondary symptoms of venereal disease; of syphilis—his habits were very correct, generally speaking, but he occasionally indulged himself—I do not know that he was then not very particular—I know that he had a chancre, but not at the time he died—twelve months ago I believe he had one—I was not aware that when he died he had a chancre on his penis; not till you mentioned it—I was not present at the postmortem examination—he was much reduced in circumstances to my knowledge at the time he died—he had been before, but he was rather redeeming his position, I understood—he told me so—that was by racing—I had no accurate knowledge of his affairs—I did not know that he was continually in the want of small sums of money—he never told me that, and I did not observe it—Polestar was his principal horse—I do not know much about racing matters—I know that he had several horses, and that he had some in which he was joint owner with Palmer—there was a mare, Pereine, which was under the care of Saunders, the trainer—I was at the races with him at Shrewsbury—he was very anxious before the race came off; I know that it was of great importance to him—he was very excited after the race was run, I did not observe it before—he was very excited just for a few moments—he could not speak for two or three minutes, and was elated and happy the rest of the evening—I am not a racing man myself—he did not drink freely on that Tuesday, he was a temperate man—I left Shrewsbury at 10 o'clock that evening, and do not know any more—the last I heard of him was from the letter of Palmer—Palmer knew very well who I was, and that I was in practice at Lutterworth—Cook objected to taking the morphia pills because they made him ill—he said that Dr. Savage had recommended him not to take calomel or opium—the effect of morphia would be to make him sleep, to soothe him, and enable him to take his rest, that was the intention—opium will constipate the bowels, it may be in a slight degree—Cook sat up in the afternoon, but did not sit long—when he was first attacked the night before, after he had got to bed, I was roused up, and when Palmer came, he said, "Palmer, give me the remedy you gave me the night before"—I should think I was five minutes rubbing his neck—after he was turned

over, but a few minutes elapsed before he died, three or four minutes—he died very quietly, we could hardly tell when he did die—it was at that time that I put my face to his heart—from that time he was composed and died quietly—I know very well what tetanus is; I have seen cases from wounds of traumatic tetanus—I spoke about tetanus at the inquest; you will find in my deposition to that effect, convulsions and tetanus—I stated so at the time—I said that I could not tell the cause, I was taken so by surprise at the time—(The ATTORNEY-GENERAL. produced the original deposition, in which the word "compression" had been erased, and "tetanus" inserted, which had afterwards been altered to "violent convulsions")—I did say, "I cannot tell the cause, I imagined that it was from over excitement"—my deposition was read over to me before I signed it—I do not think I read it myself, but I well remember using the term "tetanus"—I put my name to the deposition, that was all—(The deposition was here read).

Q. In your deposition you say, "I had been in bed a quarter of an hour or twenty minutes;" your impression to-day is ten minutes; was not it twenty minutes? A. I think not—I do not think I had begun to doze.

Q. Do you remember the last scream, when he fell over, after having the pills; have you at any time stated that you thought he died of epilepsy I A. I do not imagine I have said so, Mr. Bamford said that it was apoplexy, and I said I thought it was not—I could not make up my mind what fit it was—I said that it was more like epilepsy than apoplexy—I never met with forms of epileptic seizure in convulsions in which the mind does continue unaffected; it is always so in hysteria—I do not know Mr. Pratt at all—I brought Cook a letter from Mr. Pratt, of Lutterworth, and Cook told me to open it—I cannot state what it was, they were matters in which I never mixed up with him—he did not read it—he said, "I know the effect of it, let it be till to-morrow morning"—he did not seem in doubt about it—I had very little opportunity while I was at Rugeley of knowing anything of the sort of racing establishment that Palmer had—I went into his paddocks and saw mares, some with foal, and some in foal—it appeared a very good establishment.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. You are not much acquainted with the value of race horses, to know a good one from a bad one? A. No, I understand other horses very well—these horses of Palmer's were race horses—Mr. Cook told me that—they had tossed up for the mare called Pereine, that Palmer won; it was win or lose—Polestar was Cook's sole property—it was twelve months ago that he had chancre—I attended him for it—I sometimes attended him for sore throat, and sometimes he would consult Dr. Savage when he was up in town—he consulted several medical men when he was up in town; so he told me, and they had told him so—I have only seen one case of tetanus in my life, and that was from a wound on the thumb; it ended in death—the patient was three days in dying—the convulsions there were not as severe as these—the principal spasmodic action was the locking of the jaw—the patient died of lockjaw and muscular convulsions—after Cook's death, Mr. Bamford said that he thought it was apoplexy; I said that it was more like epilepsy—I have seen cases of epilepsy, there are not there such symptoms as convulsive spasms; and consciousness is lost—there is no rigidity of the muscles, and the symptoms are quite different—in apoplexy, consciousness is lost—I am quite confident in my own mind that it was not apoplexy.

COURT. Q. You thought that the sore throat was venereal, and several other medical men thought so too? A. Cook told me that several other medical men

thought so too—ifhe had any secondary symphoms, or syphills, they most decidedly could not produce the symptoms I saw on Tuesday nighty and for two months preceding his death he was dear of them; his throat was quite well.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE. to LAVINIA BARNES. Q. On Monday morning did Mr. Cook say to you that he had been very ill on the Sunday night, just before 12 o'clock, and had rung the bell for some one to attend to him, but he thought you had all gone to bed? A. Yes, he did; he said that he was nearly ringing the bell, but he thought they were all gone to bed—he did not say that he bad rung it.

MR. ATTORKEY-GENERAL. Q. Did he tell you what it was that had alarmed him? A. No, he did not.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE. to ELIZABETH MILLS. Q. Do you remember, when you went into Mr. Cook's room on the Monday morning, his telling you about his having been disturbed in the night? A. Yes; he said, "I was just mad for two minutes"—I believe I asked him what sort of a night he had had, and he said that he was just mad for two minutes—I said, "Why did you not ring the bell?"—he said, "I thought you would all be fast asleep, and not hear it"—before I asked him why he did not ring the bell, he did not tell me what had occasioned that feeling—I believe after I had spoken about ringing the bell, he said we should all be last asleep and not hear it, and the illness passed over, and he tried to manage without us, without calling us up—he said he thought he was disturbed by hearing a quarrelling in the street—he did not say what effect the quarrelling had had upon him—that was all he said that I can remember—he said that he might have been asleep, the quarrel might have disturbed him, or something of that sort.

  DR. HENRY SAVAGE . I am a physician, living at No. 7, Gloucester-place. I knew the deceased Mr. Cook very well in past years, professionally—I have known him about four years—he has been in the habit of consulting me professionally during the last four years—he was not robust—his general health was good, for a man not robust—I only suspected that he was at all of a pulmonary disposition from his complaining of his throat, which induced me to examine his chest with that view—he came to me in May, 1855, but I saw him just before, early in the spring, and I saw him later in the autumn, Nov., 1854—it was for simple indigestion—if he felt a little out of order when he came to town, he used to call on me—in the spring of 1855, when he came to me, the old affair of indigestion was one subject of his visit, but he was anxious about some slight spots, one on his forehead and one on his arm—he had two shallow ulcers on the tongue, which I found corresponded to two bad teeth—I attributed them to the teeth—he said he had been under a mild mercurial course; he imagined that those spots were what he called secondary symptoms, but I was of a different opinion—I thought they were not, certainly—I think up to the time he saw me he had been taking mercury; he did not show me any prescription—I immediately recommended it's discontinuance, and gave him quinine as a tonic, and an aperient containing cream of tartar, magnesia, and sulphur—I did not at any time give him antimony—under the treatment which I prescribed, those sores were quite well by the end of May, but he nevertheless continued to come to me—I saw him very frequently in June—he came in June still feeling some little anxiety about my treatment, and my notion that it was not secondary symptoms—I was anxious, I felt there was some difference of opinion between me and the medical man in the country—supposing I might be wrong, it would be

damaging to my reputation and injurious to him—whenever he came I always examined him carefully—my attention was directed to his throat—he never had the least ulceration of the throat, the tonsils were slightly enlarged, there was very little tonsil on one side and an enlarged one on the other—it was only one of those cases of diseased tonsil to which anybody may be subject, there were no indications of a syphilitic character; in my opinion—he continued under my treatment till a fortnight before his death—I saw him on 3rd or 5th Nov., I saw him on 29th Oct., and it was about a week afterwards—I examined him on 29th Oct., and the last time I examined him particularly, because I thought he was going away—I recommended him to leave the turf and go abroad—I examined his chest, and imagined that his left lung was slightly touched—there was some slight indication of pulmonary affection of the left lung, which afterwards disappeared, but I dwelt on it, as I wanted to get him away from his turf associations—I wished him to go abroad for two years—on that occasion I carefully examined him—I did not confine my ob-servation to the upper parts; as it was an open question with regard to the secondary symptoms, I examined his penis, and thought there was nothing venereal about it; there was a very shallow scar from a former excoriation, to which he said that he was liable—that was not what we usually call chancre, and there was no sore on any part of the body—that was the case up to the 3rd or 5th Nov.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. He was strongly in favour of mercury? A. No, but he was a weak man, and very apt to take the advice of any person—I think he had a little more sense than to be likely to take quack medicine, but he would do this, he would have his throat cauterised by any professional friend he might be in company with—he was weak enough to yield—he was hipped on the subject of his throat—the last time I saw him he had a redness over one tonsil, showing that there was a tenderness; I hardly know what term to apply to it, but that sort of sore throat which is caused by a redness—he was not in a state in which brandy and water pretty strong would do him good, it would not do him good under any circumstances—there were very trivial ulcers on his lips—he was quite well in May, but there was a slight-redness of the tonsils.

  CHARLES NEWTON . I am assistant to Mr. Salt, a practising surgeon; of Rugeley. I know William Palmer—I saw him on Monday evening, 19th Nov., at Mr. Salt's surgery—he came there about 9 o'clock—I was alone when he came—he asked me for three grains of strychnia—I weighed it accurately, and gave it to him, folded up in a small paper, as a powder—it is a white powder—he did not make any remark—he said, "Good night," and took it away with him—he did not pay me for it—I gave it to him—knew him to be a medical man, and I made no charge—we do not sell drugs to ordinary persons—our's is a surgery—we do occasionally sell pills, or anything of that kind, or salts, but we have not a retail shop—we sell medicine, as apothecaries, made up, but we do not sell strychnia to an ordinary person coming—I should not think he was in the shop two minutes, just while I accurately weighed it—I saw Palmer again on 20th Nov., the following day, Tuesday, at Mr. Hawkins's shop, a druggist—I am not quite sure, but I think it was between 11 and 12 o'clock in the day—we have our drugs from there when we are out, but we deal in London—I am in the habit very frequently of calling in at Mr. Hawkins's shop as I go by—Mr. Palmer was in the shop when I went in—he asked me how I was, and put his hand on my shoulder, and said that he wished to speak to me, I went with him to the door—we

did not go to the door only, but into the street—when we got to the door, Mr. Palmer went a little distance from the door into the street, and asked me when Mr. Edwin Salt was going to his farm; and while he was talking, a person named Brassington, a cooper, came up—Edwin Salt is the son of the chemist—the farm is at Sudbury, perhaps fourteen miles from Rugeley—I never was there—Palmer had nothing to do with the farm at all, but it was a rumour in the town—Brassington stopped and spoke to me, and while he was speaking to me Palmer went away—he remained in the same place while Brassington spoke to me—Brassington had two bills for Mr. Salt, bills due from Mr. Salt for work done for him—he spoke to me about those bills, and engaged my attention, and Palmer left, and went back again into the shop—I afterwards saw him come out of the shop—I was then still talking to Brassington in the street—I am not sure whether Palmer spoke to me when he came out, but he went by me—I was talking to Brassington at the time—he went towards his own house, which is about 200 or 300 yards from Mr. Hawkins's shop—after my conversation with Brassington was ended, I went into Mr. Hawkins's shop—there is a person named Roberta, an apprentice to Mr. Hawkins—he was in the shop when I went in—when I went into the shop something was said about Palmer—I know a man of the name of Thirlby—he deals in drugs—he if the man who succeeded to Palmer's business—Thirlby's name was not mentioned in my conversation with Roberts—I know, of my own knowledge, that Palmer bought drugs of Thirlby—Thirlby generally dispenses Palmer's medicines—I mean by that, that he makes up the medicine—he acts in Palmer's name—if Palmer wishes to give medicine to a patient, Thirlby makes it up—I always understood that Thirlby succeeded to the business which Palmer had, and that that was so in Nov.—on Sunday, 25th Nov., at 7 o'clock in the evening, I was sent for to Palmer's house—I am not quite sure who came for me, but I went in consequence of being sent for—I found Palmer in his kitchen, sitting by the fire, reading—he asked me how I was, and asked me to have a little brandy—I am not quite sure whether I sat down—I had some brandy and water—there was no one else present—he asked me, "What would be the dose of strychnine you would give to kill a dog?"—I told him, "A grain"—he asked me whether it would be found in the stomach; what would be the appearance of the stomach after death—I told him there would be no inflammation, and that I did not think it would be found—upon that, 11 think, he said that it would be all right, and did that (snapping his fingers)—he said it to himself, and I saw him do that—we talked about some ordinary matters of conversation afterwards—he made some other remarks, occasional remarks on common subjects—I was with him in the kitchen that evening perhaps five minutes, or more—on Monday, the 26th, I heard that a post mortem examination of Cook's body was to take place that day—I asked Mr. Salt if he was going to Mr. Bamford's to make the post mortem examination, and he went down with me to Mr. Bamford's, to ask him to let me go—Mr. Bamford was not there, and I went with Mr. Salt down the town, in his gig, and met Mr. Bamford near the church, asked whether he was going to the post mortem, and he said that he was not—I did not see Palmer—I saw him in the study of Mr. Bamford's house before we went to the post mortem examination—that was after breakfast, perhaps about 10 o'clock; I am not quite certain—he asked me what I wanted—I told him I was going to the post mortem examination—he asked me whether Mr. Salt was going—I told him that he was engaged, and could not go—I took some instruments and other things which were necessary, and

went down to the Talbot Arms, to the examination—Dr. Harland went down with me—I know Mr. Frere—he is a surgeon, practising at Rugeley—after we got to the Talbot Arms, Dr. Harland went away for a short time, and the other doctors went away together, and left Palmer and me together—we were left together in, I think, the entrance hall—we were alone together, and Palmer said, "It will be a dirty job, and I shall go and have a little brandy; will you go with me?"—I went with him to his house, which is opposite, and had two wine glasses of neat brandy, and I saw him drink two glasses—when I was there he said to me, "You will find this fellow suffering from diseased throat; he has had syphilis, and has taken a great deal of mercury"—I afterwards went over with him to the post mortem examination, and found that the other medical men had returned—Palmer was watching at the window—while the post mortem examination was going on, Palmer stood near Mr. Bamford, against the fire—I was examined before the Coroner, but did not say anytning there about my having given to Palmer three grains of strychnia on the night of 9th Nov.—I first stated that to Cheshire, the postmaster.

Cross-examined by, MR. GROVE. Q. When did you first mention that about the three grains to anybody? A. It was after the inquest, it was a week ago from now.

COURT. Q. How long after the inquest? A. It might be a week after, or it might be three days, it was very near.

MR. GROVE. Q. Might it have been a fortnight? A. I should think net—I think I can undertake to say that it was less than a fortnight—after the inquest I was examined on behalf of the Crown for the purpose of giving evidence, as I am now doing; it was some time afterwards, I really cannot undertake to say how long—it was after the in quest, and after I mentioned it to Cheshire—I cannot undertake to say how long after, I really cannot recollect within a month; I do not know, and I cannot say—when I was first examined for that purpose, I did not say anything about this purchase of three grains of strychnia—when I was first examined on behalf of the Crown, I mentioned the circumstance of the poisoning of the dog by strych-nia—that was not the first time I had mentioned that conversation, I mentioned it to Mr. Salt—I cannot say at what time, I cannot tell you within a month—I have been examined twice for the purpose of giving my evidence here; I made a statement to Mr. Gardner—that was not before the inquest, but after it—I cannot say at what time it was, but it was after—I mentioned to him the conversation about the dog, but not about the three grains of strychnia—I did not say anything at the inquest about the conversation with respect to the dog, or with respect to the three grains of strych-nia—I mentioned about the conversation of Cook's suffering from diseased throat syphilis—I did not state that at the inquest, I was not questioned as to the post mortem examination at all—I was examined before the Coroner, about Palmer going to Hawkins, and gave evidence of a conversation with Palmer at the door of Mr. Hawkins—I of course heard that he had purchased, or was alleged to have purchased, strychnine at Mr. Hawkins's shop.

Q. You knew that your evidence bore reference to the purchase of strychnine at that shop? A. After Roberts gave his evidence, Mr. Gardner sent his clerk to me.

COURT. Q. Did you know that your evidence was connected with the supposed circumstance of strychnine being bought at Hawkins's shop? A. Yes, I did.

MR. GROVE. Q. You stated, I believe, before the Coroner, that the

strychnine was purchased on Saturday? A. No, I did not—what I stated was taken down in writing, it was read over to me, and I signed it—(The witness's original deposition, being read, stated, that the strychnine was purchased on Tuesday.)

Q. Now, can you tell me when you first gave evidence, or gave a copy of what you could say, to the Crown, as to the purchase of three grains of strychnine on the Monday? A. On Tuesday last.

Q. You have told us that Mr. Palmer said, "You will find this fellow suffering from diseased throat;" when you gave your evidence to the Coroner, did you say, "You will find this poor fellow?" A. I do not know whether I said poor or rich—Palmer said, "You will find him suffering from diseased throat"—I know that there is a difference between poor and rich, but I cannot say what I do not recollect, I cannot say now which he said—I was at the post mortem examination—I did not point out a chancre to the medical men there—I do not think I pointed out any tiling of disease of the penis; I do not recollect saying so—I did not mention it to Dr. Harland, and I do not think I made any remark about his penis to any of the medical men; and I do not recollect any remark being made about it—I saw it—it looked healthy, I did not see a chancre, or the mark of one; I did not examine it—I should think the distance from Dr. Bamford's house to the Talbot Arms is, perhaps, more than 100 yards.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. You said that you gave information to the Coroner about this gift of the three grains of strychnine, on Tuesday? A. I did—I did not give it before, when Mr. Gardner first examined me, on account of Mr. Palmer not being friends with Mr. Salt, they never spoke to each other, and I thought Mr. Salt would be displeased at my letting him have anything from the surgery—Mr. Salt and Mr. Palmer did not speak to each other; Mr. Thirlby, Mr. Palmer's assistant, lived with Mr. Salt nineteen years and Mr. Palmer left Thirlby a sum of money, he took him in—it was in consequence of Thirlby going to Palmer that this difference took place—Mr. Thirlby docs not speak to Mr. Salt, or Mr. Palmer either; that is through Mr. Palmer taking Thirlby away from Mr. Salt—that was my only reason for keeping it back—I communicated it first to Cheshire, the postmaster—I on Tuesday last, when I first communicated it to the Crown, I did it voluntarily, I thought it my duty to do it—I first mentioned it on Tuesday to Boycott, the clerk to Mr. Gardner—I saw him at the Rugeley station—I was then coming up to London, and was at the station for that purpose—I met all the witnesses there, saw Boycott, went to him, and asked him if I could see Mr. Gardner.

COURT. Q. You were coming up to attend the trial? A. I was subpœnaed, and came up by the same train with the other witnesses by the 8.15 train from Rugeley.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. Did you tell Boycott what you wanted to see Mr. Gardner for? A. I did; and he brought me straight to Mr. Gardner in London, as soon as I arrived—I was then brought to this gentleman, the solicitor to the Treasury—in the meantime I had communicated to Mr. Gardner what I had to say.

COURT. for MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. Have not you given another and a different reason; that reason being that you should be indicted for perjury? A. Yes; but I did not give it as a reason, I mentioned it to the gentleman sitting there—I stated to him all about a young man from Wolverhampton, whom Mr. George Palmer had transported for perjury, because he could not produce a book when he had sold him prussic acid—that was on the inquisition on Walter Palmer.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. What did you say to the solicitor about the young man from Wolverhampton? A. That a young man from Mander and Weaver's, was threatened to be indicted for perjury by George Palmer, the brother of William, because he had sold the prisoner some prussic acid—that young man had said on the inquest on Walter Palmer, that he had sold the prisoner prussic acid, and he did not enter it in the book, and could not prove it, and that George Palmer said that he would transport him—I did not enter these three grains of strychnine in my book.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. Did not the inquiry into the circumstances of the death of Walter Palmer take place five or six weeks after the inquest on the body of Cook? A. Yes, but that was not my reason for not saying it before.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. Was it after the inquest on Walter Palmer that you were first examined on the part of the Crown? A. Yes.

Adjourned.

Friday, May 16th, 1856.

  CHARLES JOSEPH ROBERTS . In Nov. last I was an apprentice to Mr. Hawkins, a druggist at Rugeley. I know the prisoner, William Palmer—on Tuesday, 20th Nov., he came into Mr. Hawkins's shop—I believe it was between 11 and 12 o'clock in the day—he asked first, for two drachms of prussic acid—he brought a bottle for it—I was putting it up for him when Mr. Newton, the assistant to Mr. Salt, came into the shop—Palmer told him he wanted to speak to him, and they went out of the shop together—I know a person of the name of Brassington, a cooper—after Palmer had gone out of our shop, I saw Brassington, he took Newton away from Palmer—I saw that—he got into conversation with him—you can see from the shop window into the street clearly—when Brassington took Newton away with him in conversation, Palmer came back again into the shop.

COURT. Q. What were you doing when Palmer came back? A. I was putting up the prussic acid into his bottle.

MR. JAMES. Q. You were in the act of putting up the prussic acid; what did he say to you when he came back? A. He asked for six grains of strychnia and two drachms of Battley's solution of opium—that is what is commonly called Battley's sedative—the prussic acid remained on the counter while I was putting up the other—I had put up the prussic acid ready for him, and then he asked for the six grains of strychnia and the Battley's sedative, and I placed the prussic acid on the counter—I was behind the counter preparing these things—while I was behind the counter preparing these things for the prisoner, he was standing at the shop door—he ordered the things at the counter—it was while I was preparing? A. he moved from the counter to the street door—I do not know which way he was looking while he was standing at the street door—he was looking into the street, with his back to me, standing in the doorway—I took about five minutes in the preparation of these things for him before I delivered? A. to him—he remained standing at the door until I was ready to give him the things—I then delivered the things to him, the prussic acid in the bottle which he had brought and the strychnia delivered in a paper.

COURT. Q. The quantity he had ordered? A. Yes.

MR. JAMES. Q. Six grains and the Battley's solution of opium, the sedative? A. Yes, in a phial—he took? A. away—he paid for them—from the time Mr. Palmer returned to the shop after he left Mr. Newton, until

the time 1 delivered him these things, there was no other person in the shop—after the prisoner had left with these things, Mr. Newton came into the shop—I had some conversation with him—he made some remark to me—I had been six years, previously to that Nov., in Mr. Hawkins's employment—it was about two years before this since the prisoner had ever bought any drugs at our shop—I know Mr. Thirlby, he had been assistant to Mr. Palmer, and had opened a chemist's shop about two years before, and since that date, I had never sold him any drugs until this Tuesday to my knowledge.

COURT. Q. Thirlby was still carrying on the business at that time? A. Yes.

MR. JAMES. Q. Besides having a chemist's shop, is Thirlby practising as an apothecary, or dispensing medicines? A. Yes, I believe he is, in Palmer's name.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. I presume you made an entry of the sale to Mr. Palmer in your book? A. No.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. Do you make entries where you take ready money across the counter? A. No.

COURT. Q. Did you make an entry of this prussic acid or sedative? A. No—I did not make an entry of any of these things.

  WILLIAM VERNON STEVENS . I am in no business now; I have retired from business—I was the step-father of the deceased Mr. John Parsons Cook—I married his father's widow eighteen years ago—I have known the young man intimately ever since that.

COURT. Q. Was he brought up in your family? A. No, he did not reside very generally with me—his mother died soon after our marriage, and some years after I was made the executor under his paternal grandfather's will.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. Were you on friendly terms with him? A. Always, most intimate.

COURT. Q. Had you the care of him? A. I had the care constantly of him.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. I believe he became entitled to a sum of money? A. To some property—I should think altogether he has had about 12,000l.—I am hardly prepared to say the exact amount he had, but about 12,000l.—he was articled to a solicitor at Worthing, in Sussex—he did not follow up that profession—he betook himself to the turf, to racing pursuits recently—I have known so little about these matters, and have always set my face against them so much, that I can hardly say at what period that was; I think about three or four years: his earliest betting book that I find is in 1853 I think, perhaps in 1852; the dates are not very distinct—I did everything in my power to withdraw him from that pursuit—the last time, prior to his death, that I saw him, was at 2 o'clock on the afternoon of 5th Nov.

COURT. Q. You continued on friendly terms with him? A. Yes, most affectionate terms.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. Where was it that you last saw him? A. At the station at Euston-square—I have some recollection that he then told me he was going to Rugeley; I am not quite sure.

Q. In what state of health was he at that time? A. He looked better than I had seen him for a very long time—I was so gratified that I said, "My boy, you look very well; you do not look anything of an invalid now"—he said nothing to induce me to think he felt otherwise—he struck himself firmly on the chest, and said, "Oh, I am all right!"—he merely said he was quite well, quite right—I think he added, that if he was quite happy

he should be all right—in point of appearance he was not a robust man; he was very pale in complexion.

Q. Had there been to your knowledge anything the matter with him recently before that time? A. For some months in the previous winter he had a sore throat, some months before—he was staying with me then—I did not see him again until after his death, when he was a corpse—I first heard of his death on Wednesday evening, 21st Nov.—Mr. Jones, the surgeon, of Lutterworth, gave me the information—he came to my house to inform me—that was on the Wednesday—on the next day, Thursday, I went down with Mr. Jones to Lutterworth—that was to search for his will and any papers he had left—we found a will—the next morning we went to Rugeley—we got there between 12 and 1 o'clock, I think—as soon as I arrived at the inn I asked to see the body—I was then accompanied by Palmer—I met Palmer in the passage of the Talbot Arms—I believe I had once seen him before; I did not know him—Mr. Jones introduced me to him in the inn passage—he followed us up stairs to see the body—Palmer removed the sheet from the body to rather below the waist; I think the thighs were partially uncovered.

Q. Was there anything about the appearance of the countenance that struck you? A. Yes, I was very much struck by the appearance of the countenance—the first thing I noticed was a tightness of the muscles across the face—it was that tightness of the muscles across the face; that principally struck me—there did not appear to me to be any emaciation from disease—after I had looked at the countenance of the deceased we all went down stairs—Mr. Jones was present when I saw the corpse.

Q. Did you make any inquiry of Palmer on the subject of Cook's affairs? A. After some time—we were in one of the sitting rooms in the inn—I said, "I hear from Mr. Jones, Mr. Palmer, that you know something of my son's affairs, can you tell me anything about them?" he replied, "Yes, there are 4,000l. worth of bills out of his, and I am sorry to say my name is to them but I have got a paper drawn up by a lawyer, signed by Mr. Cook, to show that I have never had any benefit from them," or "never had the money," I forget the precise expression—I expressed great surprise, and said, "I fear there will not be four thousand shillings to pay them;" but I said, "Has he no horses, or no property? do you know of nothing?" he said, "Yes, he has horses, but they are mortgaged"—I said, "Has he no sporting debts owing to him, nothing of that sort?" I am stating the words as nearly as I can; he mentioned one debt of 300l. that was owing to him.

Q. Do you remember the name of the person from whom it was owing? A. Is it material that I should state the name? it would give great pain elsewhere; the man is dying at the present moment; I do not think it is material—it has not been received since—it has had nothing to do with the prisoner, or any party connected with him—it was not a sporting debt, it has nothing whatever to do with it—it was a personal debt from a relative of his for 300l.—he did not mention any other debt due to him—he said he did not know of any other—I said, I thought his sporting creditors would have to take his sporting debts and make the best of them, for I should pay nothing—I then turned round, and said, "Well, whether he has left anything or not, poor fellow, he must be buried"—Palmer immediately said, "Oh, I will bury him myself, if that is all"—I said, "Oh, certainly I cannot think of your doing that, I shall do it"—Cook's brother-in-law was present, the husband of his sister, he had come there to meet me; he

immediately expressed a great wish to be allowed to bury him; I said, "No, no, that is my business; as his executor I shall take care of that"—he had appointed me his executor under his will—I said, "I cannot have the funeral immediately, because I intend to bury him in London, in his mother's grave; I am very sorry for the inconvenience to the people here at the inn, but I will get it done as soon as possible"—Palmer said, "Oh, that is of no consequence, but the body ought to be fastened up at once"—he repeated that in other words; he said, "So long as the body is fastened up, a few days' delay is of no consequence, or a day or two"—that terminated the conversation on that subject for the time—while I was talking to the deceased's brother-in-law, Palmer and Mr. Jones left the room—they returned in about half an hour—on their return I expressed a desire to know from Palmer the name of some respectable undertaker in Rugeley, that I might call in, that I might at once order a coffin, and give directions for the funeral—Palmer said, "Oh, I have been and done that, I have ordered a shell and a strong oak coffin—he did not say to whom he had been—I then expressed my surprise—I said, I think, "I did not give you any authority;" those were the words, some expression of that sort, I expressed my surprise in terms of that kind—I said, "But I must see the undertaker, to give him instructions about the funeral"—I think he told me the name of the undertaker, I am not quite sure—I then ordered dinner for myself and Mr. Bradford, my son-in-law, and Mr. Jones, and I asked Palmer to come and partake of it—we all dined together at the inn—I was going back to London by the quarter past 4 o'clock train—we dined about 3 o'clock—after dinner, before I went away, I desired Mr. Jones to be so good as to go up stairs and get me his betting book or pocket book, or any books or papers that might be there.

Q. Did you know, of your own knowledge, from him that he was in the habit of carrying a betting book? A. I had seen him with a betting book—I do not recollect the sort of book that particular book was; I have seen his other betting books—as one betting book was filled up, he would take another—those I have seen were clasp books, opening longways—upon this request Mr. Jones left the room—Palmer followed him—they returned in, I should think, nearly ten minutes, certainly more than five minutes—Mr. Jones came into the room, and said he was very sorry to say that he could not find any betting book—Palmer was present, he followed him in—Mr. Jones said he could not find any betting book, and I think he added, or papers—I had desired him to search for papers—I said, "No betting book, Mr. Jones!" and turning towards Palmer, I said, "How is this?"—Palmer said, "Oh, it is no manner of use if you find it,"or very nearly those words—I said, "No use, sir! I am the best judge of that"—he again said, "It is of no manner of use"—I said, "I am the best judge of that; I am told it is of use; I understand my son won a great deal of money at Shrewsbury," I am giving the words as nearly as I can, "and I ought to know something about it"—Palmer said, "It is no use, I assure you; when a man dies his bets are done with;" I think those were the words; "besides," he said, "Cook received the greater part of his money on the course at Shrewsbury"—I said, "Very well, sir, the book must be found; it ought to be found, and must be found;" Palmer then, in a much quieter tone, said, "Oh, it will be found, no doubt"—I again said, "Sir, it shall be found"—I then went to the door of the sitting room, and, calling to the housekeeper from the bar, I desired that everything in the deceased's room might be locked up, that nothing might be touched until I returned, or sent some one with authority to take

possession—after that, and prior to leaving, I went up stairs to take a last look at the body—I saw some servants in the room turning over the bed clothes of one of the empty beds—I do not know what for—the undertaker was there—I did not notice any one else—I had before that had communication with the undertaker, before I went to dinner—I had given him instructions for sending the body to London—I had given him instructions to place the body in the coffin—when I went into the room the undertaker was standing by the side of the shell—the body had been just placed in the shell—I had given directions for that—I had given general directions—I went to the side of the shell—the body was uncovered—I knelt down by the side of the shell; and, taking the right hand of the corpse, I found it fastened in this way (clenched)—I then looked across the body, and I saw that the left hand was clenched in the same manner—I observed nothing else—I returned immediately to town, and the next morning communicated with my London solicitors—I communicated first with the uncle of the deceased, and then with my solicitors—they gave me a letter to Mr. Gardner, of Rugeley—I returned to Rugeley at 2 o'clock on the next day, Saturday—I left London by the 2 o'clock train, and got to Rugeley about 8 o'clock in the evening—on my arrival at the platform at Euston-square I saw Palmer, as I was leaving London—he said that he had received a telegraphic message after I had left Rugeley the night before, which had brought him to London—I think I asked him where Mr. Cook's horses were kept; he told me at Hednesford—I think he said he would drive me out there if I wished it—when I got to Wolverton I saw him again in the refreshment room—the train stops there for a few minutes—I said, "Mr. Palmer, this is a very melancholy thing, the death of my poor son happening so suddenly, and I think for the sake of his brother and sister, who are sometimes delicate in health, it would be desirable to know what his complaints were"—I meant his half-brother and his own sister; I think I said, "It might be desirable that their medical friends should know something of his complaints, and therefore I think I should like his body opened"—to that Palmer replied, "Oh, that can be done very well;" or, "That can be easily done;" or something of that sort—I think nothing more passed then, or very little more, nothing of importance; the bell rang and we went to our seats—he had not travelled with me in the same carriage, he had been in another carriage—he continued in the same Carriage which he had been in before, till we reached Rugby—I then saw him again in the refreshment room—he came to my side, indeed, as I was standing by the fire—I am not quite sure whether it was at that time or upon my arrival at Rugeley that I said to him, "Mr. Palmer, I am living at a distance, and the horses are said to be valuable, I had better ask some solicitor at Rugeley to look after my interests"—he said, "Oh, yes, you can do that; do you know any solicitor at Rugeley?"—I said, "No, I do not"—I believe the bell then ring again, and I ran off to get some refreshment, or for some purpose, and when I came back to my carriage I found Palmer sitting in my carriage; nothing further passed till we reached Rugeley; I had no conversation with him—there was a gentleman and lady in the carriage, with whom I had been conversing all the way from town, and I continued my conversation with them—I arrived at Rugeley between 7 and 8 o'clock; about 8 I think—when we reached Rugeley, Palmer said, "You were talking about a solicitor; do you know any solicitor in Rugeley?"—I think at that time we had reached the omnibus; I am not quite clear whether this took place on the platform or in the omnibus; we were but a few minutes in the station—I said, "No, I do not; for you know I

am a perfect stranger here"—he then said, "Oh! I know them all inti-mately; I can introduce you to one"—he said, "When I get home I must take a cup of coffee, and as soon as I have had that I will come over and tell you all about them"—I thanked him, as I had done once or twice before, and said I would not trouble him—he then repeated his offer, that he only wanted a cup of coffee, and he would come to me immediately; but he added, "You will not find any solicitor tonight"—I said, "Why not?"—he said, "It is late; besides, some of them live out of town"—I "Well," I said, "I never found any difficulty in finding a solicitor when I wanted one at any reasonable hour"—I think it was immediately after that, that changing the tone of my voice and my manner, I said, "Mr. Palmer, if I should call in a solicitor to give me advice, I suppose you will have no objection to answer him any questions he may choose to put to you"—I I altered my tone purposely—I had purposely mentioned the post mortem.

Q. Did the alteration of your tone and manner appear to you to produce any impression upon him? A. I looked steadily at him, the moon was shining, I cannot say that I could see his face distinctly, but he said, with a spasmodic affection of the throat, which was perfectly evident to me, "Oh, no, certainly not"—I had purposely mentioned my desire to have the body opened—I when we were talking on the subject of the solicitor, something was said about taking a solicitor to Hednesford—I ought to say, that when I mentioned the post mortem there was not the slightest change in Mr. Palmer's manner; he was perfectly calm and collected, and as usual—after this conversation there was a pause for three or four minutes—he then again proposed to come over to me after he had had his coffee, to tell me about the solicitors, and I again begged that he would not trouble himself—in the course of the evening he came over to see me—that was after he had been home, and after I had been some time absent from the inn, seeking for Mr. Gardner—I went to Mr. Gardner's house that night, but did not find him at home—Palmer said, "It is a very unpleasant affair for me about these bills"—I said, "I think it right I should tell you, Mr. Palmer, that since I saw you I have heard rather a different account of Mr. Cook's affairs"—he said, "Oh! indeed; well, I hope it will be settled pleasantly, at all events;" or, "at any rate"—I said, "It will only be settled, sir, in the Court of Chancery;" or, "His affairs can only be settled there"—I do not recollect the precise words—I think he said again, "Oh, indeed!" in a lower tone—I think he then, after a short pause, asked me what friends Mr. Cook had to visit in the neighbourhood of London; this conversation, I think, passed at that time; what friends he had to visit in the neighbourhood of London, or what friends he visited—I said, "Several"—"Oh, but I mean," he said, "who does he stay with when he goes there?"—from the questions he put to me, he wished to know who had told me—I am not quite sure whether that same evening he did not speak about going to Hednesford—the next day, Sunday, I saw him again in the evening—I think between 5 and 6 o'clock, about 6—he came into the coffee room; my dinner was preparing, and was writing a letter—nobody was present—I am not sure whether it was on that night or the night before that he spoke about my going to Hednesford—this was what was said upon the subject, we were talking of going to Hednesford, Saunders, the trainer, lived there—and he said, "If I were you, I would not take a solicitor with me there"—I said, "Why not, Mr. Palmer?"—he said, "I should recommend you not;" or, "advise you not," I do not know which—I said, "Sir, I shall use my own judgment about that"—he said, "Oh, of course you will"—I said, "Of course I shall"—on the Sunday we had had some conversation on the subject of the post mortem examination;

not at this same interview—I am not sure whether it was not after the evening service—I think it was later in the evening, I am not quite sore; I know it was Sunday evening—he came into the room; I was sitting writing, and he approached me with a piece of paper in his hand as if he would give it me—I did not take it from him, I did not take any notice of him, I went on with my writing, and said, "Pray, Mr. Palmer, who is Mr. Smith of this place?"—I did not mention the Christian name—he said, "Smith, Smith, Smith," two or three times in that way, as if he did not know such a person—I said, "A Mr. Smith who sat up with my son one night, who slept in the room or sat up with my son"—he said, "Oh! he is a solicitor in this town"—I said, "I ask you the question, sir, because as the betting book is missing, I should wish to know who was with the young man"—I first said, "Is he a solicitor in practice here?" and he said, "Yes"—after a short pause, I said, "Pray, Mr. Palmer, did you attend my poor son in a medical capacity?"—he said, "Oh, dear, no?"—I said, "I ask you that question because I am determined to have his body examined, and if you had attended him medically I suppose the gentlemen I shall call in would think it proper that you should be present"—I think the next thing he said was, "Can you tell me who is to perform the examination?" or words to that effect—I said, "I cannot, I shall not know myself until the morning; but I think it right to tell you of it; I shall have it done for my satisfaction, and whether you are present or not is a matter of indifference to me, if the gentlemen employed think it right you should attend"—"So it is to me," he said—he again asked who the medical gentlemen were to be who were to perform the post mortem examination; and I said, "I do not know, I cannot tell myself."

Q. On the Friday, when you twice saw the body, when you say Mr. Palmer, without your authority, gave the orders for the shell and coffin, did you perceive any manifestation of decomposition in the body, or anything which called for its being speedily put into a shell? A. On the contrary, the body did not quite look to me like a dead body; I was surprised at the appearance of it.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. You were on affectionate terms, you say, with your step-son? A. Yes—the last time that he staid at my house for a length of time was about a month, in Jan. and Feb. last year—he then stayed about a month—he had then a slight sore throat—do not remember that it was continuously sore; it did not attract my notice every day—he did not complain of it from time to time during the whole of his visit—it did not make it difficult for him to swallow occasionally, not in the least; there was nothing in it that attracted my notice—I never noticed any ulcers about his face at that time—I saw him three or four times in the course of the summer, and I think twice or thrice in the month of Oct.—he did not appear to me on those occasions to be at all more delicate than usual, he always looked pale—on the occasion that I saw him previously to that 5th Nov., he had not looked like an invalid—he had complained of being an invalid in the previous winter, and he said, if he was not better the next winter, his medical friend had told him he had better go to a warmer climate; it was that occasioned me to say, "You do not look like an invalid"—his brother and sister were rather delicate than otherwise, not very strong; his brother was more delicate in appearance than in reality—his father died, I think, at the age of thirty or thirty-one—he ruptured a blood vessel—Cook never referred to me on the occasion of a wish to insure his life—I do not know that he ever proposed to insure his life—I never heard of it—I do not know Dr. Todd—when the betting book was

lost, I was very much dissatisfied about it—I did not complain to the people in the house—I went to the door of the sitting room, at right angles with the door of the bar, and called to the housekeeper—I did not inquire of her, I desired that everything belonging to him might be locked up—I did not go to Mr. Gardner as soon as I got to Rugeley; that was when I returned to Rugeley—I went that evening to seek for Mr. Gardner—he was not at home—I saw Mr. Gardner on the following morning, the Sunday morning.

Q. Have you ever been in communication with a person of the name of Field? A. Once—he is a police officer—I should think that was about a fortnight or three weeks after my son was buried—Field called on me, what for I do not know—I do not know what he wanted—I never applied to Field.

COURT. Q. What was the name of the gentleman who went down with you, that married the sister of Cook? A. Bradford—it was Bradford that dined with me—I called on Mr. Bamford—I have not mentioned him, I was not asked any question—Mr. Jones told me, without mentioning his name, in London, that a medical gentleman had been called in—I called upon him to thank him for his kindness, and to ask what I was indebted to him—Mr. Bamford did not dine with me.

  MARY KEELING . I am a widow, living at Rugeley. I was fetched on Wednesday morning, 21st Nov., to lay out Mr. Cook's body—Mrs. Stringall went with me—we got to the Talbot Arms about I o'clock in the morning, and found the body still warm, but the hands and arms were cold—it was lying on the back, straight down the bed—the arms were straight across his chest—I observed nothing very particular about the body—his head lay a little on one side, and his right foot was turned on one side—the body was very stiff indeed—I have laid out many corpses, and have never seen one so stiff before—we had a difficulty in straightening the arms—he could not keep his arras straight down to his body—I drawed a piece of tape under his back, and tied it round both his wrists—bis right foot turned on the outside—we were obliged to take a piece of tape and tie both feet together—the eyes were open—we were a considerable time before we could close them, as his eyelids were very stiff—the hands were very stiff and were closed—Mr. Palmer came up stairs—he lighted me while I took two rings off Mr. Cook's fingers—they were on the fingers of one hand—I had a difficulty in getting the hand open to get the rings off, the fingers were so very stiff—I got them off, and the hand then closed again—I did not, while there, see a book like a betting book or a small pocket book, or any book at all.

Cross-examined by MR. GROVE. Q. Is it not a usual thing to use tape to put bodies straight after death? A. Not to tie the arms together—I never use tape at all—I have used it in tying the ankles together, to keep them together, but not the body, and I have used it for the toes on other occasions—I have never seen it used for the arms when they are not in a proper position, or when they have not been laid out early after death—I have not seen it used for the arms—it is usual for whoever is present to lay the arms by the side immediately a person dies—if the body gets stiff, the arms remain in the position in which they were laid down at the time of the death—there is great difficulty frequently in closing the eyes, but there is not a difficulty in keeping them closed, if closed as soon as they are gone—it is a common thing to put penny pieces on the eyes after death to keep them closed—that is because, if not so kept down, the eyelids would draw back, and would be difficult again to close—the jaw is also tied shortly after death.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. How many dead bodies have you laid out in your time? A. I cannot exactly recollect, but many children in my time, and a great many of all ages—I never knew of the arms being tied before—it is usual to lay them straight by the side of the body immediately after death—by immediately, I mean in a few minutes after they are gone—it was half past 12 o'clock when they called me up, and it was half past 1 o'clock when I went up stairs—when I hare had occasion to tie the ankles, it is because sometimes the feet are apt to give way outside—I have had to tie the feet about half an hour after death when the corpse is laid out—it was in consequence of the eyelids being so stiff that we could not close the eyes—I have not known that to be the case with other corpses—when I have had occasion to place penny pieces on the eyelids, in order to keep them down, the eyelids have been stiff—I have myself put penny pieces on, I cannot say exactly when; several years ago—in that case the lids were not quite so stiff as these.

  DR. JOHN THOMAS HARLAND . I am a physician, residing at Stafford. On 26th Nov. I went from Stafford to Rugeley, to make a post mortem examination of Mr. Cook—I arrived about 10 o'clock in the morning, and called at the house of Mr. Bamford, a medical practitioner there—as I went there, Palmer came from the back of his own house, and joined me in the street—I had frequently seen him, and I had spoken to him before—on his joining me, he said, "I am glad that you are come to make a post mortem examination; some one might have been sent that I did not know, and I know you"—I said, "What is this case? I hear there is a suspicion of poisoning"—he said, "Oh, no, I think not; he had an epileptic fit on Monday and Tuesday night, and you will find old disease in the heart and in the head"—we then went together into Mr. Bamford's house—I had been requested to go from Stafford to be present at the post mortem, and I had brought no instruments with me—Palmer said that he had instruments, and offered to lend them to me—he also said that there was a very queer old man, who seemed to suspect him, of something, and that he did not know what he would he at, or what he wanted—he also said, "He seems to suspect that I have got the betting, book, but Cook had no betting book that would be of use to any one"—Mr. Bamford and I then went to Mr. Frere's—we walked together—Mr. Frere is a surgeon, in Rugeley—Mr. Frere told me something there, but Palmer was not present—from there we proceeded to the Talbot Arms, and the post mortem examination was proceeded with—Mr. Devonshire operated, and Mr. Newton assisted him—Mr. Bamford, Mr. Palmer, and several other persons, were in the room—I stood near Mr. Devonshire, who operated, to observe what was going on—the body was very stiff, much more than dead bodies are five or six days after death—the muscles were very highly developed; by which I mean, strongly contracted, and thrown out—I supposed that there had been strong spasmodic action in the body before death—I examined the hands—they were firmly clenched—the abdominal viscera were first examined.

COURT. Q. Is there any report of any medical man who assisted in the examination? A. Yes, I made a written report—I have not got it with me; I have sent it to Mr. Stevens.

MR. BODKIN. Q. Are these (produced) the notes you made at the time? A. Yes, I swear that it is a true account of what I saw—(Beading: "Post mortem examination of John Parsons Cook, Esq., Rugeley, Nov. 26th, 1855.—The body is moderately muscular; the back and most depending parts of the body are discoloured from blood having gravitated there. Pupils of the eyes neither contracted nor dilated. No serum in the peritoneal cavity; the

peritoneum slightly injected; no adhesions—stomach as now exposed is rather distended, and the course of some of its vessels is seen beneath the peritoneal coat. The stomach, on being removed, contained some ounces of a brown fluid—the large curvature resting on the spleen was of dark colour. The internal mucous membrane of the stomach was without ulceration or excoriation. On the inferior surface of the cardiac extremity were minute yellowish-white specks, of the size of mustard seeds. The small intestines contained some bilious fluid in the duodenum; they were altogether small and contracted, but presented no other remarkable appearance. The large intestines contained some fluid feculent matter. The spleen and pancreas seemed to be healthy. The right kidney was rather large, soft, and its whole texture full of blood; there were no granulations, nor coagulable lymph. The left kidney was of less size, but its appearance was the same as the right, in less degree. Between the base of the tongue and epiglottis were numerous enlarged follicles like warts. The œsophagus and epiglottis were natural. The larynx was stained with dark blood, which had penetrated through all its tissues. The lungs contained much fluid blood in their posterior parts, which would be accounted for by gravitation. The lungs everywhere contained air. The pleura were healthy, the heart was of natural size, and in every part healthy. In the aorta, immediately behind the valves, were some yellow-greyish-white patches like soft cartilage. The heart presented no remarkable appearance. The skull was of natural thickness. The dura mater had its arteries injected with blood. There was no excess of serum, nor adhesions. The pia mater and arach-noid, as well as the brain, appeared altogether healthy; all the blood was fluid and uncoagulated. Signed, J. T. Harland, M. D.")—That is the whole of the report—the abdominal viscera were the first parts that were examined—I found them in a perfectly healthy state—they were taken out of the body—we examined the liver, that was healthy—the lungs were healthy, there was much blood in them, there was slight emphysema—I do not think there was more blood than could be accounted for by gravitation—I noticed some appearances at the end of the stomach—I also examined the head; the brain was quite healthy, there was no extravasation of blood on the brain, and no serum—there was nothing in the appearance of the brain which, in my judgment, would cause pressure—the heart was contracted, and contained no blood; that did not appear to be the result of disease, but of action; I should attribute it to spasmodic action—the stomach was taken out, and at the lower end of it there were numerous small yellow-ish white specks about the size of mustard seeds—those appearances, in my judgment, would not at all account for death—I do not know whether they would have any effect upon the health—I think they may have been mucous follicles, nothing more—I am doubtful whether they would damage the health at all—I examined the kidneys—they were full of blood, which had gravitated there since death; there was no appearance of disease—the blood was in a fluid state; that is not usual; we find it so in some cases of sudden death, but such cases are rare—to find the blood in a fluid state is a rare occurrence, even in cases of sudden death—I did not observe about the whole body any disease or appearance of disease which could account for death—I discovered no appearance of organic disease—the lower part of the spinal cord was not minutely examined on that occasion—I examined the upper part, it presented a perfectly natural appearance—on a subsequent day it was thought right to exhume the body, in order to examine the spinal cord—that was done on, I think, 25th Jan.—Dr. Monckton made a report in writing of that second examination, it was made jointly—the

whole of the spinal cord was then minutely examined—this (produced) is the report—it is a true statement of what I observed—(Reading: "Report of an examination of the spinal cord of the exhumed body of John Parsons Cook, Esq., on Friday, Jan. 25th, 1856. We, the undersigned, were shown the corpse which, to the certain knowledge of one of us, namely, Mr. Bamford, was that of the late John Parsons Cook, Esq., who died at Rugeley, Staffordshire, Nov. 20th, 1855, and were requested by the officers of the Crown to institute an examination into the condition of the spinal cord. The body was enclosed in both a shell and a coffin, and was found lying on its back The cranium, thorax, and abdomen had been opened at a previous examination, and decomposition had proceeded rapidly in these parts in consequence of the admission of air. There was much rigidity of some of the muscles of the body, considerable force being required to flex the legs or to alter the position of the different limbs. The thumbs and fingers were partially but firmly flexed; the toes as firmly extended, and the inner edge of each foot drawn up by the tibiales antici et postici, as in talipes," (that is a species of club foot,) "the postici slightly predominating, so as to point the toes downwards. The muscles of the neck and trunk were relaxed. We observed much lividity of the integuments of the dorsal surface of the body, putrefaction having softened and discoloured them. A longitudinal incision having been made along the course of, and down to, the spines of the vertebra, from occiput to sacrum, the muscles were reflected on either side from off the vertebral laminæ, these muscles presenting no other evidence of putrefaction than some softening but slight sero-sanguineous infiltration. Sawing through the laminá, we removed the spinet of the vertebras, and so opened the spinal canal in its whole length. These portions of the posterior wall of the canal were successively and minutely examined, but no roughness, spicula, or other irregularity could be discovered The medulla spinalis now lay beneath our view, enclosed in its fibrous sheath, and surrounded on all sides by loose areolar tissue and fat, traversed in all directions by veins. This areolar tissue had not the colour ordinarily possessed by it in the recent state, but was of a livid hue, or of deep prune juice colour. This was, doubtless, owing to its being saturated, as a sponge would be, with the sanguineo-serous fluid which occupied the canal to a considerable extent, having gravitated to this dependent part of the body subsequent to its death. The chest having been raised on a large block, so as to give a proper curve to the dorsal portion of the spine, this fluid had mainly gravitated to the lumbar region; but the areolar tissue, lining the walls of the vertebral canal, was throughout its whole length infiltrated, saturated, and stained with this bloody serum. We now divided the dura mater, or medullary sheath, longitudinally, in its whole length, reflecting it off the cord on either side, a very small quantity of sanguinolent serum had gravitated within the sheath to the lumbar region, where it was lying staining the canal equina. The arachnoid was glistening and perfectly transparent The medulla oblongata had been separated from the medulla spinalis on a level with the atlas, and the medulla spinalis, as it lay in situ, presented a most healthy appearance, smooth, glistening, and of a greyish-white colour; presenting, in fact, no departure from its usual normal character and condition. The post roots of the spinal nerves were regular in their origin and course, and when traced to their points of emergence from the canal exhibit no abnormal appearance whatsoever; they had a somewhat darker grey colour than had the cord itself. The cord was next raised from its sheath, and its nerves being one by one divided, it was removed

from the canal, its anterior surface and the anterior roots of the spinal nerves being now scrutinized, they appeared in every way as healthy and free from disease as did the posterior. Stains or discolorations of the cords or nerves were readily removed by the effusion of water. There was no appearance of fulness of the veins of the spinal cord, or its members; the upper part of the cord, being more exposed by the previous opening of the skull, was softened by decomposition, but, upon examination, neither it nor any other part of the spinal cord showed any signs of disease. The proper envelope of the cord contained the nervous matter in a pulpy state, being softened by decomposition. After the removal of the cord, its fibrous sheath and osseous canal were carefully examined by the eye and finger cast along its whole length, and this proved the absence of all unnatural appearance or condition, roughness, irregularity, fracture, dislocation, exostosis, or spicula of bone, except at a point opposite the third and fourth cervical vertebrá where both the eye and the finger detected a slightly granular roughness of the arachnoid surface of the dura mater. Upon closer examination this slight roughness was found to depend upon the presence beneath the arach-noid of some twenty or thirty minute irregularly shaped granules, of some hard material barely raising the surface in a perceptible degree, they were found scattered over a space of less than an inch square. No more could be found elsewhere, each granule was gritty and hard under the point of the scalpel, and under the microscope had an appearance rather of calcareous than of osseous matter. The dura mater of the brain was next carefully examined, but nothing abnormal was found; no spiculae nor granules such as described above were detected. We believe that these granules could have no connection whatsoever with the death of deceased. Deduction: The only conclusion, therefore, at which we could arrive after this examination was a negative one. That there was nothing in the condition of the spinal cord or its en velopes to account for death; nothing but the most normal and healthy state, allowance being made for the lapse of time since the death of deceased. J. T. Harland, M. D., William Bam ford, apothecary, D. Henry Monckton, M. D.")—I am still of opinion that there was nothing in the appearances I have just described to account for the death of the deceased—there was nothing of an unusual kind that could not be referred to changes that took place after death—when the stomach and intestines at the first examination were removed from the body, they were separately emptied into a jar—Mr. Devonshire and Mr. Newton were the only two who operated—the prisoner at that particular period was standing at the right of Mr. Newton, and I observed that while Mr. Devonshire was opening the stomach, a push was given by Palmer which pushed Mr. Newton on to Mr. Devonshire, and which shook a portion of the contents of the stomach into the body, upon which I said, "Do not do that"—I thought a joke was passing among them, and I said, "Do not do that," to the whole of them—nothing was said on that observation of mine by either of them.

COURT. Q. Did you see who gave the push? A. Palmer was close to him—there was no one outside Palmer to impel him—Mr. Newton and Mr. Devonshire were pushed together, and Palmer was over them at the same time and was smiling.

MR. BODKIN. Q. After this interruption did the opening of the stomach proceed? A. Yes; it contained two or three ounces of brownish liquid—there was nothing particular in that—Palmer himself stated, in the hearing of the persons there, that there was nothing particular found in it—he was looking on, and said to Mr. Bamford, "They will not hang us yet"—I

first heard that said in aloud whisper—that was not after anybody had said anything, it was his mere observation upon it—the stomach was emptied into the jar, and the stomach was put into the jar also, with the brownish liquid found in it—the intestines were then examined; nothing particular was found in them, they were contracted, and were very small—the viscera were placed in the jar with their contents as they were taken from the body—the jar was then tied over with two bladders, and sealed—I tied them, and sealed them, and after I had done so, placed the jar on the table by the body—Palmer was at that time moving about the room—in a I few minutes I missed the jar from where I had placed it—during that time my attention had been called to the examination—I called out, "Where is the jar?" and Palmer, from the other end of the room said, "It is here; I thought it would be more convenient for you to take away"—there was a door at that end of the room, and Palmer was within a very short distance of it, a yard or two, and a distance from where the body was, of about half across this Court, the shorter way—this plan (produced) accurately represents the room of which I am speaking; there is a scale of feet below—by this scale I should say that it was about twentyfour feet from the place where the body was to the place where Palmer was—(The witness marked the two places in pencil)—the door near which Palmer was, was not the door by which we entered—I do not know where it opened to, but I see it here—I called to him to bring the jar—I said, "Will you bring it here?—I also went to the other aide of the table, and met him nearly half way he was coming with it—it was not then in the same state in which I had placed it on the table; there was a cut through both the bladders, it was hardly an inch long—that had been done with some sharp instrument—I examined the cut to see whether any of the contents of the jar had passed through it; it was quite clean—I said aloud, so as to be heard by all the people, "Here is a cut, who has done this?"—Palmer, and Mr. Devonshire, and Mr. Newton all said that they had not done it, and nothing more was said about it—when I was about to remove the jar from the room, the prisoner asked me what I was going to do with it—I said thai I should take it to Mr. Frere's—he said, "I had rather that you would take it with you to Stafford than take it there"—I do not remember that I made him any answer—I then took it to Mr. Frere's house, and after doing so returned to the Talbot Arms—I left the jar in Mr. Frere's hall, tied and sealed in the way I have mentioned—with respect to the slit, I immediately cut the string, replaced the bladders, and tied them separately again, so that the slit was beyond the lips of the jar—that was immediately on getting the jar again from Palmer—I re-sealed it—I did not see it again before I left Rugeley that day—the prisoner's house is immediately opposite to the Talbot Arms—I saw him again when I got there—I went into the yard to order my carriage, and while waiting for it, he came across and asked me what I had done with the jar—I told him that I had left it at Mr. Frere's—he inquired what it would be done with—I said that it would go either to Birmingham or London that night for examination—I do not recollect that he made any observation upon that—after the slit had been discovered, I unfastened the jar, and repacked it—I tied each cover with a separate string, and sealed it with my own seal—I believe there were no friends of the prisoner present on his behalf during the post mortem examination; there were several Rugeley persons present—there were persons there on the second examination on the part of Palmer.

Cross-examined by MR. SEBJEANT SHEE. Q. Were you on terms of inti-macy

with Palmer, or merely an acquaintance? A. Merely an acquaintance, occasionally practising at Rugeley, and known as a physician in practice in that neighbourhood—in the course of the examination, Palmer said, "They won't hang us yet"—he addressed Mr. Bamford when he said that at first—he might have said, "Doctor, they won't hang us yet"—at first he addressed Mr. Bamford in a loud whisper, and afterwards he repeated the same expression to several persons—I had said to him that I had heard there was a suspicion of poisoning—I drew up a report of the first post mortem examination—they were merely pencil notes that I wrote at the time the post mortem was going on—those are not the notes that Dr. Taylor has had in his possession—those I wrote as soon as I got home, from my pencil notes, and then I destroyed the others—I do not know how those notes got into Dr. Taylor's possession—I sent them to Mr. Stevens the same night—I have not seen them since—I did not see them before the Coroner—Dr. Monckton took the second report with him—I do not know to whom he sent it—on the first examination I observed follicles on the tongue, not under the tongue, on the dorsal of the tongue—they were not pustules; they were enlarged mucous follicles, I should say, not containing matter—it is a thickening of the mucus at the base of the tongue—they appeared to be of long standing—there were many of them.

Q. Did they indicate that there had been much soreness there? A. I have no doubt they would produce inconvenience—I doubt whether they I would have given pain in the ordinary use of the mouth in eating and speaking—they are not in the nature of enlarged glands from the irritation of disease—I do not believe they were enlarged by the irritation of disease—I have seen them frequently—I have said that the lungs were healthy—I adhere to that.

Q. Did not Mr. Devonshire, in your presence, express a contrary opinion, and say that they were unhealthy? A. He said there was emphysema, and he thought there was congestion of the lungs—emphysema is not a natural state—it is a very constant state in persons who are supposed to be in health to the slight extent that he had it—they are not supposed to be in health until they die—it is a diseased state of the lungs—it consists in a distension of the air cells—it is an abnormal state of the lungs—the lungs were full of blood—the heart was empty—I examined the white spots on the wider part of the stomach—I examined them by removing the mucus that was on the surface of the stomach with the finger or scalpel—I had no lens, no glass—I should have examined them with a lens had I had one—my examination of those appearances was satisfactory to me without a lens—I reported that the brain was healthy.

Q. What sort of examination did you make of the brain? A. The brain was carefully taken out, and was sliced—we first of all examined the external part, and then slices were taken off from the apex at the base of the brain—they were thin slices, I should think a quarter of an inch thick—I think that that was sufficiently thin to show any disease, if there was any—if there had been any appearance of disease we should have examined the part more carefully, but there was no appearance of anything unhealthy—we examined the spinal cord as far as we possibly could on the first post mortem examination—I requested Mr. Devonshire to cut the spinal cord as far down as he could, so that we might examine, and I said if there was any appearance of disease we must then open the canal.

COURT. Q. Did you find any appearance of disease? A. We found no appearance of disease.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. How far down did you examine it? A. Down to about the distance of the first vertebrae.

Q. Supposing you had discovered softening of the spinal cord on that occasion, after a full examination of the spinal cord, might not that have been in your judgment sufficient to account for the death of Mr. Cook? A. No, certainly not—softening would not produce tetanus at all—it might produce paralysis—it was afterwards thought desirable to make a careful examination of the spinal cord—I do not think, in order to ascertain with any degree of certainty the cause of death, it was necessary carefully to examine the spinal cord shortly after death—I do not know who suggested that it should be examined more than a month after death—the first examination was on 26th Dec., and the second on 25th Jan.—if there had been a softening, it would have been detected at the second examination—the body remaining unexamined for a long time would not produce hardening of the spine—the spine was very little soft indeed—there were some appearances of decomposition upon it—I do not think that would materially interfere with my examination for the purpose of ascertaining what the condition of it had been at death—I do not know that it is necessary, in the examination of the spinal cord, even shortly after death, to use a microscope in order to discover if there had been any lesion of the parts—I examined the granules on the spinal cord carefully at the time, with my finger and with my eyes, not with any microscope—I examined the throat—I examined to see if there was any disease upon him of a venereal kind—there was a loss of substance of a portion of the glans penis.

COURT. Q. There was something upon him of some past disease? A. Of some past disease.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE, Q. Did you form any opinion of how long past? A. It was cicatrized over, and upon the cicatrix there was a small abrasion—the excoriation might be a little sore—it was not extensive, very small—it wat a mere excoriation, merely a little of the cicatrix rubbed off.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. Was there any chancre? A. There was no chancre, nothing but what I should term an excoriation, except the old cicatrix of the old disease—chancre, in it's most positive and active state, would not occasion tetanus—I never heard or read of such a case—there were no symptoms of ulcerated throat; no appearance whatever of anything syphilitic there—I never heard or read of an ulcerated or syphilitic throat producing tetanus and death—follicles on the tongue often result from disordered stomach—they are of no serious consequence to health—they would not in any way account for death in this form—emphysema is an undue quantity of air in the air vessels—that could not have any connection with this death—Mr. Devonshire made some observation about there being congestion in the lungs—that appeared to me not to be a state of disease, but to be due to the gravitation of blood after death—there was nothing in the lungs which could account for death—the heart was empty, but in other respects healthy—I ascribe the emptiness of the heart to spasmodic action—when the heart is emptied of it's contents life cannot go on—that must necessarily be something immediately concomitant with death—I heard Mr. Jones examined yesterday—I believe that the spasm that was in the muscles generally also extended to the heart—there was no other cause to which I could trace the emptiness of the heart, except the spasmodic action described yesterday by Mr. Jones—the fluidity of the blood is rare even in a case of sudden death.

Q. Did you ever hear or know of fluidity of the blood in any other case

than that of sudden death? A. I have read that in cases of poisoning the blood is sometimes fluid, in cases of poisoning by arsenic and strychnine—the white spots on the stomach were quite visible to the naked eye—I had no difficulty in ascertaining what they were, and their extent—there was nothing whatever in the brain to indicate the presence of any disease of any sort; if there had been, I never knew or read of any diseased state of the brain occasioning death by tetanus—there was nothing in the state of the spinal cord at all to account for the symptoms attending the death—death had not produced any amount of relaxation there—in my opinion, if I had examined the state of the spinal cord immediately, or recently after death, I should not have been able to make a better examination of it than I was when I did examine it—there is no disease with which I am acquainted which would produce tetanus and that form of death—sometimes in inflammation of the membranes of the spine there is tetanus—there was no appearance of inflammation whatever here.

Q. To what do you ascribe the granules that you found there? A. It is not unfrequent, on the dura mater particularly, for there to be small granules which are called Pacchionian glands—I should consider these were something of the same nature—it is doubtful whether that is a diseased condition or not; they are never found in young persons, they are almost always found after adult age—I believe hardly any one is exempt from them—I never saw a head without them.

  CHARLES JAMES DEVONSHIRE . I am an undergraduate of medicine, of the University of London. In Nov. last, I was at Dr. Monckton's, at Rugeley—I was attending to his practice—I performed the pott mortem examination on 26th Nov., at the Talbot Arms—the body was pale, there was a general pallor—the fingers were clenched, the thumb of the left hand was drawn into the palm, and the fingers were clenched over it—the mouth was a little contracted, twisted, the body was very stiff, perfectly so.

COURT. Q. Was it stiff beyond the usual stiffness of death? A. Yes; much more.

MR. HUDDLESTON. Q. I believe you opened the body? A. Yes—the liver was very healthy—I examined the heart—it seemed healthy, it was perfectly empty, no particle of blood—it was of the natural size—I noticed the lungs—they contained a considerable quantity of dark fluid blood, and there were traces of emphysema on the left lung, and the lining membrane was reddened—the blood was perfectly fluid throughout the body—I examined the brain, I found it healthy throughout—I examined the medulla oblongata, and a small portion of the spinal cord, about a quarter or half an inch, as far as I could reach with a knife—it was perfectly sound and healthy—I took out the stomach; I opened it with a pair of scissors—I had a jar there—as I was opening the stomach there was a pressure, or push from behind, and I went a little forward, but I did not pay any attention to it—I was carried a little forward by it.

Q. What was the effect of that; did anything happen to the contents of the stomach? A. I cannot say if any escaped—I punctured the anterior surface of the stomach, and some of the contents fell out, about a spoonful went into the jar, I think—the contents were put into a jar, and it was sealed by Dr. Harland—I tied up the stomach where I had punctured it, before I put it into the jar—the stomach and intestines were to all appearance quite healthy—I went to Mr. Frere's that same day for the jar—I found the jar there in the same state as I had seen it made up by Dr. Harland—I gave that jar to Mr. Boycott, Messrs. Lander and Gardner's clerk—that was on

Monday, 26th—on the 29th I opened the body again—that waft to get the liver, kidneys, and spleen—I took them oat of the body, and some blood from the vena cava—I put them in a stone jar, then put bladder, wash leather, and brown paper, and then sealed it—I delivered the same jar in the same state on the 30th to Boycott, the same person to whom I had delivered the former—in making the post mortem, examination, I examined the penis—I saw nothing at all there—it was matter of observation between Mr. Palmer and I—Palmer said that we should find syphilis on him, that he had had syphilitic sore throat; it was in consequence of that I looked at the penis—I saw no chancre, or anything of the sort, and there was no hardness—I also took out the throat—I do not know that it was in consequence of that—there were some enlarged papillae, natural papillae, but larger than usual, at the base of the tongue; one tonsil was shrunk, caustic had perhaps been applied some time previously, not anything recent.

Cross-examined by MR. GROVE. Q. Tetanic convulsions are supposed to proceed from the spine being disordered, are they not? A. Yes, they are—derangement of the spine is considered the proximate cause in complaints that affect the spinal cord—that derangement is not always capable of being detected—in examining the body of a person who was supposed to have died from tetanus, the spine would be the first organ looked at, you would look at the spinal cord of course—about half an inch of the spinal cord, exterior to the aperture in the cranium, was examined on the first post mortem—the length of the spinal cord depends upon the height of the man—I was not present when the granules were discovered on a subsequent examination—where you discover granules pressing on the spinal cord within the dum mater, they would be considered sufficient to account for death, if they produced great irritation and pressure.

COURT. Q. Have you seen any case of that sort? A. No, I have not.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. Have you been in practice any time? A. very short time—at the time I was making this post mortem examination, I was not certain that he had died of tetanus, there were reports thrown out that it was, but that was all—I had no knowledge of the precise circumstances attending the death.

  DR. DAVID HENRY MONCKTON . I am a physician residing at Rugeley. I was not present at the first post mortem examination—on 25th Jan. I made an examination of the spinal cord of the deceased man—the muscles of the trunk and neck were in a state of laxity, which I should consider due to the commencing decay of the body—that would certainly not be inconsistent with the fact of there having been great rigidity of those muscles at the time of death—I found the muscles of the arms and legs in a state of rigidity—I cannot say that it was an unnatural amount of rigidity—I think the rigidity was not more than I should consider would be found in an ordinary dead body, considering the time, but the position was peculiar; the muscles of the arms had partially flexed the fingers, the fingers were between flexion and extension—that partial clenching of the hand was very firm, it required considerable force to relax or alter the position—the feet were turned inwards much more than is usual—I carefully examined the spinal cord—I wrote the report which has been read by Dr. Harland—the condition in which that part of the body then was, was such as to enable me to make a satisfactory examination of it—if there had been, prior to death, any diseased or abnormal condition in that part of the body, I should, I think, have had no difficulty in detecting it—I am speaking of the part of the body to which I confined my examination, the spinal

cord and marrow—there was no disease—it is difficult to give the origin of the granules which were detected; I agree with the last witness that they are frequently to be found after a certain period of life—I never heard or knew of sudden disease or death being produced from that cause—the report which has been read fully contains my opinion.

Cross-exatnined by MR. SERJENT SHEE. Q. What did you do with the report? A. On 2nd Feb. I gave it into the hands of Mr. Gardner, the attorney of Mr. Stevens—I have not seen it since till today.

  JOHN BOYCOTT . I am clerk to Messrs. Lander, Gardner, and Lander, of Rugeley. On 26th Nov. I received a jar from Mr. Devonshire, covered with brown paper, and sealed up—I took it to London, and on the next day delivered it, in the same condition, to Dr. Alfred Taylor, at Guy's Hospital—afterwards, on 30th Nov., I received another jar from Mr. Devonshire at Dr. Monckton's house—I brought that up to London also, and delivered it, in the same condition, to Dr. Taylor—I was not present at the inquest on the body of Cook—I did not fetch Newton to be examined at the inquest—when I was on my way to London on Tuesday last, Newton came to me at the Rugeley station, and made a communication to me—he did not ask to see Mr. Gardner, he knew Mr. Gardner was out—when I got to London I took him to Mr. Gardner, and heard him make a communication to him—he made the communication to me as Mr. Gardner's clerk.

  JAMES MYATT . In Nov. last I was postboy at the Talbot Arms, at Rugeley—I know Palmer—on Monday night, 26th Nov., I was ordered to take Mr. Stevens to the Stafford station—I got the order at a little after 5 o'clock, and before I started I went home to get my tea, and on returning, to the Talbot Arms met the prisoner—he asked me if I was going to drive them to Stafford, Mr. Stevens—I told him I was, and he asked me if I would upset them he said that he supposed that I was going to take the jars; I told him I believed I was—he said, "Do you think you could upset them?"—I told him, No"—he said, that if I could, there was a 10l. note for me—I told him I could not—I do not recollect whether he said anything more about the jar—I told him I must go, for the horse was in the fly waiting for me to start—I told him, "If I do not go, there is some oe else will go;" he told me not to be in a hurry, for if any one else went, he would pay me—I do not recollect that he said more to me that evening—I saw next morning, when I was going to my breakfast, and he asked me who went with the fly; I told him Mr. Stevens, and I believed one of Mr. Gardner's clerks—he said that he believed it was—I do not recollect anything more.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. You say that he asked you whether you were going to drive them to Stafford; what conversation was there between you and him before he used the words, "going to drive them to Stafford"? A. I had not spoken to him before—I knew that. I was going to take some one to Stafford the words, I believe, were, "going to drive them to Stafford"—Mr. Stevens's name was mentioned, but I do not recollect whether that was before he asked me if I was going to drive them to Stafford—I knew that he meant Mr. Stevens, because he mentioned Mr. Stevens afterwards—he did not mention Mr. Stevens at first, but in the course of that conversation—it was about 300 or 400 yards from the Talbot Arms—I did not prepare the fly, it was prepared while I went to my tea—there might be other gentlemen at the Talbot Arms at the time, visitors, besides Mr. Stevens and his party—I understood the word "them" to mean Mr. Stevens and his party—I do not recollect that the words that

Palmer used ware, "I would not mind giving 10l. to break Stevens's neck," or words to that effect—"10l. to upset him," those were the words, to the best of my recollection—I cannot say whether he appeared to have been drinking at the time.

Q. When he said, "to upset him," did he use any epithet, or say, "upset the fellow"? A. He did not describe him in any way—he said that it was a humbugging concern, or something to that effect—I do not recollect his saying anything to the effect that he was a suspicious, troublesome fellow—I cannot say that he spoke in an angry tone of him—he gave me no notion, from what he said, for what reason he had to complain of him—he did not say that he had been very troublesome and suspicious.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. My learned Mend has put the words in a somewhat different form; let me have the words over again: what was it Palmer said to you when he saw you in the street? A. He asked me if I was going to drive them to Stafford, I told him I believed I was—he asked if it was Mr. Stevens I was going to take, and I said that I believed it was—he said that he supposed I was going to take the jars; I told him I was—he asked me if I would upset them—I told Mm I could not—he said that if I would there was a 10l. note for me—it was about the middle of the conversation that he said that it was a humbugging concern—I cannot remember whether it was before or after he had offered me the 10l. note I that was all that I recollect at that time.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. Do you not know that there was only one jar in the fly? A. I do not.

  SAMUEL CHESHIRE . (a prisoner). I was for some years postmaster at Rugeley—I am now in Newgate, suffering punishment for having read a letter as postmaster—I was tried at Stafford—I confessed to reading it—I was postmaster at Rugeley upwards of eight years; it would have been nine years on 5th April in the present year—I know the prisoner very well, we were schoolfellows together—I think I have been to races with him about three times in my life, three or four times, but I never betted—I never made but one bet in my life—I was very intimate with him—I went to Shrewsbury races with him in Nov., 1855, and returned to Rugeley with him the same evening, about 20 minutes past 8 o'clock—it was on Tuesday, the day that Polestar won, the day the handicap was won—on Saturday, the 17th, I went with the prisoner to see Mr. Cook at the Talbot Arms—he was in bed—I lived at the post office, which is about 300 on 400 yards from Palmer's house—on Tuesday evening, 20th Nov., I received a message from Palmer to go to him—it was, I should think, somewhere between 6 and 7 o'clock—I was to take a stamp with me—in consequence of that I went to Palmer's house, and took a receipt stamp with me—I called at Mr. James's, the bookseller's, on my way, and purchased a shilling's worth—when I got to Palmer's, I found him in his sitting room—I waited a short time, and he said that he wanted me to write a letter—he produced a copy from which I was to write—I copied it—he said that it was money which Mr. Cook owed him—what I wrote was left in Mr. Palmer's pos session—before I commenced writing he said that Mr. Cook was too ill, and he said, "Mr. Weatherby will know my writing"—he said that he was going to take it over for Mr. Cook to sign—after I had written it I left it with Palmer.

  CHARLES WEATHERBY . I am secretary to the Jockey Club, that is one of my appointments—my establishment is in Burlington-street—I keep a sort of banking account with gentlemen who have race horses, and receive and pay stakes for them—I knew the deceased, he had an account of that

kind with us—I know the prisoner slightly—he had not an account with us, that is to say, he had no account of that nature, no general account; I had dealings with him—the other is a species of banking account—on 21st Nov. I received a cheque or order for 300l.—it came by post—it purported to be signed by Mr. Cook—I sent that back two days after, on Friday, the 23rd, to the prisoner at Rugeley, by post—I did not pat it in myself; I generally place my letters for the post in a box, a list of them is kept, and one of the clerks sees that they are posted—that letter was taken away to be posted in the ordinary course of business—the amount of the order was 350l.

  JOHN BOYCOTT . re-examined. I served a copy of these two notices to produce, one on the prisoner, and the other on Mr. Smith, his attorney, on 3rd May; I gave one to Mr. Smith, and the other to Mr. Palmer personally—the prisoner was then at Stafford gaol—(This was an order to produce a cheque for 350l. purporting to be written by Cheshire, and to be signed J. Parsons Cook)—it was not produced.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE. to CHARLES WEATHERBY. Q. Do you know the writing of John Parsons Cook? A. Yes—as far as I know, it was in his writing.

  SAMUEL CHESHIRE . re-examined. What I wrote from the copy which Palmer gave me was addressed to Messrs. Weatherby—I really cannot exactly call to mind the words, but it was something to the effect of "Please pay to Mr. William Palmer the sum of 300l.;"I cannot recollect what amount it was, I believe it was 300l. and odd, "and place it to my account"—I cannot recollect whether I put any date to it, I quite forget—I left that with him, and went away—this was Tuesday—I saw Palmer again on Thursday or Friday—he sent again for me, I cannot call to mind which day it was—I remember hearing of the death of Mr. Cook at the Talbot Arms—it was after that—it was in the evening, some time between 6 and 7 o'clock, for I know the business that I was doing just at the time—when I went to him he was in his kitchen; he went out of the kitchen, and came back to me with a quarto sheet of paper in his hand, he gave me a pen, and asked me to sign it; there was something written on it—I asked him what it was, and he said, "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 witness it"—I said, "What is it about?"—he said, "Some business that I have joined him in, and which was all for Mr. Cook's benefit," and that that was a document stating so, or something of that kind—I just cast my eye over the paper—it was a quarto post paper, of a yellow description—I observed the writing, I thought it was Mr. Palmer's own writing—I told him when he asked me, that I could not sign it, and that I should have to be called on perhaps to give evidence in the matter at some future day; that I had not seen Mr. Cook sign it, and I likewise told him that the Post-office authorities would not like me to be called off to give evidence, inasmuch as I should have to trouble them to put some one in my place while I was absent—I do not believe I said anything with regard to Cook's death on that Friday night; in fact, I did not give my exact reasons for not signing it—when I refused, Palmer said that it would not matter my signing it, and perhaps they would not object to Mr. Cook's signature—I gave the paper back to him, left it with him, and went away—(The notice to produce this paper was here ready but the paper was not produced)—I believe there was a stamp on the paper—I did not read it all, I just cast my eye down it—it was to the effect that certain bills, the dates and amounts of which were quoted, and which I cannot recollect now, were all for Mr. Cook's benefit,

and not for Mr. Palmer's; those any not be exactly the words—they were rather large amounts, I recollect two, one was for 1,000l. and one 500l.—there was a signature at the foot, either I or J. P. Cook, I cannot say which—I do not think it was "Parsons Cook"—I knew Palmer very well, and was in the habit of giving him letters addressed to his mother, who resided at Rugeley—he was in the habit of calling for them—I cannot recollect that I gave him any letters addressed to his mother daring the months of Oct. and Nov., 1855—I do not know whether I gave him any addressed to Mr. Cook—Mr. Palmer has taken Mr. Cook's letters, and Mr. Cook has taken Mr. Palmer's—I remember the inquest being held on Mr. Cook—I saw Palmer while it was going on; he came down to me on the Sunday evening, and asked me if I saw or heard anything fresh to let him know—(that was the Sunday previous to 5th Dee., to which day the inquest was adjourned)—I thought it was a temptation for me to open a letter—I told him I could not open a letter.

Q. How came you to say that? A. I could not sea what other information he required—he told me that he did not want me to do anything to injure myself—I believe that was about all the eomvewatlon that passed at that time—he did mot done again to me—the letter which I reao width I am suffering punishment for, was a letter from Dr. Taylor to Mr. Gardner, the solicitor—I did not read the letter to the prisoner, or give him the letter to read—I only told aim a few words of its contents—I did not read it all myself—I read part, and told Palmer as much as I remembered of it at the time—it was on the morning of 5th Dec.—I think I can tell Palmer's handwriting—I believe this letter to his (produced)—I told Palmer that there were no traces of stry chnis found.

COURT. Q. You told him that you found that in Dr. Taylor's letter? A. Yes, that no traces of strychnia were to be found.

MR. JAMES. Q. What else, as well as you remember? A. I cannot recollect what else I told him of the letter—upon that he said he knew these would not, for he was perfectly inconent.

  CAPTAIN JOHN HAINBS HATTON . I am chief constable of Stafford shire. Mr. Ward, the Ceroper, handed me this letter, and I endorsed it—I made my minute at the time—read: addressed, "W. W. Ward, Eaq., solicitor, Stafford." (without date) "My dear Sir, I am sorry to tell you that I am still confined to my bed. I do not think it was mentioned at the inquest yesterday that Cook was taken ill on Sunday and Monday night in the same way as he was on the Tuesday night when ke died. The chamber maid at the Crown Hotel, Mastere's, can prove this; I also believe that a man by the name of Fisher is coming down to prove he received some money at Shrewsbury. New here he could only pay Smith 10l. out of 41l. he owned him. Had you not better call Smith to prove this? And, again, whatever Professor Taylor may say to-morrow, he wrote from Lonon last Tuesday night to Gardner to say, 'We and Dr Rees have this day finished our analysis, and find no traces of either strychnia, prussic acid, or opium.' What can beat this from a man like Taylor, if he says what he has already said, and Dr. Harland's evidence? Mind you, I know and saw it in black and white what Taylor said to Gardner; but this is strictly private and con-fidential, but it is true. As regards his betting book, I know nothing of it, and it is of no good to any one. I hope the verdict tomorrow will be that ke died of natural causes, and thus emd it fiver yours. W. P."—Mr. Ward was the Coroner at the inquest.

  SAMUEL CHESHIRE . Cross-examined by, MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. You

knew Cook well? A. I knew him from the commencement of Sept I think—that was the time I became intimate with him—I did not know his handwriting—I had seen it, but I could not tell, if I were to see it now, whether it was his or not—I was not sufficiently acquainted with his writ-ing to be able to state my belief respecting it—I never saw him write—I had seen letters addressed to him—I could not speak to his handwriting—when I declined to sign the paper which Palmer asked me to sign, he said, "Oh! never mind; I have no doubt they will not object to Mr. Cook's signature"—he came to me and he asked whether I had seen or heard anything.

Q. Was it "seen anything;" or, was not it, "Have you heard anything?" A. "Seen or heard"—I am sure that he said, "Seen or heard"—I told him that I had seen something—he said then, "What have you seen?"—I told him, and I believe he then said, "I knew they would not, for I am as inno-cent as a baby"—I believe that was the phrase which he used—I remember, on the Saturday before the death of Cook, being told by Palmer that he was very ill—I dined with him and Mr. Smith that day—Cook was expected; he said that he should have been one of the party—Palmer said that Cook was very ill, and that he must call in Bamford—I saw Cook in the evening, he was in bed—I suppose he was ill, he vomited while I was there—that was on Saturday.

Q. Did you see Palmer at Rugeley on the Wednesday, the second day of the Shrewsbury races? A. Yes; I did—it was about midday, I think.

MR. JAMES. Q. How long does it take to go by the train from Stafford to Shrewsbury? A. I cannot say, the trains run so very badly—it is more than an hour—if the trains ran so as to meet each other, I should say it would take an hour and a half—when you once start the duration of the journey from Stafford to Shrewsbury is a little upwards of an hour.

  ELLIS CRISP . I am an inspector of police as Rugeley. On 17th Dec. I assisted in searching the prisoner's house—there was a sale of his things on 5th Jan.—I got this book (produced) at that sale—I did not buy it—I saw it being sold, and took it away from the sale.

Gross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. Where did you find the book? A. It was being sold—it was put up by the auctioneer—it was not put away or concealed in any manner—it was brought out with a lot of other books for sale—there were other medical books.

  JOHN BOYCOTT . re-examined. I believe the handwriting in this book to be Mr. Palmer's, and also in this other book—(The following pottage, written in pencil, on a fly leaf, at the commencement of the book, was read: "Strychnia kills by causing tetanic fixing of the respiratory muscles.")

  DANIEL SCULLY BERGUM . I am chief superintendent of the rural district police. I searched the prisoner's house—this book with a green cover was found in his house—the search was commenced on Sunday, the 16th, and continued on 17th Dec.—I cannot state the exact place in which I found that book—I found it either on 16th or 17th—it was found amongst his other books—(The following passage was read from this book: "Nux vomica; seeds of strychnine, like an orange; a certain quantity of seed contains thirty-four grains of strychnia; one grain will give a bitter taste to 80lbs. of water; one grain of strychnia is equal to six grains of bruchia; it kills by producing tetanic contractions in the respiratory muscles.")

  JULIET ELIZABETH HAWKES . I keep a boarding house, at No. 7, Beaufort-buildings, Strand. I know the prisoner—he was at my house on 1st Dec. last—he asked my porter to buy something for him—I did not hear him—on

19th Nov. I had some conversation with him myself—on 1st Dec. I purchased some game, a turkey and a brace of pheasants, for him; and the porter purchased some fish—I packed it up in a hamper—I did not speak to Mr. Palmer about it—I had no conversation with him about it on that day—I did not at any time have any conversation with Mr. Palmer about the things that I put in the hamper—I put up the things by the order of Mr. Palmer to our porter, Frederick Slack—I did not hear him speak to the porter—Slack is at my house now—I directed the hamper—the porter gave me the direction, and he took it to the station—I desired him to do so—I have not been paid for those things—Mr. Palmer came up on that day, 1st Dec.—I have not seen Mr. Palmer since—the hamper was directed to "W. W. Ward, Efcq., Burton-on-Trent," or "Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire."

  GEORGE HERRING . I live at No. 3, Albert-terrace, New-cross; I am independent. I knew the deceased, Cook, for about two years prior to his death—I met him at the Shrewsbury races last Nov.—I saw him there on the day of the races—I put up at the Raven—I should think he appeared to be in his usual health—the latest on which I saw him on Wednesday was between 6 and 7 o'clock—I had a private room along with Fisher, and Mr. Reed and Mr. Thomas Jones—that room was next to the private room occupied by Cook and Palmer, divided by a partition—I saw Cook on the Thursday morning—he had no money in his possession at that time that I know of—I did not see him with money on that day—I saw him with money on the Wednesday at Shrewsbury—they were Bank of England notes and country notes.

COURT. Q. How came you to see them? A. They were placed in twos and threes, crumpled up—he was straightening them on a table, and on his knee.

MR. WELSBY. Q. Were you able to appertain at all the amount? A. No, not at all—there were a considerable number of notes—he showed me his betting book at Shrewsbury—it contained entries of bets made at the Shrewsbury races—(MR. SERJEANT SHEE. objected to ike content of the betting book being referred to. MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. submitted that it was sufficiently traced to the probable possession of the prisoner. The COURT. was of opinion that the contents could not be entered into)—on Monday, 19th Nov., I received a letter from Palmer—this is it—(read: "18th Nov., 1855.

Dear Sir,—I shall feel much obliged if you will give me a call at 7, Beaufort-buildings, Strand, to-morrow, Monday, about half past 2; and I am, dear Sir, yours truly, William Palmer.")—I received that on the Monday, and I called that day at Beaufort-buildings, at half past 2 o'clock exactly—I found Palmer there—he asked me what I would take—I declined to take anything—I asked him how Mr. Cook was—he said he was all right; a physician had given him a dose of calomel, and advised him not to come out to-day, it being a damp, or wet day, I do not know which term he used—he said, "What I want to see you about is settling his account"—while he was speaking he took out half a sheet of note paper, and he was holding it in his hand at the time he finished the sentence—he said, "This is it"—I rose to take it—he said, "You had better take it down; this will be a check against you," at the same time pointing to some paper that was lying on the table, on some blotting paper—I wrote on that paper from his dictation—I have the paper here which I so wrote (producing it)—he said, "Receive of Ingham, 350l.; Bain, 300l.; Green, 140l.; Morris, 200l.; Nelson, 30l."—then he asked me how much I made that—I said, "1,020l."—he said, "Pay yourself 6l., and Shelly 30l.; and if you see Bell, tell him that Mr. Cook will come up either Thursday or Friday, and settle with him himself;

how much does that make it?"—I deducted the 36l. from the 1,020l., and sold, "984l."—he said, "That is what Cook makes it; if I give you 16l. it will make up 1,000l.; out of that pay yourself 200l., and that will pay fur my bill"—I stopped reading there, and said, "Your bill; I know no difference between your bills"—he said, "Pay Padwick 350l. and Pratt 450l., making 1,000l."—there are two addresess on the paper—one he wrote himself, "H. Padwick, Esq., 2, Hill-street, Berkeley-square"—the other I wrote myself, "T. Pratt, 5, Queen-street, Mayfair"—I wrote it at his dictation—that was where I had to send the sum of money to, as I stated I did not know their addresses—he then said, "You had better fill up 4 cheque to Padwick and Pratt, and send them at once—I told him that I had only one blank cheque in my pocket—he said, "You can easily fill ont I up on a half sheet of paper," or "on a piece of paper"—I refuted to do so, as I had not received the money—he said it would be all right as Cook would not deceive him—he wished me particularly to pay Mr. Pratt the 450l.—his words, as nearly as I can remember, were, "You must pay Pratt the 450l. as it is for a bill, or joint bill of sale cm the mare"—he told me he was going round to see both Mr. Pratt and Padwick, and tell them that I would send it on—I had remarked that if he would tell me his address, I would call after leaving Tattersall's, and leave the amount of money with them, and he said, "You had better send a cheque"—he then asked what there was between us—I said, "45l."—he said, "But you owed me 40l. on the Liverpool meeting"—I said I would settle that with Mr. Sargent, or I was to settle it with Mr. Sargent—he said, "But you hare not settled it yet, as I have done that with him, therefore if I give you 5l. that will be right"—at the same time he took out of his pocket a 50l. Bank of England note—he required 29l. out of the 50l. note—I was not able to give him change—he said if I would give him a cheque that would be the same thing—I gave him a cheque for 20l. and nine sovereigns—I believe I bad two other 50l. notes in my pockety I do not know the number or date of the 50l. note he gave me—as I was going away he pressed me to send the cheques to Pratt and Padwick immediately—he said if I sent them immediately it would be before the closing of the bank, or before bank time, or some remark of that description—he said, "When you have settled this account, write down word to either me or Cook"—that was the first instruction he gave me, to send to him or Cook; I was then going out of the room, and I turned round and said, "I shall certainly write to Mr. Cook"—I said that because I thought I was settling Mr. Cook's account—he said, "It don't much matter which"—I I said, "If I address Mr. Cook, Palmer, Bugeley, Stafford, that will be correct, will it not?"—he said, "Yen"—after leaving Beaufort-buildings I went to Tattersall's—I there received all the money on Cook's account, except 110l., of Mr. Morris, who paid me only 90l. instead of 200l.—I sent from Tattersall's a cheque for 450l. to Pratt—I posted a letter to Cool from Tattersaill's, addressed as I have mentioned—on the next day, Tuesday, the 20th, I received a telegraphic message—I have not got it here, I gave it to Captain Hatton, on the Coroner's Inquest, at Kugeley—in consequence of receiving that message I wrote again on that day to Mr. Cook—I addressed that letter as before, I believe that letter was not posted till the Wednesday—I have here some bills of exchange (producing them)—I know I Palmer's handwriting—I have never seen him write, the only letter I ever received from him was the one handed in—I know Cook's handwriting—I believe the signature to two of these bills and the acceptance to the third to be in Cook's handwriting, but I am no judge of handwriting—I have

seem him write—I believe that to be his handwriting—I got these bills from Mr. Fisher—I gave him cash for them.

  JOHN BOYCOTT . re-examined. The signature of William Palmer to one of these bills, and the acceptance to the other two, is in Palmer's handwriting—(these were three bills each for 200l., dated Rugdey Sept. 15th, 1855, payable to the of far of the drawer, one at one month, and the others at two months).

  GEORGE HERRING . (continued). When the one month bill beoame due, Cook paid me 100l. in part discharge of it, within tint week I do not know the day—he afterwards paid me the remaining 100l.; that was on the first bill—I cannot tell on what daj of the week Or month it was, it was either on the Wednesday evening or Thursday morning at Shrewsbury races—I suppose one of those was the 200l. which Palmer mentioned that I was to pay out of the 1,020l.—I deducted that amount out of the money that I received—there were three of 200l. each originally—Cook had paid me one, and there were two of 200l. each remaining, and Mr. Palmer told me to deduct one of them out of the sum that I received on account of Mr. Cook—I do not still hold the other, and claim on it—I did not pay Mr. Padwick the 350l. that he told me—I produce another bill for 500l.

  THOMAS SMERDON STRWARIDON . I am manager of the bank at Rageley. I know the prisoner's handwriting—I believe the signature to this bill to be in his handwriting, both the drawing and endorsement—it purports to be accepted by Sarah Palmer, the prisoner's mother—I know her handwriting—(MR. SERJEANT SHEE. objected to the reception of this evidence as irrelevant. The COURT. was of opinion that it was admissible)—I have seen Mrs. Sarah Palmer write—she had an account at our bank—I have paid cheques purporting to be drawn by her—I should say that the acceptance to this bill was certainly not her handwriting—(This was a bill for 500l., dated 6th Oct., 1854, at three months, drawn by the prisoner, and accepted and endorsed by Sarah Palmer and William Palmer,)

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. Is this the handwriting of Cook? A. I never saw Cook write.

  GEORGE HERRING . (continued). This bill is also endorsed by Cook—I am sure it is Cook's handwriting—it "J. Parsons Cook," the name "Parsons" is written at full length—I do not know for certain in what way Cook used to sign his name—I had this 500l. bill from Mr. Fisher—I paid for it 200l., to Mr. Palmer, and 275l., to Mr. Fisher; the 25l. was for discount—it was not paid at maturity—I have taken proceedings against the prisoner upon it within the last month.

Cross-examined by MR. GROVE. Q. You used the expression, when, he said, "Pay yourself 200l. for my bill," "I know no difference between yours and his"? A. I knew no difference—that was alluding to the bills—I do not know, of my own personal knowledge, whether they had any joint transactions in racing—I used that expression, "I know no difference between yours and his," because I received the bills all at once, I knew no difference between them—I mean that both their names were on all the bills—I was at Shrewsbury with Palmer on the Wednesday—I know of several persons being ill there that day.

Q. What was the nature of the attack? A. I can speak of it for myself, it was a kind of diarrhoea—I had not vomiting, sickness, nor had others that I know of—I put up at the Haven Inn—I took my meals there, and my companions also—they were not ill, no one that stopped in the house, but one gentleman came there and dined with us one day, and he was

taken unwell—I arrived at the Raven on the Monday night, and left on the Friday morning, I believe—I dined there every day—I dined there on the Tuesday—Mr. Palmer did not dine with me on that day, or any other day—I saw Cook on the racecourse several times—the ground was very wet and damp—I remonstrated with Cook on the Thursday morning about his standing on the damp ground—that was after he had been taken ill on the Wednesday night—the last I saw of Palmer on the Monday in London was at a quarter past 3 o'clock, when I left—I was with him about three-quarters of an hour.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. Were any of your party at the Raven ill betides yourself? A. None of our party—I know nothing myself of Mr. Cook's illness.

  FREDERICK SLACK . I am porter at Mrs. Hawkes's boarding house, Beaufort-buildings—I remember Palmer being there on 1st Dec.—he wished me to get a basket of game ready for him, and he gave me the direction to put upon it, "Mr. William Ward, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire"—he told me to get the game where I pleased, and some cod fish, and a barrel of oysters, a brace of pheasants, and one turkey—he did not wish the gentleman to know where they came from—he gave me the direction in the coffee room—I saw him write it—I gave the message to my mistress, Mrs. Hawkes—she got the turkey and pheasants, and I got the fish and oysters—I got the hamper, and put the things all in, sewed the hamper up, and took it to the railway, directed as I had been ordered.

Adjourned.

Saturday, May 17th.

  GEORGE BATES . I was brought up a farmer, I am not in business at all now. I know the prisoner William Palmer—I have known him eight or nine years—in Sept, Oct., and Nov. of last year, I used to see that his lad did his duty by his breeding stock of horses—I used to look after his stock, to see that the boy who had the care of his horses did his duty—I had no stated salary; I used to receive money occasionally—I really cannot say what I had per week; some weeks I used to receive two sovereigns, and some one—I lodged in Rugeley—I paid 6s. 6d. per week for my lodging—I am not a married man—I knew John Parsons Cook, the deceased—I have no doubt I saw him in Sept. last at the prisoner's house—I could not fix the date; but I am certain I had seen him there in Sept.—I dined with him I believe in the month of Sept., at Mr. Palmer's; I have occasionally gone to dine at Mr. Palmer's.

COURT. Q. Then you sat at table with him? A. Of course.

MR. JAMES. Q. Do you remember either during dinner or after dinner anything being said about an insurance to be proposed on your life? A. After dinner I do, it was in Mr. Palmer and Mr. Cook's presence—what was said about it, and who began the conversation I cannot say; it was either Mr. Cook or Mr. Palmer, but which I cannot say—(MR. SERJEANT SHEE. submitted, that this evidence was irrelevant to the present inquiry. The AT-TORNEY-GENERAL. offered it as affording one amongst other motives for that which was charged to the prisoner, and also as showing the position in which he was placed at that time pecuniarily; it being an insurance fraudulently effected for the purpose of raising money upon it. The COURT. was of opinion, that it was too remote to be admissible)—I remember the death of Mr. Cook at the Talbot Arms, and the inquest being held—I know William Webb Ward, the Coroner—I saw the prisoner on the evening of 8th Dec., while

the inquest was being held—I believe the prisoner gave me a letter—this is the letter (looking at it)—he told me to go to Stafford and give it to Mr. Ward—this was between 9 and 10 o'clock in the morning—at the time gave me that letter, he gave me a letter directed to a man of the name he Frantz, a dealer in game, in Stafford—he told me there would be a packag of game from Frantz, I was to direct it to Mr. Ward and send it to him—he said nothing more than that I should have the game from Frantz, and I was to send it to Mr. Ward—I got a basket of game from Frantz, upon the order that the prisoner had given me—I directed it to "Webb Ward, Esq., Corener, Stafford," and sent it to him—I will not take my oath whether it was "coroner" or "solicitor, Stafford"—I directed it from what Palmer told me; that I should have some game, and that it was to be sent to him—I gave a man 3d. to take it—I went afterwards to the Dolphin Inn, at Stafford—I believe I delivered this letter to Mr. Ward himself—I found him at the Dolphin, in Stafford, in the smoking room—I told him I wanted to speak to him, and he followed me out into the yard or passage, and I gave it to him there—there were other people there in the room where he was—I had no directions from the prisoner as to how I was to deliver the letter to him—I saw the prisoner again when I went back to Rugeley that night—I told him what I had done—I told him I had delivered the letters I took to Stafford that day, and that I had sent the game—on Thursday, 10th Dec., I was sent for to the prisoner's house early in the morning—I think it was about 12 o'clock, about mid day—I found him in bed—he wanted me to go Stafford to take Webb Ward a letter, and to take care no one saw me give it—on the Saturday he had said something to me about getting some money, and I went to a man and took him some money from a man in Stafford—before I set out the day I took the letter, he said, "Go to Ben and tell him I want a 5l. note"—I took Benio be Mr. Thirlby, his assistant, Benjamin Thirlby—he said, "Tell him I want a 5l. note, that I have no small change"—I believe then he asked me to look in a drawer in the dressing glass that stood on the table, and he said, "Tell me the amount of that bill, George;" I looked in, and there was a 50l. Bank of England bill—I left it there—this was before he gave me the letter to take to Mr. Ward—I then went to Thirlby's house for the 5l. note—I got a 5l. note on a local bank, which, I believe, was Bridgenorth—I took it to Mr. Palmer's, and I went down stairs—I left Palmer in his room, the writing things were on the bottom of his bed—he was still sitting up in bed—I remained down stairs about half an hour—I remained in the yard or the kitchen—when I went up again Palmer asked me what was the amount of the bill which was in the drawer; I just looked at the drawer, and there was the same bill which I believe I had left there; then he gave me the letter to go to Stafford—I could not swear whether it was sealed or wafered—I delivered that letter between the railway station and an inn called the Grand Junction—I followed Mr. Ward through the room in the station, and gave it to him on the flags—I believe he crumpled it in his hand and put it in his pocket—he did not read it in my presence, he did not open it in my presence—I told Mr. Ward from whom I had brought it—I believe I went back to Rugeley after having done this—I saw the prisoner again that evening—I told htm I had given Mr. Ward the letter—I do not think he made any answer to me.

Cross-examined by MR. SBBJBAMT SHEE. Q. You can tell me, I dare say, what was the establishment of horses belonging to Mr. Palmer, at Rugeley; how many mares in foal had he to begin with? A. I think there were four brood mares, and four yearlings, and a three year old mare—I could not pretend to tell the value of the stock myself—I have heard that one of them sold

for 800 guineas—I cannot say whether any of them were in foal shortly before, or at the beginning of the month of Nov.—I should suppose there were some in foal—the stables were at some short distance from his house, at the back of it—the stables were at the paddock—I should think he had twentyone or twenty-two acres of ground there—the fences were live, growing hawthorn.

Q. Do you remember, shortly before the month of Nov., or in the early part of Nov., a mare called the Duchess of Kent, slipping her foal? A. I remember the Duchess of Kent being there; we supposed she had slipped her foal, but we nerer could find it—there was a mare called Goldfinder's Dam—she had not slipped her foal, that I am aware of.

Q. Had any complaint been made about dogs going about the paddock)? A. I think I once said to Harry, "The turf seems a good deal cut up here; how is it I"—Harry is the groom—I saw the turf cut up, which I supposed to be with horses' feet, which they could not cut up without they had galloped—I attributed it to the mares galloping about—I never saw any dogs run them—I have seen a gun at the paddock—I cannot say it belonged to Mr. Paliser—I never saw it used—I never had it in my hands to examine it; I saw it in the place where the com was kept—Harry's surname is Hockey, I think—I do not know inspector Field by sight—I saw a person who came to me, who they told me was inspector Field, after he went away—I cannot take upon myself to say when he came; it was the latter end of Sept. or the beginning of Oct., or may be NOV.—he did not tell me he was inspector Field—I cannot tell whether he saw Palmer—I will not say whether it was Sept., Oct., or Nov. that I first saw that person, he was a stranger to we—I did not see him more than once at Rugeley—I do not know Fiald—when I went down stairs about this 5l. note, I saw a man named Gillard in the yard—I believe he is a sheriff's officer—I cannot say whether he saw Palmer that day.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. You saw Gillard oa the day you took the letter to Mr. Ward? A. Yes—when I saw the turf cut up from horses having been running about there, I should say id must have been shortly after hay harvest—I should ftink it was the latter end of Sept.; but I could not say to a mouth which way it was—I remember the time of Mr. Cook's death—how long it was before that I really cannot charge my mind.

  THOMAS BLIZZARD CURLING . I am a Fellow of the College of Surgeons, and surgeon to the London Hospital. I have turned my attention particularly to the subject of tetanus—I have published a work on that subject—tetanus signifies spasmodic affection of the voluntary muscles of the body—of the disease, there are two sorts only, idiopathic and traumatic—there are other diseases in which we see tetanic contraction, but we should not term them tetanus—idiopathic tetanus is a primary disease, it is tetanus originating, as it were, as a primary disease, without any wound apparently self-generated—the traumatic proceeds from a wound.

Q. From what causes, as for as you are aware, does idiopathic tetanus arise? A. From exposure to damp and cold; from the irritation of worms in the alimentary canal—it is not a frequent disease in this country, a very rare one—where it does arise, it does not usually end fatally—I am not able to say what proportion the cases which end fatally bear to the general number of cases which arise, for I have never seen a case of idiopathic tetanus—I have been surgeon to the London Hospital twentytwo years—in all that time I have never seen a case of idiopathic tetanus—cases of traumatic tetanus are much wore frequent—I speak quite within compass when I say I have seon fifty cases; I believe 100 would be nearer the mark.

Q. Will you tell us how the symptoms of traumatic tetanus first manifest themselves, and describe how the disease goes on to it's climax? A. The disease first manifests itself by a stiffness about the jaws and the back of the neck—rigidity of the muscles of the abdomen usually sets in early—a dragging pain at the pit of the stomach is almost a constant symptom from spasm of the diaphragm, and in many instances in acute oases the muscles of the back are extensively affected; then the spasms, though continuous, are liable to aggravation and come on in occasional paroxysms—as the disease goes on, these paroxysms become more frequent and more severe—when they occur, the body is drawn backwards—in some instances, though less frequently, it is bent forwards—then, in an acute case, a difficulty in swallowing is a very common symptom—a difficulty in breathing also during the paroxysm, a choking sensation—the disease may end, supposing it to be fatal, in two ways: the patient may die somewhat suddenly of suffocation, owing to closure of the opening of the windpipe, or glottis; or the patient may be worn out by the severe and painful spasms, and the muscles may relax, and the patient gradually sink and die—traumatic tetanus is generally fatal—the locking of the jaw is an almost constant symptom in tetanus from wounds.

COURT. Q. Then lockjaw is a common symptom of traumatic tetanus? A. Yes.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. Is it an invariable symptom? A. Almost constant—may say constant, in a greater or less degree; it is not always strongly marked, but generally so—it is an early symptom—have omitted another symptom which is important, a peculiar expression of the countenance, very characteristic of the disease—it shows itself generally throughout the countenance.

COURT. Q. Is this peculiar to traumatic or idiopathio tetanus? A. I believe not—my observations are taken from traumatic cases.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. What is the appearance? can you describe it? A. There is a contracted condition of the eyelids, a raising of the angle of the mouth, a contraction of the brow—in traumatic tetanus the lower extremities are sometimes affected, and sometimes, but somewhat rarely, the upper; the muscles affected are chiefly those of the trunk—when the muscles of the extremities are affected the period of the disease at which that occurs varies; sometimes, when the wound is in the lower extremities, the muscles of the extremities may be affected early—if you have a wound on either the arm or the legs, they are affected generally at an advanced period—I never knew or read of traumatic tetanus being produced from sore throat or from chancre—know of no instance of any syphilitic sore leading to tetanus—think it is a very unlikely case.

Q. How long, ordinarily speaking, does a case of traumatic tetanus, which ends fatally, take before death ensues? A. It varies very much, from twentyfour hours to three or four days, or longer—the shortest period which ever came to my knowledge in which the disease ran it's course and ended fatally, was eight or ten hours; the time could not be precisely ascertained—the disease, when once commenced, is continuous—never knew or heard of a case in which a man would be attacked one day, and then have twentyfour hour's entire respite, and be attacked again the next—as far as my experience goes, such a thing could not be—should think it was not tetanus—heard the account given by Mr. Jones, the surgeon, of the death of the deceased man Cook—the symptoms there were not consistent with any form of traumatic tetanus which has ever come under my knowledge or observation.

Q. What distinguished them from the cases of traumatic tetanus which

you have described? A. There was the sudden onset of the fatal symptoms—in all cases that have fallen under my notice the disease has been preceded by the milder symptoms of tetanus, gradually progressing to their complete development and termination and death—I heard also the description whicih was given by the woman Mills of what he went through on the Monday night—in my judgment, those were not symptoms of tetanus, there was the absence of a continuity of symptoms between those two attacks—I am speaking of tetanus generally—I am not alluding to traumatic tetanus especially.

COURT. Q. You are asked if, according to the symptoms described by Elizabeth Mills, you think the patient was suffering from tetanus? A. I have said no—I mean not from the tetanus of disease.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. Assuming tetanus to be synonymous with convulsive or spasmodic action of the muscles, was there in that sense tetanus on Monday night? A. No doubt there was spasmodic action of that muscles, but there was not what I should call either idiopathic or traumatic tetanus on the Monday night—I say that because of the sudden onset of the spasms and their rapid subsidence—they are not, in my opinion, consistent with the true form of tetanus—there is a form of tetanus also called hysteric tetanus—that is rather hysteria combined with spasms, or tetanic symptoms—that does not end fatally; I do not know an instance of it—do not know an instance of that disease in a male, possibly there may be—I I know that certain poisons produce tetanus; nuz vomica, through its two poisons, the strychnia and the brucia—they are poisons of a cognate character, only the brucia is much milder than strychnia—they both come from the nux vomica—I have never seen a case of human or animal life destroyed by strychnia—St. Ignatius's bean, I believe, is said to produce that effect—I do not know of it.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. You have stated that your experience is confined to traumatic tetanus; have you known that description of tetanus arise from any disease of the spinal cord? A. Spasms I have known arise from disease of the spinal cord—the irritation of any of it's afferent nerves might be likely to produce tetanus—afferent means nerva proceeding to the spinal cord.

Q. You have stated your opinion that almost constantly traumatic tetanus commences by lock jaw with greater or less violence or intensity; do you agree with this opinion of Dr. Watson, in his "Lectures on the Principles and Practice of Phsic," that "in four cases, perhaps, out of five, the disease begins with trismus or lock jaw?" A. I think I do.

Q. With reference to the causes which may produce all the symptoms of tetanic convulsions, do you agree with Dr. Watson that it may arise from causes as slight as these, the sticking of a fish bone in the fauces, a slight wound of the ear by a musket shot, the mere stroke by a whip lash under the eye, though the skin be not broken, from the cutting of a corn, from a bite on the finger by a tame sparrow, from the blow of a stone on the neck or hand, from the insertion of a seton, from the extraction of a tooth, from the operation of cupping, and simple things of that character? A. I do; except, perhaps, from the concussion of the ear by the musket ball: I should, perhaps, question that one—I know of no well authenticated instance of traumatic tetanus occurring as shortly as a quarter of an hour after a slight injury.

Q. You told my friend you wrote a treatise on tetanus, which I see obtained the Jacksonian prize for the year 1834; did you inquire into the following case before you gave it as an instance: "Another rapidly fatal case is mentioned by the late Professor Robertson, of Edinburgh; a negro

having scratched his thumb with a piece of broken china, was seized with tetanus, and in a quarter of an hour after the injury he was dead? A. I did refer to the authority as far as I could, but I did not find any reference to it except in the Encyclopædia; and when I wrote that book I was a young man of twenty-two years of age—I think I am of maturer judgment and greater experience now—idiopathic tetanus would not be 90 likely to bring a patient to the hospital as a sudden wound leading to traumatic teta-nus—idiopathic tetanus would possibly have come more likely in the first instance under the notice of a physician than a surgeon.

COURT. Q. Have you known any case of idiopathic tetanus in this country? A. Yes, I have heard and read of such oases.

MR. SERJEANT SHRE. Q. Do not you know that very lately there was a case in the London Hospital in which tetanus came on so rapidly, or rather so unaccountably, that it was referred to strychnia, and it was thought necessary to examine the stomach of the patient to see whether strychnia, existed? A. I knew that before the history of the case was investigated—I have heard that the body being examined, no strychnia was found.

Q. And do you not also know, on a full examination of the body, symptoms of old syphilitic ulcers on the arms were discovered? A. I do know that sores were discovered.

COURT. Q. Bid you superintend that case yourself? A. No, I did not—it was not my patient—I did not personally see the patient—he was only in the hospital half an hour.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. Do you know who did? A. The house surgeons, who are now in Court—I do not think it is very likely that the irri-tation of a syphilitic sore by wet, cold, drink, mercury, or mental excitement, would lead to tetanic symptoms—I think the irritation likely to lead to anything of that kind may be produced from friction, as in the case in the hospital to which you alluded, but syphilitic sores are not much exposed to friction, in the throat, I mean—the irritation from a sore would fairly justify the case being termed traumatic—cases very rarely occur which it is difficult to class under the head of traumatic, as distinguished from idiopathic tetanus—I class the irritation of the intestines under idiopathic—epilepsy is not sometimes accompanied with tetanic contractions; by prolonged contractions, continuous contractions, as contradistinguished from spasmodic—that is not the character of the spasms of epilepsy.

Q. Are not the contractions of epilepsy sometimes continuous, so that the hand will be twisted into various forms, and remain rigidly fixed in those forms? A. Not continuously; I think not for five or ten minutes together.

Q. As to convulsions generally, without reference to wounds, does it not frequently happen that convulsions attributable to no cause, the trace of which cannot be found in the body after death by any disease or lesion of any kind, are known to have occurred in the most violent and spastic way, and to have exhibited the appearance of tetanic convulsions? A. No instance of the kind has fallen under my observation.

Q. Do you agree in this opinion of Dr. Copland, who is an authority of considerable eminence, in his "Dictionary of Practical Medicine," under the head of "General Convulsions," "The character of the abnormal contraction of the muscles is in some cases of the most violent and spastic nature, frequently of some continuance, the relaxation being of brief duration, or scarcely observable, and in others nearly or altogether approaching to tetanic"? A. I should rather speak from my own observation—I have not observed anything of the kind.

Q. Is this definition of general convulsions correct in your opinion, "Violent and involuntary contractions of a part or of the whole body, sometimes with rigidity and tension, tonic convulsions, but more frequently with tumultuous agitation, consisting of alternating shocks, chloric convulsions, that come on suddenly either in recurring or distinct paroxysms, and in irregular and uncertain intervals"? A. It may be a correct definition; but one has to read over very carefully a statement of that kind before one would give wholly one's consent to it—I do not think it often happens that an adult patient dies of convulsions, spasmodic in the sense of their being tumultuous and alternating, and tonic in the sense of exhibiting a continuous rigidity, and yet after death no disease is found—I know of no instance—I do not know from my reading and science, as a writer on tetanus, and one who has attended to this description of complaint, that it is so.

Q. Is this true, I read it from your own book, "Tetanus is a functional disease of the nervous system, that is to say, a disease unaccompanied with any perceptible lesion of structure, the nature of which, although essentially distinct from inflammation, is completely unknown, and there are, therefore, no morbid changes peculiar to tetanus, and by which it can be recognised"? A. If your previous question, as well as this, has reference to morbid appearances, I have no hesitation in saying persons do die of tetanus and other diseases without morbid appearances after death—in respect of general convulsions not so marked as to be properly classed as tetanic, I do not think that they sometimes happen suddenly without any premonitory symptoms, and sometimes are preceded by premonitory symptoms; but I have not really observed the case.

Q. I must ask you whether you agree in this, whether in convulsions not so marked as to be tetanic, they are not constantly preceded by nausea, retching, and vomiting, pain, and distension of the stomach, and left hypochondrium, and flatulence of the stomach and bowels, and other dyspeptic symptoms? A. The class of cases you allude to do not come under my observation as a hospital surgeon—I think it is very likely that general convulsions are often accompanied with yelling and shrieking—I do not know that they frequently terminate in death, and that the proximate cause of that death is spasm of the respiratory muscles, inducing asphyxia—the Pacchionean glands are not in the spinal sheath; they are in one of the fissures of the brain.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. These general convulsions, about which my friend asked you some general questions, are they distinguishable from tetanus, properly so called? A. Yes—a medical practitioner, who saw a case of general convulsions, would be able at once, if a man of competent skill, to know the difference between such symptoms as those and of tetanus, which I have been talking of—there is generally loss of consciousness—one of the characteristic features of tetanus is that the consciousness is not affected.

  DR, ROBERT BENTLEY TODD . I am a physician, and have been in practice twenty-five years. I am physician to King's College Hospital, and have been so about twenty years—I have also lectured on physiology and anatomy, but do not now—I have directed my attention to the disease called tetanus, have lectured upon it, and have published my lectures; and also to the diseases of the nervous system generally—I agree entirely with the last witness in his distinction between idiopathic and traumatic tetanus—I have seen two cases of what seemed to me to be idiopathic tetanus, but it is a very rare thing in this country.

COURT. Q. How do you define idiopathic tetanus? A. define idiopathic tetanus to be that form of tetanus which is produced without any external wound, and apparently from internal causes; from a constitutional cause.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. You would not include in that, I presume, a case of tetanus resulting from poison? A. I think myself, that the term tetanus ought not to be applied to cases of poisoning for the symptoms are so essentially distinct from the disease—I should designate the symptoms tetanic in order to distinguish the character of the convulsions—I have had under my observation cases of traumatic tetanus—in cases of traumatic tetanus arising from some lesion, the symptoms are precisely the same, as in cases of idiopathic and traumatic tetanus—the disease begins with stiffness about the jaw—the symptoms then extend themselves to the other muscles of the trunk of the body, and the symptoms gradually develops themselves—when once disease has begun there are remissions, but I should say not complete and entire remissions—there is a diminution of the severity, but not a total subsidence; the patient does not express himself as quite comfortable or well—I speak from my own experience solely—as to the usual period that elapses between the commencement and the termination of the disease, the cases may be divided into two classes; there is an acute class and a chronic class, the acute cases will terminate in the course of three or four days, chronic cases will go on from nineteen to twentytwo or twentythree days, and perhaps even longer—I do not think that I have known a case in which death occurred within four days in my own experience, but I know that some cases are related—in tetanus properly speaking, the extremities are affected, but not so severely as the muscles of the trunk—the affection of the extremities is at a late stage—the locking of the jaw is an early symptom—epilepsy does not 'produce tetanus or tetanic symptoms—it will produce convulsions, and sometimes the convulsions of epilepsy assume somewhat of a tetanic character, but they are essentially distinct from tetanus; they are very different from tetanus—when the epileptic convulsions assume somewhat of a tetanic form they are very quickly over, not persistent, not continuous—in epilepsy there is an abolition of consciousness for the time: that is a distinguishing feature of epilepsy as distinguished from all other convulsive diseases, and from tetanus—I should say that apoplexy is not accompanied with tetanic convulsions; perhaps I may be allowed to state that sometimes when there is an effusion of blood into the brain, and a particular portion of the brain is involved for a time, an apoplectic patient may exhibit something of tetanic convulsions, the muscles are thrown into short tetanic convulsions—the consciousness in such a case would be completely destroyed—having heard the symptoms described of this gentleman's seizure and death, and also the appearances after death at the post mortem examination, I am not of opinion that there was either epilepsy or apoplexy.

Q. You have been in attendance on Mr. Bamford? A. I have seen him, with Dr. Tweedie—I have not seen him this morning, Dr. Tweedie has—he has had a severe attack of English cholera—I was very apprehensive of him for some hours.

  DR. ALEXANDER TWEEDIE . I have been in attendance on Mr. Bamford—I saw him this morning; he has been labouring under a severe attack of English cholera—I should say that he is not able to attend and give evidence as a witness (Dr. Bamford's deposition before W. W. Ward, Esq., Coroner, was read as follows; I am a surgeon, residing at Rugeley. I attended upon Mr. Cook, at the

request of Mr. Palmer—I first saw him about 3 o'clock, on Saturday, 17th Nov.—I found him suffering from violent vomiting—his stomach could not retain a table spoonful of anything—he was in bed—I saw no other symptorn except sickness—he was in no pain—his pulse did not exceed seventytwo—perfect moisture of the skin—perfectly sensible, no other symptom whatever, I prescribed the medicine for him—Mr. Palmer went up to my house—I prescribed a saline medicine to be taken in an effervescing state—in the evening Mr. Palmer called upon me between 7 and 8 o'clock to request I would go with him again—I then saw the deceased—sickness still continued—I gave him a slight opiate—Palmer stayed until I prepared the pills, and he took them away with him—I did not go with Mr. Palmer when he took the pills—between 5 and 9 o'clock on the Sunday morning Mr. Palmer called upon me again—I went with him—I saw Mr. Cook in presence of Mr. Palmer—he was still sick, and continued so—I remained with him about ten minutes, and he continued to eject all he took—he then asked me to neutralize the medicine, as he did not like to take it in an effervescent state—I did not see him take anything—I did not examine what came from him—I saw several basins, and saw him throw up—the vomit was clear—I saw no appearance of bile, or in any way discoloured—he did not throw any blood from his stomach—what came from it was as clear as water—I saw him again between 6 and 7 o'clock on the Sunday evening—Mr. Palmer asked me to go with him—he still continued sick and bad—no pain whatever—the skin quite moist when I saw him, he said his bowels had been moved twice or three times—his motions were in a natural state, and contained bile—no blood was with the motions—I made pressure upon the stomach, but he did not complain of any tenderness or pain whatever—I last saw him on Sunday, between 5 and 9 o'clock in the morning; he still complained of sickness, and had thrown up—on Monday I altered his medicine—I mixed the medicine and sent it to the Talbot; it was a draught to be taken every three or four hours—it was composed of three drachms of sulphate of magnesia, two of hyoscyamus, simple syrup, and one and a half drachm of tincture of henbane and five oz. of infusion of roses, made up in a six 02. bottle—a fourth part to be taken every three or four hours—I did not see him take the medicine—I saw the bottle in his bedroom, and some of it had been taken—he said the medicine agreed with him, and he had not been sick-since he took it—he had taken a basin of coffee, and a basin of broth; he said he should continue the medicine as it had done him a great deal of good—I saw him in the evening again, between 6 and 7 o'clock—he said he had been up and was comfortable, and wanted the two pills again in the evening, which I prepared and sent down—I sent them by my servant—I did not at any time see any pill box in the room—he had taken pills on each night from Saturday—they contained half a grain of morphia, one grain of calomel, four grains of rhubarb, divided into two pills, they were made up with a conserve of hip—between 7 and 8 o'clock on Tuesday morning I met Mr. Palmer in the street—he said he had been with Mr. Cook, that he was composed, and appeared very quiet and comfortable, and he did not wish him disturbed—on the same night Mr. Palmer called upon me between 7 and 8 o'clock, and asked me to go down—this was between 7 and 8 o'clock—he intro-duced me to Mr. Jones, of Lutterworth—in the presence of Mr. Jones and Mr. Palmer I again examined Mr. Cook—this was the first time I saw any change in him—he was irritable and uncomfortable—his pulse was then between 80 and 90, a full pulse and firm—his mind appeared distressed

and irritable—he turned himself round in the bed, his face from me; stood on the left hand side of the bed, and Mr. Jones and Mr. Palmer on the other—he turned towards Mr. Palmer, and said, "I will hare no more pills to-night"—Cook said he would take no more medicine—Mr. Jones and Mr. Palmer came out of the room with me; we had a consultation together afterwards—Mr. Palmer and I went to my house—I made the pills in his presence—he asked me to write a direction; it was on a slip of paper, and was wrapped up with the box—they were the same pills I had before prescribed—I sealed them and gave them to Mr. Palmer—about a quarter past 12 o'clock on Wednesday morning I was called up and desired to go immediately to the Talbot—I there found Mr. Cook dead, and Mr. Jones and Mr. Palmer stood by his bed side—the body was not then cold—his body was perfectly straight, and he lay on his back—I left Mr. Palmer and Mr. Jones in the room—I was present at the post mortem examination, Mr. Devonshire made it—Dr. Harland, Mr. Palmer, and" Mr. Newton were also present—the examination was made on 26th Nov., six days after death—the body had not changed colour—the stomach was opened, and nothing particular was found there—the intestines, there were secretions in the lower part of the bowels—I could not discover the cause of death—the heart was quite empty—I thought the vessels of the brain, after the skull was removed, were rather full—there did not appear to be any congestion of the brain—the lungs were perfectly healthy—they were not in the least congested, they did not appear diseased—I did not then notice the Mood—there was nothing in the blood to attract my attention—the effervescing mixture was twenty grains of carbonate of potash, two drachms of compound tincture of cardamums, about two drachms of simple syrup and water—the acid was fifteen grains of tartaric acid in powder, fifteen grains in each paper—I keep the preparations of antimony, but gave him none—it was the acetate of morphia I gave him—ho one but myself mixed up the medicines—I keep strychnine locked up in a cupboard in the parlour—I carry the key—I may have about two drachms—it is sometimes used as a medicine—I have not used it for the last lour or five years—I am quite sure I made the pills from the same bottle, and no other—I have tartarized antimony and tartaric acid, but not close together—tartarized antimony in a pound bottle, and tartaric acid in a four-ounce bottle—I did not see the effervescing mixture after I made it, and Mr. Palmer took it away—I saw the mixture afterwards, when a portion had been taken, but I did not see the powders—the bottle containing the morphia is an ounce one, and is a stopper bottle—the other, strychnia, has a cork—the strychnia is tied up with leather—deceased's tongue was perfectly clear all the three days I saw him—I prepared the pills by candle light—I did not particularly observe deceased's eyes on Tuesday evening—I mixed up eight pills altogether, but at different times—his skin was moist—there was no fever—the heart was entirely empty—when I saw Mr. Cook on the Monday he did not complain that he had been ill—when I saw Mr. Palmer on the Tuesday he did say that Mr. Cook had had a fit—he also Said that Mr. Cook had had two fits before, but that he had not been called to him—when Mr. Palmer called upon me first it was on the Saturday, and he told me that he had dined with Mr. Cook on the previous day, and he had taken too much champagne—I said to Mr. Cook, "I understand you have been taking a little too much champagne"—Mr. Cook said he believed he had had a little too much, and that he was not in the habit of taking much—I have attended other patients for Mr. Palmer—the paper produced, containing the words, "One

pill directly, and repeated towards 10 o'clock," was the direction I sent with the first box of pills on the Saturday night—the other directions were different—they were, "The pills to be taken at bed time," or words to that effect—my opinion at the time deceased died was that he died from apoplexy—I certified to that effect—I think that the deceased died from the excitement, from what I saw on the Tuesday night—I observed, when the skull was token off, that the blood vessels of the dura mater seemed enlarged and full—I have been a medical practitioner fifty-three years—I saw the brain divided—I am still of the same opinion as I was before I saw the body opened—I stated, in the presence of Dr. Harland, and those present, that I believed that deceased died of apoplexy—I saw the brain divided, and still I am of the same opinion—I should say the appearances I saw on the brain, after the skull cap was taken off, were sufficient to cause death—I attended Mrs. Palmer before her decease; also, Mr. Palmer's two—children; also, a gentleman who hail been staying at Mr. Palmer's a week or two—(he was no relation)—I cannot say that I have attended any one else for Mr. Palmer—those I attended all died—Mr. Palmer applied to me on the Sunday following deceased's death for a certificate, as deceased was to be buried the day following—I told him that, as it was his patient, he certainly ought to give a certificate—he wished me to fill the certificate up—he said, "I had rather you would give it"—I filled one up, out of my own book, at my house—he asked me what my opinion was as to the cause of death—I believe Mr. Palmer asked me for the certificate, before he asked me my opinion as to the cause of death—I cannot say that I ever knew apoplexy to produce rigidity of the limbs—I attributed the sickness the first two days I saw him, to the state of the stomach—on the Monday I saw Mr. Cook, he said he did not wish to take any medicine prepared either by Mr. Palmer or Mr. Jones, and that he wished me to prepare all his medicine—he told me on the Monday that he expected Mr. Jones, as a friend; that Mr. Palmer had had a letter from him that day, and that he would be here on the Tuesday.")

DR. TODD, continued. Having heard that evidence read, and taking it into consideration, together with what I have heard about the symptoms from the other witnesses, I am certainly not of opinion that death was produced by apoplexy or from epilepsy—I never knew tetanus arise either from syphilitic sores or from sore throat—there are poisons which will produce tetanic convulsions—the principal of those poisons are nux vomica, which contains, as its active principle, strychnine and brucia, and Saint Ignatius's bean also—I have never seen a case of death in a human subject from that poison, but I have seen animal life destroyed by strychnine frequently—I can scarcely charge my memory as to what is the smallest quantity which I have administered to an animal to take away life, because in those cases you generally give a largish dose so as to shorten life and bring on the symptoms as quickly as possible; half a grain, perhaps—I should not like to give a quarter of a grain in a human subject—I think it likely in some subjects that half a grain would destroy life—I think a grain would—I have seen it tried on cats, dogs, and frogs—I should think half a grain would destroy a cat—the symptoms which show themselves in an animal after strychnine has been administered to it, consist of strong tetanic convulsions—I have never given it in the form of a pill, I have generally given it in solution—I suppose it would act more speedily in solution—it's beginning to act depends very much upon the dose, a large dose would begin in ten minutes, a small one in half an hour to an hour—when it begins to show it's

effect, the symptoms are spasmodic action of the muscles, chiefly of the trunk and the spine—the spinal muscles produce a very marked opesthotonos, as it is called; the spine is drawn back, the head thrown back, and the trunk bowed in a very marked manner—the extremities are generally stiffened—there are violent jerks, and the muscles are all rendered stiff, and rigid, and hard from the spasm—that stifthess remains, once set in, it does not perfectly relax; fresh paroxysms come on, always accompanied by the peculiar curving back of the head and neck and spine—the movement of the muscles is a rigid jerk; I should call it a jerking motion—the legs and feet of the animal are forced out of their natural construction, decidedly—they are powerfully stiffened out, extended, and powerfully bent up, and jerked out again—the time it generally lasts before death puts an end to those struggles, would depend also on the intensity of the disease, but I should expect that death would be over very soon indeed, from a quarter of an hour to half an hour, unless it is a small dose, when the symptoms gradually subside; that is to say, if it is a dose not sufficient to destroy life.

Q. Is there, in your opinion, a marked difference between such a case where death ensues after taking strychnia, and a case of tetanus such as you were describing just now from idiopathic or traumatic causes? A. I think the distinction is very marked—the continuity of the symptoms in strychnine poisoning is very characteristic—as long as the poisonous influence lasts the symptoms last, but the poisonous influence will subside after a time, I mean, if it is not strong enough to cause death; and then the spasms do not return—in tetanus, the symptoms from the commencement are continuous; they go on as long as the patient's powers are capable of enduring—the shortness of the duration of the symptoms is decidedly in favour of strychnine poisoning—brucia is analogous to strychnine in its effects, but it is weaker—I do not know that it is onesixth the strength of strychnia—there are no other poisons that produce convulsions of a tetanic character that I know of—having heard the symptoms described which attended this gentleman's death, in my opinion they are not referable to idiopathic or traumatic tetanus—I never saw a person die from the administration of strychnia—I have seen a person suffer from the administration of an over-dose—one instance I perfectly recollect, and I may have seen another—the patient there had taken too much—it was given medicinally—there was the oposthotonos, such as I have described in the case of animals, and there was consciousness perfectly retained—in that particular case there was also dilatation of the pupils—there was a peculiar convulsion of the muscles of the trunk, causing oposthotonos, and the limbs were stiffened out, and there was an oppression of the breathing—the difficulty of breathing is common to both tetanus, properly so called, and to tetanic convulsions from strychnia, from the effect produced en the respiratory muscles—in the case I am speaking of, where the patient took too ranch, my impression is, if there was any action in the jaw. it was very slight.

Q. Does it occur to you, as distinct from cases of real tetanus, that in the case of Mr. Cook he was able to swallow a liquid? A. I think it is an important distinction, not so much that he was able to swallow, as that he seems to have been able to swallow sufficiently easily, and that there was no rigidity of the muscles of the jaw, and none of that peculiar description of countenance which Dr. Curling described in cases of tetanus from disease or from wounds—the patient was affected who took the overdose of strychnia, not more than an hour, or a couple of hours, and then it went off—judging from the cases I have seen of animal life destroyed by strvchnia, and the

case of my patient who took too much of it, on the one hand, and the cases of idiopathic and traumatic tetanus on the other, and having heard the symptoms described which attended Mr. Cook's attack and death, I think the symptoms were those of tetanus from strychnia.

Cross-examined by MR. GROVE. Q. I believe the effect in tetanus, whether idiopathic or traumatic, is the same on the nerves of the spine? A. It is not unlikely that it is so—the particular effect on the nerves is unknown—in the disorder of convulsions, there are cases sloping into each other by imperceptible grades, from mild convulsions to rigid tetanus—chronic convulsions may be severe as well as mild—chronic and tonic convulsions are essentially different—you may have a chronic and a tonic convulsion, but not in the same muscle—chronic is more the irregular action of the muscles, irregular action stimulating somewhat more the voluntary action, of a more violent kind—tonic is a more or less persistent contraction—I have published some lectures on "Diseases of the Brain and Nervous System."

Q. I find in that you say, "That tetanus may be produced through the blood, is shown by the results of the administration of strychnia, which exactly imitate the tetanic symptoms in every respect; so that you may at will develop the phenomena of tetanus in an animal by giving him strychnine, or injecting it into his blood, but you cannot cause it by external injuries;" there you say it imitates the tetanic symptoms in every respect; do you adhere to that opinion? A. I adhere to the opinion that it exactly resembles the convulsions of tetanus—the statement is incorrect if it be interpreted to mean that it produces the exact phenomena of the disease in a clinical sense.

Q. You have been describing a case of traumatic tetanus in this book, and then you say, "That tetanus may be produced through the blood, is shown by the results of the administration of strychnia, which exactly imitate the tetanic symptoms in every respect;" that is the symptom I presume you have been describing; you say also, in the same part of your work, "We may ask, what is the nature of the morbid process set up in these centres? Te that it may be confidently replied, as the result of repeated examinations, that it is not inflammation, nor anything allied thereto; and it may with quite as much certainty be affirmed that it is a state identical with that which strychnine is capable of producing"? A. I have no doubt the peculiar irritation of the nerves in tetanus is identical with the peculiar irritation of the nerves in strychnine poisoning, but I should not say that traumatic tetanus admits of a great variety of symptoms.

Q. But sometimes one set of muscles are affected, and sometimes another? A. I do not know that there is such a marked difference as that—there are cases with which I am familiar where the limbs are affected, but the limbs become affected late; after the jaw.

COURT. Q. Do you know any instance of the limbs being affected before the jaw? A. No.

MR. GROVE. Q. Are you speaking from what you have seen, or what you have read? A. I do not recollect any instance where the limbs were affected before the jaw—I am sorry to say that I am not familiar with Dr. Curling's book.

Q. In the case I have just read, you state, "It fortunately happened that we were to have a post mortem examination under very favourable circumstances; it was made only four hours after death, when, if there had been any morbid appearances, they would have been free from the fallacy of

post mortem change;" now is not the examination shortly after death, of the spinal cord, important? A. In a pathological point of view it is—there is, to a certain extent, a fallacy; there are morbid appearances produced by changes after death which sometimes simulate diseased conditions before death.

COURT. Q. If there had been diseased appearances when examined some time after death, would there have been diseased appearances if the examination had been prior to it? A. I. think if certain diseased appearances had existed before death, they would have been recognisable as long as the spinal cord could be recognised.

MR. GROVE. Q. Decomposition would alter the structure of the spinal cord? A. The signs of decomposition are sufficiently evident, they could be distinguished by any careful anatomist—supposing the spine to be affected by decomposition, you would not be able to speak with certainty as to simple softening, if the examination had been long after death.

Q. Now, you say in your book, "There was however," in the case which you have spoken of, "as I had anticipated, no morbid appearances which seemed to offer any explanation of the disease; the nervous centres, both brain and spinal cord, were perfectly healthy; perhaps the brain contained a little more blood than usual: a fact not to be wondered at when we consider the violence of the paroxysms; the grey matter of the brain was perfectly natural, and its demarcation peculiarly distinct: indeed, this remarkable distinctness may have been morbid, and may have indicated an undue functional activity of these parts;" and you say, "This case illustrates the little hope we have of obtaining by post mortem examination any other than negative information as regards the particular state of the nervous system;" is it not the fact that the indications of tetanic disorder are slight? A. Not during life; but after death there is nothing in the port mortem examination on which any one could positively say that the patient died from the ordinary disease of tetanus—granules or small bodies discovered in the arachnoid of the spine, would not be considered as indicating tetanus; I think granules on the spinal cord, such as I have heard described, are not likely to cause tetanus—I am not aware that in several cases the deposition of small patches has been discovered on the arachnoid—I know no cases which have been attended by Mr. Travers.

Q. In the animals which you saw, to whom strychnia was administered, did you observe, after the attack had come on, a remarkable intolerance of touch, that they could not bear to be touched? A. I should scarcely call it an intolerance of touch, but by touching them the spasms were apt to be excited—I observed, in some of those cases, that they went off into a second spasm immediately they were touched—that is commonly observed in animals poisoned by strychnine—as long as the influence of the poison lasts, that tendency remains; I cannot specify time; as long as the influence of the poison acts; I cannot tell you approximately—I examined anatomically several animals that were killed by strychnine—I observed the heart—I do not think the right ride of the heart was generally full—it was empty, I think, generally, and the heart contracted a good deal—in all the oases I think that I have seen, I have seen the heart contracted—I saw those cases at various times—I have not made any experiments lately—I dare say I did at the time take memorandums, but I cannot lay my hands on them—the last I saw were some years ago—I can undertake to speak distinctly from my recollection as to the state of the heart, that it was generally empty on both sides, not distended—in those cases where strychnine was administered,

stored, I think the cause of death was partly due to the difficulty of action of the respiratory muscles, but chiefly to a general nervous exhaustion which the violence of the spasm produced—the difficulty of action of the respiratory muscles would not tend to leave the heart full—I do not think strychnine asphyxiates; there are differences of opinion on that subject—I think it is not generally laid down in the books that animals die with true asphyxia.

Q. After describing the symptoms, Dr. Taylor says, "The symptoms soon cease after a short interval; the chest is so fixed as to give it an appearance of suffocation; after several of such attacks, the patient dies asphyxiated;" do you agree with that? A. No, I do not agree with that—I think if animals died asphyxiated, you would have invariably the right side of the heart frill of blood, which is not the case.

Q. I find Dr. Christison, in his book, describing the paroxysm, says, "At length a fit takes place more violent than any before it, and theanimal perishes suffocated," which means pretty much the same thing as asphyxiated, does it not? A. The expression is frequently used loosely—I think "suffocated" is used more loosely than "asphyxiated"—a person with spasm of the glottis, dies with spasm or asphyxia—if the animal dies asphyxiated, I think it is usual that the right side of the heart is filled with blood—patients sometimes have convulsions after taking morphia, but I think they are more of an epileptic character—I have never witnessed them—I know of such from my reading—morphia is a vegetable alkaloid, as strychnine is—the time in which, after morphia, the symptoms would come on, would, I should think, be very late.

Q. Later than in strychnia? A. It depends on the dose entirely—I cannot answer the question, it is not a subject I have studied—in any case of strychnia that I have witnessed, I cannot say whether I have seen the paroxysms come on as late as an hour and a half after the administration of the poison—I should consider it quite possible—I cannot remember—I have not seen, in cases of animals, the jaw fixed (trisxnus) in oases of strychnia poisoning, in any marked way—I have no doubt the muscles of the jaw may be affected to a certain extent, but not in the marked way in which it is in tetanus—I cannot say whether trisxnus is a frequent effect of strychnia—I cannot charge my recollection on that point.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. At all events, if it is a symptom, though not in a marked way, at what period of the affection does it generally come on? A. I should expect that trismus would come on soon, but it is not a marked symptom—in death from what I call tetanus, I should not expect to find anything particular about the heart—I have seen post mortem examinations made where death has arisen from, trismus; in ordinary tetanus the heart is not filled; I have no doubt blood is sometimes contained in heart.

Q. Do you find a distinction in that respect between cases of ordinary tetanus and cases of tetanic convulsions after strychnia? A. Nothing very marked—my impression is, the heart becomes strongly contracted after strychnia, more than after ordinary tetanus—the spasm, I think, extends to the heart—that would expel the blood from the heart, though, perhaps, not all—it would prevent sufficient dilatation of the heart to receive its full supply.

Q. My friend asked you whether there were any cases of convulsions of the milder form going up to the extreme climax of tetanic rigidity; what are the distinctions? are they marked? would a medical

practitioner have any difficulty in knowing a case of general convulsions as distinguished from a case of tetanic convulsions? A. I think not—I have said that it would be desirable, in a pathological point of view, to examine the spinal cord immediately after death, with a view to detect any abnormal condition of it—I heard the description given by the gentlemen who did examine it, and from their description it appeared to me that those parts were in such a condition that any bony deposit would have been discovered, certainly—there would be no difficulty in discovering them, none whatever—they do not undergo any decomposition after death, at least not for a considerable time—I heard it mentioned that the muscles were in the same rigid condition; that struck me as a very remarkable feature in the case—I cannot speak with absolute certainty, because it is a feature quite new to me; I have only beard one fact, since this trial began, which was a case in which a eat was poisoned by strychnine, and the muscles continued to be rigid six days after death—I have not heard it on oath during the trial—I did not see it myself—I cannot tell you whether in cases of ordinary tetanus that rigidity continues for so long a period—I have inquired into the point, and cannot tell you.

  SIR BENJAMIN BRODIE., M. D . I was surgeon at St. George's Hospital for many years—I have had considerable practice—in the course of that practice I have had tinder my superintendence a great many cases of death from tetanus—death from idiopathic tetanus in this country, according to my experience, is very rare; the ordinary death from tetanus is from traumatic tetanus—I have carefully attended during the trial to the description given of the symptoms on the Monday night and the Tuesday night, attending the death of Mr. Cook—in my opinion, as far as there was spasmodic contraction of the muscles, the symptoms resembled those of traumatic tetanus, but as to the course which the symptoms took, that was entirely different—I attended to the detail of the narration of the attack on the Monday night, and its ceasing, and the patient being comparatively composed and comfortable during the Tuesday, and then to the attack again about 10 minutes before 12 o'clock on the Tuesday night.

Q. Will you explain in what respect the symptoms are entirely different? A. The symptoms of traumatic tetanus always begin, as far as I have seen, very gradually; the stiffness of the lower jaw being invariably the symptom first complained of; at least, so it has been, I believe, 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 oases 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 there was that contraction of the muscles of the hand which I understand was stated to have existed in this instance—then ordinary tetanus rarely runs its course in less than two or three days, and often is protracted to a much longer period—I know one ease only in which the disease was said to have terminated in as short a time as twelve hours, but probably in that case the early symptoms bad been overlooked—then I never knew these symptoms in ordinary tetanus to last for a few minutes, then subside, and then come on again after twenty-four hours—I think that those are the principal points of difference which I perceive between the symptoms of ordinary tetanus and those which I have heard described—I have not witnessed the tetanus or tetanic convulsions which are the result of strychnia—I have not witnessed them in the human form—I have not made any experiments myself—I do not believe that death here arose from

what we ordinarily call tetanus, either idiopathic or traumatic—I never knew death from tetuuus as the result of sore throat, or the result of a chancre, or any other form of syphilitic disease; I never heard of a case—in my judgment the symptoms of death, such as I have heard described, are not consistent with a fit of apoplexy.

Q. Or epilepsy? A. Perhaps I had better say at once that I never saw a case in which the symptoms that I heard described arose from any disease—when I ray that, of course I refer not to particular symptoms, but to the general course which the symptoms took.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. Have you had any experience of idiopathic tetanus? A. I believe I remember one case in our hospital in the physician's ward, which was shown me as a case of idiopathic tetanus, but I doubted its deserving the name of tetanus—it was a very slight case of tetanic convulsions—I do not remember the particulars—I have never seen the syphilitic poison produce convulsions, except as a consequence of disease in the bones of the head.

  DR. HENRY DANIEL . I have now retired from the profession—for upwards of twenty-eight years I was surgeon to the Bristol Hospital—I was in practice nearly thirty years, and I was a student some eight or nine years—in the course of my experience and practice I had occasion to see a considerable number of cases of tetanus—if I take it at a very small ratio of one a year, it would be nearly thirty—I must have seen, I should say, certainly that number—they were not all from wounds—there were two certainly of idiopathic tetanus—one of those cases terminated fatally—one did not—idiopathic tetanus is a thing of very rare occurrence.

Q. Did you find in the cases of idiopathic tetanus that came under your observation any difference in the symptoms between them and traumatic tetanus? A. It appeared, in my judgment, simply a modified degree of the symptoms of ordinary traumatic tetanus, not so severe; arising from internal causes rather than external violence—I was not able to trace those two cases of idiopathic tetanus to any particular cause—I have heard the other witnesses describe the course which the symptoms of ordinary tetanus run—I agree in that from my experience—I heard the description given of the symptoms which accompanied the attack of Mr. Cook before his death—it appears to me that the circumstances of his attack are distinguishable from those cases of tetanus which came under my experience.

Q. Will you point out any instance in which you found a marked difference? A. I should repeat very probably the words of Sir Benjamin Brodie—the tetanus, as far as my experience goes, invariably 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—the muscles of the limbs are affected generally towards the end—lock jaw is almost invariably a symptom in these cases of tetanus, traumatic in particular—the commencement of lock jaw is one of the earliest symptoms—I do not recollect that clenching of the hands is a frequent symptom—I think I have seen it, but I do not think a clenched hand is an ordinary symptom of common tetanus; nor twisting of the foot so as to turn it out from its proper position—I do not remember that as a symptom.

Q. Of those twenty or thirty cases that have come under your personal experience, what has been the ordinary duration? A. have endeavoured, since the subject has been mooted, to recollect what was the shortest period, and I cannot recollect any case that took less than from thirty to forty hours—as surgeon to the Bristol Hospital, I have seen a good many cases of syphilitic disease—I never knew a syphilitic sore to produce tetanus—in

my opinion, the symptoms which I have heard described in Mr. Cook cannot be referable to apoplexy.

COURT. Q. Would either the primary or the secondary symptoms of syphilis produce tetanus? A. Not in my opinion—I never knew of such a thing.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. You say you think the symptoms cannot be referred to apoplexy? A. Certainly not; or to epilepsy—both in the case of epilepsy and apoplexy there is a loss of consciousness—in all the cases of tetanus that have come under my observation consciousness has been retained throughout, the whole period of the attack—in the cases that have come under my experience, the symptoms have invariably been continuous, without any interruption—I never heard of a case of several hours intervening, when the patient was totally free from the disease—when the symptoms did set in, they generally commenced very mildly and gradually increased in intensity.

Q. Bearing in mind all your past recollection and experience of the symptoms of tetanus in ordinary cases, in your judgment could the symptoms of Mr. Cook be referred either to idiopathic or traumatic tetanus? A. In my judgment they could not.

COURT. Q. Could they be referred to any disease that you know? A. None.

Cross-examined by MR. GROVE. Q. Do you not know from your reading, that there are many cases of traumatic tetanus where there is a long interval between the symptoms? A. I never saw such a thing occur—I am not aware, from my reading, that there are numerous cases mentioned in which there was a long interval of some hours—I have not read Dr. Todd's book, or Dr. Curling's—you must recollect I have been oat of practice some seventeen or eighteen years—I have not read Dr. Copland on convulsions—I have not looked modi into the reported eases of tetanus of late, nor do I recollect my reading on the subject—I am not aware that excitement and irritation from vomiting are given at the cause of tetanic convulsions—the symptoms of tetanic convulsions vary—as far as my experience goes, the leading symptoms always go almost in the same continuous route—I do not think that a pure and ordinary tetanus sometimes affects some muscles of the body and at other times others: I am speaking of the ordinary tetanus, traumatic—I do not think they do vary to any great extent—there may be an affection of a muscle in this man that there is not in the other, in a leg or an arm—I cannot take upon me to say whether it proceeds from the spine—the cause of death in tetanic affections arises from exhaustion not unfrequently.

Q. Does it not frequently arise from asphyxia? A. Well, I do not like the term asphyxia—I will say suffocation, arising from the absence of ability to respire—I think that might be a cause, I am not positive upon it—I have seen post mortem examinations of persons who have died of tetanus—it is a great many years ago—I can recollect the general outlines—I do not think the heart is found full in tetanus; I cannot tell whether it is in death from suffocation—cases of tetanus proceeding from wounds, wounds would form a very small proportion of the cases that are followed by tetanic symptoms: infinitesimally small—I could not say whether that would be the same if syphilis were the cause—I really do not understand you—that would not be the same in another class of wounds, because it affects a different tissue—I recollect the post mortem examinations of cases of tetanus sufficiently well to say that there was not any direct alteration of the normal condition of any part of the body that accounted for the tetanic attack.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. If I understand you, the examination, however

recently after death, of the spinal card and marrow never, in any case that you know of, gave any indication or showed any cause from which the tetanus could be derived? A. Never the slightest.

  DR. SAMUEL SOLLY . I am surgeon at St. Thomas's Hospital—I have been connected with St Thomas's Hospital as lecturer and surgeon twentyeight years—during that time I have witnessed many cases of tetanus—I should find it difficult to state exactly how many; but I had six or seven under my own care, and I may have seen from ten to fifteen more, but I do not bear more than that in mind—there was one case in which I was doubtful whether it was traumatic or idiopathic; the wound was so slight and the symptoms so indistinct that it was questionable—the rest were decidedly traumatic—supposing that one to be a case of idiopathic tetanus, the symptoms were slower in their progress, and generally rather milder than in the other cases—I can remember no case of tetanus that I have witnessed which occupied under thirty hours before the disease arrived at a final point—in those cases the symptoms were always progressive—I have heard the description given by the witnesses of Mr. Cook's attacks on the Monday and Tuesday—that account differs essentially from what took place in the cases of tetanus to which I have referred—in all the cases of tetanus that I have seen, there has been a marked expression of the countenance, that is the first symptom—it is a sort of grin—it is so peculiar, that having once seen it you can never mistake it—the cases also differ more particularly in this fact, that in the symptoms which I have heard detailed there were violent convulsions on the Monday night, I believe, and on the Tuesday the individual was entirely free from any discomfort about the face or jaw—in the cases that have come under my notice the symptoms have always been continuous, and that expression of the countenance and the more or less fixedness of the jaw is the last symptom to disappear—in ordinary tetanus the muscles of the face are first affected, then the muscles of the jaw, then the trunk, and then the limbs—in my judgment, the symptoms described in Mr. Cook's case were not referable to apoplexy or epilepsy, nor to any disease that I have ever witnessed.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. You say that in all the cases that you have seen, there was a marked expression of the countenance, a sort of grin; is there a Latin term for that, which is known? A. Yes, risus sardonicus—that is not common in all forms of violent convulsions—it frequently occurs in all violent convulsions which assume, without being tetanus, a tetanic form or appearance—they are not a numerous class—it is difficult to distinguish between them and idiopathic tetanus in the onset, but not in the progress—I have only seen one case of idiopathic tetanus.

Q. Then when you answered that question of mine, you spoke from your reading, and not from your experience? A. I did not know your question applied to idiopathic tetanus alone—epilepsy itself is a disease of a convulsive character—I heard the account that was given by Mr. Jones of the few last minutes before Mr. Cook died; that he uttered a piercing shriek, fell back, and died—I heard the description of the shriek, with the convulsion; but it was the shriek that called the medical man into the room—in some respects that last shriek, and the paroxysm that occurred immediately afterwards, would bear a resemblance to epilepsy—all epileptic convulsions are not attended with an utter want of consciousness—death from tetanus, accompanied with convulsions, leaves seldom any trace behind; but death from epilepsy leaves a trace behind it generally; some slight effusion of blood on the brain, or congestion of the vessels—I am not aware that it frequently happens that convulsions that have not assumed the peculiar

features of epilepsy destroy life find leave no trace in the body; it has not come within my own cognizance.

COURT. Q. Is there any difference in that respect between infants and adults? A. I have seen comparatively little of the diseases of infants.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. Are the convulsions that take place in epilepsy of a tetanic character? A. Not at all, and I have seen a great deal of the convulsions of epilepsy.

Q. Are they ever accompanied by that clenching of the hands that we have heard described, or the distortion of the feet and toes? A. The convulsions from epilepsy are accompanied with every contortion; not permanent—I say that in the case of Mr. Cook, he did not die from epilepsy, because there were none of the symptoms of epilepsy—when the patient dies with epilepsy he dies perfectly unconscious and comatose, his consciousness is entirely gone—I have never seen any case of convulsive disease at all like this—laceration of the brain from injury will produce convulsions which will terminate in death; a sudden injury to the spinal cord will produce convulsions which will terminate in death; irritation of the teeth in infants will produce convulsions—those convulsions are not in their onset similar to the convulsions of tetanus, and there is no progressive movement—there is no appearance about the face or jaw which you have in tetanus; I have never missed that sign in tetanus.

  HENRY LEE . I am surgeon to King's College and the Lock Hospital—I have been professionally acquainted with the Lock Hospital some eighteen years—it is an establishment exclusively devoted to syphilis—at present I suppose not less than 3,000 cases a year come under my notice at King's College and at the Lock Hospital—I have seen a considerable number of syphilitic affections of the throat, and also that phase of the disease called chancre—I have never known an instance in which either of those forms of disease have terminated in tetanus—I have not had much experience myself in cases of tetanus.

COURT. Q. Will either primary or secondary symptoms of syphilis produce tetanus? A. I have never seen nor have I read of a case—I have heard of one.

  DR. ROBERT CORBETT . I am now a physician practising at Barrhead, near Glasgow—in Sept., 1845, I was medical clerk to the Glasgow Boyal Infirmary—I remember a patient being in the hospital of the name of Agnes French, or a name like that—I think she was called Sennet—it is the same person—she passed in the hospital by the name of Agnes Sennet—she died on the 27th Sept., 1845—the matron of the ward said that she had taken pills belonging to another patient—she died with symptoms of poisoning from strychnia—I saw her at the time she was under the symptoms—I had seen her during the day before that, perfectly well.

COURT. Q. For what was she a patient in the hospital? A. She had been taken in for a disease in the head, a skin disease—she was perfectly well on the day she died.

MR. JAMES. Q. She had taken some strychnia pills that had been placed there for a paralytic patient? A. Yes; I was told so—I was called to her when she was under the influence of poison—she was in bed when I saw her—there was retraction of the mouth—the face was much suffused and reddened, congested, the pupils dilated, the head was bent back, the spine curved, and the muscles very rigid, and hard like a board; her arms were stretched out and her hands clenched; severe paroxysms recurring every few seconds at short intervals—she died in about an hour and a quarter after taking the pills—I think when I was called to her the paroxysms did not last so long—they

increased in severity—from the time I was called to her till her death, barely an hour elapsed—there should hare been a quarter of a grain of strychnia in each pill that was made up for the paralytic patient—she took three pills—they were pills to be taken one each night, or night and morning—this girl took three of them.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. You say there was a retraction of the mouth? A. The angles of the mouth were drawn back—that was continuous, but it was worse at times, a sort of twitching—I do not think I observed it after death—in my report I think I said the hands were semi-bent—they were not clenched after death—they were semibent—that was forty-four hours after death—I think that semibending of the hand is a very common thing in cases of death by violent convulsions—she died in an hour and a quarter after taking the medicine—she was attacked by the symptoms about twenty minutes after taking the medicine—I tried to make her vomit with a feather—she vomited partially, she did not vomit much—that was after giving her an emetic, and after tickling the fauces with a feather.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. There was no spasmodic action? A. There was a grinding of the teeth—the spasmodic action followed—she could not open her mouth to swallow anything—there was not what I should call lock jaw in ordinary tetanus.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. Was she not in such a condition after she had taken the poison, that the mere touching of her sent her off into a paroxysm! A. I do not recollect.

  DR. EBENEZER WATSON . I am surgeon of the Glasgow Infirmary. I remember the case of Agnes Sennet, of which the last witness has been speaking, perfectly well—I was called in to attend her—it must have been about a quarter of an hour, I should think, after the symptoms first began, after she was taken ill—I found her in violent convulsions—her arms were stretched out and rigid—the muscles of the body were also rigid—they were kept quiet by rigidity—when I saw them they had become rigid—her feet and legs were also rigid—just at that moment she did not breathe; the muscles were kept quite quiet by the tetanic rigidity of the whole frame just few that second—it was not carried on perceptibly at all—that was during the excess of the paroxysm—that paroxysm subsided almost immediately—it was renewed afterwards and fresh paroxysms came on after a very short interval—I cannot exactly say how long, she was about half an hour dying—those paroxysms occurred at intervals until it destroyed her—she seemed perfectly conscious during the whole time—I do not recollect the state of her hands, I did not observe them after death—I cannot recollect the state of them—her body was opened afterwards—the walls of the heart were tiff and the cavities empty—my father published an account of it—I do not remember the state of the fingers and thumbs.

Cross-examined by MR. GROVE. Q. In the post mortem examination, what part of the body did you open first? A. I cannot answer that; I did not make the inspection myself—the head was opened when I saw her—if the head was opened first a great deal of blood might flow out—that might tend to empty the heart.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. Were you present at the post mortem examination? A. I was—there was nothing particular about the condition of the spinal cord, it was quite healthy, I saw nothing to indicate any abnormal condition there.

COURT. Q. Was the heart contracted? A. Yes.

  DR. JAMES PATTERSON . In the year 1845, I was an apprentice in the

laboratory of the Infirmary at Glasgow—it was my business to dispense the prescriptions—I remember a prescription being dispensed in the month of December in that year for a paralytic patient of the name of M'Intyre—it was in the form of pills—they contained strychnia.

COURT. Q. What was the vehicle to convey it? A. They were made up with flour and syrup.

MR. WELSBY. Q. What quantity of strychnia? A. The prescription was four pills, one grain; a quarter of a grain in each pill.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. Is this flour and syrup the usual thing in which medicine of this kind is made up? A. It is always the mode in which I have prepared them from instructions in the laboratory.

COURT. Was there any noise about their being taken by another person? A. There was.

  MARY KELLY . In September, 1845, I was in the Infirmary at Glasgow, as a patient—there was a paralytic patient in the same ward that I had to attend to—there was also a patient who went by the name of French, or Sennet, who died shortly after I was there—she was suffering from a sore head—in the course of the afternoon on which Sennet died, I was turning the wheel to the paralytic patient—it was to be applied to the skin for some purpose—while I was doing that, the girl who had the sore head came up and asked me what I was doing—there were some pills there, which the paralytic patient was to take, in a box—while the girl with the sore head was there, I saw the paralytic patient take one of those pills out of the box and swallow it—that was according to the order that had been given—she was to take one pill at a time—after she had done that she handed the box with the other pills in it to French—I saw her take two of those pills, she swallowed them—I only saw her take two—she then came and sat down by the ward fire—soon after that she was taken ill, I think in about three quarters of an hour—she fell back on the floor, and I went for a nurse—we then lifted her into bed, and the doctor was sent for—I noticed her after she was put upon the bed—I was in the next bed to her—I remained up some time after this—the nurse cut her clothes off; she never moved after she was put upon the bed; she was just like a poker—I did not notice her hands or her feet—I was just aside of her when she died, I was standing on the floor—she did not say anything—she never spoke after she fell.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. How long was it after she took the pills that the symptoms of illness came upon her? A. I cannot rightly tell, it is so long back—from the time that she was carried to the bed was three quarters of an hour; from the time she took the pills to the time that she appeared ill, was about three quarters of an hour.

  CAROLINE HICKSON . In Oct., 1848, I was nurse in the family of Mrs. Serjeantson Smith—I now live at Sherborn, near Basingstoke—I was nurse and lady's maid—the family at that time were residing near Romsey, about two miles from Romsey, in Hampshire—on 30th Oct., 1848, Mrs. Serjeantson Smith was unwell—she was suffering from weakness—there was a Mr. Jones, a druggist, in Romsey, with whom we dealt for drugs—a prescription had been sent to Mr. Jones to make up for Mrs. Smith—I remember the medicine being brought back from Mr. Jones—it was in the afternoon, about 6 o'clock—it was a mixture in a bottle, I saw my mistress take it—she took about half a wine glass full—on the following morning, as near as I can remember, about 5 or 10 minutes past 7 o'clock—it was in her bedroom—having given her that medicine, I left the room—I was alarmed by the ringing of the bell about five minutes after, or it might be ten—when I went into my mistress's room I thought she had fainted; she was leaning upon

a chair—she was off the bed, in her night dress—she appeared very shortly afterwards to suffer from what I thought spasms—I ran down and sent the coachman into Mr. Taylor's, the surgeon's—I then returned to my mistress's room—when I returned I found some of the other servants with my mistress, assisting her—she was lying upon the floor—she screamed very much, but did not open her teeth, they were clenched—she asked to have her arms and legs held straight—I took hold of them, they were drawn up very much—she still screamed, and was in great agony—she requested some water to be thrown over her, and I did so—her feet were turned inwards—I put a bottle of hot water to her feet—that had no effect in relaxing the feet at all—she said that she felt easier a short time before she died—before she died, the last words she uttered were, "Turn me over"—I did so—she was lying on the floor—in a very few minutes after she said to me, "Turn me over," she died—she died after I turned her over, very quietly—she knew me during the whole time quite well—from the time that I gave her, by mistake, this medicine that morning, till she died, was, I think, about an hour and a quarter—it was about from five to ten minutes after I had given her the medicine before the bell was rung—she took about half a wine glass full of the medicine.

Cross-examined by MR. GROVE. Q. Was it five or ten minutes after taking the medicine? A. Yes, from the time I saw her in the spasms when I was called up, she could not sit up at all—when I endeavoured to straighten her limbs, it was when she was in the paroxysm—she did not appear to take any notice of the cold water—she was then in the paroxysm—she only seemed easy for a few minutes before her death—it was a continual recurring fit—it lasted about an hour, or an hour and a quarter—her teeth were quite close during the whole time.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. You say it lasted an hour and a quarter; do I understand you to say the fit lasted an hour and a quarter? A. From the time I gave her the medicine until she died—after I gave her the medicine I went in in about five or ten minutes—she was stiff, and was only relieved a very few minutes before her death—she was conscious all the time.

  FRANCIS TAYLOR . I am a surgeon and apothecary at Romsey. I was so in the year 1848—I attended Mrs. Serjeantson Smith—I remember being summoned to her house one morning, and on going there finding her dead—I got there between eight and nine o'clock—the body was lying on the floor between the bed and some piece of furniture, up in a corner somewhere—the state of the limbs was pointed out to me by Caroline Hickson—the hands were very much contracted, clenched, and the feet were contracted, turned inward—the soles of the feet were hollowed up, very hollow—the toes were contracted and the sole hollowed up; unnaturally so, remarkably so—that appeared to have been from recent spasmodic action, I should suppose, and the inner edge of each foot was turned up; the foot was twisted—the limbs were remarkably stiff—the body was still warm—the eyelids were tightly adherent almost to the eyeballs—the druggist who made up the prescriptions for the family was a person of the name of Jones—I saw him shortly afterwards running up to the house in a state of great excitement—I subsequently made a post mortem examination by order of the Coroner—I had not ordered any prescription for this lady on the day before, I had not seen her for some time—I think it was three days after death that I made the post mortem examination—at that time the contraction of the feet continued, but it had gone off somewhat from the rest of the body—this was somewhat the position of the hands three days after

death (semi-bent)—I did not find any trace of disease in the body—the heart was contracted, and perfectly empty—I wish to say also that all the large arteries leading from the heart were quite empty, and the blood was fluid—I subsequently analysed the medicine of which she had taken a part, with Mr. Randall, of Southampton—it contained a large quantity of strychnia, undissolved, as well as dissolved—I know that it originally contained nine grains, of which Mrs. Smith had taken one-third, so that there were six grains left in the bottle—I took out the stomach and bowels, and made an examination of them to ascertain whether I could find any poison, but a very slight one, the proof was so perfect of her having taken poison—as far as it went, the examination was not satisfactory, not sufficient for me to swear to—I have no doubt, from the rough test that we tried, but ire really did not attend to that, because we had plenty of proof without it.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. Does it not constantly happen in cases of death by ordinary convulsions, that the body in various parts of it is very much distorted? A. I am not aware that it shows after death—as a general rule, I should say, the body does not remain, in ordinary cases of death, in the position in which the deceased was at the time of death, I should think not—it is usual to lay out a body very soon after death—supposing that not to be done, the body stiffens, the rigor-mortis sets in, and the corpse stiffens; one or two limbs would remain, as at death; if an arm was left across the chest, it would stiffen so; if the hand were clenched when the man died, I do not know that it would stiffen so—I do not know of my own knowledge sufficiently as to those facts—there was a difficulty in laying out this body—the ankles were tied by a handkerchief, or some bandage, to bring them together.

COURT. Q. That you observed? A. Yes—I forget what the bandage was made of—the toes wished to turn inwards, and they had been forced—I am speaking now from a recollection of eight years ago—the handkerchief was employed to bring the ankles together.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. You opened the body—where did you commence? A. At the thorax and abdomen—we did not open the head until after we had finished the examination of the trunk—we took out part of the intestines with the duodenum.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. I do not know whether you examined the spinal cord. A. No, I did not.

  CHARLES BROXHOLME . I was apprenticed to Mr. Jones in 1848, a chemist at Romsey—I was his only apprentice—he has since died—I remember a prescription coming to be made up for Mrs. Serjeantson Smith—it was a mixture of salicine, orange peel, and water—the salicine was kept on a high shelf, in a small bottle—upon the same shelf there was a bottle of strychnia—there was a mistake made, I believe, in the strychnia for the salicine.

COURT. Q. The error was by mistaking the two medicines? A. Yes.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. It is right to ask you, it was not done by you; I will ask you that for your own sake; it was not your mistake, but your poor master's? A. Yes—he destroyed himself afterwards.

  JANE WITHAM . In March last I was in attendance on a lady who died—I remember her taking some medicine—after her taking that medicine she became ill—when she was first taken ill she complained of her back—she said "Oh, come, Mrs. Witham, to my back?"—I attended upon her, and went to her back—her head was thrown back, and her body stretched out—I could not get at her back—she was in bed—she had twitchings of the hands—her eyes were drawn aside and staring, and when I put my hand in front of them they did not at all relax their rigidity—she did not make any

request to her husband about her legs or her arms at that time—she first complained of being ill in this way on 25th Feb.—she died on 1st March—after these attacks of which she complained, she got better before they came on again—she had several attacks—I saw her in one on Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, a slight one on Friday, and one on Saturday—she died on the Saturday—the first attack was on Monday, 25th, the second on Wednesday, 27th, the third on Thursday, 28th, and on Friday a very slight one—on Saturday it commenced about a quarter past 8 o'clock, and she died at 20 minutes to 11 o'clock at night—between these attacks she was at times better and composed—she was up on the Saturday afternoon—she complained principally of a pricking in her legs, and twitching of the muscles of the hands, and she compared them to a galvanic shock; she said she could compare them to nothing else—during these attacks she wished her husband to rub her legs and arms—she died in one of those attacks—she was dead when Mr. Morley came.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. You have told my learned friend she requested her husband to rub her arms and legs? A. Yes—that was at the commencement of the paroxysms, and before they had become strong; but on the Saturday night she could not bear her legs touched—that was the case when the spasms were strong upon her, upon the Saturday—the spasms were much stronger upon her on the Saturday than on the other days—she asked to be rubbed every day, except on Saturday—her limbs were extended rigidly—on the Saturday, during the intervals between the spasms, she did not ask to be rubbed—she did not speak but once or twice during the attack on Saturday—during the intervals of the spasms on the Saturday, touching her brought the spasms on—she could not swallow during the spasms on the Saturday—we never attempted her but with one spoonful of cocoa, and I do not think she got that into her mouth—she had a draught given her during the week, but not on the Saturday, her mouth was quite closed—after death her body was stiff—I did not stay long in the house after her death—I left it immediately, within 10 minutes—she appeared to be sensible on the Saturday from about half an hour to an hour, I think—that was from a quarter past 8 o'clock till after 9 o'clock—the remainder of that time she did not speak—her eyes were so fixed we could not tell whether she was sensible or not.

MR. JAMES. Q. On the Saturday before she died, were the spasms more violent than the other fits which she had had? A. A great deal—they were of the same kind, though more violent.

  GEORGE MORLEY . I am a surgeon. I was the medical attendant upon the lady to whom the last witness alluded—I had been attending her for about two months before her death, for functional derangement—I remember seeing her on the Monday before her death—she was then in bed, apparently comfortable, but whilst standing by her bedside, I observed several convulsive twitchings of her arm—they were slight—she had then recovered from a more severe attack; she told me so—I referred them at that time in my own mind to hysteria, and altered my medicine in consequence—I saw the same symptoms once again during the week, I think on Thursday; I am not sure whether it was Wednesday or Thursday—I saw her on Saturday, the day on which she died, about the middle of the day—I am not sure of the hour—she was much better then, quite in a composed state—she complained to me of an attack that she had had in the night—she spoke of pain and spasms, affection of the back and neck, spasmodic affection, and used the term shock in describing the convulsions—that is the substance of what she told me, every important point—I was sent for on the Saturday night hastily—Dr. Hobson, another medical gentleman, went with me—when I got

there I was met with the announcement that she was dead—we went into the room where the dead body was—we looked at it generally, but made no particular examination—on the Monday, in company with another medical gentleman; I made a post mortem examination—I did not find in any part of the body any disease which could account for death—there was no emaciation, nor any wound or sore, except the trace of a mustard poultice which had been applied—there was a peculiar expression of anxiety about the countenance; the hands were semi-bent, the fingers curved; the feet were strongly arched—we made a careful examination of the stomach and it's contents, for the purpose of detecting, if we could, the presence of poison—we applied several colour tests, as they are called; nitric acid, followed by proto-chloride of tin; sulphuric acid, followed by bi-chromate of potass in the liquid and also in the solid state—I believe those are the best chemical tests to be applied to detect the presence of strychnia—they are not the whole, we applied others; they are the best—in each case we produced the appearance characteristic of strychnia—we afterwards made experiments by administering some of the contents of the stomach to animals, rather by inoculation than by administration—in one case we administered it by the mouth—the animals we used were two mice, two rabbits, and one guinea-pig—we inoculated with the contents taken from the stomach after separation of the strychnine by chemical analysis.

COURT. Q. Without any addition? A. Without any addition, except the materials used in the analysis.

MR. WELSBY. Q. What result did you obtain? A. We observed in each of the animals more or less of the effects usually produced by the poison of strychnia, general uneasiness, difficult breathing, convulsions of the tetanic kind, muscular rigidity, arching backwards, especially of the head and neck, violent stretching out of the legs; death followed in four of the animals, in one in two minutes, that was a rabbit, in another in five minutes, and in the third in a little less than an hour, fifty-five minutes; that was a mouse; the guinea-pig suffered but slightly at first, and that animal having been left, was found dead the next day—the fifth animal, a rabbit, exhibited very strongly marked symptoms of strychnia poison; it lay apparently dead for a while, but it recovered entirely, and is still living—I did not observe that the muscular rigidity continued after death without any intermission, there was flaccidity immediately after death—the muscles relaxed, but soon became very rigid, I mean more so than was due to the rigor mortis—we afterwards made a similar series of experiments on similar animals with strychnia itself, pure strychnia, a great many, both fn a solid and in a liquid form—the symptoms and the results were exactly the same as those I have described in these animals.

Cross-examined by MR. GROVE. Q. Had you occasion to observe in the case that you have been mentioning, that the suffering on touch caused a recurrence of the spasms in the patient? A. No, I did not see the patient, during any severe attack—I have frequently observed that with animals.

COURT. Q. The touch brings on the spasm? A. The touch brings on the spasm.

Mr. GROVE. Q. That is a very marked symptom, is it not? A. A very marked symptom, in animals very striking; directly you touch the animal that has been poisoned, it gives a sudden start, and it passes into a severe spasm—the patient that I have described was not, during the period that I saw her, in a state of insensibility at all—when I saw her she could swallow—that was during the week—I did not see her in the severer parts of the attack—I have not got my minutes of the post mortem—I have a copy—the

lungs were very much congested—there was a bloody serum in the pericardium surrounding the heart, in small quantities, and in the pleurae—there was a remarkable appearance in the muscles, in their colour—they were dark and soft.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. Generally of the whole body? A. The muscles generally.

COURT. Q. You mean the flesh? A. Yes, the flesh.

MR. GROVE. Q. Was there a large amount of bloody serous effusion over the surface of the brain? A. A decided quantity, I would not say very large—there was not a large quantity of red fluid in the membranes of the spinal marrow, there was a notable quantity, but not a large quantity—there was serum slightly tinged with blood in the membranes of the spinal cord—the large spinal veins were much congested, and the membranes of the spinal marrow were also congested.

COURT. Q. We may call it the spinal cord, I suppose; was that much congested? A. Yes, much congested.

Mr. GROVE. Q. I believe you opened the head first? A. Yes—that led to a good deal of blood flowing out.

Q. Could you judge whether there had been much blood in the heart from what flowed out? A. It was a matter of inference, it might have flowed from other sources—a part of it would flow from the heart.

COURT. Q. You opened the head first, and a good deal of blood flowed out? A. Yes, from the blood-vessels supplying the head—a part of that might come from the heart, I mean during the dissection.

MR. GROVE. Q. Opening the head first would prevent you having an opportunity of judging properly whether the heart was full or empty I suppose? A. It would make it uncertain; it might partially empty the heart—I have examined the hearts of animals that have been poisoned by strychnia, many times: the right side of the heart is generally full.

Q. What is the longest time in animals at which you have perceived the first effect of the poison to come on after it has been taken? A. It is hard to say; in the guinea-pig we observed no severe effects for several hours—where I have administered strychnia itself to the animals, it has been from one to two hours.

COURT. Q. In what shape did you administer the pure strychnia? A. Mixed with food, and forced into the stomach; the alkaloid in a solid state mixed with food, or substance of some kind.

MR. GROVE. Q. I believe you made your experiments in conjunction with Dr. Nunneley? A. I did—my opinion is, that in some of the experiments I made, the symptoms were as long as an hour in showing them-selves—I have not my notes with me, I speak generally, from my impres-sion—some animals lived several hours—I think in some animals the interval has been an hour, generally it is much earlier—all my experiments were not made in conjunction with Mr. Nunneley; some, especially on frogs, have been apart—frogs are slower in exhibiting the effects—they are cold blooded animals, and differ in certain respects from warm blooded animals, though in other respects the tetanic symptoms are the same—I discovered strychnia by all the tests that I applied, with more or less distinctness—I have in animals detected it where I have searched for it, where I have known it to have been administered—I speak doubtfully as to all cases—in one or two cases I should feel a doubt, but in almost all cases I have discovered it.

COURT. Q. When you examined the body of the animal? A. Yes, after death.

MR. GROVE. Q. I think you said, in one or two you speak doubtfully?

A. In one, certainly; in that case we were sure that strychnia had been administered, our doubt was whether it had reached the stomach—in that case I may say there were appearances which a sanguine eye might say were those of strychnia; a more cautious one would doubt—I did not consider it quite certain in one case—I have detected strychnia in the stomach nearly two months after death, and after decomposition had proceeded to a considerable extent.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. What quantity have you given to the animals which you have killed, and afterwards have analyzed the contents of the stomach? A. Quantities varying from under a grain to two or three grains—when I say under a grain, I mean between half a grain and a grain—from that to two grains, to cats, rabbits, dogs—the general dose to dogs is from a grain to two—that is quite sufficient to kill an animal.

Q. How does the strychnia act? is it taken up by the absorbents and carried into the blood? A. I think it acts on the nerves, but a part may be taken into the blood also and act through the blood—I think it acts upon the nerves immediately on it's introduction into the stomach, in part; it is absorbed.

Q. In what parts of these animals did you search to find the strychnia, or the presence of strychnia? A. Generally in the stomach, in one case elsewhere, underneath the skin—in that case we had inoculated the animal—where it was administered internally there I searched the stomach—that which I found in the stomach would be that which was there in excess beyond that which had been absorbed into the system—that which is, absorbed into the system has the operation of poisoning, sufficiently to destroy life—I wish to say, that that is rather my opinion in theory than what I could prove.

COURT. Q. With regard to the excess? A. That remains in the stomach, inactive after death, of course; to be found in the stomach after death.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. That would produce no operation, that which remains in the stomach in excess? A. I am not sure that strychnia may not lie in the stomach, and act prejudicially, without being absorbed; I think it is an open question.

Q. Suppose the minimum quantity administered which, being absorbed into the system, would be capable of operating to the destruction of life; would you expect to find any in the stomach then? A. I should expect sometimes to fail—I think, if death resulted from a series of minute doses of this poison, administered over a space of several days, the appearances would in some degree be likely to be different after death from what they would be supposing death was produced rapidly by one dose; but I should rather connect those appearances with the lengthened and protracted final struggle, I mean the struggle on the last day—I should certainly expect a different set of phenomena on a post mortem examination where the patient died after a brief struggle and where he died after a protracted one—in this case the blood was fluid.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. Is it your theory, that in the act of poisoning, the poison is absorbed, and ceases to exist as poison, as strychnia? A. I am inclined to think so—I have thought much upon that question, but have not decided in my mind—I incline to think it is so; I believe a part undergoes a chemical change.

COURT. Q. You say that strychnia, when absorbed into the system, undergoes a chemical change; is that so? A. I believe part may be absorbed unchanged, a part may undergo a chemical change, and a part may remain in the stomach unaltered.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. What chemical reason can you give for your

opinion that strychnia, after having effected the operation of poisoning, ceases to be strychnia poison in the blood? A. My opinion rests on the general principle, the general fact, that in acting on living bodies organic bodies are generally changed; organic substances acting on the living bodies organic body, such as food or medicine, are frequently changed in composition—I do not know that strychnia, after effecting the operation of poisoning, has been discovered in the blood and liver still in the form of strychnia, but I believe it possible—the component parts of strychnia consist of four elements—I have no fact to show that it can be decomposed by any sort of putrefying or fermentative process, and I doubt if it would.

  EDWARD DUKE MOORE . I was formerly in practice as a surgeon—I was attending a person that was suffering from paralysis, with Dr. Chambers, a gentleman of the name of Clutterbuck—it was, I should say, about fifteen years ago—I had been giving him some very small doses of strychnia—he left me, and went to Brighton, and returned from there—when he came back from Brighton, he made a communication to me as to his having taken stronger doses of strychnia—in consequence of that, I gave him a stronger dose than I had done formerly—I made up the medicine myself—I made three draughts, containing a quarter of a grain in each—I gave one to him—he took one—I was there when he took it—he reported that he had taken three-quarters of a grain during the time he was at Brighton, that he had got to that amount—I was not sent for after he had taken one of the draughts; I remained with him some little time—I left him, as he said that he felt quite comfortable—about three-quarters of an hour after I had given him the draught I was summoned to attend him—when I got there, I found him stiffened in every limb—his head was drawn back, and he was screaming violently that we should turn him, move him, and rub him—all his limbs were stiff; the head was drawn back, the spine was drawn back, the head was drawn backwards—we tried to give him some-thing—it was a mixture with ammonia—I gave it him with a spoon—he first snapped at the spoon, with a sort of convulsive effort to take it—he was suffering altogether, I should say, three hours, or even more than that before we left him safe—he lived, he survived the attack—during the whole of the time he was perfectly conscious.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. He recovered? A. Yes—I should say he was about three hours recovering from the first time I saw him—in three hours we left him safe—the effects had entirely gone at the end of three hours; I mean, the spasms had left him, but the rigidity of the muscles continued a considerable time after that, I cannot say how long, during the greater part of the day, and some part of the next—at first his hands were drawn back in this way (describing it); when we had got him round, and his hands closed together, he was much easier; the feet were in the same way; after the distortions and the rigidity of his limbs had entirely ceased, he did not retain any bad effects of the attack; on the contrary, as he himself said, he thought his paralysis was better—it was given him for paralysis—he had been taking it for a considerable time.

COURT. Q. Strychnia is given for paralysis? A. Yes, in large quantities, but only in minute doses—persons not afflicted with paralysis would not take it.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. It excites the muscles that want to be stimulated? A. It excites the nerves—there being in paralysis a want of muscular action, you stimulate, by means of strychnia, the nerves which act on the voluntary muscles.

Adjourned.

Monday, May 19th.

  DR. ALFRED SWAINE TAYLOR . I am a fellow of the College of Physicians, and lecturer on Medical Jurisprudence at Guy's Hospital I am the I am the author of a well known treatise on Poisons and on Medical Jurispru-dence—among other poisons, I have made the poison called strychnia the subject of my attention—it is the produce of the nux vomica—there is also in the nux vomica a poison of an analogous nature, called brucia, which differs from it only in point of strength: there are some chemical differences—the whole quantity in nux vomica is considered not to exceed from half to one per cent, of the two alkaloids—in the seed, the strychnia predominates; in the bark, the brucia—the difference between the two poisons, in their relative strength of action on the body, is variously estimated at from one-sixth to one-twelfth; that is to say, brucia being from onesixth to one-twelfth the strength of strychnia—most varieties of impure strychnia which are sold, contain more or less brucia—unless you are certain of the purity of the article, you may be misled as to the strength—I have tried a variety of experiments on animal life with strychnia—I have never witnessed an instance of it's action on the human subject—I have tried it's effects on animal life, I think, in about ten or twelve instances, always upon rabbits—the symptoms produced by the poison have on the whole been very uniform—I have given quantities varying from a half to two grains and three grains; not less than half a grain—I have found half a grain sufficient to destroy the life of a rabbit—I have given it in a solid state, and some in a liquid state—I have found there was a difference in the time required to show it's effects where I administered it in the liquid and where I administered it in the solid form—when given in a fluid state it has produced it's effects in a very few minutes, two or three minutes; and in the solid state, in the form of pill or bolus, from about six to eleven minutes, I think—I have found that the time was influenced by the strength of the dose—it is influenced by the strength of the dose, and also by the strength of the animal.

Q. In what way, in your opinion, does the poison operate to produce it's symptoms? A. It is first absorbed into the blood; it is then circulated through the body, and it especially acts on the spinal cord—that is the part of the body from which the nerves affecting the voluntary muscles proceed.

Q. Suppose absorption of the poison into the blood to have taken place, what time would be required for the circulating process which would bring the matter taken up into contact with the nerves of the spinal cord? A. The entire circulation through the whole system is considered to take place about once in four minutes.

COURT. Q. Are you speaking of the human subject? A. Yes—the circulation in the rabbit is quicker.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. How is it as to the absorption? would that be quicker in a rabbit? A. I think it would, from the effects produced—that will also depend on the state of the stomach, as to whether there be much food in the stomach, and as to whether the poison comes in immediate contact with the inner surface of the stomach.

Q. In your opinion, does the poison act immediately on the nervous system while in the stomach, or any portion of it, or must it first be absorbed? A. It must first, I believe, be absorbed.

Q. You stated some little time ago, that the symptoms produced by the administration of this poison, where you have given it yourself, have been.

tolerably uniform; will you describe the series of symptoms from the commencement to the close? A. The animal for about five or six minutes does not appear to suffer; it moves about freely and actively; it then, when the poison begins to act, suddenly falls on it's side; there is a trembling of the whole muscles of the body; a sort of quivering motion, arising from the poison producing these violent and involuntary contractions; there is then a sudden paroxysm or fit; the fore legs are stretched out, and the hind legs are stretched out; the head is drawn back, and the tail, so as to give it the form of a bow; the jaws are spasmodically closed, and the eyes are prominent, protruding—after a short time there is a slight remission of the symptoms—the animal appears to lie quiet, but the slightest noise or touch produces another convulsive paroxysm—there is sometimes a scream, or sort of shriek, as if the animal suffered severe pain—the heart beats very violently during the fit, and after a succession of these fits, the animal dies quietly—I have observed immediately prior to death, that there is a remission of the paroxysm, not uniformly—I have only known it has died by having the hand over the heart, but it has been in a state of spasm at that time—in one or two cases the animal has died quietly, as if there was a remission—sometimes it dies apparently during the spasm itself.

Q. What appearances have you observed after death, externally, which would be different from the ordinary appearances of a person who has died; are the muscles more than usually rigid? A. In some instances the animal has been rigid throughout, that is to say, it has died in a spasm, and the rigidity has continued; the muscles so strongly contracted, that for a week afterwards it was possible to hold the animal extended by the hind legs without the body falling—I took hold of it by it's hind legs, and the body kept straight out, horizontally—I have found that continue as long as a week—in an animal killed the other day the body was flexible at the time of death, but it became rigid in about five minutes after death—I have not seen it since—I have opened the bodies of animals that have been thus destroyed—I have not found any appearances in the stomach or intestines which would indicate any injury there—I have found in one or two cases congestion of the vessels of the membranes of the spinal cord, more than was due to the gravitation of the blood after death—in other cases I have not found any departure from the ordinary state, with respect to the spinal cord, and with respect to the brain; I may include both.

COURT. Q. With regard to the brain, have you in any case found a departure from health? A. In one or two cases, the membranes of the spinal cord and brain were congested; in other cases, quite healthy.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. Those membranes are a continuation one of the other? A. They are; so that it is not easy to have congestion of one without congestion of the other—the congestion of these membranes where I found it to exist, I think, has been due to the succession of fits which the animal has had before death—in the majority of instances I have failed to discover any abnormal condition of the spinal cord or brain: in three out of five I found no change.

COURT. Q. No abnormal appearance? A. No abnormal appearance.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. As to the heart of animals thus killed, what have you observed with reference to that? A. In all that I have observed, the heart has been congested with blood.

COURT. Q. Both sides of the heart? A. The right side especially.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. Have you ever seen a case of ordinary tetanus in the human subject? A. I have, but years ago—I have not had

much experience in that—I have never Been it in animals—I saw one last Thursday week in the human subject—that was from an injury to the finger, in St. Thomas's Hospital—that did not end fatally, the person is recovering—I have heard the description given by Elizabeth Mills, and by Mr. Jones, of the symptoms which accompanied the attack of Mr. Cook—those symptoms, as described, appear to me similar to those I have seen in animals to which I have administered strychnia—the period it usually took in rabbits, from the first manifestation of the symptoms to death, was about ten minutes—it varied to ten minutes; ten minutes, I think, was the longest where the strychnia was given in a state of solid—I am speaking of the time from the administration of the strychnia to the commencement of the symptoms.

Q. How long does it take from the time the first symptoms manifest themselves to the time of the death? A. They have died in various periods; one died in thirteen minutes, one in seventeen minutes; that I should mention would be the whole time—the symptoms appear more rapidly when the poison is given in a fluid state, and death has taken place in five or six minutes after—death takes place more rapidly when it is given in the fluid state—the poison operates more rapidly in it's commencement and in it's course when fluid—the experiments which I have particularly noticed and performed lately, and which I am about to detail, have been entirely in reference to solid strychnia—in the first the symptoms began in seven minutes, and the animal died in thirteen minutes, including those seven minutes from the time the poison was given; in the second, the symptoms, appeared in nine minutes, the animal died in seventeen; in the third, the symptoms appeared in ten minutes, the animal died in eighteen minutes; in the fourth, the symptoms appeared in nine minutes, and the death took place in twenty-two minutes; in the fifth, the symptoms appeared in twelve minutes, and the death took place in twenty-three minutes—supposing this poison to be administered to the human subject in the shape of pills, I should expect it would take a longer period before the poison began to act, because it requires that the pill structure should be broken up in order to bring the poison in contact with the mucous membrane of the stomach—in the case of the rabbits which I destroyed by the solid poison, I administered it in pills.

Q. What I am asking you is this: Given that the poison is administered in both cases to the rabbit and the human subject in the shape of pills; should you expect a longer period before it began to act in the human subject than in the rabbit? A. I do not think we can fairly draw any inference between the relative rapidity of death from strychnia in the rabbit and in the human subject, the circulation and absorption are very different—it is very probable that there would also be a difference between one human subject and another with reference to the power of the absorbents, to take a poison up with more or less rapidity.

COURT. Q. Would it depend on the difference of the substance of which the pills are composed? A. Yes, and it's coming in contact with the stomach early or late.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. Would the strength of the dose make any difference? A. It would; that is to say, a large dose would produce a more rapid effect than a small dose—I have experimented upon the intestines of animals that I have thus killed, to reproduce the strychnia or to discover it.

Q. What, in your opinion, would be the correct chemical course to pursue, in order to reproduce the strychnia from the contents of the stomach? A.

The principle of extracting it consists in putting the stomach and it's contents in alcohol mixed with a small quantity of acid to dissolve the strychnia—supposing I took sulphuric acid, for instance, I should thus get sulphate of strychnia, if there should be any strychnia in the body.

COURT. Q. If there be any discoverable? A. Exactly so—the use of the alcohol is to dissolve it.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. Having got the sulphate of strychnia, how would you next proceed? A. The liquid is filtered, gently evaporated, and an alkali added; you get rid of the alcohol in that way—carbonate of potash is the alkali some prefer, which I have used—that precipitates the strychnia—it combines with the sulphuric acid in the sulphate of strychnia, and so precipitates the strychnia, if present—besides this mode of getting at the strychnia itself, if there be strychnia present in the stomach, there are tests applied to the strychnia or supposed strychnia when extracted—strychnia has a peculiar taste, a strongly bitter taste—it is insoluble or nearly insoluble in water—it is soluble in acids and in alcohol—it is precipitated by alkalies, when it has been dissolved in an acid—colour tests are applied to the dry residue, after evaporation.

Q. What substances are there which, when applied in this way, will produce a change of colour? A. A mixture of strong sulphuric acid and bi-chromate of potash produces a blue colour, changing through a violet to a purple, and passing to a red tint—I think these colour tests are very fallacious, with this exception, that when we have strychnia separated in a crystalline state, when we have recognised the crystals by their form and their chemical properties, and, above all, where they produce, or the substance produces, tetanic symptoms and death, when introduced into a wound in the skin of an animal—you may introduce the poison into the system and produce all it's effects by introducing it through any puncture or wound in the skin as well as by introducing it into the stomach, and it operates more quickly in that case—absorption takes place—it is carried at once into the circulation.

Q. Are there, in your opinion, other vegetable matters to which, if these colouring tests were applied, similar results as to colour might be obtained? A. There are a variety of substances—a mixture of sugar and bile will produce the purple and red tint, and a substance called pyroxanthine—that substance is a product of the distillation of wood—it produces precisely similar colours to those caused by strychnia, so that I have known persons deceived—in my laboratory, in performing the experiments, they have said, "You have got strychnia there," when it has been a mixture of pyroxanthine with a small quantity of salicine added to it; that is, the principle of the willow bark—allow me to state, in addition, that the mixture which I have just mentioned contains no strychnia, and has a bitter taste, so that it might be mistaken for strychnia by taste as well as by colour—vegetable poisons are more difficult of detection by chemical processes than mineral ones, and the tests are more fallacious—I have, in the case of animals that I have destroyed by strychnia, endeavoured afterwards to discover it's presence—I have tried to do so in four distinct cases—I was assisted by Dr. Rees, he was in conjunction with me—that was at Guy's Hospital—we applied the process that I have first described; that is, we endeavoured to reproduce the strychnia, if present, and then applied to it those colouring tests which I have mentioned just now—that is the course we pursued, and also by the effects of taste.

Q. Were you able in those instances to satisfy yourself of the presence of

strychnia? A. In one case by the colour tests; in another case there was a bitter taste in the liquid, but no indication of strychnia by the colour tests—in the other two cases there was no indication whatever of the presence of strychnia—the dose given, in the case in which we discovered by the taste and by the colour that there was strychnia, was two grains at intervals—that is in the first case I mentioned, where it was discovered by the colour tests—in the case where we had a bitter taste, but no indication by the colour tests, we gave one grain of strychnia—in the two instances in which we failed to indicate any presence of strychnia, one grain in one case, and half a grain in the remaining one.

Q. How do you account physiologically for the absence of any indication of strychnia where you know strychnia to have been given, and to have caused death? A. By its absorption into the blood, so that it is no longer present in the stomach—it is in a great part, too, changed in the blood; it undergoes a chemical change—I account in the case of the larger dose for the presence of strychnia, because there would be a retention of some not absorbed—that would be in excess beyond what was required for the destruction of life—supposing the minimum of the dose required to destroy life to be given, I do not think I should find any; it would be removed by absorption, and no longer discoverable in the stomach—the smallest quantity I have ever tried on a rabbit has been half a grain—there are no chemical means that I am acquainted with whereby the presence of this poison can be detected in the tissues—there is no process that I am acquainted with; when it is in the small quantity in which it exists there, so far as I know, it cannot—half a grain has destroyed life.

Q. Suppose the half grain to be absorbed entirely into the blood, what proportion does that bear to the total quantity of the blood circulating in the system? A. Assuming the quantity of blood to be at the lowest 25lbs. (I am speaking now of the human subject), that would be one fiftieth part; that is to say, one fiftieth of a grain in a pound—a physician in Canada died from that dose in twenty minutes; from half a grain—in addition, to this distribution of the half grain over the whole system, I believe it partially undergoes some change in the blood—that would increase the difficulty of detecting it in the tissues—I have never heard of it's being separated in a crystallized state from the tissues—the crystals are peculiar in form—they present themselves under the form of octohedral and quadrilateral prisms terminated by four-sided pyramids—sometimes the prism is wanting, and then the two are close together, to form the octohedron—there are other organic substances which crystallise something like them, so that a chemist would not rely on the crystallised form.

Q. I believe that after the post mortem examination had been held on the body of the deceased Mr. Cook, some portion was sent up to you. A. It was—it was delivered to me by Mr. Boycott, in a brown stone jar—the jar was fastened down, covered with bladder, tied, and sealed—it contained the stomach and the intestines of John Parsons Cook—I experimented upon that with a view to ascertain if there were any poison present—we sought for various poisons: prussic acid, oxalic acid, morphia, strychnia, veratria (the poison of white hellebore), the poisons of tobacco, hemlock, arsenic, mercury, antimony, and other mineral poisons generally—we only found small traces of antimony—with reference to the search for strychnia, the part which I had to operate upon was in the most unfavourable condition that could possibly be for finding that poison, if it had been there—the stomach had been completely cut from end to end—all the

contents were gone, and the fine mucous surface, on which any poison, if present, would be found, was lying in contact with the outside of the intestines, all thrown together—there was some feculent matter present also, on the surface of the mucous membrane, derived from the intestines, the contents of which had partly escaped—the inside of the stomach had been turned into this mass of intestine and feculent matter; at any rate, it was lying so—I presume that was the fault, or misfortune, of the person who had dissected it, but in journeying up to London it must have been shaken about in every possible way.

Q. And though there were the contents of the intestines, the contents of the stomach were not there; they were gone? A. They were gone—if there had been any of this poison present, I should have expected to have found it in the contents of the stomach and on the mucous membrane—at my request, other portions of the body were afterwards sent up to me to be experimented upon, the liver, the spleen, and the two kidneys—in addition to that, a small bottle of blood, unlabelled; that is to say, giving us no idea whence it was taken—that was delivered to me by Mr. Boycott—we analysed all those portions—in the liver and kidneys we searched for mineral poison—we discovered antimony in an eighth part of the liver—we analysed only the left kidney, and the spleen, and they all yielded antimony—there were traces of antimony in each—the quantity was less in proportion in the spleen than in the other parts—the blood contained antimony—the antimony was reproduced, or brought out, by boiling the animal substance in a mixture of hydrochloric acid and water, copper in the state of foil and gauze, a sort of web of fine woven copper was introduced while boiling, and the antimony was deposited on the copper—having got it on the copper we applied various tests to it, the known and established tests for that purpose—the experiments have been performed lately in the presence of Professor Brande—the copper acquired a violet tint, a deposit which is one characteristic of antimony—we applied the well known chemical tests for the detection of antimony, so that I had no doubt of its presence—Dr. Rees assisted me in the analysis—Professor Brande has seen it subsequently—there is a small quantity of antimony still remaining on the copper (producing it)—I detected some of it in the blood, in the small bottle.

Q. Would the fact of it's being found in the blood enable you to form any opinion as to how shortly before death the antimony had been given? A. It is impossible to say with any precision, but I should think shortly before death; that is to say, within some days—the longest period known at which antimony has been found in the blood, after a person has ceased to take it, was eight days—within my own knowledge, the earliest period at which antimony, taken into the stomach, would get into the blood, has been eighteen hours; the analysis was made of the liver in that case: the boy died eighteen hours after taking a dose of antimony, and then I found it in the liver—it was not a very large dose; that was not the cause of death—it was a medicinal dose prescribed for him; about six grains of antimonial powder—antimony is usually given in the form of tartar emetic, and acts as an irritant, to produce, and produces vomiting—if it be given in repeated doses, a portion of it, beyond what is ejected by the stomach, will find it's way into the blood, and into the system—if given in continued doses of that description, it would destroy life, if it produced certain symptoms—it may be given in frequent doses with impunity, and it may be given so as to produce symptoms which will infallibly destroy life, if continued—I heard the account given by the female servant, Mills, of

the frequent vomiting of Mr. Cook—I also heard the account given of his vomiting at Shrewsbury—I also heard the account given by the medical men, Mr. Gibson and Mr. Jones, and Mr. Bamford's deposition as to the concomitant symptoms—in my opinion, the vomiting I heard described would be such as might be produced by antimony—tartar emetic is soluble in water; it does not affect the colour of any fluid in which it is mixed in small quantities—I do not think that such a quantity as would suffice to produce vomiting would affect the colour of the fluid with which it was mixed—it would not affect the colour of broth, brandy and water, wine, or toast and water.

Q. From these traces of the antimony in those parts of the body to which you have referred, could you form any judgment as to the time when the antimony was taken? A. It is impossible to say with any precision, but I should say within two or three weeks at the outside; within three weeks I should think—I mean before death, I think so—we did not find any perceptible quantity dissolved in the fluids of the bowels and the washings of the stomach, therefore I should infer there was no evidence of any given within some hours of death—I know by experiment it takes a shorter time to get to the liver.

COURT. Q. Might that which you found in the liver, kidneys, and spleen have been administered within a few days before death? A. Yes, I think that which I found in the liver might have been administered within eighteen hours of death, or within a few days.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. I asked you about the colour, but I omitted to ask you about the taste; does antimony affect the taste of any fluid in which it is given? A. No, not in quantities in which it would cause vomiting—if a person tossed off A quantity of fluid with which there was this substance mixed, it might, according to the quantity present, leave a sensation in the throat—a large quantity taken at once, might leave a choking or constricting sensation, as if the throat were contracted—in the various analyses that I made, I found no trace of mercury—if mercury had been recently taken, I should have found it, according to the quantity taken—if a few grains had been taken recently before death, I should have expected to find some trace in the liver—if a man had been taking mercury for any syphilitic affection within anything like a recent period before death, I should have expected to have found it traceable—it is very slow in passing out of the body, so that if given within two or three weeks from death there would be some traces in the liver, or if given within a few hours from death, there might be some in the liver.

Q. What quantity given shortly before death would you expect to find appreciably, in the liver from post mortem examination? A. I think an amount of three grains, three or four grains might thus leave some trace; but it is impossible to give any precise answer to that—I have a recollection of a case of three grains of calomel having been given twenty-four hours before death, and I found mercury in the liver—that is the only fact I can give an opinion upon—supposing half a grain given each day for four days before death, and to be given favourably, not thrown off the stomach by vomiting, I should expect to find some trace of it; if one grain each day for four days, I certainly should expect to find some traces in the liver, or four grains taken in the period of four days, and in divided doses more favourable for absorption—I attended to the evidence which was given as to the deaths of Mrs. Smith and of Agnes French, and of the lady referred to at Leeds, and the case of the gentleman of whom Mr. Moore spoke—judging by the results of my own studies and experiments with reference to death by

strychnia, I coincide in opinion that those deaths were occasioned by strychnia—the symptoms of Mr. Cook's case appear to me to be of a similar character with those of the cases that I have been just referring to—I know of no other cause in the nature of human diseases to which the symptoms of Mr. Cook's death can be referred, except to strychnia.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. In the course of your examination, while speaking of antimony, you have frequently used the word "trace" of antimony? A. Traces—a very small quantity which one can hardly estimate by weighing, we call a trace—"trace" in ordinary parlance means a small quantity—I do not imply it to mean an imponderable quantity—it is frequently so used in chemical language—some chemists mean that by it—centesimal, millesimal, infinitesimal quantity would be called a trace—I have heard an imperceptible quantity called a trace—I do not use it in my examination in that sense—I mean we obtained antimony in small quantities from many parts, but that the antimony so collected would make up a ponderable quantity in the whole—this is a very small residue of what we obtained—what we discovered altogether in all the parts of the body we examined would make up about half a grain, as we thought—we did not actually ascertain it to amount to half a grain—I do not think a quarter of a grain would explain the quantity we obtained—I will undertake to say there was half a grain, to the best of my judgment—there was more in the parts of the body examined, but we extracted that quantity—it was antimony—that would not be sufficient to cause death—one of the animal substances in which the antimony was found was blood—I have described the tests used—I said we applied the usual tests.

Q. I ask you what those tests were? A. Under the circumstances, only arsenic or antimony could be deposited on the copper, then we applied heat to the deposit on the copper, no sublimate of arsenic was obtained—we cut up some of the gauze containing the deposit—we heated it with nitrate of soda in a platina crucible—that converted the antimony to antimoniate of soda—that was dissolved, or rather diffused, in water containing a little hydro-chloric acid, precipitated by sulphureted hydrogen, and a precipitate after twenty-four hours was deposited—it had a reddish-brown colour, like sulphuret of antimony, and like it was soluble in strong hydrochloric acid—then there were, in addition, two other processes; one part of the acid solution of Mr. Cook's stomach was placed in a glass, and a piece of metallic tin immersed in the acid solution—there was a black deposit on that tin indicative of antimony—some of the same acid solution was placed in contact with pure zinc—there was also a black deposit on the zinc, and when the whole was dissolved in nitro-hydrochloric acid, the black precipitate was converted into antimonic acid, peroxide of antimony—I have no doubt whatever, from thirteen years' practice on these tests and processes, that it was antimony—the failure or inaccuracy of one step in that long process, or the badness of the quality of one of the materials used, might affect the result, but I used pure materials—such an accident could not take place without my having intimation of it in the course of the process—in my opinion, the antimony that I discovered must have been taken within three weeks—it may have been taken within that period—that opinion is formed on the observation of the rapidity with which antimony gets out of the body, not so much in animals as in men—I have not tried these experiments on animals—I should think it would probably get out more quickly in animals than in men—I am acquainted with the works of Orfila—he was in the highest rank of analytical chemists—he is dead.

Q. Would you have any doubt, if you found in his work that it was found

in a dog four months after the ingestion? A. Just be so good as to read the quantity taken.

Q. The quantity is a French quantity, but I will read it. A. I know the quantity—the animal took about forty-five grains, and I have not said anything of that sort about Cook.

Q. "A dog who for four entire months had taken no emetic, having taken three grammes in ten days" (which is about forty-five grains in ten days), "but who had not taken any for four entire months, the metal was found accumulated in the bones; the liver contained also a great deal, and the other tissues but very little." A. Will you pass the book to me?—there is no question about the fact, that when antimony has been long in the body it passes into the bones—I have said nothing about Cook's bones—there may have been some in the liver, because it remains a long time in that organ—but we found it in Cook's case in the spleen and the kidneys, besides, I do not think you are reading Orfila's experiments; they are not Orfila's experiments, Orfila is quoting the experiments of another person; you have put it on the character of Orfila—that is not the case with every single instance in my book—what I wish to say is, you are quoting experiments which were not performed by Orfila.

Q. I do not say that they were, but I find it in his book; I read this to you out of his book: "A dog was killed three and a half months after all antimonial administration to him had ceased; he had taken three grammes" (which is forty-five grains) "of emetic in ten days." A. Where was the antimony found?

Q. That is what I meant: "Antimony was found condensed principally dans le gras"? A. In the fat.

Q. So I thought—"It was found condensed in the fat; the liver con-tained some of it, also the bones and the other tissues; but fifty grammes of it furnished as much as 500 grammes of the rest of the other tissues put together." A. That shows, after antimony has been four months in the body, it goes out of the liver, kidneys, and splaen, and gets into the bones and fat.

Q. I do not see how it shows that it gets out of the liver, because he writes, "The liver contained some of it as well as the bones." A. Let us have it quite fairly; if you read the last part about the proportion contained in all the tissues, compared with what was contained in the fat, you will see what an enormous difference it makes.

Q. I see that; but still, it does not affect what I called your attention top that after three and a half months the liver contained some of it. A. Some of it, and allow me to tell you this, that forty-five grains given to a human being over ten days in food, is not a case which I am at all supposed to give an opinion upon—I have never heard of such a case—in the instance read first, it was after four months—the last one, "The metal had accumulated in the bones; the liver also contained a great deal, the other tissues very little," I think proves clearly this: if any person was to take forty-five grains of antimony over a period of eight or ten days, possibly some might be found in the liver after four months—everything must depend on the dose and the mode of giving it—it does not require such a pretty good dose to poison people as you think—it depends on the mode of giving it more than the dose—a dog has been poisoned by sue grains given in a certain way, but you have not mentioned that two of the dogs died in that case from the effects of the antimony—there are two cases of dogs that died from it.

Q. There is one just above; a dog fed ten days with aliments mixed with emetic, three grammes, that is, forty-five grains in the whole, died six days

after they had ceased to give him that aliment? A. Yes—when antimony has been given in that way to animals for some time, it generally affects the liver—the gentlemen whose experiments you are quoting have found that the liver became fatty and brittle—Cook's liver presented nothing of the sort, therefore I should infer, from the absence of any change in the liver, the diffusion of antimony through the kidneys, the spleen, liver, stomach, and intestines (there is nothing mentioned about any being found in the stomach and the dog, in the case you mentioned of a long duration), I should infer that the antimony in Mr. Cook's body had been much more recent than those experiments would show, but I cannot decide positively when antimony gets out of the body; no doubt it differs in different persons—the best opinion I can give is, that this was within two or three weeks of his death—I had to analyze the body of a man who had taken twenty-three grains twenty-four hours before death, and it had all passed out of him—in four months it gets into the fat and bones, but you do not find it in the stomach and bowels—I do not form my opinion from one fact, but from all—I was first applied to to investigate this case on Tuesday, 27th Nov., by Mr. Stevens, introduced by Mr. Warrington, Professor of Chemistry at Apothecaries' Hall—he did not put me in communication with any solicitor on that occasion, I do not think he mentioned it—I am not sure whether it was on that day, or subsequently, that he mentioned Mr. Gardner's name—I had not known Mr. Gardner before—I had not been at all concerned in any recent cases at Eugeley before that—afterwards, Mr. Stevens came with the jar—Mr. Boycott and he came together.

Q. You wrote a letter on the subject; and is this a passage from it, "We do not find strychnia"? A. Head it all, if you pleaae. (LORD CAMPBELL. was of opinion that the whole letter should be read.)

MR. SERJEANT SHEE. I will read it all to you then. It is in reply to a letter received from Mr. Gardner.—"Dr. Rees and I have completed the analysis to-day. We have sketched a report, which will be ready tomorrow or next day. As I am going to Durham assizes on the part of the Crown, in the case of Reg. v. Wooler, the report will be in the hands of Dr. Bees, No. 26, Albemarle-street. It will be most desirable that Mr. Stevens should call on Dr. Bees, read the report with him, and put such questions as may occur. In reply to your letter received here this morning, I beg to say that we wish a statement of all the medicines prescribed for deceased (until his death) to be drawn up and sent to Dr. Bees. We do not find strychnia, prussic acid, or any trace of opium. From the contents having been drained away, it is now impossible to say whether any strychnia had or had not been given just before death, but it is quite possible for tartar emetic to destroy life if given in repeated doses; and, so far as we can at present form an opinion, in the absence of any natural cause of death, the deceased may have died from the effects of antimony in this or some other form"—was that your opinion at the time? A. It was—that was all we could infer from the chemical analysis—I have told you today that the quantity of antimony that we found in Cook's body was not sufficient to account for death, but what was found in Cook's body was not all that he took: I wish to add to my testimony, because I see it is only a little misunderstanding; if a man takes antimony it produces this effect; first, he vomits, by which some passes out of the body; some may escape by the bowels; there is a great deal that passes at once into the blood by absorption, and is carried out with the urine: I find by Orfila, whom we are all inclined to rely upon, that, in from four to seventeen

hours, antimony is found chiefly in the urine—I mean to say, perfectly and distinctly, from such traces as I found in Cook's body of antimony, I was justified in stating my opinion that his death may have been caused by antimony—the amount found in a dead body is not the slightest criterion of what has been swallowed—I have sometimes found less arsenic in a body than would account for death.

Q. But if the amount found is not the slightest criterion of what may have been administered, how does that justify you, as an analytical chemist, in stating your opinion that so small a quantify may have caused death? A. I have not said what quantity would cause death—I have said a certain quantity was found in the body, which may have been the residue of what had caused death—I will explain it to you, I see the point you are working at; we found antimony in this body, and we could not account for it's being there; I wrote to know whether antimony had been given as a medicine, and I considered that at people had died from antimony, it was necessary to have information of the symptoms connected with this man's death, which I knew nothing about at the time; finding antimony there, and no explanation, I put it as possible and the only hypothesis to account for death.

Q. At the time you wrote this, that in your opinion the man had died from the effects of antimony, had you any reason to think any undue quantity had been administered to him? A. I could not speculate on that from the quantity there, for I did not know at all what quantity he had taken, or whether it had been prescribed medicinally—the opinion was based upon this, that antimony was the cause of death, many people will die from small and some from larger quantities—the quantity found in the body is no criterion of what is taken.

Q. May not the injudicious use of quack medicines containing antimony, such as James's powders or other medicines, have accounted for as much antimony as you found in the body of Mr. Cook? A. Any antimonial preparation would account for it—an injudicious use of James's powder, or even the judicious use, might do so.

Q. And do you mean to say, with that knowledge, consulted by a gentleman who appeared to entertain suspicions, that you felt yourself authorised in giving an opinion that this man died from the poison of antimony? A. You are perverting my meaning entirely, I must really say; what I said in my conclusion was this, that antimony under the form of tartar emetic may occasion nausea, vomiting and other symptoms of irri-tation, and that in large doses it has caused death, preceded by convulsions: then, that antimony and tartar emetic may be given as a safe and innocent medicine, which answers your question about it's being used as a poison; this is my report—I do not see you are justified in making use of a private letter to a solicitor—I sent in a report, if you will read it to me again, I will give you any explanation.

Q. If I have misunderstood the last passage of the letter, I will read it again: "We do not find strychnia, prussic acid, or any trace of opium; from the contents having been drained away, it is impossible to say whether any strychnia had or had not been given just before death; but it is quite possible for tartar emetic to destroy life, if given in repeated doses; so far as we can at present form an opinion, in the absence of any natural cause of death, the deceased may hare died from the effects of antimony in this or some other form." A. Yes; Mr. Stevens had told us he was in very good health about seven or eight days before his death—there was a letter

previous to this, to which that was an answer—Mr. Stevens told us his step son was in very good health at Shrewsbury races, that he was taken very sick there, that he was ill for six or eight days, and died suddenly in convulsions, without any further particulars: we were led to suppose he had not died a natural death—there was no natural cause to account for death, and, finding that antimony existed throughout the body, we drew the conclusion that that was a possible cause of death.

Q. Then, when you are consulted as an analytical chemist, do you enlighten your judgment by all the hearsay statements that the person consulting you chooses to make? A. I do not enlighten my judgment by it—I endeavour to procure the information necessary for an analysis—the analysis cannot be made quite as effectually without any information at all—the chances are that poison would be often lost; there are a hundred poisons that may destroy people—I do not think it necessary, before I make an analysis, to have a long statement of the symptoms before death—a short statement will do—I rely upon no statement at all, I just check the result by the statement and the statement by the result—I do not allow my judgment to be influenced by the statement of a person who knows nothing of his own knowledge, not in the least degree—I do not allow my judgment to be influenced in any way on such a matter—what Mr. Stevens told me assisted me in arriving at the conclusion which I stated in writing to Mr. Gardner as a possible case, not as a certain case—I say, "As far as we can at present form an opinion in the absence of any cause of death, the deceased may have died from the effects of antimony in this or some other form," that is correct.

Q. Now, is this correct, at page 491 of the first edition of your book on "Poison:" "Medical jurists must remember that the discovery of tartar emetic in the contents of a stomach is by no means a proof of it's having been taken or administered as a poison, since it is frequently prescribed as a medicine, and often taken as such by persons of their own accord; we can only infer it existed as a poison or caused death when the quantity present was very large, and there were corresponding appearances of irritation in the alimentary canal; still less would the discovery of it in a mixture, unless in a very large proportion, be evidence of an intent to poison"? A. That means, if we had found a very large quantity in the stomach or bowels, we should have come to the conclusion that the man had died from it; but finding only a small quantity throughout the body, we say, he may have died from it.

Q. Look at your first page; is this right? after the definition of a poison, you say, "It would, if admitted, exclude a very large class of substances, the poisonous properties of which cannot be disputed; as, for example, salts of lead, copper, tin, zinc, and antimony, which are only poisonous when administered in very large doses"? A. Yes; in the ordinary way; but if you spread that large dose over a long period, you will equally kill the person—in the case of those dogs which you read to me, they took forty-five grains over ten days, and they were killed by the doses—they took only four and a half grains a day—I attended at the coroner's inquest on the body of Mr. Cook—I think I was first there on the 14th of December, as nearly as I can remember—some of the evidence was read over to me—Dr. Harland was the first witness examined when I was there, I think, but I am not quite sure—the post mortem examination was gone into first—I heard Mr. Bamford examined—I think I heard Lavinia Barnes and Elizabeth Mills—I am not quite sure about Newton—I heard Jones.

Q. Will you tell me, before you went to that inquest, how many of those ten rabbits that you spoke of you had experimented upon? A. I had experimented some years ago upon five, and experimented on those connected with the analysis with the poison given in a solid state since the inquest—the first five was when I first began to lecture on medical jurisprudence, that is twenty-three years ago—that was the only knowledge of the effects of strychnia poison on animal life which I had when I wrote that book—I have a great objection to destroying life except from absolute necessity—it may be that that great necessity arises when it is for the purpose of saving human life and detecting crime, but every toxicologist cannot sacrifice one hundred rabbits when the facts are well ascertained from other sources; I did not feel myself justified in going on on points which I knew were well established in the profession—I experimented on the last rabbits since the inquest.

Q. Do not you think it is rather rash to judge of the effects of strychnia poison on man, by so small an experience as that of ten animals of a particular species? A. I think you must add to experimental experience something like a study of poisons for twenty-five years; that is, study on the relations of others, and the collection of cases—I do not think a rabbit is a very unfair animal to select.

Q. Would not a dog be much better? A. Dogs are very dangerous to handle, I have a very great disinclination to meddle with them—I know that dogs and cats are considered to bear a greater analogy to the human being for this reason, that they readily vomit, while rabbits do not vomit; now a rabbit is a much more manageable animal, and I have not pretended to settle either the time of death or the quantity that will destroy life in a rabbit, I merely pretend to determine the physiological effects—from the experiments I have tried on dogs and cats, I have had no inclination to go further—I do not admit that they would be better to experiment upon, particularly as to the action of the respiratory functions, than a rabbit, nor as to the effects of poisoning—I think the rabbit is quite as good as any animal that can be selected, the poison is retained and shows it's operation—Mr. Gardner was at the inquest—the first time I saw him was in the inquest room—I suggested questions to the Coroner, personally addressing him—he put them, or they were answered by the witnesses on my merely addressing him—I do not remember whether Mr. Jones and Mills were examined, before Roberts—I think Roberts was examined afterwards—I really cannot tell the order in which the witnesses were examined, the only evidence I particularly attended to was the medical evidence, and the statements of Mills and Barnes—I do not think I heard Roberts say, before I gave my opinion, that the prisoner had bought strychnia in his shop on the Tuesday—Roberts was examined after me, but I knew strychnia was bought before we sent in our report—it was in Mr. Gardner's letter, to which that was a reply which you read—Mr. Gardner gave the information in that letter, I do not know whether it has been produced, that strychnia, prussic acid, and Battley's sedative of opium, had been bought by the prisoner—that was before the report was signed—I mean bought on the Tuesday, and that led to my putting into the letter which you read, that no trace of strychnia, prussic acid, or morphia had been found—that was in answer to the inquiry—it was ten days before the inquest that I knew it—it was with that knowledge, and after hearing the evidence of Mills and Jones, that I gave my opinion—I did not associate that knowledge at all with the facts and symptoms—we signed the report after we knew strychnia had been bought—we did not allow it to

influence our judgments in the smallest degree—(At the request of Mr. Serjeant Shee, the deposition of Dr. Taylor before the Coroner was here read, as follows: "Alfred Swaine Taylor, sworn, saith, I am a Fellow of the College of Physicians and Lecturer on Medical Jurisprudence at Guy's Hospital, London—I received a jar from Mr. Boycott on Tuesday, the 27th Nov., at the laboratory of Guy's Hospital—I found the jar contained the stomach and intestines of the deceased—the stomach had been cut open, the contents had drained away, and it was lying on the surface of the intestines—the surface of the stomach was first carefully examined by a magnifying glass by Dr. Bees and myself—there was a brownish coloured, bilious liquid adhering to the surface of the lining membrane—there was no appearance of ulceration, perforation, or other disease—the lining membrane was generally reddened, and this redness was very strongly marked at the lesser end of the stomach—there was no appearance of effused blood, or mineral or vegetable matter, on the surface of the stomach—there was no smell of opium, prussic acid, or spirits—the only odour perceptible was that of feculent matter, in consequence of the stomach having been in contact with the intestines—the large and small intestines were examined throughout—they presented slight patches of redness, both on the outside and inside, at different parts—the small intestines contained a yellowish coloured fluid, chiefly consisting of bile and mucus—the contents of the intestines, after being cut open, were removed, and allowed to stand in a dean glass vessel twenty-four hours, the sediment was examined and found to contain no mineral or vegetable matter, or any other suspicions matter—there was no blood mixed with or contained in the intestines—on Saturday, Dec. 1st, I received from Mr. Boycott another jar containing the liver, kidneys, and spleen of the body of the deceased—the liver, kidneys, and spleen were all healthy in their structure, nothing to account for disease or death—the left kidney was rather less in size than the right, but the structure was healthy—there was nothing in the stomach or intestines to indicate the cause of death—the first analysis was made of the mucus and bilious looking liquid on the surface of the stomach—it was tested for all the poisons which would cause sudden death, including prussic and oxalic acids, morphia, opium, strychnia, veratria, nicotina (poison of tobacco), conia (poison of hemlock), as well as for mercury, antimony, and the other metallic poisons—the result of the most minute examination by Dr. Kees and myself conjointly was, that there was only a slight trace of antimony in the parts examined, and there was no trace of any other substance—the coats of the stomach were examined, and there wan only a small portion of antimony in them—the coats of the intestines and the contents of the intestines were similarly tested, and we found only antimony in both—about one eighth part of the liver, spleen, and kidneys were examined, and we found only antimony—there was no trace of any other substance—the drainiugs of the jar were also examined, and were found to contain a larger portion of antimony than the other parts—they were especially examined for morphia and strychnia, but no traces were discovered of either—there was a bottle contained in the second jar containing a bloody liquid—this was analysed and contained anti-mony—the conclusions drawn from the investigations were these—that first, antimony derived from some antimonial preparation and taken during life was present in the body of the deceased—secondly, that antimony had beenabsorbed, carried into the blood, and deposited in the various parts in which it was found—thirdly, that the quantity found was small, and might be the residue of a large dose or of various small doses taken some hours or days before death—fourthly,

that the quantity taken by the deceased cannot be inferred from the small quantity found in the body, or from the appearances presented by the stomach and intestines—fifthly, that antimony, under the form of tartar emetic, may produce nausea, violent vomiting, purging, and other symptoms of irritation of the stomach and bowels—there is also another symptom produced by mercury, arsenic, and antimony—that is constriction of the throat, and a choking sensation—the sixth conclusion was that the viscera of the deceased presented no appearance whatever, so far as they were examined by us, to account for death from natural causes—seventhly and lastly, that tartar emetic may be used as a safe and innocent medicine, or may be used as a poison, according to circumstances—we have no evidence before us to enable us to form a judgment as to the circumstances under which it was taken by the deceased, or to enable us to say, in this case, whether it was or was not the cause of death—therefore, the result is, we find antimony in the body, but cannot account for the cause of death—Dr. Bees, who made the analysis with me, fully concurs in these conclusions—Dr. Bees is assistant physician to Guy's Hospital—the antimony may have been given in small doses, hours, if not days, before death—antimony is given in cases of fever and inflammatory diseases—the heart might have been emptied by spasms, or by poisons—antimony would not cause it—my opinion is that Cook died from tetanus, and that this was caused by medicine administered or taken shortly before death—I believe that the pills on the Monday night and the Tuesday night contained strychnia—I do not believe that the medicine administered by Dr. Bamford could have produced the effects I have heard to-day—on the Monday night and Tuesday night, after these pills were taken, there is not the slightest indication of the action of morphia on the body—further than this, we found no mercury in the liver or other parts of the body, and I do not think that mercury or calomel could have been taken on Monday and Tuesday night, as well as on the other nights, without our discovering traces of it in the liver—the witness Mills has accurately described the symptoms produced by a small dose of strychnia, such as would be caused by the pills given at half past 10 o'clock on Monday night, and the symptoms on the Tuesday night were those which would be produced by a larger dose of strychnia given in the pills taken on that night—there is an absence of any natural cause or disease to account for this tetanus—the brain and spinal marrow were healthy—there was no insensibility before death, perfect consciousness and merely that effect of spasm upon the muscular system which a poisonous dose of strychnia would cause. Alfred S. Taylor, M. D.")

Q. Your evidence having been given on that occasion, you returned to town, I suppose? A. Yes; I soon after knew that the prisoner had been committed on the charge of Wilful Murder.

Q. And you knew, of course, that his life depended in a great degree on your opinion? A. No; my opinion was in reference to death from poison—I expressed no opinion of the prisoner's guilt—I knew that I should be examined as a witness in all probability upon his trial—I thought it my duty, knowing that, to abstain from all public discussion of the questions which might influence the public mind—I wrote a letter to the Lancet on the subject, contradicting several misstatements which were made with regard to my evidence. (The letter was here read as follows from the "Lancet" of Feb. 2nd, 1856: "Correspondence. 'Audi alteram partem.' The Rugeley Suspected Secret Poisoning Cases. A Communication from Alfred S. Taylor, M. D., F. R. S., Professor of Medical Jurisprudence at Guy's Hospital, to the Editor of the Lancet" (That was in answer to what had appeared

in a previous journal—the "Audi alteram partem" is not mine—none of I the heading is mine, it is the editor's—he inserted certain observations in reference to the case, misrepresenting the case, and completely misrepresenting my opinion, and I wrote that in answer.) "Sir,—I have great pleasure in replying to the inquiries contained in your leading article of January 19th. 1. I stated that I had never known antimonial powder, when given in medicinal doses (i. e. from 5 to 8 grains at a dose), to produce violent vomiting and purging, I am aware that experience differs on this point; that some have found this substance inert, while others have found it very active. From some recent experiments on antimonial preparations, I think it not unlikely that the powder may sometimes contain arseniate of lime. Dr. Pereira mentions, that in the large dose of half a teaspoonful, it on one occasion produced violent vomiting, purging, and sweating; while in still larger doses (120 grains at 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, this medicinal 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 I formed from the result of our examination, and from the description of the symptoms under which the deceased laboured during the eight days which preceded her death. It is an opinion which I believe is now equally shared by the two medical attendants of the deceased We are quite prepared to maintain this opinion on the trial. You will excuse me from entering into our reasons for this opinion on the present occasion, as this may form a very fair and proper subject for cross-examination at the trial. Possibly the defence may be, that tartar emetic in small doses is not a poison, that it cannot under any circumstances destroy life, and that it was the very best remedy for the disease (English cholera) under which it was stated the deceased was labouring. One other point connected with, this inquiry may be here adverted to. The examination of the organs was made fifteen months, not' fifteen weeks' after death, and the viscera examined were as well preserved as I have seen them in many cases of arsenical poisoning. They were in a better state of preservation than the viscera of Walter Palmer, whose body has been buried for a period of three months only in a leaden coffin. The viscera in Ann Palmer's case were in such a state of preservation as to allow us to form an opinion of their condition. 3. This inquiry refers to the elimination of antimony from the body. According to my experience, antimony is analogous to arsenic in the rapidity with which it enters into the blood and passes out of the system. These two metals are wholly different in this respect from mercury and lead, and probably from copper. I shall be most happy, after the trial, to furnish you with facts and authorities, as far as 1 can, in reference to these interesting points. In the meantime, as this question may also form a fair subject for cross-examination, a detailed answer to it may be for the present reserved 4. The fourth inquiry involves, as you have justly suspected, an error of the press, What I said was to this effect: that if there were symptoms of fever, antimonial medicines may be fairly prescribed. In concluding this letter I would observe, that during a quarter of a century which I have now specially devoted to toxicological inquiries, I have never met with any cases like those suspected cases of poisoning at Bugeley. The mode in which they will affect the person accused is of minor importance compared with

their probable influence on society. I have no hesitation in saying, that the future security of life in this country will mainly depend on the judge, the jury, and the counsel who may have to dispose of the charges of murder which hare arisen out of these investigations.") (Mr. Serjeant Shee read again to the witness the concluding paragraph in the letter)—That is my opinion now—I found it stated broadly and openly that strychnia might cause death, and that if it did, it would always be found in the body, which I deny—it is untrue, and would lead to the loss of hundreds of lives—further, it has been circulated in every paper thai a person could not be killed by tartar emetic in small doses; that I deny—it is untrue, and would lead to hundreds of lives being destroyed.

Q. And did you think it a right thing to publish that opinion before the man was put upon his trial for his life? A. I have no prejudice against the man, I merely speak as to the investigation of the facts of the case—I entertain no prejudice whatever—I maintain the principles of science in the doctrine which I there comment upon—if those statements which I have seen circulated in medical and other periodicals were to have their way, there is not a life in this country that would be safe: that is what I say.

Q. Then do you adhere to your opinion that the mode in which they will affect the person accused, that is, leading him to the scaffold, is of minor importance compared with their probable influence on society? A. No—I have never suggested the leading to the scaffold; I hope he will be acquitted if that is concerned, but I say that the lives of sixteen millions of people are of greater importance than that of one—allow me to state, as you are putting this as a sort of objection to my views and evidence, that I find here in two dead bodies antimony; one of these persons died suddenly; in the other I find the body saturated with antimony, which I never found before in my examination of 300 dead bodies in this country, and I say these circumstances demand explanation—I have expressed no opinion about the prisoner.

Q. And you adhere to the opinion, as a medical man and a member of an honourable profession, that you were right in publishing that letter before he came to his trial? A. I was right in stating my opinion in answer to the comments that have been made on my evidence—no comments had been made by the prisoner, but his attorney, Mr. Smith, has circulated through every paper that Dr. Taylor was inaccurate—I had no wish or motive to charge any one with poisoning, but my duty concerns the lives of all, as well as one person—I have seen a Mr. Augustus Mayhew, the proprietor of the Illustrated Tynes, Once or twice.

Q. Did you allow a picture of yourself and Dr. Kees to be taken for the purpose of publication in his paper? A. If you will be so good as to call it a caricature, I will say no, I did not—I never knew it was taken until it appeared in the Illustrated Times—Mr. Mayhew came to me with a letter from Professor Faraday—I did not receive him in my laboratory when I was experimenting with Dr. Bees—I did not receive him in my laboratory—it is wholly untrue—I never saw him in my laboratory—he called on me with a letter from Professor Faraday—I saw him—I did not know that he called for the purpose of my affording him information for an article in his Illustrated Times, and his publication of it is the most disgraceful thing I ever knew—I never saw him before—I did not know that he was editor of the Illustrated Times—on my oath I did not—it was the greatest deception that was ever practised on a scientific man; most disgraceful.

Q. There were two persons called the first time; I have it, "They candidly

informed the doctor that they desired to publish the particulars of their conversation with him, and requested his permission to do so, and it was at once granted, they having undertaken to hold themselves responsible for not publishing any statement that might be prejudicial to the interests of justice "? A. He called on me with a letter from Professor Faraday, and I received him as I would Professor Faraday himself—he entered into conversation with me about these cases, and made a representation, as I understood, that he was connected with an insurance company, and he wished to know the number of poisoning cases that had occurred to me during a number of years—after we had conversed about an hour, he asked me if there was any objection to his publishing those details—I said, still thinking that he was connected with some insurance company, that, as far as the correction of errors was concerned, I had no objection, but I objected to anything else appearing—I did not then know that he was the editor of a journal—I said I had no objection to anything appearing in answer to what has already appeared, with the corrections of the different mistakes—he went away that evening without telling me that he was the editor of the Illustrated Times or connected with it—on my oath I did not know it—I did not know it till the article was in print—I remonstrated verbally—he called on me with the article—not with my caricature in it—he was cautious enough not to put that in; merely part of the article set up in type, the slip—the paper bad not been published—it was the day before publication—I protested against the publication—I told him I objected to it—I struck out all that I saw regarding these cases, and he afterwards put the article in the form in which it is now—I could not prevent the bad taste of his publishing my conversation with him on matters not relating to the case—I did not permit him to publish anything connected with the Rugeley case—I do not remember that I saw the heading on the slip of "Our Interview with Dr. Alfred Taylor"—I will swear to the best of my belief and judgment he did not show that to me—he showed me a slip, part of what appeared in that article—I do not believe he showed me a slip as long as this, "Our Interview with Dr. Alfred Taylor"—I will swear that I do not think he did—I struck out everything connected with the Rugeley cases—I looked upon myself as deceived and cheated—a person had come with a letter from one of the highest authorities in the country, and extracted from me, without any previous warning) information which he afterwards made use of for his vile publication.

Q. Why did you not desire your servant to show him the door, and dare him to publish what had passed? A. Until we had had all this conversation I did not know anything about it—he came again on the Thursday morning, and it was not till then that I knew he was connected with this weekly paper—he told me as he was going away, that it was the Illustrated Times—I struck some out of what he showed me—I had nothing to do with allowing the rest to be published—I objected to the publication—I said I did not like this mode of putting the matter before the public—that I did not like to interfere with his journal, but I struck out all connected with the Rugeley cases—I told him I objected to all the parts which concerned the Kugeley cases; it was most dishonourable—I did not protest against anything being published of that interview.

Q. Did you not know perfectly well in this month of February, just after the shock which the country had received about these Rugeley murders, or imputations of murder, that "Our Interview with Dr. Taylor" must be taken to apply to what was then full in the public mind? A. I

did not know what it would apply, to—I did not think so—I did not think anything about it—I thought it was a great cheat to extract from me this information and to publish it—it was on the morning of Thursday that he called on me with the slip, the day before publication—he was with me not above twenty minutes or half an hour—I remonstrated with him—I was not angry in the sense of the word quarrelling—I told him I objected to that mode of dealing with the case.

Q. Did you allow him to publish this: "Dr. Taylor has requested us to state that, although the practice of secret poisoning appeared to be on the increase, it should be remembered that on analysis the chemist can almost always detect the presence of poison in the body"? A. I did not request him to state anything of the kind—if I had seen that on the slip he showed me, I should have struck it out—I looked it over and struck out everything I saw connected with the Bugeley cases, and he went away—I felt that I had been imposed upon—I remember seeing this, "and that, when analysis fails, as in cases where small doses of strychnia had been administered, physiology and pathology will invariably suffice to show the cause of death"—I did not strike that out—I did not know that it might circulate moat extensively amongst the persons from whom the jurors to try the case might be selected—I did not think of the matter at all—I think it is very proper information to give, so that the public shall be aware that chemical analyses are not the only things they have to rely upon—I do not remember this passage, "murder by poison can be detected as readily as murder in any other form, while the difficulty of detecting and convicting the murderer is felt in other cases as well as those where poison has been the means employed"—that I do not remember—the article was very much altered, I could see that—it was a disgraceful thing—I have not seen the gentleman since—I wrote him a letter concerning the matter—I complained of it—I can state the substance of that letter—I saw an advertisement in the Times paper which represented me as giving this information, and directly I saw it I wrote to contradict it, and they withdrew the advertisement—it was some advertisement connected with the very number you are alluding to, it was an advertisement in the Times newspaper with regard to this information—I immediately desired it to be withdrawn, and I received a letter from Mr. Mayhew to say that it should be—that was immediately after the publication of this, directly I saw the advertisement—I think the advertisement appeared on the Thursday or Friday, I am not sure which; it was to induce people to purchase that number—I did not say to a gentleman of the name of Cooke Evans that I would give them strychnia enough before I had done with them, or words to that effect—I do not know such a person; I did not say it to anybody—I have never said anything so vulgar or improper that I know of, never to my knowledge; give whom a dose of strychnia?—you have been greatly misinstructed—I deny it, or any words to that effect; I have not talked about giving anybody doses of strychnia—I have not said, "He will have strychnia enough before I have done with him"—it is utterly false, and Mr. John Smith, the person who has suggested that to you, has been guilty of other false statements, both in his letter to Sir George Grey, and upon other occasions, he has misrepresented my statements, and evidence, and opinions altogether—I made a medical report to which I referred when we were talking about the first letter—the medical report was handed to Dr. Bees; he took possession of it—I did not get a report drawn up by the medical gentlemen who made the post mortem examination.

Q. Was it not produced from your hands two days ago in court? A. You are under a mistake about it; it was a private letter, not signed by the gentlemen, from Dr. Harland to Mr. Stevens—it was a statement of the results of the post mortem examination for Mr. Stevens's private information—it has been inaccurately called a medical report in the course of this trial—it is merely Dr. Harland's statement of the examination for the information of Mr. Stevens—it has been read here as a formal medical report—I believe that it has no signature but Dr. Harland's—I have had it ever since.

Q. I understand you distinctly to say, that as respects the effect of strychnia on the human body, you have no knowledge of your own at all? A. I have not seen a case; I have some knowledge—I have written a book upon the subject.

Q. Do you, from your reading, know of any fatal case in which the patient under strychnia poison has had, while the paroxysm lasted, as much command over the muscles of animal life and voluntary motion as Mr. Cook had on the Monday and Tuesday nights, according to the evidence of Mills and Jones? A. I do not see that he had much command over the muscles of voluntary life and motion—I mean to say, his symptoms are quite in accordance with the ordinary action of strychnia.

Q. Can you tell me a single case, either in your book or in any authentic medical work, of a patient seized with tetanic symptoms by strychnia poison, sitting up in his bed talking? A. He was seized with the tetanic symptoms after he had sat up in his bed.

Q. Do you know of any instance in which a patient has been beating with both his arms the bed clothes under the influence of strychnia poison within a short time, a quarter of an hour, before his death? A. The symptoms generally commence with some agitation of the body—it is manifested in various ways—it is exactly what I should expect from the sense of suffocation.

Q. You say it is exactly what you should expect; your experience is on rabbits, and the first symptom you have seen is a sudden fall on the side? A. You asked me the question with reference to my reading and knowledge—I am quite willing not to answer, except as to rabbits; but I thought you asked me with reference to my general knowledge—the beating of the bed with the arms in the way described merely indicates to me that he was very uneasy, that there was some difficulty about his breathing, that he felt an oppression, and it was an attempt at relief—that was before the tetanic symptoms set in; there was a feeling of suffocation.

Q. First answer my question; do you know of a single case, either in your book or in your general reading, of the symptoms of poison by strychnia commencing or exhibiting themselves during any time of the paroxysm, by the operation of beating the bed? A. There have been only about fifteen fatal cases altogether—I have not heard of a person taking strychnia in bed before—I do not think the beating of the bed is well known under the name of malleatio, and is a very common symptom of ordinary convulsions, not to my knowledge—I know the term malleatio—it means beating of anything—that does not terminate in tetanus—it is a common form of violent convulsions in persons who suffer from a sense of suffocation, whether it depends on strychnia or other causes—I have heard of one such case that has been communicated to me by a friend—it was in a private letter which came to me—it is not a published case—the person did not sit up, but he shook as if he had an ague fit before the symptoms came on; that was all, agitation—I should not call that malleatio; I should not give it so learned a name—I would call it quaking, shaking; the agitation is expressed

in different ways—I have not met with a case of a person who had taken strychnia, sitting up in bed and beating the bed—I have not known many instances in which the patient has screamed before he was seized with the fit; that is common in convulsions not occasioned by strychnia poison—in many cases they scream very soon after the spasm sets in, when the spasm begins; the pain felt is very severe—I have not known it before they begin—I have known cases in which they speak freely—I cannot refer to any case of that kind after the paroxysm has commenced—I do not remember one at the present time.

Q. Do you agree as far as your reading enables you to do so, with this description of strychnia in Dr. Watson's book; it was a case in Middlesex Hospital: "Unluckily, through mistake or negligence of the person who was at that time the dispenser, a grain of the poison was administered at once to each patient; it was given about seven o'clock in the evening; about half past 7 it began to produce its characteristic effects upon one of the patients. He was suddenly seized with tetanic spasms; legs separated widely from each other, and rigidly extended, and the head and trunk bent backwards; he was in fact in a state of oposthotonos; his abdomen was quite hard, and his limbs were stiff even when the violence of the paroxysm had abated. He cried out with the pain at the coming on of the spasms; any attempt at movement, even the touching him by another person, brought them on. That is just what happens in the disease; the opening of a door, a sudden current of air; the smallest bodily effort, the act of swallowing, nay, even the imagination will be sufficient to renew the spasmodic tightening of the affected muscles." Is that consistent with your knowledge and reading of the effect of the spasms? A. I have noticed it in animals especially; I stated that—I have a collection of cases, but that fact is not noticed as a point at all.

Q. Can you tell me or refer me to any one case in your book or elsewhere, any authentic writing, in which the effect of the strychnia affection or paroxysm in a fatal case has been delayed so long after the ingestion of the poison as in Cook's case on Tuesday night? A. Yes, and longer, a fatal case; in page 185 of my "Medical Jurisprudence," 5th edition—the book on poisons is eight years old, I put it down as an observation—"In a case communicated to the Lancet, of Aug. 31, 1850, page 259, by Mr. Bennett, one grain and a half of strychnia, taken by mistake, destroyed the fife of a healthy young female in an hour and a halt. It is remarkable that no symptoms appeared for an hour"—I do not think that is the longest period on record which has elapsed between the ingestion of the poison and the commencement of the symptoms—I think in that case it was taken in pills; but I have the Lancet here to refer to if you wish—that was a remarkable and unusual case—it was certainly long with regard to the cases that had up to that time occurred—there is one case of two hours, and a half—that was not a fatal case, but that does not at all affect the medical question—I beg to say that the fatality of the case has nothing to do with the period of commencement of symptoms—that was not a fatal case—a grain and a half is a full dose, not a very considerable dose—it is a dose from which a man is very likely to die.

Q. Is there any one case in your book in which the attack has taken place more than half an hour after the ingestion of the poison? A. What book are you referring to—the book on poisons is eight years old—I believe there is not in that book, but there is in the other book—cases have occurred since 1848—I have a reference to a case here of one grain and a half

—that is a case published by Dr. Christison—the symptoms came on in three hours—it was fatal—that is a case by Dr. Bardsley, page 895, 4th edition—it was a case in which the patient had been affected with hemiplegia for four weeks and began to use strychnia, and had been doing so for eleven days without particular inconvenience—"During this period he had taken twice a day gradually increasing doses until the amount of one grain was attained, when the usual physiological effects having ceased to occur, the quantity was increased to a grain and a half, but the first dose caused anxiety and excitement; in three hours (it says it ended in three hours, it does not say that, I the symptoms did not commence in three hours,) there was stupor and loss of speech, and at length violent tetanic convulsions, which proved fatal in three hours and three quarters"—it does not tell you when it commenced—Dr. Christison can give an account of it—I do not know of any other fatal case.

Q. Is there any case in your book on poisons in which the symptoms have been known to occur at a longer period than half an hour from the ingestion of the poison? A. No, but you must not go back to 1848—in giving an answer to your question, I am looking to what has occurred in the meantime.

Q. Do you know that Dr. Bardsley, from whom Dr. Earth took the case, states that he cannot admit that the death was wholly attributable to the dose of strychnia employed, but might be referable to other conditions, which he enumerates? A. All those conditions are quite compatible with death from strychnia—I would not, after that opinion from the gentleman who reports it, say it was attributable solely to strychnia; but I should exercise my judgment, and see whether strychnia had not something to do with it—I have no other case in my reading to which I can refer—I have here the Lancet, which contains the case that has been referred to, and it is more remarkable than I had thought—the account is this: "On the day previous, she had consulted a surgeon for amaurosis, for which he prescribed three grains of strychnine in a solution of ten drachms of cinnamon water, directing twenty drops to be taken three times daily in a wine glass of water—a written label of directions was attached to the bottle, and she was also verbally informed of the dangerous nature of the medicine—upon the bottle containing the medicine being produced, I found the unfortunate young woman had taken about four and a half or five drachms, which had been poured out by a little girl thirteen years of age, who, on being told to pour out twenty drops, and probably being ignorant of the meaning of a drop, poured out the above quantity—after taking the medicine, she went about her work, cleaned out a room, and went into the kitchen to breakfast—she swallowed a cup of tea and was commencing a second, when she complained of feeling very ill, having a peculiar kind of twitching over her limbs, which began rather more than an hour after the administration of the poison; and in a very short time after this, general tremors and violent spasmodic fits came on, which excited the alarm of the family, and I was immediately sent for"—so that in that case the poison was really taken dissolved, and one would have anticipated a more speedy action—the stomach pump was used, and strong emetics were administered; perhaps I had better read on: "On my arrival and examination of the patient, I found a general tremor over the body, the limbs rigid, and the face exhibiting an almost maniacal expression, which was soon followed by a violent fit of tetanus—between the fits she did not utter any expression of alarm, but would occasionally request a little cold water—the muscles of the jaw remained so rigid between the spasms as to prevent their

being opened sufficiently to admit the tube of the stomach pump being introduced, but were sufficiently relaxed to admit of the emetic being adminis-tered—it however repeatedly happened that the attempt of the patient to take liquids was followed by so violent a spasmodic fit as to prevent her swallowing it, and to give that apparent dread of water so well marked in cases of hydrophobia—even after her request for water, on attempting to give it to her, she would find herself so incapable of swallowing it, as to request that its administration might be deferred until the fit was over, the effort to place the cup to the mouth being generally sufficient in itself to induce a relapse of the spasms."

Q. Do you not know a single fatal case in which the symptoms have manifested themselves as long as an hour and a half after the ingestion of the poison? A. No, I do not.

Q. Can you refer me to any authentic case of strychnia poison in which the patient has recovered from a paroxysm in so short a time as Mr. Cook recovered from, the paroxysm on Monday night? A. Within what time did he recover?—I do not understand that it was so short—if he was well the next morning, and it had no effect during the whole of the next day, but he was comfortable and happy, the recovery would depend entirely on the dose taken; if he took the sixteenth of a grain he would recover sooner than if he had taken an eighth—I do not at present remember any authentic case of strychnia poison in which the patient has recovered from a paroxysm in as short a time as Mr. Cook did, he being well before the morning, but I can conceive in medical practice such cases would frequently occur; it is nothing at all unusual—I say from my reading and experience, a recovery after three or four hours will depend materially upon the dose—I see in a case at page 265 of the "Medical Jurisprudence," second edition, "the convulsions gradually subsided about four hours after the first attack"—that was a case of nux vomica—that is the same poison, but in a much milder form—all its power depends on the strychnia—"in this case a girl aged twenty swallowed half an ounce of the powder, and in half an hour the usual tetanic symptoms came on, but she was perfectly sensible—in administering the remedies, the spasms in the muscles of the jaw were such as to cause her to bite through the tongue—the convulsions gradually subsided about four hours after the first attack, and the next day, although feeble and exhausted, she was able to walk home"—I learn from Mr. Cook's case that he was asleep before three o'clock, and comfortable during the whole of the next day.

Q. Do you know any other case in which, after an administration of strychnia poison, the patient has recovered as soon as Mr. Cook did on Monday night? A. The difficulty is in settling the time of recovery; that is not a point that medical men enter into—they do not give the time generally, they merely put "The patient recovered," without any particular statement as to the period of the attack—I do not think the attack on Tuesday night was the result of anything given on Monday night—I do not know of any case of strychnia poison in which there was so long an intermission of the paroxysm as between the iwo fits of Monday and Tuesday night.

Q. Is it the result of your experience or reading, that the person who dies from strychnia poison continues rigid in the attitude and position of limb in which he dies? A. I have seen that in animals, in rabbits; they continue rigid in the attitude and position of limb in which they die—I do not remember a case in particular as to men—if a person dies in a spasm, the spasm is likely to continue—I have a case which will answer it in the fifth edition of the "Medical Jurisprudence;" it was inspection twenty

hours after death, and the body was then very rigid—there is no account in these cases of how the body was at the moment of death—the body would be rigid in twenty-four hours, whatever sort of convulsion he died of; not very rigid—there would not be the slightest difficulty, I think, in finding such a case, but I cannot refer you to one now—I found in one of the rabbits destroyed, that the spasm continued after death—I do not know that it constantly happens, even in rabbits, that the spasm and the contractions instantly cease immediately with death, or just before death, and that the body becomes perfectly pliant—it does so in some instances, in one out of five cases.

Q. Do you agree in this opinion of Dr. Christison, "I have not altered the statement as to this point in the former edition," that is, that the rigidity supervenes at an early period after death; "yet I strongly suspect that authors, who describe the spasm which precedes death to continue as it were into the rigidity that occurs after death, must have observed inaccurately, for, in the numerous experiments that I have made and witnessed upon animals, flaccidity invariably took place at the time of death, and continued for a moderate interval"? A. Dr. Christison speaks according to his own experience, and I speak according to mine—it happened in one case in my own experience, and it became rigid very soon after, as Dr. Christison describes it—I do not recollect enough of those that I killed twentyfive years ago to know whether their limbs were stiff or flaccid—four of the five last remained stiff after death; one was quite flaccid; that was seen by Dr. Christison—I attended particularly to the last five—I see that in Dr. Bamford's deposition, he went to Mr. Cook as soon as he was called, arrived immediately after he was dead, and found the body quite straight upon the bed—in my judgment, that body might be under the influence of oposthotonos—the oposthotonos may have relaxed in the act of dying—that would be an instance of becoming flaccid—the clenching of the hand is the result of violent tetanic spasms—that may occur in other violent spasms—it does not occur in all forms of convulsion—the great point is this, that in tetanus it remains so; in other convulsions it comes and goes—it is always so, according to my knowledge—I stated that the heart was generally full of blood in animals—I mean to say that the colour tests of strychnia are so uncertain and fallacious that they cannot be depended upon, unless you first get strychnia in a visible and tangible form—it is not impossible to get that from the stomach in all cases; it depends on the quantity that remains in the stomach—I think it is in some cases impossible, where the quantity is very small—I do not think that as much as the fiftieth part of a grain could be discovered; that is to say, not separated—it might be a case of difficulty to detect half a grain—it depends upon the amount of food in the stomach with which it was mixed.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. In your reading, about which my learned friend has been asking you, have you met with cases in which it has appeared that the heart was found empty after death, where the death has taken place from strychnia? A. Yes—that has been in the human subject—I find three such cases—I think the emptiness of the heart, after such a death, is owing to spasmodic action, spasm affecting the heart in the last moments of life—there is no reason why that should be more likely to be the case in the human subject than in a small animal like a rabbit; I know of no distinction—the only thing I would observe is, that I think the heart is generally more filled where the paroxysms are more frequent, so that the blood accumulates more in the interior—suppose the paroxysms to be short and violent, and cause death in a few minutes, that is the kind of case in

which I should expect to find the heart empty—the rigidity after death in the cases where I found it, always affected the same muscles; the muscles of the limbs especially, and the muscles of the back—where the rigidity is relaxed in death, it afterwards returns, while the body is warm; I mean in cases of death by strychnia: in ordinary death it only appears when the body is cold—the rigor mortis comes on after the body is cold, or nearly so.

Q. Would the rigidity of the muscles of the extremities as long as two months after death, the clenching of the hands, and the distortion of the feet and toes, afford you any indication of whether the person died from tetanus or not? A. I have never before known such a case—it would indicate the great violence of the spasm from which the party died—I am not able to say whether the poison of strychnia would act witty greater power when once its effect was set up, upon a person who had been lowered by previous disease—with regard to the duration of time in which the effect of the poison would begin to show itself, it would depend on the violence and frequency of the spasms—the period required to set up the action of the poison would vary according to the constitution and the strength of the individual, and according to the power of absorption—the beating with the hands and arms I ascribe to a sense of general uneasi-ness, and a feeling of suffocation—the feeling of suffocation is one of the early symptoms of death by strychnia—that uneasiness would produce the effect in question—with regard to the detection of the antimony, we separated the antimony, and then applied various tests—I have been asked whether one or other of those processes would not be open to difficulty, supposing there were any impure substances used in the chemical process—that would be so with regard to impure substances—I have no doubt the substances I used were pure—they were all tested on that occasion before I used them—it would certainly not be at all likely to be the case with regard to three distinct processes—it is the fact that the three distinct processed gave the same result, which strongly corroborates the correctness of each—I and Mr. Brande witnessed them—I have not the least doubt that that which I produced was antimony—the quantity I found does not enable me to form any judgment as to the quantity that may have been administered; that is to say, a small quantity may be the residue of small doses, or the residue of large—supposing that the antimony were given for the purpose of keeping up sickness, the effect of the sickness would be to throw off some portion of that which was taken—when antimony is given, it passes out with the urine, but some of it passes into different parts of the body—if the antimony is not withdrawn, it remains longest in the liver; it then goes into the fat and bones, where it may be found after three or four months, but I have not met with an instance yet, and the cases quoted do not show that in those instances in which there was antimony in the coats of the stomach and in the bowels, it had been longer than two or three weeks in the body.

Q. Have you found any in the bones and tissues? A. We did not analyze them—I have stated that I suggested questions to the Coroner—I did so, because the Coroner did not put questions which enabled me to form an opinion.

Q. Did he appear to you not to put the necessary questions which he ought to have put under the circumstances? A. I think that it was not owing to any intentional omission, it was rather his want of knowledge, perhaps, of the points upon which my opinion should be based—I asked him to put those questions.

COURT. Q. He is a legal gentleman, and not a medical? A. He is—he

did not exactly understand the medical bearing of the question, and that induced me to suggest questions.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. Then you put some questions which either be put or the witnesses answered? A. Yes, I could not give an opinion without them—I observed that there was an omission to take down the answers—I did not make any observation on that point; I do not remember that I did—I got the information to give an opinion upon—at the time I wrote that letter which has been adverted to, to Mr. Gardner, in which I spoke of antimony as the possible cause of death, I had not had the symptoms which attended the attacks upon Mr. Cook, and which ended in his death, brought to my knowledge—we had merely general information—I did not know the symptoms at the time—I merely had the information that he was well about seven days before he died, and that he died in con-vulsions—I did not know that they had been convulsions of a tetanic character—there was nothing at that time to lead me to suppose that strychnia might have been the cause of death, except the information I received of Palmer's having bought strychnia on the Tuesday—this informa-tion referred also to prussic acid and opium—that was all that I heard.

Q. Failing to find either prussic acid, opium, or strychnia, you referred to antimony as the cause of death? A. As the only substance found in the body—on the occasion of my writing the letter to the Lancet, I had myself been made the subject of a great many attacks—I had been misrepresented as to what I had said upon the subject of the possibility or impossibility of detecting strychnia after death—not in the Lancet only, but in the newspapers, and in every quarter in fact, in the letter to Sir George Grey written by Mr. Smith there was a repetition of the same thing—before I wrote the letter to the Lancet, the subject bad been misrepresented in various newspapers in every direction—it had been represented that I had said that strychnia could not be detected in a dead body, that it was destroyed by putrefaction, when the question of putrefaction had never even arisen in Cook's case.

COURT. Q. Do you mean it could never be detected, or in this particular case? A. It had been represented that I had said that strychnia could never be detected—and the case which we do not refer to by name has been quoted against me, to show how easily it could be detected after death—what I said to the Coroner was, that when absorbed into the blood it could not be separated as strychnia, but if any remain in the stomach more than enough to destroy life, it might by care be found—it was with a view to my own vindication from those charges and misrepresentations that I wrote that letter.

  DR. JOHN OWEN REES . I am a Fellow of the College of Surgeons, and Lecturer on Materia Medica at Guy's—I assisted Professor Taylor in making the analysis of Cook's stomach and intestines sent up—I have heard the evidence of Dr. Taylor of the result of that analysis; it has been very correctly given—I have at different times had my attention drawn a good deal to poisons after death—Dr. Taylor has accurately explained the quantity and the site where the antimony was discovered; I was present the whole time—antimony may be discovered if administered within a few days or a few hours of death—I agree with Dr. Taylor that, under the circumstances, the quantity of antimony we discovered was no test of the quantity which may have been administered—we failed, having applied all the tests, to discover strychnia—the stomach was presented to us in a most unfavourable state for the discovery of strychnia—I opened the jar myself, and found that the stomach had been cut open, and turned inside out,

it's mucous surface lying and rubbing against the intestines—the contents, bad there been any at all, must have been completely thrown among the intestines, and mixed up with them—that rendered it decidedly unfavourable to the hope of discovering strychnia—I believe that strychnia is absorbed before it produces it's symptoms—if by accident or design, enough strychnia is given to destroy life, that might be the consequence, I believe, without my being able to discover it after death—I quite agree with Professor Taylor, that it is the excess which you find; that when vitality is destroyed by the excess of the poison, and an excess remains, you can discover that with care sometimes—I have seen the various experiments tried on animals—I saw the experiments which Dr. Taylor tried on four of the rabbits, not on the fifth—I assisted in the analysis made of the animals, with the endeavour to discover strychnia in all these cases—we destroyed four animals, and failed to detect it in three—the symptoms which I remarked of the death of the animals very much resembled the symptoms which are described as attending Cook's death—I have never seen death in the human subject from strychnia—I have heard narrated in this Court the symptoms attending the death of Mrs. Serjeantson Smith from strychnia, those of the girl in a hospital in Glasgow, and those of a case which is anonymous: all the cases which have been detailed here I have listened to—they are in my opinion closely analogous to the symptoms attending this case, and quite analogous to the experiments which I have made on animal life: from strychnia.

Cross-examined by MR. GROVE. Q. How do you administer the strychnia to animals. A. In pill or bolus—we do not put it into the month, and let them swallow it, but the animal is thrown on it's back, it's legs secured by the hands of assistants, the mouth opened, and the pill introduced into the mouth.

Q. Did you see any instance of the animal rejecting some portion? I am told it is the case sometimes with rabbits, that the animal rejects some portion. A. In the four cases I saw, the pill was well taken; I did not observe that there was any rejected, but I must state that, in the fifth case, which I did not see, I administered the pill, and in that case a small portion of it appeared to escape, but I had to lecture, and I cannot state—the three in which I failed included the two in which Dr. Taylor said that he recognized taste in one, and some degree of colour in the other.

COURT. Q. That was not one of the four you have spoken of? A. No. that was the fifth case.

MR. GROVE. Q. You have told us that you considered that the poison I must be absorbed, do you know that when absorbed it has been found in the blood and other tissues? A. I do not know any satisfactory experiment to that effect—I do not know that Orfila has found it in animal matter which has been putrefied for a long time; I should not think that putrefaction should of necessity destroy it—in this case, when we got the stomach, it was approaching to putrefaction, but there was no very great degree of putrefaction—we have no facts with reference to strychnia, on which to found our judgment in reference to it's action as a poison by absorption—the recognised colour tests are bichromate of potass, peroxide of lead, and manganese—they act in the same way—in our experiments, we prefer the use of strong sulphuric acid and bichromate of potass—the quantity of antimony we found did not weigh any quantity at all—I only form my opinion from deposits themselves so small as to be incapable of being weighed: by guess.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. The presence of antimony was clearly

shown? A. Clearly shown—I found my opinion, that this poison acts by absorption, on the fact that absorption is generally proved to be necessary, with regard to a great many mineral poisons, with vegetable poisons as well, and we found that anything which increases the power of absorption increases the activity of the poison when exhibited—that opinion would be strengthened by the fact that I found in some cases, one or two cases at all events, that as far as I could discover, the whole had been absorbed—I found none after death.

  WILLIAM THOMAS BRANDE , Esq. I am professor of chemistry at the Royal Institution—I am honorary professor at the Royal Institution—I was not present at the analysis made by Dr. Taylor of the liver, spleen, and kidneys of the deceased Mr. Cook—I had a report from Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees sent to me for my opinion upon it—I was present at an actual analysis made by them at Guy's Hospital on Saturday, 3rd May—we then examined, in the first place, the action of copper upon a very weak solution of antimony—we found that there was no action until the solution was slightly acidified by muriatic acid, and heated: the antimony was then deposited—I am able to state positively that that deposit was antimony.

Cross-examined by MR. GROVE. Q. I understand that this was where antimony had been given to your knowledge, not a portion of Mr. Cook's body? A. The case that I have just alluded to was one of a solution of emetic tartar made for the experiment—this is a repetition of the experiment given in the books as Reinche's test—it is called Reinche's test, in reference to arsenic—I only know of three metals thrown down by the copper in that way altogether, arsenic, antimony, and I believe bismuth.

Q. Will not mercury be eliminated in the same way? A. Mercury will go down into the cold without the application of heat, and also when boiled, if you were to plunge it into the hot liquid, it will also go down—lead and tin will go down, I should think, in the cold also; I cannot speak with certainty upon that—lead and tin would also require heat and then go down, and be precipitated in the same way—the effect arising from sulphur and sulphuretted hydrogen does not produce a similar effect, they blacken the copper—the difference to the eye is very manifest—it is ft difference, but the testing afterwards will at once, of course, distinguish between the two.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. Were those tests which were applied by Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees the usual tests to ascertain the fact of antimony being present? A. Certainly—I have no doubt of the fact of antimony being there present—mine was a collateral experiment made upon what Dr. Taylor produced to me—what I did was to try the accuracy of the test which Dr. Taylor had applied—my object was to make an experiment that would satisfy me as to that being a very excellent mode of detecting antimony, and I did satisfy myself.

  DR. ROBERT CHRISTISON . I am a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, and Professor of Materia Medica to the University of Edinburgh—in 1845, I published a treatise on poisons in relation to medical jurisprudence and the practice of physic—among other poisons, I have turned my attention to strychnia—in my opinion strychnia acts upon the human frame through absorption into the blood, and through the blood on the nervous system—I have seen a case of strychnia upon a human subject, but not fatally—an over-dose taken medicinally—I have frequently seen experiments tried upon animals, frogs, rabbits, cats, dogs, and one wild boar—I first directed uiy attention to this poison in 1820, in Paris—it was first

made matter of inquiry by the French—it was discovered two years before that, at Paris—in these experiments upon animals, I have given, in most of my experiments, very small doses, but sometimes as much as one grain—I call a small dose a sixth part of a grain—I do not know what is the smallest dose to kill a rabbit, as administered by the stomach—I have administered it by injecting it into the cavity of the chest by a small incision—I have given it by the stomach—I have found a sixth part of a grain take life away—in that way it killed a dog in two minutes—I have administered it oc-casionally by the stomach—I have seen a grain so given, I do not recollect having given more—that was to a rabbit; the animal died, but in how short a time I cannot recollect at this time—it is a long time since I made these experiments, but I have seen an experiment made lately—that was on a rabbit the other day, one of the experiments made by Dr. Taylor—he gave then, I think, about three-quarters of a grain; a very small quantity of that was rejected by the animal, or rather was not swallowed, three-quarters was given, but a very small quantity was not swallowed—between the eases of rabbits, cats, and dogs there is very little difference, but there are differences between individuals of the same species, and differences between the species—the first symptom that I have observed has been a slight tremor and unwillingness to move, then frequently the animal jerks it's head back slightly, and very soon after that all the symptoms of tetanus come on, which have been so often described in the evidence of previous witnesses—there is occasionally an intermission of the symptoms for a short while, an intermission of the spasms—where it has been introduced into the stomach it is between five or six minutes and twenty-five minutes before the animal dies, in other cases it is much more rapid—from the giving the poison to the first symptoms coming on I have seen it as late as twelve minutes before it begins to act, before the first appearance of tremor: and then from the first commencement of the symptoms to their termination in death it is from five or six minutes to twenty or twenty-five minutes—the symptoms always have been very much the same—I think, where one can trace it very carefully, that the jaws and the back of the head seem affected first, and then the trunk and the extremities.

Q. Which first? A. In such rapidity that it is very difficult to follow the succession—I mentioned that I had sometimes observed differences in individuals of the same species, that the intermission sometimes is wanting—they die in one long, continuous spasm, with scarcely any intermission; but that is uncommon—I have commonly found a remission of the symptoms immediately before death, so that the animal has died quietly, that is a, state of fiaccidity about the period of the termination of life—I have always observed an interval before the rigidity of the muscles that takes place after death—there is a cessation of the symptoms immediately before death the rigidity is gone, the body is quite flaccid—in such cases, after death, we find the rigidity renewed very soon—I have not attended to it's duration—I have frequently opened the bodies of animals that have been thus killed—I never could see any effect which I could trace upon the stomach or intestines, nor any apparent effect upon the spinal cord or brain, any visible or apparent change; none which I could trace satisfactorily to the poison—the heart of such an animal after death generally contains blood—I have not found it devoid of blood in animals, it has been found so by others, but I have not—I have seen one case in the human subject—I have seen several where a mild over-action was produced, but one in which a severe over-action was produced—it was from an overdose given medicinally—the symptoms of

that case were the fixing of the jaw, spasmodic retraction of the head, slight grinning expression of the mouth, and a slight stiffness of the anus and fingers, no convulsion of the muscles of the trunk, great alarm; no con-vulsive movement of the arms and legs—I have collected all the cases that have occurred up to the time of the publication of my book, as far as I could discover them.

Q. Should you expect to find that the poison took a longer time in pro-ducing it's effect upon the human subject than it would upon an animal? A. It appears to require a longer time in the larger animals; in the case of the wild boar, it was injected into the chest—the operation, therefore, was rapid—that animal was dead in ten minutes from the third of a grain.

Q. To come back to the human subject: in what length of time, with the knowledge that you have derived from the cases that you have collected, does the poison operate upon the human subject? A. Do you mean operate to produce death, or begin to operate?

Q. Begin to operate. A. I think there are cases where strychnia, in the shape of nux vomica, has not operated for about an hour; but given in the shape of strychnia, the time seems in general shorter than nux vomica, but that will depend upon the mode in which it is given.

Q. In the generality of cases which are reported in the books it has been given in the solid form, generally in the solid, but sometimes in the fluid; and it will make a difference whether it is in the one or the other in the time it will require? A. Well, there is a want of precise information as to the materials with which the poison is given, and that often signifies materially—I mean the material with which it is mixed up—supposing that it was given in the shape of a pill, much might depend upon the materials used for making the pill—it might certainly be mixed up with materials which would protract the period at which the symptoms would make their appearance—resinous materials are all difficult of digestion—such materials would be within the knowledge and reach of a medical man—some of those resinous substances are often used for making ordi-nary pills—absorption would begin as soon as the pill came to be broken down or digested, but not before—the less soluble the pill the longer would be the period required—I do not think we can fix, in the present state of knowledge, the precise time for the poison beginning to operate after it has been taken into the stomach—when we give it to an animal for the purpose of watching the effect of the poison, we take care that the animal is fasting, and have every circumstance favourable for the action of poison—we mix it up with materials that shall be readily soluble in the stomach—I have seen cases of tetanus of the natural kind, arising from disease and from wounds—I cannot say how many instances—I have seen a good many arising from wounds, but very few from natural disease.

Q. Is there, in your opinion, any marked difference between natural tetanus and the tetanus of strychnia? A. I would not rest much upon the little difference of particular symptoms, but rather upon the course of the symptoms and the general circumstances attending them—the difference in respect of the course of the symptoms is, first, that in all the natural forms of tetanus the symptoms begin and advance much more slowly; and secondly, they prove fatal much more slowly.

Q. When once set up, do you find in the natural tetanus any complete intermission? A. In certain forms of natural tetanus there is no inter-mission—where the first paroxysm does not prove fatal, there are occasional short intermissions in tetanus from strychnia—I heard the evidence given

by Elizabeth Mills of what took place on the Monday, and by Mr. Jones of what took place on the Tuesday night, when Mr. Cook died—referring to my experience, both by personal observation and by general study of the two classes of tetanus, I should refer the spasms and other symptoms spoken to by those two witnesses, to strychnia, or one of the natural poisons containing it—there are four kinds of poisons, different from one another, which contain it—they are nux vomica, St. Ignatius's bean, snakewood, and a Java poison called tschk—they belong to different plants of the same genus, stryehnos, from all of which strychnia has been obtained—when I refer those symptoms to strychnia that would be pure strychnia, or one of the natural poisons which contain it, which I have enumerated—there is no natural disease to which I can refer these symptoms, none that I have ever seen or that I know.

Q. Now there is one thing which I omitted to ask you with regard to animals, and also to the human subject; when death takes place from tetanus or tetanic convulsions, does consciousness continue, or is it ever overcome? A. As long as, one can make an observation upon it, it remains—when the animal is in a state of strong universal spasm, it is impossible to make any observation on it's consciousness—in the animals that I have seen killed, the heart of some remains with blood in it—that is not always 90 with the human subject—it varies in the human subject—I ascribe the feet, that it sometimes is found with blood in it, and sometimes empty, to the particular mode of death, to the dose varying.

Q. What mode of death will have the effect of emptying the heart? A. It is evident that in some instances, as in this case, that took; place by a spasm of the heart—I then expect to find emptiness of the heart—the ipasm expels the blood—with regard to the finding of strychnia altar death, where the death has taken place from strychnia, I should not expect to find it where the quantity is small: but where there is an excess over the quantity necessary to destroy life by absorption, I should expect to find it if the excess is considerable—I think the colouring tests are uncertain in some respects—vegetable poisons are generally more difficult to detect—there is one, I know, for which there it no test that I know of—I did not see the stomach that was sent to Dr. Taylor to operate upon—I heard the description that he gave of it to-day—my opinion is, that it was in a very unsatisfactory condition for chemical analysis—if I had been called upon to analyze such a stomach as he has described, I should have entertained no reasonable expectation of doing any good with it, unless I had been informed that there was a considerable quantify of strychnia present—I mean it would be necessary that there should be a considerable quantity of strychnia in the stomach beforehand, in order to be able to find it under the circumstances—I heard the evidence as to the Leeds case, the Romsey case, and the Glasgow case—those were deaths by strychnia, I have no doubt—the symptoms of Mr. Cook appear to me to have been very similar.

Cross-examined by MR. GROVE. Q. Do I understand you that the experiments, all but one that you made, were made by you many years ago? A. Those experiments, excluding the one, were before the colour tests were known—I do not think that I have made any observation about my having experimented much upon the tests for strychnia—none of the experiments that I made long ago had any reference to chemical analysis—I have made an experiment with the colour tests in the case of a man poisoned by strychnia, and I failed to find strychnia by one of the tests most relied on—that is the only one in which I made an

experiment with a colour test—that occurred in 1851—the test I employed there was the development of a violet colour, by means of sulphuric acid and the oxide of lead, used instead of the bichromate of potash, I did not try that in that case, nor the manganese, and no experiments with animals with those tests—that case was a man who was found dead—I did not see him, or see the administration of strychnia to him—he was found dead on a moor—I know nothing about the exhibition of strychnia of my own know-ledge—the case was investigated, and the particulars submitted to me in the usual manner—it is reported by the medical gentleman who consulted me upon the matter, in the Monthly Medical Journal of September, 1851, I think—from my own observation, I should say that animals who die from strychnia die by asphyxia—but you will find in another part of my work from that to which you refer, that I leave the question open—I wish you to understand by asphyxia, stoppage of the respiration—the literal meaning of it is stoppage of the pulse, but it no longer bears that meaning.

Q. Can you refer me to the head in your work? A. It is under the head of Nux Vomica, at the bottom of page 898: "On account of the singular symptoms of irritation of the spinal cord, uncombined with any injury of the brain, this poison is believed to act on the spinal marrow alone; but from some experiments by Segalas, it appears also to exhaust the irritability of the heart, for in animals he found that organ could not be stimulated to contract after breathing. A similar observation was made long ago by Wepfer, who found the heart motionless, and distended with arterial blood in its left cavities; and a case of poisoning in the human subject, to the same effect, will be presently related"—that leaves the question open, whether death, may not take place through an influence of the heart on the respiration, which is now decidedly my opinion from what has been done before, and from what has occurred since—the distension of the heart which you mention would not be consistent with death by asphyxia; not with arterial blood in the left side of the heart—I think it is a fair inference, therefore I leave the question open in that passage, and I quote experiments different from those which I myself found.

Q. Here is a case where the heart was distended with arterial blood? A. Death must have taken place from an affection of the heart.

Q. I understand you to state that you do not give that as an inference in your book, which I am not able to find, and do not find it now? A. It is to be understood that that was addressed to medical men, and they would understand it by that statement—I would beg to be allowed to add, that twelve years have elapsed since that book was published, and a great deal of information upon that subject has been acquired since—I do not infer that death arises from asphyxia if the body is flaccid—death must have arisen from the heart in that case.

Q. In the animals that you examined there was blood in the right cavity? A. In both.

Q. Now you state in your book, tell me whether you have reason to alter your opinion, that "When death does not take place suddenly, in a fit of spasms, the person continues to be affected for twelve or fourteen hours, with similar but milder paroxysms, and afterwards he may either recover without further symptoms, or expire in a short time, apparently from exhaustion, or suffer an attack of inflammation of the stomach and intestines, which may or may not prove fatal." Is that a statement which is in your opinion correct? A. In the man to whom reference was made a short time ago, whom I saw----

Q.

Be kind enough to direct your attention to my question; is the case I have read to you the general description of the effects of the poison? A. Yes, it is, as we were acquainted with the facts at that time.

Q. And subsequently, as to the general character; I am not asking you as to any special case; I read it, twelve or sixteen hours? A. I have known the effect cease in a shorter time.

Q. Tou state at page 903, after mentioning a case where the body was rigid, "The state of rigidity, however, does not invariably occur; on the contrary, in animals the limbs become flaccid immediately after death, but the usual rigidity supervenes at an early period;" I presume the usual rigidity is the rigor mortis? A. Yes.

Q. You add a note, "I have not altered the statement as to this point in a former edition, yet I strongly suspect that authors who describe the spasm which precedes death to continue, as it were, into the rigidity which occurs after death, must have observed inaccurately, for in the numerous experiments I have made and witnessed on animals, flaccidity invariably took place at the time of death, and continued for a moderate interval"—is that your present opinion? A. I think it is very likely, the interval being very short, that the attention may not have been attracted to the fact of there having been an interval of flaccidity—there have been, in some cases mentioned, very strong indications certainly of the spasm having continued from the spasm of life to what we call the spasm of death; but I think the ease may be explained on the supposition that there has been a want of minute attention—it is right to state, that in all investigations on the action of poisons, very close observation is necessary.

Q. You mention a ease at page 906, where you say, speaking of the true Angustura, "A boy who fell a victim to it implored his physician not to touch him, as he was immediately thrown into a fit." Is there a tendency to throw the patient into a fit when touched? A. That does not appear an immediate cause generally, but in animals it is very remarkable—it is not noticed in the generality of cases—there is no doubt it has been noticed—there is a case in Dr. Watson's book, in which it has been noticed—I have been struck with observing that it has not been so often noticed, considering that it is so very general in animals—it is not mentioned—in animals I have invariably observed it, unless you touch them very gently indeed—the bitter taste of strychnia is very remarkable and enduring—a grain in 80,000 gallons will make it taste bitter, it is said; that is upon the authority of the French gentleman who discovered the poison—it is one grain in 80,000 parts, a little more than a gallon—it is not my own observation, I wish it to be understood.

Q. You stated that care was taken, in administering it to animals, to administer it to them fasting; do you think it likely that the effect would supervene more quickly if administered to an empty stomach? A. Certainly—I stated that we took pains to administer it to a healthy animal, and on an empty stomach.

Q. If resinous substances were used in a pill, would they not be found in the stomach afterwards? A. No, if they were not acted upon, they would pass into the intestines, and would be found in the intestines, if not discharged—the strychnia would be discharged with them, or gradually acted upon, for even resinous substances undergo solution in time in the stomach and intestines—if the resinous substance prevented the poison acting rapidly, it would prevent its absorption into the blood for a time—if

so, it would be more likely to leave portions of it in the stomach or intestines.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. Would that depend materially on the quantity of the dose? A. Both on the dose and on the time during which the pill was allowed to remain—the oase of the gamekeeper is reported by the medical gentleman who called in my assistance—it is to be found in the "Monthly Journal of Medical Science," published at Edinburgh, of Sept., 1851—the facts are: a gamekeeper was found dead after being four days missing, and the head of the body was thrown back, the hands clenched, and the muscles rigid—a paper of strychnia was found in his pocket, and I found in the contents of the stomach indications of strychnia, sufficient to satisfy me under these circumstances as to the probable cause of death—by a process like that of Dr. Taylor, I obtained an extract strongly and enduringly bitter, and which became yellow by nitric acid, but it did not give the indication of the other colour test already mentioned; violet.

MR. GROVE. Q. You mean the oxide of lead? A. Yes.

COURT. Q. How did you ascertain that there was strychnia in the stomach? A. The gentleman who examined the case on the spot ascertained that it was strychnia—I do not recollect at the moment what his test was, but I was quite satisfied with his method of investigation at the time—it is a very easy matter to detect strychnia when it is found in a state of purity, as he found it there.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. He had it in his pocket? A. Yes—he was in the practice of using it for the purpose of killing vermin—I have nothing further to say upon the head of colour tests—it appears that colour tests are not to be relied upon in the case of strychnia in an impure condition—in the first place, you may not find indications of strychnia, we cannot depend upon finding strychnia by them; and secondly, they are subject to fallacy even when the strychnia is pure; that is from other substances not containing strychnia presenting similar appearances—those substances that might present the same appearance are the substances mentioned by Dr. Taylor—I should add, that I was not aware of that until they were pointed out to me by Dr. Taylor, and exhibited—I saw the results produced by him.

Adjourned.

Tuesday, May 20th.

  DR. JOHN JACKSON . I am a member of the College of Physicians—I have recently returned from India, where I have practised for many years, twentyfive years—I have had my attention directed during that practice to cases of idiopathic and traumatic tetanus—the disease of idiopathie tetanus appears to be rare in England—it is very frequent in India compared with this country—in the hospital at Calcutta the cases of idiopathic compared with traumatic tetanus are about one third—not less than forty cases of idiopathic tetanus have come under my observation—idiopathic tetanus is equally fatal as the traumatic in India; it is not so considered, but I have found it so—very frequently it is found with children, both native and European—it takes place about the third day after birth—it has also been occasioned by cold in that climate—in children and infants there is a more marked symptom of locked jaw—in adults there is no difference in the symptoms from traumatic—in this disease, especially idiopathic, I have always seen it preceded by premonitory symptoms, which are a peculiar expression of the countenance,

stiffness of the muscles, of the throat, and jaws—in children and in infahls it will kill in forty-eight hours.

COURT. Q. Is that the usual time. A. Yes, forty-eight hours in adules, arising from cold, it is of longer duration, and may continue many days, going through the same grades as the traumatic form.

MR. JAMBS, Q. Hare you seen the evidence describing the atiack which Mr. Cook had on the Monday, and again on the Tuesday. A. Yes, but I was not in Court.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEAWT SHEE. Q. Pray, in these oasts of idiopathic tetanus, does the patient appear unconfortable for some were before the attack? A. Always—his appetite is not so much affected, but he complaing more of the muscles of his neck—he may, with twelve house previous to the attack, have the same relish far food, but he complaint more of stiflness of the back of his neck and stiffness in the front of his neck—he may take his food as usual within twelve hours of the premomitory symptoms, but his attention is more directed to the stiffness of his month and the stiffness of his neck.

Q. You say that within twelve hours of the attack he relishes food in if no attack was impending, but during those twelve house which precede in first attack, does not he appear lass anxious and less desirous of food, and lest desirous to eat? A. I have never heard them compiain—I have known cases of idiopathic tetanus in which the first paroxysm was in bed—I hate known it preceded by a stiffness of the neck and mouth, and I have known those oases take place ia women after confinement, alter miscarriage.

COURT. Q. You are asked now if you knew a case where the first paroxysm took place in bed? A. Yes, such as after confinement or miscarriage.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. You will not tell me anytlhig but stillness of the neck? A. Sometimes there is difficulty of swallowing observed as a premonitory symptom—where there is difficulty in swallowing, there is sometimes disinclination.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. What interval hat occurred in those oases which have come under your attention between the premonitory symptoms and the convulsions? A. In an infant, not more than six hours, and in an adult in twelve to twenty-four hours, and sometimes more than that—the period from the commencement of the tetanic convulsions to death will very from three days to ten days—it may take place earlier—it sometimes many be as early as two days.

Q. Does that apply to traumatic tetanus as well as idiopathic tetanus? A. They are both alike, when the disease sets in, as regards the course of the symptoms.

COURT. Q. Then the idiopathic and traumatic tetanus only differ in this that the idiopathic seems to proceed without external injury, and the traumatic tetanus from an external injury? A. Yes; the idiopathio will take place from exposure to cold.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. Is the disease much more prevalent in India than it is in these climates? A. Both forms are much more common in India than in this climate—I do not say that there is any difference in the severity of the symptoms in that climate and in this country, but they are more susceptible in that couritry; once set up, the symptoms of tetanus generally are the same—I never saw a ease in India where" the disease ran its course and ended in death in twenty minutes or half an hour.

  DANIEL SCULLY BURGEN . re-examined. I am Chief Suptrtetendent of Police

in Staffordshire. I attended the Coroner's Inquest oil the body of Cook—after the verdict had been returned, I searched the house of Mr. Palmer on Saturday night, 15th December—I found some papers, and had them conveyed from the surgery into the drawing room—the great proportion of them were found in a drawer in the surgery, and a few were got in Mr. Palmer's bedroom—I searched every part of the house for papers—I put all that I found into one place, in the drawing room, locked the door, and put the key in my pocket—on the following day, Sunday, I endeavoured to make a selection of them in the presence of Mr. George Palmer, the brother of the prisoner—he is an attorney at Rugeley—I cannot say that I had given him notice what I was about to do—he was in the house, and was present—I found him there at the house, or else he came in immediately afterwards—he was present the greater part of the day, on Sunday, when I went through the papers—I was assisted in going through them by Inspector Crisp and Superintendent Woollaston—we made a selection from the papers—I eventually carried all the papers to Stafford, I gave up the idea of selection—I continued the selection on the Monday, and took them all away on the Tuesday morning—Mr. George Palmer was there on Monday again, but I do not think he was there on Tuesday—I placed the papers all in a black leather bag, every paper I could lay my hand upon, and conveyed them to Stafford, where I delivered them to Mr. Hatton, the Chief Constable—some days afterwards, I believe on the 24th, the bag was opened in my presence, and the papers were then minutely gone through by Mr. Deane, the solicitor for the prosecution, who classified them, and they were then put back again in the bag, at night.

COURT. Q. Did Mr. Deane keep a portion of them? A. He copied a portion of them, I am not aware that he kept any—they were afterwards all placed in the bag again, and left in the Chief Constable's office and possession.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. When you were searching on the Monday and Tuesday, for the purpose of making what you originally contemplated, namely, a selection, did you go through the papers? did you see what they were? A. I did—I did not find a cheque purporting to bear the signature of Cook on Messrs. Weatherby—no such document as a paper purporting to bear the signature of Cook relating to bills of exchange, and dates and numbers, and acknowledging that several bills had been negotiated for the benefit of Cook, and that Palmer had had no benefit from them, came under my notice—some of those papers were, to my knowledge, afterwards returned—Mr. Deane selected a large number of letters and documents, private accounts, private letters, and various private documents, and they were delivered to Inspector Crisp, with instructions to deliver them to Mr. George Palmer—William Palmer was arrested on the night of 15th December—I attended the inquest on Cook—I remember Roberts, the apprentice to Mr. Hawkins, being examined—I remember Newton being examined—I cannot say how soon he was examined after Roberts had been examined—I did not fetch Newton, and do not know who did.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. The Inquest was held at the Talbot Arms, was it not? A. It was: it continued several days, it was adjourned from day to day—I am not able to charge my memory how many days it sat consecutively—they did not sit two days together the first time, it was one day, I think, each time until the last, but I am not positive; it was then three days, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday—I think there was an interval of a fortnight between the first and second meeting—the

first meeting was merely to impanel the jury—as to the second, I cannot give dates, but they can be given—there were several meetings, and, I think, before it was concluded, a fortnight had passed, or more; more than a fortnight elapsed between the first meeting and the last—the prisoner was arrested by the Sheriff a day or two before the verdict was delivered; that was on the civil process—I think he was at his house at Rugeley from the commencement of the inquest until the time he was arrested, unless he went up to London, and came back again—I saw him there—I am quite satisfied that such was the case—he did not attend the inquest himself, nor did any one act professionally for him—I do not know whether there had been an officer of London police at Rugeley, some time before the death of Cook—I heard of Inspector Field, but never saw him or met with him—I believe he is not a police officer—I do not know the mother of Elizabeth Mills, or the mother of Button—I have heard that there are such people as the Duttons—I do not know them, they reside too far from Kugeley—I do not know anything more of them than that they reside near their mother.

  HENRY AUGUSTUS DEANE . I am of the firm of Chubb, Deane, and Chubb, solicitors, of Gray's Inn—I attended the inquest on the body of Ann Palmer on the part of the Insurance Company—I did not attend the inquest on Cook—I do not remember the prisoner's papers being seized at his arrest—the first time I saw the papers was at Stafford, on 24th Dec., they were then in the custody of Mr. Burgen, the last witness—they were in a black bag; which was unsealed in my presence, and I went through the whole of them—Mr. Burgen, Mr. Hatton, the chief constable, and myself were present—I carefully examined the whole of those papers for the purpose of selecting those which it was necessary that the chief constable should keep in his possession, and returning those which were immaterial—I returned very considerable quantity of those papers to George Palmer, the solicitor to the prisoner—among the papers which I saw and examined, I found no cheque which purported to be signed by the deceased Cook for 350l. on Messrs; Weatherby—I found one cheque, but not on Messrs. Waatherby—I heard the witness Cheshire examined about the document which Palmer required him to attest—I found nothing of that sort—there was no acknowledgment purporting to be signed by Cook that bills to the amount of some thousand pounds had been accepted by Palmer for Cook's benefit—I saw George Palmer, the solicitor, after the papers which I had selected were returned to him.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. What is the name of your firm? A. Chubb, Beane, and Chubb—I know of Mr. Field, a detective officer, having been at Kugeley some time previous to the inquest—we were solicitors to the Prince of Wales Insurance Office—Inspector Field, on our employment for them, came down with me to Rugeley—he was at Rugeley merely a part of one day—he was at Stafford for I think three or four days altogether—he did not see the prisoner during his stay in Staffordshire—his visit had been preceded by that of another officer, named Simpson—I cannot tell of my own knowledge whether Simpson was for any time at Rugeley—he was there part of the day Field was there, and I was there also—I saw him at Stafford, but on no other occasion at Rugeley—that is all I can speak to of my own knowledge—he went from Stafford to Rugeley with myself and Mr. Field—he told me that he had seen Palmer before—I think Simpson-first came to Staffordshire on pur employment in the first week in October it must have been.

MR. JAMES. Q. You say that you were solicitors to the Prince of Wales; for what purpose was Field sent down? A. To make inquiries as to the habits of life of Mr. Walter Palmer, of whose death the office had shortly; before received notice, and also to inquire into the circumstances of a person of the name of George Bate, with reference to a proposal for an insurance of 25,000l. on his life.

JOHN ESPIN. I am a solicitor practising in Davis-street, Berkeleysquars—I am a solicitor for Mr. Pailwick—I produce a bill for 2,000l., which was placed in my hands by Mr. Pad wick to enforce payment from the prisoner—I do not know the prisoner's writing.

MR. STRAWBRIDGE. re-examined. The drawing and endorsing of this bill, and the name of "Wm. Palmer," is in the prisoner's writing—this acceptance, purporting to be signed "Sarah Palmer," is not in Sarah Palmer'a writing—(The bill being read, purported to be drawn by William Palmer on Mrs. Sarah Palmer, of Rugdey, dated 3rd July, 1854, for 2,000l. to the order of the drawer, three months after date. Accepted by Sarah Palmar, and endorsed, William Palmer.)

  JOHN ESPIN . continued. This bill would be due on Oct. 6th, 1854—1,000l. had been paid on that bill when it was placed in my hands—on 20th Nov., 1855, or about that period, the bill was placed in my hands, for the purpose of enforcing payment—I should say that it must have been placed in my hands about 12th Dec., because I signed judgment on that day, and issued the writ, therefore it must hare been only a day or two preview to 12th Dec.—I should think it was hardly so soon as 20th Nov., because I know I signed judgment within a day or two of it's being placed in my hands—I had not myself been making application for payment of the bill in Nov.—execution issued on 12th Dec.—I hare a letter here (produced) from William Palmer, addressed to Mr. Pad wick.

MR. STRAWRRIDGE. re-examined These two letters are in the writing of the prisoner—(read; Nov. 12, 1855. To Mr. Padwick. Dear Sir,—I have inclosed you a cheque for the amount of your claim against me, and shall feel particularly obliged if you will not present it till the 28th. I am, dear Sir, yours truly, W. Palmer."The second letter bore no address, and was at follows;" Dear Sir,—There is a mistake, as you have not had the 350l.; but I will come up in a few days, and arrange that, and the cheque, I would have come up to-morrow, but am suffering from influenza. I am, dear Sir, youw truly. W. Palmer.")

MR. JAMES. to MR. ESPIN, Q. Have you got the cheque which that letter of 12th Nov. inclosed? A. Yes; this is it—it is for 1,000l—it id dated the 28th—that cheque was mot paid—I have another cheque here, dated 8th Dec., for 600l.

MR. STRAWBRIDGE. re-examined. This cheque is in Palmer's writing—(read: Dried Dec. 8th, 1855, for 600l. and payable to Mr. Padwick, of bearer.)

MR. ESPIN. continued. That cheque was not paid—by the date of it, I think it was sent a few days after the other cheque for 1,000l., was disho-noured—up to the date of the execution, which I sent down on the 12th, that 1,000l. still remained due—the execution was a casa against his person—that realized nothing—he was taken on that casa.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. When did you first see the cheque of Dec. 8th? A. A day or two before 12th Dec.—that was placed in my hands—I will not be positive, but I believe all the documents were placed in my hands together.

MR. JAMES. Q. One question I have omitted; do not tell me what occurred, but was an action brought against the mother on this hill? A. There was—I have got the papers here.

  WILLIAM BAMFORD . I am a surgeon and apothecary, at Rugeley, in Staffordshire. I first saw the deceased, John Parsons Cook, on Saturday, 17th Nov.—William Palmer called on me to attend on a friend of his, who was unwell, at the Talbot Arms—I walked down with him—he said that Cook had been dining with him the day before, and had taken too much wine, champagne—I saw Cook, and asked him as to his having taken too much wine the day before, and he assured me that he had taken but two glasses—I found no appearance of bile which he threw off while I saw him, but a constant vomiting—(The COURT. considered that anything respecting the symptoms had better be avoided now)—Mr. Palmer had been called up to him that morning, at 6 o'clock—I prescribed a saline effervescing draught for him, a six ounce mixture—on my second visit to him on the Monday evening, I prescribed some pills for him—the medicine and the pills I prepared for him while Mr. Palmer stopped at my house—he stopped, I prepared the pills, and he took them away.

Q. But I am speaking of Monday, when Palmer was not there? A. On the Monday; what I prepared on Monday I took myself, both the medicine, which I gave him in the morning, and the pills in the evening I took down to the Talbot Arms, and gave them to the servant myself, the servant who had been waiting on him, but I cannot say her name—I saw her take the medicine up stairs myself—it was a servant maid—on the Saturday, Sunday, and Monday, I prepared the same pills—I saw Palmer on the Tuesday morning; I was going down to see the patient, and he met me, and told me that there was no necessity—I asked him if he had seen Mr. Cook the night before—he said that he saw him between 9 and 10 o'clock, and was with him for half an hour—he requested that I would not go to disturb him, as he did not wish me to see him, and I went home without seeing him—Palmer met me again between 12 and 1 o'clock—I was then going to see Palmer, and he stopped me, and told me that he did not wish him disturbed.

COURT. Q. Were you going to see Palmer or Cook? A. I was going to see Palmer again, and he said that he did not wish him disturbed.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. Do you mean Palmer or Cook? A. mean Cook—Palmer said that he was still quiet, and he did not, wish him disturbed—at 7 o'clock that evening, Palmer came up to my house again and requested me to go down and see him again—that was the first time I saw him on Tuesday—after I had seen Cook, I went out with Mr. Jones and Mr. William Palmer, but when I saw Mr. Cook I found him in a most excited state—having seen him I walked out with Mr. Jones and Palmer, and Palmer said that he should rather wish him to have his pills again, and he walked up with me to my house for them, and waited by while I prepared them—I prepared them in my surgery, and he stood by and saw me weigh the ingredients out—I had strychnia in my private room, but not in my shop—I keep it in a cupboard in my private room, not in my shop—after I had made up the pills I wrote a direction—"Night Pills, John Parsons Cook, Esq.," on the box—I wrote the "Night Pills" on all the four nights—the first night I wished but one pill to be given—on the Tuesday night, before I wrote the direction, Mr. Palmer requested that I would put a direction on, nothing more, and he saw me write the direction—he said, "Will you put a direction on?"—I do not know that anything passed between us—he took them away with him—nothing more passed between us than "Will you put a direction on them?"—I never saw Cook alive after between 7 and 8 o'clock—it

was between 7 and 8 o'clock when Mr. Palmer carried off the pills—I cannot say more—I lapped the direction and the box up in a separate paper, and sealed it before I gave it to him—I put no impression, nothing more than the sealing wax at each end of the box—"Night Pills" was written on the outside paper—the paper was lapped up, and an outside paper beside—the direction was on a separate paper, not round the box—there was nothing written on the box—I took the direction, folded it in a piece under the box, and then lapped it up in a separate piece of paper—the piece of paper on which the direction was written, was a separate piece—it was between the box and the outer coyer—I sealed the two ends of the outer paper on each end of the box—nothing was written on the outside paper—I think it was as near to 20 minutes past 12 o'clock as could be, that I saw Cook dead—I understood that he was alive when they came up for me, and I could not have been above five or ten minutes before I was down there—I found the body stretched out as straight as could be, on his heels and his back, with each arm in a rigid state on each side of him—he was stretched out with his legs extended, and on his heels and the back of his head, as straight as possible and stiff—there was nothing unnatural in the position of the body that I saw, more than that his arms were extended down each side of his body, and both his hands stretched as mine are—I gave it as my opinion that he died from apoplexy—I filled a certificate up, and gave it as my opinion that he died of apoplexy—Mr. Palmer asked me to fill up that certificate—I have the forms in my possession—I told Mn Palmer, when he asked me, that it was his place, as he was his patient, to have filled that certificate up, but he said that he had much rather I did it, and so I did—I was present at the post mortem examination—after it was over, Palmer said we ought not to have let that jar go—his words were "We ought not to have let that jar go"—he did not say more.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. How far is your house from Mr. Palmer's house; I recollect that it is a very short distance, but how far is it? A. Perhaps 200 yards.

  THOMAS PRATT . I am a solicitor, in practice in Queen-street, Mayfair. I was acquainted with the prisoner, William Palmer—my acquaintance with him commenced in the latter end of 1853—I first obtained for him a loan of 1,000l., which was ultimately paid in the end of Nov., 1853—in Oct., 1854, I was employed by him to make a claim on two policies, on the life of Anne Palmer, 5,000l. from the Sun, and 3,000l. from the Norwich Union—I received the monies on his account—the money was applied in payment of three bills, I think amounting to perhaps 3,500l. or 4,000l. which was due on acceptances and loans, subsequently obtained, after I made the claim on the policy—there was 1,500l. of that money not so applied—6,500l. was applied in payment of those loans, and the 1,500l. was allowed to stand over, he receiving the money—it was applied as he requested, for his purposes, without payment of any liabilities—in April, 1855, he made an application for a loan of 2,000l.—I am not aware that he stated the purpose for which the loan was required; no horses were men-tioned—I obtained that loan on the security of a bill drawn by himself, for 2,000l., and accepted by Sarah Palmer—I now produce eight bills, which on 20th Nov., were held by myself, or clients of mine, who had advanced money on them—four were held by my clients, and four by myself—there were two bills overdue at that time—(These bills were here put in and read; they all purported to be drawn by William Palmer, upon and accepted by Sarah Palmer, payable to the order of the drawer, ana endorsed by William Palmer, and were of the following dates and amounts: 5th June, 1854, for

500l.; July 2nd, 1854, for 1,000l.; July 22nd, 1855, for 2,000l.; July 24th, 1855, for 2,000l.; Sept. 27th, 1855, for 1,000l.; 29th, 1855, for 2,000l.; Oct. 2nd, 1855, for 2,000l. and Oct. 12th, 1855, for 2,000l.; all three months)—of those bills, two of 2,000l. each, due respectively 25th and 27th Oct., I believe, were the only bills which were due at the period alluded to, 20th Nov.—the others had been renewed, with the exception of one for 500l. and 1,000l., which were held over from month to month, and the interest for holding these bills over, was to be paid to me from month to month—these bills, with two exceptions, were discounted at the rate of sixty per cent, including costs—those exceptions were forty per cent, that was only on two occasions, and not continued—on 9th Nov., the interest for the holding over of those bills was due—I remember the death of Walter Palmer—that occurred in Aug. of last year—I was instructed by the prisoner to make a claim on the Prince of Wales Office for a sum of money on the policy on his life—the amount I claimed was 13,000l—Sarah Palmer is the prisoner's mother, from time to time I addressed letters to her while I was the holder of these bills—on the 16th Sept, 1855, I wrote a letter to the prisoner.

  CAPT. HATTON . re-examined. These letters were found amongst the prisoner's papers—they have been in my custody ever since—(The following letters were here read;"London, Sept 18, 1855. Dear Sir (Bates's insurance),—I send you on the other side the copy of a letter from Mr. Gill Let me have an answer to it") ("P. of W. I have an acknowledgment of the papers, but not a word more.") ("Cook's assignment: I do not want an affidavit of the execution of the warrant of attorney, but of the bill of sale. Ask Mr. Smith to make the affidavit I now enclose, and return it to me. If you are now quite settled, on your return from Doncaster, do, pray, think about your three bills, so shortly becoming due. If I do not get a positive appointment from the office (the Prince of Wales) to pay, which I do not expect, you must be prepared to meet them, as agreed. You told me your mother was coming up this month, and would settle them. Yours, truly, Thomas Pratt W. Palmer, Esq., Rugeley.")

  THOMAS PRATT . continued. The P. of W. (Prince of Wales), is the office in which I was claiming the 13,000l. for the prisoner, on Walter Palmer's death—about the 24th I addressed this letter to the prisoner—("London, 24th Sept, 1855. My dear Sir,—You are aware there are three bills of 2,000l. each, accepted by your mother, Mrs. Sarah Palmer, falling due in a day or two. Now, as the 13,000l. cannot be received from the Prince of Wales office for three months to come, it will be necessary that these bills should be renewed. I will therefore thank you to send me up three new acceptances, to meet those coming due, and which, when they fall due, I presume, the money from the office will be ready to meet, which will leave 1,500l. more than your mother has given acceptances for. Yours, &c., Thomas Pratt W. Palmer, Esq. Rugeley. P. S.: Please let me hear by return of post.") ("Oct. 2,1855. Dear Sir,—Gill is out of town; in a few days he will return, when I will see him.—(P. of W.) As I somewhat anticipated (read the copy of a letter inclosed, which I received last night), we can do nothing until the 24th, and even then I doubt if any steps can be taken until after three months from the day of proof of death. This, you will observe, quite alters arrangements; and I, therefore, must request you to make preparations for meeting the two bills due at the end of this month. I will not flag in my exertions to'get the claim on the policy settled; but I cannot now urge the possible receipt of this money in three months' time, if at all. You must be perfectly able to judge of the facts the office are possessed of to induce

them to avoid payment, but as yet it won't do simply to say they must pay, but we must try and make them. In any event, bear in mind you must be prepared to cover your mother's two acceptances for the 4,000l. due at the end of the month. Yours, &c., Thomas Pratt. W. Palmer, Esq., Rugeley.") (Inclosure, "Prince of Wales Life Assurance Society, 105, Regent-street, 1st Oct., 1855. Sir,—My board are entirely dissatisfied with the claim to which you allude, and refer you to their solicitors, Messrs. Chubb, Deane, and Chubb, 13, South-square, Gray's Inn. Yours, &c. John Hornby, Secretary and Actuary. Thomas Pratt, Esq., &c") ("London, 6th Oct., 1855. Prince of Wales Policy. My dear Sir,—I have been too unwell for the last two days to attend much to business, but have written to the solicitors, asking for the cause of dissatisfaction. I much fear you will have to litigate it. I have your note acknowledging the receipt by your mother of 2,000£ acceptance, due the 2nd of Oct Why not let her acknowledge it herself? You really must not fail to come up at once, if it be for the purpose of arranging for the payment of the two bills at the end of the month. Remember, I can make no terms for their renewal, and they must be paid. I will, of course, hold the policy for so much as it is worth, but in the present proceeding neither I nor any one, except your mother, who is liable on the bills, can look upon it as a security. Don't neglect attending to this, for under the recent Act, bills of exchange are now recovered in a few days. You know and can appreciate my conduct in avoiding all trouble and annoyance to your mother, but to that there is a limit; and I cannot by any representation be a party to inducing any one to believe security exists, if there be any doubt upon the point Yours, (&c, Thomas Pratt P. S.—I cast no doubt on the capability of the office to pay, but in the nature of things, and so large an amount in question, it is not to be surprised at if they think they have ground of objection, that they should temporize by delay.")—I had written to Mrs. Palmer, and received the following letter from the prisoner—("Rugeley, 5th Oct, 1855. My dear Sir,—My mother desires me to acknowledge your letter containing the bill I would like you to see Messrs. Chubb, and hear what they have got to say, and write me. I will try and come and see you. Yours, &c., W. Palmer. Thomas Pratt, Esq. P. S.—I do hope you will be able to complete Bates's assurance.") ("London, Oct. 10th, 1855. Prince of Wales Policy. Dear Sir,—On the other side I send you a copy of the solicitor's reply. I may add that I hear the office has been making inquiry in every direction, but what their grounds of dissatisfaction are is as yet a mystery. In any case, no steps can be taken to compel payment till after the 4th Dec. Gill has not yet returned. I have again to call your attention to the publication of the assignment or bill of sale signed by you on the 1st and registered on the 2nd inst., to secure 1,000l., and given to Mr. Sergeant Here again is a cause of complaint; however, not to repeat what I said in my last, but with a view of pressing upon you the remembrance that the two bills due on 24th and 27th must be met I say no more. The 2,000l. acceptance of your mother's, due the 29th Dec., I sent her yesterday: it was renewed by the second of the three sent me up. You had better communicate with her in time, and write to me without delay; but as I presume you are at Newmarket, it will not be for a day or two. Yours, &c., Thomas Pratt To William Palmer, Esq.") (Inclosure: "Re Walter Palmer's Policy. No. 13, South-square, Gray's Inn, Oct. 9th, 1855. Sir,—We have to acknowledge your letter, and regret we cannot give you any reply till our Mr. Deane's return from the country, as he attends to the matter. Yours, &c., Chubty Deane, and Chubb. Thomas Pratt, Esq.")

("London, 18th Got, 1855. Dear Sir,—I have your telegraph, and hope the illness of your mother is not serious. In case I do not see you tomorrow I send you copies of two letters I have received. As regards the first, it shows how important it is that you or your mother should prepare for payment of the 4,000l. due in a few days. I cannot now obtain delay on the same grounds I did the others, for then I should have no ground for supposing the claim would not be admitted * * * Let me urge upon you the necessity of the arrangement I allude to above, and believe me that I shall be very sorry to have any annoying steps to take. I should, for the present, keep my own counsel about the office; the offer to repay the premium shows they are not so strong as they would have you suppose. I shall not reply till I hear from you. Yours, etc., Thomas Pratt Wm. Palmer, Esq., Rugeley.") Copy of letter. ("14, South-square, Gray's Inn, 16th Oct., 1855. He Walter Palmer's Policy. Sir,—We regret that your letter of the 16th instant, owing to the absence of our Mr. Deane, should remain so long unanswered. The directors, after a full investigation of all the circumstances connected with the life and death of Mr. Walter Palmer, have, under our advice, come to the determination to decline to pay this claim. Although the facts disclosed are such as to warrant the retention of the premium, the directors will be prepared to refund the amount to any person who can be shown to be legally entitled to it.")—On the 27th of Oct. Palmer called upon me, and paid me 250l. on account of the principal of the two bills then due—he said I should have a further payment in the course of a few days, that he would send me another sum of 250l. on the following Wednesday, and would pay the remainder of the principal as soon as possible—I wrote a letter to Palmer on 27th Oct.—I believe I posted it myself—(Capt. Hotton stated that no-such letter was found.)—I received this letter in answer—("Rugeley, Oct. 28, 1855. My dear Sir,—I will send you 250l. from Worcester on Tuesday, as arranged. For goodness sake do not think of write. Only let me know that such steps are going to be taken, and I will get the money, even if I pay 1,000l. for it Only give me a fair chance, and you shall be paid the whole amount of your money. Do not see the proctor till I see you again. Yours, etc., W. Palmer. Thomas Pratt, Esq.") ("London, Oct 31, 1855. Dear Sir,—The 250l. registered letter was received today. With it I have been enabled to obtain consent to the following, that with the exception of issuing the writs against your mother, no proceedings as to service shall be taken till the morning of the 10th of next month, when you are to send up 1,000l. or 1,500l., you will be debited with a month's interest on the 4,000l. out of the money sent up. Walter Palmer's Administration. Let me know your objection to my seeing the proctor. There should be no delay herein. I must impress upon you the necessity of being punctual as to the bilk You will not forget also the 1,500l. bill due the 9th of Nov. Yours, etc., Thomas Pratt W. Palmer, Esq., Rugeley.")—The next letter is without date, but it must have been written on the 8th Nov.—("My dear Sir,—I will be with you on Saturday next at half-past one. Yours, etc., W. Palmer. Thomas Pratt, Esq.")—On the 6th of Nov., I issued writs against the prisoner and his mother for 4,000l., on the two bills—I sent them down to Mr. Cramp, a solicitor at Rugeley—on the 10th Nov., Palmer called on me—I have a letter without date, which, I believe, I received on the 9th—it is from Palmer, saying that he would be with me on the following Saturday at half-past one o'clock—on the 10th Palmer called and paid me 300l., which, with the two sums of 250l. received before, made 800l.—200l. was deducted for discount, leaving 600l. for the principal—I think he was to

endeavour to forward me further sums, but no definite sum was mentioned—I do not know whether any conversation took place about the writs—no doubt they were mentioned—I think he knew the writs had gone downon the 13th I wrote to Palmer—("Prince of Wales Policy. London, Nov, 13, 1855. Dear Sir,—The case will be laid before Kelly tomorrow. Curiously enough, I find that the great point with the office is, that your brother had delirium tremens more than once, say three or four times, before his life was accepted, and that actually the medical man, Dr. Hastings, reported against the life as well as Mr. Waddell. I think I shall be able to get a copy of the proposal through a friend The opinion of several actuaries is, that the Company have not a leg to stand on. The fact of the enormous premium will go a great way to give us a verdict. After hearing what Earwaker has to say, you do not, I presume, wish me to delay seeing and instructing the proctor. I shall therefore do so at once, to avoid delay I count most positively on seeing you on Saturday. Do, for both of our sakes, make the amount up to 1,000l.; without it I cannot arrange to renew the 1,500l. bill due the 9th. Tours, etc., Thomas Pratt W. Palmer, Esq., Kugeley.") ("Rugeley, 16th Nov., 1855. My dear Sir,—I am obliged to come to Tattersall's on Monday to the settling, so I shall not call and see you before Monday; but a friend will call upon you, and give you 200l. to-morrow, and I will give you the remainder on Monday.—Yours, &c., W. Palmer. Thomas Pratt, Esq.")—a person called on me on the Saturday, and gave me a cheque for 200l.—I don't know his name—I afterwards received the following letter:—("Rugeley, Sunday, 18th Nov. My dear Sir,—All being well, I will be with you to-morrow, Monday, but I cannot say what time now. Fisher left the 200l. for me. Tours, (fee., W. Palmer. Thomas Pratt, Esq.")—Monday, the 19th, was the settling day after Shrewsbury races—Palmer called on me on the 19th, I think after three o'clock—he signed a paper drawn up by myself on that day—the following is the memorandum which was drawn up—("November 19th, 1855. Memorandum. Dear Sir,—You will place the 50l. I hare just paid you to the 450l. you will receive from Mr. Herring, together 500l. and the 200l. you received Saturday towards the payment of my mother's acceptance of 2,000l. on the 25th Oct., making paid to this day the sum of 1,300l. W. Palmer.")—the prisoner gave me a 20l. cheque, and 30l. in notes—the 450l. mentioned is what he said I should receive through the post from a Mr. Herring—I afterwards received this cheque of 450l. from Herring, and paid it into my bankers—that made his payments 1,500l. on account of the 2,000l. bill—("Rugeley, 21st Nov. My dear Sir,—Ever since I saw you I have been fully engaged with Cook, and not able to leave him, and I am sorry to say that, after all, he died this day; so you had better write to Saunders; but, mind you, I must have Polestar if it can be so arranged, and should any one call upon you to know what money or moneys Cook had from you, don't answer the question till I have seen you. I will send you 75l. tomorrow. As soon as I have been at Manchester, you shall hear about other monies. I have sat up two full nights with Cook, and am very much tired out—Tours, &c., W. Palmer. Thomas Pratt, Esq.") ("London, 22nd Nov., 1855. Dear Sir,—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, it is true, that your being detained by the illness of your friend has been the cause of not sending up a 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 500l. bill due on the 2nd of

December. I have written Saundera, informing him of my claim, and requesting to know by return what claim he has for keep and training. I send down copy of bill of sale to Cramp, to see it enforced. Yours, &c., Thomas Pratt W. Palmer, Esq., Rugeley.") ("22nd Nov. My dear Sir,—Messrs. Weatherby, of No. 6, Old Burlington-street, will forward you a cheque for 75l. in the morning, Friday. In haste, yours, W. Palmer.") ("23rd Nov. My dear Sir,—I will come up either tomorrow, or Monday. Youre, W. Palmer. T. Pratt, Esq.")—On 24th, I saw him, and he signed this paper, the body of which is in my writing (read: "I have paid you this day 100l. (one hundred pounds). 75l. you will pay for renewals of 1,500l. due the 9th of November, for one month, and 25l. on account of 2,000l. due the 25th of October, making 1,325l. paid on that account Signed, W. Palmer.")—I had received the cheque for 75l. from Messrs. Weatherby—it has not been paid—it was refused—I received this letter from Palmer on the 26th of Nov.—("Strictly private and confidential My dear Sir,—Should any of Cook's friends call upon you to know what money Cook ever had from you, pray don't answer that question or any other about money matters until I have seen you. And oblige, yours, faithfully, William Palmer.")—There was a bill of sale on Polctar and another horse of Cook's, called Sirius—I did not know Cook—I never saw him—Palmer transacted the loan that was to be made on the bill of sale—on acceptance for 500l. was sent to me through the post, without any drawer's name, I think—this is the bill of sale—(read; Dated 6th Sept., 1855, assigning Polestar and Sirius to Pratt for the loan of 500l.)—I received this letter of 26th August—(read: "26th Aug. My dear Sir,—You cannot for one single moment think of having Salt's deeds now that Walter is dead, and you have an extra security for 13,000l., and only owing you 11,500l., and out of this you will have to give me the difference between 1,030l. and 2,000l. There cannot be a single quibble with the Prince of Wales, provided they can pay their portion of the money. Everything is perfectly straightforward; it is not like the assignment in the Norwich. The only question is, can the Prince of Wales pay. Now, I want, and must have it from somewhere, 1,000l. clear by next Saturday, without fail, and you can raise it on the policy if you like, and it must he had at a much less rate of interest than I have hitherto had it, because the security is so very good; and, if you cannot manage, you must he me have the policy, because you have plenty of security for your money, independent of deeds or anything else, and then I shall have no trouble in getting the money by the time I require it Of course, I will then, if you wish it, make an assignment of the policy. Tou will have to hand me the difference of the 2,000l. bill, after deducting the money for the renewal of the 1,500l. If you will send me the doctor's certificate from the Prince of Wales, I will get it filled up, and send it you back with the other certificates. I am, dear Sir, waiting your reply, Yours faithfully, W. Palmer. T. Pratt, Esq.")—On 30th Aug. I received this letter—("My dear Sir,—I will come up on Saturday morning, and you must, if you please, be prepared to let me have the money on the policy on Saturday next, ox let me have the policy and assignment; then I shall have no difficulty in getting it You will have, also, to hand me the balance of the 2,000l. bill, minus the amount of the renewal of the 1,500l. bill I have undertaken to get the enclosed bill cashed for Mr. Cook. You had the 200l. bill of his. He is a very good and responsible man. Will you do it? I will put my name to the bill")—The acceptance of Mr. Cook for 500l. was enclosed in that—("16th Sept, 1855,

My dear Sir,—I received the cheque for the 100l., and will thank you to let I me have the 315l. by return of post, if possible; if not, send it me (certain) by Sunday night's post, to the post office, Doncaster. 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. I told him he should have it on Tuesday morning, at Doncaster; so please inclose it with mine, in cash, in a registered letter, and he must pay for it being regis tered. Do not let it be later than Monday night's post to Doncaster,") ("9th Sept, 1855. You must send me for Mr. Cook, by Monday night's post, to the post-office, Doncaster, 385l. instead of 375l., and the wine warrant, so that I can hand it to him with the 375l., and that will be allowing you 50l. for the discount, &c. I shall then get 10l. and I expect I shall have to take to the wine, and give him the money; but I shall not do so if you do not send me 385l., and be good enough to enclose ny 315l. with it, in cash in a registered letter, and direct it to me at the postoffice, Doncaster. I will send you the proposal. Have you heard from the Prince of Wales? Yours, William Palmer.") ("10th Sept, 1855. I enclose you 300l. in notes, a cheque for Cook for 375l., and the wine warrant. You know by this time that if I do what I can to accommodate you, there is a limit to my means to do so, and more particularly as in this instance you have been the means of shutting up a supply I could generally go to. I think, also, you had little reason to allude to the 10l. difference, after the trouble, correspondence, &c., I had with respect to a second insurance you know of, which, although it did not come off, arose not from any lack of industry on my part I have no reply as yet from the Prince of Wales. When shall I see you about the three 2,000l. bills coming due at the end of this month? I speak in time, in order that you may be prepared in cue anything untoward happens with the Prince of Wales.* * * I am obliged to send a cheque for Cook, as I have not received the money, which I shall do, no doubt, to-morrow.")—I enclosed in that letter 300l. in notes, the cheque for 375l., payable to Mr. Cook, and the wine warrant—the 375l. cheque and the wine warrant was the consideration for the bill of sale, and for Mr. Cook's acceptance for the 500l.—the other 300l. had nothing to do with Mr. Cook's transaction—this is Palmer's letter acknowledging the receipt—it has no date—("My dear Sir,—I received your letter this morning containing 300l., and 375l. and wine warrant, for which I am much obliged")—I am not aware that I ever saw or spoke to Mr. Cook in my life—besides this transaction with Cook for the 500l. there was one other before that of 200l.—that was an acceptance of Mr. Cook's—that bill was paid—besides those two I had no pecuniary transaction whatever with Mr. Cook, in which his name was involved—the first transaction about the 200l. was either the end of April or beginning of May, 1855—it was a bill drawn by Palmer on Cook, and paid by Mr. Cook.

MR. STEVENS. re-examined. The endorsement upon this cheque for 375l. is not in the handwriting of Mr. Cook—the signature is, "J. P. Cook"—I never knew him write his name in any other way than "J. Parsons Cook."

MR. STRAWBRIDGE. re-examined. None of these acceptances, purporting to be the signature of Sarah Palmer, are in her handwriting—Palmer had an account at the Kugeley Bank at the time this 375l. cheque was drawn—I cannot tell whether that cheque was paid into our bank to his credit—the book is in court—I can only prove remitting it.

  WILLIAM CHESHIRE . I have been a clerk in the National Provincial Bank at Rugeley, but I am not at present—I was so in the month of Sept

last—William Palmer had an account with the bank—I received this cheque for 375l. from Henry Cockayne, a groom of Palmer's—it Was carried to Palmer's credit—our bank received the proceeds.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHER. Q. Did you know Mr. Cook at ail at the bank? A. did not—he had no transactions with us.

  THOMAS PRATT . Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. I will call your attention first to the last transaction which has been mentioned, but the earliest one in date, of May, 1855—in May, 1855, previowly to that first transaction, you knew nothing at all about Cook, did you? A. Nothing whatever—I had a sum of 310l. in my hands due to Pahner, and Palmer wished me to add to thai a sum of 190l. to pay a sum of 500l. to a person of the name of Sargent—I declined to do that without further security, and he then proposed an acceptance of Cook—I did not then make inquiries about Cook—he represented Cook at that time to be a gentleman of respect-ability and substance, and upon his representation I agreed to accept a bill drawn by him on Cook for 200l., and to make the advance necessary to pay Sargent; and so he got the 500l. that he wanted.

Q. Did Cook ever complain to you that he did not receive any money on that mortgage transaction of his two race horses? A. I never saw Cook—he did not complain by letter—on the first transaction I wrote to Cook, sending him the 200l., acceptance; and just before his death I Wrote to him, calling on him for payment—I have not the letter—I hare not a copy of it—I do not hold a bill of his for 200l., which I had discounted—the 200l. was paid in July by Cook, and I returned him the acceptance—I wrote to him, I think it was on the 13th Nov., not later I think, reminding him that the 500l. was due on the 2nd Dec;—I sent that to Lutterworth—I addressed it to Lutterworth—I did not know Mr. Jones of Lutterworth—I don't think I addressed it to the care of Mr. Jones—I simply addressed it to Mr. Cook.

MR. ATTORNHY-GENERAL. Q. The first 200l. bill was not paid when it was due; was it? A. It was due, I think, on the 29th June, and it was not paid—after that I wrote to Mr. Cook for payment, and he came up and paid it himself on the 2nd July—I was not in the way—I did not see him when the 200l. was paid.

  MR. SEHJEANT SHEE .; Q. Do you happen to know how Mr. Cook and Palmer stood as to the winnings on the Shrewsbury races? A. have not the slightest idea.

  JOHN ARMISHAW . I am an attorney in practice at Rugeley—on or about the 12th Nov. last I was employed to apply to Palmer for the payment of a debt of about 60l., due to Messrs. Hopkins and Bown, mercers ami drapers at Rugeley—on the 19th of that same month I sent up instructions for a writ—on the following morning, the 20th, Bown sent me to Palmer—I went to the prisoner, at his house, and he paid me the money, two 50l. notes—he said nothing about them—it was in satisfaction of the debt—he said so, and he hoped they would not make him pay the' costs—one was a Bank of England note, and the other a local note—I took the money for Bown, and told him to go and take the change and receipt, and settle with him about the costs.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. What time in the day was this? A. About 8 or 9 o'clock in the morning.

  JOHN WALLBANK . I am a butcher, at Rugeley. I remember, in Nov. last, Palmer's man, Bates, coming to me to fetch me to Palmer—I do not recollect tlie day of the month, but it was on a Monday—it wad the Shrewsbury race week—I wont to Palmer's house, and saw him there—he said;

"Wallbank, I want you to lend me 25l."—I said, "Doctor, I am very short' of money, but I will try if I can get it"—he said, "Do, that ia a good fellow; I will give it you again on Saturday morning;" and he did so—he said he should receive some money, or see a friend, at Shrewsbury, and he would give it me again on Saturday morning—I met him in the street on the Saturday, accidentally—he desired me to follow him to his house—I went, and he paid me the money, I cannot exactly say what in.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. Has Palmer lent you money sometimes? A. Yes, frequently—when I have asked him he has never refused me—we were always on friendly terms—Mrs. Palmer, the mother, lived in the town, in a large house, near the Church—the prisoner was frequently in the habit of going there—I have seen him go there; I could not say how many times a week—I have walked up with him when he has been going home.

  JOHN SPILSBURY . I am a farmer, and reside near Stafford. I had dealings with the prisoner, Palmer—in Nov. last he was in my debt 46l. 2s.—I called upon him on Thursday, 22nd Nov., at his house, and he paid the amount with a Bank of England note for 50l.—I called casually—I believe I had not applied to him for the money before that.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. I dare say he had owed you more money than that on previous occasions? A. That was the first transaction I ever had with him.

MR. STRAWBRIDGE. re-examined. I have a copy of Palmer's account here, which I examined myself, but I can speak positively without the copy—on 19th Nov. there was 9l. 6s. in his favour—he did not pay in any money about that period, or shortly after that—nothing was paid to the credit of his account after that time—the last payment to the credit of his account was on 10th Oct., 50l.—before the 50l. was paid in, the account was creditor.

  HERBERT, WRIGHT . I am a solicitor, in partnership with my brother, at Birmingham. I have known Palmer, the prisoner, since July, 1851—in Nov., 1855, he was indebted to my brother in 10,400l.—I had a bill of sale upon bis property—this is the bill of sale, in the name of my brother—it is executed by Palmer—(This was dated 5th May, 1855, purporting to be an absolute sale of Palmer's property to Edwin, Wright, of Birmingham, in con-sideration of the sum 6,500l. then due, and 2,300l. to be advanced)—there were race-horses assigned—it is an absolute bill of sale of all he had, subject to redemption on the payment of certain moneys, with a power of sale—the horses he had, Chicken, Nettle, and others, are in the sche-dule—this sum, which this bill of sale was to secure, had been advanced upon bills—all the advances were made upon bills—the whole debt con-sisted of advances on bills, together with other securities—the bills are all here—they purport to be accepted by the mother, Sarah Palmer—they run over a period from 5th June, 1854, to 12th Oct.—there are bills to the value of 6,500l., purporting to be the acceptances of Sarah Palmer—here is a bill which was given contemporaneously with the execu-tion of the bill of sale—it bears the liability alone of William Palmer for 2,300l.—that is the sum specified there to be advanced; and there is the acceptance of William Palmer for 1,600l., making with the bills you have, the 10,400l£—I was not pressing Palmer for the payment of those bills during the month of Oct.—I was in the early part of Nov.—many of these bills, which were over-due, remained over-due, and no renewals were taken in many instances—as between Palmer and my brother, this money was not considered to be due until the Cambridgeshire Newmarket meet

ing terminated—I should say the money was due the first or second week in Nov.—he always said that was the time at which the money would be paid, that is, at the latter end of Oct., or some time in the early part of Nov.; I would rather say, if you please, the first or second week in Nov.—I do not consider that I was entitled to ask for payment earlier—before 20th Nov. I had certainly pressed him for payment—I put this bill of sale in force in Dec.—I hardly remember the day—it was after the Coroner's verdict had been returned—I was present when his property was taken—I did not take any papers of his at all, or find any papers.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. Was an auctioneer sent down to seize? A. A sheriffs officer—the auctioneer followed after the seizure had been effected—we took possession of a good deal of property there—there was never any proposal to put the thing off, and take the interest—if there had been, I hardly know what I should bare done—probably we should not have objected to let the thing go on a little longer, holding the security, if the interest had been forthcoming—I was not hostile to him.

Q. I believe you had also, upon his introduction, accommodated Mr. Cook? A. Certainly not, not at any time—I had not, upon bis introduction, accommodated Mr. Cook with money—I had offered to do it, but the transaction never assumed completion—Mr. Cook saw me, I believe, on 14th Sept.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. My friend asked you whether, supposing Palmer had proposed to you to renew this security, or carry it on without renewal, on the payment of interest, you would have consented to do so; you said, "Yes, if the interest had been forthcoming;" I want to know what would have been the amount? A. These bills were discounted at sixty per cent per annum—if they had been to be renewed, it would very likely have been the same rate of interest.

Q. At all events not much less? A. I do not think that it ia likely.

MR. STRAWERIDGE. re-examined, These acceptances to the bills produced by Mr. Wright are certainly not Mrs. Sarah Palmer's handwriting.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. Have you any of Mrs. Sarah Palmer's handwriting here? A. I have not—this is very different from it—I know it is not her writing—it is an imitation, but a very faint imi-tation—it could not deceive me for a minute—I should not pay a cheque signed in that way without confirmation.

Adjourned.

Wednesday, May 21.

  CHABLES WEATHERBY . re-examined. I stated when I was examined the other day, that on the 21st of November I received a letter from the prisoner enclosing a cheque for 350l. I did not produce that letter on that occasion, I was not asked for it—I have it here—(read: "Rugeley, 20th Nov., 1855. Gentlemen,—I will thank you to send me a cheque for the amount of the enclosed order. Mr. Cook has been confined here to his bed for the last three days, with a bilious attack, which has prevented his being in town. Yours respectfully, William Palmer. 'Mr. Cook, Rugeley,' will find him for the present.")—I received, on the morning of the 23rd, this other letter from the prisoner—(read: "Gentlemen,—he good enough, on receipt of this, to send a cheque for 75l. to Thomas Pratt, Esq., 5, Queen-street, Mayfair; also a cheque for 100l. to Thomas Earwaker, Esq., Inland Revenue, Somerset House; and deduct

the fame from the amount of Mr. Cook's draft. And I am, Gentlemen, yours respectfully, William Palmer. Rugeley, 22nd Nov. 1855.") On the 23rd I sent a letter by post to the prisoner: this (produced) is a corrected draught of it (read: "6, Old Burlington-street, 23rd Nov., 1855. Sir,—We return Mr. Cook's cheque, not having funds enough to meet it When Mr. Frail called to-day to settle the Shrewsbury stake account, 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 sufficient in hand to pay the sums you mention, which we have not Be so good as to acknowledge the receipt of the cheque. Your obedient servants, a and J. Weatherby. To W. Palmer, Esq.") On the following day—the 24th, this notice, signed by the prisoner, was left at my office (read; "Messrs. Weatherby, 6, Old Burlington-street, 24th Nov., 1855 Gentlemen,—I hereby request you will not part with any monies 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 J. P. Cook, for the sum of 350l. sent to you by me, and acknowledged in your letter received by me at Rogeley on Wednesday morning, the 20th of this month of November. Yours, &c., W. Palmer.") I also sent a letter, on the 23rd, by post to Cook, at Kugeley—it was subsequently returned to me through the Dead Letter Office.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE, Q. You know the handwriting of Mr. Cook? A. Yes—that cheque was written by him (the cheque for 350l.), as far as I recollect.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. Was your attention particularly drawn to it? A. No, it was not—I have not any recollection whether it was signed J. P. Cook, or J. Parsons Cook.

COURT. Q. Did you examine the handwriting? A. Not particularly—I observed the body of the cheque was not in Cook's handwriting, but the signature I took to be his.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. When that cheque was presented, you had not funds of Mr. Cook's in hand to meet it? A. No; I expected to have received them from Mr. Frail, the clerk of the course at Shrewsbury—they were not eventually sent.

Q. Supposing that Mr. Frail had any money as clerk of the course to pay to Mr. Cook, ought they, in the ordinary course of things, to have been there on the day you received the cheque? A. That I cannot answer absolutely; some clerks of the course, at the different races, when they have to settle accounts with us, do it immediately, and some do it after a few days—there is no time that the money ought to have been there—it was a week after Mr. Cook had won, and it was reasonable to expect it to have been there—I cannot tell you any more—I informed Mr. Palmer, when I did not pay his cheque, of my reason for not paying it—he afterwards insisted, in the notice read, that we should not part with the money to anybody else.

  JOHNSON ROGERSON BUTLER . I attend races and bet upon commission—I was at the Shrewsbury races—I had an account there to settle with Mr. Palmer—I had to receive about 700l. from him—that money was in respect of bets that I had made for him at previous races at Liverpool—I had backed horses for him at Liverpool—it was for bets I had made for him and paid—I had no money to receive from him in respect of the Shrewsbury races—I endeavoured to get my money at Shrewsbury—I got 40l.—I asked him if he would let me have some money, and he said he had none, that he had some to receive—he did not tell me how much he had to receive—he gave

me a cheque for 250l. upon the Rugeley bank—the dwpte was not paid—I have never got the money—I knew Mr. Cook's horse Polestar—in my judgment Poleetar was worth about 700l. after she won the race at Shrews-bury—she would have been worth more before she won; I mean with her engagements.

Cross-examined by MR. GROVE. Q. Did you win any money lor Palmar on Polestar? A. Yes; I kept that towards payment of his debt.

MR. STEVENS. re-examined. The mare Polestar was sold at Tattersall's on 10th March last, by auction; she fetched 720 guineas.

(This closed the case for the prosecution—MR. SERJEANT SHZE. addressed the Jury far the prisoner.)

Adjourned.

Thursday, May 22nd

Witnesses for the Defence.

  THOMAS NUNNELLY . (examined by MR. GROVE.). I am a fellow of the College of Surgeons and professor of surgery in the Leeds School of Medicine—I am also a member of several scientific societies, foreign and English—I have been in practice between twenty and thirty years—I have had a large practice—I have seen oases of tetanus from convulsion, both traumatic and idiopathic—I have seen four coses of idiopathic tetanus in my own experi-ence—they did not all commence with the symptoms of lock jaw, one did not, lock jaw did occur, but very slightly, not to prevent swallowing in the course of the disease—I have been present during the evidence given as to the symptoms of Cook—I had previously read copies of the depositions, as to the medical and scientific part of the case—judging from the symptoms described, confining myself to the scientific portion of the evidence, in my opinion Cook died from some convulsive disease—I formed that opinion upon the symptoms described in the depositions, and upon the evidence before the Court—(The COURT. was of opinion that the witness could not be asked his opinion upon anything contained in the depositions, except as a matter of science)—upon the symptoms described by the witnesses in Court, my opinion is that the death arose from some convulsive disese—his preview state of health has an influence on my judgment.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. You have been present in Court during the whole of this trial? A. I have—I have heard the symptoms described by the witnesses, of Mr. Cook's health previously to his final attack at Rugeley, the description of the actual symptoms during the paroxysms, and the facts which have been spoken to, and the appearance of the body upon the post mortem examination—I assume him to have been a man of very delicate constitution, that for a long period he felt himself to be ailing, for which 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, that after death appearances were found in his body which show this to have been the case, that there were found unusual appearances within the stomach, that the throat was in an unnatural condition, that the back of the tongue showed edmilar indications, that the lungs were in an emphyseraatous condition, that the air cells were dilated, that in the lining of the aorta, the large artery of the body, there was an unnatural deposit, and that there was a very unusual appearance in the membranes of the spinal marrow—those are the indications which are unnatural upon the post mortem examination—I should also state

that it has been described by one of the witnesses, that there was a loss of substance on the penis.

COURT. Q. That is one of the elements of your opinion? A. Precisely.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. What in your judgment as a medical man would that indicate? A. That scar described upon the penis could only have resulted from an ulcer.

COURT. Q. Do you mean a chancre? A. Yes, that is the usual place for a chancre—it proceeds from an ulcer—a chancre is an ulcer.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. An ulcer is not necessarily a chancre? A. No—it is the usual place for a chancre.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. To what do you ascribe the symptoms to which you have referred, under his tongue? A. At the root of the tongue, in the throat, I should say to syphilitic inflammation of the throat—supposing the symptoms which I have described to be correct, I infer that his health had not been good for a long time, and that his constitution was delicate—there is another point that I should wish to mention: it has been stated that his father and mother both died young, that is part of the foundation of my opinion, and that his brother and sister were both delicate—supposing this to have been the state of health of Mr. Cook, I should think it would make him liable to nervous irritation—in my judgment, other causes besides physical causes, moral causes, for instance, would tend, in a person in such a state of health and of such a constitution, to excite nervous irritation—any excitement or depression might tend to bring on nervous irritation.

Q. Supposing a disordered state of the stomach and bowels supervened when he was in that condition, what effect do you think that would have? A. That would very much depend upon the violence of it—if it was violent, to the extent of frequent vomiting, and continuous vomiting for several days, it would produce a greater effect upon such a state of mind and constitution than in a healthy person, out no peculiar effect—exposure to wet and cold would have a greater effect upon a person of such a state of mind and constitution than upon a healthy person, it would produce more serious illness—perhaps I had better give an explanation of my opinion upon that question, which is a very general one.

COURT. Q. Your opinion upon what? A. Upon the condition of the constitution; I mean that convulsive disease is more likely to supervene in such a constitution—I have nothing further to add upon that point.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. What would you infer from the fact, supposing it to have occurred, that three days before his death he suddenly awoke in the middle of the night in a state which he described as a state of madness, for two or three minutes? A. I understand that he had three attacks upon succeeding nights, and each occurring about the same hour—I should infer from that periodicity, that those attacks were of a convulsive character, in the absence of other causes to account for them—convulsive attacks are as various as possible in their form and degrees of violence—it is not possible always with certain accuracy to ascribe particular symptoms of convulsion to any one of the classes of convulsion into which they are divided by medical authorities—it is not possible to give a definite name to every convulsive attack.

Q. Are there many forms of violent convulsions in which the patient retains his consciousness? A. Not a great many forms of convulsive disease—there are some—there are some forms of hysteria.

COURT. Q. Does that apply to the male sex? A. Sometimes, occasionally, but far more commonly to the female.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. Are there any forma of convulsion, epileptic in their character, in which the patient retains his consciousness? A. It is so stated.

COURT. Q. Have you met with any such case? A. No, not during the fit, not in epilepsy.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. Do you know by your reading as a medical man, that that, though rarely, does sometimes occur? A. I was about to add, that the degree of consciousness in epilepsy varies very much; in some attacks consciousness is altogether lost, and prolonged during the whole attack—convulsive attacks are sometimes accompanied with violent spasms and with rigidity of portions of the body, rigidity of the limbs—convulsions, properly so called, occasionally assume something of the complexion of tetanic affections.

COURT. Q. Will you explain what you mean by convulsions properly so called? A. I understand from the learned Serjeant's question what is ordinarily called a convulsive disease, either of infancy, or under that form, not exactly tetanus.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. Have you read the passage from Dr. Copland which I read yesterday to the Court? A. I have—I agree with what Dr. Copland there states—when I say that convulsions sometimes assume a tetaniform appearance, I mean convulsions arising from almost any cause; worms in children will produce it, affection of the brain in adults, hysteria, and the giving of chloroform will produce it in some persons—it is consistent with my experience, that adults are sometimes attacked by such convulsions—I do not confine it to diseases of the brain—affections of the spinal cord, and die eating of indigestible food will produce it—I do not know that I have known instances in which it has arisen from retching and vomiting—I agree with Dr. Copland as to these convulsions sometimes ending immediately in death—when a man dies in one of these convulsions, the proximate cause of death is frequently asphyxia.

COURT. Q. You mean suffocation? A. Precisely, from the air not entering the lungs, or from spasm of the heart.

Q. You do not call that asphyxia? It would produce similar appear-ances—death from spasm of the heart is often loosely described as death from asphyxia.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. Do you agree with Dr. Copland that convulsions of the character you have described are sometimes recurrent? (The ATTORNEY-GENERAL. objected to the form of the question, if the opinion of Dr. Copland was of importance, he might himself be examined; but it was not competent to counsel to obtain that opinion by an irregular question to another person. LORD CAMPBELL. was of opinion that the question was irregular)—I have seen convulsions recur at very various intervals, sometimes at hours, in others days.

Q. How soon have you known a patient who has suffered from a violent paroxysm of such convulsions as you have described, regain his ease and comfort? A. Oh, that is very varied; in a few minutes, or it may be hours—I should draw an inference as to the nature and character of the convulsion from the interval which elapsed between one convulsion and another—I should infer that it would depend upon some slight irritation in the brain, or the spinal cord—it sometimes happens when death takes place in a paroxysm of such convulsions, that upon post mortem examination there is no trace of organic disease in the body.

Q. Have you known at all, or frequently, in persons not further advanced

in years than the age of twenty-eight, that there have been granules between the dura mater and the arachnoid? A. They are not common at any age, that I am aware of—I do not know that any particular inference could be drawn from their appearance between the arachnoid and the dura mater of a man twenty eight years of age—it is not a very easy question to answer, whether they would lead me to any reasonable medical conjecture as to their cause and effect—they might or they might not.

COURT. Q. Could you form any opinion with regard to the cause or the effect of such granules; say aye or no? A. No, my lord.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. Might they in your judgment produce any effect upon the spinal cord? A. Yes, they might; there are preparations in museums where granules are found in the membranes of the spinal cord, in which the patients are said to have died from tetanus.

Q. Do you know whether such granules, so situated, have been part of the symptoms of tetaniform convulsions? A. I have just stated that there are three preparations; I have not seen the cases, I have seen the preparetions, they are in the museum at St. Thomas's Hospital—in order to ascertain with satisfaction to myself, the nature and probable extent of injury from such granules, I should think it desirable that the spinal cord should be examined immediately after death—not the roost remote medical opinion of their effect could be formed from an examination so long as two or three months after death—I mean of their effect upon the spinal cord itself, more especially if the brain had been previously opened—independently of the appearance of granules between the dura mater and the arachnoid, I do not think it would be possible at that distance of time, viz., two or three months after death, to form any satisfactory judgment upon the general healthiness of the spinal cord—if there had been a large tumour, or some similar change, it might have been discovered, but neither softening nor induration of the minute structure of the cord could be detected—the minute nervous structure changes within a few days after death—in order to ascertain satisfactorily the condition of the minute structure, it sometimes requires the assistance of a glass or microscope—that is often required when the examination takes place immediately after death.

Q. Have you, in the course of your experience, had cases of traumatic tetanus? A. I have—it commonly begins by an attack of the jaw—I have had experience, by personal observation, of idiopathic tetanus in four cases, one of them was my own child—in three of those cases the symptoms commenced with lock jaw, the fourth commenced in the body—the power of swallowing easily was retained to the last.

Q. Have you had any personal experience in cases of tetanus which you have known, or which you now know to have been produced by strychnia? A. I have made the post mortem examination of two persons who have died from the poison of strychnia, within the last twelve months—I have seen the effects of an overdose of strychnia—I did not see the patients in either of those two cases, before death—I made the examination by order of the Coroner—it was by chemical analysis in both cases that I ascertained that the death had been caused by strychnia—I have my minutes of both those examinations here—in one case the examination was made fortytwo hours after death, and in the other thirty hours—in the first case the body had not been opened when my examination commenced—I have here my written statement, which I made at the time—(reads: " General surface not unnatural, no mark of violence nor of external injury of any kind, except an excoriation between the shoulders, produced by vesicatories applied

shortly before death. On the anterior surface of both thighs the skin was pale, with a defined boundary, in other parts perfectly natural, with the usual amount of lividity in the back. The eyelids were partially open, the globes were flaccid, and the pupils dilated. The colour of the face rather livid; the expression of face distressed; edges of the lips and teeth dark from sordes, probably the result of dark mucus. Muscles of the trunk not in the least rigid, indeed they were soft, and the body could be bent in any direction; those of the hips and shoulder joints were not quite so flaccid, though they allowed these joints to be easily moved, while those of the head and neck, fore arms and legs were quite rigid, the fingers being flexed, and the feet were somewhat arched. All the muscles, when cut into, were found soft and dark in colour. Head, scalp, and bones not more vascular than usual Dura mater and other membranes excessively so; all the vessels of the pia mater enormously distended, with very dark fluid blood; upon the entire surface of the brain and cerebellum there was a considerable amount of bloody serum, particularly upon the upper surface, where in some places it looked almost like blood, probably occasioned by the rupture of some bloodvessels while removing the skull cap. Structure of cerebrum and cerebellum firm and natural as in health, except that it was far more vascular than usual; there was a large quantity of reddish serum in both ventricles. Spinal marrow, spinal veins, and those of the membranes of the cord very much congested; a large quantity of theacal fluid of a red colour. Medulla itself natural, except, perhaps, that the enlarged portion at the lower cervical portion, was rather softer than natural Chest; there was some bloody serum in the pericardium (about an ounce). Heart healthy, but soft and uncontracted; nearly empty, all the blood having probably drained out from it, and the large vessels, through the sinuses of the skull (this having been first opened), and then the vertebral canal, during which the body was placed with the head hanging over the table. Bloody serum in the cavities of both pleurae, the membranes being stained of a dark hue. General structure of the lungs quite healthy, but enormously distended with dark fluid blood. Some of the air cells were ruptured, so that there was sufficient emphysema to prevent the lungs from collapsing. The lining membrane of the trachea and bronchi was covered with a layer of dark bloody mucus. It was the most congested and darkest I ever saw; it was literally dyed of a deep chocolate colour, which even pervaded the cartilaginous rings of the trachea. All the thoracic viscera with their membranes were much congested, and the blood was everywhere dark and fluid. Abdomen and pelvis were, in structure, quite healthy. The stomach and duodenum were removed for analysis, but when opened were found to be quite healthy. The guts contained a large amount of faeces.") This is the second case that I referred to, in which the examination was made thirty hours after death (reads: "I saw the body about twelve hours after death. The muscles were then flaccid, so that the want of rigidity mentioned was not owing to any post mortem change; besides, the weather was not very hot. The immediate cause of death was clearly asphyxia, as all the appearances in the body showed. A post mortem examination was made thirty hours after death. The body was well formed and plump, but very dirty, with considerable evidence of severe syphilitic disease. The left labrium was greatly swollen, ulcerated, and indurated. The mine escaped through a large ulcer in the vagina, which communicated with the neck of the bladder. Not more than the usual post mortem discoloration was present, except about the face and neck, which were livid and bloated. There was much foam about the mouth and nostrils. There was scarcely any rigidity,

less than usual, in the lower extremities; none whatever in the upper arms, chest, or body; little in the thighs, hand, and feet, the legs and lower arms being somewhat rigid. On removal of the integuments, the muscles seemed to be very flaccid. The lungs were emphysematous, from rupture of air cells. The posterior part of the lower lobes was congested, and rather, but not ex-cessively œdematous; otherwise they were quite healthy. The bronchial tubes were filled with frothy mucus, as were the larynx and upper part of the trachea, the lining membrane of which was so congested as to be quite crimson in colour. The small muscles of the larynx and glottis were more firmly contracted than those of any part of the body. There was no effusion into the pleuritic cavities or pericardium. The heart was perfectly flaccid, con-taining, on the right side, a large quantity of dark fluid blood, with some little soft pale fibrinous clots in the ventricle; on the left side, only some small quantity of dark soft coagulum. The structure of the heart was healthy. The stomach was distended with flatus, but containing not more than three ounces of a pale bluish green coloured thick gruelly fluid, without any appearance of other food. Near the larger end were some few spots of extravasation in the mucous membrane, which in other parts was pale and natural in texture. The small intestines, within and without, were pale, containing nothing except some bilious mucus and flatus. The large in-testines contained some small portion of excrementitions matter; but, like the small, they had in them little else than flatus. The spleen was large and dark from congestion. The liver and kidneys were natural The bladder was partly filled with natural urine, which escaped by an ulcer into the vagina. The uterus was enlarged, very dark, and congested, containing an ovum of about seven or eight weeks; ovaries very large, and in one a large corpus luteum. The vessels of the scalp, dura mater, and pia mater were much distended with dark fluid blood. Some serous effusion was present in vessels of the pia mater and upon the convolutions; none in the ventricles. The substance of both cerebrum and cerebellum was perfectly natural, except, perhaps, having more vascular points on being sliced. The medulla oblongata was firm and natural. The spinal veins were congested; the medulla spinalis itself was natural, except perhaps (but of this I am doubtful) rather softer than usual at the bulbous expansion about the seventh cervical vertebra; and there was some serum effused within the membranes of the spinal cord.") In both these instances the persons were females—in the former case the age was twenty-eight, I believe, and in the second near twenty—I should mention, in addition, that which was not mentioned at the time, and is not down in this copy, although it is in my original notes, that there was fluid in the membranes of the spinal cord—these are not my original notes—it was sent to the printer's, and altered without my correcting it—there are two or three mistakes in other parts, but not in the part I have read—that is correct—I gave it in evidence before the Coroner—I have seen a patient under the influence of strychnia poison, from accidentally taking an over-dose—I have seen more than one case in my practice where persons hare taken too large a dose—none of those cases have been fatal—there was one case in my own family, and two others—about one-sixth of a grain was the dose taken—that was in the case of a man of middle age—the symptoms came on a very few minutes after the ingestion of the poison—I had given it in solution—the patient was up and walking about when attacked—the symptoms were want of power of controlling the muscles, manifested by twitching and rigidity, with some cramp, more violent in the legs than any other part of the body—the twitching and rigidity was not very violent—it was not a severe case—the spasms were not very violent—they lasted for six hours

before they entirely disappeared—during that six hours they were intermittent, at varied intervals; as the attack passed off the Intervals became longer—at first they were every two or three seconds—they were not combated by medical treatment—I do not know of any medical treatment.

COURT. Q. What had the patient taken? A. Onesixth of a grain, as near as we could ascertain—I had prescribed one-twelfth of a grain.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. Will you describe the other case? A. The other case was very similar, so similar as not to need description—I had prescribed one-twelfth of a grain in that case, and the patient had taken about one-sixth—the symptoms were similar—those are all the cases in which I have had the opportunity of witnessing the action of strychnia poison in the living human body—I have experimented upon upwards of sixty animals with strychnia poison, dogs, cats, rats, mice, guinea pigs, rabbits, frogs, and toads—there is a great general resemblance in all animals under its influence—some are much more susceptible to its action than others, and bear a very much less dose than others.

Q. How soon after the ingestion of the poison, generally speaking, has its action made its appearance by symptoms in the animal? A. From two minutes to thirty—more generally about five or six—where the poison has not been administered in a solution, the usual interval between the ingestion and the paroxysms has been about five minutes—I occasionally administered it in solution, but more generally in the solid state; sometimes placed dry on the back part of the tongue, and some fluid poured down the throat, sometimes enclosed between two portions of meat, sometimes mixed up with butter or suet, and sometimes rolled in a small piece of the gut of an animal; and in frogs and toads it was given by the skin, putting them into a solution of it—I have also applied it direct to the spinal cord, and in other cases to the brain.

Q. What has been the first symptom of the animal having come under the influence of the strychnia poison? A. A desire to be quite still, hurried breathing, slavering of the mouth, only when given at the mouth, and then twitching of the ears, trembling of the muscles, and inability to walk, convulsions of all the muscles of the body, the jaw generally firmly closed during the convulsions; convulsions followed by a total want of power in the muscles, which, on the least touch, are thrown into violent spasms, with a galvanic-like shock; that also occurs if the animal attempts of itself to move, of its own volition; the spasms come on if the animal is either forced or touched, or attempts voluntarily to move—that is the usual course—occasionally the animal is able to move without a recurrence of the spasm—the spasms recur at various periods until the animal dies.

COURT. Q. Increasing in violence? A. Not always—the animal dies in various periods, up to three hours and a half, which is the longest period at which I have known an animal die—in cases where they lived for any great length of time, the violent convulsions recur at less frequent intervals—in every case, immediately before death, the rigidity ceases; I do not know an exception to that, and the muscles are quite soft and powerless; flaccid; the limbs may be put in any position whatever.

Q. Being put in any position, does the rigor mortis come on quicker or slower than in ordinary cases? A. I think there is little difference after all convulsive deaths—I observed the same where I have destroyed animals by hydrocyanic acid, chloroform, and other substances, which produce similar convulsions.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. With respect to the rigidity after death from strychnia, what has been the extent of the rigidity as compared with the rigidity when destroyed by other chemical agents? A. I think there is very little difference—in the cases of the two women, it was much less than usual.

COURT. Q. Do you mean much less than common where death is by natural disease? A. Yes.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. You mentioned some slight symptoms; a desire to be quiet, slavering at the mouth, and twitching at the ears, which preceded the convulsions. A. Yes, the violent convulsions—those symptoms occurred in the order in which I have named them—that has been at varying intervals before the convulsions—I have known fatal cases of animals poisoned by strychnia in which there has been a considerable interval between the first paroxysm and the second; I have just stated that; about half an hour, I should think, but that is not common—I have examined the bodies of upwards of forty animals which have been killed by strychnia—I have invariably found the heart full on the right side, very generally the left ventricle firmly contracted; the blood usually dark and often fluid—there is no particular appearance attached to the spine.

Q. Have you experimented largely with other poisons producing sudden death on animals? A. Largely is a comparative term, I may perhaps say I have—I perhaps have experimented upon upwards of 2,000 animals—I have for many years devoted much attention and study to the effect of poisons—I have published two essays on the subject—in the case of the sudden death of an animal by poison the blood is very often fluid after death, but not invariably by any means—it is frequently fluid, but I do not think it is to be depended on at all; it varies with the nature of the poison—it happens in cases of sudden death from other causes—I have attended to the evidence that has been given as to the symptoms of Mr. Cook on the Monday and Tuesday nights, and on the Sunday night.

COURT. Q. What do you assume the symptoms to have been on the Sunday night? A. A state of great excitement; that Cook described himself to have been very ill; that he was in a state of great excitement; and in such a condition that he considered himself mad for two minutes.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. Do you remember also what he was sworn to have stated as to what he imagined to be the cause of the excitement? A. I was about to add that; that there had been some noise in the street.

Q. Now, adverting to the symptoms described on those three occasions here in Court, is it your opinion that they could have been produced by the poison of strychnia? A. They do not resemble what I have seen follow—he had more power of voluntary motion than I have observed in animals poisoned by strychnia.

COURT. Q. Does this include the Sunday night? A. It seems to me that you have no direct evidence, except his own statement, what his symptoms were on the Sunday night.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. Then confine your evidence to the Monday and Tuesday; you say he had more power of voluntary motion than you have observed generally in animals under the effects of the poison; to what symptoms of the existence of that power do you refer in the evidence you have heard? A. Sitting up in bed, moving his hands about freely, swallowing, talking, and asking to be rubbed and moved—I believe that completes the symptoms which satisfy me that there was a greater power of voluntary motion—and this case also varies from those I have observed in animals in

the sudden accession of the convulsions without the usual premonitory symptoms, and in the greater length of time which occurred from the taking of the pills which were supposed to contain the strychnia, which is so much greater than any period that has occurred in my experience—no other particular difference in the symptoms before death at present occurs to me; the screaming and the vomiting I should mention—I have never seen an animal vomit after taking strychnia.

COURT. Q. Nor scream? A. Nor scream, as a voluntary scream, using the scream as an expression of voluntary noise.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. Is there any medical reason that occurs to you why the patient should not vomit? A. apprehend where there is so much spasm of the parts, there is an inability to vomit, and cases are related where attempts at vomiting have been made, and they could not succeed—I have a case which is related in the 10th volume of the "Journal de Pharmacie," in which attempts were made to give emetics, without success—the post mortem observations which I have made upon the bodies of animals poisoned by strychnia, and the post mortem appearances of Mr. Cook's body differ materially in the particulars I have mentioned—the heart is stated to have been empty and contracted, flabby I think, the state of the lungs not congested, and the state of the brain not congested—there is no other difference that occurs to me—in the cases of the animals upon which I experimented, where the paroxysms have recurred, the course of the subsiding of the paroxysms has been gradual—I have never known the case of a severe paroxysm recovered from, and then a long interval of complete repose for several hours; I have stated for half an hour, in an animal.

Q. Have you also experimented upon the bodies of animals poisoned by strychnia, with a view of discovering the strychnia poison in the body, the body being in various stages of fermentation and decomposition? A. I have, from a few hours after death, at varying periods up to the fortythird day, the body being quite putrid in the latter cases—I have not failed in any one case to discover the poison by the tests which I have applied—I could not say the number of cases in which I have experimented for that purpose, but in many cases, fifteen perhaps—I cannot say to a few, more or less.

Q. Supposing a person to have died under the immediate effects of strychnia poison in the first paroxysm after its administration, and his stomach to have been taken out and pnt into a jar on the sixth day after death, in your opinion must strychnia have been found in the body upon proper chemical analysis? A. If it were there—if I am to assume that he died of it, I say yes.

COURT. Q. Supposing a person had died in the first paroxysm of strychnia, and his stomach to have been taken out and put in a jar on the sixth day after his death, in your opinion the poison—? A. Ought to be found.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. What tests would you use to detect the poison? A. Extract it first from the other matters with which it was mixed, endeavour to obtain it separate; I should place the contents in water acidulated with acid, boil it for a short time, and filter, neutralize with an alkali, potass or lime, evaporate, and dissolve the residue after evaporation with spirit or ether—I am stating the process which we did follow, dissolve with alcohol, evaporate the alcoholic extract to the consistency of a thick syrup, and I should then have the strychnia in a state to apply the tests—if it is common commercial strychnia, such as is almost invariably found in use among medical men and druggists, one test is nitric acid, which gives a red

colour, which in a great measure disappears upon the addition of protochlorids of tin; if the strychnia be pure, it does not undergo any change on the addition of sulphuric acid; but upon the addition to this mixture of bichromate of potass, and several other substances, it produces a beautiful purple, which changes through varying shades till it gets to be a dirty red—there are several other tests, but that I think is sufficient.

Q. Now, adverting to the statement about putting the stomach into the jar; taking it that the stomach was put into the jar on the post mortem examination, and brought up to London, and then immediately submitted to experiment; in your judgment was that in an unfavourable, or in a favourable condition for ascertaining, aye or no, whether strychnia was there? A. It would give a little more trouble, I do not see anything else.

COURT. Q. Then you think it was not in an unfavourable state for examination? A. It would give more trouble, but not affect the result otherwise.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. Supposing, four days later, the liver, the spleen, and the kidneys, had been placed in another jar, and sent up, and forthwith examined, in your judgment, if the person had died of strychnia poison, ought it to have been discovered in those parts of the system? A. Yes—I have seen strychnia discovered in the corresponding portions of the system of animals killed by strychnia—I have seen it done by other analysts—I have also seen it detected in the blood—I have not done it, I saw it done by Mr. Herepath, of Bristol—I do not think that an analysis would bt defeated or confused by the existence in the stomach of any other substance which would produce the same colours—the existence of pyroxanthine or salacine in the stomach, or in the other parts examined, would not defeat the experiment—pyroxanthine is about the most unlikely substance to exist in the stomach of an animal—it is one of the rarest and most difficult substances to be obtained, even by chemists—the distinction between pyroxanthine and strychnia is quite evident and distinct—in order to detect pyroxanthine it is not necessary to apply bichromate of potass—pyroxanthine changes to a deep purple on the addition of sulphuric acid alone, and on the addition of the bichromate of potass the colour is spoilt; whereas in strychnia, upon the addition of sulphuric acid no change is produced; it requires the addition of the bichromate to induce the colour—I have the substance in my pockets—supposing death to have been caused by a dose of strychnia poison, sufficient, but not more than sufficient, to destroy an animal, in my judgment, it would not be so decomposed by the process of absorption as that I should not be able to detect it by those tests, in some portion of the system—if death were produced by a minimum dose of strychnia, I believe there would be no decomposition that would prevent the discovery of it—that question has been a matter of consideration to me previously to this trial—I know that it has been a question with some toxicologists.

COURT. Q. Is it a question upon which toxicologists have formed different opinions? A. I believe they have.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. Have you studied the question sufficiently to be able to state sufficient reasons for thinking that a minimum dose, after having done its work, continues as strychnia in the system? A. Reasons which are sufficient to my mind—I believe the illustration given was, that as food undergoes a change on its being taken into the body, so did this substance—that is the argument of those who have expressed an opinion upon it—I say there is no analogy; the change in food takes place during digestion, and, consequently, its elements are not found in the blood; at least the substances

stances; or if change does not take place, then they remain unchanged in the blood—these substances or alkaloids are absorbed without digestion, and may be obtained unchanged from the blood; but those substances may be administered in various ways—in my judgment, no amount of putrefaction, within reasonable bounds, would prevent the discovery of the strychnia—to say that strychnia was absolutely indestructible would not be correct, bat within the ordinary bounds of decomposition strychnia is a fixed substance; I have found it after forty-three days—I should imagine that the more empty the stomach the quicker would be the action of the strychnia.

Cross-examined by MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. I think you are the lecturer on surgery at the school at Leeds? A. Yes—Mr. Morley, the gentleman called for the prosecution, is the lecturer on chemistry—part of the experiments on these sixty animals I have spoken of, were made by Mr. Morley and myself jointly; not the greater party perhaps half of them might be—the general result was the same in those cases in which I experimented alone—the experiments upon the sixty animals has been spread over a period of thirty years—the experiments that I made in common with Mr. Morley have been made partly since the Leeds case that has been so frequently referred to, and part of them were made before that, in a case with which Mr. Morley had nothing to do—that was not in regard to this case, but in reference to the case which has been so frequently referred to—a great number of experiments were made conjointly—there were others that I made alone, both before and since—some of them were made in reference to this case, others certainly not—it would be difficult to say how many I have made with reference to this case—allow me to say, that I am engaged in the case that occurred at Leeds, and a great many of those experiments were made with reference to that case—I cannot say how many experiments I have made with reference to this particular case—I cannot give any notion—I have made a few in reference particularly to this case, but the great bulk certainly not.

Q. When were you first concerned in this case? A. About the period of the death of the person whose case has been so frequently referred to—I was applied to on the part of the defence, in correspondence—I believe it began in this way, that the published case which I have read was forwarded to Mr. Smith, the prisoner's attorney—it was forwarded by me.

COURT. Q. Did you give it voluntarily? A. I called his attention to it—it was the first case, die second in the order in which your Lordship has taken it down.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. Is that the case that we have all agreed to make an anonymous one? A. No, not that case—I cannot be sure whether that case had then occurred or mot—in the various experiments that I have made the general dose that has been given has been from half a grain to two grains—I have found half a grain sufficient to destroy life in the larger animals on which I have experimented—I have seen both a dog and a cat die from half a grain; not always, I mentioned that some animals were more susceptible than others—that applies to animals of different species; some animals, as a species, are more susceptible than others; and in individuals of the same species some are more susceptible than others, but there is a greater difference between the species.

Q. You mentioned that the symptoms have generally shown themselves in from two to thirty minutes; Mr. Morley told us from a few minutes to less than an hour: will you undertake to say that there have not been cases in which the first appearance of the symptoms have not been delayed an hour?

A. Yes—I say there have not been, that I have seen—I have known instance in which I have had to repeat the dose of poison—that is when the dose has not been sufficient to kill; but you say to produce symptoms, there is a wide difference—I have given it three times before killing—I gave half a grain each time—that was to a cat—it is very probable that the periods at which I gave the three doses were 34 minutes past 5, 10 minutes past 6, and 35 minutes past 6 o'clock, making, on the whole, two grains—I cannot be sure whether it wy so or not, I think it is very probable—there is no statement that symptoms were not shown; there were symptoms shown, certainly; the symptoms of spasms, but the animal did not die, and I had to repeat the dose—the cat did not swallow those doses—I think I have found other animals of the same cat species killed by it, young ones, but by no means uniformly old ones—with cats in general half a grain is the minimum dose—I think half a grain would be a small dose to kill an old strong cat, in the solid state—I am not sure whether a smaller dose will suffice in the fluid—it is probable, but I am speaking now of my own experience—I have stated already that it is my experience that when given in the fluid state a smaller dose will suffice—you may assume that hard breathing is among the first symptoms that show themselves, then comes twitching, an indisposition to move, then generally some slavering of the mouth, then twitching, then trembling of the muscles, and then usually convulsions.

Q. What I want to know is, whether these symptoms make their appearance in all animals of the same species, or whether there ia diversity in the intervals at which they present themselves, and in the order in which they present themselves? A. I would not swear that that may not occur, but such is the result of my observations as the rule—I mean that they certainly do not occur at uniform periods of time—in describing them I should say that they occurred in the same order—I would not say there are not exceptions, there may be—I have not observed considerable variation in the order, I have in the time—when the convulsions have once set in, I have found some difference as to the periods at which these convulsions take place, with greater or less intervals—I have also found considerable variety in this, that one animal will undergo a succession of these attacks before it dies, and that another will die after a much less amount of convulsion—it seldom dies after one, generally four or five, and often a great many more—I have known one or two instances in which the animals have died after one convulsion—that has been where the death has followed from a dose equal in quantity to some other quantity which has not produced the same effect—the order in which the muscles of the body and limbs are convulsed, varies to some extent in violence—I think the limbs are generally affected first, that is the general rule; very often both together—where they are not simultaneous, the twitching of the extremities generally precedes, but I doubt whether that if not rather the result of their being more easily observed than the muscles of the trunk—the violent convulsions generally occur together—I do not think there is any difference with regard to the rigidity that I have mentioned as occurring after death, I think it is not greater than is due to the ordinary rigor mortis.

COURT. Q. You have known of no instance? A. I have known instances in which the muscles of these animals have been very rigid, but I have known instances in which the animals, having died from different effects, have been equally rigid—I mean to state I do not think there is any peculiar rigidity induced by strychnia.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. If that be not so in the animal, how was

it that in the two instances where you found death from strychnia in the human subject, you found an undue rigidity? A. I mentioned that there was considerably less.

Q. With regard to the lady whose case we do not name, was it not the fact there, that, although the muscles of the body were flexible, the hands were incurved and the feet decidedly arched by muscular contraction? A. Not more than is usual in death from ordinary causes—I have said that the hands were incurved and the feet decidedly arched by muscular contraction—I mean no more than is due to the ordinary riyor of death—by muscular contraction I mean that they were rigid—I mean to say that I meant no more than was due to the ordinary rigidity of death, and I stated so at the time; not in the report that I signed, but in conversation with the parties who were engaged—the report was a statement of a fact.

COURT. Q. You meant to describe the common rigor mortis? A. Yes—it is stated in the former part of the report that the other muscles of the body were less so—I merely meant it to be understood that there was a distinction between the two portions of the body—a statement of that fact, but nothing more.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. Mr. Morley stated here the other day, that in the experiments he made with you on animals killed by this poison, that after death there was an interval of flaccidity, and that after this, rigidity commenced, more than if it had been occasioned by the usual rigor mortis; you do not agree with him as to that statement of fact? A. I do not—it is a difference of opinion entirely—I have said that I have generally found the heart full, the right side.

Q. Does the fact of the heart having been found empty in this case lead you to the conclusion that it was not a death by strychnia poison? A. Amongst other things—I heard the evidence given here the other day of the post mortem examination of Agnes French or Sennet, who died in the Glasgow Hospital—I heard it stated "that the heart was distended, stiff, and empty"—I believe I was in court when the gentleman who conducted it gave his evidence of the post mortem examination of Mrs. Smith, who died from the unfortunate administration of strychnia—if he stated that the heart was perfectly empty I should have heard him.

Q. Does the fact in those two cases, where the death was undoubtedly from strychnia, of the heart having been found empty, exercise any influence on your judgment? A. Not unless I knew how the post mortem examination was made—if the post mortem was commenced in the head, the explanation was given by Mr. Morley and myself—in the case at Leeds, we had no doubt of the heart being full, but the blood being fluid, and the head being first removed, the large vessels are necessarily opened—the consequence is that the blood, by mere natural physical causes, drains away—I am not aware how the post mortem examination was made in this particular case of Mr. Cook—I beg pardon, the chest and abdomen were opened before the head; it was stated so, and therefore if there were blood in the heart it ought to be there—the head was not opened there in the first instance—that is my explanation of it.

Q. What would occasion, in your opinion, the contraction of the heart in Mr. Cook's case? A. The heart, if empty, is usually contracted—it is like other muscles, if the other muscles are contracted that will contract—if it be empty, and there is nothing to oppose its contraction, it will contract—I cannot account, from the appearances of the body after death, for the emptiness of the heart, any more than it might be the usual effect of death—it

varies very much, but as a general rule in post mortem examinations we find, if the heart is empty it is contracted—the heart is a circular saclike muscle, and if there is nothing to distend it, it contracts—I do not say that in all cases that I have examined of strychnia poison the blood was fluid—in the great majority of instances it is so—suppose there is blood in the heart at the time of death it would not contract, it would be flabby.

Q. Therefore, if you find a heart contracted after death, it shows that that heart was in a contracted state at the moment of death? A. Then must be a distinction made, which is very frequently not made, between the two cavities of the heart—it is a very common thing to find the left ventricle contracted and hard, and the right flabby and uncontracted—it is very often spoken of, that is death by asphyxia—the post mortem appearances of Cook's body, which I say differ materially from those I have seen after death from strychnia, were the emptiness of the heart, the state of the lungs, and the want of congestion in the brain—the lungs are described as not being congested.

Q. Do you attach any importance to the emphysema? A. Emphysema is of two kinds, one of them consists in a dilatation of the air cells, the other is a rupture by which the air, not being in the cells, passes amongst them—I inferred, from the description given, that it was not from the rupture of the cells here—I have found emphysema in the case of animals that hare died from strychnia—it has always been from rupture of the cells—it could be in no other way there.

Q. What is there in the statement of the witnesses which makes you think this was emphysema of the other sort? A. We are told that there was during life a diseased condition of the lungs.

Q. I am speaking of the appearance of the lungs after death? A. I must put the whole together—who was to be asked what the character of the emphysema was?—the witnesses who made the post mortem examination were examined—if the question had been put to them they might or might not have been able to answer it—I have not been sitting here advising counsel throughout the case—while Dr. Harland was being examined I might have been—it did occur to me that it was proper to ask him what was the nature of it—I did not ask to have that question put because a question was answered which was sufficient to my mind to show that disease existed—the question was put, as to disease of the lungs, to Dr. Savage—it did not occur to me when Dr. Harland was examined.

Q. You have told us the various symptoms about this gentleman, from which you gather that he was of a delicate constitution; to which of them do you ascribe these convulsions of which he died? A. Not to any—I stated that the fact of his having syphilis was an important ingredient in my mind—but you ask as to convulsions—I admit that he died from convulsions.

Q. You were carried through a long detail of the various ailments under which this unfortunate man suffered, and you say that those would, at all events, predispose him to convulsions? A. Yes—that is what I say—I mean the whole; the combination of them in a delicate man—amongst others I mentioned excitement and depression of spirits—the evidence of that is that he was three minutes after the winning of the race by his horse in which he could not speak—it was stated by Mr. Jones that he was subject to depression of spirits—mental depression I understood.

Q. Where do you find any mental depression, from the time of the Shrewsbury races to the time of his death? A. There was a good deal of bodily depression.

Q. Would you expect excitement to produce its effects recently after its existence, or after it had totally subsided? A. It may induce that state of brain in which convulsions may follow at some distance—I do not find from the evidence that the brain watt perfectly healthy—Mr. Bamford said it was not—I judge from the evidence stated at the inquest itself as put in the depositions, I mean to say that in that condition of brain and system I believe it to be quite possible that convulsions might come on and destroy a person, and leave no trace—I do not believe this man died of apoplexy—you must bear in mind he had taken doses of morphia—I do not ascribe has death to morphia, except that it might assist in the coming on of the convulsive attack, and there might he changes in the spinal marrow; I do not mean changes brought about by the morphia—I should think morphia was not very good treatment in the state he was in then; I mean in the state of excitement—I do not mean to say that there was excitement at Rugeley, but morphia, where there is sickness, will often disagree with the patient when there is an irritable state of the brain—there is no evidence of an irritable state of the brain at Rugeley—I object to morphia, because sickness is very often one of the symptoms indicative of there being an irritable state of the brain without there being delirium, and from what he said himself, he must have either been delirious on the Sunday night, or he must have had some attack similar to what he had afterwards.

Q. Do you mean to represent that you believe, on your solemn oath, that he had convulsions on the Sunday the same as he had on the Monday? A. I cannot say what he had—I do not believe he had—I do not believe he had not—in my opinion, the attack of the Sunday night was of less intensity than the attack on the Monday night, but, I think, very probably of the same character—I do not believe there'were convulsions on the Sunday—he died of convulsions—I say they were of the same character, but not of the same intensity—I believe he had convulsions on the Sunday, to a certain extent, but less in intensity—there was a stateof great mental and bodily excitement—I do not believe they were convulsions, but a state that very often precedes convulsions—I admit that if a man has been put to sleep under the influence of morphia, and he is suddenly disturbed by a noise, it is likely to have a depressing effect upon him; but there is no proof that there was a noise except his own statement—it is part of my opinion, that he did not state what had occurred accurately—I do not mean to say that he did not state truly, but that he was mistaken—that is one of the symptoms we often find—I believe the man to have been delirious then.

Q. Be so good as to tell me what are those forms of convulsions of which you gave some statement to my friend, which will produce convulsions of a tetanic form? A. Any intestinal irritation will produce it—it may end in death—I have seen instances in children.

Q. I am not speaking of children; what convulsions are there which are attended with tetaniform symptoms? A. Any convulsions, if by tetaniform you mean an outstretching of the limbs—I have known convulsions ending in death accompanied with tetaniform symptoms, in children—I have never had a case of such forms of convulsions producing death, in an adult—the general statement of all writers is, that such cases do occur—my medical nomenclature will not furnish me with a name for it, except convulsions, convulsive diseases—I have never known or read of a case of convulsive disease of that nature, terminating in death, in which the patient was conscious to the last—I have seen it stated so, but I have never met with such a case—in epilepsy you sometimes have those tetaniform symptoms—where

epilepsy terminates in death consciousness is gone, so far as my experience goes—I have had four cases of idiopathic tetanus, and some five or six, perhaps, of traumatic.

Q. Be so good as to attend to what I am about to read to you, which is the statement of Mr. Jones of the symptoms under which Cook suffered from the coming on of the paroxysms: "Directly he bad swallowed the two pills he uttered loud screams, threw himself back on the bed, and was dreadfully convulsed; he said, 'Raise me up; I shall be suffocated!' that was at the commencement of the convulsions, which lasted five or ten minutes; the convulsions affected every muscle of the body, and were accompanied by stiffening of the limbs; I endeavoured to raise him with the assistance of Palmer, but found it quite impossible, owing to the rigidity of the limbs; when he found we could not raise him up, he asked me to turn him over on his side; I listened to the action of the heart; I found it gradually sinking," and so on; and he adds, "When he threw himself back on the bed he clenched his hands, and they remained clenched after death;" then, after another passage which I won't for the moment dwell upon, he says, "After death his body was so twisted or bowed, that if I had placed it on the back it would have rested on the head and feet; that twisting or bowing I first observed when Cook threw himself back on the bed."Now, I ask you to distinguish any one circumstance as regards the symptoms of convulsion and the stiffening of the limbs in real tetanus, traumatic or idiopathic, which differs from the description that I have just read to you? A. That is not tetanus at all—I do not think it is tetanus.

Q. I ask you to distinguish it in any one single particular? A. Let me clearly understand the question.

Q. I have read to you the description of Cook's symptoms as witnessed by Mr. Jones; I ask you to point out any distinction between those symptoms and the symptoms of tetanus? A. Do you mean the one paroxysm of tetanus, or the representation of the disease which is called tetanus?

Q. I am speaking of the paroxysm of tetanus? A. Then it is very like a paroxysm of tetanus.

COURT. Q. What you just now said was, "This is not tetanus at all." A. Not as a disease, that is what I say—not traumatic or idiopathic tetanus.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. I want you to point out any distinction between the symptoms which accompany the paroxysms of real tetanus, and those? A. I do not know that there is any distinction—the symptoms that have been read to me are symptoms of one portion of tetanus, one convulsive attack, as far as they go, but that is different from the symptoms of tetanus as a disease—I only wish not to misrepresent—I was about to say I never saw a case of tetanus in which the rigidity continued at the time of death and afterwards—the symptoms of the paroxysms of the convulsions are not distinguishable from those of tetanus, nor from many other convulsive diseases at the moment of death.

COURT. Q. As far as they go, do they coincide with the symptoms of tetanus? A. Yes, at the moment of death.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. Observe, that you have here consciousness to the last; that before the man dies he says "Turn me over;" and as soon as they turn him over he dies: tell me of any case you know of from your experience or reading, in which death has ensued from convulsions, where the patient was conscious to the last? A. I have already said I do not know I of such a case—the convulsions that take place after an administration of strychnia are very properly called tetanic.

Q. Do you agree with Sir Benjamin Brodie, that the symptoms in the convulsions arising after strychnia, are of the same character while they last as the symptoms in traumatic or idiopathic tetanus, and that the distinction between the two consists in the course in which the symptoms run? A. I think there is a difference, I think the hands are less violently contracted in affections of ordinary tetanus, and that the whole effect of the spasm is less in ordinary tetanus than in tetanus from strychnia—I think in tetanus from strychnia the hands are more firmly and tightly closed—I do not agree with Sir Benjamin Brodie in other respects, that the difference is in the course that the symptoms run—there is another difference, that in ordinary tetanus the convulsions never entirely pass away.

Q. I believe, from your frequent observation of the symptoms from strychnia, you felt perfectly prepared, in the case at Leeds, upon the description of the symptoms, to come to the determined opinion that it was a death from strychnia? A. I thought it probable and possible, but did not come to a determined opinion—I expressed an opinion—I said I had no doubt as to the cause of death; but that was after the post mortem examination—I think that is in the deposition before the coroner, after the post mortem examination, and if you read correctly, you will find added," and the post mortem appearances"—we had at that time ascertained that it was from strychnia—we had discovered the strychnia.

Q. Let me ask you if this is your view of the symptoms of strychnia as distinguished from the symptoms of ordinary tetanus: "The symptoms described were not assignable to any other cause—tetanus in many respects resembles the symptoms under which" the party whose case was in question—"laboured; tetanus is a disease of days, strychnia of hours or minutes?" A. Yes—I stated,"tetanus is far less violent in its effects, and in the great majority of cases comes on after external injury; when it comes on, it comes on slowly, by degrees; it usually commences about the jaw, and hence it is anatomically called lockjaw; it is not usually accompanied by the same convulsive twitching, and, I think, not by the same grasping of the hands, and the twitchings are not in the legs and feet—in strychnia they are the first symptoms, in tetanus the last—in tetanus, the hands, feet, and legs are the parts usually last affected—after strychnia, they are the parts first affected"—I stated that—I certainly do not mean to represent that this was a case of idiopathic tetanus, I never did, and you have heard nothing from me to infer that—nor do I think it was a case of tetanus in any sense of the word as usually applied, because it did not run the course of tetanus; it differed from it in the particulars I have already described, the very sudden accession of the convulsion, after the first rousing of Mr. Jones, his power of talking—that did not occur in the case which came particularly under my observation—I do not found my conelusions upon that individual case, but I take it as an element in them—I heard it stated, that in the case of Mrs. Serjeantson Smith, that she talked, and asked to have her legs rubbed, that she was conscious to the last, and that she asked to have her legs rubbed just before she died—that shakes my faith—I heard it stated that before she died she said something, but what the words were I don't remember—I don't know that her last words were asking to be turned over, but I don't dispute it, if you say so—the asking to have the neck rubbed in this case was a premonitory symptom of some convulsive affection—I believe I have stated already that in poisoning by strychnia the symptoms are usually first developed in the legs and feet—I have said that an animal first begins to feel twitching in the ears—before

the convulsion came on Mr. Cook had stiffness in the muscles of the neck and jaw, and begged to have his neck rubbed; they might be premonitory symptoms of that or any thing else—difficulty of breathing is one of the premonitory symptoms—the first thing a person does who feels a difficulty of breathing is to sit up in bed—I know that Mr. Cook complained of stiffness about the neck and asked to have it rubbed, and so far as my experience goes in animals, in no one single instance could the animal bear to be touched, and it was evidently most painful for the animal to be touched—I have heard that Mrs. Smith asked to have her legs and arms straightened—it ig not stated that it gave her pain to have that done—I have not found that the pain upon touch was after the paroxysms had once set in—I have seen the paroxysm brought on by it; not in all cases, because the animal is not always touched—where it is touched the twitching comes on more violently; and you must allow me to add, that in the Leeds case, the lady for two hours, when she could speak, begged them not to touch her—it was when the attack was mild that she begged to be rubbed, not during the fatal attack; it was not before the paroxysm had set in—she asked her husband to rub her feet and legs; that was just before the convulsions came on—after they commenced she could not bear it, because it caused a recurrence—I do not think it was in consequence of the twitching that she asked to have her legs rubbed—I think not, it was decidedly stated by all the witnesses there that she begged that she might not be touched—I think that Mr. Cook's case also differs from death by strychnia in this, that there was the power of swallowing so lately—that arises from inability to move the jaw—I have never seen an instance of tetanus from strychnia in which lockjaw did not make its appearance—I have stated in the Leeds ease that it was the last symptom, but in other experiments I have made on animals, I have not seen it—I do not deny that it may be so—I am speaking as a general rule—I think it is quite possible it may—I am speaking of the general result of my observations in the Leeds case—it came on very early, more than two hours before death—the paroxysms in that case continued for two hours and a half before death—I am speaking from memory—in that case we suppose there had been doses of strychnia four times repeated—I have not experimented upon the tissues, or upon the blood, I have seen it done—I first saw it done the day before yesterday—I have been in town several days—I thought it probable that this poison could be extracted by chemical process from the tissues—I never tried it—I saw Mr. Herapath experiment upon one case in that way—in that case the animal was killed by a dose of strychnia given by the mouth—I am not sure whether it was in fluid—I cannot recollect, or I would state it at once—two animals were killed at the same time, one by a solution, and the other by a solid; I think the quantity given was half a grain, but I did not make the experiment—a dog and a cat were killed at the same time—in the Leeds case there was strychnia enough given to poison four animals afterwards with the contents of the stomach—I have stated that I succeeded in every case where I tried experiments in finding the strychnia—I think I am correct, for I have the original minute—Mr. Morley did not differ with me as to the strychnia being found in two cases; in one he did, but I will explain that; there was not in reality a difference of opinion between us, it was a mistake; we divided the portion that we found in the stomach into two portions; we adopted two different processes for extracting it, and by the one process we were both rather doubtful whether we detected it; but by the other process we were quite certain that it was detected—one of the processes failed, and the other succeeded—I do not

know that there was another case in which we differed, in which I thought I found it, and he thought he did not—I have no recollection of it—I do not know that Mr. Morley, throughout the experiments, had been doubtful as to the result, certainly not—Mr. Morley stated differently in his own examination here, and if you refer to it you will find it, except in one cast, and that Is the explanation which I give of it.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. You have stated in the report that you drew up in one of the cases that has been mentioned, that the hands were curved, and the feet incurred by muscular contraction; in making reports of this kind of the symptoms or appearances of the body after death, de you state only extraordinary appearances, or ordinary appearances as well? A. Ordinary appearances also; a statement of a fact without anything more.

  WILLIAM HEFA PATH . I an Professor of Chemistry and Toxicology at the Bristol Medical School—I have been occupied with chemistry forty years, and toxicology probably thirty years—I have experimented on the poison of strychnia—I have not seen a case in the human subject; I presume you allude to the symptoms—I am not a medical practitioner, I am an analytical chemist—I have seen a human body after strychnia has been taken, where death has occurred from strychnia—in one case I had the contents of the stomach—in that one case I examined the contents of the stomach for strychnia only in the simple state—I recognised it in that case by a chemical test—I discovered it in the contents of the stomach—that must have been about three days after death—the tests by which I ultimately recognized it were sulphuric acid and bi-chromate of potassia; sulphuric acid and puce-coloured oxide of lead; sulphuric acid and per-oxide of manganese—those are separate tests, that is the third which I am now giving—a fourth test is sulphuric acid and red ferri-cyanide of potassium—red prussiate of potash it is sometimes called—the puce-eoloured oxide of lead is the highest oxide—the other oxides would not succeed—those are all colour tests—they all produce a purple colour with strychnine if it is present, which purple passes to red—there is another class of tests which produce another set of colours with common or impure strychnia, but not with pure strychnia—my process, previous to applying the test, is to get the strychnia separated from the solution—the principle which has bees pointed out here was originally proposed by Orfila with sulphuric acid-then to evaporate and then to dissolve by some solvent—in the case of the human subject we make evident the existence of strychnia by the colour tests—I have experimented on animals which have taken strychnia, not to a large extent, but sufficient to establish the principle—I have witnessed experiments to the extent of, I should say, perhaps, eight, or nine, or ten—I have not analysed all of them.

COURT. Q. How many cases have you analysed? A. There are two which I destroyed myself—each of those were cats—I gave one grain of strychnia in the solid form—I could not get the animal to take the strychnia, and I left it in some meat at night, when I went to bed, and I found the animal dead in the morning; the body was dreadfully contorted, extremely rigid, the four limbs extended, the head turned round, not to the back but to the side, the eyes protruded and staring, the iris expanded, so as to be almost invisible.

MR. GROVE. Q. Will you come to the chemical examination? A. In. this animal I found, in the urine which had been ejected, strychnia, and I also found it in the stomach, with the tests I have mentioned—there was,

also, a second case in which I discovered strychnia—that also was a cat—I gave it the same quantity in a solid form in food.

COURT. Q. Did she swallow it? A. I made her swallow it—she remained without any symptoms at all for fifteen or sixteen minutes, very quiet; and with but few symptoms until thirtyfive minutes; it then seemed a little restless in it's eyes, the breathing a little thickened, and at thirtyfive minutes it had a terrible spasm, the four extremities and the head being drawn together—they were each extended, and brought to a centre.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. Do you mean the extremities of the fore legs, or do you mean four in number? A. The four in number, and the head, all five parts were brought together in a centre, and stretched out.

MR. GROVE. How soon afterwards did the animal die? A. I watched it for three hours, for after this it had a second spasm—the first lasted about a minute or two—a frothy saliva was dribbling from its mouth, and it forcibly ejected it's urine—it had a second spasm in a few minutes after, when I thought the animal would die, but it soon recovered itself, and then remained quiet, at least still, with the exception of a trembling all over—it continued in that state until I went to bed—that was about three hours—during two hours and a half or nearly so the animal was in a peculiar state—touching it appeared to electrify it all through—even blowing on it produced the same effect; even touching the basket—the slightest thing which would affect the animal produced a galvanic jump, such as when the electric stream is passed through an animal, or a shock—I left it at the end of three hours, thinking that it would recover, but in the morning I found it dead, in the same indurated and contorted condition that the former animal was found in—in thirtysix hours I proceeded to my chemical examination—I found strychnia in the urine, in the stomach and upper intestines, in the liver, and in the blood of the heart—I detected it in that case by the same test, but I took extraordinary precautions to get rid of organic matter—in all the cases where I have made a chemical analysis when strychnia has been taken, it has been successful, and not only strychnia, but in cases where nux vornica has been taken.

COURT. Q. In all the cases? A. Yes, about nine; I have found nux vomica in a fox and in dogs—that does not present exactly the same appearances—all the strychnia is found as nux vomica and I have found it where nux vomica has been taken.

MR. GROVE. Q. Do you mean that the nux vomica is rather more difficult to detect than strychnia? A. I mean to say that it is rather more complicated, because you have the vegetable matter of the nut—I mean to say that I have found strychnia when strychnia has been taken, and the nux vomica when nux vomica has been taken—in one case the animal had been buried two months—I have experimented with stiychnia mixed up with organic matter out of a body; I mean purposely mixed up with the putrid remains of animals, and have detected strychnia in those cases—I took the putrid remains of animals which had been sent to me from the laboratory, mixed strychnia with it, and found it in all those cases, whatever was the state of decomposition—I am of opinion, as a chemist, that where strychnia has been taken in a sufficient dose, it ought to be detected by chemical science up to the time that the body is decomposed—I do not think putrefaction would decompose it completely—by decomposition mean when the body has become a dry powder—having heard the evidence as to the jar which was conveyed to Dr, Taylor, I am of opinion that the jar containing the stomach, as is now stated, in the state it then was, from

my chemical knowledge, that strychnia ought to have been detected if it existed there.

Q. Are your tests liable to any irremediable difficulty from the substances that have been named, pyroxanthine and salicine? A. I cannot conceive how pyroxanthine can get into a human stomach; if it did, I should find it out at once by bichromate of potash, or salicine, or any other substance—you find bichromate of potash destroy the colour, but I should mention that that body is difficult to be obtained in London—there are not cases of errors, if the analysis be properly performed, provided the organic matter is properly got rid of; that is the main difficulty in testing for strychnia—you will understand that the experiment in which I found it in the liver was not the one made here in London—some of my experiments were made in Bristol—in London I made three separate experiments on the same body, one on the stomach, one on the liver, and one on the blood—I found it in those organs to the satisfaction of those who were surrounding me.

Cross-examined by MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. Ton are not a physiclegist? A. No, I do not profess anything of the sort—I am not a medical practitioner—when I have experimented for the purpose of finding strychnia, it has been principally on the contents of the stomach, up to lately—on the 8th of the present month, I first tried the effect of my chemical process on any of the tissues of the body—it was with a view to this case, with a view of learning everything I could with respect to strychnia—I have experimented to find strychnia, in about nine instances—they were not chemical experiments made by myself, but things sent to me to analyze, in which I have found it, with the exception of two or three in Bristol, and one in London—the two in Bristol were cats, and the one here was a dog—this was not the only one where I have experimented on the tissues; there was a eat in Bristol and a dog in London—I experimented on the tissues of one of the oats, and on one of the dogs which I saw killed here, and found it in the oat, in the liver, the blood of the heart, and in the urine, besides the stomach, of course—one grain was given to the dog on which I experimented in London, it was a large dog—I do not know what is a minimum dose—I have seen an animal destroyed by a quarter of a grain—that was a cat—it was intended to give half a grain, but the cat spilled at least half the solution, and therefore I conclude that a quarter of a grain killed.

Q. You say that strychnia, when present, ought to be discovered; have not you said, and said more than once, that you had no doubt that strychnia had been given in this case, but that Professor Taylor had failed to find it? A. No, certainly not—I have not said so to the present Mayor of Bristol—I said that if it was there, Professor Taylor ought to have found it—I have not said to the present Mayor of Bristol, or in his presence, that I bad no doubt strychnia had been given in Cook's case, but Professor Taylor had failed to find it.

COURT. Q. You have not said that? A. Not in those words—it is very likely I may have said something to that effect; I don't deny that I had a very strong opinion, from the newspaper reports, that strychnia had been given—I judged from the various statements made—your lordship is aware that very extravagant reports were made, and as I was not at all connected with the case, I considered I had a right to express an opinion, the same as others—I do not consider that I was to blame.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. Was that from the statements you had seen of the symptoms? A. No, it was from the statement given in the Illustrated Times, among the rest—that was the most conspicuous of them—I

dare say I have given my opinion pretty frequently in conversation, persons have naturally spoken to me a great deal on the subject.

COURT. Q. Do not you know what you said? A. No, because hundreds of people talked to me about it, knowing that I have made toxicology the principal part of my study; but my general opinion was something like what I have stated.

MR. GROVE. Q. What is the smallest quantity you have detected in the tissues or stomach? A. I can show you some which I extracted from a dog—if the strychnia is perfectly free, I am certain that I could discover the fifty-thousandth part of a grain, that is, if it is unmixed with organic matter, because ten grains of that body is soluble in a gallon of cold water—I mean to say that I have dissolved it in a given quantity of water, and have ascertained that I can detect it—ten grains is soluble in seventy thousand—I can take the tenth part of a drop of that water and demonstrate the presence of strychnia, if it is perfectly free from organic matter—I do not go so far as to say that, if mixed with organic matter, I could separate it, and get the fifty-thousandth part of a grain—there is more difficulty the more organic matter there is present.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. Suppose a grain had been administered to an animal, how much should you expect to find in the heart? A. Very little indeed—it is a difficult experiment, and requires great precaution, bat it can and has been shown.

MR. GROVE. Q. What portion? A. I cannot tell; I have no idea, but it must be a very small quantity, supposing that there are 251bs. or 26lbs. of blood in the human body—I found it in an ounce and a half of the blood of this dog—it was a large dog, and weighed about 251bs.—I took what I consider to be the eighth part of the liver—the gentleman with me thought that it was the tenth part of the liver, and with that I had enough to make four distinct experiments with the four tests, so that I experimented upon the thirty-second part of the liver—I could see the violet colour in that minute portion—it changed to purple, passing to red afterwards.

  JULIAN EDWARD DISBROWE ROGERS . I am professor of chemistry, at the St. George's School of Medicine, Grosvenor-place, London, and have been for the last sixteen years—there are two schools, one called the St. George's, and the other the Clinical, connected with the hospital—I have made an experiment with strychnia upon one animal—a dog was poisoned at the end of Dec. last—I gave him two grains of pure strychnia, between two pieces of meat—the experiment was not finished till about ten days since—about three days afterwards I removed the stomach and its contents, and took some of the blood—the blood became putrid in about ten days after its removal from the body, and I then commenced an analysis, with a view to find strychnia—I separated the strychnia—I cannot say how much I found in the blood, but sufficient to demonstrate, by three experiments, that it was present.

COURT. Q. By the colour tests? A. By the colour tests, such as have been described in Court—the colour tests will not give me the quantity only by the amount of colour produced, which is not an indication.

MR. GRAY. Q. Did you afterwards proceed to analyze the stomach and contents? A. Not immediately; a month or five weeks afterwards—some other matters pressed, and I put it aside—the matter putrefied before I experimented upon it.

COURT. Q. What did you do? A. I treated it with acidulated distilled water, and the experiment was not finished till ten days ago—I then found strychnia separated in a large quantity by the colour teats.

Q. I thought you said just now that the colour tests will not give you the quantity? A. They will not give me the weight; but if I separate a large quantity of strychnia, which will enable me to make a large number of experiments, I can tell; but as to the measure and weight, I cannot at all ascertain.

MR. GRAY. Q. Have you ever had occasion to analyze any portion of the human subject for strychnia? A. Not for strychnia, but many times for other poisons—I have heard the evidence as to the stomach of John Parsons Cook and its contents being put into a jar, and sent to London—in my judgment, if strychnia had been administered to Cook, it would unquestionably have been found in the contents, by the proper tests.

Cross-examined by MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. How many experiments have you made? A. Only one, on this dog.

Q. My learned friend put the question to you as though there had been the contents of the stomach in the jar; do you think it would make any difference if the contents were lost? A. If there were no contents smeared over the intestines, that would make a difference; but if the contents were spilled and shaken up in the jar with the intestines, it would make no difference, except a little extra trouble—if they were in the jar, there would then be the washings of the stomach; that would make a more careful operation necessary—I do not consider that it makes it more difficult; it only consists in not losing anything of what you have got—if I have a stomach sent without any contents, I wash the stomach, and proceed with that—I am a medical man—I did not examine any of the tissues of this body upon which I experimented—the urine was lost—I operated on the stomach and the blood—I began in Dec. last—it is my opinion, that if I had tried on the tissues of the deceased's body, I should-have been able to ascertain whether there was strychnia—I have made no experiments of that kind, but I gather from my experiment, as well as from other experiments, that strychnia would be found in any putrefied body.

COURT. Q. After the time which has elapsed, when Cook died, if you had any portion of his body to operate on, could you have found out whether there was strychnia? A. Yes.

Q. But, now, at this hour? A. I do not see that the time would prevent it, if it was there.

MR. GRAY. Q. Would you expect to find any of the strychnia which had entered the stomach, or the mucous membrane of the stomach, even if the contents were lost? A. I think I know what you mean; if strychnia had been in the contents of the stomach there would have been a portion of the contents smeared over the surface of the stomach, and in that smeared surface, when washed, I should expect to find the strychnia.

  DR. HENRY LETHEBY . I am a Bachelor of Medicine—I am also a Professor of Toxicology at the London Hospital, and Medical Officer of Health for 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 been engaged frequently on behalf of the Crown in prosecutions of this nature; I believe in every case that has been tried in this Court fertile last fourteen years, or if not every one, nearly every one—I have "been present in court during the examination of the medical witnesses on this trial, and have attended to the evidence that they gave—I have heard certain symptoms described as attending the death of Mr. Cook—I have witnessed many cases of death by poisoning from strychnia; many of the lower animals; and several cases of poisoning by nux vomica in the human subject, one of which was fatal—the symptoms that have attended the cases of the

animals that I have seen, do not accord with the symptoms described in this case—in the first place, I have never witnessed such a long interval between the administration of the poison and the coming on of the symptoms, as was said to have elapsed in this case—after the administration of strychnia to animals, the longest interval that I have noticed for the symptoms to begin has been three quarters of an hour, and then the poison was administered under what may be called the most disadvantageous circumstances, in order to prolong the effect as much as possible—the disadvantageous circumstances were, a very full stomach, and the poison given not in a form easy of solution; the animal was quite gorged—I have seen the symptoms begin in five minutes after the poison was administered—I will not say that I have seen hundreds, but I have seen dozens of cases of the administration of strychnia to the lower animals—a quarter of an hour is the average time that the symptoms begin after the poison is administered.

Q. Is there any other particular besides the delay in the appearance of the symptoms which makes you conclude that this was not a case of strychnia? A. Yes—in all animals I have seen, and in the human subject also, when under the influence of strychnia, the system has been in that irritable state, that the very slightest excitement, as an effort to move, a alight touch, a noise, or a breath of air, will set them off in convulsions.

Q. Now, let me assume a case: do you believe it possible that a person to whom a dose of strychnia has been given, could rise out of his bed and ring the bell violently? A. I cannot undertake to say what is possible, it is not at all probable—I do not think it probable that he could pull a bell violently—any movement at all would excite the muscular system, and therefore the nervous system, and there would be convulsions, there would be spasms—it is not likely that a person in that state of nervous irritation could bear to have his neck rubbed—where a case of poisoning by strychnia does not terminate fatally, the paroxysms, when they go off, are succeeded by other paroxysms, which gradually shade themselves off—they gradually become less and less, one paroxysm being less in violence than the other, over a period of some hours—my experience quite accords with what has been stated by Dr. Christison, that the paroxysms last over a period of sixteen or eighteen hours.

COURT. Q. Have you known of morphia or any antidote being given when those paroxysms have come on? A. Yes—I have some antidote, the usual hospital practice—I will not say morphia, but patients have been received into the hospital under the influence of nux vomica, and we have watched the progress of a case, and antidotes have been administered.

MR. KENEALEY. Q. Do I understand you that there would not be an entire cessation of the spasms, but they would gradually go off during ten or twelve hours? A. Yes—I do not hesitate to say, that of all poisons, either mineral or vegetable, strychnia is the most easy of detection after death—I have detected it in the stomach of animals in numerous instances—I have detected it in the blood and in the tissues—the longest period that I have examined a body after death, has been one month—the animal was in a state of decomposition—I have succeeded in detecting very minute portions of strychnia—when it is pure it can be detected in very small fractions of a grain, at least the twenty-thousandth part of a grain—when mixed up with matter it would be more difficult of detection, no doubtstill, I can detect the tenth part of a grain in a pint of any liquid that it may be put into—I have detected it in broth—I can detect it whether the liquid is pure or putrefied—I have detected it in a pint of the most putrid liquid that I could obtain, in which the tenth of a grain had been standing

for two months—in the case of the animal which had been killed a month, and was in a state of decomposition, I gave it half a grain of strychnia, and I have the strychnia here within a fraction of what I gave—it was a rabbit—that half grain killed it—I lost about a tenth of a grain of strychnia in the course of the investigation—I operated on the whole of the liquid—supposing a person to have taken strychnia eight or ten days before his death, and a jar containing the stomach had been sent to me, I say positively that I could detect it—I have never failed—I have made post mortem examinations on those various animals which I have destroyed by strychnia, and have always found the right side of the heart full of blood—the physical reason of that is, that death takes place by the fixing of the muscles of the chest in spasm.

COURT. Q. Is it your opinion that it does so invariably? A. I conceive so; in my opinion it does, by the fixing of the muscles of the chest in spasm—at that time the blood is unable to pass through the lungs, and the heart cannot relieve itself of the blood which is flowing to it, it therefore becomes gorged with blood.

MR. KENEALEY. Q. Have you observed any particular appearance about the lungs? A. Yes, they are congested, filled with blood—I have administered strychnia in a liquid and in a solid form—I may agree with the opinion of Dr. Taylor, that when strychnia is administered in a sort, of pill or bolus, it kills in a period of six or seven minutes, but I do not say that it always will do so—it may kill—if it is administered in a pill it may show itself in that time.

Q. What is the first remarkable symptom you have noticed after the strychnia begins to operate on the animal: Dr. Taylor says that it falls on its side, do you agree with that? A. When it is in spasm it falls on its side—the jaws are sometimes spasmodically closed—I have said that I agree with Dr. Taylor that the slightest noise or touch reproduces another convulaive paroxysm—I do not agree with him that the colouring tests for the discovery of strychnia are fallacious.

COURT. Q. You say they always succeed with you? A. They do.

MR. KENEALEY. Q. Dr. Taylor has given as a reason for the nonfinding of the strychnia, that it is absorbed into the blood, and is no longer in the stomach is in a great part changed; do you agree with that theory? A. I agree with its absorption, but I do not agree with its being changed—I have examined the tissues of the body, and I have found strychnia; and my opinion is, that it is not changed so as not to be discoverable.

Q. Supposing the contents were put into a jar, and jumbled up with the intestines and a portion of the stomach, would that prevent the discovery of strychnia, if the person had died of strychnia? A. It would not—supposing that all the contents of the stomach were lost, I think the mucous membrane ought, in the ordinary course of things, to exhibit traces of strychnia—I have also studied the poison of antimony—supposing a quantify of antimony were infused into some brandy and water, and it was drunk off at a sudden gulp, the immediate effect of that would not be to bum the throat, or anything of that kind—antimony, in point of fact, to my knowledge, does not possess any such quality as that of immediate burning; not tartar emetic; not that form of antimony—I have turned my attention to poisons, I suppose, for seventeen or eighteen years.

Cross-examined by MR. ATTORNEYGENEBAL. Q. Are you a member of the College of Physicians? A. No, I am not—I am not a member of the College of Surgeons—I do not now carry on business in the medical line—I do not practice medically—I have done so, in general practice, that means

every species of medical practice—I have not done so now for more than two or three years—the last case that I was employed in for the Crown, was some time ago—it was the case of Ann Merritt—it was in 1851—I gave evidence in that case of the presence of arsenic—the woman was convicted.

Q. Did you state, in addition to the finding of the arsenic, your opinion that it had been administered as recently as within two hours? A. Four hours—the sentence was not carried into effect, in consequence of my haring written a letter—I was the cause of her being respited—other scientific gentlemen interfered and challenged the soundness of my conclusions before I wrote any letter at all—I have been employed since on the part of prosecution, but I do not think by the Crown—there has not been a case that I know of since in this Court.

Q. The whole question turned on the accuracy of the opinion as to bow recently the poison had been administered; you were the only scientific man examined in that case, I believe? A. was the only one that detected the poison—I had no doubt of it, and I still hold that opinion, and stated that in my letter—the question was put to me as to possibility—I said, "I cannot speak of possibilities, I adhere to the probability that the poison was given within four hours of death"—I cannot tell how many animals I have destroyed by means of strychnia, it has spread over a large number of years;. pretty well fifty, some recently; five within the last two months—I have never given more than a grain—I have administered it in these recent cases always in a solid form; sometimes made into a pill or mess with bread, and at other times put on the tongue of the animal—I am not sure it would operate sooner if put on the tongue, because it adheres some time to the mucous surface of the tongue, and does not get absorbed so soon, from the circumstance that there is no acid—a pill would have to be dissolved—still I think it would be shorter, because it gets into an acid, which is the more capable of dissolving it—in the case where I gave the poison under the disadvantageous circumstances, the dog had had a very hearty meal, and it was kneaded up into a hard mass with some bread, and it took three quarters of an hour before the action came on—I never allow them to eat it voluntarily; I always open their mouths and cast it into the stomach—there was one other animal which took about half-an hour before the action came on, but the poison was not given in sufficient quantity—that was given in a solid form, and it did not manifest any action, and we gave it another dost—the dose was half a grain; and we gave it another dose which acted within ten minutes—with regard to what was said by Mr. Nunneley, as to the premonitory symptoms, I have noticed the irritability of the animal before it has become convulsed—Mr. Nunneley talks of the ears being moved I think.

Q. What he describes is this; first, a desire to be still, then a difficulty in breathing, a slavering of the mouth, twitching of the ears, trembling of the muscles, followed by convulsions; did you observe all these? A. I cannot say all of them in that order; there is an excitement manifested in the animal, an indisposition to be touched, and trembling on being touched—I have noticed that the touching did occasion a tremulous action of the muscles—they have not come on in regular order—sometimes one set of symptoms in one animal and another in another, not much varied; but there are those little variations—after the convulsions have once commenced, there is an interval; then a breath, a sound, or a touch will cause a recurrence of the convulsive symptoms; that is, after they have been seized—that would not apply to a case where the animal died in the first paroxysm—I have known many instances where an animal has died in the first paroxysm.

Q. You mentioned that there is a distinctive feature in this case of Cook,

that 7011 were surprised at his manifesting so much power as to be able to at up in bed and ring the bell; are you aware that that was the first commencement, before any of the convulsive symptom! had set in? A. Yes, I apprehend that was at the onset or beginning, as it were, of the convulsive symptoms—this was five minutes before the convulsive symptoms began—I know that he sat np in bed and rang the bell, and that it was not until Palmer had been fetched across and had gone back and given him the pills, that the convulsions came on—I have noticed in animals that the mere touch sends them into convulsions, and they show an indisposition to move—I heard about the lady who died near Romsey; that the maid said that when her mistress's bell rang violently she went, and found that she had got out of bed, and was sitting on the floor—that struck me as inconsistent with what I have seen, but I have no doubt that was a death from strychnia—if that evidence be true, and it is a fact that she got np and rang her bell, that does not shake my opinion; I still adhere to it; it is not consistent with what I have seen—you must compare it with what I have seen—I tell you that both that case and this are irreconcilable with what I have seen—I have no doubt of this lady dying from strychnia.

Q. With the exception of the symptoms which came on at a longer period after the supposed administration of the poison, a longer period than you have ever known, and that the gentleman was able to sit up in bed and ring his bell, is there anything to distinguish these symptoms after the convulsions began, from the tetanus you have seen? A. Yes, one part of my distinction is, that when a fit of tetanus from strychnia manifested itself if the individual did not die, there was a gradual shading off of the symptoms.

Q. I am speaking at present of the Tuesday night; with the exception of the ringing of the bell, and that in this case it was an hour or am hour and a half; can you point out anything to distinguish the symptoms and death of Mr. Cook from the symptoms attending on and leading to death by tetanus from strychnia? A. No, I cannot—it is inconsistent with what I have observed in animals, but it is not inconsistent with what I have heard in the case of Mrs. Smith—the first symptom is a panting respiration—it is excitement, rather than difficulty, of breathing—it is not an early symptom, it is in the convulsions that there is a difficulty of breathing—if a man were to breathe hardly it is a position naturally assumed for him to sit up—until the convulsions and rigidity comes on there is nothing to prevent his sitting up in his bed.

Q. Then, if you except the delay in the manifestation of the symptoms, and the fact of his sitting up in his bed and calling for help, is there anything to distinguish the convulsions under which this man suffered, and under which he died, from the convulsions of tetanus from strychnia? A. Ton will except one other thing, which was the fit on Monday night; that is the important distinction.

COURT. Q. Suppose that were all you knew of the subject? A. Then there is not—the violent ringing of the bell is not perfectly inconsistent with the tetanus of strychnia, but the account which in given of Mrs. Smith is what I cannot reconcile with what I have before observed.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. With regard to the abrupt termination, instead of the gradual subsidence of the paroxysms in the cases where you have observed it in animals, has it been where you have given them the full dose? A. And in the human subject also—mind, I am speaking from my experience on man as well as on animals—there was a ease of a man who had taken very nearly a grain of strychnia—that is a strongish dose, and you might expect a recurrence of the paroxysms—the subsidence will not depend

on the strength of the dose, it will depend on whether the individual is to recover or not—of course, that will be dependent on the strength of the dose—I have seen four or five cases of recovery, and at the time Dr. Pereira wag making his experiments at the hospital, I have seen the human subject under full doses of strychnia; on one occasion it is stated in the books that he gave a grain and a half of strychnia in the course of a day—that would keep up the recurrence of the symptoms—he ceased when he found they were under its influence; it would have killed the patient, but the dose wit stopped, and gradually shaded off—we had gradually worked him up to it by a succession of doses—the effect does not manifest itself in the small dote—when you give them a larger dose it is possible that the other portion is carried away from the system.

Q. Is it not generally supposed that the effect of strychnia is very varied in different individuals? A. I think there is great uniformity in the effects of strychnia—there would be a little variation in time, but in the main features of the case there would be none—I find this difference, that from the same dose in the same species you get one paroxysm, or you get a series of paroxysms terminating in death—but the effects are the same for all that—the symptoms are precisely the same, that is what I mean—I was disposed to think it was a fit on Sunday night—I cannot tell you what it was, I have formed no opinion—Mr. Cook's death is irreconcilable with everything am acquainted with.

COURT. Q. Is it reconcilable with any known disease which you have ever seen or heard of? A. No, it is irreconcilable with everything.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. You say it is not reconcilable with anything you have ever heard of—do you mean to say that it could not be the result of any variety of convulsions, however violent, though not classed under any particular description of convulsions? A. In order to answer that question must tell you that we are learning new facts every day, and I do not conceive it to be impossible that some peculiarity of the spinal cord, unrecognizable except the examination be made immediately after death, may produce symptoms like those—when I say that it is irreconcilable with anything I have heard of, I include everything I have heard of strychnia poison as well as everything else, natural disease or poison—the vomiting of the pills by Mr. Cook just before death, is not consistent with anything I have known and observed of strychnia poison.

Q. You have been asked whether in the interval between the fits of an animal under the influence of the strychnia poison, touching it does not bring a paroxysm on—have you tried and ascertained whether if you touch an animal which is beginning to exhibit those minor premonitory symptoms, but which as yet has had no paroxysms, whether the touching it at that time will bring the paroxysms on? A. Yes, it does—any excitement will produce them—the Romsey case was an exceptional case, from the manner in which the strychnia was administered, and the quantity of the dose—in my judgment, the ringing of the bell by the lady the moment she felt anything of uneasiness, produced the paroxysm which ultimately was observed in her—it is quite consistent with all I have seen, that a movement would excite a paroxysm.

Q. In the Romsey case the poison was administered in a liquid, and the paroxysms took place within ten minutes—is it safe, in your opinion, to argue from the symptoms that occurred in that case as to what might be the nature of the malady in this? A. With regard to the great features, they are the same in all instances—the mode in which it is administered, in a fluid or a solid form, will make a difference in the time, but not in the nature

of the operation—I am still of opinion that the evidence I gave on Merritt's trial is correct—I have never altered my opinion—I am not a ware of there being any ground for imputation on me in reference to that matter; not the slightest—I know of no ground for supposing, until this moment, that there was the slightest displeasure on the part of Government—I have since been on the prosecution side in cases, and I very much think the Crown has been the prosecutor—it came to my knowledge, after I had given my evidence, that other gentlemen differed from my opinion, and I answered their objections—Dr. Pereira came to the laboratory and said, "Save this woman's life if you can by admitting the possibility of its being otherwise"—I said, I had no objection to write a letter, admitting the possibility, but not the probability—that letter was taken to the Secretary of State, and within one hour the respite came—I did it as an act of mercy, on the ground of possibility—I wrote the letter to Dr. Pereira, not suggesting the possibility that I might have been tinder a mistake—he asked me, as an act of mercy, to write a letter to him, to be shown to the Home Office, to admit the possibility of the poison we found in the stomach having been administered longer than four hours before death—I wrote a letter, and in admitting the possibility, drew an instance of what might be possible, but not probable—I do not know whether I may tell you what that instance was—the woman was not pardoned, but transported for life.

  ROBERT EDWARD GAY . I am a member of the Royal College of Surgeons. On the 2nd of October, 1855, I attended a person named Forster, suffering under tetanus—he had an inflammatory sore throat, muscular pains in the neck, and the upper portion of the cervical vertebrae—he was feverish, and had the usual symptoms ordinarily attending catarrh—I put him under the usual treatment of salines and aperients, also using embrocations externally to the muscles of the neck and throat, and also prescribed gargles for him, which he used for the inflammatory sore throat—about the fourth day of my attendance the muscular pains extended to the face, difficulty of swallowing came on; the pains in the muscles covering the cervical vertebra became increased, as also did those of the muscles of the face and lower jaw; the muscles of the entire face, and particularly of the lower jaw—on the afternoon or evening of that day the jaw became completely locked, pains came on, and the muscles of the bowels the lame, and the legs and arms had become very much convulsed—throughout the entire muscular system he had frequent and violent contractions of the arms and hands, and afterwards the legs, and difficulty of swallowing, which was increased up to the 9th or 10th day—the symptoms increased, the difficulty of swallowing in particular, that not a particle of food, solid, or liquid, could be taken or introduced into the mouth, and on his attempting to swallow the smallest portion it brought on most violent convulsions, which were at times so strong throughout the whole system, that I could compare him to nothing more than a piece of warped board in shape—the head was thrown back, and the muscular covering of the bowels, the abdomen, was forced forward—the legs were forcibly thrown upwards and backwards; the attempt to feed him with a spoon, the opening of the window, or placing the fingers on the pulse, frequently brought on violent convulsions—he complained of great hunger.

COURT. Q. Was he able to speak? A. Yes; he repeatedly cried out that he was very hungry, what should he do, for he could not eat—that was his cry during the whole of his illness, and he was kept alive till the 14th day entirely by injections of a nutritive character—he screamed

during the convulsions, and the noises he made were like those of a dying man more than anything I could compare them to—about the 12th day he became insensible, the convulsions, although very weak to what they had been, continued to last till the 14th day, when he died.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. Did you ascertain how long he had been affected with sore throat? A. Some few days, or it might be a week; he was an omnibus conductor—he had no other hurt or injury of any kind on his person which might account for those symptoms—his body was not examined after death.

COURT. Q. What do you call the disease? A. I call it inflammatory sore throat from cold and exposure to the weather—the symptoms became tetanic, in my opinion, in consequence of an extremely nervous, irritable and anxious disposition—he was a man with a very large family and a very hard-working man—I did not hear the evidence of the witnesses who described the symptoms of Mr. Cook—I ought to mention that the man buried a sister a fortnight previously, who died of pulmonic disease and pains down the cervical vertebræ—the family were in great trouble at the time, they would not allow a post mortem examination, and the body was not opened.

Cross-examined by MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. That was what is commonly known among medical men by the name of idiopathic tetanus? A. Yes; I have had a vast number of cases of inflammatory sore throat, and a good many anxious, nervous patients to deal with—this is the only case I have ever seen of idiopathic tetanus, and the only case I have known of inflmmatory sore throat to run into that course of symptoms—the disease was altogether progressive in it's character, and although then was an occasional remission of the more painful symptoms, there never was a total intermission of the tetanic malady—sometimes for hours he was not suffering from the tetanic affection—there was a twitching of the muscles going on, but there was not that violent convulsion—there was an intermission of the strong convulsions, but still the twitchings going on in the interval—the lockjaw was the first of the more aggravated symptoms that presented itself, then the muscular spasms about the trunk of the body progressing onwards to the extremities—he was conscious until the tenth day, when insensibility supervened while the convulsions were upon him—I conceive that the brain had received the impression from the spinal marrow—congestion had taken place, and that produced insensibility, after which there was great diminution in the severity of the convulsions, but they still continued—from the constant recurrence of the convulsions the brain would become congested—whether I should expect to find a difference in that respect as regards the congestion of the brain, in a case where a man died very early in such a disease, or where the disease was spread over a longer period, would depend greatly on the violence of the convulsions and their repetition.

Adjourned.

Friday, May 23rd.

  JOHN BROWN ROSS . I am house surgeon at the London Hospital—I recollect a case that was brought into the hospital on the 22nd March—it was brought to the hospital about half-past seven in the evening—it was a man aged thirty-seven, a labourer—he had had one paroxysm, a spasm, in the receiving room of our hospital before I saw him—he had a rapid but

feeble pulse, breathing quickly though not laboriously, the jaws were closed god fixed, there was an expression of anxiety about the countenance, and the features were sunken—he was unable to swallow—the muscles of the abdomen and back were somewhat tense—after he had been in the ward about ten minutes he had another paroxysm, spasm, and oposthotonos was well marked—that lasted about one minute—he was then quiet for a few minutes—he had then another and died—he had only been in the hospital about half an hour—an inquest was held on the body—the body was examined—no poison was found—the stomach was examined by Dr. Letheby—I attribute the death to tetanus—there were three wounds, two at the back of the right elbow about the size of a shilling each, and one on the left elbow about the size of a sixpence—the man told me he had had them about twelve or sixteen years—they were old chronic indurated ulcers, circular in outline, the edges thickened round, undermined and covered with a dirty white coating without any granulations—I am unable to say what produced those ulcers—I have seen other wounds like them in different parts of a body—I have seen old chronic syphilitic wounds in the legs of other patients similar to those in the elbow, but I cannot say that these were so—these wounds were the only things to account for tetanus—there was no other cause found.

Cross-examined by MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. Did his wife come with him? A. She did—I learnt from her that a poultice had been applied to this ulcer, I think a day or two before, I am not certain—I believe she had objected to the application of the particular poultice—she said so—it was linseed meal—the jaws were completely fixed when he came, so as to render him perfectly incapable of swallowing anything—he said he had first been taken with any symptoms about the jaws at dinner that morning, about eleven o'clock—he told me dinner, although he told my colleague breakfast, I do not know that he said the hour—he was able to speak, although he could not open his jaw—that is the case in cases of tetanus—there were also symptoms of rigidity when he was brought in, about the abdominal and lumbar muscles—I did not learn from him how long this rigidity had been coming on, further than that the first symptoms of the illness he had felt were that morning—that was lockjaw—he did not say how long he had felt this rigidity about the abdominal and lumbar region—I believe another gentleman had seen the case previously, I gathered from the wife that the parish surgeon had seen him in the afternoon—he was a poor man, a labouring man—I gathered from her that the case in the afternoon had been such as to cause uneasiness, and to make them wish for advice—I have no doubt that the disease had been coming on from the morning—the sores were ugly sores certainly, sores of a chronic character, ulcers—there were two on the right elbow about the size of a shilling each—they were apparently running into one another, a piece of integument connected the two—they would be likely to run into one another eventually—by the sores being undermined I mean that the wounds continued under the skin—there were no signs of healing—they had the appearance of having been neglected, old neglected sores—they were near the site of the ulma nerve—that is a very sensitive nerve connected with what is called the "funny bone"—he had one paroxysm directly he came to the hospital, but I did not see it; and half an hour from that time he died—I believe he had had paroxysms before he came to the hospital, all the afternoon—it was not one continuous paroxysm—there was no twitching at all of the muscles of the legs and arms—those were not affected at all.

Q. You say be died from tetanus; what are the particular symptoms of the case to which you refer as indicative of death by tetanus? A. From the tetanic symptoms, and from having the wounds—putting aside the fact of his having the wounds, there were the tetanic spasms, there was the lockjaw and the muscles of the abdomen and the back also being rigid, and he complained of pain in his stomach, just over the stomach—I did not hear the account given of the symptoms of Mr. Cook's death.

MR. GROVE. Q. Was strychnia suspected in this case before the body was examined? A. It was.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. Would an affection of the particular nerve we have been speaking of, the ulnar nerve, be peculiarly calculated to produce tetanus? A. Decidedly.

MR. GROVE. Q. Are the nerves of the tongue very delicate nerves? A. Yes, and in the throat and fauces there are very delicate nerves—I was here yesterday when a case was described of a sore throat that caused tetanus—that was produced by exposure to cold, it was therefore idiopathic—an injury to any delicate nerve would be a cause of tetanus.

  RINERS MANTELL . I am one of the surgeons of the London Hospital The case that has been mentioned by Mr. Boss came under my care also—I saw it during the time it was in the hospital—I heard Mr. Ross describe its symptoms—that description was accurate—I heard him describe the wounds in the arm—that description wan also accurate—the disease which he had was tetanus—I formed a judgment that the sores on the arm produced the tetanus—he was in the hospital half an hour—there is a little discrepancy about the time at which the symptoms commenced; the man told me himself they commenced whilst he was at breakfast, but he did not state the hour; to Mr. Ross he said while he was at dinner, at 11 o'clock.

  DR. FRANCIS WRIGHTSON . I was a pupil of Liebig, at Giessen in Germany—I am an analytical chemist, and teacher of chemistry at the School of Chemistry at Birmingham—in my chemical practice I have studied the nature and acquired a knowledge of poisons—I have been engaged by the Crown in a prosecution for poisoning—I was employed in that case to detect the supposed poison—I have made experiments in various poisons, strychnia amongst the rest—I have found no extraordinary difficulties in the detection of strychnia—in my opinion it is a poison to be detected by the usual tests—I have detected strychnia pure, and I have also discovered it when mixed with impurities, after separation from such impurities—I mean by impure, corrupted matter—I have detected it in mixtures of bile, bilious matter, and putrefying blood—I have turned my attention to the question, whether strychnia can be discovered in the tissues—it can—I have discovered it in the viscera of a cat poisoned by strychnia; also in the blood of a dog poisoned by strychnia; also in the urine of another dog poisoned by strychnia—I have heard the theory propounded by Dr. Taylor as to the decomposition of strychnia by the act of poisoning—I am of opinion that strychnia does not undergo decomposition in the act of poisoning.

COURT. Q. That it is not decomposed in the act of poisoning or on entering into the circulation? A. Yes.

MR. KENEALEY. Q. If it were decomposed in the act of poisoning, would it be possible to discover it in the tissues? A. I should say not—it might possibly be changed into a substance in which it would still be detectable—I have ascertained by experiments that you can discover portions of strychnia in extremely minute quantities indeed—in the case I first mentioned, as to the detection of strychnia in the blood, two grains were given to the dog—one

grain was given to the second dog in which we detected It in the urine—half a gram was attempted to be administered to the cat, but a considerable portion of it was lost, was spilt in the attempt.

Q. Assuming that a man was poisoned by strychnia, and that his stomach and a portion of his tissues were sent within eight, or nine, or ten days after death for analytical examination, do you, as a chemist, say that you could discover the poison of strychnia in his remains? A. I should have no doubt whatever in saying so.

COURT. Q. Generally, I suppose, if a man be poisoned by strychnia, you would generally expect to find it in the body? A. Precisely so.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. But do you confine it to generally? A. In the case stated by Mr. Kenealey, if a man had certainly been poisoned by strychnia I should certainly expect to detect it.

Cross-examined by MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. Suppose the whole of the dose given to be absorbed into the system, where would you expect to find it? A. In the blood—it passes from the blood into the solids of the body—allow me to explain; I should rather say that it was left in the solids of the body.

Q. What I mean to ask you is this; in its progress to its final destination, the destruction of life, does it pass from the blood, or is it left by the blood in the solid tissues of the body before it produces that effect? A. I cannot tell—if it be present in the stomach I should find it in the stomach; if it be present in the blood I should find it in the blood; if left by the blood in the tissues I should find it in the tissues—suppose it has passed from any one of these stages into the other, I cannot say that I should then no longer expect to find it—if the whole dose has passed from the stomach by the absorbents into the blood, and passed into the circulation, I should decidedly expect to find some in the stomac because I believe it exists as strychnia in the blood.

Q. You do not apprehend my question; suppose the whole dose to have been taken up by the absorbents, and passed into the circulation, do you say you would still expect to find any of it in the stomach? A. Only that portion which in order to be absorbed must be dissolved, and of course a portion of the fluid would surround the coats of the stomach; that portion I should expect to find, so far as it remained—suppose the whole to be absorbed, then I should not detect it—if it has been eliminated from the blood, and the whole of it passed into the urine, I certainly should not expect to detect it—if the whole has been absorbed from the stomach, I should not expect to find any in the stomach.

COURT. Q. You would expect to find it elsewhere, but not in the stomach? A. Yes—I should expect to find it in the blood and in the tissues.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. Suppose the minimum of the dose that will destroy life, to have been given, and supposing hat to have been absorbed into the circulation and then deposited in the tissues, a part of it eliminated by the action of the kidneys, would you know where to search for it? A. I should search for it both in the blood and in the tissues, and in the ejecta from the kidneys; and from my experiments, I should expect to detect it in each of them—I should expect to find it in the urine, in case the urine was ejected during the time of poisoning.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. Supposing you knew a man to have been killed by the poison of strychnia administered to him an hour and a half before he died, in your judgment would that certainly be detected in the stomach in

the first instance? A. Yes—supposing it to have been administered in the shape of pills, I cannot tell whether it would by that time have been all absorbed and circulated through the system so as to get out of the stomach—if it were so, I should find it in the blood, the liver, the kidneys, or the spleen.

Q. Could you form an opinion whether it could be detected under these circumstances on the coats of the stomach? A. Not knowing the dose administered, or the powers of absorption, I cannot say with absolute certainty that it would be detected, but I should think it in the highest degree probable, if a moderate dose bad been administered—I cannot give a decided opinion from the fact that death took place after one paroxysm, and in an hour and a half after the ingestion of the poison, whether it was a considerable or an inconsiderable dose.

COURT. Q. How do you suppose strychnia kills when it is taken into the stomach? A. I cannot form the slightest opinion—it goes from the stomach into the blood, and from the blood somewhere else, and on arriving at that somewhere else, it kills—I should think, by an examination of the blood as well as the stomach, that I ought to satisfy myself of its presence.

Q. If it is absorbed, where should you expect to find it? A. That is a point to which I cannot speak.

Q. Does it not result in this, that you cannot determine with certainty that it is not there, unless you examine the whole body? A. Not precisely; it ought to be found in the blood.

  RICHARD PARTRIDGE . I have been for many years in practice as a surgeon; I have had an extensive practice; I am professor of anatomy at King's College. I have heard the evidence in this case as to the symptoms of Mr. Cook, and as to the post mortem examination—I heard that portion of the evidence which mentioned the examination of the spine—of course it is most important, in a case of death from convulsion, to examine the spinal cord shortly after death—I heard the statement as to the gritty granules that were found—I have no doubt that such granules would be likely to cause inflammation of the arachnoid membrane—such inflammation would have been discoverable if the spinal cord or its membranes had been examined shortly after death—if examined nine weeks after, it would not be likely to be discovered.

Q. Would such inflammation, if it existed by the granules, be capable of producing tetaniform convulsions? A. I have not seen such a case, but such cases are undoubtedly on record; I have read of them—the medical term for such inflammation of the arachnoid is meningitis, or arachuitis, inflammation of the membrane—that disorder produces convulsions and death; I should say not universally; it sometimes does not result in death; spasms of the muscles, oposthotonos are tetanic symptoms—I could not form any positive judgment as to the cause of death in Mr. Cook's case—I have heard the evidence as to the state of contraction after death.

Q. Could you form any judgment an to whether that is an exceptional state, or whether in death rigidity from natural causes is observed? A. There is every variety in that respect—no conclusion can be formed from the degree of contraction, or the kind of contraction, that I heard described.

COURT. Q. By no conclusion, do you mean no inference at all? A. None—I mean from the contracted state of the body after death—I speak merely with reference to the particular symptoms I have heard described during this case—if I found the back curved, and the body resting on its back and feet after death, I should infer that he died of that form of tetanus which convulses the muscles of the back; I should suppose he died from tetanus—when I say that

no inference can be drawn from the contracted state of the body after death, I speak with reference to the symptoms I have heard described, not as a general thing—I can conceive cases in which an inference might be drawn as to death by tetanus from the contracted state of the body after death.

MR. GROVE. Q. You were going to say something as to rigidity. A. Various degrees and varieties of rigidity occur after a natural death—the clenching of the hands or the semi-bending of the feet is very common in cases of ordinary death—the half-bent hand and fingers are not uncommon in natural death—the feet are generally pointed—the degree of arching, in this description seem to me to be rather more than usual.

COURT. Q. You answer very fairly and properly, as a man of science ought to do; but you are asked as to the arching of the feet? A. Arching of the feet is met with not unfrequently.

Cross-examined by MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. Where do you understand these granules, from which you say arachnitis might have proceeded, were situate in the deceased man? A. If I understand rightly, they were situated on the inner surface of the fibrous investment of the cord—I understood so—granules are not commonly found in the human subject in these parts—they are sometimes—arachnitis, producing convulsions, has never come under my own personal observation—it has not satisfactorily come under my observation without producing convulsions—it is a rare disease—I am not enabled to state, from the recorded oases, the course of the symptoms of the disease—the cases have varied in duration—the period commonly has been days, at the shortest—it is accompanied with paralysis, if they live—it does not produce any effect upon the brain by sympathy, manifestly, I mean, not recognizable after death—it would not affect the brain by sympathy, or otherwise, prior to death—I do not know whether it is attended with loss of sensibility before death—in these eases, where granules have produced arachnitis, they have varied, in point of size, in different cases—suppose them to be very small and minute, I should think there would be less likelihood of their producing inflammation—I should not conclude there was inflammation without an appearance of it—supposing decomposition of the part not to have commenced, but that it was found in its complete integrity, and I found no trace of inflammation of the spinal cord, I should not feel myself warranted in inferring it.

Q. I will put any period short of decomposition—supposing the spinal cord examined, and the decomposition had not commenced, and, in fact, no trace of inflammation in that part, would you be warranted in inferring any? A. Allow me to say that you are putting an impossible case; the spinal cord could not remain in its integrity after that period.

COURT. Q. The limit of time is prior to decomposition; that is the terminus to which you are to direct your attention? A. Then it might be observed.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. Suppose in that case you see no inflammation, would you be warranted in inferring it? A. No—the shortest period in which arachnitis kills is a matter of days—that is my impression—it sometimes extends to months, where the dose does not kill; not otherwise, unless it terminates in palsy.

COURT. Q. When it kills, how long may it last? A. It may go on for months.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. Does it not affect the patient by a series of recurring convulsions? A. That varies—J never knew, or heard, or read of a case in which the patient died after a single convulsion of arachnitis—I

cannot say whether it would affect the rest of the system or the general health—I do not believe that a man could have twenty-four hours of complete repose between the convulsions—I have no personal knowledge what would be likely to be the symptoms produced, independently of convulsions, by inflammation of the spinal cord—I should expect to find great pain in the back sometimes, but I have no personal knowledge—the symptoms I should expect would be pain, associated with spasm and palsy—palsy would come on last—I am not aware whether the health of the system would be in any other respect affected than by the reproduction of the convulsions; I cannot answer—that in the interval between the convulsions he could be quite well—there would be pain and uneasiness, according to where the convulsions were situated, according to the situation of the muscles convulsed; the back usually—I should not expect complete repose from convulsions for a period of twenty-four hours—I have heard the symptoms stated, and have heard that, from the midnight of Monday till Tuesday Mr. Cook had complete repose—I should think that Mr. Cook's death did not proceed from arachnitis—the majority of the symptoms are not associated with arachnitis.

Q. You mentioned that there were one or two of the appearances after death in Cook's case, which would be common to other cases, such as the semi-closing of the hand—have you ever known, except in a case of tetanus, the hand after death completely clenched, so as to require force to take the fingers away from the hand? A. No, I have not—I have never seen a case of idiopathic tetanus—in traumatic tetanus I have seen the hand clenched; not so much as that—they often require a great deal of force to be straightened—the arching of the feet occasionally takes place in death—I have often noticed it—I have never known the feet to be so distorted as to be described by a medical man as assuming the form of a club foot—I heard the description given by Mr. Jones, that, when this man died, the body was bowed, so that, if he had turned it from its side upon its back, it would have rested on its head, and on its heels—I have no doubt that that indicates death from tetanus; from that form of tetanic spasm—I am acquainted with the symptoms that accompany death from tetanus resulting from the administration of strychnia, only by reading and hearsay.

Q. From your knowledge of the subject, having attended to the symptoms described by Mr. Jones from the moment the paroxysms set in of which Mr. Cook died, and the symptoms and appearances attending his death, does it appear to you that those symptoms are consistent with death by strychnia? A. Some are consistent and some are inconsistent—one of those which are inconsistent is the long interval which occurred after the taking of the poison—the symptoms described by Mr. Jones are quite consistent with what I know of death by strychnia—I quite agree in the description that has been given by various witnesses that the symptoms of traumatic tetanus come on gradually and progressively, and that, although they are remitted, the disease is never wholly intermitted—I have never known the disease of traumatic tetanus to run its course to death under three or four days, within my experience—if a case were described as of shorter duration, such as a day or a few hours, I should consider it probable that the premonitory symptoms had very likely been neglected—I have never witnessed a complete case of death from strychnia, either in animals or in human life.

Q. Bearing in mind the distinction between traumatic and idiopathic tetanus, and a case such as has been here described, in the whole course of your experience or knowledge have you ever seen such a death as this, with

the symptoms that have been mentioned, proceed from natural causes? A. No.

MR. GROVE. Q. You were going to state, when you were stopped, those symptoms that you considered inconsistent with strychnia, and you mentioned the time after the attack came on—will you go on and mention what other symptoms you consider inconsistent? A. The sickness manifested before the attack came on, the beating the bed clothes with the arms, want of sensitiveness to external impressions, and the sudden cessation of the convulsions, and apparent complete recovery—I think those are the principal points—I mentioned previously the distance of time that occurred between the ingestion of the poison and the coming on of the symptoms, I assume that to have been about an hour.

Q. As to the mode in which it came on without premonitory symptoms, do you consider that is inconsistent with strychnia? A. There was apparently an absence of the usual nervous and muscular agitation that is described—I stated to the Attorney-General that the bent form of the feet indicated some tetaniform spasm—that answer applied as well to natural tetaniform spasm as to that produced by strychnia—that would be the case whether it was a tetaniform spasm with poison or without poison.

COURT. Q. The other symptoms of rigidity, though indicating death by tetanus, would appear if death arose either from natural tetanus, if I may call it so, or from poison? A. Yes—it is rather a question of degree—oposthotonos arises from natural tetanus, but it would be more violent if from strychnia.

MR. GROVE. Q. Do the symptoms of convulsive disorders arising from injury to the spine, vary considerably in their character in different cases? A. I only know by reading, they do vary, according to the muscles affected; they vary in their degree of violence, and in the periods of intermission, and in the nature of the particular muscles attacked.

Q. You have stated that in the cases of tetanus you have seen, there was no intermission of the disease—do you know, from your reading, that the intermission of the disease is not an unfrequent thing in traumatic tetanus? A. I know it occurs, but it is not frequent—I do not remember cases of arachnitis in which death took place in a period of fifteen hours—I do not bear in mind whether forty-eight hours is an uncommon time for such disorders—such granules as are described are more unusual in young people than in old people—I cannot tell whether they are more indicative of disease when seen in young people than in old—I do not know of any case in which the spine would preserve its integrity as long as nine weeks—I should not feel myself justified in saying that there was no disease from an examination made at that period.

COURT. Q. Suppose you saw the spine entirely free from decomposition, maintaining its integrity, and you saw no symptoms of disease, would you infer that there had been any at the time of death? A. I should not.

MR. GROVE. Q. What is the usual period at which decomposition sets in? A. It varies very much, from a few hours to a few days, according to the temperature and various things—I do not think it in the least probable that it could remain for nine weeks undecomposed.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. If the stomach had been brought by any other cause into a state of irritation by any other means, would you think sickness inconsistent with the use of strychnia? A. I should think it not inconsistent.

  JOHN GAY . I am a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons—I was for between seventeen and eighteen years a surgeon of the Royal Free Hospital—I

hare ceased to be so for two years—I had under my care a ease of traumatic tetanus in a boy—it was in the year 1843—he was eight years old, and was in the hospital—he was brought in during the time he was ill—I took rough notes of the case at the time, it is so many years since, that I quite forget—may I refer to the notes?—he was brought in on the 28th July and died on the 2nd Aug.—the accident occurred a week before he was brought in—during the first three days he had the usual paroxysms, but unusually severe—I saw him on the 28th July—his mother complained when he came in that he could not open his mouth—he complained of great pain and stiffness about the neck—during the first night of his admission he started up convulsed, and spasmodically closed his jaw—I suppose it had been relaxed in the meantime—during the following night he was again convulsed at times—the abdominal muscles, as well as the muscles of the neck and back, had become rigid during the night—the muscles of the face were also in a state of great contraction—on the following day I found that the muscles remained in the same state—in the morning of the third day at 2 o'clock, on visiting him, I found there was much less rigidity of the muscles, especially those of the abdomen and back—the following morning the muscular rigidity had gone—he opened his mouth as wide as usual and was able to talk—the lad appeared to be thoroughly relieved—he had no return of the spasm until the following day; at that time he asked the nurse to change his linen, and as she was lifting him up in bed to do so, violent convulsions of the arms and face came on, and he died in a few minutes—from the time at which the convulsions of which he died came on, and the last preceding convulsions, I should say about thirty hours elapsed; it would be difficult to say exactly—the last paroxysm before he died lasted a few minutes—before that paroxysm came on, the rigidity I describe had been completely relaxed—it was merely the act of lifting him up in bed to change his linen which caused it—in this case, I had given the patient something to produce vomiting—the second day I gave him, in order to produce vomiting, small doses of tartar emetic, and they produced no effect—I gave a grain on the following day—I repeated them in larger doses—they produced no effect, that is, they did not produce vomiting—two grains of tartar emetic I gave to the child of eight years old—I did not repeat it after the third day—I thought there was no necessity for it.

Cross-examined by MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. We have not heard, and I think it is desirable we should know, what was the accident which caused the tetanus? A. It was an accident by which the toe was smashed—a large stone fell on the middle toe of the left foot, and had completely smashed it—the wound bad become very unhealthy, very much so—when first I saw it, it had portions of bone and cartilage adhering to the surface—I amputated the toe at the time he was brought the mother said that he could not open his mouth so wide as usual—that I think first attracted the mother's attention—when I saw him the mouth was almost closed up—I have a recollection of the case—the jaw remained closed until 1st August—when I administered tartar emetic to him the jaw was closed in all these cases; so small a quantity as the tartar emetic is easily got into the mouth—the tongue seems to retain its powers—I should say that the case is recorded in "The Lancet"—the convulsions came on during the night of the 29th July, and they appear to have remitted during the day, except the rigidity, the tetanic symptoms remaining—there were no spasms during the day-time, I believe, but I never was in the habit of recording medical evidence—in the day-time, although there were no convulsions, the

muscles of the body, of the chest, and of the abdomen, back, and neck were all rigid—that continued throughout the two days that I administered tartar emetic—the rigidity of the muscles of the chest and stomach would, I have no doubt, go far to prevent sickness—if rigidity of those muscles had not set up, I should have expected that the boy would have vomited from so large a dose—I have no doubt it would have done so except from the rigidity of the muscles—the symptoms began to abate on lit Aug., the fourth day, and they gradually subsided during the night—I saw the child during the middle of the day, and I found from the nurse that the rigidity of the muscles had entirely gone off—I thought he was going to get well.

Q. You told us the woman sat him up in bed for the purpose of changing his linen; might that in any way have brought the toe, that part affected at least, into friction with some parts of the bed? A. No, I think not—it might have done so certainly, but I do not think the simple irritation of the toe would have any effect in producing tetanic symptoms—if the cause had not entirely gone, the symptoms were brought back by the act of sitting up in bed—my impression is, there must be some action about the spinal cord as the immediate cause of the spasm or convulsions; action set up in the spinal cord by irritation of the nerves in the immediate seat of the laceration or wound.

Q. May it not be reasonable to infer that any irritation of the part originally injured, exciting and irritating the nerve or nerves connected with that part, may support its action over the whole system to the spinal cord, and so produce the symptoms? A. I had removed the end of the injured nerve, so I suppose that the same cause could not exist.

Q. If you feel yourself justified in saying that the irritation of the spiral cord once set up continues, why should you infer that the irritation of the nerve may not also continue? A. There must be some peculiar irritation of the nerve to affect the spinal cord from which tetanus arises, or else it would be more frequently produced—there appear to be some particular circumstances under which it is produced—I have no doubt the state of the toe was the original cause of the convulsions, and that death took place by something or other from that first cause.

MR. GRAY. Q. I think you told my friend that, with regard to the convulsions which ended in death, you thought they arose from some irritation set up in the spinal cord? A. did; I said, from that and other causes—the causes of such irritation in the spinal cord which would end in a tetaniform convulsion may, I think, be very various.

Q. Do you think it is possible, merely from a death with symptoms of a tetaniform character, from the observation you have had, to ascribe them to any particular cause? suppose you have a death accompanied with tetaniform symptoms and oposthotonos, and other symptoms of a tetanic character, in the absence of any knowledge of the cause, namely, the irritation of the spinal cord, do you think it is possible to ascribe them to any particular cause? A. I think it would be extremely difficult to do so, probably impossible—in the event of a given set of symptoms, tetanic symptoms, being proposed, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, without some other evidence, or collateral evidence, to assign it to any given diseas or cause.

  DR. WILLIAM M'DOLNALD . I am a licentiate of the College of Surgeons at Edinburh, and have been in practice about eight years—during that time I have had considerable experience at home and abroad—I have had practical as well as theoretical knowledge of tetanus, idiopathic and traumatic—I have seen two cases of idiopathic tetanus—in addition to those, I have

made tetanus a subject of medical research—tetanus will proceed from very slight causes, almost any internal disorder or alteration of the secretions will produce idiopathic tetanus—exposure to cold or damp will produce it, and mental excitement would be a probable cause.

COURT. Q. Without any organic disturbance? A. Mental excitement will cause an organic disturbance—mental excitement would be a proximate cause of tetanus, and sensual excitement also—the presence of gritty particles or granules in any portion of the body connected with the nervous structure of the spine or the brain, would produce tetanic convulsions—I have seen several slight miliary tubercles, the only assignable cause for death, terminating in convulsions.

MR. KENEALEY. Q. In addition to the slight causes you have mentioned, do you believe that tetanic convulsions arise from causes that are as yet quite undiscoverable by human science? A. Quite so, it is a disease the true origin of which is involved in deep mystery—I have had many post mortem examinations of patients who have died of tetanus, and no trace of any disease whatever could be discovered, beyond the congestion or vascularity of some of the vessels surrounding the nerves—though tetanus is not easily discoverable, strychnia is discoverable very easily by a scientific man.

Q. Allow me to call your attention to a case of idiopathic tetanus of your own; do you remember the case of the female, Catherine Watson, who is here? A. Yes, I was fortunate enough to restore her—to tell you the symptoms of that case, I had better read my notes—they were made at the time—this is a copy of them—(reads: "Case of idiopathic tetanus occurring in a female aged twenty-two, with recovery; no cause of disease traceable, Oct. 20th, 1855. Was asked to see Catherine Watson at Garnkirk, a previously healthy and muscular young woman; was informed that she was so much cramped in stomach, arms, and legs, that if not soon relieved she would die. I saw her at half-past ten, p.m.: she was then fearfully convulsed; body arched on head and heels; face livid and swollen; tipper extremities rigid, the left more so than the right, which could be flexed with a little force; respiration hurried; pulse irregular, from 120 to 130, firm and bounding; partial sensibility present. I asked her if she could take a drink? She tried, but could not swallow. I at once opened a vein and bled freely, The pricking of the lancet brought on a spasm, as during my examination there was a relaxation from the arched spasm, the abdomen and extremities still being rigid; the bleeding caused a longer interruption than any she had had, as I was informed. Convulsions, ushered in with an involuntary shriek, then set in, and the body was drawn to left side; jaws set firm together. Seeing this, I began to give her chloroform in drachm doses, and about an ounce was inhaled ere any decided impression was made. The spasms then relaxed, and she lay quiet, with an anxious expression of countenance; abdomen and extremities still rigid. If I omitted the chloroform for a short time, the spasms returned with great force; I then steadily gave the chloroform, pouring on another dose when the vapour of the previous one was exhausted, until I finished all I had, about four ounces. At this time, half-past two, a.m., I left her asleep, having sent off a messenger for another supply, in case of a return of the spasms. I visited her three times during the day, but found her asleep. She slept for thirty-six hours continuously, and awoke complaining of great soreness over all her body, particularly extremities. Mouth was contorted, drawn to left side; purgatives were given, which brought away fæces of a dark colour and disagreeable odour; and in a few days she recovered—mouth gradually

assuming its natural form. Catamenie regular; had been unwell a few days previously; bowels had been freely open day of attack; had gone about her usual duties till the evening, although she had felt dull in spirits for a day or two previous; she had eaten nothing but a little toast with tea all day. No cause for illness can be traced, unless the weather, which is chilly and cold, may account for it. Her position, and absence of all motive forbid the idea of strychnia having been used.")

MR. KENEALEY. Q. In that case was there no trismus? A. I have mentioned here that trismus set in—I cannot exactly say when; I think it was about 12 or 1 o'clock, but about the middle of the attack—she was able to speak—in acute idiopathic cases trismus is generally a later symptom—in an attack ending fatally I should expect it to be among the later symptoms—I had a patient who died from a convulsive attack of this kind—his name was Copeland—his case must have been idiopathic tetanus—there was no external cause—the death took place in somewhat less than half an hour—I cannot say exactly, as the patient was dead before I could reach the house.

COURT. Q. Do you know of your own knowledge what the cause of the disease was? A. Yes, I examined the patient carefully, and made inquiry as to the appearances and symptoms.

MR. KENEALEY. Q. Have you made a number of experiments on animals with reference to strychnia poison? A. I have, and have very generally found the post mortem appearances to concur—the vessels of the membranes of the brain are generally highly congested, the sinuses gorged with blood, and in one case I had hæmorrhage from the nostrils—that would indicate a very high state of congestion—I have found extravasation of blood on the brain in some cases likewise—I have cut through the substance of the brain, and in doing so found numerous red points—that is the general result—I have a list of twelve here.

Q. I wish to have merely the general result; is there any other peculiarity with reference to the brain that attracted your attention, or have you comprised all? A. I think I have comprised all that I can recollect—I have found the lungs of those animals either collapsed or congested—the heart invariably filled on the right side with blood, and very often on the left—the liver in those animals has been congested, the kidneys normal and healthy; the spleen normal generally, in a natural ordinary condition; the vessels of the stomach on the outer surface congested, and on the mucous or inner surface, highly vascular—that is, the vessels filled with florid and red blood, giving a red or inflamed appearance, deeper in some places than in others; the vessels of the spinal cord congested, the vessels of the membranes; and also a red point seen on cutting it through, but not invariably—these symptoms, or rather appearances, on post mortem examination, are not always a true test of the cause of death—symptoms are a different thing altogether—you may judge of the cause of death from a post mortem examination, but not always—you can generally give an opinion—I have experimented in a great many cases for the discovery of strychnia—you may discover in the stomach of an animal the smallest dose that will kill the animal; if you kill an animal with a grain of strychnia, you may discover traces of it.

COURT. Q. I think your proposition is, that, wherever a man is killed by strychnia, that strychnia may be discovered? A. Yes.

MR. KENEALEY. Q. What do you mean by a trace of it? A. Evidence of its presence—that may mean an imponderable quantity—I mean by trace to convey the idea that I can discover the smallest quantity that will

kill—I can discover the fifty-thousandth part of a grain—I have actually experimented so as to discover that quantity—I have heard a theory in the course of this inquiry which has been propounded by Dr. Taylor; to my knowledge, as a scientific man, that has not been propounded by any eminent chemist before; I mean the supposed decomposition of strychnia.

Q. To your knowledge, has any scientific man of eminence ever propounded that theory before? A. No—I first ascertained that that theory had been propounded by any one, in this Court—speaking scientifically, in my opinion there is no well-grounded reason for the theory of the decomposition of strychnia, on absorption—I have proved that that theory is false, by numerous experiments—I have taken the blood of an animal poisoned with two grains of strychnia, about the least quantity that would kill an animal, and have injected it into the abdominal cavities of smaller animals, and have destroyed them, with all the symptoms and post mortem appearances of death by strychnia—I can read you a few of those experiments, if you wish it—this paper contains a summary of the proofs which, at all events, to my own satisfaction, disprove that theory—I have made numerous experiments in different ways, and have long known it—I should, think it would make no difference how strychnia is administered—if the pills were hard, and not readily solved, you might find it much easier, because you might find some remains of the pill.

Q. Would its administration in pills have the effect of keeping its parts together, and thereby strengthen the possibility of detection? A. It would—by keeping the parts undissolved you might find some remains more easily—I have heard what Dr. Taylor said was his opinion about the fallacy of colour tests—I do not agree with him in that opinion—colour tests an reliable modes of ascertaining strychnia—I have found it invariably in urine that had been ejected—part of it may be thrown off by the kidneys—it is not true that strychnia can be confounded with pyroxanthine—in the animals which I killed with strychnia I observed generally an increased flow of saliva—that was a very marked symptom—those creatures were very susceptible of touch; a stamp of the foot, a slight touch, or a breath or a sharp word, throwing them into tonic convulsions—we generally recognise them by the stiffened condition of the muscles, it is a marked convulsion—supposing that a dose of strychnia sufficient to kill a man were administered to him, having his neck rubbed would be very likely to throw him into convulsions even before the paroxysm came on.

COURT. Q. As soon as the poison is taken into his stomach, would that effect be produced, as soon as he has swallowed the poison? A. No—after a certain time—you, of course, have the first symptoms of poisoning produced first—you have the first symptoms of tetanus produced before he is in danger of being thrown into convulsions by the neck being rubbed.

MR. KENEALEY. Q. That would not give him any kind of relief? A. I do not think so, judging from experiments I have made—a man pulling a bell violently, if he was poisoned by strychnia, would, I think, be extremely improbable, if the dose had been sufficient to destroy life, provided the symptoms had made their appearance; always premising that—I agree with Mr. Herapath that where strychnia is taken in a sufficient dose to poison, it can and ought to be discovered—I have heard the evidence that was given in this case; the medical evidence, and the evidence as to the symptoms—the symptoms I attach very little importance to, as a means of diagnosis, as we may have the same symptoms developed from many different causes—that is the only reason with regard to the symptoms, so far as the symptoms

are concerned; but there is one principal reason I have, which is this: a dose of strychnia, sufficient to destroy life in one paroxysm, would hardly require an hour and a half, or two hours—as to the cause of death in this case, the principal argument is—

COURT. We do not want your argument; we want your opinion: you are asked what is your opinion as to the cause of death.

MR. KENEALEY. Q. Now tell us the grounds of that opinion. A. The cause of death was epileptic convulsions with tetanic complications—that is the nearest approach, from my reading, and from the post mortem appearances in Cook's case being so different from those I have described previously, 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; that is, for its action—the interval of repose from the Monday night to the Tuesday would operate on my judgment in coming to that conclusion, if my opinion that it was of an epileptic character were correct—the intermission from the Monday night would be considered important, as epileptic seizures very often recur about the same hours, as I have seen them—assuming that a man was in such an excitable state of mind that he was silent for two or three minutes after his hone winning a race, that he exposed himself to cold and damp, that he excited his brain by drinking, and was attacked by violent vomiting, and that there were bony deposits or gritty granules found in the neighbourhood of his spine, any one of those causes might aggravate or hurry his death.

Cross-examined by MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. Where do you practise? A. At Chryston, near Glasgow—I am a general practitioner there, and surgeon to the Garnkirk works—that is not a public institution—I am medical officer to the pariah—I have had personal experience of two cases of idiopathic tetanus; this one that I have recorded, and another—I have only seen two cases—what have been telling you about mental excitement, sensual excitement, and granules; is not within my own observation; they seldom occur to any medical practitioner—we have had many medical practitioners examined here, who have not seen them at all—I have not seen them—this case which I have recorded might have arisen from mental anxiety—I have no reason to think it did—Catherine Watson I saw about half-past 10 o'clock at night—she had been ill very nearly an hour, I suppose, before I saw her—she had convulsions—she had gone about her usual duties until the evening—she felt a slight lassitude for two days previous to the attack—I could only press her to that acknowledgment in my anxiety to get at the symptoms—she would not own to anything being the matter with her—she would say very little—it was only by close pressing that she could call it to mind—she did not call to mind that she had felt any stiffness—this was the night I was called in—the lockjaw came on, I think, in an hour or two, I could not be positive—I could not make any minute inquiries—the case occupied all my attention—the other case, named Copeland, was a young child of, I think, between three and four months old—I saw it in good health half an hour before the attack came on; I was attending the mother—it had an attack of convulsions and oposthotonos—it had the remains of the rigis subdonœum when I saw it—I rode away from the house, and they supposed I had gone a mile from the house or a couple of miles when it died—it was seized with a spasm, which I conjectured to be of the diaphragm—I had seen it half an hour before—there was nothing the matter with it then; it was in bed—the mother was laid up, and I think the child was lying in the bed—I did not see it—I saw it lying in bed, but I did not examine it—I do not recollect whether

I saw its face—I saw the child—I did not see its face—I saw it asleep in bed—I judged it to be asleep.

Q. Is that the same thing as seeing it asleep? A. Very near—you must recollect, we medical men can form a judgment on such a subject better than lawyers or any one else—I was applied to in this case in January—Mr. Smith applied to me—I can hardly say how he found me out—I communicated this case of Catherine Watson to him, as resembling the symptoms of what I had read of Mr. Cook's death, as being nearly the same—I furnished I my notes just now, the night before last I think—I have been here about a week, from the beginning of the trial, attending daily, and, of course, at the consultations.

Q. You wrote to Mr. Smith, sending this case? A. I suppose Mr. Smith may produce the minutes of the case, my original notes.

Q. I do not mean to suggest that there has been any alteration of the notes; do not suppose that for a moment; with regard to the cases of the animals that you experimented on with strychnia, when did you begin the series you have been describing? A. I began this series of experiments for this case in January—the experiments I had made before, I think, eight or ten years ago—it was at the time I discovered that strychnia could be detected in the blood by vital or physiological tests—the doses with which I killed the animals on which I experimented, were, I think, from a grain and three-quarters to two grains—the animals were dogs, cats, rabbits, and fowls—this series of experiments all relate to dogs—I administered from threequarters of a grain to two grains—a grain is the smallest dose I gave, and two grains is the largest—I made four experiments with a grain, five with a grain and a half, one with a grain and a quarter, and two with two grains—I gave some of them half a grain, but to the dogs one grain was the minimum and two the maximum.

Q. You tried with half a grain in that series of experiments? A. I did it for the purpose of ascertaining the least dose that would kill.

Q. Did you try to see whether there was any strychnia there? A. How could I before I killed the dog?

Q. Do you mean, on your oath, to tell me you do not understand my question? A. Repeat it again—perhaps I slipped it—upon my oath I may have slipped it.

Q. Do you-mean, standing there as a witness in this Court, you do not know the question I put to you? A. I have perhaps forgotten the question—was it, did I detect half a grain of strychnia?

Q. Do you mean to say that you believe that to be the question I put to you—on your solemn oath do you believe it? A. On my solemn oath I understood you to ask me if I had detected half a grain in a dog.

Q. I asked you whether in that case you gave the minimum dose, and had afterwards tried to find the strychnia by your chemical process? A. Decidedly—I gave five or six doses—I began with a quarter or half a grain to discover the smallest quantity that would kill—I tried to find the strychnia afterwards in some cases—they are enumerated among these—I did not make a note of those where I have given half a grain, because it did not kill—in that series I have not one with less than a grain, not for the finishing the killing—those are the doses with which I kill the animal—this does not apply to this series of experiments.

Q. I want you to show me a note of your having killed a dog with half a grain, and finding the strychnia afterwards? A. I have killed upwards of forty animals, and there were a dozen for the purpose of finding it on the post

mortem symptoms—I have never destroyed a dog with half a grain of strychnia; I could not; I have tried it, and it did not answer—I say that I have always found the brain highly congested—I ascribe that to the stoppage of the circulation in the system; the spasms impede the circulation—it is the spasms of all the muscles together which produce that congestion—the spasms of the legs and arms would help to do it—the immediate cause of the fulness of the heart after death is not that the respiratory muscles are arrested in their action, and the lungs cannot play; the immediate cause of the fulness of the heart is this, the violence of the spasm drives the blood out of the smaller capillaries into the large vessels of the cavity, and you find all the large vessels distended, and in most cases you find the lungs entirely collapsed, you rarely find them congested, sometimes you do, the respiratory muscles prevent the play of the lungs, from being expanded—I have not found in some cases that the brain was not congested—I think in every case there was more or less congestion—I do not find that to be greater in proportion to the length of the paroxysm; I find it to be greatest where the animal is young and in a full state of health—there would be this difference, that, according to the age of the animal and the state of health, there would be more or less fulness of blood—I have seen a case of traumatic tetanus; I think two in my own practice, but I have seen a few others in hospital—one of them, in my own practice, lasted about five or six days, I cannot remember the particulars—I think the other recovered—the paroxysms lasted six or seven days, and he eventually recovered—it is a long time ago, and I have not a note of the case, I could not be precise about it—I have never seen a case of strychnia in the human subject.

Q. I understand you to say, that, in your opinion, this was a case of epilepsy? A. As far as I can judge from hearing the evidence in Court, I think it was a case of epileptic convulsions with tetanic complications.

Q. What does epilepsy proceed from. A. Nobody can answer you that question—I have not exactly arrived at any definite theory on the subject; not quite so definite as strychnia or tetanus; it is buried in mystery—I have seen one case of death from epilepsy—the patient was not conscious when he died—I have seen only one death from epilepsy—I can refer you to Dr. Goode's work, where you find instances of consciousness during epileptic attacks—I cannot recollect whether the patient was conscious when he died—I cannot recollect any case in which consciousness has preceded death.

Q. You have studied this matter—I suppose you are pretty well up in this branch of your profession? A. I am pretty well up in most branches of my profession—I do not know of any single recorded case of consciousness at the time of death, not from my own knowledge—I do not know of any case—I heard what Sir Benjamin Brodie said, and several gentlemen who have been examined on both sides, that they could not refer the symptoms of Mr. Cook's attacks to any known disease—I think I heard Sir Benjamin Brodie say he never had a case of idiopathic tetanus—I heard what Mr. Partridge said, and I have given you my opinion candidly and openly—I have given you my opinion that it was, as far as I can learn, a death from epileptic convulsions with tetanic complications.

COURT. Q. Is that a disease known among medical men? Q. Yes; you will find it in all medical works, you will find it in "Copland's Dictionary."

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. That is the gentleman of whom we have heard once or twice? A. I presume so, you will find it in almost every work on convulsions—I have not made any application to Dr. Copland in

this case—I have his work, which I have studied occasionally at home—I mean to state that I believe this death to have been a death from epilepsy.

Q. Without being able to refer to any cause whatever as producing that disease? A. When I have told you before that deaths often take place in idiopathic tetanus without leaving any trace behind, I think I may say—

Q. That is idiopathic tetanus, I am speaking of epilepsy? A. Or epileptic convulsions, they are all of the same class—you ask me what epilepsy is, I believe that epilepsy and tetanic convulsions, and all forms of convulsions arise from a decomposition of the blood, and that if a person has probably an incipient tendency to disease of the brain that organ may be affected, or any other organ, and that the decomposition of the blood may set up the diseased action in that other organ.

COURT. Q. We should like to understand this, will you just repeat what you have said? A. I believe that all convulsive diseases, including the epileptic forms and the various tetanic complications (that will include all), arise from a decomposition of the blood, and that this decomposed Mood acts on the nerves.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. Did I understand you that in your opinion mental excitement had anything to do with this? A. I did not say it had, I said it might have had—I said it might have caused it; that it was within the range of probability that it might have caused the convulsive attack—any mental excitement might—it is stated that he was subject to excitement—I find that at Shrewsbury he was excited, and, wherever you have excitement, you have a consequent depression—when you find a mat lying in bed sick and vomiting, he must be depressed—if I have much excitement, if I am up all night, it upsets me the next day, and I generally vomit the food I take—Cook was overjoyed at winning his race; he might have vomited in consequence, if he had the same predisposition that I have, the same dyspeptic symptoms—I do not mean to say that the excitement of the three minutes on the course on the Tuesday accounts for the vomiting on Wednesday night—there is nothing reported of any excitement or depression from that time till the time he died, that I can recollect just now—a person may be joking and laughing and still be subject to bilious fits.

Q. We are not talking now about bilious fits, we are talking of excitement, as a consequence of epilepsy, with tetanic complications—I want to know on what you can put your hand in the whole history of the roan's symptoms in the way of excitement or depression, which will account for that remarkable physiological phenomena? A. I have told you that almost any one of the circumstances found might cause it—in many cases we can discover no traces at all—we cannot in many cases discover the cause—I give a series of causes which I say might account for it—those causes were stated to have been present in this case—one was those white spots that were seen in the stomach—those might have caused the convulsions—they might have been the means—we often find that an inflammatory condition of the stomach acts upon the brain—we heard about these white spots—Dr. Harland described them—if those white spots were present in the stomach you must have had inflammation—you never can have those white spots without inflammation—if they say there was none, I do not believe them—sensual excitement might be a cause of epileptic convulsion with tetanic complications—I think there is evidence of this man having undergone such excitement, when you have the chancre and syphilitic

sores, there is no doubt about it—I am not called upon to say whether that excitement had taken place at some anterior period; I take my opinion from what was seen on him—supposing the man had intercourse of the description I mention, a week before, that is sufficient to account for epilepsy, with these peculiarities—we have instances on record where convulsions have supervened on the very act you allude to—I have no instance of its setting in a fortnight afterwards, but it is quite within the range of possibility.

COURT. Q. Am I to take down that it is within the range of possibility that within a fortnight after sexual intercourse, that might bring on tetanic convulsions? A. The results of the sensual excitement.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. What are the results of sensual excitement? A. You have seen the results; I have described them—chance is one of them, and syphilitic sore-throat—I do not mean that—the chances here caused the epilepsy—I have never known a chancre cause epilepsy—I have never heard of it—I never heard of any other form of syphilis producing epilepsy, but tetanus; you are forgetting the tetanic complications.

Q. Then, if I understand it right, it stands thus—that the sensual excitement produces the epilepsy, and the chancre superadda the tetanic complications. A. You have misquoted me; I say the results of the sensual excitement.

Q. Is there anything else to which you can ascribe this extraordinary death, which several medical men have said could not be ascribed to any known form of disease? A. I have only given my opinion; I have said it might have been that—I did not volunteer, in this case, to come and give evidence—I wrote and sent up the notes of the case—I did not propose to come as a witness, nor did I want to come; I was particularly asked to come—I cannot recollect reading of cases, where the death has arisen from strychnia, where there was so long a period as an hour and a half between the taking of the poison and the appearance of the symptoms—in the case read the other day from the Lancet, by Dr. Taylor, the symptoms appeared an hour after the administration; I said, an hour and a half—I heard the case stated in evidence of the girl at Glasgow—if I recollect rightly, the first symptoms appeared in twenty minutes, and in three quarters of an hour she was dead, I believe—I cannot recollect reading of any instance in which the symptoms have come on so late—the fact of morphia having been given for an hour or two previously, would not, in my opinion, in any way retard the action of the poison; I have seen opium bring on convulsions very nearly the same; I think a grain and a half—I think that would have an effect, judging from my experience; opium will bring on convulsions, but a different form of convulsions from epilepsy—I think it would accelerate the action of the poison—judging from my experience of the effects of opium, I think it would bring on convulsions, epileptic convulsions.

Q. Then, because opium brings on epileptic convulsions, you assume in this case that morphia accelerated the disease? A. Drawing that inference, I should say it might—that is what I mean—in some oases morphia stimulates—in this case it was exceedingly apt to cause congestion of the brain—and, as the action of strychnia causes congestion, we might have had the two working together—it may cause excitement—it depends on the idiosyncracy, on the habit of the person—it is given to allay excitement, but it very often has the opposite effect; it may hare done so here, or it may not.

Q. Having taken it on the Saturday and Sunday night, and having been free from nervous excitement on the Sunday and Monday, what should you assume was its action on the nervous system; that it excited or composed? A. I cannot tell; it depends on the idiosyncracy of the person—if it were opium, it is only presumed to be opium, it would have soothed him—Mr. Bamford has stated that he gave him opium, on Saturday and Sunday, in the pills, and it is stated that the man was tranquil on the Sunday and Monday—I do not mean to say that those pills did excite the nervous system—he had morphia given him on the two previous days, Saturday and Sunday, for the purpose of quieting his system—the tendency of it might be to tranquillise the nervous excitement, and to render it less easily excitable; but if there was approaching congestion of the brain, it would cause excitement instead of tranquillising him—I was not thinking of the pills, I thought it was a draught—in Mr. Bamford's deposition, he says there was congestion—in judging of such a case I took all the circumstances and symptoms, and took that among the rest—a man of manifest experience ought to bare known much better than younger men what he saw—he must have made a great many post mortem examinations—he thought this was apoplexy—I do not think it was apoplexy, as the word is commonly used—are you aware what apoplexy is?—the principal symptom of apoplexy is a congested state of the brain—I think this was not a case of apoplexy—I adhere to what his eyes saw—the other is a mere matter of opinion—I am bound to take Mr. Bamford's deposition.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. My friend asked you about this child in the cradle; I suppose you have seen a great many children in their cradles? A. Yes—and I have seen them with their bodies and their arms in certain positions that may give a pretty good idea whether they are asleep or not—from what I saw, and my experience in such matters, I now think it was a very fair opinion to form under those circumstances that the child was asleep—Dr. Mason Goode is a well-known author on the subject of convulsions, and their various forms and resemblance, and so on—I have, from my reading of that and other works, ascertained that there is a class of convulsions which are called epileptic, but which are not, strictly speaking, epilepsy, though they resemble it in some of its features—I know M. Esquirol, of the Salpetrière, in France—he is a well-known author on epilepsy—I know, from those and other works, that convulsions of an epileptic character, violent enough to cause death, are of frequent occurrence, without the patient entirely losing all consciousness—epilepsy, properly so called, is sudden in its attacks—the patient falls down at once, with a shriek—it very often occurs at night and in bed—it sometimes happens that its existence is known to a young man's or woman's family without being known to himself or herself—that comes within the range of my own experience—convulsions which the authors of whom I have spoken, and persons of medical science generally, do not class properly as epilepsy, but as convulsions of an epileptic character, are sometimes attended with premonitory symptoms; and the patient is sometimes thrown into tetaniform convulsions—it may sometimes happen that, pending the struggle of the convulsions of an epileptic character, actual epilepsy comes on, and the patient dies from spasm—it very often happens, in convulsions of an epileptic character, that a patient may have suffered in the night and be well the next morning, and as well the next day as if he had had no fit at all, more especially where adults are seized for the first time—when an adult is seized for the first time, it is consistent with my experience that several fits follow each other during a short period—I heard

the deposition of Mr. Bamford read—if it were true that Mr. Cook's mind appeared distressed and irritable the afternoon before he died, I should infer from that, considering the excitement and elation under which he had formerly laboured, that he was under a state of depression—I recollect what was proved to have been said of what happened in the middle of the Sunday night—I should infer from that, supposing it were true that he represented himself to be mad for ten minutes, and that it was occasioned by a quarrel in the street, that he had been seized with some sudden cramp or spasm—supposing there were no such cramp, and that he meant to tell the truth, I should refer what he said, to nervous and mental excitement; if there were no cramp or spasms, there must have been some disturbance of the brain—as to the spots in the stomach, I stated that I differed in opinion from some gentlemen who had been called and who attached no importance to them—I said I did not believe that inflammation could be absent and these spots present—I have known in my own experience of serious consequence of a convulsive character, arising from, or reasonably imputed to, spots of that description—that case occurred about twenty years ago—it was published in 1820—the case I have seen, would be about eighteen months ago—it was a case of death, and I was examining the stomach—that was not the cause of death, it was a case of fever—I found these spots in the stomach—I did not know what they were, and consulted all the authors who had treated on the mucous structure of the stomach, and could find no account of it bat in one, which I have here—that is an essay by Dr. Spode Bowen—he is deceased—he practised in Edinburgh—this is the case he speaks of—"it was taken from a stomach in the possession of my friends Dr. Sharpey and Dr. A. Thompson, who thought the greater part of its surface presented nothing remarkable excepting being more than usually disposed in regular folds—about three and a half inches from the pylorus this disappears and the surface then displays a crowded assemblage of small eminences each about one-sixth of an inch in diameter, and marked in the centre by an orifice distinct to the naked eye—some glandular appearances are also visible around the cardia—the stomach was taken from a young girl who died suddenly while apparently in a state of perfect health."

  DR. JOHN NATHAN BAINBRIDGE . I am a doctor of medicine, and medical officer to the St. Martin's workhouse—I have had very considerable experience of convulsive disorders—they admit of great variety of symptoms, very great indeed—the causes of them vary from what are called chronic convulsions to rigid oposthotonos or tetanic—hysteric convulsions are very frequently accompanied with oposthotonos of the muscles of the back and of the limbs—the different cases vary as to the frequency of the recurrences, and as to the muscles affected, very much—periodicity, or recurring at the same intervals, is very common; I can mention a very remarkable instance of that—I mean recurring at the same month, the same hour, the same day, after twelve months, and it occurred in my own pupil—he was attacked on Christmas night, he was called up, and fell near the door—on Christmas night twelve months he had the same kind of attack exactly, and at the same hour—I have known this very common at shorter periods, such as twelve or twenty-four hours—these disorders run so imperceptibly one into the other, that it is almost impossible for the most experienced medical man to decide where one kind terminates and the other begins—hysteria is frequently accompanied by tetanic symptoms; I apply that answer to males as well as females—epileptic attacks are accompanied frequently with tetanic spasms, and hysteria also—I have not heard the witnesses in this case, except today.

Cross-examined by MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL. Q. Do hysterical couvulsions end in death when attended by tetanic symptoms; do they ever end in death? A. Very rarely indeed—I have known one case, that was within the last three months—it was a male in St. Martin's workhouse—he had been ill but a very short time, but he had had previous attacks on several occasions—he had been subject to attacks of the same complaint for years—he was ill only a few months on the last occasion before he died—he was taken with a kind of convulsion, as I was informed, but before I got there he was dead—his symptoms were described to me by those adjacent to him—I did not examine the body—I was told by those who attended him, that he was attacked with sudden convulsions and fell on the ground—they lifted him up on the bed, and in five minutes he was dead—there was nothing of opoethotonos that I am aware of—there wag spasmodic clenching of the hands, not to any great extent—I cannot tell whether there was any locking of the jaw, because he was dead, it did not appear to me to be so—he was not conscious when he died I believe—I cannot undertake to say that that was not a death by apoplexy—the symptoms were of that character, but more of the character of epilepsy from the struggling—it would be very difficult for any man to define the difference in hysteria and epilepsy in some instances—in fact, the man had been subject to these fits for a long series of years, and at last be died in one of them—he was about thirty-five years of age—he was the brother of the celebrated aeronaut, Lieut Gale—in attacks of this nature there is in the fits a loss of consciousness sometimes, but not generally—I have seen several cases in which there has been an almost complete loss of consciousness, and in others they can almost understand everything you say to them—not perfectly, perhaps, but you may rouse them—a man might be conscious, the power of consciousness may not be affected; it is in some instances, quite—I have seen some cases where consciousness is complete—I have known an instance in which a man was able to speak, after the paroxysm was over, but not when the paroxysm has set in—they will scream and will recollect that which I have said to them—I never knew them ask to have their position changed, in the actual paroxysm, but when it has subsided—epilepsy is attended with oposthortonos sometimes, that is, when it is very bad, when the convulsions are very violent—when the convulsions are so violent, that oposthotonos is produced, I have known—them partially conscious—if they were asked subsequently they would recollect that which was said to them: after they have recovered—I have seen cases of traumatic tetanus—the patient retains his consciousness almost always; always, as far as I have observed, to the last—in cases of epilepsy there is not consciousness to the same extent as in real tetanus, nor the power of expressing any desire which may be present on the mind of the sufferer during the extreme paroxysm—I have frequently known epilepsy end in death—I have only known one case of hysteria with tetanic complications end in death.

Q. But still you do not know a distinction between hysteria and epilepsy, you are making one in your own mind, are not you? A. It is a very difficult thing to define the exact line, I have known epilepsy end in death—loss of consciousness is more especially found in epilepsy, and by their sudden falling down, and being attacked in their sleep—that does not universally prevail in epilepsy—I do not know one case of death from epilepsy where consciousness was not destroyed before death—I have known many scores of cases of epilepsy: we have generally fourteen or fifteen cases—I cannot call to mind, at the present moment, in how many canes it has terminated fatally,

I dare say ten or eleven—consciousness has not remained to the termination of life in those cases.

MR. GROVE. Q. You were asked as to the consciousness in hysterical patients, hare you ascertained, after the paroxysm is over, whether they were conscious during the time? A. Yes, I have frequently asked them and have found that they were—falling asleep is a usual thing after epileptic attacks—they almost invariably fall asleep afterwards—it terminates in sleep frequently, and so it is after taking opium.

  EDWARD AUSTIN STEADY . I am a member of the Royal College of Surgeons and am in practice as a surgeon at Chatham—in June, 1854, I attended a person of the name of Taylor for trimnus and pleurosthotonoa—those were the symptoms that developed themselves—pleurosthotonos is a disease, and trismus also—in this case, instead of oposthotonos, it was pleurosthotonce that is, bending, not backwards, but on one side—when I first saw the patient she was bent on one side—convulsions came on in paroxysms—she had two attacks of pleurosthotonos, and lock jaw continued for a fortnight from the first attack—she had trisnuis all the time—for twelve months there wereremissions of the pleurogthotonos—she appeared to get better to a certain extent at the end of a fortnight; she walked about, but one knee was contracted, the tendons were contracted—ahe was seized again about twelve months after, on the 2nd or 3rd of March, 1855—she continued with the seizure upon her about a week—it was detailed to me by her friend as excitement, passion, I believe, which brought on the disease—I believe she had had some quarrel with her husband—I discovered no other cause.

Cross-examined by MR. JAMES. Q. When do you say this was first brought to your attention? A. In June, 1854, I believe, June or July—that was the first time I had seen her—it was about 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning—I did not ask how long before she had had this quarrel—I suppose I was called immediately—another medical man was called, and we both arrived together—she had had a blow on the left side, I cannot say whether it was violent—there was no description of the violence of the blow—they told me she bad had a blow given her on her side by her husband—I observed the trismus, the setting in of the locking of the jaw at that time—she was under my immediate care for a fortnight—during the whole of the time the symptoms of rigidity about the lower jaw continued, and then she got better—I was called to her again in March, 1855—she was under my care then about a week—she had trismus again the whole week—I never heard whether there had been another quarrel and another blow—she hat never got thoroughly well—she has not got lock jaw—from that day to this she has tetanic twitchings of the limbs upon any cause of excitement—the disease is in action in her system at the present time—that is my opinion—I do not know how to define the disease—it is like many other nervous diseases—I saw her yesterday.

  DR. GEORGE ROBINSON . I am a licentiate of the Royal College of Physicians, Fellow of the Royal Medical and Chirurgical Society of London, and physician to the Newcastle-on-Tyne Fever Hospital and Dispensary—I have devoted considerable attention to the subject of pathology, and have published various essays upon it—I have practised as a physician in Newcastle for ten years—I have heard the whole of the evidence in this case—from the symptoms I have heard described, Mr. Cook died of tetanic convulsions; by which I mean, not the convulsions of tetanus the disease, but convulsions similar to those witnessed in tetanus as a disease, convulsions resembling it—the convulsions of epilepsy do sometimes assume a tetanic character—I

know of no department of pathology more obscure than that of convulsive diseases—I have been present at post mortem examinations of persons who died from convulsive diseases—I have sometimes seen no morbid appearances whatever, and in other cases the morbid appearances which were visible were common to a variety of diseases—these latter do not appear to me sufficient to account for the death which took place—convulsive diseases undoubtedly depend very much on the state of the nerves—they arise very much from the state of the nerves, and are all connected with the nervous action—the brain has great influence in producing convulsive diseases, but the spinal cord has a greater influence—the presence of gritty grannies in the neighbourhood of the spinal cord would be likely to produce convulsive diseases—there is such a disease as spinal epilepsy; that is accompanied by strong convulsions, which might resemble in a great degree those described in the present case—periodicity would belong to convulsions arising from spinal epilepsy—I should say, from the evidence I have heard, that Mr. Cook's mode of life would predispose him to epilepsy—I have witnessed some experiments on the poison of strychnia, and performed a few; I was going to add that I have prescribed it medicinally in cases of paralysis—I was present at an analysis performed by Mr. Herepath on Tuesday last.

Cross-examined by MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL. Q. You say the convulsions of epilepsy sometimes assume a tetanic character; how many cases have you seen of epilepsy in which that has been the case? A. In all cases of epilepsy there are violent convulsions—I cannot tell how many I have seen assume the tetanic character; perhaps twenty—I will say that I have seen twenty—it has not gone as far as oposthotonos; not the extreme oposthotonos, not the oposthotonos of tetanus—the whole body has been stretched out, and the head thrown back, but not the marked symptoms of oposthotonos a slight degree of it—I attended to the description given by Mr. Jones as to the symptoms of Mr. Cook; that the whole body was so stiffened that he could not raise it, and so bowed that it would have lain upon it's heels and the back of it's head if it had been put horizontally—I have never seen epilepsy like that, not to the same degree—I can only repeat what I said before; that I have seen a slight case—I have seen the body so stiff that if you attempted to lift the body at the back of the neck you would be obliged to lift the whole body—you could lift the body with sufficient force—I have never seen it so that the body would have rested on the head and heels—you may have convulsions of the same character occurring from other causes, tetanic convulsions sometimes occur from the operation of various poisons.

Q. I am putting to you natural disease, or natural tetanus; I am not dealing with poisons; keep to natural diseases: did you ever know symptoms of oposthotonos, to that extent, arise from anything but tetanus? A. Not within my own experience; I have read of epilepsy being accompanied with tetanic convulsions; the degree of oposthotonos was not mentioned—as far as my experience goes, epilepsy, when it assumes that marked character, has always been accompanied by more or less unconsciousness—I have read in a publication of Dr. Marshall Hall's, that sometimes unconsciousness is not present; he does not mention whether death' took place or not.

Q. Does that make all the difference? A. Undoubtedly; the disease would be more severe—I cannot give you the narrative of a single case that I know of, either of my own experience or on record in medical works of authority, where there has been death from epilepsy, and consciousness has

continued till death; but if death had occurred in any of those cases described by Dr. Marshall Hall, that would have supplied a case—Dr, Marshall Hall is, I believe, living—I do not know whether he is in thia city.

Q. You said, in answer to my friend, that gritty granules would be likely to produce convulsive diseases; what extent of development, in your judgment, must they attain to produce any action on the spinal marrow? A. I should say there is no relation between the size of the granules and the irritation produced—I should not expect, when they began to get to that size, that they would have any effect on the nervous syatem, that they would begin to show their effect more or less gradually—in epilepsy I have myself observed small granules in the membranes of the brain; and although the csase, if I may term it such, is constant, yet their operation is not constant—the cause of the irritation would be there, and any excitement would bring on the attack—an attack might very likely come on at once as a fit of epilepsy—there would be pain during the continuance of the violent spasms if the patient had convulsions; not necessarily pain from the spasms—I am not speaking now of the disease which Mr. Partridge called arachnitis—these granules would not produce that disease—I think it would be more likely to produce epilepsy by irritating the spinal cord—granules of that description do not often exist in healthy subject, I have never met with any; the inner surface of the dura mater of the spinal cord in healthy subjects in beautifully smooth and polished—I have examined many bodies after death—in dissecting epileptic subjects in the large hospitals in Paris these small granules have been found very frequently—if these granules exercise any effect upon the system, it would, in my opinion, be to produce epilepsy—inmy experience I have never known epilepsy unaccompanied by unconsciousness; nor have I ever known epilepsy produce the marked symptoms of tetanic character which characterise this case in my own experience.

Q. Do you feel yourself warranted in inferring that these granules caused epilepsy in this case? A. I think they might have done so; and if I put aside the hypothesis of poisoning by strychnia, I would undertake to state my opinion that they did—several of the symptoms described by Mr. Jones, the sudden paroxysm, the stiffening of the body, the convulsions of all the muscles, both of the trunk and the limbs, and the complete oposthotonos which has been described, are also common to other diseases, but are certainly consistent with death by strychnia—I think there would be some twitches before oposthotonos came on—the stiffness of the neck would very likely amount to a premonitory symptom of tetanic convulsions about to come on—I have seen it in tetanus, it would be the first symptom, I think—if I had no other cause to which I could ascribe the death, I should ascribe it to epilepsy; but. in this case I admit that two of the symptoms, namely, the preservation of consciousness and the complete oposthotonos, are inconsistent with my experience of epilepsy.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. They are not inconsistent with your reading? A. They are not—I think they are inconsistent with convulsions of the epileptic form ending in death, though not actually amounting to epilepsy—epilepsy itself is rather an objectionable term, and has been objected to by some eminent writers—supposing it to have been actual epilepsy, I should say that the epilepsy commenced when Mr. Cook sat up in bed and cried out—I should say that that was the sense of suffocation, which would be a premonitory symptom of it—after the final shriek, and throwing himself

back in the bed, there is no symptom stated in my hearing from which I could infer consciousness after that, except that he swallowed some pilla—I should not consider that a body which immediately, or within ten minutes after death, when it is quite warm, lay perfectly straight, the hands extended, resting on it's heels, and it's back, and it's head, was in a state of oposhotonos; not if it rested on it's back—in my judgment, the body might assume, without actual rigidity, the bowlike shape and appearance, as if it could rest on it's head and heels, and yet, when turned over, lie flat in the bed.

  DR. BENJAMIN WALL RICHARDSON . I am a physician practising in London, a licentiate of the Faculty of Physicians and Surgeons in Glasgow; and a licentiate of the College of Physicians here. I have never seen a cases of idiopathic or traumatic tetanus properly so called, but I have seen a considerable number of deaths by convulsions, and I have known those cases, when they have ended in death, sometimes assume a tetanifonn appearance, without being, strictly speaking, tetanus—I have seen the muscles fixed; especially the muscles of the upper part of the body, the arms stretched out, the hands closely and firmly clenched, continuously so, until death—I have observed a sense of suffocation in the patient—I should like to correct the last answer, and say that I have seen the hands stiffened until the patient died, in oases where death has taken place in my presence—I have known contortion of both legs and feet in some forms—if the patient is conscious, in the cases I refer to, he sits up, or wishes to sit up—I have known persons die from a disease called angina pectoris, and the symptoms of that disease, when it is fatal, resemble closely the final paroxysm in which Mr. Cook died—angina pectoris is classed amongst the convulsive or spasmodic diseases—it has no distinctive feature on post mortem examination; there are features under some circumstances—there may be disease of the heart detectable, but under other circumstances none at all—it is not generally detectable, by no means.

Q. Will you state what symptoms of that disease, when it has proved fatal, you particularly refer to as resembling those that have been stated in the case of Mr. Cook? A. Perhaps I could not do better than describe a case which I myself saw, a girl, ten years of age, was under my care in Nov 1850—I supposed she had suffered from scarlet fever, for she had a slight feverish attack, and scarlet fever was in the neighbourhood—she recovered no far that my visits ceased on the 26th Nov.—I left her amused and merry in the morning—at half-past ten in the evening a messenger came, and I was called hastily to see her, and found her dying—she was supported upright, at her own request, by her sister—the face was pale, the muscles of the face rigid, the arms rigid, the fingers clenched, the respiratory muscles completely fixed and rigid, and with all combined an intense agony and restlessness such as I have never witnessed—there was perfect consciousness; the child knew me, and expressed herself as in intense agony, and eagerly took from my hands some brandy and water in a spoon—I left at that time to go to my house, twenty or thirty houses off, to got some chloroform for the purpose of producing anistheria by chloroform vapour—on returning, the head was drawn back, I could detect no respiration, and the heart had stopped; the eyes remained fixed open, and the body just resembling a statue: she was dead—I did not observe whether the rigor mortis came on at it's usual time or later, but on the following day it was on when I made the post mortem examination—unfortunately I left the body in the amis of the sister, and it was laid out afterwards, so that I cannot say what change took place—on

the post mortem examination I found the brain slightly congested—a portion of the upper part of the spinal cord deemed normal and healthy—(I have not made a written report)—the lungs were collapsed—the heart was in such a state of firm spasmodic contraction, and so empty, that I remarked that the blood in it might have been rinsed out, it was so perfectly clean and free from blood—I found no disease which could account for death—there were no appearances of functional or structural disturbance, and no heart disease, except a slight effosion of serum in one pleural cavity; I forget on which side; I believe the right side—I examined the upper part only of the spinal cord, and it was in a normal state—the history of the friends was, that the child was unusually well at rapper, and very merry; that she leaped into bed mervily, and, on lying down, suddenly jumped up, and said, "I am going to die," and begged her sister to rub her—there had been nothing of the same kind in the family—the father was then dead—the mother was a woman of fifty years of age at that time.

Cross-examined by MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. Do I understand you to say that in your opinion that it was a case of angina pectoris? A. I do—it accords with all the descriptions of angina pectoris by the best authors—E—was the first who described it—it has since then been described by Watson, Latham, Bolleau in France, Sir Everard Holme, and Ridge—what angina pectoris arises from, is quite another question—it was the opinion of the distinguished Jenner that it arises from the small coronary vessels of the heart—frequently that disease does exist, but not always—it did not in my case, for I looked specially—angina peatoris has been laid down as a ease also of valvular disease of the heart; might I explain that the coronary arteries supply the heart itself with nourishment—it is also a disease of the valves of the heart—there have been many cases" met with where there has been no discovered cause—I know it is angina pectoris, as I do ether diseases: we assume—diseases from certain classes of symptoms, and by those names we call those diseases—it is called angina pectorie because there is oppression of the chest—it is marked by that; it is anguish of the cheat—Dr. Watson or Dr. Latham describes that the pain is so excruciating that they feel as if the chest was in a vice—those symptoms which I class under angina pectoris are not exactly those symptoms that would be produced by taking strychnia—the difference is this, in angina pectoris the patient requests to be rubbed—friction gives relief; the hands generally are asked to be rubbed—I have not seen a case of strychnia poison, but from my reading I do not know that it is the fact; it may be.

Q. Did you hear the Leeds case, and of the lady asking her husband to rub her? A. Assuming that that wan a case of strychnia, I must say the two forms of death are so similar, that I feel there would be a very great difficulty in distinguishing angina from the effects of strychnia—I wish to add, with this difference, that angina is paroxysmal, it comes and goes, and strychnia would not be so likely to assume that type—you would not expect that to be so for many months—in this ease it ended in the first paroxysm—as regards symptoms, I know no difference.

Q. How then are you justified in cases where you discover no abnormal conditions of the heart, or it's arteries, in setting down the death to angina Pretoris? A. Precisely as if I was called to a case of epilepsy, and saw the symptoms of epilepsy, I should accept them as such.

Q. Supposing that the symptoms were referable to two causes, in the absence of all evidence, what is there to warrant you in setting it down to one in preference to the other? A. I candidly admit that in that case, if I

had known as much of the analogy which exists between the two classes of symptoms as I do now, I should hare gone on to conduct an analysis—I have had only two cases of this description in my own experience, and I have heard of another one; that was a case of organic disease of the heart—I cannot speak exactly as to the proportion the cases of angina pectoris bear to cases in which there is no abnormal appearance after death; but, I believe, in six, seven, or eight carefully recorded cases, there has been no pathological lesion found—angina pectoris is attended with most painful symptoms before it terminates in death; it is very rare—I am not prepared with data as to how many cases are reported—the paroxysms terminating in death may run on for not more than eight minutes—it does not manifest itself by painful symptoms before; it makes a sudden appearance; and kills at the first attack, but not always; not generally—I think the person will generally have more than one paroxysm in anyita as a general rule—in the case of the girl that I mentioned the head was somew hat bent back.

Q. Is that what would be called, in the medical sense of the term, oposthotonos, the beading back of the body, so that it would rest on its head and heels? A. Granting that a body is sitting upright when I see it, I cannot conceive how the body would rest on its head and heels—then was then rigidity, not amounting to oposthotonos, but still very marked—the body had been laid out—the neck was so stiffly bent back, that if the body had been laid down, and the lower limbs, which did not so especially come under my attention, had been at stiff in proportion as the neck, I have no doubt that it would be properly classed as oposthotonos from tetanus—I did not look at the legs to speak with accuracy about them—the case was so firmly fixed in my mind that I can never forget it—during the time I was with the poor child she was so intensely restless, and desirous to be changed, that her sister moved her again and again, her only cry was to be moved, as if nothing else would relieve her; so that I did not pay attention to the condition of the lower extremities—I did not send a note of the case to any publication—I believe I reported it to the Medical Society of London—I have not inquired for it for the purposes of this inquiry—I have seen the hands firmly clenched after death so that they were difficult to open, not in epilepsy only, but in many forma; in cases where there has been violent convulsions—I saw them once firmly clenched after death had occurred from haemorrhage, and where the convulsions were violent—I can only say in a general sense that I have seen the hands clenched over and over again, and have paid no attention to it; but my belief is from seeing persons die, and I have watched with great interest, for the purpose of ascertaining how death really took place, in various classes of cases, for six years past, that the clenching of the hands is, in many respects, a mere matter of accident; it depends upon what the patient is doing at the moment of death; if he is grasping the bed-clothes, for instance, the hands will remain clenched, and he might have a portion of the bed-clothes in his hands—that very often happens in cases of sinking from inflammatory disease—I cannot state positively that I have seen the hands firmly clenched so as to be difficult to open after death, in cases exclusive of tetanus.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. Have you known cases personally or from your reading that when patients recover from angina pectoris, within a short time afterwards they sometimes have another attack? A. They do, sometimes in so whort an interval as twenty-four hours—during the interval between the

two attacks the condition of the patient is that of perfect health to all appearance—I have stated that, had I known as much of strychnia as I do now, I should, in the cane of angina pectoris to which I have referred, have recommended a chemical analysis—looking at this case, with the interval occurring between the two fits, I should, speaking scientifically, certainly say that the person suffering under them was more likely to be labouring under angina pectoris than under strychnia—I had not the slightest reason to suspect poison of any kind in that case, either before or now—I assisted in the post mortem examination, which was made by Dr. George Milk, of Monmouth, who was then living at my house.

Dr. WRIGHTSON, re-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. ln your opinion, when the strychnis poison is absorbed into the system, does it become diffused by the circulation of the blood through the system, or does it collect in various parts of the body, and is it absent in other parts? A. I should think it is diffused throughout the entire system equally, if it be wholly absorbed.

COURT. Q. That effect would be produced by the circulation? A. Certainly—I was going to observe, the diffusion would depend on the rapidity with which death takes place after the absorption.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. Would the absorption be more complete if a longer time were given for the process between the administration and the death? A. Certainly, it would be so—supposing a minimum dose given sufficient to destroy life, if a long interval elapses between the taking of the poison and the death, the more complete the absorption and the less the chance of finding it in the stomach; cœteris paribus, I should say, that would be so.

COURT. Q. In such a case would you look for it elsewhere? A. Yes.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. Would you have a very good chance of finding it in the kidneys and spleen? A. I should say so, decidedly; and in the blood.

  CATHERINE WATSON . I live at Garnkirk, in Scotland. I was attacked with a fit in October of last year—I had no wound or injury on my body before I was attacked—I had not taken any poison.

Cross-examined by MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. When did you first feel ill? A. It was a little before 11 o'clock at night—I had not been ill in the day—I found myself heavy—I was not in pain anywhere—I found myself low in spirits, but was not in pain—I Ald not find myself stiff at all, not before 11 o'clock—I took a pain in the stomach first, a few minutes before 11 o'clock—cramps—two cramps in my arms—then I was very ill—I was quite insensible—I had never had cramps like this before, nor since—I have not felt any pain ever since.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. Do you remember being bled? A. I was; that is the only thing I do remember.

(William Joteph Saunders was called on kit subpoena, but did not answer.) Adjourned.

Saturday, May 24th

  OLIVER PEMBERTON . I am lecturer on anatomy at Queen's College, Birmingham, and surgeon to the General Hospital at Birmingham. I was present at the examination of the body of the late Mr. Cook, after it had been exhumed in the month of Jan. or Feb.—I observed the condition of the spinal cord—in my judgment, it certainly was not in a condition to enable me to state with confidence in what state it had been immediately

after the death of the deceased—the upper part, where the brain had been separated, was green in colour, from the effects of decomposition; the remaining portion, though fairly preserved for a body buried two months, was so soft as not to enable me to form any opinion as to its state immediately after death.

Cross-examined by MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. You did not see the body, I think, till it had been opened twenty-four hours? A. I do not know how many hours, but it was the day after the bony canal had been opened—the opening of that bony canal, to a certain extent, would expose the interior substance of the cord to the atmosphere; but it was still covered with a very hard, dense membrane; it was still protected—that membrane had not been opened—I am not sure, but it is my impression decidedly, that the outer covering, what is termed the dura mater, was not opened till I was present—attended on the prisoner's behalf—Mr. Bolton, of Birmingham, the Professor at Queen's College, was also present on behalf of the prisoner.

  HENRY MATTHEWS . I am inspector of police at the Euston-square railway station—I was stationed there on Monday, 19th November last—the last train that stops at Bugeley is the 2 o'clock in the afternoon—there was such a train at that time—nothing after that—the express leaves at 5o'clock and gets to Stafford at 8.42—it got to Stafford that night at 8.45—the time it was due was at 8.42—the distance from Stafford to Bugeley by railway is nine miles—I do not know how much it is by the road—the quickest mode of getting to Rugeley is by the express train, and by the road, after the 2 o'clock train leaves.

  JOSEPH FOSTER . I am a farmer and grazier at Sibbertoft, Northamptonshire—I kept the George hotel, near Welford, in Northamptonshire, up to Lady-day last—I knew the late John Parsons Cook for many years—I have met him at various places, in the hunting-field, scores of times, and at dinner at different places—I think he was generally of a weak constitution—I formed that judgment, because I had been along with him several times when he has had bilious attack and sick headache—those are the only circumstances from which I formed that judgment.

Cross-examined by MR. JAMES. Q. How long had you known him? A. I think from eight to ten years—he hunted regularly in Northamptonshire, for these last two years—he sometimes kept two and sometimes three hunters—I dare say he has hunted three times a week—I have seen him three days a week, pretty regularly, when he has been well—I know Mr. Pell, an attorney at Northampton—there was a cricket club at Welford, and there is now—Mr. Cook was a member—I have seen him there, but not for these last three or four years—the club was held at the Talbot, at the cricket ground—I did not see him playing cricket there for three or four years—I saw him last at Lutterworth some time about the middle of October, I cannot speak to the day—I met him in the middle of the street—I think the hunting had not commenced then—I think it was a year and a half ago that he last had a sick headache—I saw him at my own house—he could not hunt that day—his horses did not stand at my stables—he often called—he could not go out hunting that day—he was not well enough—he was not then living with Mr. Jones, of Lutterworth—he was dressed in his huntingdress when he called—I don't know whether he was out the next day—I cannot speak to the time when I saw him again, perhaps about a week or so, I cannot speak to the time—he remained at my house about a couple or three hours—he had not dined at my house the day before—I believe he stayed a

couple or three hours, and went home—I dare say when I tow him next, it was hunting, I cannot recollect—I will not swear that I did not see him within a week, in the huntingfield.

MR. GRAY. Q. Upon what other circumstances besides that one instance of sick headache did you form your opinion? A. I never saw him sick but once, seven years ago, that was at Market Harborough, cricket playing—that was seven years ago, at a cricket match after dinner.

  GEORGE MYATT . I am a saddler, and reside at Rugeley—I was at Shrewsbury races on the Tuesday that Polestar won—I was at the Ravenhotel on the second day—it was the Wednesday—I saw Mr. Cook and Mr. Palmer at the Raven on that evening, I should say about 12 o'clock at night—I was waiting in the room when they came—I considered Mr. Cook the worse for liquor—they proposed haying a glass of brandy and water before they went to bed—we had each of us a glass—while we were drinking it, Mr. Cook made some remark, and said he fancied it was not good—he drank his part of it up, the best part of it—it was Mr. Cook that made the remark that he thought something was in it—he gave it to some one by to taste it, and he said he could not taste anything that was the matter with it—Mr. Cook proposed to have some more, and Mr. Palmer said he would not have any more unless Mr. Oook drank his up—there came no move brandy in, and they proposed going to bed—I went to bed along with Mr. Palmer—I mean to say that I slept in the same room as Mr. Palmer—the brandy was brought in in a decanter—mine was put out—I cannot say who put it out—it was poured out to me in my presence—I did not leave the room at all during the time.

COURT. Q. You did not leave the room from the time that Mr. Cook and Mr. Palmer came, till you all went to bed? A. Exactly.

MR. GROVE. Q. Was anything put in the brandy and water daring the time you were there? A. I never saw anything—it could not have been put in without my seeing it—Mr. Cook left, and I and Mr. Palmer went into the same room—we slept in the same bed-room—we went out, and left Mr. Cook in the sitting-room—Mr. Cook slept in a separate room—nothing further occurred during the night—when we went to bed I locked the door, and Mr. Palmer was never out during the night—when we got up in the morning, he asked me to go and call Mr. Cook—I did so—I went to Mr. Cook's bedroom door, and I rapped at the door, and he told me to come in—I went in, and he told me how ill he had been during the night—he said he had been obliged to send for a doctor—he asked me what was put in the brandy and water, and I told him I did not know that anything was put in—he asked me to send the doctor to him, meaning Mr. Palmer—I did so—I saw him next when he came in to his breakfast—Mr. Palmer was in the sittingroom—I believe we breakfasted first, that is, Mr. Palmer and me, before Mr. Cook came in—he came directly after we had had our breakfast—he had breakfast in the same room—we afterwards left for Rugeley that night, Mr. Cook, Mr. Palmer, and myself—we dined together first at the Raven—we left for Rugeley about six o'clock, as near as I recollect—we travelled by express train from Shrewsbury to Rugeley, and the doctor paid for the three tickets—on the way Mr. Palmer was sick, and Mr. Cook and him said they could not account how it were—he vomited through the window, not in the railway carriage, it was going from Stafford to Rugeley, in the fly—we arrived in Stafford at the Junction—we stopped at the Junction-inn at Stafford, and in got into a fly, there being no train, and on the road from Stafford to Rugeley Mr. Palmer was sick—they said they could not account for it, unless it was

cooked in some brass utensil, or the water; there had been a great many people ill during the Shrewsbury races—that was the remark they made—I know that a good many people had been ill at the Shrewsbury races—I had heard them speak about it before—I heard those who had been ill speak about it, and they could not account for it—the distance from the station at Stafford to the inn at Rugeley by the turnpike road, is nine miles.

Cross-examined by MR. JAMES. Q. How long have you known the prisoner? A. All his life—he deals with me for his saddlery at his training stables—I have not been in the habit of going to races with him a good deal—occasionally I have—I work for racing people, and I now and then go—I was not at Doncaster with him—I have never been at Doncaster races with him in my life—I never slept in the same room with him at Doncaster—I had been at Doncaster, once, with a gentleman of the name of Robinson—I was at Wolverhampton races with Palmer, the 11th, 12th, or 13th of Aug. last year—I went with him—I did not sleep with him—I never slept with him at all at Wolverhampton—I swear that—I did not live in the same hotel with him—I have a brother-in-law at Wolverhampton, and I stopped there—I believe I was a couple of days at Wolverhampton races—I believe I never dined with him there—I will swear that I did not at Wolverhampton, nor breakfasted with him—I was at Lichfield races in that year with him—in Sept, I think; I cannot call it to my mind when they were—I was there—I did not go with him—they are heldnear to Rugeley, within, I suppose, ten miles—I came home to sleep—we did not sleep at Lichfield; at least I did not go with Mr. Palmer at all, and I did not come home with him—I think that was about all the races I was at last year—I believe I have never slept in a double-bedded room with Mr. Palmer at any other races besides Shrewsbury—I believe I can swear it—I will swear it—I had never been to any other races and lived in the same hotel with him but at Shrewsbury—that I swear—I was never at Worcester in my life—I have been to have refreshment at Wolverhampton, but I never slept at Wolverhampton; nowhere besides Shrewsbury, I believe—I paid my own expenses to Shrewsbury—he paid them back up to Stafford, and Mr. Cook paid the fly up to Eugeley—Palmer paid my expenses of living at Shrewsbury, at the hotel—if he did so at other races, they were generally deducted out of the bill for working for him—I will swear that he has never paid my expenses of living at any other races—he never paid any other but the Shrewsbury races; he paid what the expenses there were—we dined together, and it was put in the bill—I offered to pay mine, and he said he would pay it—he has not done that at other races for my dining—he never paid nowhere besides Shrewsbury—that I swear—I dare say I was at races with him the year before—I cannot recollect—I was at races with him in the year 1854—perhaps about two or three—I cannot call it to my mind how many.

Q. Have you been with Palmer since he has been in Stafford gaol? A. I was at Stafford, in the gaol there—I saw him with Mr. Smith—I was there once—I was with him about a couple of hours—I did not take any account of when that was—I should think a month ago, or five weeks—I cannot tell to a week when it was—I cannot exactly call to my mind whether it was since the true bills were found against him at the Stafford Assizes—I never took no notice—I cannot say whether it was before or after the Stafford Assizes—I went because Mr. Smith said he was going, and I thought I would like to see him.

Q. Have you been in the habit, with Palmer, of betting upon his horse?

A. I bare now and then stood half a sovereign or a sovereign—that was the most I have done—I merely stood half a sovereign or a sovereign—that is the most I ever did—I know what is meant by putting on a horse—I did not bet at Shrewsbury—not upon any of Mr. Palmer's horses at all, and no one else's—I did not back Mr. Cook's mare Polestar—when I have betted a sovereign or half a sovereign it has been at races where Palmer's horses have run, or any other horses—I was not tied to his alone—I had nothing to do with betting with Mr. Palmer—I have stood a sovereign with him—I first saw Mr. Cook by himself at the Rayen on the Wednesday evening—it was near twelve o'clock when I saw him in Palmer's company—I had not been dining with Palmer—I had dined at home, at Rugeley—I got to Shrewsbury on Wednesday night, I should say about eight; it might have been between eight and nine—I went to the Raven—I knew the room that Palmer generally had, being there before—I went up to see if Palmer was in—I went directly from the railway station, between eight and nine—I went straight up—the first as I saw against the room door was Cook, and he said, "Halloa! what brings you here?"—he was by the door outside, buttoning his coat—I told him I was come to see how he was getting on—Palmer was gone out; then I went into the town awhile—I got back to the room in the Raven where Palmer was—I should suppose I might be an hour out—I went into Palmer's sitting room—he was not there—I waited in the sitting room till he came—there was a person of the name of Shelley there, a betting man—I should say I was waiting there a couple of hours or more before Palmer came; I cannot say to half an hour—I should say it was about twelve o'clock, as near as possible, when Palmer came in; I cannot say to half an hour: I had no watch, and saw no dock—he came with Mr. Cook—Mr. Cook was the worse for liquor—I saw that, when he came in—he was not very drunk, rather—so much the worse for liquor that I could easily see it—the brandy and water was produced directly—it was brought in a decanter—the water might be on the table, I cannot say how it came in—there were tumblers on the table, and we drank it out of the tumblers—I should say the tumblers and the Brandy were all brought up together; I do not say that the water was the water might be there; it generally is the case—I do not remember Mrs. Brooks coming—I do not recollect Palmer being called out of the room to speak to her—I remember a gentleman coming in, but I have not the pleasure of knowing him—I know him by calling—he came by my shop during the inquest—I know there was a gentleman of the name of Fisher—I remember the person whom I now know to be Mr. Fisher, coming in—before Mr. Fisher had come in, Palmer did not take out a glass of brandy and water, and leave the room—that I will swear—or at any time that evening before they went to bed—he never left the room from the time he joined me in the room with Cook, until we went to bed—I swear that positively—I was sitting close to him—when Mr. Fisher came in, Palmer did not ask Mr. Cook-to have some more brandy and water; Mr. Cook asked Palmer—Palmer said he would not have any more unless he drank his brandy and water—it was evident to any one that Mr. Cook was the worse for liquor; I saw it very plain—Palmer sat close to me, and Cook sat next him, and if it was Fisher he was at the far side—Palmer said, "I shall not have any more till you drink yours"—Mr. Cook then said, "I will drink mine," and he drank it at a draught—directly after he had drunk it he made a remark that he thought it was not good—he did say there was something in it—I do not know that he said, "It burns my throat dreadfully"—he

said the brandy and water was not good—I will swear he did not say it burnt his throat—I will swear he did not say, "It burns my throat dreadfully," nothing to that effect—nothing of that kind—he gave it to some one to taste—he did not make any other observation—he gave it to some one to taste, I believe to Mr. Fisher—I will not swear it was Mr. Fisher; he gave it to some one—I cannot say which it was who did that, Palmer or Cook—it was given to another person in the room, and I believe it was Mr. Fisher—I do not know a Mr. Read; I have heard the name—no person whom I now know to be Mr. Bead, came in; I do not know such a person—I believe there were but four persons in the room when Mr. Cook drank the brandy and water, and said there was something in it—I do not knowthat Mr. Bead came in immediately after that—I do not know him—I cannot say whether any other person came in—Cook emptied the glass as near as possible; there was a little left in—I cannot swear whether Palmer touched that glass afterwards or not—I believe he did taste it—as soon as Cook had drunk it, he gave it to some one else; I believe Mr. Fisher—I believe Palmer said that he could not taste that anything was the matter with the brandy and water—I believe he gave it to Mr. Fisher, and he could not—I do not know whether Mr. Fisher said, "It was no use giving me the glass, it is empty"—I do not recollect that he did—he said he could not taste anything the matter with it—I cannot say whether he said, "It is no use giving me the glass, it is empty"—I will not swear whether he did or not—I should say we were in the room, perhaps, twenty minutes, it might have been half an hour, after Mr. Cook had drunk the brandy and water—I cannot say exactly—he did not leave the room before I left to go to bed—that I will swear—I went straight from the room up to bed with Palmer, we went both together—we both went to the same room—we left Cook in the room—I never heard at all that night that Mr. Cook had been ill—I never knew that he was ill till he told me in the morning—I took one glass of brandy and water that night—we had a glass a piece—we had cold water—on the following day, Thursday, I dined with Palmer, and Mr. Cook served me with what I had—during the inquest that was held at Rugeley I was at home the two days, and the last day of the inquest I wept to Birmingham on business—during the first two days I was at home at Rugeley—I did not go to it.

MR. GROVE. Q. You have been subpoanaed by the Crown, I believe, in this case? A. Never—for the defence—the other party heard what I had to say about it, and examined me, but did not subpoœna me—I was examined, with Mr. Crisp—I do not know who the gentlemen were that examined me—the deputy governor of the gaol was not present during the whole of my interview with Palmer, at Stafford gaol—he went out once—there was another person there, who, I do not know—there was an officer along with us—we talked about the trial of Palmer—we did name it, but it was about his brother; nothing at all about this case; not a word—an officer was present during the whole time.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. Did not you tell Mr. Gardiner, the attorney for the prosecution, when asked about the brandy and water at Shrewsbury, that you could recollect nothing about it? A. I never spoke to him about the brandy and water at all—he did not examine me—I went into the room where the sale was, at Hednesford—I did not tell that gentleman at Hednesford that I could recollect nothing about the brandy and water at Shrewsbury—I had some conversation about it with Mr. Stevens—that gentleman was present—I did not say, in his presence, that I could

recollect nothing about the brandy and water at Shrewsbury—I did not tell Mr. Crisp and Mr. Sweeting, before the inquest, that I knew nothing about it—I told them what I knew about it—Mr. Crisp was one; the other gentlemen I did not know—I swear I did not tell them that I could recollect nothing about it—I told them what happened exactly as I tell you now.

  JOHN SARGENT . I am not in any business or profession—I am in the habit of attending races, almost every public race in the season—I knew the late Mr. Cook intimately, and also the prisoner Palmer—I received a letter from Mr. Cook during the Shrewsbury races—I was subpoenaed on the part of the Crown to come here to give evidence—I have not had any notice to produce that letter—I have not got it—I made inquiries for it when I heard that, my evidence might be required—I searched for it, but I had sent it to Saunders, the trainer—I made application to Saunders for it, by letter—I received a letter in answer to that—I have the letter Saunders sent me in reply to my application for that letter—this is it (producing it)—I have seen Saunders since—I have done everything in my power to find that letter—I was applied to, by Mr. Stevens, to get it—I have not a copy of that letter, but I know the contents of the letter word by word.

(The COURT. was of opinion that the contents of the letter could not be received)—I do not know of my own knowledge, or from anything that passed between Palmer and Cook in my presence, what they won or lost at Shrewsbury—I was not at Shrewsbury—I only know what Cook told me in the letter that he wrote—shortly before Mr. Cook's death I had an opportunity of noticing the state of his throat—I was with him at Liverpool on the week previous to the Shrewsbury meeting—we slept in adjoining rooms to each other, and in the morning he called my attention to the state of his throat and mouth; and the back part of his tongue was in a complete state of ulcer—he asked me to look at it—I was in the room, and the back of his throat was very much inflamed; the uvula was swelled, and I said I was surprised that he could eat and drink in the state his mouth was in—he said he had been in that state for weeks and months, and now he did not take notice of it—he said, "I do not take notice of it, I have had it for weeks and months"—that was all that passed on that occasion on the sore throat—I had frequent opportunities of observing the inconvenience which he actually suffered in taking anything that was at all hot—I had met him before when his throat was in this state, and he had shown it to me previously to that; almost at every meeting that we attended.

Q. Did he at any time on any of those occasions tell you of anything that bad put him to great pain in the attempt to eat or swallow it? A. The only occasion when I saw it was by his taking a gingerbread but on the platform at Liverpool after the race—he took a ginger-nut with cayenne in it—I saw him do it—he took it by mistake—he told me afterwards that it very nearly killed him—he did not say more particularly than that what effect it produced upon him—Mr. Cook was very poor at Liverpool—that was the week before the Shrewsbury races—he owed me 25l., and he gave me 10l. on account, and he said he had not sufficient to pay his expenses at Liverpool, but that I should have the balance of 15l. at the Shrewsbury meeting—Mr. Cook and Palmer were in the habit of putting on for each other; that is, betting for each other on particular horses—they did that jointly, they did that at the Liverpool meeting—I executed a commission for Mr. Palmer; I put the money on, and Mr. Palmer told me that Mr. Cook stood a portion of that money with him at Liverpool—I think I have his letter.

Q. Had you known at any time, shortly before Mr. Cook's death, of his having used a lotion called black wash? A. I have heard him apply to Mr. Palmer to supply him with a wash of that description—I do not know whether that is a mercurial lotion.

Cross-examined by MR. JAMES. Q. When was that? A. When he applied for it, it was at the Warwick meeting.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. Had you ever seen, recently before Mr. Cook's death, his throat dressed by anybody? A. I never did, to my knowledge.

MR. JAMES. Q. That black wash, as I understand, was not to be drunk? A. No, I should think not—it was a lotion—that was at the Warwick meeting—I cannot inform you the date—there are two Warwick meetings—I cannot state positively the date—it was at the time that his mare Polestar ran—the spring of 1855 I should say; the latter end; the meeting after the Newmarket meeting—Mr. Cook was at Newmarket—he lived in the same house with me—the Newmarket meeting was before the Warwick meeting—he was at the autumnal races, and nearly all the races of last year—he was at the Caesarewitch and the Cambridgeshire, and nearly all the race meetings—the Liverpool meeting, when he showed me his throat, was a week before the Shrewsbury—he ate and drank well then—his appetite was pretty good—that was what surprised me at Liverpool, and at the other meetings as well—this cayenne pepper nut is a nut that is made up for a sort of trick, and sold with others without it—it is sold for a sort of trick—perhaps one or two are put in a parcel, and whoever gets them gets his throat burnt—I did not eat them—he got one of them—I have tasted one—some are stronger than others—they have the taste of the cayenne very strong.

  JEREMIAH SMITH . I am an attorney at Rugeley—I am acquainted with the prisoner, and was also acquainted with the late Mr. Cook—I saw Mr. Cook at the Talbot Arms on Friday, the 16th Nov.—I saw him in his bedroom about ten o'clock in the morning—I was present at his breakfast—a small tray was put on the bed—he was in bed—he took a cup of tea for breakfast—a wineglass of brandy was brought in—that was put in one cup of tea, which he drank—I dined in his company at Mr. Palmer's—I am not quite positive whether I had seen him in the interval between breakfast and dinner—we had a rump steak for dinner—we had some champagne to drink with it, and some port wine after dinner—Mr. Cook drank the same as we did—we had three bottles, and he drank his share—we had either two of champagne and one of port, or two of port and one of champagne—there were Mr. Cook, myself, and Mr. Palmer—dinner was over, I should think, about half-past two—we left the house, I should think, towards six in the evening—Mr. Palmer said he would go and write his letters—we rose from table, I should think, from about five to six—I and Mr. Cook left the house together—we went to my house, and from there to the Albion hotel, which is next door—we there had a glass of brandy and water each, cold—Mr. Cook left me there—before he went away he said he felt cold, and he put his feet on the fender and warmed himself a little, and he borrowed a book, and he said he would go home and read it in bed—he left the Albion, I should think, from seven to eight—I cannot say precisely.

Q. Had you, at any time, on that day, any conversation with Mr. Cook on the subject of the money due to you, that conversation being in the presence of the prisoner? A. Yes—in the afternoon of the Friday, after dinner, we were talking about racing and money; I asked Mr. Cook for money, and he gave me 5l. then—I

asked him for 50l.—he gave me 5l. then; and when he took the note but of his case, I said, "You can pay me the whole 50l.,"—he said, "No"—I said, "Mr. Cook, you can pay me air—he said, "No, there is only 41l. 10s. due to you"—then he said he had given Mr. Palmer money, and he would pay me the remainder when he returned from Tattersall's on Monday, after the settling—on the Saturday night following he was not well, and I slept in his room, a double bedded room at the Inn—it was late when we retired to bed—I should think 12 o'clock—there had been a concert in the house, which made it later—it was close to the bedroom—in the early part of the night he was unwell—he had got some toast and water, and was washing his mouth, gargling his throat, and he was sick—a night-chair was in the room, at a short distance before the tire, and I saw him there—I saw him use it once, at least—he tried to vomit—I do not know whether he did or not—I was in bed, and I did not get out of bed; he retched—about 2 o'clock I went to sleep; I had been out shooting, and I was tired—the noise had ceased in the inn, and I went off to sleep, and I slept until Mr. Palmer and Mr. Bamford came in in the morning to see him; I lay still in the bed, and I heard a conversation between the doctors and Mr. Cook—the conversation was to this effect: Mr. Bamford said, "Well, Mr. Cook, how are you this morning?"—he said, "I am rather better this morning; I slept from about 2 or 3 o'clock, after the confounded concert was gone, after the house had become quiet"—Mr. Bamford said, "I will send you some more medicine"—I do not recollect any further conversation—I got up and left the house—I know Mrs. Palmer, the mother of the prisoner—on the evening of Monday Mrs. Palmer sent me a message to come up, she wanted to see me—I went to Mrs. Palmer's, and saw her—in consequence of what passed between us, I went to look for the prisoner, and see if he had arrived—I should think that was about 9 o'clock—I could not find him at that hour—as near as I can recollect it was 10 minutes past 10 o'clock when I first saw him that evening—he came from the direction of Stafford in a car—he said, "Have you seen Mr. Cook to-day?"—I said, "No, I have been to Lichfield on business"—he said, "We had better just run up and see him"—that was before he went into his own house—he said, "before we go down to mother's; or it will be too late"—we went up to Mr. Cook's room together—Mr. Cook said to Mr. Palmer, "You are late, doctor, to-night; I did not expect you to look in"—he said, "I have taken my medicine, you being late, I did not think you would be here, and I have taken my medicine"—we did not stay more than two or three minutes—I think he did ask me why I had not called in earlier, and I told him I had been to Lichfield on business.

Q. Did he describe in any way the medicine he had taken? A. He said that Bamford had sent him some pills, and he had taken them as Palmer was late; intimating that he should not have taken them if he had thought Palmer would have called in before—I forget what inquiries Palmer made of him—I recollect Mr. Cook telling Mr. Palmer that he had been up with Ashmall and Saunders—Mr. Cook said, "I have been up, doctor, today?" and Mr. Palmer said, "You ought not to have been up"—I do not recollect anything else that passed—we then both went straight from there to his mother's—Mrs. Palmer's house is about 400 or 500 yards from the Talhot Arms—we were there, I should think, half an hour—we left Mrs. Palmer's house together, and went to Palmer's house; I went in with him and asked him for some liquor—I did not get it—he said there was none up out of the cellar—I asked him for a glass of grog, I had been waiting for him—it was cold, it was November—I left the house after that—I left Mr. Palmer

in his house, and went home—I did not order anything to be made that night at the Albion for Mr. Cook—I did the next day—I invited Mr. Cook to dine with me on the Saturday—on the Friday, after I dined with Mr. Palmer, I asked Mr. Cook and Mr. Palmer to dine with me on the Saturday following—Cook did not dine with me—he sent me a message about 12 or 1 o'clock, that he was not well, and he thought that he should not leave his room, and he did not dine with me—I had a boiled leg of mutton for dinner, and I sent some of the broth to him—it went from the Albion in a jug, by a charwoman from Palmer's, named Rowley, I think Ann Rowley—shortly before Mr. Cook's death I borrowed money for bin—I borrowed 200l. and negotiated a loan from Pratt of 500l. in May and August—I have given the particulars to the prosecution, I have been subpœnaed for the prosecution—the 200l. was in May, 1855, I am almost positive, because I think it was at the Shrewsbury races—I do not now recollect whether I borrowed any other sum of 200l. for Mr. Cook—I negotiated two loans, the 200l. and the 500l., through Pratt—I borrowed 100l. of Mrs. Palmer and 100l: of William Palmer, to make up the 200l.—I do not recollect any other 200l., but I might have—I only know of my own knowledge that Palmer and Cook were jointly interested in one horse—I told the solicitor for the prosecution the same—it was Pyrrhine—they were in the habit of betting for each other very frequently—when Palmer's horses were going to run, Mr. Cook would ask Palmer to allow him to put money on because he thought he should get better odds; and when Cook's horses were going to run, Palmer would ask him to allow him to put on—they put on for each other frequently; it was a common occurrence—I have seen Mr. Palmer's assistant, Thirlby, dress Cook's throat with caustic—I am not quite positive whether it was before or after Shrewsbury races—I cannot tell exactly the times, I think it was chiefly before the races—I have here a genuine signature of Mr. Cook's, which, having seen him write, I know to be his writing (produced)—here are two notes I received from him, and these instructions for the 500l.—I saw him write the instructions—they are for a mortgage—one is signed "J. P. Cook," and the other, "J. Parsons Cook"—I saw that signed, but the other was sent in an envelope, which I did not keep—here are two notes and a memorandum—I was not present when a writ was served upon Mr. Cook—he was served with a writ, I know—I cannot say that he gave me any instructions as to the writ shortly before his death, instructions to enter an appearance-(Letters read: "My dear sir,—I have been in a devil of a fix about the bill, but have at last settled it, although at a cost of an extra two guineas, for the damned discounter had issued a writ against me, and I am very much disgusted at it—John Parsons Cook")—I have destroyed the envelope in which that letter was conveyed—they were both addressed to me ("25th June, 1855.—Dear Jerry,—I should like to have the bill renewed for two months more; can it be done? let me know by return; at 4, Victoria street, Holborn-bridge. I have scratched Polestar for the Nottinghamshire and Wolverhampton stakes; I shall be down on Friday or Saturday. In haste, yours sincerely, J. Parsons Cook. Fred tells me Bolton or Arabas will win the Northumberland Plate")—I saw this written, "J. P. Cook."—(Memorandum read: "Polestar, 3 yrs.; Sirius, 2 yrs.; by way of mortgage, to secure 500l. advanced on a bill of exchange, dated 29th August, 1855, payable three months after date")—that was the instructions before the mortgage of the assignment of two horses.

COURT. Q. What is this, "Care of Mr. I. Fisher?" A. Ishmael Fisher—the

answer to that note was to be sent to Mr. Fisher's care, for Mr. Cook—I have no doubt that it was—I kept no copy—I did not know that I should be asked the date.

Cross-examined by MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. I want to identify you, if I can, there are two Mr. Smiths: are you the gentleman thai took Myatt to Stafford Gaol, and was there two hours? A. Yes—I have known the Palmers long and very intimately—I have been employed a good deal as the attorney for Palmer and his family; some members of his family—I have been employed as attorney for Palmer a good deal.

Q. Did he apply to you in Dec., 1854, to attest a proposal on the life of his brother Walter for 13,000l. at the Solicitors' and General Office? A. I have been told there is such a thing—I cannot say if he applied to me to sttest such a document—if I could see the document I could say whether it was my handwriting—it is so long since; but if I could see any document with my name to it, I could recognise it instantly—I am on my oath, and am speaking to the best of my belief, I do not recollect—I will not swear that I was not applied to for that purpose, nor that I was, but if I could see the document, I could recognise it immediately.

Q. In Jan., 1855, were you applied to by Palmer to attest a proposal lor 13,000l. to the Prince of Wales Office on his brother Walter's, life? A. I do not recollect that either—13,000l. was a large sum for Walter Palmer—I do not know that he was a man of nothing, that he his not a shilling in the world—I know that Walter Palmer had money, because he lived independent, out of business—I do not know that he was then in great distress, and that he was at that time an uncertificated bankrupt—he had been a bankrupt—that was six years before—at least that—he had not done anything for himself since—he had been in no business.

Q. Do not you know he was at that time living upon an allowance of 1l. per week from his mother? A. I cannot tell the allowance, I never heard what it was—I know that he had an allowance—I do not know that he had anything from any other source—I think his brother William gave him money at different times—I do not say thai he had an allowance from his mother, because I never saw it paid, and I do not know the amount—in 1864 I think I resided partly with William Palmer—sometimes I was at his mother's—I slept at his mother's sometimes.

Q. When you slept at the mother's, where did you sleep? A. In a room—it was not in liers.

Q. I ask you, upon your oath, whether you were not intimate with her, you know what I mean? A. I was not—I was no more intimate with her than a proper intimacy—I slept there, I cannot say the number of times, but frequently: I should say two or three times a week—I had my own place of abode in Bugeley—I am a single man—this habit and practice of sleeping two or three times a week at Mrs. Palmer's, continued for several years—I had my own lodgings at Bugeley at the time, my own chambers—I had chambers in Rugeley—lodgings—I had a bedroom—I should say my lodging is nearly a quarter of a mile from Mrs. Palmer's.

Q. Will you be so good as to explain how it happened that, having your own place of abode and your own bedroom, that for several years you slept two or three times a week in Mrs. Palmer's house? A. Sometimes some of the members of the family used to come and visit her, her sons; Joseph used—he has latterly resided at Liverpool—I should think for two years—before that he lived at a place seven miles from Rugeley, and he went to a place called, I think, Worley, about eleven miles off—Walter used to come

and visit Mrs. Palmer—sometimes he lived at Stafford, and sometimes he was at Liverpool—he did not live at Rugeley long together, sometimes two or three weeks—he died at Stafford, I believe—I was not present at the time—I understood so when I returned from Thurlow—when I went to see the members of the family, I used to stop and have a glass or two of gin and water, and play at cards—I went to the mother's to see them.

Q. But you did not sleep at the mother's to see them; how was it that you did not go home? A. I had no particular reason why I did not—I used to have some gin and water, and play at cards, and smoke, and if it was late they used to say, "You had better stop all night"—this went on three times a week for several years—but I used to stop there frequently when there was no one there, neither the mother, nor the sons, nor any one—they used to go to Buxton for a month in the summer—I have slept there when the sons were not there, and when the mother was—I could not state the number of times that happened—two or three times a week, for two or three months together, and sometimes I did not go nigh, for a week, or a month I have been away from the house—and then I would go for two or three nights for two or three weeks, when there was nobody there but the lady—there was only the mother, and the daughter, and the servants—I could have gone home on those nights, but I did not—I could not say that I did when I did not—I mean to say before this jury that there was nothing but a proper intimacy between myself and Mrs. Palmer.

Q. I have called your attention to two of these proposals; were you called upon to attest another proposal in the Universal Office for 13,000l. upon the life of Walter Palmer? A. I cannot say—let me look at the paper and I will tell you—I do not recollect that I was, but if I could set any letter, or my name written to it, I could say.

Q. I ask you as an attorney and a man of business, do you mean to say that you cannot give me an answer whether you were applied to by William Palmer to attest a proposal for an insurance upon his brother's life, more than once, for 13,000l.? A. I cannot recollect it, but if I could see any document or any letter to remind me of the circumstance I would not deny it.

COURT. Q. Were you ever called upon to witness a proposal for an insurance upon Walter Palmer's life for 13,000l.? A. I do not recollect that.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. Do you remember getting a 5l. note for attesting an assignment by Walter Palmer to his brother of such a policy? A. Most likely I might—I do not recollect it—I might have received some money.

COURT. Q. Were you called upon to attest the assignment of a policy by Walter Palmer to his brother? A. I do not recollect it now.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. I will endeavour to bring it to your recollection; just look at that, and tell me whether that is your signature (handing a paper to the witness)—do not you know your own signature? Without reading the document, is that your signature? A. It is very similar to my signature—I have some little doubt about it—I have some doubt that it is not my handwriting—I have not read through the document.

Q. Then do so. Now, sir, was that prepared in your office or not? A. It was not—it is very similar to my handwriting—it is very much like my handwriting; but, upon ray soul—

COURT. Q. Do you believe that it is your handwriting? A. I think it is not my handwriting.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. Will you swear that it is not? A. I durst venture to swear—I will swear—I will swear that it is not my handwriting, "Rugeley" is not my handwriting—I have my doubts that it is not my handwriting—I know my own handwriting when I see it.

COURT. Q. You have said, "I swear it is not my handwriting?" A. I think it is a very good imitation of my handwriting—I believe it is not.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. Look at the signature of Walter Palmer, and say whether that is a good imitation? A. I believe that to be Walter Palmer's signature—the attestation, "signed, sealed, and delivered," is in Mr. Pratt's handwriting—most likely I might receive that from Mr. Pratt myself—I cannot swear it—I think it is very likely it might have been sent to William Palmer—I think Mr. Palmer gave it to me—I believe he did—I do not recollect—I have heard talk of this document, and I have asked to see it many times—most likely William Palmer gave it to me—it was not signed at that time—lie did give it me—I have no doubt he did.

Q. If that be the docuraeut which he gave you, bearing Walter Palmer's signature, and the writing of Mr. Pratt, which you say is his, upon your oath, is not that your attestation? A. I tell you it is not—I believe it not to be—I believe I had that document from William Palmer—I believe it not to be my handwriting—I remember it by the manner in which it is folded, and the dirty mark, because I carried it out shooting, and I had a powder flask—it is dirty—it got dirty in my jacket pocket, and I recognise it by that—I applied to the Midland Counties Insurance Office to be appointed their agent at Rugeley—that was in October, 1855—if you would allow me, if you are going on with the examination, I should like to fetch all the documents and papers—I did apply to the Midland Counties Office to be appointed their agent in October, 1855—I sent them a proposal for 10,000l. upon the life of Bate—I recollect it very well.

Q. Did William Palmer apply to you to send that proposal? A. Bate and Mr. Palmer came together with the proposal to my office—I knew Bate at that time—they came together, and asked me whether I knew if there was any agent for that office in the town of Rugeley, and I told them I never heard of one—they asked me afterwards whether I would write and get an appointment, because Bate wanted to raise some money.

Q. Bid you send to the Midland Office, and get appointed their agent, in order that this insurance for 10,000l. might be effected on Bate's life? A. I wrote to the office for the purpose of getting appointed then: agent—whatever I did, I did it to get the insurance effected upon Bate's life for 10,000l., I will explain the reason why that occurred, I never was an agent for any office, Bate was at thai tame superintending William Palmer's stud and stables, whether at 1l. per week I cannot tell, he was living at Rugeley; after this I went to the widow of Walter Palmer, to get her to give up her claim upon the policy of her husband—she was at Liverpool—Mr. William Palmer gave me a document from Mr. Pratt to take to her—I think it must have been directed to kim—I believe he gave it me—the widow said that she should like her solicitor to see it, and I said, "By all means"—she finally refuted to do it—I brought back the document—I said, "I have no instructions to leave it, but if Mr. William Palmer wishes you to do it, it shall be returned to you."

Q. When you got that document, the signature to which you say you doubt whether it is in your handwriting or not, do not you know that Walter Palmer signed the document, and that the signature to it is his? A. I believe it is—I believe he ultimately had something—he had a house

furnished for him—I do not know that he got a pill for 200l.—I cannot tell that that bill was never paid—I do not recollect knowing that from William Palmer—I knew William furnished the house—I do not know that there was a man put into that house, who kept possession of it from the time that the assignment was executed.

Q. I will refresh your memory a little as to these proposals—look at that (handing a paper to the witness), and tell me whether that is your handwriting? A. Yes, that is my own signature—I do not recollect that I was applied to by William Palmer in the month of December, 1854, to attest a proposal upon his brother's life for 13,000l. in the Solicitors' and General Office, I might have been—it is from memory I am speaking, and therefore I wish to be as correct as I can—I say I have no doubt I might, the time is so long ago.

Q. Look at that document (handing a paper to the witness) and see whother, in a month afterwards, you were applied to by William Palmer to attest another proposal for 13,000l.? A. That is my signature also.

Q. Refreshing your memory by that document; you said if you had the document you could tell, have you any doubt that in the month of January, 1855, you were called upon by William Palmer to attest another proposal upon his brother's life for 13,000l. in another office? A. If you will give me the paper, perhaps I can tell you—this is my signature to it—the body seeins to have been filled up by Mr. Palmer—I might have signed it in blank—I cannot swear that I did or did not—I nave some doubt whether I did not sign several of those in blank—the body is in William Palmer's writing.

Q. Do not trifle, sir, with the Court, and with the jury, and myself; upon your oath, looking at that document, do not you know that William Palmer applied to you to attest a proposal upon his brother's life for 13,000l. in January in that office? A. He did apply to me for a proposal in some offices in January—one was for 13,000l.—I might be applied to to attest another for a like sum in the Universal Office, for this simple reason, they might say that they had not insured in the other, and I had no reason to know—I do not recollect having any answers at all—I am not aware of being applied to by William Palmer to attest a proposal to the Universal Office after the execution of that assignment of the policy which I knew that Walter Palmer signed—I think I might venture to swear that I was not—I should be very sorry, if I was not quite positive, to speak that which was not true—I do not know when the document bears date—I have never seen the assignment till I saw it this morning—William Palmer gave it to me, but it was not signed then—I do not recollect that I was present when it was signed—it is a very good imitation of my writing.

Q. Will you swear that you were not present when it was signed, when Walter Palmer executed the deed of assignment; now, be cautious, you will hear of this another day if you do not take care; will you swear upon your oath that you were not present when Walter Palmer signed that document? A. I do not know—I say that the "Jeremiah Smith" is very much like my writing—this part,"Solicitor, Rugeley," does not look like mine—I am not quite positive whether, upon some occasion or other, I did not attest a deed of assignment by Walter Palmer to his brother of his interest in the policy for 13,000l.—as I said before, I believe the "Jeremiah Smith" is very much like my writing, but "Rugeley" is not.

Q. I ask you the question upon your oath, whether at some time or other you did not attest the assignment by Walter Palmer to William Palmer of

the policy for 13,000l.? A. I might—as I said before, it is a very good imitation—I might have attested it—I really do not recollect.

Q. Did not you get a cheque for 5l. for doing it? A. I wish to have it brought to my recollection.

Q. Look at that (a paper) and say whether you did not see William Palmer write that on the counterfoil of his cheque book; is that his handwriting? A. That is William Palmer's handwriting—I might have seen him write it—I cannot swear positively that I did.

Q. Did you get a piece of paper, and go to the bank and get 5l. upon it? A. I most likely might—I might have got it from the bank, but not for the purpose of signing that document—I say that I might have got 5l. from the bank, but not for attesting that document—I am not positive that I got it for attesting the signature of Walter Palmer.

Q. That piece of paper seems to burn your fingers? A. No, upon my honour it does not—I am come here to speak the truth as far as my memory serves me, for or against—the 200l. I got for Mr. Cook was, 100l. from Mrs. Palmer, and the other from William Palmer—and he gave 10l. to William Palmer for the accommodation.

Q. Do not you know that he gave William Palmer his acceptance upon that occasion to enable him to make up the sum of 500l.? A. I know that William Palmer was the drawer of the bill, and Mr. Cook was the acceptor—he received 200l. minus 10l. in cash—I believe that the 200l. bill was not given for the purpose of enabling William Palmer to make up the sum of 500l. payable to Mr. Sargent, for Mr. Cook had absolute cash, the 200l. I speak of—he did not have it to enable him to go to London to take up an acceptance—he went to Shrewsbury races with it—I am speaking of the time when the money was lent by Mrs. Palmer and William Palmer—I think it was in May—I believe Shrewsbury races take place in May, the early part of May—I do not know what became of the bill—Mr. Cook gave him a bill for 200l., and he had the absolute cash—I brought 100l. from William Palmer's mother, a hundred pound note, and he had that which Mr. Palmer gave—the bill was drawn in favour of William Palmer—that is the bill that is referred to in one of these notes—it was cashed—it was charged two guineas—I do not know what became of it—he writes to me about a money lender issuing a writ—that money lender was Mr. Pratt, I believe—I do not know that—when the bill was given I handed it over to Mr. Palmer—what he did with it I do not know—I cannot tell whether Palmer discounted it with Mr. Pratt—I have never seen the bill since—that was not at the very time that William Palmer was short of money—he was not short of money because he lent Mr. Cook 100l.—I do not know that he wanted some money to make up the sum of 500l. payable to Mr. Sargent—he lent Mr. Cook 100l.—he lent him 90l., and he took 10l. for the accommodation—I weni once to Mr. Palmer when he was in Stafford gaol, but never spoke to him on the subject of this trial—during the time that I was there an officer was in the room—I was at the inquest, but I was not examined, excepting there was something named about the assignment, and I said, if it was produced I would say whether it was my handwriting as the attesting witness—I was not present at the inquest on Mr. Cook—T was staying in the town.

Q. Who saw you when you went in on Monday night to Mr. Cook's room at the Talbot Arms? A. I cannot say whether it was Miss Bond, or whether it was the chambermaid, or the waiter—they gave us a candle, and we went up stairs—I cannot say whether I took the candle or Mr. Palmer—it was the waiter, or Miss Bond, or the chambermaid—I do not

know that they saw us—we asked for a candle—I cannot tell you who saw me that night go into the Talbot Arms, and go up to Mr. Cook's room—Mr. Palmer was in a hurry to get down to his mother's—I cannot say which of the three saw me go into the hotel that night—I believe it was one of the three—I believe one of the servants gave us a candle—I believe it to have been one of those three—I did not notice the man who drove the fly from Stafford—I did not notice the man—it was cold, and I did not notice which of the drivers it was.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE. Q. How long have you known Mrs. Palmer? A. Many years, twenty years, I should say—I knew her before her husband's death—I was not acquainted with her then—it is many years since her husband died, upwards of twenty years ago—I should think Mrs. Palmer is about sixty years of age, by her sons—she has grandchildren, and I should say she is sixty—William is not her eldest son, Joseph is—he is a timber merchant in Liverpool—I should think he is about fortyfive or forty-six—I think George is the next son—that is the gentleman now present—he lived at Rugeley—he was frequently at his mother's—he was acquainted with me—there is a son a clergyman of the Church of England—he lives at Coton-in-Elmes, sixteen miles from Rugeley—he was frequently at his mother's till he became a curate—when he came from college he stayed at her house—it is two years since he ceased to reside at his mother's house—up to that time he lived at his mother's, except when he was at college—they have a sister—she lives with her mother—there are three servants—they do not go out very much in the neighbourhood—being a large family them-selves, they do not visit much—it is a good-sized house—I think there are five bed rooms, six altogether—there is a room for the man, and the maids occupy one—there are four rooms for the family, and two for the servants—I slept in one nearest the old church, on the opposite side, and the new church is facing the house—the old church is at the side.

Q. Is there any pretence for saying, or have you ever been charged with any improper intimacy with Mrs. Palmer? A. I should hope not—there ought not to be any pretence for anything of the kind.

Q. Cannot you answer the question; is there or is there not any pretence for saying, or is there any truth in the statement or suggestion that you have been improperly intimate at any time with Mrs. Palmer? A. They might have said so, but they have no reason to say so—I should say there is not any truth in that statement; I mean not—I do not recollect the proposal to insure Walter Palmer's life coming to my knowledge till the inquest was held on Mrs. Palmer—there was some talk then about my being connected with some insurances.

(William Joseph Sounders was again called on his subpoena, but did not appear.)

The following letter was handed in and read as follows: ("Lutterworth, 4th of January, 1855. My dear Sir,—I sent up to London on Tuesday to back St. Hubert for 50l., and my commissioner has returned 10 to 1. I have therefore backed 250l. to 25l. against him to our gain. There is a small balance of 18l. due to you which I forgot to give you the other day. Tell Will to debit me with it on account of your share of training Pyrrhina I will also write to him to do so, as there will be a balance due from him to me. Yours faithfully,—J. Parsons Cook.—W. Palmer, Esq.")

(MR. SERJEANT SHEE. submitted that he was entitled to a reply, in consequence of the course which the ATTORNEY-GENERAL. had taken in getting out the substance of a cheque, and the contents of an assignment of a policy on Walter Palmers life, which he might just as well have read, and his

examining the witness as regards proposals to various office for inversions THE COURT. was of opinion that there was no right to reply.)

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. having replied, the Court adjourned.

Monday, 26th, May, and part of Tuesday, 27th, was occupied by LORD. CAMPBELL'S. summing up.

GUILTY . Aged 31.— DEATH .