Cook, John Parsons, -1855; Palmer, William, 1824-1856 -- Trials, litigation, etc.; Trials (Murder) -- England -- London
Palmer, upon which Mr. Cook was not primarily liable. I say here was
a distinct interest which the prisoner had to appropriate this money to
himself, because it was the means for the moment, and the only means he
could resort to, of staving off the evil hour which was rapidly
approaching. The degree of difficulty in which he was placed must not be
measured simply by the amount of his pecuniary liabilities. It was not
merely that he had these large bills upon which at any moment process
might be issued, but he had made his mother answerable for those bills,
and the moment the first of them was put in motion in the Courts the
fraud and forgery would come to light, and he would be exposed not
merely to the consequences of his inability to pay his debts, but to the
consequences of the law which he had violated. The former might have
been got rid of in the Insolvent Court or the Bankruptcy Court, but the
crime of forgery could not have been got rid of; for that he would have
to answer at the bar of a Court of criminal justice, and would have
incurred the penalty of transportation, or of penal servitude in an
aggravated form. But there is a further sum besides the £1000; he
appropriated a further sum of £350, which was to be got from Messrs.
Wetherby. It is said that he got a genuine cheque from Cook to entitle
him to receive that money, but it is not for a moment suggested what
induced Cook to give it to him. Was it a genuine cheque? That matter
might have been solved by its production. It is not produced; yet it is
quite clear that it was returned to the prisoner’s hands by Messrs.
Wetherby when they could not get the money. It is quite clear that it
was of great importance to him to get the money, because there was £100
to be paid to Pratt, which must be paid in order to stave off the evil
day upon the bill of £1500, which was due on the 9th of November. Where
is that cheque? If it had been produced we could have seen whether it
was a genuine cheque or not. It is not forthcoming. What are the
circumstances under which he presents that cheque to Mr. Cheshire? He
goes to Mr. Cheshire upon the Tuesday, and, having shown the cheque to
Mr. Cheshire, he asks Mr. Cheshire to be so good as to fill up the body
of it. I suppose he saw some manifestation of surprise in Mr. Cheshire,
and he said, “Cook, poor fellow, is ill, and I am apprehensive if I fill
up the body of the cheque Wetherbys will know my handwriting.” Why
should not they know his handwriting? What objection was there, if the
cheque was genuine, and if the transaction was an honest one, to Messrs.
Wetherby knowing that the handwriting was his? Does not it pretty
plainly indicate that there was some fraud going on which he was afraid
might be detected? Why, in heaven’s name, should he send for Cheshire?
He had to send for Cheshire from the post office when Cheshire was
busily engaged in the business of the evening, at seven o’clock in the
evening.
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