Cook, John Parsons, -1855; Palmer, William, 1824-1856 -- Trials, litigation, etc.; Trials (Murder) -- England -- London
suggested, the case has altogether failed, and that it is perfectly
clear that at the date of Cook’s death Pratt was of opinion that the
death of Cook threw a further liability on Palmer of £500; he tells him
so in that letter. How could it be his interest to kill him? We already
find the difficulties which Cook’s death brings upon Palmer; the bill of
£500, the danger of the loss of “Polestar,” which he wanted very much to
have, and which Pratt would, of course, unless Palmer paid the £500,
send to the hammer, and realise so shortly; we find that inquiries were
at once apprehended on the part of Cook’s friends as to the money Pratt
had paid to Palmer out of those two bill transactions, and the value
which Mr. Cook had received for any endorsement which he had given.
[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]
Just see another transaction of that date; it is not quite so clear, as
it strikes me, but yet it makes it to my mind exceedingly improbable
that Palmer should have desired the death of Cook. Exceedingly
improbable! Mr. Wetherby told us to-day that though frequently stakes
won at a race were sent up by the clerk of the course to the winner’s
bankers within a week, it was not always so, and it would not be a
matter of complaint if it was not. On the 20th of November, the day
before Cook dies, and on which he was perfectly comfortable and happy,
enjoying the society of his friend Mr. Jones, with whom he was on terms
of the greatest intimacy, and to whom he could confide any troubles that
he had, and who appears to be a gentleman in every way respectable and
intelligent--on that day Cook was well, and Mr. Jones was with him, and
there is no doubt that on that day, according to the evidence of Mr.
Wetherby, he did sign and give this cheque for £350. If Palmer killed
him that night, and by any chance the £350 should not have been sent up
by Mr. Frail, so as to be there on the next morning, he (Mr. Wetherby)
would not pay that cheque, and would never pay it after notice of Cook’s
death, though the money should come up. He never did pay it. The end of
that transaction was this, that Mr. Frail did not send it up, but made a
claim upon Cook in respect of it. Cook’s executors disputed that, and
Cook’s executors finally recovered the money, but they did not send it
up to Mr. Wetherby. I do not put it as strong as the other case, because
Palmer might think that the money would be there; but he also might
think that it would not be there. It is not at all likely that, having
got the cheque for £350 from Cook, he would run the risk of losing that
money by destroying him in the night, Cook’s friends being there, and
sure to institute an immediate inquiry into his affairs. Is that
probable? I submit to you it is not. It is not likely that Palmer could
have got a cheque for £350, or Cook should have given it to him, which
should not be payable until the next day, when there might be no funds
to meet it; and with that uncertainty, is it likely that Palmer should
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account