Cook, John Parsons, -1855; Palmer, William, 1824-1856 -- Trials, litigation, etc.; Trials (Murder) -- England -- London
theory as that upon the suggestion of Dr. Alfred Taylor about the
effects that strychnia produced upon his five rabbits? Impossible,
perfectly impossible! as I submit to you. But to proceed--I will prove
to you, most clearly, the position in which he was. On the other side of
the letter of the 10th of October Mr. Pratt writes, “Copy of solicitors’
reply”; that is, the solicitors to the Prince of Wales insurance office.
He says, “I may add that I hear the office have been making inquiries in
every direction.” To be sure, Field was employed; he is not now in the
police, but he is employed as a detective officer; he was at Stafford,
and was at Rugeley, and was making inquiries in all directions;
inquiries could be made at Stafford as well as Rugeley, and all that had
taken place at Rugeley just as easily ascertained there as at Rugeley
itself; whatever had taken place there would be known. He says they have
been making inquiries in all directions. It is plain, then, that he knew
that suspicions were then rife, or that they were endeavouring to create
suspicions, against him about the policy on the life of Walter Palmer.
Here is the very letter which the company wrote in answer to the claim,
dated 8th of October, 1855; it is from Messrs. Chubb, Deane & Chubb, the
solicitors to the office, addressed to Thomas Pratt, Esq., acknowledging
the application; and shortly afterwards Messrs. Chubb send a reply to
the application--there is no date to it, but it is enclosed in a letter
of the 18th of October from Pratt to Palmer. After apologising for not
answering the letter of the 16th instant, owing to the absence of Mr.
Deane, they refer to the “local investigation having been made, and
decline to pay the claim upon the ground that the facts disclosed in the
course of the inquiry are such as fully to warrant them in doing so.”
These are letters which my learned friend thought it right to put in
yesterday; they are evidence for the Crown, and what is the inference
from them? Judge, if you please, from some of the letters to Pratt, and
the one which I read first from Pratt to Palmer. Palmer determined that
the policy should be paid; he took the advice of Sir Fitzroy Kelly. I
see here it is said, “The case will be laid before Kelly to-morrow.”
This letter came just before the end of the long vacation; the time to
take proceedings had only just commenced, in any event, because the
three months had only just expired. But so sure as anything happened by
foul play to Cook, he had no more chance of getting the £13,000 than
£130,000 from the Prince of Wales insurance office--none whatever. That
was the only means he had at that time of extricating himself from those
incumbrances.
[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]
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