Coming now to the illness at Rugeley, he said, “he was bound to declare that not one fact had been adduced to prove that Mills had been bribed, or that Mr. Stevens had read over the newspaper to her, to influence her evidence in a particular direction: it was a gratuitous assertion, unsupported by evidence, and distinctly denied.” Whether the difference of Palmer’s dress when he ran over, as described by Mills or Barnes, was of sufficient importance, was a question for the jury, and also whether Mills’s deposition before the coroner, and her evidence in Court (the deposition was read) was not substantially the same. On the letter from Palmer calling in Jones, cited by the defence as a proof of innocence, he said:—
“It is important, however, to consider at what period of Cook’s illness Jones was sent for, and in what condition he was when Jones arrived. Palmer’s assertion in the letter was, that Cook had been suffering from diarrhœa, and of this statement we have not the slightest confirmation in the evidence. When Jones, looking at Cook’s tongue, observed it was not the tongue of a bilious attack, Palmer’s reply was, ‘You should have seen it before.’ What reason could Palmer have for using these words, when there is not the slightest evidence of Cook having suffered from such an illness?” Then, having had Jones’s deposition before the coroner read, he added, “It is for you to say whether in your opinion this deposition at all varies from his evidence given here: I confess that I see no variation, and no reason to suppose that his evidence is not the evidence of sincerity and truth.”
After observing that the evidence of Dr. Savage showed that previous to his departure for Shrewsbury Cook was in better health than he had been for a long time, the learned judge read the evidence of Newton, and his deposition before the coroner. Remarking on his omitting to mention the first purchase of strychnia until the Tuesday morning, when coming to London, he said:—
“You will observe that though there has been an omission, there is no contradiction. You are then to consider what is the probability of his inventing this wicked lie—a most important lie, if lie it be. He had no ill will towards the prisoner at the bar, he had never quarrelled with him, and had nothing to get by injuring him. I cannot see any motive for his inventing a lie to take away the life of the prisoner. No inducement was held out to him by the Crown. He says himself that no inducement was held out to him, and that at last he disclosed this circumstance from a sense of duty. If you believe his evidence, it is very strong against the prisoner.” And then, reading the evidence of Roberts and remarking that he was not cross-examined or in any way contradicted, he added—“If you couple that with the statement of Newton—believing that statement—you have evidence of strychnia having been procured by the prisoner on the Monday night before the symptoms of strychnia were exhibited by Cook; and by the evidence of Roberts, undenied and unquestioned, that on Tuesday six grains of strychnia were supplied to him. Supposing you should come to the conclusion that the symptoms of Cook were consistent with strychnia, then a case is made out for the Crown. The learned counsel did not favour us with the theory he had formed in his own mind with respect to that strychnia. There is no evidence—there is no suggestion—how it was applied; what became of it.[70] That must not influence your verdict, unless you come to the conclusion that Cook’s symptoms were consistent with death by strychnia. _But if you come to that conclusion, I should shrink from my duty—I should be unworthy to sit here—if I did not call your attention to the inference, that if he purchased that strychnia, he purchased it for the purpose of administering it to Cook._”