Cook, John Parsons, -1855; Palmer, William, 1824-1856 -- Trials, litigation, etc.; Trials (Murder) -- England -- London
the end of the month”; there was the pinch, the office would not pay,
the £4000 was becoming due, the holder of the bills saw he was without
security, and if anything occurred to increase the suspicions of the
insurance office, which was very reluctant to pay, the £13,000 was lost
for ever, lost beyond hope. Gentlemen, that £13,000 is sure to be paid
unless that man is convicted of murder; and that has a great deal to do
with the clamour and alarm which have been excited. So sure as that man
is saved, and saved I believe he will be, that £13,000 is paid; there is
no defence, no pretence for a defence--the letters of the office make
that plain; they took an enormous premium--knowing that the man was only
thirty, they took a premium for a man of fifty.
Mr. ATTORNEY-GENERAL--That is not in evidence; do you mean to prove
that?
Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--I do not know whether I can show that to be the
actual premium, but the letters which were put in show that the premium
was enormous; and I say that as sure as he is saved that £13,000 is good
for him, and will pay all his creditors.
Now, observe the position in which he was at the moment--all the
correspondence turns upon that. This correspondence saves the prisoner,
if there is common sense in man.
[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]
Now, observe, there is another letter from Pratt containing this
passage, “I have your note, acknowledging receipt by your mother of the
£2000 acceptance, due the 2nd of October; why not let her acknowledge it
herself? You must really 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 as much as it is worth,”
and so on. At this time Simpson and Field were making inquiries how a
young man of thirty had died, who had had delirium tremens three times,
as their own physician, Dr. Hastings, and Mr. Wardell had informed them.
Then in a postscript he says he “casts no doubt upon the capability of
the company to pay, but that in the nature of things, with so large an
amount in question, it is not surprising that, if they think they have
grounds for resisting, they should temporise by delay.” Does not that
show that at that date at least, the 6th of October, suspicions were
hanging in menacing meteors about Palmer’s head, which would come down
with irresistible momentum and crush him upon suspicion of a sudden
death by murder? Do you believe that a man who wrote what the effects of
strychnia were in his manual would risk such a scene as a deathbed by
strychnia, in the presence of the dearest and best friend of Cook--a man
whom he could not influence, a medical man, who liked him and loved him
well enough when he knew he was ill to sleep with him in the same room
that he might be ready to attend to him in case he wanted assistance
during the night? Is that common sense; are you going to endorse such a
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